Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics is an open access philosophical journal, being published only in an electronic format.
The journal aims at promoting research and reflection, both historically and theoretically, in the field of moral and political philosophy, with no cultural preclusion or adhesion to any cultural current.
Contributions should be submitted in one of these languages: Italian, English, French, German, Portuguese, Spanish.
All essays should include an English abstract of max. 200 words.
The editorial staff especially welcomes interdisciplinary contributions with special attention to the main trends of the world of practice.
The journal has an anonymous double peer review referee system.
Three issues per year are expected.
The copyright of the published articles remain to the authors. We ask that in any future use of them Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics be quoted as a source.
All products on this site are released with a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 IT) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/it/
ETICA & POLITICA / ETHICS & POLITICS POSITION ON PUBLISHING ETHICS
The Editors of Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics have taken every possible measure to ensure the quality of the material here published and, in particular, they guarantee that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely, and that all papers have been reviewed by unprejudiced and qualified reviewers. The publication of an article through a peer-review process is intended as an essential feature of any serious scientific community. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on the paper’s relevance, originality and clarity, the study’s validity and its relevance to the mission of the journal. In order to guarantee the quality of the published papers, the Editors encourage reviewers to provide detailed comments to motivate their decisions. The comments will help the Editorial Board to decide the outcome of the paper, and will help to justify this decision to the author. If the paper is accepted with the request of revision, the comments should guide the author in making the revisions for the final manuscript. All material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review.
Once the author receives a positive answer, he/she should send the final version of the article since proofs will not be sent to him/her. E&P will publish the paper within twelve months from the moment of the acceptance, and the author will be informed of the publication.
The journal is committed to such standards as originality in research papers, precise references in discussing other scholars’ positions, avoiding plagiarism. E&P takes these standards extremely seriously, because we think that they embody scientific method and are the mark of real scholarly communication.
Since Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics is devoted solely to scientific and academic quality, the journal neither has any submission charges nor any article processing charges.
The following guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
1. PUBLICATION AND AUTHORSHIP
EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, is the publisher of the peer reviewed international journal Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics.
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential step of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher.
Authors need to ensure that the submitted article is the work of the submitting author(s) and is not plagiarized, wholly or in part. They must also make sure that the submitted article is original, is not wholly or in part a re-publication of the author’s earlier work, and contains no fraudulent data.
It is also their responsibility to check that all copyrighted material within the article has permission for publication and that material for which the author does not personally hold copyright is not reproduced without permission.
Finally, authors should ensure that the manuscript submitted is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
2. AUTHOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES
Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics is a peer-reviewed journal, and Authors are obliged to participate in our double blind peer review process.
Authors must make sure that all and only the contributors to the article are listed as authors. Authors should also ensure that all authors provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
3. PEER REVIEW AND REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES
Both the Referee and the Author remain anonymous throughout the “double blind” review process. Referees are selected according to their expertise in their particular fields.
Referees have a responsibility to be objective in their judgments; to have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, with respect to the authors and/or with respect to the research funders; to point out relevant published work which is not yet cited by the author(s); and to treat the reviewed articles confidentially.
4. EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Editors hold full authority to reject/accept an article; to accept a paper only when reasonably certain; to promote publication of corrections or retractions when errors are found; to preserve anonymity of reviewers; and to have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept. If an Editor feels that there is likely to be a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to their handling of a submission, they will declare it to the other Editors. The other Editors will select referees and make all decisions on the paper.
5. PUBLISHING ETHICS ISSUES
Members of the Editorial Board ensure the monitoring and safeguarding of the publishing ethics. This comprises the strict policy on plagiarism and fraudulent data, the strong commitment to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed, and the strict preclusion of business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
Whenever it is recognized that a published paper contains a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report, it will be corrected promptly. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it will be retracted. The retraction will be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
PAST ISSUE AND STATISTICS
Past issues with download and visitors statistics for each article are provided here: http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/handle/10077/4673
COMITATO SCIENTIFICO NAZIONALE / ITALIAN ADVISORY BOARD:
A. Agnelli † (Trieste), A. Allegra (Perugia), G. Alliney (Macerata), S. Amato (Catania), M. Anzalone (Napoli), D. Ardilli (Modena), F. Aronadio (Roma), G. Azzoni (Pavia), F. Bacchini (Sassari), E. Berti (Padova), M. Bettetini (Milano), P. Bettineschi (Venezia), P. Biasetti (Padova), G. Bistagnino (Milano) R. Caporali (Bologna), A.A. Cassi (Bergamo), G. Catapano (Padova), M. Cossutta (Trieste), L. Cova (Trieste), S. Cremaschi (Vercelli), G. Cevolani (Modena), R. Cristin (Trieste), U. Curi (Padova), G. De Anna (Udine), P. Donatelli (Roma), P. Donini (Milano), M. Faraguna (Milano), M. Ferraris (Torino), L. Floridi (Oxford), R. Frega (Bologna), S. Fuselli (Verona), A. Fussi (Pisa), C. Galli (Bologna), R. Giovagnoli (Roma), P. Kobau (Torino), E. Irrera (Bologna), E. Lecaldano (Roma), L.A. Macor (Oxford), E. Manganaro (Trieste), G. Maniaci (Palermo), R. Martinelli (Trieste), F.G. Menga (Tübingen), R. Mordacci (Milano), V. Morfino (Milano), B. de Mori (Padova), M. Pagano (Vercelli), G. Pellegrino (Roma), V. Rasini (Modena-Reggio Emilia), M. Reichlin (Milano), M. Renzo (Stirling), A. Rigobello (Roma), P.A. Rovatti (Trieste), S. Semplici (Roma), A. Schiavello (Palermo), A. Sciumè (Bergamo), M. Sgarbi (Venezia), F. Toto (Roma), F. Trabattoni (Milano), F. Trifirò (London), M.S. Vaccarezza (Genova), C. Vigna (Venezia), P. Vignola (Guayaquil) S. Zeppi † (Trieste).
COMITATO SCIENTIFICO INTERNAZIONALE / INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD:
J. Allan (New Zealand), K. Ballestrem (Germany), T. Bedorf (Germany), G. Betz (Germany), W. Block (USA), M. Byron (USA), S. Chambers (Canada), J. Coleman (UK), C. Cowley (Ireland), W. Edelglass (USA), C.L. Geshekter (USA), A. Kalyvas (USA), J. Kelemen (Hungary), F. Klampfer (Slovenia), M. Knoll (Turkey), C. Illies (Germany), D. Innerarity (Spain), A. Lever (Switzerland), H. Lindahl (Netherlands), J. Marti (Spain), M. Matulovic (Croatia), J. McCormick (USA), N. Miscevic (Croatia), A. Moles (Hungary), L. Paulson (France), A. Przylesbski (Poland), J. Quong (USA) V. Rakic (Serbia), A. Schaap (UK), B. Schultz (USA), N. Tarcov (USA), D. Webb (UK), J.P. Zamora Bonilla (Spain).
REFEREES LIST FOR 2017
B. Accarino (Università di Firenze), A. Altobrando (China University of Politics and Law, Pechino) A. Allegra (Università per Stranieri, Perugia), S. Amato (Università di Catania), P. Bettineschi (Università di Padova), S. Blancu (LUMSA, Roma), M. Ballistreri (Università di Torino), M. Bettetini (IULM, Milano), C. Canullo (Università di Macerata), R. Caporali (Università di Bologna), G. Cevolani (IMT, Lucca), F. Ciaramelli (Università di Napoli, Federico II), A. Cislaghi (Università di Trieste), R. Cristin (Università di Trieste), G. De Anna (Università di Udine), P. Donatelli (Università di Roma, La Sapienza), A. Fabris (Università di Pisa), S. Ferrando (Université de Strasbourg), A. Fussi (Università di Pisa), C. Gerbaz (Università di Rijeka), B. Giovanola (Università di Macerata), G. Grandi (Università di Padova), L. Greco (Università di Oxford), M.L. Lanzillo (Università di Bologna), G. Maniaci (Università di Palermo), R. Martinelli (Università di Trieste), F. Menga (Università di Tubinga), F. Miano (Università di Roma, Tor Vergata), M. Monaldi (Università di Trieste), R. Mordacci (Università San Raffaele, Milano), B. De Mori (Università di Padova), G. Pellegrino (LUISS, Roma), U. Pomarici (Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”), V. Rasini (Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia), C. Rofena (Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia), A. Schiavello (Università di Palermo), P. Šustar (Università di Rijeka), M. Trobok (Università di Rijeka), F. Turoldo (Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia), M. Vaccarezza (Università di Genova), S. Zanardo (Università Europea di Roma).
In this paper, I would like to retrace the way in which Waldenfels works on the distinction between things and humans. Through the responsive point of view, this relation is marked by a radical ambivalence, and the attribution of identities can only happen during the responding process itself, not before. This leads to a practical kind of uncertainty that underlies every cultural categorization. In the second part of my paper, I would like to show the implications of this theory for ecological questions. I aim to suggest that the responsive point of view allows us to consider a form of community, not made of specified beings with different qualities, but of responding parts of the same responsive and “pathic” event. What we share with things and with nature is the necessity to respond to some emergencies that bind us together in the same practical situation.
This paper investigates which consequences for the constitution of subjectivity in its ethical-political dimension can be drawn from Waldenfels’ understanding of responsive phenomenology. The deferment Waldenfels’ thinking of responsivity suggests focuses on a precarious conception of the self as it is regarded as radically undisclosed in respect to the Other. Responding to the Other the self is at the time responsible for the Other. Consequently, the dimension of the ethical and the political is not to be taken as an additional aspect of subjectivity. In responding to the demands of the Other and the third party (le tiers) the responsive subject has always already been exposed to ethical and political imperatives.
Waldenfels responsive phenomenology contributes to break new ground in phenomenological themes. The notion of responsiveness opens the way to a different view on some philosophical problems, such as intersubjectivity and self-awareness. Firstly, the sense of reciprocity involved in responsiveness makes manifest that intersubjectivity must be thought in terms of the development of multi-relational bonds with others. Secondly, each and every action of the Self, as well as the concept of self-awareness is built up by some aspects of otherness. Within this perspective, every genuine experience is a process by which otherness appropriates to someone his/her existence in order to appropriate him/her to itself. More precisely, experience becomes a lived event penetrated by pathos. The phenomenon of attention reveals the pathetic dimension of experience and the fact that we are affected by what happens before being able to respond to it. Therefore, in the experience of attention we are confronted with a particular kind of event, which means that paying attention to what happens is not primarily an action of a particular subject. Rather, attention is the coming-to-be of an event which connotes the horizon of intertwined experiences, where time and different degrees of nearness and remoteness play a determining role.
In the this article I try to show how an interaction between the phenomenological works of Enzo Paci and of Bernhard Waldenfels can lead to some interesting results concerning Husserl's search for a rigorous and apodictic ground for knowledge and for a universal science which involves the whole life of consciousness also in its intersubjective aspects. I do not try to compare the two thinkers, nor to assess the correctness of their interpretation of Husserl's thought, but to show through their thoughts some remarks concerning problems which are still crucial in the philosophical and phenomenological debate. Paci's insistence on the practical and existential value of phenomenological reflection leads to constantly have to face the question “what is to be done?”, demanding in this way for an answering to the provocation of the Alien so well analysed by Waldenfels. Through such a process a common constitution does preserve from the lost of diversity and, at the same time, does not escape responsibility.
My paper will deal with a topic which interests both hermeneutics and phenomenology, as well as ethics and theory of image. This topic is the request of the Other. Speaking and thinking starting from the request of the Other implies a thinking which conceives of ethics as a "prima philosophia", as Levinas has shown. On its turn, speaking and think-ing starting from the image‟s request implies a thinking which attempts to speak about an image, by responding to its calling. Both these two registers of response are not absolute and solely ethically conceived, as ethos without pathos would be lifeless, and pathos with-out ethos would probably be dubious. Furthermore, both of them cannot do without logos when it comes to making ourselves understandable to others. Of course, it makes a huge difference whether we speak and think starting from one and not the other kind of request. However, Other and image converge on the fact that they both share the character of re-quest, and this to the point that image, indeed, affects us, hits us in a pathic way and even compels us to answer. Hence, one may ask: is the image event a version of the “request of the Other”, a modality of encountering the alien? Or, rather, is the request of the Other a modality between image and the other human being, so that this same modality allows us to think the character of phenomenality that image and Other share? To a “humanist of the Other” this proximity to image would appear dangerous, as the Other could run the risk of being taken “only as an image”. In other words, the risk here is that we might end up dealing only with images instead of dealing with the actual request of the Other. Yet we may ask: does the image event actually hit less than the request of the Other? Of course, there are deep differences between the theory of image and ethics. However, they have one point in common: they both share the pathic and ethical character of event, starting from which one can speak and think. Then: image and Other, image as Other, or Other as image?
In respect to the issue of ethics, Waldenfels’ position can be located between Levinas’ and Merleau Ponty’s. This “in-between” position allows an enormous enrichment of the phenomenological analysis. This essay aims at a stronger emphasis regarding the analysis of Merleau-Ponty’s “intercorporéité (Zwischenleiblichkeit)”. To this purpose, I am discussing important insights from Husserl’s lecture “Einleitung in die Ethik, 1920 – 24”, and the turn from an egologic interpretation of affection towards an intermonadic interpretation of pre-affection. This approach works towards the establishment of the field of research of ethics in the genetic phenomenology, in which the more wide ranging scope of Waldenfels’ contribution can be shown clearly.
The distinction between politics (as practice of institutions) and the political (as the interruption of the practice of the former) has recently received greater attention in political theory. Whereas, on one side, five types of this distinction can be made, on the other, a problem persists: the question whether this distinction means to make a hierarchical differentiation between “mere politics” and the “real event” of the political. To this extent, it might help to see the political difference through the lens of Waldenfels’ distinction between (contingent) order and the extra-ordinary. The main idea is that the excess of the extraordinary is only to be found in politics and not outside of it. By means of this interpretation it could be argued that the gap between politics and the political could be reduced without being completely bridged.
Experience of something strange does not mean there is a strange thing that becomes experienced but rather it means that something is experienced as being strange. The same holds true for recognizing a stranger; the person recognized is not by herself a stranger but she becomes recognized as such. Thus, the denomination strange/stranger depends on the process of experience and recognition. Waldenfels has shown that experience is much more than simply an intentional act; it befalls a person who in experiencing something reacts to a claim that comes from outside and that can never be answered entirely. Therefore, experience has some elements of strangeness in its own structure. It is these elements that allow something or someone to be experienced as being strange. However, what exactly is experienced as being strange greatly depends on the particular situation as well as on previous experiences. In this paper I thus argue that the experience of strangeness correlates with the history of previous experiences. Since cultures mainly are characterized by a common history of experiences, what counts as being strange differs from culture to culture. An Intercultural Philosophy, therefore, would have to go beyond the analysis of an experience of strangeness by itself experiencing interculturality.
One of the key concepts in recent moral debates is respect. The paper establishes the thesis that respect must first be understood as a responsive deontic demand. This occurs if beyond a universalisation of the practical law it keeps open the connection to the various pronominal versions and is shaped as response to a call which does not follow classical schemes of mere reciprocity but which takes into account the asymmetry of the other. For this reason main accounts of respect in contexts of human dignity (Immanuel Kant, Axel Honneth, Rainer Forst and others) are questioned in the horizon of the philosophy of Bernhard Waldenfels.
After describing briefly some features of the phenomenology and anthropology of embodiment, this paper attempts to demonstrate the existence of an interesting point of covergence between a phenomenology of embodiment as studied and developed by Bernhard Waldenfels in a very broad range of works and the proposals from some representatives of contemporary cultural anthropology, who consider embodiment the existential ground of the culture and the self. Between biologicistic naturalism and constructivistic representationism, it is possible to provide a phenomenological analysis of the embodiment that restores its funtion of mediating between nature and culture and wich does not deny either of these two elements nor their mutual intertwining.
This paper examines the relations between identity, otherness and alterity in the field of ethics and, especially, in that of political philosophy. For this, I refer to the work of three eminent thinkers: the Mexican philosopher Luis Villoro, and the German philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Bernhard Waldenfels. In all of them the problems of otherness, alterity, exclusion and inclusion play a very important role: the otherness and the exclusion of other cultures or social groups (asylum seekers, immigrants, poor people) or entire ethnic groups (like indigenous peoples in a country like Mexico). The result of this reflection is a conception of democracy and, in general, of the political order, as an order always open to the claims and demands from otherness and alterity, in an endless game between identity and otherness that can never be completed.
The aim of this paper is to discuss the possibility to find a shared basis of agreement among comprehensive religious doctrines, when actors neither agree about which goals are reasonable nor think that a cooperative behaviour is worthy. Taking into account recent case studies, I will compare two of the most influential theories about consensus: Habermas’s position about “reaching understanding” and Rawls’s model of “overlapping consensus”. Whereas several well known political theories about consensus seem to reside at a distance from the world, failing to place normative claims within historical contexts, Max Weber argues that opposed value’s spheres interlace because of the “superficiality” of quotidian life. The still open problem pertains to conditions for political consensus and justice when there is no reason to expect that religious individuals and organizations will converge in their views on what constitutes a just way of life and on where are the reasonable limits of reciprocity to be drawn.
Waldenfels’ analysis of contemporary avant-gard theater in his book Senses and Arts in Mutual Play. Modi of Aesthetic Experience (Frankfurt 2010) gives also a brief comparison with the work of Pier Paolo Pasolini, in fact with a scenic adaptation (“Like a Dog without any Owner”) of the unfinished and posthumous novel Oil, a sort of Satyricon of nowadays. Waldenfels emphasizes above all Pasolini’s phenomenological attitude towards doubleness and strangeness in his analysis of the limits of experience, exemplified by the relationship of the Self with its own body and with the other. An aesthetical epochè seems to be at work according to Waldenfels’ interpretation of Pasolini, but also his ‘reading’ of Pasolini seems to be the exercise of an affectional and responsive epochè, at least because of his indirect writing.
For a phenomenologist, the question that has to be asked about peace is not primarily whether it can be defined as the tranquillity of order, a law of nature or an infinite task, as it were according to Augustine, Hobbes and Kant. It is rather a question of its phenomenality : how does peace appear to us, how does it get visible? In his attempt to answer this question, Waldenfels privileges the event of a peace agreement and proposes a reconstruction of its genealogy.