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)
Structural alienation: Lu's structural approach to reconciliation from within a relational framework
(2019)
In Justice and Reconciliation in World Politics Catherine Lu argues that structural reconciliation, rather than interactional reconciliation, ought to be the primary normative goal for political reconciliation efforts. I suggest that we might have good reason to want to retain relational approaches – such as that of Linda Radzik – as the primary focus of reconciliatory efforts, but that Lu’s approach is invaluable for identifying the parties who ought to bear responsibility for those efforts in cases of structural injustice. First, I outline Lu’s analysis of reconciliation, where she argues for the normative priority of structural approaches within the global political sphere, and propose that it will be useful to identify whether or not a relational account could instead identify underlying structural injustices. Second, I examine one particular relational account of reconciliation (based on Radzik’s account of atonement) and argue that this type of account brings to light underlying structural injustices of the kind Lu is concerned with. Finally, I identify an issue for relational accounts in identifying relevant responsible parties for reconciliation before returning to Lu’s structural account to address this gap.
Sublimity, negativity, and architecture. An essay on negative architecture through Kant to Adorno
(2015)
Architecture defines and consumes people. It exposes them to a multitude of varieties of different aesthetic engagements. Architecture becomes a lived experience. However, this lived experience is always caught in the inner workings of the social and more specifically within cultural ideology. In modern capitalism, culture pervades every aspect of our lives. It shows its presence everywhere from our own homes to the public streets. Culture is everywhere, and architecture is a tool used for both the benefit and detriment of the “culture industry”. Kant speaks of the sublime as a profound moment of reason realizing its ability to overcome its own limits. In this experience is it possible to be completely ravaged and descend into hades and melancholy? Is there a beauty in this descent? More specifically, can architecture become banal or pedestrian, uplifting or depressing? According to Theodor Adorno, our subjectivity is defined by the constant dialectical struggle between freedom and unfreedom (among other things). It is realizing our freedom in the face of our unfreedom that makes us truly able to attain some form of resistance. The sublime experience can be transformed into a spirit of revelation and beautifully allow us to in a way resist the one-dimensional tendencies of modern capitalism. Architecture, which is immersed in our societal being and contributes to many of our own subjective unfreedoms, comes to define our lives as inhabited space. When does architecture produce a sublime experience? Can architecture’s authentic “aura” stand out amongst the reproduced city and produce a sublime feeling that can be a form of resistance against the culture industry? Does Grand Central Terminal provide the key to an architecturally sublime experience? Using dialectical experience and examining the sublime feeling (in a critique of the Kantian sublime) as the key to breaking through the culture industry’s banal architectural hold on our subjectivity, this essay will examine the experience of the sublime as a key to unfolding resistance in the face of the banality of modern architecture in the city and opening our minds to the Great Refusal through the exploration of Grand Central Terminal.
Este artículo presenta una lectura crítica de un trabajo central de Axel Honneth desde la teoría de la sujeción de Judith Butler. Intenta mostrar que, por la ausencia en su escrito de una consideración sobre el poder, el pensador alemán no logra cumplir satisfactoriamente su objetivo propuesto de enfrentar las posturas que cuestionan el potencial crítico del reconocimiento. La hipótesis que aquí se maneja es que esa ausencia está ligada a su definición del reconocimiento como lo contrario de las prácticas de dominio o sometimiento. Ahora bien, Honneth afirma que el escepticismo de esas posturas respecto del reconocimiento se basa en la idea de que toda praxis recognoscente reproduce de alguna manera el orden social dominante. El presente trabajo se propone entonces, cuestionar esta aseveración del autor advirtiendo que un análisis sobre el modo en que el poder actúa en las prácticas cotidianas de reconocimiento no necesariamente conlleva una renuncia de la función crítica del concepto para la teoría social. Más bien, como sugiere la noción butleriana (y foucaultiana) de crítica, sólo enmarcando al reconocimiento en el horizonte normativo que lo delimita puede convertirse en la base de la indagación social.
The notion that democracy is a system is ever present in democratic theory. However, what it means to think systemically about democracy (as opposed to what it means for a political system to be democratic) is under-elaborated. This article sets out a meta-level framework for thinking systemically about democracy, built upon seven conceptual building blocks, which we term (1) functions, (2) norms, (3) practices, (4) actors, (5) arenas, (6) levels, and (7) interactions. This enables us to systematically structure the debate on democratic systems, highlighting the commonalities and differences between systems approaches, their omissions, and the key questions that remain to be answered. It also enables us to push the debate forward both by demonstrating how a full consideration of all seven building blocks would address issues with existing approaches and by introducing new conceptual clarifications within those building blocks.
O presente trabalho, de natureza teórica, analisa fragmentos dos escritos de Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) e Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) e destaca reflexões para a pesquisa sociológica no campo da Educação, considerando a inflexão que ambos propõem em “direção ao sujeito”. De modo mais específico, realizamos uma leitura de como cada autor refletiu sobre sua própria infância e educação, buscando articular a reflexão autobiográfica que cada um realiza, de diferentes formas, ao núcleo duro de suas concepções teóricas. Ao observarmos como cada autor, na condição de adulto, rememora de forma sistematizada (na filosofia ou na literatura) sua própria infância, refletindo, entre outros aspectos, sobre a condição social de suas famílias e da classe burguesa, a relação com os adultos e com os artefatos (culturais e tecnológicos) de sua época, incluindo a escolarização, podemos também perceber elementos de suas concepções teóricas sobre a subjetividade e de suas análises sobre as vicissitudes do sujeito no contemporâneo. Enquanto que, para Sartre, a infância emerge no âmbito de uma concepção restauradora da narrativa como mediadora da experiência, em um processo, sempre ainda aberto, de transformação da existência, para Adorno, a rememoração sobre sua infância se articula às temáticas da pátria (não como território, mas como humanidade) e da utopia e se coloca como possibilidade de releitura das singularidades das experiências infantis como forma de confrontação e atualização das promessas contidas no passado.
A tradição de pensamento conhecida como Teoria Crítica, que conta com os nomes de Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse e Habermas, entre muitos outros, é composta por diferentes modelos críticos. Encontramos, numa mesma geração ou ainda num mesmo autor, diferentes formulações da crítica social apoiadas em diagnósticos do tempo renovados. O presente artigo procura pensar as condições de renovação dos diagnósticos a partir da qual os obstáculos à emancipação ou potenciais emancipatórios, quando presentes numa dada sociedade, sejam considerados e analisados de modo crítico. Essa renovação implica desvincular a fundamentação normativa da crítica do "paradigma produtivista" e conceber as lutas emancipatórias na pluralidade de seus sentidos.
Este artigo visa apresentar algumas reflexões sobre sociedade e educação pensadas a partir da Teoria Crítica que, especialmente, no pensamento de T. W. Adorno, postula a interpretação e a transformação da sociedade e do conhecimento por ela produzido como premissa básica de uma educação emancipatória. A crítica ao positivismo, a constatação das antinomias entre cultura e administração são instrumentos para a análise do construtivismo, da discussão sobre democratização do ensino e das formulações que estabelecem ligações imediatas entre relações interpessoais e democracia.
El objetivo principal de este trabajo es replantear la posibilidad de realizar una síntesis entre la fenomenología de Husserl y la teoría crítica de la Escuela de Frankfurt. Para ello realizaremos una revisión crítica de los textos del primer Marcuse (1928-1933), cuyo proyecto filosófico consistió en formular una síntesis entre la ontología fenomenológica de Heidegger y el materialismo dialéctico de Marx. La tesis que defenderemos aquí es que este proyecto sigue siendo vigente, pero tomaremos como referente la fenomenología de Husserl, desde la que interpretaremos los textos de Marcuse, y no la ontología existencial de Heidegger.
Readers of Hannah Arendt’s now classic formulation of the statelessness problem in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism abound at a moment when the number of stateless peoples worldwide continues to rise exponentially. Along with statelessness, few concepts in Arendt scholarship have spawned such a volume of literature, and perhaps none have provoked as much interest outside of the field of philosophy, as ‘the right to have rights.’ Interpreting this enigmatic term exposes the heart of our beliefs about the nature of the political and has important consequences for how we practice politics on a global scale because it implicitly takes plural human beings, and not the citizen, as its subjects. Arendt’s conceptualization of this problem remains unsurpassed in its diagnosis of the political situation of statelessness, as well as its intimate description of the human cost of what she refers to as ‘world loss,’ a phenomenon that the prevailing human rights and global justice discourse does not take into account. And yet, as an alternative framework for thinking about global politics, the right to have rights resists easy interpretation, let alone practical application.
The paper argues that the current global market is organized by a system of transnational law whose development is best characterized as ambivalent. On the one side, legal juridification can lead to a hegemonic system of international law that lacks legitimacy, paradoxically creates extralegal spheres, promotes the ‘privatization’ of political areas, and, thereby, reduces the competences of states. On the other side, legal codification can also function as an engine of transnational democratization and as a barrier to an unhampered growth of transnational administrative and executive power. Scholarship on the idea of legitimacy in law and transnational governance in political and legal theory has to reflect these aspects of juridification on a world scale. Most approaches to the issue, however, have serious flaws: they neither offer an adequate empirical diagnosis of the de-embedding of international economic and legal processes, nor do they provide convincing proposals as to how such processes could be domesticated. Against this background, the paper lays out a critical analysis of legal codification processes as well as proposing an account of democratic governance, based on a realistic conception of deliberative democracy.
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.
The flying geese model, a theory of industrial development in latecomer economies, was developed in the 1930s by the Japanese economist Akamatsu Kaname (1896–1974). While rarely known in western countries, it is highly prominent in Japan and seen as the main economic theory underlying Japan’s economic assistance to developing countries. Akamatsu’s original interpretation of the flying geese model differs fundamentally from theories of western origin, such as the neoclassical model and Raymond Vernon’s product cycle theory. These differences include the roles of factors and linkages in economic development, the effects of demand and supply, as well as the dynamic and dialectical character of Akamatsu’s thinking. Later reformulations of the flying geese model, pioneered by Kojima Kiyoshi, attempt to combine aspects of Akamatsu’s theory with neoclassical thinking. This can be described as the “westernization” of the flying geese model. It is this reformulated interpretation that has become popular in Japan’s political discourse, a process that might be explained by the change in Japan’s perspective from that of a developing to that of an advanced economy. The position taken by Japan in its recent controversy with the World Bank, however, shows that many basic elements of Akamatsu’s thinking are still highly influential within both Japan’s academia and its government and are therefore relevant for understanding current debates on development theory.
International politics is characterized by a lack of women. The few women holding high political positions are more likely to be criticized and judged based upon, what the author calls, ‘the construction of masculinity in international relations’. Tracing the origin and logic of this construction, the article critiques the dominant theories of international relations (namely, realism and liberalism) and argues for the aptness of a radical feminist social constructivist approach to the study of international politics. The article also illuminates the strong focus on men and men’s perspectives of these influential mainstream theories on their conception and interpretation of war. An examination of the concept of war reveals how masculinity and femininity are portrayed on matters of war and national security and what side effects this has on women in politics, particularly women with political positions.