Should Communitarians be Nationalists?

ABSTRACT It is widely supposed by both its proponents and critics that communitarianism is committed to the defence of lies of nationhood: the nation forms a surviving communal attachment in a world in which the individual is otherwise denuded of ties of community. I argue in this paper that this assumption is mistaken. It depends on a romantic image of the nation which was constructed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. That image hides the recent historical origins of the nation and its foundation in the suppression of older allegiances or their later privatisation; it continues to disguise the illusory nature of the national community. The nation is not a surviving pre-modern community to which individuals are attached as a bulwark against the impersonality of public life in modern society. Rather the nation is one of the main vehicles for the construction of the modern unencumbered self. Communitarians need not be committed to the defence of the specifically modem forms of public irrationality and immorality that nationalism embodies.     

Aggression: myth or model?

ABSTRACT The word, aggression, refers in general usage to unjustified attack, and any serious writer who uses it extensively in some figurative or newly-coined technical sense should leave his meaning in no doubt. Unfortunately some ethological writers fail to do this and deceive themselves into the bargain.
They somewhat naively claim to find aggression built into the fundamental nature of animals, a kind of instinct which cannot be resisted, indeed which must figure in their social cohesion. If the word really retains the moral connotation which I have indicated, then much animal biology is vitiated. Not only are animals misjudged, but, since conclusions are then applied to our human selves, we too are misjudged and recommended to adopt false moral principles.
It is possible that ensuing armchair pseudo-cures may be responsible for a real increase in human violence.     

METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES IN KELSEY'S ECCENTRIC EXISTENCE

This article explores the methodological choices that shape David Kelsey's magnum opus Eccentric Existence: A Theological Anthropology (2009). These choices are explicit, and elucidated by Kelsey primarily in the introductory sections of this work. Considered in turn are Kelsey's rejection of a modern, apologetical approach to the theological task, his recovery of a premodern commitment to explaining the logic of beliefs rather than the logic of coming to belief, his explication of theological anthropology through a God‐centered, Trinitarian, understanding of the biblical plot, and his decision to elucidate the human person theologically through an appreciation of the canonical Wisdom literature, which valorizes humanity's created goodness. It concludes by assessing Kelsey's project as an unsystematic systematic theology, a notion he develops as well in his earlier Imagining Redemption (2005).