Eduardo Mendieta

A self-perceived lack of training in ethical theories and related pedagogy has kept many engineering faculty members from teaching data ethics, an important aspect of engineering research that has become more salient in recent years. This paper describes the development of a module, which includes concepts, cases, policies, and best practices, to support the teaching of ethical data practice. Based on a user-oriented design approach and a moral literacy framework, the module was designed to be used in different courses and co-curricular activities for students of varying levels of competence to improve their ability to identify and analyze ethical problems associated with the handling of research data. This work seeks to encourage ethical reflection on researchers’ data practice through the idea of an “ecology of data,” which highlights the co-production of data by multiple, interconnected, and heterogeneous actors. This paper also presents online and in-class evidence about the impact and limitations of the module, which is now available for interested researchers and instructors to browse and use.

ABSTRACT In this article I set out to develop an alternative analysis of national borders that grants them moral and politically normative standing while at the same time showing the limits of such merely normative analytics. The aim is to develop a genealogical analysis of the U.S. border, which is taken here as an exemplar of how not to implement borders. The first section develops what will be called here the “mobile panopticon,” one that colonizes the so-called heartland, making of all citizens potentially extraditable subjects. The second section argues that the assemblage of institutions that make of the border not simply a geographic marker has become deeply enmeshed with the United States' peculiar institutions of hyperpenality and criminal branding, thus leading to the expansion and exacerbation of what I have called the “ethnoracial prison industrial complex.” This analysis then offers warrants for the argument that the U.S. border is no longer a neutral arbiter of sovereignty but, instead, has become a “genocidal machine.” In the closing section an engagement with Casey and Watkins's recent work on the U.S. border offers a bridge to the genealogical claim that the U.S. border is in fact a thanatological dispositif.

Humans built cities, but cities are where we become civil, civilized, and civically minded; we are thus products of cities. Cities are also ubiquitous in the human experience. Yet, the last two hundred years witnessed an unprecedented mega-urbanization of humanity. In 2007, or so, it was announced that more humans now lived in cities than in the countryside. This article aims to analyze the new pattern of mega-urbanization in the twenty-first century, a century that brings extreme challenges: demographic growth (9 billion humans), global warming with its concomitant chaotic and severe weather, massive population displacements, precarious water resources, and greater global economic integration with growing volatility. The largest megalopolises of the twenty-first century will be in the “global South” in the “developing world.” Most of this urbanization will be in the form of irregular urbanization, that is, ghettos, shantytowns, favelas, slums.

In the Work that she presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, 7 March 2013, in Galloway, New Jersey, Sassen most tellingly began her keynote with a reflection on method. She spoke of “Before Method.” She spoke of the need to step back, and suspend our extant methods. Emergent social orders, or what she called, in her massive and transformational text Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages, the emergence of new assemblages, requires that we rethink our old categories, or that we try to assess their usefulness or allow ourselves to countenance their obsolescence. The “before method,” and the invitation to step back, to bracket, or to ..

James H. Cone is without question the most important Black Theologian of the last century in U.S. theology. This essay is an engagement with his work, focusing in particular on the shifts from European theology, in his Black Theology & Black Power, to Black Aesthetic Religious production, in The Spirituals & The Blues, to The Cross and the Lynching Tree. The core theme of this essay is the entanglement of spiritual/religious colonization with production/invention of racial hierarchies that then became the crucibles for the forging of racist imaginaries that entailed, authorized, enshrined, and sacralized white supremacy. The Janus face of this alchemy, however, was the production of a black religion of liberation that entailed decolonizing the “blackness” invented by the modern project of religious racist colonization. The essay considers how Cone’s works empowers us to think through the analogies between the process of the colonization of the indigenous peoples of the so-called “New World” and the “enslavement” of African peoples. The similarities have to do with the coupling of the colonization of imaginaries with the imposition of racial imaginaries, i.e. religious conquest is also a racial conquest, and conversely, racial conquest is also a religious conquest.

_The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere_, co-edited by Eduardo Mendieta and Jonathan VanAntwerpen, represents a rare opportunity to experience a diverse group of preeminent philosophers confronting one pervasive contemporary concern: what role does, or should, religion play in our public lives? Reflecting on her recent work concerning state violence in Israel-Palestine, Judith Butler explores the potential of religious perspectives for renewing cultural and political criticism, while Jürgen Habermas, best known for his seminal conception of the public sphere, thinks through the ambiguous legacy of the concept of "the political" in contemporary theory. Charles Taylor argues for a radical redefinition of secularism, and Cornel West defends civil disobedience and emancipatory theology. Eduardo Mendieta and Jonathan VanAntwerpen detail the immense contribution of these philosophers to contemporary social and political theory, and an afterword by Craig Calhoun places these attempts to reconceive the significance of both religion and the secular in the context of contemporary national and international politics.

To the surprise of many readers, Jürgen Habermas has recently made religion a major theme of his work. Emphasizing both religion's prominence in the contemporary public sphere and its potential contributions to critical thought, Habermas's engagement with religion has been controversial and exciting, putting much of his own work in fresh perspective and engaging key themes in philosophy, politics and social theory. Habermas argues that the once widely accepted hypothesis of progressive secularization fails to account for the multiple trajectories of modernization in the contemporary world. He calls attention to the contemporary significance of "postmetaphysical" thought and "postsecular" consciousness - even in Western societies that have embraced a rationalistic understanding of public reason. Edited by Craig Calhoun, Eduardo Mendieta, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen, _Habermas and Religion_ presents a series of original and sustained engagements with Habermas's writing on religion in the public sphere, featuring new work and critical reflections from leading philosophers, social and political theorists, and anthropologists. Contributors to the volume respond both to Habermas's ambitious and well-developed philosophical project and to his most recent work on religion. The book closes with an extended response from Habermas - itself a major statement from one of today's most important thinkers

This article deals with the concepts, processes, and antagonisms that are associated with the notion of postsecularity. In light of this article’s expanded interpretation of José Casanova on the secular and secularization, as well as thoughts on James A. Beckford’s take on public religions, five rubrics on the postsecular derived from critical theory and an understanding of ‘reflexive secularization’ are presented. This term focuses on secularization processes and how these practices unleash complementary as well as antagonistic tendencies, a confrontation of normativities and specific social-empirical challenges. From this basis it is argued that social-empirical analysis should focus on non-naturalistic relations between individuals occupying structurally equivalent positions in narrative networks. A plurality of normativities are seriously considered as ideas circulating through social relations where the critical competence of the participants of such communication processes are provoked to subvert anything – including any normative positionality – as taken for granted. Moves towards the decolonization of the secular/postsecular dyad are emphasized, with ramifications for thinking about the urban, which point to the universal and authentic foundations of the human condition that are brought into play.

The essay considers three classic definitions of philosophy, namely those offered by Socrates, Boethius, as semantically enriched by Montaigne, and Kant, in order to reflected on individual and collective death. Kant’s philosophical tool of the antinomies of reason is deployed to think through the antinomies of our pandemic in order to make clear that in a pandemic there is only collective, and not individual or even national, inoculation. The false dichotomies of physical versus social, embodiment versus virtuality, nationalism versus planetarization, and propaganda versus science, are discussed. Lady philosophy appears wearing blue plastic gloves.

In 2014, questionable police killings of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Tamir Rice sparked mass protests and put policing at the center of national debate. Mass protests erupted again in 2020 after the brutal police killing of George Floyd. These and other incidents have put a spotlight on a host of issues that threaten the legitimacy of policing—excessive force, racial bias, over-policing of marginalized communities, historic injustices that remain unaddressed, and new technology that increases police powers. This introduction gives an overview of these ethical challenges facing police today and the democratic institutions that oversee them. It then outlines the various interdisciplinary perspectives—from Black studies, criminology, history, law, philosophy, political science, and sociology—collected in the volume. Together, these contributions aim to clarify the question of which ethical principles should guide police, where current practices fall short, and what strategies hold the most promise for addressing these failures.

Dussel's ethics begins with a consideration of the importance of history for ethics in general and for us, in particular, in an age of globaliz ation and exclusion. The first part of the work concerns foundational ethics, where he grounds three principles: a material principle, a formal or validity principle, and a feasibility principle. The second part deals with critical ethics, where he grounds three additional principles of ethics: a principle of the recognition of the corporeal dignity of co-subjects, the critical-discur sive principle, and the liberation principle. This ethics offers itself as a third way between neo-Kantianism and neo-Aristotelianism, and as an ethics that reflects out of the pressing problem of the growing impoverishment of 75 per cent of humans on the planet.

This article focuses on Karl Jaspers’s notion of the Axial Age, some of its critical appropriation, and how in particular Habermas has returned to this idea, after several critical engagements with Jaspers’s work through his long scholarly productivity. The article, however, centers on Habermas’s selective and critical use of Jaspers’s notion in his own latest and extensive engagement with what he calls “a genealogy of postmetaphysical thinking.” The goal of the article is to identify the ways in which Habermas is refurbishing Jaspers’s generative concept, but at the same time, how his work on postsecular consciousness opens itself to some liabilities by not taking enough distance from the concept.