Notes

Introduction: “The Peculiarity of the Kind of Refugee I Was”

1. There were, so the editors argued, at least two main strands in Shklar’s thought. Accordingly, one volume focused on Europe and transatlantic encounters, dealing with political theory and her writings about other theo-rists through the ages, while the second volume concentrated on American intellectual history.

2. The sociological autobiography of Bourdieu (P. Bourdieu, Sketch for a Self-Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), or the new sociology of ideas as practiced by Neil Gross in his biography of Richard Rorty (N. Gross, Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008)), might serve as examples. For a more detailed discussion of sociological inspired biographies and how they link to the sociology of ideas and intellectual history see Hess (A. Hess, “Making Sense of Individual Creativity: An Attempt to Tresspass the Academic Boundaries of the Sociology of Ideas and Intellectual History,” in Knowledge for Whom? eds. C. Fleck and A. Hess (Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014, 27–46).

3. Musil would only later, after marrying his wife who was of Jewish descent, begin to reflect about anti-semitism. For Sahl, who came from a secularized Jewish family, the Berlin of the 1920s and early 1930s seemed relatively safe. Unfolding events would soon demonstrate that this situation was not going to last and that both worlds were doomed.

1 The Formative Years: From Riga to Montreal

1. Judith Nisse Shklar was born in Riga on September 24 as Yudita Nisse. She anglicized her name later to Judith.

Unless otherwise indicated most of the biographical information, particu-larly those passages that cover Shklar’s early years, her upbringing in Riga,

204 Notes

the conditions of emigration and early exile first in Sweden then in Canada, and the early years in Cambridge stem from a long interview that Judith Walzer conducted with Judith Shklar in 1981. The main purpose of the interview, which is now archived at the Murray Research Centre at Harvard (MRC Log #0709) under the title “An Oral History of the Tenured Women in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University,” (Walzer [1981] 1988) was to find out why women got late tenure at Harvard. Shklar was one out of 13 interviewees. While the interviews were geared toward an expla-nation of the circumstances of why these women were tenured late, they contain a wealth of biographical information, and particularly in Shklar’s case information that cannot be obtained through other sources. As far as possible I have tried to ascertain the main facts, either by comparing cru-cial passages of the interview with Shklar’s only published autobiographical reflections in “A Life of Learning” (“A Life of Learning”, Charles Homer Haskins Lecture, American Council of Learned Societies (1989), reprinted in Liberalism without Illusions—Essays on Liberal Theory and the Political Vision of Judith N. Shklar, ed. B. Yack (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 263–79), through other evidence such as the Collected Shklar Papers that are available in the Harvard Archives, and through a number of interviews and conversations with people who knew Shklar. However, while I have tried to ascertain most facts, there can be no total insurance of Shklar’s truthful recollection of some of the events. If and when historical and biographical facts could not be totally ascertained or where there was doubt I have used a literary form to say so.

2. It was a sign of the times that in order to circumvent the laws that governed access to the city and the university he had to pretend to be a commercial agent.

3. For all data and background information used, see Wolfgang Benz “Die jüdische Emigration” in Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration (1933–45), eds. C. D. Krohn, P. von zur Mühlen, G. Paul and L. Winckler (Darmstadt: Primus, 1998), 5–15.

4. Tragically, the brother-in-law’s fortune and that of his immediate family soon ran out. Following the German invasion he could have escaped with the Russian troops and could have perhaps saved his life and that of his immediate family but in the end he decided to stay in Latvia, mainly because of his gentile wife and their children. The decision to stay proved to be fatal. As the head of the Judenrat he was arrested by the Nazis and murdered. The remaining family members were sent to a concentration camp where they were all killed (J. Walzer [1981] 1988; Session I, Part 2, 11). Of the wider family, Judith Nisse’s immediate family was the only one that managed to escape in time.

5. For data and other background information used, see Einhart Lorenz’s chap-ter “Schweden” in Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration (1933–45), eds. C.D. Krohn, P. von zur Mühlen, G. Paul and L. Winckler (Darmstadt: Primus, 1998), 371–74.

6. For data and other background information used, see Waltraud Strickhausen’s chapter “Kanada” in Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration (1933–45),

Notes 205

eds. C. D. Krohn, P. von zur Mühlen, G. Paul and L. Winckler (Darmstadt: Primus, 1998), 284–96).

7. As it turned out, Judith Nisse’s younger sister followed more in the footsteps of her mother than did Judith. After having first been trained as a cook, the younger sister later retrained in England and began to teach severely handi-capped children. At the time of the interview from which the autobiographi-cal material stems (Walzer [1981] 1988), Shklar’s younger sister was living in Edmonton. According to her own account and reflection Judith was closer to her father, something that the father reciprocated by entrusting her with financial matters and responsibilities from early adulthood onward.

8. In the interview with Judith Walzer, Shklar also mentions that the two were joined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a fellow student at McGill. Brzezinski, who was born the same year as Shklar (1928), had come to Canada with his father, an exiled Polish diplomat. Brzezinski would later become famous for his work as security advisor to President Carter (Section II, Part 1, 16).

2 In the Aftermath of Totalitarianism

1. For data and other background information I rely here on Claus-Dieter Krohn’s chapter “Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika” in Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration (1933–45), eds. C. D. Krohn, P. von zur Mühlen, G. Paul and L. Winckler (Darmstadt: Primus, 1998), 446–66.

2. For data and background information I rely here mainly on Alfons Söllner’s chapter “Politikwissenschaften” in Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration (1933–45), eds. C. D. Krohn, P. von zur Mühlen, G. Paul and L. Winckler (Darmstadt: Primus, 1998), 836–45.

3. For a more detailed account of the larger historical context of this trans-atlantic encounter see C. Fleck, A Transatlantic History of the Social Sciences: Robber Barons, the Third Reich and the Invention of Empirical Social Research (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011). For a description of what American Social Science looked like before the 1930s see D. Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

4. Some scholars like H. Stuart Hughes would even go further in suggesting that the migration of thought in the 1930s went beyond previous cultural experiences and constituted “something new in the history of Western man.” For Hughes it was a “sea change” in the sense that the migration changed not just the receiving society but also impacted on the thought process and intellectual output of the refugee scholars themselves (H. S. Hughes, The Sea Change: the Migration of Social Thought, 1930–1965 (New York: Harper & Row 1975), 1ff). As to the latter, this is exactly what this monograph on Shklar tries to argue.

5. For obvious reasons this was easier for those of a technical and medical background with a fixed catalogue of technical or medical terms than for those who depended on fine distinctions, as was the case with writers, jour-nalists, social science academics, and humanities scholars.

206 Notes

6. For Lewis Coser, who has studied refugee scholars (L. A. Coser, Refugee Scholars in America. Their Impact and Their Experiences (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984)), Shklar would have hardly qualified as a refugee due to the academic training she received first in Canada and then in the United States. This position, however, overlooks the complexity of peoples’ lives and reduces the category “refugee” to formal criteria and questions like “qualifica-tion obtained where and when?”—criteria that do not do justice to individu-als’ life trajectories, particularly not those of a younger generation of refugees. As to the concrete case of Shklar, it is of course true that Shklar received her academic training in North America, but the unique conditions of how exactly she approached higher education and under which circumstances, would be obscured if Coser’s criteria were to be applied. Equally, the most important sub-jective and psychological dimensions would be obliterated and become reduced to a mere footnote about achieved formal qualifications in North America.

7. There can be no doubt that Friedrich was charismatic (perhaps too much so) and an intellectually inspiring polymath who combined the history of ideas with a sense of political realism that was mostly couched in the language of the behavioral sciences. Shklar acknowledged Friedrich’s intellectual achievements publicly in an obituary that she wrote together with Arthur Maass (J. N. Shklar and A. Maass, “In Memoriam: Carl Joachim Friedrich,” PS 18 (1985): 109–111).

8. As we will see later, Rawls’s Theory of Justice eventually made her change her mind.

9. Gular, whom Shklar suspected of having links with the British intelligence services, would later die under tragic circumstances in Ghana, presumably murdered.

10. Having said that, notes from the Shklar papers and a list of books she owned (and that were later auctioned by a Japanese bookseller) confirm that she owned copies of the sociological classics and that she had read the main works of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.

11. Later Shklar would come to rethink and modify her position concerning how to approach political theory, particularly after the publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice. As she notes in “A Life of Learning,” “in retro-spect it seems to me that there were stirrings of creativity under the surface all along, and that the inhibitions and hesitations of the post-ideological age were neither futile nor mindless. They were a pause, and not a worthless one, either. It got us over the disgrace of the immediate past” ([Shklar 1989]Yack 1996, 274). While this does not change her approach entirely to intellectual history or the history of ideas, it is a significant change in the sense that she acknowledged the historicity of her own criticism in After Utopia.

12. This does not mean that Brzezinski, Huntington, or Kissinger’s careers developed without any hurdles or problems either. However, unlike Shklar we can observe in all three cases a clear disposition toward power, which throws up serious moral as well as intellectual and academic questions.

Brzezinski’s dissertation looked at the connection between Lenin and Stalin and the impact it had on the Soviet Union. After he was refused ten-ure at Harvard in 1959 he accepted an offer from Columbia University. His

Notes 207

support for the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations drew him more and more into politics and the corridors of power, something that Shklar did not admire in her former acquaintance from McGill. Unscathed by such criti-cism Brzezinski continued with his political career. Hardened by the events in Czechoslovakia he eventually became a strange mix of hawk and liberal Cold War warrior, a reason why he would later become Security Advisor to the Carter Administration.

The case of Samuel Huntington was different. Born in 1927 he was almost of the same age as Shklar. Huntington served as a member of the Department of Government but was also denied tenure in 1959 and, like Brzezinski, left for Columbia. However, in 1963 he returned to Harvard and became one of the most influential political scientists at Harvard whose connections to the corridors of power and, linked to that, well-financed scientific research projects, were well known.

Henry Kissinger (born in 1923) was older than Shklar and, like her, of German-speaking Jewish origin. Kissinger, a refugee who fled Germany in 1938, became a student at Harvard where he received his PhD in 1954. While he remained a member of the Department of Government, he took on a number of consultancies that were related to security and foreign policy initiatives, eventually becoming Director of the Harvard Defence Studies Program. A strong defender of Realpolitik he later became National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford. Shklar, although a strong defender of political-theoretical realism, always disagreed with the uncritical power politics of Kissinger. For her that approach was morally questionable and, intellectually speaking, indefensible.

13. For the record it should be noted that Harvard was not the only place that had these “qualities.” All Ivy League institutions showed these features, especially before the 1950s.

14. The reader should be reminded here that Shklar mainly recalls her experi-ences in and her perception of the Department of Government. That there were many intellectually stimulating individuals and groups around at the time is beyond doubt. However, the dual role of having to take care of a family and fulfilling her academic duties for the Department left little time for other academic adventures or visits to neighbouring departments. It is also important to realize that despite her commitments Shklar mastered an already impressive interdisciplinary reading list, which included titles from politics, philosophy, law, literature, and history.

15. I owe this idea to Stanley Hoffmann, who suggested such a possibility in conversation.

16. To be sure, there had been other parallels between Arendt and Shklar. Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken, 1951) and espe-cially the essay collection Between Past and Future (New York: Penguin, 1961 had shown similar preoccupations with Shklar’s After Utopia (After Utopia: The Decline in Political Faith (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), particularly in relation to the direction that political theory should take after the totalitarian experience. Now, just one year after the publication of Arendt’s Eichmann book, Shklar looked at political trials.

208 Notes

17. Shklar also edited a book on the subject of ideology, which gathered contri-butions from some big names in the field, like Karl Mannheim, Harold Laski, C. B. Macpherson, Louis Hartz, and Michael Walzer: Political Theory and Ideology (New York: Macmillan, 1966).

3 The Making of a Political Theorist

1. The articles and reviews on Rousseau and the Enlightenment that Shklar published prior to her Rousseau book (1969) appeared in the follow-ing order: “Rousseau’s Images of Authority,” American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 919–32; “Rousseau’s Two Models: Sparta and the Age of Gold,” Political Science Quarterly 81 (1966): 25–51; “The Enlightenment,” by Peter Gay, Political Science Quarterly 82 (1967): 477–79; “Rousseau and the French Revolution,” by Jean Macdonald, Journal of Modern History 89 (1967): 458; “The Early Rousseau,” Mario Einaudi, Political Science Quarterly 83 (1968): 477–78; “The Political Philosophy of Rousseau,” Roger Masters and “Rousseau and the Spirit of Revolt,” W. H. Blanchard, Political Science Quarterly 83 (1968): 612–13. As we will see later, Shklar would return to the subject of Rousseau and the French Enlightenment time and time again. Her book Faces of Injustice, written ten years after the publication of Men and Citizens, can be regarded as an argument that began with Rousseau.

2. Karl Popper comes to mind here.3. For an argument that Rousseau can be seen as a revolutionary 68er see Roger

Gérard Schwartzenberg’s commentary in: “Jean-Jacques Rousseau, le subver-sive,” a special issue that Le Monde (2012), published in May 2012 on the 300th Rousseau anniversary.

4. This also explains the title of the Shklar’s book.5. As Shklar points out, revisiting his model a few years later, Rousseau became

somewhat doubtful of the real usefulness of this Swiss-based model. In his later deliberations on Corsica, Rousseau abandoned the idyllic model of the rural household that had served him first while thinking about Corsica in the Social Contract. (He had recommended the island as the last resort where civic ideas could perhaps be realized). Returning to the subject a few years later, Rousseau realized that other problems now needed to be addressed, such as the general material progress (something from which contempo-rary Corsica seemed not to have benefited much). Obviously, Rousseau had become aware of changes and the ideal type model was no longer referred to; instead, as Shklar points out, in his later recommendations he constantly oscillated between the Spartan-Roman model and the Swiss village, between citizen and man.

6. This, according to Shklar, he left to Montesquieu.7. Shklar points out in this context that Rousseau never used any metaphysical

or religious arguments to ground his social theory.8. As Shklar noted, while Rousseau advocated gender equality on more than

one occasion, he also thought that women were not any better equipped than

Notes 209

men when it came to providing political alternatives. The example of Paris clearly demonstrated that it was “the very epitome of modern corruption” and “entirely ruled by women. Indeed women were responsible for most of the moral evils of this world” (Shklar 1969, 144).

9. After the publication of Men and Citizens (A Study of Rousseau’s Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) Shklar became regarded as a Rousseau expert. As the titles below show, almost until her untimely death she remained very much interested in the literature: “Subversive Genealogies,” Daedalus 101, no. 1 (1972): 129–54; “Rousseau’s Social Contract,” Lester G. Crocker, Political Science Quarterly 83 (1971), 315–16; “General Will,” in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, ed. P. P. Wiener, 5 vols., vol. 2 (New York: Scribners, 1973), 275–81; “The Social Problem in the Political Philosophy of Rousseau,” John Charvet, American Political Science Review 70 (1976): 606–7; “Rousseau—Stoic and Romantic,” K. F. Roche, American Historical Review 81 (1976): 156–57; “Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Equality,” Daedalus 107 (1978): 13–28; “Reading the Social Contract,” in Powers, Possession and Freedom, ed. Alkis Kontos (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 77–88; “Rousseau and the Republican Project,” French Politics and Society 7 (1983): 42–49; “Jean Jacques: the Early Life and Works of Rousseau,” Maurice Cranston and “Will and Circumstance: Montesquieu, Rousseau and the French Revolution,” Norman Hampson, London Review of Books 5 (October 29) (1983): 10–11; “Rousseau’s Social Contract,” J. B. Noone, Ethics 93 (1983): 405–6; “Voltaire,” A. A. Ayer and “Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue,” Carol Blum, New Republic 196 (1987): 36–40; “Rousseau: Confessions,” Peter France, History of European Ideas 9 (1988): 750–51, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Transparency and Obstruction,” Jean Staborinski, New Republic 198 (27 June) (1988): 38–40.

10. True, Maximilien Robespierre and not a few of the Committee of Public Safety were keen admirers and students of Rousseau; at the same time it could be argued that Charles Maurras and Maurice Barrès, both French nationalist leaders, never took to Rousseau and actually despised the very thought of him.

11. For the preliminary work on Hegel see the following Shklar essays and reviews: “Hegel’s Phenomenology: An Elegy for Hellas,” in Hegel’s Political Philosophy, ed. Z. A. Pelczynski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 73–81; “Hegel’s Phenomenology: Paths to Revolution,” in Theory and Politics: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag für C. J. Friedrich, ed. K. von Beyme (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971), 162–81; “Hegel’s Phenomenology: The Moral Failures of Asocial Man,” Political Theory 1 (1973): 259–86; “Phenomenology: Beyond Mortality,” Western Political Quarterly 27 (1974): 597–623; “Hegel,” Raymond Plant, American Political Science Review 68 (1974): 1744–46.

12. In an interesting remark in the introduction Shklar argued against “reverse Hegelianism.” Although she does not mention his name one can sense that she is not happy with Karl Popper’s view of seeing Hegel (and Rousseau) as precursors to twentieth-century totalitarian thought. She notes critically

210 Notes

“That he [Hegel] has been dead for some years does not seem to me to mat-ter one way or the other. It is important only if one feels compelled to assess his guilt for crimes committed by some of his readers in our century. I have not forgotten them, but I cannot see that anyone is guilty except those who performed these acts. There is no reason why Hegel should be discussed in terms of events in which he did not participate” (Shklar 1976, xv).

13. One actually needed to invent an entire new language, which would really allow the philosopher to dig deeper and to address such developments. For Shklar, Hegel succeeded in creating such a new language by combining the language of reason with that of passion, or, to be more precise, by thinking of reason in passionate terms (Shklar 1976, 5). This, according to Shklar, might explain why Hegel’s Phenomenology appeared to be both “enor-mously readable and yet utterly obscure” (ibid.).

14. There are two more chapters to be found in Shklar’s Hegel interpretation, “The Moral Failures of Asocial Men” and “Beyond Mortality: A Last Brief Act.” However, in the book they function rather as argumentative bridges. Since they do not add to a deeper understanding of the making of Shklar’s own political theory they are omitted from my summary.

15. In contrast to her Rousseau book (and later the Montesquieu study), Shklar did not keep up with the latest literature on Hegel after her book had been published. After publication of Freedom and Independence there were no more reviews or articles. Furthermore, the fact that Hegel was mentioned in later writings of Shklar only sparingly (if at all), shows that there was not much love lost for the Prussian philosopher. This was so unlike the intellec-tual affection and passion that Shklar showed for other thinkers.

16. As we will see later, Shklar would continue to address classical political theory. However, she would never do it again in the way she had dealt with Rousseau and Hegel. Her study of Montesquieu, which was to fol-low directly after Ordinary Vices, clearly demonstrated that she had made a qualitative leap both in personal style and argument in her treatment of political thought and political theorists.

17. In the 1985 preface to the second edition of her Rousseau book she acknowl-edged Montaigne as a predecessor of Rousseau.

18. Shklar pointed out that such academic snobbery also often mixed with van-ity. Particularly when it came to excellent scholarship there were often no criteria to distinguish between top achievers, especially not in the humani-ties. This is where the “finer” distinctions of institutions come in. However, it is especially regrettable when such academic snobbery is passed on from one generation to the next. To be sure, Shklar revealed here a very personal experience, which was obviously related to her own observations at Harvard in the 1950s and early 1960s.

19. Shklar stresses that modern liberal society hardly has any means at its dis-posal to enforce loyalty: “A free society is not at liberty to suppress dis-loyalty, because it will cease to be free if it does not restrain itself. Yet it depends on trust, and so suspicion is always rife. For where is treason if not in trust?”(Shklar 1984, 177).

Notes 211

20. The only occasion when treason became a major subject was during seces-sion and the Civil War. As is well known, the conflict was settled with the force of arms.

21. Shklar pointed out that “there is no library so secure that one can escape from cruelty” (Shklar 1984, 225).

22. Shklar was highly supportive of the Civil Rights movement and was against the war in Vietnam. However, she was skeptical as to the New Left. In a let-ter to Nelson Polsby, then editor of the American Political Science Review, Shklar confessed that she purposely kept her distance from the New Left: “The reason for that is quite simple. I have never addressed a single word to them. I have almost never thought about them . . . As a person born in 1928 in Eastern Europe the Old Left (Communism) and Fascism of all types did concern me a good deal and their character and intellectual consequences were an issue in After Utopia . . . The fact that I argue against some ideas does not mean . . . that I am intolerant to them [the New Left, AH]. There is a great difference between intolerance and disagreement” (Letter to Nelson Polsby, December 19, 1972, HUGFP116, Box 1, emphasis in the original).

23. The Elshtain review can serve as another example of the failed dialogue between a refugee from totalitarianism and the New Left. While Shklar had pointed out more than once that she thought not much of the New Left because of her refugee experience, her arguments about humanitarian lib-eralism still seemed to contain some kind of message in a bottle for the pro-test generation. However, as the Elshtain example of ideologically motivated political correctness shows, while the message was received and read, it was also wilfully dismissed. It should be added here that later in life Elshtain became a devout Catholic and argued for distinctively illiberal policies and politics, something that would have certainly aroused Shklar’s suspicion.

24. “Montesquieu’s System of Natural Government,” H. J. Merry, American Historical Review 77 (1972), 1131–32; “Virtue in a Bad Climate: Good Men and Good Citizens in Montesquieu’s L’esprit des Lois,” in Enlightenment Studies in Honor of Lester G. Crocker (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1979), 315–28,; “Jean-Jacques: The Early Life and Works of Rousseau,” Maurice Cranston and “Will and Circumstance: Montesquieu, Rousseau and the French Revolution,” Norman Hampson, London Review of Books 5 (1983): 10–11.

25. What might additionally have inspired Shklar to produce a highly read-able text was the fact that the Montesquieu book appeared in Oxford’s Past Masters, a series under the careful editorship of Keith Thomas.

26. Crucial for modern lawmaking was commercial activity; it was the economic base which made possible modern differentiation such as that between per-sonal and public morality. Shklar noticed not only that Montesquieu did not have the typical French aristocratic distaste for commercial activity but also that he was free of Christian anti-Judaism, which usually blamed the Jews for controlling trade and commerce. In all of this Shklar discovered that Montesquieu was above all a man of the Enlightenment, favoring learn-ing, education, and knowledge against obscurantism and a return to the

212 Notes

dark ages. According to Shklar, he believed deeply in “the healing powers of knowledge” (Shklar 1987, 110).

27. The same year the hermeneutics article was published Shklar presented a short paper titled “Being Scientific without Science” at the APSA convention, in which she discussed three forms of argumentation that aim at being sci-entific: (1) modern interpretations as for example represented in the work of Charles Taylor, (2) narrative history, and (3) literary psychology. Shklar was very skeptical of the first alternative since it pretends to “tease out . . . hidden intersubjective meaning”; however, epistemologically speaking, while doing so it elevates the interpreter to a privileged position. Shklar worries that the interpretation thus becomes a substitute for the explanation because the interpretation remains highly subjective, almost in an arbitrary way, since it cannot be repeated or proven by anybody else. It is different with narra-tive history in which the story adheres “to known and shared standards of evidence.” This form of narrative does not have to be free from “the mindset of the age or place or personal inclination,” it just has to be aware of its own relative historicity. The third example of literary psychology is telling a convincing story to illustrate a more general point “to bring a sense of psy-chological reality into our thinking.” Shklar uses Hegel’s Phenomenology as an example. The APSA piece was rather short (three pages) but it high-lighted Shklar’s difficulties with modern hermeneutics, something that was the subject of her extended criticism in “Squaring the Hermeneutic circle” (all quotes from typed manuscript, HUGFP118, 3pp).

28. There are two longer handwritten lectures in the Shklar Papers, which indi-cate that she had tried to think more systematically about the methods of political theory and their context(s). The first manuscript (dated April 3, 1980) discusses Max Weber and, more specifically, his two essays “Politics as a Vocation” and “Science as a Vocation” (HUGFP118, Box 20). The sec-ond manuscript (dated February 1984) bears the title “Intellectual History: Problems, Methods” (HUGF118, Box 20) and for illustrative purposes discusses some of the historical attempts to understand the ideas of the Enlightenment. What emerges from the discussion is that Shklar is clearly against pursuing “unit ideas” but instead suggests concentrating on a con-crete place and time.

29. What was perhaps more surprising was that nobody spotted what seemed the more obvious contradiction between the argumentation in her herme-neutics essay and her later work, particularly on injustice, in which subjec-tive accounts play a more important role than the positivist insistence on getting the facts right.

4 Transatlantic Encounters of a Different Kind

1. Some of the parallels between Arendt and Shklar have been discussed in Chapter 2. In contrast to Arendt, Hartz and his followers never gained the same respect for Shklar. This is the main reason why the following

Notes 213

comparison focuses on Shklar’s critical dialogue with Arendt and only men-tions Hartz in passing.

Shklar and Arendt had met personally on a number of occasions, first in Harvard seminars with Friedrich and then later in New York. On a num-ber of occasions Shklar also wrote directly about Arendt, for example, “Hannah Arendt’s Triumph” (The New Republic 173 (December 27) (1975)) “Rethinking the Past” (Social Research 44, no. 1 (1977)) and “Hannah Arendt as Pariah” (Partisan Review 50, no. 1 (1983): 64). The latter two articles are reprinted in Shklar’s posthumous essay collection (1998) Political Thought and Political Thinkers, ed. Stanley Hoffmann (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

2. Here and in the following passages I draw mainly on Arendt, Between Past and Future (New York: Penguin ([1961] 1987), 59–114.

3. A variation on some of the thoughts expressed in the chapter on the social question in Arendt’s On Revolution (New York: Penguin, 1963) can be found in her essay “Europa und Amerika” in, Arendt, Zur Zeit Politische Essays (Berlin: Rotbuch, 1986), 71–93.

4. Here and in the following paragraphs I draw again on Arendt, Between Past and Future, 59–114.

5. I draw here mainly on Shklar’s essay “Redeeming American Political Thought” ([1991a]/1998a), 91–108 and “A New Constitution for a New Nation,” in Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar (ed. Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a), 158ff. The two texts stand in a similar thematical context with two other unpublished manuscripts, “The Democratic Dream,” a text (11pp) that focused mainly on the Declaration of Independence and Jacksonian Democracy and that Shklar presented at the Eastern Sociological Society Meeting in Boston in 1987, and “The Idea of Rights in the Early Republic” (26pp), drafted while visiting King’s College at Cambridge. The latter text focuses also on the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers (both documents in HUGFP118, Box 21 and 20). There is also some overlap with another text, “The Boundaries of Democracy” (Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar (ed. Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a), 127–45.

6. This is not the place to discuss in detail Hannah Arendt’s repeated reference to the work of Montesquieu. I would just like to point out that it does not lead Arendt to any deeper appreciation of the history of American liberal-ism, but rather remains part of her unique sense of American republicanism. A similar case could be made for Arendt’s interpretation of Tocqueville.

7. There are three longer unpublished texts in the Shklar papers, which seem to have been written around 1990 and that all deal with Montesquieu and eigh-teenth-century Republicanism in America, but that have not been deemed worthy of inclusion in Shklar’s two posthumous essay collections. In “What did Republicanism Mean in the 18th Century?” Shklar pays particular trib-ute to Bernard Bailyn’s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by showing that republicanism at the time of Independence took on a vari-ety of meanings, none of them entirely at odds with the Lockean liberal

214 Notes

tradition. Adams, Publius, and others studied republican Rome indeed, and, as Shklar maintains, eighteenth-century republicanism in America was also not incompatible with Protestant belief. The most important point, how-ever, was directed against Pocock who had omitted the French variant of republicanism and its influence on the Atlantic republican tradition. In contrast to Pocock, Shklar reiterates that Rousseau, and even more impor-tantly, Montesquieu, were crucial for seeing the difference between classic republicanism and modern currents of republicanism. The Rousseau link made clear how important love of equality and loyalty were even for the modern context, while Montesquieu focused more on despotism and fear as the most important threats that a government that sought the consent and support of its people should avoid. In this respect Shklar hints at the pos-sibility that Montesquieu’s proposals for the separation of powers, the spirit of the laws as part of an attempt to establish a political culture that would serve as a bulwark against despotism, were perhaps more influential than Rousseau’s ideal types. In “Montesquieu’s Idea of the Political Culture and its Fate” (undated typed manuscript with some hand corrections, 18pp) and “Montesquieu’s Diagnostic Political Science” (undated typed manuscript, 15pp) Shklar elaborates further on Montesquieu’s political science, which sought a cure for society, not incomparable perhaps to the way medicine tries to find a remedy for an illness. Shklar points out that there was appar-ently a tendency in Montesquieu to discover political society’s different laws and motions; however, despite rather deterministic attempts, as, for exam-ple, calling on climate as an explanation, Shklar notes that Montesquieu managed to retain a sense of human agency, otherwise the threat of des-potism would have remained a natural occurrence, an absolute evil about which humans could do nothing (all three manuscripts can be found in HUGFP118, Box 20).

8. Very informative on this point is Bernard Crick’s historical-institutional account The American Science of Politics (Its Origins and Conditions) (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,1967). It is a rare omission of Shklar not to mention this title, particularly since it related directly to her argument.

9. Most members, so it seemed, were delighted with her choice, although some found it harder to adjust to the new times than others. Some defenders of the exceptionalist line of reasoning went out of their way to prove Shklar wrong. Philip Abbott, a political scientist from Detroit, published a pas-sionate defense of American Exceptionalism in which he argued in favor of a more pluralist approach within the broad church that is the exceptional-ist paradigm (P. Abbott, “Redeeming American Exceptionalism/Redeeming American Political Science: An Analysis of Judith N. Shklar’s Presidential Address,” The Social Science Journal 32, no. 3 (1995): 219–34). He sug-gested that Shklar herself made use of American exceptionalism and its vari-ous strands—yet without ever acknowledging it (220).

10. The interesting point here is that the rights of the people need little further explanation in a democracy. What needs to be explained further, however,

Notes 215

is the representativeness and the selection procedure of the judges of the highest court.

11. Shklar’s discussion of rights should not lead us to conclude that a law- and rights-based approach, in short, legalism, is all that is needed. In a review of Ronald Dworkin’s Law’s Empire, written a few years later, she is highly crit-ical of Dworkin’s interpretative account of law and rights. Parallels between her earlier critique of legalism and her Dworkin critique are obvious (Shklar, “Review of Law’s Empire by Ronald Dworkin,” American Political Science Review 81 (1987a): 261–62).

12. Readers will be aware that some of the essay’s argument can also be found in Shklar’s Ordinary Vices, albeit, as we have seen, in a slightly different context. It makes sense to discuss the essay here separately because of its numerous references to the peculiar American background.

13. A shorter version of the first of the Storrs lectures, “Giving Injustice its Due,” had appeared a year later in the Yale Law Journal (98, no. 6 (April 1989): 1135–52) before the expanded version finally appeared in book format under the title The Faces of Injustice with Yale University Press in 1990.

14. Shklar finds Giotto’s painting “L’Ingiustizia” the best artwork to represent such injustice. The artwork is, in the words of Shklar, a representation of “moral psychology of injustice . . . in all its depth” (Shklar 1990, 49). It shows the actions of the unjust and the impact and results that injustice has on the victims, “the rage,” “the public menace,” and “the physical threat.” For Shklar, Giotto’s picture serves as a constant reminder for political and social theorists to distinguish properly between injustice and misfortune (50).

15. This did not seem to have bothered some of the publisher’s selected readers. One anonymous reader favored the general direction of the argument and defended the text as a counterexample to more sociologically oriented studies such as Barrington Moore’s Injustice or Gurr’s Why men rebel (HUGFP118, Box 1).

16. In another contribution, “Putting Injustice First: An Alternative Approach to Liberal Pluralism,” Yack has elaborated on the suggested paradigm change (B. Yack, “Putting Injustice First: An Approach to Liberal Pluralism,” Social Research 66, no. 4 (1999): 1104–20). He argues now that Shklar herself had not addressed some of the implications of her own call to study injustice as a phenomenon in its own right. Yack maintains that much more could be said about the relationship between justice and injustice. Justice “represents a means of controlling behavior in the name of social peace, solidarity, col-lective power and other values that go well beyond the correction of injustice. That is one reason why there is such an imbalance between the loss that injus-tice causes and the correction that justice offers” (1114). In other words, if we build our senses of injustice after the prevalent justice models we lose out on a more comprehensive and “accurate picture of our moral world” (1117).

17. Forrester is right though in stressing that Rawls’s conceptualization of jus-tice was oriented toward the future and had a universal dimension while Shklar’s Faces of Injustice obviously dealt mainly with past injuries and was interested in particular instances of injustice (Forrester 2012a, 119).

216 Notes

5 Returning to the Theme of Exile

1. The set of lectures and notes are now part of the Shklar Papers that are housed in the Harvard Archives (HUGFP118, Box 7). The entire set of lec-tures and notes comprises some 120 pages.

2. Particularly two posthumously published fragments are of importance here, one titled “Obligation, Loyalty, Exile,” and the other one “The Bonds of Exile.” Both are reproduced in the essay collection Political Thought and Political Thinkers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), edited by Stanley Hoffmann. The two texts partly overlap and it is hard to determine the order in which they were written. The Obligation essay, originally pre-sented in March 1992 as a lecture at the University of Wisconsin, was one of the last presentations that Shklar gave shortly before her death.

3. As Michael Walzer has noted, Shklar had arguments with friends and people she admired but that did not prevent her from showing continued signs of affection or obligation. In a letter to Melvyn Hill at Toronto’s York University Shklar expresses her gratitude for having been invited to a guest lecture by Hannah Arendt but also sent her apologies for not being able to attend: “You were right in supposing that I admire Miss Arendt’s work a great deal and that I try to be present on any occasion where she is likely to speak . . . I hope it will be possible for you to convey to Miss Arendt my very real regret at not being able to join you” (Letter to Melvyn Hill, June 28, 1972, HUGFP118, Box 1).

4. Apart from professional associations like the APSA Shklar never joined a political group. However, Miller revealed in the same review that Shklar had once confessed to him in conversation that she supported Amnesty International and even had written short pieces for the organization (J. Miller, “Pyrrhonic Liberalism (review of Redeeming American Political Thought and Political Thought and Political Thinkers),” Political Theory 28, no. 6 (2000): 813). A search among the Shklar Papers at the Harvard Archives and other available material produces no evidence to back up this information apart from the “Torturers” text (J. N. Shklar “Torturers. Review of Elaine Scarry’s The Body in Pain,” London Review of Books, 9 October 1986, 1986a), which was briefly discussed in the third chapter.

Bibliography

A bibliography of Judith N. Shklar’s published writings can be found in: “Works of Judith N. Shklar,” Liberalism without Illusion: Essays in Liberal Theory and the Political Vision of Judith N. Shklar, edited by B. Yack, 281–86. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996

The Harvard Archives stores the papers of Judith N. Shklar (3.5 cubic feet in ten containers). They contain some of Shklar’s correspondence, her lecture notes and teaching material, speeches, drafts of published and unpublished papers, and other important material.

The Harvard Archive lists the location as follows:

HUGFP 118.8 Correspondence and other records, 1971–83 (2 boxes);

HUGFP 118.40 Speeches and other papers (1 box);

HUGFP 118.62 Lecture notes and course materials (7 boxes).

All the material that stems from the Shklar papers and that I draw upon in the text—mainly unpublished notes, drafts, and lecture notes—does not appear sep-arately in the bibliography but is instead acknowledged in the main text and/or in the footnotes.

The Murray Research Archive contains a set of interviews with 13 tenured women from Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences that Judith B. Walzer conducted in 1981. One of the women interviewed was Judith N. Shklar. While the interview focuses on the main question of why women got late tenure at Harvard, it contains invaluable biographical information that would otherwise be hard if not impos-sible to obtain. I am grateful to Judith Walzer for having drawn my attention to the existence of these interviews. They are archived under Judith B. Walzer (1988) “Oral History of the Tenured Women in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University” (1981). Hadl: 1902.1/00709 Murray Research Archive.

Books Written or Edited by Judith Shklar

Shklar, J. N. After Utopia: The Decline in Political Faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957.

———. Legalism: An Essay on Law, Morals, and Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.

218 Bibliography

Shklar, J. N. Men and Citizens: A Study of Rousseau’s Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

———. Freedom and Independence: A Study of the Political Ideas of Hegel’s Phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

———. Ordinary Vices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.———. Montesquieu. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.———. The Faces of Injustice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.———. American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1991.———. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.———. Redeeming American Political Thought, edited by Stanley Hoffmann

and Dennis F. Thompson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a.Shklar, J. N. (ed.), Political Theory and Ideology. New York: Macmillan, 1966.

Articles and Reviews by Judith Shklar

Shklar, J. N. “Ideology Hunting: The Case of James Harrington.” American Political Science Review 53 (1959): 662–92; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 206–43.

———. “The Political Theory of Utopia: From Melancholy to Nostalgia.” Daedalus 94, no. 2 (1965): 367–81; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 161–74.

———. “Rethinking the Past.” Social Research no. 44 (1977): 80–90; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 353–61.

———. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Equality.” Daedalus 107, no. 3 (1978): 13–25; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 276–93.

———. “Review of Quentin Skinner: The Foundations of Modern Political Thought” (2 vols.), Political Theory 7, no. 4 (1979).

———. “Review of Isaiah Berlin: Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas.” The New Republic April 2 (1980): 32–35.

———. “Learning without Knowing.” Daedalus 109, no. 2 (1980a): 53–72; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 105–31.

———. “The Federalist as Myth. Review of Garry Wills’s Explaining America: The Federalist.” The Yale Law Journal 90, no. 4 (1981): 942–53.

———. “Hannah Arendt as Pariah.” Partisan Review 50, no. 1 (1983): 64–77; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 362–75.

———. “Injustice, Injury and Inequality.” In Justice and Equality Here and Now, edited by Frank S. Lucash. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Bibliography 219

———. “Torturers. Review of Elaine Scarry’s The Body in Pain.” London Review of Books, October 9, 1986 (1986a).

———. “Squaring the Hermeneutic Circle.” Social Research 53, no. 3 (1986b): 449–73; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 76–103.

———. “Review of Law’s Empire by Ronald Dworkin.” American Political Science Review 81 (1987a): 261–62.

———. “Alexander Hamilton and the Language of Political Science.” In The Languages of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe, edited by Anthony Pagden, 330–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987b; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N., Redeeming American Political Thought, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a, 3–13.

———. “Review of Jean Starobinski: Montaigne in Motion.” Political Theory 15, no. 4 (1987c): 653–57.

———. “Political Theory and the Rule of Law.” In The Rule of Law, A. Hutchinson and P. Monahan. Toronto: Carswell, 1987d; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 21–37.

———. “Review of Jean Starobinski, Transparency and Obstruction.” The New Republic (June 27) (1988): 38–40.

———. “A Life of Learning” (1989), Charles Homer Haskins Lecture, American Council of Learned Societies, Washington, DC: ACLS Occasional Papers No 9; reprinted in: Yack, B. (ed.). Liberalism without Illusions—Essays on Liberal Theory and the Political Vision of Judith N. Shklar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

———. “Positive Liberty, Negative Liberty in the United States (French origi-nal: Liberté Positive, Liberté Négative)” In Les usages de la liberté: XXXIIe Rencontres Internationales de Genève, Neuchatel : Les Editions de la Baconniére 1989a; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Redeeming American Political Thought, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a, 111–26.

———. “The Liberalism of Fear.” In Liberalism and the Moral Life, edited by Nancy Rosenblum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989b; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 3–20.

———. “Montesquieu and the New Republicanism.” In Machiavelli and Republicanism, edited by Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner, and Maurizio Viroli. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990a; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 244–61.

———. “Emerson and the Exhibitions of Democracy.” Political Theory 18, no. 4 (1990b): 601–14; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Redeeming American Political Thought, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a, 49–64.

———. “Redeeming American Political Theory.” American Political Science Review 85, no. 1 (1991a): 3–15; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Redeeming American

220 Bibliography

Political Thought, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a, 91–108.

———. “Pictures of America.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 5, no. 1 (1993): 191–200.

———. “Obligation, Loyalty, Exile.” Political Theory 21, no. 2 (1993a): 181–97; reprinted in: Shklar, J. N. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, edited by Stanley Hoffmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 38–55.

——— “The Bonds of Exile,” In Political Thought and Political Thinkers, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann, 56–72, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998

———. “What is the Use of Utopia?” In Political Thought and Political Thinkers, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann, 175–190. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

———. “The Work of Michael Walzer.” Political Thought and Political Thinkers, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann, 376–85. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

———. “A Friendship.” In Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson, 14–27. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a.

———. “An Education for America: Tocqueville, Hawthorne, Emerson.” In Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson, 65–79. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a.

———. “The Boundaries of Democracy.” In Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson, 127–45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a.

———. “The American Idea of Democracy.” In Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson, 146–57. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a.

———. “A New Constitution for a New Nation.” In Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson, 158–70. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a.

———. “Democracy and the Past: Jefferson and His Heirs.” In Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar, edited by Stanley Hoffmann and Dennis F. Thompson, 171–86. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998a.

Shklar, J. N. and Maass, A. “In Memoriam: Carl Joachim Friedrich.” PS 18 (1985), 109–11.

Books, Articles, and Reviews on Judith Shklar and Her Work

Abbott, P. “Redeeming American Exceptionalism/Redeeming American Political Science: An Analysis of Judith N. Shklar’s Presidential Address.” The Social Science Journal 32, no. 3 (1995): 219–34.

Allen, J. “Liberalism for Grown-ups” (review of Redeeming American Political Thought and Political Thought and Political Thinkers). Government and Opposition 33, no. 4 (1998): 544–50.

Bibliography 221

Baier, A. C. “Ordinary Vices” (review). Political Theory 14, no. 1 (1986): 156–59.Barber, B. “American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion” (review). Political

Theory 21, no. 1 (1993): 146–53.Berkowitz, P. “Fear and Thinking” (Review of Political Thought and Political

Thinkers and Redeeming American Political Thought). The New Republic, July 13 (1998).

Carter, S. L. “The Dialectics of Race and Citizenship” (review of American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion). Transition no. 56 (1992): 80–99.

Chapman, W. H. “After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith” (review). The American Scholar 27, no. 2 (1958): 242.

Coward, D. “Montesquieu” (review). Journal of European Studies no. 19 (1987): 158–59.

Diggins, J. P. “Montesquieu” (review). Eighteenth-Century Studies 23, no. 1 (1989): 121–22.

Dias, R. W. M. “Legalism” (review). The Cambridge Law Journal 24, no. 2 (1966): 293–96.

Ellis, R. J. “Political Thought and Political Thinkers and Redeeming American Political Thought” (review). The Journal of Politics 61, no. 1 (1999): 244–46.

Elshtain, J. B. “Ordinary Scholarship” (review of Ordinary Vices). The Yale Law Journal 95, no. 5 (1985): 1270–84.

Farr, J. “Redeeming American Political Thought” (review). Ethics 112, no. 1 (2001): 182–85.

Fiser, W. S. “After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith” (review). Ethics 68, no. 3 (1958): 217–19.

Forrester, K. “Hope and Memory in the Thought of Judith Shklar.” Modern Intellectual History 8, no. 3 (2011): 591–620.

———. “Judith Shklar, Bernard Williams and Political Realism.” European Journal of Political Theory 11, no. 3 (2012): 247–72.

———. “Liberalism and Realism in American Political Thought 1950–1990.” PhD Dissertation, King’s College, Cambridge Dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2012a.

Gildin, H. “Men and Citizens. A Study of Rousseau’s Social Theory” (review). The Review of Politics 32, no. 4 (1970): 531–33.

Gray, J. “The Derelict Utopia” (review of Liberalism without Illusions). Times Literary Supplement, May 24, 1996.

Harbold, W. H. “Men and Citizens. A Study of Rousseau’s Social Theory” (review). The American Political Science Review 64, no. 2 (1970): 611–12.

Hess, A. “The Political and the Social: A Comparison of Hanna Arendt and Judith N. Shklar’s American Writing.” Atlantic Studies 2, no. 2 (2005): 219–33.

Hoffmann, S. “Judith Shklar as Political Thinker.” Political Theory 21, no. 2 (1993): 172–80.

Kateb, G. “Freedom and Independence: A Study of the Political Ideas of Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Mind” (review). The American Political Science Review 72, no. 1 (1978): 232–33.

Keene, A. T. “Shklar, Judith.” American National Biography Online, http://www.anb.org/articles/1515–01343.html (2000); Access date: Tuesday, May 7, 2013.

222 Bibliography

Keohane, N. O. “The Faces of Injustice” (review). Political Theory 19, no. 3 (1991): 453–56.

Kraut, R. “The Faces of Injustice” (review). Ethics 102, no. 2 (1992): 393–95.Leslie, M. “Men and Citizens. A Study of Rousseau’s Social Theory” (review).

European History Quarterly no. 1 (1971): 79–81.Lilla, M. “Very much a Fox” (review of Redeeming American Political Thought

and Political Thought and Political Thinkers). Times Literary Supplement, March 27, 1998.

Magnette, P. Judith Shklar: le libéralisme des opprimés. Paris: Éditions Michalon, 2006.

Mason, S. “Montesquieu” (review). French History 3, no. 1 (1987): 124–25.Memorial Tributes to Judith Nisse Shklar, 1928–1992 (1992), brochure (133pp).Miller, J. “Pyrrhonic Liberalism” (review of Redeeming American Political

Thought and Political Thought and Political Thinkers). Political Theory 28, no. 6 (2000): 810–21.

Murphy, J. “Injustice and Misfortune” (review of The Faces of Injustice). Law and Philosophy 10, no. 4 (1991): 433–46.

Neuman, G. L. “Rhetorical Slavery, Rhetorical Citizenship” (review of American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion). Michigan Law Review 90, no. 6 (1992): 1276–90.

Nussbaum, M. “The Misfortune Teller” (review of Faces of Injustice). The New Republic 203, no. 22 (1990): 30–35.

Pelczynski, Z. A. “Freedom and Independence: A Study of the Political Ideas of Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Mind” (Review). Political Theory 5, no. 1 (1977): 127–30.

Pontius, D. “After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith” (review). Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 317 (May) (1958): 186–87.

Riley, P. “Ordinary Vices” (review). The American Political Science Review 79, no. 2 (1985): 610–11.

Sabine, G. H. “After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith” (review). The Philosophical Review 67, no. 4 (1958): 573–75.

Simon, W. M. “After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith” (review). The American Historical Review 63, no. 3 (1958): 639–40.

Smith, R. M. “Judith Shklar and the Pleasures of American Political Thought.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 5, no. 1 (1993): 187–89.

Staeheli, L. “Political Thought and Political Thinkers” (review). Social Science Quarterly 81, no. 3 (2000): 896–98.

Stillman, P. G. “Freedom and Independence: A Study of the Political Ideas of Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Mind” (review). The Journal of Politics 38 (1976): 1044–46.

Strong, T. B. “Political Theory and Political Thinkers” (review). Ethics 109, no. 4 (1999): 924–28.

Stullerova, K. “Between Fear and Freedom: The Political Theory of Judith N. Shklar.” PhD Thesis, Department of Political Science, Central European University, 2005.

———. “Rethinking Human Rights.” International Politics 50 (2013): 686–705.

Bibliography 223

———. “The Knowledge of Suffering: On Judith Shklar’s ‘Putting Cruelty First.’” Contemporary Political Theory (2013b); advance online publication June 11, 2013a.

Weinreb, L. L. “Legalism” (review). Harvard Law Review 78 (1964): 1494–500.Whiteside. “Justice Uncertain: Judith Shklar on Liberalism, Skepticism and

Equality.” Polity XXXI, no. 5 (1999): 501–32.Williams, B. “Resisting the Avalanche. Review of Ordinary Vices.” London

Review of Books, June 6, 1985.Wolin, S. S. “After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith” (review). American

Journal of Jurisprudence 5, no. 1 (1960): 163–77.Wright, J. “Montesquieuean Moments: The Spirit of the Laws and Republicanism.”

Proceedings of the Western Society for French History 35 (2007): 149–69.Yack, B. “Injustice and the Victim’s Voice: The Faces of Injustice” (review).

Michigan Law Review 89, no. 6 (1991): 1334–49.———. “Putting Injustice First: An Approach to Liberal Pluralism.” Social

Research 66, no. 4 (1999): 1104–20.Yack, B. (ed.) Liberalism without Illusions—Essays on Liberal Theory and the

Political Vision of Judith N. Shklar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Young, S. “Avoiding the Unavoidable? Judith Shklar’s Unwilling Search for an

Overlapping Consensus,” Res Publica no. 13 (2007): 231–53.

Secondary Material

Arendt, H. Zur Zeit. Politische Essays. Berlin: Rotbuch, 1986.———. Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil, New York:

Viking Press, 1963.———. Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin, 1987 [1961].———. Essays in Understanding, 1930–1954. New York: Harcourt Brace and

Company, 1994.———. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken, 2004 [1951].———. Jewish Writings. New York: Schocken, 2007.Bethell, J. Harvard Observed: An Illustrated History of the University in the

20th Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.Berlin, I. The Proper Study of Mankind, edited by Henry Hardy and Roger

Hausherr. London: Chatto and Windus, 1997.———. Russian Thinkers. London: Penguin, 2008.Bourdieu, P. Sketch for a Self-Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.Carr, E. H. The Romantic Exiles. London: Serif, 2007.Ceaser, J. W. Nature and History in American Political Development. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.Cohn, J. “Revenge of the Nerds: Irrational Exuberance—When did Political

Science Forget about Politics?” The New Republic, October 15, 1999.Coser, L. A. Refugee Scholars in America. Their Impact and Their Experiences.

New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.Crick, B. The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions. Berkeley

and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1967.

224 Bibliography

Fleck, C. A Transatlantic History of the Social Sciences: Robber Barons, the Third Reich and the Invention of Empirical Social Research. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011.

Friedrich, C. J. Constitutional Government and Politics. New York: Harper, 1937.

———. Philosophy of Law in Historical Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Friedrich C. J. and Brzezinski, Z. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956.

Fuller, L. L. “Positivism, Fidelity and the Law—A Reply to Professor Hart.” Harvard Law Review 71, no. 4 (1958): 630–72.

Gross, N. Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Gunnell, J. G. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Hart, H. L. A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review 71, no. 4 (1958): 593–620.

Hegel, G. W. F. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973.Hess, A. “The ‘Economy of Morals’ and its Applications: An Attempt to

Understand Some Central Concepts in the Work of Albert O. Hirschman.” Review of International Political Economy 6, no. 3 (1999): 338–59.

———. “Making Sense of Individual Creativity: An Attempt to Tresspass the Academic Boundaries of the Sociology of Ideas and Intellectual History.” In Knowledge for Whom? edited by C. Fleck and A. Hess, 27–46. Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014.

Hirschman, A. O. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Hughes, H. S. The Sea Change: The Migration of Social Thought, 1930–1965. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

Isaac, J. Working Knowledge: Making the Human Sciences Fun. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

Judt, T. “Leszek Kolakowski (1927–2009).” New York Review of Books, September 24, 2009.

———. “Edge People.” New York Review of Books, February 23, 2010.Kent, D. P. The Refugee Intellectual: The Americanization of the Immigrants of

1933–41. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953.Krohn, D., von zur Mühlen, P., Paul, G. and Winckler, L. (eds). Handbuch der

deutschsprachigen Emigration (1933–45). Darmstadt: Primus, 1998.Levy, J. The Multiculturalism of Fear. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Loewenberg, G. “The Influence of European Émigré Scholars on Comparative

Politics, 1925–1965.” American Political Science Review 100, no. 4 (November 2006): 597–604.

McLaughlin, N. “Optimal Marginality: Innovation and Orthodoxy in Fromm’s Revision of Psychoanalysis.” Sociological Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2001): 271–88.

Musil, R. Prosa und Stücke. Kleine Prosa. Aphorismen. Autobiographisches. Essays und Reden. Kritik. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1978.

———. Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1981.

Bibliography 225

———. Precision and Soul. Essays and Addresses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Pocock, J. G. A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Rawls, J. John Rawls: Collected Papers, edited by Samuel Freeman. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Ross, D. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Rousseau, J-J. Schriften (2 vols.). Frankfurt: Fischer, 1998.Sahl, H. Und doch . . . “Essays und Kritiken aus zwei Kontinenten.” Munich:

Luchterhand, 1991.———. Memoiren eines Moralisten. Das Exil im Exil. Munich: Luchterhand,

2008.Schütz, A. “The Stranger: An Essay on Social Psychology.” American Journal of

Sociology 49, no. 6 (1944), 499–507.Sennett, R. The Foreigner: Two Essays on Exile. London: Notting Hill Editions,

2011.Skinner, Q. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (2 vols.). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1978.———. Visions of Politics (Vol. 1): Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2002.Walzer, J. Oral History of the Tenured Women in the Faculty of Art s and

Sceinces at Harvard University, 1981, hdl:1902.1/00709 Murray Research Archive [Distributor], 1988

Walzer, M. Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic, 1983.———. Interpretation and Social Criticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1987.———. The Company of Critics. Social Criticism and Political Commitment in

the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic, 1988.

Ackerman, Bruce, 2Adams, John, 105, 139, 145, 152American

Bill of Rights, 159citizenship, 10, 40, 41, 46, 138,

141, 143, 148, 158, 172–5, 180Civil War, 139, 148, 151, 158,

181, 194Constitution, 64, 108, 121, 138,

139, 140, 141, 142, 156Council of Learned Societies, 8,

204n. 1exceptionalism, 2, 4, 136, 140,

147, 148, 152, 153, 160, 214n. 9

Founding Fathers, 6, 108, 121, 138–41, 142–3, 194, 213n. 5

intellectual tradition, 135–7, 141, 145, 155, 160, 172, 198

political process, 141, 150, 153political science, 42, 45, 147–9,

152–3, 160Political Science Association

(APSA), 1, 42, 98, 147political thought, 48, 136, 143,

153, 160–1, 177, 178, 199republic, 108, 116, 133, 138–42,

147, 148, 153, 156–7, 173, 174, 213n. 1, 5

Revolution, 126, 137–8, 140, 194Society for Political and Legal

Philosophy, 98American Scholar, The, 54

Amnesty International, 114, 115, 216n. 4

anti-intellectualism, 61, 97, 106anti-semitism, 11, 24, 25, 27, 29,

31, 37, 43, 62, 97, 203n. 3Arendt, Hannah, 3, 49, 50, 53, 65,

137–42, 193, 199, 213n. 1, 6, 216n. 3

Eichmann in Jerusalem, 65, 68On Revolution, 137–40, 194, 199

Aristotle, 60, 178, 184Augustine, 164Austria, 16, 29, 39, 40, 41, 43

Bailyn, Bernard, 2, 213n. 7Baltic republics, 29Barber, Benjamin, 175, 198Becket, Thomas, 179Benhabib, Seyla, 2, 197Bentham, Jeremy, 85, 104Berlin, Isaiah, 2, 3, 14, 49, 50, 115,

155, 172, 191, 198, 199, 200“hedgehog” and “fox,” 4“Two Concepts of Liberty,” 155

Bildung, 33, 80, 92, 194Blanc, Luis, 15Bok, Derek, 94Bonhöffer, Dietrich, 178Borkenau, Franz, 42Bourdieu, Pierre, 203n. 2Brzezinski, Zbigniew, 2, 45, 61,

205n. 8, 206–7n. 12Burckhardt, Jacob, 53

Index

228 Index

Calhoun, John, 151Cambridge (Boston), 37, 59, 204Cambridge (UK), 19, 99, 178, 195,

213n. 5Seeley Lectures, 195

Cambridge Law Journal, 69Cambridge School of Intellectual

History, 5Cambridge University Press, 88Canada, 1, 10, 14, 20, 31–2, 37,

40, 46, 204n. 1, 205n. 8, 206n. 6

Carnegie foundation, 42Carr, Edward Hallett, 55Carter, Stephen S., 175–6Catholic tradition, 127

Catholic thought, 116, 194Cavell, Stanley, 62, 100Ceaser, James, 148charisma, 82, 109, 150, 206n. 7Chicago, 40, 42Cicero, 163, 166, 178, 184citizens, citizenship, 52, 75, 78, 79,

82, 83, 86, 87, 93, 105, 107, 111, 116, 123, 139, 150, 159, 163, 165, 166, 169, 173, 176, 178, 185, 186, 190, 194. See also “American citizenship”

civil rights, 7, 72, 94, 152, 185, 194, 211n. 22. See also “rights”

Cold War, 20, 51, 52, 57, 61, 155, 177, 207n. 12

Columbia University, 28, 206–7n. 12communism, 51, 61, 211n. 22

communist party, 16, 25, 48, 155communitarianism, 172, 173, 199,

201Conant, James Bryan, 58, 61Coser, Lewis A., 206n. 6Coward, David, 122creativity, 13, 74, 125, 108, 188,

206n. 11Crick, Bernard, 153, 214n. 8cruelty, 6, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20,

84, 99, 100, 101–4, 108, 109,

110, 111, 112, 113–15, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 158, 159, 162, 164, 167, 172, 173, 177, 182, 193, 196, 198, 200, 201, 211n. 21. See also “vices” and “liberalism of fear”

Czechoslovakia, 29, 207n. 12

Daedalus, 100, 197David Copperfield, 27democracy, 25, 43, 52, 61, 67, 77,

105, 109, 120, 136, 143, 144, 150, 152, 153, 154, 157, 163, 165, 166, 173, 214n. 10

Jacksonian, 105, 150, 157, 213n. 5

liberal, 52, 54, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 111, 113, 165

social, 4, 126Deutsch, Karl W., 42Dewey, John, 152Diggins, John Patrick, 122Dilthey, Wilhelm, 127–8Disraeli, Benjamin, 192Doyle, Michael, 197Dreyfus affair, 185Dunlop, John, 94–7Dunn, John, 2Dworkin, Ronald, 215n. 11

earning, 174–5. See also “voting”Elite Chocolates, 27Elshtain, Jean Bethke, 112–13,

211n. 23Emergency Committee in Aid of

Displaced German/Foreign Scholars, 42

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 6, 139, 150–4, 145, 146, 190

Emerson, Rupert, 2emigration, 9, 25, 32–4, 39, 62, 98,

181–2, 187–8, 191, 204n. 1. See also “exile(s)”

England, 49, 82, 118, 119–21, 142, 158, 205n. 7

Index 229

Enlightenment, 34, 52, 55, 73, 76, 88, 90, 126, 158, 166, 208n. 1, 211n. 26, 212n. 28

French Enlightenment, 75, 76, 84, 115, 121, 208n. 1

equality, 79, 81, 83, 86, 104, 105, 106, 132, 137, 138, 141, 144, 157, 159, 173, 198, 208n. 8, 214n. 7

Ethics, 54, 171Europe, 6, 16, 19, 21, 26, 29, 32, 34,

36, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 59, 110, 118, 121, 141, 142, 144, 145, 158, 187, 195, 203n. 1, 211n. 22

exceptionalism. See “American exceptionalism”

exile(s), 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 42, 44–6, 59, 87–8, 91, 98, 123, 176, 178, 181–91, 194–5, 196, 198, 199, 201, 204n. 1, 205n. 8. See also “emigration”

exile from, 14, 16, 17, 18, 36, 56, 99, 123, 160, 187–8, 191, 193, 201

internal, 182, 184ostracism, 184Willy Brandt as exile, 185–6

Existentialism, existentialist, 10, 13, 53, 114

Fascism, 16, 18, 48, 126, 211n. 22fear, 4, 10, 11, 15, 19, 27, 84, 100,

108, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 123, 177, 196, 200, 214n. 7. See also “liberalism of fear”

Ford, Franklin, 63Forrester, Katrina, 4, 171–2, 200–1,

215n. 17Fraenkel, Ernst, 42France, 6, 29, 40, 117, 118, 120,

122, 140, 141, 144, 158Frankfurt School, 53French Revolution, 56, 90, 92, 93,

126, 137–8, 140, 145

Friedrich, Carl Joachim, 2, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 206n. 7, 213n. 1

Fuller, Lon, 65, 66, 70

Germany, 18, 29, 33, 39, 40, 43, 92, 185, 207n. 12

Nazi dictatorship, 50, 178, 185GI bill, 37, 46

American veterans, 58, 59, 72Canadian veterans, 44

Gilbert, Alan, 197Gilmore, Myron, 49Giotto, 215

“L’Ingiustizia,” 215n. 14Graubard, Stephen, 197–8Greek classics, 110Greek thought, 10, 127Gross, Neil, 203n. 2Guggenheim Fellowship, 62, 63Gular, Keith, 49, 206n. 9Gurian, Waldemar, 42Gutmann, Amy, 2, 197

Habermas, Jürgen, 57Hamilton, Alexander, 121, 145, 149Hart-Fuller controversy, 65–6, 70Hart, Herbert Lionel Adolphus, 65,

66, 70Hartz, Louis, 2, 49, 136, 137, 154,

208n. 17, 212–13n. 1Harvard Law Review, 65, 69Harvard University, 3, 12, 36, 43,

45, 51, 58, 63, 71–3, 88, 94, 97–8, 106, 178, 197, 206–7n. 12, 213n. 1

Archives, 3, 204n. 1, 216n. 1Department of Government, 12,

95, 97Department of Social Relations, 71Faculty of Arts and Sciences,

59, 95Kennedy School of Government, 72Widener Library, 49, 59

Harvard University Press, 63, 66

230 Index

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 104, 145, 152, 154–5, 178

The Scarlet Letter, 154Hebrew, 23, 28, 40Hebrew University, 192Hegel, Hegelianism, 5, 15, 18, 20,

52, 60, 74, 86, 88–94, 100, 101, 112, 115, 116, 117, 119, 122, 123, 135, 137, 178, 209n. 12, 210n. 13–16

Lectures on the History of Philosophy, 88

Phenomenology of the Spirit, 89, 91–4, 212n. 27

Heidegger, Martin, 53, 195Heidelberg, University of, 45Heine, Heinrich, 52hermeneutics, 127–33

explanation, 55, 68, 114, 117, 130, 131, 137, 172, 212n. 27, 214n. 7

intention, 114, 124, 127, 129, 130, 197

reading, 27, 36, 37, 44, 60, 62, 73, 76, 77, 78, 86, 93, 100, 114, 125, 130, 133, 137

understanding, 5, 16, 49, 61, 77, 87, 89, 90, 102, 103, 118, 119, 126, 127–9, 131, 136, 141, 143, 149, 150, 153, 156, 157, 158, 172, 182, 201

Herzen, Alexander, 14–15, 18–19, 188, 190, 191

Hilberg, Raul, 66The Destruction of the European

Jews, 66Hirschman, Otto Albert, 2, 10history of ideas, 4, 8, 12, 19, 21, 36,

71, 84, 85, 123, 124, 127, 132, 133, 206n. 7, 11

intellectual history, 4, 110, 133, 148, 154, 212n. 28

sociology of ideas, 203n. 2Hitler-Stalin pact, 30, 31Hobbes, Thomas, 65, 83, 173

Hoffmann, Stanley, 2, 3, 49, 62, 98, 100, 125, 196, 197, 198, 207n. 15

Holborn, Freddy, 49Holcomb, Arthur N., 49Holmes, Stephen, 2, 100Holocaust, 50, 34Hughes, H. Stuart, 205n. 4Huntington, Samuel P., 61, 98,

206–7n. 12

ideology, ideologies, 2, 16, 17, 19, 50, 51, 56, 67, 68, 74, 103, 125, 126, 155, 168, 173, 180, 186, 196, 197, 200, 208n. 17

injustice, 73, 76, 77, 81, 87, 94, 96, 102, 104, 158, 161–71, 173, 178, 198, 212n. 29, 215n. 14

passive, 163, 166, 169, 170Ivy League universities, 2, 106,

207n. 13

Japan, 31Japanese Americans, 181, 185Jerusalem trial, 65, 66, 68Jews, 23, 26, 32, 36, 61, 103, 191–4,

196, 211n. 26community in Riga, 23–9German-speaking, 28–9, 34, 35,

185parvenu and pariah, 193–4refugees, 31, 32, 40, 43

Journal of European Studies, 122Judt, Tony, 4, 13justice, 7, 8, 14, 18, 67, 68, 69, 83,

84, 86, 120, 152, 157, 159, 169–72, 177, 185, 200, 201, 215n. 16. See also “injustice”

Kant, Immanuel, 60, 65, 89, 91, 113, 166, 168

Kateb, George, 93, 197Kennedy administration, 72, 207n. 12Kent, Donald Peterson, 40, 43, 44, 47

The Refugee Intellectual, 43

Index 231

Keohane, Nannerl, 170Kierkegard, Soren, 178Kissinger, Henry, 2, 61, 72,

206–7n. 12knowledge, 8, 36, 49, 71, 89–91,

93, 96, 106, 117, 118, 124, 127, 131, 186, 187, 189, 211–12n. 26

Kramnick, Isaac, 2Kraut, Richard, 171

Latvia, 11, 18, 24–6, 28, 30, 33, 35, 43, 204n. 4

Law and Philosophy, 171laws, 20, 48, 64–6, 68, 69–70, 76, 86,

93, 109, 111, 119, 120–1, 123, 158, 164, 165, 170, 180, 184, 207n. 14, 214n. 7, 215n. 11. See also “Legalism” under “Shklar, Judith Nisse”

Mosaic Law, 26rule of, 142, 156, 169

learning, 11, 32, 103, 105, 106, 123–4, 172, 197, 198

liberalism, 3, 4, 6–7, 52, 77, 87, 88, 102, 114, 118, 120, 121, 123, 126, 147, 152, 155, 158, 162, 180, 200

American, 116, 136, 152, 159“barebones liberalism,” 2, 3, 10,

197“liberalism of fear,” 6, 7, 18, 19,

20, 69, 101, 104, 109, 121, 123, 158, 159, 160, 162, 170, 172, 198, 199, 201

pyrrhonic, 199, 216n. 4Lilla, Mark, 197, 198literature, 17, 28, 36, 43, 99, 112,

130, 132, 146, 152, 182, 207n. 14

Locke, John, 2, 123, 158London Review of Books, 114,

211n. 24, 216n. 4loyalty, 10, 19, 21, 107, 176–81,

183–6, 193, 195, 210n. 19, 214n. 7

Maas, Arthur, 206n. 7Maccabee movement, 28Machiavelli, Machiavellinism, 103,

104, 108, 109, 111, 112, 119, 142, 143, 167

Magnette, Paul, 3Mannheim, Karl, 56–7, 208n. 17Mansbridge, Jane, 197Mansfield, Harvey, 98, 197Manson, Sheila, 121Marcuse, Herbert, 42Marx, Karl, 5, 18, 77, 89, 137, 138,

191Marxism, Marxist, 55, 129, 168McCarthyism, 61McCloskey, Robert, 49, 59McGill, University, 2, 20, 36–7, 43,

44, 75, 205n. 8, 207n. 12McLaughlin, Neil, 13, 34, 123McNamara, Robert, 72meaning, 5, 124

“surplus meaning,” 5, 21, 83, 124, 126, 132, 133, 136, 155

Melville, Herman, 60Michigan Law Review, 176Mill, John Stuart, 15, 158Miller, James, 4, 199, 216n. 4Montaigne, Michel de, 5, 6, 15, 18,

87–8, 99–100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 153, 164, 167, 168, 170, 178, 197, 199, 210n. 17

Montesquieu, Baron de, 6, 15, 18, 20, 60, 65, 74, 82–3, 86, 87, 92, 94, 102, 103, 104, 109, 112, 115–23, 135, 142–3, 178, 196, 197, 201, 208n. 6, 210n. 15–16, 211n. 25–6, 213–14n. 6–7

Montreal, 2, 20, 31–4, 36–7moral reasoning, 178, 181. See also

“obligation” and “loyalty”Morgenthau, Hans, 55Moscow, 25, 30Moynihan, Patrick, 72Murphy, Jeffrey, 171

232 Index

Musil, Robert, 15–19, 188, 191, 203n. 3

The Man without Qualities, 16Myrdal, Gunnar and Alva, 94

Neumann, Franz, 50, 52Neustadt, Richard, 98New England, 144, 151, 154New Left, 134, 115, 211n. 22–3New Republic, The, 171, 209n. 9,

213n. 1New School for Social Research, 41New Testament, 179New World, 34, 116, 123, 150, 160.

See also “America” and “North America”

New York Times, 1, 2New Yorker, The, 66, 70Niebuhr, Reinhold, 55Nietzsche, Friedrich, 53, 54, 89,

104, 110, 112North America, 31, 33, 35, 43, 121,

128, 198, 206n. 6Nuremberg Trial, 66–70Nussbaum, Martha, 171

obligation and loyalty, 10, 12, 19, 87, 107, 166, 176–87, 193, 195, 216n. 2. See also “moral reasoning”

Old Testament, 189“optimal marginality,” 8, 13, 14,

34, 98, 125, 136, 153, 195outsider, 9, 12, 14, 46, 62, 64, 71,

96, 98, 134, 176, 191, 193status, 13, 21, 33, 87, 99, 123, 192

Oxford University Press, 114, 116, 122

Palestine, Israel, 26, 27, 192–3Parsons, Talcott, 71, 57party of memory, party of hope, 6,

139, 146, 158–9, 190Pelczynski, Zbigniew A., 93, 209n. 11Plato, 54, 76, 164, 178

Plutarch, 178, 184Pocock, John, G. A., 122, 142, 143,

214n. 7political philosophy, 8, 9, 51, 52,

53, 66, 111, 117, 130, 171political theory, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12,

13, 19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51–5, 56–8, 59, 60, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 83, 84, 85, 86, 93, 99, 100, 101, 110, 111, 114, 115, 120, 123–6, 132, 133, 134, 136, 145, 148, 152–3, 155, 160, 161, 163, 165, 168, 170, 171–2, 177, 181, 182, 188, 190, 195–7, 200, 201, 203n. 1, 206n. 11, 207n. 16, 210n. 14, 212n. 28

Political Theory, 199political trials, 20, 66–70, 207n. 16Popper, Karl, 208n. 2, 209n. 12positivism, 134

legal positivism, 66, 69Princeton University, 2, 42, 46, 99Princeton University Press, 51, 63Protestantism, 116, 144, 179, 180

Calvinism, 180Lutheranism, 180

psychoanalysis, 42psychology, 18, 48, 65, 71, 76, 87,

89, 97, 101, 109, 111, 122, 149, 212n. 27

moral psychology, 78, 79, 154, 161, 197, 199, 200, 215n. 14

political psychology, 5, 93, 119, 146, 118, 201

Quebec, 31, 37, 43

Radcliffe College, 50Radcliffe Prize, 50Rawls, John, 2, 3, 4, 7, 57, 62, 162,

170, 171, 172, 197, 200, 201, 215n. 17

A Theory of Justice, 161, 162, 206n. 11

Index 233

realism, 7, 52, 54, 56, 74, 104, 114, 172, 201, 206n. 7, 207n. 12

refugee(s), 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, 29, 30–3, 36, 39–44, 45, 46–8, 52, 57, 73, 123, 160, 186, 189, 190, 194, 196, 199, 201, 207n. 12, 211n. 23. See also “exile(s)”

German-speaking, 40, 43intellectuals, 47, 53, 187, 188odyssey, 31, 11scholars/émigré scholars, 42, 46,

48, 205n. 4, 206n. 6republic, republican

rideas, 84, 140, 142, 146Rome, 119, 120, 184, 214n. 7“virtuous republic,” 81, 84, 87,

101, 111, 119, 140, 143, 151, 173republicanism, 87, 111, 140, 143,

213n. 7Ricoeur, Paul, 128–30Riga, 10, 11, 14, 20, 24–9, 32–6,

43, 46, 62, 203n. 1rights, 7, 18, 47, 67, 70, 94, 159,

111, 114, 120, 137, 139, 144, 150, 152, 155–8, 165, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 198, 214n. 10, 215n. 11

Riley, Patrick, 112, 197Rockefeller Foundation, 41, 42Rosenblum, Nancy, 2, 100Royal Dutch Shell, 26Runciman, Walter Garrison G.,

130–2Russia, 15, 26, 33, 35, 37. See also

“Soviet Union”Russian Invasion, 27, 29, 30, 34Russian Revolution, 23, 25, 137, 138

Sahl, Hans, 16–18, 19, 188, 191, 203n. 3

Sartre, Jean-Paul, 103Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 127Schütz, Alfred, 187Seattle, 31Sennett, Richard, 187–91

Shakespeare, William, 60, 102, 178, 179

Coriolanus, 178Richard II, 179Titus Andronicus, 27

Shklar, David, 99Shklar, Gerald, 37, 44, 51–2, 197Shklar, Judith Nisse

A Life of Learning, 8, 22, 35, 47, 135, 204n. 1, 206n. 11

After Utopia, 20, 48–57, 60, 66, 75, 83, 84, 85, 86, 93, 101, 177, 200, 206n. 11, 207n. 16, 211n. 22

American Citizenship, 21, 159, 172–5, 178

on American exceptionalism, 2, 136, 140, 147–8, 152–3, 160, 214n. 9

childhood and upbringing, 11, 33, 188

The Faces of Injustice, 162–72Freedom and Independence, 20,

88–94, 102, 122, 210n. 15habit of thought, 11, 14, 19, 36,

160, 199, 201as John Cowles Professor of

Government, 20, 98legacy of, 1, 3, 4, 9, 181, 159Legalism, 20, 59, 64–70, 75, 76,

85, 101, 170, 177Men and Citizens, 20, 85–6,

78–83, 93, 208n. 1, 209n. 9on method, 123–34Montesquieu, 20, 115–23Ordinary Vices, 5, 20, 100–10,

112–15, 116, 123, 162, 163, 170, 172, 178, 210n. 16, 215n. 12

as Pitt Professor of American History and Institutions, 99

Redeeming American Political Theory (APSA address), 147–53

Shklar, Michael, 62Shklar, Ruth, 63, 99

234 Index

skepticism, 3, 9, 57, 84, 88, 90, 118, 124, 153, 158, 168, 171, 177, 197, 199

Skinner, Quentin, 2, 132–3, 195–6The Foundations of Modern

Political Theory, 132social sciences, 42, 44, 55, 56, 57,

71–2, 73, 74, 129, 124, 127, 128, 131, 133, 134, 148, 200, 205n. 3

social theory, 77, 83, 134, 197, 208n. 7

sociology, 57, 65, 71, 112Socrates, 89, 178Socratic approach, 3, 125Soviet Union, 30, 33, 43, 52,

206n. 12. See also “Russia”Spencer, Herbert, 151Spengler, Oswald, 53Stalin, Stalinism, 16, 30, 48, 67,

126, 206n. 12Starobinski, Jean, 87, 122Storrs lectures, 161, 215n. 13St. Petersburg, 24Strauss, Leo, 42, 55Strong, Tracey B., 85student protest movement, 72–3, 77

Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), 106

Stullerova, Kamilla, 3, 70Sumner, William Graham, 151Sunderland, Arthur, 49Sweden, 1, 10, 11, 30, 204n. 1Swift, Jonathan, 56, 102

Gulliver’s Travels, 56Switzerland, 24, 25, 28, 30

Tabori, Paul, 181An Anatomy of Exile, 181

Tanner Lectures, 173Taylor, Charles, 93, 128, 212n. 27terror, 138, 140, 145, 200, 201Thompson, Dennis F., 2, 3, 113,

197, 198Times Literary Supplement, 198

Tocqueville, Alexis de, 117, 137, 143, 144, 213n. 6

Tokyo trial, 66, 69, 70torture, 114–15, 117, 120, 150

The Body in Pain, 114totalitarianism, 2, 20, 49, 51, 52,

56, 68, 100, 194, 200, 211n. 23Tufts University, 37, 51, 63

United States of America, 6, 31, 39, 40, 73, 108, 116, 137, 156, 158, 159, 185

University of California at Berkeley, 172, 178

University of Wisconsin, 178, 195, 216n. 2

utopia, utopianism, 55, 56, 57, 78, 79, 81, 84, 86, 102, 120, 154, 157, 200

Veblen, Thorstein, 105, 151, 174vices, 5, 84, 87, 99, 100, 101, 102,

104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 162, 170

adultery, 102arrogance, 101betrayal, 99, 101, 102, 106, 107,

113cruelty (see separate entry)hypocrisy, 101, 104, 105, 113snobbery, 105, 106, 113, 210n. 18treason, 101, 102, 107, 108,

210n. 19, 211n. 20victims, victimhood, 53, 81, 102,

103, 109, 115, 163, 164–7, 168, 170, 171, 176, 193, 215n. 14

Lisbon earthquake (1755), 166misfortune, 107, 162, 166–8, 171,

215n. 14Vietnam, 72

Vietnam War, 73, 211n. 22virtues. See “virtuous republic”

under “republic” and “republican”

vita activa, vita contemplativa, 14

Index 235

Vladivostok, 30voting, 173–6. See also “earning”

Walzer, Judith, 22, 47, 95–6, 191, 204n. 1, 205n. 8

Walzer, Michael, 2, 4, 100, 162, 170, 182, 201

Interpretation and Social Criticism, 182

Ward, Lester, 151Watkins, Fredrick, 2, 36, 37, 75Webb, Beatrice and Sidney, 57Weber, Max, 60, 67, 111, 124, 131,

132, 134, 206n. 10, 212n. 28Weizsäcker, Ernst von, 178whig history, 136Williams, Bernard, 113–14

Wills, Gary, 132–3Explaining America: The

Federalist, 132Wolin, Sheldon S. 55–6Wood, Gordon S., 161

The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 161

World War II, 20, 29, 40, 51, 56, 57, 96, 125, 126, 147, 152, 177, 181, 185

Yack, Bernard, 3, 100, 170, 197, 198

Yale Law Journal, The, 112Yale Law School, 161

Zionism, 193, 194