Bibliographic record
Abstract
At a time when liberal democratic politics are apparently waning in the West, this chapter will offer a constructive critique of mainstream liberalism focusing on the doubly sacrificial character attributed to it by Carl Schmitt. As Schmitt presented it in his Weimar-era work, liberalism is sacrificial in two senses. Firstly, it is sacrificial in the same sense that all political theories are sacrificial, i.e. insofar as they involve selective legitimations of sacrifice. Secondly, and even more crucially, liberalism is sacrificial in the sense that liberal theorists often conceal or deny the sacrificial dynamics of liberalism, thereby sacrificing (or attempting to sacrifice) the right of opponents to contest the selective legitimations of sacrifice that they present. In support of Schmitt’s diagnosis, this chapter will provide a detailed reading of John Rawls’s Political Liberalism , one of the key texts of the modern liberal canon. At root, Rawls’s text is an attempt to provide a model of liberal politics that could plausibly appeal to all “reasonable” persons (liberal and non-liberal), and that can therefore be imposed on all persons non-coercively (since it is linked to their “common human reason” and not some alien, dictatorial will). By overemphasizing the reasonableness of political liberalism, Rawls glosses over its sacrificial and coercive dynamics. In light of this reading, and more broadly in light of Schmitt’s critique, the chapter suggests that liberalism needs to shift its priorities. What is valuable about liberalism—and what sets it apart from the anti-liberal populism now ripping through the West—is not its capacity to transcend a politics of sacrifice (it cannot), but its capacity for a certain reflexivity in its opposition to sacrifice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".