Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1 Modernity: Hyper-Order and Doubleness -- 2 Proto-Entrapment Theories -- 3 Max Weber: Between Homo-Hermeneut and the Lebende Maschine -- 4 Freud and the Castration of the Modern -- 5 Michel Foucault: From the Prison-House of Language to the Silence of the Panopticon -- Conclusion -- Abbreviations -- Notes -- Index

Annotation This book explores the distinct historical-political imagination of the self in the twentieth century and advances two arguments. First, it suggests that we should read the history of modern political philosophy afresh in light of a theme that emerges in the late eighteenth century: the rift between self and social institutions. Second, it argues that this rift was reformulated in the twentieth century in a manner that contrasts with the optimism of nineteenth-century thinkers regarding its resolution. It proposes a new political imagination of the twentieth century found in the works of Weber, Freud, and Foucault, and characterizes it as one of "entrapment." Eyal Chowers shows how thinkers working within diverse theoretical frameworks and fields nevertheless converge in depicting a self that has lost its capacity to control or transform social institutions. He argues that Weber, Freud, and Foucault helped shape the distinctive thought and culture of the past century by portraying a dehumanized and distorted self marked by sameness. This new political imagination proposes coping with modernity through the recovery, integration, and assertion of the self, rather than by mastering and refashioning collective institutions

AbstractIn 2018, 70 years after it was founded, the State of Israel accepted a new nationality law, one which reshaped the identity of the state. Supporters of this constitutional law argue that it is necessary since the Jewish‐national character of the state is under threat, and since liberal‐democratic principles and policies have acquired undesired dominance in public life. The nationality law, however, does much more than restore a lost or imagined collective identity: it is a significant setback to both the liberal and republican understandings of a democratic state, as well as to Jewish‐Arab relations. More broadly still, the law displays the growing distance between the ethical and political spheres in Israel; this distance is expressed in the law's remarkable modifications of the three Zionist revolutions pertaining to the material (land), the linguistic and the political‐communal dimensions of Jewish, national life.

In 2018, the State of Israel enacted a new constitutional law: 'BASIC LAW: ISRAEL-THE NATION STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE'. The Law reflects diverse Zionist ideologies which were nevertheless all 'land-centered' rather than state-centered from an early stage; it reformulates that intellectual tradition, however, promoting Jewish settlements in conditions of occupation and celebrates, for the first time, settlement as the prime and exclusive goal of the state. Partly to facilitate this goal, and to further blur borders, the law also contracts the meaning and status of Palestinians' citizenship in Israel, thus at least symbolically narrowing the (still significant) political-legal gap between these citizens and the Palestinians living in the West Bank. Finally, the Law seems to vacate the state from its ethical dimension and commitments as defined by its Declaration of independence (1948) — including its commitments to the democratic principles of political liberty for all and equality — thus manifesting the influence ruling and subjugating others through military government is having on Israel's constitutional framework.

For Max Weber, modernity is characterized by a tragic conflict among value spheres, each claiming to possess the 'true meaning' of human life. In particular, Weber argues that while the political sphere is dominated by the unifying, exclusionary, power-driven, and war-prone nation state, the ethical sphere is characterized by the universalization of individually based, deontological norms. For Weber, I argue, the modern separation between the ethical and political spheres originates in ancient Judaism. His work on Judaism, mostly neglected by political theorists, describes the emergence of politics as an autonomous, naturalistic sphere with the establishment of kingship. Biblical prophets, simultaneously, were the inventors of an idealistic, mulish, universal ethics Weber termed the 'ethics of ultimate ends'. Thus, against the Greek model harmonizing ethics and politics, Judaism invented an antagonistic model of the two. This Jewish imagination lay dormant for almost two millennia but returned to the stage in secularized modernity.

AbstractThis paper examines the concept of 'land‐centred' nationalism and suggests that it is important for distinguishing among different types of nationalism and for better understanding the role of land and place in this ideology. In order to demonstrate what land‐centred nationalism actually means, the article examines Zionism as a case study, arguing that some of the leading, early intellectual schools of this national movement (cultural, socialist, and religious Zionism) tended to underscore the role of the Land of Israel in collective identity rather than the role of the political community. Despite many differences in their general outlook, these schools all celebrated the land's spiritual role while neglecting or even opposing the idea of a Jewish state. This devaluation of the bond among citizens in favour of the bond of a people with their ancient land contributed to Zionism's contemporary difficulties and manifests the dangers of land‐centred nationalism more generally.

According to some theorists (such as Agnes Heller) modern individuals no longer experience space as the anchor of their identity; they have become 'geographically promiscuous', changing their place of residency according to their personal circumstances and prospects for fulfillment. Instead, moderns have embraced the absolute present – the time of global culture – as the center of their identity. This article criticizes such claims. It suggests, first, that the absolute present is not the single temporal home available for late moderns, and that it coexists with singular conceptions of the past (semicyclicalism) and the profane (cosmopolitan) future as alternative homes; second, that in modernity spatial and temporal homelessness went hand in hand, rather than the former displacing the latter. Finally, it is suggested that the multiplicity of spatial and temporal homes available for late moderns calls for a flexible conception of selfhood, one that is able to incorporate this multiplicity and to welcome the ensuing homelessness within the self's own home(s).

The article reflects on the place of building (both as an activity and as an object) in modern, organic nationalism. In particular, it studies the role of building in the movement that epitomizes the Promethean aspect of modernity—Zionism. In this Jewish national movement metaphors ofbuilding are used very often to connote belonging on three different levels: in the material world produced by human beings, in a historically meaningful and humanized space, and in a community of constructors that willfully reshapes both space and matter. But by conceptualizing their collective project as a building, and by envisioning themselves as builders, many Zionists espoused a problematic understanding of democratic politics: the practical skills required by builders do not foster the critical thought, independence, and moral judgment required of the citizen, and the nonverbal solidarity among builders is essentially different from the solidarity required by a plurality of citizens. In other words, the ethos of builders that was essential for establishing a commonwealth from scratch is fundamentally at odds with the ethos required from an ongoing, democratic polity.