{"title":"Taking Exception to Norm: The Caretaker Governments in Bangladesh","authors":"Riaz Partha Khan","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12677","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1467-8675.12677","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"31 2","pages":"269-285"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43195416","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>In the past decade, political philosophers have increasingly deployed the concepts of interdependency, equality, and vulnerability to critique contemporary society.<sup>1</sup> Widely popular both within and beyond academia, these concepts offer normative anchors enabling the critique of neoliberal ideals of individuality, independence, and resilience in the name of a more egalitarian society. Consequently, although many scholars denounce violence in existing society, they abstain from denouncing human beings’ interdependency, equality, vulnerability, and precariousness.<sup>2</sup> To the contrary, these concepts are treated as grasping our fundamental, ontological condition. Indeed, their capacity to resist neoliberal illusions of atomistic independence purportedly arises from their ability to reveal the hidden truth that neoliberalism otherwise conceals: that human beings are ontologically interdependent and equal. This truth, then, is said to carry its own ethical principle, demanding the realization of equality through political action. The use of these concepts today thus mobilizes more than an ontology; it also offers an interpretation of existing society—as deviating from and concealing ontology—<i>and</i> a politics that seeks to organize society in accordance with ontology.</p><p>Among the many voices taking up this position, Judith Butler's is perhaps the most prominent, particularly in the ontological theory of precariousness they articulate in their late work.<sup>3</sup> Hence, this article offers a critical engagement with Butler's ontology and the politics they derive therefrom. Butler's work, of course, has not been without criticism. However, the existing debate on their work focuses overwhelmingly on their so-called “ethical turn,” as well as their accounts of vulnerability and responsibility.<sup>4</sup> Important in their own right, these debates have tended to accept or leave unchallenged the basic structure of Butler's ontology.<sup>5</sup> Although critics have scrutinized the critical potential and limits of aspects of Butler's ontology, especially her account of vulnerability (e.g., Gilson, <span>2011</span>), they have left two of its most central features relatively unexamined: interdependency and equality. In doing so, even those critical of Butler's work maintain Butler's presumption that interdependency and equality are ontological features that inherently oppose neoliberal individualism, independence, resilience, and inequality.<sup>6</sup></p><p>In this article, by contrast, I critique Butler's ontology by submitting these two otherwise-accepted concepts to historical materialist analysis. My aim in this regard is to reveal the ideological underpinnings of Butler's ontology, with attention to its capitulations to capitalist society. In doing so, this article reveals the limitations of Butler's ontology and politics. Their theory, it shows, cannot adequately grasp the sources of capitalist violence and dominatio
{"title":"Ontology as ideology: A critique of Butler's theory of precariousness","authors":"Jeta Mulaj","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12673","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1467-8675.12673","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the past decade, political philosophers have increasingly deployed the concepts of interdependency, equality, and vulnerability to critique contemporary society.<sup>1</sup> Widely popular both within and beyond academia, these concepts offer normative anchors enabling the critique of neoliberal ideals of individuality, independence, and resilience in the name of a more egalitarian society. Consequently, although many scholars denounce violence in existing society, they abstain from denouncing human beings’ interdependency, equality, vulnerability, and precariousness.<sup>2</sup> To the contrary, these concepts are treated as grasping our fundamental, ontological condition. Indeed, their capacity to resist neoliberal illusions of atomistic independence purportedly arises from their ability to reveal the hidden truth that neoliberalism otherwise conceals: that human beings are ontologically interdependent and equal. This truth, then, is said to carry its own ethical principle, demanding the realization of equality through political action. The use of these concepts today thus mobilizes more than an ontology; it also offers an interpretation of existing society—as deviating from and concealing ontology—<i>and</i> a politics that seeks to organize society in accordance with ontology.</p><p>Among the many voices taking up this position, Judith Butler's is perhaps the most prominent, particularly in the ontological theory of precariousness they articulate in their late work.<sup>3</sup> Hence, this article offers a critical engagement with Butler's ontology and the politics they derive therefrom. Butler's work, of course, has not been without criticism. However, the existing debate on their work focuses overwhelmingly on their so-called “ethical turn,” as well as their accounts of vulnerability and responsibility.<sup>4</sup> Important in their own right, these debates have tended to accept or leave unchallenged the basic structure of Butler's ontology.<sup>5</sup> Although critics have scrutinized the critical potential and limits of aspects of Butler's ontology, especially her account of vulnerability (e.g., Gilson, <span>2011</span>), they have left two of its most central features relatively unexamined: interdependency and equality. In doing so, even those critical of Butler's work maintain Butler's presumption that interdependency and equality are ontological features that inherently oppose neoliberal individualism, independence, resilience, and inequality.<sup>6</sup></p><p>In this article, by contrast, I critique Butler's ontology by submitting these two otherwise-accepted concepts to historical materialist analysis. My aim in this regard is to reveal the ideological underpinnings of Butler's ontology, with attention to its capitulations to capitalist society. In doing so, this article reveals the limitations of Butler's ontology and politics. Their theory, it shows, cannot adequately grasp the sources of capitalist violence and dominatio","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"31 4","pages":"491-505"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12673","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46768867","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>As these epigraphs attest, the emergence of economic thought has long been understood by theorists as a crucial development for politics in the modern era. These comments appear in the context of quite different projects. For Arendt, the concern was how what she termed the “social question”—that of the existence of poverty—had informed the development of revolutionary thought and practice since the late 18th century. Foucault, instead, made his observations as part of what he termed an “archaeology of the human sciences,” an investigation that provided crucial foundations for his subsequent—more explicitly political, and today more famous—genealogy of modern “government.” In spite of their divergent aims, the comments of Arendt and Foucault revolve around a remarkably similar constellation of ideas: Both are concerned with notions of abundance and scarcity, and both link this to a discourse on labour. Perhaps less intuitively, both give centrality to new understandings of “life,” Arendt through a critique of how economic analysis placed “the life process of society… at the very centre of the human endeavour” (<span>1977</span>);<sup>1</sup> Foucault by arguing that the emergence of political economy marked the birth of a new kind of political rationality—a “biopolitics” centered around the government of life (see also Foucault, <span>2008</span>, <span>2009</span>).<sup>2</sup></p><p>Although these passages read almost as if they were a continuous commentary, this is something of a sleight of hand. In fact, neither thinker traced Locke–Smith–Ricardo lineage in this way: Arendt did not acknowledge a subsequent shift in liberal political economy marked by Ricardo and the economists of the early 19th century; Foucault, meanwhile, was not here comparing Ricardo to Locke or Smith—though he did address their work elsewhere—but rather to the French Physiocrats. Yet, it is more than a linguistic accident that these comments seem to speak so directly to each other. In fact, the genealogy suggested by the juxtaposed quotes traces an important lineage, though one with which neither Arendt nor Foucault engaged in detail. While not addressing directly the arguments of either of these two thinkers, therefore—the resonances and tensions between which have already been explored in some depth elsewhere (Blencowe, <span>2010</span>)—this article takes their provocative respective commentaries as a fruitful starting point for tracing a new approach to the development of a modern politics of life.</p><p>As insightful as these commentaries are, I seek to go beyond an anthropocentric bias that has been the focus of recent criticism within political theory (Bennett, <span>2004</span>; Krause, <span>2016</span>), and for which Foucault in particular has been criticized (Lemke, <span>2015</span>). What interests me especially is how setting these three canonical discussions side-by-side helps chart the transformation of notions of life, understood not only as specific
{"title":"On land, life, and labour: Abundance and scarcity in Locke, Smith, and Ricardo","authors":"Leo Steeds","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12675","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1467-8675.12675","url":null,"abstract":"<p>As these epigraphs attest, the emergence of economic thought has long been understood by theorists as a crucial development for politics in the modern era. These comments appear in the context of quite different projects. For Arendt, the concern was how what she termed the “social question”—that of the existence of poverty—had informed the development of revolutionary thought and practice since the late 18th century. Foucault, instead, made his observations as part of what he termed an “archaeology of the human sciences,” an investigation that provided crucial foundations for his subsequent—more explicitly political, and today more famous—genealogy of modern “government.” In spite of their divergent aims, the comments of Arendt and Foucault revolve around a remarkably similar constellation of ideas: Both are concerned with notions of abundance and scarcity, and both link this to a discourse on labour. Perhaps less intuitively, both give centrality to new understandings of “life,” Arendt through a critique of how economic analysis placed “the life process of society… at the very centre of the human endeavour” (<span>1977</span>);<sup>1</sup> Foucault by arguing that the emergence of political economy marked the birth of a new kind of political rationality—a “biopolitics” centered around the government of life (see also Foucault, <span>2008</span>, <span>2009</span>).<sup>2</sup></p><p>Although these passages read almost as if they were a continuous commentary, this is something of a sleight of hand. In fact, neither thinker traced Locke–Smith–Ricardo lineage in this way: Arendt did not acknowledge a subsequent shift in liberal political economy marked by Ricardo and the economists of the early 19th century; Foucault, meanwhile, was not here comparing Ricardo to Locke or Smith—though he did address their work elsewhere—but rather to the French Physiocrats. Yet, it is more than a linguistic accident that these comments seem to speak so directly to each other. In fact, the genealogy suggested by the juxtaposed quotes traces an important lineage, though one with which neither Arendt nor Foucault engaged in detail. While not addressing directly the arguments of either of these two thinkers, therefore—the resonances and tensions between which have already been explored in some depth elsewhere (Blencowe, <span>2010</span>)—this article takes their provocative respective commentaries as a fruitful starting point for tracing a new approach to the development of a modern politics of life.</p><p>As insightful as these commentaries are, I seek to go beyond an anthropocentric bias that has been the focus of recent criticism within political theory (Bennett, <span>2004</span>; Krause, <span>2016</span>), and for which Foucault in particular has been criticized (Lemke, <span>2015</span>). What interests me especially is how setting these three canonical discussions side-by-side helps chart the transformation of notions of life, understood not only as specific","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"31 2","pages":"189-203"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12675","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49221398","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>Yet surprisingly, in spite of its indisputable foundational importance to critical theory, critical theorists have rarely sought to <i>defend</i> the idea that their work answers to such an emancipatory interest. We first encounter the contours of such a defense in the work of the young Max Horkheimer, in which, however, it remains associated with Marx's philosophy of history to an extent that subsequent generations of critical theorists have found wanting. In the mid-1960s, this led Jürgen Habermas, in his first systematic work of social philosophy, to attempt a novel account in the form of a theory of knowledge as social theory, which seeks to disclose three human cognitive interests—including an emancipatory interest—in the objective structures of our species’ history. However, this account was ultimately undermined by his reliance on psychoanalysis as a model of human emancipation, suggesting the questionable view of humanity as a collective species subject freeing itself from internal constraints.</p><p>These failures have recently led Honneth to undertake a renewed attempt to “answer critical theory's most fundamental question” (Honneth, <span>2017</span>). Honneth proposes, first, a social–ontological view of the plasticity of social norms as the source of recurrent social conflict, and second, a claim that human beings have an emancipatory interest in knowledge that reveals the interests served by their one-sided interpretation and which enables transformative reinterpretation of those norms. In this article, I argue that Honneth's argument, too, is unsuccessful. Or rather, it is at best only partially successful. Honneth's argument remains incomplete, not only because its scope of application is narrower than Honneth seems to think, but also because it neglects the most important object of emancipatory knowledge—and that which I will argue is the central task of a critical theory to provide—namely, a systematic account of the power relations within which dominated groups find themselves. In response to these problems, I develop the outlines of an alternative defense of the idea of an emancipatory interest, which locates the root of emancipatory struggles in the interplay between dominated groups’ affective reactions to the experience of subjection to dominating power and the availability of the requisite epistemic and normative resources for discursively articulating these reactive attitudes as shared experiences of moral injury—resources that a critical theory of society must strive to provide.</p><p>In the article's first section, I expound the history and conceptual content of the idea of an emancipatory interest and the claim that human beings have an interest in knowledge that enables a truly free life. I trace the concept of emancipation back to early Roman law and discuss its subsequent instantiations both in the abolitionism of Frederick Douglass and in Marx's thought. I then discuss the unsuccessful attempts to defend the id
{"title":"Domination, social norms, and the idea of an emancipatory interest","authors":"Malte Frøslee Ibsen","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12674","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1467-8675.12674","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Yet surprisingly, in spite of its indisputable foundational importance to critical theory, critical theorists have rarely sought to <i>defend</i> the idea that their work answers to such an emancipatory interest. We first encounter the contours of such a defense in the work of the young Max Horkheimer, in which, however, it remains associated with Marx's philosophy of history to an extent that subsequent generations of critical theorists have found wanting. In the mid-1960s, this led Jürgen Habermas, in his first systematic work of social philosophy, to attempt a novel account in the form of a theory of knowledge as social theory, which seeks to disclose three human cognitive interests—including an emancipatory interest—in the objective structures of our species’ history. However, this account was ultimately undermined by his reliance on psychoanalysis as a model of human emancipation, suggesting the questionable view of humanity as a collective species subject freeing itself from internal constraints.</p><p>These failures have recently led Honneth to undertake a renewed attempt to “answer critical theory's most fundamental question” (Honneth, <span>2017</span>). Honneth proposes, first, a social–ontological view of the plasticity of social norms as the source of recurrent social conflict, and second, a claim that human beings have an emancipatory interest in knowledge that reveals the interests served by their one-sided interpretation and which enables transformative reinterpretation of those norms. In this article, I argue that Honneth's argument, too, is unsuccessful. Or rather, it is at best only partially successful. Honneth's argument remains incomplete, not only because its scope of application is narrower than Honneth seems to think, but also because it neglects the most important object of emancipatory knowledge—and that which I will argue is the central task of a critical theory to provide—namely, a systematic account of the power relations within which dominated groups find themselves. In response to these problems, I develop the outlines of an alternative defense of the idea of an emancipatory interest, which locates the root of emancipatory struggles in the interplay between dominated groups’ affective reactions to the experience of subjection to dominating power and the availability of the requisite epistemic and normative resources for discursively articulating these reactive attitudes as shared experiences of moral injury—resources that a critical theory of society must strive to provide.</p><p>In the article's first section, I expound the history and conceptual content of the idea of an emancipatory interest and the claim that human beings have an interest in knowledge that enables a truly free life. I trace the concept of emancipation back to early Roman law and discuss its subsequent instantiations both in the abolitionism of Frederick Douglass and in Marx's thought. I then discuss the unsuccessful attempts to defend the id","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"31 2","pages":"160-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12674","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46448465","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":"Ideology, history, and political affect","authors":"Daniel Cunningham","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12678","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1467-8675.12678","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"31 2","pages":"146-159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48777174","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}
During the First World War, many Canadian women served on the front lines as nurses, both as working professionals and volunteers. Although the experiences of Canadian women during WWI have been addressed by historians more frequently in recent decades, the experience of professional nurses has been overshadowed by that of Volunteer Aid Detachment nurses (VADs) and women on the home front and of course by studies on soldiers’ experiences. Many historians have found the personal narrative, diary, or journal to be an invaluable source to understanding the First World War. However, there is a gap in the study of the personal narratives, diaries, and journals of Canadian professional nurses specifically. This paper seeks to bridge this gap in WWI history through a specific focus on a selection of the surviving personal papers of Canadian professional nurses. Their personal writings reveal new insights into nursing experience on the front, nursing work, and how Canadian professional nurses sought and found meaning in extraordinary and violent circumstances. They made sense of the war through sociability, relationality, and through recording their time overseas both to cope with the experience itself, and to remember it upon their return home.
{"title":"Finding \"Miss Canada\"","authors":"Madalyn Mandziuk","doi":"10.29173/cons29494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/cons29494","url":null,"abstract":"During the First World War, many Canadian women served on the front lines as nurses, both as working professionals and volunteers. Although the experiences of Canadian women during WWI have been addressed by historians more frequently in recent decades, the experience of professional nurses has been overshadowed by that of Volunteer Aid Detachment nurses (VADs) and women on the home front and of course by studies on soldiers’ experiences. Many historians have found the personal narrative, diary, or journal to be an invaluable source to understanding the First World War. However, there is a gap in the study of the personal narratives, diaries, and journals of Canadian professional nurses specifically. This paper seeks to bridge this gap in WWI history through a specific focus on a selection of the surviving personal papers of Canadian professional nurses. Their personal writings reveal new insights into nursing experience on the front, nursing work, and how Canadian professional nurses sought and found meaning in extraordinary and violent circumstances. They made sense of the war through sociability, relationality, and through recording their time overseas both to cope with the experience itself, and to remember it upon their return home.","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43445337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyzes the fluidity of Black identities created, maintained, and destroyed by white plantation holders to maintain white supremacy and economic advantages. It argues that as wealth began to flow from plantations, the identities of enslaved individuals morphed. From heathen, ‘brutish,’ wild peoples needing to be controlled to chattel property able to be manipulated and bred, to rebels and fugitives whose actions justified violence to maintain white dominance and economic status quo. This article seeks to demonstrate how contemporary Black identities within the greater society continue to be influenced by religious and codified identities enacted by white men in power. It asks us to critically engage with how we are implicit in enforcing specific identities onto Black bodies. Through this analysis, the link between wild heathens and violent criminals within societal perceptions can be illustrated.
{"title":"You Are Whatever I Say You Are:","authors":"Robin Palsky","doi":"10.29173/cons29498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/cons29498","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the fluidity of Black identities created, maintained, and destroyed by white plantation holders to maintain white supremacy and economic advantages. It argues that as wealth began to flow from plantations, the identities of enslaved individuals morphed. From heathen, ‘brutish,’ wild peoples needing to be controlled to chattel property able to be manipulated and bred, to rebels and fugitives whose actions justified violence to maintain white dominance and economic status quo. This article seeks to demonstrate how contemporary Black identities within the greater society continue to be influenced by religious and codified identities enacted by white men in power. It asks us to critically engage with how we are implicit in enforcing specific identities onto Black bodies. Through this analysis, the link between wild heathens and violent criminals within societal perceptions can be illustrated.","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48615222","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 one of the display cases at the University of Alberta’s W.G. Hardy Classics Museum is a remarkably intact, but unlabeled and unnumbered classical artifact. This artifact, while rather basic in painting and design, is nonetheless unique and offers intriguing questions as to its contextual origins. It is the purpose of this paper to offer an examination and analysis of this artifact. This will be accomplished by first exploring the artifact’s shape and artistic features. Then, the artifact’s date as well as its most probable geographical location of production will be explored. Finally, a speculation of the artifact’s usage, deposition, and purpose will be offered. Through this examination and analysis the artifact will be seen not as a basic classical ceramic lacking in great detail or pomp, but rather as a unique artifact with a rich contextual origins and much to offer the viewer in regards to the cultural extent of Greek colonization in Magna Graecia.
在阿尔伯塔大学(University of Alberta)的哈代经典博物馆(W.G. Hardy Classics Museum)的一个陈列柜里，有一件完好无损的经典文物，但没有标签，也没有编号。这件工艺品，虽然在绘画和设计方面相当基础，但仍然是独特的，并提供了关于其背景起源的有趣问题。本文的目的是对该工件进行检查和分析。这将通过首先探索人工制品的形状和艺术特征来完成。然后，将探索器物的日期以及最可能的生产地理位置。最后，将提供对人工制品的用途、沉积和目的的推测。通过这种检查和分析，文物将不会被视为缺乏细节或华丽的基本古典陶瓷，而是作为一种独特的文物，具有丰富的背景起源，并为观众提供了关于希腊殖民在大希腊的文化程度。
{"title":"Examination and Analysis of an Unlabeled Artifact in the University of Alberta’s W.G. Hardy Classics Museum","authors":"Keenan Walker","doi":"10.29173/cons29502","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/cons29502","url":null,"abstract":"In one of the display cases at the University of Alberta’s W.G. Hardy Classics Museum is a remarkably intact, but unlabeled and unnumbered classical artifact. This artifact, while rather basic in painting and design, is nonetheless unique and offers intriguing questions as to its contextual origins. It is the purpose of this paper to offer an examination and analysis of this artifact. This will be accomplished by first exploring the artifact’s shape and artistic features. Then, the artifact’s date as well as its most probable geographical location of production will be explored. Finally, a speculation of the artifact’s usage, deposition, and purpose will be offered. Through this examination and analysis the artifact will be seen not as a basic classical ceramic lacking in great detail or pomp, but rather as a unique artifact with a rich contextual origins and much to offer the viewer in regards to the cultural extent of Greek colonization in Magna Graecia.","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45157651","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}
Joseph II’s 1782 Edict of Toleration is an important piece of legislation within Austrian and Jewish history. The Edict was a series of statements issued regarding the inclusion of Jewish citizens into larger towns, marking what was permitted, what was to change, and what was prohibited. Created by Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II, son of the notoriously anti-Jewish Empress Maria Theresia, the legislation was institutionalized in order to make Jewish people more useful economically to the state by granting them access to cities and towns, Christian schools and universities, and by allowing them to set up their own factories. It created secular subjects to achieve economic gains. The Edict can be analyzed for its economic underpinnings and effects, which can be further examined through a micro- and macroscopic lens, as well as viewing the role it had in promoting the toleration and assimilation of Jews. The Edict, despite its failure to achieve its steep economic goals or to fully assimilate Austria’s Jewish community, nonetheless is key to understanding the political, economic, and religious climate of Lower Austria at this time.
{"title":"Joseph II’s 1782 Edict of Toleration for the Jews of Lower Austria and its Economic and Secular Underpinnings and Effects","authors":"Emma Trevor","doi":"10.29173/cons29501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/cons29501","url":null,"abstract":"Joseph II’s 1782 Edict of Toleration is an important piece of legislation within Austrian and Jewish history. The Edict was a series of statements issued regarding the inclusion of Jewish citizens into larger towns, marking what was permitted, what was to change, and what was prohibited. Created by Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II, son of the notoriously anti-Jewish Empress Maria Theresia, the legislation was institutionalized in order to make Jewish people more useful economically to the state by granting them access to cities and towns, Christian schools and universities, and by allowing them to set up their own factories. It created secular subjects to achieve economic gains. The Edict can be analyzed for its economic underpinnings and effects, which can be further examined through a micro- and macroscopic lens, as well as viewing the role it had in promoting the toleration and assimilation of Jews. The Edict, despite its failure to achieve its steep economic goals or to fully assimilate Austria’s Jewish community, nonetheless is key to understanding the political, economic, and religious climate of Lower Austria at this time.","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48333026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines the origins of YHWH and El in connection with ancient Israel, tracing its roots through Canaanite cultures. Israel’s adoption and merging of YHWH’s and El’s worship played a central role in moving their worship and religion from monolatry to monotheism. Further, this worship and conception of YHWH and El as God is intimately tied to Israel’s understanding of themselves as a chosen people and nation.
{"title":"Divine Origins and Development","authors":"James Park","doi":"10.29173/cons29483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/cons29483","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the origins of YHWH and El in connection with ancient Israel, tracing its roots through Canaanite cultures. Israel’s adoption and merging of YHWH’s and El’s worship played a central role in moving their worship and religion from monolatry to monotheism. Further, this worship and conception of YHWH and El as God is intimately tied to Israel’s understanding of themselves as a chosen people and nation.","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41610828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：