DOCSLIB.ORG

Curriculum Vitae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Curriculum Vitae 1 Curriculum vitae Ellen Kennedy Degrees: 1977: Ph.D., Government, The London School of Economics & Political Science 1970: M.A., Political Science, Indiana University 1968: B.A., Political Science, cum laude Trinity College Academic appointments: 2003–present: Professor of Political Science 1992-2003: Tenured 1989-1991: Associate Professor of Political Science The University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA. 19104-6215 USA 1987-88: Lecturer in Politics The University of London London, UK 1977-87: Lecturer in Politics, The University of York York, UK 1975-77: Lecturer in Government The University of Manchester Manchester, UK Other appointments: 1970-73: Congressional staff, Office of the Director, U.S. National Institutes of Health 1968-69: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Management Internship Research grants & fellowships: 2001: Gentle Foundation Grant (with Anne Norton) 2001: Research Foundation Grant, University of Pennsylvania 2 1999: Study & travel grant, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation 1999: Gentle Foundation Grant (with Anne Norton) 1996: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Travel Grant 1993: Research Foundation Grant, University of Pennsylvania 1989: Research Foundation Grant, University of Pennsylvania 1989: Mellon Foundation Visitor, The University of Chicago 1981-83: Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation 1983-84: Friedrich Ebert Foundation 1979: The British Academy 1978: The Nuffield Foundation Publications: Books & Monographs: Constitutional Failure. Carl Schmitt in Weimar (Duke University Press, 2004) The Bundesbank (“Key Institutions of German Democracy” series, ed. Robert Gerald Livingston, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997) The Bundesbank: Germany’s Central Bank in the International System (Royal Institute of International Affairs & the Council on Foreign Relations, 1991; New York: The Council on Foreign Relations, 1991) Freedom & the Open Society: Henri Bergson's Contribution to Political Philosophy (Garland, 1987) Women in Western Political Philosophy (co-edited with Susan Mendus) (Harvester, 1986) Carl Schmitt: the Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (Carl Schmitt, Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus 1923) (translated with critical notes, bibliography and introduction); (MIT,1985; fifth printing, 1996) Articles: "The Politics of Law in Weimar", University of Texas Law Review, March 1999, vol. 77 no.4, pp 1079-1093 "Hostis not inimicus: Toward a theory of the public in the work of Carl Schmitt", The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence January 1997, vol X, no 1 pp 35-47. reprinted in Law as Politics: Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism (ed. D.Dyzenhaus) (Duke, 1998), pp 92-108 "Comments on The Basic Law & the Economic System" in Kommers (ed.) Germany & Its Basic Law. Past, Present, Future – A German American Symposium (Nomos Verlag, 1993), pp 355-362. "Politischer Expressionismus" in Quaritsch (ed.) Complexio Oppositorum (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1987), pp 233-265. 3 Japanese reprint in Masanori Shiyake & Keita Koga (eds & transl.),Das Erbe von Carl Schmitt (1993), pp. 144-174. "Carl Schmitt und Hugo Ball: ein Beitrag zum Thema Politischer Expressionismus", Zeitschrift für Politik (Vol. 35, nr. 2, 6/1988), pp. 143-162. "Carl Schmitt & the Frankfurt School", Telos (Nr. 71, Spring, 1987), pp.37-66. "Carl Schmitt & the Frankfurt School: a rejoinder to critics", Telos (Nr. 73, Fall,1988), pp. 101-116. “Toward a theory of state and sovereignty” in Lawrence Freeman (ed.) Britain in the World Today (Cambridge University Press: 1988), pp. 143-163. “Carl Schmitt”, Blackwell’s Encyclopedia of Political Institutions, (ed. Vernon Bogdanor) (Oxford: Blackwells,1987) pp. 552-553 “Max Weber and Otto Gross: On the relationship between science, politics and eros in Wilhelmine Germany”, translated with comments, History of Political Thought (Vol VIII, Nr. 1, Spring 1987), pp131-152. "Carl Schmitt und die Frankfurter Schule", Geschichte und Gesellschaft (Vol. 12, Nr. 3, 1987), pp 380-419. „Introduction to Women in Western Political Philpsophy“, Ibid, pp1-20 [with Susan Mendus] „Nietzsche: Woman as Untermensch“ in Kennedy & Mendus, Women in Western Political Thought, pp. 179-201 “From Rechtsstaat to Führerstaat: Carl Schmitt’s Political Theory 1928-1936”, German (Vol. 3, Spring 1986), pp. 57-61. "Rechtsstaat or Dictatorship?" Introduction to Hermann Heller, Economy & Society (Vol. 16, Nr. 1, 1985) pp. 120-142. "Carl Schmitt in West German Perspective", West European Politics (Vol. 7, Nr. 3, July, 1984, pp.120-127. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer freien Gesellschaft in der politischer Theorie von Hermann Heller", Christoph Müller & Ilse Staff (eds.), Der soziale Rechtsstaat. Gedächtnisschrift für Hermann Heller, 1891-1933. (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag,1983), pp. 347-366. "The Politics of toleration in late Weimar", History of Political Thought (Vol. V, nr. 1, Spring,1984), pp.109-127. “Review Essay on Joseph Bendersky,Carl Schmitt. Theorist for the Reich”, History of Political Thought, (Vol. IV, Nr. 3, Winter 1983), pp. 579-589. 4 “Bergson’s Philosophy & French political doctrines: Sorel, Maurras, Peguy and deGaulle”, Government & Opposition (Vol. 15, Nr. 1 Winter, 1979) 5 Books, articles & roundtables concerning my work: Harmuth Becker, Die Parlamentarismuskritik bei Carl Schmitt und Jürgen Habermas (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1994) 172pp. Center for the Study of Contemporary Germany, Johns Hopkins University, „Roundtable on The Bundesbank” during the IMF meetings, Spring 1999. Martin Jay, „Reconciling the Irreconcilable? A rejoinder to Kennedy”, Telos (Nr.71, Spring 1987), pp 67-80. Alfons Söllner, “Beyond Carl Schmitt: Political Theory in the Frankfurt School”, Telos (Nr. 71, Spring 1987) pp 81-97. Ulrich K. Preuß, “The Critique of German Liberalism: A reply to Kennedy”, Telos, ( Nr. 71, Spring 1987), pp. 97-110. Invited Lectures: 2004: “Carl Schmitt’s Die Diktatur” , History of Political Thought Seminar, Cambridge University 2004: “Reading Schmitt’s Theorie des Partisanen today”, “The International Political Thought of Carl Schmtt” SGIR Conference, The Hague, Netherlands 2002: “The Rise & Impact of the Social Sciences”, Center for European Studies, Harvard University 2000: “The Economic Complications of Political Pluralism – Weimar to Bonn”, Conference, “Beyond Markets“, Princeton University 1999: “Constitutional Narrative” Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Conference, Deutsche Umbrüche im 20. Jahrhundert, Bamberg, Germany 1997: „The New European Monetary System“, Warsaw, Poland 1996: “Roundtable on Constitutionalism” The American Political Science Association Conference 1995: “Law & Society in Modern Germany”, Center for European Studies, Harvard University 1995 “Democracy & its Undemocratic Elements”, The President’s Lecture Series, The University of Notre Dame, Indiana 1992: “Constitutional Failure: civil and public law in the Weimar Republic”, The American Political Science Association Conference 1991: “Germany & Russia in the 20th century in comparative perspective”, The University of Pennsylvania 6 1990: “Opinion & Slogan. Dilemmas of the post-modern state”, The American Political Science Association Conference 1989: “Constitutionalism in Germany and America”, The University of Pennsylvania 1988: “Who should defend the constitution? Schmitt v. Heller”, The American Historical Association 1987: “Sovereignty”, Britain in the World Today, King’s College, London 1986: “Politischer Expressionismus” Conference on Carl Schmitt, Speyer, Germany 1984: “Carl Schmitt und die Frankfurter Schule”, Die Frankfurter Schule und die Folgen, Internationa Conference, Ludwigsburg,Germany 1983: „Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer freien Gesellschaft in der politischen Theorie Hermann Hellers“, Free University of Berlin, West Berlin, Germany, 1983 1980: Weber’s Politik als Beruf and Carl Schmitt’s Der Begriff des Politischen”, German Historical Institute, London, England. University & Professional service: University of Pennsylvania: Graduate Executive Committee, Political Science, 2002-present Graduate Group, German, 2003 -present Graduate Group Committee, The Lauder Institute, 2003-present School Based Master’s Advisory Committee, 2003-present Provost’s Task Force on Study Abroad, Advisory Committee for Eastern and Central Europe, 2002-2003 Chair (with Anne Norton) “The Modern Setting of the Classical Text” An international Conference sponsored by the Gentle Foundation, The University of Pennsylvania, 2003. Pilot curriculum course, “War, violence and political vision” (with Anne Norton) Spring 2002. Undergraduate Committee, Department of Political Science (2001-2002) Pilot curriculum course, “The Theory & Practice of Freedom” (with Paul Guyer & Sheldon Hackney), Spring, 2001. 7 Penn Reading Project, Voltaire’s Candide, 2001 Penn Reading Project, “Kafka’s Metamorphosis”, 2000 Chair (with Anne Norton), “Reflections on Edmund Burke 1729-1797”, An International Conference sponsored by the Gentle Foundation, The University of Pennsylvania, Spring, 1999 Graduate Executive Committee, Department of Political Science (1997-2000) Appointments committee, Deutsche Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) Visiting Professorship (1991-1999) MLA committee, College of General Studies (1997-present) Graduate Chair, Department of Political Science (1991-93) Provost’s Task Force on Study Abroad Program, Advisory Committee for Programs in Western Europe, 1991-1995. Program & Planning Committee, School of Arts & Sciences (Dean Rosemary Stevens), (1990-93) Senate Executive Committee, (1992-93) Undergraduate Chair,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carl Schmitt and the Critique of Lawfare
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 1 2010 Carl Schmitt nda the Critique of Lawfare David Luban Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation David Luban, Carl Schmitt na d the Critique of Lawfare, 43 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 457 (2010) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol43/iss1/26 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. File: Luban 2 Created on: 12/27/2010 2:26:00 PM Last Printed: 4/5/2011 8:10:00 PM CARL SCHMITT AND THE CRITIQUE OF LAWFARE David Luban “Lawfare” is the use of law as a weapon of war against a military adversary. Lawfare critics complain that self-proclaimed “humanitarians” are really engaged in the partisan and political abuse of law—lawfare. This paper turns the mirror on lawfare critics themselves, and argues that the critique of lawfare is no less abusive and political than the alleged lawfare it attacks. Radical lawfare critics view humanitarian law with suspicion, as nothing more than an instrument used by weak adversaries against strong military powers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others Others and Oakeshott Antinomies: of Method the VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Philosophy Faculty Publications Philosophy 2018 The ethoM d of Antinomies: Oakeshott nda Others Stephen Turner University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/phi_facpub Scholar Commons Citation Turner, Stephen, "The eM thod of Antinomies: Oakeshott nda Others" (2018). Philosophy Faculty Publications. 309. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/phi_facpub/309 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others STEPHEN TURNER Email: [email protected] Web: http://philosophy.usf.edu/faculty/sturner/ Abstract: Michael Oakeshott employed a device of argument and analysis that appears in a number of other thinkers, where it is given the name “antinomies.” These differ from binary oppositions or contradictories in that the two poles are bound to- gether. In this discussion, the nature of this binding is explored in detail, in large part in relation to Oakeshott’s own usages, such as his discussion of the relation of faith and skepticism, between collective goal-oriented associations and those based on contract, and between a legal regime based on neutral rules and one oriented to policy goals . Other examples might include Weber’s distinction between the politics of intention and the politics of responsibility. Moreover, such ambiguous concepts as “rights,” have antinomic interpretations. In each of these cases, the full realization of one ideal led, in practice, to consequenc- es associated with the other: in political practice, neither polar ideal was realizable without concessions to the other.
    [Show full text]
  • The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others Others and Oakeshott Antinomies: of Method the VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME
    The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others STEPHEN TURNER Email: [email protected] Web: http://philosophy.usf.edu/faculty/sturner/ Abstract: Michael Oakeshott employed a device of argument and analysis that appears in a number of other thinkers, where it is given the name “antinomies.” These differ from binary oppositions or contradictories in that the two poles are bound to- gether. In this discussion, the nature of this binding is explored in detail, in large part in relation to Oakeshott’s own usages, such as his discussion of the relation of faith and skepticism, between collective goal-oriented associations and those based on contract, and between a legal regime based on neutral rules and one oriented to policy goals . Other examples might include Weber’s distinction between the politics of intention and the politics of responsibility. Moreover, such ambiguous concepts as “rights,” have antinomic interpretations. In each of these cases, the full realization of one ideal led, in practice, to consequenc- es associated with the other: in political practice, neither polar ideal was realizable without concessions to the other. But these features are rooted in the deep history of institutions. They are contingent, not philosophical. They nevertheless preclude con- ventional approaches to political theory. Keywords: Michael Oakeshott, antinomies, meta-politics, democratic theory, Max Weber, Hans Morgenthau, genealogy 54 COSMOS + TAXIS COSMOS Several of Michael Oakeshott’s writings, including On vision of politics is different from relativism in any simple Human Conduct ([1975] 1991), employ an argumentative sense of this term. It is specifically distinct from, and op- device that is shared with several other twentieth century posed to, the idea that there can be an ideological “solu- thinkers, but which has not received much attention on its tion” to the antinomies in question.
    [Show full text]
  • Mirrors of Modernization: the American Reflection in Turkey
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2014 Mirrors of Modernization: The American Reflection in urkT ey Begum Adalet University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the History Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Adalet, Begum, "Mirrors of Modernization: The American Reflection in urkT ey" (2014). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1186. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1186 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1186 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mirrors of Modernization: The American Reflection in urkT ey Abstract This project documents otherwise neglected dimensions entailed in the assemblage and implementations of political theories, namely their fabrication through encounters with their material, local, and affective constituents. Rather than emanating from the West and migrating to their venues of application, social scientific theories are fashioned in particular sites where political relations can be staged and worked upon. Such was the case with modernization theory, which prevailed in official and academic circles in the United States during the early phases of the Cold War. The theory bore its imprint on a series of developmental and infrastructural projects in Turkey, the beneficiary of Marshall Plan funds and academic exchange programs and one of the theory's most important models. The manuscript scrutinizes the corresponding sites of elaboration for the key indices of modernization: the capacity for empathy, mobility, and hospitality. In the case of Turkey the sites included survey research, the implementation of a highway network, and the expansion of the tourism industry through landmarks such as the Istanbul Hilton Hotel.
    [Show full text]
  • Property and Sovereignty: How to Tell the Difference
    243 Property and Sovereignty: How to Tell the Difference Arthur Ripstein* Property and sovereignty are often used as models for each other. Landowners are sometimes described as sovereign, the state’s territory sometimes described as its property. Both property and sovereignty involve authority relations: both an owner and a sovereign get to tell others what to do — at least within the scope of their ownership or sovereignty. My aim in this Article is to distinguish property and sovereignty from each other by focusing on what lies within the scope of each. I argue that much confusion and more than a little mischief occurs when they are assimilated to each other. The confusion can arise in both directions, either by supposing that property is a sort of stewardship, or that sovereignty is a large-scale form of ownership. One of the great achievements of modern (i.e., Kantian) political thought is recognizing the difference between them. INTRODUCTION Property and sovereignty are often used as models for each other. In introducing his account of rights, H.L.A. Hart describes a right-holder as a “small-scale sovereign.”1 So, too, discussions of sovereignty often appeal to proprietary metaphors of ownership. These parallels are unsurprising, both historically and conceptually. Historically, early modern discussions of sovereignty, such * University Professor and Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. I am grateful to David Dyzenhaus, Larissa Katz, and Douglas Sanderson for comments and discussion, to audience members at the Property and Sovereignty Conference at Columbia Law School, September 2015, and at the North American Workshop on Private Law Theory in Toronto, October 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Interrogating Illiberalism Through Chinese Communist Party Regulations Samuli Sepp¨Anen†
    \\jciprod01\productn\C\CIN\52-2\cin202.txt unknown Seq: 1 1-MAY-20 11:13 Interrogating Illiberalism Through Chinese Communist Party Regulations Samuli Sepp¨anen† Can the exercise of political leadership, which is meant to transcend laws, nevertheless, be governed by formal rules? This Article examines the relationship between the illiberal governance project and rule-based gov- ernance in the context of the Chinese Communist Party’s internal “intraparty” regulations. In the past few years, Chinese Communist Party leaders have sought to strengthen the Party’s political leadership by extending its discipline inspection mechanisms further into Chinese state organs. The Party leaders have also sought to regulate Party cadres’ uses of power more closely through intraparty regulations. The efforts to strengthen the Party’s political leadership through improving intraparty regulations point to a number of puzzling contradictions and even para- doxes in the illiberal governance project. Rules make the Party more gov- ernable and at least potentially limit space for corruption and other unsanctioned personal projects; but at the same time, they provide oppor- tunities for resisting Party leadership and divide the Party into organiza- tional departments with conflicting interests. This Article discusses such contradictions and paradoxes within the context of global illiberal political thought and argues that prominent solutions to the tension between illib- eral political leadership and rule-based governance mask uncertainty about what illiberal political leadership actually entails. Introduction ..................................................... 268 R I. Rules and Political Leadership in Illiberal Political Thought .................................................. 273 R A. Privileging the Political ................................ 274 R B. Appealing to the Irrational ............................ 278 R II.
    [Show full text]
  • Edmund Burke's German Readers at the End of Enlightenment, 1790-1815 Jonathan Allen Green Trinity Hall, University of Cambridg
    Edmund Burke’s German Readers at the End of Enlightenment, 1790-1815 Jonathan Allen Green Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge September 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaborations except as declared in the Declaration and specified in the text. All translations, unless otherwise noted or published in anthologies, are my own. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University of similar institution except as declared in the Declaration and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Declaration and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the Faculty of History Degree Committee (80,000 words). Statement of Word Count: This dissertation comprises 79,363 words. 1 Acknowledgements Writing this dissertation was a challenge, and I am immensely grateful to the many friends and colleagues who helped me see it to completion. Thanks first of all are due to William O’Reilly, who supervised the start of this research during my MPhil in Political Thought and Intellectual History (2012-2013), and Christopher Meckstroth, who subsequently oversaw my work on this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Jürgen Habermas and Carl Schmitt in the Paradigm of Modernity for a Critique of the Modern Law
    UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASÍLIA – FACULDADE DE DIREITO PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO – DOUTORADO ÁREA DE CONCENTRAÇÃO: CONSTITUIÇÃO E DEMOCRACIA Jürgen Habermas and Carl Schmitt in the paradigm of modernity For a critique of the modern law Orientador: Prof. Dr. Miroslav Milović Vanja Grujić Brasília, Setembro 2017 Dedicatória Gostaria de expressar a minha sincera gratidão à Universidade Nacional de Brasília e à Faculdade de Direito por me dar a honra e a oportunidade para defender a minha tese aqui. Também queria expressar minha apreciação ao meu professor Prof. Dr. Miroslav Milović. Você tem sido um inspirador mentor para mim. Gostaria de agradecer-lhe por encorajar minha pesquisa e por me permitir crescer na esfera acadêmica. Gostaria também de agradecer aos meus membros da comissão, a professora Rochelle Cysne Frota D'Abreu, ao professor Marcelo da Costa Pinto Neves, ao professor Paulo César Nascimento, e ao professor Juliano Zaiden Benvindo por servir como membros do meu comitê, mesmo em dificuldades. Além disso, gostaria de expressar o agradecimento aos funcionários da secretaria de pós-graduação da Faculdade de Direito por me ajudar sempre que necessário. Também, gostaria de agradecer a CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) para o financiamento do meu doutorado no Brasil, e para a oportunidade de fazer parte do programa doutorado sanduíche no exterior. Sem essas bolsas, meus estudos de doutorado não seriam possíveis. Sincera gratidão a todos os colegas e professores da Faculdade de Direito em Brasília. Ouvir suas ideias e comentários foi uma experiência incrível e aprendi muito com vocês. Por último, mas não menos importante, agradeço aos professores e colegas da ZERP (Zentrum für Europäische Rechtspolitik der Universität Bremen) por seus frutíferos comentários, palavras de encorajamento e amizade que certamente deixaram uma marca importante no meu trabalho.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structures of Authority and Political Use of Religious Practices in Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt
    The Structures of Authority and Political Use of Religious Practices in Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt Luke COLLISON September 2020 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy (CRMEP), Kingston University for the award of Doctor of Philosophy. 1 Abstract This thesis examines the structures of authority in the political theories of Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt. In milieux marked by crises of political legitimacy, civil unrest and war, both Hobbes and Schmitt strove to develop new theoretical foundations in support of their conservative visions of the authority of the state. The exhaustion of traditional means of legitimation, such as divine right or romantic ideals of community, demanded innovative alternatives. Though Hobbes and Schmitt drew on a wide range of sources, I argue that religious practices were centrally important. Focussing on questions of the source and genesis of authority, my study argues that in different ways both identify participation as key to the origination of authority. In part one, through a chronological investigation of Hobbes’ works, I demonstrate that he assembles a multi-faceted theoretical support for authority. While the covenant is essential for establishing the artifice of sovereign potestas, I argue that Hobbes progressively supplements this fragile artifice with a series of additional apparatuses: civil worship based on religious practices, authorisation based on theatrical analogies and educational and pedagogical practices drawn from a general, almost polytheistic, conception of religion. However, I show that ultimately Hobbes’ mechanistic psychology undermines his attempt at an integrated and scientific account of worship and pedagogy. In part two, I divide Schmitt’s oeuvre into monarchical and democratic writings.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Andalus' the Omani Elite in Zanzibar
    2 FOUNDER/EDITOR Maha Yahya BOARD OF ADVISORS Philip Khoury, MIT, Chair Lila Abu Lughod, Columbia University Nezar al Sayyad, UC Berkeley Sibel Bozdogan, BAC Leila Fawaz, Tufts University Michael J. Fischer, MIT Timothy Mitchell, NYU A.R. Norton, Boston University http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/ Roger Owen, Harvard University Ilan Pappe, Haifa University Elisabeth Picard, Aix en Provence William Quandt, UVA Nasser Rabbat, MIT Edward Said (1935 -2003) Ghassan Salame, Institut d'Etudes Politiques Ella Shohat, NYU Susan Slyomovics, MIT Lawrence Vale, MIT BOARD OF EDITORS Amer Bisat, Rubicon Nadia Abu el Haj, Barnard Jens Hanssen, University of Toronto Bernard Haykel, New York University Paul Kingston, University of Toronto Sherif Lotfi, Ernst & Young Joseph Massad, Columbia University James MacDougall, Princeton University Panayiota Pyla, U of Illinois Champagne Oren Yiftachel, Ben Gurion REVIEW EDITORS OTTOMAN HISTORY James Grehan, Portland State University ART AND CULTURE Kirstin Scheid, American University of Beirut CONTEMPORARY HISTORY/POLITICS Michael Gasper, Yale University ARCHITECTURE CULTURE Brian Mclaren University of Washington GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Rana Yahya WEBMASTER: Ziad Mansouri Vol. 5, Fall 2005, © 2005 The MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies FRONTIER GEOGRAPHY AND BOUNDLESS HISTORY ISLAM AND ARABS IN EAST AFRICA A FUSION OF IDENTITIES, NETWORKS AND ENCOUNTERS GUEST EDITOR Amal N. Ghazal INTRODUCTION Amal N. Ghazal 6 CONSTRUCTING ISLAM AND SWAHILI IDENTITY: HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THEORY Louise Rolingher 9 PERSONAL MEMORIES, REVOLUTIONARY STATES AND INDIAN OCEAN MIGRATIONS Mandana Limbert 21 BEING BAYSAR: (IN)FLEXIBLE IDENTITIES IN EAST AFRICA Thomas F. McDow 34 THE OTHER ‘ANDALUS’: THE OMANI ELITE IN ZANZIBAR AND THE MAKING OF AN IDENTITY, 1880s-1930s Amal N.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy
    on the horizon: Dædalus Civil Wars & Global Disorder: Threats & Opportunities edited by Karl Eikenberry & Stephen Krasner with James D. Fearon, Bruce Jones & Stephen John Stedman, Stewart Patrick, Martha Crenshaw, Paul H. Wise & Michele Barry, Sarah Kenyon Lischer, Vanda Felbab-Brown, Hendrik Spruyt, Stephen Biddle, Will Reno, Aila M. Matanock & Miguel García-Sánchez, and Barry Posen Ending Civil Wars: Constraints & Possibilities Democracy Summer 2017 The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Dædalus edited by Karl Eikenberry & Stephen Krasner Francis Fukuyama, Tanisha M. Fazal, Stathis N. Kalyvas, Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences Steven Heydemann, Chuck Call & Susanna Campbell, Sumit Ganguly, Clare Lockhart, Thomas Risse & Summer 2017 Eric Stollenwerk, Tanja A. Börzel & Sonja Grimm, Seyoum Mesfi n & Abdeta Beyene, Nancy Lindborg & Joseph Hewitt, Richard Gowan & Stephen John Stedman, The Prospects & Limits of Lyse Doucet, and Jean-Marie Guéhenno Deliberative Democracy Native Americans & Academia edited by Ned Blackhawk, K. Tsianina Lomawaima, James S. Fishkin & Jane Mansbridge, guest editors Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, Philip J. Deloria, Loren Ghiglione, Douglas Medin, and Mark Trahant with Claus Offe · Nicole Curato John S. Dryzek · Selen A. Ercan Carolyn M. Hendriks · Simon Niemeyer Bernard Manin · Hélène Landemore Representing the intellectual community in its breadth Arthur Lupia · Anne Norton · Ian Shapiro and diversity, Dædalus explores the frontiers of Cristina Lafont · André Bächtiger · Simon Beste knowledge and issues of public importance. Alice Siu · Cass R. Sunstein · Roy William Mayega Lynn Atuyambe · Nathan Tumuhamye Julius Ssentongo · William Bazeyo Baogang He · Mark E. Warren U.S. $15; www.amacad.org; @americanacad Dædalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences “The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy” Volume 146, Number 3; Summer 2017 James S.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Muslim Question'
    H-Diplo Khan on Norton, 'On the Muslim Question' Review published on Thursday, January 16, 2014 Anne Norton. On the Muslim Question. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. xi + 265 pp. $24.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-691-15704-7. Reviewed by Mujeeb Khan (University of California, Berkeley)Published on H-Diplo (January, 2014) Commissioned by Seth Offenbach Anne Norton, a political theorist at the University of Pennsylvania, has written an incisive volume analyzing a question at the heart of a number of contemporary vexing domestic and foreign policy issues. She brings to the task an impressive command of the subject matter as well as exceptional insight and judgment as a political theorist. The title of the book is an obvious allusion to Karl Marx’s essay On the Jewish Question, and Norton makes clear that just as the “Jewish question” in nineteenth-century Europe was seminal to a whole series of debates and struggles around national identity, secularism, democracy, capitalism, and early modernity, the “Muslim question” is central to contemporary Western ones surrounding national identity, secularism, gender, sexuality, democracy, and foreign policy and empire. The first part of the book is centered on a series of “Muslim questions” dealing with freedom of speech, sexuality, women and war, terror, equality, and democracy. The second section of the book, titled “In the Western Street,” examines the boundaries of Europe, “Islamofascism” and the burden of the Holocaust, American empire, and the ostensible “clash of civilizations.” As Norton shows, often these questions have less do to with specific challenges and issues posed by Muslims and more to do with particular identities, anxieties, and agendas held by majority populations in Western societies and particularly their political and intellectual/cultural elites.
    [Show full text]