Ulf Bohmann

We analyze paradoxes of a dispositif of a closed future generated by the successes of the eco-emancipatory project (EEP). The current anticipation of an impending climate catastrophe fosters a societal regime that prioritizes preemptive actions, closing the future to alternative paths. By applying Foucault's concept of the dispositif, we examine how this regime paradoxically leads to the revival of nuclear power, which not only contradicts those parts of the EEP originating in the anti-nuclear movement, but also inadvertently constricts democratic decision-making, empowering right-wing populist forces to present themselves as champions of an open, malleable future. Through a critical analysis of this shift, we identify unintended consequences of the EEP, which foster a technocratic and restrictive approach that ultimately reinforces authoritarian dynamics and undermines its ecological and democratic aspirations. The study contributes to debates on future imaginaries, exploring how current anticipatory climate politics operate while creating tensions between ecological responsibility and democratic ideals.

Jacques Rancière unterhält einen interessanten wie eigentümlichen Demokratiebegriff, dessen Erschließung eine mehrfache Herausforderung darstellt. Sein Ausgangspunkt ist ein Paradox: Die Demokratie steht nicht im Gegensatz zu etwas anderem, sondern zu sich selbst – als vermeintlich ‚gute demokratische Regierung‘, die das angebliche ‚Übel des demokratischen Lebens‘ ordnen und beherrschen muss. Um diese Eigentümlichkeit zu ergründen, wird zunächst das ungewöhnliche Motiv des ‚Hasses der Demokratie‘ behandelt, das einen Schlüssel zu Rancières Verständnis darstellt. Sodann wird das Verhältnis zu Rancières vielleicht emphatischsten Begriff, der Gleichheit, geklärt. Daraufhin wird der implizite Begriff der radikalen Demokratie beleuchtet und eingeordnet, indem er extern von der Postdemokratie abgegrenzt und intern in postmarxistische, neo-athenische und anarchistische Lesarten unterteilt wird. Schließlich wird der Zusammenhang der Demokratie zu ‚der Politik‘ und ‚dem Politischen‘ hergestellt, was in der Diskussion mündet, ob nicht eines oder mehrere dieser Konzepte überflüssig sind, da sie offenbar ineinander aufgehen. Die aus alledem zu ziehende Konklusion gibt Aufschluss darüber, wie es in Demokratiefragen um Rancières Hass und um seine Liebe bestellt ist, und wo sich beides unentwirrbar zu verknüpfen scheint.

The extensive, profound and influential oeuvre of Charles Taylor has inspired generations of thinkers. But how can we explore such a body of work? As we try to show in this Special Issue: by understanding him literally and making use of his notion of moral maps – or, differently put, by ‘mapping’ Charles Taylor. As he is far too modest a person to reveal to us his own moral atlas, we have decided to seize the occasion of his 85th birthday to ask several of his renowned colleagues, students and interlocutors to contribute to the reconstruction of such a map. This introduction develops three ‘mountain ridges’ in this cartography – a philosophical anthropology in spatial terms, the indispensable motif of dialogue, and the role of political life –, around which the following 24 illuminating appraisals are grouped.

In Chapter 8 of The Language Animal, Charles Taylor claims that narratives are unsubstitutable for an appropriate understanding of social life and ‘human affairs’ in general. In order to identify open questions in his argumentation as well as unwanted consequences of his outlook, I proceed in three consecutive steps. I first problematize Taylor’s distinction between laws and stories, then go on to address his intentional blurring of stories and histories, and finally suggest that the concept of genealogy might be a promising candidate for describing Taylor’s approach, concluding that he implicitly forms the equation: narrative equals history equals critique.

In this comprehensive interview with Charles Taylor, the focus is put on the conceptual level. Taylor reflects on the relationship between history, narrativity and social critique, between social imaginaries and social change, and between his own thought and that of Cambridge School history of ideas, Nietzschean genealogy, Frankfurt School critical theory, and agonistic approaches to the political. This interview not only captures the tremendous breadth and range of Taylor’s theoretical interests, it also vindicates his contention that the common thread of his oeuvre is the attempt to work out a non-reductive, non-mechanistic, non-atomistic philosophical anthropology. Still, it offers new insights into Taylor's most recent thinking and his intellectual engagement with the challenges of our time.