Search results

Into the Open is a philosophical and literary inquiry into the deeper meanings of genius. What precisely do we mean when we describe someone this way? What legacy do we invoke when we apply this term?. To address this question, Benjamin Taylor here explores how three great minds-Walter Pater, Paul Valry, and Sigmund Freud-viewed a figure widely considered the first great modern genius, Leonardo da Vinci. For each of these great thinkers, Da Vinci is of central importance because for each the received idea of genius has ceased to be a romantic certitude or sacred truth and has become a problem

In this paper, I argue that resilience in some sense of the term is a necessary predicate of all subjectivity, and thus of all political programs subjects could be capable of undertaking.While contemporary political discourses typically call for resilience as a way to justify the social formations already in place, this does not mean that the concept of resilience is itself irredeemable.In fact, all subjects must first be resilient, i.e., continue to exist as themselves in some sense, before they can aspire to be other than what they are.Consequently, we cannot totally abandon the concept, even as we must continue to examine with suspicion the ways those in authority deploy it to secure their rule.I contend that the term resilience embodiesetymologically and sociallythe classical tension between being and becoming that lies at the root of dialectical thought.By framing resilience in terms of dialectical thinking, we can see how it is both necessary for and dangerous to the pursuit of a robust and imaginative politics, as well as to ethical projects of self-mastery and self-creation. ; Published version

In this paper, I perform close readings of several of the narratives included in the This American Life podcast in order to rethink sovereignty outside of the framework of the state as it is lived and practiced in everyday circumstances. Drawing on Bonnie Honigs reformulation of sovereignty as a modality of power that is not possessed by a singular authority but instead embodied in the collective activity of a people, I use these narratives to assist in theorizing a politics that seeks not emancipation but rather the enactment of futures that are more egalitarian. Such a politics is best conceived a struggle against forms of violence enacted at specific sites rather than as expressions of unified forms of domination. To undertake this analysis, I begin by briefly outlining Honigs line of inquiry, after which I turn to the specific narratives documented by This American Life, reading them not merely as the chronicles of life in Englewood but as theoretically fecund exemplars of collective and individual sovereignty. Finally, I conclude by exploring what the reading of such narratives as instances of sovereignty can reveal for us regarding politics more generally. Conceiving of the characters in these narratives as sovereign actors seeking to survive rather than as either helpless sufferers (those who experience violence) or criminals (those who act violently) helps to illuminate the complex political dynamics that sustain poverty and produce violence in locales such as Chicagos Englewood neighborhood. ; Published version

In this paper, I perform close readings of several of the narratives included in the This American Life podcast in order to rethink sovereignty outside of the framework of the state as it is lived and practiced in everyday circumstances. Drawing on Bonnie Honig's reformulation of sovereignty as a modality of power that is not possessed by a singular authority but instead embodied in the collective activity of a people, I use these narratives to assist in theorizing a politics that seeks not emancipation but rather the enactment of futures that are more egalitarian. Such a politics is best conceived a struggle against forms of violence enacted at specific sites rather than as expressions of unified forms of domination. To undertake this analysis, I begin by briefly outlining Honig's line of inquiry, after which I turn to the specific narratives documented by This American Life, reading them not merely as the chronicles of life in Englewood but as theoretically fecund exemplars of collective and individual sovereignty. Finally, I conclude by exploring what the reading of such narratives as instances of sovereignty can reveal for us regarding politics more generally. Conceiving of the characters in these narratives as sovereign actors seeking to survive rather than as either helpless sufferers (those who experience violence) or criminals (those who act violently) helps to illuminate the complex political dynamics that sustain poverty and produce violence in locales such as Chicago's Englewood neighborhood.

In this paper, I argue that "resilience" in some sense of the term is a necessary predicate of all subjectivity, and thus of all political programs subjects could be capable of undertaking.While contemporary political discourses typically call for "resilience" as a way to justify the social formations already in place, this does not mean that the concept of resilience is itself irredeemable.In fact, all subjects must first be "resilient," i.e., continue to exist as themselves in some sense, before they can aspire to be other than what they are.Consequently, we cannot totally abandon the concept, even as we must continue to examine with suspicion the ways those in authority deploy it to secure their rule.I contend that the term "resilience" embodies—etymologically and socially—the classical tension between "being" and "becoming" that lies at the root of dialectical thought.By framing resilience in terms of dialectical thinking, we can see how it is both necessary for and dangerous to the pursuit of a robust and imaginative politics, as well as to ethical projects of self-mastery and self-creation.

Locke and Rousseau both emphasize the importance of consent with respect to government and use state of nature arguments to determine what principles would constitute a just society, but each of them comes to a radically different conclusion as to what such a society would look like. Much of this difference is rooted in their differing conceptions of what the purpose of government (and political society generally) is. This paper analyzes the differences between their justifications of government and between the political societies in which those differences result.

1. The Humanitarian Disarmament Movement: An Assessment and Review -- 2. When Scientists become Activists: The International Committee for Robot Arms Control and the Politics of Killer Robots -- 3. The Agency of International Humanitarian Disarmament Law: The Case of Advocacy for Positive Obligations in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons -- 4. Religious Advocacy and Activism for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons -- 5. US Arms Control Dynamics in the Era of Humanitarian Disarmament: A Case Study of the Convention on Cluster Munitions -- 6. The Politics of Non-Recognition: Re-evaluating the Apolitical Presentation of the UN Humanitarian Mine Action Programmes in Somaliland -- 7. The Relationship between Humanitarian Disarmament and General and Complete Disarmament -- 8. Assessing the Political Impact of Inclusion and Exclusion in Multilateral Disarmament Forums