PESA does not sell or take commission from any of the events listed on this website.
CFP: CFP. Diversity Politics, Teaching and the Rise of the Alt
Deadline: Mar 31, 2019
Social commentators, both Right and Left, have drawn attention to the ways identity politics has seemingly by-passed class-based social visions of the future, especially in America where Trump has captured white working-class voters, who are full of anxieties about ‘the browning of America’ and believe that they are in danger of becoming the victims of discrimination themselves. Jennifer Delton (2017), for instance, argues ‘the problem with the rising left is that it thinks working-class people in a highly diverse society will be able to put aside other allegiances such as race and gender to challenge a neoliberal economy that has, arguably, been pretty friendly to identity politics.’ Amy Chua (2018) describes ‘How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division’ explaining ‘When groups feel threatened, they retreat into tribalism’ and arguing ‘In America today, every group feels this way to some extent. Whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, straight people and gay people, liberals and conservatives – all feel their groups are being attacked, bullied, persecuted, discriminated against.’ She suggests that identity politics occurs on both sides of the political spectrum – nobody supports ‘an America without identity politics, for an American identity that transcends and unites all the country’s many subgroups.’ In America, Chua and others argue we have passed the era of liberalism and civil rights, and now national unity and equal opportunity are no longer the values that transcend group difference. Mark Lilla (2016) writing of ‘The End of Identity Liberalism’ argues that the Left’s exaltation of diversity is ‘a splendid principle of moral pedagogy, but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age.’ He suggests ‘In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.’ He goes on to say that the Left, if they want to return to political power, need to put a feel-good ‘Identitarianism’ behind them. Yet as Gregory Leffel (2017) points out, Lilla seems to have forgotten ‘that Trump won the election because of identity politics’ (my italics). America was founded on slavery and white supremacy, liberal identitarianism finally emerged in the 1960s after years of struggle, as a fully blown corrective and alternative legal system based on civil rights. Lilla was accused of ‘underwriting the whitening of American nationalism’ to make white supremacy respectable again (Franke, 2016). Whichever way you spin it ‘identity liberalism’ is an issue and white identity politics was in part responsible for Trump’s election victory. It is certainly no longer ‘business as usual’ as its ramifications for liberal internationalism with the beginning of trade wars are still working themselves out. Francis Fukuyama’s (1989) ‘The End of History’ that saw history in Hegelian terms as a clash of ideology, to proudly announce ‘Liberal democracy has won’ now seems utterly absurd. As John Ikenberry (2018) puts it the liberal international world order that dominated for seventy years is in crisis. Trump has proved himself recalcitrant on ‘Trade, alliances, international law, multilateralism, environment, torture and human rights’ (p. 7) and liberal democracy itself is in retreat as new authoritarianism, at once populist, nationalist and xenophobic, rapidly spreads around the world signalling ‘big man’ politics in countries as diverse as Hungary, Poland, Philippines and Turkey. For teachers and academics who spent the last forty years fighting neoliberalism and teaching the values of social democracy and human rights, this dramatic turnabout is disorienting, confusing and disheartening. What are the critical issues involved in this debacle? What and how should we teach against or about the alt-right? And what of liberal identity politics in the classroom?
Chua, Amy (2018) How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division
Delton, Jennifer (2017) The left’s grand delusion, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/07/28/the-lefts-diversity-problem/
Franke, Katherine (2016) Making White Supremacy Respectable. Again. BLARB,
Fukuyama, Francis (1989) The End of History, The National Interest, copy available, http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm, http://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/essays/making-white-supremacy-respectable/, https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/gregory-leffel/left-s-problem-isn-t-politics-it-s-metaphysics
Ikenberry, John. G. (2018) The end of the liberal International order? International Affairs 94: 1 (2018): 7–23.
Leffel, Gregory (2017) The left’s problem isn’t politics—it’s metaphysics, Open Democracy
Lilla, Mark (2016) The End of Identity Liberalism, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html
To indicate an expression of interest please send a 300-word abstract with title, name, affiliation and email address by March 31, 2019 to:
The Editors, Educational Philosophy & Theory:
Editor-in-Chief, Michael A. Peters, email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Deputy Editor, Dr Marek Tesar, University of Auckland, email@example.com
Deputy Editor, Dr Liz Jackson, University of Hong Kong, firstname.lastname@example.org
Please send copy to Managing Editor, Susanne Brighouse, email@example.com
CFP: EPAT CFP. Critical Philosophy & Pedagogy of the Image
Deadline: Mar 31, 2019
We live in a world of ‘visual cultures’ in a mediated world of social relations which is programmable given its algorithmic character. Its numerical coding allows for the automation of many of its functions and visual creation is no longer tied to technologies of exact reproduction such as copying. The new image-making technologies are part of a wider technological paradigm and mode of development of ‘informational capitalism’ characterized by image generation, processing, and transmission that have become the fundamental sources of productivity, power and identity. This image-making is the raw material of knowledge capitalism is increasingly the basis of a socially networked universe in which the material conditions for the formation, circulation, and utilization of knowledge and learning are rapidly changing from an industrial to information and image-based economy. Increasingly the emphasis has fallen on learning and media systems and network flows that depend upon the acquisition of new skills of image manipulation, analysis and understanding as a central aspect of the personal, the image-community, as well as national media and global contexts.
These trends signal changes in the production and consumption of symbolic visual goods, associated changes in their contexts of use, and new modes of distribution. The radical concordance of image, text and sound, and development of new information and knowledge infrastructures have encouraged the emergence of a global media networks linked with telecommunications that signal the emergence of global consumer culture the platforms and parameters determined by information utility conglomerates constituting the new trillion-dollar capitalist economy. What new subjectivities are constituted through image-based media and what role does image generation and control play in these processes? What new possibilities do the new image-based media afford students for educational autonomy? What distinctive forms of immaterial labor and affect do social and image-based media create? And what is the transformational potential of new image-based and social media that link education to its radical historical mission?
This work draws on and extends a paper called “Ten theses on the shift from (static) text to (moving) image” (free access at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23265507.2018.1470768) and is related to the broader research agenda associated with the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy and the Association for Visual Pedagogies.
An historical epoch dominated by Greek ocular metaphors may...yield to one in which the philosophical vocabulary incorporating these metaphors seems quaint as the animistic vocabulary of pre-classical times. Richard Rorty (1980), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, p. 11
Heidegger was influential in providing an account of the metaphysics underlying Greek philosophy in terms of vision and visibility. Heidegger’s account of Western metaphysics is deeply embedded in a metaphysics of presence where Being means presence and “seeing” is a means of grasping what exists.
W.J.T. Mitchell (1994) was one of the first to register a growing theoretical interest in visual culture suggesting a complex transformation was occuring in the human sciences and the sphere of public culture leading to a shift to the ‘pictorial turn’ and the twin ideas that ‘visual experience or “visual literacy” may not be fully explicable on the model of textuality’ (and that the ‘widely shared notion that visual images have replaced words as the dominant mode of expression in out time (p. 16).
In The Future of the Image Jacques Rancière (2008) suggests that there are two prevailing views about image and reality: the first, exemplified by Baudrillard, maintains that nothing is real anymore, because all of reality has become virtual, a parade of simulacra and images without any true substance; the second believes that there are no more images, because an ‘image’ is a thing clearly distanced or separate from reality and as we have lost this distance we are no longer able to discern between images and reality; and thus, the image, as a category, no longer exists.
The epistemology of the eye (as opposed to the ear) is central to the philosophical debate revolving around the primacy of vision in Occidental culture and the domination of the gaze that has interested French theory since Bataille and received extensive theoretical treatment by Sartre, Lacan and Foucault among many others. ‘The look’, ‘the gaze’, ‘le regard’, in the hands of these theorists becomes alternately a theory of subjectivity, a map of the existence of others, a form of development of consciousness, and a scientific means of governance and control.
The question of the image and ways of seeing is unquestionably tied up with the art philosophy and criticism and in particular the experience of the avant-garde whose representatives – poets (Rimbaud, Verlaine, Mallarmé, Baudelaire) as well as leadings artists of the major art revolutionary movements – sought new kinds of art and new forms of artistic expression (i.e., new ways of seeing) that were opposed to the traditional (bourgeois) institution of art seen to be captured by industrial capitalism. Today the industrial (and digital) reproduction of images has permanently altered the visual arts; images have become our cultural environment and can be owned, manipulated and manufactured. They define us and our identities and the struggle over their control serves to construct certain narratives, dramas, tableaux, scenarios and views at the expense of others.
The spectacle grasped in its totality is both the result and the project of the existing mode of production. It is not a supplement to the real world, an additional decoration. It is the heart of the unrealism of the real society. Guy Debord (1988) The Society of the Spectacle.
Baudrillard argues that a simulacrum is not a copy of the real, but becomes truth in its own right: the hyperreal. Where Plato saw two steps of reproduction — faithful and right. Where Plato sees basically two aspects the genuine thing and its copy (simulacrum) Baudrillard sees four: (1) basic reflection of reality, (2) perversion of reality; (3) pretence of reality (where there is no model); and (4) simulacrum, which bears no relation to any reality whatsoever. He argues that ours is a postmodern society that has become so reliant on models and maps that we have lost all contact with the real world that preceded the map.
Deleuze (1995) provides an analysis of the cinematic image according to a threefold periodization: What is there to see behind the image? What is there to see on the surface of the image? And, what can we see at all when the background of any image is always another image? Corresponding to each question is a stage of cinema based upon the changing function of the image.
Th[e] conversion of spectating, generally conceived as a consumer activity, into a socially productive activity depends on the establishing of media as a worksite of global production. Today, mass media functions as a deterritorialized factory, where the maintenance and retooling of a transnational, transsubjective infrastructure composed of human beings, factories, cottage industries, service sectors, as well as programmed software and electronic hardware is essential to the valorization of capital. The cinematicity of objects is harnassed as an alternative force and used to intensify production. The cinema and its technological descendants extract the labor for the maintenance and calibration of the social totality. Without television, as well as fax-modems, telephones, computers and digitized, computerized money, production would grind to a halt. Each of these media burrows its way into the flesh of the globe. - Jonathan Beller, The Cinematic Mode of Production p. 112.
Please send a 300 word abstract as an expression of interest with name, title and email address to The Editors by March 31, 2019.
The Editors, Educational Philosophy & Theory:
Editor-in-Chief, Michael A. Peters, firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Associate Editor, Professor Tina Besley, Beijing Normal University, Tbesley48@gmail.com
Associate Editor, Professor E. Jayne White, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, firstname.lastname@example.org
Please send a copy to Managing Editor, Susanne Brighouse, email@example.com
CFP: Freedom of Speech, Education and the Crisis of Democ
Deadline: Dec 31, 2018
Freedom of Speech, Education and the Crisis of Democratic Institutions in the Post-Truth Era.
Note the extended due date for abstracts is 31 December 2018
Free speech, freedom of speech, has a lineage from Ancient Greece in terms of παρρησί-α transliterated as parrhesia, meaning outspokenness, frankness, freedom of speech which was claimed as a privilege by Athenian citizens, although its use also included in a bad sense ‘license of tongue’ and ‘freedom of action,’ ‘without fear’ and a kind of openness (Liddell, 1940). Michael Foucault (1999) in a course of lectures given in 1983 at the University of California at Berkeley is responsible for analysing ‘the first occurrences of the word “parrhesia” in Greek literature, as the word appears in … six tragedies of Euripides.’ Foucault wanted to problematize for us moderns the political and ethical implications of ‘free speech’. As Rick Benitez (2003: 334) suggests: ‘It was Foucault’s opinion that Euripides problematised parrhesia, and that this problematisation … made it possible for Western liberals in the late twentieth century to understand better both what he called “the crisis of democratic institutions” and “the care of the self.”’ Today, the Alt-Right claims freedom of speech in liberal societies as a means of trading in ‘hate speech’ and encouraging others to adopt false and malicious ideas that fit with their worldview and threatened identity politics to such an extent that their critics claim they have captured the language of freedom of expression to turn it back on liberal society to achieve their own political and racist goals. Not all speech is constitutionally protected. Obscene material such as child pornography, plagiarism of copyrighted material, defamation (including libel and slander) and true threats, for instance, are not protected under the US First Amendment. Lying (perjury) in court, hate speech, lying that causes people to panic, seditious speech that encourages terrorism, blasphemy, wearing religious clothing, and Holocaust denial, are examples of what is not normally permitted although criteria of freedom of political speech have liberalized considerably in most democratic nations in the last 50 years. The Internet has increased the possibilities for new global freedoms of expressions at the expense of the growth of the ‘dark net’. What are the conditions of free speech in an open society? What are the limits of freedom of expression in a democracy? To what extent should free speech be encouraged and allowed in schools and universities? Should education include the analysis of hate speech?
500 word abstracts with short bios are due on or before 31st December 2018.
Visit the website at https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rept20/current for more information.