Steffen K. Herrmann

Husserl endeavoured to establish phenomenology as a ‘rigorous science’ and therefore linked its development to methodological considerations from the very beginning. Such considerations are often lacking in current debates on political phenomenology. This article aims to remedy this deficit. It argues that political phenomenology reinterprets Husserl’s methodological principles of epoché and reduction and transforms them into what can be termed interrogation and exposition. In addition, a further, often overlooked, principle of Husserl’s method is uncovered, which is referred to here as demonstration. It is through this triad of interrogation, exposition and demonstration that contemporary political phenomenology adapts and transforms the method of classical phenomenology. The topics of whiteness and race are employed to show how these principles can facilitate the analysis of political struggles.

Our political present is characterized by the rise of right-wing populism. This trend has not only led to a repoliticization of society, but also of academic philosophy, including phenomenology. In the U.S., a strong movement has emerged under the label of critical phenomenology whereas in Europe the movement of political phenomenology has become prominent. Both projects have in common the aim of positioning phenomenology as a critical project, questioning social relations of domination and power. These projects relate to Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology in different ways. In the following, I want to uncover this relation by fleshing out the horizons of critique that come with transcendental, critical, and political phenomenology. In particular I will show how the phenomenological method of demonstration can become a means of critique in political confrontations.

In this paper, I discuss three objections against climate activism often voiced in the public, namely that their practices of civil disobedience are ultimately insincere, illegal, and ineffective. The main part of my paper focuses on this last point. This is because this objection points us to a deeper conceptual problem of political protest: if one of the conditions for the success of civil disobedience is that political demands must have been first voiced via democratic channels of opinion-formation, then why should we assume that a re-articulation of these demands in the course of civil disobedience leads to a different result? To answer this question, I propose a phenomenological approach to civil disobedience. Drawing on the protest practices of activist group Act Up, I argue that climate activism can escape the charge of ineffectiveness if it resorts to what I call the “aesthetic rationality of phenomenological demonstration.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS * Inhalt * Verletzende Worte. Eine Einleitung * Sprache als Gewalt oder: Warum verletzen Worte? * Bedingungen für den Erfolg von Degradierungszeremonien * Gesichtsbedrohende Akte * Die Dialektik von Herausforderung und Erwiderung der Herausforderung * Sprechakte und unsprechbare Akte * Diskriminierende Sprechakte. Ein funktionaler Ansatz * Symbolische Verletzbarkeit und sprachliche Gewalt * Über die Körperkraft von Sprache * Die geraubte Stimme * Nach dem angeblichen Ende der ›Sprachvergessenheit‹: Vorläufige Fragen zur Unvermeidlichkeit der * Verletzung Anderer in und mit Worten * Verletzende Anerkennung. Über das Verhältnis von Anerkennung, Subjektkonstitution und ›sozialer Gewalt‹ * Zur Praxis verbaler Gewalt unter Schülerinnen und Schülern * Sprachliche Strategien verbaler Ablehnung in öffentlichen Diskussionsforen im Internet * Zur Sprache der Sprachlosen. Ebenen der Gewalt in der diskursiven Produktion von Behinderung * Words like violence. Konstellationen des Unvernehmens * Die Autorinnen und Autoren * Nachweise

In this article, I argue that Hegel’s concept of recognition and Levinas’ concept of responsibility complement each other and lead to the idea of an asymmetrical reciprocity in which the origin of our social relations is not mutual equality, but rather mutual inequality. I will unfold this argument in three steps. I will first work out a fundamental asymmetry of recognition in Hegel by means of the figure of the bondsman before elucidating in a second step the asymmetry of responsibility in Levinas by means of the figure of the hostage. In the last and third step, I will correlate both asymmetries and show how far the asymmetry of recognition and the asymmetry of responsibility constantly develop from and transition into one another in our social relationships.