Although the neoconservative movement has come to dominate American conservatism, this movement has its origins in the old Marxist Left. Communists in their younger days, as the founders of neoconservatism, inverted Marxist doctrine by arguing that moral values and not economic forces were the primary movers of history. Yet the neoconservative critique of biotechnology still borrows heavily from Karl Marx and owes more to the German philosopher Martin Heidegger than to the Scottish philosopher and political economist Adam Smith. Loath (...) to identify these sources - or perhaps unaware of them - neoconservatives do not acknowledge these intellectual underpinnings or their implications. Thus, in the final analysis, their critique is incoherent and even internally inconsistent. By not acknowledging and embracing their intellectual roots, neoconservatives are left with a deeply ambivalent and often confused view of biotechnology and the society that gives rise to it. (shrink)

Title: Capitalismo y Religión: La Religión Politica Neoconservadora Publisher: Editorial Sal Terrae ISBN: 8429308970 Author: José Mardones Title: The Challenge of Populism: The Rise of Right-Wing Democratism in Postwar America Publisher: Praeger Publishers ISBN: 0275939065 Author: Michael P. Federici.

One of the interesting aspects of Russian self‐definition in opposition to the West is its attitude toward Western science. Russian distrust of scientific and technological progress in the West is an important force shaping contemporary Russian identity. This article touches on these issues in four parts. The first section characterizes two main conservative circles that are active in today's disputes over the significance of scientific development for Russian identity. The second demonstrates certain Russian contemporary concerns related to scientific and technological (...) progress, which will enable us to explain the position of the Russian Orthodox Church. The third section presents the political, religious, and identity context for the suspicion toward science expressed by Russian conservatives. The final section, on the other hand, discusses the way in which Russian Orthodox neoconservatism uses Orthodox anthropology to raise suspicion toward scientific and technological achievements. (shrink)

This article investigates how Soren Kierkegaard's work developed a key subject utilized in international political theory, and ascribed to particular international actors (including nation-states) — The Self. Kierkegaard's core insights on ‘dread’ and its functions, the need for individuals to will a purpose and, finally, the limits of the Self, I argue, provide a basis from which we can understand the anxieties — The insecurities — That attend to the work of and on a ‘Self’, including that (especially that) of (...) political communities. Specifically, Kierkegaard's engagements with the real and the ideal Self — The Self as it actually is and as it potentially could be — Can be utilized to index and understand the focus in certain vitalist philosophies with the Self of both individuals and political communities. Kierkegaard's insights help us understand this foregrounding of the Self, and yet his work also helps critically render particular recent manifestations of vitalism, found especially in US neoconservatism. (shrink)

Given certain well-known empirical facts–including the Bush II administration’s motivations and its actions initiating the war – the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and its continuing war of occupation) is not just (i.e., is not morally justified), on any standard interpretation of Just War Theory criteria for jus ad bellum. Since there was no imminent threat of attack by Iraq against the U.S., the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a Preventative or Merely Precautionary War (which is notrecognized by either (...) Just War Theory or international law as a legitimate basis for initiating a war) rather than a Preemptive War (which may sometimes be justified, if there is a real threat of imminent attack) or a Reactive War (responding to an unjustified attack from an aggressor, which is always justified). Moreover, the neo-conservative program for perpetual U.S. world domination by the weakening of other nations and the invasions of weaker nations for purposes of U.S. economic and geopolitical advantage (behind the facade of “spreading democracy and freedom”) is not morally justified. However, the moral status of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan is much less clear. Many argue that is was morally justified according to both Just War Theory and international law, given certain well-established empirical facts; particularly, al-Qaeda’s involvement with the events of 9-11 and the Taliban government’s protection of al-Qaeda and its terrorist infrastructure within Afghanistan. On this analysis, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was justified as both a Reactive War (responding to an unjustified attack against primarily civilian targets) and a Preemptive War (to try to make sure that al-Qaeda did not have the opportunity to use its infrastructure in Afghanistan to arrange other attacks on civilian targets in the U.S. or other nations). But the cogency of this analysis depends on whether there were any realistic alternatives fordisrupting al-Qaeda and bringing its leaders to justice; and some argue that such alternatives did exist. Moreover, even if U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan was morally justified it is arguable that the amount and type of force used – e.g. intensive, wide-spread bombing campaigns that killed many civilians – were not justified. (shrink)

The essay aims at reading in the works of Daniel Bell the path of neoconservatism since its very beginning against the background of the Great Society and the rise of the black movement, the crisis of the Welfare State and the renewed centrality of the market in the global scenario of the 1970s. The objective is to show that neoconservatism is basically a politics of the limits of liberalism in front of the «continuity» of the «cultural tradition» of (...) society: an effort in many ways shared by rising neoliberalism to reestablish the order embedded in the “history” of the social fabric and in its power relations. (shrink)

After its rise, in the years of the George W. Bush Jr.’s presidency, neoconservatism seemed to collapse under the weight of its utopian ambition to dictate the new rules of the internal and international political order, to stem the conflicts and processes of disruption of the liberal order as it had been defined since the Second World War. Going through the various contributions of the monographic issue, this introduction highlights the historical and political reasons that make neoconservatism an (...) idea whose parable and movements are of great importance to understand the crisis of liberalism and the current role of the neoliberalism. (shrink)

Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are two distinct political rationalities in the contemporary United States. They have few overlapping formal characteristics, and even appear contradictory in many respects. Yet they converge not only in the current presidential administration but also in their de-democratizing effects. Their respective devaluation of political liberty, equality, substantive citizenship, and the rule of law in favor of governance according to market criteria on the one side, and valorization of state power for putatively moral ends on the other, (...) undermines both the culture and institutions of constitutional democracy. Above all, the two rationalities work symbiotically to produce a subject relatively indifferent to veracity and accountability in government and to political freedom and equality among the citizenry. (shrink)

Este trabalho busca analisar os desdobramentos da relação entre infâncias, juventudes e sexualidades que se apresentam nas escolas em tempos de cerceamentos e perseguições presentes na última década à escola. Falar de infância é discorrer sobre corpos e, justamente por isso, é indissociável da sexualidade. As relações interpessoais que ocorrem nos espaços escolares são imprescindíveis para socializações com vidas outras. No entanto, após a censura da temática de gênero e sexualidades nos planos educacionais recentes, bem como na Base Nacional Comum (...) Curricular, e frente às sistemáticas perseguições aos professores interessados em sua discussão, nosso intuito é indagar o lugar do corpo e da sexualidade na escola, sobretudo em tempos de neoconservadorismo e pós-fascismo. Enquanto definição, entendemos por neoconservadorismo os novos agenciamentos que a matiz conservadora se utilizou para a sua consolidação na população brasileira; e, por pós-fascismo, as novas esferas de sociabilidades a partir de pragmatismos à identificação de valores comum na sociedade na promoção do pânico moral. Para sustentarmos nossa análise, utilizaremos três cenas escolares de educação para a sexualidade, entendidas aqui como práticas de resistências. Estas, muito embora recentemente vistas na sociedade como responsáveis pela destruição da família tradicional brasileira (de base heteronormativa), são valorizadas para a promoção de infâncias seguras. (shrink)

There is by now broad consensus in the critical literature that neoliberalism and social conservatism have frequently coexisted in practice. Yet the alt-right fits none of the previously identified alliances: this is not the neoliberal neoconservatism of the Reagan and Bush years, nor the neoliberal communitarianism of the Third Way, nor even a form of neoliberal authoritarianism. Instead, the alt-right claims intellectual descent from economic libertarianism, on the one hand, and paleo- conservatism on the other. This paper traces the (...) contours of this ‘paleolibertarian’ alliance, first by following the volatile political trajectory of Murray Rothbard, the foremost philosopher of American libertarianism, and, second, by uncovering precedents in the longer history of the American far right. It will be argued that paleoconservatism makes for a uniquely powerful ally because it offers a workable response to libertarianism’s intrinsic contradictions. (shrink)

Are the arguments of the Frankfurt School still relevant? Modern Culture and Critical Theory investigates this question in the context of important issues in contemporary cultural politics: neoconservatism and new social movements, discontents with modernity and debates on postmodernism, the political hegemony of Ronald Reagan, and the cultural hegemony of structuralism and poststructuralism. Russell Berman thoughtfully explores the theories of Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, Lyotard, and Foucault and their relevance to both historical and contemporary issues in literature, politics, and the (...) arts. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Catholic Social Teaching and Economic Globalization: The Quest for AlternativesAmy LevadCatholic Social Teaching and Economic Globalization: The Quest for Alternatives John Sniegocki Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press, 2009. 335 pp. $37.00.John Sniegocki’s dense volume argues for rethinking development policies in light of widespread poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation that have resulted from these policies over the last century. This argument does not mark Sniegocki’s text as particularly original. (...) However, the dialogue that he constructs between Catholic social teaching (CST) and three schools of thought on development, which he describes as “neoconservative,” “radical,” and “grassroots” views, provides a compelling argument for new directions for both CST and economic globalization.Sniegocki’s book begins with three chapters that provide an overview of development theory (beginning with calls for “modernization” of the “Third World” beginning in the 1950s), examine failures of this theory in practice, and discuss the growth of CST concerning development. While these chapters provide important groundwork for understanding the context of Sniegocki’s argument, the heart of the argument comes in the fourth chapter, where he places CST in dialogue with neoconservative and radical approaches to development (represented, respectively, by Michael Novak [End Page 209] and Mary Hobgood). Neoconservatism is clearly incompatible with CST, as any denial of structural inequality or whole-hearted embrace of capitalism— even “democratic capitalism”—would be. However, radical approaches maintain that CST does not sever itself completely from the economic liberalism that underlies neoconservatism. As a result, even when CST recognizes the pitfalls of capitalism and the realities of structural injustice, it still often resorts to liberal assumptions. Radicals maintain that if CST were more consistent, it would more adamantly call for social struggle resulting in “democratic socialism.”Sniegocki finds resources for CST in radicalism but also introduces a third perspective from grassroots critics of development, exemplified by Vandana Shiva. These critics question whether “development equals Westernization via industrialization” (242, quoting Herb Addo), as maintained by both neoconservatives and radicals; they instead call for revitalization of local economies and traditional cultures. Sniegocki concludes that this vision could enhance CST in several ways: resolving the tension in CST between modernization and respect for local cultures, improving its framework for understanding ecological issues, encouraging recognition of grassroots action and social struggle for change, and attending to the role of women in economic and social processes. In the two concluding chapters, Sniegocki proposes that radical and grassroots perspectives together provide a basis for critiquing neoconservatism and improving CST.At least two issues deserve more attention in Sniegocki’s text. First, the principle of subsidiarity, “which asserts that issues should be dealt with at the most decentralized level appropriate to the issue at hand” (121), would seem to offer a strong grounding in CST for many grassroots arguments, yet Sniegocki gives this principle little attention. Second, Sniegocki criticizes the decision-making practices within many international development organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organization (WTO), for suppressing democratic participation. In many ways, this critique could also be leveled against the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Could deficiencies of CST concerning development be an outgrowth of the decision-making practices of the hierarchy, just as problems with IMF, WB, and WTO policies are an outgrowth of their decision-making practices? Sniegocki seems to recognize this possibility in a single sentence: “The resurgence within the Catholic Church in recent years of more top-down, centralized, and secretive ecclesiastical practices, while the church at the same time recommends to the broader world the importance of grassroots participation, dialogue, and human rights, makes ongoing attention to these issues especially urgent” (331). Although this sentence touches on an important question, Sniegocki leaves it here. It seems that addressing this question, however, may be crucial for [End Page 210] bringing about the enhancement of CST by radical and grassroots views that Sniegocki envisions.Amy LevadUniversity of St. Thomas St. Paul, MinnesotaCopyright © 2012 Society of Christian Ethics... (shrink)

Interest in Leo Strauss is greater now than at any time since his death, mostly because of the purported link between his thought and the political movement known as neoconservatism. Steven B. Smith, though, surprisingly depicts Strauss not as the high priest of neoconservatism but as a friend of liberal democracy—perhaps the best defender democracy has ever had. Moreover, in _Reading Leo Strauss, _Smith shows that Strauss’s defense of liberal democracy was closely connected to his skepticism of both (...) the extreme Left and extreme Right. Smith asserts that this philosophical skepticism defined Strauss’s thought. It was as a skeptic, Smith argues, that Strauss considered the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between reason and revelation—a conflict Strauss dubbed the “theologico-political problem.” Calling this problem “_the_ theme of my investigations,” Strauss asked the same fundamental question throughout his life: what is the relation of the political order to revelation in general and Judaism in particular? Smith organizes his book with this question, first addressing Strauss’s views on religion and then examining his thought on philosophical and political issues. In his investigation of these philosophical and political issues, Smith assesses Strauss’s attempt to direct the teaching of political science away from the examination of mass behavior and interest group politics and toward the study of the philosophical principles on which politics are based. With his provocative, lucid essays, Smith goes a long way toward establishing a distinctive form of Straussian liberalism. (shrink)

Is Leo Strauss truly an intellectual forebear of neoconservatism and a powerful force in shaping Bush administration foreign policy? _The Truth about Leo Strauss_ puts this question to rest, revealing for the first time how the popular media came to perpetuate such an oversimplified view of such a complex and wide-ranging philosopher. More important, it corrects our perception of Strauss, providing the best general introduction available to the political thought of this misunderstood figure. Catherine and Michael Zuckert—both former students (...) of Strauss—guide readers here to a nuanced understanding of how Strauss’s political thought fits into his broader philosophy. Challenging the ideas that Strauss was an inflexible conservative who followed in the footsteps of Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt, the Zuckerts contend that Strauss’s signature idea was the need for a return to the ancients. This idea, they show, stemmed from Strauss’s belief that modern thought, with its relativism and nihilism, undermines healthy politics and even the possibility of real philosophy. Identifying this view as one of Strauss’s three core propositions—America is modern, modernity is bad, and America is good—they conclude that Strauss was a sober defender of liberal democracy, aware of both its strengths and its weaknesses. The Zuckerts finish, appropriately, by examining the varied work of Strauss’s numerous students and followers, revealing the origins—rooted in the tensions within his own thought—oftheir split into opposing camps. Balanced and accessible, _The Truth about Leo Strauss_ is a must-read for anyone who wants to more fully comprehend this enigmatic philosopher and his much-disputed legacy. (shrink)

Is Leo Strauss truly an intellectual forebear of neoconservatism and a powerful force in shaping Bush administration foreign policy? _The Truth about Leo Strauss_ puts this question to rest, revealing for the first time how the popular media came to perpetuate an oversimplified view of a complex and wide-ranging philosopher. In doing so, it corrects our perception of Strauss, providing the best general introduction available to the political thought of this misunderstood figure. Catherine and Michael Zuckert—both former students of (...) Strauss—guide readers here to a nuanced understanding of how Strauss’s political thought fits into his broader philosophy. Challenging the ideas that Strauss was an inflexible conservative who followed in the footsteps of Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt, the Zuckerts contend that Strauss’s signature idea was the need for a return to the ancients. Through their work, they conclude that Strauss was a sober defender of liberal democracy, aware of both its strengths and its weaknesses. Balanced and accessible, _The Truth about Leo Strauss_ is a must-read for anyone who wants to more fully comprehend this enigmatic philosopher and his much-disputed legacy. “_The Truth about Leo Strauss_ is the most balanced and insightful book yet written about Strauss’s thought, students, and political influence. It dispels myths promulgated by both friends and foes and persuasively traces the conflicting paths that American thinkers indebted to Strauss have taken.”—William Galston, Brookings Institution. (shrink)

Interest in Leo Strauss is greater now than at any time since his death, mostly because of the purported link between his thought and the political movement known as neoconservatism. Steven B. Smith, though, surprisingly depicts Strauss not as the high priest of neoconservatism but as a friend of liberal democracy—perhaps the best defender democracy has ever had. Moreover, in _Reading Leo Strauss, _Smith shows that Strauss’s defense of liberal democracy was closely connected to his skepticism of both (...) the extreme Left and extreme Right._ It was as a skeptic, Smith argues, that Strauss considered the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between reason and revelation—a conflict Strauss dubbed the “theologico-political problem.” Calling this problem “_the_ theme of my investigations,” Strauss asked the same fundamental question throughout his life: what is the relation of the political order to revelation in general and Judaism in particular? Smith organizes his book with this question and assesses Strauss’s attempt to direct the teaching of political science away from the examination of mass behavior and interest-group politics and toward the study of the philosophical principles on which politics are based. With his provocative, lucid study, Smith establishes a distinctive form of Straussian liberalism himself. _ “By returning to the source and examining what Strauss actually wrote, Mr. Smith lets the breeze of reason into the feverish sickroom of ideology. He portrays a Strauss who cherished democracy as the best bulwark against tyranny, and who valued intellectual honesty above all. By the time Mr. Smith is done, nothing is left of the Strauss caricature except the ignorance and malice that fathered it.”—Adam Kirsch, _New York__ Sun_. (shrink)

Philippe Fournier | : Le point de départ de ma proposition est que la responsabilité est un terme plus approprié que la vertu pour désigner les exhortations au devoir civique dans l’ère contemporaine. De même, à défaut de voir l’implication citoyenne comme l’expression de la rationalité individuelle ou de la conscience morale dans la sphère publique, je propose de comprendre la responsabilité comme une matrice discursive et gouvernementale qui perpétue des modèles comportementaux bien spécifiques. J’entends ainsi démontrer que la responsabilité (...) est devenue une modalité indispensable du « gouvernement de la conduite » au sein d’une rationalité néolibérale. En plus de constituer une série de dispositions morales qui remédierait aux failles et aux lacunes de l’individualisme libéral, la responsabilité se matérialise dans les incitations à une citoyenneté active et participe de ce fait à la rationalisation du retranchement de l’État de la sphère sociale. Comme l’illustrent des courants aussi divers que le néoconservatisme, le communautarisme et l’économie sociale, la responsabilité se présente moins comme une solution de rechange aux créneaux du néolibéralisme qu’une série de techniques et de standards comportementaux visant à compléter et renforcer l’application élargie d’une logique micro-économique. Je montrerai que le recours à la notion de responsabilité est particulièrement visible dans les politiques d’aide sociale et au sein des nouveaux partenariats entre l’État, le milieu communautaire et les communautés locales. En effet, l’aide étatique est de plus en plus conditionnelle à la démonstration de certaines dispositions morales et psychologiques comme la volonté, la ténacité et la probité. L’article se divise en quatre parties. La première s’attarde à définir brièvement la « gouvernementalité », concept initialement développé par Michel Foucault. La deuxième se penche sur des travaux plus contemporains, notamment ceux du sociologue britannique Nikolas Rose qui se préoccupe de la responsabilité en tant que modalité gouvernementale au sein du néolibéralisme. La troisième partie met en relief les particularités du néolibéralisme américain. En vue de cerner les pratiques et discours associés à la responsabilité de façon plus précise, la dernière partie examine l’un des principaux programmes d’aide sociale aux États-Unis, l’Aid to Families with Dependent Children, devenu le Temporary Assistance for Needy Families en 1996, des années 1980 jusqu’à aujourd’hui. | : Our point of departure is that responsibility is a more appropriate term than virtue to designate the contemporary exhortations to civic duty. Instead of seeing civic engagement as a means to express individual rationality or moral conscience in the public sphere, this paper suggests that we should understand responsability as a discursive and governmental matrix that perpetuates specific behavioral standards. More specifically, the article aims to show that responsability has become an indispensable instrument of rule within a neoliberal rationality of government. As well as pointing to a range of moral dispositions that can offset neoliberalism’s shortcomings, the notion of responsibility is mobilised in the repeated public calls to active citizenship and plays a strategic role in the discursive justification of the state’s withdrawal from the social sphere. As illustrated by strands of thought as diverse as neoconservatism, communitarianism and social economy, responsibility is less an alternative to neoliberal tenets than a series of techniques and behavioral standards that complement and reinforce the extension of a microeconomic logic to all spheres of human activity. The appeals to responsibility are particularly visible in contemporary social policies and in the strategic partnerships between the state, community organisations and local communities. Indeed, state assistance has become increasingly conditional on the demonstration of aptitudes and moral qualities like earnestness, tenacity and willpower. The article proceeds in four parts. The first part briefly defines governmentality, a concept initially developed by Michel Foucault. The second part explores Nikolas Rose’s work on advanced liberalism and takes a look at contemporary articulations of responsibility. The third part examines the specificities of American neoliberalism. In order to identify the practices and discourses linked to the notion of responsibility, the final part of the article looks at one of the main social programs in the United States, namely the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, renamed the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 1996, from the early 1980s to our day. (shrink)

The book Identité et primauté d’autrui presents a study of intersubjectivity in Merleau-Ponty. Subjectivity emerges against a background of a world shared with the other, a human world, and is preceded by its relationship to the other. The assumption of the primary character of this relationship takes on the shape of hospitality. Such a politics of hospitality is opposed to state politics aiming for cultural security and the defense of values, taking their origins in neoconservatism and notably deployed against (...) immigration and mixity. This original study of hospitality, departing from Merleau-Ponty in an original manner while remaining anchored in the Phenomenology of Perception, offers a response to the need to protect an unavoidable ontological pluralism. (shrink)

Like most terms in social theory, the term "conservative" is profoundly ambiguous and contested. In the United States today the word is often applied to those who call for an absolute minimum of government interference in capitalist markets. In another meaning it refers to those who insist that social life should center on the preservation of a community’s traditions and cultural values. There is a deep tension between these two viewpoints. Capitalist markets left to themselves radically destabilize established communities, and (...) so preserving cultural traditions and values requires political intervention in economic life. Given this ineluctable tension it is probably best not to use the same term to refer to both positions. In the present paper I shall refer to the former perspective, whose intellectual roots are found in the "classical liberalism" of John Locke and others, as "neoliberalism." The latter perspective will be referred to as "neoconservatism.". (shrink)

The last couple of decades has brought a renewed interest in American conservatism among historians. Yet most recent studies have focused on the emergence of neoconservatism after World War II and virtually no recent scholarly work has pursued the history of conservatism before the 1920s. Both Richard Hofstadter and Clinton Rossiter agreed that the late nineteenth century was an important watershed in the evolution of American conservative thought. Hofstadter argued that the new laissez-faire conservatism that became dominant during the (...) Gilded Age was remarkable in that “it lacked many of the signal characteristics of conservatism as it is usually found.” Yet some conservatives refused to accept key features of what Clinton Rossiter once branded this new “contradictory conservatism.” This essay focuses mostly on Protestant clerical intellectuals who dissented from the new orthodoxy and attempted to preserve older conservative principles. Against the laissez-faire conservatives' hyperindividualism, these dissenting conservatives stressed an organic view of the social order and the importance of mediating institutions such as family and church. To the others' secularism, they offered a social theory suffused with evangelical Protestantism. This analysis highlights where these dissidents differed from their fellow conservatives and seeks also to elucidate their alternative conservative vision of the American republic. Such a study serves to clarify just how profound an ideological shift occurred among conservatives during the Gilded Age and illuminates some of the persistent tensions within American conservatism still evident today. (shrink)

The “new” conservatism which dominates American politics is fundamentally different from both liberalism and traditional conservatism. For the neoconservatives, who are influenced by the political philosopher Leo Strauss, fault liberalism for undermining the authority of absolute morality and natural inequality in favor of relativism and openness. Yet they also repudiate the old European conservatism for failing to defy the currents of modernity with anything more than an appeal to tradition. In fine, neoconservatism rejects, despite its own modern origins, modernity (...) itself. (shrink)

This article reconstructs the genesis of the formulation and writing of Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, his most important and best known work. It also reconstructs, historically, the trajectory of the editions, with emphasis on the first ones, especially the one held in Brazil, due to its prohibition imposed by the military dictatorship that had been installed in April 1964 and that had banned Paulo Freire from the country. Even after his death in May 1997, there are people (...) – fortunately few and registered in the universe of fascist neoconservatism – who continue to attack Paulo Freire's work, evidently demonstrating that they do not know it. In the celebrations of the centenary of the birth of the Brazilian educator, already in 2020, manifestations and events are taking place on all continents, not only in a clear demonstration of the reaction against displeasure to the author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, but also revealing the relevance of the Freirian legacy, therefore, its actuality for contemporary education, in all its modalities and degrees. (shrink)

A recent spate of books on the life and legacy of the political philosopher Leo Strauss, notably Steven B. Smith's Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, and Judaism , suggests a desperate effort to salvage Strauss and the Straussian school of political philosophy from the wreckage of American neoconservatism. Although a number of these works are quite thoughtful and helpfully counter many of the more extreme (and uglier) charges made concerning the meaning of Straussianism and its political influence, their general (...) drift in fact confirms what the more responsible critics of this school have long maintained about its tendency to oppose positions that would help advance meaningful social change and social justice. Key Words: Leo Strauss • Straussianism • Platonism • esoteric writing • zeteti-cism • Socratic • skepticism • relativism • fideism. (shrink)

Il saggio presenta il dibattito statunitense sulla new class quale categoria politica che ha fatto da perno all’ascesa del neoconservatorismo, alla scrittura pubblica del discorso dei neoconservatori – in particolare Daniel P. Moynihan e Irving Kristol – e alla loro strategia volta ad aggredire le fondamenta scientifiche e politiche dell’ordine liberal del capitalismo americano che fra anni Sessanta e Settanta non trovava più nella middle class la parola pubblica che aveva messo a riposo il conflitto sociale e politico degli anni (...) Trenta alimentando il consenso del secondo dopoguerra. Nel discorso neoconservatore, anche in dialogo con il neoliberalismo, new class individuava un «nemico ideologico» che andava disciplinato in favore del capitalismo ovvero educato al rispetto dell’autorità – della società e del suo fondamento morale, del mercato e delle sue gerarchie – che i movimenti sociali stavano contestando. (shrink)

The concept of Orientalism has been widely dealt with in the humanities and social sciences. It helps explain a peculiar construction of the Arab-Muslim world. Orientalism has operated in various historical paradigms but has always emphasised specific Western constructions of the Orient. Nowadays, the concept has metamorphosed to refer to new constructions of the Orient. New representations of Islam and the Muslim world are dominating the Western public space. The aim of this paper is twofold. It explores the historical development (...) and paradigmatic shifts that have affected the concept of Orientalism. It then suggests that a neo-Orientalism has recently emerged, is less territorialised and operating within a new paradigm. It holds a new ideologically motivated agenda, constructs new objects, and feeds the social phenomenon called Islamophobia. (shrink)

L’articolo esamina la genesi del neoconservatorismo statunitense - inteso principalmente come movimento intellettuale e gruppo di pressione politica - e le sue posizioni rispetto alla politica estera nel periodo che va dagli anni Settanta a oggi. In particolare offre una definizione del movimento nella quale centrale è il nazionalismo universalista e liberale del progetto neoconservatore, e il conseguente rigetto delle limitazioni alla sovranità degli Stati Uniti conseguenti alle tante interdipendenze che hanno finito per contraddistinguere l’ordine globale negli ultimi Cinquant’anni.

Nos preguntamos acerca del denominado “retorno” de la filosofía política, sobre su notable florecimiento en los actuales escenarios académicos, no para compendiar sus desarrollos y contenidos, sino como fenómeno: algo que sucede al interior de la filosofía y las ciencias humanas, y que se da junto a una retracción del contenido salvífico de la política y en condiciones de escasa posibilidad de reto al sistema. Analizar el medio en que se han producido estos desplazamientos (como lo es el debate del (...) liberalismo norteamericano y su eco en la filosofía europea), acaso permita vislumbrar otros significados –mucho menos edificantes– de la filosofía rehabilitada, que la mantienen cautiva del proceso de relegitimación autoritaria del nuevo orden mundial. Con ello, quizás el ejercicio nos permita acercarnos a una posición desde la cual avizorar qué filosofía, finalmente, soporta volver. (shrink)

The subject of the study is the Christian discourse of the English TV series «Robin of Sherwood» (1984–1986). As a methodological basis for the scientific work, a philosophical-hermeneutic approach is used, presented, in particular, in the works of W. Dilthey, H.-G. Gadamer and M.M. Bakhtin. The most important structure of understanding is the principle of the «hermeneutic circle», which assumes that the text as a whole is understood through each of its parts, and the part through the whole. In addition, (...) understanding arises in the process of «dialogical cognition», a dialogue between the author, as well as the text as a subject, and the reader (viewer). The content of the series «Robin of Sherwood» is analyzed in the specific historical conditions of the 1980s. This is a period of growing social and cultural protest caused in Europe and the United States by the policy of neoconservatism and the reduction of social guarantees. Many phenomena previously classified as counterculture are becoming fashionable and becoming mainstream, including the legacy of paganism, pre-Christian mysticism and mythology. The article shows that the creators of the series intended to present Robin Hood not only as a leader of social or national resistance, but also as a defender of the ancient pagan religion against the new, Christian. An analysis is given of episodes from the first two seasons of the film, which trace criticism of the Christian church as an institution, as well as specific monks and clergy. In the third season, the critical pathos towards the church practically disappears. However, the author comes to the conclusion that it is the first two seasons that demonstrate the development of the moral consciousness of the characters from pagan to Christian, and Christian discourse is present in the film text, perhaps contrary to the original intention of its creators. There is also a reception of the Christian discourse of the series in the Russian and, more broadly, Russian-language literary Internet space, which is reflected in discussions on relevant literary and historical forums, as well as in works of fan literature. (shrink)

My essay provides a few elements to analyse how the neoconservative perspective on gender issues has evolved from its early phases to the last years. The aim is to highlight how neoconservative authors shifted from an openly patriarchal view of gender roles to more or less successful attempts at appropriating “feminist” themes and issues, in view of the affirmation of America’s moral superiority as a justification of hard power.

Carnes Lord is an eminent Aristotelian scholar who has since the mid-1970s intermittently occupied positions within the United States government. This article considers the linkages between his writings on Aristotle and the standpoints he has adopted when in government, with particular reference to the period in the early 1980s when he fulfilled an important role in developing a public diplomacy and information strategy against the Soviet Union. Attention is given to Lord’s interpretation and application, in both his writings and his (...) policy-making, of several key aspects of Aristotle’s political thought, such as rhetoric, regimes, and education. The influence of Leo Strauss on Lord’s thinking is also taken into account. (shrink)