Suchergebnisse

AbstractIt is thought that political order in premodern Europe was characterized by overlapping and crosscutting forms of authority. Scholars have called this heteronomy, arguing that it preceded and may follow the modern sovereign state system and that it has characterized various historical locales around the world. We maintain that this conception has been under-examined, and we identity three different forms of heteronomy that existed historically. These include: (1) interstitial heteronomy, where polities with limited capacity in low-density regions experience zones of informal mixed rule on the frontier; (2) functional heteronomy, where states in thickly populated systems develop complex patterns of functional differentiation; and (3) personalistic heteronomy, where power that is invested in individuals rather than territorially defined polities can produce patterns of dual vassalage. We develop a theory of heteronomy based on the density of the system (low, high) and the nature of political relations (territorial, personal), and using the resulting two-dimensional map we explore the form of heteronomy that existed and may exist in different systems across time and space. We conclude that when scholars envisage heteronomy in the modern system, it is mostly functional, and not interstitial or personalistic heteronomy, which they have in mind.

Digitalization has two very different effects on work. On the one hand, it leads to a re-Taylorization of work, de-qualification and a loss of workers autonomy. On the other hand, digitalization of work leads to new forms of indirect control and algorithmic control that can be used to manage and instrumentalize the supposed autonomy of workers to actually enable an unequal and exploitative labour process. This article discusses the questions of heteronomy related to the digitalization of work, presents central aspects of new forms of control (direct, indirect, and algorithmic) and explains why formalization, data centred decision making and flexible structures are used to control the labour process and improve heteronomy of work.

AbstractThe concept of the Anthropocene reflects a particular meaning of the "human" as it exists in society, and a specific understanding of freedom, which only became possible at the close of the twentieth century. Whereas Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant, Rousseau, and Adam Smith attempted to grasp the potential for humanity to be changed through society in a self-conscious process of attaining freedom, the "Age of Man" today appears entirely disconnected from human agency. Indeed, the Anthropocene is associated not with the flourishing of life but with the sixth mass extinction. Drawing insight from classical and contemporary critical theory, this paper seeks to explicate the emancipatory potential within the concept of the Anthropocene, and the ways in which this potential is blocked by material circumstances that masquerade as "freedom."

"Recognizing the essential heteronomy of postmodern philosophy of religion, Merold Westphal argues against the assumption that human reason is universal, neutral, and devoid of presupposition. Instead, Westphal contends that any philosophy is a matter of faith and the philosophical encounter with theology arises from the very act of thinking. Relying on the work of Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel, Westphal discovers that their theologies render them mutually incompatible and their claims to be the voice of autonomous and universal resaon look dubious. Westphal grapples with this plural nature of human thought in the philosophy of religion and he forwards the idea that any appeal to the divine must rest on a historical and phenomenological analysis."--

This book analyzes ways how three fringe players of the modern diplomatic order - the Holy See, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and the EU - have been accommodated within that order, revealing that the modern diplomatic order is less state-centric than conventionally assumed and is instead better conceived of as a heteronomy.

Is it possible to limit heteronomy under oppression through critical self-assessment and self-transformation? I answer by testing available models of autonomy in light of their capacity to deal with the forms of heteronomy which typically characterise oppression. Drawing from Foucault's analysis of power relations, I claim that there are significantly different ways of being oppressed in contemporary Western societies and that we need to account for this difference when answering if self-emancipation under oppression is possible. First, I look into paradigmatic examples of the two main strategies available in the literature on autonomy: Christman's procedural account, and Stoljar's and Oshana's substantive accounts. I analyse the strengths of these accounts but conclude that, as they stand, they are ill-suited to problematize forms of (what I call) 'subjection', namely forms of oppression which affect agents' "normal" developments qua subjects of different kinds. Crucially, Christman's model lacks resources to problematize settled characters and values, while Stoljar's and Oshana's models cannot sufficiently account for resistance and transgression in oppressive environments. To find a way out of the impasse of the substantive-procedural debate, I turn to Foucault's analysis of power. Foucault's resources are useful both to problematize agency and self-relations as effects of social power relations and to distinguish between the different interferences that contemporary theorists would call 'oppressive'. I argue that some forms of oppression qualify as Foucauldian 'domination', where power imbalances are frozen and irreversible through the (limited) margin of freedom available to the individuals living in those conditions. Other forms of oppression, however, can be likened to what Foucault calls 'government of individualisation', where practices of self-clarification and self-transformation can make agents less heteronomous vis-à-vis specific power configurations. I propose a two-tracked approach to autonomy: a revised procedural account for cases of 'subjection', and a substantive one for cases of 'domination'. ; Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación ; Royal Institute of Philosophy

This article takes the main arguments made by Bourdieu in his late work On Television and Journalism and applies them to the empirical case of the production of discursive visions of Italy and the Italians in Britain from approximately 1840 to the present day. In doing so, Bourdieu's field theory is applied in order to examine and compare the range and diversity of the Italian visions produced at around the mid-point of the 19th century — a period of high cultural autonomy in England — with those produced in the present day. In the account of the present day, the dominant assemblage of discursive practices and the fields from which they derive is explicated and the extent to which these visions are shaped by the `audience ratings' mindset is scrutinized.The article concludes by reflecting on the analytical utility of Bourdieu's field theory for understanding inter-cultural representation.