blackthumb


CFP: The Philosophy of J. J. Abrams
October 24, 2009, 6:42 pm
Filed under: Call for Papers, Cinema, Leads, Media, Philosophy, Publications

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Philosophy of J. J. Abrams
Edited by Patricia Brace and Robert Arp

University Press of Kentucky’s The Philosophy of Popular Culture
Series: http://www.kentuckypress.com/newsite/pages/series/series_philosophy.html

Abrams’ filmography from the Internet Movie Database can be found here:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0009190/

Please send these two things to Patricia Brace at: pat.brace@smsu.edu,  by January 1, 2010: (1) A short, no more than 100 word abstract of a  chapter you would like to write for the book. In the abstract, you could simply say something like, “In this paper I will argue X. First, I will do A…  Then, I will do B… Finally, I will do C…”(2) A short CV that has your
contact info (email, phone), affiliation, and a few publications, if you have any. Again, send these two things to Patricia Brace at: pat.brace@smsu.edu, by January 1, 2010

Here are possible topics, but any related topic will be considered:

LOGIC
• The Logic Daniel Faraday Utilizes to understand the Island
• Fallacious Reasoning Utilized by Abrams’ Characters
• Feminist Logic Utilized by Abrams’ Characters

METAPHYSICS
• Eastern Philosophical Themes in Abrams’ Work
• The Place of God in Abrams’ Work
• Lost, Inadvertent Actions, and Fate/Determinism
• Lost and Time Travel
• Alias, Personal Identity, and Identity over Time
• Benjamin on Lost and the Distinction between Psychopathology and a Healthy Personality
• Fringe and the Definition of Conscious States
• Felicity and Philosophies of Love and Friendship
• Catharsis in the Human Psyche and Abrams’ Characters
• Cloverfield, First-Person Perspectives, and the Nature of Consciousness
• Cloverfield and the Conditions and Criteria for Living Things

EPISTEMOLOGY
• Lost and the Nature of Deception
• The Belief Systems of Paranoid People
• There are Two Spocks: Perceiver and Perception in Abrams’ Works
• Conflicting Testimony and Justification for Claims in Abrams’ Works
• Sydney Bristow, Alias, Sense, and Reference
• Locke’s Empiricism and the Island as Tabula Rasa on Lost

ETHICS
• Sayid and the Ethics of Torture on Lost
• Felicity, Virtue Ethics, and Parental Role Models
• Sawyer, Juliet, Kate and Jack: Free Love, and the Ethics of Sex on Lost
• Fringe and “If Science Can Do It, Then Science Ought To Do It”
• Jacob and the Idea that Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
• Why Daniel Faraday had to Die: Utilitarian Reasons for Maintaining
the Fabric of Time
• Utilitarian vs. Deontological Approaches in Abrams’ Work

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
• Film as an Essential Medium for Public Discussion
• Sydney Bristow and the Public’s Obsession with Superheroes
• Massive Dynamics and the Nature of Law on Fringe
• The Nature of Justice in Abram’s Star Trek
• Different Types of Freedom Espoused by Abrams’ Characters



Mark Sacks Memorial Conference
April 1, 2009, 3:03 pm
Filed under: Events, News, Philosophy

On the 4th and 5th of June 2009 philosophers will gather to honour Mark Sacks, who died last year. Mark was the founding editor of the European Journal of Philosophy and a leading scholar of Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy.   I can’t say that I got to know him as well as I would have liked, but I always found him to be a very supportive and well-respected colleague.  His obituary from the Times is here.

The event is to be held at the Wilkins Haldane Room at University College London.  Speakers will inclue Lilian Alweis, Jay Bernstein, Peter Dews, Sebastian Gardner and Adrian Moore.

The website for the Mark Sacks Memorial Conference may be found at http://www.essex.ac.uk/philosophy/marksacksconference/.



CFP: UK Sartre Conference 2009
February 10, 2009, 3:02 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

This is a call for papers for the annual one-day conference of the UK Sartre Society (UKSS), which will be held at the Institut français (17 Queensberry Place, London: nearest tube: South Kensington) on Friday 18 September 2009.

We welcome papers (lasting about 30 minutes) on any aspect of Sartre’s life or work: literature, theatre, cinema, philosophy, psychoanalysis, biography and autobiography, journalism and the media, politics, etc, as well as on comparative themes: Sartre in relation to his influences, contemporaries or successors.

Please send proposals for papers (one side of A4 maximum) by 31 May 2009 to the conference organisers:

Dr Benedict O’Donohoe, President of UKSS,
Deputy Director, Sussex Language Institute, University of Sussex, BN1 9SH
Email: b.o-donohoe@sussex.ac.uk

Dr Angela Kershaw, Secretary of UKSS,
Senior Lecturer, Department of French Studies, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
Email: a.kershaw@bham.ac.uk



Religious Belief and Social Pathology in the USA
November 22, 2008, 10:58 am
Filed under: Critical Theory, Democracy, Editorial, News, Religion

According to research published in the Journal of Religion and Society this week, developed countries which are predomiantly secular seem to suffer fewer social ills like murder, suicide and teenage pregnancy.  The apparent bogeyman of the piece is the USA, which, while being the most religious Western society, has rates of murder, incarceration, abortion, syphilis, gonorrhoea and inequality equivalent to third world countries.  You can read a summary of the article at the Times.

The study is correlational, and whether religion actually causes social ills remains a moot point.  However, there is surely something to be said for the impact of religous tradition and taboo on education and public debate.  More importantly, perhaps, the kind of triumphanist faith that seems to be prevalent among certain communities in the US is clearly anathema to the critical, normative ideals of the Enlightenment.  What is intriguing, however, is that these same ideals informed the perspectives of the founding fathers.

So we have the following contradictory situation:  on the one hand, the strict separation of church and state is purportedly guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution; yet on the other, the pledge of the allegiance to the flag identifies the republic as “one Nation under God“.

The report generated a lot of (typically hamfisted) debate at Newsvine.  One contributor suggested that the problem with the US is not religion, but diversity of belief.  It does not seem as if the writer is aware of the worrying tone of their hypothesis.  Conformism does not sit well with the cosmopolitan and egalitarian ideals of America, but it does seem to be entailed by evangelical Christianity.  It need not be thought, however, that Christianity should be like this at all.  In the Bible, Christ preaches tolerance, while the Apostles often come out with stuff like this.

America’s social ills can’t all be neatly explained with reference to Pauline Christianity.  But it might go some way to explaining some of the ideological constraints on who can speak and what they may say.



CFP: How Not to do Philosophy
November 3, 2008, 9:33 pm
Filed under: Call for Papers, Events, Philosophy

What is the appropriate way to do philosophy?   Historically, the form of philosophy has varied; Plato preferred the dialogue, Nietzsche the aphorism, Kierkegaard the parable. In the 20th century many philosophers pronounced a proper way to do philosophy. The logical positivists wanted to do away with metaphysics and held science as the ideal model for philosophy. Wittgenstein relied heavily upon examples. Heidegger proposed the dissolution of the tradition in order to start enquiry afresh. Foucault’s relation to the label ‘philosophy’ was, of his own admission, ambiguous. Derrida questioned the exclusivity of philosophical language. Today philosophers such as Cavell and Mulhall do philosophy in film, while others hold that logical analysis is still indispensible to philosophy. Is there a correct way to do philosophy? Does philosophy have one language? How important is the relation of form and content for philosophy? Should the fusion of philosophy and other disciplines be resisted? These are questions that receive radically different answers from different traditions and different philosophers.

The 12th International Graduate Conference in Philosophy at the University of Essex, to be held 9 May 2009, invites abstracts on any issue relevant to questions on the language of philosophy, philosophical method and the forms philosophy can take. Possible topics include:

- Problem-solving by dialogue in Plato
- Philosophy through reflection and action
- Is there a proper medium for philosophy?
- The role of logic and rigour in philosophical analysis
- Must philosophy be primarily ethics?
- Should a philosophical ‘point’ be explicit?
- Kierkegaard’s reaction to Hegel’s system
- Philosophy as… (film, literature, music…)
- Heidegger and the circularity of philosophy
- Wittgenstein and beginning in the middle
- Derrida and the distinction between literature and philosophy
- Cavell and teaching philosophy

We aim to hold a wide-ranging philosophical exchange and hope for a broad display of positions and perspectives. We invite papers that explore the diverse ways in which philosophy manifests itself;
conversely, we encourage papers that have a clear view about what the proper philosophical medium is. In short, we hope for a day of productive discussion of a contentious issue for philosophy.

Keynote speakers:

Daniel P. Watts (University of Essex)
Marie McGinn (University of East Anglia)

Final papers should be suitable for a 20-minute presentation (2000-2500 words in length), which will be followed by a discussion. The Department of Philosophy will be able to offer invited speakers limited financial assistance towards the cost of travel. For enquiries, please e-mail Matt at pygradc@essex.ac.uk, or see the website.

Abstracts of 500 words in length should be sent by Monday 19 January 2009 to pygradc@essex.ac.uk or in duplicate by post to:

Graduate Conference 2009
Department of Philosophy
University of Essex
Colchester CO4 3SQ
United Kingdom



Resurgence in Marx
October 20, 2008, 11:15 pm
Filed under: Critical Theory, Links, Marx, Philosophy, Politics

According to the BBC, sales of Marx’s Das Kapital are up more than 300% in Germany since the onset of the credit crunch, and have been on the rise since 2005.  Even the Times is asking whether Marx was on to something.  Could we be seeing the end of the popular embargo on Marxist thought?



Andrew Lehade’s Letter
October 18, 2008, 10:42 am
Filed under: Editorial, Events, News, Politics, Uncategorized | Tags: , , ,

This is a copy of the resignation letter of Andrew Lehade, manager of a small California hedge fund, who has decided to call it a day after making a killing betting against the sub-prime mortgage market.  Lehade rails against what he calls the ‘aristocracy’ of financial and government institutions in a week where Wall Street bankers award themselves $70 billion bonuses just days after the $700 dollar bailout.  Who benefits from keeping the banks afloat, again?

Dear Investor:

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.

Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, “What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it.” I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.

There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are.

I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.

So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don’t worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer’s company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.

I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life — where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management — with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man’s interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft’s near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won’t see it included in BP’s, “Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions,” television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM’s similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country? Ah, the female. The evil female plant — marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other additive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let’s stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.

With that I say good-bye and good luck.

All the best,

Andrew Lahde (more…)



CFP: The Future(s) of Critical Theory
October 7, 2008, 6:49 pm
Filed under: Call for Papers, Critical Theory, Philosophy

First Graduate Conference in Frankfurt am Main, 19.-21 March 2009

Whether or not “critical theory” constitutes a well-defined, easily identifiable and self-contained school of thought has been a matter of debate. For the organizers of this conference, given the plurality of theoretical projects that consider themselves in the tradition of the “Frankfurt School,” critical thinking cannot be reduced to one academic ‘camp’ in any meaningful way. Rather than representing one coherent philosophical paradigm, ‘critical theory’ embodies a diverse set of practices of radical questioning exercised in various discourses including that of arts, social and political sciences as well as radical political debate. Moreover critical theory is a highly self-reflexive process. Thus, rather than being a sign of crisis or lack of orientation, the increasing number of publications about the meaning and significance of “critique” and “critical theory” in recent years point to a vibrant and diverse intellectual community constituted around similar theoretical and political commitments. The existence of different theoretical positions and disagreements within that community can be best interpreted as an invitation to reconsider one’s own stance in relation to other ways of critical thinking and to reflect on common grounds.
“The Future(s) of Critical Theory” Graduate Conference in Frankfurt aims to serve as a forum for this ongoing debate. We invite PhD students and postdocs from the humanities and the social sciences to discuss their work in relation to the challenges posed by the current debates on the status of critical theory today. Critical theory proves itself only in relation to its concrete object of investigation. We are therefore equally looking forward to the presentation of empirical research as to theoretical reflections.

Contributions may include – but need not be limited to – the following themes:

  • What is Critique? What makes critical theories critical? How critical is Critical Theory?
  • C/critical Theory(ies): 1,2,3…many Generations of critical theory(ies); Critical Theory and Post/structuralism; Critique, Genealogy, Deconstruction; Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche; Postcolonial Studies, Feminism, queer.
  • Methodologies of critique: Theory and Practice; Philosophy and Sociology; Knowledge and Human Interest; Militant Investigation, Collective Theorization.
  • Critique and the Good Life: Desire, Love, Intimacy, Affect, ‘The Private’ and of course Friendship.
  • Critical Theory, The Political and Politics: Democracies, Socialisms, Liberalisms; Power and/or Domination; Law, State, Police and Sovereignty.
  • Theorizing Capitalism: (Ir)rationality, Alienation and Reification; Old and New Spirit of Capitalism; Redistribution or Expropriation; Reform or Revolution.
  • Cultures of Critique: Sub-, Pop- and Mainstream- Culture (industries); Media and Cultural Studies; Hegemony and Discourse; Narratology, Semiotics and Rhetoric.

Submission Information

Please submit abstracts of a maximum of 300 words to the following e-mail address: info@graduateconferencefrankfurt.de. We accept proposals until the 31. November 2008. Languages of the conference will be German and English, abstracts can be submitted in either language. Papers presented at the conference should not exceed the duration of twenty minutes and will be followed by a brief discussion.
Papers will be selected through a blind review process therefore please do not mark your name or other indications of the author on abstracts and make sure to clearly state the title of your proposal in the email.
Candidates will be informed by January 1st whether their paper has been accepted for presentation.
The publication of a selection of conference papers is intended.

Keynote speakers

Keynote speakers are Bonnie Honig (Chicago), Axel Honneth (Frankfurt) and Emmanuel Renault (Paris/Lyon).

Contact

For further information see www.graduateconferencefrankfurt.de.



CFP – Doctor Who & Philosophy
July 30, 2008, 9:01 pm
Filed under: Call for Papers, Philosophy

We are looking for scholarly philosophical essays written for a lay audience to be included in Doctor Who and Philosophy, to be published by Open Court Press. This is an opportunity for you to express your philosophical musings about your favorite Time Lord and popularize philosophy at the same time.

All papers that focus on some philosophical aspect of either the classic or recent Doctor Who will be considered, but papers on the following topics will be given special consideration. Such topics include:

· The metaphysics of Doctor Who
· The ethics and moral dilemmas of Doctor Who
· The science of Doctor Who
· Doctor Who, human nature, and spirituality
· Conflict and conflict resolution in Doctor Who

Deadline for receipt of essays is November 15, 2008

Interested parties should contact one of the individuals listed below for a detailed set of guidelines. As a rough guide: essays should be 12-15 pages typed, double-spaced, properly referenced, and should have a separate title page with author information to help facilitate the blind review process. Please send essays via email or hardcopy to both:

Dr. Paul Smithka
Paula.Smithka@usm.edu

Court Lewis
dlewis14@utk.edu



Nietzsche: Human, All Too Human
February 15, 2008, 3:46 pm
Filed under: Cinema, Media, Nietzsche, Philosophy



Philosophy post-1968 (University of Essex)
February 7, 2008, 5:54 pm
Filed under: Events, Philosophy


Aurora (City University of New York)
February 6, 2008, 3:43 pm
Filed under: Call for Papers, Philosophy

Aurora invites graduate students to submit papers in any area of philosophy for publication. The length of the submissions should range between 4000 and 6000 words.

The aim of the journal is to publish the highest quality papers by philosophers starting their career. Hence submisisons should both be clearly written and present and maintain a defined thesis.

Submissions should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract and a set of keyword describing the topic(s) of the paper. Submissions should be prepared for blind review: please ensure that there are no self-identifying references in the text. Either .doc or .rtf files will be accepted. Please make all citations in-text and limit the number of footnotes.

For more information, and instructions on how to submit a paper, please go the the journal’s website at: http://aurora.gc.cuny.edu/

Jacob Berger
C.A. Evans
Thomas Ferguson
Myrto Mylopoulos
Tudor Protopopescu
Monique Whitaker

The Editors, Aurora
Department of Philosophy
The Graduate Center
The City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY, 10016
http://aurora.gc.cuny.edu/



CFP: SEP/FEP Conference
February 5, 2008, 11:36 pm
Filed under: Call for Papers, Philosophy

Call for Papers for the 4th Annual Joint Conference of the Society for European Philosophy and the Forum for European Philosophy at University College Dublin, Ireland, 29-31 August, 2008.

The SEP-FEP Joint Conference offers faculty and graduate students the opportunity to present papers in any area of European Philosophy. Abstracts of no more than 500 words should be submitted by 30th May 2008 to Juliana Cardinale, either in electronic form to J.Cardinale@lse.ac.uk or by mail to:
Forum for European Philosophy
Room J5, European Institute
Cowdray House, Portugal Street
London School of Economics, London, WC2A 2AE
United Kingdom

In addition to proposals for individual papers (as above) proposals for themed panels of (up to) four speakers on any area of European Philosophy are also invited. If you would like to organise a themed panel please contact Brian O’Connor before 18th April, 2008 at brian.oconnor@ucd.ie.
The conference keynote speakers are:

Françoise Dastur (Nice)
Alessandro Ferrara (Rome)
Jean Luc Marion (Paris IV/Chicago)
Michael Rosen (Harvard).

There are also two open plenary sessions: The Possibilities of Critical Theory, Maeve Cooke (UCD) and The Future of Phenomenology, Dermot Moran (UCD).



CFP: Intercorporeality and Insubjectivity
February 5, 2008, 11:34 pm
Filed under: Call for Papers, Philosophy

UCD, Philosophy Conference 2008
Perspectives on Intercorporeality and Insubjectivity Conference,
Dublin, June 6/7 2008

We invite the submission of abstracts on the theme of intercorporeality and intersubjectivity from postgraduate students and professional philosophers working in philosophy and other relevant disciplines.

Abstracts should be no longer than 350 words. Speakers will have approximately 30 minutes in which to deliver their papers.

E-mail abstracts to iiconference@ucd.ie
Website: http://www.ucd.ie/philosophy/iiconference/

Submission deadline: March 15th, 2008

Organisers: Luna Dolezal, Connell Vaughan, Sheena Hyland



Grounds for Critique: Realism in the Natural and Human Sciences
January 31, 2008, 3:48 pm
Filed under: Call for Papers, Philosophy

Annual conference July 11-13 2008

The Conference calls for papers from all areas in the arts and humanities, the natural and social sciences. It invites participants from both within and outside critical realism who are interested to explore critical realist philosophy, method and practice, encouraging a broad focus on the nature and grounds of critique.

We live in a world of deep conflict, rapid change and flux, in which the problems facing human being and the natural world have never been greater. Challenges posed by techno-scientific fixes to the problems of nature and human nature; by the re-emergence of imperialist conflicts in the name of neo-liberal economics and politics; and by the re-assertion of the division between the secular and the spiritual as the form of modernity and the basis for taking sides in conflict: all provide ample grounds for critique. They also raise the crucial question: what are the grounds of critique at a time when, it is said, critical thinking has lost its way.

Questions of critique are central to critical realism. Whether it be immanent critique throughout its development, explanatory and emancipatory critique in its second phase, dialectical and meta-critique in its third, or the most recent assertion of the meta-real, critical realists have sought to be critical about critique. From these different standpoints, they have drawn on or built bridges to theorists as diverse as Plato and Aristotle, Hegel and Marx, Adorno, Habermas and Derrida. So broad a palette requires reflexivity: how do the different forms of critique relate to each other, what are their limits, how are they critically assessed? What is specific to critical realist critiques? How are critiques rooted in the western tradition assessed in the light of those from elsewhere in the world? How does critical realism deal with the ‘end of critique’? How does it shed light on problems of interdisciplinarity? How does it make emancipation possible?

Such questions lead us more concretely to ways of doing critique. What are our critical methods? How does critique inform normative theory and argument? How do we ‘do critique’ in relation to both the social and natural sciences and the world? How does it inform political activism and movements for emancipation, or policy formation and outcomes? How is critical realism ‘applied’, i.e., how does it engage with particular fields or objects, or establish research exemplars and examples? How does it approach, negotiate, challenge and overcome disciplinary boundaries?

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/law/events/iacr/

The deadline for receiving abstracts for papers is Friday 7 March 2008.

iacr@kcl.ac.uk