Switch to: References

Citations of:

Subdue the Senate

Political Theory 40 (6):714-735 (2012)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Decolonial realism: Ethics, politics and dialectics in Fanon and Dussel.George Ciccariello-Maher - 2014 - Contemporary Political Theory 13 (1):2-22.
    This article approaches contemporary European debates on the subject of realism through the lenses offered by two decolonial thinkers: Fanon and Dussel. Whereas both share with realism a fundamental emphasis on reality as the starting point for theory – an assumption shared by much decolonial thought – they nevertheless provide another layer of specificity in their consideration of the colonial condition, diagnosing a fundamental absence of reciprocity that dictates the course of decolonization as a transformation of reality. Reconsidering the debates (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Machiavelli and constituent power: The revolutionary foundation of modern political thought.Filippo Del Lucchese - 2017 - European Journal of Political Theory 16 (1).
    This paper considers Niccolò Machiavelli’s contribution to a theory of constituent power. Modern authors who have analysed the concept of constituent power generally agree on its ambiguous, paradoxical and apparently contradictory essence. With few exceptions, Machiavelli is absent from both the historical reconstructions of and the theoretical debates on the origin of constituent power. My argument is built around two main theses: reintroducing Machiavelli to the debate on constituent power offers an original response to the theoretical fallacies and inconsistencies identified (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Mapping rule and subversion: Perspective and the democratic turn in Machiavelli scholarship.Boris Litvin - 2019 - European Journal of Political Theory 18 (1):3-25.
    This paper engages the debate within the ‘democratic turn’ in Machiavelli scholarship, where an ‘institutional’ approach has celebrated Machiavelli's theorisation of the institutions under which the people can rule while a ‘no-rule’ approach has traced Machiavelli's attention to the popular capacity to subvert all relations of rule. What do we make of Machiavelli's concurrent reception as a champion of popular rule and an antagonist to all rule? I argue that both institutionalising and subversive impulses appear simultaneously in Machiavelli's works, though (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark