Numéro 2015/2 – n° 62-2/3 – Antisémitisme(s) : un éternel retour ?
Quelle: http://www.cairn.info/numero.php?ID_REVUE=RHMC&ID_NUMPUBLIE=RHMC_622&WT.rss_f=revue-RHMC&WT.tsrc=RSS
Quelle: http://www.cairn.info/numero.php?ID_REVUE=RHMC&ID_NUMPUBLIE=RHMC_622&WT.rss_f=revue-RHMC&WT.tsrc=RSS
Quelle: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2015.1083267?ai=z4&mi=3fqos0&af=R
Quelle: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2015.1083265?ai=z4&mi=3fqos0&af=R
Quelle: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2015.1083266?ai=z4&mi=3fqos0&af=R
Quelle: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2015.1083264?ai=z4&mi=3fqos0&af=R
Quelle: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2015.1083262?ai=z4&mi=3fqos0&af=R
Quelle: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2015.1083260?ai=z4&mi=3fqos0&af=R
One of the most remarkable phenomena in current international politics is the increasing attention paid to “historical injustice.” Opinions on this phenomenon strongly differ. For some it stands for a new and noble type of politics based on raised moral standards and helping the cause of peace and democracy. Others are more critical and claim that retrospective politics comes at the cost of present- or future-oriented politics and tends to be anti-utopian.
The warnings about the perils of a retrospective politics outweighing politics directed at contemporary injustices, or strivings for a more just future, should be taken seriously. Yet the alternative of a politics disregarding all historical injustice is not desirable either. We should refuse to choose between restitution for historical injustices and struggle for justice in the present or the future. Rather, we should look for types of retrospective politics that do not oppose but complement or reinforce the emancipatory and utopian elements in present- and future-directed politics.
I argue that retrospective politics can indeed have negative effects. Most notably it can lead to a “temporal Manichaeism” that not only posits that the past is evil, but also tends to treat evil as anachronistic or as belonging to the past. Yet I claim that ethical Manichaeism and anti-utopianism and are not inherent features of all retrospective politics but rather result from an underlying philosophy of history that treats the relation between past, present, and future in antinomic terms and prevents us from understanding “transtemporal” injustices and responsibilities.
In order to pinpoint the problem of certain types of retrospective politics and point toward some alternatives, I start out from a criticism formulated by the German philosopher Odo Marquard and originally directed primarily at progressivist philosophies of history.
Quelle: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fhith.10763
Established writers whose reputation is affixed to a particular line of argument are typically ill disposed to change their minds in public. Some authors sincerely believe that the historical record vindicates them. Others are determined that the historical record will vindicate them. Still others ignore the historical record. Among students of totalitarianism, no one had more at stake reputationally than Hannah Arendt. It is not just that The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) established her as the premier thinker on its topic. It is also that totalitarianism, as she understood it, ribbons through all of her subsequent books, from the discussion of “the social” in The Human Condition (1958) to the analysis of thinking in the posthumously published The Life of the Mind (1978). How ready was she to adapt or to change entirely arguments she had first formulated as early as the mid-to-late 1940s? “Stalinism in Retrospect,” her contribution to Columbia University's Seminar on Communism series, offers a rare opportunity to answer, at least partially, this question.
Arendt's foil was the publication of recent books on Stalin and the Stalin era by three Russian witnesses: Nadezhda Mandelstam, Roy Medvedev, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. According to Arendt, the books meshed with her own theoretical conception of Bolshevism while changing the “whole taste” of the period: they contained new insights into the nature of totalitarian criminality and evil. “Stalinism in Retrospect” documents Arendt's arguments and challenges to them by a number of the seminar's participants. Of particular note is the exchange between her and Zbigniew Brzezinski, an expert on the Soviet Union, a major interpreter of totalitarianism in his own right, and soon to be President Carter's National Security Advisor (January 1977–January 1981). Notes by the editor, Peter Baehr, offer a critical context for understanding Arendt's argument.
Quelle: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1111%2Fhith.10764
Powered by
WordPress and plainscape theme.