This workshop explores the relevance of a philosophical and political theoretical debate on just profit. \;Most wealth is generated through corporate profit making. Together with inheritances the corporate machine and its financialization seem to be mainly responsible for the growing concentration of wealth. Against this backdrop\, it is somewhat surprising that philosophical and political theoretical debates have largely focused on limiting wealth in general and on inheritance taxation\, but not so much on a regulation of profits. \;
\nOne possible explanation lies in a somewhat unquestioned acceptance of the classical liberal framing of profits. According to this framing it is reasonable to regulate profits as little as possible in order to stimulate economic activity and growth\, which will ultimately benefit society as a whole. Another argument is the fear of capital flight with the potential of serious disruption of economic functionalities and great welfare losses. \;
\nAt the same time\, the historical failure of social democratic and liberal socialist transformations in the second half of the 20thcentury seems to be connected to a lack of profit regulation. An important case in point is the failing of the implementation of the Meidner plan in Sweden due to strong unregulated profit concentration and a corresponding political power structure.
\nWe aim to promote interdisciplinary dialogue across political philosophy\, political theory\, and critical social theory. \;
\nPossible themes include (but are not limited to): \;
\nSubmission Guidelines:
\nUp to 15 speakers will be selected for the workshop. Each speaker will be given approximately 30 minutes to speak\, followed by 30 minutes for Q&\;A.
\nBursaries are available to help cover the conference registration fee\, and participants are encouraged to apply if needed.
\nThe workshop will take place as part of the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory at the University of Manchester (September 2-4\, 2026).
\nFor the panel description and details see also: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/just-profit/
ORGANIZER;CN=Stefan Gosepath;CN="Christian Neuhäuser";CN=Laura Opolka: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260501T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260501T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop - Epistemic Injustice and Backlash UID:20260418T204841Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:MANCEPT Workshop - Epistemic Injustice and Backlash: Call for Abstracts \; Recent years have been characterized by significant backlash to progressive social movements and social changes such as the #MeToo movement\, the Black Lives Matter movement\, and the increased visibility of trans people in public life. Dimensions to this backlash include the electoral &ndash\; i.e.\, the rise of far-right political parties\; the legal &ndash\; legislation\, executive orders and judicial decisions e.g. overturning rights to abortion and gender-affirming healthcare\, banning affirmative action and DEI initiatives\, and excluding trans people from participation in sport\; and the necropolitical &ndash\; e.g. the misogynistic murder of René\;e Good and the rising tide of anti-trans violence. A further important dimension to this backlash is the epistemic &ndash\; e.g. the widespread repudiation of the testimonies of Christine Blasey Ford and Amber Heard\, the ridiculing of slogans such as &lsquo\;defund the police&rsquo\;\, and the growing dissemination of myths and disinformation concerning trans people. This dimension to the backlash has recently begun to receive philosophical attention\, with aspects of it being theorized variously as 'hermeneutical backlash' (George &\; Goguen 2021)\, 'hermeneutical sabotage' (Edgoose 2024)\, and 'hermeneutical disarmament' (Morgan 2025) &ndash\; all phenomena thought either to constitute or to result in epistemic injustices. It has also been argued that previously proposed strategies for preventing epistemic injustices are frequently ineffective when confronted by backlash\, prompting a search for other strategies which might be pursued more effectively towards this end (Clanchy forthcoming). Much work on epistemic injustice and backlash remains to be done\, however &ndash\; especially in light of the epistemic injustice literature&rsquo\;s &lsquo\;methodological commitment to the primacy of the nonideal&rsquo\; (Medina 2013: 11). The aim of this workshop is to provide a space for the development of such work.
We invite submissions of abstracts of up to 500 words to a MANCEPT workshop on this topic. Abstracts should be submitted by \;May 1st \;and should be sent to \;han.edgoose@glasgow.ac.uk
Questions that papers may address include\, but are not limited to:
&bull\;How is the epistemic dimension related to other dimensions of backlash?
&bull\;To what kinds of epistemic injustice does backlash give rise? What strategies can be most effectively pursued to prevent epistemic injustices in times of backlash? What kinds of epistemic agency can be exercised by members of targeted groups (Pohlhaus 2020)?
&bull\;Does 'epistemic injustice' (Fricker 2007) in fact provide an adequate framework for thinking about these issues? What about these issues might this framework miss or distort but the frameworks provided by e.g. 'epistemic oppression' (Dotson 2014) or 'epistemologies of ignorance' (Mills 2007) capture?
&bull\;How should previous work on epistemic injustice and e.g. the #MeToo movement (e.g. Jackson 2018) or the Black Lives Matter movement (e.g. Anderson 2017) be developed or rethought in light of the current backlash?
&bull\;What practical lessons can be drawn for the present moment from a study of the epistemic dimension of previous backlashes (e.g. Faludi 1991)?
&bull\;Who bears responsibility\, in both backward- and forward-looking senses (Young 2011)\, for the epistemic dimension of backlash?
&bull\;How can thinking about epistemic injustice and backlash inform methodological debates concerning the relative merits of ideal and nonideal theory? \; The panel will take place in-person at the University of Manchester\, between September 2nd \;and September 4th \;2026. Further details about the MANCEPT workshops can be
found here: \;MANCEPT Workshops 2026 - Research Explorer The University of Manchester \; Han Edgoose and Nick Clanchy (organisers) \;
Political philosophy has long privileged public speech and institutional political discourse as central sites of analysis. Increasingly\, however\, attention has shifted toward the normative dimensions of ordinary language use and the dynamics of linguistic change in non-ideal social contexts.
Language is a social practice through which shared forms of understanding\, coordination\, and mutual orientation are sustained over time. Shifts in linguistic conventions can reshape how individuals relate to one another\, influence how social differences are marked or obscured\, and affect patterns of inclusion within pluralistic and diverse societies. The ways in which linguistic expressions are used\, repeated\, and taken up also structure expectations about what can be said and contribute to the reinforcement or attenuation of prejudices and stereotypes. In this sense\, language plays a constitutive role in shaping the normative environment in which social and political life unfolds.
This constitutive role gives rise to a range of philosophical questions concerning the emergence\, stability\, and contestation of norms governing language use. It invites reflection on how such norms are maintained over time and on the extent to which participants in shared linguistic practices are answerable to one another for their contributions to evolving communicative environments.
This panel seeks to bring together normative and descriptive perspectives on how patterns of language use emerge\, stabilize\, and transform across different settings. It therefore welcomes contributions that offer conceptual\, normative\, or empirically informed philosophical analyses of language as a social practice. These include\, but are not limited to\, the following areas:
&bull\; language in social construction
&bull\; the relationship between language use and social coordination
&bull\; feminist philosophy of language
&bull\; communicative responsibilities
&bull\; normative views on stereotyping and discrimination in communication
&bull\; social/political speech and social norm change
&bull\; linguistic injustice
&bull\; the distribution and justification of normative expectations across different speakers and contexts
&bull\; methodological issues in language and analytic ideology critique
&bull\; counterspeech
To apply\, please send a 500 words anonymized abstract at: martina.rosola@gmail.com
\nApplication deadline: May\, 2nd
\nNotification of acceptance: May\, 10th (to allow selected speakers to possibly apply for the conference fee waiver bursary)
ORGANIZER;CN=Martina Rosola;CN=Corrado Fumagalli: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260502T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260502T234500 SUMMARY:Land\, Territory\, and Justice (MANCEPT Workshop 2026) UID:20260418T204843Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Convenors:
Kaitie Jourdeuil (Queen&rsquo\;s University\, Canada)
Michael Luoma (University of Northern British Columbia\, Canada)
Land\, Territory\, and Justice
\n\n2026 MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory\, 2-4 September 2026 \;
\n\nThere is now a rich debate within and across diverse traditions of political and moral thought about the meaning\, use\, and desirability of the concepts of land and territory\, and their relation to justice. These debates extend beyond analytical moral and political philosophy and include vital perspectives within Indigenous political theory\, eco-phenomenology\, critical theory\, and dialogical traditions. The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers working in these diverse traditions to discuss both established questions concerning the relations between land\, territory\, and justice\, and new questions arising from dialogue across these traditions.
\n\n\nFor example\, the past fifteen years have been marked by an uptick in dedicated theorizing about territorial rights in contemporary Anglo-American moral and political philosophy (see for example: Miller\, 2012\; Moore\, 2014\, 2015\, 2019\; Nine\, 2012\, 2022\; Ochoa-Espejo\, 2020\; Simmons\, 2016\; Stilz\, 2019). While the first wave of this literature focused on core conceptual questions about the nature and scope of various territorial rights (including jurisdiction\, self-determination\, resource control\, and immigration)\, the kinds of agents who hold these rights\, and the normative justifications for them\, this literature has now self-reflexively entered a &ldquo\;second wave&rdquo\; characterised by a deeper concern for questions of global inequality\, decolonization\, overlapping projects of self-determination\, and the environmental crisis (Moore &\; Ugalde\, 2025). For example\, recent inquiries have asked (but not fully answered) questions such as: What is the extent of morally mandatory restitution in cases of territorial wrongdoing\, including settler colonialism (Luoma\, 2023\; Luoma and Moore\, 2024\; Moore\, 2019\; Stilz\, 2024\; Riebold\, 2022\, 2023)? How may multiple peoples\, with distinct normative and ontological systems\, overlap in the same place without retrenching relationships of structural injustice and inter-group domination (Jourdeuil 2024\, 2025a\, 2025b\; Luoma\, 2022\, 2023\, 2024\, 2025)? What forms of governance are required in ecologically integrated regions spanning borders (Nine\, 2022)? How are territorial rights contingent on respect for biodiversity and ecological integrity (Moore\, 2023\; Kwan\, 2025)? And how can the benefits and burdens of natural resources\, energy transition\, and climate change mitigation/adaptation be fairly distributed between groups (Armstrong\, 2017\; De Biaso 2024a\, 2024b\; Li\, 2022\; Moore\, 2019)?
\n\n\nConcurrently to these discourses\, Indigenous scholars\, environmental philosophers\, and eco-phenomenologists interrogate the core normative\, ontological\, and epistemological assumptions of these discourses. Indigenous theorists challenge the hegemony of rights-based territorial frameworks\, contending that the natural world is not a stockpile of &ldquo\;resources&rdquo\; to be distributed and controlled according to a theory of justice\, but is better conceived of as a kinship network populated by beings deserving of intrinsic concern and respect with whom we must live harmoniously (e.g.\, Allard-Tremblay 2023\, 2025\; Burkhart\, 2019\; Mills 2017\, 2018\, 2019\; Simpson 2011\, 2017\; Temin 2023). Eco-phenomenologists challenge conceptions of land as a neutral background container against which we exercise our agency\, demonstrating how land and place structure our lived experience and subjectivity\, our ethical encounter with the alterity of the other-than-human\, and the possibilities for political agency (Casey\, 1993\, 2018\; Ingold\, 2010\; Malpas\, 1998\; Rose\, 2005\; Seamon\, 2018\; Smith\, 2001\, 2011\; Toadvine\, 2019). Beyond political theory\, land and territory are at the heart of intensifying international political conflicts\, including attempted territorial annexations\, rising majority and minority nationalism\, struggles against (neo-)colonialism\, and the global climate and environmental crises.
\n\n\nConsequently\, this workshop welcomes submissions that investigate conceptual\, ontological\, normative\, methodological\, and/or applied questions at the intersection of land\, territory\, and justice. We invite paper submissions from diverse methodological perspectives (including\, but not limited to analytical\, moral and political philosophy\, environmental philosophy and eco-phenomenology\, Indigenous political thought\, critical theory\, and comparative dialogue) from researchers at all stages of their career. Works in progress are encouraged. Workshop sessions will be pre-read\, with a brief presentation (10 min. max.) from the author\, followed by a 40-minute Q&\;A.
\n\n\nSubmission Guidelines:
\n\nAbstracts should be anonymised and must not exceed 500 words (including references). Please include your name\, affiliation\, and contact details in the email submission. Abstracts should be submitted by email to both convenors (kaitie.jourdeuil@queensu.ca and michael.luoma@unbc.ca) by May 2nd. Selected participants will be notified by May 26th. Participants will be expected to circulate their papers by August 16th. Please do not hesitate the contact the convenors with any questions.
\n\n\nAbout MANCEPT:
\n\nThe MANCEPT Workshops is an annual conference in political theory\, organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory. The conference is run fully-in person at the University of Manchester. Bursaries are available to speakers based on need. Further instructions on registration and bursary applications will be released in due course.
\n\n ORGANIZER;CN=Kaitie Jourdeuil;CN=Michael Luoma: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260504T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260504T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Intimate (In)Justices UID:20260418T204844Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Convenors: Kristin Kä\;uper\, Isobel Logan\, Charlotte Curran (University of Leeds)
Contact: \;i.j.logan@leeds.ac.uk
This workshop will explore the relationship between intimacy and justice. We encourage speakers to ask: When and how should considerations of justice extend into our intimate lives and influence our actions? How are intimate relationships shaped by\, reproduce\, and resistant to broader structures of injustice and oppression? Should we worry about the distribution of opportunities for intimacy? How do we balance the responsibilities of the individual\, communities\, and the state in promoting just forms of relating?
We hope to better understand the ways in which hegemonic norms\, institutions\, and intersecting forms of oppression structure intimate life\, governing who is able to form certain relationships\, which relationships are socially valued\, and how power operates within them. We seek to explore the potential of intimate practices and communities of care as sites of resistance\, solidarity\, and social transformation.
By intimacy\, we mean forms of closeness and connection upon which special relationships are based. This encompasses a wide range of relationships\, including but not limited to sexual\, romantic\, platonic\, collegial\, familial\, and parental relationships\, whether in-person or technologically mediated.
We are particularly interested in submissions which explore non-normative ways of relating (e.g. asexuality/aromanticism\, polyamory\, relationship anarchy) and matters of intersecting identities that are underrepresented in philosophy (e.g. sexuality\, disability\, race\, age\, socio-economic status).
We invite abstracts of no more than 500 words for a presentation of approximately 30 minutes to engage with the theme of intimate (in)justices. Here is a non-exclusive list of some indicative questions:
We actively welcome in-progress work and seek to foster a friendly and collaborative environment. Postgraduate and early career researchers are especially welcome. We are also receptive to interdisciplinary explorations of these ideas\, provided they are accessible to non-specialists.
Please send your abstract to \;i.j.logan@leeds.ac.uk \;by end of day on the 4th of May\, 2026. Selected speakers will be notified by the 18th of May\, in time for eligible participants to apply for a bursary.
This panel aims to bring together scholars working on philosophical questions that fall within the general scope of the topic of historical injustice. This includes substantive questions which concern certain kinds of past injustice\, such as racial injustice\, colonialism\, or territorial possession\, among others. Relevant also are theoretical questions about the ethics and politics of contemporary responsibilities for historical injustice. Among such theoretical questions are those that concern the grounds of responsibility for repairing past injustice\, what such repair must consist of when it is owed\, whether (and if so\, how) those grounds can be superseded over time\, and how facts about past injustice matter for contemporary political communities\, which includes questions about how (if at all) past injustice bears on normative features of contemporary political communities such as their justice\, legitimacy\, or authority. Projects falling within any of these subjects\, as well subjects broadly pertaining to historical injustice that were not mentioned here\, are welcome submissions to this panel.
If you are interested in participating in the workshop\, please submit an extended abstract (approx. 500-750 words) to aam5jm@virginia.edu by May 8th\, 2026. \;
The panel will take place in-person in Manchester\, UK between September 2nd and September 4th\, 2026. Further details about the MANCEPT workshops can be found here: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/ \;
Abstract submission deadline: 10th May 2026
\n\nExpressing the political anxieties of our moment\, the term 'technocracy' has become increasingly popular in political discourse. Largely orthogonal to the debate on technocracy\, the connate term 'epistocracy' (i.e.\, rule of the knowers) has made its fortune in normative democratic theory due to the rise in popularity of epistemic theories of democracy (Gauss 1996\; Anderson 2007\; Estlund 2008\; Landemore 2013\; Peter 2023). These theories have developed increasingly sophisticated normative political epistemologies\, arguing that ""epistemic success"" (i.e. the extent to which political decisions\, procedures\, or institutions realize\, or are reliably oriented towards the achievement of some epistemic good that is relevant to political decision-making) is either a necessary or even a sufficient condition to ground political legitimacy and/or authority. Epistemic democrats thus go against the grain of traditional approaches which ground political legitimacy solely upon fairness\, equality\, or self-authorship.
Epistemic theories suffer from unresolved questions. First\, except for Jason Brennan (2016)\, the literature lacks a systematic conceptualization of epistocracy. While epistocracy is frequently invoked by epistemic democrats as a negative contrast\, it often functions implicitly rather than as a fully theorized position (Estlund 2008\; Landemore\, 2022). Epistocracy plays a crucial boundary-setting role: it marks the point at which epistemic considerations are taken to unduly override equality or fairness\, thereby rendering a theory of legitimacy incompatible with democratic norms. Second\, the metaethical dimension of epistemic democratic theories remains underdeveloped. What constitutes epistemic success is often underspecified\, even though it does significant work. Epistemic democrats frequently argue that one cannot have an &ldquo\;epistemically abstinent&rdquo\; normative theory since non-epistemic values such as fairness or equality presuppose epistemic claims (Talisse 2009). However\, the precise sense in which non-epistemic considerations have an epistemic character\, and how this affects their normative significance\, is rarely made explicit. Thirdly\, clarifying these metaethical commitments is crucial because they determine the boundary between epistemic democracy and epistocracy. How demanding one&rsquo\;s notion of truth or epistemic success is\, and how it relates to other democratic values\, will shape how epistemic considerations ground legitimacy.
In this workshop\, we seek to delve deeper into the meta-normative commitments of epistemic democracy and explore the relation between knowledge and political normativity. This should provide a venue for epistemic democrats to clarify these commitments and an opportunity for its critics to sharpen their criticism. This workshop will tackle the following questions:
1. Can knowledge ground political legitimacy? Should it?
2. What is the relation between epistemic considerations and non-epistemic democratic considerations at the level of normative justification? Can there be a strict demarcation between epistemic and non-epistemic considerations? Are democratic values simply a species of epistemic value or distinct from the latter? If so\, when do epistemic and democratic values diverge or conflict and what should we do when they conflict?
3. What counts as \;"epistemic success" and how demanding should it be? What are the different ways in which truth enters political justification? Are there more benign and less benign ways from a democratic standpoint?
4. What is epistocracy and why might it \;be dangerous? What core normative and metaethical commitments constitute an epistocratic theory?
If you are interested\, please send a 500-word abstract to Roger Ventura Cossin (roger.venturacossin@kuleuven.be) by end of day on the 10th of May\, 2026. Selected speakers will be notified by the 18th of May\, in time for eligible participants to apply for a bursary that covers the workshop fees.
\nThe MANCEPT Workshops is an annual conference in political theory\, organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory. The conference offers academics an opportunity to come together in a series of workshops to develop specialised work and engage in lively philosophical discussion. Attracting scholars throughout the world\, the conference is now established as a leading international forum dedicated to the development of research in all subfields of political theory. You can find more information here: \;https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/
ORGANIZER;CN=Roger Ventura Cossin: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260510T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260510T234500 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Republican Political Economy UID:20260418T204847Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Since the publication of Quentin Skinner (1997) and Philip Pettit&rsquo\;s (1999) groundbreaking analyses of the republican tradition and the notion of freedom as non-domination associated with it\, political theorists and philosophers have applied the &ldquo\;neo-republican&rdquo\; lens to a wide variety of political issues. One domain where the implications of neo-republicanism are particularly contested is political economy. While some neo-republicans posit that republicans should simply want a familiar type of competitive market economy supplemented by a universal basic income (Pettit 2006\, Lovett 2009)\, many others have argued that the implications of republican values may well be more radical. To truly realize freedom as non-domination\, they have argued\, we may need a property-owning democracy (Thomas 2017)\, an economy of worker cooperatives (Gourevitch 2014)\, or even some form of socialism (O&rsquo\;Shea 2020\, Muldoon 2022). In addition to these big-picture questions about economic systems\, however\, neo-republican theory has much to offer for the normative analysis of more particular economic phenomena\, such as work\, debt\, housing\, financialization\, trade\, and many others.
This panel will serve as a venue for theorists to further interrogate the implications of republican values for normative political economy. We invite proposals that address\, but are not limited to\, the following questions:
If you are interested in participating\, please send a 500-word abstract to mjaarte@stanford.edu by May 10th. \;
\n
The MANCEPT Workshops is an annual conference in political theory\, organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory. The conference offers academics an opportunity to come together in a series of workshops to develop specialised work and engage in lively philosophical discussion. Attracting scholars throughout the world\, the conference is now established as a leading international forum dedicated to the development of research in all subfields of political theory. You can find more information here: \;https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/
This workshop will focus on questions of justice raised by efforts to litigate the climate crisis. \;
\nAs climate change progresses\, individuals and groups are increasingly turning to the courts in pursuit of climate justice. As of March 31\, 2026\, the Climate Litigation Database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law lists over 4800 climate court cases\, nearly 70% of which were filed in the USA. Climate lawsuits have been used to pursue a variety of goals\, including injunctions on fossil fuel extraction\, stronger regulation of greenhouse gas emissions\, the implementation or funding of adaptation measures\, compensation for climate loss and damage\, and even punishment of those who contribute to severe climate-related harm. Climate litigation may also be undertaken for strategic reasons\, in an effort to promote awareness of the climate crisis\, undermine the social license of those contributing to it\, and spur more systemic change.
\nThough climate litigation is often used in an attempt to pursue goals of climate justice\, its use for this purpose raises various normative questions. These include questions about the legitimate role of the courts in climate governance\, and the potential for litigation to reproduce patterns of disadvantage due to the unequal accessibility of legal remedies. Some have also raised concerns that climate litigation could prove strategically counterproductive\, for example by spurring political backlash. \;
\nThis workshop will examine how litigation might be used as a tool in the pursuit of climate justice\, new concerns of justice that are raised by such efforts\, and how such concerns might be addressed.
\nQuestions that papers may examine include:
\nHow might litigation serve to promote or undermine climate justice?
\nWhat role should courts play in climate governance?
\nWhen should judicial interventions into climate policy be viewed as legitimate or illegitimate?
\nHow might climate litigation provide access to justice without reproducing existing inequalities?
\nWhat kinds of legal innovation or evolution might be required for the law to adequately respond to the challenge of climate change?
\nWhat are the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners regarding climate litigation?
\nWhat is the proper role of scientists\, and scientific research\, in supporting climate litigation?
\nWhat role might philosophers and political theorists play in supporting climate litigation?
\nConfirmed speakers: Megan Blomfield\, Laura \;Garcí\;a‐Portela\, Santiago Truccone\, and Paula Nieto \;Herná\;ndez
\nCFA
\nIf you would like to present a paper at this workshop\, please send an abstract of 300-500 words to m.blomfield@sheffield.ac.uk\, by midnight UK time on Monday the 11th of May. Please include your name and any affiliation. We will endeavour to inform you whether your paper has been accepted by May 22nd.
\nPapers will be pre-circulated and everyone attending the workshop will be asked to read the whole set of papers in advance (anticipated to be approx. 6-10 papers). The deadline to submit full versions of the conference papers (maximum 8000 words) will be confirmed after acceptance\, but is likely to be around August 20th.
\nPractical information
\nPlease note that this workshop will take place on Thursday the 3rd and Friday the 4th of September. This year&rsquo\;s MANCEPT workshops are expected to take place in-person only. If this will be a barrier to your participation\, please make note of this in your submission.
\nParticipants will be required to register in full for the MANCEPT workshops (September 2nd to 4th) and will be free to attend other panels when ours is not running. Information about registration fees and how to apply for a bursary will be available at:https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/
\nIf you have any questions\, please don&rsquo\;t hesitate to contact us at: m.blomfield@sheffield.ac.uk
ORGANIZER;CN=Megan Blomfield;CN="Laura García-Portela";CN=Santiago Truccone: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260511T230000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260511T230000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT 2026: New Directions for Cosmopolitanism and Global Democracy UID:20260418T204849Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:CfA: New Directions for Cosmopolitanism and Global Democracy &ndash\; MANCEPT Workshops 2-4 September 2026
\nConvenor: Dr. Maximillian Afnan\, London School of Economics and Political Science
\nThe political optimism of the post-Cold War period was accompanied by sustained scholarly attention to questions of global justice and democratic global governance (Caney\, 2005\; Held\, 1995\; Archibugi\, 2008). Yet the past decade and a half has seen a 'globalisation backlash' that has called into question the feasibility and\, for some\, the desirability of cosmopolitan aspirations\, and of the strong global institutions sometimes associated with them (Walter\, 2021). Alongside these political developments\, growing scholarly interest in the subaltern has prompted accusations that cosmopolitan and global democratic thought\, particularly where it emerges from the liberal tradition\, is guilty of a 'false universalism' that masks parochial moral views (Chakrabarty\, 2000).
\nThese developments raise numerous questions for cosmopolitanism and global democracy alike\, which share a common concern with extending moral and political principles beyond the state\, and face parallel challenges regarding feasibility\, legitimacy\, and the accommodation of diversity. Is democratic global governance compatible with cultural and national diversity? Is it possible to construct a truly inclusive cosmopolitan theory\, or is the tradition irredeemably particular? What institutional forms might a legitimate global order take? And what methodological approaches are best suited to theorising such questions?
\nRecent scholarship has sought to address these challenges from a variety of angles. Some scholars have engaged with non-Western philosophical traditions\, or the methods of comparative political theory\, to diffuse charges of Western-centrism (Graness\, 2018\; Xu\, 2018\; Shapcott\, 2020). Others have turned to 'grounded normative theory'\, using empirical research into lived experience to inform normative theory (Cabrera\, 2020). Scholars have also examined the relationship between cosmopolitan commitments and pluralist visions of global political order (Ulaş\, 2025). A further strand of literature has brought insights from empirical political science into conversation with normative political theory\, testing assumptions about the feasibility of global democratic institutions (Koenig-Archibugi\, 2024\; Agné\;\, 2022). Meanwhile\, scholars continue to debate the relative merits of polycentric approaches to global governance against proposals for more centralised supranational authority (Smith\, 2018\; Scholte\, 2014).
\nThis panel invites papers that engage with these debates. It welcomes contributions focused on cosmopolitanism\, on global democracy\, or on both\, including (but not limited to) their relationship to questions of diversity. It aims to bring together scholars working across different theoretical traditions and methodological approaches to reflect on substantive questions of global political order\, and the methods by which such questions are best addressed.
\nPapers are welcome on topics including\, but not limited to:
\nThe workshop will take place as part of the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory at the University of Manchester (September 2-4\, 2026). Bursaries are available to help cover the conference registration fee\, and participants are encouraged to apply if needed.
\n\nTo submit a paper\, please send an anonymised abstract of no more than \;500 words\, suitable for a 30 minute presentation (followed by 30 minutes of Q&\;A)\, to Maximillian Afnan at \;m.a.afnan@lse.ac.uk\, by \;Monday 11 May. Successful applicants will be notified shortly afterwards. \;
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260512T080000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260512T080000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Theories of Public Reason UID:20260418T204850Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Theories of Public Reason
\nPanel at the 2026 MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory\, 2-4 September 2026 \;
\nThis panel seeks to bring together those working on issues related to public reason\, broadly conceived. Public reason is an influential framework for understanding how liberal democracies can make fair decisions for diverse citizenries. There is now an extensive literature around public reason: alongside John Rawls&rsquo\;s well-known account\, variants of the idea have been developed in the work of Gerald Gaus\, Jonathan Quong\, Andrew Lister\, Kevin Vallier\, Christie Hartley\, Lori Watson\, and others.
\nWe intend for this panel to have a broad remit within this topic. So\, we invite submissions contributing to any of the classic debates internal to public reason liberalism\, including\, e.g.\, the correct foundations of public reason requirements and the appropriate level of idealisation for public reason&rsquo\;s &lsquo\;justificatory constituency&rsquo\;. Papers on the application of the idea of public reason to the international domain also are welcome. Relatedly\, we are interested in the clash between competing approaches to public reason\, as exemplified by the debates between &lsquo\;consensus&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;convergence&rsquo\; public reason liberals. In addition\, we are open to submissions that are critical of the public reason framework\, for instance\, from liberal perfectionist\, realist\, or agonist perspectives. Moreover\, we would be interested in discussing key issues related to political liberalism\, Rawlsian or otherwise\, that go beyond the role of public reason within it. Possible examples include the nature of legitimacy\, the debate between advocates of &lsquo\;egalitarian&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;neo-classical liberal&rsquo\; political conceptions of justice\, and questions concerning the organisation of families within pluralist societies.
\nLike all other MANCEPT workshops this year\, this event will take place in person.
\nhttps://sites.manchester.ac.uk/mancept/mancept-workshops/
\nWe invite abstracts of around 500 words\, to be sent to gabriele.badano@york.ac.uk\, \;neufeld@uwm.edu\, and tahzib@usc.edu by 12 May 2026.
ORGANIZER;CN=Gabriele Badano;CN=Blain Neufeld;CN=Collis Tahzib: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260521T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260522T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT's Brave New World 2026 UID:20260418T204851Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Humanities Bridgeford Street\, Manchester\, United Kingdom\, M15 6AD DESCRIPTION:The 2026 Brave New World conference marks the 30th annual postgraduate meeting organised by the Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT). It will be held on the \;21th and 22th of May 2026 in the Hanson Room in Humanities Bridgeford Street Building.
\nIf you would like to present a paper\, please send an abstract of approximately 300 words in PDF format to \;bnw@manchester.ac.uk \;no later than the 10th of April 2026. The document must not contain your name or institution\, as they are reviewed blind\, but please state your name and institutional affiliation in the email. Papers focusing on any area of political theory or political philosophy are welcome. Notices of acceptance will be sent by the 24th of April 2026.
\nWe are delighted to announce the following keynote speakers:
\nChiara Cordelli \;(University of Chicago)\, who researches contemporary political philosophy\, distributive and social justice\, and egalitarianism. Prof. Cordelli&rsquo\;s main research fields are social and political philosophy\, with a particular focus on questions at the intersection of political economy and democratic theory.
\nJonathan Floyd \;(University of Bristol)\, who researches nature\, methods\, and purposes of political philosophy\, particularly the way in which we justify political principles. Prof. Floyd&rsquo\;s work combined history\, political science\, and moral psychology\, leading to the twin theories of mentalism and normative behaviourism.
\nThe Brave New World conference series is a prominent international forum devoted to showcasing and discussing postgraduate research in political theory. The event offers participants the opportunity to present their work and engage in dialogue with leading academics\, including members of the University of Manchester&rsquo\;s faculty and guest speakers.
\nGuest speakers in previous years have included:
\nDavid Archard\, Richard Arneson\, Alice Baderin\, Carla Bagnoli\, Brian Barry\, Simon Caney\, Felipe Carreira de Silva\, Ian Carter\, G.A. Cohen\, Roger Crisp\, Cecile Fabre\, Jerry Gaus\, Bob Goodin\, Marit Hammond\, Jules Holroyd\, Duncan Ivison\, Katherine Jenkins\, Peter Jones\, Carl Knight\, Chandran Kukathas\, Cé\;cile Laborde\, Annabelle Lever\, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen\, Jeff McMahan\, Matt Matravers\, Catriona McKinnon\, Emily McTernan\, Susan Mendus\, David Miller\, Martin O&rsquo\;Neill\, Onora O&rsquo\;Neill\, Serena Olsaretti\, Michael Otsuka\, Valeria Ottonelli\, Bhikhu Parekh\, Carole Pateman\, Carmen Pavel\, Anne Phillips\, Joseph Raz\, Andrea Sangiovanni\, Ben Saunders\, Samuel Scheffler\, David Schmidtz\, Quentin Skinner\, Hillel Steiner\, Adam Swift\, Jesse Tomalty\, Philippe Van Parijs\, Leif Wenar\, Andrew Williams\, Stuart White\, and Jonathan Wolff.
\nPlease note that we are asking all speakers and attendees to pay a registration fee of £\;20. The sole purpose of this fee is to ensure that we are able to provide a number of partial and full bursaries for speakers who would otherwise not be able to attend. As these bursaries will be allocated according to need\, please include a brief description of your funding situation when submitting your abstract if you wish to be considered for a bursary.
\nFor any questions\, feel free to contact Yonghao Huang\, Anthony McMullin or Jim Morrison at \;bnw@manchester.ac.uk.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T000000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Historical Injustice UID:20260418T204852Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:University of Manchester\, Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:This panel aims to bring together scholars working on philosophical questions that fall within the general scope of the topic of historical injustice. This includes substantive questions which concern certain kinds of past injustice\, such as racial injustice\, colonialism\, or territorial possession\, among others. Relevant also are theoretical questions about the ethics and politics of contemporary responsibilities for historical injustice. Among such theoretical questions are those that concern the grounds of responsibility for repairing past injustice\, what such repair must consist of when it is owed\, whether (and if so\, how) those grounds can be superseded over time\, and how facts about past injustice matter for contemporary political communities\, which includes questions about how (if at all) past injustice bears on normative features of contemporary political communities such as their justice\, legitimacy\, or authority. Projects falling within any of these subjects\, as well subjects broadly pertaining to historical injustice that were not mentioned here\, are welcome submissions to this panel.
If you are interested in participating in the workshop\, please submit an extended abstract (approx. 500-750 words) to aam5jm@virginia.edu by May 8th\, 2026. \;
The panel will take place in-person in Manchester\, UK between September 2nd and September 4th\, 2026. Further details about the MANCEPT workshops can be found here: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/ \;
There is now a rich debate within and across diverse traditions of political and moral thought about the meaning\, use\, and desirability of the concepts of land and territory\, and their relation to justice.
\nFor example\, the past fifteen years have been marked by the dedicated theorizing about territorial rights in contemporary Anglo-American moral and political philosophy (see for example: Miller\, 2012\; Moore\, 2014\, 2015\, 2019\; Nine\, 2012\; Ochoa-Espejo\, 2020\; Simmons\, 2016\; Stilz\, 2019). While the first wave focused on core conceptual questions about the nature and scope of various territorial rights (including jurisdiction\, self-determination\, resource control\, and immigration)\, the kinds of agents who hold these rights\, and the normative justifications for them\, this literature has now self-reflexively entered a &ldquo\;second wave&rdquo\; characterised by a deeper concern for questions of global inequality\, decolonization\, overlapping projects of self-determination\, and the environmental crisis (Moore &\; Ugalde\, 2025). For example: What is the extent of morally mandatory restitution in cases of territorial wrongdoing\, including settler colonialism (Luoma\, 2023\; Luoma and Moore\, 2024\; Moore\, 2019\; Stilz\, 2024\; Riebold\, 2022\, 2023)? How may multiple peoples\, with distinct normative and ontological systems\, overlap in the same place without retrenching relationships of structural injustice and inter-group domination (Jourdeuil 2024\, 2025a\, 2025b\; Luoma\, 2022\, 2023\, 2024\, 2025)? What forms of governance are required in ecologically integrated regions spanning borders (Nine\, 2022)? How are territorial rights contingent on respect for biodiversity and ecological integrity (Moore\, 2023\; Kwan\, 2025)? How can the benefits and burdens of natural resources\, energy transition\, and climate change mitigation/adaptation be fairly distributed between groups (Armstrong\, 2017\; De Biaso 2024a\, 2024b\; Li\, 2022\; Moore\, 2019)?
\nConcurrently\, Indigenous scholars\, environmental philosophers\, and eco-phenomenologists interrogate the core normative\, ontological\, and epistemological assumptions of these discourses. Indigenous theorists challenge the hegemony of rights-based territorial frameworks\, contending that the natural world is not a stockpile of &ldquo\;resources&rdquo\; to be distributed and controlled according to a theory of justice\, but is better conceived of as a kinship network populated by beings deserving of intrinsic concern and respect with whom we must live harmoniously (e.g.\, Allard-Tremblay 2023\, 2025\; Burkhart\, 2019\; Mills 2017\, 2018\, 2019\; Simpson 2011\, 2017\; Temin 2023). Eco-phenomenologists challenge conceptions of land as a neutral background container against which we exercise our agency\, demonstrating how land and place structure our lived experience and subjectivity\, our ethical encounter with the alterity of the other-than-human\, and the possibilities for political agency (Casey\, 1993\, 2018\; Ingold\, 2010\; Malpas\, 1998\; Rose\, 2005\; Seamon\, 2018\; Smith\, 2001\, 2011\; Toadvine\, 2019).
\nBeyond political theory\, land and territory are at the heart of intensifying international political conflicts\, including attempted territorial annexations\, rising majority and minority nationalism\, struggles against (neo-)colonialism\, and the global climate crisis. Consequently\, this workshop welcomes submissions that investigate conceptual\, normative\, and applied questions at the intersection of land\, territory\, and justice\, from diverse methodological perspectives including\, but not limited to analytical moral and political philosophy\, environmental philosophy and eco-phenomenology\, Indigenous political thought\, critical theory\, and comparative dialogue.
ORGANIZER;CN=Kaitie Jourdeuil;CN=Michael Luoma: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT 2026: New Directions for Cosmopolitanism and Global Democracy UID:20260418T204854Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:The political optimism of the post-Cold War period was accompanied by sustained scholarly attention to questions of global justice and democratic global governance (Caney\, 2005\; Held\, 1995\; Archibugi\, 2008). Yet the past decade and a half has seen a 'globalisation backlash' that has called into question the feasibility and\, for some\, the desirability of cosmopolitan aspirations\, and of the strong global institutions sometimes associated with them (Walter\, 2021). Alongside these political developments\, growing scholarly interest in the subaltern has prompted accusations that cosmopolitan and global democratic thought\, particularly where it emerges from the liberal tradition\, is guilty of a 'false universalism' that masks parochial moral views (Chakrabarty\, 2000).
\nThese developments raise numerous questions for cosmopolitanism and global democracy alike\, which share a common concern with extending moral and political principles beyond the state\, and face parallel challenges regarding feasibility\, legitimacy\, and the accommodation of diversity. Is democratic global governance compatible with cultural and national diversity? Is it possible to construct a truly inclusive cosmopolitan theory\, or is the tradition irredeemably particular? What institutional forms might a legitimate global order take? And what methodological approaches are best suited to theorising such questions?
\nRecent scholarship has sought to address these challenges from a variety of angles. Some scholars have engaged with non-Western philosophical traditions\, or the methods of comparative political theory\, to diffuse charges of Western-centrism (Graness\, 2018\; Xu\, 2018\; Shapcott\, 2020). Others have turned to 'grounded normative theory'\, using empirical research into lived experience to inform normative theory (Cabrera\, 2020). Scholars have also examined the relationship between cosmopolitan commitments and pluralist visions of global political order (Ulaş\, 2025). A further strand of literature has brought insights from empirical political science into conversation with normative political theory\, testing assumptions about the feasibility of global democratic institutions (Koenig-Archibugi\, 2024\; Agné\;\, 2022). Meanwhile\, scholars continue to debate the relative merits of polycentric approaches to global governance against proposals for more centralised supranational authority (Smith\, 2018\; Scholte\, 2014).
\nThis panel invites papers that engage with these debates. It welcomes contributions focused on cosmopolitanism\, on global democracy\, or on both\, including (but not limited to) their relationship to questions of diversity. It aims to bring together scholars working across different theoretical traditions and methodological approaches to reflect on substantive questions of global political order\, and the methods by which such questions are best addressed.
\nPapers are welcome on topics including\, but not limited to:
\nThe workshop will take place as part of the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory at the University of Manchester (September 2-4\, 2026). Bursaries are available to help cover the conference registration fee\, and participants are encouraged to apply if needed.
\n\nTo submit a paper\, please send an anonymised abstract of no more than \;500 words\, suitable for a 30 minute presentation (followed by 30 minutes of Q&\;A)\, to Maximillian Afnan at \;m.a.afnan@lse.ac.uk\, by \;Monday 11 May. Successful applicants will be notified shortly afterwards. \;
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop 2026 - Just Profit UID:20260418T204855Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:This workshop explores the relevance of a philosophical and political theoretical debate on just profit. \;Most wealth is generated through corporate profit making. Together with inheritances the corporate machine and its financialization seem to be mainly responsible for the growing concentration of wealth. Against this backdrop\, it is somewhat surprising that philosophical and political theoretical debates have largely focused on limiting wealth in general and on inheritance taxation\, but not so much on a regulation of profits. \;
\nOne possible explanation lies in a somewhat unquestioned acceptance of the classical liberal framing of profits. According to this framing it is reasonable to regulate profits as little as possible in order to stimulate economic activity and growth\, which will ultimately benefit society as a whole. Another argument is the fear of capital flight with the potential of serious disruption of economic functionalities and great welfare losses. \;
\nAt the same time\, the historical failure of social democratic and liberal socialist transformations in the second half of the 20thcentury seems to be connected to a lack of profit regulation. An important case in point is the failing of the implementation of the Meidner plan in Sweden due to strong unregulated profit concentration and a corresponding political power structure.
\nWe aim to promote interdisciplinary dialogue across political philosophy\, political theory\, and critical social theory. \;
\nPossible themes include (but are not limited to): \;
\nSubmission Guidelines:
\nUp to 15 speakers will be selected for the workshop. Each speaker will be given approximately 30 minutes to speak\, followed by 30 minutes for Q&\;A.
\n
Bursaries are available to help cover the conference registration fee\, and participants are encouraged to apply if needed.
The workshop will take place as part of the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory at the University of Manchester (September 2-4\, 2026).
\nOrganizers: \;Stefan Gosepath\, Philipp Lepenies\, Christian Neuhä\;user\, Laura Opolka\, Isabella Pfusterer \;
\nFor the panel description and details see also: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/just-profit/
ORGANIZER;CN=Stefan Gosepath;CN="Christian Neuhäuser";CN=Laura Opolka: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop - Epistemic Injustice and Backlash UID:20260418T204856Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:MANCEPT Workshop - Epistemic Injustice and Backlash: Call for Abstracts \; Recent years have been characterized by significant backlash to progressive social movements and social changes such as the #MeToo movement\, the Black Lives Matter movement\, and the increased visibility of trans people in public life. Dimensions to this backlash include the electoral &ndash\; i.e.\, the rise of far-right political parties\; the legal &ndash\; legislation\, executive orders and judicial decisions e.g. overturning rights to abortion and gender-affirming healthcare\, banning affirmative action and DEI initiatives\, and excluding trans people from participation in sport\; and the necropolitical &ndash\; e.g. the misogynistic murder of René\;e Good and the rising tide of anti-trans violence. A further important dimension to this backlash is the epistemic &ndash\; e.g. the widespread repudiation of the testimonies of Christine Blasey Ford and Amber Heard\, the ridiculing of slogans such as &lsquo\;defund the police&rsquo\;\, and the growing dissemination of myths and disinformation concerning trans people. This dimension to the backlash has recently begun to receive philosophical attention\, with aspects of it being theorized variously as 'hermeneutical backlash' (George &\; Goguen 2021)\, 'hermeneutical sabotage' (Edgoose 2024)\, and 'hermeneutical disarmament' (Morgan 2025) &ndash\; all phenomena thought either to constitute or to result in epistemic injustices. It has also been argued that previously proposed strategies for preventing epistemic injustices are frequently ineffective when confronted by backlash\, prompting a search for other strategies which might be pursued more effectively towards this end (Clanchy forthcoming). Much work on epistemic injustice and backlash remains to be done\, however &ndash\; especially in light of the epistemic injustice literature&rsquo\;s &lsquo\;methodological commitment to the primacy of the nonideal&rsquo\; (Medina 2013: 11). The aim of this workshop is to provide a space for the development of such work.
We invite submissions of abstracts of up to 500 words to a MANCEPT workshop on this topic. Abstracts should be submitted by \;May 1st \;and should be sent to \;han.edgoose@glasgow.ac.uk
Questions that papers may address include\, but are not limited to:
&bull\;How is the epistemic dimension related to other dimensions of backlash?
&bull\;To what kinds of epistemic injustice does backlash give rise? What strategies can be most effectively pursued to prevent epistemic injustices in times of backlash? What kinds of epistemic agency can be exercised by members of targeted groups (Pohlhaus 2020)?
&bull\;Does 'epistemic injustice' (Fricker 2007) in fact provide an adequate framework for thinking about these issues? What about these issues might this framework miss or distort but the frameworks provided by e.g. 'epistemic oppression' (Dotson 2014) or 'epistemologies of ignorance' (Mills 2007) capture?
&bull\;How should previous work on epistemic injustice and e.g. the #MeToo movement (e.g. Jackson 2018) or the Black Lives Matter movement (e.g. Anderson 2017) be developed or rethought in light of the current backlash?
&bull\;What practical lessons can be drawn for the present moment from a study of the epistemic dimension of previous backlashes (e.g. Faludi 1991)?
&bull\;Who bears responsibility\, in both backward- and forward-looking senses (Young 2011)\, for the epistemic dimension of backlash?
&bull\;How can thinking about epistemic injustice and backlash inform methodological debates concerning the relative merits of ideal and nonideal theory? \; The panel will take place in-person at the University of Manchester\, between September 2nd \;and September 4th \;2026. Further details about the MANCEPT workshops can be
found here: \;MANCEPT Workshops 2026 - Research Explorer The University of Manchester \; Han Edgoose and Nick Clanchy (organisers) \;
We are inviting submissions for this workshop to be held as part of this year&rsquo\;s MANCEPT workshops. \;The Workshops will take place at the University of Manchester\, from 2nd to 4th September 2026.
\nRecent resurgence of interest in the ethics of academia has sparked debates about the ideals and ongoing practices within academic institutions. These debates often highlight the tension between the aspirational goals of academia &ndash\; such as promoting systemic equity\, inclusion\, and access &ndash\; and the constraints imposed by socio-political realities\, including discrimination\, bias and lack of diversity\, institutional backlash against specific disciplines\, and budgetary and financial pressures. Our panel contributes to these debates by focusing on challenges that academics face specifically in their role as academics. \;These include\, but are not limited to\, the following areas:
\nWe are interested in these or any other topic related to the ethics of academia. By engaging with these issues\, the panel aims to deepen ongoing discussions about what academia is\, what it ought to be\, and how we might reimagine academic life in more just and sustainable ways.
Submissions should \;be suitable for 30 minutes of presentation + 30 minutes of Q&\;A.
Please submit your anonymized abstract (300-500 words) by \;20th April 2026 \;using \;this form: \;https://forms.gle/UVP6ctu9uAVmko7W6
Participants must pay fees for registration and dinner\; further information about costs will be provided soon.
For any questions\, please contact Kritika Maheshwari (k.maheshwari@tudelft.nl)
Since the publication of Quentin Skinner (1997) and Philip Pettit&rsquo\;s (1999) groundbreaking analyses of the republican tradition and the notion of freedom as non-domination associated with it\, political theorists and philosophers have applied the &ldquo\;neo-republican&rdquo\; lens to a wide variety of political issues. One domain where the implications of neo-republicanism are particularly contested is political economy. While some neo-republicans posit that republicans should simply want a familiar type of competitive market economy supplemented by a universal basic income (Pettit 2006\, Lovett 2009)\, many others have argued that the implications of republican values may well be more radical. To truly realize freedom as non-domination\, they have argued\, we may need a property-owning democracy (Thomas 2017)\, an economy of worker cooperatives (Gourevitch 2014)\, or even some form of socialism (O&rsquo\;Shea 2020\, Muldoon 2022). In addition to these big-picture questions about economic systems\, however\, neo-republican theory has much to offer for the normative analysis of more particular economic phenomena\, such as work\, debt\, housing\, financialization\, trade\, and many others.
This panel will serve as a venue for republican theorists to further interrogate the implications of republican values for normative political economy. We invite proposals that address\, but are not limited to\, the following questions:
If you are interested in participating\, please send a 500-word abstract to mjaarte@stanford.edu by May 10th. \;
\n
The MANCEPT Workshops is an annual conference in political theory\, organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory. The conference offers academics an opportunity to come together in a series of workshops to develop specialised work and engage in lively philosophical discussion. Attracting scholars throughout the world\, the conference is now established as a leading international forum dedicated to the development of research in all subfields of political theory. You can find more information here: \;https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/
Convenors: Kristin Kä\;uper\, Isobel Logan\, Charlotte Curran (University of Leeds)
Contact: \;i.j.logan@leeds.ac.uk
This workshop will explore the relationship between intimacy and justice. We will ask: When and how should considerations of justice extend into our intimate lives and influence our actions? How are intimate relationships shaped by\, reproduce\, and resistant to broader structures of injustice and oppression? Should we worry about the distribution of opportunities for intimacy? How do we balance the responsibilities of the individual\, communities\, and the state in promoting just forms of relating?
We hope to better understand the ways in which hegemonic norms\, institutions\, and intersecting forms of oppression structure intimate life\, governing who is able to form certain relationships\, which relationships are socially valued\, and how power operates within them. We seek to explore the potential of intimate practices and communities of care as sites of resistance\, solidarity\, and social transformation.
We are particularly interested in \;exploring \;non-normative ways of relating (e.g. asexuality/aromanticism\, polyamory\, relationship anarchy) and matters of intersecting identities that are underrepresented in philosophy (e.g. sexuality\, disability\, race\, age\, socio-economic status).
By intimacy\, we mean forms of closeness and connection upon which special relationships are based. This encompasses a wide range of relationships\, including but not limited to sexual\, romantic\, platonic\, collegial\, familial\, and parental relationships\, whether in-person or technologically mediated.
Registration opens in April
\nFurther details about the MANCEPT workshops can be found here: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/mancept-workshops-2026/ \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Isobel Logan;CN="Kristin Käuper";CN=Charlotte Curran: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop on Theories of Public Reason UID:20260418T204900Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Theories of Public Reason
\nPanel at the 2026 MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory\, 2-4 September 2026 \;
\nThis panel seeks to bring together those working on issues related to public reason\, broadly conceived. Public reason is an influential framework for understanding how liberal democracies can make fair decisions for diverse citizenries. There is now an extensive literature around public reason: alongside John Rawls&rsquo\;s well-known account\, variants of the idea have been developed in the work of Gerald Gaus\, Jonathan Quong\, Andrew Lister\, Kevin Vallier\, Christie Hartley\, Lori Watson\, and others.
\nWe intend for this panel to have a broad remit within this topic. So\, we invite submissions contributing to any of the classic debates internal to public reason liberalism\, including\, e.g.\, the correct foundations of public reason requirements and the appropriate level of idealisation for public reason&rsquo\;s &lsquo\;justificatory constituency&rsquo\;. Papers on the application of the idea of public reason to the international domain also are welcome. Relatedly\, we are interested in the clash between competing approaches to public reason\, as exemplified by the debates between &lsquo\;consensus&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;convergence&rsquo\; public reason liberals. In addition\, we are open to submissions that are critical of the public reason framework\, for instance\, from liberal perfectionist\, realist\, or agonist perspectives. Moreover\, we would be interested in discussing key issues related to political liberalism\, Rawlsian or otherwise\, that go beyond the role of public reason within it. Possible examples include the nature of legitimacy\, the debate between advocates of &lsquo\;egalitarian&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;neo-classical liberal&rsquo\; political conceptions of justice\, and questions concerning the organisation of families within pluralist societies.
\nLike all other MANCEPT workshops this year\, this event will take place in person.
\nhttps://sites.manchester.ac.uk/mancept/mancept-workshops/
ORGANIZER;CN=Gabriele Badano;CN=Blain Neufeld;CN=Collis Tahzib: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshops 2026 UID:20260418T204901Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:MANCEPT Workshops 2026: Call for Convenors
\nConference Dates: \;2nd-4th September 2026
\nCall for Convenors Deadline: \;9th February 2026 \;
\nThe MANCEPTWorkshops \;is an annual conference in political theory\, organised under the auspices of the \;Manchester Centre for Political Theory. The conference offers academics an opportunity to come together in a series of workshops to develop specialised work and engage in lively philosophical discussion. Attracting scholars throughout the world\, the conference is now established as a leading international forum dedicated to the development of research in all subfields of political theory. \;
\nWe are now accepting applications for workshop convenors. Convenors coordinate and chair individual panels at the Workshops. The Workshops are distinctive in creating a space for both small group discussions focused on tightly defined topics\, while simultaneously providing opportunities for engaging with theorists working on the widest possible range of areas in Political and Moral Philosophy. \;
\nPlease note that the MANCEPT Workshops is \;fully in-person\, with no hybrid or online-only component. This decision has been made with a view to facilitating engaging and lively discussion\, with less time taken up with troubleshooting tech issues. Bursaries are available to speakers and will be awarded on the basis of need. Further details and instructions on how to apply for a bursary will be released in due course. \;
\nTo apply to convene a panel\, please submit a short abstract (maximum 500 words) through the \;Application Form \;
\n\nAccepted panels will then be advertised on our website. \; For more information about the MANCEPT Workshops\, please visit our new website (link below). \;
\nIf you have any questions\, please e-mail the Workshops organisers Maurits Bekkers\, Timothy Siew\, and Anthony McMullin at: \; mancept-workshops@manchester.ac.uk
ORGANIZER;CN=Maurits Bekkers;CN=Anthony McMullin;CN=Tim Siew: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:Mancept Workshop - Epistemic Democracy and the Lure of Epistocracy: Questions in Metaethics and Political Normativity UID:20260418T204902Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom ORGANIZER;CN=Roger Ventura Cossin: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260416T014904Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T113000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT 2026: Political Ordinary Language UID:20260418T204903Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-f5d4878dd-x5n6c TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Political philosophy has long privileged public speech and institutional political discourse as central sites of analysis. Increasingly\, however\, attention has shifted toward the normative dimensions of ordinary language use and the dynamics of linguistic change in non-ideal social contexts.
Language is a social practice through which shared forms of understanding\, coordination\, and mutual orientation are sustained over time. Shifts in linguistic conventions can reshape how individuals relate to one another\, influence how social differences are marked or obscured\, and affect patterns of inclusion within pluralistic and diverse societies. The ways in which linguistic expressions are used\, repeated\, and taken up also structure expectations about what can be said and contribute to the reinforcement or attenuation of prejudices and stereotypes. In this sense\, language plays a constitutive role in shaping the normative environment in which social and political life unfolds.
This constitutive role gives rise to a range of philosophical questions concerning the emergence\, stability\, and contestation of norms governing language use. It invites reflection on how such norms are maintained over time and on the extent to which participants in shared linguistic practices are answerable to one another for their contributions to evolving communicative environments.
This panel seeks to bring together normative and descriptive perspectives on how patterns of language use emerge\, stabilize\, and transform across different settings. It therefore welcomes contributions that offer conceptual\, normative\, or empirically informed philosophical analyses of language as a social practice. These include\, but are not limited to\, the following areas:
&bull\; language in social construction
&bull\; the relationship between language use and social coordination
&bull\; feminist philosophy of language
&bull\; communicative responsibilities
&bull\; normative views on stereotyping and discrimination in communication
&bull\; social/political speech and social norm change
&bull\; linguistic injustice
&bull\; the distribution and justification of normative expectations across different speakers and contexts
&bull\; methodological issues in language and analytic ideology critique
&bull\; counterspeech
This workshop will focus on questions of justice raised by efforts to litigate the climate crisis. \;
\nAs climate change progresses\, individuals and groups are increasingly turning to the courts in pursuit of climate justice. As of March 31\, 2026\, the Climate Litigation Database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law lists over 4800 climate court cases\, nearly 70% of which were filed in the USA. Climate lawsuits have been used to pursue a variety of goals\, including injunctions on fossil fuel extraction\, stronger regulation of greenhouse gas emissions\, the implementation or funding of adaptation measures\, compensation for climate loss and damage\, and even punishment of those who contribute to severe climate-related harm. Climate litigation may also be undertaken for strategic reasons\, in an effort to promote awareness of the climate crisis\, undermine the social license of those contributing to it\, and spur more systemic change.
\nThough climate litigation is often used in an attempt to pursue goals of climate justice\, its use for this purpose raises various normative questions. These include questions about the legitimate role of the courts in climate governance\, and the potential for litigation to reproduce patterns of disadvantage due to the unequal accessibility of legal remedies. Some have also raised concerns that climate litigation could prove strategically counterproductive\, for example by spurring political backlash. \;
\nThis workshop will examine how litigation might be used as a tool in the pursuit of climate justice\, new concerns of justice that are raised by such efforts\, and how such concerns might be addressed.
\nQuestions that papers may examine include:
\nHow might litigation serve to promote or undermine climate justice?
\nWhat role should courts play in climate governance?
\nWhen should judicial interventions into climate policy be viewed as legitimate or illegitimate?
\nHow might climate litigation provide access to justice without reproducing existing inequalities?
\nWhat kinds of legal innovation or evolution might be required for the law to adequately respond to the challenge of climate change?
\nWhat are the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners regarding climate litigation?
\nWhat is the proper role of scientists\, and scientific research\, in supporting climate litigation?
\nWhat role might philosophers and political theorists play in supporting climate litigation?
\n