itself being redefined, decolonial perspectives can contribute to an
understanding of the relevance of the good intentions of humanitarians to the aspirations of
their intended ‘beneficiaries’. They can provide an antidote to the
‘colonial amnesia’ of liberal humanitarians and, therefore, provide a basis for the
criticalinterrogation of, and contribution to, humanitarian endeavours in the service of life
and dignity and not merely of survival. They can challenge not only the ideological character of
a given order but also the power relations
The interest in aesthetics in philosophy, literary and cultural studies is growing rapidly. This book contains exemplary essays by key practitioners in these fields which demonstrate the importance of this area of enquiry. New aestheticism remains a troubled term and in current parlance it already comes loaded with the baggage of the 'philistine controversy' which first emerged in an exchange that originally that took place in the New Left Review during the mid-1990s. A serious aesthetic education is necessary for resisting the advance of 'philistinism'. Contemporary aesthetic production may be decentred and belonging to the past, but that is not a reason to underestimate what great works do that nothing else can. Despite well-established feminist work in literary criticism, film theory and art history, feminist aesthetics 'is a relatively young discipline, dating from the early 1990s'. The book focuses on the critical interrogation of the historical status of mimesis in the context of a gendered and racial politics of modernity. Throughout the history of literary and art criticism the focus has fallen on the creation or reception of works and texts. The book also identifies a fragmentary Romantic residue in contemporary aesthetics. The Alexandrian aesthetic underlies the experience of the 'allegorical'. 'Cultural poetics' makes clear the expansion of 'poetics' into a domain that is no longer strictly associated with 'poetry'. The book also presents an account of a Kantian aesthetic criticism, discussing Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Aesthetic Judgement and Critique of Judgement.
the Second International in the latter years of the nineteenth century.
Marx’s early thinking was much exercised by Prussia’s social and political
backwardness, and in particular the persistence of neo-feudal relations of
personal lordship and dependence (Herrschaft).6 But his thought develops
as a criticalinterrogation of the notion that the market liberates individuals
from feudal ties, arguing that the formal independence of the labourer as
free seller of his own labour-power is subverted by the background conditions that leave him little choice
Sujatha Raman, Pru Hobson-West, Mimi E. Lam and Kate Millar
1992, and see Introduction), we will criticallyinterrogate this assumption and illustrate how minority groups are capable of engaging with
science in ways that allow alternative visions of the public interest to
become temporarily visible and potentially compelling.
The ‘Science Matters’ speech provides an opening for our argument,
which we develop in the context of two different cases of minority
engagement with science. We first consider the case of activists
campaigning against the use of animals in scientific research, who
; criticallyinterrogate discourses about Bosnians being treated ‘like Africans’ or ‘a Third World country’; or position exclusivist ethnonationalisms in the Yugoslav region, Republika Srpska's genocidal strategy of homogenisation and apartheid's bureaucratic racism within one connected account of race, identity, territory, violence and diplomacy in the twentieth century. 2
Of all the modes for approaching race and the Yugoslav region, the mode of connection is the most challenging and the most necessary.
Connecting race and the Yugoslav
mimesis of an already-given reality.
So how then does this relate to the notion of flows and fluidity? In the
end, it is a question of criticallyinterrogating the ways in which data are
represented, given any visualisation in this respect is necessarily contingent
(and thus arbitrary). We must not accept that any form of digital cartography is essential, natural or straightforwardly empirical (in the sense of a
direct correspondence between representation and reality). What I wish to
argue here is that the very concept of the mapping of flows, while potentially
assume the form of a careful
redefinition of all the crucial modern aesthetic categories – such as autonomy, form,
mimesis, sensibility, negativity and utopia – by taking into account discontinuous histories of aesthetics, social antagonisms and diverse artistic practices.10 In particular,
we will have to begin with the criticalinterrogation of the historical status of mimesis
in the context of a gendered and racial politics of modernity – the problem on which
I want to focus in this essay.
Needless to say, my approach to feminist aesthetics is influenced by Adorno
(which it isn’t), making itself
unproblematical (or at least less problematical), and assuming an
extra-historical identity that is beyond criticalinterrogation.
Moreover, by invoking the notion of ‘security’, modern
discourse has tried to discipline and stabilise ‘a region of
historical contingency and chance that refuses to submit to the
sovereign truth of reason and that calls forth the means of the
Care and debility in collaborations between non-disabled and learning disabled theatre makers
resulting performance is often perceived as belonging primarily to Bel’s repertoire rather than Theater HORA’s. Gerald Siegmund ( 2017 ) proposes that Bel’s collected work constitutes an ongoing criticalinterrogation of dance itself, a discursive project in which Bel sets the parameters for a theatrical examination of the dancing body as culturally produced. Everything that happens within these parameters therefore participates in ‘the discourse “Jérôme Bel”’ (Siegmund, 2017 : 12).
Siegmund accordingly suggests that Disabled Theater attends to several recurring
, precisely because Irish Studies had opened up to the criticalinterrogation for which Field Day’s founders had originally appealed in
the 1980s. Two further volumes were commissioned, and their diversity
of critical perspectives on Irish women writers represented not only
a necessary revision but also a continuation of the project. The new
volumes stressed a plurality of traditions and sounded out different voices
obscured by dominant discourses of nation and identity in modern
Irish history, and also maintained the presiding spirit of the previous
books by letting the