Nachwuchskonferenzen
The dynamics of normative orders - persistence, motion, rupture
18-19 November 2011, Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main
This year’s Graduate Conference will take place from 18-20th November in Frankfurt/Main. It is dedicated to the dynamics of normative orders and aims at bringing together graduate students and junior researchers in disciplines such as philosophy, law, political science, history, anthropology, economics, sociology, and religious studies.
Normative orders, which legitimize the basic structures of societies and the interaction between societies, appear in various constellations, which range from codified rules to informal mechanisms of regulation. At the same time, orders shall not be thought of as being static, as they actually reside between persistence, motion and break-up. It is exactly those dynamics that will be in the focus of the Graduate Conference. In three sections (persistence, motion, rupture) we will ask:
What does set (normative) orders in motion and when is there rupture (when can one actually speak of ‘broken orders’)? What is the relation between a change of norms and the dynamic of a normative order? How, under what conditions and whit which effect do orders influence each other? And what does the stability or change of normative orders imply for their legitimacy?
This year's guiding theme will be discussed in a total of 12 interdisciplinary panels, which are compiled into the 3 sections 'persistence', 'motion', and 'rupture', with contributions of more than 50 graduates from national and international universities.
There is no conference fee. We are looking into possibilities to provide a limited number of travel grants to participants, but currently we are unable to make any commitments.
Please register with your name and institution in advance at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Conference Programme (pdf): click here...
List of Panels (pdf): click here...
Previous Graduate Conferences: click here...
Norms in Conflict
2nd Annual Graduate Conference by the Cluster of Excellence
3-5 December 2010
Disputes over culture, collective identity, moral concepts, or political convictions are only some examples of how conflicts arise in the course of social transformation. In these conflicts norms are implicitly or explicitly renegotiated and reshaped, while the time, place, course, and extent of these conflicts are themselves shaped by norms. This fundamental interplay between norms and conflicts is the focus of this year’s interdisciplinary graduate conference initiated by the Cluster of Excellence ‘The Formation of Normative Orders’.
The aim of the conference is to examine from both theoretical and empirical perspectives the relationship between norms and conflicts as well as their manifold forms of expression. To this end we have invited graduates from the fields of philosophy, law, political science, history, anthropology, African, Islamic and Scandinavian studies, economics, sociology and theology to engage with us in dialogue.
In a total of 24 interdisciplinary panels we will discuss the interrelationship between norms and conflicts with over 70 graduates from over 35 universities in nine countries.
We look forward to a fruitful and stimulating conference.
The event is open to all interested members of the public. Please register in advance at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Conference Schedule: click here (pdf)
List of Panels: click here (pdf)
For further Information (Accommodation, Conference Location etc.): click here (pdf)
The Young Researchers' Conferences of the Cluster of Excellence invite young researchers to present their research to an interested professional audience. Organized by doctoral students and postdocs of the Cluster of Excellence the Young Researchers? Conferences are thus an ideal forum for young academics.
Past events:
Young Researchers' Conference 2011
The dynamics of normative orders - persistence, motion, rupture
18-19 November 2011
Young Researchers' Conference 2010
Norms in Conflict
3-5 December 2010
Young Researchers' Conference 2009
Normative Orders: Justification and Sanctions
23-25 October 2009
Normative Orders: Justification and Sanctions
23 - 25 October 2009
Goethe University Frankfurt/Main / Campus Westend
Normative orders are those orderings of norms and values that legitimate society’s structures of authority and distribution of life chances. The general character of such orders is disputed, however. One point of view holds that such orders are narrowly connected to the ability to impose sanctions. Another holds that their justification and narratives of justification are the key elements. The aim of this first young researchers’ conference is to clarify the relation of justifications and sanctions. They are both central for the evolution, the implementation and the preservation of normative orders. Yet, about their interplay we know very little.
We are especially pleased to gather more than 60 young researchers from 35 universities and nine countries in Frankfurt, and we are looking forward to the discussions in eleven thematically different inter-disciplinary panels.
Conference schedule:
Programme: click here (pdf, German)
Contact:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
(Milan Kuhli)
This panel will deal with the impact of criminal justice on post-conflict peace-building. The topic comprises international criminal courts as well as national criminal courts. In particular, the question will be whether and how criminal justice and sanction are able to promote post-conflict reconciliation—that is, the building-up of a new social order. Are the supposed benefits of punishment—e.g., preventing the falsification of history and avoiding the establishment of collective guilt – really the effect of the sanction or actually the effect of the trial? Is there any alternative solution to the use of criminal sanctions, such as the declaration of amnesty? Furthermore, the panel will deal with the problem of whether punishing large-scale violence might be in conflict with the principle of non-retroactivity or the requirement of personal guilt.
Samstag, 24.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 1.411
14.00-14.45 Uhr
Vasco Reuss (Frankfurt): Über die Unmöglichkeit eines Strafzwecks „Vergangenheitsbewältigung“
14.45-15.30 Uhr
Benno Zabel (Leipzig): Zwischen Ordnung und Geschichte: Orientierungsstrategien des Strafrechts
15.30-15.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
15.45-16.30 Uhr
Sabine Swoboda (Passau): Didaktische Dimensionen internationaler Strafverfahren
16.30-17.15 Uhr
Mayeul Hiéramente (Freiburg): Renationalisierung des Völkerstrafrechts?
(Joshua Kleinfeld)
In Germany, capital punishment is constitutionally prohibited at the federal level and commonly regarded as a human rights violation. In the United States, capital punishment is constitutionally permitted, 35 states and the federal government have passed legislation implementing it, and about 3,300 prisoners currently await execution. A difference so dramatic, particularly between two of the leading legal systems of the Western world, calls out for explanation. Why have America and Germany diverged so dramatically in their stances toward capital punishment? What are the roots of the divergence?
On one level, this is a question about how Germany and the United States came to have such different stances toward capital punishment—a causal question that calls for a sociological or historical response. But on another level, this is a question about the ideas standing behind capital punishment in the United States and against capital punishment in Germany—a philosophical question about justice.
Samstag, 24.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 1.411
9.00-9.30 Uhr
Joshua Kleinfeld (Frankfurt): Toward a Theory of Capital Punishment
9.30-10.00 Uhr
Lutz Eidam (Hamburg): Capital Punishment in Germany and the United States: Historical Roots and Current Arguments
10.00-10.30 Uhr
Gabriel Mendlow (New Haven): Capital Punishment and Moral Uncertainty
10.30-10.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
10.45-11.15 Uhr
Questions & Answers, Moderator and Panelists
11.15-12.15 Uhr
Questions & Answers, Audience and Panelists
Diskutant und Moderator: Benjamin Steiner
(Heike List/Ayelet Banai)
Classical minority conflicts emerged from the tension between a political order based on the nation-state and the struggles of minorities within the nation-state for self-determination and autonomy. The ambivalence of this relationship between nationalism and democracy was brought forcefully to consciousness again after the end of the Cold War era by the violent (re-)formation of new states. The question of legitimate political rule within the framework of an international political system of nation-states also arises in ethnically, culturally, and religiously diverse societies with regard to new minorities or immigrants. Countries with large numbers of immigrants also increasingly face the challenge of accommodating the claims of ethnic minorities and their members to an autonomous way of life and a fair distribution of goods, education, and political participation.
Theories of nationalism, historical studies of state- and nation-building processes, and political or philosophical debates about multiculturalism all suggest different normative conceptions and justifications for the behavior towards minorities. These are highly contested. What models and institutional approaches can accommodate minority conflicts peacefully? Should they be based on the minority as a whole or on its individual members? Should they aim at assimilation or pluralization of a society? How can the claims of minorities be justified and their relationship to fundamental normative concepts like equality, liberty, democracy, and justice be analyzed? With regard to the more general topic of the conference “justifications and sanctions,” the panel should also ask: On what level, by what actor, and with what means can these norms be enforced, as there is a significant difference between the non-juridical social dimension of multicultural norms and their institutionalization in the political system and its laws.
Sonntag, 25.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 1.314
09:00-09:15 Uhr
Introduction
I Regional Orders and Minority Rights
09:15-09:45 Uhr
Jörg Kemmerzell (Darmstadt): Regional Parties between Minorities Protection and Territorial Self-government
09:45-10:15 Uhr
Maria Dicosola (Sienna): States and Minorities in the Countries of Former Yugoslavia: Accommodating Diversity between Nation Building and European Integration
10:30-10:45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
II Minority Rights in Historical Perspective
10:45-11:15 Uhr
Fulya Memisoglu (Nottingham): Formation of Normative Orders and the Legacy of Past Policies: Minority Rights Protection in Greece and Turkey
11:15-11:45 Uhr
Frederic Spagnoli (Trento): The Case of Ladins, Mòcheni and Cimbri or How Some Forgotten Peoples Suddenly Became of Crucial Importance
11:45-12:15 Uhr
Stephan Stach (Leipzig): Die Rolle staatlicher und nichtstaatlicher Institutionen bei der Entwicklung und Aushandlung von Konzepten zur Minderheitenpolitik in der Zweiten Polnischen Republik (1918-1939)
12.15-13.00 Uhr
Mittagspause
III Minority Rights for Migrants
13:00-13.10 Uhr
Intermediate Results and Discussion
13:10-13:50 Uhr
Patricia Stošić (Frankfurt): „Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund“: Rechtfertigungsstrategien der Bildungsbenachteiligung im Zusammenspiel von Wissenschaft, Politik und Medien
13:50-14:30 Uhr
Radostin Kaloianov (Wien): Diskriminierung und Verspätung – zwei prototypische Problemlagen von MigrantInnen
14:30-14:45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
IV Boundaries and Migration
14:45-15:15 Uhr
Anuscheh Farahat (Heidelberg): Wer hat Angst vor Inklusion? Die unmittelbare Berechtigung von Migranten als Voraussetzung ihrer gesellschaftlichen Inklusion
15:15-15:45 Uhr
Tobias Schwarz (Berlin): Die Logik der Integrationspflicht. Zur Normenkonstruktion im deutschen Ausweisungsrecht
15:45-16:15 Uhr
Concluding Remarks
(Julian Culp/Ulrike Meyer)
Political philosophers defend highly divergent views concerning the scope of principles of justice. Some restrict the application of principles of justice to the legal relations between persons, which are characterized by the use of coercion. Others argue that principles of justice are to be applied to all relationships between persons, even if these relations lack any type of institutionalization. A third position between these two extremes limits the applicability and thus the scope of justice principles to the existence of relationships of power between persons.
This panel aims at examining the moral significance of institutionalized relations between persons for the justification of a conception of the scope of principles of justice. Are such principles limited in scope by state boundaries, or do they also apply internationally, transnationally, and/or globally? And if they do apply internationally, transnationally, and/or globally, how, if at all, should their content be adapted? At the limit, is it possible to draw conclusions regarding the systematic relationship between the conditions of application, the content, and the normative sources of the principles of justice?
Samstag, 24.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 1.314
9.00-9.45 Uhr
Clara Brandi (Florenz): Global Public Goods and Bads, Constraints on Autonomy and the Scope of Justice
9.45-10.30 Uhr
Maria Paola Feretti (Bremen)/Christoph Broszies (Frankfurt): Equality at Home and Abroad
10.30-10.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
10.45-11.30 Uhr
Malte F. Ipsen (Oxford): Global Power and the Scope of Principles of Justice
11.30-12.15 Uhr
Eszter Kollar (Rom): „Case by Case“ – Political Constructivism
12.15-14.00 Uhr
Mittagspause
14.00-14.45 Uhr
Henning Hahn (Kassel): Humanitäre Pflichten und transnationale Gerechtigkeitspflichten. Zur Praxis einer unklaren Unterscheidung
14.45-15.30 Uhr
Tamara Jugov (Berlin): Justice in Failed States? Towards a Power-based Practice-dependent Account of Justice
15.30-15.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
15.45-16.30 Uhr
Jörg Löschke (Bonn): Die Reichweite von Gerechtigkeitsprinzipien und schutzwürdiger Güter
16.30-17.15 Uhr
Andreas Busen (Hamburg): Solidarität und die Adressaten der Gerechtigkeit
(Linda Wallbott/Lisbeth Zimmermann)
The creation of regulation at the international level aimed at local governance processes gives rise to direct consequences on local normative orders and locally held norm-sets. Yet the distinction between the international and the local level and the direction of norm diffusion is not so clear-cut: While local actors often refer to different “genuine” local norms, indigenous practices are at the same time often justified locally by reference to international human rights norms. Many more examples of such a cross-cutting of the international and local level can be identified.
This panel addresses these tensions between norm formulation, promotion, and reception at multiple levels of governance. It aims to bring together perspectives on norm diffusion from the disciplines of political science and international relations (which are most visibly concerned with collectively binding norm promotion activities) and social-cultural anthropology (which focuses on the micro-processes of the production, reception, appropriation of, and resistance to norms).
The panel addresses the following questions, focusing on the connection between international norm-makers and the local contexts of relatively undeveloped economies (the non-OECD world): How can we conceptually capture processes of norm-diffusion? How do local actors react to the normative requirements they are confronted with by international actors, and under what conditions do such confrontations lead to an internalization of norms, their rejection, or their modification at the local level? Of special interest in this context are the role of sanctions versus persuasion in the justificatory process. Finally, are there also examples of bottom-up norm diffusion in which the roles of norm-taker and norm-giver are interchanged?
The panel invites empirical contributions concerning “successful” or “unsuccessful” processes of norm diffusion, as well as theoretical conceptualizations of such processes from both political science and social-cultural anthropology. Papers that combine the two perspectives are especially welcome.
Samstag, 24.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 254
9.00-9.20 Uhr
Katharina Glaab (Münster)/Stephan Engelkamp (Münster): „Reisrituale“ und „GM-Food“. Normdiffusion in Indien und Südostasien zwischen Mythen und diskursiven Praktiken
9.20-9.40 Uhr
Malte Gephart (Hamburg): Herausforderungen für die Anti-Korruptionskampagne im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen internationaler und lokaler Ebene
9.40-10.00 Uhr
Sarah Fichtner (Mainz): Education for All and All for Education – Processes of Norm Diffusion in Benin’s Primary Education Sector
10.00-10.30 Uhr
Diskussion
10.30-10.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
10.45-11.05 Uhr
Claudia Hofmann (Berlin): NGOs als Normenhändler: Die Sozialisierung nichtstaatlicher Gewaltakteure in der Konfliktbearbeitung
11.05-11.25 Uhr
Katja Mielke (Bonn): Aufeinanderprall und Diffusion von Normen in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit am Beispiel Nordostafghanistans
11.25-12.15 Uhr
Diskussion
Development cooperation has become the dominant form of relationship between the rich countries of the north and the poor countries of the south. The history of the economically motivated and morally justified engagement of the north dates back to the times of early enlightenment. Up until today, ideals and moral concepts developed by the donor countries shape these relationships to a large extent. Noncompliance with the donor countries’ principles generally provokes sanctions, ranging from admonishment to, in extreme cases, military intervention. Narratives of justification do not emerge independently from processes of negotiation with the south.
This panel explores the narratives of justification that govern the relationships between rich and poor countries. What impact do they have beyond their effects on direct state intervention? How do local actors interpret, appropriate, exploit, or reject them?
The panel welcomes young scholars from all disciplines studying issues of cooperation between countries of the north and the south. Of particular interest are strategies of the south and their influence on the formation of normative orders in the north.
Please send proposals and questions to
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
and
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. Proposals should be approximately 500 words. The deadline is 6 July 2009. Where necessary, some funding can be provided for travel and lodging expenses. See also www.normativeorders.net.
(Sakine Subasi-Piltz)
As anthropologists and philosophers, we ask: How can we, standing within our own native normative orders, gain insight into and knowledge about other normative orders, whose sanctions and justifications we cannot interpret, and whose structures do not make sense to us? Moreover, how can we justify using sanctions to enforce our normative orders against other normative orders, thus pitting our understanding of justice and fairness against other vocabularies of justification? In philosophical and anthropological discourses, there has been a long debate in this context about “translation.” At the present time, the “translation” debate centers on post-colonial theory, and our panel should touch on that body of theory as well.
If we try to analyze “translation” within and between normative orders, a question of methodology arises: What are the differences of process between how insiders decode normative orders and how outsiders decode them? It is important to know how the different translation processes work and how the act of translation influences the content of what is translated. Thus two different questions are presented: (1) How can we, standing within one normative order, describe another? (2) How is it possible to create new narratives of justification that can be translated into multiple normative orders—such as universal human rights?
Since questions about mediation between different normative orders arise in interdisciplinary contexts (including international law and politics, history, and studies of global justice), we would be pleased to receive a broad variety of papers.
Sonntag, 25.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 1.411
13.00-13.30 Uhr
Jeanette Ehrmann (Frankfurt): Traveling, Translating and Transplanting Human Rights – zur Kritik der Menschenrechte aus postkolonial-feministischer Perspektive
13.30-14.00 Uhr
Stefan Skupien (Berlin): Rückgriff auf Tradition(en): Kwasi Wiredus Konsensethik als Übersetzungsleistung
14.00-14.30 Uhr
Sarah Speck (Berlin): Übersetzungen von Mutterschaft. Postkolonialer Transfer von Wissen in den SOS-Kinderdörfern
14.30-14.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
14.45-15.15 Uhr
Riem Spielhaus (Berlin): Feministische Ansätze der Koranhermeneutik zum Thema „häusliche Gewalt“
15.15-15.45 Uhr
Nikita Dhawan (Frankfurt): Comment
15.45-16.15 Uhr
Susanne Schröter (Frankfurt): Comment
(Friedrich Arndt)
Normative orders are based on a systematic connection of norms that legitimize a societal structure. They “serve the justification of claims of validity and, based on this, of authority and a certain distribution of goods and life chances” (as this Excellence Cluster’s proposal puts the point). Traditionally, the democratic nation-state has been seen as a unified, constitutionally circumscribed normative order, while the normative content of the international level—characterized by the absence of a world constitution or similar governing forces—was considered to be comparatively thin. However, especially since the end of the Cold War, this situation has been undergoing a process of change and new constellations of international, transnational, supranational, and global normative orders have been emerging—normative orders whose relations to each other, in comparison to domestic standards and owing to their often uncoordinated emergence, can typically be characterized as overlapping, fragmented, and irregular.
This panel seeks to elaborate on the possibilities of conceptualizing and classifying the multiplicity of normative orders beyond the nation-state; to describe those normative orders’ interrelationships; and to address the critical role of both sanctioning mechanisms and processes of justification as part of their interactions and dynamic development across time.
We therefore invite contributions conceptualizing this phenomenon theoretically or analyzing it empirically (particularly with an eye toward the practical interactions of two or more normative orders). Proposals may come from the field of international relations or any of a variety of related disciplines.
Sonntag, 25.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 457
9.00-9.20 Uhr
Sandra Destradi (Hamburg): Regions as Normative Orders? Norm Diffusion and Norm Clashes in a Multi-Level Context
9.20-9.40 Uhr
Ulf Kemper (Duisburg-Essen): Politische Legitimität im Wandel – Reflexionen zur Demokratisierung des politischen Raumes jenseits des Nationalstaats
9.40-10.00 Uhr
Bastian Loges (Braunschweig): Gekommen, um zu bleiben? Die Entstehung der „Responsibility to Protect“ und die Beratungen des UN-Sicherheitsrats
10.00-10.30 Uhr
Diskussion
10.30-10.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
10.45-11.05 Uhr
Henrik Schillinger (Bamberg/Duisburg-Essen): Die Politik der Gerechtigkeit – Die symbolische Kraft von Normen und der Wandel globaler Ordnungen
11.05-11.25 Uhr
Andreas von Staden (Darmstadt)/Angela Marciniak (Darmstadt): Ordnungspluralismus und politische Legitimität
11.25-12.15 Uhr
Diskussion
(Therese Schwager)
Religion, and in particular the biblical text, was an important basis of the norms and values used both to legitimate systems of rule and to dispute claims to power in the early modern period. The “Bible as political argument” helped to justify and to deny (new) normative orders.
Within the historical framework of the debates in European estate assemblies in the early modern period, the hypothesis—which this panel will explore—is that sanctions played a lesser role in shaping and confirming normative orders than did political-theological language. Case studies aimed at testing this hypothesis—focusing on the sacral legitimation of power and the theological or natural law foundations of resistance to power—are welcomed.
Finally, the European panorama of conflicts within the estate assemblies leads to the more general question of whether and to what extent the issue of religion and politics can be approached with the categories of “sanctions” and/or “narratives of justifications.”
Sonntag, 25.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 457
13.00-13.30 Uhr
Lena Oetzel (Salzburg): Religion, Parlament und Königin: Herrscherkritik bei Elisabeth I. von England (1558-1603)
13.30-14.00 Uhr
Hannah Smith (Oxford): „Last of all the Heavenly Birth“: Queen Anne and Sacral Queenship
14.00-14.30
Diskussion
14.30-14.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
14.45-15.15 Uhr
Maciej Ptaszyński (Warschau): Der Freiheitsbegriff in den Rechtfertigungsnarrativen der polnischen Protestanten im 16. Jahrhundert
15.15-15.45 Uhr
Stephanie Frank (Chicago): As the Church is to God, so the National Assembly is to France: Parallels in the Justificatory Narratives of Malebranche and Sieyès
15:45-16:15
Diskussion
(Manuel Wörsdörfer)
The present global economic and financial crisis has caused a shift in the parallelogram of forces connecting market and state. The Smithian confidence in the self-regulating capabilities of the market seems to be shaken. The somewhat exaggerated “neoliberal” faith in market forces that until recently prevailed has given way to a likewise exaggerated faith in the state’s regulatory powers. Thus we have seen an unforeseen renaissance in regulatory policy and the ordering power of the state. The goal of the panel is to evaluate on the basis of the ordoliberal research program the systemic character of global economic crises—i.e. their causes, processes, and implications—and in such a manner to make a contribution to current politico-economic debates at a European and international level.
The panel is mainly concerned with the following questions: Can analogies between the financial and world economic crisis of 1929-1933 and today’s crisis be identified? Is a (re-) assessment of the relationship between market and state, and between Smithian, Keynesian, and Marxist economic policy necessary? In what respect can recommendations for a European regulatory policy be derived? And finally: How might international financial institutions be reformed to achieve a sustainable adjustment of the financial markets, and what would those reforms look like?
Samstag, 24.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 457
9.00-9.30 Uhr
Carsten Burhop (Bonn): Rechtsnormänderungen und die Finanzmarktkrise von 1873
9.30-10.00 Uhr
Nils Goldschmidt (München): Die geldtheoretischen und geldpolitischen Vorstellungen im Ordoliberalismus
10.00-10.30 Uhr
Diskussion
10.30-10.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
10.45-11.15 Uhr
Oliver Arentz (Köln): Genese von Blasen auf Märkten – eine Untersuchung am Beispiel des US-amerikanischen Immobilienmarktes
11.15-11.45 Uhr
Myrto Pavlidis (Frankfurt): Are there Tendencies for Protectionism or Regionalism in Times of Financial Stress? An Empirical Investigation
11.45-12.15 Uhr
Diskussion
12.15-14.00 Uhr
Mittagspause
14.00-14.30 Uhr
Joachim Zweynert (Hamburg): Das Ende des Neoliberalismus? Anmerkungen zur Krise aus ordnungspolitischer Sicht
14.30-15.00 Uhr:
Florian Möslein (Berlin): Contract Governance und Corporate Governance im Zusammenspiel: Lehren aus der globalen Finanzkrise
15.00-15.30 Uhr
Diskussion
15.30-15.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
15.45-16.15 Uhr
Wolf-Gero Reichert (Frankfurt): Das Ethos des Investmentbankings und seine Implikationen für eine prudentielle Regulierung
16.15-16.45 Uhr
Thorsten Busch (St. Gallen)/Alexander Lorch (St. Gallen): Wachstumszwang und Krise: Ordnung und Bürgersinn zusammen denken
16.45-17.15 Uhr
Diskussion
Diskutanten: Thorsten Fath (Frankfurt), Ekkehard Köhler (Freiburg), Helge Peukert (Erfurt), Johannes Zoephel (Frankfurt)
(Dagmar Comtesse)
The effect of historical context on the development, persistence, and change of justificatory apparatuses can be looked at from different perspectives. By focusing on the effect of sanctions—understood as censorship and other mechanisms of hegemony—it is possible to observe that the justifications of normative orders are conditioned by power constellations and domination. Censorship, as a political instrument by which a society controls publications and speech, is a part of establishing asymmetries of power and hegemony. The question is therefore twofold: First, what are the effects of censorship and hegemony on structures of justification? Second, in what way do other mechanisms of sanction affect structures of justification?
This panel focuses on the connection between censorship and justification in relation to the development, repression, and production of justifications of new normative orders. Censorship, both in the past and at present is of interest, and thus both history and political science are relevant disciplines. Empirically oriented approaches—with, for example, concrete demonstrations of how censorship and other sanctions affect a particular justificatory structure or practice, or studies of the publication practices of different societies—are of interest as well. At the same time, hegemony also implies discourse analysis, discourse history, and discourse ethics. The subtle or violent power of discourses can be looked at by analyzing the use and omission of certain terms, arguments, or ideas, which influence possibilities of thinking and acting. Thus the formation and control of justification in discourse could be the subject of these more theoretical approaches.
The addressees of this panel are therefore young academics in history, political science, philosophy, linguistics, or media sciences. Especially feminist and postcolonial approaches can exemplify the impact of discourse power on justification narratives. The same extraordinary critical perspective can be found in the history and philosophy of science.
Sonntag, 25.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 1.411
9.00-9.45 Uhr
Cordelia Heß (Stockholm): Was heilig ist, bestimmt der Papst? – Freiwillige Selbstzensur in spätmittelalterlichen Kanonisationsprozessen
9.45-10.30 Uhr
Mechthild Hetzel (Frankfurt/Innsbruck): Dass nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf – Hegemonie und Diskurse epistemologischer Rechtfertigung
10.30-10.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
10.45-11.30 Uhr
Alexander Weiß (Hamburg): Zensur als Sprachspiel: demokratietheoretische Überlegungen nach Chantal Mouffe
11.30-12.15 Uhr
Frieder Vogelmann (Frankfurt): Im Namen der Öffentlichkeit: Transparenz als Selbstzensur
Commentator: Martin Nonhoff (Bremen)
(Eva Buddeberg/Achim Vesper)
Moral norms are generally seen as having primacy over norms of other kinds. This primacy is based on the assumption that moral norms override other types of norms, such as juridical, cultural, or aesthetic norms in cases of conflict. Nevertheless, there are different understandings concerning the question of what accounts for moral norms’ authority. While some philosophers defend the view that the source of the moral “ought” is justification by reason, other philosophers suggest that “ought-ness” is brought about by means of sanctions. Consequently, it is controversial whether the primacy of moral norms is due to reason independent of sanctions or if it is due to the strength of the sanctions that accompany moral norms.
For positions that trace the existence of moral norms to sanctions, the distinction between internal and external sanctions is crucial. External sanctions consist in punishment and reward, accomplished through social instruments; inner sanctions, which can help explain moral behavior when violations are not perceived and punished by others, are characterized by feelings of guilt and the loss of self-respect. However, fundamental objections are raised against a conception of morality based on either kind of sanction. According to the rival model, moral obligation comes about by means of features of reasons. Indicative of this position is the fact that moral demands are addressed not only to conscience but also to reason.
Samstag, 24.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 254
14.00-14.45 Uhr
Julia Hermann (Florenz): Die Praxis als Quelle des moralischen Sollens
14.45-15.30 Uhr
Michael Kühler (Konstanz): „Might makes right“. Zur unzureichenden Möglichkeit, in einer Theorie sanktionskonstituierter moralischer Normativität zwischen legitimer und illegitimer Sanktionierung unterscheiden zu können
15.30-15.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
15.45-16.30 Uhr
Norbert Anwander (Berlin): The Duality of Moral Norms. Reasons for Actions and Reasons for Sanctions
16.30-17.15 Uhr
Michael von Grundherr (München): Notwendigkeit und Nötigung: Zum Zusammenspiel von Rechtfertigung und Sanktionen
Sonntag, 25.10.
IG Farben-Gebäude 254
9.00-9.45 Uhr
Karl Christoph Reinmuth (Greifswald): Zum begrifflichen und argumentativen Zusammenhang zwischen Regeln und Sanktionen
9.45-10.30 Uhr
Frank Brosow (Mainz): Wie sanktioniert man Selbstmordattentäter?
10.30-10.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
10.45-11.30 Uhr
Florian Zimmermann (Konstanz): Normexistenz und Normdurchsetzung
11.30-12.15 Uhr
Mario Brandhorst (Göttingen): Morality, Obligation and Reasons for Action
12.15-13.00 Uhr
Mittagspause
13.00-13.45 Uhr
Lisa Herzog (Oxford): Die Entstehung moralischer Normen in Smiths Theorie des unparteiischen Beobachters
13.45-14.30 Uhr
Otmar Kastner (Wien): Moralische Normen und ihre Rechtfertigung
14.30-14.45 Uhr
Kaffeepause
14.45-15.30 Uhr
Jan Renker (Freiburg): Normen, normative Ordnungen und ihre Geltungsgründe im lebensweltlichen Vollzug sowie in philosophischer Reflexion
15.30-16.15 Uhr
Andras Szigeti (Budapest): The Value of Responsibility
