scholarly journals On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-170
Author(s):  
Piraye Hacıgüzeller

AbstractIn this essay I scrutinize the non-anthropocentric discourses used by the social sciences and humanities narratives and critiques of the Anthropocene. Although not always predominant within the academic Anthropocene debate, such discursive strands remain politically and ethically inspiring and influential in that debate and for the public discourse concerning the epoch. I stress that these discourses inherit the hope for human progress that characterizes critical theory of the Frankfurt school, i.e. ‘critical hope’, a type of hope that renders the non-anthropocentric discourses self-contradictory. Even when they manage to escape the hold of critical hope, these discourses, I argue, suffer from ethical and political failings due to their inherent lack of focus on human–human relations and largely ahistorical nature. I conclude the essay by advocating an Anthropocene archaeology that remains critical of and learns from the ethical and political shortcomings of non-anthropocentric perspectives and making a related call for a slow archaeology of the Anthropocene.

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Freyenhagen

In this paper, I would like to take up one proposal that I touch on as part of the longer paper delivered at the SPT conference on Critical Theory and the Concept of Social Pathology. The proposal is an analytic grid for characterising social pathologies, particularly in thelight of the conceptualisations of this idea specified within the Frankfurt School CriticalTheory tradition.Let me first summarise briefly the longer paper. I present some general features of the idea of social pathology (see below), and suggest that this idea can set FrankfurtSchool Critical Theory apart from mainstream liberal approaches – notably, in virtue of the specifically ethical register it involves (rather than a justice-based one dominant incontemporary liberalism) and the interdisciplinary approach it calls for (which marks a contrast to the relatively stark division between normative theorising and the social sciences characteristic of much of political philosophy today). I criticise the way Habermas and Honneth transform the early Frankfurt School conceptualisations of this idea by tying itto their respective models of functional differentiation of society.


Author(s):  
Nadine C. Wathen ◽  
Shannon Sibbald ◽  
Siobhan Stevenson ◽  
Pamela McKenzie

The Panel will discuss the emerging issue of “knowledge mobilization”, problematizing it as articulated by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and engaging the audience in critical discussion of the potential benefits and harms of mandated knowledge mobilization requirements linked to unspecified notions of the “public good”.Ce panel discutera du thème émergent de la « mobilisation de la connaissance », problématisé tel qu’articulé par le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada. Les participants seront incités à se joindre à une discussion critique des avantages et des désavantages potentiels des exigences mandatées de la mobilisation des connaissances liée à la notion non précise de « bien public ».


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Øjvind Larsen

From their beginning in the 1930s, critical theory and the Frankfurt school had their focus on a critique of disturbed social relations in western society dominated by totalitarian political regimes like Stalinism, Fascism, Nazism, and by capitalism as an oppressive and destructive economic system and culture. Now, 80 years later, this has all become history and thus it is time to leave the concept of critical theory behind us, and instead bring the concept of critique to a broader theoretical framework like hermeneutics. This allows the possibility of retaining the theoretical intentions of the old Frankfurt school and at the same time there will be no boundaries by specific dominant theoretical perspectives. In this paper, such a framework for a critical hermeneutics is discussed on the basis of Weber’s, Gadamer’s, and Habermas’ theories on hermeneutics within the social sciences.


2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 771-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Entradas ◽  
Martin M. Bauer

Studies on scientists’ practices of public engagement have pointed to variations between disciplines. If variations at the individual level are reflected at the institutional level, then research institutes in Social Sciences (and Humanities) should perform higher in public engagement and be more involved in dialogue with the public. Using a nearly complete sample of research institutes in Portugal 2014 ( n = 234, 61% response rate), we investigate how public engagement varies in intensity, type of activities and target audiences across scientific areas. Three benchmark findings emerge. First, the Social Sciences and the Humanities profile differently in public engagement highlighting the importance of distinguishing between these two scientific areas often conflated in public engagement studies. Second, the Social Sciences overall perform more public engagement activities, but the Natural Sciences mobilise more effort for public engagement. Third, while the Social Sciences play a greater role in civic public engagement, the Natural Sciences are more likely to perform educational activities. Finally, this study shows that the overall size of research institutes, available public engagement funding and public engagement staffing make a difference in institutes’ public engagement.


2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bjørn Thomassen

Denne artikel skitserer Kierkegaards indflydelse på sociologien i det 20. århundrede. Med udgangspunkt i den ungarske sociolog Arpad Szakolczais metodiske begreb om sociologiens ”baggrundsfigurer”, argumenteres det, at Kierkegaard ofte har udøvet en ”skjult”, men afgørende indflydelse på en lang række tænkere inden for den klassiske sociologi, såsom Simmel, Mannheim, Weber, Adorno og Frankfurterskolen. I forlængelse heraf argumenteres det, at Foucaults sene forfatterskab udviklede sig i en intim dialog med Kierkegaards skrifter. Derfor bør Kierkegaard også anerkendes som en nøglefigur for den kritiske teori. Artiklen har som overordnet mål at klargøre Kierkegaards relevans for den sociologiske teoridannelse og den nutidige samfundsforståelse. ENGELSK ABSTRACT: Bjørn Thomassen: Stages on Sociology’s Way: Søren Kierkegaard and the Social Sciences The aim of this article is to ascertain Kierkegaard’s relevance for sociological theory formation as well as diagnostic understandings of contemporary society. The article surveys Kierkegaard’s influence on sociology in the 20th century. Drawing on the Hungarian sociologist Arpad Szakolczai’s methodological concept of ”background figures”, it argues that Kierkegaard has often exercised a ”hidden” but decisive influence on a series of thinkers in classical sociology, including Simmel, Mannheim, Weber, Adorno and the Frankfurt school. The article also argues that Foucault’s late authorship developed in an intimate dialogue with Kierkegaard’s writings. For these reasons, Kierkegaard must also be recognized as a key figure for critical theory. Keywords: Kierkegaard, Mannheim, Simmel, Weber, Foucault, critique.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piraye Hacıgüzeller

In this essay I scrutinise the non-anthropocentric discourses of the Anthropocene with the ultimate aim of starting a discussion about their use in archaeology. Specifically, I stress that these discourses inherit the hope for human progress that characterises Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, i.e. ‘critical hope’. This is a type of hope that renders the non-anthropocentric discourses of the Anthropocene self-contradictory. Even when they manage to escape the hold of critical hope, such discourses, I argue, still suffer from ethical failings due to their inherent lack of focus on human-human relations and largely ahistorical nature. I conclude the essay by advocating an Anthropocene archaeology not dominated by non-anthropocentric discourses and making a related call for a slow archaeology of the Anthropocene.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Blanchet-Cohen ◽  
Warren Linds ◽  
Varda Mann-Feder ◽  
Felice Yuen

<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><strong>Acknowledgements: </strong><span style="font-size: small;">The authors would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Centre for Human Relations and Community Studies, the Department of Applied Human Sciences, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Concordia University for their support. We also wish to express our appreciation to Peggy Herring, our copy editor for the special issue.</span></span><strong></strong></p>


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quan-Hoang Vuong

Valian rightly made a case for better recognition of women in science during the Nobel week in October 2018 (Valian, 2018). However, it seems most published views about gender inequality in Nature focused on the West. This correspondence shifts the focus to women in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document