Culture and Cultures in Social and Political Philosophy. Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index. From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy. A Note on the Cover. Jewish Emancipation and the Sovereign State. From Recognition to Acknowledgment.
Our acts, you might say, are always improper in the sense that they are never our property — neither as choosers, nor as the bearers of identity. Is Markell basically a Stanley Fish figure, emerging from the Cave to reveal to us that we should continue business as usual? Renante Pilapil - - Res Publica 18 1: Paul Redding - unknown. Request removal from index.
Taylor, Herder, and Sovereignty. Action and Identity in Antigone and Aristotle. The Abdication of Independence: Multiculturalism as a Politics of Recognition. Toward a Politics of Acknowledgment. The Problem of Recognition. Honneth, Butler and the Ambivalent Effects of Recognition.
Paddy McQueen - - Res Publica 21 1: Respect and Membership in the Moral Community.
Shame and the Future of Feminism. Jill Locke - - Hypatia 22 4: From Psychologism to Personhood: Honneth, Recognition, and the Making of Persons. Renante Pilapil - - Res Publica 18 1: What Should We Teach? Susan Hekman - - Philosophy in Review 25 4: The Recognition of Politics: A Comment on Emcke and Tully.
Patchen Markell - - Constellations 7 4: The book has many things to reccomend it but what I like so much about it is the way Markell is able to describe a skepticism about the moral certainty that prods to action which I have long felt inarticulately. In other words the book is not just good, but it snaps neatly into a missing space in the puzzle of my own personal philosophy.
Given the somewhat lefty circles I run in, my friends are often surprised at how unwilling I am to engage in denouncing those who hold political positions antithetical to mine.
As someone who studies mining in Papua New Guinea, my research subjects includes corporate executives and indigenous negotiators. However, Markell argues that this aspiration to mutual recognition is appealing but ultimately unsatisfying and even incoherent. Our acts, you might say, are always improper in the sense that they are never our property — neither as choosers, nor as the bearers of identity.
But what is important for my purposes here is the way it suggests anthropologists personally not professionally deal with their research findings. Identity is retrospective, which means in the present one can only know that in the future they will turn out to have been someone.
I also like this approach because it describes how I attempt to deal with people who live on the island to which I have just moved. I try to live with them as we negotiate who we will both become. I am not quite sure who I am going to be in this situation.
I try to approach people with a strong sense that we are going somewhere together, but our destination is not something I can know before hand. This approach keeps me both humble and prudent — two virtues that I admit are not exactly my speciality. But what good does this do for others? How could I possibly know when I am not sure who I myself am becoming as I immerse myself deeper and deeper into the lesser works of Rodney Needham?
Got the impression you slightly changed your position compairing the beginning of the reflection initiated by oneman with your post above. Having read Hannah Arendt and Shulamit Volkov especially on terms of cultural codes and their representation in action, Markell sounds superinteresting! This is a strikingly well-argued thesis, and it seems to sit well with a consensus view that has been brewing within social theory.
My question then is what consequences flow from this? Is Markell basically a Stanley Fish figure, emerging from the Cave to reveal to us that we should continue business as usual? Markell has clearly read Butler and discusses her interpretation of Antigone. As I say, the book is really superb and fits in with what is happening in a lot of other areas.
I like the bit about the hedgehog, and I agree there is no point in faux-apologies for preferring delving into the minor works of needham to sharpening the edges of the latest manifesto on What Anthropologists Oughta Do in the World. Still, it seems to me that one has no choice but to do both. Many anthropologists choose a life of such contemplation, and right on to that. Do you really understand this entry as being about the choice between a paralyzing reflexivity and political activism?
I tried pretty explicitly to explain that neither I nor Markell were arguing for either of those, or even understood the question at issue to be a choice between the two.