Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory最新文献

英文中文

The animating impulses of critical theory 批判理论的动力

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12725

Peter E. Gordon

引用次数: 0

Interdisciplinary materialism and the task of critical institutionalism 跨学科唯物主义与批判制度主义的任务

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12721

Hubertus Buchstein

My first encounter with Horkheimer's seminal 1931 speech “The Present Situation of Social Philosophy and the Tasks of an Institute for Social Research” dates back to 1981 when I was struggling as a young student to read the final chapters of Jürgen Habermas's just published Theory of Communicative Action. Habermas made a strong case for Horkheimer's program of interdisciplinary materialism in his book. He reconstructed Horkheimer's original program and presented an ambitious update (see Habermas, 1987, pp. 374–403). This encouraged me to read Horkheimer's famous speech of January 1931 and became the inspirational starting point for my ongoing interest in the history of the Frankfurt School.The primary reason for the appeal of the classical Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School until today is that while it remains within a Marxist framework, it contrasted the economism of Marxist orthodoxy. It restored an autonomous logic to the domains that orthodox Marxism qualified as “superstructure.” This perspective yields inspiring findings in cultural theory and social psychology to this day. Yet in the early period of the Frankfurt School, the inner circle around Horkheimer did not achieve comparable results; at no point did this circle elaborate a theory of the political or of political institutions. This shortcoming dates back to the very beginnings of the Frankfurt School, to Horkheimer's programmatic inaugural speech as the new director of Institut für Sozialforschung (IfS) of 1931 in particular.When Horkheimer enumerated the subdisciplines of interdisciplinary materialism in his speech, the absence of political science was striking. He defined social philosophy as the philosophical interpretation of human beings as members of a community; social philosophy must therefore primarily concern itself with the social existence of human beings. Horkheimer named “the state” and the “law” (Horkheimer, 1931, p. 25) first in the list of social phenomena, even above economy and religion. He dug deeper in his discussion of social philosophy with an examination of Hegel's theory of objective spirit by criticizing Hegel's idea that the state could serve as a solution to integrate the conflicts of capitalist society (see Horkheimer, 1931, pp. 26–28). He included “the state” and “political association” (Horkheimer, 1931, p. 31) as part of the investigation of the ways in which people live together.In his following deliberations about the “ongoing dialectical permeation and evolution of philosophical theory and empirical-scientific praxis” (Horkheimer, 1931, p. 29), however, Horkheimer quickly lost sight of political associations and the state. In his list of the scientific disciplines that are supposed to participate in socio-philosophical research, Staatswissenschaft and Wissenschaft von der Politik—as the discipline newly

{"title":"Interdisciplinary materialism and the task of critical institutionalism","authors":"Hubertus Buchstein","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12721","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1467-8675.12721","url":null,"abstract":"My first encounter with Horkheimer's seminal 1931 speech “The Present Situation of Social Philosophy and the Tasks of an Institute for Social Research” dates back to 1981 when I was struggling as a young student to read the final chapters of Jürgen Habermas's just published Theory of Communicative Action. Habermas made a strong case for Horkheimer's program of interdisciplinary materialism in his book. He reconstructed Horkheimer's original program and presented an ambitious update (see Habermas, 1987, pp. 374–403). This encouraged me to read Horkheimer's famous speech of January 1931 and became the inspirational starting point for my ongoing interest in the history of the Frankfurt School.The primary reason for the appeal of the classical Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School until today is that while it remains within a Marxist framework, it contrasted the economism of Marxist orthodoxy. It restored an autonomous logic to the domains that orthodox Marxism qualified as “superstructure.” This perspective yields inspiring findings in cultural theory and social psychology to this day. Yet in the early period of the Frankfurt School, the inner circle around Horkheimer did not achieve comparable results; at no point did this circle elaborate a theory of the political or of political institutions. This shortcoming dates back to the very beginnings of the Frankfurt School, to Horkheimer's programmatic inaugural speech as the new director of Institut für Sozialforschung (IfS) of 1931 in particular.When Horkheimer enumerated the subdisciplines of interdisciplinary materialism in his speech, the absence of political science was striking. He defined social philosophy as the philosophical interpretation of human beings as members of a community; social philosophy must therefore primarily concern itself with the social existence of human beings. Horkheimer named “the state” and the “law” (Horkheimer, 1931, p. 25) first in the list of social phenomena, even above economy and religion. He dug deeper in his discussion of social philosophy with an examination of Hegel's theory of objective spirit by criticizing Hegel's idea that the state could serve as a solution to integrate the conflicts of capitalist society (see Horkheimer, 1931, pp. 26–28). He included “the state” and “political association” (Horkheimer, 1931, p. 31) as part of the investigation of the ways in which people live together.In his following deliberations about the “ongoing dialectical permeation and evolution of philosophical theory and empirical-scientific praxis” (Horkheimer, 1931, p. 29), however, Horkheimer quickly lost sight of political associations and the state. In his list of the scientific disciplines that are supposed to participate in socio-philosophical research, Staatswissenschaft and Wissenschaft von der Politik—as the discipline newly ","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"30 4","pages":"414-418"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12721","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139180263","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}

引用次数: 0

Horkheimer's unrealized vision 霍克海默未实现的愿景

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12732

William E. Scheuerman

引用次数: 0

Totality, morality, and social philosophy 整体、道德和社会哲学

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12729

Frank I. Michelman

引用次数: 0

The return of the critique of ideologies 意识形态批判的回归

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12728

Cristina Lafont

Trying to offer some brief reflections on the legacy of critical theory over the past 100 years is a daunting task. In lieu of doing this, I shall focus on just one issue: the recent revival in critiques of ideology. In my view, this type of critique is an important task of critical theory and remains one of its most significant legacies. Yet, if one focuses on the work of critical theorists over the past decades, this statement is far from obvious. In fact, the second generation of the Frankfurt school, most notably Habermas in his Theory of Communicative Action, explicitly rejects ideology critique as obsolete in the context of contemporary societies.1 Even though in the 1960s and 1970s, he had embraced the classical Marxist approach to ideology critique, he ultimately rejected it. It was the explicit attempt to rebut objections that had plagued this approach that brought about the so-called “democratic turn” of critical theory characteristic of Habermas's work from the 1980s onward and in which the critique of ideologies no longer plays a role.In contrast to Habermas, I am sympathetic to the return of a critique of ideology. Even if it is not the only form of critique, let alone the central task of a critical theory of contemporary societies, I think that it is an important tool for critical theorists. I shall briefly indicate why I think that newer approaches to the critique of ideology that are being currently developed (articulated by not only Frankfurt school critical theorists but also critical race theorists, feminists, and mainstream Anglo-American philosophers) are in a better position to overcome objections that understandably plagued classical Marxist conceptions of ideology critique.2 Moreover, in my view, they are perfectly compatible with the “democratic turn” of critical theory—so long as this turn is not given an exclusively proceduralist interpretation as Habermas does. I cannot give a full defense of this view here. Instead, I want (1) to briefly indicate important ways in which the new approaches to ideology critique differ from the classical Marxist approach and how they can avoid some key objections. Then, (2) I turn to Habermas's distinctive objections to ideology critique and show that, while they may call the feasibility of the classical Marxist approach into question, they leave room for a properly transformed approach to the critique of ideology in contemporary societies.According to the classical Marxist approach, the critique of ideology is a central task in the “scientific” enterprise of articulating a critical theory of society. The aim of ideology critique is to respond to a specific theoretical question, namely, why members of a society would work to perpetuate their own subjection, exploitation, or oppression. Ideologies offer an answer to this question. They provide a distorted view of social practices and institutions to those who are “in the grip” of

{"title":"The return of the critique of ideologies","authors":"Cristina Lafont","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12728","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1467-8675.12728","url":null,"abstract":"Trying to offer some brief reflections on the legacy of critical theory over the past 100 years is a daunting task. In lieu of doing this, I shall focus on just one issue: the recent revival in critiques of ideology. In my view, this type of critique is an important task of critical theory and remains one of its most significant legacies. Yet, if one focuses on the work of critical theorists over the past decades, this statement is far from obvious. In fact, the second generation of the Frankfurt school, most notably Habermas in his Theory of Communicative Action, explicitly rejects ideology critique as obsolete in the context of contemporary societies.1 Even though in the 1960s and 1970s, he had embraced the classical Marxist approach to ideology critique, he ultimately rejected it. It was the explicit attempt to rebut objections that had plagued this approach that brought about the so-called “democratic turn” of critical theory characteristic of Habermas's work from the 1980s onward and in which the critique of ideologies no longer plays a role.In contrast to Habermas, I am sympathetic to the return of a critique of ideology. Even if it is not the only form of critique, let alone the central task of a critical theory of contemporary societies, I think that it is an important tool for critical theorists. I shall briefly indicate why I think that newer approaches to the critique of ideology that are being currently developed (articulated by not only Frankfurt school critical theorists but also critical race theorists, feminists, and mainstream Anglo-American philosophers) are in a better position to overcome objections that understandably plagued classical Marxist conceptions of ideology critique.2 Moreover, in my view, they are perfectly compatible with the “democratic turn” of critical theory—so long as this turn is not given an exclusively proceduralist interpretation as Habermas does. I cannot give a full defense of this view here. Instead, I want (1) to briefly indicate important ways in which the new approaches to ideology critique differ from the classical Marxist approach and how they can avoid some key objections. Then, (2) I turn to Habermas's distinctive objections to ideology critique and show that, while they may call the feasibility of the classical Marxist approach into question, they leave room for a properly transformed approach to the critique of ideology in contemporary societies.According to the classical Marxist approach, the critique of ideology is a central task in the “scientific” enterprise of articulating a critical theory of society. The aim of ideology critique is to respond to a specific theoretical question, namely, why members of a society would work to perpetuate their own subjection, exploitation, or oppression. Ideologies offer an answer to this question. They provide a distorted view of social practices and institutions to those who are “in the grip” of","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"30 4","pages":"390-394"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12728","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139179970","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}

引用次数: 0

The Institute for Social Research on its 100th birthday. A former director's perspective 社会研究所百岁诞辰。前所长的观点

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12726

Axel Honneth

引用次数: 0

Not just war by other means: Cross-border engagement as political struggle 不仅仅是其他方式的战争：跨境接触是政治斗争

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-10-25 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12719

Lucia M. Rafanelli

I call cases like this—cross-border political engagements including both kinetic and non-kinetic elements—hybrid cases.1 It is not obvious how to understand the non-kinetic elements of hybrid cases. Should we understand them as warfare—conflicts between “enemies” locked in a “radically adversarial relationship” whose main task is to harm each other and whose main normative quandary is how much and what kind of harm they are permitted to inflict (see Walzer, 2017, p. xiii)? Or should we understand them as some (other) kind of political struggle?The question of which analytic frame to adopt is important, as, I will argue, there are serious democratic costs associated with understanding the non-kinetic elements of hybrid cases as warfare. In Counterinsurgency, understanding civilian casualty reports made by journalists, activists, and insurgents as acts of war would mean seeing them as acts meant to cause harm (by debilitating “enemy” forces) and as strategic communications whose purpose and value were, at best, unconnected to their truth. It would mean seeing their authors as potentially liable to attack—as Gross does when he describes journalists as “the foot soldiers of media warfare” (2015, p. 300) and argues they are therefore liable to harms including “capture, incarceration, expulsion, or the destruction or confiscation of their equipment” (2015, p. 269). And it would mean seeing their audiences as pawns to be manipulated by propagandists.Understanding civilian casualty reports instead as part of a political struggle would mean seeing them as statements that could inform, inspire critical reflection, and form the basis of democratic deliberation and contestation—which might not be contained within the borders of a single state. It would mean seeing their authors as sources of potentially weighty claims deserving real consideration and seeing their audiences as interlocutors capable of judging and responding in good faith to those claims.Existing scholarship does not often explicitly recognize the question of whether to understand the non-kinetic elements of hybrid cases as warfare or political struggle—let alone explicitly evaluate the costs and benefits of making one choice or another.2 Nonetheless, some (e.g., Blank, 2017; Gross, 2015; Gross & Meisels, 2017a; Kittrie, 2016; Walzer, 2017) tend to treat them more like warfare, and others (e.g., Jurkevics, 2019; Miller, 2010, pp. 247–57; Miller, 2018; Valdez, 2019a, 2019b) tend to treat them more like political struggle. Here, I make explicit the implicit assumptions behind these two approaches, argue that adopting the war paradigm (understanding the non-kinetic elements of hybrid cases as “warfare”) has significant democratic costs, and argue that adopting an alternate poli

我把这样的案例——包括动力因素和非动力因素的跨境政治接触——称为混合案例如何理解混合情况下的非动力因素还不是很明显。我们是否应该将它们理解为战争——“敌人”之间的冲突，这些冲突被锁定在一种“激进的敌对关系”中，其主要任务是相互伤害，其主要的规范性困境是他们被允许造成多大程度的伤害和什么样的伤害（见Walzer， 2017, p. xiii）？或者我们应该把它们理解为某种（其他）政治斗争？采用哪一种分析框架的问题很重要，因为，我认为，理解战争等混合情况的非动力因素会带来严重的民主成本。在《反叛乱》中，将记者、活动家和叛乱分子的平民伤亡报告理解为战争行为，意味着将其视为旨在造成伤害（通过削弱“敌人”力量）的行为，以及其目的和价值充其量与事实无关的战略沟通。这将意味着把他们的作者视为潜在的攻击对象——正如格罗斯所做的那样，他将记者描述为“媒体战争的步兵”（2015年，第300页），并认为他们因此容易受到伤害，包括“被捕、监禁、驱逐或销毁或没收他们的设备”（2015年，第269页）。这将意味着把他们的观众视为宣传者操纵的棋子。将平民伤亡报告理解为政治斗争的一部分，意味着将其视为一种声明，可以提供信息，激发批判性反思，并形成民主审议和竞争的基础——这可能不局限于一个国家的边界内。这将意味着把它们的作者视为值得真正考虑的潜在重大主张的来源，把它们的读者视为能够判断和真诚地回应这些主张的对话者。现有的学术研究通常没有明确认识到是否应该理解战争或政治斗争等混合案例的非动力因素的问题，更不用说明确评估做出一种选择或另一种选择的成本和收益了尽管如此，一些人(例如Blank, 2017；生产总值(gdp), 2015;总,刘振前,2017;Kittrie, 2016;Walzer, 2017)更倾向于将它们视为战争，而其他人(例如，Jurkevics, 2019；Miller, 2010，第247-57页；米勒,2018;Valdez, 2019a, 2019b)倾向于把它们更像是政治斗争。在这里，我明确了这两种方法背后的隐含假设，认为采用战争范式（将混合情况的非动力因素理解为“战争”）具有重大的民主成本，并认为采用替代的政治斗争范式可以减轻这些成本。更具体地说，对战争模式的过度依赖削弱了跨境政治成为——并被公认为——真正民主政治场所的潜力。它通过三种方式做到了这一点。首先，它将全球政治参与者呈现为陷入“一种激进的敌对关系”的敌人（Walzer, 2017, p. xiii），致力于相互伤害和征服。这掩盖了他们发展相互尊重关系的可能性，这种关系有利于相互学习和跨国界的团结合作——正是这种关系最能促进民主政治。其次，采用战争范式鼓励了一种假设，即跨境政治的参与者只是为他们的战争战略服务，而不是推进潜在的民主审议或政治斗争。这种假设的盛行反过来又会改变人们参与跨境政治的机构（如媒体）——将它们从民主政治的潜在催化剂转变为交战各方实施战争努力的工具。第三，如果人们认为跨境政治的参与者只是为了推进战争战略，他们可能会过早地低估参与者的合法道德论点，假设这些论点纯粹是工具性的。虽然采用战争范式有可能招致这些民主成本，但我认为我们可以通过采用政治斗争范式来减轻这些成本。这种替代性范式将跨境政治的参与者视为共同政治斗争的参与者，他们不一定会寻求伤害或摧毁对手，他们可能会以战斗人员不会的方式修改他们的目标，他们的行为应该主要受政治责任原则（而不是正义战争原则或军事战略原则）的支配。此外，根据政治斗争范式，边界不必将对手与盟友明确区分开来。下面，我将更彻底地定义战争范式。这种替代性范式将跨境政治的参与者视为共同政治斗争的参与者，他们不一定会寻求伤害或摧毁对手，他们可能会以战斗人员不会的方式修改他们的目标，他们的行为应该主要受政治责任原则(而不是正义战争原则或军事战略原则)的支配。此外，根据政治斗争范式，边界不需要将对手与盟友明确区分开来下面，我将更彻底地定义战争范式。然后，我认为，过度依赖它会破坏跨境政治以上述三种方式成为(并被认可为)真正民主政治场所的潜力。最后，我概述了另一种政治斗争范式，并认为采用它可以减轻与战争范式相关的民主成本。我并不是说我们永远不应该使用战争模式。也许有时我们应该承担它的民主代价。一些认为跨境政治民主化没有价值的人可能会认为战争模式的民主成本在道德上是微不足道的。我不会试图在这里为民主辩护，反对它的批评者。但是，理解采用战争模式的民主代价，是对这些代价是否值得承担做出任何可信判断的先决条件——甚至是一个值得承担的可信判断。我在这里通过说明战争范式的民主成本以及如何采用替代范式来减轻这些成本来实现这种理解。在揭示跨境政治民主化的新障碍(过度依赖战争范式)时，我的论点可能对跨国民主的支持者具有重要意义(例如，Benhabib, 2005年，2009年;Bohman, 2007)，但对于任何有兴趣诚实地评估民主成本和使用一个或另一个分析框架来理解跨境政治的利益的人来说，它们仍然很重要。战争范式是对政治活动进行概念化和分析的一种特殊方式。只有当这样的活动涉及具有对立目的的行动者时，才有可能使用战争范式，所以我将假设在我讨论的所有情况下都是如此。采用战争范式来分析政治活动意味着将参与者视为陷入“一种彻底的对抗关系”(Walzer, 2017, p. xiii)。Walzer在撰写不采用传统动能战(“软战争”)形式的冲突时，说明了如何将这些冲突识别为“战争”，包括将这种对抗关系作为核心特征:“‘我们’试图伤害那些试图伤害‘我们’的敌人。“在这种战争中，就像在任何其他战争中一样，战斗人员需要知道什么伤害是允许的，什么伤害是不允许的，谁可以成为目标，谁不能成为目标”(Walzer, 2017, p. xiii)。Walzer在格罗斯和梅塞尔斯(2017a, p. 1)编辑的《软战争》一书中写道，该书提出了许多政治参与模式，包括“所有非动态措施，无论是有说服力的还是强制性的，包括网络战和经济制裁;媒体战和宣传，非暴力抵抗和公民不服从，抵制和“法律战”作为“战争”的形式——尽管是“软”的形式。公平地说，沃尔泽并没有主张我们应该总是把这些交战模式理解为“战争”，而是阐明了这样做的(一些)含义。他强调了当我们将一项活动归类为“战争”时所做的一些假设。也就是说，他阐明了一些隐含在战争范式下的假设，我想在这里明确说明。具体来说，沃尔泽指出，在“战争”中，每一个行动者的主要任务是伤害对方，直到他们被击败。每个行为者面临的主要规范性问题是:我给敌人造成多大程度的伤害和什么样的伤害是合理的(见Walzer, 2017, p. xiii)?这并不意味着这种完全对立的关系必须是政治遭遇中唯一合适的战争模式。即使是战争中的敌人也可能分享友谊、家庭关系、浪漫关系和仁慈的行为。但是选择用战争的范式来分析他们的政治活动就是选择把他们作为敌人的身份作为他们的中心身份，他们的任务是伤害他们的敌人来实现他们自己的目的，这是他们的中心任务，他们应该给敌人造成多大程度的伤害和什么样的伤害这是他们的中心规范困境。选择使用战争范式来分析政治活动，就是选择将政治参与者的身份、任务和规范困境(由其他(不太激进的敌对)关系定义)视为边缘。然后，我认为，过度依赖

{"title":"Not just war by other means: Cross-border engagement as political struggle","authors":"Lucia M. Rafanelli","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12719","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1467-8675.12719","url":null,"abstract":"I call cases like this—cross-border political engagements including both kinetic and non-kinetic elements—hybrid cases.1 It is not obvious how to understand the non-kinetic elements of hybrid cases. Should we understand them as warfare—conflicts between “enemies” locked in a “radically adversarial relationship” whose main task is to harm each other and whose main normative quandary is how much and what kind of harm they are permitted to inflict (see Walzer, 2017, p. xiii)? Or should we understand them as some (other) kind of political struggle?The question of which analytic frame to adopt is important, as, I will argue, there are serious democratic costs associated with understanding the non-kinetic elements of hybrid cases as warfare. In Counterinsurgency, understanding civilian casualty reports made by journalists, activists, and insurgents as acts of war would mean seeing them as acts meant to cause harm (by debilitating “enemy” forces) and as strategic communications whose purpose and value were, at best, unconnected to their truth. It would mean seeing their authors as potentially liable to attack—as Gross does when he describes journalists as “the foot soldiers of media warfare” (2015, p. 300) and argues they are therefore liable to harms including “capture, incarceration, expulsion, or the destruction or confiscation of their equipment” (2015, p. 269). And it would mean seeing their audiences as pawns to be manipulated by propagandists.Understanding civilian casualty reports instead as part of a political struggle would mean seeing them as statements that could inform, inspire critical reflection, and form the basis of democratic deliberation and contestation—which might not be contained within the borders of a single state. It would mean seeing their authors as sources of potentially weighty claims deserving real consideration and seeing their audiences as interlocutors capable of judging and responding in good faith to those claims.Existing scholarship does not often explicitly recognize the question of whether to understand the non-kinetic elements of hybrid cases as warfare or political struggle—let alone explicitly evaluate the costs and benefits of making one choice or another.2 Nonetheless, some (e.g., Blank, 2017; Gross, 2015; Gross & Meisels, 2017a; Kittrie, 2016; Walzer, 2017) tend to treat them more like warfare, and others (e.g., Jurkevics, 2019; Miller, 2010, pp. 247–57; Miller, 2018; Valdez, 2019a, 2019b) tend to treat them more like political struggle. Here, I make explicit the implicit assumptions behind these two approaches, argue that adopting the war paradigm (understanding the non-kinetic elements of hybrid cases as “warfare”) has significant democratic costs, and argue that adopting an alternate poli","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"31 4","pages":"661-677"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12719","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135167044","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}

引用次数: 0

The public university as a real utopia 公立大学是一个真正的乌托邦

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-10-22 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12716

Martin Aidnik, Harshwardhani Sharma

引用次数: 0

Critique and praxis: A critical philosophy of illusions, values, and action By Bernard E. Harcourt, New York: Columbia University Press, 2022. p. 696, $30 批判与实践：关于幻想、价值和行动的批判哲学》，伯纳德-E-哈考特著，纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社，2022 年，第 696 页，30 美元：哥伦比亚大学出版社，2022 年。第 696 页，30 美元

IF 0.7 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-10-21 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12717

Maeve Cooke

引用次数: 0

On old revolutions and new constitutions: Constituent power in the Chilean constituent process 论旧革命与新宪法：智利制宪过程中的制宪权

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

Pub Date : 2023-10-21 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12720

Franco Schiappacasse

引用次数: 0

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀