Paradox Of Freedom Research Articles

DEMOCRACIA E A GESTÃO ESCOLAR

96 800x600 Normal 0 false false false PT-BR JA X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:Table Normal; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times New Roman;} The study of democracy and its historical construction analysis correlated to school management. Its main focus is the democratic procedure on educational institutions. The democracy theme relevance to education occurs through the right it represents, resulting on discussions about democratic management. The discussions about the democratic school management, generally, occurs fluidly and superficially, thus, we consider the necessity to make a succinct historical review to elucidate the contemporary concept. In order to achieve its goal, it was used theoretical references, such as: Chaui(2011), Dourado (2002), Oliveira (2009), Silva (2003) and among others, to build theoretical base. The search was delineated in a qualitative aspect, through an exploratory bibliographical research. Democracy is deeply connected to citizenship conquest and to the meaning of public spaces, concepts, which, permeate the materialization of a founding constitutional right - Education. Its management requires the promotion of public spaces, which, enables the real participation and the people instrumentalization. To build a democratic procedure on school management, on social bases, we need to discuss its paradox of Freedom versus Equality relating with alienation and power concepts - political purport on school management.

Envisioning the digital sustainability panopticon: a thought experiment of how big data may help advancing sustainability in the digital age

The starting point for a theoretical vision of digital big data and sustainability builds on the situation of a currently unsustainable world threatening present and future generations regarding all three dimensions of sustainability. Given the paradigmatic changes the era of Big Data brings about, this paper proposes a thought experiment based on Bentham’s panopticon theory, where real-time data availability offers technical opportunities to promote and transform sustainability in a preceded way. Hence, different panopticon theories are discussed and merged with the concept of sustainability to arrive at the concept of the Digital Sustainability Panopticon defined by six criteria. This vision is framed by the ten “quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science” (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014) and critically discussed regarding the totalitarian potential of digital surveillance and the paradox of freedom.

The United States safe space campus controversy and the paradox of freedom of speech

The article examines a remarkable paradox between the overwhelming public view supporting free speech as a principle, as attested by specific polls about the issue, and the fact that most people require establishing boundaries on certain types of speech. Particularly, while American society seems to openly accept free speech and even hate speech, the new generation of America requires ‘safe spaces’ without offensive speech. This paradox seems to be a blow to the liberal position regarding freedom of speech, specifically to the principle of tolerance. John Milton’s call for liberal tolerance based on Voltaire’s enlightened conception is explored in contrast to the classical understanding.

Tragic Modernities by Miriam Leonard

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 227 land, but the entire problem is not explained (653). Not every inscription is translated, although those left untranslated are fairly simple (18, 45–46, 49, 53, 179, 185, 445, 456, 522–523, 615, 619). In general, the standard of accessibility is high. The production values are high as well, but I must mention that the first two copies of this book that came into my hands (the review copy and my library’s) had misordered and missing pages (the book jumped from 282 to 411–442 and then back to 315, thus omitting pages 283–314 entirely). The press replaced both, but do check to make sure any volume you buy is complete. The authors of this volume, along with its editors, should be commended. Not only do they fulfill their major stated aim, that of explaining why inscriptions are important, but they have also produced chapters that are useful, accessible, up-to-date—and, in their own way, exciting. The University of Virginia Elizabeth A. Meyer Tragic Modernities. By Miriam Leonard. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. 2015. Pp. xiii, 204. This important book challenges the assumption in the title of Steiner’s The Death of Tragedy that modernity offers no fertile ground for tragic drama.1 It argues rather that “to be a modern subject . . . is to be a tragic subject” (3). After a discussion of the definition of the tragic as a philosophical stance in German thinkers of the early nineteenth century, the book considers how the legacy of these thinkers (Schelling, Hegel, and Hölderlin) resurfaces in the philosophies of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Benjamin, Heidegger, Schmitt, Arendt, Lacan, Butler, and others. Leonard covers a lot of ground, sometimes somewhat cursorily, but her unifying thread is the reception of Greek tragedy as a structuring concept in modern philosophical thought. This thread follows a thematic rather than a strictly historical path; each of the five chapters addresses a particular configuration of the tragic in modernity, responding to a set of anxieties particular to the modern age. Leonard builds constructively on Williams’s Modern Tragedy, written in response to Steiner, which asserts that “modernity itself was tragic” and thus is fertile ground for the appreciation of a tragic vision in art and thought.2 Leonard is advocating for a return to a philosophical reading of Greek tragedy in the face of a prominent scholarly trend (led by Vernant and others) that approaches it with a historicizing and politicizing agenda opposed to universalizing interpretations. The first chapter, “Tragedy and Revolution,” opens with Arendt’s identification of revolution as a unique feature of modernity. The French and American revolutions and others subsequent to them are characterized by theatricality. This quality, along with the promise of a new narrative for history, introduced an aesthetic framework into the ethical philosophies of Germans like Kant, who watched the violence from a distance. The revolutionary goal of freedom itself (Robespierre’s “despotism of liberty”) introduces a structure common to Greek tragedy in which freedom and constraint are in mutually constitutive tension for the citizens in the polis. For Hegel and Marx, tragedy provides the form for a philosophy of history, even as Marx rejects the poetry of the past as a 1 G. Steiner, The Death of Tragedy (London 1961). 2 R. Williams, Modern Tragedy (London 1966). 228 PHOENIX bourgeois distraction from authentic action on the historical stage. Leonard treats the structure of tragedy as common to both the abstract aesthetic art form and at the same time to human lived experience (personal and political) in modernity in general, but particularly as it is marked by the crises of revolution. As such, tragedy is a crucial medium for ethical analysis. The second chapter, “Tragedy and Metaphysics,” on the post-Kantian philosophical reception of the tragic in the post-revolutionary period, argues that a modern “conception of the tragic gave new voice to the metaphysical paradox of freedom and necessity” (42), a paradox foregrounded by the recent revolutionary movements in the political realm, but one that was also a preoccupation for the Greek tragedians. Leonard surveys aestheticizing philosophical texts from the essay “The Earliest System-Programme of German Idealism,” through...

A paradox of freedom in ‘becoming oneself through learning’: Foucault's response to his educators

In his later lectures, published as The Hermeneutics of the Subject, Michel Foucault surveys different modalities of obtaining ‘truth’ about one's self and the world: from Socrates to the Cynics, Stoics, Epicureans and early church writers. Genealogically tracing this opposition between knowing self and world, he occasionally invites phenomenological enquiry into how this epistemic couplet bears on education. Drawing on three vignettes familiar to educators, my investigation explores modes of discovering self and world through counselling (truth-telling), distributed governance in the classroom and the arts of writing. In each case we confront a paradox of freedom, in that agency is needed, already, to liberate the self from the world. An exegetical task is to show how Foucault worked through this philosophical problem, of relevance to many situations in education, by re-reading Kant, Nietzsche and Heidegger.

Gagging orders: asylum seekers and paradoxes of freedom and protest in liberal society

The detention of non-status migrants is now commonplace in developed countries. Detention has been justified on such grounds as security, the welfare of non-status migrant populations, and as a way to speed up processing asylum claims. Drawing from the artist Krzysztof Wodiczko's sustained interest in themes of migration and belonging, this article examines the relationships between technologies of government in detention and accommodation facilities, and the possibilities and constraints of protest that these settings and practices give rise to. The analysis highlights paradoxes of freedom as well as opportunities for protest that imbue these spaces. Using Foucault's discussion of technologies of government, we draw on empirical research to highlight how orientation booklets, classes, and legal self-representation manuals are technologies that compel asylum seekers to become ideal detainees in hopes of being understood as ‘liberal subjects’ worthy of inclusion in a small number of evermore tightly policed Western European states. We conclude with the suggestion that asylum seekers' paradoxical encounters with technologies of liberal government deliver a challenge to the accepted framework of citizenship within liberal societies.

The Paradox of Freedom: An Interview with Orlando Patterson

In a long interview, Scott and Orlando Patterson discuss the sociologist and novelist's childhood, education, public service, and books.

The Paradox of Freedom: John Dewey on Human Nature, Culture, and Education

In this paper, I argue that John Dewey's view of human nature entails that culture is a necessary but not sufficient condition for freedom. A surprising corollary of this argument is that, if left to run its natural course, culture in fact tends not to enable but rather to preclude freedom. Hence, there are specific cultural practices—habits acquired through education—that are required if we are to realize our freedom and thereby also fulfill our nature as human beings.

Editor’s Note

Editor’s Note David Granger Greetings and welcome to the latest edition of Education & Culture. You will find in this issue a healthy portion of instantly recognizable Deweyan themes, but in many instances with a new, sometimes surprising twist. Below I will highlight a few elements of these creative variations on the familiar. Some of you might recall that our lead article, Jim Garrison’s “Making Meaning Together Beyond Theory and Practice,” had its first life as the 2012 Dewey Lecture. In this piece, Garrison examines the popular Deweyan theme of the relationship between theory and practice. Yet unlike many authors, who look to Dewey in arguing for the necessity somehow to bridge theory and practice, Garrison points out that Dewey in fact prompts us to see theory and practice (like many other seemingly ubiquitous dichotomies) as “subfunctions within the larger function of making meaning, knowledge, and value in our lives.” Thus the emphasis here is really on creation rather than construction, especially as the latter term is currently used in education to denote the process of artificially making engaging and useful something that is otherwise uninteresting and not useful. Our next piece is Gary Bullert’s “The Committee for Cultural Freedom and the Roots of McCarthyism.” In this offering, Bullert situates the Committee for Cultural Freedom (CCF), of which Dewey was a founding member, within its historical-geographical milieu so as to revisit and scrutinize popular allegations that Dewey and his cohorts (namely, Sidney Hook) contributed to the red-scare hysteria and repressive anti-communism of the 1940s and 1950s, in part through efforts to expel communist party members from the teaching profession. After examining the issue in its many and complicated facets, Bullert concludes, among other things, that the CCF in fact “offered a responsible alternative to the excesses” of McCarthyism. Traversing some allied ground, Cherilyn Keall, in “The Paradox of Freedom: John Dewey on Human Nature, Culture, and Education,” explores the meaning of Dewey’s provocative (and to many confusing) claim that human nature both does and does not change. Here we are provided with an opportunity to revisit another popular dichotomy and see what it looks like through a Deweyan lens. In doing so, Keall argues, we find that Dewey understands human nature to have two interrelated facets, one that changes, due to our embeddedness in diverse, ever-evolving cultures, and one that does not, resulting from the innate needs that we all share through our similar constitution as human beings. As a result, human freedom, an issue fundamental to the work of all manner of educators, must be conceived with an eye to the inexpugnable stability and precariousness of human nature. This is followed by Victor Rodriguez’s intriguing look at what he calls “Radical Dewey: Deweyan Pedagogy in Mexico, 1915–1923.” Rodriguez chooses this particular time period because it predates the appropriation of Dewey’s ideas by Mexico’s revolutionary government, prior to which his writings were popular among [End Page 1] socialists, radical pedagogues and progressive-minded teachers. Yet little scholarship to date has looked closely at or taken seriously this earlier, and at times very creative, application of Dewey’s work, focusing instead on the better known subsequent state project experiment with Deweyan schools in the mid-1920s. Rodriguez attempts to amend the record on this important topic. The pressing issue of healthcare is then taken up in Danielle Lakes’ very topical piece “Engaging Deweyan Ethics in Healthcare: Leonard Fleck’s Rational Democratic Deliberation.” Here, Lake makes the case that a form of ”open dialogue between citizens,” developed and utilized by author Leonard Fleck, a close reader of Dewey and former member of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Task Force on Health Reform (1993), deserves serious attention as a vehicle for making possible meaningful healthcare reform. As Lake explains, “It is my hope that Fleck’s rational democratic deliberation could begin to build a foundation for further cooperation, for greater education about the various and complicated bioethical situations we must confront and, finally, for establishing working solutions that are amenable to adjustment.” “Reconstructing Deweyan Growth: The Significance of James Baldwin’s Moral Psychology” is Jeff Frank’s thoughtful attempt to make Dewey’s...

Livery, Liberty, and Legal Fictions

AbstractIn this essay, I argue that the etymology and function of livery in the early modern period suggests not only servitude, of which livery was a visual marker, but also forms of geographical, economic, and legal freedom. “Livery” itself was a fraught term, denoting clothing that identified one as a servant attached to a particular household or patron, while conceptually suggesting the “freedom” from which the word derived. Through readings of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Dekker's The Shoemaker's Holiday, and Cooke's Greene's Tu Quoque, among several other texts, this essay reveals the paradoxes of freedom and constraint apparent in both the linguistic histories and the material markers of livery and explores the legal fictions they animate and sustain. Outlining five different kinds of livery in the period, this essay furthermore argues that early modern drama signals an understanding of livery both as an aspect of early capitalism, indebted to newer forms of credit and commerce, and as nos...

ROUSSEAU AND THE FABLE: RETHINKING THE FABULOUS NATURE OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY

In this essay Tyson Lewis reevaluates Jean‐Jacques Rousseau's assessment of the pedagogical value of fables in Emile's education using Giorgio Agamben's theory of poetic production and Thomas Keenan's theory of the inherent ambiguity of the fable. From this perspective, the “unreadable” nature of the fable that Rousseau exposed is not simply the result of a child's innocence or developmental immaturity, but is rather a structural quality of the fable as such. Moving from a discussion of Rousseau's description of the fable and its relation to early childhood development, Lewis then telescopes outward into an analysis of Emile as a reenactment of the paradoxes of the fable. While Rousseau critiqued the pedagogical value of the fable, his own pedagogical project is informed by many of the qualities that he attributed to the fable. This return of the fable is enacted through Rousseau's writing on three interconnected levels: the question of the maxim, the paradox of truth, and the paradox of freedom. Lewis argues that if we take seriously the textually fabulous dimension of Emile, then the reader is left exposed to the very same anxieties as a child who is confronted with the ambiguity of the fable. In a concluding gesture, Lewis speculates about what Emile's fabulous dimension means for the practice of educational philosophy itself.

Culture and Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution (review)

Culture and Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution. By Michal Jan Rozbicki. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011). Pp. 304. Cloth, $35.00.)Reviewed by Sarah KnottLiberty is a social relation and, as such, signifies an asymmetry of social conditions. This is the well-known insight of sociologist and cultural critic Zygmunt Bauman. Armed with an organic and hierarchical view of society, early moderns also knew this. Inequality did not just precede ideas about freedom; it was the very basis of eighteenth-century notions of liberty. The coexistence of inequality and freedom, and the insight that liberty is inherently a privilege that comes at the expense of others, challenges fond beliefs in universal human rights.In Culture and Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution, Michal Jan Rozbicki seeks to apply the understandings of Bauman, and of eighteenth-century commentators, to the American Revolution. Historiography has been hampered, he suggests, by importing purist notions of liberty into a premodern past. Elite-centered and hagiographie accounts of the Revolution, such as those of Gordon Wood, just like the people-centered and prosecutorial (231) accounts of Gary Nash and Howard Zinn, presume that modern liberty was foundational. AU have followed too naively the universalist intonations of all men are created equal and unalienable of the Declaration of Independence. Interpreters of both celebrated and forgotten Founders, Rozbicki argues, have indulged in a pious and fundamentally ahistorical accounting of the national founding, falsely celebrating the Founders' courageous prescience, or wrongly chastising leaders for the rank betrayal of women, slaves and ordinary people. Interpretations that point more gently to inconsistencies or to the paradox of freedom and slavery, he suggests, are just as wrong-headed.The ambitious task Rozbicki sets is marked by a welcome openness to theory and a determined historicization. He seeks nothing less than to shuck off modern-minded delusions and to retell the history of liberty and the American Revolution from scratch. The grounding for such a history is culture: [sjetting our sights on culture - the space where shared meanings were formed, identities were negotiated, beliefs were expressed, values were reproduced, and symbolic representations of reality and order were fashioned - would bring Revolutionary liberty down to earth, where it actually resided (234). On that ground, the evolution of American liberty depended primarily on the pursuit of advantage over others and on social aspiration.The resulting account begins with British legacies. The British political classes' belief in an unequal society and in the social order underlay their understandings of liberty; they apprehended freedom as distributed in rank-specific shares. Indeed, it was entirely possible for an Enlightenment thinker such as Frances Hutcheson to advocate the enslavement of the idle poor. Such ideas transferred to the colonial gentry, among whom a hierarchical vision of society and liberty was entirely engrained. Set on independence, the American ruling elite cleverly made an imperial conflict about taxes into a struggle for universal rights, their overblown rhetoric signaling absolute confidence in their right to rule and in the political impotence of nonelites. Meanwhile, the claim to be the natural guardians of a free people's liberty enabled a grounding of political authority even more powerful than that of heredity. But from the 1 780s, other groups adopted similar tactics, taking up universal claims in order to forward particular rights and enfranchisements, and forcing a backlash among their privilege-loving rulers. Unexpected party factionalism only sped up this dynamic, with elite Federalists and Antifederalists alike appealing to ordinary people and unintentionally raising political consciousness. Ultimately, even if they won independence and succeeded in political revolution, the American elite's universalist notions of liberty proved something of an own goal. …

POPPER'S PARADOX OF DEMOCRACY

In a footnote to Chapter 7 of ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ Karl Popper describes what he calls the ‘Paradox of Democracy’: the possibility that a majority decides for a tyrant to rule. This is the lesser known paradox of the three to which he pays attention, the other two being the ‘paradox of freedom’ – total freedom leads to suppression of the weak by the strong – and the ‘paradox of tolerance’ – unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance.

Guest Editor’s Introduction

India today is more than ever important to understand. Its population stands at well over a billion people, second only to China. It is the most successful continuous experiment in parliamentary democracy of all the nations that won their independence from colonial rule in the middle of the twentieth century. India has every reason to be proud of its continuous record of democratic governance, but India still has monumental problems, reflected in its dismal literacy rates, its severe levels of urban and rural poverty, and its poor infrastructure. The essays in this special issue of Social Research cast light on the paradox of freedom without equity, though they were not commissioned with this question in mind. Each essay points to the ways India builds on its deep cultural resources to construct its multiple modernities. Yet modernity brings its own troubles-to bodies, minds, and institutions. We might say, paraphrasing Tolstoy, that in a world of multiple modernities, every modern society is unhappy in its own way. India's achievements are not easy to disentangle from its unhappinesses. These essays show us why this is so. They ought to be required reading for all those who stand ready to offer solutions to India's problems today.

Freud, the reluctant philosopher

Preface xi Acknowledgments xix Introduction: Psychoanalysis as Philosophy 1 Chapter One: The Challenge (and Stigma) of Philosophy 24 Chapter Two: Distinguishing Reasons and Causes 54 Chapter Three: Storms over Konigsberg 85 Chapter Four: The Paradox of Freedom 116 Chapter Five: The Odd Triangle: Kant, Nietzsche, and Freud 146 Chapter Six: Who Is the Subject? 174 Chapter Seven: The Ethical Turn 196 Notes 227 References 277 Index 305

Some Paradoxes of Freedom and Political Solidarity

This essay is about social solidarity; how to construct an “identificatory we.” It is also about the dangers for political action and institution of just such an effort. I began thinking about this essay in terms of Levinas’s rhetorical demonstration, in the first person, of our intersubjective ties, which ground our putative capacity for empathy. Many have argued that this is an aspect of our lived flesh. Levinas’s message is shared by Merleau-Ponty and other phenomenologists. Indeed, it is close to certain African ideals, notably ma’at, justice, or again, the image of ‘yurugu’, the unfinished human being. In fact,

Book Review: The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethic

Book Review: The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethic

Artisan Workers in the Upper South: Petersburg, Virginia, 1820-1865

Perhaps because slavery looms so large in antebellum southern historiography, free southern workers, as L. Diane Barnes notes, have received less attention than their northern counterparts. Barnes's study of artisans in Petersburg, Virginia, joins a small but growing group of studies seeking to remedy that deficiency. In successive chapters, the author traces the economic history of Petersburg; the activities of the Petersburg Benevolent Mechanic Association (organized by master craftsmen in the 1820s); the experiences of white wage earners caught between employers—slave-owning masters—and slaves; the paradox of freedom for free black artisans; the work lives of slave factory workers; and finally the “culture of southern antebellum artisans.” Petersburg artisans greeted the effects of the market revolution with an ambivalence similar to their northern counterparts, and they similarly couched their public statements in the language of republicanism. However, Barnes argues that because they lived and worked in a slave society, Petersburg artisans responded to capitalism and to republicanism differently from northern workers. They expressed more systematic antagonism to competition from black labor than to exploitation by bosses, and they conceived of republicanism less as an egalitarian ideology than as a racialized caste discourse harmonizing the interests of wage earners and slave owners.

Review of Clive Hamilton, The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-secular Ethics

Review of Clive Hamilton, The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-secular Ethics

'Service is Perfect Freedom': Paradox and Prosodic Style in Paradise Lost

Traditional foot-substitution prosody is demonstrably unable to do justice to the rhythm of the less straightforward lines in Milton's Paradise Lost, and this essay argues for an approach based on the prosodic theories of Derek Attridge. Through comparison with excerpts from early narrative blank verse by Surrey, Gascoigne and Marlowe, and a broader comparison with the verse of Shakespeare's later plays, it is shown that the prosody of Paradise Lost is a deliberate fresh start, characterised by a paradoxical combination of austerity and liberty. For example, in Milton, unlike Shakespeare, the integrity of the individual line is heightened, while Milton's strict metrical norms are disrupted in a mere handful of lines, and other aberrations are few. In the later Shakespeare, one line in five is prosodically aberrant, in Paradise Lost one line in 265 (and in the course of the discussion, every single aberrant line in the poem is examined). Nevertheless, the appeal to freedom in Milton's note on the verse is justified, by the unusual flexibility of movement the poet finds within the prosodic norms, by the expressive aptness of this rhythmic variety, by his readiness to push the rhythms to, and occasionally beyond, the limits, and by the unprecedented freedom of his enjambment. The treatment of the fall in Paradise Lost grows out of great, traditional paradoxes where bondage and liberation interact: the felix culpa, the reconciliation of free will with divine foreknowledge, and finding freedom in service of the divine. In the very detail of its rhythms, the epic brings alive the central paradox of freedom through service.