The Northern Theory Group in conjunction with the Journal for Cultural Research and the Politics\, Philosophy and Religion Department of Lancaster University is organizing a one-day research seminar on the 9th June 2014\, at Lancaster University\, beginning at 1000am and finishing at 5.00pm. \; The keynote speaker for the day is Professor William Rasch\, Professor of Germanic Studies at Indiana University (author of \;Sovereignty and its Discontents: On the Primacy of Conflict and the Structure of the Political). \;A summary of William Rasch&rsquo\;s contribution is appended to this message.
\nThe event is particularly aimed at academics and research and graduate students interested in the legacy of Carl Schmitt. \; Expanded versions of the prepared contributions to the day will be eligible for consideration (through blind peer review) for a special edition of the Journal under the guest editorship of William Rasch (Indiana)\, Arthur Bradley and Laurence Hemming (both Lancaster).
\nIf you wish to attend please email Laurence Hemming (l.p.hemming@lancaster.ac.uk) or Arthur Bradley (a.h.bradley@lancaster.ac.uk)\, as soon as possible. \; There is no charge for the event but we do ask that you register in advance.
\n\;Call for Papers \; \;We are inviting short contributions of up to fifteen minutes (maximum) from participants &ndash\; initial proposals of not more than 500 words should be emailed to \;Laurence Hemming (l.p.hemming@lancaster.ac.uk) or Arthur Bradley (a.h.bradley@lancaster.ac.uk) \;by 10th May 2014 &ndash\; because of the short notice we will get back to you within a day or two about acceptance. \;
\nEven if you are not aiming to make a formal presentation\, we would welcome your attendance.
\n
A summary of William Rasch&rsquo\;s contribution is below\, providing the context for the event. \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
"Political Theology\, as Carl Schmitt originally formulated it\, is meant to serve as an analytical tool. \; The core definition of this &ldquo\;sociology of concepts&rdquo\; is not the one usually cited &ndash\; &ldquo\;All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts&rdquo\; &ndash\; but rather this: &ldquo\;Das metaphysische Bild\, das sich ein bestimmtes Zeitalter von der Welt macht\, hat die selbe Struktur wie das\, was ihr als Form ihrer politischen Organisation ohne weiteres einleuchtet.&rdquo\; (The metaphysical image of the world that a particular epoch makes for itself\, has the same structure as that which immediately appears to it as the form of its political organization.) \; We can elaborate: Within a well-defined epoch &ndash\; the Middle Ages\, the Renaissance\, modernity\, to use conventional markers &ndash\; the intellectual class of a society constructs a metaphysical understanding of the world it inhabits. \; Upon reflection\, we see that political organization conforms to the expectations produced by the metaphysics of the day. \; Put in a &ldquo\;post-metaphysical&rdquo\; way: For the articulation of political form to be understood\, it must be enunciated within the prevalent discursive field of the times. \; In other words\, the cosmic and social orders are homologous because each speaks the same language. \; What is sociological for Schmitt\, then\, is not a (&ldquo\;dialectically&rdquo\; mediated) causal link between material base and ideological superstructure\, but rather the systematic conceptual coherence of the superstructure itself\; or\, as Schmitt puts it\, the discovery and comparison of &ldquo\;two spiritual [geistig] but at the same time substantial identities&rdquo\; that commune with one another in the same structural language. \; Thus\, whereas in a theistic age\, political sovereignty and the state of exception have their correlates in the belief in an omnipotent God and that God&rsquo\;s ability to suspend the laws of nature to produce miracles\, under the sign of enlightenment deism or modern secular atheism\, the thoroughly rationalized &ldquo\;machine runs by itself.&rdquo\; "The question we ask is the following: Is Schmitt&rsquo\;s &ldquo\;sociology of concepts\,&rdquo\; his &ldquo\;political theology\,&rdquo\; worth exploring as a possible tool for investigating the nature and genealogy of the modernity we think we inhabit? \; If so\, does Schmitt&rsquo\;s tool need to be sharpened or blunted for it to work better? \; \; We ask as example: Is it possible to articulate the foundations of our most cherished political beliefs without recourse to past or present theological concepts? \; For instance\, is\, as some believe (e.g. Nicholas Wolterstorff\, Steven D. Smith)\, the concept of human rights incoherent or nonsensical without reference to biblical theism? \;If so\, where would such a foundational story lead us? \; Or on the contrary\, as Richard Rorty taught us\, are such genealogical searches for foundations themselves evidence of the proverbial nonsense on stilts\; and what would be the consequences of such willful repression of inquiry?"
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR