Im neunten Buch von Lucans Bellum civile übernimmt Cato der Jüngere den durch Pompeius´ Ermordung in Ägypten vakant gewordenen Oberbefehl über die bei Pharsalos von Caesar geschlagenen pompejanischen Truppen. Cato versucht die republikanische Verfassung vor dem Tyrannen Caesar zu retten. Aus dem verbrecherischen Bürgerkrieg zweier Despoten, Pompeius und Caesar, ist somit ein bellum iustum geworden (9, 292-293). Nachdem Cato Pompeius durch eine laudatio funebris die letzte Ehre erwiesen hat (9, 190-214), besteht er eine Reihe von Bewährungsproben und erweist sich als idealer Feldherr. Zur Charakterisierung Catos greift Lucan verschiedene literarische Traditionen auf. Cato übertrifft den homerischen Odysseus (9, 294-299. 388-389) und Alexander den Großen (9, 268-269. 493-510. 564-586); er entspricht in vollkommener Weise dem Feldherrenideal, wie es sich bei den römischen Historikern der Republik (Sallust; Livius) findet (9,294-296. 379-406. 587-593). Zentrum und Höhepunkt des neunten Buchs stellt Lucans Bewertung Catos in 9, 587-604 dar. Die Triumphzüge des Pompeius und des Marius sind geringer einzuschätzen als die Leistung Catos, obwohl er schließlich Caesar unterliegt. Entsprechend der stoischen Ethik bemißt sich der Wer einer Leistung nicht nach dem äußeren Erfolg -dieser hängt allein von der Fortuna ab- , sondern nach der vorbehaltlosen Erfüllung des moralisch Gebotenen. Für den Erhalt der Republik ist Cato in den Tod gegangen; er ist mulitärischer Held und pater patriae; er verdient göttliche Verehrung.Die stoische Moralphilosphie ist Kern der Poetik Lucans; daneben greift er jedoch auch auf andere stoische Theoreme zurück. Vor allem die Naturschilderungen (9, 303-318. 420-420-444. 444-492) lehnen sich an stoische Lehre an. Zuweilen finden sich auch Rückgriffe auf Lucrez (9, 76-77. 315-318. 471-472). Lucan ist poeta doctus; er gibt eine wissenschaftlich-rationale Weltdeutung.Der Stil Lucans ist geprägt durch das Paradox und die Sentenz. Dem Leser wird auf diese Weise die Ungerechtigkeit des Schicksals vor Augen geführt, das es zugelassen hat, daß Rom unter die Herrschaft von Tyrannen geraten ist. Lucan beabsichtigt die Empörung seiner Leser hervorzurufen und ermuntert sie, gegen die Kaiser Widerstand zu leisten. ; In the ninth book of Lucan´s Bellum civile Cato the Younger takes over the supreme command of the republican army, which was vacant after the defeat of Pharsalos and the murder of Pompey in Egypt. He reorganizes the opposition against the tyrant Caesar and tries to save the republican constitution of Rome. In this way, the unjust civil war between two despots, Caear and Pompey, becomes a bellum iustum (9, 292-293). After he has paid his last respects to Pompey in a laudatio funebris (9, 190-214), Cato passes a series of tests of his military bravery and proves, that he is an ideal strategist. Lucan uses different literary traditions to characterize Cato. Cato surpasses the homeric Ulysses (9, 294-299. 388-389) and Alexander the Great (9,268-269. 493-510. 564-568). In addition, he matches perfectly the military ideals of the historians of the Roman republic, eg. Sallustius and Livius (9,294-296. 379-406. 587-593). The focus and the peak of the ninth book is Lucan´s praise of Cato in 9, 587-604. The triumphs of Pompey and Marius must be considered of lesser value compared to the accomplishments of Cato, although ultimately he will be defeated by Caesar. In accordance with stoic ethics, the value of these efforts is not determined with respect to their final success -which depends only on the Fortuna-, but with respect to the unconditional fulfillment of the moral duty. Cato has died in order to preserve the republic; therefore, he is a military hero and the true pater patriae; he deserves divine worship. Stoic ethics are the principal item of Lucan´s poetry, but he also uses other theorems of the stoic philosophy. Above all, the descriptions of Africa´s nature (9, 303-318. 420-444. 444-492) follow the stoic doctrine. Sometimes there are also recourses to Lucretius (9, 76-77. 315-318. 471-472). Lucan is a poeta doctus; he describes history and nature in rational and scientific manner. Lucan´s style is characterized by paradoxa and rhetorical sententiae. Througout the text, these stylistic means demonstrate the injustice of Fortuna to the reader. Fortuna has subjugated Rome to tyranny. Lucan intends to provoke indignation about this fact in his readers and encourages them to resist the emperors, the despotic successors of Caesar.
A study limited to M youth of Turkey, & further restricted to U S's at Robert Coll, Istanbul, & at the U of Ankara. Robert Coll is a private institution founded under US auspices using US textbooks. S's are from wealthier families including many Christians probably sympathetic to Westernization. Values were studied by a questionnaire condensed from one used by J. Gillespie & G. W. Allport to study youths in 10 diff countries & translated into Turkish & supplemented with some additional questions. It was administered anonymously during group meetings to 72% of Coll M Turkish S's & 68% of the relevant pop at Ankara although an attempt was made to obtain a complete coverage of M Turkish citizens. By comparison with the Gillespie-Allport study of Egypt & Israel, Westernized countries such as the US & France, & other countries such as Africa & Mexico, the Turkish S value profile can be located with this spectrum of countries. The S's at Ankara are modern in respect to dress, hygiene, health practices, possessions, etc,in comparison with neighboring villages. Turkish history has emphasized militarism & this is revealed in the S's attitude toward war: 33% feel war is sometimes a good thing, & this is similar to findings for other emergent countries such as Egypt, Mexico, & South Africa; but Turkish S's are more apt than others to think the world will escape another war. Nationalism is a recent development & is strongly emphasized by these S's. The data do not suggest that Turkish youth are ready to support a newer Western value of internationalism. Family loyalties are part of the traditional position, & these S's show these loyalties though sometimes they are 2nd to nationalism where rankings are asked for. The Revolution removed religion from influence in pol'al & private life; & though some of the policies have recently been relaxed, these S's ranked religion as the lowest of 6 sectors of life while 69% felt a religious belief was necessary to a mature philosophy of life. In comparison with the Gillespie-Allport findings, the Turkish youth rank with the Westernized countries on this value. Traditional pol'al absolutism no longer exists among the S's, but authoritarianism has persisted. Data on various classes show that the central values decline during their Coll stay, becoming more Western as a result of educ & the particular emphasis of the curriculum on soc & pol'al sci. These changes do not result from greater maturity of higher educ per se since the S's do not show the progressive change from freshman to senior yr though they differ in their aggregate values. The Robert Coll S value profile should be more Western. Comparisons are for Moslem youth since this provides the test of the educ'al process without the subcultural influences. Robert Coll S's are less likely to exhibit the value of nationalism, more likely to exhibit internationalism. They are less likely to be militaristic, less likely to be religious, & though they are similar to Ankara S's on absolutism, they are less authoritarian. The data on family values are inconsistent. Comparison to the Gillespie-Allport findings shows that they are as extremely traditional as any groups on the central value of nationalism & militarism. Christian S's at Robert Coll are more Westernized than either Robert Coll Moslems or Ankara S's though in comparison with other countries studied, they also adhere to the central Turkish traditional values. J. D. Twight.
, created in the early 2000s, the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, IPN) became indispensable in the discussions on the history and memory of the Nazi and Soviet 'totalitariisms' in Poland. It is the main Polish research centre in contemporary history, but also one of the leading publishers and funders for research. His publications offer a rather enchanted narrative that tends to present the history of Poland during World War II as that of a nation of heroes and victims. The activities of the IPN have given rise to and still give rise to numerous controversy, linked inter alia to the history of the Shoah. These controversy are linked to the central role played by the IPN in the 'historical politics' of the Polish state, which is more than ever characterised by a desire to present an unequivocal narrative on certain aspects of history, starting with 'Polish-Jewish relations' during the German occupation. The article begins by referring to the contribution of the IPN to the development and renewal of the history of the Second World War in Poland. He then referred to the main features of the 1939-1945 narrative offered by the IPN. Finally, the difficulties in calling this enchanted narrative into question, illustrated by the hostile reactions of the IPN management to the development of some research on the Shoah, were discussed. ; International audience Created in the early 2000s, the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, IPN) has become a key player in the discussions on the history and memory of Nazi and Soviet "totalitarianisms" in Poland. This institute is the main Polish research centre in contemporary history, but also one of the main publishers and funders of research. His publications offer a rather biased narrative, which tends to present the history of Poland during the Second World War as that of a nation of heroes and victims. The IPN's activities have triggered and are still triggering many controversies, linked among other things to ...
In this dissertation, I analyse how, in the modern period, the different scientific domains dealing with music were divided, and how, at the same time, musical repertories were organised into a hierarchy. This research, focused on the French case, is based on a socio-historical enquiry and on several sources dating from the beginning of the seventeenth to the mid-twentieth century. Those sources are both manuscript andprinted, and range from administrative documents, scientific and museum archives, conference proceedings and other printed sources related to the Universal Exhibitions, to archives from the publishing sector and other pieces related to the collection and curating of musical instruments, songs and audio recordings. The following methods were mobilised : lexical analysis, textual sociology, databases and historicalethnography.The enquiry emphasizes a configuration of the process of making music a part of national heritage by the French State, which is also a long-term process of social differentiation through the music. Collecting and curating operations of musical objects were initiated by the Second Empire and consolidated by the Third Republic. These operations have contributed to make certain repertories anhistorical, and theserepertories, thus kept in a zone below history, were separated from a « modern » repertory, whose evolution was described first by comparative history of music and then by musicology. This separation is analysed as a symbolic domination system, which was enacted by several administrations (Public Instruction, Trading and Industry, Fine Arts, Colonies), produced and reproduced by different agents commissioned by the State (teachers and professors, academicians, curators, territorial leaders, etc.). The repertories which were « made primitive » during the second half of the nineteenth century were grouped under the generic appellation of « traditional musics » and constituted, in a second time, as objects of predilection for a particular discipline – ethnomusicology – born ...
In this dissertation, I analyse how, in the modern period, the different scientific domains dealing with music were divided, and how, at the same time, musical repertories were organised into a hierarchy. This research, focused on the French case, is based on a socio-historical enquiry and on several sources dating from the beginning of the seventeenth to the mid-twentieth century. Those sources are both manuscript andprinted, and range from administrative documents, scientific and museum archives, conference proceedings and other printed sources related to the Universal Exhibitions, to archives from the publishing sector and other pieces related to the collection and curating of musical instruments, songs and audio recordings. The following methods were mobilised : lexical analysis, textual sociology, databases and historicalethnography.The enquiry emphasizes a configuration of the process of making music a part of national heritage by the French State, which is also a long-term process of social differentiation through the music. Collecting and curating operations of musical objects were initiated by the Second Empire and consolidated by the Third Republic. These operations have contributed to make certain repertories anhistorical, and theserepertories, thus kept in a zone below history, were separated from a « modern » repertory, whose evolution was described first by comparative history of music and then by musicology. This separation is analysed as a symbolic domination system, which was enacted by several administrations (Public Instruction, Trading and Industry, Fine Arts, Colonies), produced and reproduced by different agents commissioned by the State (teachers and professors, academicians, curators, territorial leaders, etc.). The repertories which were « made primitive » during the second half of the nineteenth century were grouped under the generic appellation of « traditional musics » and constituted, in a second time, as objects of predilection for a particular discipline – ethnomusicology – born between 1950 and 1960.Deemed as legitimate for several decades, these learned differentiations are presently interrogated by practitioners of these domains. In this context, this dissertation historicises the emergence of the oppositional couple primitive/civilised, underlying these divisions within the sciences of music and musical repertories, and therefore its ambition is to contribute to these contemporary debates. ; Cette thèse analyse la division moderne des domaines des sciences de la musique et la hiérarchisation des répertoires musicaux qui lui est corrélative. La recherche s'appuie sur une enquête socio-historique menée à partir du cas français et sur plusieurs sources courant du début du XVIIème au milieu du XXème siècle. Elle mobilise des ressources manuscrites et imprimées (documents administratifs, archives savantes et muséales, actes de congrès et autres imprimés issus des Expositions universelles, archives du secteur de l'édition, pièces documentant la collecte et la conservation d'instruments de musique, de chansons et d'enregistrements sonores) qui sont traitées à l'aide de plusieurs méthodes (analyse lexicale, sociologie des textes, bases de données, ethnographie historique).L'enquête met en lumière une configuration de patrimonialisation de la musique pilotée par l'État-nation français, qui participe d'un processus de longue durée de différenciation du social par la musique. Des opérations de collecte et de conservation des objets de musique sont impulsées par le Second Empire et confortées par la Troisième République. Elles concourent à assigner certains répertoires, portés par des populations vivantes, à une anhistoricité – un en-deçà de l'histoire. Ceux-ci sont distingués d'un répertoire « moderne » dont l'histoire comparée de la musique puis la musicologie s'attachent à décrire les progrès. Ce partage est analysé comme un système de domination symbolique institué par plusieurs administrations (Instruction publique, Commerce et Industrie, Beaux-Arts, Colonies), produit et reproduit par différent·e·s agent·e·s mandaté·e·s par l'État (Professeur·e·s, académicien·ne·s, conservateurs et conservatrices, dirigeant·e·s territoriaux). Les répertoires primitivisés au cours de la seconde moitié du XIXème siècle sont regroupés sous l'appellation générique de « musiques de la tradition » et constitués dans un second temps en objets de prédilection d'un domaine disciplinaire – l'ethnomusicologie – qui émerge entre 1950 et 1960.Considérés comme légitimes durant plusieurs décennies, ces différenciations savantes sont aujourd'hui interrogées par les praticien·ne·s de ces domaines. En historicisant l'émergence du couple oppositionnel primitif/civilisé sous-jacent aux divisions des sciences de la musique et des répertoires musicaux, cette thèse voudrait contribuer à nourrir ces débats contemporains.
In this dissertation, I analyse how, in the modern period, the different scientific domains dealing with music were divided, and how, at the same time, musical repertories were organised into a hierarchy. This research, focused on the French case, is based on a socio-historical enquiry and on several sources dating from the beginning of the seventeenth to the mid-twentieth century. Those sources are both manuscript andprinted, and range from administrative documents, scientific and museum archives, conference proceedings and other printed sources related to the Universal Exhibitions, to archives from the publishing sector and other pieces related to the collection and curating of musical instruments, songs and audio recordings. The following methods were mobilised : lexical analysis, textual sociology, databases and historicalethnography.The enquiry emphasizes a configuration of the process of making music a part of national heritage by the French State, which is also a long-term process of social differentiation through the music. Collecting and curating operations of musical objects were initiated by the Second Empire and consolidated by the Third Republic. These operations have contributed to make certain repertories anhistorical, and theserepertories, thus kept in a zone below history, were separated from a « modern » repertory, whose evolution was described first by comparative history of music and then by musicology. This separation is analysed as a symbolic domination system, which was enacted by several administrations (Public Instruction, Trading and Industry, Fine Arts, Colonies), produced and reproduced by different agents commissioned by the State (teachers and professors, academicians, curators, territorial leaders, etc.). The repertories which were « made primitive » during the second half of the nineteenth century were grouped under the generic appellation of « traditional musics » and constituted, in a second time, as objects of predilection for a particular discipline – ethnomusicology – born ...
In this dissertation, I analyse how, in the modern period, the different scientific domains dealing with music were divided, and how, at the same time, musical repertories were organised into a hierarchy. This research, focused on the French case, is based on a socio-historical enquiry and on several sources dating from the beginning of the seventeenth to the mid-twentieth century. Those sources are both manuscript andprinted, and range from administrative documents, scientific and museum archives, conference proceedings and other printed sources related to the Universal Exhibitions, to archives from the publishing sector and other pieces related to the collection and curating of musical instruments, songs and audio recordings. The following methods were mobilised : lexical analysis, textual sociology, databases and historicalethnography.The enquiry emphasizes a configuration of the process of making music a part of national heritage by the French State, which is also a long-term process of social differentiation through the music. Collecting and curating operations of musical objects were initiated by the Second Empire and consolidated by the Third Republic. These operations have contributed to make certain repertories anhistorical, and theserepertories, thus kept in a zone below history, were separated from a « modern » repertory, whose evolution was described first by comparative history of music and then by musicology. This separation is analysed as a symbolic domination system, which was enacted by several administrations (Public Instruction, Trading and Industry, Fine Arts, Colonies), produced and reproduced by different agents commissioned by the State (teachers and professors, academicians, curators, territorial leaders, etc.). The repertories which were « made primitive » during the second half of the nineteenth century were grouped under the generic appellation of « traditional musics » and constituted, in a second time, as objects of predilection for a particular discipline – ethnomusicology – born between 1950 and 1960.Deemed as legitimate for several decades, these learned differentiations are presently interrogated by practitioners of these domains. In this context, this dissertation historicises the emergence of the oppositional couple primitive/civilised, underlying these divisions within the sciences of music and musical repertories, and therefore its ambition is to contribute to these contemporary debates. ; Cette thèse analyse la division moderne des domaines des sciences de la musique et la hiérarchisation des répertoires musicaux qui lui est corrélative. La recherche s'appuie sur une enquête socio-historique menée à partir du cas français et sur plusieurs sources courant du début du XVIIème au milieu du XXème siècle. Elle mobilise des ressources manuscrites et imprimées (documents administratifs, archives savantes et muséales, actes de congrès et autres imprimés issus des Expositions universelles, archives du secteur de l'édition, pièces documentant la collecte et la conservation d'instruments de musique, de chansons et d'enregistrements sonores) qui sont traitées à l'aide de plusieurs méthodes (analyse lexicale, sociologie des textes, bases de données, ethnographie historique).L'enquête met en lumière une configuration de patrimonialisation de la musique pilotée par l'État-nation français, qui participe d'un processus de longue durée de différenciation du social par la musique. Des opérations de collecte et de conservation des objets de musique sont impulsées par le Second Empire et confortées par la Troisième République. Elles concourent à assigner certains répertoires, portés par des populations vivantes, à une anhistoricité – un en-deçà de l'histoire. Ceux-ci sont distingués d'un répertoire « moderne » dont l'histoire comparée de la musique puis la musicologie s'attachent à décrire les progrès. Ce partage est analysé comme un système de domination symbolique institué par plusieurs administrations (Instruction publique, Commerce et Industrie, Beaux-Arts, Colonies), produit et reproduit par différent·e·s agent·e·s mandaté·e·s par l'État (Professeur·e·s, académicien·ne·s, conservateurs et conservatrices, dirigeant·e·s territoriaux). Les répertoires primitivisés au cours de la seconde moitié du XIXème siècle sont regroupés sous l'appellation générique de « musiques de la tradition » et constitués dans un second temps en objets de prédilection d'un domaine disciplinaire – l'ethnomusicologie – qui émerge entre 1950 et 1960.Considérés comme légitimes durant plusieurs décennies, ces différenciations savantes sont aujourd'hui interrogées par les praticien·ne·s de ces domaines. En historicisant l'émergence du couple oppositionnel primitif/civilisé sous-jacent aux divisions des sciences de la musique et des répertoires musicaux, cette thèse voudrait contribuer à nourrir ces débats contemporains.
Based on archive collections, this article looks at the Seznec case, an unsuccessful project by filmmaker André Cayatte written in the early 1950s. The film is halfway between fiction and documentary and seeks to demonstrate the innocence of a former forçat found guilty of murder in 1924. Several versions of the scenario exist, one of which uses innovative forms which today would recall television more than cinema. Banned from filming by the authorities, the film "dies" in two other ways. Unofficial censorship does not leave any written record; and criticism from Cahiers du Cayatte attacked the following films by Cayatte, inspired by Seznec, and made this particular style excluded from the film canons that were still heavily influenced by the New Vague. The decisions behind each of these disappearances are motivated by political calculations, even if they are not immediately visible. ; International audience This article examines archival material related to L'Affaire Seznec, an unfinished project from the early 1950s by the filmmaker André Cayatte. Part fiction, part documentary, the film would have attempted to prove the innocence of a former convict, tried for murder in 1924. Several versions of the film script remain, including a final one employing innovative formal strategies that current viewers might associate more with television than cinema. Public authorities acted to prevent the film from being shot, but the project then fell victim to two other forms of "death." First, because the censors were working through unofficial channels, they left no written evidence of their objections. Second, and perhaps more consequentially, the critics of Cahiers du cinéma attacked Cayatte's next films, inspired by Seznec, excluding this particular film style from canons that today are still heavily influenced by the New Wave. The decisions leading to each of these disappearances had political motives, even though they may not be obvious. ; Based on archive collections, this article looks at the Seznec case, an ...
International audience Klerić uses a new instrument, called tractoriograph, for the construction of "impossible" mathematical problems. The major part of these constructions is based on the "circular tractrix", that is the tractrix of a circle traced with the condition that the length or the tractoriograph is equal to the radius of the circle. A spectacular property of this curve is that, if it is joined to a ruler and a compass, it allows the rectification of any arc of the circle. From that, it is easy to construct the number π, to rectify and to square the circle, and to inscribe in it a regular polygon with any number of sides. Incidentally, by using the tractrix of a straight line, Klerić proves that the number e is also constructible with his tractoriograph.
'Der Autor betrachtet die Historische Sozialforschung als Erweiterung der Soziologie, indem er die Konvergenz sozialwissenschaftlicher und historischer Erkenntniskonzepte herausarbeitet. Zunächst wird das Verhältnis von Geschichte und Soziologie analysiert. Dazu werden verschiedene Abgrenzungen in Erwägung gezogen: die Abgrenzung der Gegenstandsbereiche; die Abgrenzung der Datenfelder; die Abgrenzung der Erkenntniskonzepte. Die Analyse ergibt, dass weder die Gegenstandsbereiche, noch die Eigenschaften der Daten, noch die grundlegenden Erkenntniskonzepte und die Methodologie eine Unterscheidung zwischen Soziologie und Historie begründen. Best stellt fest, dass eine Geschichtsforschung, bei der theoretische Absichten im Vordergrund stehen, sinnvoll nur als eine diachrone Sozialwissenschaft betrieben werden kann. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat sich die Historische Sozialforschung etabliert, deren Charakteristiken aufgezeigt werden. Die Möglichkeiten der Historischen Sozialforschung werden erörtert: 1. Überprüfung der Reichweite von Gesetzesaussagen; 2. Aufdeckung von Prozessgesetzen; 3. Entdeckung und Erklärung von sozialen Traditionsbeständen; 4. Beobachtung von Ungleichzeitigkeiten. Die Soziologie sei im Kern eine historische Wissenschaft, weil Wandel, Beharrung und Ungleichzeitigkeit elementare Kategorien soziologischer Theoriebildung sind. Deshalb wird als Aufgabe der historischen Sozialforschung definiert, der soziologischen Empirie die erforderliche zeitliche Tiefe zu geben.' (Autorenreferat)
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Kimberly Hutchings on Quiet as a Research Strategy, the Essence of Critique, and the Narcissism of Minor Differences
As a job, International Relations requires carving out one's position by being vocal. Being vocal entails making oneself heard, forwarding identifiable 'contributions'. But what if the biggest contribution one might make would actually consist of quieting down?
In a provocative and wide-ranging Talk, Kimberly Hutchings—amongst others—challenges us to take postcolonialism seriously as an invitation to hush, and provides compelling suggestions as to what critique means in a time of proliferating criticality.
Print version of this Talk (pdf)
What is (or should be), according to you, the biggest challenge / principal debate in current International Relations? What is your position or answer to this challenge / in this debate?
In my view, the main challenge for IR right now is to deal with postcolonialism and decoloniality, which would entail a kind of decentering of the standpoint of judgment within the study of international politics. Essentially, we should move away from the kind of common-sense starting points of Western theory, Western history and all the rest of it. To be sure, this does not necessarily mean disregarding them. Instead, we should avoid always seeing them as the authoritative, and find a way to keep them at a distance in order to make space for the inclusion of other voices. Practicing this inclusion, answering 'what would you do about it', or 'where do you stand' I find more difficult; I have discussed questions of decoloniality and postcolonialism with my colleagues and we all find it very tough to do something different or to suggest alternatives. Especially since we are—or at least I am—educated and structured within a particular (eg. Western) realm of understanding. Because it is so difficult for 'us' to do so, our starting point should therefore exactly be to start from the empirical and theoretical engagement of the political actors on the periphery. By doing so we can begin to decenter our work and the debates. There is an enormous amount of really brilliant decolonial and postcolonial work our there. Here, I think the work of people like Arlene Tickner has been great in attempting to do carve out this space. This goes to prove that scholars are suggesting alternative ways and that it can be done differently.
So perhaps paradoxically, I would summarize my central contribution as a hush—scholars like I have to dampen down our voices in order to allow other voices to be heard. Keeping this is mind can prove to be a really important lesson for theorists. At least I attempt to do so within my particular subfields of theory.
How did you arrive at where you currently are in your thinking about International Relations?
During my route through academia I have been inspired by a number of theorists, books and historical events and I continue to be. However, there are two or three specific points of inspiration that I can draw out; some more philosophical or theoretical ones and others almost accidental to how my thinking has progressed.
Largely, I have arrived at where I am today because I started my PhD on the philosophies of Kant and Hegel. This has set up certain parameters for my way of thinking; for thinking about ethics and about critique, and this has influenced my way of thinking and ultimately my work ever since. Another factor was my time as a young scholar working at the Wolverhampton Polytechnic where I met Steve Gill. He suggested I attended the BISA conference to present a paper on war in relation to Kant and Hegel. He knew this was my field of interest and in the end I accepted. The first panel I attended was okay, though only two people participated. The second panel was far more interesting and featured amongst others Rob Walker. Walker talked about bringing Foucault's insights and ideas about critique to bear on thinking about international politics. This made me realize that my purely philosophical way of thinking in relation to Kantian critique and the problems of Kantian critique were already being worked through within the domain of International Relations as a field of study. It spurred my initial interest as I came to think of IR as a kind of case study of applied political philosophy more generally. In some ways, you could say that the questions I was asking from a political philosophy perspective were being addressed more progressively in IR. Certainly, I caught on to IR when they were being very consciously addressed. The timing and shift in IR spoke directly to me and, in my view, pushed me to think about questions of judgment and argument shifts. Here, one should attempt to genuinely relate to an international or global frame of reference rather that simply taking for granted a kind of methodological nationalism, which, I suspect, up till then had been. In this sense IR pushed my thinking.
It is interesting how it often is the texts you read early on that shape you as a scholar. To me it was the texts I read in the late 1980s, early 1990s, when critical IR was really getting off the ground, which were formative for me. Initially, it has been Kant's political thought and Hegel's philosophy of rights. Additionally, there has been a range of theorists within critical writing; retrospectively the work of Hannah Arendt and The Origins of Totalitarianism in particular. Moreover, Foucault has also been essential to my work; particularly Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality have been really crucial in terms of me looking at a kind of 'fate of critique', if you like, in Western thought in the 20th century. Within IR Andrew Linklater's work is really important, especially his book on Men and Citizens, and afterwards his postcolonial community book from the late 1990s. They are important as a sort of interlocutors, which I in fact reacting against, because I saw them as carrying through this very Habermasian line of thought, with which I did not agree. Obviously also the work of feminists scholars amongst others Cynthia Enloe (TheoryTalk #48) and Christine Sylvester, whose books were very important to me. Again, they enabled me to widen my scope and see how broader themes of feminist philosophy were being addressed in IR.
What would a student need to become a specialist in International Relations or understand the world in a global way?
In order to become a specialist in IR a student's main qualities should be intellectual curiosity, openness, and willingness to engage with ideas. However, it is importing not to insist on 'you must know your Foucault backwards' or 'you must know your Hegel backwards'. To me this is not essential; instead, the focus should be on one's interests and curiosity, and to locate yourself in terms of where you are 'thinking from'. In this way, you are able to relate your ideas and arguments to a specific problematique—perhaps one concerning the political contexts you derived from yourself, and maybe because of the particular intellectual trajectory that you have taken.
Then again, knowing your classic theorists as Foucault and Hegel is definitely beneficial when engaging with IR. When I entered the field of IR, it meant I was already loaded with a set of intellectual parameters, interests and political commitments. Ultimately, this enabled my participation and outcome of conversations with different trajectories within IR. Therefore, what are most important to me are intellectual curiosity, openness, willingness to listen, and a sense of where you are coming from to the conversation. Yet, the great thing about IR is that you do not have to be trained in IR, in any straightforward way. In my view IR is a cross-disciplinary field, where many disciplines and arguments merge; students from law, political science, sociology, who all can have lots to say to IR, and IR can in return have lots to say to you.
The key to combining academia with your own starting point lies to me in education; if you get a good education, there should be space for the individual engagement. Particularly if you are interested in antiracism or in feminism, I would assume, an IR scholar speaking to those areas would encourage you to make space for independent thought. However, all academic work is at the same time a discipline, which at times can be painful to adjust to and actually take on board. Academia is not for everyone; to some it ends up being a waste of time and they long for something different, which is completely fine as well. But in my view it is sign of a poor university education if it closes things down to an extent where you cannot find the space to articulate your views or relate them to the things that you are learning. And that is a fault of the education, not of the student.
You fall squarely among 'critical' IR scholarship. What does it mean, for you, to be critical?
First of all, the term 'critical' is highly contested and in a way it can become a useless label. In my view one of the problems with critical IR is you tend to get into the sort of narcissism of minor differences, which also involves getting into a kind of competition for philosophical antecedence, in which scholars argue either through Marx, through Heidegger or through Foucault. The second problem of critical IR, which I have discussed in my work at various points, is the suspension of judgment forever. Since you can never find the ground, the sort of desire to find the authority in some sense ends up paralyzing judgments. I would argue that when there is a kind of risk that comes with people's willingness to make claims that it can ultimately suspend judgment. Yet, there is still dynamism, and the fact that your claim-making can be precisely deconstructed as in fact a reinforcement of what you are trying to undermine is part of the excitement and the interest of doing critique. The neverendingness of it is challenging in itself. In a sense we would like to be sort of God and in a sense we say 'well, I know that this is right and it just is'. Critique stops you doing it. That is why it is healthy, even though it at the same time can be quite frustrating.
My own personal understanding of what 'critique' and 'critical' means, comes out of my engagement with ideas of Kantian critique. The Kantian critique represent a foundational moment in the sense that both Marxist critique and post-Marxist critique refer back to Kant. In this way, the Kantian critique becomes a very rich starting point, as it has been able to branch out in all kinds of directions, from the sort of Hegelian/Marxist direction to other very different ones. The sort of typical critique is about questioning the assumptions or the authoritative basis of any kinds of claims. In doing so, critique is largely about disturbing the conditions or possibility of a claim that is made, and this is basically what Kant's transcendental move is about. This means that critique can go in lots of directions, some of them more helpful than others. Critique can also end up as a claim to a new authority and in my view, certain forms of post-Kantian critique have done that. I would also argue that there are aspects of Kant's work, where he did the same; in particular in how he moves from one possible ground to another to attempt to underpin some kind of authority for his claims. This might be contentious, but this is my reading of Kant, whereas others probably would argue he construes the space of critique very openly. Put simply, my reading of Kant is in line with Foucault's: critique is the admission that you are always in a tentative position in which any claim to authority is going to be questionable. Within any argument, you are always going to be holding something steady in order to question other parts, which mean you cannot ever escape from having to claim some sort of authority in the arguments you make. However, this does not mean that arguments become an overweening or foundational kind of ground. In a sense it is about keeping things moving, and I quite like the Foucauldian expression of it being an ethos, an attitude, a way of being, rather than a set of techniques or a claim to a moral high ground, which then enables you to show how everybody else is wrong. That is how I think of the concept of 'critical'.
Classical theory plays a big part in your work. If bygone thinkers spoke to the issues they saw in their times, then what do the minds of bygone eras have to say to contemporary issues?
I am never quite sure what the answer to that is. There is a tradition of thinking about canonic thought in the UK, Quentin Skinner is one of them, that is really dubious about talking about Kant or Heidegger in relation to contemporary problems or trying to suggest you can have a philosophical conversation across time and space. I have spent some time on this argument and in my view they are to a great extent right, at least if you think of a conversation with the 'real Hobbes' or someone else. However, there is a sense in which I start from a position in which there is no 'real' whoever. Instead, it should be viewed as a text with arguments and ideas, which you read and interpret in the light both of your time and place, but also the course of a whole set of secondary engagements with that. When reading such texts you are dealing with two hundred years of interpretation of Kant and Hegel. In this sense one must note that the voices of those philosophers as highly mediated in many different ways. If you can still engage with them and find useful insights, then sort of 'why not' seems reasonable. A second argument in terms of philosophers as Kant and Hegel is, the time they wrote in was obviously radically different. Meanwhile, it also had features in terms of the shape the state were taking, the beginnings of what we would now recognize as the modern capitalist market state. They were there, they were before that, and they were looking at the beginnings. They were around during the Napoleonic wars, mostly Hegel but also Kant was at point when the European colonialism or imperialism took off in particular ways. Here, a lot of the categories of race, culture etc. took shape under their noses. In this sense we are still within a frame that they were a part of, rather than excluded from. If you look at Machiavelli, he was speaking in a radically different time and space. There is an argument there about occupying a world that in some sense we still recognize or perhaps of Kant and Hegel trying to construct ways of understanding and judging a world that still has links to the world we inhabit today. That is another reason why they are still useful today. We all get our ideas from somewhere; as long as we do no argue that referring to Kant, Hegel, Foucault or Arendt makes it right. Instead, use ideas as they come and mix and match them, it is reasonable to be eclectic, depending on what kinds of claims you are making. If you attempt to do a solid reading of Kant, then you must know both the texts and the context, but if you wish to discuss critique in IR you can, in my view, take some elements of Kant or the post-Kantian legacy and use them to illuminate a contemporary debate.
The encounter between the West and the non-West is an important theme running through your work, and you liberally engage with post-colonial theory. So how does that work in practice?
The problem to someone who is trying to critique Eurocentrism or get away from it is that you cannot do it in an isolated way. One of the ways in which people try to think about the inclusion of other voices was in terms of the notion of dialogue. This was actually why I ended up writing about dialogue. My problem here was that some of the ways of thinking about dialogue seemed to me to simply confirm the centrality of the West and the position of the non-West as other. The big question is then how do you articulate the non-West? In my view the thing is that you simply do not; instead one must think constructively about how you quiet down, how you moderate dominant voices and create spaces for others. Sometimes it may just be a question of just being quiet, it may be about encouraging other work, it may be about encouraging theoretical investment in other places.
I am talking to you now, but in some sense what I am doing is enforcing the position of the privileged white, Western, middle-class woman. In my position talking about Eurocentrism and critique is merely by the fact of doing it, I am reinforcing a certain privilege and a certain sense of it. And this is not to say that you therefore you do not do it. Sometimes it is not useful to have someone like me on a panel; it is a much better thing to have somebody else, somebody younger or somebody from a different part of the world. To me this is what you have to think about, and as a scholar you have think about how you can contribute to creating spaces within which other voices can be included. To be honest, I do not think I have done a very good job of doing that. To quiet yourself down is really difficult; especially since there is so many institutional and other incentives for you to try and occupy the center stage. In my view it is something that maybe feminist scholarship has been better at.
In this sense it relates to a much bigger set of issues that social science is about; social sciences were and are kind of an imperialist project in their foundation. Whether or not you can ever make them to anything else, I doubt. It might be that you cannot, in which case the move to aesthetics, for example, which you see in some bits of IR, is understandable. It is difficult in the sense that we cannot do what we want to do by staying within the vocabularies of social science. We have to move to another kind of discourse in order to do what we think we need to do.
So here we navigate the space between scholarship and activism. I remember this picture of you delivering a lecture on a road blocking an arms convoy.
Yes, my very minor piece of activism, except it was the people that were being handcuffed on the road who were the real activists, not me. I think it is really important to be clear that doing critical theory as an IR scholar does not make you a political activist, and I think it is important, because it can sometimes feel really good to make a gesture of whatever, you know, 'being critical'. And that's all great, but actually it's all within an incredibly privileged forum and you're not really making any difference to anything. So, I'm a bit I think Hegelian in the sense that I think that philosophy or academic work is about understanding more, trying to understand and to think, and it may well generate frameworks and ideas that make it useful in various ways, and it may well not, but if you want to have revolution, go out and start organizing. You know, don't think that you can somehow do it by being on ISA panels. Marx was a political activist, he didn't just sit around writing, he was part of the movement, part of an organization, and that's the only way you really can help bring fundamental change, and quite often it'll go wrong. Being a political activist is much more scary and difficult than being a critical IR thinker.
Kimberly Hutchings is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Queen Mary University of London. She is a leading scholar in international relations theory. She has extensively researched and published on international political theory in respect to Kantian and Hegelian philosophy, international and global ethics, Feminist theory and philosophy, and politics and violence. Her work is influenced by the scholarly tradition that produced the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory. She is the author of Kant, Critique and Politics, International Political Theory: rethinking ethics in a global era, Hegel and Feminist Philosophy and Time and World Politics: thinking the present. Her current focus is on the areas of global ethics, assumptions about time and history in theories of international relations, and the conceptual relationship between politics and violence in Western political thought.
Related links
Faculty Profile at Queen Mary's
Read Hutchings' Ethics, Feminism and International Affairs (2013) here (pdf) Read Hutching's What is Orientation in Thinking? On the Question of Time and Timeliness in Cosmopolitical Thought (2011) here (pdf) Read Hutching's World Politics and the Question of Progress (2004) here (pdf)
Is it possible to be religiously exclusive and socially inclusive? How do we deal with those outside of our own religious community who have completely different and sometimes conflicting views on what should be considered true and right behaviour? What if a religious tradition orders the expulsion or killing of those who leave the faith community and adopt another worldview? This book focuses on biblical texts concerning exclusivity and apostasy, studying different interpretations of such texts. It starts with the Jewish and Christian tradition of the Hebrew Bible, continues with texts from the New Testament, and explores diverse social studies to find ways of understanding the relationship between exclusion and inclusion today. Part of this exploration is the interaction with Jewish and Islamic voices. The collection ends with a systematic and missiological reflection on the issues Christian churches and other religious communities must address today
Macht und Legitimität der europäischen Argumentationszusammenhänge haben gelitten. Dennoch zählen Interessen und Ideen in Europa weiter nur dann, wenn sie als Argumente vorgebracht werden. Jenseits des Argumentierens ist Europa unregierbar. Zwei Fragen stehen im Zentrum des Bandes: Was meint Argumentieren? Wie lauten die Argumente Europas? Mit Aristoteles und Wittgenstein entwickelt der erste Teil eine Methode zur Narration politischer Argumentationszusammenhänge. Der zweite Teil legt eine historische Sprachspieltopik von der Montanunion bis zum Green New Deal vor. Das Buch ist gleichermaßen interessant für alle mit praktischem Interesse an der EU wie für alle mit sprachphilosophischem Interesse an der Politikwissenschaft.
Welche Rolle spielen Algorithmen für den Bildbau und die Darstellung von Welt und Wetter in Computerspielen? Wie beeinflusst die Gestaltung der Räume, Level und Topografien die Entscheidungen und das Verhalten der Spieler_innen? Ist der Brutalismus der erste genuine Architekturstil der Computerspiele? Welche Bedeutung haben Landschaftsgärten und Nationalparks im Strukturieren von Spielwelten? Wie wird Natur in Zeiten des Klimawandels dargestellt? Insbesondere in den letzten 20 Jahren adaptieren digitale Spielwelten akribischer denn je Merkmale der physisch-realen Welt. Durch aufwändige Produktionsverfahren und komplexe Visualisierungsstrategien wird die Angleichung an unsere übrige Alltagswelt stets in Abhängigkeit von Spielmechanik und Weltlichkeit erzeugt. Wie sich spätestens am Beispiel der Open-World-Spiele zeigt, führt die Übernahme bestimmter Weltbilder und Bildtraditionen zu ideologischen Implikationen, die weit über die bisher im Fokus der Forschung stehenden, aus anderen Medienformaten transferierten Erzählkonventionen hinausgehen. Mit seiner Theorie der Architektur als medialem Scharnier legt der Autor offen, dass digitale Spielwelten medienspezifische Eigenschaften aufweisen, die bisher nicht zu greifen waren und der Erforschung harrten. Durch Verschränken von Konzepten aus u.a. Medienwissenschaft, Game Studies, Philosophie, Architekturtheorie, Humangeografie, Landschaftstheorie und Kunstgeschichte erarbeitet Bonner ein transdisziplinäres Theoriemodell und ermöglicht anhand der daraus entwickelten analytischen Methoden erstmals, die komplexe Struktur heutiger Computerspiele - vom Indie Game bis zur AAA Open World - zu verstehen und zu benennen. Mit "Offene-Welt-Strukturen" wird die Architektonik digitaler Spielwelten umfassend zugänglich.
