Written in the midst of a courageous collective response to antiblack police brutality in the US, this text tackles the figure of breathing as a performative embodiment of grammar and time through which the ongoingness of racialized breathlessness is articulated, dis-remembered, and dismantled. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, the text seeks to account for repeated and immeasurable (un)breathability in its particular implications in the histories of racial capitalism, and in multiform sites, geographies, and temporalities that underwrite the global present. In this sense, breathing is addressed through its differential and differentiating conditions of possibility induced and regulated by suffocating spatio-temporalities, as a way to attend to the question whether and how the biopolitical contingencies of vulnerability, weariness, and brokenness are taken up as situated knowledges of courage, critical response-ability, and radical political imagination.
{"title":"(Im)possible Breathing: On Courage and Criticality in the Ghostly Historical Present","authors":"A. Athanasiou","doi":"10.33134/rds.337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.337","url":null,"abstract":"Written in the midst of a courageous collective response to antiblack police brutality in the US, this text tackles the figure of breathing as a performative embodiment of grammar and time through which the ongoingness of racialized breathlessness is articulated, dis-remembered, and dismantled. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, the text seeks to account for repeated and immeasurable (un)breathability in its particular implications in the histories of racial capitalism, and in multiform sites, geographies, and temporalities that underwrite the global present. In this sense, breathing is addressed through its differential and differentiating conditions of possibility induced and regulated by suffocating spatio-temporalities, as a way to attend to the question whether and how the biopolitical contingencies of vulnerability, weariness, and brokenness are taken up as situated knowledges of courage, critical response-ability, and radical political imagination.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43389404","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 paper engages with Hegel’s criticism of the Kantian marriage contract from an unconventional angle. After showing that the Hegelian argument uncovers a parallel between the sexual and the social contract in modern contractarian theories, I illustrate how Kant’s theory of marriage is consistent with his Republican theory and engenders the same conceptual difficulty, that is, a gap between the contracting individuals and the production of the common will. My goal is to suggest that, by illustrating how the logic of the sexual contract works, Hegel enables us to outline a very peculiar notion of ‘patriarchy’ that his ethical Aufhebung of the modern bourgeois family resolutely calls into question. As I will elucidate in the conclusion, this does not imply ignoring the patriarchal structure of the Hegelian family, but gives us the possibility to discriminate between two very different forms of patriarchy: whereas Hegel’s family relies on cultural and therefore conditional masculinist prejudices, the contractarian model is paradoxically indifferent to any such bias but establishes a deeper and more elusive form of patriarchal entitlement.
{"title":"‘Shameful is the Only Word for It’: Hegel on Kant’s Sexual and the Social Contract","authors":"Lorenzo Rustighi","doi":"10.33134/rds.329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.329","url":null,"abstract":"This paper engages with Hegel’s criticism of the Kantian marriage contract from an unconventional angle. After showing that the Hegelian argument uncovers a parallel between the sexual and the social contract in modern contractarian theories, I illustrate how Kant’s theory of marriage is consistent with his Republican theory and engenders the same conceptual difficulty, that is, a gap between the contracting individuals and the production of the common will. My goal is to suggest that, by illustrating how the logic of the sexual contract works, Hegel enables us to outline a very peculiar notion of ‘patriarchy’ that his ethical Aufhebung of the modern bourgeois family resolutely calls into question. As I will elucidate in the conclusion, this does not imply ignoring the patriarchal structure of the Hegelian family, but gives us the possibility to discriminate between two very different forms of patriarchy: whereas Hegel’s family relies on cultural and therefore conditional masculinist prejudices, the contractarian model is paradoxically indifferent to any such bias but establishes a deeper and more elusive form of patriarchal entitlement.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41408924","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}
The history of European integration is most often written from a firmly institutional perspective. That’s why Claudia Wiesner’s idea of focusing on conceptual controversies in her approach to the construction of the EU’s democratic polity can be warmly welcomed. A glance at the book’s table of contents reveals that the focus is on key concepts behind a democratic polity such as parliamentarism, government and citizenship. They are approached from different theoretical perspectives in the three main thematic parts of the book. Wiesner’s broader theoretical approach presented in the introductory chapters is very promising as she defines the notion of conceptual controversies in a very broad sense both what comes to the actors and political processes involved. Wiesner thus does not only intend to study how the key concepts related to the EU’s democratic polity came into being and shaped the current Union but also how the Union’s own conceptual realities and practices have further shaped these concepts. The actors argued to be involved in shaping the concepts are not limited to the key political and governmental actors but also the role played by academic actors and discourses are envisaged to be studied. The conceptual and methodological framework Claudia Wiesner develops for her study is well elaborated and ambitious. The introductory chapters lay out the basic vocabulary and philosophy of a conceptual history approach with Quentin Skinner and Reinhart Koselleck as the key intellectual sources. Along with this approach concepts are first of all defined as discursive structures which are essential in constructing social realities. Moreover, concepts are not seen to have any significance independent of the particular contexts in which they appear. Their meaning shall rather be seen through an ever-changing process of controversies and debate. When studying conceptual controversies in the construction of the EU’s democratic polity this contingency of concepts means that their meanings shall be studied against their key historical and social contexts. The novelty that this perspective of conceptual Tiilikainen, Teija. 2019. “Inventing the EU as a Democratic Polity: Concepts, Actors, Controversies. By Claudia Wiesner. Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology, Palgrave MacMillan, 2019. 309 pp. ISBN: 978-3-03006848-6.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 22(1): 80–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.310 REDESCRIPTIONS
{"title":"Inventing the EU as a Democratic Polity: Concepts, Actors, Controversies. By Claudia Wiesner. Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology, Palgrave MacMillan, 2019. 309 pp. ISBN: 978-3-030-06848-6","authors":"T. Tiilikainen","doi":"10.33134/rds.310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.310","url":null,"abstract":"The history of European integration is most often written from a firmly institutional perspective. That’s why Claudia Wiesner’s idea of focusing on conceptual controversies in her approach to the construction of the EU’s democratic polity can be warmly welcomed. A glance at the book’s table of contents reveals that the focus is on key concepts behind a democratic polity such as parliamentarism, government and citizenship. They are approached from different theoretical perspectives in the three main thematic parts of the book. Wiesner’s broader theoretical approach presented in the introductory chapters is very promising as she defines the notion of conceptual controversies in a very broad sense both what comes to the actors and political processes involved. Wiesner thus does not only intend to study how the key concepts related to the EU’s democratic polity came into being and shaped the current Union but also how the Union’s own conceptual realities and practices have further shaped these concepts. The actors argued to be involved in shaping the concepts are not limited to the key political and governmental actors but also the role played by academic actors and discourses are envisaged to be studied. The conceptual and methodological framework Claudia Wiesner develops for her study is well elaborated and ambitious. The introductory chapters lay out the basic vocabulary and philosophy of a conceptual history approach with Quentin Skinner and Reinhart Koselleck as the key intellectual sources. Along with this approach concepts are first of all defined as discursive structures which are essential in constructing social realities. Moreover, concepts are not seen to have any significance independent of the particular contexts in which they appear. Their meaning shall rather be seen through an ever-changing process of controversies and debate. When studying conceptual controversies in the construction of the EU’s democratic polity this contingency of concepts means that their meanings shall be studied against their key historical and social contexts. The novelty that this perspective of conceptual Tiilikainen, Teija. 2019. “Inventing the EU as a Democratic Polity: Concepts, Actors, Controversies. By Claudia Wiesner. Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology, Palgrave MacMillan, 2019. 309 pp. ISBN: 978-3-03006848-6.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 22(1): 80–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.310 REDESCRIPTIONS","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48511599","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}
Although Israel’s latest monumental book is called ‘the expanding blaze’ it might more aptly have been titled, ‘the flickering flame’, for it tells the story of the very checkered history of the ideals of democratic republicanism in the lead-up to the French Revolution and in the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Europe during the sixty years following it. As with his earlier histories, this one is structured around the opposition between radical and moderate enlightenment projects, and much of the story focuses on the failure of the heroes of the account, the advocates of radical, democratic republicanism, to win out against the forces of conservatism, monarchism, and counter-enlightenment. The first half of the book concentrates on the lead-up to and aftermath of the American Declaration of Independence, and the conflict which emerged between those like John Adams, who were in favor of government by a propertied elite, and supporters of a more thoroughly democratic republicanism committed to a broad or universal male suffrage. Although Israel emphasizes the importance of ideas in the genesis of these conflicts, as developed by journalists, academics, students, and literary individuals, he does not in general delve deeply into the texts or arguments developed. He rejects the views of those, in particular Hannah Arendt (23, 602), who would see the French and American revolutions as fundamentally different in character, and, proposing that one should characterize the ‘radical Enlightenment’ as ‘democratic republicanism combined with rejection of religious authority’, he argues that, until the Terror, the French Revolution was grounded in the same republican ideology as the American and played out the same clash between ‘“moderates” venerating Locke, Montesquieu, and British “mixed government”’ and democratic republicans who were fighting for ‘secularism and universal and equal human rights’ (17). He presents a compelling case for the influence of many of the same individuals, issues, and conflicts being operative on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I found his characterization of the philosophical positions insufficiently nuanced and his assumption that the moderates constituted a reactionary response to a fundamentally radical impetus, emanating from America but rooted in the works of French philosophes (themselves ultimately heirs of Spinoza) unconvincing. Initially, Green, Karen. 2019. “Review of Jonathan Israel, The Expanding Blaze. How the American Revolution Ignited the World, 1775–1848, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017, 755 pp, HB.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 22(1): 71–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.305 REDESCRIPTIONS
{"title":"Review of Jonathan Israel, The Expanding Blaze. How the American Revolution Ignited the World, 1775–1848, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017, 755 pp, HB","authors":"Karen Green","doi":"10.33134/rds.305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.305","url":null,"abstract":"Although Israel’s latest monumental book is called ‘the expanding blaze’ it might more aptly have been titled, ‘the flickering flame’, for it tells the story of the very checkered history of the ideals of democratic republicanism in the lead-up to the French Revolution and in the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Europe during the sixty years following it. As with his earlier histories, this one is structured around the opposition between radical and moderate enlightenment projects, and much of the story focuses on the failure of the heroes of the account, the advocates of radical, democratic republicanism, to win out against the forces of conservatism, monarchism, and counter-enlightenment. The first half of the book concentrates on the lead-up to and aftermath of the American Declaration of Independence, and the conflict which emerged between those like John Adams, who were in favor of government by a propertied elite, and supporters of a more thoroughly democratic republicanism committed to a broad or universal male suffrage. Although Israel emphasizes the importance of ideas in the genesis of these conflicts, as developed by journalists, academics, students, and literary individuals, he does not in general delve deeply into the texts or arguments developed. He rejects the views of those, in particular Hannah Arendt (23, 602), who would see the French and American revolutions as fundamentally different in character, and, proposing that one should characterize the ‘radical Enlightenment’ as ‘democratic republicanism combined with rejection of religious authority’, he argues that, until the Terror, the French Revolution was grounded in the same republican ideology as the American and played out the same clash between ‘“moderates” venerating Locke, Montesquieu, and British “mixed government”’ and democratic republicans who were fighting for ‘secularism and universal and equal human rights’ (17). He presents a compelling case for the influence of many of the same individuals, issues, and conflicts being operative on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I found his characterization of the philosophical positions insufficiently nuanced and his assumption that the moderates constituted a reactionary response to a fundamentally radical impetus, emanating from America but rooted in the works of French philosophes (themselves ultimately heirs of Spinoza) unconvincing. Initially, Green, Karen. 2019. “Review of Jonathan Israel, The Expanding Blaze. How the American Revolution Ignited the World, 1775–1848, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017, 755 pp, HB.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 22(1): 71–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.305 REDESCRIPTIONS","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47974151","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}
How parliaments and legislatures participate in war-making has raised interest among researchers from different disciplines, including constitutional law and political science. While war powers are usually considered to be included in the field of the executive branch, parliaments have played an increasingly relevant role as more democratic decision-making in both normal and exceptional times has gained prominence. The comparative aspect to examine war powers between parliaments or between the branches of government is often adopted to describe the authority and legitimacy of these powers. The US Congress is considered to have strong war powers on paper compared to parliaments in other liberal democracies. Many times, the experienced realities of war have, however, resulted in benefiting the executive branch. This article claims that Congress, however, has not given away its powers but has adapted them to the changing conditions. The debates on authorizations of use of force can be seen as momentum for Congress to address its constitutional war powers. This article draws on congressional debates on war powers with regard to authorization of using US armed forces against Iraq in 2002. The purpose is to show a vivid discussion on struggles concerning constitutional war powers and how these are interpreted, defined and understood against the background of historical, theoretical and constitutional discussions on war powers. As the committing of US armed forces and the separation of powers continue to be in the center of political discussions, it is relevant to examine the debates on war powers in the US Congress.
{"title":"‘The Iraq War Momentum’ in the Struggle over the Powers of the US Congress","authors":"Anna Kronlund","doi":"10.33134/rds.311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.311","url":null,"abstract":"How parliaments and legislatures participate in war-making has raised interest among researchers from different disciplines, including constitutional law and political science. While war powers are usually considered to be included in the field of the executive branch, parliaments have played an increasingly relevant role as more democratic decision-making in both normal and exceptional times has gained prominence. The comparative aspect to examine war powers between parliaments or between the branches of government is often adopted to describe the authority and legitimacy of these powers. The US Congress is considered to have strong war powers on paper compared to parliaments in other liberal democracies. Many times, the experienced realities of war have, however, resulted in benefiting the executive branch. This article claims that Congress, however, has not given away its powers but has adapted them to the changing conditions. The debates on authorizations of use of force can be seen as momentum for Congress to address its constitutional war powers. This article draws on congressional debates on war powers with regard to authorization of using US armed forces against Iraq in 2002. The purpose is to show a vivid discussion on struggles concerning constitutional war powers and how these are interpreted, defined and understood against the background of historical, theoretical and constitutional discussions on war powers. As the committing of US armed forces and the separation of powers continue to be in the center of political discussions, it is relevant to examine the debates on war powers in the US Congress.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46743571","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 paper examines the nature of the categories of ‘male’ and ‘female’ as classificatory groupings, via an examination of this question in Aristotle’s zoology and metaphysics. Tracing the use of Aristotle’s logical categories of ‘genus’ and ‘species’ in his zoological works and contrasting this with the use of the terms in contemporary taxonomy, the paper shows that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are, in a significant sense, unclassifiable categories. Although Aristotle has no generic concept of ‘sex’ at his disposal, the paper shows how many English translations of his works introduce ‘sex’ as if in answer to the question of the nature of the categories of male and female. The paper then argues that the generic concept of sex covers over the problem of the classification of male and female in both Aristotle and contemporary biology (including botany, mycology and bacteriology), by introducing a classificatory genus (‘sex’) that does not in fact explain anything but rather (precisely in its trans-specific generality) needs explaining.
{"title":"From Aristotle to Contemporary Biological Classification: What Kind of Category is “Sex”?","authors":"Stella Sandford","doi":"10.33134/rds.314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.314","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the nature of the categories of ‘male’ and ‘female’ as classificatory groupings, via an examination of this question in Aristotle’s zoology and metaphysics. Tracing the use of Aristotle’s logical categories of ‘genus’ and ‘species’ in his zoological works and contrasting this with the use of the terms in contemporary taxonomy, the paper shows that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are, in a significant sense, unclassifiable categories. Although Aristotle has no generic concept of ‘sex’ at his disposal, the paper shows how many English translations of his works introduce ‘sex’ as if in answer to the question of the nature of the categories of male and female. The paper then argues that the generic concept of sex covers over the problem of the classification of male and female in both Aristotle and contemporary biology (including botany, mycology and bacteriology), by introducing a classificatory genus (‘sex’) that does not in fact explain anything but rather (precisely in its trans-specific generality) needs explaining.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47779687","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}
By engaging with the historiography of German constitutionalism after 1949, this article reconstructs a profound change of the meaning of the concept of constitution. The constitution evolved from a rather formal and provisional instrument of government to the just value order of politics, which scholars worldwide have celebrated as the value model of constitutionalism. The article critically examines the democratic consequences of this justicization of politics and disentangles the relationship between law and politics within German constitutional thinking by tracing its traditions and transformations back to scholarly debates and early Constitutional Court’s landmark decisions.
{"title":"The Justicization of Politics: Constitutionalism and Democracy in Germany after 1949","authors":"V. Frick","doi":"10.33134/rds.312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.312","url":null,"abstract":"By engaging with the historiography of German constitutionalism after 1949, this article reconstructs a profound change of the meaning of the concept of constitution. The constitution evolved from a rather formal and provisional instrument of government to the just value order of politics, which scholars worldwide have celebrated as the value model of constitutionalism. The article critically examines the democratic consequences of this justicization of politics and disentangles the relationship between law and politics within German constitutional thinking by tracing its traditions and transformations back to scholarly debates and early Constitutional Court’s landmark decisions.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44519899","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 recent translation offers Reinhart Koselleck’s work in its most essayistic and speculative, but perhaps, also the most inspiring forms. Extrapolations, parallels, and analogies suggest themselves on nearly every page of this intriguing volume. In terms of implications and side steps, the content ranges from climate change and melting ice caps to railways and the experienced acceleration of time, and all the way to war memorials and the layered tranquility of cemeteries and mass graves. Primarily, however, the book offers a heavy dose of Koselleck’s Historik, or the theory of possible history. Or perhaps, to exploit Jacob Taubes’s characterization of Koselleck as a “partisan for histories in the plural,” cited by Niklas Olsen and others, we should characterize Koselleck as a partisan for possible histories. While this perspective arguably underlies in rudimentary forms, a large part of his work in general, here Koselleck expressly tackles some of the most fundamental questions in historical theory, including the following: How is history possible in the first place? How, exactly, are historical experiences conditioned by anthropology? How do individuals’ historical experiences turn into supra-human history or history as such? How can we combine the observations of history as both movement and repetition into a single coherent image? How should we understand the causal and temporal relations between historical events and their linguistic (re-)descriptions? How is historical time related to geographical or geopolitical space? And so forth. The volume thus further elaborates several elements that support Koselleck’s analyses in conceptual history and his political thinking, and it can be expected to be of interest to a wide audience in history, philosophy, political studies, cultural studies, and the social and human sciences more broadly. Sediments of Time is a representative selection – representative in the sense that it consists of texts from the 1980s and 1990s, published in Koselleck’s three late collections in German. With seven essays from Zeitschichten ,‘Temporal Layers,’ (2000), two from Begriffsgeschichten, ‘Histories of Concepts,’ (2006), and six from Vom Sinn und Unsinn der Geschichte, ‘On the Pankakoski, Timo. 2019. “Reinhart Koselleck, Sediments of Time: On Possible Histories, translated and edited by Sean Franzel and StefanLudwig Hoffman. Stanford University Press. 2019. xxxi + 301 pages. ISBN 9781503605978.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 22(1): 83–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.308 REDESCRIPTIONS
这个最新的译本提供了莱因哈特·科塞莱克最具散文性和思辨性的作品，但也许也是最鼓舞人心的形式。在这本引人入胜的书中，几乎每一页都有推断、类比和相似之处。从影响和侧面来看，内容范围从气候变化和冰盖融化到铁路和经历的时间加速，一直到战争纪念碑和墓地和乱葬坑的分层宁静。然而，这本书主要提供了大量科塞列克的历史学，或可能的历史理论。或者，为了利用雅各布·陶布斯(Jacob Taubes)对科塞列克的描述，即Niklas Olsen和其他人引用的“复数历史的拥护者”，我们应该把科塞列克描述为可能的历史的拥护者。虽然这种观点可以说是他的大部分作品的基本形式的基础，但科塞莱克在这里明确地解决了历史理论中一些最基本的问题，包括以下问题:历史最初是如何可能的?历史经验究竟如何受到人类学的制约?个人的历史经验是如何变成超人的历史或历史本身的?我们如何将对历史的观察作为运动和重复结合成一个连贯的图像?我们应该如何理解历史事件及其语言(重新)描述之间的因果关系和时间关系?历史时间与地理或地缘政治空间有何关系?等等。因此，该卷进一步阐述了支持科塞莱克在概念历史和他的政治思想的分析的几个要素，它可以预期是在历史，哲学，政治研究，文化研究，社会和人文科学更广泛的兴趣广泛的观众。《时间的沉淀》是一部具有代表性的选集——从某种意义上说，它包含了20世纪80年代和90年代的文本，出版于科塞列克晚期的三本德语文集中。其中七篇来自Zeitschichten，“时间层”(2000)，两篇来自Begriffsgeschichten，“概念的历史”(2006)，六篇来自Vom Sinn und Unsinn der Geschichte，“On the Pankakoski, Timo. 2019”。莱因哈特·科塞莱克，《时间的沉淀:论可能的历史》，肖恩·弗兰泽尔和斯特凡·路德维希·霍夫曼翻译并编辑。斯坦福大学出版社，2019。Xxxi + 301页。ISBN 9781503605978。”再述:政治思想、观念史与女性主义理论22(1):83-87。DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.308 REDESCRIPTIONS
{"title":"Reinhart Koselleck, Sediments of Time: On Possible Histories, translated and edited by Sean Franzel and Stefan-Ludwig Hoffman. Stanford University Press. 2019. xxxi + 301 pages. ISBN 9781503605978","authors":"Timo Pankakoski","doi":"10.33134/rds.308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.308","url":null,"abstract":"This recent translation offers Reinhart Koselleck’s work in its most essayistic and speculative, but perhaps, also the most inspiring forms. Extrapolations, parallels, and analogies suggest themselves on nearly every page of this intriguing volume. In terms of implications and side steps, the content ranges from climate change and melting ice caps to railways and the experienced acceleration of time, and all the way to war memorials and the layered tranquility of cemeteries and mass graves. Primarily, however, the book offers a heavy dose of Koselleck’s Historik, or the theory of possible history. Or perhaps, to exploit Jacob Taubes’s characterization of Koselleck as a “partisan for histories in the plural,” cited by Niklas Olsen and others, we should characterize Koselleck as a partisan for possible histories. While this perspective arguably underlies in rudimentary forms, a large part of his work in general, here Koselleck expressly tackles some of the most fundamental questions in historical theory, including the following: How is history possible in the first place? How, exactly, are historical experiences conditioned by anthropology? How do individuals’ historical experiences turn into supra-human history or history as such? How can we combine the observations of history as both movement and repetition into a single coherent image? How should we understand the causal and temporal relations between historical events and their linguistic (re-)descriptions? How is historical time related to geographical or geopolitical space? And so forth. The volume thus further elaborates several elements that support Koselleck’s analyses in conceptual history and his political thinking, and it can be expected to be of interest to a wide audience in history, philosophy, political studies, cultural studies, and the social and human sciences more broadly. Sediments of Time is a representative selection – representative in the sense that it consists of texts from the 1980s and 1990s, published in Koselleck’s three late collections in German. With seven essays from Zeitschichten ,‘Temporal Layers,’ (2000), two from Begriffsgeschichten, ‘Histories of Concepts,’ (2006), and six from Vom Sinn und Unsinn der Geschichte, ‘On the Pankakoski, Timo. 2019. “Reinhart Koselleck, Sediments of Time: On Possible Histories, translated and edited by Sean Franzel and StefanLudwig Hoffman. Stanford University Press. 2019. xxxi + 301 pages. ISBN 9781503605978.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 22(1): 83–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.308 REDESCRIPTIONS","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42043557","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":"Rieke Trimçev, Politik als Spiel. Zur Geschichte einer Kontingenzmetapher im politischen Denken des 20. Jahrhunderts. Baden-Baden: Nomos 2018, 398 p. ISBN 978-3-8487-4469-5","authors":"Kari Palonen","doi":"10.33134/rds.306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.306","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44371477","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}
With the publication of this issue of Redescriptions, we are happy to announce that within the period 2018–2019 Redescriptions has successfully completed a change of publishers to the new Helsinki University Press (HUP). With this relocation, Redescriptions becomes fully open access journal, with no costs to the readers or the authors. This move is made in the spirit of Plan S, an open access political effort developed by Science Europe, initiated by a coalition of partners, and strongly supported by the EU. The key idea is to make publicly funded research completely open access, rather than being stuck behind paywalls. Open access to research is in the interest of researchers, research institutions, and research communities, but also decision makers, civil society and citizens. The research that has been funded by public money should have its results openly accessible by all. The role of publishers such as HUP, which provide their professional expertise in research publishing, is essential for keeping the quality of open research publishing high, while keeping the costs at reasonable level with public support through research funding institutions, libraries, and universities. The research publishing world is undergoing transformation, and Redescriptions is taking a bold step into this new world of publishing. As a result of the exceptionally demanding time of change, in 2019, Redescriptions will publish only one issue, which is this one. The issue includes four articles and five book reviews. All three aspects of the characteristic multidisiciplinarity of the Redescriptions’s unusual profile are present in this issue: the articles concern political thought, the history of concepts, and feminist theory. In the first article, Stella Sandford explores the history and politics of classificatory concept of ‘sex,’ which is a crucial part of the conceptual history of interest to feminist theorizing. Sandford asks what kind of classificatory category is sex, and traces the use of the biological categorization of ‘genus’ as well as ‘species’ all the way back to Aristotle’s logical and zoological categories. Sandford argues that in Aristotle, the difference between female and male is a difference based on common sense, and she then asks, provocatively, whether the same might be the case in the contemporary biological sciences, which continue to talk of the male and female ‘forms’ of different animals. Perhaps the category of ‘sex’ continues to be not actually a science-based category at all, but crucially based on common sense, also in contemporary biology. From the point of view of the conceptual history of sex and gender vocabulary, Sandford points out interesting observations concerning the Aristotelian term ‘genos.’ Despite the frequent use of the word ‘genos’ in many other contexts of classification, Aristotle does not refer Pulkkinen, Tuija. 2019. “Redescriptions Goes Open Access.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist T
{"title":"Redescriptions Goes Open Access","authors":"T. Pulkkinen","doi":"10.33134/rds.315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.315","url":null,"abstract":"With the publication of this issue of Redescriptions, we are happy to announce that within the period 2018–2019 Redescriptions has successfully completed a change of publishers to the new Helsinki University Press (HUP). With this relocation, Redescriptions becomes fully open access journal, with no costs to the readers or the authors. This move is made in the spirit of Plan S, an open access political effort developed by Science Europe, initiated by a coalition of partners, and strongly supported by the EU. The key idea is to make publicly funded research completely open access, rather than being stuck behind paywalls. Open access to research is in the interest of researchers, research institutions, and research communities, but also decision makers, civil society and citizens. The research that has been funded by public money should have its results openly accessible by all. The role of publishers such as HUP, which provide their professional expertise in research publishing, is essential for keeping the quality of open research publishing high, while keeping the costs at reasonable level with public support through research funding institutions, libraries, and universities. The research publishing world is undergoing transformation, and Redescriptions is taking a bold step into this new world of publishing. As a result of the exceptionally demanding time of change, in 2019, Redescriptions will publish only one issue, which is this one. The issue includes four articles and five book reviews. All three aspects of the characteristic multidisiciplinarity of the Redescriptions’s unusual profile are present in this issue: the articles concern political thought, the history of concepts, and feminist theory. In the first article, Stella Sandford explores the history and politics of classificatory concept of ‘sex,’ which is a crucial part of the conceptual history of interest to feminist theorizing. Sandford asks what kind of classificatory category is sex, and traces the use of the biological categorization of ‘genus’ as well as ‘species’ all the way back to Aristotle’s logical and zoological categories. Sandford argues that in Aristotle, the difference between female and male is a difference based on common sense, and she then asks, provocatively, whether the same might be the case in the contemporary biological sciences, which continue to talk of the male and female ‘forms’ of different animals. Perhaps the category of ‘sex’ continues to be not actually a science-based category at all, but crucially based on common sense, also in contemporary biology. From the point of view of the conceptual history of sex and gender vocabulary, Sandford points out interesting observations concerning the Aristotelian term ‘genos.’ Despite the frequent use of the word ‘genos’ in many other contexts of classification, Aristotle does not refer Pulkkinen, Tuija. 2019. “Redescriptions Goes Open Access.” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist T","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49081685","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：