社会学が政治・公共を論じることは可能なのか．現代の社会学にとっては，このような問い自体が無用に思える．20世紀の後半以降，政治社会学は社会学の一分野として確固たる地位を占め，21世紀になってからは，公共社会学という標語が注目を集めている．その一方で，ハーバーマスやアレントが公共を重視する立場から社会学的な思考に投げかけた疑念に対して，適切に答える準備が私たちには整っているであろうか．

金野美奈子の近著，『ロールズと自由な社会のジェンダー――共生への対話』の注目 すべき点とは，社会学が政治・公共を論じる困難を意識した上で，この問題に対する説得的な答えの1つを提示していることである．ロールズの『政治的リベラリズム』に示唆を受けながら，本書は公共的観点と非公共的観点との区別を行い，非公共的世界における多様な価値観の存在を正面から受け止める．この価値観の対立を乗り越え，共生の関係を実現するための鍵として本書が提示するのが，公共的理性に導かれた対話である．公共的対話に臨む市民たちは，媒介としての政治的代表に導かれつつ，自らの意識や意見，アイデンティティの直接的表出を公共的理性に即して抑制し，異なる価値観を持った他の市民を説得しうる議論を提示することが求められる．この媒介のプロセスこそが，公共領域の相対的自立性を維持するとともに，非公共的領域における価値観の変容を可能とする回路なのである．

How is the sociology of the political possible? This issue seems irrelevant to contemporary sociology, which has recognized the field of political sociology as an established branch of sociological research since the latter half of the 20th century. Indeed, during the past decade, public sociology has played a key role in widely disseminating a sociological perspective and serving as a rallying point for this discipline. However, although sociologists consistently perform research on political topics, our frame of reference seems to overlook the crucial distinction between political phenomena per se and the actions of the state, which are viewed as outcomes of opposing political interests or reflections of voters’ opinions. Can we offer a serious reply to the warning delivered by Habermas and Arendt against the incursion of sociological thinking into the political domain?

Konno’s recent book, Public Reason for Living with Others: John Rawls’ Political Liberalism and Gender, offers a persuasive argument on this challenge facing sociology. Following Rawls’ reference to the demarcation between the public and the non-public in Political Liberalism, this book acknowledges the difficulties presented by the existence of varied, and sometimes mutually antagonistic, comprehensive world views in the non-public realm of a liberal democratic society. Addressing issues related to how such a society can function when it contains citizens hostile to liberal values, the author underscores the role of public dialogue on the conditions for social cooperation in achieving an inclusive society. During such a public dialogue, each citizen would be accompanied by a political representative, who would act as a mediator, and set aside personal interests and opinions in favor of arguing for a position based on the greater good of society. The goal of such discourse would be to gain the support of other citizens with different value systems. This process of mediation is certain to be a focal point for future research pertaining to the sociology of the political.