Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (803) (remove)
Language
- English (293)
- Portuguese (199)
- German (180)
- Spanish (62)
- Italian (24)
- French (11)
- Ukrainian (9)
- slo (7)
- Multiple languages (4)
- Catalan (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (803)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (803)
Keywords
- Adorno (51)
- Critical Theory (27)
- Reconhecimento (26)
- Recognition (24)
- Axel Honneth (23)
- global justice (23)
- Theodor W. Adorno (20)
- critical theory (20)
- Teoria Crítica (19)
- Frankfurt School (18)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (803) (remove)
Participatory policy making is a contested concept that can be understood in multiple ways. So how do those involved with participatory initiatives make sense of contrasting ideas of participation? What purposes and values do they associate with participatory governance? This paper reflects on a Q‐method study with a range of actors, from citizen activists to senior civil servants, involved with participatory initiatives in U.K. social policy. Using principal components analysis, supplemented with data from qualitative interviews, it identifies three shared participation preferences: participation as collective decision making, participation as knowledge transfer, and participation as agonism. These preferences demonstrate significant disagreements between the key informants, particularly concerning the objectives of participation, how much power should be afforded to the public, and what motivates people to participate. Their contrasting normative orientations are used to highlight how participatory governance theory and practice frequently fails to take seriously legitimate diversity in procedural preferences. Moreover, it is argued that, despite the diversity of preferences, there is a lack of imagination about how participation can function when social relations are conflictual.
Is free speech in danger on university campus? Some preliminary evidence from a most likely case
(2020)
Although universities play a key role in questions of free speech and political viewpoint diversity, they are often associated with the opposite of a free exchange of ideas: a proliferation of restrictive campus speech codes, violent protests against controversial speakers and even the firing of inconvenient professors. For some observers these trends on university campuses are a clear indicator of the dire future for freedom of speech. Others view these incidents as scandalized singular events and regard campus intolerance as a mere myth. We take an empirical look at some of the claims in the debate and present original survey evidence from a most likely case: the leftist social science studentship at Goethe University Frankfurt. Our results show that taking offense is a common experience and that a sizable number of students are in favor of restricting speech on campus. We also find evidence for conformity pressures on campus and that both the desire to restrict speech and the reluctance to speak openly differ significantly across political ideology. Left-leaning students are less likely to tolerate controversial viewpoints and right-leaning students are more likely to self-censor on politically sensitive issues such as gender, immigration, or sexual and ethnic minorities. Although preliminary, these findings may have implications for the social sciences and academia more broadly.
Das Unbehagen mit den Gender Studies. Ein Gespräch zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Politik
(2020)
Der Beitrag ist ein Gespräch zweiter Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen im Feld der Gender Studies. Es kreist um den Vermittlungszusammenhang zwischen Wissenschaft und (politischer oder aktivistischer) Praxis am Beispiel der Geschlechterforschung. Wie politisch kann, darf Forschung (nicht) sein? Wie, wenn überhaupt, lassen sich Kritik, Normativität, Forschung, politische Praxis und Ethik einerseits trennen, andererseits produktiv aufeinander beziehen? Er plädiert für die Anerkennung der Eigenlogiken von Wissenschaft und Politik und für deren Vermittlung im Sinne reflexiver Übersetzungen sowie gegen einen positionalen Fundamentalismus, der soziale Position(-ierung) mit inhaltlichen Positionen gleichsetzt. Schließlich artikuliert der Beitrag eine reflexive Ethik des Zuhörens, die sich im Forschungsprozess als Anerkennung von systematisch bedingten blinden Flecken sowie in den Mühen um deren Überwindung realisieren sollte.
This reading of Pride and Prejudice and Mansfield Park suggests that the semantic framework of the novels is provided by the contrast between two meanings of the word consequence, the archaic meaning of social or emotional importance and the common and garden meaning of effect of a cause. It also suggests that the narrative structure of the novels is that of a game of consequences, a game that was played at the time of Jane Austen.
The aim of this paper is to examine how Adorno's aesthetic and musicological thinking was received in Czech and Slovak musicology in the decades between the 60s and the 80s. The focus is on the Czech and Slovak translation of some of Adorno’s musicological treatises and lectures – especially those concerning his views on the Second Vienna School and the musical poetics of its immediate successors – which were published in former Czechoslovakia. The study offers an interesting perspective on Adorno’s relatively unknown lecture Form der neuen Musik (1965) and its related, although not identical, Czech version Formové princípy súčasnej hudby [Formal Principles of Contemporary Music] (1966) as well as on his discussion with some Slovak composers and musicologists published as Dnes je možné iba radikálne kritické myslenie [Today, Only Radical Critical Thinking is Possible] (1967). The study also considers other scientific texts by Adorno in relation to the above-mentioned translations of his works. The analysis, reflection, and interpretation of Adorno’s works in former Czechoslovakia, as well as their contemporary reception, turn out to be sporadic in the examined period. The purpose of this research is to revive awareness of their significance and to give a new impulse to their reassessment within the current musicological and philosophical reflection.
Day-to-day art criticism and art theory are qualitatively distinct. Whereas the best art criticism entails a closeness to its objects which is attuned to particularity, art theory inherently makes generalized claims, whether these claims are extrapolated from the process of art criticism or not. However, this article argues that these dynamics are effectively reversed if we consider the disparity between the criticism of so-called political art and attempts over the last century to elaborate theory which accounts for the political in art qua art. Art theory has located the political force of art precisely in the way that its particularity opposes or resists the status quo. Art criticism, on the other hand, tends to treat artwork as a text to be interpreted whose particularity may as well dissolve when translated into discourse. Drawing from the work of Theodor W. Adorno, this article argues that political art theory calls for art criticism more attuned to experience if it is to elucidate art’s critical valence.
Adorno’s negative dialectics wants to free the thought from the dictates of the system, taking position against the illusion to grasp the essence of reality by logic. Against that false idea of totality, Adorno devises a philosophy of fragment, a logic of disgregation that presupposes a different concept of totality: a fragmented, scattered and conflicting wholeness. The anti systematic thinking of Adorno is configured, however, as a systematic rejection of any systematic formulation: philosophy can at most claiming a pretension to truth by the practice of interpretation. A dialectic configuration of fragments of totality is at stake here: so, the arrangement of such fragments can both produce an image of reality endowed with meaning and also unfold through heterogeneous combinations that are not definitive, but always renewable from time to time. In Adorno’s reflection are so expressed two different instances which are complementary at the same time: on the one hand it represents the critical and negative element against the system and its hybris, on the other hand it expresses the need of the thought to go beyond and overcome that fragmentation, showing how the need of unity of the system is a need of the thought in itself.
This article examines Adorno’s non-identity thinking and the moral role of mimesis. On the one hand, Adorno criticises Kant’s moral theory, revealing the heteronomy of morality and the untruth of subjective freedom, on the other he defends the utopistic urge of the “transcendental”, moving from finitude and imperfection. Adorno opposes to the bourgeois personality neither a naïve return to nature, nor a getting rid of the subject, but the individual as differentiated coexistence of self and otherness, spirit and nature.
La mala conciencia del éxito : apuntes sobre la Viena moderna y la estética de Theodor W. Adorno
(2007)
El presente artículo pretende examinar cómo algunas de las premisas establecidas en la Dialéctica de la ilustración, y desarrolladas por Theodor W. Adorno en su posterior teoría estética, hunden sus raíces en el panorama cultural del fin de siècle vienés. Se mostrará cómo la ruptura entre el arte de vanguardia y el gusto del público, convertido en consumidor, había sido ya expresada por el escritor satírico Karl Kraus, así como por el arquitecto Adolf Loos y los compositores de la Segunda Escuela de Viena. La paradoja que reside en la realización de un arte dirigido a un público que debe rechazarlo y la consecuente «mala conciencia» ante el éxito del artista moderno, quiere ser el núcleo argumental de este artículo.
By means of the analysis of two Theodor Adomo's texts temporal1y very distant from each other -one written in the beginning of his career, the other in his maturity -, this article shows that the essay was for him not merely a theme of reflection, but also and upmost a kind of matrix for his thought. Within this matrix, through resort to a tradition, begun, in the Modernity, with Montaigne and solidified with Leibniz and the English empiricists, Adorno seeks to build, in the last phase of his philosophy, his conception of an "Anti-system", in which the indispensable coherence of thought can be kept save from instrumentalization by the domination system.