|
Making Sense of the Results of the European Elections |
|
Lecture |
Ivan KrastevMichael Zantovsky, Ondřej Ditrych |
Series: Lecture
|
Series: Lecture
|
|
European Elections 2019: The Day After |
|
Seminars and Colloquia |
Marina Lalovic |
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Democracy and Its Enemies |
|
Panels and Discussions |
Chantal MouffeLudger HagedornShalini RanderiaPeter Engelmann |
Peter Engelmann in conversation with Chantal Mouffe
Series: Panels and Discussions
|
Peter Engelmann in conversation with Chantal Mouffe
Series: Panels and Discussions
|
|
What Europeans Really Want |
|
Panels and Discussions |
Ivan KrastevIvan VejvodaPiotr BurasUlrike LunacekIngrid Steiner-Gashi |
Fears and Hopes Before the European Elections
Series: Panels and Discussions
|
Fears and Hopes Before the European Elections
Series: Panels and Discussions
|
|
The Return of Geopolitics? |
|
Panels and Discussions |
Ivan KrastevLuiza Bialasiewicz |
Series: Panels and Discussions
|
Series: Panels and Discussions
|
|
Junior Fellows’ Conference |
|
Conferences and Workshops |
Aishwary KumarAleksandra GłosAlicja RybkowskaAnastasiya RyabchukEva SchwabHubert CzyzewskiIvan KrastevKrzysztof SkoniecznyLudger HagedornLuiza BialasiewiczMarci ShorePaweł GradSanja DragicZofia SmolarskaMiloš Vec |
Series: Conferences and Workshops
|
Series: Conferences and Workshops
|
|
Citizens of Nowhere |
|
Panels and Discussions |
Ivan VejvodaNiccolo MilaneseUlrike Lunacek |
How Europe Can Be Saved from Itself
Series: Panels and Discussions
|
How Europe Can Be Saved from Itself
Series: Panels and Discussions
|
|
The East/West Within |
|
Seminars and Colloquia |
Scott Spector |
Jewish Cultural Innovation in Habsburg Galicia and Vienna
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Jewish Cultural Innovation in Habsburg Galicia and Vienna
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Judenplatz 1010 |
|
Lecture |
Timothy Snyder |
Series: Lecture
|
Series: Lecture
|
|
What is Political Cruelty? |
|
Seminars and Colloquia |
Aishwary Kumar |
Liberalism of Fear and the Democratic Life
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
“The important point for liberalism is not so much where the line is drawn,” Judith Shklar writes in a fascinating moment in her critique of cruelty, “as that it be drawn, and that it must under no circumstances be ignored or forgotten.” Where is this line? And who lives under its ambiguous constitutionality? Neither in her 1989 theses on the “liberalism of fear” nor in her 1982 demand that liberals start “putting cruelty first” does Shklar fully pursue the consequences of this morally unforgiving yet spatially uncertain line of liberal intolerance of cruelty. And while she does starkly pose the question “what is moral cruelty?” in terms of its debilitating effect on human freedom, the limit—border—that circumscribes liberalism’s constitutional response to extreme violence continues to waver. In this paper, Aishwary Kumar offers an archeology of this vacillating, political “line” that runs through liberal resistance against cruelty. By way of exploring its global implications, he follows Shklar on the cosmopolitical path she takes, along with BR Ambedkar and Hannah Arendt, into that “most ancient,” most exemplary form of organized violence and constitutional stasis known to legal and moral philosophy: the “Indo-European caste society,” which in her later writings Shklar sometimes replaces by the adjacent term “warrior society.” Her legalism is not causal. For it is in that trans-continental tradition that a relation is forged between caste and war, and the sovereignty of the line—maryada—attains its apotheosis. Might a semblance of political courage still be retrieved from that tradition of cruelty—a modern part of which becomes genuinely “anticolonial”—and rehabilitated into norms of democratic government today?
Read more
|
Liberalism of Fear and the Democratic Life
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
“The important point for liberalism is not so much where the line is drawn,” Judith Shklar writes in a fascinating moment in her critique of cruelty, “as that it be drawn, and that it must under no circumstances be ignored or forgotten.” Where is this line? And who lives under its ambiguous constitutionality? Neither in her 1989 theses on the “liberalism of fear” nor in her 1982 demand that liberals start “putting cruelty first” does Shklar fully pursue the consequences of this morally unforgiving yet spatially uncertain line of liberal intolerance of cruelty. And while she does starkly pose the question “what is moral cruelty?” in terms of its debilitating effect on human freedom, the limit—border—that circumscribes liberalism’s constitutional response to extreme violence continues to waver. In this paper, Aishwary Kumar offers an archeology of this vacillating, political “line” that runs through liberal resistance against cruelty. By way of exploring its global implications, he follows Shklar on the cosmopolitical path she takes, along with BR Ambedkar and Hannah Arendt, into that “most ancient,” most exemplary form of organized violence and constitutional stasis known to legal and moral philosophy: the “Indo-European caste society,” which in her later writings Shklar sometimes replaces by the adjacent term “warrior society.” Her legalism is not causal. For it is in that trans-continental tradition that a relation is forged between caste and war, and the sovereignty of the line—maryada—attains its apotheosis. Might a semblance of political courage still be retrieved from that tradition of cruelty—a modern part of which becomes genuinely “anticolonial”—and rehabilitated into norms of democratic government today?
Read more
|