|
A Black Box in Dark Times: Russian Public Opinion in the Midst of Despotism and War
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ivan KrastevKirill Rogov
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
“We Are All Refugees”: Informal Settlements and Camps as Converging Spaces of Global Displacements
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarFaranak Miraftab
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Tsimtsum as a Political Theology for the Secular Age
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ludger HagedornRafał Zawisza
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Parrhesia and the Care of the Self: Foucault, Patočka, and Dissident Praxis
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Darren GardnerLudger Hagedorn
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
What is Political Cruelty?
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Aishwary Kumar
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
“The important point for liberalism is not so much where the line is drawn,” Judith Shklar writes in a fascinating moment in her critique of cruelty, “as that it be drawn, and that it must under no circumstances be ignored or forgotten.” Where is this line? And who lives under its ambiguous constitutionality? Neither in her 1989 theses on the “liberalism of fear” nor in her 1982 demand that liberals start “putting cruelty first” does Shklar fully pursue the consequences of this morally unforgiving yet spatially uncertain line of liberal intolerance of cruelty. And while she does starkly pose the question “what is moral cruelty?” in terms of its debilitating effect on human freedom, the limit—border—that circumscribes liberalism’s constitutional response to extreme violence continues to waver. In this paper, Aishwary Kumar offers an archeology of this vacillating, political “line” that runs through liberal resistance against cruelty. By way of exploring its global implications, he follows Shklar on the cosmopolitical path she takes, along with BR Ambedkar and Hannah Arendt, into that “most ancient,” most exemplary form of organized violence and constitutional stasis known to legal and moral philosophy: the “Indo-European caste society,” which in her later writings Shklar sometimes replaces by the adjacent term “warrior society.” Her legalism is not causal. For it is in that trans-continental tradition that a relation is forged between caste and war, and the sovereignty of the line—maryada—attains its apotheosis. Might a semblance of political courage still be retrieved from that tradition of cruelty—a modern part of which becomes genuinely “anticolonial”—and rehabilitated into norms of democratic government today?
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
“The important point for liberalism is not so much where the line is drawn,” Judith Shklar writes in a fascinating moment in her critique of cruelty, “as that it be drawn, and that it must under no circumstances be ignored or forgotten.” Where is this line? And who lives under its ambiguous constitutionality? Neither in her 1989 theses on the “liberalism of fear” nor in her 1982 demand that liberals start “putting cruelty first” does Shklar fully pursue the consequences of this morally unforgiving yet spatially uncertain line of liberal intolerance of cruelty. And while she does starkly pose the question “what is moral cruelty?” in terms of its debilitating effect on human freedom, the limit—border—that circumscribes liberalism’s constitutional response to extreme violence continues to waver. In this paper, Aishwary Kumar offers an archeology of this vacillating, political “line” that runs through liberal resistance against cruelty. By way of exploring its global implications, he follows Shklar on the cosmopolitical path she takes, along with BR Ambedkar and Hannah Arendt, into that “most ancient,” most exemplary form of organized violence and constitutional stasis known to legal and moral philosophy: the “Indo-European caste society,” which in her later writings Shklar sometimes replaces by the adjacent term “warrior society.” Her legalism is not causal. For it is in that trans-continental tradition that a relation is forged between caste and war, and the sovereignty of the line—maryada—attains its apotheosis. Might a semblance of political courage still be retrieved from that tradition of cruelty—a modern part of which becomes genuinely “anticolonial”—and rehabilitated into norms of democratic government today?
Read more
|
|
The Precarious Lives of Syrians: Temporary Protection and the Turkey/EU Deal
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarFeyzi Baban
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Debating Citizenship and Emancipation during the Long 19th Century
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Holly CaseConstantin Iordachi
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
Holly Case has called the period spanning the late-18th to the second half of the 20th century “The Age of Questions,” which included the Eastern question, Jewish question, social question, and countless others. In his recent book Liberalism, Constitutional Nationalism, and Minorities: The Making of Romanian Citizenship, c. 1750–1918 (2019), Constantin Iordachi shows how the succession of transnational “questions” that were at the heart of European and North-Atlantic politics during the long nineteenth century, and the interplay between them, impacted citizenship policies in Romania and beyond. He further describes the transfer of novel institutions of citizenship across temporal and political boundaries. In this discussion, Iordachi briefly outlined some of his broader conclusions regarding citizenship and statebuilding across the nineteenth century, after which he and Case engaged in a discussion about the role of “questions” in this dynamic and across this critical span of European and global history.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
Holly Case has called the period spanning the late-18th to the second half of the 20th century “The Age of Questions,” which included the Eastern question, Jewish question, social question, and countless others. In his recent book Liberalism, Constitutional Nationalism, and Minorities: The Making of Romanian Citizenship, c. 1750–1918 (2019), Constantin Iordachi shows how the succession of transnational “questions” that were at the heart of European and North-Atlantic politics during the long nineteenth century, and the interplay between them, impacted citizenship policies in Romania and beyond. He further describes the transfer of novel institutions of citizenship across temporal and political boundaries. In this discussion, Iordachi briefly outlined some of his broader conclusions regarding citizenship and statebuilding across the nineteenth century, after which he and Case engaged in a discussion about the role of “questions” in this dynamic and across this critical span of European and global history.
Read more
|
|
The Rebel's Clinic: The Life, Work, and After-Lives of the Psychiatrist Frantz Fanon
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Adam ShatzAyşe Çağlar
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Contradictions in the Governance of Environmental Mobility: Evidence from African Cities
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Achilles KallergisAyşe Çağlar
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Legacies of Silenced Atrocities: Lessons from Holodomor
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Karolina KoziuraKatherine YoungerLudger Hagedorn
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|