According to Rousseau, the best relationship between unequals is one of 'benificence', giving, receiving and repaying benefits. This 1993 book addresses the problem implicit in his writings of whether it is indeed possible for a just and generous relationship to exist between non-equals. Judith Still draws together issues in Rousseau's work which are often treated in isolation: the state, just relations between individuals, sexual politics and the constructing of a feminine identity. She analyses his works, his classical sources, and the conceptual underpinnings of his ethics, crossing the boundary between study of Rousseau as a complex and sensitive writer of fiction and autobiography and consideration of his political and ethical theory. Using techniques of reading drawn from literary theory, particularly from the work of Derrida, de Man and Starobinski, she argues that for Rousseau it is sexual difference which disturbs the practice of benificence.

According to Rousseau, the best possible relationship between unequals is one of 'beneficence', giving, receiving and repaying benefits. This book addresses the problem implicit in his writings of whether it is indeed possible for a just and generous relationship to exist between non-equals. Judith Still draws together issues in Rousseau's work which are often treated in isolation: the state, just relations between individuals, the genealogy of passions, sexual politics and the constructing of a feminine identity. Using techniques of reading drawn from literary theory, particularly from the work of Derrida, de Man and Starobinski, she analyses the conceptual underpinnings of Rousseau's ethics, and the gaps and contradictions in his works, to argue that ultimately it is sexual difference, constructed defensively as a fixed, hierarchical opposition, which disturbs the practice of beneficence. She shows how Rousseau's reworking of the classical inheritance in a revolutionary historical moment, his peculiar combination of Enlightenment rationality and near-pathological sensibility, and his oscillating self-identification with virility and femininity, are reflected in this important aspect of his political and ethical theory.

Judith Still sets Derrida's work in a series of contexts in a series of contexts including the socio-political history of France, especially in relation to Algeria, and his relationship to other writers, most importantly Helene Cixous and Emmanuel Levinas: key thinkers of hospitality. Working across the full breadth of fields that Derrida's work on hospitality influenced, Still thinks through relationships between individuals and the community or state. Judith Still also follows the thread of sexual difference in Derrida's writing to shed light on his exploration of the complex and delicate, strange yet familiar, political and ethical dilemmas of how to be those impossible things: a good host and a good guest.

What is man? Judith Still examines Derrida's contribution to this long-standing philosophical and political debate, which has typically evoked a significant division between human beings and other animals. Derrida pays close attention to how animals are used to explore humanity in a range of writings, including fables and fiction. This leads to ethical questions about how humans treat animals: sacrificing animals (say, in factory farms) while extending love to pets. And it leads to political questions about how we dehumanise 'outsiders', from historical matters such as colonialism and slavery to contemporary issues such as State Terror in response to 'rogue states'.

This special issue of Paragraph, Volume 26 Numbers 1 and 2, brings together differing approaches (from a diverse range of disciplines) to the question of the representation of men's bodies in twentieth-century visual culture - from art photography and cinema to popular culture, advertising and pornography. These are bodies of different colours, nationalities, sexualities, ages, which are available to be gazed upon by many different consumers even though the location of the different images may condition both who looks and how they look.