<p>In the last decade, far-right movements have seen a resurgence in countries as diverse as the United States, Brazil, India, and the Philippines, and many scholars have noted their resemblance to 20th-century fascist movements (Snyder <span>2018</span>; Marasco <span>2021</span>; Stanley <span>2020</span>; Paxton <span>2021</span>). The prominence of fascistic movements in countries with colonial histories of different kinds, or, we might say, the presence of fascism in a world shaped by colonialism, raises pressing questions about the relationship between fascism and colonialism. While some recent accounts of fascism have gestured toward the proximity of colonial dynamics to fascist ones, approaches that view fascism and colonialism as part of a shared historical trajectory have been underappreciated by many mainstream accounts.1 Among accounts that do engage the anticolonial tradition to explore fascism, Fanon's work has been notably absent (Toscano <span>2023</span>; Shaw <span>2020</span> Rasberry <span>2021</span>; Robinson <span>2017</span>). In this paper, I will argue that the work of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon helps us better understand how colonialism creates the affective and psychological conditions for fascism. Césaire's work illuminates the affective “boomerang effect” of colonialism, where the brutality of colonial violence “returns home” to the metropole. Fanon's work takes us beyond the metropole, showing us how colonial relations can create fascistic dynamics within colonies and former colonies that have gained independence. Fanon's development of Césaire's argument does not just expand its scope but reflects a salient difference between the two thinkers: while Césaire's analysis, at least in <i>Discourse on Colonialism</i>, focuses on the promise of the colonized world (in contrast with the moral bankruptcy of Europe), Fanon sees the position of colonized countries as more ambivalent, even after independence. This difference leads Fanon to be attentive to the potential for fascistic movements within colonial contexts, including in former colonies that have gained independence. In doing so, Fanon's work does not just deepen Césaire's analysis but also resonates with accounts that highlight the role political and economic crisis plays in making fascism possible, the class composition of fascism, and the type of affectivity and psychology activated by fascist movements in periods of crisis.</p><p>I will begin outlining working definitions of fascism and colonialism. Next, I will explicate Césaire's “boomerang effect” thesis and situate it within other formulations of the boomerang effect in political theory. I will argue that Césaire's understanding of the boomerang effect is not simply a rhetorical move, but a literal claim about the emergence of fascism. In my reading, Césaire is concerned primarily with the affective and relational dimensions of the boomerang effect, providing at least one mechanism through which coloniali
{"title":"Césaire and Fanon on Fascism: The “Boomerang Effect” Beyond the Metropole","authors":"Dallas Jokic","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12809","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the last decade, far-right movements have seen a resurgence in countries as diverse as the United States, Brazil, India, and the Philippines, and many scholars have noted their resemblance to 20th-century fascist movements (Snyder <span>2018</span>; Marasco <span>2021</span>; Stanley <span>2020</span>; Paxton <span>2021</span>). The prominence of fascistic movements in countries with colonial histories of different kinds, or, we might say, the presence of fascism in a world shaped by colonialism, raises pressing questions about the relationship between fascism and colonialism. While some recent accounts of fascism have gestured toward the proximity of colonial dynamics to fascist ones, approaches that view fascism and colonialism as part of a shared historical trajectory have been underappreciated by many mainstream accounts.1 Among accounts that do engage the anticolonial tradition to explore fascism, Fanon's work has been notably absent (Toscano <span>2023</span>; Shaw <span>2020</span> Rasberry <span>2021</span>; Robinson <span>2017</span>). In this paper, I will argue that the work of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon helps us better understand how colonialism creates the affective and psychological conditions for fascism. Césaire's work illuminates the affective “boomerang effect” of colonialism, where the brutality of colonial violence “returns home” to the metropole. Fanon's work takes us beyond the metropole, showing us how colonial relations can create fascistic dynamics within colonies and former colonies that have gained independence. Fanon's development of Césaire's argument does not just expand its scope but reflects a salient difference between the two thinkers: while Césaire's analysis, at least in <i>Discourse on Colonialism</i>, focuses on the promise of the colonized world (in contrast with the moral bankruptcy of Europe), Fanon sees the position of colonized countries as more ambivalent, even after independence. This difference leads Fanon to be attentive to the potential for fascistic movements within colonial contexts, including in former colonies that have gained independence. In doing so, Fanon's work does not just deepen Césaire's analysis but also resonates with accounts that highlight the role political and economic crisis plays in making fascism possible, the class composition of fascism, and the type of affectivity and psychology activated by fascist movements in periods of crisis.</p><p>I will begin outlining working definitions of fascism and colonialism. Next, I will explicate Césaire's “boomerang effect” thesis and situate it within other formulations of the boomerang effect in political theory. I will argue that Césaire's understanding of the boomerang effect is not simply a rhetorical move, but a literal claim about the emergence of fascism. In my reading, Césaire is concerned primarily with the affective and relational dimensions of the boomerang effect, providing at least one mechanism through which coloniali","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 4","pages":"601-611"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12809","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145695257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Initial hopes of the democratizing potential of the internet are increasingly replaced by fear that a fragmented and unedited public sphere unleashes the destructive forces of populism, hate speech, and demagoguery (Tucker et al. <span>2017</span>). In social media, these forces are amplified by algorithms used to feed designed to create “audience engagement.” Thus, toxic communication in social media is no accident as postings that provoke and elicit emotional responses are consistent with the business model (Saurwein and Spencer-Smith <span>2021</span>; Maréchal <span>2021</span>). At the same time, operators of social media supervise and regulate postings on their platforms. Content violating “community standards” risk being demoted, flagged, or deleted, while users that do not comply with these standards are potentially excluded or “deplatformed” in the new vocabulary.</p><p>As emphasized by Gillespie (<span>2018</span>), content moderation is an unavoidable feature of social media. Standards for content moderation frequently target hate speech, disinformation, and violent threats. Few deny that measures taken to reduce such content are or can be justified. Less obvious is if platforms should regulate and moderate <i>uncivil speech</i>; words or utterances that communicate rudeness, impoliteness, insult, or hostility.1 Uncivil speech is here defined as denigrating but not hateful speech: uncivil speech and hate speech are thus mutually exclusive categories (Waldron <span>2013</span>). Hence, the question is whether social media providers should delete, demote, or flag uncivil postings and comments. Are they justified in ultimately excluding from their platforms users that engage in what Meta (<span>2017</span>) calls “language that seems designed to provoke strong feelings”?</p><p>The value of freedom of speech is a reason to worry about regulating uncivil speech in social media. Just as there is reason to object to governments that suppress free speech in the public sphere, we should arguably oppose acts of censorship by social media platforms in the “digital public sphere” (Schäfer et al. <span>2015</span>). Accordingly, critics argue that the regulatory activities of social media platforms are contrary to basic democratic values and principles. The suppression of speech in social media is a species of “cancel culture” that stifles freedom of expression and undermines the value of democratic participation (e.g., McGarvey <span>2022</span>).</p><p>Against these critics, it is worth keeping in mind that content moderation has for a long time been institutionalized in traditional media (Ward <span>2014</span>). Publishing and broadcasting is unthinkable without editors enforcing professional standards, codes of responsible journalism and self-regulatory nongovernmental institutions. Hence, the normative issues at stake in the digital public sphere are not altogether new. What is new is who the relevant players are. Standards of content mode
{"title":"Uncivil Speech in the Social Media: Democracy, Political Liberalism, and the Virtue of Public Reason","authors":"Ludvig Beckman","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12807","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Initial hopes of the democratizing potential of the internet are increasingly replaced by fear that a fragmented and unedited public sphere unleashes the destructive forces of populism, hate speech, and demagoguery (Tucker et al. <span>2017</span>). In social media, these forces are amplified by algorithms used to feed designed to create “audience engagement.” Thus, toxic communication in social media is no accident as postings that provoke and elicit emotional responses are consistent with the business model (Saurwein and Spencer-Smith <span>2021</span>; Maréchal <span>2021</span>). At the same time, operators of social media supervise and regulate postings on their platforms. Content violating “community standards” risk being demoted, flagged, or deleted, while users that do not comply with these standards are potentially excluded or “deplatformed” in the new vocabulary.</p><p>As emphasized by Gillespie (<span>2018</span>), content moderation is an unavoidable feature of social media. Standards for content moderation frequently target hate speech, disinformation, and violent threats. Few deny that measures taken to reduce such content are or can be justified. Less obvious is if platforms should regulate and moderate <i>uncivil speech</i>; words or utterances that communicate rudeness, impoliteness, insult, or hostility.1 Uncivil speech is here defined as denigrating but not hateful speech: uncivil speech and hate speech are thus mutually exclusive categories (Waldron <span>2013</span>). Hence, the question is whether social media providers should delete, demote, or flag uncivil postings and comments. Are they justified in ultimately excluding from their platforms users that engage in what Meta (<span>2017</span>) calls “language that seems designed to provoke strong feelings”?</p><p>The value of freedom of speech is a reason to worry about regulating uncivil speech in social media. Just as there is reason to object to governments that suppress free speech in the public sphere, we should arguably oppose acts of censorship by social media platforms in the “digital public sphere” (Schäfer et al. <span>2015</span>). Accordingly, critics argue that the regulatory activities of social media platforms are contrary to basic democratic values and principles. The suppression of speech in social media is a species of “cancel culture” that stifles freedom of expression and undermines the value of democratic participation (e.g., McGarvey <span>2022</span>).</p><p>Against these critics, it is worth keeping in mind that content moderation has for a long time been institutionalized in traditional media (Ward <span>2014</span>). Publishing and broadcasting is unthinkable without editors enforcing professional standards, codes of responsible journalism and self-regulatory nongovernmental institutions. Hence, the normative issues at stake in the digital public sphere are not altogether new. What is new is who the relevant players are. Standards of content mode","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 2","pages":"356-365"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12807","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144520223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Arendt, Weil, and the Dissolution of Political Temporalities in Late Capitalism","authors":"Peli Meir","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12811","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 4","pages":"557-566"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145695434","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}
<p>Many today believe that our aesthetic-affective sensibility can enliven our thinking and thus enhance our capacity to perceive how existing attitudes, practices, and institutions may be undermining the imagination of a better political world.1 However, when we ponder such an admirable role for our sensibility, this also tends to reawaken a venerable concern in political theory: in according a substantial a role to affect and imagination, we may be undermining the role of normative reason and thereby implicitly legitimating dangerous forms of collective power. In Western history, this concern has taken a multitude of forms from the 16th century until today. In the period of the English Civil War, the more radically democratic revolutionaries came to be excoriated for embracing a dangerous “enthusiasm,” whereby religious belief, instead of providing restraint, was fused with vivid imagination envisioning radically new possibilities for political power, something critics saw as fomenting protracted violence and fanatical behavior.2 In the 20th century, it was the secular myths of fascism that fired popular imagination in many countries. This concern is hardly remote today, as right-wing populism flourishes in a variety of democratic societies. Given this extensive and unsettling background, we today face a situation where we seem to be moved simultaneously to admit a greater role for aesthetic-affective sensibility in political life and yet also deeply question it. How should we begin to get our bearings in these cross currents?</p><p>In recent years, many of the issues surrounding sensibility have been gathered under the term social or political “imaginary,” with this meaning something like how figures of the imagination intertwine with explicit political orientations.3 But the increasing acceptance of the force of imaginaries is usually not followed by reflection on how they <i>ought</i> to be related to normative ideals we wish to explicitly affirm. I want to cut into this knot of issues. How should the features of a political imaginary or mythic resonate with ideals reflecting a more rational normative basis? And, more particularly, how does a fuller acknowledgement of a role for our aesthetic-affective figurations avoid the dangers noted above? In other words, can we conceive of an imaginary of political power whose cultivation encourages, rather than undermines, the core associations and ideals of democracy?</p><p>Crucial to any such exploration is an aesthetic-affective notion traditionally tied to democracy, namely, the sublime.4 Since the 18th century, sublimity has been associated with an elevating enthusiasm for vehement collective action animated by the grand ideals underlying the revolutionary emergence of democratic power. Section 1 provides a brief historical overview of this connection, focusing specifically on how Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant unpacked its character. This background is necessary not just for contextual reasons,
{"title":"The Aesthetics of Democratic Power: Sensibility, Normativity, and the Sublime","authors":"Stephen K. White","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12806","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many today believe that our aesthetic-affective sensibility can enliven our thinking and thus enhance our capacity to perceive how existing attitudes, practices, and institutions may be undermining the imagination of a better political world.1 However, when we ponder such an admirable role for our sensibility, this also tends to reawaken a venerable concern in political theory: in according a substantial a role to affect and imagination, we may be undermining the role of normative reason and thereby implicitly legitimating dangerous forms of collective power. In Western history, this concern has taken a multitude of forms from the 16th century until today. In the period of the English Civil War, the more radically democratic revolutionaries came to be excoriated for embracing a dangerous “enthusiasm,” whereby religious belief, instead of providing restraint, was fused with vivid imagination envisioning radically new possibilities for political power, something critics saw as fomenting protracted violence and fanatical behavior.2 In the 20th century, it was the secular myths of fascism that fired popular imagination in many countries. This concern is hardly remote today, as right-wing populism flourishes in a variety of democratic societies. Given this extensive and unsettling background, we today face a situation where we seem to be moved simultaneously to admit a greater role for aesthetic-affective sensibility in political life and yet also deeply question it. How should we begin to get our bearings in these cross currents?</p><p>In recent years, many of the issues surrounding sensibility have been gathered under the term social or political “imaginary,” with this meaning something like how figures of the imagination intertwine with explicit political orientations.3 But the increasing acceptance of the force of imaginaries is usually not followed by reflection on how they <i>ought</i> to be related to normative ideals we wish to explicitly affirm. I want to cut into this knot of issues. How should the features of a political imaginary or mythic resonate with ideals reflecting a more rational normative basis? And, more particularly, how does a fuller acknowledgement of a role for our aesthetic-affective figurations avoid the dangers noted above? In other words, can we conceive of an imaginary of political power whose cultivation encourages, rather than undermines, the core associations and ideals of democracy?</p><p>Crucial to any such exploration is an aesthetic-affective notion traditionally tied to democracy, namely, the sublime.4 Since the 18th century, sublimity has been associated with an elevating enthusiasm for vehement collective action animated by the grand ideals underlying the revolutionary emergence of democratic power. Section 1 provides a brief historical overview of this connection, focusing specifically on how Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant unpacked its character. This background is necessary not just for contextual reasons, ","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 2","pages":"264-272"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12806","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144520126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Agonism and the Sublimation of Antagonism","authors":"Connor Moran","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12805","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12805","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 4","pages":"623-633"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145695435","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":"Rethinking Political Myth, Unpacking the Settler–Colonial Dream of an “American Arcadia”","authors":"Chiara Bottici","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12812","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 2","pages":"321-329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144520125","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":"Animism and Reification in Contemporary Theory: A Defense of New Humanism1","authors":"Frédéric Vandenberghe","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12803","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 4","pages":"645-654"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145695474","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":"Democracy despite Itself: Liberal Constitutionalism and Militant Democracy","authors":"Stefan Rummens","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12798","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 3","pages":"547-549"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145101931","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":"Eco-Emancipation: An Earthly Politics of Freedom pp. 224. $35.00 (Hardcover) $22.95 (Paperback). ISBN: 9780691242279.","authors":"Rebecca Marwege","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12801","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12801","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 2","pages":"373-374"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144519666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the field of feminist methodology, participatory research designs are a means of choice to adequately involve affected groups of people and to conduct research as critical intervention. This article tackles this form of academic knowledge production and discusses how such positioned knowledge can be characterized more precisely in relation to participatory research designs. By discussing the epistemological premises of feminist participatory research in feminist standpoint theory, the article identifies a problem with identity-based reflexivity that it distinguishes from a reflexivity that focuses on the careful analysis of power relations. The article points out four problems participatory research designs need to confront in order not to be paternalistic and to uphold the necessary openness of every critical research process: The problem of immunization by calls for identity-based reflexivity; an insufficient capability to be irritated in the course of the research process; a danger of epistemological paternalism; and the problematic promise of “useful” research. It closes by pointing out the problems and potentials for critical theorizing informed by participatory research.
{"title":"Reflexivity Beyond Identity: The Premises, Promises and Problems of Participatory Research for Critical Theorizing","authors":"Sabine Flick, Katharina Hoppe","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12800","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the field of feminist methodology, participatory research designs are a means of choice to adequately involve affected groups of people and to conduct research as critical intervention. This article tackles this form of academic knowledge production and discusses how such positioned knowledge can be characterized more precisely in relation to participatory research designs. By discussing the epistemological premises of feminist participatory research in feminist standpoint theory, the article identifies a problem with identity-based reflexivity that it distinguishes from a reflexivity that focuses on the careful analysis of power relations. The article points out four problems participatory research designs need to confront in order not to be paternalistic and to uphold the necessary openness of every critical research process: The problem of immunization by calls for identity-based reflexivity; an insufficient capability to be irritated in the course of the research process; a danger of epistemological paternalism; and the problematic promise of “useful” research. It closes by pointing out the problems and potentials for critical theorizing informed by participatory research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 3","pages":"517-526"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12800","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145100894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","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：