I argue that the offense generation pattern of slurring terms parallels that of impoliteness behaviors, and is best explained by appeal to similar purely pragmatic mechanisms. In choosing to use a slurring term rather than its neutral counterpart, the speaker signals that she endorses the term. Such an endorsement warrants offense, and consequently slurs generate offense whenever a speaker's use demonstrates a contrastive preference for the slurring term. Since this explanation comes at low theoretical cost and imposes few constraints on (...) an account of the semantics of slurs, this suggests that we should not require semantic accounts to provide an independent explanation of the offense profile. (shrink)

Some bemoan the incivility of our times, while others complain that people have grown too quick to take offense. There is widespread disagreement about what counts as an insult and when it is appropriate to feel insulted. Here I propose a definition and a preliminary taxonomy of insults. Namely, I define insults as expressions of a lack of due regard. And I categorize insults by whether they are intended or unintended, acts or omissions, and whether they cause offense or not. (...) Unintended insults are of particular concern since greater understanding may help us to avoid them. And insults by omission warrant special consideration because they suggest an interesting extension of Grice’s theory of conversational implicature. (shrink)

Should philosophers be more polite to one another? The topic of good manners—or, more grandly, civility—has enjoyed a recent renaissance in philosophical circles, but little of the formal discussion has been self-directed: that is, it has not examined the virtues and vices of polite and impolite philosophizing, in particular. This is an oversight; practices of rudeness do rather a lot of work in enacting distinctly philosophical modes of engagement, in ways that both shape and detract from the aims of our (...) discipline. If we fail to recognize practices of rudeness, we become vulnerable to some of... (shrink)

In a social situation, why is it sometimes off-putting when a person reaches for his smartphone? In small-group contexts such as a college seminar, a business meeting, a family meal, or a small musical performance, when a person begins texting or interacting with social media on a smartphone he may disengage from the group. When we do find this off-putting, we typically consider it to be just impolite or inappropriate. In this essay, I argue that something more profound is at (...) stake. One significant way in which individuals shape their self-identities is through interactions with others in small groups. Much identity-work is interdependent; it requires generating and preserving social contexts. I argue that the smartphone-use of some individuals can fracture a group’s context and thus negatively affect the identity-work of others. In this essay, I examine identity-work, sociality, and personal technology from a perspective of existential phenomenology. (shrink)

The high frequency that the question “where are you from” gets asked in ordinary conversation, as well as the insistence on getting private information from people one hardly knows, reveal an interesting phenomenon: an exceptional reversing of the codes of politeness, where indiscretion becomes the rule while efforts to avoid it become impolite acts. In order to explain this phenomenon, this article compares the hypothesis of racial micro-aggression defended by the existing literature and supported by the results of the French (...) survey Trajectories and Origins, to the hypothesis of methodological nationalism. The article shows that the second hypothesis provides a better explanation of how the “where are you from” question is actually practiced. The article’s thesis is that the importance of the “where are you from” question in ordinary conversations is a measure of the banalization of methodological nationalism. (shrink)

Los discursos sobre el biopoder han marcado buena parte de las discusiones en filosofía política durante la última década. Particularmente, el desarrollo de estos discursos entre diversos filósofos italianos, lo que ha abierto diversas líneas de interpretación sobre el biopoder. A continuación se revisa una de las hipótesis centrales del planteamiento de Roberto Esposito y que justifica gran parte de su trabajo en torno a estos discursos. Esta hipótesis consiste en que la biopolítica mostraría el encuentro léxico entre el vocabulario (...) médico y político que se atestigua durante el siglo XX. Al mismo tiempo el artículo interroga críticamente esta hipótesis de modo que, por una parte, expone el planteamiento de Esposito y sirve como introducción a sus propuestas y, por otra, permite revisar los aportes y límites de esta particular recepción del biopoder. -/- The Biopower discourses have marked much of the discussions on political philosophy during the last decade. In particular, the development of these speechs among several Italian philosophers, which has opened various lines of interpretation of Biopower. Then review one of the central hypothesis of the approach of Roberto Esposito and that justifies much of her work around these discourses. This hypothesis is that the biopolitical would show the lexical meeting between the medical and political vocabulary which is testified during the 20th century. At the same time the article critically interrogates this hypothesis so that, on the one hand, it exposes the approach of Esposito and serves as an introduction to their proposals and, on the other hand, allows to review the contributions and limits of this particular reception of BioPower. (shrink)