Mihail Evans

Patient-based outcome measures are increasingly important in health care evaluations, often through the use of paper-based questionnaires. The likely impact of questionnaires upon patients is not often considered and therefore, the balance of benefit and harm not fully explored. Harms that might accrue for research staff are even less frequently considered. This paper describes the use of postal questionnaires within a study of breast disease management in primary care. Questionnaire responses are used to describe the nature of discomfort or harms that may occur in such studies. Ethical issues raised by the harms are discussed in relation to the benefits of the study. Practical suggestions for reducing harm to patients are proposed. A secondary consideration, discomfort to the researcher, is also identified and suggestions made to reduce its effect. Finally, the role of research questionnaires as a study intervention is discussed

This paper examines claims made about political representation in recent work on global protest, focusing on two very different authors. Tormey champions the anti-representative claims of various radical movements while Krastev assumes the stance of those political insiders who deplore the failure of protesters to work within established representative institutions. Both turn to examples which seem to best support their positions. Tormey to anarchist inspired movements in Spain and Mexico, his argument being that political representation has been succeed by what he variously calls ‘immediate representation’ and ‘resonance’. Krastev’s focus is Russia, Thailand and Bulgaria. His argument is that protest in these countries can be seen are ‘a collective act of exit’ by middle classes that no longer seek political representation. Using the theorisation of political representation in Rosanvallon’s Counter Democracy, I suggest that the global waves of protest of recent years are nothing inherently novel but can be seen as part of the elaborate and complex process of representation that is argued to have always existed beyond and outside of official elected legislative bodies. In conclusion, I suggest that Macron’s turn to citizen’s assemblies can be seen as informed by just such an understanding of political representation.

ABSTRACTThis essay outlines a Lévinas- and Derrida-inspired politics of reproduction, via opening the ethics of reproduction, something previous work on the topic has omitted. It does so via a reassessment of two notable publications on Lévinas and feminism, Stella Sandford’s essay in the Cambridge Companion to Lévinas and Lisa Guenther’s volume The Gift of the Other: Lévinas and the Politics of Reproduction.11 Stella Sandford, ‘Lévinas, Feminism and the Feminine’. I particularly focus on this essay as its negative presentation of Lévinas’ potential for feminism in one of the main introductory texts on his work is an apparently definite dismissal. There is no space to undertake a full analysis of what Sandford has to say in The Metaphysics of Love: Gender and Transcendence in Levinas. There is no doubting her familiarity with Lévinas’ texts, but the way in which she reads them is highly questionable. Her basic assumption is that texts can be treated systematically and she openly rejects Derr...

Martin Heidegger notoriously linked industrial agriculture and the Holocaust in a lecture given at Bremen while he was still banned from teaching under denazification measures. What has largely been overlooked is that Derrida also compared the two: in 1997, in an address given at the third Cerisy conference devoted his work. This apparent repetition will be understood within the broader framework of his reading of Heidegger and, in particular, with what the latter says concerning technology. It will be argued that while Derrida views industrial agriculture as a series of technical issues, each demanding of particular attention, Heidegger sees its only as an instance of Technik. Most significantly, while the latter’s philosophy offers no resources for treating it as demanding an ethical response, for Derrida our relation to animals should be guided by compassion.

The recent removal of the Richard Prince’s artwork Spiritual America from the Tate Modern’s “Pop Life: Art in a Material World” exhibition is the most recent and high-profile case of a work of art being withdrawn from a gallery in the UK on the grounds that it has allegedly breached legislation concerning indecent images of children. Surprisingly, the issue has been hardly considered by academics from law departments and is almost entirely ignored by philosophers specializing in aesthetics and ethics. This essay considers the ethics of images of children by drawing from continental ethics and aesthetics, and by engaging with the only significant treatment of the subject undertaken by a philosopher, namely Peter J. King’s “No Plaything.” This paper shows that a continental perspective can open up positions that King’s ‘objectivist utilitarianism’ is oblivious of. In particular, the essay draws from Derrida’s reading of Kant’s Third Critique and the former’s quasi-conception of “the frame” in The Truth in Painting and “droit de regard” in Right of Inspection. In distinction to King, this paper engages with the actual existing reality of currently enacted laws and their application in particular cases such as in Spiritual America. I will begin with art ‘in the frame’ as the colloquial expression has it, art wrongfully and unjustly accused by the police. I will proceed via an examination of the question of the frame in Kant and Derrida, to demonstrate a need to reclaim the ethical status of works of art. The core procedure of my paper will be a ‘rediscovery’ of Spiritual America as the Kantian example that allows us to find the law. My argument will be that no work of art or image can of itself be decent or indecent.

The characterisation of Derrida’s politics as a seeking for the “lesser violence” has become an almost paradigmatic interpretation. Yet the phrase _la moindre violence_ appears only in the early essay “Violence and Metaphysics” and its meaning is not as straightforward as might initially seem. I will argue that it is a mistake to take this expression to summarise the political import of this essay let alone of deconstruction more generally. What Derrida repeatedly concerns himself on that occasion is not “the lesser violence” but “worse violence” and “the worst violence,” terms that appears several times. This will be seen to be as a prefiguring of how, from the early 1980s on, following engagements with Plato and Lyotard, Derrida repeatedly names and elaborates “the worst” as that which we should seek to avoid. In order to uncover the politics of deconstruction, I will examine what Derrida has to say about “the worst” as well as what is said in the secondary literature, for it is also a term around which a number of unfortunate misinterpretations have arisen. In conclusion, it will be remarked that with the late coinage of the term _aimance_ Derrida makes clear his close proximity to the ethics of Levinas and his affirmation of an aspiration to nonviolence in the relationship with the other.

A number of histories of circumcision have recently been written and in them the case of A. E. Housman, along with a number of others, has acquired a certain prominence. This paper will reconsider the existing evidence regarding Housman’s circumcision and the various interpretations of it in the secondary literature before going on to examine a number of overlooked sources. While this writing around Housman’s circumcision is not without positive results, it will be suggested via a consideration of Jacques Derrida’s testimony regarding his own circumcision that the historian of sexuality needs also to contend with an inherent negativity and loss. The testimony provided by a recently uncovered poem on circumcision will prompt the suggestion that we should be wary of overemphasizing the individual example. In conclusion, the paper will argue that the problematic of Housman’s particular case has pertinence because in regard to individual experience we can only ever write around the history of circumcision.

Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Vernunft und Aufklärung ist einer der Haupt-streitpunkte zwischen Derrida und Habermas. Als selbsterklärter Verteidiger der Aufklärung bezeichnet Habermas in seiner Studie Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Derrida als unmodern. Er würde „die Klinge der Vernunftkritik selber stumpf werden“ lassen. Eine gründliche Lektüre Derridas zeigt jedoch, dass er keineswegs ein Verfechter des Irrationalen war, sondern die Vernunft vor ihr eigenes Tribunal bringen wollte. Derrida bemüht sich um eine rationale Refl exion der Grenzen der Vernunft und kommt dabei zu dem Schluss, dass sie nie eine vollständige Erklärung liefern könne. Diese Haltung wird in vorliegendem Beitrag nicht anti-modern, sondern als Form der kritischen Aufklärungsskepsis definiert: Derrida beschreibt eine ‚neue Aufklärung‘, die anerkennt, dass nicht alles ans Licht gebracht werden kann und die, wie er betont, die Logik des Unbewussten mit berücksichtigt. Das Universale und Partikulare stehen für Derrida in einem spannungsvollen, doch potentiell produktiven Verhältnis.