BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260926T104850Z
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20191101T070000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20191101T130000
SUMMARY:Authority\, Depoliticization\, Dehumanization
UID:20260927T091621Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:ac83:5bff:fea0:108%3
TZID:Europe/London
LOCATION:Penrhyn Road campus\, kingston-upon-thames\, United Kingdom\, KT1 2EE
DESCRIPTION:<p>Authority\, Depoliticization\, Dehumanization<br>Workshop<br>Friday 1 November 2019<br>Free\, no registration required<br>Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy<br>Kingston University London<br><br>&ldquo\;But a Present with neither a Future nor a Past is nothing but a<br>&lsquo\;natural&rsquo\; Present\, non-human\, non-historical\, non-political. The<br>domination of the Bourgeoisie is therefore simply the progressive<br>disappearance of political reality as such &ndash\; that is to say\, of the<br>Power or the Authority of the State: life is dominated by its animal<br>aspect\, by concerns related to food and sexuality.&rdquo\;<br><br>&mdash\; Alexandre Koj&egrave\;ve\, The Notion of Authority<br><br><br>A distinctive trait of twentieth-century theories of authority is<br>their preoccupation with the eclipse of the political. This<br>preoccupation is something novel and prompts an array of questions.<br>Under which conditions\, for example\, is a bureaucratic or technocratic<br>state still political? What is required of power if it is to remain<br>political\, that is &lsquo\;human&rsquo\; &ndash\; that is to say\, something other than<br>intelligence agencies and the administration of needs? And if the<br>state itself ceases to be political\, where and how might the dimension<br>of the political remain open?<br><br>The twin spectre of dehumanization and depoliticization haunts and<br>unites most twentieth-century conceptualizations of authority. Under<br>names like &lsquo\;the human&rsquo\;\, &lsquo\;action&rsquo\;\, and &lsquo\;the political&rsquo\;\, thinkers like<br>Alexandre Koj&egrave\;ve\, Hannah Arendt\, and Carl Schmitt tried to come to<br>grips with the conjuncture of technological progress\, economism and<br>biopower that seemed to threaten the realities they were suddenly<br>compelled to theorize. Alexandre Koj&egrave\;ve is not alone in equating the<br>eclipse of the political with the eclipse of the human as such. What<br>he articulates in the opposition of the animal and the human\, Hannah<br>Arendt frames as a shifting centre of gravity within the human<br>condition itself\, from thought and action to &lsquo\;labour&rsquo\;\, the metabolism<br>of life\, from bios to zoe.<br><br>Everything functions as if the word &lsquo\;authority&rsquo\;\, by way of the<br>indefinite surplus it has always contained\, could become the container<br>for the no less fragile surplus of the human over the animal and of<br>the political over the administrative. &lsquo\;More than advice\, less than a<br>command&rsquo\;\, wrote Theodor Mommsen in the 19th century &ndash\; and his &lsquo\;less<br>than&rsquo\; was exactly such a supplement. It is not by accident that\, in<br>English\, this term\, authority\, has translated not only Autorit&auml\;t but<br>also W&uuml\;rde (dignity) and in certain contexts\, Herrschaft. A<br>placeholder is intrinsically substitutable. But if authority&rsquo\;s<br>indeterminacy makes it apt to crystallize the anxieties of the 20th<br>century\, its close relation to terms like &lsquo\;dignity&rsquo\; bring it to the<br>heart of the question of the human.<br><br>The attempt to think through the eclipse of the political in terms of<br>the opposition of the human and the animal might\, today\, seem like a<br>confusion or dead end\, whose only important insights have been<br>superseded by the theory of biopower. Moreover\, the narrative of<br>decline and crisis that united these thinkers may now seem nostalgic\,<br>heroic\, and politically ambiguous. Was this problem simply a<br>manufactured panic with reactionary ends? Or does its fading urgency<br>mean that the processes of depoliticization and dehumanization have<br>simply advanced so far that we can no longer even understand that<br>something has been lost? Is it still meaningful to speak about the<br>political or the human today? If Koj&egrave\;ve\, Arendt and Schmitt&rsquo\;s question<br>is no longer our own\, the question concerning this question is no less<br>urgent. What are the conditions for asking it?<br><br><br>Speakers:</p>\n<p>- Natacha Isra&euml\;l (L'Autre Pr&eacute\;pa\, Paris) - 'Is the mechanics of bio-power inhuman or all-too human?'</p>\n<p>- Connal Parsley (Law\, University of Kent) - 'The Authority of the Artist'</p>\n\n<p>- John Wolfe Ackerman (New College of the Humanities) - &lsquo\;Authority\, politically speaking&rsquo\;</p>\n\n&nbsp\;\n<p><br>Each talk will be followed by a ten-minute response from a graduate<br>student or early career researcher\, who will have advance access to<br>the paper. Researchers and students interested in acting as<br>respondents to one speaker should get in touch with the organisers\,<br>Luke Collison\, Kyle Moore\, and Austin Gross\, at<br>CRMEPAuthority@gmail.com<br><br>Workshop: Authority\, Depoliticization\, Dehumanization<br>https://www.kingston.ac.uk/events/item/3445/01-nov-2019-authority-depoliticization-dehumanization/<br><br></p>
ORGANIZER;CN=Luke Collison:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
