Podcasts about jurgen habermas

This conversation starts with fictional candidate Willy Stark, a favorite subject of our guest, Steve Ealy. Steve has written on how to read the Qur'an, the Federalist Papers and constitutional interpretation, the philosophers Jurgen Habermas, Michael Oakeshott, and Eric Voegelin, and the writers C. S. Lewis, Ralph Ellison, Fyodor Deostoevsky, James Fenimore Cooper, John Steinbeck, and Robert Penn Warren. He is currently working on a book-length study of Robert Penn Warren.  In other words, he is qualified to dicsuss Donald Trump in the perspective of history.  

İsrail ile LGBT yayılmacılığının ortak yanlarını düşününce ve parçaları birleştirdikçe dehşete düştüm. Eşcinsellik dayatması ile İsrail işgalciliği; dünyanın geri kalanını yok sayma psikopatlığını benzer yöntemlerle sahneliyorlar. ‘Eşcinsellik ve İsrail ne alaka' diyenler olacaktır. Sakince okuyun lütfen. Paris'te, Olimpiyat Oyunları açılışına damga vuran LGBT propagandası rezilliğini organize eden Thomas Jolly'nin Yahudi olması sadece bir detay. Pedofili ile ensest dâhil her türlü cinsel sapıklığı normal sayan, kitapları dünyada milyonlar satan felsefeci Judith Butler da Yahudi mesela. Hatta Amerika'daki eğitim-öğretimi 70'lerde kadim terbiyeden arındırıp, sapkın akımların önünü açan; Erich From, Jurgen Habermas ve Max Horkheimer da ünlü Yahudi düşünürler. Bir tarafta hiçbir kural-kaide tanımayan Siyonist düşüncenin inşa ettiği işgalci ve katil İsrail… Diğer tarafta, normal olan her şeye karşı anormalliği dayatan LGBT ideolojisi… Her ikisi de yok edici, düzen bozucu. Her ikisi de yaşamları tarumar ediyor. Çıkış noktaları benzer. Gördük ki LGBT ideolojisi de Siyonizm gibi günümüz dünyasının dokunulmazlık zırhına büründürüldü. Nasıl ki Yahudiler, 1908'den sonra Filistin'de sistematik yerleşim politikası benimsedi ve köyleri işgal ederek kendi kendilerine yerleşimci statüsü kazandırıp 1948'de İsrail'i kurdular. Eşcinseller de 1960'larda Amerika'da ayrımcılığa karşı ayaklanmalar başlatıp, Avrupa ülkeleri ve ABD'de LGBT haklarını hızla kazandılar. Bugünün dünyasında İsrail'i eleştirmek antisemitizm sayılıyor. Eşcinselliği hastalık veya sapkın görmek de nefret suçu sayılıyor. Bugün Filistinlilerin yaşadıkları evler, herhangi bir Yahudi tarafından ellerinden alınabiliyor ve bu işgale kimseler ‘dur' demiyor. İsrail de bu sistematiği hukuken destekliyor. Birçok Batılı ülkede de eşcinseller, kendilerinin doğurmadıkları ve asla doğuramayacakları çocukları yasal olarak evlat edinebiliyorlar. Benzerlikler o kadar fazla ki. Bir yanda çocukların ve gençlerin cinsiyetlerini yok etmeyi gaye edinen LGBT sistematiği, diğer yanda Gazze'deki bir anneyi, bir genci ve bir bebeği öldürmek için tüm gücünü kullanan terör devleti İsrail. Siyonist üstenci düşünce Gazze'deki soykırımıyla tüm insanlığı açıkça hedef aldı. LGBT dayatmacılığı ise nesillerin devamını yumuşak soykırım modeli ile kesmek için tüm dünyayı adım adım kuşatıyor. Siyonist düşünce ‘Goyimleri', yani Yahudiler dışındaki tüm halkları kendileri için zararsız hale getirmeyi amaçlıyor. LGBT ideolojisi de eşcinsel yaşam biçimiyle aile kurumunu devreden çıkarıyor. Üreme durursa soykırım da tamamlanmış olacak. Nüfus artışının düşmesi, eşcinsel birlikteliklerin artması ya da yalnız yaşamın yaygınlaşmasına bakılırsa başarılı oluyorlar.

Programmamanager bij de ISVW Marthe Kerkwijk vertelt in deze podcast aan Bart Geeraedts over onze nieuwe beroepsopleiding Macht en moed die in september van start gaat bij de ISVW. Hoe kun je binnen het ambtenarenapparaat een cultuur mogelijk maken waarin er ruimte is voor tegenspraak? Aan de hand van Jurgen Habermas en Chantal Mouffe legt Kerkwijk uit dat het goed is als ambtenaren meer van hun eigen leefwereld binnen laten in het bureaucratisch systeem van de overheid. Door filosofische gesprekstechnieken zoals het moreel beraad of het socratisch gesprek leren ze als vrije individuen van gedachten te wisselen. Dat maakt dat ze eerder verantwoordelijkheid voor hun handelen en zich minder snel verschuilen achter regeltjes.

On this episode of Parallax Views, the noted genocide studies scholar A. Dirk Moses, author of The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression, returns to his intervention on the debate about whether or not what is happening in Gaza constitutes a genocide. He recently wrote the piece in the Boston Review entitled "More than Genocide". In addition to this we also discuss his scathing take on the open letter of solidarity signed by Jurgen Habermas and other major German intellectuals. In the second segment of the show, Dr. Waitman W. Beorn joins the show to discuss how British writer Douglas Murray, fashion model Fabio, and others are distorting Holocaust history by making defenses of the Third Reich in light of the Oct. 7th Hamas attack. These commentators are making the case that the Nazis were "ashamed" of the Holocaust, concealed their crimes as a result, and were remorseful for their action. Dr. Beorn begs to differ and believes this Nazi apology, like the clean Wehrmacht myth, could lead down dangerous paths.

On polycrisis.   [Patreon Tier II and III Exclusive -  subscribe at patreon.com/bungacast]   We reflect back on Jurgen Habermas' Legitimation Crisis as a whole, having gone through it section by section in previous episodes, before exploring what the idea of 'polycrisis' is about. Everyone from Adam Tooze to the FT to the World Economic Forum think we're in a polycrisis. How does this notion compare to Habermas' understanding of crisis?    We also explore some related themes: cynical ideology and how it deflects criticism; whether we are more or less individualised today, and how you can have less collectivism and less individualism at the same time; and the difference between crisis and emergency.   Links: Why the West's elites invented a permacrisis, Thomas Fazi, Unherd Welcome to the world of the polycrisis, Adam Tooze, FT  Year in a word: Polycrisis, Jonathan Derbyshire, FT  On the crisis of crisis: /327/ Capitalism on Edge ft. Albena Azmanova  On the structural reasons why the regime survives: /246/ Why Isn't There Revolution? ft. Vivek Chibber   

On the 3rd and final part of Jurgen Habermas' Legitimation Crisis.   [Patreon Tier II & III Exclusive]   We wrap up this challenging book by debating some key points. Habermas already felt we lived in a post-truth society. How does his notion differ from the contemporary one concerned with misinformation? And is it possible to get beyond the notion of political authority grounded in (arbitrary) rules and laws – to an order rooted in truth and meaning?   Habermas also discusses his Frankfurt School colleagues and 'the end of the individual'. What does this mean? Is there any hope for free, rational, democratic politics?   Reading: Legitimation Crisis, Jurgen Habermas The Return of the Repressed, Wolfgang Streeck, NLR 104, March–April 2017

Tyler and Rory discuss the pivotal dialogue between Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) and Frankfurt alumni and philosopher of the European Union, Jurgen Habermas, on the future of Europe and the World. With the orienting discussion of "the pre-political foundations of the moral state" the two representatives of the religious and secular worldviews discuss the problem of plurality in global order, the failure of liberal democracy to accommodate anything other than the secular, the cultural imperialism of western rationality, the pathologies of reason and religion, and the need for bonds of social solidarity to navigate intercultural tension between the secular and the religious.Follow us on Telegram: https://t.me/thamsterEBLFollow us on Twitter:https://twitter.com/TylerThamsterhttps://twitter.com/philosophy4fit https://twitter.com/JeffersonLee86https://twitter.com/DiscntTomCruisehttps://twitter.com/juicedavisxThumbnail Art and Video editing by: Censored Anon: https://t.me/thecensoredanonreturnsOriginal Music by: https://soundcloud.com/k-millermusicTo Support us: https://linktr.ee/thamster Ko-fi.com/thamsterwitnat

Neste episódio, a mestranda em Filosofia (UFRGS) Paula Mariana Rech (http://lattes.cnpq.br/4231828278705238) fala sobre a filosofia de Jurgen Habermas e suas relações com a psicanálise. Influenciado pela Teoria Crítica, Habermas diagnostica que as ciências, com características positivistas, falham em descrever adequadamente a sociedade pois há uma perda da auto-reflexão no método científico. Para ele, é necessário estudar como aprendemos e pensamos para dar conta dessas lacunas na ciência. A psicanálise clínica, a partir dos estudos de Freud, se apresentaria como um meio para compreender essas falhas na linguagem científica e produzir uma emancipação do pensamento. Bibliografia indicada: Artigo de Paula: Patologias da comunicação : a psicanálise à luz de Conhecimento e interesse (disponível em: https://lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/217593) Jürgen Habermas - Conhecimento e Interesse O “O Que é Tudo Isso?” agora é parte da Rede Colmeia Podcast's, mais informações em: https://colmeia.sul21.com.br/ Dúvidas críticas ou sugestões nos contate pelo oqueetudoisso@gmail.com, Você também pode nos seguir no Twitter (@OQTIPOD), instagram (oqtipod) e Facebook (o que é tudo isso podcast) Trilha: filmmusic.io "Great Times" de Sascha Ende (sascha-ende.de) CC BY 4.0 O presente trabalho foi realizado com apoio da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Código de Financiamento 001.

Concluding on Kant's "Perpetual Peace," plus Jurgen Habermas' "Kant's Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years' Hindsight." If you're not hearing the full version of this part of the discussion, sign up via one of the options described at partiallyexaminedlife.com/support.

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/performing-arts

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj.

Çigdem Çidam, Associate Professor of Political Science at Union College, has a new book titled In the Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship (Oxford UP, 2021) that examines political action by citizens, and how we interpret and discuss that action in context of political structures. The title In the Street is a reference to the seminal French poster from May of 1968 that read “beauty is in the street,” and was adapted by the demonstrators in Turkey decades later, providing one of the many examples of street politics that illustrate the discussion of activism throughout the book. Street politics has many forms, such as protests, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Often such actions are confined to the binary analysis of successes and failures, only examining how likely an action is to bring about change. The origins of this understanding stem from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of popular sovereignty, rejection of theatricality, and the idealization of immediacy. Çidam argues that this Rousseauian framework dilutes the value of these actions, forcing them into a reductive duality and failing to acknowledge that movements can fail simply because of the class positions their members are forced to assume. Regardless of their failures, there is an inherent and aesthetic value to these political actions that can last beyond the actions themselves. Çidam's alternative framework, developed through dissecting the viewpoints of political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antonio Negri, Jurgen Habermas, and Jacques Ranciere, redefines our understanding of the value of political action. In The Street: Democratic Action, Theatricality, and Political Friendship provides new perspectives and understandings of events like Occupy Wall Street, the Gezi uprising in Turkey, and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Çidam explains that “intermediating practices” are opportunities for encounter and engagement among those who are involved in these street actions. This concept is applied to the ways that individuals might find unity with each other within these political actions. Through intermediating practices, individuals become “political friends,” an Aristotelian concept that builds a relationship of unity and equity between people despite their differences as a result of their shared experiences of political action. These concepts must lead us to the conclusion that the driving forces of political action—anger, rage, joy—cannot be reduced to the binary of either success or failure, as Rousseau would have it. In The Streets re-centers the on-the-ground efforts of individuals, focusing on these communal actions rather than their particular outcomes. Çidam concludes that while these moments of political friendship are fleeting, their transience does not denote failure because the rich and creative practices of political actors are naturally valuable. Tune in to hear about Çigdem Çidam's interpretations of Negri's, Habermas', and Ranciere's unique political conceptions, how a focus on political friendship in the Gezi protests of 2013 helped to formulate her theoretical lenses for this analysis, and how remembrance of these movements can help us struggle against the powers that be for the next historical moment. Emma R. Handschke assisted in the production of this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this edition of Parallax Views, the noted genocide studies scholar A. Dirk Moses joins us to discuss his provocative book The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression. In said book, Moses argues that the way in which we conceptualize the legal concept of genocide structures the way we think about "acts that shock the conscience of mankind" and how this in turn may lead us to have blind spots in considering how other heinous acts and crimes against humanity also should shock our conscience. We begin by discussing how Moses became involved in genocide studies and the treatment of indigenous Australians under colonialism. Additionally, Moses gives a history of the term genocide from WWII and the Holocaust on through to the Cold War and the War on Terror. In this regard, we discuss genocide and the ways in which it has been utilized as a concept to political, and especially foreign policy ends. During this portion of the conversation Moses and I talk a little bit about U.S. foreign policy heavyweight Samantha Power and her influential book The Problem from Hell. Additionally, Moses and J.G. talk about: - The concept of permanent security, its liberal and illiberal variants, the utopian nature of pursuing it, and the problems that arise from it - Drone warfare and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen - The Holocaust, the debate over Germany and Holocaust Memory and what Moses calls the "German Catechism" as well as the response famed philosopher/sociologist Jurgen Habermas made to Moses's writing on the subject - The Nigerian Civil War and the Republic of Biafra - And much, much more!

Have you ever wondered why some issues are treated as private and personal, while others are self-evidently public concerns? Meanwhile, certain topics are discussed freely and openly, but only among niche subcultures: local interest groups, expert practitioners, hardcore enthusiasts, and even marginalized communities. How can we better understand these kinds of diverse audience groupings, which are so critical to the circulation of political text and talk? On today's re:blurb episode, we address these questions through a deep-dive into the rhetoric of publicity and counterpublicity. In so doing, we overview the landmark public sphere theories of Jurgen Habermas and Hannah Arendt, as well as later feminist, anti-racist, and queer theory contributions from scholars such as Nancy Fraser, Catherine Squires, Michael Warner, and Daniel Brouwer. Finally, we highlight the importance of Antonio Gramsci's notion of hegemony for unpacking our inherited ideas about “civil society.” To illustrate this point, we offer an analysis of a recent controversy involving Arizona Senator Krysten Sinema, in which activists pursued her into a public restroom to protest her obstruction of immigration reform. Considering the incident and its broader reverberations in media discourses about privacy and civility, we argue that these ideas are contested because hegemony itself is contested. In a deeply unequal society like ours, publicity and counterpublicity are contingent upon groups' positions within hierarchies of power. An early draft of this episode was prepared as a submission for the 2021 Rhetoric Society of America Summer Institute workshop on “The Trouble with Publics and Counterpublics.” That workshop unfortunately did not take place, due to the unexpected passing of workshop co-leader Dr. Daniel Brouwer. Dan Brouwer was a critical force in rhetorical studies, public sphere theory, and queer studies - a strong mentor, friend, and crucial voice across academic fields. It is in this spirit that we humbly dedicate this episode to the memory of Dr. Daniel Brouwer.Works and Concepts Cited in this EpisodeArendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.Aronoff, K. (2021, 21 Sept.). Joe Manchin's vote isn't that mysterious. Look to the fossil fuel money. The New Republic. Retrieved from: https://newrepublic.com/article/163723/joe-manchin-vote-fossil-fuelAsen, R. (2000). Seeking the “counter” in counterpublics. Communication theory, 10(4), 424-446.Boguslaw, D. (2021, 26 Sept.). Kyrsten Sinema used the winery where she interned to fundraise with private equity. The Intercept. Retrieved from: https://theintercept.com/2021/09/26/kyrsten-sinema-private-equity-tax-loophole/Brouwer, D.C. (2001). ACT-ing UP in congressional hearings. In R. Asen and D.C. Brouwer (Eds.) Counterpublics and the State (pp. 87-110). SUNY Press.Cloud, D. L. (2018). Reality bites: Rhetoric and the circulation of truth claims in US political culture. The Ohio State University Press.Cloud, D.L. (2015). “Civility” as a threat to academic freedom. First Amendment Studies, 49(1), 13-17.Davenport, C. (2021, 19 Sept.). Joe Manchin will craft the U.S. climate plan. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/climate/manchin-climate-biden.htmlFraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social text, (25/26), 56-80.Gramsci, A. (2011). Prison Notebooks (Vol. 2) (J.A. Buttigieg, Trans.). Columbia University Press.Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press. (Originally published in 1962).Hauser, G. A. (1999). Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Univ of South Carolina Press.Klippenstein, K. (2021, 8 Oct.). Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is literally teaching a course on fundraising. The Intercept. Retrieved from: https://theintercept.com/2021/10/08/kyrsten-sinema-fundraising-course-asu/Luchetta, J. (2021, Oct. 4). Activists ambush Sen. Kyrsten Sinema in public bathroom over immigration, infrastructure. USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/04/sen-kyrsten-sinema-bathroom-arizona-immigration-infrastructure/5990516001/Squires, C. R. (2002). Rethinking the black public sphere: An alternative vocabulary for multiple public spheres. Communication theory, 12(4), 446-468.Treene, A. (2021, 7 Oct.). Scoop: Sanders' Sinema spat. Axios. Retrieved from: https://www.axios.com/sanders-sinema-spat-harrassment-a8c9f7a2-6579-4800-aa28-43a71fe2639b.htmlWalsh, K. N. (2021, 5 Oct.). Protesters following Kyrsten Sinema into the bathroom undermined their efforts. The Independent. Retrieved from: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kyrsten-sinema-bathroom-protest-privacy-b1932844.htmlWarner, M. (2002). Publics and counterpublics. Zone Books.

No episódio 69 a gente coloca em pauta o senso comum que afirma a polarização como um problema social, como algo que marca negativamente a nossa vivência contemporânea. Será sempre um erro polarizar? O que entendemos por polarização, atualmente, atravessa questões como: diálogo, tolerância, falsas simetrias e, claro, a figura do "isentão", da "isentona". Foi esse o caminho seguido para perguntarmos: Quando é preciso polarizar!? Estamos ancorados nas principais plataformas de distribuição: Spotify, ApplePodcasts, iTunes, Castbox, Deezer, YouTube (com a gravação completa!!!) ou no seu agregador favorito. Mergulhamos em: - Teoria do agir comunicativo (Jurgen Habermas). - Fronteiras da Justiça (Martha C. Nussbaum). - A sociedade aberta e os seus inimigos (Karl Popper). - A liberdade é uma luta constante (Angela Davis). - Amigos, amigas, amigues.

Blasting back to the heyday of the punk movement, Kevin and Mike hop aboard Rocket to Russia, the third studio album by rough and tumble rockers, The Ramones. Featuring prominently in this consummate discourse on pop culture are gratuitous references to the likes of Walt Whitman, Paul McCartney and Wings, The Fairly OddParents, Jack Kerouac, Motörhead, The Gong Show, and Fibber McGee and Molly. And somehow, Jurgen Habermas horns his way into the conversation yet again. Related, recommended, and required resources for this episode: “Palisades Park” by Freddy Cannon Covered by The Ramones on their Brain Drain album, this 1962 hit was written by Chuck Barris, who is best known for hosting TV's The Gong Show. “R.A.M.O.N.E.S.” by Motörhead Live in Dusseldorf, 2004

EBL crew discusses the Marx of the Managerial Class, the Hegel of the European Union, Jurgen Habermas.

EBL crew discusses the Marx of the Managerial Class, the Hegel of the European Union, Jurgen Habermas.

What is public sphere? A dominant liberal answer: a sphere where private individuals, members of a political community, on equal footing engage in reasoned deliberation on matters of public concern to form public opinions on what is public good(s). Such a sphere is fundamental to democracy—a sphere that mediates a relationship between society and state and holds later accountable to the former. What are the problems with this dominant liberal conception of public sphere? Fundamental to democracy is public deliberation but on what and whose terms and conditions are these deliberation taking place? In an actually existing society with unequal distribution of power, who gets heard? Who represents the public? How do subordinate groups reorganize and deliberate their public concerns? We read Jurgen Habermas’s classic work on the public sphere alongside Nancy Fraser’s critical rethinking to discuss these questions and more. Intro/Outro theme: Karachal - Alash Ensemble (freemusicarchive.org/music/Alash_Ensemble/) Image description: Gopal Guru, Dalit social and political theorist, speaking on nationalism in Jawaharlal Nehru University outside the VC's office. Amidst the widespread crackdown on student political activism under the new BJP government in India and the national media proclaiming students in the university as anti-national, the students and professors of the university reorganize themselves outside the University's VC office to debate what is a nation? How should we understand nationalism? In the process, they proclaimed the space as Freedom Square--a site Nancy Fraser might call subaltern public sphere, a site resistance and counter-discourse. Image Credit: still image from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joTTDAOyPLY&feature=emb_title Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/khyyl-gtm-khyeltam/donations

Jurgen Habermas ha scritto un saggio, anticipato sul nuovo quotidiano Domani, in cui traccia un parallelo tra l'occasione che si presento' alla Germania dopo il crollo del blocco sovietico e quella che si presenta oggi per reagire alla pandemia.La Riunificazione tedesca ebbe come contropartita l'abbandono del marco e la creazione di una moneta unica per temperare la preminenza economica della Germania Unita sul resto dell'Europa.La necessita' di sostenere le economie di Italia e Spagna devastate dal Covid implica un passo deciso verso una maggiore condivisione delle politiche fiscali. La classe politica tedesca si e' convinta a intraprendere questa strada per depotenziare la crescita di AfD che evoca lo spettro del nazionalismo e addirittura del nazismo.Il nuovo #IngloriousGlobastards con Fabio Scacciavillani e Alberto Forchielli

Mundo dos sistemas X Mundo da vida

Keajaiban-keajaiban kehidupan seniman Senen yang dipaparkan oleh Misbach Yusa Biran dalam cerita cerpen "Keajaiban di Pasar Senen". Pada pembahasan kali ini bukan hanya sebatas review, melainkan juga mengkajinya dalam perspektif filoaofis ruang publik dari Jurgen Habermas. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/radita/message

It is my pleasure today to be speaking with Hanne Nabintu Herland, bestselling Scandanavian author and founder of the Herland Report website and YouTube channel, which has been read and viewed by millions.  theherlandreport.comhannenabintuherland.comHanne is author of the newly released book, New Left Tyranny, which she adds to her list of 9 other books written in Norwegian and English, including "Alarm! Reflections on a culture in crisis" and an autobiography "Respect" published in 2012.Hanne is a Scandinavian historian of comparative religions, bestselling author, columnist and TV producer, known from the media for sharp analysis and fearless speech. She was born and raised in Africa, has lived in South America, the Middle East and travelled extensively in Asia.In our wideranging discussion, we speak about:- the global coronavirus overreaction- growing up in Africa, the Congo, East Africa- her culture shock at returning to Europe at the age of 19- the fear of non-Western foreigners by many Norwegians - the hypocrisy of the West with regard to its foreign "allies" and "enemies"- her new book, New Left Tyranny- the importance of historic Christian values to Western Civilisation- the neo-Marxist assault on Western civilisation and historic values- how her bestselling blockbuster book in 2010 allowed her to start the Herland Report as an independent media house- the emergence of simplistic race thinking on the right and left- censorship in Norway vs. US and UK- Black Lives Matter and Donald Trump- How the Viking Spirit was quenched in Scandanavia to a meek socialism- her Christian foundation and how she relates this to interaction with people of other religions and faiths- Jurgen Habermas and his turnabout with regard to secularism and Christianity- The murderousness of atheism, e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler- the powerlessness of Donald Trump- the US being in a state of civil war, with the President powerless in the face of the Deep State- globalism and the dominance of corporations- the danger of a strong state being able to be controlled by a small group- the danger of socialism- the merging of NGOs with global billionaires and multinational corporations- the importance of diversity and difference and the nation state- Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life 

El filósofo Jurgen Habermas es el exponente de la degradación ideológica de la socialdemocracia. Fuentes: https://www.ivoox.com/2378657 Concierto para piano nº20 de Mozart mcrc.es diariorc.com 2020

Peningastefnunefnd Seðlabankans tilkynnir vaxtaákörðun á morgun og spá greiningardeildir bankanna því að meginvextir bankans lækki. Af því tilefni fór Þórður Snær Júlíusson, ritstjóri Kjarnans, yfir stöðu þjóðarbúsins. Hann segir hana almennt mjög góða og ríki, sveitarfélög, fyrirtæki og einstaklinga vel í stakk búin til að takast á við þá niðursveiflu sem nú er eftir langt og samfellt hagvaxtarskeið. Í Þýskalandsspjalli sagði Arthúr Björgvin Bollason m.a. frá umræðum um þá hættu sem frjálslyndum stjórnmálamönnum er talin stafa af uppgangi öfgahópa sem kenna sig við nasisma. Fyrr í mánuðinum var stjórnmálamanninum Walter Lubcke ráðinn bani en hann hafði beitt sér í málefnum hælisleitenda. Nokkrum stjórnmálamönnum með svipuð áherslumál hafa borist morðhótanir. Arthúr Björgvin sagði líka frá fræðimanninum og hugsuðinum Jurgen Habermas sem varð níræður á dögunum. Habermas hefur bent á hvernig gildi auðmagnsins hafa gegnsýrt vitundarlíf venjulegs fólks í Þýskalandi og víðar á vesturlöndum. Í tilefni afmælisins er væntanleg ný bók eftir Habermas sem telur 1700 blaðsíður! Samtökin Læknar án landamæra voru stofnuð í Frakklandi 1971 og hafa síðan unnið mannúðarstarf víða um lönd. Þau starfa við erfiðustu aðstæður; á átakasvæðum og þar sem sjúkdómar geisa. Lára Jónasdóttir, starfsmaður samtakanna, sagði frá hugmyndafræðinni og starfinu en leitað er að fólki sem vilja vinna fyrir samtökin. Tónlist: My funny Valentine - Miles Davis. Come Undone - Duran Duran.

Introduction: Today there are many people who believe that Christianity is not only wrong and backward but actually dangerous and inhibiting. The New Atheists have laid almost all social evil at the foot of religion. The trouble with this critique is that it is historically uninformed. There is a false narrative that tries to make out that science, or progress, or freedom, has been trying to break out of the mould and the church has been the biggest hindrance. This accusation that the church can only do harm can only come when people are historically ignorant to all that the church has accomplished. Jurgen Habermas, who carried no brief for Christianity said: ‘Christianity and nothing else is the ultimate foundation of liberty of conscience, human rights and democracy, the benchmarks of western civilisation.’ This is not the feeling on the streets or in the message of the New Atheists. So today I want to look at four areas of concern. Firstly, we must address the false narrative that Christianity has held back the development of culture/society. Secondly, we want to answer the perception that Christianity denies religious freedom forcing its opinion upon all. Thirdly, we must address the concern that Christianity dehumanise us by denying us freedom and putting us into a straitjacket. Fourthly, that Christianity destroys other cultures. I have grouped all these concerns together under the problem of Christianity being detrimental to society. Source

En este podcast hablamos de la relación entre la religión y las formas de gobierno de un Estado moderno. Hablamos con Javier Aguirre, autor del libro ‘Filosofía, religión y democracia: Habermas y el rol de la religión en la esfera pública' publicado por la Editorial. La filosofía como fuente de reflexión sobre cómo pensar un estado en los términos de la democracia moderna. Una problemática que Aguirre busca mostrar a través de la teoría del filósofo y sociólogo Jurgen Habermas y su propuesta sobre la comunicación entre individuos.Conduce: María Camila Núñez. Panelista: Leidy Pimienta. Producción: Diego A Garzon-Forero y Juan Carlos Ruiz Hurtado

In this episode, Paul Gowder, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law, discusses his article "Reconstituting We the People: Frederick Douglass and Jurgen Habermas in Conversation," which will be published in the Northwestern University Law Review. Gowder begins by describing conventional constitutional theory and explaining why internal contradictions make its theory of legitimacy unworkable. Then he describes an assortment of constitutional theories he characterizes as "constitutional conception," explaining how they solve the problems with the conventional theory, but are themselves vulnerable to other objections. Specifically, a constitution is illegitimate when it excludes people from participating in its development. Gowder observes that African-Americans have historically been excluded from constitutional development in the United States, and observes how African-American political thinkers, including Frederick Douglass have conceptualized and utilized that exclusion, in a theoretical move he calls, "cynical faith." Gowder is on Twitter at @PaulGowder. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week’s guest is Dr. Zak Stein, an author and educator whom I met as fellow students of the work of philosopher Ken Wilber over ten years ago. Zak took the road of serious high academic scholarship while I was learning the less laudable and messier way through immersion in the arts and entertainment world, but here we are converging to discuss one of the most important issues of our time: the need for a new human story that includes both modernity’s rigorous scientific inquiry and postmodernity’s revelation of how everything we know is framed by language, culture, and perspective. Without some clever, soulful balance of the two we’re stuck in a “post-truth” era where our need for answers to our fundamental questions leads us backwards into “isms” instead of forwards into something more good, true, and beautiful than what has come before.Zak’s answer (like so many other guests on Future Fossils) is to get MORE rigorous about the scope and limits of the world disclosed by science, MORE honest with ourselves about the context-bound claims we can make on knowledge, and MORE open to how all “reality” starts in direct experience, as conscious subjects – where we meet to make new, open-ended, ever-more refined, evolving answers to the questions:What is human? What is love? What are we here to do?Read Zak’s new paper, “Love in a Time Between Worlds: On the Metamodern ‘Return’ to a Metaphysics of Eros”:http://www.zakstein.org/love-in-a-time-between-worlds/‘Where modern scientists often critique the claims of metaphysics as unverifiable and thus untrue, postmodernists critique both science and metaphysics for making truth claims in the first place. Either way, to call an idea or theory “metaphysical” has become another way of saying it is unacceptable. Often with comes with some implication that the theory is a kind of superstition, which means metaphysics is taken not as an attempt to engage the truth but rather as a kind of covert power play or psychological defense mechanism. I argue the opposite: metaphysics is what saves us from a descent into discourses that are merely about power and illusion. Believe it or not, there are metaphysical systems that survived postmodernism and popped-out of the far end of the 1990’s with “truth” and “reality” still intact. These include object oriented ontology and dialectical critical realism, among others.’Zak is also the Co-Presdient and Academic Director at the Center for Integral Wisdom:https://centerforintegralwisdom.org/…and on the scientific advisor board at Neurohacker Collective:https://neurohacker.com/— In this episode we discuss:Lewis Mumford, Ken Wilber, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Jurgen Habermas, Seth Abramson, Timothy Morton, Rudolf Steiner, Alfred North Whitehead, Hanzi Freinacht, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jordan Greenhall, and many other luminaries.Right-wing and authoritarian political thought is resurgent today because of the absence of reasonable discourse about metaphysical realities during a time when exactly these realties are being put in question due to the apocalypse of global capitalism and the accompanying planetary transition into the Anthropocene .The way we answer questions like, “What is the human?” will determine the next century because of the emerging power of new technologies that render the human mailable in unpresented ways, which has been made clear by writers like Yuval Harari.“The difference between metaphysics and science is not about what you can see and what you cannot see. It is about what you are paying attention to when you are seeing.”“What we call postmodernism is just modernism with the volume turned WAY up.”The difference between modern, postmodern, and metamodern views on science and the realities disclosed by science.What does it mean to cut a definition of the human out of our education systems?The relevance of Rudolf Steiner’s metaphysics and pedagogy in 21st Century education – especially its attention to subjectivity and interiority.How fundamentalism, nationalism, racism, and other regressive movements in society are symptoms of a postmodern assault on consensus reality.“In the absence of metaphysics, there’s a vacuum of meaning…what can step into that is not always pretty.”“After postmodernism, we can’t return to some pat, totalizing answer for everybody. After postmodernism, when we begin to build a new coherence, it’s always going to be a polycentric and dynamic and always renegotiated coherence. And that’s what science ought to be, which is to say, knowledge building, and not knowledge finding. Period.”“Ideas matter – and right now, we live in a context where ideas matter only insofar as they can be leveraged for clicks on websites that generate advertisement revenue.”When did we start gladly giving our decision-making powers over to others? And who do we trust now when we know that expertise is so contextual and frequently abused?Making the Earth into a giant building is the beginning of metamodern history – the Anthropocene signaling our deep relationship with the ecosphere.Michael reveals his vision of an Eclipse Station & Black Madonna University as a nobler motivation for a second “space race.”We’ve succeeded in making mega-machines out of people but need to reframe what it means to be IN relationship…Hyperobjects and a metamodern investigation of synchronicity and time…the objectivity of time is tricky.“Animals do not build sundials, even though they would benefit greatly from them. And so you’ll notice that one of the things that sets humans apart is their ability to make metaphysics – that they relate to things that are objectively real, like time.”The eternal and the everlasting – two different things.“Who gets to decide, and how do we get to decide, on these deep questions?”“To reify a false and truncated metaphysics – for example, to say that love doesn’t exist, that free will doesn’t actually exist – to really try to build institutions based on that, which would result in a radically authoritarian society – these things have been done. But never with the technological power that we now have to, for example, to build a school around that hypothesis. Or an army. And so there’s this very sincere need to make sure that as we move through this period, we’re keeping the voices who want to simplify and reduce and return to modernity and the monological at bay. So applaud, the postmodernists, but we also want to get beyond the postmodern critique, and the whole spirit and emotion of critique, and somehow move into a space where we’re reconstructing a new metanarrative, instead of taking potshots and deconstructing anyone who steps up to offer a metanarrative. After postmodernism it needs to be provisional, polycentric, built iteratively through collaboration. But there needs to be a project in good spirits in that direction. Because the regressive tendencies on the right who want to drive us toward racism and nationalism are having questions about, ‘What is the human?,’ and answering them irrationally. We need to have VERY reasonable and profound answers to questions like, ‘What is human?,’ ‘What are we here on Earth to do?,’ ‘What is a relationship?,’ ‘How important are relationships?,’ ‘What is love?,’ ‘Is love real?’, ‘What’s the significance of love?’…these things are part of what it means to be human.”How do we build a just and humane, “post-tragic” culture on the other side of the Crisis of the Anthropocene?We are all dependent on unjust and ecologically devastating supply chains…now what?“Hate creates externalities. Love creates no externalities.”The logic of the metamodern system has to be one in which there are no externalities.Support this show on PatreonJoin the Facebook GroupSubscribe on Apple PodcastsSubscribe on Google PodcastsSubscribe on StitcherSubscribe on SpotifySubscribe on iHeart Radio See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

I reflect on the debate with Nick Fuentes, the points Nick failed to grasp as we debated, and the end result of western dialectics: Marxism and the Frankfurt School, with an emphasis on Jurgen Habermas.

De Habermas a Adela Cortina. Domingo García Marzá   Entrevistamos al Catedrático de la Universitat Jaume I de Castelló Domingo García Marzá que nos habla de ética, ciencia, medios de comunicación y moral en el capitalismo. Apoyándose en Ortega, en los autores de la escuela de Frankfurt y especialmente en Habermas recuerda a Adela Cortina como su "mestra" su maestra, con la que lleva trabajando toda una vida. Nos recomienda el libro también de Adela Cortina Ética aplicada y democracia radical. Como gran aficionado al cine encuentra dificultades para elegir solamente una película y nos recomienda dos. La primera es Margin Call una película estrenada en 2011 y que narra las 24 horas previas al estallido de la crisis de 2008 vividas en un banco de inversión norteamericano. La segunda película es ya un clásico dirigido en 1975 por Stanley Kubrick que fue rodada enteramente en decorados de época. Barry Lyndon obtuvo además el reconocimiento de la Academia de Hollywood con cuatro Óscars: dirección artística, fotografía, vestuario y banda sonora.     Referencias   Domingo García Marzá http://eticaydemocracia.uji.es/miembros/domingo-garcia-marza/   Transcripción inicio de la entrevista:   Decía el viejo filósofo alemán que había que avergonzarse de morir si no se había conseguido una victoria para la humanidad. Nuestro invitado de hoy cosecha victorias en el terreno de la justicia, la democracia o la empresa y siempre mirando desde la ética. El profesor Vicente Domingo García Marzá es catedrático de ética en la Universitat Jaume I y cuenta con una amplísima experiencia investigadora internacional. En sus últimos trabajos ha reflexionado sobre la democracia y al igual que el viejo filósofo aleman Jurgen Habermas encuentra en el diálogo y en la confianza en el otro las claves para tejer una sociedad civil que dote de sentido a la democracia.   Esteban Galán Universitat Jaume I de Castelló Grupo de investigación ITACA-UJI http://www.culturavisual.uji.es/ http://comtransmedia.com    

abermas and public sphere theory Welcome to Mere Rhetoric, a podcast for beginners and insiders about the ideas, people and movemnts who have shaped rhetorical history. special thanks to the rhetoric society of america student chatper at the university of texas at Austin.  I’m Mary Hedengren and today I’m joined by Laura Thain.   Have you spent much time thinking about coffee? If you’re a grad student, the answer is probably yes, but really do you spend much time thinking about what coffee did, especially coffee shops, especially in Europe? Coffee houses were an integral part of the Ottoman Empire in the late 15th century and they spread quickly throughout all of Europe. By the 17th century, coffeehouses, not taverns, were the places to gather in your neighborhood. And if you think about how caffeine-fueled coffeehouses differed from the sloppy drunkenness of taverns, it’s little surprise that coffeehouses quickly gained a reputation as being a place of open political and intellectual discussion. 15th century Ottomans and 20th century Seattleites alike saw the coffeeshop as a place to open up dangerous conversation. The Spanish king Charles II even tried to restrict coffee houses on the grounds that there were places where “the disaffected met and spread scandalous reports concerning the conduct of His Majesty and his Ministers” (qtd Times 23 Feb 2008). Gathering around a cup of Joe seemed to set everyone to riotous conversation, to the public discussion that led to revolutions in America and France in the 18th century, and because of this the coffeehouse became the place of obsession for 20th century philosopher Jurgen Habermas. Habermas noted an 18th century seachange in the relationship between people and sovereign. Earlier, people supported (or didn’t) their sovereign as a symbol for them: France is the king and the king is France, therefore it’s to the benefit of France for the king of France to be as rich and grand as possible, regardless of how this impacts the everyday peasant on the street. But in the 18th century, a rise in coffeehouses and the conversations they engender accompanied an increase in newspapers reading clubs, journals, salons and other groups of public political conversation. This Habermas calls the öffentlichkeit, or the public sphere. The public sphere was a dialogue, a conversation of opinions. “Is the king France? Should the king be France? Let’s hear the pros and cons, then!” Habermas drew a direct line between the increase of coffeehouses and their conversations and the toppling of the French monarchy. This public sphere isn’t a given and not every coffeehouse, town hall meeting etc. is going automatically be a public sphere. In fact, Habermas identified some of the identifying characteristics and requirements for a public sphere. 1-    First, the public sphere requires a temporary disregard of public status, according to Habermas. He believed in “a kind of social intercourse that, far from presupposing the equality of status, disregarded status altogether” () . It doesn’t work if only the princes of France get their say and the merchants don’t. Everyone needs a place at the coffee table.   In many ways, our conception of a “public sphere” as ordinary citizens in the US is so pervasive that we have trouble imagining a world without one.  But what Habermas points out is that before the birth of a public sphere in the eighteenth century, there was little linking the private sphere (the discourse of ordinary subjects of the sovereign) to the bureaucratic sphere (the discourse of the sovereign to his subjects).  Imagine if laws and edicts were all that existed to communicate between king and subject. Habermas argues that the public sphere emerged as a unique space for what were once private murmurings to have real and legitimate impact upon bureaucratic procedure under certain rhetorical constraints.  This was no pitchforks-and-barn-burning kind of conversation, but rather, the emergence of a new rhetorical practice that rapidly came to be dominated by a nascent middle class of people: the bourgeois.     2-    Talking about private and bureaucratic coming together is tricky, though.  “Private” doesn’t mean what we might think today.  In the public sphere, there needed to be some sort of common issue, a public issue of common concern. Before the emergence of a public sphere, according to Habermas, the kinds of things we think about as very public were private conversations among citizens, if they were articulated at all.  For instance, the question of whether France needs a king is a question that everyone in France is concerned about. The question of whether wine dealers in the northwest of Paris should ration a particularly good vintage is not. The question of whether Pierre ought to marry Margarite is definitely not. Often these common concerns were rarely discussed—they were given. The civic or religious authorities told the people that France needs a king and that’s that. Until the people begin sitting around in coffeehouses started asking the questions about things that they all had an interest in.   The idea that the coffee house became a new space for people who previously had no visible platform to communicate with existing power structures is really important because it signals the emergence of not just a new place to talk but a new center of institutional authority.  Habermas argues that the public sphere is an important and new site of power in the 18th century.  This might sound familiar to you if you’ve heard talk about “public discourse” in the things you read and discuss in your own life.  Public discourse and a space to have that discourse in is really important, but it’s important to understand how that space happened to read how we might read what the public sphere means as a concept today.   3-    Habermas argues that the public sphere is a public good, but in order to do so he claims that once-private-now-public issues had to be open for anyone to discuss. As Habermas said “The issues discussed became ‘general’ not merely in their significance, but also in their accessibility: everyone had to be able to participate” In coffee houses and salons, there were no rules about who was allowed to open their mouths.   The coffeehouse seems to fulfill these expectations, which is probably why Habermas was so keen on the example. But the coffeehouse wasn’t perfect and these imperfections highlight some of the problems of the public sphere in general. For instance, there were rules about who could get in the coffeehouse. While Germany made some exceptions for silent baristas, in France and Germany, women were personae non gratae in these vibrant spaces of public debate. It’s all very well to say coffeehouses were inclusive, except where they weren’t. And for that reason, Habermas’s dreamy ideal of the public sphere is seen by some as just a dream, a bourgeois dream that pretends to be inclusive but actually excludes voices of women and other minorities. The scholar who is mostly closely associated with a criticism of Habermas’s public sphere is American scholar Nancy Fraser. Nancy Fraser’s Rethinking the Public Sphere makes her three points about the public sphere to challenge Habermas’. While Habermas emphasizes disregard of public status, common issues and the freedom to open your mouth and speak, Fraser refutes these same points. When Habermas says that everyone is equal in the coffeehouse, Fraser contends that this is actually a “bracketing [of] inequalities of status” and far from removing these differences of status, “such bracketing usually works to the advantage of dominant groups in society and to the disadvantage of subordinates.” Instead of saying—inauthentically—that there is equality in the public sphere, Fraser recommends instead that we “unbracket inequalities in the sense of explicitly thematizing them.” Instead of saying that a prince and a merchant are the same in the coffeehouse, some of the conversation should be about the fact that they aren’t and why. Fraser also challenges the idea that there are common issues in the public sphere. She says that there “no naturally given … boundaries” between public issues (or “common concern”) and private ones. So remember the example about how the question of whether France needs a king being a public one while Pierre marrying Margarite is a private one? Well, what if the names were instead Louie XV and Marie of Poland? Is that a public issue or a private one? Fraser points out that many issues that were once personal issues like domestic abuse, have become public issues. As she says, "Eventually, after sustained discursive contestation we succeeded in making it a common concern". Finally, Fraser points out that not everyone is welcome to the table. Women were excluded everywhere—in clubs and associations—philanthropic, civic professional and cultural—was anything by accessible to everyone. On the contrary, it was the arena, the training ground and eventually the powerbase of a stratum of bourgeois men who were coming to see themselves as a ‘universal class’” The deception that such spheres were truly public justified the male, middle classes in making decisions that were for ‘all of France’ when, in actuality, hegemonic dominance had excluded many participants. Instead, Frase suggests that theses marginalized groups form their own public spheres, which she called Counterpublics. These counterpublics are “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs"   Another site of vibrant research in public sphere theory is in the field of spatial rhetorics.  While Habermas arguably saw the public sphere as an ideological shift that just happened to be housed in Europe’s coffee house and salon culture, scholars like Henri LeFebvre, Edward Soja, David Fleming, and UT Austin’s own Casey Boyle are increasingly interested in talking about, to quote Dr. Boyle, “how spaces affect our shared practices and sense of identity.”  To these scholars, the coffee shop as a physical, embodied space is as important to the structural transformation of the public sphere as the folks who inhabited it.             So the next time you visit your favorite cafe and order yourself a hot beverage, think about what kind of public you’re a part of. What, if anything, do you have in common with the people around you? What are some power differentials between you? What “common concerns” do you have? And what do you think about the king of France?        

Habermas and public sphere theory Welcome to Mere Rhetoric, a podcast for beginners and insiders about the ideas, people and movemnts who have shaped rhetorical history. special thanks to the rhetoric society of america student chatper at the university of texas at Austin.  I’m Mary Hedengren and today I’m joined by Laura Thain.   Have you spent much time thinking about coffee? If you’re a grad student, the answer is probably yes, but really do you spend much time thinking about what coffee did, especially coffee shops, especially in Europe? Coffee houses were an integral part of the Ottoman Empire in the late 15th century and they spread quickly throughout all of Europe. By the 17th century, coffeehouses, not taverns, were the places to gather in your neighborhood. And if you think about how caffeine-fueled coffeehouses differed from the sloppy drunkenness of taverns, it’s little surprise that coffeehouses quickly gained a reputation as being a place of open political and intellectual discussion. 15th century Ottomans and 20th century Seattleites alike saw the coffeeshop as a place to open up dangerous conversation. The Spanish king Charles II even tried to restrict coffee houses on the grounds that there were places where “the disaffected met and spread scandalous reports concerning the conduct of His Majesty and his Ministers” (qtd Times 23 Feb 2008). Gathering around a cup of Joe seemed to set everyone to riotous conversation, to the public discussion that led to revolutions in America and France in the 18th century, and because of this the coffeehouse became the place of obsession for 20th century philosopher Jurgen Habermas. Habermas noted an 18th century seachange in the relationship between people and sovereign. Earlier, people supported (or didn’t) their sovereign as a symbol for them: France is the king and the king is France, therefore it’s to the benefit of France for the king of France to be as rich and grand as possible, regardless of how this impacts the everyday peasant on the street. But in the 18th century, a rise in coffeehouses and the conversations they engender accompanied an increase in newspapers reading clubs, journals, salons and other groups of public political conversation. This Habermas calls the öffentlichkeit, or the public sphere. The public sphere was a dialogue, a conversation of opinions. “Is the king France? Should the king be France? Let’s hear the pros and cons, then!” Habermas drew a direct line between the increase of coffeehouses and their conversations and the toppling of the French monarchy. This public sphere isn’t a given and not every coffeehouse, town hall meeting etc. is going automatically be a public sphere. In fact, Habermas identified some of the identifying characteristics and requirements for a public sphere. 1-    First, the public sphere requires a temporary disregard of public status, according to Habermas. He believed in “a kind of social intercourse that, far from presupposing the equality of status, disregarded status altogether” () . It doesn’t work if only the princes of France get their say and the merchants don’t. Everyone needs a place at the coffee table.   In many ways, our conception of a “public sphere” as ordinary citizens in the US is so pervasive that we have trouble imagining a world without one.  But what Habermas points out is that before the birth of a public sphere in the eighteenth century, there was little linking the private sphere (the discourse of ordinary subjects of the sovereign) to the bureaucratic sphere (the discourse of the sovereign to his subjects).  Imagine if laws and edicts were all that existed to communicate between king and subject. Habermas argues that the public sphere emerged as a unique space for what were once private murmurings to have real and legitimate impact upon bureaucratic procedure under certain rhetorical constraints.  This was no pitchforks-and-barn-burning kind of conversation, but rather, the emergence of a new rhetorical practice that rapidly came to be dominated by a nascent middle class of people: the bourgeois.     2-    Talking about private and bureaucratic coming together is tricky, though.  “Private” doesn’t mean what we might think today.  In the public sphere, there needed to be some sort of common issue, a public issue of common concern. Before the emergence of a public sphere, according to Habermas, the kinds of things we think about as very public were private conversations among citizens, if they were articulated at all.  For instance, the question of whether France needs a king is a question that everyone in France is concerned about. The question of whether wine dealers in the northwest of Paris should ration a particularly good vintage is not. The question of whether Pierre ought to marry Margarite is definitely not. Often these common concerns were rarely discussed—they were given. The civic or religious authorities told the people that France needs a king and that’s that. Until the people begin sitting around in coffeehouses started asking the questions about things that they all had an interest in.   The idea that the coffee house became a new space for people who previously had no visible platform to communicate with existing power structures is really important because it signals the emergence of not just a new place to talk but a new center of institutional authority.  Habermas argues that the public sphere is an important and new site of power in the 18th century.  This might sound familiar to you if you’ve heard talk about “public discourse” in the things you read and discuss in your own life.  Public discourse and a space to have that discourse in is really important, but it’s important to understand how that space happened to read how we might read what the public sphere means as a concept today.   3-    Habermas argues that the public sphere is a public good, but in order to do so he claims that once-private-now-public issues had to be open for anyone to discuss. As Habermas said “The issues discussed became ‘general’ not merely in their significance, but also in their accessibility: everyone had to be able to participate” In coffee houses and salons, there were no rules about who was allowed to open their mouths.   The coffeehouse seems to fulfill these expectations, which is probably why Habermas was so keen on the example. But the coffeehouse wasn’t perfect and these imperfections highlight some of the problems of the public sphere in general. For instance, there were rules about who could get in the coffeehouse. While Germany made some exceptions for silent baristas, in France and Germany, women were personae non gratae in these vibrant spaces of public debate. It’s all very well to say coffeehouses were inclusive, except where they weren’t. And for that reason, Habermas’s dreamy ideal of the public sphere is seen by some as just a dream, a bourgeois dream that pretends to be inclusive but actually excludes voices of women and other minorities. The scholar who is mostly closely associated with a criticism of Habermas’s public sphere is American scholar Nancy Fraser. Nancy Fraser’s Rethinking the Public Sphere makes her three points about the public sphere to challenge Habermas’. While Habermas emphasizes disregard of public status, common issues and the freedom to open your mouth and speak, Fraser refutes these same points. When Habermas says that everyone is equal in the coffeehouse, Fraser contends that this is actually a “bracketing [of] inequalities of status” and far from removing these differences of status, “such bracketing usually works to the advantage of dominant groups in society and to the disadvantage of subordinates.” Instead of saying—inauthentically—that there is equality in the public sphere, Fraser recommends instead that we “unbracket inequalities in the sense of explicitly thematizing them.” Instead of saying that a prince and a merchant are the same in the coffeehouse, some of the conversation should be about the fact that they aren’t and why. Fraser also challenges the idea that there are common issues in the public sphere. She says that there “no naturally given … boundaries” between public issues (or “common concern”) and private ones. So remember the example about how the question of whether France needs a king being a public one while Pierre marrying Margarite is a private one? Well, what if the names were instead Louie XV and Marie of Poland? Is that a public issue or a private one? Fraser points out that many issues that were once personal issues like domestic abuse, have become public issues. As she says, "Eventually, after sustained discursive contestation we succeeded in making it a common concern". Finally, Fraser points out that not everyone is welcome to the table. Women were excluded everywhere—in clubs and associations—philanthropic, civic professional and cultural—was anything by accessible to everyone. On the contrary, it was the arena, the training ground and eventually the powerbase of a stratum of bourgeois men who were coming to see themselves as a ‘universal class’” The deception that such spheres were truly public justified the male, middle classes in making decisions that were for ‘all of France’ when, in actuality, hegemonic dominance had excluded many participants. Instead, Frase suggests that theses marginalized groups form their own public spheres, which she called Counterpublics. These counterpublics are “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs"   Another site of vibrant research in public sphere theory is in the field of spatial rhetorics.  While Habermas arguably saw the public sphere as an ideological shift that just happened to be housed in Europe’s coffee house and salon culture, scholars like Henri LeFebvre, Edward Soja, David Fleming, and UT Austin’s own Casey Boyle are increasingly interested in talking about, to quote Dr. Boyle, “how spaces affect our shared practices and sense of identity.”  To these scholars, the coffee shop as a physical, embodied space is as important to the structural transformation of the public sphere as the folks who inhabited it.             So the next time you visit your favorite cafe and order yourself a hot beverage, think about what kind of public you’re a part of. What, if anything, do you have in common with the people around you? What are some power differentials between you? What “common concerns” do you have? And what do you think about the king of France?        

SMJ #22 – Modelos de Democracia O que é democracia? Eis aí um termo que tem uma longuíssima história e uma multiplicidade de conceituações. Com a recente crise política brasileira, retomar os debates sobre a definição jurídica de democracia se torna fundamental para que as instituições nacionais saiam desse conflito de forma fortalecida e com nenhum direito a menos para os cidadãos. Nascida entre os gregos, a democracia hoje é muito diversa e seus referenciais muito amplos. As mais influentes formas de se pensar critérios democráticos hoje se pautam no entorno dos chamados modelos deliberativo e agonista, o primeiro hodiernamente inspirado em Jurgen Habermas e o segundo na reflexão de Chantal Mouffe. Para compreender as peculiaridades desses modelos e ver suas amplitudes e limites, o Salvo Melhor Juízo desta semana foi até Jacarezinho/PR conversar com três convidados especiais: Fernando de Brito Alves*, Jairo Néia Lima** e Marcos César Botelho***. Confira! ========= Indicado no programa: Livros e artigos: “Constituição e participação popular” – Fernando de Brito Alves “Democracia à portuguesa” – Fernando de Brito Alves “Magna Carta: 800 anos de influência no constitucionalismo e nos direitos fundamentais” – Jairo Neia Lima (org.) “A legitimidade da jurisdição constitucional no pensamento de Jurgen Habermas” – Marcos César Botelho. “Poucos, muitos, todos: lições de história da democracia” – Pietro Costa. “Devolver a Constituição ao Povo: crítica a supremacia judicial e diálogos interinstitucionais” – Miguel Godoy. ========= Comentários, sugestões, críticas: contatosalvomelhorjuizo@gmail.com Twitter: @SMJPodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/salvomelhorjuizo/ Instagram: @salvomelhorjuizo Assine o Feed: feeds.feedburner.com/salvomelhorjuizo Compartilhe, divulgue, ajude-nos nesse projeto! Agora o SMJ faz parte da rede de podcasts AntiCast! Acesse: www.anticast.com.br *Fernando de Brito Alves é Professor e Coordenador do Programa de Pós-graduação em Direito da Universidade Estadual do Norte do Paraná (UENP). Mestre, doutor e pós-doutor em Direito, realiza suas pesquisas na área de Direito e Democracia. **Jairo Neia Lima é servidor da Justiça Federal, mestre pela UENP e doutorando em Direito pela USP. Pesquisa Direito Constitucional com enfoque em Judicial Review e Conflitos democráticos. ***Marcos César Botelho é advogado da união e professor da graduação e pós-graduação em Direito da Universidade Estadual do Norte do Paraná (UENP). Mestre e doutor em Direito, pesquisa o impacto do pensamento de Jurgen Habermas no Direito.

Our taken for granted assumptions are questioned in a new book by Karl Spracklen, a professor of leisure studies at Leeds Metropolitan University in England. Whiteness and Leisure (Palgrave, 2013) combines two bodies of theoretical literature to interrogate leisure activities which seem innocuous or inoffensive. The book deploys insights from critical race theory along with the work of Jurgen Habermas to at once critique leisure as a site for the continued reproduction of inequality, but at the same time consider the utopian or transformative possibilities offered by leisure activity. The central inequality concerning Whiteness and Leisure is that of the socially constructed, but socially powerful, idea of race. Spracklen argues that whilst there is no scientific evidence for the vast swathes of claims made about race, the idea is influential in modern life. Most notably, ideas of race create categories of normal or taken for granted, in the case of whiteness, and other, exotic and different in the case of blackness. The replication of social inequality using categories of race is shown in discussions of sport, both participating and watching, of popular culture, such as Harry Potter and World of Warcraft, Music, including Folk and Metal, and forms of travel, tourism and outdoor experience. Drawing on a wide range of literature, empirical examples and personal anecdotes, the text will be of interest to readers from across both social science and the humanities, as well as anyone concerned with social justice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our taken for granted assumptions are questioned in a new book by Karl Spracklen, a professor of leisure studies at Leeds Metropolitan University in England. Whiteness and Leisure (Palgrave, 2013) combines two bodies of theoretical literature to interrogate leisure activities which seem innocuous or inoffensive. The book deploys insights from critical race theory along with the work of Jurgen Habermas to at once critique leisure as a site for the continued reproduction of inequality, but at the same time consider the utopian or transformative possibilities offered by leisure activity. The central inequality concerning Whiteness and Leisure is that of the socially constructed, but socially powerful, idea of race. Spracklen argues that whilst there is no scientific evidence for the vast swathes of claims made about race, the idea is influential in modern life. Most notably, ideas of race create categories of normal or taken for granted, in the case of whiteness, and other, exotic and different in the case of blackness. The replication of social inequality using categories of race is shown in discussions of sport, both participating and watching, of popular culture, such as Harry Potter and World of Warcraft, Music, including Folk and Metal, and forms of travel, tourism and outdoor experience. Drawing on a wide range of literature, empirical examples and personal anecdotes, the text will be of interest to readers from across both social science and the humanities, as well as anyone concerned with social justice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our taken for granted assumptions are questioned in a new book by Karl Spracklen, a professor of leisure studies at Leeds Metropolitan University in England. Whiteness and Leisure (Palgrave, 2013) combines two bodies of theoretical literature to interrogate leisure activities which seem innocuous or inoffensive. The book deploys insights from critical race theory along with the work of Jurgen Habermas to at once critique leisure as a site for the continued reproduction of inequality, but at the same time consider the utopian or transformative possibilities offered by leisure activity. The central inequality concerning Whiteness and Leisure is that of the socially constructed, but socially powerful, idea of race. Spracklen argues that whilst there is no scientific evidence for the vast swathes of claims made about race, the idea is influential in modern life. Most notably, ideas of race create categories of normal or taken for granted, in the case of whiteness, and other, exotic and different in the case of blackness. The replication of social inequality using categories of race is shown in discussions of sport, both participating and watching, of popular culture, such as Harry Potter and World of Warcraft, Music, including Folk and Metal, and forms of travel, tourism and outdoor experience. Drawing on a wide range of literature, empirical examples and personal anecdotes, the text will be of interest to readers from across both social science and the humanities, as well as anyone concerned with social justice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our taken for granted assumptions are questioned in a new book by Karl Spracklen, a professor of leisure studies at Leeds Metropolitan University in England. Whiteness and Leisure (Palgrave, 2013) combines two bodies of theoretical literature to interrogate leisure activities which seem innocuous or inoffensive. The book deploys insights from critical race theory along with the work of Jurgen Habermas to at once critique leisure as a site for the continued reproduction of inequality, but at the same time consider the utopian or transformative possibilities offered by leisure activity. The central inequality concerning Whiteness and Leisure is that of the socially constructed, but socially powerful, idea of race. Spracklen argues that whilst there is no scientific evidence for the vast swathes of claims made about race, the idea is influential in modern life. Most notably, ideas of race create categories of normal or taken for granted, in the case of whiteness, and other, exotic and different in the case of blackness. The replication of social inequality using categories of race is shown in discussions of sport, both participating and watching, of popular culture, such as Harry Potter and World of Warcraft, Music, including Folk and Metal, and forms of travel, tourism and outdoor experience. Drawing on a wide range of literature, empirical examples and personal anecdotes, the text will be of interest to readers from across both social science and the humanities, as well as anyone concerned with social justice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Our taken for granted assumptions are questioned in a new book by Karl Spracklen, a professor of leisure studies at Leeds Metropolitan University in England. Whiteness and Leisure (Palgrave, 2013) combines two bodies of theoretical literature to interrogate leisure activities which seem innocuous or inoffensive. The book deploys insights from critical race theory along with the work of Jurgen Habermas to at once critique leisure as a site for the continued reproduction of inequality, but at the same time consider the utopian or transformative possibilities offered by leisure activity. The central inequality concerning Whiteness and Leisure is that of the socially constructed, but socially powerful, idea of race. Spracklen argues that whilst there is no scientific evidence for the vast swathes of claims made about race, the idea is influential in modern life. Most notably, ideas of race create categories of normal or taken for granted, in the case of whiteness, and other, exotic and different in the case of blackness. The replication of social inequality using categories of race is shown in discussions of sport, both participating and watching, of popular culture, such as Harry Potter and World of Warcraft, Music, including Folk and Metal, and forms of travel, tourism and outdoor experience. Drawing on a wide range of literature, empirical examples and personal anecdotes, the text will be of interest to readers from across both social science and the humanities, as well as anyone concerned with social justice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

ABSTRACT: Deriving the ethical justification of the architects actions in the resulting public welfare is a longstanding article of faith amongst architects in most democratic nations. But what is the nature of that good, and what on earth has happened to our concept of the public? As philosopher Jurgen Habermas observes: “Tendencies pointing to the collapse of the public sphere are unmistakable, for while its scope is expanding impressively, its function has become progressively insignificant." This lecture presents the interim results of my investigation into this subject over the last few years with the idea of inviting ideas and discussion of its emerging themes. BIOGRAPHY: Tom Spector, a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall this tern, is a licensed U.S. architect and professor who received his Ph.D from the University of California, Berkeley helping pioneer the subject of ethics and architecture. He is the author of the 2001 book, The Ethical Architect, a frequent contributor to Harvard Design Magazine on practice-related issues, and has published widely in both architectural and philosophical journals.