scholarly journals The Meaning of Radicalisation in Modern Social Pedagogy

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (Spec. Iss.) ◽  
pp. 103-127
Author(s):  
Ana Bogdan Zupančič

The article defines radicalisation as part of the processes of modern liberation, which are recognised in the interlacement of emancipatory potential in social pedagogy and mobilisation in the theory of community development. In parallel to this, we problematise the internally divided socio-pedagogical attitude, which, on the one hand, seeks to liberate, and on the other hand, is repeatedly caught in the preservation of existing “oppressive” power relations. In doing so, we consider the concerns regarding political action as the goal of “radicalising” social pedagogy, which indicate that in social pedagogy we have internalized collaboration as a democratic “norm” of solving social and other societal issues and thus accepted it as the only formally realistic option to achieve structural change.

2019 ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
Mikołaj Winiarski
Keyword(s):  

The text includes, on the one hand, comments on the threats to the identity of social pedagogy coming from various individuals and scientific circles who seem to practice this discipline without any substantive preparation. This threatens to dilute the identity of social pedagogy. On the other hand, in the form of questions, I point to a few dilemmas that need to be resolved and a few possibilities that need to be taken in order to further develop social pedagogy.


2015 ◽  
pp. 8-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miikka Pyykkönen

This article gives an analysis of Foucault’s studies of civil society and the various liberalist critiques of government. It follows from Foucault’s genealogical approach that “civil society” does not in itself possess any form of transcendental existence; its historical reality must be seen as the result of the productive nature of the power-knowledge-matrices. Foucault emphasizes that modern governmentality—and more specifically the procedures he names “the conduct of conduct”—is not exercised through coercive power and domination, but is dependent on the freedom and activeness of individuals and groups of society. Civil society is thus analyzed as fundamentally ambivalent: on the one hand civil society is a field where different kinds of technologies of governance meet the lives and wills of groups and individuals, but on the other hand it is a potential field of what Foucault called ‘counter-conduct’ – for both collective action and individual political action.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 103-119
Author(s):  
Alireza Khormaee ◽  
Rayeheh Sattarinezhad

Different representations of social actions create distinct types of discourses. Applying van Leeuwen’s 'Social Actions' framework (2008), the present study critically analyzes the power relations between the main characters of Radi’s dramas From behind the Windows and Hamlet with Season Salad. The objective of our study is to account for the differences between the discourse of the dominant and the discourse of the dominated. In order to elucidate such differences we count and analyze the characters’ social (re)actions and, in turn, identify four types of contrasts: cognitive vs. affective and perceptive reactions; material vs. semiotic actions; transactive vs. non-transactive actions; interactive vs. instrumental actions. Two opposing discourses emerge from these contrasts. On the one hand, the dominant characters mostly react cognitively and their actions are often semiotic, transactive, and interactive. On the other hand, the dominated characters’ reactions are often affective and perceptive, while most of their actions are material, non-transactive, and instrumental. As the results show, the author’s linguistic choices underscore the power relations between the dominant and the dominated characters. Building upon the fact that our analysis sheds light on the underlying ideologies and intentions of the author, we tentatively conclude that despite its being predominantly employed in the analysis of political discourses, van Leeuwen’s framework also proves effective in the critical analysis of literary works.


2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Brusotti

AbstractAfter discovering the short cosmological treatise L’éternité par les astres at the end of 1937, Benjamin ‘constellates’ the author, Louis-Auguste Blanqui, with Baudelaire and Nietzsche under the sign of eternal recurrence. From then on, eternal recurrence is given a central place in Benjamin’s analysis of modernity. Under many aspects his thoughts are rooted in the dramatic years in which they were developed: a conception of myth problematic in itself is misapplied to Nietzsche, the analogy with Blanqui’s cosmology leads to misunderstandings, and Benjamin does not grasp the connection between a task relevant for himself, the redemption of the past, and Zarathustra’s thought of eternal recurrence. Nevertheless, this constellation charged with tension is theoretically productive. Benjamin interprets the two faces of Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence in the context of his own theory of the structural change of experience in modernity. On the one hand, eternal recurrence is linked in multiple ways to the new forms of technical reproduction and compulsory repetition arising in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, it is assigned the task of compensating for an irretrievable loss. Is this compensation thoroughly illusory? Or does it contain a ‘motive of salvation’? Guided by these questions, the paper investigates the ‘polyphony’ of Benjamin’s remarks on Nietzsche’s thought of eternal recurrence and their heuristic potential.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (46) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Fernando Gimbo

Trata-se de mostrar como a ideia de “cuidado de si” deve ser compreendida a partir de um tensionamento caracterizado por um duplo movimento: por um lado, a afirmação da autoafecção como condição do processo de subjetivação; por outro lado, a necessidade de inscrever tal ipseidade no quadro mais amplo das pesquisas genealógicas centradas nas práticas de assujeitamento e dominação. Com isso, o objetivo é sugerir como o problema fundamental do último e inconcluso momento da obra de Foucault é a necessidade de repensar as condições de gênese do sujeito. Para tanto, o artigo é divido em dois momentos: primeiramente, recuperamos uma autocrítica realizada ao final da década de 70, quando, ao introduzir em suas análises o conceito de governamentalidade, Foucault une a temática do governo sobre os outros ao problema do governo de si. Em segundo lugar, analisar estrategicamente o tema da confissão (l’aveu) como exemplo do reconhecimento dessa dimensão autoafectiva da subjetividade dentro de relações de poder e assujeitamento. A partir disso, é possível assinalar certas consequências críticas em torno de uma certa “ética do cuidado de si” que seria própria ao pensamento foucaultiano. [This article aims to show how the idea of “care of the self" must be understood from the tension of a double movement: on the one hand, the affirmation of an auto-affection as a condition to a process of individuation. On the other hand, the need to incorporate such ipseity to the broader framework of genealogical research focused on the subjugation and domination practices. Thus, my goal is to suggest how the initial problem that runs through Foucault’s later works is the need to rethink the conditions of subjectivity genesis. Therefore, the article is divided into two parts: firstly, I recover Foucault’s self-criticism performed at the end of the 70s, when he introduces in his analysis the concept of governmentality. Secondly, I strategically analyze the theme of confession (l'aveu) as an example of recognizing this auto-affectivity dimension of subjectivity even within power relations. Finally, I point out certain possible consequences of such exposure on the theme of ethics in Foucault's thought.]


Author(s):  
Nico Stehr

AbstractThe leading scientists debating climate change increasingly view the relationship between knowledge and governance as an “inconvenient democracy.” On the one hand, the discrepancy between the knowledge of climate change and citizens’ commitments to behavioral changes amounts to the diagnosis of an “inconvenient mind”; on the other hand, the inertia of policies to capture progress in knowledge leads to the diagnosis of “inconvenient institutions.” The sense of political ineffectiveness felt especially among climate scientists provokes a strong disenchantment with democratic governance. As a result, some scientists propose that political action based on principles of democratic governance be abandoned. In my article, I argue that such a view is mistaken.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Rivas

AbstractThe purpose of this article is, on the one hand, to explain what clientelism is through a description of its characteristics in its current Argentinean form. On the other hand, it will evaluate clientelism from a legal and political point of view. In order to achieve these purposes, we will distinguish clientelism from legitimate politics, and then offer a critical evaluation in case there were any differences. Regarding the first objective, it will be necessary to resort to some kind of canonical definition, broad enough to grasp different clientelistic phenomena. Then, it will be possible to explain its Argentinean particularities, noting that it happens to be a specially interesting kind of clientelism because of its refinement and breadth. As to the second objective, we will oppose to the reasoning that equates clientelism and legitimate types of political action. We will argue that ordinary politics is different and that, in fact, this difference turns clientelism illegitimate. Criticism against clientelism may include empirical approaches but, as these only show deficiencies of a particular public policy, they lack the ability to be extended to other cases. Alternative criticism may be more interesting, but it will necessarily be weaker as it may only reveal a model of citizens and political relations upon which clientelism is grounded.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferihan Polat ◽  
Ozlem Ozdesim Subay

Gezi Park Protests leaving its mark in the June of 2015, is understood from so many perspectives by national and international academicians. On the one hand, some social scientists recognize this movement as apolitical action by analyzing the identity of activist, on the other hand, some of them claims that this movement is a political one by pointing out that the aim of the movement is against the Ak Party Government especially Erdoğan himself. This study aiming to understand Gezi Park Protests puts forward that having apolitical identity of activists is not enough to recognize the movement as apolitical one and also claiming that having political action cannot be explained by the idea that the movement is just against the Ak Party Government. This study justifying that this movement cannot be explained by the idea of domestic political conflict and separation as Turkey is a part of global capitalist order, focuses on dimensions of crossing national borders. Beyond the evaluation of Gezi Park Protests as an international conspiracy, interpretation of this movement as a part of the growing public protests against the system on a global scale is a more plausible perspective to understand the multidimensional social reality.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-292
Author(s):  
Jernej Kaluža

In this article, we argue that Deleuze's philosophy could be understood as anarchistic in a specifically defined meaning. The imperative of immanence of thought, which we explicate mainly through the reading of Deleuze's Spinoza, on the one hand establishes indivisibility between theory and practice and on the other hand paradoxically orders disobedience. We argue for a thought that is immanent, adequate with its inner practice, for thought that cannot be forced. That is the basis on which we combine the reading of Deleuze, Spinoza, Nietzsche and some basic ideas from the contemporary anarchistic movement (Graeber) and the anarchistic tradition (Stirner). We do not try to argue for a certain form of political action. Our goal is to establish a field of thought, that is by its innermost ontological principles anarchistic: practice must be accompanied by its own theory. Adequate thought cannot be forced. This is a necessary condition for each consistent practice-theory.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-470
Author(s):  
Mario Pecheny ◽  
Luca Zaidan ◽  
Mirna Lucaccini

Focusing on the case of Argentina, this text discusses two issues. The first refers to the tension between progress in feminist and LGBTIQ+ politics, on the one hand, and erotic-affective practices, that is, ‘actually existing eroticism,’ on the other hand. This tension is analyzed on two levels: first, through the construction of identities, theoretical perspectives, and political strategies in the sex-gender arena from a stance of victimization; and second, through examining new ‘normativities’ that resulted from the achievements by feminist and LGBTIQ+ movements in transforming their demands into laws and policies. The second issue calls attention to a particular form of political action: public shaming and what the authors refer to here as ‘lynching,’ which describes extreme methods of a sexual politics of victimization in a context of neoliberal governance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document