From the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, a series of critical remarks were traded between the historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch and the psychoanalyst and feminist philosopher Jessica Benjamin. Researchers describe that exchange as involving competing perceptions of psychoanalysis, but the debate also covered mismatching approaches to critical theory and, more widely, to the ideals befitting a free polity. Lasch’s appeal to the traditions of the American past faced off against Benjamin’s advocacy of a substantial social change whose fundamental step was challenging the patriarchy.1 The ideas that each of the two authors put forth are often cited for reproaching the worldview associated with the other. Supportive scholars credit Benjamin with working psychoanalysis into a feminist perspective that questions traditional gender roles and the social order based on them, an order to which Lasch seemed committed.2 On the other hand, critics of the psychoanalytic turn to which Benjamin was central echo Lasch when arguing that the resulting relational theory marginalizes personal responsibility and belittles the significance of individual conscience.3
{"title":"Family, Tragedy, Democracy, and Populism: The Exchange between Jessica Benjamin and Christopher Lasch","authors":"Gal Gerson","doi":"10.3817/0923204123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0923204123","url":null,"abstract":"From the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, a series of critical remarks were traded between the historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch and the psychoanalyst and feminist philosopher Jessica Benjamin. Researchers describe that exchange as involving competing perceptions of psychoanalysis, but the debate also covered mismatching approaches to critical theory and, more widely, to the ideals befitting a free polity. Lasch’s appeal to the traditions of the American past faced off against Benjamin’s advocacy of a substantial social change whose fundamental step was challenging the patriarchy.1 The ideas that each of the two authors put forth are often cited for reproaching the worldview associated with the other. Supportive scholars credit Benjamin with working psychoanalysis into a feminist perspective that questions traditional gender roles and the social order based on them, an order to which Lasch seemed committed.2 On the other hand, critics of the psychoanalytic turn to which Benjamin was central echo Lasch when arguing that the resulting relational theory marginalizes personal responsibility and belittles the significance of individual conscience.3","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135006900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When the U.S. State Department Commission on Unalienable Rights issued its report1 on August 26, 2020, one of the questions most frequently asked by journalists was: “What do you expect to become of it?” Or, as one put it more bluntly, “What will prevent this report from just accumulating dust on some forgotten library shelf?”
{"title":"The Commission on Unalienable Rights: Where Do We Go from Here?","authors":"M. Glendon","doi":"10.3817/0623203011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203011","url":null,"abstract":"When the U.S. State Department Commission on Unalienable Rights issued its report1 on August 26, 2020, one of the questions most frequently asked by journalists was: “What do you expect to become of it?” Or, as one put it more bluntly, “What will prevent this report from just accumulating dust on some forgotten library shelf?”","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"269 1","pages":"11 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76569133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The reasons why individual nations and even individual people subscribe to notions of human rights vary enormously. Rationales range from idealism to realpolitik and sound in competing registers of theology, social contract, nature, utility, and game theory.1 Pervasive in discussions of human rights is the dignity of each person as both a reality and a normative guide. Capacious and ambiguous, this notion of dignity may invite agreement precisely because different people project different meanings onto it. Its recognition, though, can inspire attitudes of respect and civility even when we disagree. Dignity thus serves less as a foundation and more as a lodestar, an aspiration. Justice Thurgood Marshall once explained, “A child born to a [B]lack mother in a state like Mississippi… has exactly the same rights as a white baby born to the wealthiest person in the United States. It’s not true, but I challenge anyone to say it is not a goal worth working for.”2
{"title":"Dignity and Human Rights: Aspirations and Challenges in an Age of Political Divisions, Distrust, and AI","authors":"M. Minow","doi":"10.3817/0623203021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203021","url":null,"abstract":"The reasons why individual nations and even individual people subscribe to notions of human rights vary enormously. Rationales range from idealism to realpolitik and sound in competing registers of theology, social contract, nature, utility, and game theory.1 Pervasive in discussions of human rights is the dignity of each person as both a reality and a normative guide. Capacious and ambiguous, this notion of dignity may invite agreement precisely because different people project different meanings onto it. Its recognition, though, can inspire attitudes of respect and civility even when we disagree. Dignity thus serves less as a foundation and more as a lodestar, an aspiration. Justice Thurgood Marshall once explained, “A child born to a [B]lack mother in a state like Mississippi… has exactly the same rights as a white baby born to the wealthiest person in the United States. It’s not true, but I challenge anyone to say it is not a goal worth working for.”2","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"74 1","pages":"21 - 39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90580120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many people assume that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 was an exclusively or primarily Western project, imposed on the rest of the world by the European and American powers that emerged victorious from World War II. Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon’s 2001 book, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, suggests otherwise. It was not the great powers but small powers that pushed hardest for a declaration of rights. And it was often great powers—and one must acknowledge, great powers dominated by people of European ancestry—that did not like the idea of being pushed around by politically and economically weaker inhabitants of the Global South, who were just beginning to emerge from centuries of Western colonialism and other forms of oppression.1
许多人认为，1948年的《世界人权宣言》(Universal Declaration of Human Rights)完全或主要是西方的产物，是二战胜利后的欧美列强强加给世界其他地区的。哈佛大学法学教授玛丽·安·格伦登在2001年出版的《新世界:埃莉诺·罗斯福与世界人权宣言》一书中提出了另一种观点。不是大国，而是小国最强烈地推动了人权宣言。通常是大国——必须承认，由欧洲血统的人统治的大国——不喜欢被政治和经济上较弱的全球南方居民摆布，这些居民刚刚开始摆脱几个世纪的西方殖民主义和其他形式的压迫
{"title":"“Three Rights Traditions Walk into a Bar in Jakarta”: Inalienable Human Rights from the Perspective of Different Civilizations","authors":"T. Shah, C. Taylor","doi":"10.3817/0623203078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203078","url":null,"abstract":"Many people assume that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 was an exclusively or primarily Western project, imposed on the rest of the world by the European and American powers that emerged victorious from World War II. Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon’s 2001 book, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, suggests otherwise. It was not the great powers but small powers that pushed hardest for a declaration of rights. And it was often great powers—and one must acknowledge, great powers dominated by people of European ancestry—that did not like the idea of being pushed around by politically and economically weaker inhabitants of the Global South, who were just beginning to emerge from centuries of Western colonialism and other forms of oppression.1","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"17 1","pages":"78 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81669821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
1. Introduction In a recent editorial, the Lancet reported that one of the consequences of pandemics is the detrimental impact “on the mental health of affected populations,” and the current COVID-19 one is no different. Since its out-break at the end of 2019, “depressed mood, anxiety, impaired memory, and insomnia” are constant companions of people around the world. Many even experience “stress, burnout, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.” Amongst its concerns, the Lancet notes the rising “misuse of substances” as a consequence of these mental health problems.1 One of the reasons for this global mental health crisis is the way the pandemic affects peoples’ practices of community building and rituals of belonging. Having to wear masks, being required to keep at least 1.5 meters apart, not being able to meet (vulnerable) friends and family members, and even more drastic measures like weeklong lockdowns fundamentally disrupted everyday lives and reduced opportunities to socialize. What is normally taken for granted is being challenged. Around the world, these measures have been met by increasing demonstrations, often based on conspiracy theories and against commonsense precautions for preventing a potentially lethal disease. This conflict between reasonable precaution and emotional stress and pressure suggests disruptions of common narratives of belonging.
{"title":"Introduction: Narratives of Belonging—The Interrelation between Ontological-Epistemological Observations and Narrative Methodology","authors":"H. Behr, Felix Rösch","doi":"10.3817/0323202003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0323202003","url":null,"abstract":"1. Introduction In a recent editorial, the Lancet reported that one of the consequences of pandemics is the detrimental impact “on the mental health of affected populations,” and the current COVID-19 one is no different. Since its out-break at the end of 2019, “depressed mood, anxiety, impaired memory, and insomnia” are constant companions of people around the world. Many even experience “stress, burnout, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.” Amongst its concerns, the Lancet notes the rising “misuse of substances” as a consequence of these mental health problems.1 One of the reasons for this global mental health crisis is the way the pandemic affects peoples’ practices of community building and rituals of belonging. Having to wear masks, being required to keep at least 1.5 meters apart, not being able to meet (vulnerable) friends and family members, and even more drastic measures like weeklong lockdowns fundamentally disrupted everyday lives and reduced opportunities to socialize. What is normally taken for granted is being challenged. Around the world, these measures have been met by increasing demonstrations, often based on conspiracy theories and against commonsense precautions for preventing a potentially lethal disease. This conflict between reasonable precaution and emotional stress and pressure suggests disruptions of common narratives of belonging.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"35 1","pages":"3 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83761698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent advances in the functional power of artificial intelligence (AI) have prompted an urgent warning from industry leaders and researchers concerning its “profound risks to society and humanity.”1 Their open letter is admirable not only for its succinct identification of said risks, which include the mass dissemination of misinformation, loss of jobs, and even the possible extinction of our species, but also for its clear normative framing of the problem: “Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?”2
{"title":"Welcome to the Machine: AI, Existential Risk, and the Iron Cage of Modernity","authors":"J. A. Gupta","doi":"10.3817/0623203163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203163","url":null,"abstract":"Recent advances in the functional power of artificial intelligence (AI) have prompted an urgent warning from industry leaders and researchers concerning its “profound risks to society and humanity.”1 Their open letter is admirable not only for its succinct identification of said risks, which include the mass dissemination of misinformation, loss of jobs, and even the possible extinction of our species, but also for its clear normative framing of the problem: “Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?”2","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"34 1","pages":"163 - 169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78154588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
1. Preface Just over a year ago, I published a book under the title “What’s Wrong with Rights.”1 The title did have a question mark at the end of it because I intended to evaluate a number of criticisms leveled against the very concept of a right, against the concept of a natural right, and against prevalent rights-talk.
{"title":"Natural Law and Unalienable Rights","authors":"Nigel Biggar","doi":"10.3817/0623203040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203040","url":null,"abstract":"1. Preface Just over a year ago, I published a book under the title “What’s Wrong with Rights.”1 The title did have a question mark at the end of it because I intended to evaluate a number of criticisms leveled against the very concept of a right, against the concept of a natural right, and against prevalent rights-talk.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"17 1","pages":"40 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77972823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In his insightful book Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, Michael Ignatieff observes that “[t]he challenge of Islam has been there from the beginning.”1 Ignatieff is not alone among Western observers. And in this context, I would like to begin by stating up front that I am neither an opponent of human rights per se nor among those tradition-bound Muslims—though that I am–who abstain from either endorsing the construct or rejecting it outright, presumably as an exercise of sorts in “passive resistance.” Similarly, I do not believe, as another scholar characterizes the position of revealed religion, that “human rights are a secular usurpation of the rights of God.”2 In fact, as I will show, for well over half a millennium, Muslims have theorized on what could only be considered a concept of human rights, while simultaneously recognizing the “rights of God.” Nor do I believe, contrary to popular perception, that the purportedly “secular” roots of human rights necessarily place them outside the reach of Islam, unless, of course, one assumes, as I do not, that the dominant understanding of “secular” in the West is the only meaning the term can legitimately carry. These are among the reasons why, for me, the idea of summarily rejecting human rights seems so unnecessary if not misguided.
{"title":"Islam and the Promotion of Human Rights","authors":"Sherman A. Jackson","doi":"10.3817/0623203059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203059","url":null,"abstract":"In his insightful book Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, Michael Ignatieff observes that “[t]he challenge of Islam has been there from the beginning.”1 Ignatieff is not alone among Western observers. And in this context, I would like to begin by stating up front that I am neither an opponent of human rights per se nor among those tradition-bound Muslims—though that I am–who abstain from either endorsing the construct or rejecting it outright, presumably as an exercise of sorts in “passive resistance.” Similarly, I do not believe, as another scholar characterizes the position of revealed religion, that “human rights are a secular usurpation of the rights of God.”2 In fact, as I will show, for well over half a millennium, Muslims have theorized on what could only be considered a concept of human rights, while simultaneously recognizing the “rights of God.” Nor do I believe, contrary to popular perception, that the purportedly “secular” roots of human rights necessarily place them outside the reach of Islam, unless, of course, one assumes, as I do not, that the dominant understanding of “secular” in the West is the only meaning the term can legitimately carry. These are among the reasons why, for me, the idea of summarily rejecting human rights seems so unnecessary if not misguided.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"26 1","pages":"59 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74034671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Andrei S. Markovits, The Passport as Home: Comfort in Rootlessness. Foreword by Michael Ignatieff. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2021. Pp. 328. The Passport as Home: Comfort in Rootlessness is the autobiography of the well-known American political scientist Andrei S. Markovits and was published in 2021 by Central European University Press. After the 328 pages of text in American English, readers will recognize the author’s great fondness not only for analytical political science, sports, Italian opera, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Grateful Dead, but also for different languages—Romanian, Hungarian, German, and English—and will enjoy Markovits’s beautiful style and the many linguistic nuances and subtleties the book offers.
Andrei S. Markovits，《作为家的护照:无根的安慰》。迈克尔·伊格纳蒂夫(Michael Ignatieff)的前言。布达佩斯:中欧大学出版社，2021。328页。《护照如家:无根的慰藉》是美国著名政治学家安德烈·s·马尔科维茨的自传，由中欧大学出版社于2021年出版。读完这本328页的美式英语书，读者会发现作者不仅喜欢分析政治学、体育、意大利歌剧、披头士、滚石乐队和感恩而死乐队，还喜欢不同的语言——罗马尼亚语、匈牙利语、德语和英语——而且会喜欢马科维茨优美的风格和书中许多语言上的细微差别和微妙之处。
{"title":"Comfort in Rootlessness","authors":"Arno Tausch","doi":"10.3817/0323202158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0323202158","url":null,"abstract":"Andrei S. Markovits, The Passport as Home: Comfort in Rootlessness. Foreword by Michael Ignatieff. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2021. Pp. 328. The Passport as Home: Comfort in Rootlessness is the autobiography of the well-known American political scientist Andrei S. Markovits and was published in 2021 by Central European University Press. After the 328 pages of text in American English, readers will recognize the author’s great fondness not only for analytical political science, sports, Italian opera, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Grateful Dead, but also for different languages—Romanian, Hungarian, German, and English—and will enjoy Markovits’s beautiful style and the many linguistic nuances and subtleties the book offers.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"115 1","pages":"158 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88662268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gather three readers of Telos together in a room to speak about a controversial issue, and you’re likely to hear six opinions, each one forcefully expressed. After all, the journal has made a point of addressing the social and political challenges of modernity by cultivating the intellectual resources of discrete, often overlooked communities and traditions. This has placed the clash of divergent viewpoints, or “intellectual diversity,” at the core of its identity. Want to hear an anarchist argue with a liberal about a Catholic conservative’s reading of the implications of Carl Schmitt for the neo-Confucian view of culture, nationhood, and globalization? A Telos conference is the place for you. Welcome—sit for a while and have some coffee (it’s Italian).
{"title":"Diversity and the End of Deference","authors":"John K. Bingley","doi":"10.3817/0923204155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0923204155","url":null,"abstract":"Gather three readers of Telos together in a room to speak about a controversial issue, and you’re likely to hear six opinions, each one forcefully expressed. After all, the journal has made a point of addressing the social and political challenges of modernity by cultivating the intellectual resources of discrete, often overlooked communities and traditions. This has placed the clash of divergent viewpoints, or “intellectual diversity,” at the core of its identity. Want to hear an anarchist argue with a liberal about a Catholic conservative’s reading of the implications of Carl Schmitt for the neo-Confucian view of culture, nationhood, and globalization? A Telos conference is the place for you. Welcome—sit for a while and have some coffee (it’s Italian).","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135007548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：