This work traces the theory of Radical Dependence through its various forms in Berkeleys philosophical works. It shows that a desire to establish a theory of Radical Dependence underlies all of these works and that this theory unifies Berkeleys various phases of philosophical development. The work begins by establishing the meaning of Radical Dependence and examining the influence of Greek, Early Christian and Mediaeval philosophers and theologians on the development of the concept. Subsequently, the deism of the seventeenth-century philosophers is (...) examined; the influence of science and rationalism on the development of deism is traced, with particular attention being given to Berkeleys personal milieu. With a view to showing that Berkeley wishes to re-establish the waning Christian cosmology, his philosophical works are examined in chronological order, particular attention being paid to his final work Siris. It is shown that, although Berkeley moves from a philosophy based on the immaterialist hypothesis in his early works, to one based on the doctrine of participation in his last work, each phase is a variation of the doctrine of Radical Dependence. In the final chapter some of the shortcomings of Berkeleys various philosophical systems are discussed and alternatives are examined. The direction of his thought is found to be guided more by piety than by common-sense and reason: he suffers from a pious pragmatism which leads him to hold doctrines as true on the grounds that they corroborate Christian doctrines. His firm belief in the providence of God leads him to affirm an almost pantheistic worldview which he never fully manages to reconcile with traditional Christian theology, and the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in particular. (shrink)

The constructivist turn in the study of world politics provides new impetus to studies of the political deliberations of human agents. The co-constitution of agents and structures implies the non-acceptability of accounts that fail to consider the interpretations human agents provide to structural conditions. But neither can we accept the reverse. Studies of the interpretations of political agents should adequately account for the structural constraints on those interpretations. This paper illustrates how easily agency studies can underestimate structural constraints by reference (...) to a most serious and scholarly account of agency in the Vietnam War commitment decisions, Yuen Foong Khong's AnalogiesatWar:Korea,MunichDienBienPhuandtheVietnamDecisionsof1965. The argumentative burden resides with those who offer accounts that hold or imply that agents acted from non-structural motives. (shrink)

This essay responds to Yuen Foong Khong's (2002) spirited defence of his AnalogiesatWar:Korea,Munich,DienBienPhu,andtheVietnamDecisionsof1965 (Khong, 1992). The author had earlier criticized Khong's overemphasis of agency over structure in his accounting of the 1965 US troop deployment decisions (Duffy, 2001). This essay points to several deficiencies in Khong's defence. Chief among them are (a) the inconsistency between Khong's conception of structure and his professed constructivism, and (b) the false dualism between agency and structure open which Khong's defence rests.

This article responds to Gavan Duffy's critique of AnalogiesatWar in his recent essay on the agent-structure debate in the JJPS (2001, 2: 161giving structure its duestructure” with process, perceptual, and personality variables; (3) misinterprets my assumptions while neglecting the findings of recent works that corroborate the findings of AnalogiesatWar; and (4) fails to demonstrate one of his key suggestions, i.e. the importance of showing how agents and structures are mutually constitutive. The article concludes by discussing some pointers raised by (...) the exchange for furthering the agent-structure debate. (shrink)

Contemporary neo-liberal society is ruled by the market. Davies, Chen and Lentin and Titley show that its objectification and categorization founds a competitive notion of agency that disables subjective construction of self and intersubjective understanding of the world. As the market's rules and norms are set by white patriarchy, its competitive paradigm structurally disadvantages others. Art too is objectified and categorized by neo-liberal institutions, equally embedded in white patriarchal market structures and severely limiting democratic public access to a diverse (...) artistic field, argue hooks, Mercer and Piper. Yet, Piper's artwork shows, art holds emancipatory potential. Defined as transforming experience, its ambiguity provides a structure for constituting agentic subjectivity and intersubjective signification processes, defying objective/objectifying market workings. Photography's specific qualities allow Piper to democratize access to the paradigm she proposes. Her artistic choices may thus found the potential to publicly construct a notion of aesthetic agency as resistance to the neo-liberal market. (shrink)