are in fact consanguineous insofar as they are both
One pragmatic answer is that she does appear in Volume 7, but she does so as an author providing a survey, along with Rosi Braidotti, of that very philosophical period in which she first rose to prominence, rather than as the subject of an essay. and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.Enter your email address below and we will send you your usernameIf the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username Self‐discrepancy theory distinguishes between self‐regulation in relation to hopes and aspirations (ideals) versus self‐regulation in relation to duties and obligations (oughts). Its structure rests on a questionable and inadequately defended distinction between the social and the political.
Any worries about political indolence are displaced, however, by May's final offering on globalization.
Admittedly, with its numerous linguistic, historical, and culturally entrenched communities, it is hard to envision Europe subscribing to a federalist imaginary analogous to that of the United States.
The essay ends rather abruptly with a limited gesture toward the politics of slow food. Regulatory focus theory was the child of self‐discrepancy theory and the parent of regulatory fit theory. It suffers from poor editorial oversight: it reiterates the thought of both Badiou and Rancière, albeit here in a political frame, and re-covers ground treated more comprehensively in Volume 7's chapter by Lasse Thomassen on "Radical Democracy." the layering and interlocking of the politics of knowledge with the politics of reading produce[s] for us a geopolitics of knowledge that is attentive to the locus of enunciation of knowledge and how that claimed knowledge is or is not related to those about whom it speaks and seeks to 'represent.' By bringing together the very different sorts of concerns raised by Jean Baudrillard, Michel Hardt and Antonio Negri, Paulo Virno, Derrida, Laclau and Mouffe, Paul Virilio, and Judith Butler (whose reappearance at the end of the volume gives it a satisfying
(207)
Art and politics . What is remarkable, however, is that in setting the scene with Butler and her performative account of sex and gender, the volume encourages us to read the thinkers treated in several subsequent essays (Badiou, Jacques Ranciere, and various twentieth-century analytic philosophers)
Self‐discrepancy theory distinguishes between self‐regulation in relation to hopes and aspirations (ideals) versus self‐regulation in relation to duties and obligations (oughts). In a volume in which most of the essays survey or "rethink" a region of thought or concern, the pieces dealing with a single author (this one and Bruno Bosteels' on Alain Badiou) stand out. It would have been a great deal more useful if it had included an alternative sampling of strands of contemporary Marxist thinking, including Antonio Negri and the entire Autonomia movement, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's resituating of Marxism among feminist, postcolonial and textual politics, postmodern/poststructuralist reappraisals of Marxism by the likes of Fredric Jameson and Ètienne Balibar, Cedric Robinson's Black Marxism, the more recent Deleuzian Marxism of writers like Nicholas Thoburn, the queer Marxism of Kevin Floyd, or the interest in non-dialectical or aleatory materialism growing out of the later Althusser, as expressed for example in the work of Jacques Lezra and Pheng Cheah. . It is impossible, at least for this reader, not to hear in them a resounding echo of Butler's heterosexual matrix and gender performativity that makes the body, bodily practices, and their signifying capacities central to any account of the event (assiduously ignored by both thinkers) and also -- by the by -- rids it of Badiou's problematic Platonism.