Volume 71, Issue 6

New approaches to the concept of alienation propose to understand alienation as a kind of heteronomy and to establish a connection between Kant’s and Marx’ philosophy. This paper explores Kant’s understanding of alienation and shows, with help of Kant’s Reflexionen , that he exclusively conceives the term “entfremden/Entfremdung” within the meaning of the legal concept of “Veräußerung”. When interpreting “Entfremdung” as “Veräußerung” instead of “heteronomy”, similarities emerge between Kant’s and Marx’ thought, which manifest in the Kantian figure of the locator and the Marxian worker.

In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant formulates the principle of causality both nomologically and non-nomologically. One formulation says that everything happens in accordance with laws, the other that everything that happens has a cause. Geert Keil has claimed that Kant actually holds the nomological version, but that he omits or neglects to justify it. I will argue that Keil is right with his claim, but that he wrongly accuses Kant of a lack of justification. For Kant holds something that he can only hold at the price of self-contradiction: the nomological version of the causal principle, as I will show, contradicts Kant’s own thinking and therefore cannot be justified by him at all.

This paper is concerned with the relationship between paradigms of explication and the practice of conceptual engineering. It defends three interrelated claims: First, the predominant functionalist attitude in the present debate on conceptual engineering is due to its roots in Carnapian explication, which identifies the explicandum with a precursor concept. Second, alternative metaphysical paradigms of explication locate the explicandum in a part of a concept-independent reality (‘field explication’, as I will call it). Third, field explication may be a better paradigm than Carnapian functionalism for certain instances of socio-political conceptual engineering. In these instances, we adjust our concepts to more adequately capture differences in our concept-independent (felt) reality. To demonstrate this, I will contrast the metaphysical to the functionalist paradigm concerning the example of Heimat .

Husserl endeavoured to establish phenomenology as a ‘rigorous science’ and therefore linked its development to methodological considerations from the very beginning. Such considerations are often lacking in current debates on political phenomenology. This article aims to remedy this deficit. It argues that political phenomenology reinterprets Husserl’s methodological principles of epoché and reduction and transforms them into what can be termed interrogation and exposition. In addition, a further, often overlooked, principle of Husserl’s method is uncovered, which is referred to here as demonstration. It is through this triad of interrogation, exposition and demonstration that contemporary political phenomenology adapts and transforms the method of classical phenomenology. The topics of whiteness and race are employed to show how these principles can facilitate the analysis of political struggles.

This paper charts the concepts of grip and the bodily auxiliary in Maurice Merleau-Ponty to consider how they find expression in disability narratives. Arguing against the notion of “maximal grip” that some commentators have used to explicate intentionality in Merleau-Ponty, I argue that grip in his texts functions instead as a compensatory effort to stave off uncertainty, lack of mastery, and ambiguity. Nearly without exception in Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception , the mobilisation of “grip” is a signal of impending loss and is offered as a strategy for managing failure rather than as an example of sure-footed mastery. I read Merleau-Ponty alongside Mary Felstiner’s Out of Joint: A Public and Private Story of Arthritis to explore these other, attenuated dimensions of grip as an example of a way of thinking disabled embodiment otherwise.

This paper offers a close reading of Merleau-Ponty’s Institution Course Notes to reflect on the history of colonisation as both an event and a structure. On the one hand, colonial invasion is a singular cataclysmic event; on the other hand, it establishes legal, social, economic and psychic structures that seem increasingly inevitable the more they are repeated. Likewise, decolonisation may require a singular liberatory event, but it also calls for the (re)establishment of alternative traditions that issue a different “call to follow.” A critical interpretation of Merleau-Ponty in conversation with abolitionist and decolonial thinkers helps to clarify the temporal and political relation between event and structure, building bridges between phenomenology and radical politics.

The concept of situatedness turns away from ideals of objectivity “from nowhere” and denotes the marking of the place from which a discourse or a theoretical approach takes its starting point. Theories of different traditions have emphasised the need to reflect on their own situatedness in order to avoid mere doxa. Since “situation” is one of the basic concepts of existential phenomenologies (Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty), it can serve as a terminological foundation for a reflection of embodied standpoints. The space- and perception-theoretical difference between situation and position – developed in phenomenology of perception and space orientation – can be further thought politically and expanded into “situational difference”. With the ambivalent intermediate position between the place of speaking and the space of the political, an analytical differentiation would be available that can lead to a phenomenological explication of the logic of the politics of positioning.