Kant's Republican Account of Citizenship

ABSTRACT Kant's political philosophy has experienced a recent revival, largely due to influential interpretations that frame his concept of right as a republican account of “non‐domination.” One of the major challenges in reconstructing Kant's concept of law within neo‐republican terms is his notion of citizenship. While neo‐republicans have made substantial efforts to distance themselves from the traditional view that restricted voting rights to mainstream white men, Kant's distinction between “active” and “passive” citizens still echoes this conventional line of thought. Without dismissing the prevalence of the sexist and classist prejudices inherent in Kant's active/passive dichotomy, this paper argues that Kant introduces this distinction with the republican aim of securing a state governed by non‐arbitrary laws. I contend that this aim explains Kant's concern with the civic character of citizens and their ability to contest structures of domination—a line of argument that aligns him more closely with contemporary neo‐republicanism.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ratio
Published
2025-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12441
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
17.04

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Kant's Republican Account of Citizenship

Elisabeth Theresia Widmer
2 citations
Ratio
Political Philosophy and Ethics
17.04
article

Kant's Republican Account of Citizenship

Elisabeth Theresia Widmer
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Kant's political philosophy has experienced a recent revival, largely due to influential interpretations that frame his concept of right as a republican account of “non‐domination.” One of the major challenges in reconstructing Kant's concept of law within neo‐republican terms is his notion of citizenship. While neo‐republicans have made substantial efforts to distance themselves from the traditional view that restricted voting rights to mainstream white men, Kant's distinction between “active” and “passive” citizens still echoes this conventional line of thought. Without dismissing the prevalence of the sexist and classist prejudices inherent in Kant's active/passive dichotomy, this paper argues that Kant introduces this distinction with the republican aim of securing a state governed by non‐arbitrary laws. I contend that this aim explains Kant's concern with the civic character of citizens and their ability to contest structures of domination—a line of argument that aligns him more closely with contemporary neo‐republicanism.

RatioVol. 38(2)
London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Austrian Science Fund, Norges Forskningsråd
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Political Philosophy and Ethics
17.04
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.