The Kantian problematic in contemporary political theory (Immanuel Kant, John Rawls, Michel Foucault)

Kant is one of the few figures in the history of philosophy discussed by virtually every contemporary political theorist. His legacy---the concepts, principles, arguments, and dispositions he bequeathed to posterity at the end of the eighteenth century---is undeniably rich. It also remains highly contested. The aims of this dissertation are to examine Kant's contested legacy---or what I call the Kantian problematic---and to argue how it ought to be carried forward today.; My strategy is to consider how contemporary Kant scholars and political theorists read Kant. Initially, I construct a map of contemporary Kant scholarship. I delineate four camps of Kant scholars: admirers of Kant's moral doctrine (such as Onora O'Neill and Allen Wood), critics of Kant's moral doctrine (such as Bonnie Honig and Ian Hunter), advocates of Kant's legislative ethos (such as P. F. Strawson and John Rawls), and promoters of Kant's transgressive ethos (such as Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze). The dispute over Kant's legacy, I contend, cannot be settled exegetically. That is, each camp of Kant scholarship may fit Kant's texts within its paradigm. The question of Kant's legacy, thus, must be decided by which interpretation best helps interpret and evaluate contemporary political phenomena.; To that end, I focus on how Rawls and Deleuze appropriate the Kantian problematic. For both Rawls and Deleuze, the most valuable component of the Kantian problematic is its ethos, or critical way of thinking and feeling. For both Rawls and Deleuze, the Kantian ethos encourages one to think for oneself, i.e., to transgress old principles and to legislate new ones. This dissertation illuminates how Rawls and Deleuze, as Kantians, revise the Kantian problematic to create original political theories. This analysis indicates, to Anglo-American and Continental audiences, the utility of interpreting the Kantian problematic as a dynamic ethos rather than as a static doctrine.; Finally, I argue that reading Rawls and Deleuze alongside one another discloses the difficulty and importance of maintaining tension between the legislative and transgressive moments of the Kantian ethos. I conclude by discussing the implications of my dissertation for critical and democratic theory.