Die Aufsätze des Bandes leisten einen Beitrag zur Debatte über die Relevanz des Hegelschen Sittlichkeitsbegriffs. Sie nehmen verschiedene Begriffe, Argumentationsmuster und Lösungsvorschläge von Hegels Rechtsphilosophie auf, testen deren Gegenwartstauglichkeit und zeichnen Rezeptionslinien nach. Im Zentrum stehen dabei neben dem Gehalt des Sittlichkeitstheorems und der Geschichtlichkeit sittlicher Lebensformen sowohl Personenbegriff, Bildungsidee wie Komplexität des zentralen Freiheitgedankens bei Hegel, aber auch die Perspektive der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft und die Reichweite und Aktualität der Sittlichkeitssemantik. Mit Beiträgen von Christiane Bender, Thomas Sören Hoffmann, Christian Hofmann, (...) Christian Krijnen, Wolfgang Schild, Christian Schmidt, Steffen Schmidt, Sebastian Schwenzfeuer, Michael Spieker, Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer und Benno Zabel. (shrink)

English summary: The freedom potential of modern societies, above all the justification of political authority, is today linked to a democratically constituted order. What is meant by the idea of being democratic seems, however, to be anything but clear. Is it only a question of representing the people through elections, ballots, and political parties, or does it include institutional culture, the division of powers, and the legal regime within a community? A "philosophy of the republic," as developed in this volume's (...) contributions, shows that the current "dominance of the democratic" falls short of accounting for the independent significance to the republican self-organisation of state and society. German description: Das Freiheitspotential moderner Gesellschaften, vor allem die Rechtfertigung politischer Herrschaft, wird heute mit einer demokratisch verfassten Ordnung verknupft. Was eine demokratische Ordnung ausmacht, was also die Idee des Demokratischen meint, scheint aber alles andere als klar zu sein. Soll es nur um Fragen der Reprasentation des Volkes durch Wahlen, Abstimmungen und Parteien oder daruber hinaus auch um die institutionelle Kultur, die Gewaltenteilung und das Rechtsregime innerhalb eines Gemeinwesens gehen? Eine "Philosophie der Republik," wie sie in den Beitragen dieses Bandes entwickelt wird, kann zeigen, dass die aktuelle "Dominanz des Demokratischen" keine eigenstandige Bedeutung der republikanischen Selbstorganisation von Staat und Gesellschaft beimisst. Mit Beitragen von: David Abraham, Andreas Anter, Susanne Beck, Jochen Bung, Daniela Demko, Horst Dreier, Andrea Marlen Esser, Helmut Goerlich, Bernd Grzeszick, Klaus Gunther, Matthias Kaufmann, Jean-Francois Kervegan, Thomas Khurana, Stephan Kirste, Oliver Lembcke, Rochus Leonhardt, Georg Lohmann, Wolfgang Schild, Christian Schmidt, Thomas Schmidt-Lux, Kurt Seelmann, Hannes Siegrist, Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer, Trevor Wedman, Marc Andre Wiegand, Benno Zabel, Sabrina Zucca-Soest. (shrink)

In the foreground stands the idea to decipher law as starting point of continuous emancipation and alientation processes. Emancipation and alienation refer to an ethos of specific societies including forms of rational knowledge and inherited convention as much as individual needs and techniques securing domination. Insofar, law is no postulated „fact“ only to be discovered or (de-)constructed. We rather should understand it as dense texture of interests and convictions, theories and practices. The meaning of this can be illustrated with the (...) example of today’s dominating individuality paradigm. Securing status and political governing of the individuum can be regarded as consequence of an interdependence in which legally bound practice and normative dynamics of the law are referring to one another. Taking this logic seriously, one cannot only sketch the crossing of emancipation and alientation processes in the individuum. One can also see the whole dilemma of modern law: wanting to be the promise of autonomy and having to establish the culture of order securing power. (shrink)

Fears caused by crisis reveal the fragility of open societies. The usual narrative sees liberal right securing individual freedom, yet it guarantees this promise by means of constant government interventions. Specifically in light of the example of dealing with fear, one can show how a network of technologies of care arises out of the guarantee of the freedom of right - a network that fosters repressive and paternalistic tendencies. In opposition to this “liberal logic” of freedom, one ought to adhere (...) to a self-reflexivity of right that overturns the aporias in a productive manner. (shrink)