The distinctive feature of this book is its ingenious argumentative strategy: it takes on the political by developing a practice and a thought the authors call 'polemicization'. They draw from the recent work of the political philosopher Jacques Rancière, for whom a polemic or disagreement does not refer to the case when one interlocutor says white and another black. Instead, it designates the conflict arising when, for example, both parties say white, yet each understands something different by whiteness. This situation forces the interlocutors to construe the scene of the validity of their claims, which is just another way of saying that the given or commonplace is never settled once and for all.
1.1 Polemic and the Commonplace
1.2 The Commonplace of political Modernity
1.3 Polemicizing the Commonplace
2 POLEMICIZATION AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
2.1 Polemicization and attitude
2.2 Polemicization and the Political
2.3 Polemicization and Critique
2.4 Polemicization and Metaphysics
2.5 Polemicization Pluraltiy
3 POLEMICIZING SUBJECTIVITY
3.1 The Modern Subject
3.2 The Basic Antagonism
3.3 Outing the Subject
3.4 Who Wants to be Popular?
4 POLEMICIZING UNIVERSALS
4.1 The Persistence of Universals
4.2 The Pragmatics of the Referent
4.3 Deliberation and Confrontation
4 Undecidability and the Impurity of Universals
5 Commonality Through Polemics
About the Author
Jeremy Valentine is Lecturer in Media Studies at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh.
This will make an excellent start-up volume ... it is entirely appropriate to the general task and could hardly be more relevant to current discussions.
Timely and well conceived...