Political Recognition and Æsthetic Judgement Paul Corcoran Abstract: The concept of recognition has been employed as a term of art in sovereign diplomacy, and in a philosophical tradition ranging from Plato to Hegel as an archetype of the emergence of political association leading to ethical civil relations. Recent liberal theorists have adapted the Hegelian ‘struggle for recognition’ to strengthen the argument for humane respect and human rights in the modern, multi- cultural state. This article emphasizes the cognitive processes and per- ceptual capacities of recognition. Drawing on Kant and Arendt, this article argues for a broadly æsthetic view of politics as a basis for eth- ical and moral appraisal, and illustrates this approach with hypothet- ical and actual examples of politics and art. Keywords: recognition; æsthetics; Hegel; Kant; Arendt; hyper-realism; impressionism. In recent years there has been renewed philosophical interest in recog- nition. Liberal political theorists, particularly those concerned with questions of nationalism, group identity and multiculturalism (Taylor 1992; Guttmann 1992; Kymlicka 1995; Vincent 2002; Waldron 2002; Young 1995), approach the ‘politics of recognition’ as an ethical inquiry about human rights. Their explorations draw on an older philosophical tradition dating to Plato’s master-slave paradigm and revived in Hegel’s phenomenological account of an archetypal ‘strug- gle for recognition’ that lies at the heart of human association (Fukuyama 1992; Honneth 1996; Kojève 1969). In both the Hegelian and the liberal inquiries, recognition arises, or ought to arise, as a pos- itive, developmental human encounter that involves appraisal, mutual esteem and an acknowledgement of interdependence. 1 This respect is accorded by one person to another not only because of their shared humanity but, perhaps more importantly, in recognition of their mate- rial, linguistic, racial or other cultural differences (Tully 1995; Conover 1995). This recognition of and respect for difference has Theoria, April 2008 doi:10.3167/th.2007.5511505