Drie essays over politieke en staatkundige ontwikkelingen in Europa vanaf de vroege Middeleeuwen tot heden en over het feminisme.

Amsterdam University Press is a leading publisher of academic books, journals and textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Our aim is to make current research available to scholars, students, innovators, and the general public. AUP stands for scholarly excellence, global presence, and engagement with the international academic community.

Religions and religious actors are increasingly associated with extremism and violence. A mainstream view that sees religions as prone to violence has been affirmed within the West. Yet, to affirm that religions promote anti-democratic projects and are inclined to violence can only partially capture the impact of religious voices in contemporary societies. In fact, religions have often played an important role in promoting democratic transition and religiously inspired doctrines have importantly supported peace and reconciliation processes in divided societies. This paper (...) argues that the mainstream view reproduces and extends a traditional liberal wariness toward the alleged incendiary role of religions in politics, the so-called doctrine of religious restraint. This view, I argue, is based on a misinterpretation of contemporary liberal theory and, especially, of Rawls’s Political Liberalism. The paper shows that Rawls’s framework instead provides an extensive accommodation of religions in political life. Starting from this premise, this paper responds to the mainstream view by focussing on the role of religious actors and sensitivities in reconciling divided societies. (shrink)

This longread addresses the (political and critical theoretical) aftermath of 9/11.

«Without a theory of corruption there cannot be a remedy for corruption unless by happy accident». There are empirical theories, such as the functional approach of the political process, but how useful they may be, they essentially fall short. One needs a normative, i.e. an ethical theory of political action.After having evaluated the idea, that politicians and rulers have the right to make use of violence, lies and ruses in order to combat violence and ruse within the community, the article (...) draws some important conclusions from the general democratic principle «no power without control and possibility of sanction by those being subject to that power».Applied to the problem of corruption, this principle can be used as a guideline for a systematic exploration of the structural sources of corruption, defined in a general way as abuse of power. The main thesis reads as follows. The sources of corruption are to be found in those «deficiencies of the system» that create chances for a particular pressure of power to exert an overweight - without possibilities of control and sanction - in the processes of actual definition of the «public interest» or the «common good».An elaboration of the thesis is made by means of an analysis of this kind of «deficiencies» in the Belgian political-administrative system, most of them however not specific for the Belgian situation in particular.Finally, some suggestions for «remedies » against corruption are made, especially in the field of legislative measures. (shrink)

Theories concerning the origin, the growth and the efficacy of political elites mainly originated after the first world-war. They arose in circles and with people who resented the increasing democratisation of political life. They were above all meant as a legitimation of conservative ideas with regard to the exertion of politica! power. The years between 1830 and 1914 however can be considered as the incubation-period for these elite-theories. Some examples taken from the Belgian political literature shall illustrate this evolution.The liberal (...) middle class got divided on the interpretation of the political events between 1789 and 1848. The doctrinarians wished to maintain the acquired results whereas the radicals chose for a further sharing ofpower with the lower social classes. The conservatives held the past as an example and in principle they wished a return to the situation that existed before 1789. The contrast between clericals and anticlericals and above all the relationship between church and state interfered with these theoretical conceptions. But neither conservatives nor liberals however had their doubts about the elite-principle.In the second half of the nineteenth century the social consequences of the industrial revolution were felt in such a radical way that the masses too claimed political power in order to improve their destiny.On the political scene the discussion especially crystallized on the demand for universal suffrage and the way of representation. Not only political publicists hut towards the end of the century particularly scientists too supplied a theoretical foundation for the relationship between the elite and the masses. (shrink)

'Des te erger voor de feiten.' Met die woorden vatte de Duitse filosoof G.W.F. Hegel ooit zijn wijsgerig project samen, een stoutmoedig pleidooi vóór theorie en tégen de journalistieke waan van de dag. Vanuit dat motto verzamelt deze bundel een half decennium aan essays met politiek-filosofische insteek. Die behandelen thema's van de bankencrisis over de coronacrisis tot de malaise van de democratie. In vogelvlucht worden enkele diepe verschuivingen zichtbaar in het politieke bestel na 2008 - zowel in België als (...) in het buitenland. Neemt populisme de plaats van partijdemocratie in? Slaat de postpolitiek van de jaren 1990 vandaag door in 'hyperpolitiek'? En is de tijd van de monsters aangebroken, of die van een progressieve dageraad? Des te erger voor de feiten voorziet context bij een oneindig verwarrend tijdperk."--Publisher information. (shrink)

Ten years after the first effort, this second article compares a number of english political science publications about Belgium. Twenty-five contributions are questioned on two grounds. First, what is their information value for a non-Belgian audience. Except for a few striking factual errors, the quality of the books and articles ranges from reasonable toexcellent. The second question, on the surplus value for Belgians themselves, provides a less optimistic image. There is evidence of very little theory building activities in this last (...) decade. The key-authors of theprevious period do not have successors. Also, in contrast to the earlier period, the « politics of accommodation » and « pillarization » issues are abandoned in nearly exclusive favor of the language problem. Monotony has taken the place of diversity. (shrink)

In France the XVIIIth century was characterized by the Enlightenment as a philosophical phenomenon and Physiocracy as an expression of new economic thinking. But the Physiocrats were not merely a school of economic thought; they were also a school of political action. Kings, princes and high public servants were among their pupils. The great French Revolution itself was influenced by their writings. And the force of their work is still not wholly sprent. In order to appreciate the theory and significance (...) of the Physiocracy it is necessary to take into account the circumstances of its time. Physiocracy is a doctrine which esteems that agriculture is of more importance than industry and commerce. In this article following subjects of the physiocratic doctrine are dealt with : the natural order, property and liberty ; the relations between the government and the individual citizen ; the theory of the produit net and the Tableau Economique of François Quesnay. The evaluation also includes the question about the expansion of Physiocracy. Indeed, it had many followers in several countries of Europe and was also the first real School of economic thinking. By its systematic approach, Physiocracy established the economy as a science. All the aspects of Physiocracy which have been mentioned above are intimately bound together and are in several aspects the economic precursor of the French Revolution. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est une critique de la philosophie politique de M. Eric Weil. Par opposition à M. Weil, l'auteur définit la „politique" ici comme l'art du réalisable, à préciser comme : l'art d'arriver à court terme à une organisation de la société qu'on estime meilleure, et cela en employant tous les moyens permis. L'homme politique n'est pas, ainsi que l'affirme M. Weil, un „saint de Vtmiversel”, qui, en ce qui concerne l'emploi de la violence, se trouve au-dessus (...) de la loi. Ce „politicien-éducateur” est en vérité l'appui des régimes totalitaires et est d'ailleurs inconcevable en dehors de ceux-ci. En outre la théorie de M. Weil contient un certain nombre de contradictions internes et, si on la mesure à la pratique, elle se trouve être déficiente à beaucoup d'égards. Contre la conception platonicienne de M. Weil l'auteur défend la thèse que la politique n'est pas une infraction, regrettable mais inévitable, à „la morale”. C'est la tâche de l'homme politique de supprimer toutes les absurdités, inconséquences et injustices qui entachent les structures de la société. Ce qui, concrètement, est absurde, inconséquent ou injuste n'est pas déterminé par „la morale”, mais par la conscience du droit et par le sentiment moral d'une époque donnée. Les „certitudes” d'où part l'homme politique ne sont pas des Idées platoniciennes, mais des hypothèses de travail, qui dérivent leur contenu non pas de la contemplation des Idées, mais d'une notion de ce qui est juste et désirable, notion qui est déterminée par les conditions matérielles et spirituelles et qui se trouve dans un changement continuel. (shrink)

Handbooks of political science aften refer to the minister and the civil service as actors in the policy process. In theory, this representation is correct. However, in Belgium and in Flanders ministers construct a ministerial cabinet around them. The cabinet takes over different tasks from policy preparation to evaluation. In this respect, it reduces the civil service to an office that is only responsible for the implementation of policy. Frequently political-historical reasons are used to explain the existence of the system (...) of ministerial cabinets. Nevertheless, these are not the only reasons. Ministerial cabinets also exist because of organisational and cultural reasons. Understanding the ministerial cabinet, means understanding the way ministers want to work. This article highlights the way ministerial cabinets work, with a focus on Human Resources aspects. This gives information in which direction the civil service should move to fulfil the role of a good partner for the minister. (shrink)

According to rational choice theory casework is a rational form of political participation for both voter and Member of Parliament. It increases the voter's chance to a redress of grievance and it is an important means for MPs to maximize their votes, which parliamentary activities fail to contribute to. Though rational for individual actors, casework is far from optimal for society as a whole. Disregarding isolated cases, casework does not constitute an important source of inspiration for legislative and oversight activities. (...) A written survey among 101 Flemish MPs tends to show that a collective solution for grievances in great demand is not pursued, as casework seems electorally and personally so much more rewarding. A cure for casework cannot befound, unless it ends this structural attractiveness of constituency service. Disregarding its rationality in isolated cases, casework, because it does not result in collective measures, seems to be a meager substitute for political participation. (shrink)

Should governments give special rights to ethnic and cultural minorities? Should rich countries open their borders to economic immigrants or transfer resources to poor countries? When framing and implementing economic and environmental policies, should current generations take into account the interests of future generations? If our political community committed a wrong against another group a hundred years ago, do we owe reparations to current members of that group? These are just some of the pressing questions which are fully explored in (...) this accessible new analysis of justice in the contemporary world. They force us to reconsider the extent of our obligations to our fellow citizens, future generations and foreigners. Justice in a Changing World introduces the moral debates around issues such as immigration, national self-determination, cultural rights and reparations, as well as resource transfers from one generation to the next and from rich to poor countries, through the lenses of liberalism, communitarianism and libertarianism. In so doing, it helps to unravel the complexity of key ethical dilemmas facing us today. The book will be a valuable resource for students of political theory, and will appeal to anyone wishing to reflect on their deepest values and commitments by putting them to the test of practical politics. (shrink)

How can the world's religious traditions debate within the public sphere? In this book Nicholas Adams shows the importance of Habermas' approaches to this question. The full range of Habermas' work is considered, with detailed commentary on the more difficult texts. Adams energetically rebuts some of Habermas' arguments, particularly those which postulate the irrationality or stability of religious thought. Members of different religious traditions need to understand their own ethical positions as part of a process of development involving ongoing disagreements, (...) rather than a stable unchanging morality. Public debate additionally requires learning each other's patterns of disagreement. Adams argues that rather than suspending their deep reasoning to facilitate debate, as Habermas suggests, religious traditions must make their reasoning public, and that 'scriptural reasoning' is a possible model for this. Habermas overestimates the stability of religious traditions. This book offers a more realistic assessment of the difficulties and opportunities they face. (shrink)

Dit essay begrijpt het project van Krisis vanuit ‘het epistemologische probleem van de kritische theorie’, namelijk: vanuit welk standpunt is emancipatoire kritiek überhaupt mogelijk? Door de kritische theorie in brede zin op te vatten, worden vormen van politieke contestatie en de theoretisering daarvan die vaak als 'identiteitspolitiek' worden weggezet besproken in relatie tot de vroege denkers van de kritische theorie en het late werk van Foucault over tegengedrag.

This book offers a fresh perspective on Richard Rorty by situating his work in the arena of political theory. Reinterpreting Rorty's much-maligned antirepresentationalism as a Romantic affirmation of the power of imaginative writing, Voparil firmly grounds Rorty in an American tradition that includes not only James and Dewey, but Emerson, Whitman, and James Baldwin, and initiates an overdue reassessment of this important thinker's value to the political discourse of the 21st century.

continent. 2.1 (2012): 22–28. Jeroen Mettes burst onto the Dutch poetry scene twice. First, in 2005, when he became a strong presence on the nascent Dutch poetry blogosphere overnight as he embarked on his critical project Dichtersalfabet (Poet’s Alphabet). And again in 2011, when to great critical acclaim (and some bafflement) his complete writings were published – almost five years after his far too early death. 2005 was the year in which Dutch poetry blogging exploded. That year saw the foundation (...) of the influential, polemical, and populistically inclined weblog De Contrabas (The Double Bass), which became a strong force for internet poetry in Dutch in the years to follow. In the summer of that year, a lively debate raged in the aftermath of Bas Belleman’s article “ Doet poëzie er nu eindelijk toe ?” (“Does poetry finally matter now?”), on a blog specifically devoted to this question. Up to that point, the poetical debate in the Netherlands had largely been confined to literary reviews (which were often subsidized), having become mostly marginalized in more mainstream media, where poetry could be covered by only a small number of so-called authorities. As a result, literary debate had acquired a rather placid quality. Though a variety of camps with different aesthetics could be discerned, most poetical positions shared a general acceptance of poetry as a form of art somewhat apart from fundamental political concerns. Late modernists would pursue subtlety and density of reference. Others would insist poetry was best understood as a form of entertainment that should ideally be accessible and work well on the stage. Still others would insist that poetry is mostly a play with forms. Linguistically disruptive strategies were valued highly by some, but mostly for their aesthetic effect. Values of disinterested playfulness reigned supreme everywhere. Any idea that poetry could be a field in which one confronts politics and the world was decidedly marginal. This led to a climate in which most attempts at polemics were DOA, often based on far too superficial positioning and analysis. The greatest polemical debates were revolving around the question of whether poetry should be difficult or easy, with both camps defining their ideas of difficulty and accessibility in ways that were so utterly shallow as to make the entire point moot. Debates were performed, rather than engaged with. It was a postmodern hell of underarticulated poetics. Half-consciously, people were yearning for new forms of criticism that could put the oomph back into poetry. Weblogs provided for ways to explore debate directly outside of the clotted older channels of the reviews and the newspapers. Belleman’s essay and the resulting online activity had shown that there was a widespread eagerness to take poetry more seriously as a social art form. It was in this environment that Mettes started his remarkable project Dichtersalfabet . At that moment, Mettes was active mostly in academic circles, having become noted at Leiden University as a particularly gifted student of literary theory. Within the Netherlands, the field of literary theory has a very odd relationship to literature as it is practiced in the country. Academic theory tends to have a mostly international view and engage with international debates of cultural criticism, literary theory, and philosophy, with academics often publishing in English and attending conferences around the world. Literature itself however is much more concerned with domestic traditions. Consequently, in the Netherlands, there exists a language gap between academic theoretical practice (as it is studied in the literary theory departments) and literary practice (which, academically, gets studied in specialized departments of Dutch literature). The Dichtersalfabet can be seen as Mettes’s attempt to close this gap. It is also an attempt to bridge the divide between theory and practice, in which he could apply his theoretical knowledge in a very unorthodox and unacademic critical mode that moreover could reach far beyond the domain of conventional criticism. Mettes’s goal was to trace a diagonal through Dutch poetic culture, to “strangle” what he perceived to be its dominant oppressive traditions of agreeable irrelevance, in order to see whatever might be able to survive his critical assaults. But he could only do so by means of a very serious engagement with poetry itself. To this end, he would go systematically through the poetry bookshelf of the Verwijs bookshop (part of a mainstream chain of booksellers) in The Hague, buying one publication per blog item, starting from A and working his way through the alphabet, reading whatever he might encounter that way in the restaurant of the HEMA store (another big commercial chain in the country). He would subsequently write down his reading experiences, refraining however from trying to write a nuanced book review. Rather, he would write about anything that caught his attention and sparked his critical interest. This way of working would yield vast, at times somewhat rambling, dense, lively, and generally brilliant essays, in which he held no punches. He never hesitated to pull out his entire arsenal of concepts from the international theory traditions, while never degenerating into mere academic exercise and pointless intertextualities. The attempt was rather to live the poetry that he read, and to engage it with the full range of political, academic, cultural, and personal references that he had at his disposal—all that composed the individual named Jeroen Mettes as a reader. Often what he wrote would not be according to the standards of what we usually think of as a critical review of a book of poetry. Sometimes he would even be a little sloppy in his judgments of poets or representations of the books he read, for example by basing an entire essay on the blurb of a book rather than its poetry content. But what he did was always brilliant writing nonetheless—virtuoso riffs on poetic fragments randomly found within capitalist society, exposing an incisive and insistent poetical sensibility. Mettes read poetry for political reasons, to see whether poetry could offer him a way to deal with a political world he detested. The right-wing horrors of the Bush years, the Iraq war, and the turn of Dutch public opinion towards ever more conservative, narrow-minded, and xenophobic views alongside a complete failure of the political left to present any credible alternative, were weighing heavily on the times in which Mettes reported on his reading. Poetry was to measure this world, diagram it, to lay bare its inconsistencies and faults, to indicate where lines of flight might be found. Amid the ruins of a world wrecked by imperialist policies, corporate capitalism, and doctrinal neoliberalism it would have to show the possibility of a new community. And it was, through its rhythmical workings, to release the reading subject from his confinement to ideologically conditioned individuality and lead him into the immanent paradise of reading. The stakes were high. Much higher than anything Dutch poetry had seen for many years. Mettes’s blog was widely read from the start. His posts sparked lively debates. Some of these subsequently led to the publication of extensive essays on a few key poets in some literary journals, particularly Parmentier and the Flemish journal yang , for which Mettes would become a member of the editorial board, a few months after starting the Dichtersalfabet . This could have been the start of a brilliant career, but this was not to be. The initial manic energy that fueled the blog gradually subsided. The Alfabet was updated less and less regularly. Mettes sometimes just disappeared for many weeks, then suddenly returning with a brilliant essay. Until, on September 21, 2006, he posted his final blogpost, consisting of no text whatsoever. That night I learned from his mentor at Leiden University that he had committed suicide. Mettes and I had had some fruitful exchanges on poetry, rhythm, music, and form, mostly on the blogs, but also by email. Three weeks before his death was the last time I heard from him: a very sudden, uncharacteristically curt note saying “My old new sentence epic.” Attached to that message I found a DOC-file of a work so major that I felt intimidated. This was N30 , a text he had been working on for over five years. After his death, it took me a long time before I dared to read it in its entirety. In the meantime, the work of preparing the manuscript for publication was entrusted by his relatives to his colleagues at yang magazine. It took them a few years to brush up the text and to edit the Dichtersalfabet -blog (which, apart from the Alphabet project itself, incorporated many other fragments of political, polemical, and theoretical writing) into book form along with the essays. The result of this labor was finally published in 2011 as a two-book set, and Mettes burst onto the Dutch poetry scene for the second time. The work was widely reviewed, on blogs, in journals, magazines, and newspapers. Many critics who had not followed the blogs in 2005 showed themselves surprised, baffled even, by the intensity of Mettes’s critical writing. But for those who had read the blog, the main surprise was in the poetry. During Mettes’s lifetime, some of his poems had already been published in Parmentier . Although these were strong texts by themselves, in no way did they prepare readers for N30 . Nothing like it had been written in Dutch before. Instead, N30 explicitly follows the American tradition of Language Writing, directly referencing Ron Silliman and his concept of The New Sentence. However, it would seem that much of the poetical thinking around his use of this technique puts him closer to a writer such as Bruce Andrews. For Mettes, using non sequiturs as a unit of poetic construction was not only a way of reinventing formal textual construction, but it was another way of finding the fault lines in the social fabric. From the perspective of the Language tradition, one may put N30 somewhere between Silliman and Andrews. N30 shares an autobiographical element with Silliman’s New Sentence projects, and as in Andrews, there is a concern for mapping out social totality within text—what Mettes refers to as a “textual world civil war.” Again this shows a formal textual strategy for allowing the person “Jeroen Mettes” to be absorbed by the world, which here appears as a whirlwind of demotic and demonic chatter, full of violence, humor, intensity, beauty, disgust, sex, commerce, and strife. Influenced as it may by American precursors, Mettes’s tone and form end up quite different from his American counterparts, consistently referencing a world that is Dutch, all too Dutch, taking on the oppressive orderliness of Dutch society with its endemic penchant for consensus by introducing chaos into its daily life and laying bare its implicit aggressions. The work’s 31 chapters each have a different feel and rhythmical outline, but none of them follow a predetermined pattern. Rather, Mettes would consistently edit and reedit the text, randomly rewriting parts of it, as he explains in his poetical creed Politieke Poëzie (Political Poetry). N30 – referring to the 1999 antiglobalist protest in Seattle – was to be the first text of a trilogy. The work itself was written “in the mode of the present.” A second text was to be written in the mode of the future, and a third one, in the mode of the past, was going to be an epic poem about the Paris Commune, and to form an alternative poetic constitution for the European project. I still deeply regret that Jeroen Mettes never got to complete those projects, just as I would be very keen on knowing what he might have had to say about more recent political developments. Instead, in 2006, he remained stuck in the horrors of the present, that ended up consuming him completely. He left Dutch literature with some of its most piercing criticism and its most profoundly moving, exciting and powerful poetry. Excerpts from N30 Translated by Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei from Jeroen Mettes. "N30." In N30+ . Amsterdam: De wereldbibliotheek, 2011. Published with permission of Uitgeverij Wereldbibliotheek, Amsterdam. Chapter 1 1999. A day is a space too. And another man, who had chained himself, had his ribs crushed, and a motor has driven over somebody’s legs. Dutch health care system spends ±145 million guilders per year on worriers. A spiderweb vibrates as I pass by. Randstad renovating. She slaps her bag against her ass: “Hurry up!” OPINION IS TRUE FRIENDSHIP Your skin. It doesn’t express anything. “But the use of the sword, that’s what I learned, and you’ll need nothing more for the moment.” Just try to interrogate a guy like that. Gullit in Sierra Leone. Codes silently lying all around. But that’s simply what belongs to “that it’s just allowed”: that sigh of “world” (a word expressing that the trees are now standing along the water like black men with white bags in their hair); that’s nothing else right? And you see how everything has to move, and first of all what cannot do so. Without Elysium and without savings, barbarians lashing out, horny for an enemy, staring across the water, staring into the air—staring to get out of it. “You’ve never showed me more than the mall,” she said. All those “dreams” in the end—and now? It was lying on the stairway, so I picked it up and took it upstairs. Chapter 3 “You know what?” Telecommunication. For love… I don’t really like that cheap cultural pessimism, but… The holy city is on pilgrimage in the earthly bodies of the faithful until the time of the heavenly kingdom has come. The end of an exhausting autumn day behind the computer, my eyes filled with tears of fatigue. KITCHEN / INSTALLATION / SPECIALIST. Network integration. In the sun, stretched out on a sheet. (…) I don’t believe what I’m reading, because I want to believe something else. An illusion? Suits me. There’s a variety of shapes and tastes… “So what?” you may think. 102 dalmatians can’t be wrong. But I want more, dear… A feel good movie. I’m smashing the burned body. So what? We continue to save the European civilization. What’s there to win? Plato with poets = Stalin without gulag? Ball against the crossbar. No wonder. She comes straight to her point. She’s standing in the kitchen eating an apple. (…) The godless Napoleon had used her as a stable and wanted to have her taken down. “Our” Rutger Hauer. Ready or not here I come. Psst… are you also wearing a string? Nobody understands our desire. Cliffs breaking the waves and shattering the sunset. I used to be a real romantic (as a poet). A typical fantasy used to be the one in which I brutally raped mother and daughter Seaver from the sitcom Growing Pains . Nevertheless you only contain bad words. Eyelashes. Automatic or manual? That your skin always in the afternoon. Integration. The air is empty. Too bad! Hand in hand on their lonely way. Alaska! Chapter 12 May 5, 2001 [10:00-10:30] A dust cloud on a hill. Globe. Indian (British) (tie) / pope. Damascus. Rape. We’re carrying the ayatollah’s portrait through the streets. At the moment the girl is mostly suede jacket with white ribbons on her sleeves. A small explosion flares up/impact. Camouflage. Close up. We’re analyzing the situation. He’s dead right? Dead dead. Dead. Everything without, these, and only with the body. Indices signal death. Dollar bills are printed in factories. Holes. Light patch. Globe in a box. Microphone. What’s the situation? Grey impact on a green hill (field?). The water is blue. He has no lips. Interns on the background with skirts that are too long. This is an example of a sonnet. An Islamic woman pushes against the door of an electronics shop. Arrows (percentages (prices)). Is this what awaits the American? Touch screen interface. The word, an island, can only be a sign in that situation. We pull up a chair, join in on the fun. On the shelves only books about computers. One glance in the distance is enough to lighten up a luna park in the distance. She’s really desperate, especially when she laughs. Click. Ah. Next. And now it’s raining, but that’s ok. Yellow stains sliding over the south. Shallow caves light: clothes, boots, electrical equipment. 45. 22:10. Nothing gives you the right to eat more than people starving to death. The Hague. Slam dunk. Traffic light. Two H’s, one L (standing for the L (little prick)). We’re happy to say something. Clouds, small suns, temperatures, cities. The truth is never an excuse. Yellow. Yellow. Green. Yellow. Yellow. Yellow. Yellow. Green. Green. Yellow. Will you email me? Skeleton: “No.” Ex-nerds in brand-new and brightly red sport cars. $$$. I love. Shihab. Hooves in the sand. Skinny senior with over-sized sunglasses; old jockey (cap, trophy) smiling in slow motion. And there I am again, flashback, crying with my head in between my hands. Sometimes I’ve got the feeling that cannibals. Eyes: blue. Cancer. Why would I wait until tomorrow? Golden beams protruding from the lifted/lit earth. May 5, 2001 [11:30-12:45] You’ll remember this for the rest of your life. Graphs, diagrams. Bu$ine$$. Blue shirt, white collar, no neck (porn star). A name lights up. I’m hysteric. Will you join us? Letters falling in their words. Fingers set up a tent and start to dance. Young entrepreneurs from poor neighborhoods (read: black) guided by Microsoft. Kinda makes me happy, that sort of kitsch. A sense of exhaustion/impotence to see anything but the present. (…) Wouldn’t you like to? Orange explosion in an industrial zone. YOU’RE DOING THIS FOR AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Would you. A familiar face. Clouds and blossom. Sunflowers. Supermodels. Mountainous area in a rectangle: shades of brown, from dark to beige, more green toward the south. Tents and next to them (it’s all a blur) people. Plane. Stadium. Geometrical block of people. No, I ain’t crying. I don’t speak no more. I just want. Quote + photo. (Positive:) screaming crowd. Three-piece suit, seen from the back, before entering the arena. On the back: “Daddy abused me.” Oh, bummer. State of emergency has been declared and everyone has to cooperate. She’s cut her wrists. What we do know (…) is that there’s never been a unique word, an imperative name, nor will there ever be. [Click here for work that suits you.] Barefooted children are watching it (coherent pieces revelation of what’s lying below). Who knows how she’s changed during those two years. “Everything used to be better” + sigh. And here we are. An empty field of parquet. A city lying behind it. Explosion. Blue. A rain drop falling in my coffee. May 5, 2001 [14:30-15:30] A young Arafat on video speaking with raised finger. “I’m calling from my convertible.” Names on walls, victims, numbers… Tourists. Yellow. Yellow. “Your own child! Really, what kind of human are you?” I don’t want to hear it no more. A woman jumping out of the water in a yellow bikini against a background of fireworks and the Cheops pyramid. Thy sorrow shall become good fortune, thy complaints laudation. All planets will float and wander. Wo die Welt zum Bild wird, kommt das System (…) zur Herrschaft. It is something, but is it? May 5, 2001 [18:30-19:00] Iris. Leaves. NASDAQ. Open / and white and. For the one who’s doing nothing, just waiting. (…) NO DEFEAT is made entirely up of defeat -- since / the world it opens is always a place / formerly / unsuspected. October 2002. “Jeroen, I’m leaving for the cemetery, byeeee.” The rise of the middle class. My entire oeuvre is an ode to the. My entire head is a fight against the. God always demands what you cannot sacrifice. You may take that the easy way, but… “The state hasn’t made us, but we make the state” (Hitler). A stork exits the elevator. Skeletons of. Moscow. Helsinki. Palermo. Paris. Chapter 30 Like your paradises: nothing. United Desire, as only remaining superpower. And even though the sea is now calmer and the wind is blowing pleasantly in my face… Heart! Who determines whether a tradition is “alive”? The yellow leaf or the white branch? Mars. This sentence is a typical example. Most Dutch people are happy. No consolation. When I see a girl sitting at a table with a book, a notepad, a pen, a bottle of mineral water, her hand writing in the light—then I consider that one thing. “Presents,” “poetry,” “classics.” We are what we cannot make from ourselves. “Left”: mendicant orders, missionaries. Saint-Just: “A republic is founded on the destruction of its enemies.” She crosses the street with a banana peel between her fingers. (…) We chose our own wardens, torturers, it was us who called all this insanity upon ourselves, we created this nightmare… But “no”? Girl (just like a beach ball) talking rapid Spanish (Portuguese?) in a mobile phone. Do I have a chance now that her boyfriend is getting bold? CLIO, horny bitch. What else do you want? An old woman, between the doors of the C1000, is suddenly unable to go on; her husband stretches out his hand, speaking a few encouraging words. Selection from. Der Führer schenkt den Jüden ein Stadt. How can it reach us if we haven’t been already reached somehow? It doesn’t “speak.” No problem. Each word she uses is a small miracle, as if she doesn’t belong to it, to language, but wanders around with a pocket light looking for the exit; she’s never desperate (maybe a little nervous), lighting up heavy words from the inside. But indeed, we’re free. But the predicate is not an attribute, but an event, and the subject is not a subject, but a shell. That’s why also samurai, knights, and warriors raised the blossom as emblem: they knew how to die. Locked up in a baby carriage with a McDonald’s balloon. Blue helicopter, the blue sky. Whether you want to refer? The point is. How / Motherfucker can I sing a sad song / When I remember Zion? You’ll feel so miserable and worthless that you think: “If only I were dead!,” or: “Just put an end to it!” “So you’re an economist?” Her card—two little birds building a nest, her handwriting shaking—is still on the mantelpiece. Guevara: “No, a communist.” A straw fire, such was our life: rapidly it flared up, rapidly it passed. I’m fleeing, coming from nowhere. (…) Eazy-E drinking coffee with the American president. If I’d scream, would that be an event? Drown it: the cleaner it will rise up from the depths. No! The night, so fast… As if there’s something opened up in that face. Come on, we may not curse life. He shows me his methadone: “If you drink that all at once, you’ll die instantly.” The last one dictates how we should behave to deserve happiness. One shine / above the earth. “I want to go to Bosnia,” I said bluntly. I don’t even know the name of the current mayor. Let’s despise our success! “There is no future; this is the future. Hope is a weakness that we've overcome. We have found happiness!” Sun. Sushi. Volvo. I feel like a bomb about to explode at any moment. Makes a difference for the reconstruction right? The decor moves forward. Daughter of Nereus, you nymphs of the sea, and you Thetis, you should have kept his tired head above the waves! Alas! This sentence has been written wearing a green cap. I receive my orders from the future. A frog jumps into it. Her husband has turned the Intifada, which he follows daily on CCN, into his hobby, “to forget that he doesn’t have his driver’s license yet." Suddenly the sun slides over the crosswalk. Her (his?) foot is playing with the slipper under the table. Is this how I’m writing this book now? I’m not a fellow man. I hate you and I want to hurt you. These are my people. Their screaming doesn’t rise above the constantly wailing sirens which we've learned to ignore. My whole body became warm and suddenly started to tremble. Unfortunate is he who is standing on the threshold of the most beautiful time, but awaits a better one. Arafat’s “removal” is contrary to American interests. Jeep drives into boy. What you can do alone, you should do alone. A food gift from the people of the United States of America. Two seagulls. [...]. (shrink)

Hoe kunnen we ervoor zorgen dat iedereen zich thuis voelt in onze steden? Hoe gaan we om met verschillende culturele feesten en rituelen? Hoe benaderen we ons gemeenschappelijk verleden, dat voor verschillende culturele groepen een andere lading heeft? Of hoe gaan we om met de uiteenlopende opvattingen over homoseksualiteit of de verhouding man-vrouw? Dit zijn enkele voorbeelden van vraagstukken waarbij de ‘kunst van het verstaan’ ingezet zou kunnen worden. Het is immers niet alleen belangrijk om inzicht te krijgen in ‘de (...) ander’, maar ook in ons eigen denkpatroon. In steden met een grote culturele diversiteit kunnen dialogen tussen de verschillende bevolkingsgroepen de wederzijdse erkenning en ook het wederzijdse begrip aanzienlijk bevorderen. Het is een manier om elkaar te ‘verstaan’. Heinz Kimmerle heeft zich de voorbije 25 jaar bekwaamd in ‘de kunst van het interculturele verstaan’. En juist daaraan lijkt behoefte te zijn in onze huidige maatschappij met diverse culturen terwijl er niet altijd evenveel begrip is voor elkaars cultuur. In dit boek onderzoeken de auteurs of dit filosofisch academische werk op het gebied van intercultureel verstaan, een basis kan bieden voor een praktisch dialoogmodel voor het omgaan met de uitdagingen in steden met een grote culturele diversiteit. Zo komen zij tot een model voor dialogen in de dagelijkse praktijk en onderzoeken hoe dit kan leiden tot een meer dialogische levenshouding, die ook op andere gebieden (politiek of economisch) ingezet kan worden. Zij gaan niet alleen in gesprek met elkaar, maar krijgen ook nieuwe inzichten over hun eigen manier van naar de wereld kijken. (shrink)

This major study of Hobbes' political philosophy draws on recent developments in game and decision theory to explore whether the thrust of the argument in Leviathan, that it is in the interests of the people to create a ruler with absolute power, can be shown to be cogent. Professor Hampton has written a book of vital importance to political philosophers, political and social scientists, and intellectual historians.

Speculative realism is driven by a strong resistance to anthropocentrism. It assumes that the non-human world contains within itself ways of organizing (or disorganizing) itself. This leads to a political analysis in which the boundaries of the human are mapped out in a fairer manner—that is, in a non-anthropocentric way. Or, to use the words of Bruno Latour, we as humans are part of a network of actors in which we still play an important role, but in which we are (...) more strongly influenced by other, non-human actors than we are often willing to admit. -/- Speculative realism has various branches, each emphasizing a specific philosophical, ethical, or political issue. To do justice to the diversity of theories and applications, we have invited five authors to describe one of the movements or themes at stake from their own area of expertise. -/- [In Dutch: Het speculatief realisme wordt gedreven door een sterk verzet tegen het antropocentrisme. Daarbij wordt verondersteld dat de niet-menselijke wereld in zichzelf manieren bevat om zich te organiseren (of te desorganiseren). Dit geeft aanleiding tot een politieke analyse waarin de grenzen van de mens op een eerlijkere (dat wil zeggen op een nietantropocentrische) wijze in kaart worden gebracht. Of, om met Bruno Latour te spreken, dat wij als mensen deel uitmaken van een netwerk van actoren, waarin we nog steeds een belangrijke rol spelen, maar waarin we sterker bepaald worden door andere, nietmenselijke actoren dan we zelf vaak willen toegeven. Het speculatief realisme kent verschillende vertakkingen, die ieder weer hun eigen nadruk leggen op een bepaald filosofisch, ethisch of politiek probleem. Om aan de verscheidenheid van theorieën en toepassingen recht te doen, hebben we vijf auteurs gevraagd om vanuit hun eigen expertise een van de stromingen of thema’s die erin op het spel staan te omschrijven.]. (shrink)

John Rawls wordt algemeen beschouwd als een van de meest invloedrijke filosofen van de voorbije eeuw. In zijn befaamde boek 'A Theory of Justice' uit 1971 staat het principe van de rechtvaardigheid centraal dat hij beschouwt als de belangrijkste maatschappelijke waarde in de samenleving. Mensen zijn fundamenteel gelijkwaardig. Daarom is het voor Rawls evident dat een ethisch systeem zich richt tot iedereen. Natuurlijk beseft hij dat mensen niet gelijk zijn of beter gezegd, niet over dezelfde begaafdheden beschikken noch over dezelfde (...) startposities. Waar het bij hem op aan komt is de onvrijwillige achterstanden, dus achterstanden die niet gebaseerd zijn op vrijwillige keuze, weg te werken. De denktank Liberales organiseerde tussen 2012 en 2016 vijf John Rawlslezingen. Ze werden gehouden door schrijver en oud-politicus Jan Terlouw, en de hoogleraren Frank Vandenbroucke, Paul Cliteur, Philippe Van Parijs en Patrick Loobuyck. De inleidingen werden gegeven door de Liberales-kernleden Daniël Boomsma, Claude Nijs, Kasper Ossenblok, Andreas Tirez en Dirk Verhofstadt. 0Het doel van deze lezingen was om het gedachtegoed van Rawls bekend te maken bij een breder publiek en te toetsen aan de hedendaagse politieke, sociaaleconomische en maatschappelijke omstandigheden. In dit boek zijn de John Rawlslezingen en de inleidingen gebundeld. (shrink)

Hoe moet een democratie omgaan met antidemocraten, wat zijn de bedreigingen van de democratie, en hoe moeten die bedreigingen begrepen worden? Deze vragen staan centraal in het debat over weerbare democratie. Een discussie die aan actualiteit wint door de bedreigingen van religieus extremisme enerzijds en antirechtsstatelijke politieke partijen anderzijds. In dit artikel willen wij aantonen dat het debat over weerbare democratie verdiept kan worden door bestudering van het werk van Claude Lefort en Karl Popper. Het artikel is dan ook (...) niet zozeer een studie van het werk van Lefort en Popper als zodanig, maar in de eerste plaats een bijdrage aan de politiek-filosofische theorievorming over weerbare democratie. We bespreken de elementen in het werk van Lefort en Popper die voor de weerbare democratie relevant zijn. We betogen ten eerste dat zowel Lefort als Popper, om verschillende redenen, zich niet voetstoots laten uitleggen als weerbare democratiedenkers. Ten tweede, dat er, desondanks, in hun werk vruchtbare argumenten voor een weerbare democratie gevonden kunnen worden. En, ten derde, dat het denken van Lefort en Popper belangrijke lessen biedt die de theorie van weerbare democratie kunnen verdiepen. De belangrijkste les in het geval van Lefort is: aandacht voor democratie als samenlevingsvorm, en niet louter als institutie, en daarmee een beter begrip van hoe ons ‘democratisch-zijn’ kan uitmonden in democratische zelfvernietiging. Het denken van Popper kan daarentegen juist de ontsporingen binnen democratische instituties, of breder: het democratische debat, verhelderen. Tot slot probeert dit artikel ook een bescheiden aanzet te zijn tot een nadere bestudering van de samenhang in het werk van twee denkers die doorgaans in isolement bestudeerd worden. (shrink)

Emancipatie en integratie, nationalisme, machtsonderdrukking en privileges, (super)diversiteit en erkenning. Het zijn slechts een paar van de beladen termen waar we tegenwoordig veel mee geconfronteerd worden, en dat in de context van persoonlijke identiteitsvorming als in debatten omtrent groepsidentiteit, de vraag naar minderheidsrechten en de gepercipieerde conflicten met de zogenaamde democratische Westerse Verlichtingsidealen die daar vervolgens uit voortkomen. Heel veel van deze politieke discussies die momenteel gevoerd worden binnen de politiek en de media draaien om ‘identiteit’, waardoor dit concept (...) helaas tot een gepolitiseerd en polariserend begrip verworden is. (shrink)

Bruno Latour is de eerste grote filosoof die de wereld systematisch in termen van netwerken denkt. Hij laat op intrigerende wijze zien hoe talloze uiteenlopende zaken zich met elkaar moeten vervlechten om bureaucratische organisaties, wetenschappelijke theorieën, complexe technologieën en menselijke samenlevingen tot stand te brengen. Als grondlegger van de zogenoemde actor-netwerktheorie speelt hij al meer dan veertig jaar een prominente rol in debatten over wetenschap, politiek, technologie en ecologie.0Latour is wereldwijd een van de meest geciteerde auteurs in de sociale wetenschappen, (...) maar hij staat ook in toenemende mate op de radar van kunstenaars en beleidsmakers. In al deze domeinen doet zijn denken de gemoederen hoog oplopen. Zijn critici noemen hem zowel een gevaarlijke postmodernist als een bloedeloze technocraat. Zijn bewonderaars zien zijn werk juist als een instrument om de wereld met een realistische en inclusieve blik tegemoet te treden.00Arjen Kleinherenbrink (1984) is metafysicus en filosofisch antropoloog aan de Radboud Universiteit, waar hij ook het programma Philosophy, Politics and Society coördineert. Zijn eerdere Nederlandstalige boeken zijn 'Alles is een machine' (2017) en 'Avonturen bestaan niet' (2018, met Simon Gusman). (shrink)

These two ambitious volumes from one of the world's most celebrated political philosophers present a new kind of political and legal theory that James Tully calls a public philosophy, and a complementary new way of thinking about active citizenship, called civic freedom. Professor Tully takes the reader step-by-step through the principal debates in political theory and the major types of political struggle today. These volumes represent a genuine landmark in political theory from the author of Strange Multiplicity, one of the (...) most influential and distinctive commentaries on politics and the contemporary world published in recent years. This first volume of Public Philosophy in a New Key consists of a presentation and defence of a contextual approach to public philosophy and civic freedom, and then goes on to study specific struggles over recognition and distribution within states. (shrink)

The concept of well-being has emerged as a key category of social and political thought, especially in the fields of moral and political philosophy, development studies, and economics. This book takes a critical look at the notion of well-being by examining what well-being means, or could mean, to people living in a number of different regions including Sudan, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, India, Sierra Leone, and the UK. The contributors take issue with some of the assumptions behind Western concepts of (...) well-being. They explore what characterizes a "good life" and how this idea has been affected by globalization and neoliberalism. The book makes a major contribution to social theory by presenting new analytical models that make sense of the changing shapes of people's life and ethical values. (shrink)

Chantal Mouffe herneemt de centrale gedachte van Carl Schmitt dat de antagonistische relatie tussen vriend en vijand constitutief is voor het politieke. Anders dan bij Schmitt leidt die idee bij haar tot een links en radicaal democratisch model voor een pluralistische samenleving. Een juiste appreciatie van de niet te elimineren politieke dimensie van strijd geeft aanleiding tot een kritische evaluatie van het politieke liberalisme van John Rawls en de deliberatieve democratie van Jürgen Habermas. Tegelijkertijd werpt Mouffe daarbij (...) een nieuw licht op enkele recente politieke fenomenen, zoals de opkomst van rechtse populistische partijen in Europa en de internationale ‘oorlog tegen het terrorisme’. (shrink)

Het vroege verlies van de nationale onafhankelijkheid in de oudheid en het diaspora-bestaan in de middeleeuwen en een groot deel van de nieuwe tijd, heeft het joodse volk slecht voorbereid voor nuchtere en rationele politieke oplossingen. Het verlangen naar de Messias, naar de uiteindelijke verlossing heeft de houding van de joodse politieke leiders bepaald.

‘De huidige ‘‘consensus van het midden’’ is niet -- zoals vaak wordt beweerd -- een blijk van vooruitgang van de democratie, maar een reëel gevaar voor haar toekomst. Het ontbreken van een agonistisch debat tussen de democratische partijen en van een confrontatie tussen verschillende politieke stromingen heeft het de burgers onmogelijk gemaakt zich te identificeren met een gedifferentieerd scala aan democratische politieke identiteiten. Dit heeft een vacuüm geschapen dat in toenemende mate door rechts-populistische partijen wordt gevuld. Zij vervangen (...) de afgezwakte tegenstelling tussen links en rechts door een nieuwe wij-zij-tegenstelling die wordt opgebouwd rond de tegenstelling tussen ‘‘de bevolking’’ en ‘‘het establishment’’. Het is nodig om te beseffen dat ondanks de voorspelde verdwijning van collectieve identiteiten en de vermeende overwinning van het individualisme, de collectieve dimensie niet uit de politiek kan worden verwijderd. Als ze niet beschikbaar zijn via de traditionele politieke kanalen, zullen collectieve vormen van identificaties worden aangeboden in andere vormen, die veel minder vatbaar zijn voor democratische beïnvloeding. Als de maatschappelijke tweedeling niet meer kan worden weergegeven als een verdeling in links en rechts, kunnen gevoelens niet langer worden gekanaliseerd in de richting van democratische doelen en kunnen conflicten een vorm aannemen die de democratische instituties in gevaar brengt.’. (shrink)