CFP: Reminder: Culture and Dialogue, Special Issue: "The Aesthetics and Ethics of the Toxic"

Culture and Dialogue

Call for Contributions to Special Issue, “The Aesthetics and Ethics of the Toxic”

Guest Editor: Thorsten Botz-Bornstein, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait

The word ‘toxic’ gained traction around 2010 and soon became a buzzword. In 2018, the Oxford English Dictionary declared ‘toxic’ Word of the Year. ‘Toxic’ has become an unavoidable term firmly established in everyday speech, popular culture as well as in academic writings. There are a variety of reasons for this infatuation with the toxic. One could point out that our environment has quite literally become increasingly toxic: toxic air, toxic water, toxic fields, toxic food... Another major factor is the emergence of the internet , and this not merely because it has served as a medium to spread a term. Whether it be disgruntled employees or bored students, everyone has gained access to an increasing array of social media through which they can express opinions. Such activities can be positive but can also create a toxic atmosphere because problems are not brought forward directly and because the criticism is anonymous. The information culture that emerged in the 2000s through social media, mailing lists, and, later, chatrooms and chat software, often took on toxic forms as radical opinions could be amplified and verbal violence could “poison” our daily routine. Gaming communities are often rather infamous for having toxic cultures replete with trolling and insults.

“Toxic” environments have also arguably become more common under the pressure of social movements that attempt to better moderate behaviors, whether it be the #metoo movement or other similar movements that seek to rectify societal injustices (these are often associated with terms such as political correctness or wokeness). While such an awareness of ethical matters in society is certainly commendable, it is also a fact that social media’s echo-chambering has made people more intolerant towards disagreements. As a result, the perception of certain behaviors has evolved, and the breadth of acceptable behavior has shrunk, but not only in entirely healthy ways.

Basically, in its metaphorical understanding, “toxic” means “toxic atmosphere.” ‘Atmosphere’ is an extremely broad concept and, consequently, the meaning of the word ‘toxic’ is wide-ranging, too. Toxic elements are rarely explicit. Chemically speaking, toxins are dangerous because they cannot be neutralized by the body, which differentiates the toxic from biological agents such as viruses.

Can ‘toxic’ describe something that ‘evil’, ‘wicked’, ‘malicious’, ‘immoral’, ‘unscrupulous’, ‘unpleasant’, or ‘unfriendly’, cannot not grasp? The toxic is what stays in the air, it is static and cannot be neutralized or altered because it is not dynamic like a virus. The metaphorical toxic is sparked by elements in our environment (statements, objects, images, sounds) that we find incompatible with our own tastes, beliefs, convictions, or lifestyles, but that cannot be fought but only be escaped. We cannot simply develop “antibodies” to combat toxicity.

The special issue approaches toxicity from a philosophical angle by concentrating on the aesthetics and ethics of the toxic.

Aesthetics

The toxic is “aesthetic” because it is not clearly confined to certain objects but emerges between subject and object. Contrary to the poisonous, the toxic is always spatial. While the poison is a clearly defined, stable, distinct, and quasi- Cartesian quality that can be objectively assumed, with the toxic we move towards Kantian versions of subjectivism and from there to more muddled “postmodern” paradigms of perception that no longer care to distinguish between subject and object.

Ethics

Most writings on the unethical status of toxicity suggest that the remedy is a better ethics, applying age-old patterns of good and evil. However, does the phenomenon of the toxic not create new constellations? Can one conceive of an ethics that does not revolve around good and evil but instead around the toxic and the healthy? Victims of toxic environments participate in the toxic, are part of it, and often manifest a toxic behavior, too. The notion of the toxic relativizes the Manichean divisions between good and evil as well as the division between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The toxic does not assume an intentionality that presupposes the existence of the poisoner, or even of a poisoned subject or object. It does not have a punctual character but is instead a “field” without clearly fixed boundaries.

Authors can also approach topics such as toxic positivity, toxic conspiracies, toxic wokeness (cancel culture), toxic religiosity, or the internet and radicalization.

Please send abstracts to guest editor Thorsten Botz-Bornstein at [email protected] by November 1, 2024.

Online submission of the complete manuscript is due by March 1, 2025.

In the online submission system, Editorial Manager, please choose to submit directly to the Special Issue, "The Aesthetics and Ethics of the Toxic".

Word limit: 5-10,000 words (incl. notes and bibliography) Articles will be sent out to for double-anonymous peer review.