Ugly Attachments: Judith Shklar and the Unattractive Face of Solidarity

Judith N. Shklar on disobedience and obligation in a “society of strangers”

“…Nevertheless, this active citizenship differs significantly from the democratic and radical democratic imaginary: it does not imply collective participatory action. Shklar's view does not necessarily exclude joint efforts, but their dynamic is in her view not what may render disobedience “civic.” Participatory visions of democracy, with their strong interpretations of consent, Shklar feared, easily led to the conflation of political obligations and loyalties (also see Misra, 2020, p. 7). The horizontal obligation which emerges from civil disobedience cannot be translated into group solidarities.…”

“…It is not an easy choice, and Shklar admonishes us that nothing recompenses for its burden: no hopes to finally touch the “utopian horizon” of democracy (Cohen & Arato, 1994, p. 566) and not the sympathies of one's fellow rule breakers in a new, participatory garden of Eden. For compensations such as these, the “paradox of official justice” is too deeply built into liberal democracies, and the flaws of loyalty haunt participatory visions of democracy too strongly (Misra, 2020). Shklar's late writings do underwrite the importance of vigilant and active citizenship which recent interpreters have found in her writings on the liberalism of rights (Scheuerman, 2019a, p. 62).…”

“…My third aim is to address a question raised by current Shklar scholarship. Against conservative readings of her “liberalism of fear,” recent interpreters have convincingly emphasized the role of democracy and citizenship in Shklar's mature writings (Gatta, 2018; Müller, 2019, p. 148; Scheuerman, 2019a, p. 62; Misra, 2020, p. 4). While some interpreters lend a radical tinge to Shklar's democratic liberalism, reading her as an ally of postfoundational political thought (Gatta, 2018, p. 3; also see Stullerova, 2014), others remain hesitant to do so (especially Bajohr, 2019, pp.…”