A brand new collection of Jacques Rancière's writings on art and politics.

Addressing a constellation of diverse thinkers—including Emmanuel Levinas, Patricia Williams, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Frantz Fanon, Julia Kristeva, and Luce Irigaray—the author proposes a new conception of ethics, an ethics of dissensus that rethinks the relation between freedom and obligation in a double context of embodiment and antagonism. The author employs discourses that have hitherto been segregated: postmodern ethics, feminism, race theory, and the idea of radical democracy.

Disability and Dissensus is an interdisciplinary volume that critically engages with disability representation in contemporary cultures, fostering new understandings of human diversity and contributing to a dissensual ferment of thought in the academia, arts, and activism.

Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics brings together some of Jacques Rancière's most recent writings on art and politics to show the critical potential of two of his most important concepts: the aesthetics of politics and the politics of aesthetics. In this fascinating collection, Rancière engages in a radical critique of some of his major contemporaries on questions of art and politics: Gilles Deleuze, Antonio Negri, Giorgio Agamben, Alain Badiou and Jacques Derrida. The essays show how Rancière's ideas can be used to analyse contemporary trends in both art and politics, including the events surrounding 9/11, war in the contemporary consensual age, and the ethical turn of aesthetics and politics. Rancière elaborates new directions for the concepts of politics and communism, as well as the notion of what a 'politics of art' might be. This important collection includes several essays that have never previously been published in English, as well as a brand new afterword. Together these essays serve as a superb introduction to the work of one of the world's most influential contemporary thinkers.

This book provides an explanation for the fundamental disagreement pertaining to immigration and asylum in Europe. Since the collapse of consensus with the end of the Cold War, immigration and asylum have increasingly emerged as a central socio-political issue in Europe. The present work attempts to move beyond the complexity of ‘managing’ migratory flows by focusing on the most daunting issues arising from the response to the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe. This debate is intimately connected to borders, security, belonging, citizenship and labour precarity/inequality. The book addresses some crucial dimensions related to the migration and asylum dissensus by providing an integrated frame of analysis from the point of view of resistance, rather than that of power. It connects notions of belonging and the migrant integration with the processes of de-democratisation, racist populism, citizenship and authoritarian migration regimes, and contributes towards a theory of the asylum and immigration dissensus by examining the potential for transition towards a society of equality and rights. The author proposes that the encounter(s) with surplus populations in Europe, which result in the multiplication of liminal regimes as well as spaces for resistance, generates potential for social imaginaries, promising a society unimaginable in previous epochs. This book will be of much interest to students of migration and border studies, global governance, European politics and International Relations.

What should happen when doctors and parents disagree about what would be best for a child? When should courts become involved? Should life support be stopped against parents' wishes? The case of Charlie Gard, reached global attention in 2017. It led to widespread debate about the ethics of disagreements between doctors and parents, about the place of the law in such disputes, and about the variation in approach between different parts of the world. In this book, medical ethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu critically examine the ethical questions at the heart of disputes about medical treatment for children. They use the Gard case as a springboard to a wider discussion about the rights of parents, the harms of treatment, and the vital issue of limited resources. They discuss other prominent UK and international cases of disagreement and conflict. From opposite sides of the debate Wilkinson and Savulescu provocatively outline the strongest arguments in favour of and against treatment. They analyse some of the distinctive and challenging features of treatment disputes in the 21st century and argue that disagreement about controversial ethical questions is both inevitable and desirable. They outline a series of lessons from the Gard case and propose a radical new 'dissensus' framework for future cases of disagreement. - This new book critically examines the core ethical questions at the heart of disputes about medical treatment for children. - The contents review prominent cases of disagreement from the UK and internationally and analyse some of the distinctive and challenging features around treatment disputes in the 21st century. - The book proposes a radical new framework for future cases of disagreement around the care of gravely ill people.

Amidst the continued debate surrounding the foundations of IPE, coupled with recent methodological and theoretical divides this book argues that an attempt should be made to re-visit the notion of the 'critical'. The challenge posed by contributors to this volume is to assess the development of so-called critical IPE and interrogate whether the theoretical foundations it was built upon have reached their potential. The essays in this volume take up this challenge in a number of different ways but all share a common concern - to re-assess the purpose of critical approaches, reflect on why certain social theorists have been favoured as a point of departure, yet others have largely been ignored. In light of recent debates on the notion of a 'trans-Atlantic divide' within IPE the collection the contributors aim demonstrates how the distinction between the 'critical' and the 'orthodox' (or 'empirical') is only significant if the 'critical' is geared towards a larger, more substantial body of critical social enquiry and engages with what it means to conduct such enquiry.

This book analyses how authoritarian rulers of Southeast Asian countries maintain their durability in office, and, in this context, explains why some movements of civil society organizations succeed while others fail to achieve their demands. It discusses the relationship between the state-society-business in the political survival context. As the first comparative analysis of strategies of regime survival across Southeast Asia, this book also provides an in-depth insight into the various opposition movements, and the behaviour of antagonistic civic and political actors in the region.

The Politics of Dissensus inverts the traditional perspective on the study of parliamentary politics by focusing on its less obvious and less well-known aspects. Dissensus instead of consensus becomes the condition for the intelligibility of parliamentary politics. Such politics is indebted to the rhetorical culture of addressing issues from opposite perspectives and debating the alternatives pro et contra: no motion is approved without a thorough examination of, and confrontation among, imaginable alternatives. Establishing the openness of political debating, parliamentarism has become a distinctive historical contribution to the rise of parliamentary democracy. Parliament in Debate refers to the paradigmatic institution for political deliberation, the debates surrounding its legislative activity, as well as the supervision of government and administration. Parliament has become a fascinating object of scrutiny as a political institution adopted and developed by different political traditions. In a nutshell, the book retrieves the study of parliamentary politics to present political theory and action in the parliamentary mode. It is a book on the relevance of parliamentarism to the study of politics and a book on the comparative conceptual and institutional history of parliamentary politics. The Politics of Dissensus: Parliament in Debate is the outcome of an international team of contributors coordinated by two ongoing research projects, relying on a long-lasting international cooperation, namely the Academy of Finland project The Politics of Dissensus and the Spanish National Research Fund projects The Rhetorics of Democracy and The Civic Constellation.

This book reflects on the problematic relation of ethics to politics in our 'democratic' era. If democracy implies the loss of an ultimate foundation for both ethics and political action, how can it be defended against its (ultra-nationalist, fundamentalist, ...) critics. Are there reasons for being a 'democrat' and what does it mean to be so or to act 'democratically'. Does this merely imply strict obedience to certain procedures that we call 'democratic' or does a democratic society ask for a democratic attitude or ethos. If so, how can this ethos be defined and grounded. All contributions to this volume articulate answers to these questions or to problems intrinsically related to them (i.e. what is the status of the law when it loses ultimate foundation). They do so by reflecting on the work of some important contemporary French philosophers: Lefort, Lyotard, Derrida, Levinas, Lacan, etc