We live in a world of great cultural and linguistic diversity, and even greater diversity of opinion. It’s often unclear what role this diversity should play in the formation and application of philosophical principles. In addition, we need to know how to make sense of the multitude of conflicts that arise due to our different linguistic and cultural starting points. Should our states ideally be melting pots, salad bowls, or something more homogenous? More abstractly, what is the significant of state sovereignty? And what is the role that language plays or ought to play in the formation of philosophical principles?

The most recent special issue of Kantian Review is about the role played by contingent, socially, and historically influenced features of human life in central features of Kant’s moral, political, and theoretical philosophy. It’s various contributors weigh in on how Kant does or ought to have addressed the questions raised above.  

Kant did not pay a great deal of attention to language and nationality in his theory of law and politics and he certainly does not give to either phenomenon the significance they have attained in later political theory. Indeed, he seems not to have anticipated the role that the concept of language was to play in twentieth century Anglo-American analytical philosophy, nor does he foresee the sometimes-devastating role that linguistic and ethnic national divisions were to play in nineteenth and twentieth century European politics.

But this doesn’t mean that Kant thought language was insignificant. In places in his writings, he demonstrates pride in what Germans and Germany had achieved in modern times. He is conscious that there is a noticeable German philosophical tradition on which he is drawing, and he transitioned to an almost exclusive use of German in his published writings over the course of his career. Even still, he does not demonstrate a romantic attachment to the language in the manner of Herder and Fichte.

The contributions collected here address some of the questions related to the role of language, sovereignty and nationality in Kant’s practical philosophy. Both Susan Shell and Ronald Tinnevelt are interested in aspects of state sovereignty and the limits of government. Broadly speaking their animating question, approached from different perspectives, is that of how we ought to set up and maintain a state that respects the rights of its citizens. Sophie Møller and Reidar Maliks both compare Kant and Fichte: Møller on the role of consent in the social contract, and Maliks on perfectionism and the emancipatory promise of political institutions. Tinnevelt and Miller both address, though in different ways, the question of how state institutions can maintain the civic dispositions and attitudes necessary for the state’s own continuation. In their contributions to this issue, Andrew Vincent and Helder De Schutter respectively ask about the impact of language on philosophical thinking and the question of cultural and language rights. Both engage with Kant’s ideas by comparison with one of Kant’s interlocutors: Johann Georg Hamann and Johann Gottfried Herder, respectively.

Even on the basis of these short descriptions, we can see that the authors contribute to our understanding of the continued relevance of Kant’s philosophy, and the resources it offers us for our consideration of on-going and deeply felt political, cultural and linguistic conflicts. In a more scholarly vein, the contributions also invite us to engage with a broad range of Kant’s texts, from the first Critique to the writings in moral and political philosophy, to the Anthropology and related texts. In this way, the papers collected in this issue also contribute to the on-going project of asking how the various elements of Kant’s philosophy fit together.