{"title":"Paradigms for Political Action. A Draft for a Repertoire","authors":"Kari Palonen","doi":"10.33134/rds.368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.368","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69505657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article focuses on the epistemic transition to testimonial justice. It argues that the recognition of testimonial injustice in the context of reproductive rights may play a central role in this transition. First, I show how testimonial injustice undermines women’s legal protection against sexual violence and rights triggered by it such as the right to abortion. Second, I argue that the epistemic transition initiated by the #MeToo and #YoSiTeCreo movements call for transitional justice. In support, I review the circumstances of transitional justice for cases like the transition to testimonial justice. Finally, I focus on the area of reproductive rights. I argue that policies of recognition contribute to epistemic transitional justice and complement other strategies aimed to overcome testimonial injustice such as the virtue of the responsible hearer and institutional compensatory virtues.
{"title":"Epistemic Transitional Justice: The Recognition of Testimonial Injustice in the Context of Reproductive Rights","authors":"R. Rekers","doi":"10.33134/rds.374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.374","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the epistemic transition to testimonial justice. It argues that the recognition of testimonial injustice in the context of reproductive rights may play a central role in this transition. First, I show how testimonial injustice undermines women’s legal protection against sexual violence and rights triggered by it such as the right to abortion. Second, I argue that the epistemic transition initiated by the #MeToo and #YoSiTeCreo movements call for transitional justice. In support, I review the circumstances of transitional justice for cases like the transition to testimonial justice. Finally, I focus on the area of reproductive rights. I argue that policies of recognition contribute to epistemic transitional justice and complement other strategies aimed to overcome testimonial injustice such as the virtue of the responsible hearer and institutional compensatory virtues.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69505714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: Rethinking Liberty before Liberalism edited by Hannah Dawson and Annelien de Dijn, Cambridge University Press, 2022, 298 pages. ISBN: 9781108844567","authors":"E. Roshchin","doi":"10.33134/rds.388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.388","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69505881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Taking the distinction made by Patrick Hassenteufel between statutory and identity-based citizenship as a starting point, this article investigates expressions of the latter citizenship in early twentieth-century France. More specifically, this article focuses on how ‘ordinary’ men and women from a rural area in the Rhone department perceived their place in French republican society shortly before and during the First World War. The war years were a time when (claims to) social policies were continuously renegotiated, in relation to men and women’s commitment to the Republic. Whether they had political voting rights or not, ‘ordinary’ citizens took part in these negotiation processes, yet in an informal (and therefore still underexposed) way, through written communication with a parliamentary representative (depute). Men and women who shared the same social background used similar rhetorical tactics in their requests for help, support, or a favour. Men’s expressions of gratitude towards ‘their’ depute could, however, entail a promise of a vote, whereas women were still not enfranchised. Though reminiscent of the image of a clientelist rural France at first sight, neither men’s nor women’s letters were characterised by mere trade-offs. Instead, they were increasingly revealing of how the letter-writers (re)imagined the notions attached to their citizenship. The connections between those concepts, such as (social) rights, duties, and knowledge (and the impact of the war on rhetorical constructions of these aspects of citizenship) are analyzed from the letter-writers’ viewpoints. Focusing on such a micro-level allows for insights into the mutually educational nature of the common practice of sending letters to a French Third Republican parliamentary representative.
{"title":"Negotiating French Social Citizenship in Early Twentieth-Century Letters to a Representative for the Rhône Department","authors":"Karen Lauwers","doi":"10.33134/rds.325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.325","url":null,"abstract":"Taking the distinction made by Patrick Hassenteufel between statutory and identity-based citizenship as a starting point, this article investigates expressions of the latter citizenship in early twentieth-century France. More specifically, this article focuses on how ‘ordinary’ men and women from a rural area in the Rhone department perceived their place in French republican society shortly before and during the First World War. The war years were a time when (claims to) social policies were continuously renegotiated, in relation to men and women’s commitment to the Republic. Whether they had political voting rights or not, ‘ordinary’ citizens took part in these negotiation processes, yet in an informal (and therefore still underexposed) way, through written communication with a parliamentary representative (depute). Men and women who shared the same social background used similar rhetorical tactics in their requests for help, support, or a favour. Men’s expressions of gratitude towards ‘their’ depute could, however, entail a promise of a vote, whereas women were still not enfranchised. Though reminiscent of the image of a clientelist rural France at first sight, neither men’s nor women’s letters were characterised by mere trade-offs. Instead, they were increasingly revealing of how the letter-writers (re)imagined the notions attached to their citizenship. The connections between those concepts, such as (social) rights, duties, and knowledge (and the impact of the war on rhetorical constructions of these aspects of citizenship) are analyzed from the letter-writers’ viewpoints. Focusing on such a micro-level allows for insights into the mutually educational nature of the common practice of sending letters to a French Third Republican parliamentary representative.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47924970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
People often expect salvation or doom from the same source, be that some sort of divine power or technological invention, for instance. Certain innovations can be viewed as promising or threatening, depending on the viewpoint. In recent times, there has been a distinctive re-evaluation of the role of new information technology and social media for democracy. What seemed to rescue and reinvigorate democracy in the turn of the millennium is now regarded as its nemesis. How did this come about? During the 1990s, in the early days of the Internet, the network was seen in political research as a sphere of freedom in which democratic civic debate would increase, grassroots views of individuals would surface, and new communities would emerge among like-minded people, regardless of location and nationality. The state’s official policy of ‘one truth’ could be challenged and the abuses of those in power, big business, and the authorities could be exposed. This is in marked contrast with the current narrative of threat to democracy currently connected to the Internet and social media. The Internet was supposed to break the state information monopoly, as well as challenge the mainstream media and provide an open democratic platform for citizens. The mainstream media could no longer hide inconvenient truths or suppress dissenting voices. The gatekeeper role of media could be diverted. Vertical power relations would have to give way to horizontal communities. The increase in citizens’ discussion platforms was seen as deepening and expanding democracy and the ideal conditions for free deliberative democracy would allegedly emerge with Internet. Today, many aspects of the Internet, such as hacking, information warfare, and the power vested in Internet platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, emerge rather as threats than salvation for democracy. The bliss of free access to information has turned into fear of false information, censorship, conspiracy theories, and hate speech. Horizontal communities of like-minded people, independent of time, place, and states, have begun to be seen as threats. It is therefore important to look critically at this change: are there grounds for past technooptimism and, on the other hand, for current technophobia? In the early days of the Internet it was likened to uncharted territory and wild frontier by its first generation of visionaries. It was first and foremost seen as a marketplace of ideas and information, in which the libertarian ideals of freedom and equality would prevail. Anonymity Korvela, Paul-Erik. 2021. “From Utopia to Dystopia: Will the Internet Save or Destroy Democracy?” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 24(1), 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.352 REDESCRIPTIONS
{"title":"From Utopia to Dystopia: Will the Internet Save or Destroy Democracy?","authors":"Paul-Erik Korvela","doi":"10.33134/rds.352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.352","url":null,"abstract":"People often expect salvation or doom from the same source, be that some sort of divine power or technological invention, for instance. Certain innovations can be viewed as promising or threatening, depending on the viewpoint. In recent times, there has been a distinctive re-evaluation of the role of new information technology and social media for democracy. What seemed to rescue and reinvigorate democracy in the turn of the millennium is now regarded as its nemesis. How did this come about? During the 1990s, in the early days of the Internet, the network was seen in political research as a sphere of freedom in which democratic civic debate would increase, grassroots views of individuals would surface, and new communities would emerge among like-minded people, regardless of location and nationality. The state’s official policy of ‘one truth’ could be challenged and the abuses of those in power, big business, and the authorities could be exposed. This is in marked contrast with the current narrative of threat to democracy currently connected to the Internet and social media. The Internet was supposed to break the state information monopoly, as well as challenge the mainstream media and provide an open democratic platform for citizens. The mainstream media could no longer hide inconvenient truths or suppress dissenting voices. The gatekeeper role of media could be diverted. Vertical power relations would have to give way to horizontal communities. The increase in citizens’ discussion platforms was seen as deepening and expanding democracy and the ideal conditions for free deliberative democracy would allegedly emerge with Internet. Today, many aspects of the Internet, such as hacking, information warfare, and the power vested in Internet platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, emerge rather as threats than salvation for democracy. The bliss of free access to information has turned into fear of false information, censorship, conspiracy theories, and hate speech. Horizontal communities of like-minded people, independent of time, place, and states, have begun to be seen as threats. It is therefore important to look critically at this change: are there grounds for past technooptimism and, on the other hand, for current technophobia? In the early days of the Internet it was likened to uncharted territory and wild frontier by its first generation of visionaries. It was first and foremost seen as a marketplace of ideas and information, in which the libertarian ideals of freedom and equality would prevail. Anonymity Korvela, Paul-Erik. 2021. “From Utopia to Dystopia: Will the Internet Save or Destroy Democracy?” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 24(1), 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.352 REDESCRIPTIONS","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49420492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article draws on Mouffe’s theory of agonistic democracy and critique of hegemonic consensuses to examine whether and how homonationalism can come to fuel antagonisms levelled against the gender+ movements. Using discourse analysis, the article analyses the case study of Denmark, where in 2018 the anti-gender campaign openly challenged the government’s homonationalist discourse. The analysis confirms that the government’s homonationalist discourse establishes modes of exclusion from the national imaginary, which the anti-gender actors contest by articulating an antagonism levelled against the gender+ movements’ attributed queer ideology. The antagonising potential of homonationalist discursive practices is further substantiated by pointing to the ways in which the government’s discourse reinforces a liberal idea of citizenship that gives priority to liberal rights over the democratic values of popular sovereignty and participation. Conversely, the anti-gender discourse gives priority to popular sovereignty at the expense of gender minority rights. Both the governments’ and the anti-gender actors’ discourses are thus found to fall short in terms of the prescripts of an agonistic public sphere. The article therefore argues for an abandonment of homonationalist discursive practices, when manifesting as a hegemonic consensus, which reinforces a liberal idea of citizenship to install a plural agonistic public sphere concerning sexual and gender minority politics.
{"title":"Between Two Ills: Homonationalism, Gender Ideology and the Case of Denmark","authors":"Malte Hansen","doi":"10.33134/rds.339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.339","url":null,"abstract":"This article draws on Mouffe’s theory of agonistic democracy and critique of hegemonic consensuses to examine whether and how homonationalism can come to fuel antagonisms levelled against the gender+ movements. Using discourse analysis, the article analyses the case study of Denmark, where in 2018 the anti-gender campaign openly challenged the government’s homonationalist discourse. The analysis confirms that the government’s homonationalist discourse establishes modes of exclusion from the national imaginary, which the anti-gender actors contest by articulating an antagonism levelled against the gender+ movements’ attributed queer ideology. The antagonising potential of homonationalist discursive practices is further substantiated by pointing to the ways in which the government’s discourse reinforces a liberal idea of citizenship that gives priority to liberal rights over the democratic values of popular sovereignty and participation. Conversely, the anti-gender discourse gives priority to popular sovereignty at the expense of gender minority rights. Both the governments’ and the anti-gender actors’ discourses are thus found to fall short in terms of the prescripts of an agonistic public sphere. The article therefore argues for an abandonment of homonationalist discursive practices, when manifesting as a hegemonic consensus, which reinforces a liberal idea of citizenship to install a plural agonistic public sphere concerning sexual and gender minority politics.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42615236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
On 6 January 2021, a mob of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol building in Washington, DC, to challenge the final certification of the electoral victory of President-elect Joe Biden.1 Inspired by the morning speech of then President Donald Trump, the supporters made their way to the Capitol building to ‘stop the steal’2 and to ‘take back their country’. During the attempted insurrection, five people were killed, including a police officer, and the historical premises of the Capitol were seriously damaged. Pipe bombs and other weapons were also found nearby, demonstrating a premeditated potential use of deadly force. In this context of this political uprising and right-wing populist attempts to overturn the election results, it is truly interesting to read ‘Violence and Political Theory’, written by Elisabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings. The book examines in detail the conceptual relationships between politics and violence, and how different political theorists attempt to settle and resolve these ties. This discussion paves the way for the political theory of violence that the authors propose at the end of the book, based on an analysis of the practice and meaning of violence. Moreover, the authors show that it is common to aestheticise violence in political theory or to incorporate it into some other category ‘such as resistance, revolution, justice, punishment, self-defence, sovereignty, the gendered martial virtues and vices of courage or cowardice, or the aesthetic categories of tragedy and beauty’ (Frazer and Hutchings 2020, 176). Violence, as Fraser and Hutchings argue, ‘becomes more palatable when it takes the form of rectifying egregious wrongs and is provoked by a sense of immediate injustice in the innocent oppressed’ (Fraser and Hutchings 2020, 177). Indirectly, the book also shows how these strategies of justification materialise and come alive in events such as the storming of the Capitol, as the Trump supporters perhaps believed that they were justified in their actions for the purpose of ‘taking back the country’.
{"title":"Book review: Violence and Political Theory by Elizabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings, Polity Press, 2020, 229 pages. ISBN-13:978-1-5095-3671-9","authors":"Elina Penttinen","doi":"10.33134/rds.350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.350","url":null,"abstract":"On 6 January 2021, a mob of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol building in Washington, DC, to challenge the final certification of the electoral victory of President-elect Joe Biden.1 Inspired by the morning speech of then President Donald Trump, the supporters made their way to the Capitol building to ‘stop the steal’2 and to ‘take back their country’. During the attempted insurrection, five people were killed, including a police officer, and the historical premises of the Capitol were seriously damaged. Pipe bombs and other weapons were also found nearby, demonstrating a premeditated potential use of deadly force. In this context of this political uprising and right-wing populist attempts to overturn the election results, it is truly interesting to read ‘Violence and Political Theory’, written by Elisabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings. The book examines in detail the conceptual relationships between politics and violence, and how different political theorists attempt to settle and resolve these ties. This discussion paves the way for the political theory of violence that the authors propose at the end of the book, based on an analysis of the practice and meaning of violence. Moreover, the authors show that it is common to aestheticise violence in political theory or to incorporate it into some other category ‘such as resistance, revolution, justice, punishment, self-defence, sovereignty, the gendered martial virtues and vices of courage or cowardice, or the aesthetic categories of tragedy and beauty’ (Frazer and Hutchings 2020, 176). Violence, as Fraser and Hutchings argue, ‘becomes more palatable when it takes the form of rectifying egregious wrongs and is provoked by a sense of immediate injustice in the innocent oppressed’ (Fraser and Hutchings 2020, 177). Indirectly, the book also shows how these strategies of justification materialise and come alive in events such as the storming of the Capitol, as the Trump supporters perhaps believed that they were justified in their actions for the purpose of ‘taking back the country’.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45679087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article engages Judith Butler’s Parting Ways as a way to rethink the relations between critique and belonging as two aspects of contemporary political subjectivities. I argue that for Butler critique is an action performed by corporeal subjects. As such, it depends on cohabitation being an ontological condition. Belonging, in the sense of sharing a place with others, assesses an affirmative stance – the commitment to safeguard the common conditions for a plurality of lives. The first part of the article regards Butler’s theorization of cohabitation and plurality as a framework in which the corporeal and embodied relations with others who share a place serve as a condition for critique rather than its limit. I argue that Butler’s Arendtian social ontology aims to offer a vision of political subjectivity that differs from contemporary forms of subjectivation. I further argue that in order to promote such vision of political subjectivity, a detailed description of cohabitation is required as a multi-layered affective and emotional relation with one’s surroundings. The second part of the article focuses on how Butler performs in her text this alternative vision of political subjectivity that affirms pluralization as a normative principle. By studying Butler’s account of her Jewishness as well as textual practices shaping the text, I argue that belonging can become a formative aspect of the critical subject through the acts of norms on one’s body as well as by critical engagement.
{"title":"Critical Belonging: Cohabitation, Plurality, and Critique in Butler’s Parting Ways","authors":"Miri Rozmarin","doi":"10.33134/rds.340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.340","url":null,"abstract":"This article engages Judith Butler’s Parting Ways as a way to rethink the relations between critique and belonging as two aspects of contemporary political subjectivities. I argue that for Butler critique is an action performed by corporeal subjects. As such, it depends on cohabitation being an ontological condition. Belonging, in the sense of sharing a place with others, assesses an affirmative stance – the commitment to safeguard the common conditions for a plurality of lives. The first part of the article regards Butler’s theorization of cohabitation and plurality as a framework in which the corporeal and embodied relations with others who share a place serve as a condition for critique rather than its limit. I argue that Butler’s Arendtian social ontology aims to offer a vision of political subjectivity that differs from contemporary forms of subjectivation. I further argue that in order to promote such vision of political subjectivity, a detailed description of cohabitation is required as a multi-layered affective and emotional relation with one’s surroundings. The second part of the article focuses on how Butler performs in her text this alternative vision of political subjectivity that affirms pluralization as a normative principle. By studying Butler’s account of her Jewishness as well as textual practices shaping the text, I argue that belonging can become a formative aspect of the critical subject through the acts of norms on one’s body as well as by critical engagement.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46344081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What happened to politics in the twenty-first century? What kind of significance did politics have in the twentieth century? These are the two massive if not impossible questions, which Friedbert Rüb, an emeritus professor of Political Science at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, has dared to look for an answer to with a thick book of 682 pages. The former question has been discussed in numerous other works, most recently in those referring to the ‘populist moment’, a term that, for example, Chantal Mouffe uses in her For a Left Populism (2018). She praises all sorts of populisms as an expression of polarisation that dissolves the stagnant consensus of the established centre-left and centre-right parties. Her argumentation is hardly convincing: the consensus thesis expresses her disinterest or lacking political literacy for the multiple differences within the governmental mainstream of West European parties, which do not any longer correspond to the traditional divisions of isms. Friedbert Rüb judges the current populist and nationalist wave of the twenty-first century much more pessimistically. He even speaks of a disappearance of politics, although putting das Verschwinden in quotation marks. In the final paragraph of the book, Rüb characterises the present-day politics as running after the conditions instead of shaping them (das Nachlaufen hinter den Verhältnissen und nicht durch ihre Neugestaltung) (p. 635). This conclusion is not convincing but illustrates Rüb’s own view on politics and to its central position in the twentieth-century European and world history. In other words, Rüb’s book is not merely an analysis of the contemporary situation with an extensive discussion of its background. More interestingly, he presents an ambitious historico-philosophical thesis on the twentieth century as the century of politics. I question such an enterprise, mainly for the reason of Rüb’s Hegelian style of discussing politics as a part of all-encompassing and totalising philosophy of history. Nonetheless, his thesis is original and deserves to be discussed. Palonen, Kari. 2021. “Book Review: Das Jahrhundert der Politik. Eine Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts im Lichte ihrer Politikbegriffe by Friedbert Rüb, Nomos, 2020, 682 pages. ISBN: 978-3-8487-6613-0.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 24(1), 76–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.347 REDESCRIPTIONS
二十一世纪的政治发生了什么？政治在二十世纪有什么意义？柏林洪堡大学政治学名誉教授弗里德伯特·吕布（Friedbert Rüb）敢于用一本682页的厚书来寻找答案。前一个问题在许多其他作品中都有讨论，最近一次是在那些提到“民粹主义时刻”的作品中，例如，Chantal Mouffe在她的《为左翼民粹主义》（2018）中使用了这个词。她称赞各种民粹主义是两极分化的表现，这种两极分化化解了老牌中左翼和中右翼政党停滞不前的共识。她的论点很难令人信服：共识论文表达了她对西欧政党政府主流内部的多重差异不感兴趣或缺乏政治素养，这些差异不再符合传统的主义分歧。Friedbert Rüb对当前21世纪的民粹主义和民族主义浪潮的判断要悲观得多。他甚至谈到了政治的消失，尽管用引号打上了das Verschwinden。在这本书的最后一段中，吕布将当今政治描述为追逐条件，而不是塑造条件（das Nachlaufen hinter den Verhältnissen und nicht durch ihre Neugestaltung）（第635页）。这一结论并不令人信服，但说明了吕布自己对政治的看法，以及他在20世纪欧洲和世界历史上的中心地位。换言之，吕布的书不仅仅是对当代形势的分析和对其背景的广泛讨论。更有趣的是，他提出了一篇雄心勃勃的历史哲学论文，将二十世纪视为政治世纪。我质疑这样一个事业，主要是因为吕布的黑格尔式讨论政治是包罗万象的历史哲学的一部分。尽管如此，他的论文还是新颖的，值得讨论。Palonen，Kari。2021年，《书评：政治经济学》，第20页。弗里德伯特·吕布（Friedbert Rüb）的《政治评论》，Nomos，2020，682页。ISBN:978-3-8487-6613-0，“重新描述：政治思想、概念史和女权主义理论24（1），76-80。DOI：https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.347重新说明
{"title":"Book Review: Das Jahrhundert der Politik. Eine Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts im Lichte ihrer Politikbegriffe by Friedbert Rüb, Nomos, 2020, 682 pages. ISBN: 978-3-8487-6613-0","authors":"Kari Palonen","doi":"10.33134/rds.347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.347","url":null,"abstract":"What happened to politics in the twenty-first century? What kind of significance did politics have in the twentieth century? These are the two massive if not impossible questions, which Friedbert Rüb, an emeritus professor of Political Science at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, has dared to look for an answer to with a thick book of 682 pages. The former question has been discussed in numerous other works, most recently in those referring to the ‘populist moment’, a term that, for example, Chantal Mouffe uses in her For a Left Populism (2018). She praises all sorts of populisms as an expression of polarisation that dissolves the stagnant consensus of the established centre-left and centre-right parties. Her argumentation is hardly convincing: the consensus thesis expresses her disinterest or lacking political literacy for the multiple differences within the governmental mainstream of West European parties, which do not any longer correspond to the traditional divisions of isms. Friedbert Rüb judges the current populist and nationalist wave of the twenty-first century much more pessimistically. He even speaks of a disappearance of politics, although putting das Verschwinden in quotation marks. In the final paragraph of the book, Rüb characterises the present-day politics as running after the conditions instead of shaping them (das Nachlaufen hinter den Verhältnissen und nicht durch ihre Neugestaltung) (p. 635). This conclusion is not convincing but illustrates Rüb’s own view on politics and to its central position in the twentieth-century European and world history. In other words, Rüb’s book is not merely an analysis of the contemporary situation with an extensive discussion of its background. More interestingly, he presents an ambitious historico-philosophical thesis on the twentieth century as the century of politics. I question such an enterprise, mainly for the reason of Rüb’s Hegelian style of discussing politics as a part of all-encompassing and totalising philosophy of history. Nonetheless, his thesis is original and deserves to be discussed. Palonen, Kari. 2021. “Book Review: Das Jahrhundert der Politik. Eine Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts im Lichte ihrer Politikbegriffe by Friedbert Rüb, Nomos, 2020, 682 pages. ISBN: 978-3-8487-6613-0.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 24(1), 76–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.347 REDESCRIPTIONS","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48280696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the vast secondary literature on Carl Schmitt as well as on the Frankfurt School, the political and legal thinker Otto Kirchheimer is described as a forerunner of contemporary Left-Schmittianism. This view is sometimes expanded in the literature to the personal relationship between Schmitt and Kirchheimer after 1945 as well. A closer look at Kirchheimer’s late work, at his unpublished correspondence with Schmitt, and at additional unpublished sources contradicts such an interpretation. In fact, Kirchheimer strongly attacked Schmittianism in German debates on constitutional theory after 1945. This article finally uncovers the extent to which Schmitt tried to instrumentalize his former doctoral student to pursue his political rehabilitation in the Federal Republic via the United States. Kirchheimer, however, took a firm stand against this attempt. In his defense of modern parliamentary democracy, Kirchheimer definitely sided with the political left of his times; but he did so without any flirtation with Schmittianism.
{"title":"The Godfather of Left-Schmittianism? Otto Kirchheimer and Carl Schmitt after 1945","authors":"Hubertus Buchstein","doi":"10.33134/rds.320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.320","url":null,"abstract":"In the vast secondary literature on Carl Schmitt as well as on the Frankfurt School, the political and legal thinker Otto Kirchheimer is described as a forerunner of contemporary Left-Schmittianism. This view is sometimes expanded in the literature to the personal relationship between Schmitt and Kirchheimer after 1945 as well. A closer look at Kirchheimer’s late work, at his unpublished correspondence with Schmitt, and at additional unpublished sources contradicts such an interpretation. In fact, Kirchheimer strongly attacked Schmittianism in German debates on constitutional theory after 1945. This article finally uncovers the extent to which Schmitt tried to instrumentalize his former doctoral student to pursue his political rehabilitation in the Federal Republic via the United States. Kirchheimer, however, took a firm stand against this attempt. In his defense of modern parliamentary democracy, Kirchheimer definitely sided with the political left of his times; but he did so without any flirtation with Schmittianism.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48087744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：