Since the 1980s, society's wealthiest members have claimed an ever-expanding share of income and property. It has been a true counterrevolution, says Pierre Rosanvallon--the end of the age of growing equality launched by the American and French revolutions. And just as significant as the social and economic factors driving this contemporary inequality has been a loss of faith in the ideal of equality itself. An ambitious transatlantic history of the struggles that, for two centuries, put political and economic equality at (...) their heart, The Society of Equals calls for a new philosophy of social relations to reenergize egalitarian politics. For eighteenth-century revolutionaries, equality meant understanding human beings as fundamentally alike and then creating universal political and economic rights. Rosanvallon sees the roots of today's crisis in the period 1830-1900, when industrialized capitalism threatened to quash these aspirations. By the early twentieth century, progressive forces had begun to rectify some imbalances of the Gilded Age, and the modern welfare state gradually emerged from Depression-era reforms. But new economic shocks in the 1970s began a slide toward inequality that has only gained momentum in the decades since. There is no returning to the days of the redistributive welfare state, Rosanvallon says. Rather than resort to outdated notions of social solidarity, we must instead revitalize the idea of equality according to principles of singularity, reciprocity, and communality that more accurately reflect today's realities. (shrink)

The welfare state has come under severe pressure internationally, partly for the well-known reasons of slowing economic growth and declining confidence in the public sector. According to the influential social theorist Pierre Rosanvallon, however, there is also a deeper and less familiar reason for the crisis of the welfare state. He shows here that a fundamental practical and philosophical justification for traditional welfare policies--that all citizens share equal risks--has been undermined by social and intellectual change. If we wish to achieve (...) the goals of social solidarity and civic equality for which the welfare state was founded, Rosanvallon argues, we must radically rethink social programs. Rosanvallon begins by tracing the history of the welfare state and its founding premise that risks, especially the risks of illness and unemployment, are equally distributed and unpredictable. He shows that this idea has become untenable because of economic diversification and advances in statistical and risk analysis. It is truer than ever before--and far more susceptible to analysis--that some individuals will face much greater risks than others because of their jobs and lifestyle choices. Rosanvallon argues that social policies must be more narrowly targeted. And he draws on evidence from around the world, in particular France and the United States, to show that such programs as unemployment insurance and workfare could better reflect individual needs by, for example, making more explicit use of contracts between the providers and receivers of benefits. His arguments have broad implications for welfare programs everywhere and for our understanding of citizenship in modern democracies and economies. "For more than two decades Pierre Rosanvallon has been analyzing the development and the crisis of the 'welfare state,' combining precise, specific knowledge with philosophical and historical depth in a way that is rare among social policy analysts.... [A] subtle and informed book."--From the foreword by Nathan Glazer. (shrink)

"Pierre Rosanvallon is a remarkable political thinker who sheds new light on the theory and practice of democracy. This collection brings his important work to an English-speaking audience. It will enrich our understanding of the perils and possibilities of democratic politics."--Michael Sandel, Harvard University.

Interview with Pierre Rosanvallon, conducted by Javier Fernández Sebastián, in Madrid, September 28, 2006.

In France there is a way of thinking about freedom that often impedes its realization. To understand this question first a fundamental contradiction of the tension between political rationalism and popular sovereignty is examined. The terms of this contradiction are presented along with the ways in which this tension manifested itself in France during the Revolution of the 19th Century. This is also shown by contrasting the French approach to producing the law-state with English liberalism which relies on a balance (...) of powers. The French case shows that there is a way, other than representative government, to think about protective rule: the establishment of a good, rational authority based on science. Key Words: democracy • France • law-state • liberalism • politics • political rationalism • popular sovereignty. (shrink)

Gaz de schiste, OGM, énergie nucléaire, cellules souches, changement climatique, efficacité des médicaments... La science, plus que jamais, suscite la méfiance, voire la défiance, des citoyens. Pour une large part, cela vient d'une incompréhension de ce qu'est la démarche scientifique. «A l'occasion du colloque de rentrée du Collège de France organisé à l'automne 2013, des scientifiques, des historiens, des juristes et des politiques se sont attachés à analyser et à clarifier les enjeux technologiques et scientifiques, en s'appuyant sur des exemples (...) concrets au coeur des débats les plus actuels : comment aborder dans une société démocratique le problème du renouvellement des énergies et du remplacement des énergies fossiles par des formes d'énergie moins polluantes, ou celui qui lui est lié du réchauffement climatique, ou encore celui des thérapies géniques, en utilisant de la façon la plus rationnelle possible ce que la science nous apprend, pour optimiser la réponse de la société aux défis qui lui sont posés?» S. H. (shrink)

Gaz de schiste, OGM, énergie nucléaire, cellules souches, changement climatique, efficacité des médicaments... La science, plus que jamais, suscite la méfiance, voire la défiance, des citoyens. Pour une large part, cela vient d'une incompréhension de ce qu'est la démarche scientifique. «A l'occasion du colloque de rentrée du Collège de France organisé à l'automne 2013, des scientifiques, des historiens, des juristes et des politiques se sont attachés à analyser et à clarifier les enjeux technologiques et scientifiques, en s'appuyant sur des exemples (...) concrets au coeur des débats les plus actuels : comment aborder dans une société démocratique le problème du renouvellement des énergies et du remplacement des énergies fossiles par des formes d'énergie moins polluantes, ou celui qui lui est lié du réchauffement climatique, ou encore celui des thérapies géniques, en utilisant de la façon la plus rationnelle possible ce que la science nous apprend, pour optimiser la réponse de la société aux défis qui lui sont posés?» S. H. (shrink)