Pub Date : 2023-12-06DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2286868
Tina Chanter
I consider Bromell’s critique of Rancière in the context of a discussion of the Black Lives Matter movement, focusing on taking a knee. I argue that Rancière’s analysis can shed light on the Black ...
{"title":"Impossible Identifications: How Can Rancière Help us to Think the Black Lives Matter Movement, and How Can the Black Lives Matter Movement Help us to Rethink Rancière?","authors":"Tina Chanter","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2286868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2286868","url":null,"abstract":"I consider Bromell’s critique of Rancière in the context of a discussion of the Black Lives Matter movement, focusing on taking a knee. I argue that Rancière’s analysis can shed light on the Black ...","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138581248","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}
Pub Date : 2023-11-29DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2286864
Michael Räber
Published in Critical Horizons: A Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory (Ahead of Print, 2023)
发表于《批判视野:哲学与社会理论杂志》(2023年出版前)
{"title":"Introduction: The Aesthetics and Politics of (In)Visibility","authors":"Michael Räber","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2286864","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2286864","url":null,"abstract":"Published in Critical Horizons: A Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory (Ahead of Print, 2023)","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138506861","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}
Pub Date : 2023-10-12DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2262340
Raf Geenens
ABSTRACTThis article looks at the relation between the ideas of philosopher Claude Lefort and ethnologist Pierre Clastres. Both French authors worked in the same paradigm. They were convinced that politics is the “infrastructure” of society: all societies are politically constituted and can only be understood by interpreting the workings of political power. Yet they strongly disagreed on the dividedness of society. Clastres believed that a good solution to the problem of power is possible, while Lefort believes that the presence of power points to the impossibility of any society to coincide with itself. This article also discusses the way they both use the expression “the place of power” and asks to what extent non-Western societies were, both for Clastres and for Lefort, ever more than just a foil to present and illuminate their strongly held theoretical beliefs.KEYWORDS: DemocracypowerexoticismClaude LefortPierre Clastres Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 A much earlier version of this text was published in German as “Claude Lefort Und Pierre Clastres: Einheit Und Teilung.”2 The word “decentre” is particularly apt here as Clastres claims that he is effectuating a Copernican revolution. So far, ethnology was practiced from within the Western world view, as a purportedly neutral vantage point. But this will never do justice to the proper being of primitive societies (Clastres, La Société Contre l’état. Recherches d’anthropologie Politique, 23.).3 As Judith Revel explains, Clastres’s project in this regard resembles that of his contemporaries Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. For them as well, the challenge is to stop reintegrating what is other under our own norms (Revel, Foucault: Une Pensée Du Discontinu, 253–4.). Revel especially explores the analogy with Foucault. Christopher Holman also emphasises this aspect of Clastres’s thought (Holman, “Pierre Clastres as Comparative Political Theorist.”).4 An exception is Samuel Moyn’s 2012 article “Claude Lefort, Political Anthropology, and Symbolic Division,” which dedicates several pages to Lefort’s interpretation of Clastres’s work. Moyn’s most important text on Clastres is entitled “Of savagery and civil society: Pierre Clastres and the transformation of French political thought” (2004). This text does not discuss Lefort but is highly recommended. There are also some informative pages on the relation between Clastres and Lefort in Bernard Flynn’s The Philosophy of Claude Lefort. Interpreting the Political (94–8).5 See my “Democracy, Human Rights, and History: Reading Lefort.”6 Lefort, “Société 'sans Histoire’ et Historicité.”7 The word suffociation (“étouffement”) is used in the original text but has been left out in the re-publication (see page 108 in the 1952 version).8 Lefort, “Société ‘sans Histoire’ et Historicité,” 66.9 Lefort, 69–70.10 Howard, The Marxian Legacy, 250. Note that Dick Howard is commenting on Lefort’s first text on pr
摘要本文考察了哲学家勒福特与民族学家克拉斯特雷斯思想的关系。两位法国作家的工作模式相同。他们相信政治是社会的“基础设施”:所有社会都是政治构成的，只有通过解释政治权力的运作才能理解。然而，他们在社会分化问题上存在强烈分歧。克拉斯特雷斯认为，权力问题的良好解决是可能的，而勒福特认为，权力的存在表明，任何社会都不可能与自身一致。本文还讨论了他们使用“权力的地方”这一表达的方式，并询问在何种程度上非西方社会，无论是对克拉斯特雷斯还是对勒福特来说，都不仅仅是一个展示和阐明他们强烈持有的理论信念的辅助工具。关键词:民主，权力，异国情调，克劳德·勒福特，皮埃尔·克拉斯特雷斯披露声明，作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1这篇文章的一个更早的版本以德文出版，名为《克劳德·勒夫特和皮埃尔·克拉斯特:爱海特和泰隆》。2“去中心化”这个词在这里特别贴切，因为克拉斯特雷斯声称他正在实施一场哥白尼式的革命。到目前为止，民族学是从西方世界观中实践的，作为一个据称中立的有利位置。但是，这永远不能公正地对待原始社会的本来存在(克拉斯特雷斯，La societsastree Contre l ' samdat)。2 .政治人类学研究，2003正如Judith Revel所解释的，Clastres在这方面的计划类似于他同时代的Michel Foucault和Jacques Derrida。对于他们来说，挑战是停止在我们自己的规范下重新整合他者(Revel，福柯:Une penssame Du discontinuu, 253-4)。雷维尔特别探讨了他与福柯的类比。3 . Christopher Holman也强调了Clastres思想的这一方面(Holman，“Pierre Clastres as Comparative Political Theorist.”)一个例外是塞缪尔·莫恩(Samuel Moyn)在2012年发表的文章《克劳德·勒福特、政治人类学和象征分裂》(Claude Lefort, Political Anthropology, and Symbolic Division)，其中花了几页篇幅来阐述勒福特对克拉斯特雷斯作品的解读。莫恩关于克拉斯特雷斯最重要的著作是《野蛮与公民社会:皮埃尔·克拉斯特雷斯与法国政治思想的转变》(2004)。本文不讨论左福特，但强烈推荐。在伯纳德·弗林的《克劳德·勒福特的哲学》中，也有一些关于克拉斯特雷斯和勒福特之间关系的信息页。解读政治(94-8)参见我的《民主、人权和历史:阅读福特》。6 . Lefort，“社会主义与历史主义”。“7”原文中使用了“窒息”一词，但在再版时删除了(见1952年版第108页)Lefort，“无历史的社会与历史”，66.9 Lefort, 69-70.10 Howard，《马克思主义遗产》，250页。请注意，迪克·霍华德评论的是莱福特关于原始社会的第一篇文章(莱福特，“societs<s:1> sans Histoire’et historicit<e:1> .”)，而不是1987年的经典文本(莱福特，“L ' œuvre de Clastres.”)也就是说，当他在20世纪50年代末开始研究马基雅维利时(而他的第一篇“民族学”文本要追溯到1951年)。直到很晚的时候，在2000年代，当他深入研究汉斯·巴伦和其他人的著作时，他才对公民人文主义的完整传统产生了广泛的思想史兴趣Geertz，“幽会”，69-72.13见Holman，“皮埃尔·克拉斯特雷斯作为比较政治理论家”，80-1.14 1978年首次发表在《世界百科全书》的一个版本中，同年在《自由》的一期中再版，部分是关于克拉斯特雷斯的，参见Lefort，“皮埃尔·克拉斯特雷斯”。“15 .社会主义，社会主义和社会主义。《政治人类学研究》，172。克拉斯特雷斯非常强调政治的重要性。例如，他会说，经济剥削在政治不平等中，即在命令和服从的关系中，找到了它的可能性条件:“政治权力关系先于并建立了剥削的经济关系。剥削首先是经济的，其次是政治的;权力先于工作;经济是政治的衍生物;国家的出现决定了阶级的出现。(Clastres, 169.)16 Lefort，“Pierre Clastres，”52.17 Clastres, La societacast<s:1> Contre l’samat。政治人类学研究，175.18,169.19,176,178.20,La societacest tanci.911cha.com。来源:对Miguel Abensour的个人访谈(巴黎，2009年6月12日)Lefort， " L ' œuvre de Clastres， " 310.23 Lefort, 320。莱福特在这里引用了克拉斯特拉的话《克劳德·勒福特的哲学》。《政治的解释》，1996 . Cf. Lefort，“L ' œuvre de Clastres，”319-21。在这篇文章的英文翻译中，“pouvoir communautaire”一词被翻译成“社群主义的力量”。 但在我看来，法语单词“communautaire”在这里比专业术语“communitarian”有更广泛的含义Clastres， < enttien Avec Pierre Clastres >， 6。(强调)10Clastres，“La Question Du Pouvoir das Les sociesetsamuys Primitives”，20-1.28,Clastres, 20.29 Revel，福柯:Une penssamuere Du Discontinu, 251-8。Revel继续表明，福柯和克拉斯特雷斯对战争与政治关系的看法也有家族相似之处(Revel, 259.)Martin Deleixhe最近在他的《黑格尔的法哲学批判》中把Clastres的观点和Karl Marx关于民主的评论联系在一起:“Clastres所描述的无国家的原始社会因此怪异地让人想起了马克思对黑格尔的批判中匆匆勾画的全体人民”(Deleixhe，“后马克思主义者和“青年马克思主义者”，166.)。这种相似性是有道理的。但也许我们应该更进一步，在让-雅克·卢梭的影响中寻找它们的共同根源。31克拉斯特拉，“自由，马伦孔特，不可名状”，157.32克拉斯特拉，“Entretien Avec Pierre Clastres”，22.33克拉斯特拉，“关于原始社会的问题”，6-8.34克拉斯特拉，“自由，马伦孔特，不可名状”，157.35勒福特，“L ' œuvre de Clastres，”313.36 Lefort, 324.37同上。38 Lefort, 325.39 Lefort, 323.40同上。41同上。42在“与Pierre Clastres的对话”中，Lefort声称，在写作“L' <s:1> <s:1> <s:1> <s:1> <s:1>交换体”(1973)时，他想到了Clastres，即使他没有提到他(Lefort, 325.)。这
{"title":"Unity and Division. Lefort and Clastres on the Role of Power in the Constitution of Society","authors":"Raf Geenens","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2262340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2262340","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis article looks at the relation between the ideas of philosopher Claude Lefort and ethnologist Pierre Clastres. Both French authors worked in the same paradigm. They were convinced that politics is the “infrastructure” of society: all societies are politically constituted and can only be understood by interpreting the workings of political power. Yet they strongly disagreed on the dividedness of society. Clastres believed that a good solution to the problem of power is possible, while Lefort believes that the presence of power points to the impossibility of any society to coincide with itself. This article also discusses the way they both use the expression “the place of power” and asks to what extent non-Western societies were, both for Clastres and for Lefort, ever more than just a foil to present and illuminate their strongly held theoretical beliefs.KEYWORDS: DemocracypowerexoticismClaude LefortPierre Clastres Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 A much earlier version of this text was published in German as “Claude Lefort Und Pierre Clastres: Einheit Und Teilung.”2 The word “decentre” is particularly apt here as Clastres claims that he is effectuating a Copernican revolution. So far, ethnology was practiced from within the Western world view, as a purportedly neutral vantage point. But this will never do justice to the proper being of primitive societies (Clastres, La Société Contre l’état. Recherches d’anthropologie Politique, 23.).3 As Judith Revel explains, Clastres’s project in this regard resembles that of his contemporaries Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. For them as well, the challenge is to stop reintegrating what is other under our own norms (Revel, Foucault: Une Pensée Du Discontinu, 253–4.). Revel especially explores the analogy with Foucault. Christopher Holman also emphasises this aspect of Clastres’s thought (Holman, “Pierre Clastres as Comparative Political Theorist.”).4 An exception is Samuel Moyn’s 2012 article “Claude Lefort, Political Anthropology, and Symbolic Division,” which dedicates several pages to Lefort’s interpretation of Clastres’s work. Moyn’s most important text on Clastres is entitled “Of savagery and civil society: Pierre Clastres and the transformation of French political thought” (2004). This text does not discuss Lefort but is highly recommended. There are also some informative pages on the relation between Clastres and Lefort in Bernard Flynn’s The Philosophy of Claude Lefort. Interpreting the Political (94–8).5 See my “Democracy, Human Rights, and History: Reading Lefort.”6 Lefort, “Société 'sans Histoire’ et Historicité.”7 The word suffociation (“étouffement”) is used in the original text but has been left out in the re-publication (see page 108 in the 1952 version).8 Lefort, “Société ‘sans Histoire’ et Historicité,” 66.9 Lefort, 69–70.10 Howard, The Marxian Legacy, 250. Note that Dick Howard is commenting on Lefort’s first text on pr","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136014559","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}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2262342
Václav Rut
ABSTRACTThis paper deals with the political philosophy of Václav Havel, mainly its relation to ethics and what Michel Foucault called governmentality. Besides using his analytical framework, Foucault’s politics are engaged with to highlight similar trajectories of two intellectuals dealing with related dilemmas of ethics and politics. As a dissident of communist Czechoslovakia Havel, developed a profound critique of modernity, but also discovered technologies of the self, exclusive to dissidents, which empowered them in their moral struggle against the regime. The Velvet Revolution in 1989 ascended Havel to the presidency of the republic, a position from which he quickly embraced and disseminated neoliberal governmentality. The final section deals with Havel’s use of human rights in the later years of his presidency, being a justification for military interventions and comparing them to Foucault’s conceptualisation of rights. Human rights discourse is the culmination of Havel’s lifelong quest for the ethical foundation of politics and it is the source of most difficulties and potentialities associated with this project.KEYWORDS: HavelFoucaultgovernmentalitydissidenceneoliberalism Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Bělohradský, “Od Havla k havlismu a zpět.”2 Havel, Dálkový výslech, 133–44.3 Brennan, The Political Thought of Václav Havel; Gümplová, “Rethinking Resistance with Václav Havel”; Tucker, The Philosophy and Politics of Czech Dissidence.4 Brennan, The Political Thought of Václav Havel, 171–8.5 Eyal, “Anti-Politics and the Spirit of Capitalism.”6 Cf. Keane, Vaclav Havel.7 For a discussion on Foucault’s alleged affinity to neoliberalism see Becker, Ewald, and Harcourt, “Becker on Ewald on Foucault on Becker”; Dean and Zamora, The Last Man Takes LSD; Sawyer and Steinmetz-Jenkins, Foucault, Neoliberalism, and Beyond.8 Lemke, “The Birth of Bio-Politics,” 202.9 Vighi and Feldner, Žižek: Beyond Foucault, 77–8.10 Foucault in: Dean and Zamora, The Last Man Takes LSD, 46.11 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, 108.12 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 2.13 Foucault, “Technologies of the Self,” 19.14 Foucault, The Use of Pleasure, 10–11.15 Foucault, “Interview with Michel Foucault,” 295–6.16 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 91–2. In a lecture, Foucault said: “what socialism lacks is not so much a theory of the state as a governmental reason, the definition of what a governmental rationality would be in socialism, that is to say, a reasonable and calculable measure of the extent, modes, and objectives of governmental action.”17 Havel, Do různých stran, 57.18 Ibid.19 Steger and Replogle, “Václav Havel’s Postmodernism.”20 Havel, ’94, 105–6.21 Havel, Dopisy Olze, 134.22 Bělohradský, “Dva odkazy Václava Havla”; Brennan, The Political Thought of Václav Havel, 14–15.23 Havel, Dopisy Olze, 315–7.24 Ibid., 283–4.25 Foucault in: Dean and Zamora, The Last Man Takes LSD, 82–3.26 Havel, Moc bezmocn
{"title":"Václav Havel’s Search for Emancipatory Governmentality","authors":"Václav Rut","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2262342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2262342","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis paper deals with the political philosophy of Václav Havel, mainly its relation to ethics and what Michel Foucault called governmentality. Besides using his analytical framework, Foucault’s politics are engaged with to highlight similar trajectories of two intellectuals dealing with related dilemmas of ethics and politics. As a dissident of communist Czechoslovakia Havel, developed a profound critique of modernity, but also discovered technologies of the self, exclusive to dissidents, which empowered them in their moral struggle against the regime. The Velvet Revolution in 1989 ascended Havel to the presidency of the republic, a position from which he quickly embraced and disseminated neoliberal governmentality. The final section deals with Havel’s use of human rights in the later years of his presidency, being a justification for military interventions and comparing them to Foucault’s conceptualisation of rights. Human rights discourse is the culmination of Havel’s lifelong quest for the ethical foundation of politics and it is the source of most difficulties and potentialities associated with this project.KEYWORDS: HavelFoucaultgovernmentalitydissidenceneoliberalism Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Bělohradský, “Od Havla k havlismu a zpět.”2 Havel, Dálkový výslech, 133–44.3 Brennan, The Political Thought of Václav Havel; Gümplová, “Rethinking Resistance with Václav Havel”; Tucker, The Philosophy and Politics of Czech Dissidence.4 Brennan, The Political Thought of Václav Havel, 171–8.5 Eyal, “Anti-Politics and the Spirit of Capitalism.”6 Cf. Keane, Vaclav Havel.7 For a discussion on Foucault’s alleged affinity to neoliberalism see Becker, Ewald, and Harcourt, “Becker on Ewald on Foucault on Becker”; Dean and Zamora, The Last Man Takes LSD; Sawyer and Steinmetz-Jenkins, Foucault, Neoliberalism, and Beyond.8 Lemke, “The Birth of Bio-Politics,” 202.9 Vighi and Feldner, Žižek: Beyond Foucault, 77–8.10 Foucault in: Dean and Zamora, The Last Man Takes LSD, 46.11 Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, 108.12 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 2.13 Foucault, “Technologies of the Self,” 19.14 Foucault, The Use of Pleasure, 10–11.15 Foucault, “Interview with Michel Foucault,” 295–6.16 Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 91–2. In a lecture, Foucault said: “what socialism lacks is not so much a theory of the state as a governmental reason, the definition of what a governmental rationality would be in socialism, that is to say, a reasonable and calculable measure of the extent, modes, and objectives of governmental action.”17 Havel, Do různých stran, 57.18 Ibid.19 Steger and Replogle, “Václav Havel’s Postmodernism.”20 Havel, ’94, 105–6.21 Havel, Dopisy Olze, 134.22 Bělohradský, “Dva odkazy Václava Havla”; Brennan, The Political Thought of Václav Havel, 14–15.23 Havel, Dopisy Olze, 315–7.24 Ibid., 283–4.25 Foucault in: Dean and Zamora, The Last Man Takes LSD, 82–3.26 Havel, Moc bezmocn","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135193810","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}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2262343
Daniel Brennan
ABSTRACTThe paper considers the legacy of Václav Havel in regard to civil disobedience and dissident action. The paper frames its analysis on the long-standing debate Havel undertook with the Czech author Milan Kundera. Ultimately the paper argues that the nuance to Havel’s optimism, as it emerges against Kundera’s more pessimistic position, regarding dissident action is a timely and important response with great value for contemporary global challenges.KEYWORDS: Václav HavelMilan Kunderadissidencecivil disobedience Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Havel, Letters to Olga.2 Havel, “Power of the Powerless.”3 Havel, Disturbing the Peace, 173.4 Said, “On Lost Causes,” 428.
{"title":"Václav Havel’s Legacy: Politics as Morality","authors":"Daniel Brennan","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2262343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2262343","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe paper considers the legacy of Václav Havel in regard to civil disobedience and dissident action. The paper frames its analysis on the long-standing debate Havel undertook with the Czech author Milan Kundera. Ultimately the paper argues that the nuance to Havel’s optimism, as it emerges against Kundera’s more pessimistic position, regarding dissident action is a timely and important response with great value for contemporary global challenges.KEYWORDS: Václav HavelMilan Kunderadissidencecivil disobedience Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Havel, Letters to Olga.2 Havel, “Power of the Powerless.”3 Havel, Disturbing the Peace, 173.4 Said, “On Lost Causes,” 428.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135195368","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}
Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2262341
Jack Reynolds
Despite rarely explicitly thematizing the problem of dirty hands, this essay argues that Merleau-Ponty’s political work can nonetheless make some important contributions to the issue, both descriptively and normatively. Although his political writings have been neglected in recent times, his interpretations of Marxism and Machiavelli enabled him to develop an account of political phronesis and virtù that sought to retain the strengths of their respective positions without succumbing to their problems. In the process, he provides grounds for generalizing the problem of “dirty hands” beyond Michael Walzer’s influential understanding that pertains primarily to “emergencies” and singular time-slice actions, and addresses concerns about the coherence of the very idea that there is justified action that one ought to do which remains wrong. Merleau-Ponty does this by emphasizing the diachronic relationship between theoretical principles and concrete political action over a period of time, thus imbuing the problem of dirty hands with a historicity that is not sufficiently recognized in the more static and action-focused discussions.
{"title":"Merleau-Ponty and “Dirty Hands”: Political Phronesis and <i>Virtù</i> Between Marxism and Machiavelli","authors":"Jack Reynolds","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2262341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2262341","url":null,"abstract":"Despite rarely explicitly thematizing the problem of dirty hands, this essay argues that Merleau-Ponty’s political work can nonetheless make some important contributions to the issue, both descriptively and normatively. Although his political writings have been neglected in recent times, his interpretations of Marxism and Machiavelli enabled him to develop an account of political phronesis and virtù that sought to retain the strengths of their respective positions without succumbing to their problems. In the process, he provides grounds for generalizing the problem of “dirty hands” beyond Michael Walzer’s influential understanding that pertains primarily to “emergencies” and singular time-slice actions, and addresses concerns about the coherence of the very idea that there is justified action that one ought to do which remains wrong. Merleau-Ponty does this by emphasizing the diachronic relationship between theoretical principles and concrete political action over a period of time, thus imbuing the problem of dirty hands with a historicity that is not sufficiently recognized in the more static and action-focused discussions.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135534856","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}
Pub Date : 2023-08-24DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2241060
Francisco Conde Soto
{"title":"Deleuze’s and Guattari’s Body Without Organs and Lacan’s Other Jouissance: Bodies Under Capitalism","authors":"Francisco Conde Soto","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2241060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2241060","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48853701","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}
Pub Date : 2023-08-10DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2241058
P. J. Casey
ABSTRACT From social media to the halls of academia all the way to the White House, everyone is talking about “lived experience”. Yet, there is considerable confusion about what, precisely, the term means. Part of this confusion results from the lack of awareness about the origin of the term and the philosophical need that it was introduced to address. Accordingly, the first aim of this essay is to elucidate the meaning of “lived experience” by teasing out and enumerating its various features as found in the thought of Wilhelm Dilthey, who first developed and popularized it as a philosophical concept. The second goal is to critique the use of “lived experience” in contemporary academic and political discourse. Lived experience is simultaneously denigrated by those who regard it as merely subjective and exalted by those who regard it as epistemically authoritative. A return to Dilthey’s original formulation reveals that both of these attitudes are predicated on misunderstandings of the nature of lived experience.
{"title":"Lived Experience: Defined and Critiqued","authors":"P. J. Casey","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2241058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2241058","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 From social media to the halls of academia all the way to the White House, everyone is talking about “lived experience”. Yet, there is considerable confusion about what, precisely, the term means. Part of this confusion results from the lack of awareness about the origin of the term and the philosophical need that it was introduced to address. Accordingly, the first aim of this essay is to elucidate the meaning of “lived experience” by teasing out and enumerating its various features as found in the thought of Wilhelm Dilthey, who first developed and popularized it as a philosophical concept. The second goal is to critique the use of “lived experience” in contemporary academic and political discourse. Lived experience is simultaneously denigrated by those who regard it as merely subjective and exalted by those who regard it as epistemically authoritative. A return to Dilthey’s original formulation reveals that both of these attitudes are predicated on misunderstandings of the nature of lived experience.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43689413","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}
Pub Date : 2023-08-04DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2241063
Philipp Wagenhals
ABSTRACT This paper advances a novel take on Chantal Mouffe’s appropriation of the late Wittgenstein, arguing that Wittgenstein’s philosophy, at the same time, gives rise to and offers a solution to the relativism problem as it can be found in Mouffe’s radical political thought. Unlike other vindications of Wittgenstein-inspired political thought, I also show at which point Wittgenstein’s support for such an approach comes to an end. I thus acknowledge that the relativism problem – at least to some extent – stems from the ambiguity of Wittgensteinian thought itself. After having outlined these challenges, I suggest turning to alternative approaches from the field of critical social philosophy. In particular, Rahel Jaeggi’s Frankfurt School account of forms of life highlights what such a non-relativist but still context-sensitive approach may look like. By virtue of this last step, this paper contributes to recent engagements by Critical Theorists with the late Wittgenstein.
{"title":"Mouffe’s Wittgenstein and Contemporary Critical Theory","authors":"Philipp Wagenhals","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2241063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2241063","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 This paper advances a novel take on Chantal Mouffe’s appropriation of the late Wittgenstein, arguing that Wittgenstein’s philosophy, at the same time, gives rise to and offers a solution to the relativism problem as it can be found in Mouffe’s radical political thought. Unlike other vindications of Wittgenstein-inspired political thought, I also show at which point Wittgenstein’s support for such an approach comes to an end. I thus acknowledge that the relativism problem – at least to some extent – stems from the ambiguity of Wittgensteinian thought itself. After having outlined these challenges, I suggest turning to alternative approaches from the field of critical social philosophy. In particular, Rahel Jaeggi’s Frankfurt School account of forms of life highlights what such a non-relativist but still context-sensitive approach may look like. By virtue of this last step, this paper contributes to recent engagements by Critical Theorists with the late Wittgenstein.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43106193","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}
Pub Date : 2023-08-03DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2023.2241061
Robert Lucas Scott
ABSTRACT This essay traces Hegel's conceptualisation of “the spirit and the letter”, from the period of his early theological writings to that of the Science of Logic, with particular reference to his correspondence. This dialectic, for Hegel, concerns the realisation of the truth or “spirit” of something from the specificity and fixity of its particular details – its “letter”. It also concerns, then, the freedom to interpret the spirit of something in spite of the apparent authority of any supposed original meanings or authorial intentions. We find him using the phrase in a variety of contexts, with reference to politics, Biblical hermeneutics, textual criticism, the history of philosophy and education. While originally derived from St Paul's dictum – “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6) – Hegel's early invocations of “the spirit and the letter” are inspired by Fichte, who sought to distinguish the spirit from the letter of Kant's philosophy. However, while Fichte conceives of the “spirit” as an “aesthetic sense” with which to take creative liberties with the letter, the later Hegel finds that it is only by tarrying with the contradictions of the dead letter that the spirit might be brought to life.
{"title":"“The Letter Kills, but the Spirit Gives Life”: Letters on the Spirit and the Letter of Hegel's Philosophy","authors":"Robert Lucas Scott","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2241061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2241061","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay traces Hegel's conceptualisation of “the spirit and the letter”, from the period of his early theological writings to that of the Science of Logic, with particular reference to his correspondence. This dialectic, for Hegel, concerns the realisation of the truth or “spirit” of something from the specificity and fixity of its particular details – its “letter”. It also concerns, then, the freedom to interpret the spirit of something in spite of the apparent authority of any supposed original meanings or authorial intentions. We find him using the phrase in a variety of contexts, with reference to politics, Biblical hermeneutics, textual criticism, the history of philosophy and education. While originally derived from St Paul's dictum – “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6) – Hegel's early invocations of “the spirit and the letter” are inspired by Fichte, who sought to distinguish the spirit from the letter of Kant's philosophy. However, while Fichte conceives of the “spirit” as an “aesthetic sense” with which to take creative liberties with the letter, the later Hegel finds that it is only by tarrying with the contradictions of the dead letter that the spirit might be brought to life.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43460393","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：