著者
井上 弘貴
出版者
日本イギリス哲学会
雑誌
イギリス哲学研究 (ISSN:03877450)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.39, pp.19-34, 2016

<p>In his<i> Triumphant Democracy</i>(1886)Andrew Carnegie claimed that American people found something lacking for the original Britons in some races including the German and the French, while he celebrated the British as a basic material to create the American republic. But he came to put more great value on the Teutonic origin for both Britain and America to envision the idea of an Anglo-American reunion in his article, A Look Ahead(1893)which was the new concluding chapter in the revised edition of <i>Triumphant Democracy</i>. Carnegie changed his view again in 1905, the year following the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France. He seemed to take the concept of republic as an important one which could include the three nations, Britain, France, and America while he continued to keep the idea of Teutonic because he thought that it could unite Britain and America with Germany, the Teutonic Power in a peaceful union. In this paper I argue how Carnegie shifted the emphasis in his writing on the balance between the notion of republic and that of race.</p>
著者
井上 弘貴
出版者
日本イギリス哲学会
雑誌
イギリス哲学研究 (ISSN:03877450)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.39, pp.19-34, 2016-03-20 (Released:2018-03-30)
参考文献数
28

In his Triumphant Democracy(1886)Andrew Carnegie claimed that American people found something lacking for the original Britons in some races including the German and the French, while he celebrated the British as a basic material to create the American republic. But he came to put more great value on the Teutonic origin for both Britain and America to envision the idea of an Anglo-American reunion in his article, A Look Ahead(1893)which was the new concluding chapter in the revised edition of Triumphant Democracy. Carnegie changed his view again in 1905, the year following the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France. He seemed to take the concept of republic as an important one which could include the three nations, Britain, France, and America while he continued to keep the idea of Teutonic because he thought that it could unite Britain and America with Germany, the Teutonic Power in a peaceful union. In this paper I argue how Carnegie shifted the emphasis in his writing on the balance between the notion of republic and that of race.
著者
井上 弘貴
出版者
アメリカ学会
雑誌
アメリカ研究 (ISSN:03872815)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.52, pp.63-85, 2018-05-25 (Released:2021-09-28)

In the article, I review the political theory of Samuel T. Francis who is one of the paleoconservatives in the late twentieth century. Although he was widely regarded as an editor and controversial columnist, he elaborated a distinctive theory about political strategies for the right-wing populism. My argument is that he has tried to formulate a concept of class formation and alliance in the contemporary America, which is closely associated with “race” and whiteness.In the first section, I introduce how the American paleoconservatism was formed in the late I970s and 1980s. The conservative movement was elaborated in the sharp conflict with neoconservatism in the 1980s through the 2000s. I introduce as one example of the conflict how Reagan administration nominated William Bennett as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities rather than M.E. Bradford, a major paleocon. I also show that Patrick J. Buchanan, a staunch paleocon regarded Trump’s followers as the Middle American Radicals of whom his “friend” Sam Francis wrote when he posted an article to understand why Trump won in November 2016.I analyze in the second section how Francis conceived the Middle American Radicals, MARs. He followed James Burnham, a former Trotskyist, and political theorist when he thought about what the contemporary state is and who rules it. According to him, the managerial class retains power in both the public sector and the private sector including mass media and universities. The federal bureaucrats have extended their ruling power over people and parts of the country when they expand public welfare programs in particular for the underclass. Francis pointed out that managerial elites have formed a class alliance with the underclass to eliminate the old bourgeois and the middle class.He called this alliance the “sandwich strategy.” He, therefore actively asked the declining Middle Americans to raise a radical consciousness to struggle against the alliance and the managerial state.I argue in the third section why Francis vehemently opposed mass immigration in America. I pick up the two examples in the 1980s and 1990s - Sanctuary Movement and Proposition 187 - about which he wrote many articles. His analysis was that immigrants could provide a stream into a new underclass that keeps bureaucrats in power and hegemony.His outrage at the issue of immigration was so stern that people might feel a little confusing to understand why he unleashed his frustration on the issue. In the last section, I try to understand a theoretical relationship between the concept of MARs and that of race in his political theory. According to Francis, MARs are not a racially diverse people at all. To put it simply, they are whites. He thought that non-white immigrants were forming a race bloc to get political power and cultural hegemony over the white people. He accordingly required these white people to form their bloc to recover the white supremacy. He called it the “reconquest” of the United States. Thus his theory combined both the class consciousness and the racial consciousness in the concept of MARs.
著者
宇野 重規 谷澤 正嗣 森川 輝一 片山 文雄 石川 敬史 乙部 延剛 小田川 大典 仁井田 崇 前川 真行 山岡 龍一 井上 弘貴 小野田 喜美雄
出版者
東京大学
雑誌
基盤研究(B)
巻号頁・発行日
2017-04-01

研究の二年目にあたる平成30年度は定例の研究会を続け、通史的な視点の確立と全体的枠組みの決定を目指した。その目的は、共和主義、立憲主義、リベラリズムを貫く座標軸を見定めることにあった。この目的に向けて、まずは18世紀における共和主義と立憲主義の関係について集中的に検討を行った。その成果は、社会思想史学会において分科会「アメリカ政治思想史研究の最前線」を企画し、石川敬史が「初期アメリカ共和国における主権問題」報告することにつながった。この報告は主権論に即して、初期アメリカにおける思想対立をヨーロッパの思想との連続性において捉えるものであった。第二にプラグマティズムとリベラリズムの関係についても考察を進めた。具体的には研究会を開催し、研究代表者である宇野重規が「プラグマティズムは反知性主義か」と題して報告を行なった。これはプラグマティズムをアメリカ思想史を貫く反知性主義との関係において考察するものであり、プラグマティズムの20世紀的展開を検討することにもつながった。さらに小田川大典が「アメリカ政治思想史における反知性主義」と題して報告を行い、アメリカ思想史の文脈における反知性主義について包括的に検討した。さらに上記の社会思想史学会においては、谷澤正嗣が「A・J・シモンズの哲学的アナーキズム」と題して報告を行っている。これは現代アメリカのリベラリズム研究におけるポイントの一つである政治的責務論において重要な役割を果たしたシモンズの研究を再検討するものである。人はなぜ自らの政治的共同体に対して責務を負うのか。この問題を哲学的に検討するシモンズの議論は、アメリカ思想におけるリベラリズムと共和主義の関係を考える上でも重要な意味を持つ。シモンズを再検討することも、本年度の課題である通史的な視点の確立に向けて大きな貢献となった。
著者
宇野 重規 小田川 大典 森川 輝一 前川 真行 谷澤 正嗣 井上 弘貴 石川 敬史 仁井田 崇
出版者
東京大学
雑誌
基盤研究(B)
巻号頁・発行日
2013-04-01

本研究はアメリカ政治思想史を、共和主義と立憲主義という視点から捉え直そうとする試みである。その際に、建国の思想から、19世紀における超越主義とプラグマティズム、20世紀におけるリベラリズム、リバタリアニズム、保守主義へとつながる固有の思想的発展と、マルクス主義やアナーキズムを含む、ヨーロッパからの思想的影響の両側面から検討することが大きな主題であった。3年間の検討をへて、ヨーロッパの王政に対する独特の意識が、アメリカ共和政とそのコモン・センスに対する信頼を生む一方で、政府権力に対し個人の所有権の立場から厳しい制約を課す立憲主義を発展させてきた、アメリカ思想の弁証法的発展が明らかにされた。