HiSoPo vous informe du lancement d’un appel à contribution pour la revue Revista Ideias sur les dialogues et controverses au sein de la Théorie critique.
Call for Papers and Reviews
Revista Ideias (vol. 7, n. 2, Dec. 2016)
DIALOGUES IN CRITICAL THEORY
The Editorial Board would like to inform our readers that the Call for Papers and Reviews for the next issue of Revista Ideias (special issue: DIALOGUES IN CRITICAL THEORY) is open.
(For detailed information on the journal and the call for papers, go to: http://www.ifch.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/ideias/pages/view/english).
- Original papers are the result of empirical or conceptual research. Submitted papers must include an abstract (max. 640 characters) and three to six keywords. The paper (including abstract, keywords, references, footnotes, etc.) should be no shorter than 30,000 and no longer than 40,000 characters (including spaces);
- Book reviews are critical presentations of works published in the last three years (max. 15,000 characters, including spaces).
- Papers must be submitted without any information that may lead to the identification of the author(s). The author’s name, as well as their academic titles, institutional affiliation, and any additional information should be sent in a different file;
- Submitted files should be in the format *.doc or *.docx;
- The font should be Times New Roman, size 12, spacing of 1,5 between lines;
- Papers must be submitted exclusively to the email: email@example.com (submissions via postal address or the website will not be considered);
- Submitting a paper implies the authorization and exclusivity of its publication, as well as agreement that the publication of accepted papers is subjected to the decision of the Editorial Board of the journal.
- Submission deadline: 15th August 2016
SPECIAL ISSUE: DIALOGUES IN CRITICAL THEORY
The aim of the special issue DIALOGUES IN CRITICAL THEORY lies in exploring, with conceptual rigor, some of the debates that have had an impact on the consolidation and development of the Critical Theory of society or on the intellectual trajectory of one or more author in this tradition. The idea is to show that the making of social theory and philosophy is not a solitary activity, but involve, in most cases, a dynamic process of critical interaction not only with other thinkers, but with other theoretical traditions as well.
This is certainly true of all branches of the philosophical practice. Although not holding exclusivity in this respect, Critical Theory can be said to have always offered a highly/exceptionally fertile ground for the flourishing of theoretical debate: since the publishing in 1937 of Max Horkheimer’s seminal essay, Critical Theory has sought to establish itself as opposed to what was called “traditional theory,” which gave rise to numerous controversies with authors affiliated to different philosophical traditions. The relationship between “traditional” and Critical Theory, however, has not only taken the shape of an opposition, but involves likewise the (critical) appropriation of the most productive aspects of theoretical strands that do not fall under a stricter definition of the critical field. In addition to that, it should also be pointed out that the critical framework itself consists of a deeply diverse theoretical corpus. In this regard, it is not rare that among critical theorists disagreements and differences assume the form of more or less heated debates. For these reasons, it can be said that conceptual exchanges and controversies are not only part of the developmental dynamics of Critical Theory: they lie at its very basis.
The thematic scope of the special issue DIALOGUES IN CRITICAL THEORY is therefore fairly wide, provided one does not lose sight of the dialogical aspect of the selected topic. The very definition of “dialogue” or “debate” should not be very restrictive: possible objects of analysis are theoretical exchanges involving one or more thinkers linked to the critical field, which may have been recorded in books, letters, lectures and conferences, joint volumes, media interventions, intellectual biographies, memoirs, interviews, etc. The theoretical dialogues addressed in the submitted paper may have assumed the form of a dialogue in the literal sense of the term, but they can also have unfolded indirectly, in a veiled, involuntary, or even unilateral and imaginary form – one might think here of the famous metaphor by Albert Salomon according to which Max Weber wrote a great part of his work debating with Marx’s ghost.
Priority will be given to articles that do not merely present or reconstruct an already relatively well known debate, but provide substantial contributions to understanding conceptual aspects of an author’s theoretical corpus or of a thematic area privileged by Critical Theory.
Some possible approaches to the issue are:
1) the relationship between Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer,
2) the exchanges between Walter Benjamin and Bertolt Brecht, Siegfried Kracauer, Gershom Scholem or Adorno, chronicled for example in the correspondence between the authors;
3) the debate between Horkheimer and representatives of the Vienna Circle (such as Otto Neurath) or the controversy between Adorno and Karl Popper;
4) the disagreements between Georg Lukacs and Ernst Bloch, between Franz Neumann and Friedrich Pollock, between Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm or Jürgen Habermas;
5) Habermas’ discussions with Richard Rorty, Hans-Georg Gadamer or John Rawls, or controversy between Axel Honneth and Peter Sloterdijk;
6) debates on feminism and other issues between Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Iris Young and Nancy Fraser;
7) “intergenerational” critiques, such as Habermas’ objections to the first generation of critical theory, Honneth’s objections to Habermas, as well as those of the most recent generation (which include Rahel Jaeggi, Nancy Fraser and Robin Celikates, among others) to both Honneth and Habermas.
15th June 2016
Citer ce billet
Thibaut Rioufreyt (2016, 21 juillet). Call for Papers: “Dialogues in Critical Theory”, Revista Ideias, Submission deadline: 15th August 2016. HiSoPo. Consulté le 25 février 2024, à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/pjvw