CFP: Continental and Analytical Political Theory: An Insurmountable Divide?

Analytical and Continental political theory are divided not only over substantial issues, but also over the very nature of political theorising. Theorists working within one tradition view with scepticism the work and conclusions of theorists within the other tradition, and the two traditions often speak past one another because they do not agree what theorising amount to in the first place. Further, the division is also marked by different conceptions of politics and the political. Consequently, Analytical and Continental theorists have different understandings of the role of and relationship between philosophy and politics.

We invite contributions that address the divisions between Analytical and Continental political theory, and between liberal normative theory and post-structuralism. Is it possible to bridge the different traditions? If so, what would this entail? If divisions will remain, what is the exact nature of those divisions? Are they primarily political or philosophical? And are there approaches that eschew these divisions? Contributions can be comparative discussions between different approaches, analyses of specific debates, or readings of texts that address the divisions in an indirect way.

Paper givers should send an abstract of no more than 300 words to the conference organisers: Clayton Chin ([email protected]) and Lasse Thomassen ([email protected]) by 28 February 2013. Notifications by 15 March 2013.

Roundtable participants: Prof. Paul Patton, University of New South Wales, Prof. David Owen (University of Southampton) and Dr David Howarth (University of Essex)