Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory最新文献_第7页

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-27 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12816

Jörg Schaub

引用次数: 0

Freedom From or Freedom in Work? Post-Work Proposals and Hannah Arendt's Conception of Political Freedom 自由还是工作中的自由？后工作提议与汉娜·阿伦特的政治自由观

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-27 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12818

Thijs Keulen

引用次数: 0

Immanent Critiques: The Frankfurt School Under Pressure 内在批判：压力下的法兰克福学派

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-26 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12815

Espen Hammer

引用次数: 0

Toward a Theory of Myth Critique: Ideology, Learned Ignorance, and the Conditions of Imaginative Success 走向神话批判理论：意识形态、习得的无知和想象成功的条件

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-12 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12813

Carmen Lea Dege, Tae-Yeoun Keum

{"title":"Toward a Theory of Myth Critique: Ideology, Learned Ignorance, and the Conditions of Imaginative Success","authors":"Carmen Lea Dege, Tae-Yeoun Keum","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12813","url":null,"abstract":"Sweeping accounts of the history of the human species—from Rousseau (1997 [1755]) to Toynbee (1934–1961) to Diamond (1997) to Harari (2014)—are no novelty in popular culture, just as they are no strangers to controversy. But the debate that ensued around David Graeber and David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021), perhaps the most significant recent addition to this genre, was different. One especially striking instance of its peculiar reception unfolded in the pages of the New York Review of Books letters section between Wengrow and the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, who had written a lengthy review.Appiah was clearly taken with Graeber and Wengrow's project. Expressing admiration for its vision of freedom and political possibility, he rounded off his review with the verdict that, “whatever its empirical shortcomings, the book must be counted an imaginative success” (Appiah 2021). But this conclusion also came, almost like an afterthought, at the heels of a detailed report on those very empirical shortcomings, which took up the greater part of his review. In their book, Graeber and Wengrow had positioned themselves as debunkers of a pervasive “myth” about human history: a Rousseauian narrative about the birth of political society from out of an original, prepolitical state, whereby the privatization of property and domination by centralized governments were the necessary price humans had to pay for the complexity of civilization. But among the preponderance of archaeological counterexamples the authors marshaled as a corrective to this myth, not a single one, Appiah judged, held up to strict scrutiny. “Two half-truths, alas, do not make a truth,” he concluded, “and neither do a thousand” (Appiah 2021).If Appiah had meant to praise the book as an imaginative success, this certainly got lost in the ensuing conversation, which quickly hardened into a debate over facts. In a fiery response, Wengrow defended their empirical foundations, accusing Appiah of being too beholden to the old myth to face the archaeological evidence challenging it. Appiah responded, for his part, by once again highlighting the ambiguities surrounding the evidence, and reaffirming his regard for the authors’ imaginative vision (Wengrow and Appiah 2022).In this paper, we suggest something crucial is at stake in the crossfire of this conversation. All the parties to the debate agree that disrupting our sense of what is possible in politics is valuable, and that social criticism to this end is ultimately aimed at bringing about conceptual shifts in its audience that are, in essence, imaginative. Such shifts require their subjects to rework their attachments to tacit, subconscious values in the background of their worldviews. As such, successful social critique involves engaging the affective, aesthetic, an","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 2","pages":"286-297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12813","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144520071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Structural Domination and Contradictory Socialization1 结构支配与矛盾社会化

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-09 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12810

Antoine Louette

{"title":"Structural Domination and Contradictory Socialization1","authors":"Antoine Louette","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12810","url":null,"abstract":"In order to “illuminate” structural domination in ways that provide social movements and dominated groups with “a basis for resistance” (Haslanger 2022, 1; see also Horkheimer [1937] 1972, Geuss 1981), an important tradition in critical theory argues—without minimizing the role of repressive violence or collective action problems—that the reproduction of structural domination is partly due to actors’ socialization into the social practices and institutions that are responsible for it (Haslanger 2017a; Celikates 2016; Einspahr 2010; Sewell 1992; see also Giddens 1984; Bourdieu 1977).Much should be said in favor of this approach: aware of the recent sociological and anthropological literature on socialization's “internal contradiction” (Sewell 2005, 53; see also Lemieux 2018; Graeber 2005), it is now rid of the totalizing tendencies common to the “more nightmarish visions” of the Frankfurt School (Leopold 2018, sec. 4.3). As such, it promises to help solve one of the central problems of critical theory without compromising on actors’ agency.Yet I argue in this paper that this approach needs refining. Specifically, I show that its very emphasis on agency means that the analysis of socialization on which it is based needs to be sharpened before it can be a successful (albeit partial) explanation of the reproduction of structural domination: I argue that further detail must be given as to why socialization's internal contradictions should fail to prompt critical thinking and draw on neglected Marxist insights to suggest that seeing structural domination as an explanans, and not just the explanandum, can help here (Geuss 1981; Balibar 2014; MacKinnon 1982; Althusser [1970] 2014).2 I make this argument in five steps.First, I offer a brief account of structural domination as the disempowerment of social groups by social practices and institutions. I illustrate this account by taking three examples, to which I then return throughout the paper: racially biased hiring practices (Haslanger 2017a), capitalist exploitation (Young 1990), and the law of male sex right that can be found behind much sexual violence (Rich 1986, 2004; Pateman 1988).Second, I present in more detail the account of socialization put forward by the proponents of the socialization view. On this account, socialization refers to the material-symbolic feedback loop whereby actors learn the schemas of social practices and institutions from the social milieux in which these practices and institutions are enacted (Sewell 1992; Einspahr 2010; Celikates 2016; Haslanger 2017a).Third, I argue that, in its welcome attempt to do justice to act","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 4","pages":"655-667"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12810","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145695308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Does Adorno Have a Theory of Fascist Thinking? 阿多诺有法西斯思想理论吗？

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-06 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12802

Stefan Bird-Pollan

引用次数: 0

Immanent Critique in Political Education: Indoctrination or Emancipation? 政治教育的内在批判：灌输还是解放？

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-02 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12794

Antti Moilanen

引用次数: 0

The Rise of Unreasonableness: Beyond Binaries for Containment 不合理的崛起：超越二进制的遏制

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-02 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12804

Michelle Chun

引用次数: 0

Césaire and Fanon on Fascism: The “Boomerang Effect” Beyond the Metropole camesaire和Fanon论法西斯主义：大都会之外的“回旋镖效应”

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-05-02 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12809

Dallas Jokic

{"title":"Césaire and Fanon on Fascism: The “Boomerang Effect” Beyond the Metropole","authors":"Dallas Jokic","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12809","url":null,"abstract":"In the last decade, far-right movements have seen a resurgence in countries as diverse as the United States, Brazil, India, and the Philippines, and many scholars have noted their resemblance to 20th-century fascist movements (Snyder 2018; Marasco 2021; Stanley 2020; Paxton 2021). The prominence of fascistic movements in countries with colonial histories of different kinds, or, we might say, the presence of fascism in a world shaped by colonialism, raises pressing questions about the relationship between fascism and colonialism. While some recent accounts of fascism have gestured toward the proximity of colonial dynamics to fascist ones, approaches that view fascism and colonialism as part of a shared historical trajectory have been underappreciated by many mainstream accounts.1 Among accounts that do engage the anticolonial tradition to explore fascism, Fanon's work has been notably absent (Toscano 2023; Shaw 2020 Rasberry 2021; Robinson 2017). In this paper, I will argue that the work of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon helps us better understand how colonialism creates the affective and psychological conditions for fascism. Césaire's work illuminates the affective “boomerang effect” of colonialism, where the brutality of colonial violence “returns home” to the metropole. Fanon's work takes us beyond the metropole, showing us how colonial relations can create fascistic dynamics within colonies and former colonies that have gained independence. Fanon's development of Césaire's argument does not just expand its scope but reflects a salient difference between the two thinkers: while Césaire's analysis, at least in Discourse on Colonialism, focuses on the promise of the colonized world (in contrast with the moral bankruptcy of Europe), Fanon sees the position of colonized countries as more ambivalent, even after independence. This difference leads Fanon to be attentive to the potential for fascistic movements within colonial contexts, including in former colonies that have gained independence. In doing so, Fanon's work does not just deepen Césaire's analysis but also resonates with accounts that highlight the role political and economic crisis plays in making fascism possible, the class composition of fascism, and the type of affectivity and psychology activated by fascist movements in periods of crisis.I will begin outlining working definitions of fascism and colonialism. Next, I will explicate Césaire's “boomerang effect” thesis and situate it within other formulations of the boomerang effect in political theory. I will argue that Césaire's understanding of the boomerang effect is not simply a rhetorical move, but a literal claim about the emergence of fascism. In my reading, Césaire is concerned primarily with the affective and relational dimensions of the boomerang effect, providing at least one mechanism through which coloniali","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 4","pages":"601-611"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12809","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145695257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Uncivil Speech in the Social Media: Democracy, Political Liberalism, and the Virtue of Public Reason 社交媒体中的不文明言论：民主、政治自由主义与公共理性的美德

IF 1.2

Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory Pub Date : 2025-04-30 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12807

Ludvig Beckman

{"title":"Uncivil Speech in the Social Media: Democracy, Political Liberalism, and the Virtue of Public Reason","authors":"Ludvig Beckman","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12807","url":null,"abstract":"Initial hopes of the democratizing potential of the internet are increasingly replaced by fear that a fragmented and unedited public sphere unleashes the destructive forces of populism, hate speech, and demagoguery (Tucker et al. 2017). In social media, these forces are amplified by algorithms used to feed designed to create “audience engagement.” Thus, toxic communication in social media is no accident as postings that provoke and elicit emotional responses are consistent with the business model (Saurwein and Spencer-Smith 2021; Maréchal 2021). At the same time, operators of social media supervise and regulate postings on their platforms. Content violating “community standards” risk being demoted, flagged, or deleted, while users that do not comply with these standards are potentially excluded or “deplatformed” in the new vocabulary.As emphasized by Gillespie (2018), content moderation is an unavoidable feature of social media. Standards for content moderation frequently target hate speech, disinformation, and violent threats. Few deny that measures taken to reduce such content are or can be justified. Less obvious is if platforms should regulate and moderate uncivil speech; words or utterances that communicate rudeness, impoliteness, insult, or hostility.1 Uncivil speech is here defined as denigrating but not hateful speech: uncivil speech and hate speech are thus mutually exclusive categories (Waldron 2013). Hence, the question is whether social media providers should delete, demote, or flag uncivil postings and comments. Are they justified in ultimately excluding from their platforms users that engage in what Meta (2017) calls “language that seems designed to provoke strong feelings”?The value of freedom of speech is a reason to worry about regulating uncivil speech in social media. Just as there is reason to object to governments that suppress free speech in the public sphere, we should arguably oppose acts of censorship by social media platforms in the “digital public sphere” (Schäfer et al. 2015). Accordingly, critics argue that the regulatory activities of social media platforms are contrary to basic democratic values and principles. The suppression of speech in social media is a species of “cancel culture” that stifles freedom of expression and undermines the value of democratic participation (e.g., McGarvey 2022).Against these critics, it is worth keeping in mind that content moderation has for a long time been institutionalized in traditional media (Ward 2014). Publishing and broadcasting is unthinkable without editors enforcing professional standards, codes of responsible journalism and self-regulatory nongovernmental institutions. Hence, the normative issues at stake in the digital public sphere are not altogether new. What is new is who the relevant players are. Standards of content mode","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":"32 2","pages":"356-365"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12807","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144520223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0