Marina Calloni

Martha C. Nussbaum is internationally renowned for being one of the leading moral and political philosophers of our time, and is highly regarded for her work on the role of the emotions in moral and political reasoning. In this interview, in dialogue with her interlocutors, she discusses her work over the past four decades, and gives insights into her book in progress on opera and its relationship to liberal political ideals, The Republic of Love. In addition to declaring her love of Italian culture, she clarifies her stance on some contemporary issues, including the controversy on sex and gender, animal rights, the relationship between philosophy and natural sciences, and the importance of liberal arts and ancient Greek and Roman philosophy.

Habermas is one of the most eminent contemporary systematic thinkers and the author of the theory of communicative action. From the 1960s to the present, Habermas has published on philosophy and social theory, reflected upon law and democracy, and participated in public debates on current issues. The interview aims at retracing the main themes of his thought, underlining the indissoluble and persisting link which joins philosophy with politics and public engagement. The interview also emphasizes the main developments of his thought, including about the role of religion in contemporary societies, mentioned in his recent work on “A History of Philosophy”. Another crucial topic is the idea of the public sphere as developed by Habermas from his early studies up to the analysis on the ongoing structural change of public opinion due to the instrumental use of social media in the digital age. Habermas advocates an idea of philosophy as post-metaphysical and specialistic – fallibilistic and at the same time interdisciplinary – knowledge, which contributes clarifying arguments to current discussions. The recent debate on the Covid 19 pandemic, as well as on the urgent environmental challenges, becomes an opportunity to understand how philosophy – as critical and self-reflective knowledge – can defend the discursive and normative principles, which are constitutive of the democratic State and the rule of law. Philosophy even has a role to play in addressing the crisis of institutional politics and the emergence of conspiracy populisms, but also in the exponential increase of social inequalities. Finally, Habermas recalls his consistent link since the 1960s with the Italian philosophical and political debate and scholars.

Human rights can be understood as formal norms related to existing legislations as well as the result of public reasoning, when claims of validity coming from the bottom up are politically juridified. Yet, where does the “significance” of human rights come from? Does the “feeling” toward the violation of human dignity rise only from the mobilization of radical spheres in the public space, or does it have origin in other places, like in the intimacy of the household? In order to understand ex negativo the genealogy of the “sense” of the violation of human rights as a counter-factual allegation that immanently refers to daily life experiences, this article considers the interaction between sentiment of fear and pretense of human rights, comparing images and imaginaries of modern political theory with the stories of traditional folk/fairy tales. Namely, philosophical representations of terror and literary narratives of monsters have a common “private” genealogy, as it shines through the hidden relationship existing between imagination, imaginary, and fantasy. Therefore, the character of the “wolf,” as politically conceptualized by Thomas Hobbes and fictionally represented in fairy tales, will be taken as a conceptual and figurative medium, able to underline the semantics of violence. My thesis is that fantastic narratives implicitly evoke forms of violation of human rights that political philosophy has denied for centuries because of the incapacity to conceptualize unspeakable offenses. Fairy tales tell the truth, albeit under camouflaged “bodies”: they are a disguised reminder of the perdurance of domestic violence in the household, seamlessly perpetuated against women and children over centuries. Any criticism toward the abuse of human rights should not forget the heuristic significance of fairy tales and the place where they seem to be peacefully narrated to children: within the domestic space of the family.

This article examines how social media, far from merely connecting people, intensifies societal polarization and transforms relationships into adversarial divides. While platforms are often seen as tools for unity, their algorithmic prioritization of polarizing content fosters hostility and constructs unseen enemies. Drawing on the myth of the Biblical Tower of Babel and Carl Schmitt’s friend-enemy paradigm, this analysis examines how digital polarization intensifies hatred and stifles transformative imagination. Systemic outrage-driven content, especially, perpetuates harm against target groups with a disproportionate impact on women. In response, the article advocates relational respect, structural reforms, and regulation to cultivate inclusivity, dialogue, and pluralism. It reimagines the design of social media as a space for solidarity and shared humanity, resisting division through renewed frameworks of connection.

In an age of uncertainty and unpredictability, new vulnerabilities and inequalities have exacerbated existing problems. Phenomena such as the pandemic and recent wars have added to this complexity. Understanding the current multiple crises requires a reassessment of collective and individual responsibilities and a new approach to the concept of sustainability. Epochal changes have overturned traditional worldviews and transformed scientific and cultural paradigms. Philosophy and the social sciences now have the opportunity to refine their epistemological tools and thereby contribute to a renewed public debate and to a re-imagination of the future. Within this framework, my paper aims to contribute to the debate on a multi-level and ‘asymmetric/symmetric concept of co-responsibility’ in relation to the ongoing debate on social/environmental justice, human development and sustainability, thus reframing the discourse on human rights.

What do we mean when affirming ‘the powerful return of the state’? Do we have in mind the jus ad bellum employed by aggressive states, or are we thinking of the duties that a state has towards its citizens? Starting from these questions, this article aims to reconceptualize the issue of the political legitimacy of a state by reconsidering the relationship between power and violence. Among other forms of emergencies and violence, then, a legitimate state needs to be capable of responding to gender-based (sexual and domestic) violence. To reinforce my suggestion, I will reinterpret some Greek and Roman myths related to the founding of cities (Thebes, Athens and Rome). Through these myths, we will be able to illustrate, in particular, the necessity for a state to be capable of combating both public and private violence, reframing the notion of nemesis (as a fate that can be changed by descendants) and fear (as a status that can be stopped in the present).

Are women's movement and feminist theories still connected to radical politics and the interest in changing social inequalities, when feminism has been `institutionalized', for instance in the academia, and has become a mainstreaming issue in social policies? This main question was put to eminent feminist scholars, with the aim of investigating the renewed critical role of international feminism and women's/gender studies in society, science, information, education and research. A reconstruction of the main changes which have occurred to women's movements and feminist theories in the last decades were the core of the interview, stressing differences and disagreement, also in relation to the new sociopolitical claims, supported by younger generations. The conclusion was that feminism has not lost its historical political mission, even though the world scenario and ideologies have dramatically changed. Indeed, feminism has become transcultural and `glocal', facing new socioeconomic inequities induced by globalization both in western societies and countries in development, confronting with the transformation of collective/gender identities and questioning the increasing importance of technologies.