Recognition and Difference: Politics, Identity, Multiculture
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 3, Heft 2, S. 224-230
ISSN: 1470-8914
56 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 3, Heft 2, S. 224-230
ISSN: 1470-8914
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 2, Heft 3, S. 397-399
ISSN: 1476-9336
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 77-87
ISSN: 1476-9336
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 2, Heft 3, S. 397-399
ISSN: 1470-8914
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 1, Heft 2, S. 247-249
ISSN: 1476-9336
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 129-131
ISSN: 1476-9336
In: Political studies, Band 50, Heft 2, S. 418
ISSN: 0032-3217
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 1, Heft 2, S. 247-249
ISSN: 1470-8914
In: Contemporary political theory: CPT, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 129-131
ISSN: 1470-8914
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 49, Heft 4, S. 749-766
ISSN: 1467-9248
The post-war question of German guilt resonates in contemporary world politics, framing the way actors and observers conceptualize collective responsibility for past wrongs in diverse polities. This article examines the responses of Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers to the 'German question': in what sense are ordinary citizens collectively accountable for state crimes and how should they respond to the legacy of past wrongs? Arendt and Jaspers agree on conceiving collective responsibility in terms of a liability predicated on political association that does not impute blame. However, they disagree on the value of the sentiment of guilt in politics. For Jaspers, a spreading consciousness of guilt through public communication leads to purification of the polity. But Arendt rejects guilt in politics, where publicity distorts it into a sentimentality that dulls citizens' responsiveness to the world. These contrasting responses are employed to consider how members of a 'perpetrating community' might be drawn into a politics of reconciliation. I suggest that Arendt's conception of political responsibility, conceived in terms of an ethic of worldliness, opens the way for understanding how 'ordinary citizens' might assume political responsibility for past wrongs while resisting their identification as guilty subjects by a discourse of restorative reconciliation.
In: Political studies, Band 49, Heft 4, S. 749-766
ISSN: 0032-3217
The postwar question of German guilt resonates in contemporary world politics, framing the way actors & observers conceptualize collective responsibility for past wrongs in diverse polities. This article examines the responses of Hannah Arendt & Karl Jaspers to the "German question": in what sense are ordinary citizens collectively accountable for state crimes & how should they respond to the legacy of past wrongs? Arendt & Jaspers agree on conceiving collective responsibility in terms of a liability predicated on political association that does not impute blame. However, they disagree on the value of the sentiment of guilt in politics. For Jaspers, a spreading consciousness of guilt through public communication leads to purification of the polity. But Arendt rejects guilt in politics, where publicity distorts it into a sentimentality that dulls citizens' responsiveness to the world. These contrasting responses are employed to consider how members of a "perpetrating community" might be drawn into a politics of reconciliation. I suggest that Arendt's conception of political responsibility, conceived in terms of an ethic of worldliness, opens the way for understanding how "ordinary citizens" might assume political responsibility for past wrongs while resisting their identification as guilty subjects by a discourse of restorative reconciliation. 47 References. Adapted from the source document.
In: Political studies, Band 49, Heft 4, S. 788
ISSN: 0032-3217
In: Political studies, Band 49, Heft 4, S. 749-766
ISSN: 0032-3217
In: Politics, Band 20, Heft 3, S. 129-135
ISSN: 1467-9256
Michel Foucault calls for the head of the king in political theory. In doing so he seems to sever the concept of power from its relation to human responsibility. However, for theoretical 'monarchists' such as Stephen Lukes, the whole point of identifying a relationship of power is to fix responsibility for its exercise. Given the contingency of political action, I agree with Foucault that it is not always possible to attribute responsibility for the effects of power to a particular agent. However, Foucault stretches the concept of power too far beyond its ethical association with human responsibility. Consequently, the idea of power becomes practically meaningless.
In: Politics, Band 20, Heft 3, S. 129-135
ISSN: 0263-3957
Michel Foucault calls for the head of the king in political theory. In doing so, he seems to sever the concept of power from its relation to human responsibility. However, for theoretical "monarchists" such as Stephen Lukes, the whole point of identifying a relationship of power is to fix responsibility for its exercise. Given the contingency of political action, I agree with Foucault that it is not always possible to attribute responsibility for the effects of power to a particular agent. However, Foucault stretches the concept of power too far beyond its ethical association with human responsibility. Consequently, the idea of power becomes practically meaningless. 13 References. Adapted from the source document.