Abstract:For Jewish Israelis in the West Bank settlement of Alfei Menashe, nostalgia for the early years of settlement entails a fantasy of coexistence with Palestinians. This fantasy responds to contemporary peacemaking discourses, reimagining the role of settlement from a practice engendering conflict to one that is an integral part of the peacemaking project. Settler nostalgia is thus a temporal orientation with important political consequences. Scholarly debates have focused on the universalizing, modernizing temporality of settler colonialism, but neither this nor the state-centered historicity of hegemonic accounts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be the only or even the most relevant temporal frames for contemporary Zionist settlement in the West Bank of Palestine. This article examines settler temporal strategies as a crucial part of how one settlement has not only survived but also has grown and flourished in the nearly forty years since its founding.
{"title":"Settler Nostalgia: Colonizing Temporalities and the Genre of Coexistence","authors":"Callie Maidhof","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0038","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:For Jewish Israelis in the West Bank settlement of Alfei Menashe, nostalgia for the early years of settlement entails a fantasy of coexistence with Palestinians. This fantasy responds to contemporary peacemaking discourses, reimagining the role of settlement from a practice engendering conflict to one that is an integral part of the peacemaking project. Settler nostalgia is thus a temporal orientation with important political consequences. Scholarly debates have focused on the universalizing, modernizing temporality of settler colonialism, but neither this nor the state-centered historicity of hegemonic accounts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be the only or even the most relevant temporal frames for contemporary Zionist settlement in the West Bank of Palestine. This article examines settler temporal strategies as a crucial part of how one settlement has not only survived but also has grown and flourished in the nearly forty years since its founding.","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74277313","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}
Abstract:Punk's global spread has been a defining aspect of its forty-plus year history; contemporary punk can only be understood in relation to this global punk network. Punk's transmission from place to place is shaped by neocolonial cultural flows, but punk scenes also respond to their particular contexts, and analysis of local punk scenes must consider this contextuality carefully alongside a "global punk" framing. "Other" punk places cannot be simply judged via a reductive neocolonial imposition of Anglo-American punk norms—an "inter Asia" comparison of the punk scenes of China and Indonesia is an example of this critical decentering and acts as a decolonizing intervention into "global punk." Punks embrace this "global punk" network and are acutely conscious of its contours—it is only in the repression of these punk communities (or in some academic circles) that the "cultural imperialist" framing is maintained, with punk in Indonesia and China dismissed by the authorities (or scholars) as Western imports. This article briefly traces the histories of punk's emergence in China and Indonesia, in the years leading up to, and following, transitional periods of their authoritarian regimes through the very late 1980s and 1990s, discusses and compares contemporary forms of punk resistance and activism in each place, including DIY cultural production and manifestations of "punk space" in Indonesia and China, before highlighting repression from state and para-state institutions in these now "post-authoritarian" and "softened authoritarian" contexts.Cross-comparative study of these places sheds critical light on the experiences of punk there, especially with regard to punk activism (informed by anarchism) and its repression. While direct interconnections between the punk scenes of China and Indonesia are relatively sparse, this exercise in comparative analysis grounds the locally lived experience of punk in a "global punk" framing, which is essential to understanding punk cultural production, activism, and resistance in these "other" punk places. This article is based on several periods of ethnographic research by the authors (from 2012 to 2018).
{"title":"Punk Activism and Its Repression in China and Indonesia: Decolonizing \"Global Punk\"","authors":"Jian Xiao, Jimmy Donaghey","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0036","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Punk's global spread has been a defining aspect of its forty-plus year history; contemporary punk can only be understood in relation to this global punk network. Punk's transmission from place to place is shaped by neocolonial cultural flows, but punk scenes also respond to their particular contexts, and analysis of local punk scenes must consider this contextuality carefully alongside a \"global punk\" framing. \"Other\" punk places cannot be simply judged via a reductive neocolonial imposition of Anglo-American punk norms—an \"inter Asia\" comparison of the punk scenes of China and Indonesia is an example of this critical decentering and acts as a decolonizing intervention into \"global punk.\" Punks embrace this \"global punk\" network and are acutely conscious of its contours—it is only in the repression of these punk communities (or in some academic circles) that the \"cultural imperialist\" framing is maintained, with punk in Indonesia and China dismissed by the authorities (or scholars) as Western imports. This article briefly traces the histories of punk's emergence in China and Indonesia, in the years leading up to, and following, transitional periods of their authoritarian regimes through the very late 1980s and 1990s, discusses and compares contemporary forms of punk resistance and activism in each place, including DIY cultural production and manifestations of \"punk space\" in Indonesia and China, before highlighting repression from state and para-state institutions in these now \"post-authoritarian\" and \"softened authoritarian\" contexts.Cross-comparative study of these places sheds critical light on the experiences of punk there, especially with regard to punk activism (informed by anarchism) and its repression. While direct interconnections between the punk scenes of China and Indonesia are relatively sparse, this exercise in comparative analysis grounds the locally lived experience of punk in a \"global punk\" framing, which is essential to understanding punk cultural production, activism, and resistance in these \"other\" punk places. This article is based on several periods of ethnographic research by the authors (from 2012 to 2018).","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84491256","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}
Abstract:The essay identifies three ontological-political paradigms that are prominent in contemporary debate: the first, derived from Heidegger, is "destituent"; the second, elaborated by Deleuze, is "constituent"; and the third, which refers above all to the work of Claude Lefort, is "instituting." While the first two, in the forms they have assumed in contemporary philosophy, give rise to a politically ineffective outcome, the third opens up a new space of thought for political praxis.
{"title":"Instituting Thought: Three Paradigms of Political Ontology","authors":"R. Esposito, Mariaenrica Giannuzzi","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The essay identifies three ontological-political paradigms that are prominent in contemporary debate: the first, derived from Heidegger, is \"destituent\"; the second, elaborated by Deleuze, is \"constituent\"; and the third, which refers above all to the work of Claude Lefort, is \"instituting.\" While the first two, in the forms they have assumed in contemporary philosophy, give rise to a politically ineffective outcome, the third opens up a new space of thought for political praxis.","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86054538","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}
For many decades now South Africa has worn the mantle of global exemplarity. During the 1980s, South Africa was, in Derrida’s phrase, “racism’s last word” (le dernier mot du racisme), a place where European racial thinking had reached its apogee (and, one hoped, its culminating endpoint). Following the collapse of the apartheid regime and the democratic elections of 1994, it became, under the sign of Nelson Mandela, the “rainbow nation”: a concrete illustration of the quasimiraculous overcoming of racial oppression through empathy and forgiveness and a beacon for other nations struggling with violent histories. In recent years, however, even as the burnished image of Mandela has been iconized around the world, South Africans themselves have come to suspect, with some discomfort, that their country means something else: a disappointment by or betrayal of political ideals. Promises made— regarding jobs, land, housing— have not been kept; an endemic corruption has set in to consolidate an elite political class; coarse and explicit varieties of racism, after strategically keeping their heads down, have resurfaced; and the country has found itself in the thrall of economic and social disparities often greater than those of the apartheid era. In this new configuration, as Andrew van der Vlies has put it, it is not so much that South Africa is becoming more like the rest of the world, but rather that the world is increasingly becoming more like South Africa, “more unequal, but also concerned
几十年来，南非一直扮演着全球模范的角色。在20世纪80年代，用德里达的话说，南非是“种族主义的最后一句话”(le dernier mot du racisme)，是欧洲种族主义思想达到顶峰的地方(人们希望这是它的最终终点)。在种族隔离制度崩溃和1994年的民主选举之后，在纳尔逊·曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)的标志下，南非成为了“彩虹之国”:这是通过同情和宽恕近乎奇迹地克服种族压迫的具体例证，也是其他与暴力历史作斗争的国家的灯塔。然而，近年来，即使曼德拉的光辉形象在世界各地被视为偶像，南非人自己也开始怀疑，有些不安地，他们的国家意味着别的东西:政治理想的失望或背叛。有关就业、土地和住房的承诺没有兑现;一种地方性的腐败已经开始巩固精英政治阶层;各种粗俗而露骨的种族主义，在策略性地低着头之后，又重新浮出水面;这个国家发现自己陷入了经济和社会差距的束缚，这种差距往往比种族隔离时代更大。在这种新的格局中，正如安德鲁·范德弗利斯所说，与其说南非变得越来越像世界其他地方，不如说世界越来越像南非，“更加不平等，但也令人担忧。
{"title":"Apartheid's Endless Itineraries","authors":"T. Wright","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0022","url":null,"abstract":"For many decades now South Africa has worn the mantle of global exemplarity. During the 1980s, South Africa was, in Derrida’s phrase, “racism’s last word” (le dernier mot du racisme), a place where European racial thinking had reached its apogee (and, one hoped, its culminating endpoint). Following the collapse of the apartheid regime and the democratic elections of 1994, it became, under the sign of Nelson Mandela, the “rainbow nation”: a concrete illustration of the quasimiraculous overcoming of racial oppression through empathy and forgiveness and a beacon for other nations struggling with violent histories. In recent years, however, even as the burnished image of Mandela has been iconized around the world, South Africans themselves have come to suspect, with some discomfort, that their country means something else: a disappointment by or betrayal of political ideals. Promises made— regarding jobs, land, housing— have not been kept; an endemic corruption has set in to consolidate an elite political class; coarse and explicit varieties of racism, after strategically keeping their heads down, have resurfaced; and the country has found itself in the thrall of economic and social disparities often greater than those of the apartheid era. In this new configuration, as Andrew van der Vlies has put it, it is not so much that South Africa is becoming more like the rest of the world, but rather that the world is increasingly becoming more like South Africa, “more unequal, but also concerned","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75622414","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}
Abstract:This article recovers the link between cultural and educational policy in Latin America to understand the neoliberal state's discursive institution of culture as capital. It does so by studying the form and function of Mexican and Chilean cultural bureaucracies. The calculability and accountability of culture in Chilean cultural policy and the incalculability of Mexico's culture of favor cultural policy are but two sides of one coin issued by the same neoliberal state form. Both depend on the discursive institution (from above) of culture as cultural capital and labor as human capital reflected (from below) in the formation of Latin American subjects to contemporary capitalism. On this model, culture should acculturate subjects to their status as precarious, flexible, self-managing and self-valorizing workers, whether in the form of human capital or informal labor.
{"title":"War Over Measure: Latin American Cultural Policy and the Pedagogy of Neoliberal States","authors":"Bret Leraul","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article recovers the link between cultural and educational policy in Latin America to understand the neoliberal state's discursive institution of culture as capital. It does so by studying the form and function of Mexican and Chilean cultural bureaucracies. The calculability and accountability of culture in Chilean cultural policy and the incalculability of Mexico's culture of favor cultural policy are but two sides of one coin issued by the same neoliberal state form. Both depend on the discursive institution (from above) of culture as cultural capital and labor as human capital reflected (from below) in the formation of Latin American subjects to contemporary capitalism. On this model, culture should acculturate subjects to their status as precarious, flexible, self-managing and self-valorizing workers, whether in the form of human capital or informal labor.","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82833598","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}
None Like Us begins with a story of familial cleavage. Though he does not explicitly delve into its contours, Stephen Best describes a graduation dinner that reveals (to him) a distance between him and his father. Another attendee describes this separation (on the part of father) as having been born from a conflict between pride and disgust— the father is proud of his son’s success, but it also announces an unassimilable difference between the two. Best likens this to an injunction to community within Black studies, which he describes as not only uncomfortable but problematic: “the feeling that I am being invited to long for the return of a sociality that I never had, one from which I suspect (had I ever shown up) I might have been excluded” (1). This narrative is meant to explain Best’s project, which is to decouple Black studies’ relationship between the archive and community. However, this is not just any archive but that of the transatlantic slave trade, which has traditionally undergirded the idea of a Black diaspora, a term that itself has been understood to refer not only to a shared history but to common cultural, aesthetic, and religious practices. Best bristles not only at the mandate to think with slavery when thinking about Blackness but also the assumption that this history provides a useful form of commonality. Ultimately, Best aims to uncover and work with a productive version of negation: “This coveted alienation would entail a gesture best parsed as a kind of doubled movement: away from the ‘clenched little
{"title":"Surfaces, Subjectivity, and Self-Denial","authors":"Amber Jamilla Musser","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0021","url":null,"abstract":"None Like Us begins with a story of familial cleavage. Though he does not explicitly delve into its contours, Stephen Best describes a graduation dinner that reveals (to him) a distance between him and his father. Another attendee describes this separation (on the part of father) as having been born from a conflict between pride and disgust— the father is proud of his son’s success, but it also announces an unassimilable difference between the two. Best likens this to an injunction to community within Black studies, which he describes as not only uncomfortable but problematic: “the feeling that I am being invited to long for the return of a sociality that I never had, one from which I suspect (had I ever shown up) I might have been excluded” (1). This narrative is meant to explain Best’s project, which is to decouple Black studies’ relationship between the archive and community. However, this is not just any archive but that of the transatlantic slave trade, which has traditionally undergirded the idea of a Black diaspora, a term that itself has been understood to refer not only to a shared history but to common cultural, aesthetic, and religious practices. Best bristles not only at the mandate to think with slavery when thinking about Blackness but also the assumption that this history provides a useful form of commonality. Ultimately, Best aims to uncover and work with a productive version of negation: “This coveted alienation would entail a gesture best parsed as a kind of doubled movement: away from the ‘clenched little","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83426827","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}
{"title":"The Colloquy of Little Books","authors":"Karen Steigman","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88852386","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}
First of all, I would like to thank the contributors Robert Nichols, Benoît Dillet, and Vanessa Lemm— together with the editors Cesare Casarino, Maggie Hennefeld, John Mowitt, and Simona Sawhney, indeed— for the intelligence and the commitment with which everyone commented on my essay. These comments identified not only the internal problems of the text but also pushed the argument well beyond the limits of this single text by opening problems and questions that both complicated and enriched it. I responded to some of these comments, especially in relation to Deleuze and Lefort, in the volume actually occasioned by the essay and similarly titled Instituting Thought. Three Paradigms of Political Ontology. The volume has been published in Italian by Einaudi, and it is currently in the process of being translated into English by Polity Press. As for Deleuze— whose ontologicalpolitical pathway from his earliest to his last writings I tried to analyze in this book— I have partially corrected an overly clearcut interpretation that, as presented in the essay, appeared to Dillet to flatten a more complex and articulated position. It is true that Deleuze’s oeuvre displays the trace of the negative, as a tone that is irreducible to an otherwise pervasive ontological euphoria. Many of his pages are marked with contours of death and destruction. But they also arise from or are traversed by the flows of desire. As Vanessa Lemm has keenly grasped, I experienced a theoretical shift with regard to my position in relation to Deleuze’s theory in general (and I do not deny it). The shift can be noticed when
{"title":"The Creative Force of Institutions: A Reply to Benoît Dillet's, Vanessa Lemm's, and Robert Nichols's Responses to \"Three Paradigms of Political Ontology\"","authors":"Roberto Esposito, Mariaenrica Giannuzzi","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0020","url":null,"abstract":"First of all, I would like to thank the contributors Robert Nichols, Benoît Dillet, and Vanessa Lemm— together with the editors Cesare Casarino, Maggie Hennefeld, John Mowitt, and Simona Sawhney, indeed— for the intelligence and the commitment with which everyone commented on my essay. These comments identified not only the internal problems of the text but also pushed the argument well beyond the limits of this single text by opening problems and questions that both complicated and enriched it. I responded to some of these comments, especially in relation to Deleuze and Lefort, in the volume actually occasioned by the essay and similarly titled Instituting Thought. Three Paradigms of Political Ontology. The volume has been published in Italian by Einaudi, and it is currently in the process of being translated into English by Polity Press. As for Deleuze— whose ontologicalpolitical pathway from his earliest to his last writings I tried to analyze in this book— I have partially corrected an overly clearcut interpretation that, as presented in the essay, appeared to Dillet to flatten a more complex and articulated position. It is true that Deleuze’s oeuvre displays the trace of the negative, as a tone that is irreducible to an otherwise pervasive ontological euphoria. Many of his pages are marked with contours of death and destruction. But they also arise from or are traversed by the flows of desire. As Vanessa Lemm has keenly grasped, I experienced a theoretical shift with regard to my position in relation to Deleuze’s theory in general (and I do not deny it). The shift can be noticed when","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75912889","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}
Abstract:This article critically evaluates Roberto Esposito's analysis of political ontology. The author begins by reconstructing elements of Esposito's original argument and inviting further elaboration of certain important conceptual moves made within, with particular focus on the underspecified relationship between (self) reflection and ontology, or between knowing and being. In the second part of the essay, the author examines the implications of these questions for theorizing the distinction between democracy and totalitarianism.
{"title":"Political Ontology and the Dialectics of Democracy","authors":"R. Nichols","doi":"10.1353/cul.2022.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cul.2022.0017","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article critically evaluates Roberto Esposito's analysis of political ontology. The author begins by reconstructing elements of Esposito's original argument and inviting further elaboration of certain important conceptual moves made within, with particular focus on the underspecified relationship between (self) reflection and ontology, or between knowing and being. In the second part of the essay, the author examines the implications of these questions for theorizing the distinction between democracy and totalitarianism.","PeriodicalId":46410,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Critique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81013153","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：