Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACT
Thomas More's Utopia, a book that will be 500 years old next year, is astonishingly radical stuff. Not many lord chancellors of England have denounced private property, advocated a form of communism and described the current social order as a "conspiracy of the rich." Such men, the book announces, are "greedy, unscrupulous and useless." There are a great number of noblemen, More complains, who live like drones on the labour of others. Tenants are evicted so that "one insatiable glutton and accursed plague of his native land" may consolidate his fields. Monarchs, he argues, would do well to swear at their inauguration never to have more than 1,000lbs of gold in their coffers. Perhaps this is one reason why Utopia is not bedside reading in Buckingham Palace. Instead of being worshipped, gold and silver should, he suggests, be used to make chamber pots. War is fit only for beasts, and standing armies should be disbanded. Labour should be reduced to a minimum, though the TUC might balk at the suggestion that workers would use some of their leisure time to attend public lectures before daybreak.

The paper deals with the presence of culture and its impact on social life as a whole, that is with its transformation from a private pastime to a pervasive social phenomenon. Culture has become ambiguous and while on the one hand it represents a positive social reality, on the other hand it is the enemy of everything that the liberal holds dear – reason, universal right, personal liberty, free inquiry, cosmopolitanism, critical reflection – it becomes the enemy of the civilization. ; Рад се бави питањима драматичног присуства културе и њеног утицаја на живот уопште, односно трансформацијом културе од приватне разоноде до свеприсутног друштвеног феномена. Култура постаје амбивалентна појава и, с једне стране, представља позитивну друштвену стварност, док с друге стране постаје непријатељ свега онога што либерали цијене − непријатељ разума, универзалне правде, личних слобода, космополитанизма и критичког промишљања – постаје непријатељ цивилизације.

A critique of the work of literary critic Fredric Jameson calls him one of the "most superb stylists in a largely styleless age." Jameson's knowledge, versatility, & intellectual energy are enhanced by his superior writing ability. Examples from Jameson's recently published collection, The Modernist Papers (2007), are used to illustrate his brilliant & dazzling high-modernist style. Consideration is given to the danger that Jameson's unique style could become a form of reification or a kind of fetish. Other matters discussed include the fissure between being & meaning, existence & signification, that is a central theme of The Modernist Papers; the potential for style to become a "political utopia"; modernism as both a flight from & indulgence in the subject; Jameson's avoidance of the ethical; & difficulties involved in reaching "beyond the fetishized style or art sentence of modernism without toppling over into some blank, postmodern anonymity." In spite of his many attributes, it is concluded that Jameson's signal contribution to criticism is probably the attention he gives to the "content of the form.". Adapted from the source document.

Der Wirtschaftsliberalismus geht sowohl im Westen als auch global nach Meinung des Autors rücksichtslos über Völker und Staaten hinweg und löst dabei jene Art von gewaltsamer sozialer und kultureller Gegenreaktion aus, mit der der Liberalismus am wenigsten umzugehen vermag. Auch in diesem Sinne wirft der Terrorismus ein Schlaglicht auf die für den liberalen Kapitalismus charakteristischen Widersprüche. Denn die pluralistischen liberalen Gesellschaften vertreten nicht so sehr verschiedene Formen des Glaubens, sondern glauben, dass es den Menschen gestattet sein sollte, frei ihren Glauben zu leben. Doch dieser Wert - die endlose, unlenksame und ewig ergebnislose Diskussion der liberalen Gesellschaft - macht sie auch verwundbar. Ein solider nationaler Konsens, wie er angesichts eines Angriffs von außen wünschenswert ist, lässt sich in liberalen Demokratien kaum herstellen, und gerade dann nicht, wenn sie multikulturalistisch werden. Der Autor diskutiert vor diesem Hintergrund grundsätzliche Fragen zum Verhältnis von Zivilisation und Barbarei sowie von Metaphysik und Bedrohung der Gesellschaftsordnung durch den Terrorismus. (ICI2)

-