Suchergebnisse

AbstractRefugees can be formed as "subjects" as they navigate forced displacement in countries that are not their own. In particular, everyday life as the politicized Other, and as humanitarianism's depoliticized beneficiary, can constitute them as political subjects. Understanding these produced subjects and subjectivities leads us to conceive of forced displacement – or "refugeedom" – as a human condition or experience of political (sub)alterity, within which inhere distinctive subjectivations and subjectivities. Drawing on fieldwork in Beirut, Lebanon, we use young Syrian and Iraqi refugees' experiences with everyday racism, violent bullying and racialized discrimination as heuristic lenses with which to see displacement's political subjects and subjectivities. We argue that the young refugees emerge as both political and moral subjects through core and defining struggles within – and against – these politicizing constraints. We interpret their struggles as ambivalently and dynamically situated within humanitarianism's and racism's subjections and subjectivities. Yet we also found that occasionally the young refugees could eclipse these produced subjectivities to claim repoliticized subjecthoods distinct from those of humanitarianism and outside displacement's normal politics. We interpret these in Rancièrian terms as "political subjectivation." Abstracting our findings, we offer a simple theoretical architecture of refugeedom's subjectivations, subjects, and subjectivities as comprising humanitarianism's rights-bearing or juridical subject; the vulnerable and resilient, innocent and suffering subject; and the Othered or racialized subject, formed through the exclusions of displacement's politicized spaces. But we also conceive refugeedom as a space of values, and so the ground on which moral meaning and significance attach to agency and subjectivity.

Calls for cross-scalar theoretical and methodological approaches are not new to commons scholarship. Such efforts might be hastened by channelling poststructuralist and critical theory perspectives through the geographic subfield of political ecology, including attention to political scales and subjects. Toward this end, this paper reconsiders Maine's lobster fishery. This case has provided rich material for watershed commons scholarship, demonstrating the ability of social groups to conserve resources independent of government or markets, and it continues to offer new findings. Recent fieldwork shows that as lobster boat captains advance collective interests through state-supported co-management governance arrangements, concerns of crew and non-fishing community members may be marginalized. Regulatory exclusion prevents broader distribution of resource benefits at a time when employment alternatives are scarce. More pluralistic approaches to commons theory and its policy application have utility well beyond the lobster case.

Calls for cross-scalar theoretical and methodological approaches are not new to commons scholarship. Such efforts might be hastened by channelling poststructuralist and critical theory perspectives through the geographic subfield of political ecology, including attention to political scales and subjects. Toward this end, this paper reconsiders Maine's lobster fishery. This case has provided rich material for watershed commons scholarship, demonstrating the ability of social groups to conserve resources independent of government or markets, and it continues to offer new findings. Recent fieldwork shows that as lobster boat captains advance collective interests through state-supported co-management governance arrangements, concerns of crew and non-fishing community members may be marginalized. Regulatory exclusion prevents broader distribution of resource benefits at a time when employment alternatives are scarce. More pluralistic approaches to commons theory and its policy application have utility well beyond the lobster case.

Calls for cross-scalar theoretical and methodological approaches are not new to commons scholarship. Such efforts might be hastened by channelling poststructuralist and critical theory perspectives through the geographic subfield of political ecology, including attention to political scales and subjects. Toward this end, this paper reconsiders Maine's lobster fishery. This case has provided rich material for watershed commons scholarship, demonstrating the ability of social groups to conserve resources independent of government or markets, and it continues to offer new findings. Recent fieldwork shows that as lobster boat captains advance collective interests through state-supported co-management governance arrangements, concerns of crew and non-fishing community members may be marginalized. Regulatory exclusion prevents broader distribution of resource benefits at a time when employment alternatives are scarce. More pluralistic approaches to commons theory and its policy application have utility well beyond the lobster case.

Any random sampling of a Facebook timeline or Twitter feed, to take the obvious examples, provides a prepackaged view of global politics. It is restrictive because we choose it to reflect our own pet subjects, groups, likes, and world interests. The lens is prejudiced to reflect our race, class, gender, sexuality, ideology, and affective positionality. We enter a social media world as many as 10 or 50 times a day that has ourselves as the center of the universe. This communication world is similar to an infant's world: Someone else decides what we can see, what we can consume, what is that extra treat we can earn, if we are good: in social media terms, if we pay for it by reputational capital, or simply, if we spend enough money.

NUESTRAS MADRES is an artwork by the art collective IDA performed at the AHRA Architecture and Feminisms Conference (2016), which consisted of a collective ritual and a poetry reading. The ritual created a safe space where a group of participants sat around a table taking turns in sharing their stories about their mothers while embroidering their mothers' names on a single tablecloth. These were synthesized into a poem and presented the following day. IDA investigates issues in private and public space connected to knowledge production and gender normativity. Even though the role of mothers and their knowledge is usually connected to the private sphere, the knowledge of our mothers and their mothers shared en la mesa - over the table - is important in the construction of political subjects. How has this knowledge helped us survive in society as women, queer, indigenous, working class, Muslim, immigrant - as human beings?

Theory of the Political Subject continues the project of reconstruction of political universalism begun in Ontology of World Politics. Having redefined world politics in terms of the affirmation of the universal ontological axioms of freedom, equality and community in an infinite multiplicity of particular situations or 'worlds', in this book Prozorov focuses on the way this affirmation is actually practiced, analysing the conditions for the emergence within a world of the subject of its radical transformation. Drawing on the contemporary reassessment of the notion of the subject in continental political thought, particularly the work of Alain Badiou, Prozorov defines the political subject in terms of one's subtraction from the positive order of one's world, the weakening of one's particular identity that makes possible one's participation in the affirmation of the universal. The book proceeds with outlining the path of the political subject within its world, from the point of its inception to its confrontation with ethical, epistemic and other limits to its activity. This account of the subjective aspect of world politics also offers new and stimulating perspectives on such key issues of political theory as the relation of politics to human nature, the role of violence in politics and the conditioning of politics by philosophical or scientific knowledge. ; Peer reviewed

Since 2011, the Indignados have been a prominent feature of Spanish politics. Based on the emotional characteristics and framing of the movement, this article argues that our common notions of how democracy and legitimacy should work, and in particular ideas of deliberative democracy, consistently favour political behaviour of a certain kind, namely that of rational action. This article argues that ideas of radical democracy, especially those of Jacques Rancière, could help broaden the idea of politics, in arguing that only recognising rational actions is an exclusionary practice. The article thus uses the case of the Indignados in order to rethink some dimensions of democratic theory. It starts out with an outlook on the current situation in Spain and then moves on to describe the main tenets of deliberative democracy and the problem the Indignados pose to such a theory. In opposition to this it introduces Rancière's works, and argues that this has much higher bearing for our contemporary problems of democracy. The article concludes by saying that deliberative democracy lacks explanatory power when it comes to the Indignados. By requiring a unified sovereign, a distinction between voice and noise, and a consensual form of legitimate decision-making, the Indignados are not deemed political subjects in deliberative democratic theory. This can be seen as an exclusionary practice, since the Indignados still form a noticeable presence in today's political landscape. Therefore, there is a need for revising what constitutes a political subject and a political action.

The concept of a historical-social and political emancipatory subject, central in Marxism, has been rebuked by postmodern theories. In this article the authors examine the encounter between Marxist and postmodernist theories and ponder whether and how to conceive of an emancipatory political subject. The article identifies the questions posed by worldwide protests in the context of the global economic crisis and outlines a typology of the different responses of Marxist thinkers to the postmodernist challenge. The authors distinguish between 'total rejection' (anti-postmodern Marxism) and 'total acceptance' (post-Marxism), and between 'rejection in part' (Marxist postmodernism) and 'acceptance in part' (synthetic Marxist postmodernism). Based on this typology, the authors discuss the different approaches to the question of the emancipatory subject. Anti-postmodern Marxists have made relatively small adaptations to the contention that class constitutes the central explanatory concept. Marxist postmodernists retain the major Marxist categories, but they conceptualize also new struggles and new political subjectivities. Synthetic Marxist postmodernists view political subjectivity as a combination of classical Marxist categories and identity and cultural categories. Post-Marxists deconstruct the concept of class and propose new collective subjectivities. Finally, the article discusses the limitations of each of the approaches in addressing the identity of the emancipatory subject.

"A theory of the emergence of the subject of world politics"--

"A theory of the emergence of the subject of world politics"--