Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the book’s central claim: that in a free and open society, higher education ought to be a right. It argues that prevailing anxiety about the distributive unfairness of higher education systems shifts needed attention away from a serious consideration of this possibility. However, that chapter also shows how justifying higher education as a right faces conceptual challenges, as well. First, arguments that set out to establish the importance of higher education often end up looking more like an argument in favour of what should be offered to all citizens on a compulsory basis. Second, arguments that set out to establish the general value of a higher education can end up making paternalistic conclusions about what is in citizens’ best interests. Meeting these two challenges, argues the author, can point the way toward a better understanding of why liberal societies should treat higher education as a right as opposed to a mere privilege.

Foucault, Biopower & International Relations: A New Conceptualization of Global Biopower

<p>The purpose of this paper is, first and foremost, to accurately describe how biopower enters IR. It does this because so far IR theorists have inaccurately deployed the concept. Due to the tripartite nature of biopower – sovereign, disciplinary, biopolitical – and idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sovereignty by predominant theorists, a number of disparate conceptualizations of biopower populate the literature, none of which satisfactorily extend Foucauldian analysis into international relations. This paper attempts to remedy this conceptual ambiguity to produce the sorts of insights Foucault was concerned with. Central to my argument is thus a discussion of sovereignty. Notwithstanding Foucault‘s warnings about slavish devotion to his work, I nonetheless maintain that an accurate exposition of biopower in IR necessitates a conceptualization of sovereignty that adheres to Foucault‘s methodological principles. Following a deconstruction of sovereignty that identifies a 'history of practices,‘ I maintain that state sovereignty continues to play a central biopolitical role. From this position, I then argue biopower must enter into international relations in a specific manner. I argue that global, or more accurately, international biopower should be identified according to a genealogical method stemming from the biopolitics of states first elucidated by Foucault. I proceed by investigating how 'domestic‘ mechanisms of security are becoming transnational. My ultimate argument focuses on identifying how processes of biopolitical normalization resonate with international processes, and successfully translates Foucauldian scholarship into IR by extending our understanding of how modern liberal societies are governed by norms. By showing how biopolitical normalization is becoming a transnational phenomenon, I reconceptualize 'global biopower‘ as international biopolitical normalization.</p>

Foucault, Biopower & International Relations: A New Conceptualization of Global Biopower

<p>The purpose of this paper is, first and foremost, to accurately describe how biopower enters IR. It does this because so far IR theorists have inaccurately deployed the concept. Due to the tripartite nature of biopower – sovereign, disciplinary, biopolitical – and idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sovereignty by predominant theorists, a number of disparate conceptualizations of biopower populate the literature, none of which satisfactorily extend Foucauldian analysis into international relations. This paper attempts to remedy this conceptual ambiguity to produce the sorts of insights Foucault was concerned with. Central to my argument is thus a discussion of sovereignty. Notwithstanding Foucault‘s warnings about slavish devotion to his work, I nonetheless maintain that an accurate exposition of biopower in IR necessitates a conceptualization of sovereignty that adheres to Foucault‘s methodological principles. Following a deconstruction of sovereignty that identifies a 'history of practices,‘ I maintain that state sovereignty continues to play a central biopolitical role. From this position, I then argue biopower must enter into international relations in a specific manner. I argue that global, or more accurately, international biopower should be identified according to a genealogical method stemming from the biopolitics of states first elucidated by Foucault. I proceed by investigating how 'domestic‘ mechanisms of security are becoming transnational. My ultimate argument focuses on identifying how processes of biopolitical normalization resonate with international processes, and successfully translates Foucauldian scholarship into IR by extending our understanding of how modern liberal societies are governed by norms. By showing how biopolitical normalization is becoming a transnational phenomenon, I reconceptualize 'global biopower‘ as international biopolitical normalization.</p>

O estado de exceção, antagonismo político e “combates” à corrupção

The following work analyzes the problem of the state of exception with a focus on Brazil’s recent political situation. First, we highlight the citing of the theory of exception by conservative legal expert Carl Schmitt in the TRF-4 court, allowing the then-Judge Moro to escape punishment for having leaked the contents of a telephone call between President Dilma Rousseff and former President Lula. Second, we then use this as a basis to outline the relationship between recent legal activism, present in the so-called “war on corruption”, with a longer-term tension in law in liberal societies, that is the hiatus between legality and legitimacy. Third, and finally, we seek to reveal that the anti-corruption agenda acquired impetus by means of the politicization and polarization of the country as of 2013, particularly with the emergence in 2014 of the Operação Lava Jato [Operation Car Wash] and the prominence of Judge Sérgio Moro. Our hypothesis is that a political antagonism was configured as a political strategy, framing all social demands to have emerged in 2013 as an opposition to “corruption” and the “state”. As a theoretical-conceptual framework for the conceptualizing of political antagonism, we highlight the theoretical contribution of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffee and works pointing to the hypertrophy of Criminal Justice, with the central focus on of the figure of the enemy. Our method was bibliographical analysis and a qualitative selection of sources.

The reasons of the unreasonable: Is political liberalism still an option?

In this study, we claim that political liberalism, despite harsh criticism, is still the best option available for providing a just and stable society. However, we maintain that political liberalism needs to be revised so as to be justifiable from the perspective of not only the “reasonable” in a Rawlsian sense (that we define as “fully” reasonable) but also the ones whom Rawls labels as “unreasonable.” To support our claim, going beyond Rawls’s original account, we unpack the concept of unreasonableness and identify three different subsets that we label as the “partially reasonable,” the “non-reasonable,” and the “unreasonable.” We argue that both the “fully” reasonable and the “partially reasonable” would be included into the constituency of public justification; more specifically, we claim that the latter would support liberal institutions out of their reasons: we define these reasons as mutually intelligible reasons and claim that they allow to acknowledge the importance of a convergence approach to public justification. As for the “non-reasonable” and “unreasonable,” we claim that they cannot be included in the constituency of public justification, but they nonetheless could be compliant with liberal institutions if political liberalism offers them some reasons to comply: here, we claim that political liberalism should include them through engagement and propose reasoning from conjecture as an effecting way of offering reasons for compliance. In particular, we claim that through reasoning from conjecture, the “non-reasonable” could find conciliatory reasons to comply with liberal institutions on a stable base. With regard to the “unreasonable” in the strict sense, we claim that through reasoning from conjecture, their unreasonableness could be contained and they could find reasons—even if just self-interested—for complying with liberal institutions rather than defying them. In our discussion, we consider the different subsets not as “frozen” but as dynamic and open to change, and we aim to propose a more complex and multilayered approach to inclusion that would be able to include a wider set of people. To strengthen our argument, we show that the need for a wider public justification and for broader inclusion in liberal societies is grounded in respect for persons both as equal persons and as particular individuals. In particular, we claim that individuals’ values, ends, commitments, and affiliations activate demands of respect and can strengthen the commitment to the liberal–democratic order. Through a reformulation of the role of respect in liberal societies, we also show a kind of social and communitarian dimension that, we claim, is fully compatible with political liberalism and opens it up to “civic friendship” and “social solidarity,” which are constitutive elements for the development of a sense of justice and for the realization of a just and stable society.

Przymus przemiany. Serial „Hannibal” jako krytyka kultury terapeutycznej

The article is an analysis of the Hannibal series (2013–2015) made by Bryan Fuller with reference to therapeutic culture. Hannibal is presented as a manifestation of the critique of contemporary culture, which focuses on the relationship of subject and power in therapeutic culture in Western liberal societies. The main thread that has been analysed is the relationship between the main characters: Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter. The article presents the origin of therapeutic culture and the category of “psychological man” (P. Rieff). The relationship between Will and Hannibal is not a meta-image of contemporary therapeutic culture in general, but its dark face. The series shows the culture of therapy brought to its limits, where norms are not so much exceeded, but subverting. Hannibal Lecter is presented as the “ideal self” of liberal societies, an entity free from cultural norms in an absolute way. Will is opposed to him. His personality does not allow classification, just as a modern subject does not want to be classified, because it would mean pinning him to one place and making it impossible for him to develop. An important problem in the article is “coercion of change”. The “right to change” legitimised by the liberal system changes into “coercion of change” in the series. The requirement of “full life” means that standing in a place is something undesirable, live in a real way is to experience of something new, to change — even if it means a transformation into a murderer. In the end it is argued that “being yourself” is an effect of power in therapeutic culture.

Making use of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): rethinking issues of routinization and pressure

First mapping the main ethical issues surrounding prenatal testing, we then analyze which concerns are specific to non-invasive methods. Presupposing the privatization premise for reproductive autonomy in fundamentally liberal societies, we go on to specify common concerns about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) covered by the term ‘routinization’, and conceptually unravel the frequently expressed worry of increasing ‘pressure’ to test and/or terminate affected pregnancies. We argue that mindful decision-making should be a key educational goal (not only) of NIPT counseling which could be achieved through stepwise disclosure. In addition, we identify indirect social pressure as the most plausible threat to reproductive freedom. While continuous efforts need to be made to prevent such pressure – not least by ensuring balanced availability of options –, restricting testing options, and thus freedom of choice, cannot be the answer to this concern. Lastly, we suggest abandoning the vague term ‘routinization’ and instead focusing on specified concerns to enable a fruitful debate.

Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship: A Thereotical Debate

Over the last few decades, the term ‘multiculturalism’ has been in debate. This is not only because of issues surrounding cultural diversity, racism, or ‘the minority versus the majority’, but also because of religious differences, especially regarding Muslims in the West. Many queries have been raised about the inclusion of Muslims in European society as they seem to be barbaric and alien, especially after the events of 9/11 in the USA and 7/7 in London. This paper discusses the various complex debates surrounding the term ‘multiculturalism’ in the work of political philosophers like Tariq Modood, Bhikhu Parekh, Will Kymlicka, and others. It first introduces the term ‘multiculturalism’ as interpreted by different scholars and discusses the reasons for its current retreat. Multiculturalism is said to be challenging for religious groups, especially Muslims, because of its incompatibility with liberalism, considered to be the key element of Western civilisation. Therefore, this paper attempts to describe multiculturalism’s relationship with citizenship and the long-term effect of national identity on civil society. It also discusses some basic concepts, like equality and dialogue, in relation to multiculturalism and tries to bring out the differences between liberal equality and the equality experienced under multiculturalism. This paper concludes with some policy recommendations for the adjustment of illiberal minorities (Muslims) within liberal societies (Europe) in the present world of super-diversity.

The Weakness of Liberal Democracy a Lever to the Success of Anti-Establishment Parties: Chantal Mouffe on Challenges of the Political

Today in Europe we are witnessing a populist turn, we could even speak of a “populist moment” that signals the crisis of neoliberal democracy. According to Chantal Mouffe, “the populist moment” is the expression of a set of heterogeneous demands, which cannot be formulated in traditional right/left frontier. The battles of our time will be between right-wing and left-wing populism. Although the current state of liberal societies appears to favor the development of a Right project, Mouffe proves that just a left-wing one can uphold any kind of radicalisation of democracy. The aim of this paper is to examine the reasons for the increasing success of populist parties in European countries and to consider whether the way the present crisis is manifesting is conducive to the growth of a populist narrative, especially in its right-wing variant.

Rousseau’s Authoritarian Education

Rousseau’s account of authority over children in Emile brings to light his quarrel but also his agreement with Locke on the question of private authority. The education of Emile is a direct objection to Locke’s characterization of the will and the nature of adolescence. However, while Emile has mainly been read by scholars as a rejoinder to Locke’s Education, this chapter uncovers the extent to which Rousseau’s account of Sophie’s education is actually Lockean, and it demonstrates that even Emile’s education culminates in Lockean conclusions about the use of the private, inward-oriented family as an antidote to the predations of fashion and opinion. It explores why Rousseau presents both anti- and pro-Lockean arguments about the role of authority in education and concludes by emphasizing the previously unnoticed agreement between Rousseau and Locke on these questions in the context of modern, liberal societies.