Suchergebnisse

Uses poststructuralist theory to connect inclusion, exclusion and identity, centred around real-world case studies from British culture, politics and lawLasse Thomassen argues that the politics of inclusion and identity should be viewed as struggles over how these identities are represented. He centres this argument through careful analysis of cases from the last four decades of British multiculturalism.Key FeaturesUses a fresh, poststructuralist approach to reconcile the theoretical and practical issues surrounding inclusion and exclusion – a rare example of how poststructuralism can speak to mainstream concerns and theoryOpens up debates and themes including Britishness, race, the nature and role of Islam in British society, homelessness and social justiceCase studies include public debates about the role of religion in British society; Prime MInisters Gordon Brown and David Cameron's contrasting versions of Britishness; legal cases about religious symbols and clothing in schools; and the Nick Hornby novel How to Be Good – most of which have never been covered in such detail beforeExamines a number of legal cases: 'The Queen on the application of Sarika Angel Watkins-Singh v. The Governing Body of Aberdare Girls' High School and Rhondda Cynon Taf Unitary Authority', High Court, 2008; 'Playfoot (a minor), R (on the application of) v Millais School' High Court 2007; 'X v Y', High Court, 2007; and 'Mandla and another v Dowell Lee and another', House of Lords, 1983

Introduction: deconstructing Habermas -- Let's have a "discussion"! -- A hospitable reading -- From rational reconstruction to deconstruction -- The aporias of rational consensus -- Rational consensus -- The violence of consensus: Jean-François Lyotard -- "A more inclusive model of communication": Iris Marion Young -- "Back to the rough ground": Chantal Mouffe -- The aporia of rational consensus -- From aim to process: "Das Nein-Sagen-Können" -- Rational (re)constructions -- Conclusion -- "A bizarre, even opaque practice": constitutionalism and democracy -- Introduction: constitutionalism and democracy -- The co-originality thesis -- Vicious circularity and infinite regress -- In the "whirlpool of temporality" -- Undecidability and fictions -- "A bizarre, even opaque practice": theoretical and political strategies -- Towards a deconstructive alternative -- The inclusion of the other's tolerance -- Introduction: the inclusion of the other and the paradox of tolerance -- Inclusion through distinction -- Blurring the distinction -- The threshold of tolerance -- Tolerance, equality and inequality -- The destruction of tolerance or a deconstructive tolerance? -- Civil disobedience within the limits of deliberative reason alone -- Introduction: civil disobedience as litmus test -- Definition: civil disobedience within the limits of public reason and constitutional democracy -- Between legality and legitimacy -- Not yet or to come? Realizing the principles of constitutional democracy -- Between majority rule and rational consensus -- Who decides? -- Disobedience without the guidance of deliberative reason: maturity -- Responsobility -- Conclusion -- Towards an ethics of discussion -- Introduction -- What is philosophy? What is reason? -- In defence of democracy -- Responding -- Bibliography -- Notes -- Index

This book is the first book-length deconstructive study of the political philosophy of Jürgen Habermas. Inspired by the work of Jacques Derrida, the book applies deconstruction to key issues in Habermas's work: rational discourse and rational consensus, constitutional democracy, tolerance and civil disobedience.The war in Iraq brought Habermas and Derrida together in defense of international law and in favor of a bigger role for a united Europe in international affairs. Yet, despite the rapprochement between Habermas and Derrida in the years prior to Derrida's death, important differences rema

This article maps debates within poststructuralism, particularly poststructuralist political theory. I argue that the category, or question, of representation can make sense of theoretical and political debates within poststructuralism in general and poststructuralist political theory in particular. Poststructuralists criticise all forms of presence, whether the presence of the subject, identities or structures. Following poststructuralism, representation can no longer be seen as the reflection of a presence. However, while poststructuralists agree on the turn away from presence, they disagree where to turn and, specifically, on the role and nature of representation. They disagree whether representation is constitutive, and they disagree about how to relate to the hierarchy and violence which, they all agree, is a part of representation. The question of representation may not explain all divisions among poststructuralists, but the question of representation divides poststructuralism in so many ways that it makes sense to analyse the differences among them through the lens of representation. I first look at two issues central to poststructuralism: critique and how to relate to 'the other'. In the second half of the article, I turn to look at three debates within poststructuralism: immanence versus transcendence, abundance versus lack, and autonomy versus hegemony.