Georgia Warnke and the hermeneutic turn in political theory: possibilities and obstacles

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4013/rechtd.2021.133.10

Abstract

Georgia Warnke has analyzed the positions of relevant authors on justice and political philosophy. Specifically, she has written extensively about the works of Walzer, Rawls, Dworkin, and Habermas. In their works, she recognized the presence of what she calls the interpretive or hermeneutic turn, which is characterized by justifying social institutions, traditions, norms, and values, not in universal and abstract principles, but in how society actually accepts and interprets them. At the same time, she highlights what she considers to be weaknesses in their theories, related either to the lack of a major concern about differences in interpretations about the meanings of social traditions and norms ─ Rawls and Habermas ─, or to adherence to overly partisan or political views ─ Walzer and Dworkin. Warnke proposes a political theory whose task is to provide conditions for a fruitful dialogue between the various positions within political life, but it does not solve the problem of difficult-to-resolve disagreements that arise within political coexistence.

Author Biographies

Ana Paula Barbosa-Fohrmann, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

Professora Adjunta da Faculdade Nacional de Direito da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Professora Permanente do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da UFRJ. Doutora e Pós-Doutora pela Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg. Coordenadora do Núcleo de Teoria dos Direitos Humanos (NTDH) da FND/UFRJ.

Renato José de Moraes, Universidade Católica de Petrópolis

Doutor em Filosofia pela Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, pós-doutorando no PPGD da Universidade Católica de Petrópolis, pós-doutorado no PPGD da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Membro do Núcleo de Teoria dos Direitos Humanos (NTDH) da Faculdade Nacional de Direito/UFRJ.

Arthur Cezar Alves de Melo, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

Bacharel em Direito pela Universidade Federal Fluminense. Mestre em direito pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Membro do Núcleo de Teoria dos Direitos Humanos (NTDH) da Faculdade Nacional de Direito/UFRJ.

References

ALEXY, R. 2011. Teoria da argumentação jurídica. A teoria do discurso racional como teoria da fundamentação jurídica. 3. ed. Rio de Janeiro, Forense.

BARBOSA, A. P. 2002. A Legitimação dos Princípios Constitucionais Fundamentais. Rio de Janeiro, Renovar.

COHEN, J. 1986. Review of “Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality” by Michael Walzer. Journal of Philosophy, 83(8):457-468. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/5448. Acesso em: 10 dez. 2020.

DWORKIN, R. 1985. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

DWORKIN, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

DWORKIN, R. 1983. To Each his Own. New York Review of Books, 1983 issue. Disponível em: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1983/04/14/to-each-his-own/. Acesso em: 21 nov. 2020.

HABERMAS, J. 1989. Consciência Moral e Agir Comunicativo. Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro.

HABERMAS, J. 1990a. Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification. In: J. Habermas (ed.), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, p. 43-115.

HABERMAS, J. 1990b. Morality and Ethical Life: Does Hegel’s Critique of Kant Apply to Discourse Ethics? In: J. Habermas (ed.), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, p. 195-216.

HABERMAS, J. 1984a. The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. v. 1. Boston, Beacon Press.

HABERMAS, J. 1984b. Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.

MACINTYRE, A. 2007. After virtue: a study in moral theory. 3. ed. Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.

RAWLS, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

RAWLS, J. 1985. Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14(3):223-251. Disponível em: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265349. Acesso em: 10 dez. 2020.

RAWLS, J. 2005. Political Liberalism. Expanded ed., New York, Columbia University Press.

RAWLS, J. 1987. The Idea of Overlapping Consensus. Oxford Journal Legal Studies, 7(1):1-25. Disponível em: https://www.jstor.org/stable/764257. Acesso em: 10 dez. 2020.

RAWLS, J. 2001. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

REESE-SCHÄFER, W. 2001. Jürgen Habermas. 3. ed. Frankfurt, Campus.

TAYLOR, C. 2000. Bens irredutivelmente sociais. In: C. Taylor (ed.), Argumentos filosóficos. Tradução Adail Ubirajara Sobral. São Paulo, Loyola, p. 143-161.

UNITED KINGDOM. House of Lords. 1983. McLoughlin v. O’Brian¸ 1 AC 410.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. U.S. Supreme Court. 1954. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. U.S. Supreme Court. 1896. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537.

WALZER, M. 1983. Spheres of Justice. New York, Basic Books.

WARNKE, G. 1992. Justice and Interpretation. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Downloads

Published

2022-05-24

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2021): Setembro/Dezembro

Section

Articles

License

I grant the journal RECHTD the first publication of my article, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license (which allows sharing of work, recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal).

I confirm that my article is not being submitted to another publication and has not been published in its entirely on another journal. I take full responsibility for its originality and I will also claim responsibility for charges from claims by third parties concerning the authorship of the article.

I also agree that the manuscript will be submitted according to the journal’s publication rules described above.