Political Science Faculty Database
Political Science
Arts & Sciences
Duke University

 HOME > Arts & Sciences > Political Science > Faculty    Search Help Login pdf version printable version 

Publications of Genevieve Rousseliere    :chronological  combined listing:

%% Books   
@book{fds355122,
   Author = {Rousselière, G and Elazar, Y},
   Title = {Introduction: Republicanizing democracy, democratizing the
             republic},
   Pages = {1-10},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9781316517550},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108630153.001},
   Doi = {10.1017/9781108630153.001},
   Key = {fds355122}
}

@book{fds355121,
   Author = {Elazar, Y and Rousselière, G},
   Title = {Republicanism and the future of democracy},
   Pages = {1-298},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9781316517550},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108630153},
   Abstract = {Democracies are in crisis. Can republican theory contribute
             to reforming our political norms and institutions? The
             ʼneo-republican turn’ has seen scholars using the
             classical republican tradition in reconstructing and
             developing a vision of public life as an alternative to
             liberalism. This volume offers new perspectives from leading
             scholars on how republicanism can help transform democratic
             theory and respond to some of its most pressing challenges.
             Drawing on this recent revival of republican political
             thought, its chapters reflect on such issues as the
             republican definition of freedom as nondomination and its
             relation to democracy and populism, the ideal of the common
             good, domination in the workplace and in the family,
             republicanism in a globalized world, and radical republican
             politics. It will appeal to researchers and students in
             political theory, political philosophy and the history of
             ideas, and anyone interested in gaining greater insight into
             the prospects and challenges of republican democracy in
             today’s world.},
   Doi = {10.1017/9781108630153},
   Key = {fds355121}
}


%% Journal Articles   
@article{fds355368,
   Author = {Rousselière, G and Frank, J and McCormick, JP},
   Title = {Labor Republicanism: Symposium on Alex Gourevitch’s From
             Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and
             Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge
             University Press, 2014},
   Journal = {Political Theory},
   Volume = {48},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {496-527},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591719890850},
   Doi = {10.1177/0090591719890850},
   Key = {fds355368}
}

@article{fds348534,
   Author = {Rousselière, G},
   Title = {On political responsibility in post-revolutionary times:
             Kant and Constant's debate on lying},
   Journal = {European Journal of Political Theory},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {214-232},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {April},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474885115588100},
   Abstract = {In “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy,” Kant
             holds the seemingly untenable position that lying is always
             prohibited, even if the lie is addressed to a murderer in an
             attempt to save the life of an innocent man. This article
             argues that Kant's position on lying should be placed back
             in its original context, namely a response to Benjamin
             Constant about the responsibility of individual agents
             toward political principles in post-revolutionary times. I
             show that Constant's theory of political responsibility,
             which sanctions the lie, is not based on expediency, but on
             principled realism, whereas Kant endorses a position that I
             describe as ‘political juridicism.’ This analysis
             enables us to uncover two plausible Republican theories of
             political responsibility in post-revolutionary times behind
             an apparently strictly ethical debate.},
   Doi = {10.1177/1474885115588100},
   Key = {fds348534}
}

@article{fds355369,
   Author = {Rousseliere, G},
   Title = {Revolution and the Republic: A History of Political Thought
             in France Since the Eighteenth Century},
   Journal = {History of Political Thought},
   Volume = {34},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {356-359},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds355369}
}

@article{fds348535,
   Author = {Rousselière, G},
   Title = {Rousseau on Freedom in Commercial Society},
   Journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
   Volume = {60},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {352-363},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12222},
   Abstract = {Rousseau consistently declares that commercial society
             prevents us from being free because it makes us dependent on
             others and on endless desires in ways we cannot control.
             Yet, in Emile, Rousseau makes the surprising claim that it
             is possible for an elite to be free in commercial society.
             This possibility reveals a third way between the model of
             man and of citizen, that is, the model of natural man in
             society. I argue that it provides an original way of
             resisting dependence through a combination of distance from
             corrupt values and adaptation to the mechanisms of the
             economic market. Emile's ultimate function, however, is
             critical in addition to being practical and pedagogical. By
             following Emile's experiences, the reader learns the
             unbearably high cost of commercial society: Freedom within
             it is impoverished and available only to the
             few.},
   Doi = {10.1111/ajps.12222},
   Key = {fds348535}
}

@article{fds355367,
   Author = {Rousselière, G},
   Title = {Rousseau's theory of value and the case of
             women},
   Journal = {European Journal of Philosophy},
   Volume = {29},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {285-298},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12575},
   Abstract = {In Emile, Rousseau claims that the value of women ought to
             be determined by the opinion that men have of them. Women,
             contrary to commodities and men, escape what I call
             Rousseau's “dual theory of value.” According to the
             latter, the apparent value of commodities and men is
             determined by opinion and either unrelated or inverse to
             “real value,” which is assessed through objective
             criteria. The dual theory of value is the basis of
             Rousseau's critique of commercial society. However, women
             warrant an exception to this theory. As women's apparent
             worth is their real worth, women are the unique object in
             the world that ought to be subjected to the rule of opinion,
             which is the rule of commercial market that Rousseau so
             violently rejects. This article investigates why this is the
             case and locates three functions to the unique position of
             women in Rousseau's theory of value.},
   Doi = {10.1111/ejop.12575},
   Key = {fds355367}
}


Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Political Science * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Master * Foreign Exchange * Reload * Login