SP406 Principles of Political Theory
Lecturers:
Dr. Allyn Fives: Room MY310, Aras Moyola.
Office hours: Wednesday 11.00 – 1.00, Thursday: 12.00 – 1.00
Dr. Kevin Ryan: Room MY325, Aras Moyola.
Office hours: Monday 12.00–1.00; Wednesday 2.30–3.30.
Course description:
What questions are fundamental when we consider politics and democracy? The two
questions addressed in the first part of the course concern justice and legitimacy: what is
the just distribution of benefits and burdens; and what is the legitimate exercise of political
authority? The first part of the course also introduces the most keenly debated principles
in contemporary political theory: utility, liberty, equality, publicity, solidarity, and
legitimacy. In doing so it both discusses the work of the major figures in the discipline and
also explores how their arguments are applied to real world political issues.
Contemporary theorists draw on a range of philosophical traditions from the 20th century
and earlier (including utilitarianism, liberalism, Marxism, republicanism, feminism, and
Aristotelianism) and their work is highly relevant to attempts to deal with issues such as
how to reduce domination and deprivation, how to deal with moral pluralism, what
responsibilities we have for non-citizens, and how to justify public policy priorities.
In the second part of the course, many of these substantive concerns (in particular liberty,
equality, solidarity, domination, and pluralism) are re-examined through the lens of
democratic theory. In the lectures we examine two major currents in contemporary
democratic theory: ‘deliberative’ democracy and ‘agonistic’ democracy. As a way of
thinking about politics and ‘the political’, the concept of agonism emphasises struggle,
contest and plurality. Originating in the athletic and oratorical contests of ancient Greece,
this has recently come to characterise a distinct branch of democratic theory.
Contemporary agonists have staged a critical debate with normative theories that
prioritise rational deliberation and consensus as the means and ends of democratic
politics. Although there are important differences in the respective approaches of
deliberative and agonistic democrats, they also have certain things in common: the idea
that democracy as it currently exists is constrained, even flawed, and the argument that
the promise of democracy can only be fulfilled if people are both willing and able to play a
more active and direct role in political life.
1
Learning Outcomes:
Students completing the requirements of this course will be able to:
 Demonstrate critical thinking, including the ability to formulate an argument.
 Analyse contemporary problems in light of the concepts and theories presented in
class.
 Identify concepts and questions that are central to Western political thought.
Method of Assessment
Students are required to write a mid-term essay (details will be announced in class) and sit a
two-hour exam at the end of the semester. The exam paper is in three sections, all of which
must be answered.
Reading for this Course
The core readings for each topic are listed week by week below.
Please note that there is no single textbook for this module, but there are a number of
useful general texts in the library, including the following:
Farrelly, Colin (2004) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, Sage. 320.011 CON
Allyn Fives (2013) Political Reason: Morality and the public sphere. 320.01 FIV
Plant, R (1991) Modern Political Thought. 320.01 PLA
Kymlicka, W (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. 320.50904 KYM
Morrow, J (1998) A History of Political Thought: A Thematic Introduction. 320.011 MOR
Structure:
Weeks 1 – 6: Dr. Allyn Fives
Weeks 7 – 12: Dr. Kevin Ryan
Timetable:
Monday, 11am – 12pm, AM250
Thursday, 3pm – 4pm, AM250
2
Topics and Reading List
Week 1: Introduction to political theory and overview of the course
Political theory is the one branch of philosophy most closely concerned with public
matters. Political theory can provide insight into the fundamental problems of modern
politics (including domination, inequality, global justice, and moral disagreement); and it
can draw on a range of philosophical traditions from the 20th century and earlier (including
utilitarianism, liberalism, Marxism, republicanism, feminism, and Aristotelianism).
What questions does political theory attempt to answer? The two most important
questions (the ones that we will be concerned with in this course) are: What is the just
distribution of benefits and burdens? What is the legitimate exercise of political power?
Reading:
Allyn Fives (2016) The role of philosophy in public matters. In Fives & Breen (Eds.)
Philosophy and Political Engagement (Palgrave) [Blackboard]
Jonathan Wolff (2011). Ethics and Public Inquiry. London: Routledge. Introduction
[Blackboard]
Michael Sandel (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Chapter 1. 320.011 SAN
[Blackboard]
Philip Pettit (2006). Why and how philosophy matters to politics. In R.E.Goodin and
C.Tilly, eds, Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Studies. 320 OXF
Week 2: Utility and Liberty
According to the utilitarian, an act is right insofar as it promotes happiness.
Questions: Is utilitarianism as a philosophical approach ideally suited to politics (if not to
personal life)? Is utilitarianism compatible with respect for individual liberty, or is it instead
a threat to personal freedom?
Utilitarianism requires us to get our ‘hands dirty,’ for instance, when we make tough
decisions about the distribution of scarce resources. Can utilitarianism justify these tough
decisions, such as when we decide on public policy priorities? We look at the example of
the use of torture against accused terrorists, restricting freedom of expression so as to
maintain order, and experimental studies for evidence-based services.
Introductory Reading:
Michael Sandel (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Chapter 2. 320.011 SAN
[Blackboard]
Further Readings:
Allyn Fives (2008) Political and Philosophical Debates in Welfare. Chapter 2. 361 FIV
Robert E. Goodin (1995) Utilitarianism as a public philosophy. Chapters 1-2. 171.5 GOO
[Blackboard]
HLA Hart (1979) ‘Utility and Rights’, Columbia Law Review, 79(5), 828–46. [Blackboard]
Will Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 2. 320.50904 KYM
Peter Singer (1993). Practical Ethics. Chapter 2. 170 SIN
Raymond Plant (1991). Modern Political Thought. Chapter 4. 320.01PLA
3
Week 3: Liberty and Equality
According to Isaiah Berlin, we should protect each person’s ‘negative’ liberty (i.e. their
freedom from interference), and we are never justified in coercing another so as to make
them free in the ‘positive’ sense (i.e. the freedom to do this and the freedom to be that).
Question: Do we not also have duties to help others obtain the resources needed to lead
their own lives or even to lead valuable lives?
One alternative approach is that, although we should not coerce others to be free, we
should help others obtain the background conditions of positive freedom.
In addition, according to John Rawls, after guaranteeing the liberty of each (freedom from
interference, as Berlin defines it) we should prioritize the interests of the least well off.
Introductory Reading:
Will Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 3. 320.50904 KYM
Further Reading:
Isaiah Berlin (1958). Two Concepts of Liberty. In Henry Hardy (Ed.) Liberty (pp. 166-217).
323.44 BER
Robert Nozick (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. Chapter 7. 320.101 NOZ
John Rawls (1971). A Theory of Justice. Chapters 1-3. 320.011 RAW [Blackboard]
Joseph Raz (1986). The Morality of Freedom. Chapter 15. 323.44 RAZ
Week 4: Virtue and Reasonableness
According to Aristotelians, justice requires that we each receive what we deserve, and
our desert (or merit) is a function of our virtuous activity in contributing to the achievement
of society’s common goods.
Questions: In a modern society, can we agree about what is ‘good’ and a ‘virtue’? Or
instead is it the case that we cannot expect others to agree with us about these highly
controversial ideas? If we answer in the affirmative to the latter question, a key
requirement of politics is reasonableness: that is, a commitment to appeal to and use
ideas that can be made public in the sense that others can be expected to accept them.
We will look at what Aristotelians (Alasdair MacIntyre) and liberals (John Rawls) have
argued and in particular concerning the phenomenon of moral pluralism and how it
relates to children. Do parents have a right to ‘share a way of life’ with their children (i.e.
the right to socialize and educate their children in such a way as to promote and inculcate
their values)? Does society have the right to promote certain values (e.g.
reasonableness, autonomy) among all children, even when parents are opposed to this?
Introductory Reading:
Will Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 6. 320.50904 KYM
Further Reading:
Allyn Fives (2013) Political Reason. Chapter 6. 320.01 FIV
Amy Gutmann (1995). Civic Education and Social Diversity. Ethics, 105(3), 557-579.
[Full text on-line at NUI Galway].
Alasdair MacIntyre (1984). Is patriotism a virtue? In Ronald Beiner (Ed.) Theorizing
Citizenship. 323.6 THE [Blackboard]
John Rawls (1989). The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus. The New
York University Law Review, 64(2), 233-255. [Full text on-line at NUI Galway].
Michael Sandel (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Chps 8 & 10. 320.011 SAN
4
Week 5: Membership and Cosmopolitanism
According to cosmopolitans, our responsibilities extend to all humans within a global civil
society, and therefore we should not discriminate between those who are members and
those who are strangers. The alternative (communitarian) line of argument is that we
already belong to political communities and therefore membership itself (and the rights
and duties that come with it) is a good that can be sought or lost.
Question: Do we have a duty to admit strangers (e.g. refugees, immigrants) and to aid
strangers (e.g. assistance to the distant poor)?
We will explore the specific examples of global distributive justice, human rights
interventions, immigration, asylum, and refugees.
Introductory Reading:
Michael Walzer (1983). Spheres of Justice. Chapter 2. 305 WAL [Blackboard]
RE Goodin (1995) Utilitarianism as a public philosophy Ch. 16 171.5 GOO [Blackboard]
Further Reading:
Charles Beitz (2001). Human Rights as a Common Concern. The American Political
Science Review, 95(2), 269-282. [Full text on-line at NUI Galway].
Allyn Fives (2013) Political Reason. Chapter 7. 320.01 FIV
David Miller (2004). National responsibility and international justice. In Deen K. Chatterjee
(Ed.). The Ethics of Assistance (pp. 123-146). [Blackboard]
Richard W. Miller (2004). Moral Closeness and World Community. In Deen K. Chatterjee
(Ed.). The Ethics of Assistance (pp. 101-122). [Blackboard]
Michael Sandel (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Chapter 9. 320.011 SAN
Peter Singer (1993). Practical Ethics, Chapter 8. 170 SIN
Week 6: Legitimacy and Justice
Legitimacy is a matter of political power; justice is a matter of the distribution of benefits
and burdens.
Questions: Are there different forms of State power, such that we can distinguish
between coercion, interference with liberty, and control? Even if the State’s power is
legitimate, is it a separate matter whether we have a duty to obey the State? For power to
be legitimate, must it be democratic? Can an unjust society be legitimate?
For liberals, people are free insofar as no one does interfere with their liberty, and people
can be free in unequal and undemocratic societies. According to republican theorists, the
most important issue is the extent to which some individuals or groups have the capacity
to interfere with the freedom of choice of others and therefore people are free only in
democratic and egalitarian societies.
Introductory Reading:
Philip Pettit (2012). On the People’s Terms. Introduction. 321.86 PET
Further Reading:
Richard Flathman (1993) Legitimacy. In R. E. Goodin, P. Pettit, T. W. Pogge (Eds.) A
Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 38. 320.01 COM
Amy Gutmann (1993) Democracy. In R. E. Goodin, P. Pettit, T. W. Pogge (Eds.) A
Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 25. 320.01 COM
Will Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 7. 320.50904 KYM
Philip Pettit (2012). On the People’s Terms. Chapter 3. 321.86 PET
5
Week 7: Problematizing democracy: from aggregation to deliberation
In the lectures this week we will explore two very different approaches to the study of
democracy. One, which tends to equate participation with the electoral cycle, is an
understanding of democracy as a process of ‘aggregation’, whereby the ‘will of the
people’ or the ‘common good’ is achieved through the aggregation of individual
preferences. The other approach we examine uses a broad conception of ‘language’ to
think about the relationship between liberty, equality, and solidarity, and this will serve as
a starting point in moving towards a ‘deliberative’ theory of democracy.
Core readings:
 Shapiro, Ian (2005) Aggregation, Deliberation, and the Common Good
 Rorty, Richard (1989) Chapter 1 (the Contingency of Language) from his
Contingency, Irony, Solidarity
Further Reading:
Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity
Rorty, R. (1998) Truth and Progress
Rorty, R. (2007) Philosophy as Cultural Politics
Rorty, R. (1998) Achieving our Country: leftist thought in twentieth-century America
Rorty, R. (1996) ‘Idealisations, Foundations and Social Practices’’, in S. Benhabib (Ed)
Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political
Rorty, R. (1998) Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies: A Conversation with Richard Rorty
Malachowski, A. R. (2002) Richard Rorty, Volume 3 Politics, Irony and Solidarity
Festenstein, M. and T. Simon (2001) Richard Rorty: Critical Dialogues
Conant, J. (2000) ‘Freedom, Cruelty and Truth: Rorty versus Orwell’, in R. Brandom,
Rorty and His Critics
Saatkamp, H. J. (1995) Rorty and Pragmatism: the philosopher responds to his critics
Week 8: Deliberative Democracy
This week we examine Jürgen Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy, focusing in
particular on how this is anchored in his social theory of ‘communicative action’.
Habermas’ political theory is based on the insight that the democratic process can be
(and ought to be) guided by implicit norms which are built into the structure of
communication, which ‘push’ interlocutors to try to reach mutual understanding and
normative agreement. According to Habermas, the question ‘why?’ (why did you say that,
why did you do that) acts as a ‘warranty’ against insincerity, deceit and manipulation. We
will look at criticisms of Habermas’ theory in subsequent weeks, but first we need to gain
an understanding of how he builds his theory, and how this relates to a specific way of
thinking about ‘consensus’.
Core readings:
 Rehg, William (1996) ‘Translator’s Introduction’ to Jürgen Habermas, Between
Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.
 Eriksen, E. O. and Weigård, Chapters 3 & 6 from their Understanding Habermas:
Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy
Further Reading
Habermas (1987 & 1984) Theory of Communicative Action (2 volumes)
Habermas, J (1996) Between Facts and Norms
Habermas, J (1984) Communication and the Evolution of Society
6
Habermas (1998) The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (pp. 39-46 and
Section V)
Habermas, J., ‘The Public Sphere’, reproduced in Goodin, R. & Petit, P (Eds) (1997)
Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology
Cooke, M (1994) Language and Reason
Cooke, M (2006) Re-presenting the Good Society
Delanty, G. (1999) ‘Discourse and Democracy: Habermas’ Theory of Modernity’, in his
Social Theory in a Changing World: Conceptions of Modernity
Eriksen, E. O. and Weigård, J (2003) Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action
and Deliberative Democracy (Esp. Chapter 4)
Farrelly, Colin (2004) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader (pp. 223-59)
Held, D. (1990) Introduction to Critical Theory (see Chap. 9: ‘Introduction to Habermas’)
White, S. K. (1995) ‘Reason, Modernity, and Democracy’, in White (Ed) The Cambridge
Companion to Habermas
Dryzek, J. S. (1995) ‘Communicative Rationality and Cultural Values’, in White (Ed) The
Cambridge Companion to Habermas
Week 9: From Consensus to Contestation
Last week we focused on Habermas’ theory of communicative action and how this
underpins his argument that rational deliberation and consensus together constitute the
appropriate means and ends of democratic politics. What this means in effect is that
collectively-binding decisions are (or ought to be) the outcome of deliberative processes
that generate mutual understanding and normative agreement. This week we will begin
to take up a critical perspective on this consensual theory of democracy by exploring the
following question with the help of Hannah Arendt and John Dryzek: does conflict present
a threat to democracy, or is conflict an inevitable, even necessary feature of the
democratic process? By exploring this question, we will begin to unpack the concept of
‘agonism’.
Core readings:
 Key concepts in Arendt: Natality (by Karin Fry), Labour, Work & Action (by Paul
Voice), Hannah Arendt on the World (by Siobhan Kattago)
 Kalyvas: ‘The democratic narcissus: the agonism of the ancients compared to that
of the (post)moderns’, in Schaap, A. (ed) (2009) Law and Agonistic Politics
 Dryzek, John (2000) Chapter 7 (Discursive Democracy in a Reflexive Modernity)
from his Deliberative Democracy and Beyond
Additional Reading (also on Blackboard):
 Arendt: ‘Introduction into Politics’, from her The Promise of Politics
Further Reading
Arendt, H. (2005) The Promise of Politics
Arendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition
Arendt, H. (1965) On Revolution
Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence
D’Entreves, M. P. (2001) The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt
Canovan, M. (1974) The Political Thought of Hannah Arendt
Dryzek, John (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond
Dryzek, J. (2006) Deliberative global politics : discourse and democracy in a divided
world
7
Gutman, A. & D. Thompson, Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process, in Farrelly, C.
(2004) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, pp223-59
Miller, David (1992) ‘Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice’, Political Studies, 40
(Special Issue), pp. 54-67
Elster, Jon (Ed) (1998) Deliberative Democracy
Benhabib, S (1996) ‘Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy’, in Benhabib,
S (Ed) Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political
Cohen, J (1996) ‘Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy’, in Benhabib, S
(Ed) Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political
Young, I. M (1996) ‘Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy’, in
Benhabib, S (Ed) Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political
Week 10: Agonistic Pluralism Pt. 1
Having traced an outline of the concept of ‘agonism’ last week, this week and next week
we examine two contemporary theorists of ‘agonistic pluralism’: William Connolly and
Chantal Mouffe, whose work has been described respectively as ‘the expressive agon’
(Connolly) and ‘the pragmatic agon’ (Mouffe). You have already encountered the
concept of moral pluralism in Dr. Allyn Fives’ lectures, and we touched on pluralism when
we looked at the idea of aggregative democracy in week 7 of the course. The issue of
pluralism is also implicit in Habermas’ notion of consensus, but according to the agonists,
both the aggregative and deliberative understandings of democratic pluralism are wholly
inadequate is dealing with the question of identity and difference, which is also the
question of inclusion/exclusion.
Core readings:
 Connolly: Introduction (The Pluralist Imagination) from his Ethos of Pluralization
 Connolly: Introduction from his Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of
Political Paradox
Further Reading
Connolly, W. (2005). Pluralism
Connolly, W. (1995) Ethos Of Pluralization
Connolly, W. (2002) Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox
Campbell, D. and M. Schoolman (2008) The new pluralism William Connolly and the
contemporary global condition (on order)
Schaap, A. (ed) (2009) Law and Agonistic Politics
Schaap A (2007) Political theory and the agony of politics. Political Studies Review 5:
56-74.
Honig B (1993) Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca and London:
Cornell University Press.
Howarth, D. (2008) Ethos, Agonism and Populism: William Connolly and the Case for
Radical Democracy, British Journal of Politics and International relations 10: 171-93.
Tully, J. (2006) The Agonic Freedom of Citizens. Economy and Society 28(2): 161
182.
Dryzek, J. (2005) Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies: Alternatives to
Agonism and Analgesia. Political Theory 33(2): 218-242.
8
Week 11: Agonistic Pluralism Pt. 2
This week we focus on Mouffe’s theory of ‘agonistic democracy’, which is very different
from Connolly’s way of thinking about ‘agonistic respect’. The central questions for this
week concern the (alleged) impossibility of consensus without exclusion, and also
Mouffe’s insistence that all forms of politics, including liberal democracy, presuppose
some type of friend/enemy relation. We will also look at Mouffe’s most recent work on
‘agonistic politics and artistic practices’, where she makes the connection between art
and political activism.
Core readings:


Mouffe: Chapter 2 (Politics and the Political) from On the Political & Chapter 4
(For and Agonistic Model of Democracy) from The Democratic Paradox
Mouffe, C. (2013) Agonistic Politics and Artistic Practices, from her Agonistics:
Thinking the World Politically, Verso.
On Mouffe
Mouffe, Chantal (2012) Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically
Mouffe, Chantal (2005) On the Political
Mouffe, Chantal (2000) The Democratic Paradox
Mouffe, C (1996) ‘Democracy, power, and the "political"’, in Benhabib, S (Ed) Democracy
and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political.
Mouffe, Chantal (1998) ‘Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?, in Andrew Ross
(Ed), Universal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism, Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh.
Mouffe, Chantal (1996b) ‘Deconstruction, Pragmatism and the Politics of Democracy’, in
Chantal Mouffe (Ed) Deconstruction and Pragmatism, Routledge, London and New York.
Laclau and Mouffe (2001) [1985] Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics (Chapters 3 & 4).
Laclau and Mouffe (1987) ‘Post-Marxism without Apologies’, New Left Review, 166: 79106.
Torfing, Jacob (1999) New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek (Chapters 13
& 14).
Smith, Anna Marie (1998) Laclau and Mouffe: the Radical Democratic Imaginary.
On Hegemony
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks
Martin, James (1998) Gramsci’s Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction
Fontana, Benedetto, Hegemony and Power: On the Relation between Machiavelli and
Gramsci
Week 12: Dissensus: the art of democracy?
In this final week of the course, we continue with the theme of art and activism, beginning
with a third type of agonism: the ‘strategic’ agonism of Jacques Rancière. Rancière has a
unique way of theorising the relation between aesthetics and politics, and we will
approach this by looking at examples of artists who practice ‘relational antagonism’ (see
Bishop 2004). We will also examine practices that cross between art and activism but
which are more in tune with deliberative democracy. By working back and forth between
theory and practice in this way, we will gain an understanding of how ‘democracy’ can be
enacted and performed through creative practices that resonate strongly with Arendt’s
concept of natality and her views on ‘the world’ as a human artifice.
9
Core readings:
 Rockhill, G. 2004. Translator’s Introduction. In: J. Rancière, The Politics of
Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible.
 Bishop, C., 2012. Participation and Spectacle: Where are we Now?
 Kester, G. & M. Wilson (2007) Autonomy, Agonism and Activist Art: An Interview
with Grant Kester. Art Journal 66(3), 107-18.
Further Reading:
Bishop, C. (2012) Artificial Hells: Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship
Bishop, C., 2012. Participation and spectacle: where are we now? In: N. Thompson, ed.
Living as form: socially engaged art from 1991-2011. New York: Creative Time,
34-45.
Bishop, C., 2004. Antagonism and relational aesthetics. October, 110: 51-79.
Bourriaud, N. (1998) Relational aesthetics. Dijon: Le Presses du Réel.
Davis, O. (2010) Jacques Rancière
Kester, G. (2011) The One and the Many: Contemporary collaborative art in a global
context
Rancière, J. (2010) Dissensus
Rancière, J. (2004) The Politics of Aesthetics : The distribution of the sensible
Rancière, J. (1992) Politics, identification, and subjectivization. October, 61, 58-64
Roche, J., 2006. Socially engaged art, critics and discontents: an interview with Claire
Bishop. Community Arts Network. http://www.apionline.org/.
Thompson, N. (Ed) (2012) Living as Form: Socially Engaged Art from 1991-2011
May, T. (2008) The Political Thought of Jacques Rancière: Creating equality
Holmes, B., 2012. Eventwork: the fourfold matrix of contemporary social movements. In:
N. Thompson, ed. Living as form: socially engaged art from 1991-2011. New York:
Creative Time, 72-85.
Additional resources:
Park Fiction., 2013. Introduction in English. Updated 10th December 2013. http://parkfiction.net/park-fiction-introduction-in-english/.
Santiago Sierra: http://www.alfredojaar.net/
Alfredo Jaar: http://www.alfredojaar.net/
Navjot Altaf: http://www.navjotaltaf.com/
Thomas Hirschhorn: interview available at: http://bombmagazine.org/article/3621/thomashirschhorn
Grant Kester: https://ucsd.academia.edu/GrantKester
Claire Bishop: http://clairebishopresearch.blogspot.ie/
10