To see nationalism as a cultural artifact is to argue against attempts at essentializing it. Anderson claims that nationalism can be better understood as obliquely analogous to such categories as religion and kinship. Membership in a nation draws on the vocabulary of filiation whereby one comes to understand oneself in relation to ancestors long gone and generations yet to be born. In addressing pasts and futures, nationalism resituates identity with reference to death, one’s own as well as others’. Herein lies (...) nationalism’s affective appeal, that which makes it possible to sacrifice oneself for the “motherland.” It lends to the accident of birth the sense of continuity and converts mortality into something that is meant for as much as it is realized by one. By placing one in a certain relationship to death and generativity, nationalist discourse therefore frames the arbitrariness of existence. “It is the magic of nationalism to turn chance into destiny”.However, while nationalism tends to mine the idioms of kinship and religion, the historical conditions of its emergence undermine the logic and stability of these inherited categories. Thus Anderson defines nations as “imagined communities.” Built on the rubble of traditional polities, the nation invokes a radically secular subjectivity that sets it apart from its predecessors. Dynastic states presumed power and privilege as functions of the purity of bloodlines guaranteed by a divine order. Colonial states as dynastic states in drag replicate the obsession with hierarchy by reorganizing social and epistemological categories according to a metaphysics of race and progress. By contrast, the nation envisions a more egalitarian community. “Regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship”. It thus reveals the mutability of all sorts of hierarchies. Rather than take power for granted as natural and inherited, nationalism asks about “rights” and thereby opens up the problem of representation: who has the right to speak for whom and under what circumstances? Vincente L. Rafael is assistant professor in the department of communication, University of California, San Diego. He is the author of Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule. (shrink)

Primer estudio exhaustivo sobre la metafísica krausiana, que permite conocer las peculiaridades de esta filosofía dentro del conjunto del idealismo alemán así como facilita el estudio de los distintos movimientos krausistas, que tenían en el sistema panenteísta su inspiración filosófica primordial. Cada capítulo del libro corresponde a un período de la evolución de esta filosofía sistemática.

This study aimed to analyze the explanatory contribution of social responsibility and organizational justice on commitment through the setting up of a theoretical model in order to better understand the relationships that are established between these constructs. The empirical study was developed in a public higher education institution with a sample of 233 employees, professors and staff. The proposed model was estimated using a structural equation model. It was possible to observe a relationship between interactional justice perceptions and social responsibility (...) and there contribute to the explanation of organizational affective commitment. At the same time, it was possible to observe a relationship between distributive justice and social responsibility of employees. (shrink)

Despite the fact that Aristotle and Frege/Russell differ in how to understand the ambiguity in the meaning of the word "is", their theories share a common feature: "is" does not have a normative meaning, but a constative meaning. This paper, however, shows (1) that there is a normative meaning of "is" (and correspondingly a constative meaning of the word "ought") and (2) that the ambiguity of "is" is itself ambiguous. Furthermore, the paper proposes (3) a performative criterion for making a (...) distinction between constative and normative "is". Thereby, it is possible to attack Searle's famous argument against Hume's law. (shrink)