Seyla Benhabib

Benhabib argues that "those subject to the laws should also be their authors" and presents how that might become the case through implementation of what she calls "cosmopolitan federalism."

The book is very clearly written and well argued. I especially appreciate her descriptions of the paradox, which translates into conflicts on the ground, between the universality of human rights and the necessary territorial closure self-governing polity, which lies at the core of the very concept (and so show more every implementation) of liberal democracy. show less

Benhabib engages with traditional Western liberal thinkers to articulate a moderate cosmopolitan position from the perspective of democratic discourse ethics. Although she is at times incisive, notably in her critique of Rawls, at other times her arguments are rather weak. For instance, her misreading of Walzer makes it clear that she refuses to acknowledge that neither democracy nor human rights are culturally neutral or objectively universal. In several places, she forgoes the opportunity show more to challenge (and even re-inscribes the legitimacy of) the system of global capitalism which is an integral structural component of the inequalities and migratory patterns she is concerned about. show less

Interesting structure where four theorists give papers on the overlap between feminism and postmodernism, then respond to one another through criticism and adaptation of theories. Some excellent presentation on the difficulties of retaining a 'female' perspective in a society where identity is individualistic; competing opinions from psychology (Cornell) to philosophy (Butler) to social theory (Benhabib) that come together in the chapters of criticism. Difficult to read (some jargon, and show more some heavy theory) but worth the time. show less

Culture is important, and one can bring one's culture into discussions in civil society. But equality (via Benhabib's principles of egalitarian reciprocity, voluntary self-ascription, and freedom of exit and association) always takes first place. I think she makes a valuable addition to liberal-democratic theory in the vein of Habermas' Between Facts and Norms, but I don't know that she's offered anything to convince those who aren't already thinking in these terms.