James Liner

Bio: James Liner is an academic researcher. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 265 citations.

What Is a Question

Abstract: A given question can be defined in terms of the set of statements or assertions that answer it Application of the logic of inference to this set of assertions allows one to derive the logic of inquiry among questions There are interesting symmetries between the logics of inference and inquiry; where probability describes the degree to which a premise implies an assertion, there exists an analogous quantity that describes the bearing or relevance that a question has on an outstanding issue These have been extended to suggest that the logic of inquiry results in functional relationships analogous to, although more general than, those found in information theory Employing lattice theory, I examine in greater detail the structure of the space of assertions and questions demonstrating that the symmetries between the logical relations in each of the spaces derive directly from the lattice structure Furthermore, I show that while symmetries between the spaces exist, the two lattices are not isomorphic The lattice of assertions is described by a Boolean lattice 2(sup N) whereas the lattice of real questions is shown to be a sublattice of the free distributive lattice FD(N) = 2(sup 2(sup N)) Thus there does not exist a one-to-one mapping of assertions to questions, there is no reflection symmetry between the two spaces, and questions in general do not possess unique complements Last, with these lattice structures in mind, I discuss the relationship between probability, relevance and entropy

Between Decision and Deliberation: Political Paradox in Democratic Theory

Abstract: Deliberative democratic theorists (in this essay, Seyla Benhabib and Jurgen Habermas) seek to resolve, manage, or transcend paradoxes of democratic legitimation or constitutional democracy. Other democratic theorists, such as Chantal Mouffe, embrace such paradoxes and affirm their irreducibility. Deliberativists call that position “decisionism.” This essay examines the promise and limits of these various efforts by way of a third paradox: Rousseau's paradox of politics, whose many workings are traced through Book II, Chapter 7 of the Social Contract. This last paradox cannot be resolved, transcended, managed, or even affirmed as an irreducible binary conflict. The paradox of politics names not a clash between two logics or norms but a vicious circle of chicken-and-egg (which comes first—good people or good law?). It has the happy effect of reorienting democratic theory: toward the material conditions of political practice, the unavoidable will of the people who are also always a multitude, and the not only regulative but also productive powers of law.

Migration management for the benefit of whom? Interrogating the work of the International Organization for Migration

Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between the nation-state and migration through the activities of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The IOM operates at the intersection of nation-states, international human rights regimes, and neo-liberal governance. We find that the IOM enforces the exclusions of asylum seekers and maintains the central role of nation-states in ordering global flows of migration. In addition, we argue that the IOM acts on behalf of nation-states by using the language of international human rights, as though working in the interests of migrants and refugees. In providing a geographic appraisal of the IOM alongside its image and presentation with an analysis of its activities on voluntary returns, we address the new spaces of ‘networked’ governance that control and order migratory flows in the interests of nation-states.

The Inclusion of the Other?: Habermas and the Paradox of Tolerance

Abstract: In his most recent work, Jurgen Habermas has proposed a deliberative account of tolerance where the norms of tolerance—including the threshold of tolerance and the norms regulating the relationship between the tolerating and the tolerated parties—are the outcomes of deliberations among the citizens affected by the norms. He thinks that in this way, the threshold of tolerance can be rationalized and the relationship between tolerating and tolerated will rest on the symmetrical relations of public deliberations. In this essay, and inspired by Jacques Derrida's work on the concept of hospitality, I propose a deconstructive reading of Habermas's writings on tolerance. I argue that Habermas is ultimately unable to provide a rational foundation for tolerance and that his conception of tolerance encounters the same problems he is trying to avoid, namely, the contingency of the threshold of tolerance and a paternalistic relation between tolerating and tolerated. Yet, contra Habermas, the deconstruction of toleran...

Democratic Business Ethics: Volkswagen’s Emissions Scandal and the Disruption of Corporate Sovereignty

Abstract: There is an established body of politically informed scholarly work that offers a sustained critique of how corporate business ethics is a form of organizing that acts as a subterfuge to facilitate the expansion of corporate sovereignty. This paper contributes to that work by using its critique as the basis for theorizing an alternative form of ethics for corporations. Using the case of the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal as an illustrative example, the paper theorizes an ethics that locates corporations in the democratic sphere so as to defy their professed ability to organize ethics in a self-sufficient and autonomous manner. The Volkswagen scandal shows how established organizational practices of corporate business ethics are no barrier to, and can even serve to enable, the rampant pursuit of business self-interest through well-orchestrated and large-scale conspiracies involving lying, cheating, fraud and lawlessness. The case also shows how society, represented by individuals and institutions, is ab...