This article takes as its point of departure the disparity between the empirical poverty of race and its survival, even growth, as a way of understanding history and politics or more specifically, history as politics and politics as history in the Philippines during the nineteenth century. What interested me primarily was how race as a form of praxis is too often and easily ascribed to a discredited science that came into vogue during the nineteenth century. While race rhetoric certainly drew its authority from scientific positivism, its spokespeople also invoked the fields of law, philosophy, and religion. Yet for most people, race was not a question to be resolved by scientific investigation, but a weapon in a war or conflict between unequal opponents. Not surprisingly, questions around the existence or impossibility of a Filipino race were most fully debated and developed in a time of war the 1896 Philippine Revolution, and the 1899 Philippine-American War, which began just after the outbreak of war between the U. S. and Spain in 1898. My article charts the genealogy of these debates, and the relationship of race to the narration of anti-imperial movements and alternative cosmopolitanism.
Der Artikel geht auf einen Vortrag zurück, der im Rahmen der Ringvorlesung des Münsteraner Exzellenzclusters "Religion und Politik in den Kulturen der Vormoderne und der Moderne" zum Thema 'Mediation' gehalten wurde. Er betrachtet Lessings Figur Nathan den Weisen dezidiert als Friedensvermittler und Mediator und analysiert die von ihm eingestzten Strategien der Vermittlung. Das Beispiel der Ringparabel zeigt, dass dem Erzählen eine hervorgehobene Rolle zukommt, wo der Logos nicht weiterhilft. Es wird aber auch darauf hingewiesen, dass moderne Autoren wie Robert Schindel dem Frieden der Lessing'schen Friedensvermittlung nicht mehr so recht trauen. ; The essay elaborates a paper held within the lecture series on 'Mediation' of the Münster Cluster of Excellence "Religion and Politics in Pre-Modern and Modern Cultures". It reads Lessings protagonist Nathan the Wise distinctly as conciliator and peacemaker and investigates Nathan's strategies of moderation. Lessing's drama demonstrates by Nathan's narration of the famous 'Ringparabel' that storytelling is an effective means of conciliation where the logos fails. However, the essay also shows that modern writers such as Robert Schindel doubt the effectivity of Lessing's effort of peacemaking.
Norwegen und die Schweiz sind keine EU-Mitgliedstaaten, weil die Bevölkerungen die Integration mehrheitlich in Referenden ablehnte. Die enorme Mobilisierung und Emotionalisierung in den nationalen Integrationsdebatten kann weder durch ökonomische noch durch politische Umstände hinreichend erklärt werden, zumal die Eliten beider Länder mehrheitlich die Integration unterstützen. Die Hauptmobilisierungsressource von Euroskeptikern liegt vielmehr darin, tief verwurzelte nationale Selbst- und Fremdbilder zu reaktivieren. Diese Diskursanalyse beschreibt vergleichend, auf welche Art und Weise die größten euroskeptischen Akteure der Schweiz und Norwegens diesen Rückgriff auf das Nationale in Integrationsdebatten herstellen. Gefragt wird, wie die "Aktion für eine Unabhängige und Neutrale Schweiz" (AUNS) und die eng mit ihr verbundene "Schweizerische Volkspartei" (SVP) einerseits, und die norwegische Bewegung "Nein zur EU" (norwegisch: Nei Til EU) andererseits, ihren Integrationswiderstand mittels nationaler Narrationen und Bildersprachen als sinnvoll darstellen. Hierzu werden umfangreiche euroskeptische Bild- und Textquellen referiert und gedeutet. Damit wird ein Beitrag zur Forschung über das Selbstverständnis, die Denkweise, die Rhetorik und das Tugendsystem anti-integratorischer Bewegungen geleistet. Denn Euroskeptiker verstehen sich primär als Verteidiger der guten nationalen Gemeinschaft. Diese Gemeinschaft und dessen Nationalstaat beschreiben sie als wärmer, natürlicher, näher, gerechter, effizienter, friedlicher und demokratischer als das integrierte Europa, welches als ferner, kalter, bürokratischer Superstaat EU dargestellt wird. ; Norway and Switzerland are not member states of the EU, since the majority of the people rejected integration in several referenda. The emotionality and the enormous mobilisation in national debates on integration cannot sufficiently be explained by economic and political reasons, since the majority of the elites are supporting integration. Instead, the main resource of mobilisation for Eurosceptics lies in reactivating deeply rooted descriptions of national self and other. For carving out these collective images, this discourse-analysis compares how the major Eurosceptical actors of Switzerland, the "Action for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland" (AUNS) together with the tightly connected "Swiss People's Party" (SVP), on one hand, and the Norwegian movement "No To EU" (NEI TIL EU), on the other hand, describe their actions as meaningful in their iconography and narrations. In doing so, the study refers to and interprets extensive material from Eurosceptical actors and contributes to the understanding of Eurosceptical self-perception, ways of thinking, rhetoric and virtue system. Here Eurosceptics perceive themselves mainly as defenders of the national community and its nation-state, which are regarded as warm, natural, close, justified, efficient, peaceful and democratic, while Europe is perceived as the cold, distant, bureaucratic superstate EU.
Norwegen und die Schweiz sind keine EU-Mitgliedstaaten, weil die Bevölkerungen die Integration mehrheitlich in Referenden ablehnte. Die enorme Mobilisierung und Emotionalisierung in den nationalen Integrationsdebatten kann weder durch ökonomische noch durch politische Umstände hinreichend erklärt werden, zumal die Eliten beider Länder mehrheitlich die Integration unterstützen. Die Hauptmobilisierungsressource von Euroskeptikern liegt vielmehr darin, tief verwurzelte nationale Selbst- und Fremdbilder zu reaktivieren. Diese Diskursanalyse beschreibt vergleichend, auf welche Art und Weise die größten euroskeptischen Akteure der Schweiz und Norwegens diesen Rückgriff auf das Nationale in Integrationsdebatten herstellen. Gefragt wird, wie die "Aktion für eine Unabhängige und Neutrale Schweiz" (AUNS) und die eng mit ihr verbundene "Schweizerische Volkspartei" (SVP) einerseits, und die norwegische Bewegung "Nein zur EU" (norwegisch: Nei Til EU) andererseits, ihren Integrationswiderstand mittels nationaler Narrationen und Bildersprachen als sinnvoll darstellen. Hierzu werden umfangreiche euroskeptische Bild- und Textquellen referiert und gedeutet. Damit wird ein Beitrag zur Forschung über das Selbstverständnis, die Denkweise, die Rhetorik und das Tugendsystem anti-integratorischer Bewegungen geleistet. Denn Euroskeptiker verstehen sich primär als Verteidiger der guten nationalen Gemeinschaft. Diese Gemeinschaft und dessen Nationalstaat beschreiben sie als wärmer, natürlicher, näher, gerechter, effizienter, friedlicher und demokratischer als das integrierte Europa, welches als ferner, kalter, bürokratischer Superstaat EU dargestellt wird. ; Norway and Switzerland are not member states of the EU, since the majority of the people rejected integration in several referenda. The emotionality and the enormous mobilisation in national debates on integration cannot sufficiently be explained by economic and political reasons, since the majority of the elites are supporting integration. Instead, the main resource of mobilisation for Eurosceptics lies in reactivating deeply rooted descriptions of national self and other. For carving out these collective images, this discourse-analysis compares how the major Eurosceptical actors of Switzerland, the "Action for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland" (AUNS) together with the tightly connected "Swiss People's Party" (SVP), on one hand, and the Norwegian movement "No To EU" (NEI TIL EU), on the other hand, describe their actions as meaningful in their iconography and narrations. In doing so, the study refers to and interprets extensive material from Eurosceptical actors and contributes to the understanding of Eurosceptical self-perception, ways of thinking, rhetoric and virtue system. Here Eurosceptics perceive themselves mainly as defenders of the national community and its nation-state, which are regarded as warm, natural, close, justified, efficient, peaceful and democratic, while Europe is perceived as the cold, distant, bureaucratic superstate EU.
This dissertation is a history of an idea, a retelling of a simple story about an idea as a complicated one, and an explanation of the effects of believing the simple story. From 1869 to 1985, to be an Indian in the eyes of the Canadian state – to be a "status Indian" – a person had to have a status Indian father. The Canadian government registered a population of Indigenous people as status Indians and decided that Indian status passed along the male line. If an Indian man married a non-Indian woman, his wife gained status and their children were status Indians. In contrast, if a status Indian woman married a non-Indian man, she lost her Indian status, and her children were not status Indians. This rule exiled women from their families of birth and tore them from the political fabric of their communities. The Indian status system is a keystone in Canada's colonizing governance of Indigenous life. The rules in the Indian Act for the transmission of Indian status came under heavy criticism and, in 1985, the federal government amended the law. Because the 1985 amendments perpetuated sex discrimination by conferring an advantage to those who traced Indian status along the male line, the rules for Indian status were the object of decades of subsequent campaigning and litigation. In 2008 and 2015, landmark judgments in McIvor and Descheneaux declared the rules to be in breach of the gender equality guarantees in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.In overturning the Indian Act's status rules, the courts have relied on the government's explanation of the history of these rules. The legislative history told by the government mirrors commonly held views about the history of the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act. According to this canonical history, the core explanation for the Indian Act amendments is a tension between individual rights to gender equality and collective rights to Indigenous self-governance, embodied in a conflict between Indigenous women and Indigenous communities (often represented by male Indigenous leaders). According to the canonical history, the opposition between these groups yielded an intractable political stalemate – a Gordian political knot that could only be sliced by the equality rights offered in constitutional and international human rights law. This dissertation unseats the canonical history by advancing an alternative account, one with both a wider aperture on the political and social context and a sharper focus on detail, complexity, and contingency. The dissertation asks how individual equality rights and Indigenous self-governance became juxtaposed to one another in a relationship of tension and dichotomous opposition and explains the discursive, political, and social forces that came together to create this idea of opposition. It situates the history of the Indian Act amendments in the context of negotiations for the re-founding of Canadian sovereignty and the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Indigenous demands for recognition as a third order of government in Canada's federal state, changing understandings of equality in Canadian law, and shifts in the categorization of the problem of Indian women's loss of status as a political, social, or cultural problem. It traces the role of Indigenous political organizations, Indigenous women's political organizations, and the white-led women's movement in shaping the debate. It tracks how an issue transformed from a political problem into a question of fundamental rights.Debates about amending the Indian Act showed a consensus among Indigenous people about the importance of Indigenous self-governance and the need to end sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Conflict among Indigenous groups arose about the mechanisms for recognizing Indigenous self-governance and the definition of self-governing polities. Rather than a pitched battle among Indigenous people, the central threads running throughout the history of reforms to the Indian Act are the federal government's steadfast refusal to recognize inherent Indigenous self-governance and a desire to limit government spending on status Indians, all in service of a project of constructing and defending Canadian sovereignty. The dissertation exposes the government's share of responsibility in creating a conflict between gender equality rights and Indigenous self-governance. It reveals the law's hand in shaping the discourses of rights through which this idea of tension became articulated, labeling those rights as fundamental, pitting those rights against one another as intrinsically opposed, and then balancing them in the name of justice and fairness.In contemporary litigation over the Indian Act, the Canadian government deploys a story about competing interests of Indigenous women and Indigenous communities as a justification for continued discrimination in the Indian Act. In doing so, the government's retelling of history omits its own active role in shaping and exacerbating the idea of a fundamental conflict of rights. This omission does more than distort history. Through this narration of a partial history and its repetition by the courts, the words uttered by the Canadian state aim to achieve a perfected, completed sovereignty, one that has already silenced the eruptive speech of rival sovereignties. The telling of history by the court tames the wilder moments of the past, when neither the possible nor the likely outcomes were clear. The dissertation aims to make the present readable as just one of many alternatives among the past's futures.
This article analyses the narratives of impact-driven transition research in the field of sustainability studies. It reconstructs patterns of narrations at a discourse level. Departing from the understanding that narrating is a fundamental mode of communication and education, this contribution is ultimately driven by the commitment to understand how narrativity can be improved in order to reach more effective rhetoric for sustainability research. The article starts by describing the dilemma sustainability researchers might find themselves in regarding their position vis-à-vis society and politics. This dilemma seems to shape the narratives researchers use for describing their work. After conceptualizing narratives on a structural level, findings from a comprehensive qualitative interview study are presented and discussed. We find that sustainability researchers can be clustered in five different types, depending on their affinity or distance to real-world sustainability processes, their propensity to either incremental reforms or transformative change and the relationship between environmental and social concerns in the context of the sustainability concept. Furthermore, we find that critical-constructive transformative research encounters challenges when narrating about its position vis-à-vis society and policy-making in the process of formulating goals and working towards them. We identified a tension between leaning stronger either towards independent, critical goal formulation or towards an engagement with actual political processes. Maintaining the ability to change roles between the process-involved and the process-observing sustainability researcher might be a promising way out for those dedicated to workings towards sustainability transitions.
The article is devoted to the subject of the 1150th anniversary of the Russian Statehood celebrated in September 2012. It was the liberal political commentary writings accompanying the original model of the jubilee celebrated in 1862 that was used as the point of reference of the rhetoric of the celebrations' initiator, the President of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev. This made the president of Russia to refer very often to the "epoch of the Great Reforms" (the 1860s, and 1870s). The article describes the course of the jubilee celebrations with accompanying information campaign in the public mass media, as well as a failed legislative action to make the symbolic anniversary of the origins of the Russian Statehood a National Day. In the conclusions, the author distances himself from the absolutisation of political causes (customary in the Polish writing blaming of the low political culture of the power elite) of the jubilee's failure. In the author's opinion, the main reason for the fiasco of the analysed enterprise resides in difficulties to create a coherent historical narration which would combine various political traditions and their fundamental values. ; The research, making the fundamentals of the text, inscribe into the interdisciplinary studies ‒ flourishing in Poland these days ‒ of collective memory and identity. The research perspective chosen by the author makes it possible to enrich traditionally understood political history and history of ideas with the most recent achievements of historical anthropology. The purpose of this is to present not only a cultural context of symbolic dimension of ars regendi (with the problem of legitimization of power at the lead), but also to discover the sources for the durability of symbols as invisible bonds tying the political community. ; p. 167-195 ; Summary in English. ; Text eng. ; The article is devoted to the subject of the 1150th anniversary of the Russian Statehood celebrated in September 2012. It was the liberal political commentary writings accompanying the original model of the jubilee celebrated in 1862 that was used as the point of reference of the rhetoric of the celebrations' initiator, the President of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev. This made the president of Russia to refer very often to the "epoch of the Great Reforms" (the 1860s, and 1870s). The article describes the course of the jubilee celebrations with accompanying information campaign in the public mass media, as well as a failed legislative action to make the symbolic anniversary of the origins of the Russian Statehood a National Day. In the conclusions, the author distances himself from the absolutisation of political causes (customary in the Polish writing blaming of the low political culture of the power elite) of the jubilee's failure. In the author's opinion, the main reason for the fiasco of the analysed enterprise resides in difficulties to create a coherent historical narration which would combine various political traditions and their fundamental values. ; The research, making the fundamentals of the text, inscribe into the interdisciplinary studies ‒ flourishing in Poland these days ‒ of collective memory and identity. The research perspective chosen by the author makes it possible to enrich traditionally understood political history and history of ideas with the most recent achievements of historical anthropology. The purpose of this is to present not only a cultural context of symbolic dimension of ars regendi (with the problem of legitimization of power at the lead), but also to discover the sources for the durability of symbols as invisible bonds tying the political community. ; s. 167-195 ; Tekst ang. ; Streszcz. ang.
The article is dedicated to the Sermon on Law and Grace as a coherent and well-composed work. The purpose of the article is to outline the probable rhetorical strategy of Metropolitan Ilarion, taking into account the historical, political, and socio-ecclesiastical challenges related, in particular, to the figure of Grand Prince Volodymyr counted among the saints of the Kyivan Church. The research methodology focused on the use of tools of hermeneutics and phenomenological methods, as well as elements of the structural approach. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the analysis of categories of classical rhetoric - ethos, logos, pathos - to interpret Ilarion's choice of genre, themes, and methods of narration as a solution of an experienced speaker who skillfully implemented the suggestive tasks of the sermon. Conclusions. Metropolitan Ilarion, having a practical goal, tried to combine the content and form of speech to achieve optimal impact on recipients. To convince the audience of the sanctity of Prince Volodymyr, he elaborates on the theme of the Old Testament Law and Grace - the new Christian "law" of salvation, which seems somewhat absurd by human standards. The listeners trust the speaker due to his spiritual authority of the preacher, and due to the abundant citation of the Holy Scriptures. Speaking of the contender for canonization, Ilarion likens Volodymyr to the Apostle Paul and Emperor Constantine, and at the same time, emphasizes the belonging of the Kyivan Church to the apostolic and Byzantine traditions. Ilarion weaves parts that are rhythmically close to liturgical poetry into the usual form of the sermon.
In letter 56, Spinoza does not recognize ancient philosophers' authority and urges Hugo Boxel to follow only his reason in order to acquire knowledge. Notwithstanding this radical stance, Spinoza quotes, makes references and gives examples which are mostly excerpted from Roman historians; he takes Tacitus', Sallut's , Quintus Curtius Rufus' words and histories seriously to the point that he says, in the TP, that "no one that knows Histories" – the Histories by Tacitus – "can ignore" the rightness of his argumentation. In this work, my aim is to address this apparent contradiction. Articulated in four sections, my dissertation shows how Spinoza uses his sources and which role they play in formulating his political philosophy.Each section focuses on a different aspect of this relationship: the first one is devoted to Spinoza's education, to his cultural background and to Early modern's forms of quoting. In the second one, I highlight the existence of a monarchist political current, Tacitism, which makes a consistent use of ancient historian's quotes; Spinoza confronts this tradition, giving to the ancient writers' words and maximes a completely different sense. Nevertheless, Spinoza quotes not only for a polemical purpose. In contrast, the references and the exemples seem to fulfil four functions: rhetoric, argumentative, polemic and anthropologic. The last one indicates that thr Roman historians' words and stories are an integral part of Spinoza's political philosophy. Finally, in section four, I identify the roles that narrations and stories play in a political philosophy whose aim is to be, at the same time, scientific as well as pragmatic. ; Dans la lettre 56 Spinoza ne reconnait pas l'autorité des anciens, incitant son interlocuteur à raisonner par soi-même, ne suivant que sa raison. Toutefois, face à cette prise de position radicale, Spinoza cite, fait référence et propose des exemples, dont la plupart sont extraits des historiens latins; il semble prendre au sérieux les mots de Tacite, Quinte-Curce, ...
In letter 56, Spinoza does not recognize ancient philosophers' authority and urges Hugo Boxel to follow only his reason in order to acquire knowledge. Notwithstanding this radical stance, Spinoza quotes, makes references and gives examples which are mostly excerpted from Roman historians; he takes Tacitus', Sallut's , Quintus Curtius Rufus' words and histories seriously to the point that he says, in the TP, that "no one that knows Histories" – the Histories by Tacitus – "can ignore" the rightness of his argumentation. In this work, my aim is to address this apparent contradiction. Articulated in four sections, my dissertation shows how Spinoza uses his sources and which role they play in formulating his political philosophy.Each section focuses on a different aspect of this relationship: the first one is devoted to Spinoza's education, to his cultural background and to Early modern's forms of quoting. In the second one, I highlight the existence of a monarchist political current, Tacitism, which makes a consistent use of ancient historian's quotes; Spinoza confronts this tradition, giving to the ancient writers' words and maximes a completely different sense. Nevertheless, Spinoza quotes not only for a polemical purpose. In contrast, the references and the exemples seem to fulfil four functions: rhetoric, argumentative, polemic and anthropologic. The last one indicates that thr Roman historians' words and stories are an integral part of Spinoza's political philosophy. Finally, in section four, I identify the roles that narrations and stories play in a political philosophy whose aim is to be, at the same time, scientific as well as pragmatic. ; Dans la lettre 56 Spinoza ne reconnait pas l'autorité des anciens, incitant son interlocuteur à raisonner par soi-même, ne suivant que sa raison. Toutefois, face à cette prise de position radicale, Spinoza cite, fait référence et propose des exemples, dont la plupart sont extraits des historiens latins; il semble prendre au sérieux les mots de Tacite, Quinte-Curce, ...
In letter 56, Spinoza does not recognize ancient philosophers' authority and urges Hugo Boxel to follow only his reason in order to acquire knowledge. Notwithstanding this radical stance, Spinoza quotes, makes references and gives examples which are mostly excerpted from Roman historians; he takes Tacitus', Sallut's , Quintus Curtius Rufus' words and histories seriously to the point that he says, in the TP, that "no one that knows Histories" – the Histories by Tacitus – "can ignore" the rightness of his argumentation. In this work, my aim is to address this apparent contradiction. Articulated in four sections, my dissertation shows how Spinoza uses his sources and which role they play in formulating his political philosophy.Each section focuses on a different aspect of this relationship: the first one is devoted to Spinoza's education, to his cultural background and to Early modern's forms of quoting. In the second one, I highlight the existence of a monarchist political current, Tacitism, which makes a consistent use of ancient historian's quotes; Spinoza confronts this tradition, giving to the ancient writers' words and maximes a completely different sense. Nevertheless, Spinoza quotes not only for a polemical purpose. In contrast, the references and the exemples seem to fulfil four functions: rhetoric, argumentative, polemic and anthropologic. The last one indicates that thr Roman historians' words and stories are an integral part of Spinoza's political philosophy. Finally, in section four, I identify the roles that narrations and stories play in a political philosophy whose aim is to be, at the same time, scientific as well as pragmatic. ; Dans la lettre 56 Spinoza ne reconnait pas l'autorité des anciens, incitant son interlocuteur à raisonner par soi-même, ne suivant que sa raison. Toutefois, face à cette prise de position radicale, Spinoza cite, fait référence et propose des exemples, dont la plupart sont extraits des historiens latins; il semble prendre au sérieux les mots de Tacite, Quinte-Curce, ...
In letter 56, Spinoza does not recognize ancient philosophers' authority and urges Hugo Boxel to follow only his reason in order to acquire knowledge. Notwithstanding this radical stance, Spinoza quotes, makes references and gives examples which are mostly excerpted from Roman historians; he takes Tacitus', Sallut's , Quintus Curtius Rufus' words and histories seriously to the point that he says, in the TP, that "no one that knows Histories" – the Histories by Tacitus – "can ignore" the rightness of his argumentation. In this work, my aim is to address this apparent contradiction. Articulated in four sections, my dissertation shows how Spinoza uses his sources and which role they play in formulating his political philosophy.Each section focuses on a different aspect of this relationship: the first one is devoted to Spinoza's education, to his cultural background and to Early modern's forms of quoting. In the second one, I highlight the existence of a monarchist political current, Tacitism, which makes a consistent use of ancient historian's quotes; Spinoza confronts this tradition, giving to the ancient writers' words and maximes a completely different sense. Nevertheless, Spinoza quotes not only for a polemical purpose. In contrast, the references and the exemples seem to fulfil four functions: rhetoric, argumentative, polemic and anthropologic. The last one indicates that thr Roman historians' words and stories are an integral part of Spinoza's political philosophy. Finally, in section four, I identify the roles that narrations and stories play in a political philosophy whose aim is to be, at the same time, scientific as well as pragmatic. ; Dans la lettre 56 Spinoza ne reconnait pas l'autorité des anciens, incitant son interlocuteur à raisonner par soi-même, ne suivant que sa raison. Toutefois, face à cette prise de position radicale, Spinoza cite, fait référence et propose des exemples, dont la plupart sont extraits des historiens latins; il semble prendre au sérieux les mots de Tacite, Quinte-Curce, ...
In letter 56, Spinoza does not recognize ancient philosophers' authority and urges Hugo Boxel to follow only his reason in order to acquire knowledge. Notwithstanding this radical stance, Spinoza quotes, makes references and gives examples which are mostly excerpted from Roman historians; he takes Tacitus', Sallut's , Quintus Curtius Rufus' words and histories seriously to the point that he says, in the TP, that "no one that knows Histories" – the Histories by Tacitus – "can ignore" the rightness of his argumentation. In this work, my aim is to address this apparent contradiction. Articulated in four sections, my dissertation shows how Spinoza uses his sources and which role they play in formulating his political philosophy.Each section focuses on a different aspect of this relationship: the first one is devoted to Spinoza's education, to his cultural background and to Early modern's forms of quoting. In the second one, I highlight the existence of a monarchist political current, Tacitism, which makes a consistent use of ancient historian's quotes; Spinoza confronts this tradition, giving to the ancient writers' words and maximes a completely different sense. Nevertheless, Spinoza quotes not only for a polemical purpose. In contrast, the references and the exemples seem to fulfil four functions: rhetoric, argumentative, polemic and anthropologic. The last one indicates that thr Roman historians' words and stories are an integral part of Spinoza's political philosophy. Finally, in section four, I identify the roles that narrations and stories play in a political philosophy whose aim is to be, at the same time, scientific as well as pragmatic. ; Dans la lettre 56 Spinoza ne reconnait pas l'autorité des anciens, incitant son interlocuteur à raisonner par soi-même, ne suivant que sa raison. Toutefois, face à cette prise de position radicale, Spinoza cite, fait référence et propose des exemples, dont la plupart sont extraits des historiens latins; il semble prendre au sérieux les mots de Tacite, Quinte-Curce, ...
In letter 56, Spinoza does not recognize ancient philosophers' authority and urges Hugo Boxel to follow only his reason in order to acquire knowledge. Notwithstanding this radical stance, Spinoza quotes, makes references and gives examples which are mostly excerpted from Roman historians; he takes Tacitus', Sallut's , Quintus Curtius Rufus' words and histories seriously to the point that he says, in the TP, that "no one that knows Histories" – the Histories by Tacitus – "can ignore" the rightness of his argumentation. In this work, my aim is to address this apparent contradiction. Articulated in four sections, my dissertation shows how Spinoza uses his sources and which role they play in formulating his political philosophy.Each section focuses on a different aspect of this relationship: the first one is devoted to Spinoza's education, to his cultural background and to Early modern's forms of quoting. In the second one, I highlight the existence of a monarchist political current, Tacitism, which makes a consistent use of ancient historian's quotes; Spinoza confronts this tradition, giving to the ancient writers' words and maximes a completely different sense. Nevertheless, Spinoza quotes not only for a polemical purpose. In contrast, the references and the exemples seem to fulfil four functions: rhetoric, argumentative, polemic and anthropologic. The last one indicates that thr Roman historians' words and stories are an integral part of Spinoza's political philosophy. Finally, in section four, I identify the roles that narrations and stories play in a political philosophy whose aim is to be, at the same time, scientific as well as pragmatic. ; Dans la lettre 56 Spinoza ne reconnait pas l'autorité des anciens, incitant son interlocuteur à raisonner par soi-même, ne suivant que sa raison. Toutefois, face à cette prise de position radicale, Spinoza cite, fait référence et propose des exemples, dont la plupart sont extraits des historiens latins; il semble prendre au sérieux les mots de Tacite, Quinte-Curce, ...
This paper draws on Judith Butler's notions of vulnerability, precarity, and grievability to examine two filmic texts: the Canadian Last Night (Don McKellar, 1998) and the American The Mist (Frank Darabont, 2007). Both primary sources feature the apocalypse as their principal narrative and thematic concern –a trope virtually unexplored from the standpoint of the production of vulnerability and the bodily dimensions of political and ethical life. In the present contribution I conduct a close analysis of both films so as to identify and evaluate the significantly contrasting modes of vulnerability produced in these two narrations. I argue that these conflicting worldviews originate from the differentiated episodes of (de)valuation, legitimization, and recognition experienced by and in bodies in the face of the ultimate phenomenon of vulnerability: the apocalypse. My structuring argument is that Last Night complies with the notion of vulnerability as a locus of ethical cohabitation and affective engagement while constructing a heterogeneous sense of Canadianness. The Mist, on the other hand, deploys vulnerability as a discursive mechanism that causes individual and social bodies to be subjected to a range of violence-prone asymmetries and processes of dehumanization, rearticulating key rhetoric and imagery from American cultural history. ; Este artículo emplea los conceptos de Judith Butler de vulnerabilidad, precariedad y capacidad de ser llorado para analizar dos textos fílmicos: la canadiense La Última Noche (Don McKellar, 1998) y la estadounidense La Niebla (Frank Darabont, 2007). Ambas fuentes primarias tienen el apocalipsis como su principal elemento narrativo y temático (un símbolo prácticamente inexplorado desde la perspectiva de la producción de la vulnerabilidad y la dimensión corpórea de la vida ética y política). En este artículo llevo a cabo un análisis de ambas películas con el fin de identificar y evaluar los modelos altamente contrapuestos de vulnerabilidad producidos en estas dos narraciones. ...
