Despite a plethora of laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, supporting and enforcing equal employment opportunity principles has proven to be an enormous challenge for those charged with this responsibility. The question often asked is who should exercise this role in organizations. Not surprisingly, there has been a call for HRM to become the guardian of EEO in organizations but should human resource managers be male or female, and/or would line managers be better positioned to assume this responsibility? This paper overviews (...) the literature and then summarizes an empirical study that attempted to address the possible impact of these options as they exist in organizations. One hundred and eighty respondents who met the criterion of having interviewed one or more job applicants in the previous 6 months were systematically selected from business telephone listings. Based on self-reported behaviors, no significant difference was found between the expected and actual distributions of HR and line managers in respect to whether decisions were made on unlawful grounds. The percentage of each respondent category that asked unlawful questions varied from 1% to 36% depending upon the attribute under consideration. This begs the question as to what value HR managers contribute to EEO in the selection process. The second finding was that significantly less female managers admit to making decisions on the basis of unlawful questions than male managers. Thus, support was found for female line managers as guardians of EEO but no clear justification for HRM in this role. (shrink)

The suppression of sexuality is culturally widespread, and women’s sexual promiscuity, activity, and enjoyment are almost always judged and punished more harshly than men’s. It remains disputed, however, to what end people suppress sexuality, and who benefits from the suppression of female sexuality. Different theories predict that women in general, men in general, women’s intimate partners, or parents benefit most. Here we use the lies women and men tell—or imagine telling—about their sexual histories as an indirect measure of who is (...) most involved in the suppression of sexuality. We asked men and women what they would reply if asked questions by their mother, father, current partner, attractive confederate, and various same- or opposite-sex friends and colleagues about their number of previous sex partners, age at first romantic kiss, age at first consensual sex, and cheating on a previous partner or spouse. By comparing the size and direction of the lies that subjects told, we tested competing predictions of several cultural and evolutionary theories concerning why female sexuality is suppressed and who is driving its suppression. We found that men and women told larger and more frequent lies to their parents, with women telling the largest and most frequent lies of all to their fathers. Additionally, the majority of lies by both men and women were in sexually conservative directions. Our findings suggest that mothers, and especially fathers, restrict female sexuality. (shrink)

This extraordinary book offers a clear and compelling biography of Jacques Derrida along with one of Derrida's strangest and most unexpected texts. Geoffrey Bennington's account of Derrida leads the reader through the philosopher's familiar yet widely misunderstood work on language and writing to the less familiar themes of signature, sexual difference, law, and affirmation. In an unusual and unprecedented "dialogue," Derrida responds to Bennington's text by interweaving Bennington's text with surprising and disruptive "periphrases." Truly original, this dual (...) and dueling text opens new dimensions in Derrida's thought and work. "Bennington is a shrewd and well-informed commentator whose book should do something to convince the skeptics... that Jacques Derrida's work merits serious attention."—Christopher Norris, _New Statesman & Society_ "Geoffrey Bennington and Jacques Derrida have presented a fascinating example of what might be called post-structuralist autobiography."—Laurie Volpe, _French Review_ "Bennington's account of what Derrida is up to is better in almost all respects—more intelligent, more plausible, more readable, and less pretentious—than any other I have read."—Richard Rorty, _Contemporary Literature_. (shrink)

Perception is not an independent, in‐the‐moment event. Instead, perceiving involves integrating prior expectations with current observations. How does this ability develop from infancy through adulthood? We examined how prior visual experience shapes visual perception in infants, children, and adults. Using an identical task across age groups, we exposed participants to pairs of colorful stimuli and implicitly measured their ability to discriminate relative saturation levels. Results showed that adult participants were biased by previously experienced exemplars, and exhibited weakened in‐the‐moment discrimination between (...) different levels of saturation. In contrast, infants and children showed less influence of memory in their perception, and they actually outperformed adults in discriminating between current levels of saturation. Our findings suggest that as humans develop, their perception relies more on prior experience and less on current observation. (shrink)

"This double issue in the ICA Documents series brings together material which grew out of a major conference held in 1985 on the philosophical dimendions of the postmodernist debate, and three autumn deminars from our French Thinkers series..."--Ed. note.

Este artigo tem por objetivo apresentar as concepções de alegria, graça e felicidade nas obras de Clément Rosset.

In view of misguidance found in democratic States concerning their grounding liberal model, some analysts are inclined to declare the bankrupt of liberalism, as well there are others who consider it not yet achieved. This paper aims to indicate in Locke’s political theory some intrinsic limitations of this model itself that has as result its very non-sustainability at long date.

This book combines loosely "autobiographical" texts by two of the most influential French intellectuals of our time. "Savoir," by Hélène Cixous is an account of her experience of recovered sight after a lifetime of severe myopia; Jacques Derrida's "A Silkworm of One's Own" muses on a host of motifs, including his varied responses to "Savoir.".

One of the most significant contemporary thinkers in continental philosophy, Jacques Derrida’s work continues to attract heated commentary among philosophers, literary critics, social and cultural theorists, architects and artists. This major new work by world renowned Derrida scholar and translator, Geoffrey Bennington, presents incisive new readings of both Derrida and interpretations of his work. Part one sets out Derrida’s work as a whole and examines its relevance to, and ‘interruption’ of, the traditional domains of ethics, politics and literature. The (...) second part of the book presents compelling insights into some important motifs in Derrida’s work, such as death, friendship, psychoanalysis, time and endings. The final section introduces trenchant appraisals of other influential accounts of Derrida’s work. This influential and original contribution to the literature on Derrida is marked by a commitment to clarity and accuracy, but also by a refusal to simplify Derrida’s often difficult thought. (shrink)

O presente artigo consiste em uma tentativa de compartilhar algumas ideias no que tange à ambiguidade no atual contexto de pandemia. Embora não possamos de modo algum chegar a alguma solução, tampouco a uma resposta clara para cada um dos problemas envolvidos, certamente podemos colocar questões acerca dos limites da Política e das políticas de Saúde Pública. Por fim, podemos ainda pensar sobre a impossibilidade moral trazida por esse cenário.

A relação entre ética e metafísica e a própria determinação do que se entende por ética e por metafísica, como bem se sabe, são flexionadas de múltiplas maneiras, frequentemente conflitantes, na tradição que denominamos filosófica. Penso que seja produtivo empregar a perspectiva de uma filosofia transcendental que tem Kant e Fichte como os seus interlocutores fundamentais.

O pessimismo pode ser encontrado sob diversas formas na obra de Schopenhauer, embora não haja para o pessimismo em geral uma definição precisa. Ele se mostra antes de tudo como uma espécie de valoração da existência tal como o otimismo, seu contrário. Procuro mostrar que o “pessimismo schopenhaueriano” não deve ser tomado como um pressuposto ou postulado acerca do ser originário, tampouco como mero resultado da experiência de vida. Pelo contrário, trata-se da consequência final da crítica da razão que leva (...) à total refutação de toda e qualquer forma de dogmatismo defensor de uma razão para a existência do mundo. Essa consequência abrange todas as questões filosóficas, mas, segundo suas premissas epistemológicas, mantém-se como uma avaliação crítica dirigida ao mundo enquanto pensado sob o princípio de razão. Pode-se, então, dizer que esse “pessimismo” não consiste em uma doutrina filosófica sobre um mal metafísico substancial e impessoal. (shrink)

Pretende-se com este artigo encontrar um possível esclarecimento para a afirmação de Schopenhauer segundo a qual somente a Vontade é o unicamente Real, uma tese publicada pela primeira vez em A vontade na natureza que exigiria várias mudanças em sua obra capital, uma vez que se torna a definitiva demarcação do pensamento de Schopenhauer com relação a seus antecessores. Esse problema nos levou a considerar a relação entre Schopenhauer e Kant em vista de descobrir o sentido próprio dessa tese, bem (...) como o de alguns aspectos da crítica levantada pelo primeiro contra o segundo. Nesse sentido, aproveita-se para destacar muitas passagens novas ausentes na edição de 1819 de O mundo como vontade e representação, além de uma cuidadosa consideração de suas anotações ao exemplar pessoal. (shrink)

Resumo: Embora ainda sejam escassas as abordagens sobre o amor em Heidegger, tal reflexão pode ser liberada em múltiplos sentidos, sendo objetivo do presente artigo apontar para um deles, talvez o mais abrangente. Para tanto, após introduzirmos breves considerações acerca de trabalhos já existentes, buscamos privilegiar aqui, de início, a centralidade, não do amor como um conceito na obra de Heidegger, mas do sentido do amor em sua própria concepção de Filosofia, tal como ele parece assumir. Todavia, a restrição a (...) esse aspecto da questão pode fazer com que caia em segundo plano algo mais essencial, a saber, que o amor não apenas traduz a essência da atitude pensante, mas compreende toda a discussão heideggeriana sobre nosso modo de ser, da qual emerge o problema da Filosofia e a Filosofia como problema. Em seguida, portanto, partimos para a correspondência entre essa consideração mais geral e a questão das relações de amor entre humanos.: Although studies on love in Heidegger's works are rare, the question can be approached in many ways. This paper aims to discuss one aspect of the question, perhaps the most comprehensive. After a brief consideration of existing works on Heideggerian love, we start from the perspective that love is not a kind of "central concept" in Heidegger's work, but that the meaning of love is central for his concept of philosophy. Restricting our discussion to this point, however, should not let us forget a more essential understanding, which is that love not only refers to the thinking attitude, but comprehends Heidegger's entire discussion of our mode of being; from the latter emerges the problem of philosophy and philosophy as problem. We then proceed to examine the existing correspondence between this more general consideration and the question of relations of love among human beings. (shrink)

This essay starts at the well-known thesis according to which ‘to know something is to know its cause’, its reason. Not disagreeing with that at all, we mean to set the proper domain and reaching of the thesis once considering its limitations and effects for modern and contemporary way of thinking. Does may human thought be just representation, or not? If it does not, the thesis will actually make philosophers stay away from the originary pathos as we may show. If (...) it does, what it is left to think about but mind productions? (shrink)

O presente ensaio parte da conhecida tese de que "conhecer é conhecer a causa", a razão de ser. Sem recusar a correção desta tese, pretende-se determinar o âmbito e o alcance próprios da mesma levando-se em conta suas limitações e consequências sobre os modos moderno e contemporâneo de pensar. Deve ser o pensamento humano apenas representacional ou não? Se não é este o caso, a referida tese afastara os filósofos do pathos originário, como devemos mostrar. Caso contrário, que nos resta (...) pensar senão produtos do intelecto? (shrink)

Recent developments in literary theory, such as structuralism and deconstruction, have come under attack for neglecting history, while historically-based approaches have been criticized for failing to take account of the problems inherent in their methodological foundations. This collection of essays is unique in that it focuses on the relation between post-structuralism and historical (especially Marxist) literary theory and criticism. The volume includes a deconstructive reading of Marx, essays that relate history to the philosophical and institutional context, and a number of (...) studies of particular texts, literary and non-literary, which pose the question of history and literary theory with particular force. (shrink)

Introduction Someone comes and says something. Without really needing to think, I understand what is said, refer it without difficulty to familiar codes, ...

In his seminars on the death penalty, Derrida consistently describes Kant's arguments in favor of capital punishment as “rigorous” and explicitly relates that rigor to the mechanisms of execution and the subsequent rigor mortis of the corpse. ‘Rigor’ has also often been a contested term in descriptions of deconstruction: different commentators have either deplored or celebrated the presence or the absence of rigor in Derrida's work. Derrida himself uses the term a good deal throughout his career, usually in a positive (...) sense, although he also at least once, in passing, suggests the need to question the rigor of the concept of rigor itself. In this paper, I will outline the place of Kant in the Death Penalty Seminars and suggest that it is the very rigor attributed to Kant that makes him (rather than some other writers—whether supporters or opponents of the death penalty—whose arguments seem less rigorous to Derrida) an exemplary object for deconstructive attention, not for the first time in Derrida's work. Broadening the focus beyond the texts Derrida explicitly analyzes, I suggest that this kind of attention can also be fruitfully brought to bear on some more general arguments in Kant about right and justice. In conclusion, I suggest some implications of this situation for the still difficult issue of the more general relation between deconstruction and critique in the Kantian sense. (shrink)

Derrida's earlier work has a good deal to say about the question of metaphor. Very strikingly in view of Derrida's later thematic interest in the question of animality, metaphor is also presented in a piece on Edmond Jabès as an “animality of the letter,” as “the primary and infinite equivocality of the signifier as Life”. “White Mythology” argues for a certain irreducibility of “metaphor in the text of philosophy”. The trajectory of Derrida's thought here is especially difficult to capture, but (...) seems to be circling around the question of being itself and to involve a crucial detour via Heidegger, and more notably his notion of the als‐Struktur. This point of Derrida's thinking must also be thought beyond the reach of any ontology and of any “thinking of being,” to which the early remarks on metaphor might seem to be leading us, but which the thought of dissemination always resists. (shrink)

At an important moment in his reading of Heidegger in Geschlecht III, Derrida wields a pair of semi-technical terms from his own earlier work, and uses them to identify a classical, indeed Aristotelian, vein in Heidegger’s reading of Trakl. This gesture is complex, both in that, in spite of appearances, the Mehrdeutigkeit Heidegger identifies in Trakl is not essentially to do with the term Geschlecht, and in that Derrida’s presentation of Aristotle’s views about polysemia is perhaps over-simplified, or at least (...) leaves open the possibility of a more generous reading. Derrida’s notion of dissemination is shown not to entail a mere exacerbation of polysemia, but a quasi-semantic re-marking of the “syntax” that allows for any semantic effects at all. It is suggested that the fact that this marking can be described by Derrida as “monotonous” might open onto a slightly different reading both of Aristotle’s understanding of pollachos legomenon and pros hen, and Heidegger’s understanding of the Einklang of Trakl’s poetry. (shrink)

This book deconstructs the whole lineage of political philosophy, showing the ways democracy abuts and regularly undermines the sovereignist tradition across a range of texts from the Iliad to contemporary philosophy. Politics is an object of perennial difficulty for philosophy—as recalcitrant to philosophical mastery as is philosophy’s traditional adversary, poetry. That difficulty makes it an attractive topic for any deconstructive approach to the tradition from which we inherit our language and our concepts. Scatter 2 pursues that deconstruction, often starting with, (...) and sometimes departing from, the work of Jacques Derrida by attending to the concepts of sovereignty on the one hand and democracy on the other. The book begins by following the fate of a line from Homer’s Iliad, where Odysseus asserts that “the rule of many is no good thing, let there be one ruler, one king.” The line, Bennington shows, is quoted, misquoted, and progressively Christianized by Aristotle, Philo Judaeus, Suetonius, the early Church Fathers, Aquinas, Dante, Ockham, Marsilius of Padua, Jean Bodin, Etienne de la Boétie, up to Carl Schmitt and Erik Peterson, and even one of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials, before being discussed by Derrida himself. In the book’s second half, Bennington begins again with Plato and Aristotle and tracks the concept of democracy as it regularly abuts and undermines that sovereignist tradition. In detailed readings of Hobbes and Rousseau, Bennington develops a notion of “proto-democracy” as a possible name for the scatter that underlies and drives the political as such and that will always prevent politics from achieving its aim of bringing itself to an end. (shrink)

When he died in 2004, Jacques Derrida left behind a vast legacy of unpublished material, much of it in the form of written lectures. With _The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume 1_, the University of Chicago Press inaugurates an ambitious series, edited by Geoffrey Bennington and Peggy Kamuf, translating these important works into English. _The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume 1_ launches the series with Derrida’s exploration of the persistent association of bestiality or animality with sovereignty. In this seminar (...) from 2001–2002, Derrida continues his deconstruction of the traditional determinations of the human. The beast and the sovereign are connected, he contends, because neither animals nor kings are subject to the law—the sovereign stands above it, while the beast falls outside the law from below. He then traces this association through an astonishing array of texts, including La Fontaine’s fable “The Wolf and the Lamb,” Hobbes’s biblical sea monster in _Leviathan_, D. H. Lawrence’s poem “Snake,” Machiavelli’s _Prince_ with its elaborate comparison of princes and foxes, a historical account of Louis XIV attending an elephant autopsy, and Rousseau’s evocation of werewolves in _The Social Contract_. Deleuze, Lacan, and Agamben also come into critical play as Derrida focuses in on questions of force, right, justice, and philosophical interpretations of the limits between man and animal. (shrink)

The telephone is taken as a privileged figure for discussing the relationship between Cixous and Derrida, particularly as it figures in some of Cixous's late work, and especially Hyperdream. It is suggested that the telephonic relation essentially involves interruption as well connection, and that this structure leads to reformulations of issues such as possibility and impossibility, life and death.

This article maps, across a wide range of works, the coordinates of Derrida's thinking of democracy and its relevance to a series of crucial concepts, from difference to autoimmunity. Distinguishing Derrida's idea of a “democracy to come” from the Kantian ideal, Bennington links it to Aristotle's insistence upon multiplicity and to a thinking of deviance and perversion, an appropriately deconstructive logic for thinking an absence of telos in democracy to come.

This article maps, across a wide range of works, the coordinates of Derrida's thinking of democracy and its relevance to a series of crucial concepts, from difference to autoimmunity. Distinguishing Derrida's idea of a “democracy to come” from the Kantian ideal, Bennington links it to Aristotle's insistence upon multiplicity and to a thinking of deviance and perversion, an appropriately deconstructive logic for thinking an absence of telos in democracy to come.