Inclining Mimesis: Continuing the Dialogue with Adriana Cavarero

IF 0.4 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Critical Horizons Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/14409917.2023.2233114
N. Lawtoo, Adriana Cavarero
{"title":"Inclining Mimesis: Continuing the Dialogue with Adriana Cavarero","authors":"N. Lawtoo, Adriana Cavarero","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2233114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, Adriana Cavarero and Nidesh Lawtoo resume a dialogue on mimetic inclinations in view of furthering a relational, embodied and affective conception of subjectivity that challenges homo erectus from the immanent perspective of homo mimeticus. If a dominant philosophical tradition tends to restrict mimesis to an illusory representation of reality, Plato was the first to know that mimesis also operates as an affective force, or pathos, that dispossesses the subject. While Plato tended to emphasize the pathological implications of mimesis, Cavarero and Lawtoo agree that both mimesis and inclinations go beyond good and evil and can be put to both pathological and democratic use. Picking up a dialogue started during a walk in New York City, Cavarero and Lawtoo, take their shared interests in Joseph Conrad's relating narratives as an occasion to discuss good and bad mimetic inclinations in contemporary politics and ethics. Joined in conclusion by the Gendered Mimesis team (Willow Verkerk, Isabelle Dahms and Giulia Rignano), topics addressed include new fascism, surging democracy, ethical responsibility for vulnerable others, hypermaternity and public happiness in a precarious world.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Horizons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2233114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this article, Adriana Cavarero and Nidesh Lawtoo resume a dialogue on mimetic inclinations in view of furthering a relational, embodied and affective conception of subjectivity that challenges homo erectus from the immanent perspective of homo mimeticus. If a dominant philosophical tradition tends to restrict mimesis to an illusory representation of reality, Plato was the first to know that mimesis also operates as an affective force, or pathos, that dispossesses the subject. While Plato tended to emphasize the pathological implications of mimesis, Cavarero and Lawtoo agree that both mimesis and inclinations go beyond good and evil and can be put to both pathological and democratic use. Picking up a dialogue started during a walk in New York City, Cavarero and Lawtoo, take their shared interests in Joseph Conrad's relating narratives as an occasion to discuss good and bad mimetic inclinations in contemporary politics and ethics. Joined in conclusion by the Gendered Mimesis team (Willow Verkerk, Isabelle Dahms and Giulia Rignano), topics addressed include new fascism, surging democracy, ethical responsibility for vulnerable others, hypermaternity and public happiness in a precarious world.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
倾向模仿:继续与阿德里亚娜·卡瓦雷罗的对话
摘要在这篇文章中,Adriana Cavarero和Nidesh Lawtoo就拟态倾向展开了对话,以期从拟态的内在角度进一步推进一种关系的、具体的和情感的主体性概念,挑战直立人。如果说一个占主导地位的哲学传统倾向于将模仿限制为对现实的虚幻再现,那么柏拉图是第一个知道模仿也是一种情感力量或悲情,它剥夺了主体。虽然柏拉图倾向于强调模仿的病理含义,但卡瓦雷罗和劳托一致认为,模仿和倾向都超越了善和恶,可以被用于病理和民主。Cavarero和Lawtoo在纽约市散步时开始了一场对话,他们对约瑟夫·康拉德的相关叙事有着共同的兴趣,以此讨论当代政治和伦理中好的和坏的模仿倾向。最后,Gendered Mimesis团队(Willow Verkerk、Isabelle Dahms和Giulia Rignano)也加入了进来,讨论的主题包括新法西斯主义、激增的民主、对弱势他人的道德责任、超产妇和不稳定世界中的公共幸福。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Horizons
Critical Horizons SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Giorgio Agamben’s Critique of the Covid-19 Response has Little to Do with Biopolitics Political Judgment and Ingenium: Rethinking the Sensus Communis Through Arendt and Vico The Politics of Bodies: Philosophical Emancipation with and Beyond Rancière Universality as a Historical-Political Problem: On the Limits of Buck-Morss’ Conceptualisation of Universality Of Israel, Forst & Voltaire: Deism, Toleration, and Radicalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1