Preview-Calls

Focus: Theorizing Unreasonable Politics?
2024 (46) Issue 2

Political philosophers and theorists sometimes turn away from engaging with positions that they deem patently unreasonable. Examples include views of right-wing populists, of defenders of the fossil fuel industry, or of climate change skeptics. Different from this conventional way of turning away from such positions – for the sake of dealing with positions that appear intellectually more interesting – Shmuel Nili’s Philosophizing the Indefensible – Strategic Political Theorizing addresses them heads-on. His aim in pursuing such “strategic” political theorizing is to show that even if we accept certain premises of what are widely regarded unreasonable positions, we can nevertheless reach practical conclusions that are no longer morally beyond the pale and thus not unreasonable. Doing so, Nili argues, we can close the gap between abstract political theorizing and pressing political problems, as we focus on views that find widespread support in real world politics. In addition, by harnessing philosophy’s tools of argumentative analysis in these ways, we can eventually pull those who hold unreasonable views towards positions that can count as reasonable, as well as show respect to the integrity of their political reasoning.

We invite submissions on Nili’s book as well as on issues that are related to the theme of the book by September 15, 2024.

Focus: Democracy and work in conflict
2025 (47) Issue 1

The stability of democracies depends on the organization of work. Despite all the predictions of the \\\'end of work\\\' that have repeatedly emerged in both public and academic debates since the 1960s, gainful employment remains the central point of reference for economic security, social status and personal identity for a large proportion of democratic societies. However, there are several sources of tension between democracy and the capitalist organization of work:

• While democracy is legitimized by equal citizenship rights, the capitalist sphere of work is based on unequal property titles and opportunities for prosperity;
• while the democratic ideal is based on an autonomous citizen as political sovereign, wage labor is determined by the experience of dependency and subordination;
• while in democratic discourses political interests have to be justified by referring to the common good , the capitalist world of work prizes motives of individual profit maximation.

These tensions between the principles of democracy and the reality of a capitalist working society by no means implies that democracy and capitalism are incompatible. On the contrary, stable democratic orders have so far only been realized in countries with a capitalist economic order. However, there are good reasons to assume that the productive partnership between democracy and capitalism is primarily related to the welfare state. The embedding of democratic capitalism within the welfare state has enabled comprehensive economic, social and cultural participation, which has contributed significantly to the functionality and legitimacy of democracy. Since the “neoliberal transformation” from the 1980s onwards, however, the sphere of work has been increasingly characterized by reduced employment opportunities (in Europe) and rights (in the US).
In addition, the financialization of capitalism has led to increasing inequalities and a decoupling of wage labor and individual wealth accumulation. Precarious working conditions, which threaten economic security and social status, as well as the gradual devaluation of ‘hard work’ for economic and social participation have increased popularity of populist parties and distrust in existing democratic institutions.
The focus \\\"Democracy and work in conflict\\\" collects articles that address the relationship between political democracy and the capitalist world of work from normative and empirical perspectives. In doing so, it seems sensible to look at external and internal contexts:
externally, to the ways in which democratic attitudes and social participation are connected to wage labor, especially in the form of wages that guarantee economic and social security;
and internally, to ways in which the normative role of the democratic citizen as political sovereign is connected to the experience of dependency and subordination in the role of an employee. Specific questions are, for example:

• To what extent do satisfaction with democracy and commitment to democratic values depend on socio-economic conditions (level of prosperity, social security, mobility opportunities, etc.)?
• What significance does the experience of the role of an employee have on the development of a “democratic habitus,” i.e., on democratic motives and skills?
• To what extent is a democratization of the work sphere normatively desirable and practically feasible? What are models of the democratization of the sphere of work? What are the normative and practical limits of workplace democracy?

Analyse & Kritik welcomes submissions to this field of research from philosophy and the social sciences. Proposals for topics in the form of an abstract of approx. 700 words are requested by the end of September 2024. The deadline for submitting full papers of approx. 8000 words in the journal\\\'s format is the end of February 2025. The issue 1/25 will be published by the end of June 2025.