Call for Papers
FEMINISM & CRITICAL THEORY
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THOUGHT CONFERENCE
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX, JUNE 20-21, 2015
In the face of enforced austerity, rampant and increasing inequality, systemic crises of political, economic and environmental organisation, and violence and injustice on a global scale, there has been a resurgence of interest in both feminism and critical theory, as ways of understanding and criticising the world as it is. That such disasters disproportionately affect women is not, of course, new, nor are they differentiated solely through gender – race, sexuality, dis/ability, class and nationality also come into play. Yet many have detected an increase in violence, both (and often simultaneously) material and symbolic, directed against women and gender non-conformists across the world. Examples range from the ‘pornification’ of an increasingly misogynist popular culture (and equally misogynist ‘moral panics’ about the threat posed to society by deviant sexualities), to brutal cuts to already embattled women’s services, to continued institutional discrimination and institutionalised abuse (Yarl’s Wood is just one site).
This has been met with resistance in a variety of forms, on the ground in social movements and protests, and in many recent theoretical developments both scholarly and popular, including: the republication of many classic Marxist and socialist feminist texts of the 1970s and 80s; important contemporary debates, situated within both analytic and continental philosophy, on how to challenge the patriarchal nature of philosophy as a discipline and as disciplinary ideology; the emergence of innovative new journals such as the materialist feminist LIES; and scholarly reappraisals of radical twentieth-century figures like Shulamith Firestone, Claudia Jones and Rosa Luxemburg.
This year’s Social and Political Thought conference will investigate the relationship between feminism and other critical social theories in light of these developments. We begin by recognising that the different schools (and historical ‘waves’) of feminist thought are themselves often divergent and opposed. Furthermore, we recognise that there is a certain level of ambivalence attached to the term ‘critical theory’. In the narrow sense, it can refer to theory influenced by the Frankfurt School and the work of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse (and, on some interpretations, Habermas and Honneth). In the broad sense, on the other hand, it can refer to a group of interrelated, sometimes competing, social theories directed against the status quo, of which feminist thought is one strand. We view this ambivalence and its relationship to feminist theory and practice as potentially productive, and encourage submissions that deal with all kinds of feminism and their relationship to critical theory in both the narrow and broad senses of the term, including feminism as critical theory.
Possible approaches include but are not limited to:
Marxist feminism or feminist thought engaging with Marxism; feminism, materiality, and ‘new materialisms’; feminist social movements and the politics of popular protest; feminism, police, and prisons; feminism and problems of universality; feminism and psychoanalysis; feminism and autonomism; anarchist feminism; post-crisis masculinities and feminism; postcolonialism and feminism; black British feminism; sexual, racial and social contracts; feminism and the politics and theory of intersectionality; feminism and nationalism; feminism and orientalism in the war on terror; ‘third wave’ feminism; feminism and new forms of slavery; feminism in the global South; feminism and poststructuralism; feminism and communisation theory; feminism and LGBTQI struggles; feminism and sex-work; feminism and social reproduction; feminism and revolution.
Stella Sandford (Kingston University)
Lorna Finlayson (University of Cambridge)
We encourage submissions for both individual and full-panel presentations. Abstracts of no more than 300 words should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org by April 15 2015. In order to facilitate a double-blind review process, please send two separate attachments, one containing a short biographical note, and another containing your abstract with no identifying information.
The Studies in Social and Political Thought journal is now calling for book reviews for our upcoming special issue containing a series of papers from a ‘Pathologies of Recognition’ research group, headed by Arto Laitinen. We are looking for reviews that go beyond simply providing a summary of the contents of the books, and offer a critical perspective and make an original contribution to the contemporary debates on the theme of recognition.
We are particularly interested in the following books but we are open to suggestions:
Judith Butler & Athena Athanasiou, Dispossession: The Performative in the Political (Polity, 2013). [under review].
- Jonas Jakobsen & Odin Lysaker, Recognition and Freedom Axel Honneth’s Political Thought (Brill, 2015).
Rahel Jaeggi, Alienation (Columbia University Press, 2014). [under review] Rahel Jaeggi, Kritik von Lebensformen (Suhrkamp Verlag, 2013). [under review] Cillian McBride, Recognition (Polity, 2013). [under review] Danielle Petherbridge, The Critical Theory of Axel Honneth (Lexington Books, 2015). [under review] Christopher Zurn, Axel Honneth (Polity, 2015). [under review]
- Heikki Ikäheimo, Anerkennung (De Gruyter, 2014).
Arto Laitinen & Anne Birgitta Pessi (eds.) Solidarity: Theory and Practice (Lexington, 2015). [under review]
- Arto Laitinen et al (eds.) Inwardness and orientation (SoPhi: Jyväskylä, 2014).
- Federica Gregoratto & Filippo Ranchio (eds.) Contesti del riconoscimento [Contexts of Recognition] (Mimesis, 2014).
Danielle Petherbridge (ed.) Axel Honneth: Critical Essays With a Reply by Axel Honneth (Brill, 2011). [under review]
- Heikki Ikäheimo & Arto Laitinen, Recognition and Social Ontology (Brill, 2011).
- Volker Heins, Beyond Friend and Foe (Brill, 2011).
- Jean-Philippe Deranty, Beyond Communication. A Critical Study of Axel Honneth’s Social Philosophy (Brill, 2009).
- Jean-Philippe Deranty, et al (eds.) Recognition, Work, Politics: New Directions in French Critical Theory (Brill, 2007).
If you are interested in submitting a review, please send us an email at email@example.com with the title of the book you want to review, a short bio containing your qualifications and current position, and we will inform you within a week as to whether your submission will be accepted. Please, bear in mind that we may not be able to provide you with review copies of the books.
Submissions should range from 2000 to 3000 words in length and written in the Harvard referencing style. The deadline is 15 March 2015.
The book reviews section of Studies in Social and Political Thought has two editors, Valentinos Kontoyiannis and Joel Winder. For additional information about the journal and the reviews section please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Now with its 23rd Volume already published, Studies in Social and Political Thought is a student run journal based in the University of Sussex’s Centre for Social and Political Thought. The journal has a dual purpose: first, fostering developments in the inter-disciplinary areas of social and political thought and, second, serving as a publishing platform for junior academics.
Past issues have featured articles by well-respected figures such as William Outhwaite and Stefan Muller-Doohm as well as the first publications of a number of promising junior academics. Although student run, we try to ensure highest standards and best quality publishing. We have attracted a prestigious panel of leading scholars in social and political thought for our international advisory board, including: Martin Jay of UC Berkeley, Robert Pippin of the University of Chicago, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak of Columbia University, Seyla Banhabib of Yale University, Simon Jarvis of the University of Cambridge, William Outhwaite of the University of Newcastle, Homi Bhabha of Harvard University, Adriana Cavarero of the University of Verona, Alessandro Ferrara of the University of Rome, Axel Honneth of the University of Frankfurt and Fredric Jameson of Duke University.
Having focused on selected papers of the Studies in Social and Political Thought Conference of 2013 on the subject ‘Debt and Obligation’ , we are looking forward to submissions for the upcoming 24th issue of the journal. The field and variety of topics should be within the inter-disciplinary areas of social and political thought.
For more information please visit our website: https://ssptjournal.wordpress.com/
Deadline for submissions is the 31st of December 2014.
Submissions need to be send to: email@example.com
I wrote this a little while ago, on attitudes towards GM technology, and how conventional opposition is more usually based on sensationalist ideology rather than engagement with the difficult complexities involved. Some time after Greenpeace signed their name to an open letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, arguing against having an EC chief scientific advisor. Rather than have the selection process open to scrutiny (so that those with corporate affiliations – and therefore conflicts of interest – would find it harder to be appointed) and have their advice publically published (for similar reasons) the letter – signed by 9 organisations (including, for some reason, the “Cancer Prevention and Education Society”) – argued against the very position of a scientific advisor. Their sop to the necessity of evidence-led, scientific advice was that advice could come from “a variety of independent, multi-disciplinary sources….” In short: lobbying. I’m perhaps being cynical, but it’s the multinational corporations who really have the power when it comes to lobbying, not groups like Greenpeace, since they have more money to throw at the issue (and a charity should really spend its money on the cause it was founded to deal with, not meetings with bureaucrats).
Originally posted on Unfortunate Conflict of Evidence:
Perhaps I’ve just misunderstood Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: the point I took away has always been that it is essentially Victor’s own fault that his creation becomes monstrous. His disgust, rejection and eventual fear initially creates and then subsequently sustains the creature’s sense of alienation, which in turn creates its hostile reaction both to him and to the world in general. Surely it’s therefore slightly odd, and yet rather apposite, that genetically modified organisms are so often referred to as “Frankenstein foods”. The phrase is thrown around a lot, and is clearly chosen because it sounds scary and creates the appropriate rhetorical effect that the speaker wishes to evoke.
But it is appropriate because the instinctive and emotive reaction by some to the prospect of genetically modified food and organisms is inherently counterproductive and only invites problems later on. Many people seem to loathe the idea of GMOs and resist them at every turn…
View original 1,449 more words