Journal•ISSN: 0038-2876
South Atlantic Quarterly
Duke University Press
About: South Atlantic Quarterly is an academic journal published by Duke University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Politics & Power (physics). It has an ISSN identifier of 0038-2876. Over the lifetime, 1130 publications have been published receiving 18107 citations. The journal is also known as: SAQ.
Topics: Politics, Power (physics), Sovereignty, Capitalism, Debt
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, Dussel argued that modernity is not a strictly European but a planetary phenomenon, to which the excluded barbarians have contributed, although their contribution has not been acknowledged.
Abstract: In December I had the good fortune to be one of the commentators in the workshop ‘‘Historical Capitalism, Coloniality of Power, and Transmodernity,’’ featuring presentations by Immanuel Wallerstein, Anibal Quijano, and Enrique Dussel. Speakers were asked to offer updates and to elaborate on the concepts attributed to them. Reflecting on ‘‘transmodernity,’’ Dussel made a remark that I take as a central point of my argument. According to Dussel, postmodern criticism of modernity is important and necessary, but it is not enough. The argument was developed by Dussel in his recent short but important dialogue with Gianni Vattimo’s work, which he characterized as a ‘‘eurocentric critique of modernity.’’1 What else can there be, beyond a Eurocentric critique of modernity and Eurocentrism? Dussel has responded to this question with the concept of transmodernity, by which he means that modernity is not a strictly European but a planetary phenomenon, to which the ‘‘excluded barbarians’’ have contributed, although their contribution has not been acknowledged. Dussel’s argument resembles, then, the South Asian Subaltern Studies project, although it has
685 citations
TL;DR: In the last decade of the 20th century, the rights of man or human rights had been rejuvenated in the 1970s and 1980s by dissident movements in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: As we know, the question raised by my title took on a new
cogency during the last ten years of the 20th century. The
Rights of Man or Human Rights had just been rejuvenated
in the 1970s and 1980s by the dissident movements in the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe — a rejuvenation that was
all the more signifi cant as the ‘formalism’ of those rights had
been one of the fi rst targets of the young Marx, so that the
collapse of the Soviet Empire could appear as their revenge.
After this collapse, they would appear as the charter of the
irresistible movement leading to a peaceful posthistorical
world where global democracy would match the global market
of liberal economy.
663 citations
TL;DR: On September 11, 2001, terrorists crashing jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon struck a blow against cosmopolitanism, perhaps more successfully than against their obvious symbolic targets, the unequal structures of global capitalism and political power as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: On September , terrorists crashing jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon struck a blow against cosmopolitanism—perhaps more successfully than against their obvious symbolic targets, the unequal structures of global capitalism and political power. They precipitated a renewal of state-centered politics and a ‘‘war on terrorism’’ seeking military rather than law enforcement solutions to crime. Moved by
588 citations
Journal Article•
428 citations
TL;DR: In his 2001 Tanner Lecture series entitled "Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry" as mentioned in this paper, Michael Ignatieff parries almost every known progressive political and philosophical quarrel with international human rights work: human rights are vague and unenforceable; their content is infi nitely malleable; they are more symbolic than substantive; they cannot be grounded in any ontological truth or philosophical principle; in their primordial individualism, they confl ict with cultural integrity; and they are a form of liberal imperialism.
Abstract: In his 2001 Tanner Lecture series entitled ‘Human Rights as
Politics and Idolatry’, Michael Ignatieff parries almost every
known progressive political and philosophical quarrel with
international human rights work: human rights are vague
and unenforceable; their content is infi nitely malleable; they
are more symbolic than substantive; they cannot be grounded
in any ontological truth or philosophical principle; in their
primordial individualism, they confl ict with cultural integrity
and are a form of liberal imperialism; they are a guise in
which superpower global domination drapes itself; they are a
guise in which the globalization of capital drapes itself; they
entail secular idolatry of the human and are thus as much
a religious creed as any other1 Ignatieff is thoughtful and
non-dismissive with each of these challenges, at times persuasively refuting them, at times accommodating and adjusting the aspiration or reach of human rights in terms of
them Working through them also allows him to develop and
rest his own case for human rights: human rights activism
is valuable not because it is founded on some transcendent
truth, advances some ultimate principle, is a comprehensive
politics, or is clean of the danger of political manipulation or
compromise, but rather, simply because it is effective in limiting political violence and reducing misery If, in the last fi fty
years, human rights have become the international moral
currency by which some human suffering can be stemmed,
then they are a good thing ‘All that can be said about humanrights is that they are necessary to protect individuals from
violence and abuse, and if it is asked why, the only possible
answer is historical’ (Ignatieff 2001: 149)
338 citations