Levinasian Ethics Research Articles

Literary and critical encounters with the Anthropocene: An interview with Seán Hand

Abstract Seán Hand is Professor of French Studies at the University of Warwick and Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Europe) of the University of Warwick. His research mainly focuses on literature, ideas and related developments in France and other Western countries from the early twentieth century to the present day. In this wide-ranging interview, Hand points out that there is a competition of intellectual versions of the Anthropocene, such as Capitalocene, Plantationocene and Chthulucene. With regards to the situation of the Anthropocene, he argues that literary and critical studies should move beyond masterful exposition of a work and take up the task of calling attention to our actions, renewing our connection and commitment to the life-web we inhabit, and engaging critically with technologization discussions. Hand also discusses the relationships between the “post-human turn” and the “non-human turn” and suggests that while post-human is connected with a teleological notion of development into a “beyond”, non-human is more grounded in today’s, and yesterday’s, reality. As an analyst of Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy, he here maintains that while Levinas’s insights on alterity could not be unproblematically applied in dealing with the “Anthropocene”, Levinasian ethics and Anthropocene concerns could produce transformative insights and effects. Lastly, Hand gives inspiring suggestions on the career development of young scholars and emphasizes the importance of doing multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and international studies.

Living with the Other: The Ethic of Inner Retreat

Living with the Other: The Ethic of Inner Retreat

Conserving the dignity of teaching through ethics as ‘mise en question’

Abstract In this article, we examine Emmanuel Levinas’ understanding of ethics through a conceptual analysis of ethics as ‘mise en question’. We contribute our perspective to the conversation on the Levinasian approach to education provoked by Alistair Miller, Soyoung Lee and Paul Standish. Through a systematic reading of Levinas’ texts as well as his unedited notes, we formulate a stance to support Levinasian ethics in the context of education. We argue that Levinasian ethics understood through mise en question helps reformulate the pedagogical relationship as a dynamic relationship where both the teacher and the student are called into question by the other. The otherness of the teacher challenges the student towards responsibility, to be a student-in-question, and the otherness of the student summons the teacher to respond, to be a teacher-in-question. In this way, the dignity of teaching can be conserved. By analysing Levinas’ unedited notes, we trace his commitment to teaching as a dialectic process where the subjectivity of the subject shifts away from being to a being-in-question.

From Idealism-Realism Dichotomy to Habermasian and Levinasian Ethics: The Question of Shared Beliefs and Constraints

Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri içerisinde ana akım (idealizm, realizm ve türevleri), Habermasçı eleştirel ve Levinasçı post-yapısalcı-eleştirel yaklaşımlar, ‘uluslararası olan’ı kavramak için kullandıkları farklı teorik araçlar, yaklaşımlarındaki epistemolojik ve ontolojik farklılıklar ile birbirlerinden ayrılsalar da, uluslararası olanın siyasal ve toplumsal olan ile içinde bulunduğu kurucu ilişkileri açıklayabilmek ve uluslararası ilişkileri daha adaletli ve eşitlikçi bir etik zemine taşımak yönünde yeni perspektifler sunabilmek noktasında belirli bir sınırlılığı paylaşmakta ve benzeşmektedirler. Bu çalışma kendisini, söz konusu sınırlılığın uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri literatüründe önemli ve geniş bir yer kaplayan tezahürlerini ele almak ve dört yaklaşım arasındaki bu ortak sınırlılığı, siyaset bilimi ile tarihsel sosyoloji literatüründen de yardım alarak, uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinin tarihsel gelişimi ve temel tartışmalarına atıfla çözümlemeye çalışmakla sınırlamaktadır.

Futural Dispatches on Responsibility for the Earth, or, ‘What on Earth Is Ethical Responsibility?’

This article explores the question of the limits of ethical responsibility in the context of the contemporary ecological crisis. Drawing centrally on a selection of writings by Jacques Derrida, Emmanuel Levinas and, in the second half of the article especially, Timothy Morton, it attempts to show how the conceptualization of the Earth/environment/biosphere (tropes for the ‘ecological whole’) as an object of ethical concern is problematic and exacerbated in the context of the posthumanist critique of anthropocentrism. If a generalized anthropization of the planet represents the ‘ethical failure’ of the Earth by ‘the human’—the material mark of which is the geo-physical terraforming associated with anthropocene—who or what, might be anticipated to be able to bear, or to live-up to, the ethical responsibility for its continued survival? The article critically brings elements of the philosophy of these thinkers into conjunction to discuss how the future of life/death might be properly considered an ethical matter at all, or alternatively, as the ‘end’ of ethical responsibility. Whilst Morton appears to recognize the potential of deconstructive thinking and Levinasian ethics for ecological thought, it is argued here that his reading of these is at odds with the object-oriented ontological thinking he more stridently identifies with. This messy collision in Morton’s ecological theory is used here as a springboard to explain how a strategic reprise of a certain humanism—or theoretical human exceptionalism—might be key to appreciating how humans taking responsibility for the current ecological crisis is the condition of a futural ethical openness to the non-human.

Strange ethics, stranger politics: Levinas and Vice on escaping the passivity of shame

In this article, I put Emmanuel Levinas and Samantha Vice into conversation on the topics of shame and politics to demonstrate how each’s understanding on these can help attenuate shortcomings in the other’s position. Vice’s ethical inquiry into how white South Africans can be and live well, is I argue, problematically conceptualised. This tracks a problematic distinction between shame and guilt respectively, and consequently, undermines Vice’s suggested remedy of political silence. Levinas’s account of ethical subjectivity, in which the self is hostage to the other person, requiring a total apology for its shameful being, however, renders the subject so fundamentally passive that it becomes unclear how the passage to politics can be negotiated. In the first movement of my argument, I deploy Levinas to recast Vice’s project, to be and live well (in South Africa) as an ethical project always already a political project. In the second (but diachronous) movement of my argument, I argue that Vice’s prescription that those implicated in, and continuing to benefit from, systems of oppression should remain politically silent, offers a practical way to cash out Levinas’s zig-zag movement between ethics and politics. A secondary contribution of the article adds to the project of putting analytic moral philosophy (broadly Vice’s position) into dialogue with continental philosophy as exemplified in Levinasian ethics.

Ethics and literature: Levinas and literary criticism

The question posed by this text is: can we use Levinasian ethics in the field of literary studies? In order to provide the answer, Levinas?s attitude toward art will need to be analyzed. His work contains numerous scattered remarks about literature and other arts, but the most explicit statement on the relationship between art and ethics can be found in his essay ?Reality and Its Shadow?. Since Levinas?s view on art in this essay is predominantly negative, it poses a significant problem for the application of his theory in the field of literary studies. In order to overcome this difficulty, I use Blanchot?s reworking of Levinasian ethics, and open the possibility of a different relation between literature and ethics than the one originally suggested by Levinas.

"The Origin of All Immorality"

Although Levinas did not write about The Merchant of Venice, recent scholarship has explored Levinasian themes in the play. However, most of The Merchant instantiates not Levinasian ethics per se, but the cultural and other forces that work against ethics. In particular, theodicy, which Levinas sees as morally scandalous, is deployed by Christian characters to justify their ill-treatment of Shylock. A surface reading of the play would suggest that it is structured around clear binaries, with Christian “mercy” juxtaposed to legalistic, vengeful Jewish “justice.” However, a more nuanced reading, particularly one informed by Levinas’s philosophy, reveals ways in which Shakespeare seems to call these distinctions into question, and uncovers two genuinely ethical moments in the play: Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew eyes?” speech, and his implied, biblically informed critique of the treatment of slaves by Christians in Venetian society.

Martin Riedelsheimer. 2020. Fictions of Infinity: Levinasian Ethics in 21st-Century Novels. Anglia Book Series 71. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter, x + 246 pp., € 99.95.

Article Martin Riedelsheimer. 2020. Fictions of Infinity: Levinasian Ethics in 21st-Century Novels. Anglia Book Series 71. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter, x + 246 pp., € 99.95. was published on November 1, 2021 in the journal Anglia (volume 139, issue 4).

Radical responsibility beyond empathy: Interreligious resources against liberal distortions of nursing care.

In this paper, I bring together Jewish and Buddhist philosophical resources to develop a notion of radical responsibility that can confront a complicity within nursing and health care between empathy and (neo)liberal white supremacist hegemony. My inspiration comes from Angela Davis's call for building coalitions to advance struggles for peace and justice. I proceed as follows. First, I note ways phenomenology clarifies empathy's seeming foundational role in nursing care, and how such a formulation can be complicit with assumptions about private individualism. Second, I turn to the Jewish philosophies of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas, and their advocacy for a kind of responsibility that precedes the constitution of individuality as this can provide a resource for action and practice circumventing liberal influenced empathy. I note critical reservations about direct and practical application of Levinasian ethics in nursing care, and turn to engaged Buddhist philosophies of interdependence-such as in Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama-as a corrective. Third, I conclude by indicating ways interreligious radical responsibility can reorient us toward housekeeping habits of character and away from exceptional crisis management, noting specific examples and actions in health care, nursing education and nursing scholarship.

The ethics of the ethics of autonomous vehicles: Levinas and naked streets

My starting point in this article is that investigating the ethics of autonomous vehicles through the lens of the trolley problem is not only limited but also unethical. I construct my case by aligning myself with Niklas Toivakainen, who argues against David Gunkel’s reading of Levinasian ethics as an answer to the “Machine Question”. I adumbrate Toivakainen’s critique that the attempt to give a Levinasian face to the machine is an example of a compensatory logic – a way to avoid a deeper exploration of the moral dynamics from which our technologies emerge. I offer an extended reading of Levinas’s formulation of the face of the other to argue that while the machine cannot signify as a face, the machine can announce or anticipate the signification of the face which the self is infinitely responsible to. I reach this conclusion through focusing on the uncertainty and ambiguity of the signification of the face. I then argue that current approaches to the ethics of autonomous vehicles, based on variations of the trolley problem, fail to locate ethical responsibility to the other, precisely in its attempts to evade uncertainty. I demonstrate how an embrace of uncertainty can make the ethics of autonomous vehicles more ethical through a consideration of the concept of shared space and naked streets in the work of the late Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman.

Critical Literacy with (Freire) and for the Other (Levinas): Ethics/Social Justice as Enigmatic Becoming

ABSTRACT One of the key features of critical literacy is the concern with the human and non-human collective other in vulnerable social condition. The obstruction for disenfranchised communities, local language policy goals, exacerbating social inequities and violence seems never-ending. Much before the pandemic times, one side of society had been forcing unprivileged and disempowered communities to struggle for alternative ways to go on playing the game of life. To this end, innovative, participative and ethical education which places the self as responsible for the radical other, frequently an enemy, (LEVINAS, 2007) might enhance learning, unlearning and relearning. I conclude that such a perspective might expand the exercise of critical literacy (FREIRE, 2005), a condition to minimize the impacts of the crises in contemporary society. This research is part of my ongoing project entitled Linguistic-Cultural Education, Language Teaching, Technologies and productive Social Justice in Dilemmatic Times and it is linked to the National Project of Teacher Education1 through the theories of Critical Literacies, Multilteracies, New Literacies, coordinated by Walkyria Monte Mór and Lynn Mario Trindade Menezes de Souza. Following a bibliographic interpretive research methodology, this work comprises two moments. In the first one, it presents a brief outline of the already one with and for the other in contemporary scenario of online/offline learning, intertwined with the current educational Brazilian situation, going beyond (post)pandemic times, as life-long learning (ALHEIT, 2018). The second moment seeks to theorize on the contributions of Freire (2005), Levinas (1991, 1994, 2000, 2007, 2008, 2014) and Braidotti (2006, 2018, 2019) with more details on the second, bearing in mind the Levinasian ethics is apparently less approached in the applied field of linguistics and also due to the scope of this article.

Dialogical Memory and Immemorial Poetics: The Ethical Imperatives of Holocaust Literature

Drawing from Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophical ethics and Paul Celan’s dialogical poetics, this article interrogates the impossible memorial and ethical demands that literary responses to the Holocaust place upon their readers. While Levinas reveals our position as summoned to radical responsibility, Celan shows us how that responsibility plays out in the form of ethical reading. By attending to the imperative commands found in Celan’s longest poem, “Engführung”, this article demonstrates how Holocaust literature memorializes the Shoah through an invocation of Levinasian ethics and the concept of the immemorial—that which exceeds memory. Following the discussion of Levinas, Celan, and “Engführung”, I turn to Primo Levi’s “Shema”, a paradigmatic text that likewise directly challenges us, calling us into question as readers during the moment of reading and demanding an attentiveness to the text that proves beyond our ability to deliver. Throughout, I aim to show how dialogical memory enables us to better comprehend the ethical burden we encounter in the literary texts of the Holocaust.

Ethics After Poststructuralism: A Critical Reader ed. by Lee Chancey Olsen, Brendan Johnston, and Ann Keniston (review)

Reviewed by: Ethics After Poststructuralism: A Critical Reader ed. by Lee Chancey Olsen, Brendan Johnston, and Ann Keniston Lucien Darjeun Meadows Lee Chancey Olsen, Brendan Johnston, and Ann Keniston, editors. Ethics After Poststructuralism: A Critical Reader. McFarland & Company, 2020, 283p. How do we—ethically—relate to the Other? Does the category of “the Other” still hold valence in contemporary critical conversations? Who, for that matter, counts as “we”? How can scholars advance an ethics that resists grand narratives, an ethics that offers planet-wide relevance, and an ethics that opens considerations of human, animal, and ecological sentience? In Ethics After Poststructuralism, editors Lee Olsen, Brendan Johnston, and Ann Keniston offer a robust critical reader centered around Emmanuel Levinas’s ethical philosophies as a pathway toward exploring these important questions. These editors balance their text in a complex space. They offer an inclusive anthology of “ethics after poststructuralism” —a wide field, potentially including philosophers across the world from the 1960s onward—yet they use one significant philosopher, Levinas, as the fulcrum, with inclusions serving to interrogate and advance, to “counter and extend” what they term Levinasian ethics (8). The editors admit that “Levinas never aligned himself with the poststructuralist movement as such” (15), and this categorization is due to subsequent scholars (e.g. Jacques Derrida and Simon Critchley). However, their decision to focus on Levinasian ethics opens a dynamic space for applying his ethics, particularly his assertion that the source of all ethical praxis is in one’s relationship with the “vulnerable Other” (3), across a wide range of disciplines and fields, including: relational theory, psychology, politics, postcolonialism, decoloniality, posthumanism, animal studies, ecology, and more. [End Page 128] Ethics After Postcolonialism organizes sixteen chapters into four sections: “Hospitality and Responsibility for the Other,” “States of Exception,” “Decoloniality and Ethics,” and “Posthuman Ethics.” The selection mindfully includes woman-identified philosophers (almost 40% of the total contributors) and philosophers from nations beyond the United States (e.g. Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, and Turkey). Scholars and students are likely to recognize several names—Rosi Braidotti, Judith Butler, Derrida, Michel Foucault, Walter D. Mignolo, and, of course, Levinas—but many will welcome the opportunity to engage with lesser known or emerging philosophers, like Mary Bunch and Madina V. Tlostanova. In a growing textbook and research market, instructors and researchers alike will enjoy inclusions largely from 2000 onward, and scholars looking for deeper investigations will appreciate that many are condensed versions that originally appeared as articles or book chapters. “Suggested Further Reading” directs readers to a range of anthologies, books, and themed journal issues. Most are for explicitly Levinasian scholarship, which reaffirms the anthology’s slant, but even so, the editors include Levinasian and broader materials on biopolitics, ethics, politics, postcolonialism, psychoanalysis, and trauma studies. Witnessing the strong focus on Levinas, this reader was grateful to see how the invited scholars resonate with Levinas and challenge and complicate his ethical philosophy. For these reasons, the chapters in the “Decoloniality and Ethics” section were particularly engaging, since they bring African, Central American, European, and South American perspectives to Levinas’s Eurocentric scholarship. For example, in their collaborative article, Madina V. Tlostanova and Walter Mignolo push against Levinas’s potentially reductive formulation of Same and Other. They extend this conversation from the colonialist formulations and decolonialist implications of labeling humans as Same or Other, to the ecological implications and ethical questions of seeing the Same as humanitas, or fully-human, and the Other as anthropos, or less-than-human (157). In another chapter, Nelson Maldonado-Torres questions Levinas’s infamous 1961 essay describing, “The yellow peril! […] it is spiritual,” his 1986 statement that “humanity consists of the Bible and the Greeks,” and other manifestations of what Maldonado-Torres terms Levinas’s “hegemonic identity politics” (173), interrogating Levinas’s problematic assertions by going beyond [End Page 129] the still-dualistic formations of Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek to advance the philosophies of Frantz Fanon and to offer a means toward more sophisticated conceptualizations of alterity and decolonialist humanities. Further, many contributors reference the theories of other contributors to the volume, such as Mari Ruti’s challenge to Judith Butler’s “flight from a priori norms” in her...

Encounters in the Dark: Identity Formation in the Jacob Story by Noel Forlini Burt

Reviewed by: Encounters in the Dark: Identity Formation in the Jacob Story by Noel Forlini Burt Brian Peterson noel forlini burt, Encounters in the Dark: Identity Formation in the Jacob Story (SBLSS 96; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020). Pp. viii + 186. Paper $33. Noel Forlini Burt’s central purpose in this work is to examine the meaning of the Jacob narrative, specifically Jacob’s encounter with God at the Jabbok, for the biblical author’s proposed postexilic audience. In the introduction, B. sets forth her methodology and gives a summary of each chapter. Using a self-described “eclectic” (p. 2) methodology, B. draws on collective memory studies, while employing an “array of lenses, including deconstruction, psychoanalytic theory, feminist analysis, Levinasian ethics, narratology, and socionarratology” (p. 3). B. divides her study into six chapters: The Name, The Face, The Wound, The Dark, The Crossing, and Facing the Dark. In chap. 1, B. covers the implications Jacob’s name had for the immediate narrative in Genesis 32, and for Jacob’s life. She also examines the role that the names Israel and Jacob had for the nation. B. ends the chapter with a detailed treatment of the implications and ambiguity associated with “The Name’s” (i.e., God’s) refusal to disclose the divine name to Jacob at the Jabbok. This examination gives way to chap. 2, where B. studies the deep theological and narratival meaning that the motif of the “face” has in the Jacob narrative and the larger ancestral narratives. She examines the significance of the author’s use of the word “face” specifically zeroing in on Jacob’s nocturnal face-to-face encounter with the “man” at the Jabbok/Peniel and Jacob’s face-to-face reunion with Esau the following day. Focusing in chap. 3 on the literal “wound” inflicted on Jacob by the “Wound” (i.e., Elohim/Ish—B.’s terminology), B. examines the implications of this wounding event for the life of Jacob (and Israel) and how his earlier experiences of wounding led him to this integral moment in his life. Building on this, the motif of darkness found in the Jacob cycle and the Jabbok event serves as the backdrop for chap. 4. B. examines the numerous ways in which literal and metaphorical darkness informs the reader about the greater purposes of the author. From the “darkness” of Rebekah’s womb and Isaac’s eyes when Jacob deceived him, to the “darkness” of the Bethel encounter and the Jabbok wrestling event, the motif offers B. another point of contact for making application of the text. In chap. 5, B. undertakes a diachronic analysis of the Jacob narrative especially as it relates to the postexilic community. Drawing on collective memory theory, B. offers an overview of the pertinent literature related to one’s understanding of the connections [End Page 484] between Israel/Jacob and Edom/Esau and the possible Sitz im Leben that may have fostered the development of the Jacob-Esau accounts as well as the connections between Israel/Jacob and Aram/Laban. This chapter leads naturally to B.’s concluding chapter, where she summarizes her findings by focusing on the theological and ethical implications as well as the “political strategies” for her proposed audience. In her concluding comments, B. notes, “[T]he images [of] . . . name, face, and dark—each attest to the complexity of the postexilic community’s relationship to God and the dark time space of the exile” (p. 164). She follows this with the comment, “The chapters ‘The Wound’ and ‘The Crossing’ articulate the proposition of specific political strategies for the postexilic community” (p. 165). True to her proposed methodology, B. is to be commended for her grasp and utilization of a broad range of literature on this topic. She even engages with the archaeological data related to Edom and Israel’s development (pp. 143–47). That said, B. makes a few questionable comments that some may find problematic. For example, her assertion that Abraham placed Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder when he sent them away (p. 46) seems to be reading too much into the grammar. And on p. 77 she states that Rebekah comforted Isaac after his father’s death, but...

Бесстыдство и новая искренность: Достоевский, Дэвид Фостер Уоллес и Америка Трампа

The ascendency of Donald Trump to President of the United States was marked by the concretisation of the “post-truth” era, an era in which brazen falsehoods not only withstood counterclaims to veracity but seemed to derive their legitimacy from their opposition to readily accepted truths. Epitomised by Kellyanne Conway’s infamous promulgation of “alternative facts,” the defining characteristic of post-truth politics seemed to be that the content of an utterance mattered less than the shamelessness with which it was uttered. It evidenced a divorce between traditional concepts of sincerity and the truth on which such sincerity was traditionally premised, allowing for the post-truth manipulation of shamelessness to make the most forceful claim over the sincere. This trend, I will argue in this essay, has its roots in the abundance of cynicism that beset American postmodernism, which along with post-truth shamelessness also gave rise to the cultural need for a new understanding of sincerity. I intend to trace how Fyodor Dostoevsky’s work influenced one of the foremost proponents of such new sincerity, the novelist David Foster Wallace. Giving particular focus to Dostoevsky’s emphasis on shame in his post-Siberian works, especially in the portrayal of Fyodor Karamazov, I will argue that such emphasis has its correspondence in Emmanuel Levinas’s theorisation of the ethical. I will conclude by suggesting that Levinasian ethics, which represent a departure from the totalising tendency of Enlightenment philosophy, might thereby serve as the basis for a new type of sincerity, one that maintains a sense of the ethical in the face of post-truth shamelessness.

Traducir el rostro del otro: encuentros culturales entre Judith Butler y Emmanuel Levinas

Judith Butler draws on Emmanuel Levinas’ ethics in order to question processes of humanization and dehumanization taking place through various practices of representation of the face of the other. This is a singular reading leading Levinas’ work to the field of media representations conceived as an agonistic social landscape where the demand of the face is offered or, on the contrary, hidden from us. In that sense, Butler’s cultural transposition of Levinasian ethics entails a politicization of ethics which is indistinguishable, at the end, from an ethic assault to the politics of representation. In this cultural bond among ethics and politics arise fundamental questions on responsibility linking it to the practice of cultural translation while offering alternatives to some common universalist shortcuts of contemporary ethical reflection.Keywords: Cultural translation, ethical responsibility, ethics of alterity.

Nurses’ experiences of ethical responsibility: A hermeneutic phenomenological design

There is a lack of studies on ethical responsibility in nursing. Nurses experience ethical responsibility in all settings where patients are exposed and vulnerable. The authors’ interest in public health and intensive care nursing provided a motivation to study these settings. The study aimed to explore how intensive care and public health nurses experience ethical responsibility. A qualitative design was chosen and 10 individual interviews were carried out. The data were analysed using hermeneutic phenomenological analysis. The study is reported in accordance with COREQ. Levinasian ethics provided the theoretical framework. The analysis resulted in four themes: Feeling alone, Feeling worried and uncertain, A sense of satisfaction, A personal commitment. Even though the settings differed, experiences of aspects of ethical responsibility were the same. Further in-depth studies in different settings can enhance an understanding of moral responsibility and facilitate the development of a theory of ethical responsibility in nursing practice.

An Argument for Levinasian Ethics and the Arts With Considerations for Pedagogy

At a time when an ethics based on responsibility for the Other offers a counter to the individualism of neoliberal ideology, I argue that it is crucial to recuperate the possibility of creating the conditions for ethical moments of facing through all means possible, including art. I deliberate the possibilities for art in sustaining Levinas’s conception of an ethical intersubjective interaction, including: the call to listen to the Other, the implications of being called into question, the overflow of self, and the humility of response. To begin, I contemplate art as an Other that is able to face and break apart the bonne conscience. Second, I posit that the overflow that results from an interaction with the Other, as the bonne conscience is surpassed, can serve as a source of inspiration for artistic creation. Third, in the face of the ethical call, though one is first required to listen, one also has an obligation to respond; I contend that art can operate here, too, as a means of reply. I conclude the work with a discussion of the implications for pedagogy, including art as a means of broadening sociality.

Editor’s Introduction

Editor’s Introduction