sign in sign up
<<
Home , Privatization

Volume 14. Fall 2016 • on the web

Freedom of Expression in the Era of the of Reason

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Associate Professor of Applied Philosophy at Aalborg Uni- versity, Denmark. Ph.D. of Philosophy, Aarhus University. Author of various books and articles on classical philosophy, psychoanalysis, and cultural analysis, with an em- phasis on Kant, Kierkegaard, Lacan and Žižek.

Abstract: The importance of free speech is beyond dispute in liberal democ- racy, and is today hardly challenged by anyone, but fundamental- ist, religious groups. But which purpose should free speech serve, and how should it be (re)defined and administered in order to ful- fill this purpose? I claim that these questions are more important than they may seem, and that they are easily overlooked, if free speech is treated as an end in itself or as something that one should not question at all. In the liberal tradition, freedom of expression was clearly valued for its excellent utility for the progress of society, but not for being an end in itself. In this article, I want, first, to make this point clear (through a reading of and Imma- nuel Kant) and, second, to offer a couple of suggestions for relevant discussions on the restrictions, and reinventions of free speech that might be required today in order to sustain and revive the liberal tradition itself.

Keywords Freedom of expression, public use of reason, , Mill, Kant.

Volume 14 12 , ------13 On

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom What I would like to do in this article is first to go back and in Freedom Freedom of expression is one of the most sacred values of West art Mill, and before him Immanuel Kant. Kant, To as it is well end in itself is the human being, and therefore known, the only real tomeans as a be enlisted can only or legal principle pragmatic any “for the so-called serving this end. One could almost turn around to according always, should one that claim and mula of humanity” and a legal principle only as a means Kant, “act so, that you treat not as an end in itself”. Likewise, Mill, in his 1859 classic is completely clear and explicit that the freedom of expression is a to indicate a more specific reinvention, which I think is called for in for called is think I which reinvention, specific more a indicate to namely a way of revitalizing the contemporary political climate, seems to reason an era where in the idea of a public use of reason “privatized” in the Kantian sense.have become almost completely The revitalization, I will claim, must come from collective new, forms of expression. Means or end? is defended, of one expression When should freedom bear in mind prosper and just a towards means excellent an is principle this that but not an end in itself. Or so at least thought John Stu ous society, should therefore be and developed, experimented improved, with,should therefore as if it was above historical defended, much rather than “merely” change and political needs. voices of the ideals of free vestigate how two of the founding speech in the tradition, European Immanuel Kant and John Stuart means and ends in the case of between Mill, viewed the relation the freedom of expression, and thereby highlight the kinds of dis to keep cussions, the attention which in I order think need more elaborating and particularly Secondly, speech alive. free of concept further on Kant’s central notion of the public I use wantof reason, ern . It is universally defended, and often treated as a fundamentallyAnd indeed, it is jewel of . kind of crown the that in to forget tend but maybe we important to democracy, declarationsitself, which is invoked in the solemn liberal tradition hailed explicitly is it speech, free of “” the of importance the of albeit a mas as a tool, a means, i.e. it is considered for its utility, sively important one, and not an end itself. In the spirit of the en lightenment philosophers, freedom of expression is an idea that quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk - - - - . If 14

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 the very concept of freedom of expression itself expression of the very concept of freedom Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom What appears paradoxical in claiming that the principle of free My claim here is the slightly paradoxical one that lately it has speech has become a taboo relies precisely on the reduction of the on the reduction precisely speech has become a taboo relies with only one possible principle to one fundamental proposition interpretation. If freedom of expression only consisted in one sin without expressed be can “everything that dogma unequivocal gle, way:following the in formalized be could paradox the restriction”, A. Everything can be expressed without restriction. B. A.Principle without expressed be cannot Everything C. challenged. be not may freedom freedom of expression is under threat, (and how we can combat the in on going is much that not but threats), the pose that those field of developing means,essential the even maybe means, a is expression of freedom shouldn’t we consider it with the same of society, for the progress – from other means any that we consider and openness scrutiny construction tools to ? John Stuart Mill, at least, em of bounds off are that principles of set ready a having that phasized discussion is only desirable to “the sort of persons who think that may have been desirable once, but that we have had new truths enough of them now” (ibid., 96). the “tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” (ibid., 73) and the “tyranny of the prevailing sense of infallibility reactionary the accompanying unhealthy and (ibid., 85). that has become a passively speech itself been the doctrine of free received “hereditary creed” (ibid., 108). Doesn’t this description fit speech is most of free the reality, the way in which the notion, if not “fatal tendency of mankind to the ly taken for granted, and thereby leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful,” (ibid., 111). of half their errors” to Mill “is the cause which according and in which ways the lot of debate is going on about, whether A means for another end and open for revision. In fact, it must be, questions, ethical of evaluation the for standard real only the since makes to contribution, which something to Mill, is the according however noble and a principle and therefore overall happiness, itself (Mill of and in be an end it, cannot might hold valuable we sharing and criti of humanity depends on 1993, 79). The progress scope the limit to injury except reason no sees Mill and ideas, cizing principle still remains but the uttered, be of what might therefore which consists in challenging its utility, because of valuable entirely quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk ------15

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 been limited, even in the de facto be, on pain of being otherwise considered in be, on pain of being otherwise considered hould Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom The core principle of free speech is always limited by other legal principle of free The core So, what is there to discuss? Firstly, I want to demonstrate that So, itwhat is to there discuss? Firstly, speech should be within certain boundaries, but which and where speech should be within certain boundaries, but which and where thethat establishes alone already fact obvious This be. should these speech is historically variable and open to scrutiny concept of free and debate – or s enough, un-liberal, way. a dogmatic, and, ironically on and decisions for discussions considerations, and the reservoir these considerations could be said to be the wider moral discus free free speech are (currently) being defined. This varies over time as defamation, incite regarding restrictions but geography, as well ment of violence, racism, etc. blasphemy, exist globally in various lifted, but others can be are Some restrictions forms and degrees. changing technology, communication of forms new to due added social norms or new forms of abuse – or combinations of these. In speechfree imagine to difficult more much fact in is it words, other than it is to imagine one that is re without any legal restrictions con stricted in various ways, and most legislators would probably without to lift restrictions sider it to be completely irresponsible it is not a question of whether free all, but a very few, exception. To cept of free speech. I will claim that there are always both juridical but also that it is in fact notand moral considerations to be made, even clear when we to free are say what we want to say in the first this leads me to a discussion of Kant’s concept of a place. Secondly, and inspiration new of need in is think I which reason, of use public experiments. Limits of free speech always has expression of Freedom usually sup Constitutions are liberal democracies. modern, most specify how the limitations of that plemented by penal regulations restriction. restriction. One arrives at this paradox only be maintaining the caveats as such a simple principle without speech principle of free of misrepresentation a is this that claim I explanations. additional or historically as well as normatively. speech, the idea of free unrestricted to imagine a completely is in fact almost inconceivable are have, (must) we restrictions, the that and expression, of freedom in favor of an ongoing de historically variable. This alone speaks we consider to be the right con bate about and elaboration of what quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk

------16

made them mine own thoughts? own Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik my Volume 14 Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom Thirdly, there are some more general philosophical some questions more are there Thirdly, A second example is context, something which is relevant in both in relevant is which something context, is example second A throw some light on the issues involved in the very concept of free some light on the issues involved in the very concept of free throw speech. In the Danish constitution, the section on the freedom of expression is formulated in the way that “everyone is entitled […] to make public his thoughts”. I think this is a wonderful formula then are What question: the begs it because tion, have or mine, really is that new or original anything thought I Have I seriously some considered thoughts of others and through autonomous deliberation? Otherwise, what I say might be punishable in other circumstances, e.g. when shouted to an ex of a corn-dealer’scited mob in front think house (Mill 1993, 123). Or cases, some In people. of groups certain for names derogatory the of they can support bigotry and harmless; in others, relatively they are justify violence. This does not and maybe even indirectly hatred, lan the from banned be must signifiers or words certain that mean guage, but that the use of certain words in certain contexts can be should not be blamable, even punishable. (Just like screwdrivers banned, but some uses of them most certainly should). but nonetheless may less of immediate moral relevance, that are 274]). Although this line of argumentation might not motivate one might not motivate Although this line of argumentation 274]). or want to maintain actual (it does not motivate me) to demand of lot a make does think, I itself, argument the blasphemy, on what reconsider, even or remind to reason give does and sense is a higher principle not there and whether or for, our laws are than that of legality. himself mentions the sentence legal and moral discussions. Mill “private is robbery” as an example. When stated in a be completely legitimate, he be this sentence should newspaper, but it might about , lieves, as part of the public discussion sions in society about what should be accepted in which situations. what should be accepted in sions in society about position one’s of regardless example, for blasphemy, of case the In on the legal question concerning one blasphemy, might still find the moral discussion of it interesting and worthwhile. Even Im is something right about an image that there manuel Kant argues prin a highest awe towards the appropriate ban, because it creates in lines – a divinity or drawn ciple that cannot be spoken in words imperative, which liesor a moral principle like the categorical be yond customary views and legal norms (Kant 1987: 135 5: [AA quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk ------17

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom that is the problem, but the normal, non-restricted reality itself itself reality but the normal, non-restricted that is the problem, what one couldAlthusser emphasizes how Louis which is unfree. the interpellation of our call our spontaneous ideology comes from (Al He called them “ideological apparatuses” surroundings. or re thusser 2001), which means all the institutions that reinforce from inhabitants: its and state the of picture hegemonic the produce family and schools to police, government, and of course the media. even and – believe to what behave, to how taught constantly are We Express yourself! So, what does it mean to express oneself freely; to express one’s absence the of terms in understood be only this Can thoughts? own of threats of violence or actual physical restrictions? Or can it be have theeven don´t ourselves, we, that way, in the also understood means to express ourselves autonomously? That what in we say, many cases, is not our own thoughts in any important sense? The general thrust of Althusser’sLouis version of the critique of ideol embedded in ideology always already that we are ogy is precisely speech free of restriction active the much so not is it that extent an to lowing again a more pragmatic line in the interpretation of the prin line in the interpretation pragmatic lowing again a more ciple of free speech, the interesting question is not so much the my head, and through of consciousness that is passing stream whether or not I should be allowed to express all of it openly and immediately (again, I think that I should not), but rather the ques tion of how I actually may generate something that broadens the field of what it is possible to think. This might sound a bit solemn, the to threats of forms important to relates nonetheless it think I but discuss usually one that ones the than other expression of freedom opinionsvarious of legality or prohibition the of frame the within es boundaries. established within a field of already not really be my thoughts in any genuine sense. I think this is not at not is this think I sense. genuine any in thoughts my be really not because it con as it might immediately sound, all as speculative, was basically to of the enlightenment, which cerns the very ideal share thoughts and improve them. When John Stuart Mill talks talks about the possible he always point of view, about the minority pub is not (yet) accepted by the broader or value, that insight, truth contribute to the advancement of so lic, but which might precisely be would expression of freedom the of inhibition ultimate The ciety. Fol being produced. were no new thoughts the situation, where quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk ------The 18 at all. We

from immaturi from Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 have thoughts yourself ; it is a practical demand addressed addressed demand a practical it is ; more from 1781. Three years later, however, Kant however, years later, 1781. Three from as it is called: Have the courage to make use of use make to courage the Have called: is it as Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom Sapere aude! Sapere t invent our own language, but assume it, as we learn about thet invent our own language, but assume ´ We findWe another formulation of this problem already in Kant’s Public use of reason Kant develops a distinction between private and public use of rea a has think I which but intuitive, counter seems some to which son, con key very the course of is Reason power. explanatory significant analyzed in and it was thoroughly cept in Kant’s philosophy, Reason Critique of Pure specifies howreason can be put to use in very different ways, and your own understanding (ibid.). This use is certainly not meant tomeant not certainly is use This (ibid.). understanding own your what pops into your be mind. just any random use that expresses On the contrary: It means trying out one’s knowledge, question conclusions own one’s reaching and viewpoints, ing the received name particular a has Kant examination. possible best the through for this procedure: He calls it the public use of reason. It is this concept of a public use that of I reason will take as my focus for a the need for new in we might see of where discussion the field of the freedom of expression, which have both political, moral and philosophical implications. know it. ical formulation, for how can you release formulation, for how can you release ical use make you ty?way the in shift modal of kind a making by Only of reason. In we a are way, all subjects of ideological state appara itself is a gigantic machine sense. Language tuses in a very broad language of ideas, and it is in and through reproduction the for that we express our thoughts – or that we don not only a is therefore world. But the imperative of enlightenment and ; it is not sim knowledge for spreading suggestion knowing of question a ply to every single individual: it is not what but you how know, you how to see ourselves, which paradoxically includes an ideal of be ideology – consumers, of the voluntary adherents ing autonomous, for example, who “express ourselves” through our unique choices and purchases, etc., and thereby first of all confirm the ideology, which we inhabit. famous 1784 essay on enlightenment. The essay opens by defining his self-in from emergence enlightenment as “the human being’s 8: 35]) – a slightly paradox immaturity” (Kant 1996, 17 [AA curred quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk - - - - 19 . En right

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom By “public use of reason”, on the other hand, Kant understandsKant hand, other the on reason”, of use “public By example, (mine, not Kant’s), which I think highlights some of the the of some highlights think I which Kant’s), not (mine, example, teaching philoso Obviously, speech today. issues concerning free phy must be about teaching students how to think for themselves, provoke philosophy can where what counts as a valid argument, thinking or contribute to a better understanding of our predicament teach a of function the fulfilling Nonetheless, etc. beings, human as are You soldier: the of one the with traits many shares also clearly er in the service of the state, performing a specific function for which even a letter to a colleague or a friend, where you discuss certain friend, where even a letter to a colleague or a matters. While this might it seem is secondary, in fact this ability animals, but even that separates the being, human not only from ofimmediacy the above rise to able being of sense the in itself from and contemplate what would be more its surroundings Kant lightenment depends completely on this second use of reason. obliged are you army, the in serving are you If example: an gives legitimacy. or without debating their usefulness orders to follow debate, whether as a citizen, the soldier might afterwards However, army an having whether indeed or purpose its fulfilling is army the philosophy is another at all serves a legitimate purpose. Teaching ing order that one is part of. One obtains for a example, salary, for performing a certain function. When a policeman regulates traffic making private use of reason. he is or carries out an interrogation, much of what therefore, takes place in the “public Paradoxically, really are TV, on hospitals, in schools, in streets, the in domain”, forms of the private use of reason. of as a learned person in front the use, which a person may make “the entire public of the world of readers” (ibid., 18 (AA: 37)). The might make at home, in your is that which you public use of reason orbook or a editor a letter to the writing are you when armchair, he separates those in what he calls “private” and “public” uses of in what he calls “private” and he separates those when is the one that one makes, of reason The private use reason. sense, or even the in the broadest of one’s own interests taking care standing own one’s reaffirm that ways in but public, the of interests Reason in this in way society. may separate humans from animals, understand intelligent, more that humans are but only in the sense complex situations and seek the most beneficial solutions. In other words: One makes use of the general capacity for reasoning and with the prevail that correspond understanding the world in ways quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk ------20

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 of the students, as it is so poetically poetically as it is so of the students, employability Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom The pragmatic line in interpreting the principle of “making pub The pragmatic line in interpreting ties, NGO/lobbyist work, , etc. We find it in New Public New in it find We etc. advertising, work, NGO/lobbyist ties, learning, of objectification and standardization the in Management, in the politics of the “ State” (cf. Cerny 1997; compartmentalized experts etc, etc. Everywhere, Pedersen 2011), public and more, and more moving forward, are and professionals or made doubtful, as if the common is marginalized use of reason evaporated has reason of use public a of existence very the in belief Z”). wants to promote (“she is just saying X, because she really “public use of reason”, the capacity for critical and independent for critical and independent the capacity “public use of reason”, could talk about concerted on other spaces. One thinking, must rely teach of kinds various in reason of use public the promote to efforts which have traditionally been sup arts, media, etc., ing, research, furthering of aim explicit the with funding government by ported them the funders independent thought at “arms length” from promote public selves. use To of reason time requires and an envi ronment of experimentation and scrutiny that has come under se of privatization the call I What decades. recent within pressure vere find We is the general starvation of the public use of reason. reason it in universities, newspapers, media, political par cretely changing the way, you teach students - or maybe you will changing the way, cretely preparation best the is reason use of public their that training insist for any occupation, they could get. so, it becomes more But even testing or teaching when whether, distinguish, to difficult more and students at exams, you are in fact making a public or a private use they? And what are of reason. lic one’s own thoughts” relates to this question of a public use of reason. Performing well within already given frames and (implic etc., norms, social of picture overall the confirming explicitly) or itly while the use of reason”, would usually fall within the “private you obtain a salary and certain benefits, like social standing,“cul tural ”, etc. Performing your role, you have to abide by the exam regulation and take into due consideration the interests of meansexclusively more and more which funder, or employer your focusing on the called: The question is not, whether they will contribute to the ulti and job, any job, a get will they whether but humanity, of aims mate pay . Maybe this increased focus on the outcome of teaching, for the job , is con competences the relevant how to promote quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk ------21

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom The liberal principle of freedom of expression thus relies on the In Kantian terms, what we risk losing with the privatization of of privatization the with losing risk we what terms, Kantian In but not on the right to ridicule their own national or religious sym but not on the right to ridicule their own national or religious bols. Therefore, they are actually not for freedom of expression in philosophically not agree because they do or Kant’s sense, Mill’s iswith the idea of the universal human subject. The empty subject fiction in the eyes of right wing populism, because the a theoretical endowed human being is always embodied, placed in a culture, with a particular set of traditions, values, etc. tradition distinguishes between an empty subject (the subject of an empty subject (the subject of tradition distinguishes between which and thoughts its express to right a upholds that enunciation) identities and interests, as such, and the concrete can be addressed have (the subject of the enunciat which one might simultaneously ed). If one does not accept the “empty”, universal subject as a po with the liberal idea of concept, one does not agree litically relevant free speech. I think this is where the real division between the lib lat the When found. be can populism wing right and tradition eral speech, it is usually a strategic, rather the right to free ter proclaim than a principled stance. They will insist, for example, on the right to criticize Islam, use derogatory language about foreigners, etc., one who can appreciate an observation or an argument about a cer or an argument an observation one who can appreciate tain state of affairs. By making public use ofreason, you treat your someone who can be addressed fellows as ends in themselves – as able to set their autonomously own who are as rational creatures inclinations or orders, their immediate and not only follow ends identities or mores. of their interests, regardless universal subjectivity that can beprinciple distinction between the of existence embodied concrete, the and individual, any to ascribed contains both aspects – a Any human being our cultural identity. if universal you and will. a In particular, other the words, liberal reason is the sense of the human being as part of what he calls a he calls a the human being as part of what is the sense of reason every where reason, of universal i.e. a realm “kingdom of ends”, creatures in virtue of their capacity as reasonable one participates and can only be hu that this kingdom serves are alone. The ends or rates or nations. Not growth doctrines or rules man beings, not only thus entails not Making public use of reason employability. and tasks your immediate interests that you distance yourself from humans as some you consider your fellow but also that in society, quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk ------22

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 ), and ideally that would imply a kind of), and ideally that would imply a populus Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom Nonetheless, I think that some of the movements and parties that parties and movements the of some that think I Nonetheless, Populism is the political movement that claims to speak on be of reason and of the so called “politics of necessity”? ”How does the does ”How necessity”? of “politics called so the of and reason of completely dis been almost public emancipate itself, when it has empowered by the As prevailing economic space order?” does not allow me to go into any empirical detail and analyze e.g. Occupy Street in the US, Wall Podemos in Spain, or in Greece, I will instead attempt a more formal definition of my point, maybe just mentioning in passing that one of the characteristics of these move ments is precisely that they experiment with more democratic tent (what Jacques Rancière has called “archépolitics” (Rancière political contributing to really than they are more 65)), much 1999, on the level of contents. neither on the formal level, nor progress, since have the emerged global in 2008 have brought interesting new experiments in the struggle for raising voices that or impossible, utopian, irresponsible considered very recently were but nonetheless on rely strictly democratic ideals and methods. I what many of these move to suggest that think it is reasonable reinvent one does “How question: the is answer to trying are ments in an age of almost complete privatization the public use of reason half of the people ( to “private interests”. be reduced enunciation that cannot so easily When public debate has been so thoroughly privatized, as it has public, the of idea very the with experiment to time be may it today, it is possible to speak again where i.e. to “open spaces”, if you will, of mankind in gen best interests as a public and to a public – in the eral, as Kant and Mill would have put is it. a What newis required genuinely new thoughts and ena speech that fosters form of free The right wing of reason. of the public use bles a reinvigoration do not contribute much to this am populist movements, however, certain forms of well-known con emphasizing bition, as they are Collectivization of the freedom of expression Collectivization (the “emp the subject of the enunciation The distinction between (what we and the subject of the enunciated ty”, universal subject) to keep in mind, our values, etc.) is important tell about ourselves, before I move to the concluding point. For I nonetheless think that possible to enun populism is necessary to make it a certain kind of conceptthe reinvigorate and solutions political of kinds new ciate of a public use of reason. quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk ------23

, Vol. 32, 02, , Vol. , New York: , New York: Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 , Indianapolis/Cam , New York: Cambridge Universi , New York: Government & Opposition The Critique of Judgment Lenin and Philosophy and other essays other and Philosophy and Lenin Practical Philosophy could want In to the say. first case, collectivity is estab Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom we of Political ”, pp. 251-274. bridge: Hackett Publishing . ment?”, in: pp. 11-22. ty Press, ratuses”, in: Monthly Review Press. In any case, the limit of populism, which must be kept firmly in In right wing populist movements, the people (in the sense of a Kant, I. 1987 [1790]. Kant, I. 1996 [1784]. ”An answer to the question: What is enlighten mind, if one wants to stay within the broad frame of the tradition oftradition the of frame broad the within stay to wants one if mind, broad the within stay should one think I (and enlightenment, the with it, as well right to disagree frame of the enlightenment), is the this disagreement. as the right to express References Appa L. 2001 [1970]. ”Ideology and Ideological State Althusser, 1997. ”Paradoxes of the P. Competition State: Cerny, The Dynamics shaped in “our” picture, or whether you move from the empty, uni the empty, you move from or whether shaped in “our” picture, versal subject to an experiment or an act that risks the articulation of what a from initiatives and definitions of effect homogenizing a as lished of some is an emergence political elite; in the second, collectivity of other act of a group or less spontaneous a more thing new from wise very different individuals. Maybe one could distinguish be identity to a pre-established assimilation tween collectivity through versus collectivity through a unification of the non-identical ina demand for new political ideas. forms of decision making, voting, institution building, etc. (See e.g. making, voting, institution building, forms of decision 2015). Zechner/Hansen, for itself) is enunciation with the right to decide general subject of identifying is content old an Rather, content. new a enunciating not The dif “the people”. as it repeat to mobilized are that subjects the a particular content, regarding is, whether you move from ference the position toward and “backwards” for instance national identity, all speaking subjects must be of enunciation, demanding that quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk - - 24 , Minne

Henrik Jøker Bjerre Henrik Volume 14 , London: Everyman. , Issue 0. , København: Hans Reit Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Liberty, Utilitarianism, On “Building Power in a Crisis of ROAR Magazine Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy Disagreement: Konkurrencestaten Freedom of Expression in the Era of the Privatization of Reason of Privatization Era of the in the of Expression Freedom Considerations on Representative Government Representative Considerations on zels Forlag. apolis/London: University of Minnesota Press. apolis/London: University Social Reproduction”, Mill, J. S. 1993 [1859]. “On Liberty.” In: In: Liberty.” “On [1859]. 1993 S. J. Mill, Pedersen, O. K. 2011. J. Rancière, 1999 [1995]. M. Zechner, and B.R. Hansen, 2015. quarter

academic

kvarter akademisk