Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (67) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (67) (remove)
Language
- English (26)
- Portuguese (15)
- German (12)
- Spanish (5)
- Italian (3)
- Ukrainian (2)
- French (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
- slo (1)
- Turkish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (67)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (67)
Keywords
- Adorno (4)
- Theodor W. Adorno (3)
- inclusion (3)
- Critical Theory (2)
- Dialectic (2)
- Dialética (2)
- Recognition (2)
- Reconhecimento (2)
- Teoria Crítica (2)
- Theodor Adorno (2)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (67) (remove)
Rule is commonly conceptualized with reference to the compliance it invokes. In this article, we propose a conception of rule via the practice of resistance instead. In contrast to liberal approaches, we stress the possibility of illegitimate rule, and, as opposed to critical approaches, the possibility of legitimate authority. In the international realm, forms of rule and the changes they undergo can thus be reconstructed in terms of the resistance they provoke. To this end, we distinguish between two types of resistance—opposition and dissidence—in order to demonstrate how resistance and rule imply each other. We draw on two case studies of resistance in and to international institutions to illustrate the relationship between rule and resistance and close with a discussion of the normative implications of such a conceptualization.
The main sources for the discussion of the category “relation” were Aristotle’s Categories and Metaphysics. Before their translation into Arabic in the 8th and 9th centuries, Christian theologians and in their footsteps Syriac scholars considered Aristotle’s works to be a useful tool in Christological discussions. This article analyzes the category of relation and its development in Arabic-Islamic philosophy in authors such as Kindī and his student Aḥmad Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib as-Saraḫsī, Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā, Ghazālī, Ibn Rušd, the Sufi Ibn ʿArabī and others.
In den zahlreichen Beiträgen zum "Jubeljahr der 1968er-Bewegung" kommen oft ehemalige Aktive, Historikerinnen und Experten zu Wort. Doch wie blicken eigentlich Aktivistinnen und Aktivisten des 21. Jahrhunderts auf diese Zeit zurück? Dieser Frage hat sich ein zweijähriges Forschungsprojekt am Institut für Politikwissenschaft der Goethe-Universität gewidmet.
Traditionally, in deciding whether some strategy or action in war is proportionate and necessary and thus permissible both international law and just war theory focus exclusively on civilian deaths and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. I argue in this paper that any argument that can explain why we should care about collateral killing and damage to infrastructure can also explain why collateral displacement matters. I argue that displacement is a foreseeable near-proximate cause of lethal harm to civilians and is relevant for proportionality and necessity calculi. Accepting my argument has significant consequences for what we are permitted to do in war and for what obligations we have towards refugees that result from our actions in war.
The theory and practice of urban governance in recent years has undergone both a collaborative and participatory turn. The strong connection between collaboration and participation has meant that citizen participation in urban governance has been conceived in a very particular way: as varying levels of partnership between state actors and citizens. This over-focus on collaboration has led to: 1) a dearth of proposals in theory and practice for citizens to engage oppositionally with institutions; 2) the miscasting of agonistic opportunities for participation as forms of collaboration; 3) an inability to recognise the irruption of agonistic practices into participatory procedures. This article attempts to expand the conception of participatory urban governance by adapting Rosanvallon’s (2008) three democratic counter-powers—prevention, oversight and judgement—to consider options for institutionalising agonistic participatory practices. It argues that these counter-governance processes would more fully realise the inclusion agenda that underpins the participatory governance project.
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.
Unter dem Schlagwort "68er-Bewegung" werden verschiedene linksgerichtete Protestbewegungen, Bürgerrechtsdemonstrationen und antiautoritäre Aktionen zusammengefasst, die ab Mitte der 1960er in Deutschland und zahlreichen anderen Ländern stattfanden und auf eine Umwälzung bestehender sozialer und politischer Strukturen zielten. ...
Yaratıcı endüstri kavramı, aşırı-teknik-kapitalist toplumların bir zorunluluğu olarak 1990’lı yıllarda gerek gündelik yaşama gerekse bilimsel yazına yerleşmeye başlamıştır. Habermas’ın çift değerlilik yaklaşımı doğrultusunda düşünüldüğünde, yaratıcı endüstrilerin, yaratıcılık ve kültürü kullanarak ürettikleri ürünlerin olumlu yanları kadar olumsuz yanlarının da olacağı açıktır. Bu çalışma yaratıcı endüstrilerin, toplumsal alanda anlaşma yönelimli iletişimsel eylemi koordine eden kültürel-normatif yapılar üzerindeki olası bozucu etkilerine dikkat çekmeye çalışmıştır. Çalışma, bu düşünceyi temellendirmek için, Husserl tarafından geliştirilen “yaşam dünyası” ve Habermas tarafından kuramsallaştırılan “yaşam dünyasının sömürgeleştirilmesi” kavramları doğrultusunda ilerlemiştir. Çalışmamızda kısmen Frankfurt Okulu’nun düşüncelerine başvurulmuştur. Çalışmamız özetle, yaratıcı endüstrilerin, yaşam dünyasının temel bileşenlerinden kültürel yeniden üretim, toplumsal bütünleşme ve toplumsallaşma süreçlerini nasıl etkileyeceğine, iletişimsel eylemi ne şekilde koordine edeceğine ve yaşam dünyasını potansiyel olarak nasıl sömürgeleştireceğine odaklanmıştır.
De acordo com parte da literatura, a teoria crítica de Adorno é um lamento sobre o fracasso da civilização moderna que é incapaz de dar conta de suas próprias condições de possibilidade. No presente artigo, questiono tal veredito, por meio da análise da questão de como a crítica pode ser feita e de quem seria o destinatário dela, em uma situação de quase completa dominação.
The purpose of the text is to present an interpretation of Theodor Adorno’s critical reading of authors considered revisionists of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, particularly Karen Horney. We discuss critically Adorno’s favorable positioning to the Freudian conception of the individual psychic nucleus in contrast to the hasty sociologization of psychoanalysis practiced by the revisionism of Karen Horney. In the final part we try to show how the Adornian perspective ends up by making, in his own way, the same mistake of a hasty sociologization of psychoanalysis he imputed to the revisionists and advocates an theoretical emphasis on the sociological realm that seems also problematic.