Call for Papers by Irene Dal Poz
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In our era of globalised mass migration, traditional notions of citizenship are becoming increasi... more In our era of globalised mass migration, traditional notions of citizenship are becoming increasingly contested. As several scholars have argued [Matthew J Gibney, Linda Bosniak], the existing juridical model of citizenship no longer account for the experiences and existences of those who move at the-real and symbolic-margins of nation states and their human rights regimes, such as, for example, asylum seekers, refuges and undocumented migrants. At the same time, post-migrant societies, for example, are shaped by individuals who might hold citizenship rights but are still perceived as other, owing to ethnicised and racialised perceptions of national belonging. And these perceptions can result in the revocation of their rights, as the recent Windrush scandal in the UK has demonstrated. It therefore appears as though we need to renegotiate notions citizenship, belonging and participation for our contemporary moment of mass and post-migration. While work of this kind is currently being undertaken in Politics and the Social Sciences [Nando Sigona, Engin Isin], it is interesting that some theorists turn to artistic traditions-such as for example the Greek tragedy but also theatre more broadly-to think through the complexities of citizenship and belonging in the 21 st century [Bonnie Honig, David Wiles]. This suggests that the Arts might hold important insights to these debates, which have so far remained underexplored. The Arts might on the one hand provide us with historical models that allow us to question, de-naturalise and modify out contemporary political categories. On the other hand, the Arts provide spaces of experimentation and (re-)creation that also allow us to think (about) alternative models of political participation. This one-day workshop wants to explore the role and contribution of the Arts in contemporary discussions of citizenship. What alternative models of belonging, membership and participation can we find in the Arts? How do the Arts potentially challenge our existing
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Multiplying citizenship: Beyond the subject of rights, 2019
The Call for Papers is now open for the 9th annual London Conference in Critical Thought (LCCT), ... more The Call for Papers is now open for the 9th annual London Conference in Critical Thought (LCCT), hosted and supported by the Centre for Invention and Social Progress (CISP) at the Department of Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London.
The LCCT is a free, inter-institutional, interdisciplinary conference in critical thought that takes place annually in different institutions across London. LCCT follows a non-hierarchical, decentralised model of organisation that undoes conventional academic distinctions between plenary lectures and break-out sessions, aiming instead to create opportunities for intellectual critical exchange regardless of participants’ disciplinary field, institutional affiliation, or seniority. LCCT has no overarching or predetermined theme. The conference’s intellectual content and academic tone are set anew each year, stemming from thematic streams that are conceived, proposed and curated by a group of stream organisers.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
For as long as philosophical questions have been asked, the nature and task of philosophy itself ... more For as long as philosophical questions have been asked, the nature and task of philosophy itself has posed a problem to which various and often conflicting solutions have arisen. Today it seems that the idea and practice of philosophy is as controversial as ever – for philosophers and non-philosophers alike, though the questions have been rephrased. What is the place of philosophy in an increasingly specialised academia? How does society perceive philosophy and how can philosophy itself impact society? Has philosophy progressed, or simply adapted to the political and social world in which it is found? Is a single foundation possible, or must we always ‘begin again’, seeking new philosophical tools in pursuit of the problems we encounter?
This year, the Warwick Conference of Continental Philosophy (WCPC) wants to reflect on these issues, and thus invites papers of Continental or European philosophy focusing upon the purpose and scope of philosophical discourse and practice.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Irene Dal Poz
À corps perdu. Limiti, costruzioni e intensità del corpo., 2020
The aim of this paper is to question the extent to which the ethical practices of self-government... more The aim of this paper is to question the extent to which the ethical practices of self-government are independent from the context they are situated in. I will identify two co-existing antithetic articulations of this problem in the Foucauldian research on power: his ontological account of power relations and the genealogical-historical investigations of the governmental forms. The former, by relying on the founding role played by freedom, claims that the practices of self-government are always possible. The latter, instead, by virtue of the material and corporal dimension of power relations emphasises the limits of these practices.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In the introduction to his book A Secular Age, Charles Taylor identifies the separation between r... more In the introduction to his book A Secular Age, Charles Taylor identifies the separation between religious and political institutions as one of the defining traits of modern secular societies: “whereas the political organization of all pre-modern societies was in some way connected to, based on, guaranteed by some faith in, or adherence to God, or some notion of ultimate reality, the modern Western state is free from this connection.” Taylor’s assessment raises the question of what possible spaces for religion might be after the secularization of political power and the state, and of how the emergence of the Westphalian political design has changed the relationship between politics and religion. This paper will address these two sets of questions by investigating some of the reasons for the creation of the modern nation-state as well as its strategy for relegating religious beliefs to the private sphere. It will pursue these goals by referring to one of the founding texts of modern political science, Hobbes’s Leviathan. An analysis of the representative mechanism will allow us to put forward the following argument: the separation of the political and religious spheres results from the creation of an absolute power necessary to neutralise the danger of conflictual values. Understood in these terms, the depoliticisation of religious beliefs is an epiphenomenon of a broader pathology, pluralism, solved by the neutralisation of their disruptive potential.
[...]
The first part reconstructs the origins of the representative paradigm. It will explore the terms of Hobbes’s disagreement with the Platonic-Aristotelian schools, which represented the main philosophical and political counter-tradition to the theories of the social contract. It will emerge that the main point of the contention between these two traditions is the political problem of pluralism. The second part will expand the analysis of Hobbes’ rationale by linking his political concern for self-preservation to the Epicurean ethics. The Epicurean influence will be crucial to understand the pragmatic nature of his answer to the religious problem. The third section will introduce the novel elements in his political project: the representative mechanism and his account of negative freedom. The combination of these two traits will allow us to think of religion as a private matter. The final section will question whether the modern theory of sovereignty has successfully neutralized the problem of conflicting religious confessions without the imposition of any orthodoxy or uniformity: is it true that sovereign power endorses a non-interventionist policy regarding peoples’ personal beliefs?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The recent emergence of the care of the self as a topic of discussion in contemporary philosophy ... more The recent emergence of the care of the self as a topic of discussion in contemporary philosophy has raised a variety of issues, all related to the different aspects and elds involved in its development. One of the main issues is to investigate the political implications for self-cultivation. In order to pursue this research, I will specically consider the work of Foucault and his turn towards the care of the self. There are two main reasons behind the choice of focusing on the French philosopher. First, Foucault's late interest in the care of the self and in the subject is apparently at odds to his preceding rejection, especially to the study of power. Second, Foucault's work has been enormously influential and has inspired a multiplicity of research projects, including many in political and social studies. According to this framework, in this paper I will try to demonstrate both how self-cultivation i) has a political dimension and ii) is coherently framed within his previous rejection. Furthermore, I will attempt to highlight what I believe to be some weak areas of Foucault's proposal. Foreword This article focuses on the analysis of how and why self-cultivation in Foucault could have political meaning and effectiveness. To support the political aim of the care of self, it will be necessary to prove the continuist hypothesis, which supposes coherence and continuity between Foucault's writings and lectures. According to this aim, the paper will be structured in three sections. The first concentrates on the category of power, by recalling its development in the lectures at Collège de France in the late 1970s. Regarding the study of power, particular attention will be paid to the comparison instituted by Foucault between his innovative conception of power and the currently accepted one. The second part will focus on the dimension of the care of self as it emerges from
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The problem of the selfhas recently regained a wide interest in the philosophical panorama. The n... more The problem of the selfhas recently regained a wide interest in the philosophical panorama. The need to rethink the agent has then encouraged the rediscovery of Ancient Philosophy. Focusing on Aristotelian practical philosophy, this paper aims to demonstrate the intrinsic circularity existing between the agent and his context. To give evidence of this theory, it will be necessary to investigate the extensive concept of ethos, the meanings of which embrace both individual and collective dimension. Moreover, this itinerary through the Aristotelian thought will be the occasion for putting the rebirth of interest towards Ancient Philosophy into question.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Le propos de cet article est de traverser des différentes interprétations sur la même incarnation... more Le propos de cet article est de traverser des différentes interprétations sur la même incarnation historique du chef, c’est-à-dire Périclès, en la réinsérant dans la culture politique démocratique du V siècle de la πόλις. En particulier, on vérifiera dans le Gorgias de Platon, l’Ethique à Nicomaque d’Aristote et La guerre du Péloponnèse de Thucydide comment des lectures contrastantes de Périclès ont été développées et comment elles sont reliées à des systèmes philosophiques divergents.
La première étape sera donc Platon, où l'on retrouve une critique de la figure charismatique considérée dans un contexte de réflexion sur le rapport entre rhétorique et politique. Spécifiquement, Périclès est employé comme exemple négatif par Socrate pendant le dialogue avec Callicles, avec lequel Socrate veut disputer sur la tâche du vrai πολιτικός. La critique formulée de Périclès est celle selon laquelle il n’aurait pas amélioré ses citoyens, mais, au contraire, ceux-ci seraient devenus pires pendant son gouvernement.
Directement en lien avec Platon et son Gorgias on trouve la « réponse » aristotélicienne, dans l’Ethique à Nicomaque. L'on y retrouve encore la figure de Périclès, mais cette fois il est vu positivement; en fait, le Stagirite parle de lui comme du prototype de la φρόνησις (prudence). Périclès représente, dans ce cadre, l’exemple du parfait homme politique, qui est exactement opposé à l’image de l’analyse de Platon. Il est donc l’incarnation la plus représentative de la rationalité pratique dans le contexte relationnel de la πόλις, où il s’agit toujours (comme chez Platon, voir La République) de l’εὐδαιμονία, bonheur. Evidemment, pour comprendre cette différence de lecture il faut montrer la distance entre la philosophie platonicienne et la philosophie pratique aristotélicienne: il est clair que les deux philosophes veulent utiliser une figure charismatique exemplaire pour exprimer le « mouvement de la pensée » à la base de leurs théories politiques.
A coté de ces analyses on a aussi un document qui provient d’une discipline différente mais du même milieu historique et culturel : La guerre du Péloponnèse. Dans ce cas, avec Thucydide, on a une image clairement positive, qui célèbre Périclès comme la manifestation la plus haute de la polis grecque pendant l’apogée de l’action d’idéologisation. En effet, l’historien a été estimé à l’origine de la représentation idéalisée du stratège, dont il valorise l’autorité morale et l’habilité politique.
On veut donc aborder trois différentes lectures de la même période (l’apothéose de la démocratie athénienne) et du même sujet (Périclès) afin de vérifier comment le phénomène du charisme dans le cadre de la culture classique a été pensé et contextualisé . La question du charisme au niveau politique doit en fait être toujours située dans deux discours plus amples : celui du lien entre gouvernants et gouvernés et le problème de l’optique dans laquelle on peut penser le gouvernement (le Bien platonicien ou l’immanence de l’excellence aristotélicienne, par exemple).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conference Presentations by Irene Dal Poz
Who is a citizen? And what relationship links the notions of citizenship and political agency to ... more Who is a citizen? And what relationship links the notions of citizenship and political agency to the production of collective identities? This panel investigates the conditions for membership in democratic regimes, from Antiquity to modern times. It will address citizenship and agency from three different angles: alleged autochthony as a basis for citizen-identity and agonism in the Athenian polis (Valentina Moro, University of Padova); political agency and the juridical paradigm through the lens of governmentality (Irene Dal Poz, Monash University/University of Warwick); representative thinking as civic virtue and condition for democratic participation (Clementina Fusillo, University of Warwick).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Teaching Documents by Irene Dal Poz
Why is granting citizenship rights such an important but controversial political choice? What doe... more Why is granting citizenship rights such an important but controversial political choice? What does being a citizen precisely mean? Is citizenship, as Hannah Arendt claims, a meta-right that entitles to other rights and political recognition? And does this juridical conception of citizenship live up to its promises of political participation and inclusion? This module addresses citizenship as a crucial yet often unexplored notion in contemporary political discourse. To problematise its current conceptualisation and use, the module proposes a genealogy of citizenship. It reconstructs when this juridical definition of citizenship has emerged in Western political theory and how it impacts individuals’ agency and political participation.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Call for Papers by Irene Dal Poz
The LCCT is a free, inter-institutional, interdisciplinary conference in critical thought that takes place annually in different institutions across London. LCCT follows a non-hierarchical, decentralised model of organisation that undoes conventional academic distinctions between plenary lectures and break-out sessions, aiming instead to create opportunities for intellectual critical exchange regardless of participants’ disciplinary field, institutional affiliation, or seniority. LCCT has no overarching or predetermined theme. The conference’s intellectual content and academic tone are set anew each year, stemming from thematic streams that are conceived, proposed and curated by a group of stream organisers.
This year, the Warwick Conference of Continental Philosophy (WCPC) wants to reflect on these issues, and thus invites papers of Continental or European philosophy focusing upon the purpose and scope of philosophical discourse and practice.
Papers by Irene Dal Poz
[...]
The first part reconstructs the origins of the representative paradigm. It will explore the terms of Hobbes’s disagreement with the Platonic-Aristotelian schools, which represented the main philosophical and political counter-tradition to the theories of the social contract. It will emerge that the main point of the contention between these two traditions is the political problem of pluralism. The second part will expand the analysis of Hobbes’ rationale by linking his political concern for self-preservation to the Epicurean ethics. The Epicurean influence will be crucial to understand the pragmatic nature of his answer to the religious problem. The third section will introduce the novel elements in his political project: the representative mechanism and his account of negative freedom. The combination of these two traits will allow us to think of religion as a private matter. The final section will question whether the modern theory of sovereignty has successfully neutralized the problem of conflicting religious confessions without the imposition of any orthodoxy or uniformity: is it true that sovereign power endorses a non-interventionist policy regarding peoples’ personal beliefs?
La première étape sera donc Platon, où l'on retrouve une critique de la figure charismatique considérée dans un contexte de réflexion sur le rapport entre rhétorique et politique. Spécifiquement, Périclès est employé comme exemple négatif par Socrate pendant le dialogue avec Callicles, avec lequel Socrate veut disputer sur la tâche du vrai πολιτικός. La critique formulée de Périclès est celle selon laquelle il n’aurait pas amélioré ses citoyens, mais, au contraire, ceux-ci seraient devenus pires pendant son gouvernement.
Directement en lien avec Platon et son Gorgias on trouve la « réponse » aristotélicienne, dans l’Ethique à Nicomaque. L'on y retrouve encore la figure de Périclès, mais cette fois il est vu positivement; en fait, le Stagirite parle de lui comme du prototype de la φρόνησις (prudence). Périclès représente, dans ce cadre, l’exemple du parfait homme politique, qui est exactement opposé à l’image de l’analyse de Platon. Il est donc l’incarnation la plus représentative de la rationalité pratique dans le contexte relationnel de la πόλις, où il s’agit toujours (comme chez Platon, voir La République) de l’εὐδαιμονία, bonheur. Evidemment, pour comprendre cette différence de lecture il faut montrer la distance entre la philosophie platonicienne et la philosophie pratique aristotélicienne: il est clair que les deux philosophes veulent utiliser une figure charismatique exemplaire pour exprimer le « mouvement de la pensée » à la base de leurs théories politiques.
A coté de ces analyses on a aussi un document qui provient d’une discipline différente mais du même milieu historique et culturel : La guerre du Péloponnèse. Dans ce cas, avec Thucydide, on a une image clairement positive, qui célèbre Périclès comme la manifestation la plus haute de la polis grecque pendant l’apogée de l’action d’idéologisation. En effet, l’historien a été estimé à l’origine de la représentation idéalisée du stratège, dont il valorise l’autorité morale et l’habilité politique.
On veut donc aborder trois différentes lectures de la même période (l’apothéose de la démocratie athénienne) et du même sujet (Périclès) afin de vérifier comment le phénomène du charisme dans le cadre de la culture classique a été pensé et contextualisé . La question du charisme au niveau politique doit en fait être toujours située dans deux discours plus amples : celui du lien entre gouvernants et gouvernés et le problème de l’optique dans laquelle on peut penser le gouvernement (le Bien platonicien ou l’immanence de l’excellence aristotélicienne, par exemple).
Conference Presentations by Irene Dal Poz
Teaching Documents by Irene Dal Poz
The LCCT is a free, inter-institutional, interdisciplinary conference in critical thought that takes place annually in different institutions across London. LCCT follows a non-hierarchical, decentralised model of organisation that undoes conventional academic distinctions between plenary lectures and break-out sessions, aiming instead to create opportunities for intellectual critical exchange regardless of participants’ disciplinary field, institutional affiliation, or seniority. LCCT has no overarching or predetermined theme. The conference’s intellectual content and academic tone are set anew each year, stemming from thematic streams that are conceived, proposed and curated by a group of stream organisers.
This year, the Warwick Conference of Continental Philosophy (WCPC) wants to reflect on these issues, and thus invites papers of Continental or European philosophy focusing upon the purpose and scope of philosophical discourse and practice.
[...]
The first part reconstructs the origins of the representative paradigm. It will explore the terms of Hobbes’s disagreement with the Platonic-Aristotelian schools, which represented the main philosophical and political counter-tradition to the theories of the social contract. It will emerge that the main point of the contention between these two traditions is the political problem of pluralism. The second part will expand the analysis of Hobbes’ rationale by linking his political concern for self-preservation to the Epicurean ethics. The Epicurean influence will be crucial to understand the pragmatic nature of his answer to the religious problem. The third section will introduce the novel elements in his political project: the representative mechanism and his account of negative freedom. The combination of these two traits will allow us to think of religion as a private matter. The final section will question whether the modern theory of sovereignty has successfully neutralized the problem of conflicting religious confessions without the imposition of any orthodoxy or uniformity: is it true that sovereign power endorses a non-interventionist policy regarding peoples’ personal beliefs?
La première étape sera donc Platon, où l'on retrouve une critique de la figure charismatique considérée dans un contexte de réflexion sur le rapport entre rhétorique et politique. Spécifiquement, Périclès est employé comme exemple négatif par Socrate pendant le dialogue avec Callicles, avec lequel Socrate veut disputer sur la tâche du vrai πολιτικός. La critique formulée de Périclès est celle selon laquelle il n’aurait pas amélioré ses citoyens, mais, au contraire, ceux-ci seraient devenus pires pendant son gouvernement.
Directement en lien avec Platon et son Gorgias on trouve la « réponse » aristotélicienne, dans l’Ethique à Nicomaque. L'on y retrouve encore la figure de Périclès, mais cette fois il est vu positivement; en fait, le Stagirite parle de lui comme du prototype de la φρόνησις (prudence). Périclès représente, dans ce cadre, l’exemple du parfait homme politique, qui est exactement opposé à l’image de l’analyse de Platon. Il est donc l’incarnation la plus représentative de la rationalité pratique dans le contexte relationnel de la πόλις, où il s’agit toujours (comme chez Platon, voir La République) de l’εὐδαιμονία, bonheur. Evidemment, pour comprendre cette différence de lecture il faut montrer la distance entre la philosophie platonicienne et la philosophie pratique aristotélicienne: il est clair que les deux philosophes veulent utiliser une figure charismatique exemplaire pour exprimer le « mouvement de la pensée » à la base de leurs théories politiques.
A coté de ces analyses on a aussi un document qui provient d’une discipline différente mais du même milieu historique et culturel : La guerre du Péloponnèse. Dans ce cas, avec Thucydide, on a une image clairement positive, qui célèbre Périclès comme la manifestation la plus haute de la polis grecque pendant l’apogée de l’action d’idéologisation. En effet, l’historien a été estimé à l’origine de la représentation idéalisée du stratège, dont il valorise l’autorité morale et l’habilité politique.
On veut donc aborder trois différentes lectures de la même période (l’apothéose de la démocratie athénienne) et du même sujet (Périclès) afin de vérifier comment le phénomène du charisme dans le cadre de la culture classique a été pensé et contextualisé . La question du charisme au niveau politique doit en fait être toujours située dans deux discours plus amples : celui du lien entre gouvernants et gouvernés et le problème de l’optique dans laquelle on peut penser le gouvernement (le Bien platonicien ou l’immanence de l’excellence aristotélicienne, par exemple).