Explore the vast range of titles available.

The reply to five reviews of Bourgeois equality in a symposium in EJPE observes that all the reviewers admit the great force of ideas in causing the Great Enrichment. Materialism is dead. Liberalism reigns.

The author's doctoral supervisor, John W. Chapman, spent his career analyzing why Western Europe developed an open, prosperous, dynamic society. In one way or another every seminar was about that, with their readings ranging over cultural history, economic history, sociology, social psychology, psychology and, yes, even philosophy. In the end, he was never able to weave all the strands into a narrative that, in his judgment, did justice to the problem (or perhaps he glimpsed that it would take over 2000 pages to do so). Deirdre Nansen McCloskey's three-volume work, culminating in Bourgeois equality, is in his view the most compelling grand narrative answering Chapman's query to date. He is entirely convinced on critical points: that the astonishing betterment since (roughly) 1800 is fundamentally a product of the market-tested innovations of the open society, and of the absolutely critical role of moral and ethical notions of bourgeois dignity and equality.

Deirdre McCloskey is a true sui generis in their intellectual universe. In the latest (and last, by her own promise) installment of her Bourgeoisie trilogy, she had brought together many of the ideas proposed in the two earlier volumes, as well as in a long stream of essays and lectures. She is an economist like no other economist: fiercely opposed to the domination of game theory, vociferously suspicious of the use of mindless statistical significance in empirical work, and resistant to the \"institutional turn\" in economic history. Deirdre McCloskey is a true sui generis in their intellectual universe. In the latest installment of her Bourgeoisie trilogy, she had brought together many of the ideas proposed in the two earlier volumes, as well as in a long stream of essays and lectures. She is an economist like no other economist: fiercely opposed to the domination of game theory, vociferously suspicious of the use of mindless statistical significance in empirical work, and resistant to the \"institutional turn\" in economic history.

Deirdre McCloskey has now completed the third volume of her trilogy on how the West (from 1800 to 1950) and most of the rest of the world (from 1900 to 2015) grew rich. The message of all three volumes is spelled out in the subtitle: \"How ideas, not capital or institutions, enriched the world\". The latest volume has much that is right, and a few things that are wrong; all are important. The book is also a tribute to the view that history's finest accomplishments are made late in careers, when one has not only absorbed but mastered a wide variety of materials. In this volume people are treated to McCloskey's finest displays of erudition to date. Her arguments range from in-depth analysis of English literature (notably tracing the marked differences in attitudes toward the bourgeoisie from Shakespeare to Jane Austen but also including Swift, Addison, Steele, Defoe, Fielding, Trollope, Pepys, Johnson) to philosophy (Adam Smith, David Hume, J.L. Austin, Wittgenstein) to hundreds of modern historians, economists, sociologists, and political scientists.

In the twentieth century and beyond, market libertarians have consistently identified themselves with classical liberalism while contributing to the formation and justification of neoliberalism. They have done this, primarily, through the disenchantment of politics by economics; politics is denigrated and drained of power by an economics ready to step into its place. Classical liberalism enjoyed a republican foundation; it ennobled the market and secured it as one institution among many, whereas neoliberalism elevates the market idea to install it as a principle of government. Deirdre McCloskey's eloquent and nuanced defenses of the bourgeois era betray a concern about disenchantment. But their focus on moral disenchantment sidesteps what is essentially a political problem. McCloskey raises fundamental moral and scientific questions about neoliberal order, but her evasion of politics combined with her market advocacy tend to reinforce the phenomenon of economic rule.

The present article seeks to analyze human rights from a gender perspective. To do so, it goes back to the past to explain the development of the society of rights and women’s rights. The analysis starts from the premise that human rights are social products and therefore will reflect and represent the values and interests of the society that produced them, in this case, capitalist society. One of the values of this society is patriarchy and the idea of the superiority of men as a social actor in relation to women. This value is represented in human rights that nevertheless have universality as one of its characteristics: the idea that all people are subjects of such rights independently of any identities. Therefore, the legal text in which human rights were coined affirms an equality that does not exist in practice, since women are violated and their rights are violated every day, in addition to the gender inequality present throughout the world. As an example and materialization of this reality, the Campo Algodonero Case, introduced to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, appears as the first case of the Court to mention femicide, showing the vulnerability of women’s life and integrity. O presente artigo busca analisar os direitos humanos com a lente do gênero. E para isso volta ao passado com a finalidade explicar o desenvolvimento da sociedade de direitos e dos direitos das mulheres. A análise parte da premissa de que os direitos humanos são produtos sociais e que, portanto, vão refletir e representar os valores e interesses da sociedade que os produziu, neste caso, da sociedade capitalista. Um dos valores dessa sociedade é o patriarcado e a ideia da superioridade do homem enquanto ator social frente às mulheres. Esse valor está representado, então, nos direitos humanos que, no entanto, têm como uma das suas características a universalidade, a ideia que todos são sujeitos de tais direitos independente de qualquer identidade. Portanto a letra jurídica na qual os direitos humanos foram cunhados afirma uma igualdade que não existe na prática, já que mulheres são violentadas e têm seus direitos violados todos os dias, além da desigualdade de gênero presente em todo o mundo. Como forma de exemplificar e materializar tal realidade é apresentado um caso da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, o Caso Campo Algodonero, primeiro caso da Corte a citar a possibilidade de feminicídio e no qual se mostra a vulnerabilidade da vida e da integridade das mulheres.

In The Bourgeois Virtues, Deirdre McCloskey contributes to a venerable tradition of theorizing the benefits of capitalism that stretches back to at least the writings of Adam Smith. By exploring the moral benefits of capitalism, McCloskey takes head on the incisive critique that derides it as eroding of virtue. In this paper, I set McCloskey's claims alongside those of two classical defenders of markets, Alexis de Tocqueville and Benjamin Constant. Placing McCloskey in the longer discourse on the moral underpinnings of market society highlights both her contributions to that tradition and the ways in which her account might benefit from Tocqueville's and Constant's awareness of the complex moral legacy of modern capitalism.

Reading Habermass Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (STPS) fifty years after its initial publication, one cant help but be struck by the works blindness to the gendered dimensions of the bourgeois public sphere. Not only does Habermas ignore the ways in which this sphere was founded on the exclusion of women, who were confined to the private,1 he does this while acknowledging other exclusionary aspects of the bourgeois public sphereits exclusion of workers and peasantsand while valorizing the bourgeois family for providing a space of intimacy for the private individuals who would come together in public to discuss matters of common concern. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc.

The trilogy is an example of what might be called the feminist literature of sexual difference: a literature that treats \"woman,\" openly and searchingly, as a sexed category and as an embodied experience that marks an individual's difference from men, as well as her difference from herself.4 In this article, I consider how Sandel's depictions of differences among women complicate the difference of woman as shared reproductive destiny, gendered subordination, and \"samled[e] fornedrelse\" (2004, 545) [collective degradation]. According to historian Jerrold Seigel, bohemia \"was the appropriation of marginal lifestyles by young and not-so-young bourgeois, for the dramatization of ambivalence toward their own social identities and destinies\" (1986, 11). Racial differentiation also serves to redefine the boundaries of her Northern European selfhood, and can refocus the reader's attention on her bourgeois formation.5 In the end, Alberte's position as the citizen of a peripheral nation residing at the cosmopolitan heart of colonial Europe-Paris-métropole-underwrites the primary focus of the trilogy: the fits and starts of her bohemian project of self-realization. In order to reopen the question of race, I engage Ellen Rees's important assessment in \"'Hudens Angst': The Function of the Female Nude in the Opening and Closing Scenes of Cora Sandel's Alberte og friheten\" (2002) and \"Spectacle, Politics, and Writing in Cora Sandel's Alberte og friheten and Bare Alberte\" (2005).6 Rees argues that Alberte moves from object of the male gaze to subject in the second novel, but that she does so \"on the back of the African woman\" (2002, 276). After...