Keynote Speakers
- Michael Dillon (Sehir University, Turkey)
- Manas Ray (CSSSC, India)
- Julian Reid (University of Lapland, Finland)
- Ranabir Samaddar (Calcutta Research Group, India)
Organized by the University of Lapland and the Calcutta Research Group. Funded by the Finnish Academy
How can we understand the historical and contemporary function of development doctrine in the propagation and expansion of liberal regimes of governance? How has the strategic function of development changed in the transition from liberal to neoliberal rationalities of governance? And what is the relevance of the shift from development to sustainable development for the increasingly global hegemony of neoliberalism? Answering these questions requires examining the fundamental and complex correlations of economy, politics and security with life in liberal doctrine. For it is the reification of life which has permitted liberalism to proliferate, like a poison species, taking over entire states and societies in the wake of their disasters, utilizing their suffering, as conditions for its spread, installing markets, commodifying anything it can lay its hands on, monetizing the value of everything, driving peoples from countryside into cities, generating displacement, homelessness, and deprivation.
Neoliberalism is widely understood as a theory of political economic practices proposing that human well-being can best be advanced by the maximization of entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework characterized by private property rights, individual liberty, unencumbered markets, and free trade. Less understood, however, is how its claims to be able to increase wealth and freedom became correlated with claims to increase the prosperity and security of life itself. For life was triangulated with capital and labour within liberal regimes of governance from the very earliest emergence of liberal political economy’s competition and conflict with the Cameralism and Mercantilism of Polizeiwissenschaft. Life, in the form of species existence, rather than nature, specifically the political and economic nature in particular of rational Man whose dual nature derived much more from European scholasticism than many of its early modern proponents conceded, has progressively emerged as a singularly important a priori for liberal political economy.
Neoliberalism breaks from earlier liberalisms and traditions of political economy in so far as its legitimacy rests on its capacities to correlate practices for the increase of economic profitability and prosperity not just with practices for the securing of the human species, but with the life of the biosphere. These correlations of economy, well-being, freedom, security and biospheric life in and among neoliberal regimes of practice and representation comprise some of the foundations of its biopolitics. As this symposium will explore, we cannot understand how liberalism functions, most especially how it has gained the global hegemony that it has, without addressing how systematically the category of life has organized the correlation of its various practices of governance, as well as how important the shift in the very understanding of life, from the human to the biospheric, has been for changes in those practices. Today it is not simply living species and habitats that are threatened with extinction, and for which we must mobilize our care, but the words and gestures of human solidarity on which resistance to biopolitical regimes of governance depends. A sense of responsibility for the survival of the life of the biosphere is not a sufficient condition for the development of a political subject capable of speaking back to neoliberalism; nor a mere humanistic sense of responsibility for the life of human amongst other beings. What is required is a subject responsible for securing incorporeal species, chiefly that of the political, currently threatened with extinction, on account of the overwrought fascination with life that has colonized the developmental as well as every other biopoliticized imaginary of the modern age.
This symposium seeks to explore a range of responses to this problematic. It invites papers from across the disciplines and from a variety of theoretical perspectives that address any aspect of the biopolitics of development. This will be a two-day symposium with about 20-25 participants marked by presentation of views, papers, roundtable discussions, and question-answer sessions. Paper proposals aiming to respond to this problematic should be submitted to Julian Reid (reidjulian@gmail.com) and Ranabir Samaddar (ranabir@mcrg.ac.in).
Deadline: July 31, 2010.
CALL FOR PAPERS: Between Rawls and Religion: Liberalism in a Postsecular World
LUISS University and John Cabot University host an IRNRD event in Rome on December 16--18, 2010.
This conference will bring together scholars in philosophy, sociology, political theory, legal theory, religious studies, and theology to discuss the problematic relationship between religion and politics in contemporary public life. It will focus particularly on John Rawls’ influential treatment of liberalism in pluralist societies and on the challenges posed to such a treatment by the re-emergence of religions in public life and the development of what some have called a postsecular world. The conference will thus consider such topics as:
- Religion in Rawls
- Political liberalism in a postsecular world
- Religious doctrines and the idea of public reason
- Religions and overlapping consensus
- Liberalism and political theology
- The philosophical and political foundations of postsecular pluralism
- Redefining the relations and boundaries between religion and public life
- Accommodating religious identities in liberal societies
Speakers include: Tariq Modood (Bristol) (tbc), Stephen Macedo (Princeton), Sebastiano Maffettone (LUISS), Paul Weithman (Notre Dame), Maeve Cooke (Dublin), Joh. Van Der Ven (Nijmegen), David Rasmussen (Boston), Andrew March (Yale)(tbc), and Alessandro Ferrara (Rome).
Submission guidelines:
A paper suitable for presentation in 20 minutes and a 500-word abstract, both prepared for blind review, should be sent by 1 October 2010 to the following email address: infophd@luiss.it
Notice of acceptance will be provided by 15 October 2010.
Selected papers will be considered for publication
Enquiries: infophd@luiss.it
This conference will bring together scholars in philosophy, sociology, political theory, legal theory, religious studies, and theology to discuss the problematic relationship between religion and politics in contemporary public life. It will focus particularly on John Rawls’ influential treatment of liberalism in pluralist societies and on the challenges posed to such a treatment by the re-emergence of religions in public life and the development of what some have called a postsecular world. The conference will thus consider such topics as:
- Religion in Rawls
- Political liberalism in a postsecular world
- Religious doctrines and the idea of public reason
- Religions and overlapping consensus
- Liberalism and political theology
- The philosophical and political foundations of postsecular pluralism
- Redefining the relations and boundaries between religion and public life
- Accommodating religious identities in liberal societies
Speakers include: Tariq Modood (Bristol) (tbc), Stephen Macedo (Princeton), Sebastiano Maffettone (LUISS), Paul Weithman (Notre Dame), Maeve Cooke (Dublin), Joh. Van Der Ven (Nijmegen), David Rasmussen (Boston), Andrew March (Yale)(tbc), and Alessandro Ferrara (Rome).
Submission guidelines:
A paper suitable for presentation in 20 minutes and a 500-word abstract, both prepared for blind review, should be sent by 1 October 2010 to the following email address: infophd@luiss.it
Notice of acceptance will be provided by 15 October 2010.
Selected papers will be considered for publication
Enquiries: infophd@luiss.it
Tiedonkeruuta vanhoillislestadiolaisten hoitokokouksista [IN FINNISH]
Kuulutko tai oletko aikaisemmin kuulunut vanhoillislestadiolaiseen herätysliikkeeseen? Tai onko Sinulla muutoin kokemuksia vanhoillislestadiolaisuudesta?
Olen tekemässä tutkimusta ns. hoitokokouksista, joita järjestettiin liikkeen piirissä erityisesti 1970-luvun loppupuolella.
Kiinnostuksen kohteena ovat erityisesti ihmisten kokemukset hoitokokouksista; minkälaisia tunteita ne herättivät silloin ja millaisia tunteita ne ovat aiheuttaneet jälkeenpäin?
Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena ei ole selvittää niinkään tapahtumien täsmällistä kulkua, vaan ihmisten kokemusperäistä näkökulmaa asiaan. Kirjoituksissa toivotaan, että niissä kerrottaisiin tapahtumista, niihin liittyvistä muistokuvista ja tuntemuksista. Menneisyyden kokemusten ja tuntemusten lisäksi on kiinnostavaa, millaisia tunteita ne herättävät nykyään.
Kirjoituksia toivotaan niiltä, jotka ovat olleen tekemisissä jollakin tavalla asian kanssa, sekä niiltä, joihin hoitokokoukset ovat vaikuttaneet joko suoraan tai epäsuoraan. Jos olet liikkeen ulkopuolinen henkilö, millaisia kokemuksia Sinulla on ollut hoitokokouksista ulkopuolisin silmin?
Tutkimus kuuluu Suomen Akatemian rahoittamaan "Lestadionismi: Poliittinen teologia ja kansalaisuskonto maallistuvassa Suomessa" -tutkimushankkeeseen (hankenumero: 132693). Lapin yliopistoon sijoittuva tutkimushanke jatkuu vuoden 2012 loppuun asti.
Tutkimuksen toteuttaa dosentti Aini Linjakumpu Lapin yliopistosta. Kirjoitukset voi lähettää osoitteella: Aini Linjakumpu, Lapin yliopisto, PL 122, 96101 Rovaniemi. Kirjoituksia voi lähettää myös sähköpostilla osoitteeseen: hoitokokoukset ät ulapland piste fi. Asiaan liittyvät tiedustelut joko kirjeitse tai edellä mainitulla sähköpostilla.
Kirjoituksia toivotaan 30.6. mennessä. Kirjoitukset käsitellään ehdottoman luottamuksellisesti. Kirjoitukset voidaan toimittaa myös nimettöminä, mutta toivotaan, että niissä ilmenee kirjoittajan ikä, sukupuoli ja mahdollisesti myös asuinpaikka.
Aini
Olen tekemässä tutkimusta ns. hoitokokouksista, joita järjestettiin liikkeen piirissä erityisesti 1970-luvun loppupuolella.
Kiinnostuksen kohteena ovat erityisesti ihmisten kokemukset hoitokokouksista; minkälaisia tunteita ne herättivät silloin ja millaisia tunteita ne ovat aiheuttaneet jälkeenpäin?
Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena ei ole selvittää niinkään tapahtumien täsmällistä kulkua, vaan ihmisten kokemusperäistä näkökulmaa asiaan. Kirjoituksissa toivotaan, että niissä kerrottaisiin tapahtumista, niihin liittyvistä muistokuvista ja tuntemuksista. Menneisyyden kokemusten ja tuntemusten lisäksi on kiinnostavaa, millaisia tunteita ne herättävät nykyään.
Kirjoituksia toivotaan niiltä, jotka ovat olleen tekemisissä jollakin tavalla asian kanssa, sekä niiltä, joihin hoitokokoukset ovat vaikuttaneet joko suoraan tai epäsuoraan. Jos olet liikkeen ulkopuolinen henkilö, millaisia kokemuksia Sinulla on ollut hoitokokouksista ulkopuolisin silmin?
Tutkimus kuuluu Suomen Akatemian rahoittamaan "Lestadionismi: Poliittinen teologia ja kansalaisuskonto maallistuvassa Suomessa" -tutkimushankkeeseen (hankenumero: 132693). Lapin yliopistoon sijoittuva tutkimushanke jatkuu vuoden 2012 loppuun asti.
Tutkimuksen toteuttaa dosentti Aini Linjakumpu Lapin yliopistosta. Kirjoitukset voi lähettää osoitteella: Aini Linjakumpu, Lapin yliopisto, PL 122, 96101 Rovaniemi. Kirjoituksia voi lähettää myös sähköpostilla osoitteeseen: hoitokokoukset ät ulapland piste fi. Asiaan liittyvät tiedustelut joko kirjeitse tai edellä mainitulla sähköpostilla.
Kirjoituksia toivotaan 30.6. mennessä. Kirjoitukset käsitellään ehdottoman luottamuksellisesti. Kirjoitukset voidaan toimittaa myös nimettöminä, mutta toivotaan, että niissä ilmenee kirjoittajan ikä, sukupuoli ja mahdollisesti myös asuinpaikka.
Aini
Civil Religion
In one of my earlier postings I gave a short theoretical introduction to political theology. In this posting I will unfold the concept of civil religion.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book The Social Contract formulates the idea of how people should get together and form a society. The book -- first published in 1762 -- also discusses the role of civil religion in society.
For Rousseau man is born free but in order to preserve himself he has to join with others. This union happens in a social contract and the society thereby constituted becomes the foundation of the general will. The general will ensures that all the people remain free and no one will subjugate the others. According to Rousseau people form the sovereign entity and enact the laws. However, Rousseau separates the government from the people: the job of the government is to implement the general will.
However Rousseau sees it as problematic how a man could accept that the sovereign entity is not led by a ruler who would have received his mandate straight from God. To solve this problem he formulates the concept of civil religion. Civil religion is not about religion as such -- actually it is a way to diminish the role of religion in society. Rousseau makes clear distinction between the civil religion and the private religion. The latter should be out of reach of the government and everybody's private matter as long as it does not conflict with civil religion.
Rousseau makes clear that Christianity will not work as a civil religion or as a bonding element. According to him Christians are too submissive and it would be too easy for one to dominate over others. Christians perform their duties for the sovereign entity, but it is not really this world they are interested in -- it is the next one they are preparing themselves for.
For Rousseau civil religion is the "cement" of society, a factor that keeps people together. Civil religion is a way of thinking that promotes a feeling of unity among the people. Values and 'grand narratives' are carried forward over generations forming the feeling of oneness and belonging.
-Mari
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book The Social Contract formulates the idea of how people should get together and form a society. The book -- first published in 1762 -- also discusses the role of civil religion in society.
For Rousseau man is born free but in order to preserve himself he has to join with others. This union happens in a social contract and the society thereby constituted becomes the foundation of the general will. The general will ensures that all the people remain free and no one will subjugate the others. According to Rousseau people form the sovereign entity and enact the laws. However, Rousseau separates the government from the people: the job of the government is to implement the general will.
However Rousseau sees it as problematic how a man could accept that the sovereign entity is not led by a ruler who would have received his mandate straight from God. To solve this problem he formulates the concept of civil religion. Civil religion is not about religion as such -- actually it is a way to diminish the role of religion in society. Rousseau makes clear distinction between the civil religion and the private religion. The latter should be out of reach of the government and everybody's private matter as long as it does not conflict with civil religion.
Rousseau makes clear that Christianity will not work as a civil religion or as a bonding element. According to him Christians are too submissive and it would be too easy for one to dominate over others. Christians perform their duties for the sovereign entity, but it is not really this world they are interested in -- it is the next one they are preparing themselves for.
For Rousseau civil religion is the "cement" of society, a factor that keeps people together. Civil religion is a way of thinking that promotes a feeling of unity among the people. Values and 'grand narratives' are carried forward over generations forming the feeling of oneness and belonging.
-Mari
Postings about women and the abuse scandal
Like in several other religious movements women's role in Laestadianism is often considered marginal. Some of the most popular points of discussion outside the movement highlight this fact and ask questions such as whether or not Laestadian women have control over their bodies.
A new topic hotly debated in the Finnish press and the blogosphere is child abuse. The Pod.fi (orig in eng) web page published last week a post according to which women's stronger role in the church would not only have prevented child abuse, but also made the handling of the problem more 'efficient'.
Pekka Asikainen's blog post on the other hand brought up Conservative Laestadianism and asked whether the wisdom of women has been forgot in the movement and whether women's stronger role would have prevented abuse. Asikainen's has aroused more general discussion about women's role in the Suomi24-forum.
According to article in Omat polut the Conservative Laestadians have been in center of attention in this abuse scandal. The article states that patriarchal and closed structure of the movement has made the problem worse and is degrading the status of Laestadian women and children.
-Mari
A new topic hotly debated in the Finnish press and the blogosphere is child abuse. The Pod.fi (orig in eng) web page published last week a post according to which women's stronger role in the church would not only have prevented child abuse, but also made the handling of the problem more 'efficient'.
Pekka Asikainen's blog post on the other hand brought up Conservative Laestadianism and asked whether the wisdom of women has been forgot in the movement and whether women's stronger role would have prevented abuse. Asikainen's has aroused more general discussion about women's role in the Suomi24-forum.
According to article in Omat polut the Conservative Laestadians have been in center of attention in this abuse scandal. The article states that patriarchal and closed structure of the movement has made the problem worse and is degrading the status of Laestadian women and children.
-Mari
Political theology in Rome
Your editor reports from Rome, Italy, where he attended the meeting of the executive committee of the International Research Network on Religion and Democracy (IRNRD). The meeting was preceded by lectures of Dr Michael Hölzl (Manchester, pictured below giving a brilliant lecture on the temptation of re-mythologising sovereignty), prof Graham Ward (Manchester), and Walter Van Herck (Antwerp). The meeting and lectures were kindly hosted by the LUISS Centre for Ethics and Global Politics and John Cabot University.
Let it be known that Rome is certainly one of the great cities of the world and both LUISS and JCU extraordinary academic institutions. The committee meeting was also a success: the IRNRD 2010 conference takes place in Rome under the title "Between Rawls and Religion". The following conference on "Politics and Evil" will meet at the University of Lapland in December 2011 -- i.e. we decided to move the Lapland meeting one year earlier than previously planned.
Thanks again Aakash and Tom for hosting us. Looking forward to working with you again soon.
Mika
Let it be known that Rome is certainly one of the great cities of the world and both LUISS and JCU extraordinary academic institutions. The committee meeting was also a success: the IRNRD 2010 conference takes place in Rome under the title "Between Rawls and Religion". The following conference on "Politics and Evil" will meet at the University of Lapland in December 2011 -- i.e. we decided to move the Lapland meeting one year earlier than previously planned.
Thanks again Aakash and Tom for hosting us. Looking forward to working with you again soon.
Mika
Political theology à la Carl Schmitt
What does the political theology in the name of our project stand for? I will try to open the concept by using the ideas of Carl Schmitt.
As Schmitt states in his famous quote 'The central concepts of the modern state theory are all secularized theological concepts' (Politische Theologie, 1922). This is easier to understand if we know Schmitt's view how the controlling forces in the Western states have changed throughout their history. In the medieval worldview states were controlled by God and the Scriptures. Secular politics was a prerogative of the Catholic Church and the Pope who had a mandate straight from God. Now - after the phases of science, humanism and economics - we are living in a state where technology is the ruling element.
If we want to fully understand this analogy between political theory and theology we must study Schmitt's notion about the 'state of exception'. For Schmitt 'sovereign is the one who decides about the exception'. Exception is the miracle and the sovereign (state) is the God of the secularised time. Exceptions made by the sovereign can not be explained by the laws like the miracles made by God can not be explained by rational sense. Political theology tries to find the elements of transcendence which are often concealed in secular politics.
According to Schmitt 'the machine now runs by itself' - all transcendental elements have been stripped off the state. In the modern state the omnipotent God has been replaced by omnipotent lawgiver. Schmitt wants to restore the importance and weight that the concepts of political theory had in the 16th century. Schmitt is very critical towards liberalism and criticises the fragmentation of power. For him a strong state but also strong values were the only ways to face the challenges posed by the liberalising international system.
Even though Schmitt represented his ideas in the first half of 20th century and even thought some of his ideas can be seen as products of his time, are the theories of the political theology and the state of exception getting more attention especially in the context of war on terror.
-Mari
As Schmitt states in his famous quote 'The central concepts of the modern state theory are all secularized theological concepts' (Politische Theologie, 1922). This is easier to understand if we know Schmitt's view how the controlling forces in the Western states have changed throughout their history. In the medieval worldview states were controlled by God and the Scriptures. Secular politics was a prerogative of the Catholic Church and the Pope who had a mandate straight from God. Now - after the phases of science, humanism and economics - we are living in a state where technology is the ruling element.
If we want to fully understand this analogy between political theory and theology we must study Schmitt's notion about the 'state of exception'. For Schmitt 'sovereign is the one who decides about the exception'. Exception is the miracle and the sovereign (state) is the God of the secularised time. Exceptions made by the sovereign can not be explained by the laws like the miracles made by God can not be explained by rational sense. Political theology tries to find the elements of transcendence which are often concealed in secular politics.
According to Schmitt 'the machine now runs by itself' - all transcendental elements have been stripped off the state. In the modern state the omnipotent God has been replaced by omnipotent lawgiver. Schmitt wants to restore the importance and weight that the concepts of political theory had in the 16th century. Schmitt is very critical towards liberalism and criticises the fragmentation of power. For him a strong state but also strong values were the only ways to face the challenges posed by the liberalising international system.
Even though Schmitt represented his ideas in the first half of 20th century and even thought some of his ideas can be seen as products of his time, are the theories of the political theology and the state of exception getting more attention especially in the context of war on terror.
-Mari
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
