In this essay, I argue that the agonistic approach toward political engagement places too much emphasis on the task of winning the social game and overlooks the dimension of what has been called ever since Greek Antiquity by the name charis. Charis is the quality of life, denoting ideals of reciprocal invitations to feel joy and satisfaction. Under the influence of the Weberian model of charismatic leadership, collective charisma has faded away from the attention of political theorists. This essay offers (...) arguments for the integration of the collective charis into agonistic political theory but calls for several revisions of this theory. Counterbalancing the overemphasis on winning involves listening and witnessing in the sense of transforming the miracle of charis into the plain words of the logos and the sounds of the phonê that everybody can perceive. (shrink)

Both Judith Butler and Chantal Mouffe challenge liberal conceptions of politics based on their ontological descriptions of the political. Mouffe argues that the failure of liberalism to grasp the agonistic character of political life means that properly political conflicts get translated into moral terms. Mouffe thinks that the way to correct our “post-political” problems is to avoid translating political conflicts into a moral register. I challenge Mouffe’s separation of ethics and politics by invoking Butler’s more nuanced account of the ethical (...) sphere. I demonstrate that Mouffe does not consider that there are different orders of moral claims ; nor does Mouffe consider that there are different orders of affect, some of which cannot be simply opposed to rationality. (shrink)

Scientific pluralism, a normative endorsement of the plurality or multiplicity of research approaches in science, has recently been advocated by several philosophers (e.g., Kellert et al. 2006, Kitcher 2001, Longino 2013, Mitchell 2009, and Chang 2010). Comparing these accounts of scientific pluralism, one will encounter quite some variation. We want to clarify the different interpretations of scientific pluralism by showing how they incarnate different models of democracy, stipulating the desired interaction among the plurality of research approaches in different ways. Furthermore, (...) the example of scientific pluralism is used to advocate the application of democratic theory to philosophy of science problems in general. Drawing on the parallels between models of science and models of democracy, we can articulate how the plurality of research approaches in science should interact within a democratic framework as well as how to cultivate multiple research approaches in the epistemically most productive way possible. This will not only improve our understanding of scientific plurality, but it can also help us stipulating how different research approaches should interact to constitute the most objective account possible or how the ideal of scientific consensus has to be understood. Ultimately, developing democratic models of science bears on the question of how deeply science and democracy are entwined. (shrink)

Dans le premier essai, Siegfried L. Mathelet interprète la pointe d’islamophobie qui s’est manifestée pendant le débat sur la « Charte des valeurs » dans le cadre,posé par Fanon, des mésaventures de la conscience nationale postcoloniale. L’auteur revient sur cette discussion issue des études postcoloniales et explore les stéréotypes nativistes et islamophobes à partir des notions de « dissémiNation » et d’« ambivalence » avancées par Homi Bhabha. Il avance ainsi que cette pointe d’islamophobie accompagne une politique identitaire qui trahit (...) le confinement du nationalisme québécois dans un état de résistance passive à l’horizon de l’impérialisme mondial et de l’État postcolonial du Canada. Dans le second essai, Philippe Bernier Arcand revient sur la montée récente du populisme dans la société québécoise. Il esquisse l’émergence d’un nouveau type de discours populiste. Celui-ci tisse un consensus politique en évoquant d’éventuels « ennemis » présents à l’intérieur des frontières et qui menaceraient d’infiltrer les institutions politiques. L’auteur montre comment se scelle au Québec aussi une alliance contre nature rassemblant des conservateurs et des progressistes autour de l’image fantasmée du musulman. (shrink)

We argue that the proper context for understanding Collingwood’s The Principles of Art is his claim that it has bearing “upon the condition of art in England in 1937”. We thus argue that he formulated a philosophical argument that underpins avant-garde dramatic poetry and theatrical practices (Eliot, Auden and the Group Theatre), taking his interpretation of Spinoza’s Ethics 5 prop. 3 to be the book’s central thesis: it is through art that one knows, against the ‘corruption of consciousness’, what emotions (...) one feels and recognizes them as one’s own. Collingwood further believed that this could only be achieved through collaboration between the artist and the community, validating new theatrical practices involving interaction with the audience. We analyse these views in the context of England in 1937: in an era marked by the rise of Fascism and Nazism, Collingwood believed that art thus conceived could help restoring emotional support for the defense of liberal democracies. We conclude with an exploration of parallels with and divergences from the Spinozist idea of ‘mobilizing affects’ in contemporary ‘left populism’ (Mouffe). (shrink)

Partiendo del desarrollo de los diferentes enfoques sobre derechos humanos, plantearemos que su reactivación pasa por el necesario debate interno de las instituciones, significados y alcance real de la democracia en el seno de las denominadas sociedades democrático-liberales. Por ello analizaremos las crecientes movilizaciones sociales presentes en buena parte de occidente y profundizaremos en el significado de dos acontecimientos: la virtualidad de un antagonismo en el progresismo político y la urgencia de una alternativa no occidental pero, si, desde Occidente.