Search results
European integration has overlooked, or misinterpreted, the self-understandings of political actors central to the process.’ By focusing on functional ‘spill over,’ economic self-interest, or national power politics, existing approaches have operated at the third-person ‘observer’ perspective favoured by positivistic social science. 16 Due to its methodological commitments, this literature cannot account for the internal, first-person perspective of the participants in the creation of the European Communities. In order to take account of the standpoints of the agents
identify scientific, political and ethical effects upon people in the here and now. Foucault compensates for the structuralist bottleneck of practices by considering the latter as experiences of truth, power and forms of relations for the participants of science and/or politics. The disagreement over whether or not Foucault was a structuralist was intense during the twentieth century and probably remains so. But apart from formalistic categorizations (from which Foucault remained rather aloof), he preferred methodological as well as essential scientific discontinuities
modernity that ignored dialectics and its normative character reached scientific, social and political impasses. The following chapters examine such epistemological as well as methodological culs-de-sac. When considering the sciences, I always have the impression that they make reference to society and politics. As in the social and political sphere, where consensus of all participants appears important but not a condition sine qua non, the same is also valid for the sciences. It is not consensus that necessarily distinguishes a creative scientific process; rather, it
psychotherapists with the aim of evaluating the extent to which Stoic philosophy can offer useful and practical guidance 6 Critical theory and feeling on how to live well today. Participants are encouraged to ‘live like a Stoic for a week’, and are provided with a handbook containing a range of daily activities to carry out and reflect upon. At the end of the week, self-assessments of the participant’s wellbeing are completed and compared to those filled out at the start of the week.15 For an ancient philosophy so steeped in principles, it seems telling that one of the event
which is not caused by any intentional malice. However, such a dynamic could potentially cause tremendous social harm. What Neuhouser clearly identifies in Rousseau’s work is the existence of vicious circles which can cause tremendous social harm without any participant seeking anything other than free and fair intersubjective praxis. As Neuhouser ( 2012 : 637) wrote
way as demands for further justification. Yet this approach is strange for a number of reasons – first, it seems at odds with Forst’s insistence that we ourselves are participants in the history we recount. 53 In his own history, however, the only vantage points open to us are those of the philosopher or the politician, which are presented as fundamentally separate. This clearly undersells the practical purchase of toleration theory in the medieval and early modern periods, and indeed vice versa. Yet grappling with the complexities of this interaction would
understanding of his work. The real challenge in reading Rousseau is to appreciate how his political vision depends on his literary and autobiographical writings while at the Prelims000.p65 18 11/09/03, 13:31 Introduction and method xix same time recognising the extend to which his literary representations of subjectivity flow from a dialectic of self and other at the core of his political writings. (Kavanagh 2001: 397) This study is an attempt to do exactly this – and to do so in a way that makes Rousseau a participant in the political debates of the present day. As a
: The notion of stakeholding expresses, first, the idea that citizens have not merely fundamental interests in the outcomes of the political process, but a claim to be represented as participants in that process. Second, stakeholding serves as a criterion for assessing claims to membership and voting rights. Individuals whose circumstances of life link their future well-being to the flourishing of a particular
scientifically established order is considered a natural form of the social order. The vicious circle grows even more coercive when the reverse side of the previous mutuality prompts the evolution of science according to the social status quo. Nevertheless, what comes as an immediate reaction to the above argument on habitus and the structural paradigm, referring to relations of intercommunication that articulate a structure, is the question of the bearers or the participants of all the latter interpretations. Bourdieu’s reader is inclined at some point to wonder: ‘the habitus
found an echo in contemporary soul music. Key figures who had emerged in popular music so became participants to some degree. 47 In the US student movements, in Todd Gitlin's accounts, modes of leadership were constantly debated but never resolved. Key figures ‘abdicated’ rather than assume such attributed power. 48 Active attempts were made to avoid individuals’ being cast as the ‘spokespeople’ required by television news