Sonderegger

Book Reviews

Judgment or Justification? Two Paths for Rethinking the Discursive TurnOn Albena Azmanova, The Scandal of Reason: A Critical Theory of Political Judgment.New York: Columbia University Press, 2012 and Rainer Forst, The Right to Justification:Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice, trans. Jeffrey Flynn. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 2012.

A discursive turn has revitalized social and political thought during the past several decades,creating a broad basis for projects of social justice, global justice, and deliberative democracy.Neo-Kantian liberals like Habermas and Rawls have driven this project forward in a particularlyagenda-setting manner. They sparked reinvigorating debates with then-dominant utilitarians andpositivists, and more recently with creative varieties of pragmatism and post-structuralism. Underthis influence, discursive democracy went through a pragmatic shift of its own in the 1990s,inviting further controversy and revision. As the discursive turn continues to evolve, the questionis how best to capitalize on the insights of this earlier generation while avoiding some of theirperceived problems.

Albena Azmanova and Rainer Forst set out to do this in recent volumes of Amy Allen’s NewDirections in Critical Theory series. Each develops a theory of public reason that tries to renewthe discursive turn in politics. Each draws on eclectic influences to point towards a different path.In Forst’s case, this is a synthesis of German critical theory and Anglo-American political andmoral thought. For Azmanova, the frame of reference is Arendt, Bourdieu, and Wittgenstein. Inboth cases, Kant and Hegel inhabit the background as distant ancestors and occasionally explicitinfluences.

Both Azmanova and Forst seek to develop theories that marshal substantial normative forcewithout relying on philosophical premises that would be difficult to support. As a result, eachaims to produce a conception of public reason that is light, flexible, and designed to carry alarge load with a minimal theoretical apparatus. Actual politics are harnessed to do the normativework, while theory concerns itself with organizational tasks that ensure free, fair, and open publicdialogue.

Albena Azmanova approaches this project with an insightful critique of what has come before.Her reference to the scandal of reason indicts some of reason’s self-defeating tendencies. In herestimation, this is particularly true of its habit of embracing irrational extremes of dogmatismand uncertainty. Forms of judgment are not immune to this. They must navigate between twointerlinked dangers–political irrelevance and normative impotence–in a form that Azmanovacalls “the judgment paradox.” A theory focused on a careful, philosophical analysis of values andnorms might wind up abstracting itself away from the contexts it is supposed to be criticizing,packing a strong normative punch but missing the target because of its myopic fixation on theory.On the other hand, a theory centered too exclusively on day-to-day politics and the needs ofactual people risks being absorbed completely into their narrow concerns. It might understandthe mundane world in great detail but have little force to criticize it. Thus the judgment paradox:an adequate form of reason must steer between political irrelevance and normative impotence,striving for critical force that applies adequately to real life contexts.

Azmanova claims that the judgment paradox has been a particular obstacle for the two mostprominent exponents of democratic deliberation. Both Rawls and Habermas have moved in apragmatic direction in recent years, but Azmanova argues that neither of them has truly completedthe discursive turn. Neither trusts discursive participation sufficiently to allow actual people toformulate their own democratic procedures. Instead, rules of deliberation are always the theorist’swork, standing outside of actual politics. Such regulative principles are specified by some versionof “ideal theory” rather than by discourse itself. In Azmanova’s estimation, both Rawls andHabermas are unwilling to take the turn to its logical conclusion, thereby limiting the scope ofthe discursive processes they describe.

Constellations Volume 20, No 2, 2013.C© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, OxfordOX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

362 Constellations Volume 20, Number 2, 2013

Azmanova uses the idea of judgment to frame a conception of public reason freed from theseconstraints. Her effort to complete the discursive turn centers on what she calls the phroneticconstitution of public reason. It provides an alternative account of deliberative norms: not im-plicit in communicative reason, not located in an overlapping consensus, but interpretable atthe hermeneutic level at which intersubjective understandings are created. To explore the con-stitution of public reason, Azmanova focuses on the epistemological bases of judgment. Hereshe identifies what she calls paradigms of articulation and signification, which characterizeconditions of meaningful disagreement. These conditions enable disagreement by forming its in-tersubjective basis. In particular, they determine the shared meaning and relevance of the objectsof discourse, creating a shared domain of disagreement within which issues can be discussed.Azmanova’s aim is not to promote a first-order consensus about some contentious issue, but tohermeneutically explore the intersubjective, second-order domain in which an issue’s disagree-ability is negotiated. In other words, she bases public reason on the ways that we can agree todisagree.

One of the most exciting aspects of this view is the role it gives to hermeneutic interpretation.Too often the cultural bases of politics are noted only to be ignored–an interesting but seeminglyirrelevant feature of political interaction. Azmanova brings these cultural aspects front and center,developing interpretive tools that elucidate their structuring role in politics as well as the waythey are structured into our political frameworks. The bases of disagreement, she notes, areprediscursive, so they must be understood in novel ways: through a dialectics of seeing, a carefulreading of the forms of life within which democracy is located, and observing how people maketheir concerns visible in public space. Drawing creatively on Arendt, Wittgenstein, and Bourdieu,Azmanova argues that the prediscursive bases of disagreement are not free-floating culturalideas or an expression of group ethos, but particular, institutionalized social orders. Therefore,normative issues cannot be separated from the structural constraints shaping them, as deliberativetheorists often try to do.

These fertile insights provide the basis for what Azmanova calls a “critical consensus modelof judgment,” which is designed to compete with the predominant models of discursive proce-duralism. To sharpen the lines of comparison, Azmanova takes pains to spell out her model inprocedural form. Incorporating Habermas’ discourse principle “D,” she adds the proviso that itmust aim at reciprocity in articulating norms as well as in their approval. She also proposes “C,” aprinciple of critical relevance. An issue qualifies as critically relevant when “divergent evaluativeperspectives see [it] as relevant in the critical sense of qualifying as an object of disagreement”(241–2). Azmanova takes a further step away from Habermas’ view by asserting that the norma-tive bases of public deliberation need not be universalizable, but only generalizable. They are thebases of a discursive domain that we share in common with concrete others, not with any possiblerational being in some abstract sense.

While Azmanova expresses these principles in procedural form, it is important to em-phasize her distance from the proceduralism of the older generation. Unlike her predeces-sors’, Azmanova’s principles of critical relevance and generalizability are not obviously pre-scriptive. They do not rule particular forms of discourse out of bounds, but only describedisagreement in an almost functional or axiomatic sense. People would not enter into discourseabout things they do not see as relevant, and they expect to discuss issues of general but notuniversal relevance. This is not proceduralism of a stipulative sort, but one that stands on aconsiderably different basis and does much to correct that earlier tendency.

Rather than placing strictures on discourse, Azmanova prefers to focus on the deeper level ofthe bases of disagreement. It is important to think about how problems of inequality and powercan best be addressed at this level, a topic that Azmanova addresses insightfully towards the endof the book. Her solution, a hermeneutic search for bases of shared disagreement, would deal wellwith many such problems. There is, however, the remaining spectrum of cases in which there isno basis for agreeing to disagree about a particular issue–cases in which one party simply doesnot see the urgency of an issue and thus effectively excludes it from discourse. To avoid this kindof situation–which describes many actual injustices–we must think in more detail about the placeof an “insurgent politics of relevance” in Azmanova’s theory. For it is clear that hermeneutics is

C© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Book Reviews 363

not always capable of discovering what is relevant, and topics will sometimes need to be put onthe agenda by more forceful means.

A great strength of Azmanova’s view is her central aim of clarifying how public criteriaof meaningfulness and relevance are generated. Parties to a disagreement must engage in ahermeneutic exploration of what is relevant to discussion, presumably without needing to agreeabout their reasons for finding something relevant. This has the beneficial effect of leaving openthe range of themes actually considered in discourse. In this manner, Azmanova’s efforts areultimately aimed at unbinding discourse and removing impediments to free disagreement in thepublic domain.

Rainer Forst shares much of this ethos. His view is also discursive and similarly seeks toavoid large justificatory burdens and strong idealizing demands. The German title of Forst’sbook, Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung, gives a good sense of what we find there. Besides providingan admirably clear statement of his central focus–the right to justification–the title plays onetymological resonances between rights, law, justice, and justification that do not exist in theEnglish language. Forst argues effectively that they should, at least in the way that we thinkabout these ideas as elements of a theory of justice. Throughout this discussion he moves adeptlybetween various strands of German critical theory and Anglo-American thought. A principalstrength of the book is the bridge it creates between those traditions. Jeffrey Flynn’s lucidtranslation preserves the sharpness of these arguments, making them compelling for an English-language audience.

Forst’s strategy is to shift our thinking about justice, norms, and laws in a political direction.This would occur within an intersubjective space of justification, one in which people recog-nize one another as fellow humans, susceptible to suffering and sharing a common humanity.Forst describes a moral and normative perception in which our experience of others as humanis simultaneously a realization that they must be treated humanely. This complex form of recog-nition implies a duty towards others that is discursive in character. It is a duty to justify normsor actions that affect others, and it gives rise, in turn, to a corresponding right: the right tojustification.

For Forst, justification hinges on particular forms of discourse. It must be reciprocal, toensure symmetry in the consideration of various interests and points of view, and general, to ensurethat no affected person is excluded. Although these principles of reciprocity and generality areprocedural, Forst argues that they arise from the context of interaction itself. When we recognizeothers as human and thus deserving of justification, we also realize that reciprocity and generalityare needed to provide an adequate quality of justification. In this way, reciprocity and generalityset the boundaries of acceptable discourse: reasons that are not reciprocal and general violatenorms of adequate justification and fail to respect the basic humanity of others. Within theselimits, however, any topic or reason is fair game.

Since Forst recognizes the reality of disagreement in this discursively open world, he is carefulnot to depend on pure consensus to justify norms. Instead, he uses the notion of reasonabledisagreement to develop a broader and more flexible criterion of justification. When reciprocaland general reasons can be given for a norm but no such reasons are advanced against it, Forst sayswe may provisionally conclude that the norm is “not reasonably rejectable.” It is thus consideredjustified, even in the absence of consensus. By adopting this expanded notion of justification,Forst maintains a shared “realm of reasons” while still leaving room for disagreement, dissensus,and difference.

Of course, when we look at processes of social change in recent history, disagreements havenot always been reasonable. There have been times when social movements have expandeddiscursive space and put new issues on the agenda through unreasonable means, largely becausethey found the existing modalities of politics too constraining and marginalizing. It is importantto ask to what extent a discursive politics requiring reciprocity and generality can assist orhinder this kind of political insurgency. Do such procedural rules sufficiently open discourseto marginalized voices and bracket the forms of power that create discursive disadvantage? Ordo they constrain the range of voices, reasons, and viewpoints in ways that would perpetuatemarginalization? These questions cannot be answered here, but they give us a point of entry for



thinking about the emancipatory potential of Forst’s view and its relation to other modalities ofpolitics.

Forst demonstrates the richness of his theory by recasting a number of contemporary issuesin justification-theoretic terms. Political liberty, deliberative democracy, social justice, toleration,human rights, and transnational justice are all on this agenda. Forst argues, for example, thatpolitical liberty requires specific forms of reciprocity and generality. We grant this freedom toone another in a reciprocal and general manner, so that each citizen plays the double role of beingan author and an addressee of claims to liberty. Equal freedom, from this perspective, requiresequal freedom of justification. Here Forst shifts the grounds of liberty to a discursive politics. Theconcept of political liberty itself thus can be reflexively, discursively interpreted. Forst’s emphasison the deep grammar of justification allows for specific, contextual negotiation over the normsand forms of liberty within a broader discursive-political framework.

Forst also provides an insightful discussion of toleration. Here he distances himself from tradi-tional, paternalistic conceptions by outlining a view in which toleration is a virtue of democraticcitizens that is connected with practices of justification. A subsequent chapter effectively contrastsliberal and communitarian conceptions of deliberative democracy, situating Forst’s own view asa better, third alternative. This view functions as a justification-theoretic means of coordinatingcooperation, giving democracy considerably more importance than the instrumental role in re-alizing principles that liberalism accords it, and considerably more neutrality than the completecultural immanence of communitarianism.

Perhaps most exciting is Forst’s treatment of social justice. He uses a right to justifica-tion as the basis for an argumentation-theoretic turn in our understanding of justice, notingthe foundational importance of power in thinking about justice and calling for a critical the-ory of how power operates in social relations of justification. Because it focuses on basicpractices of justification, this view permits openness in choosing substantive conceptions ofjustice–including justifying inequalities–as long as criteria of reciprocity and generality aremet.

Finally, Forst makes a significant contribution to the literature on human rights and transna-tional justice. He argues that we do not need a transcendental notion of what it means to be humanas a basis for such rights. Rather, human rights are a genre of claim one makes within the concretevalue horizon of a particular society. When people demand justice using the language of rights,they raise claims about the kinds of rights that might apply to their specific situation, and theyattempt to justify those claims using genres of reasons available within their culture. By enteringinto this dialogue, the interlocutors also invoke norms of justification. As a result, Forst says,discourses about human rights rest on a more basic right to justification. This kind of approachseems very productive, and it moves us well beyond the sterile debates about universal transcen-dentalism versus legal positivism that have characterized the human rights literature in recentyears.

Both Azmanova and Forst make considerable progress in rethinking the discursive proce-duralism of the Habermas-Rawls generation, specifying economical conditions under whichnormativity could arise from real life and using minimal means to maximal effect. To see how farwe have come since the earlier generation, we should ask exactly what is preserved and what is leftbehind in this new work. One of the signature moves shared by these authors is the use of negativecriteria for conceptualizing the aims of communication. For Forst this is a criterial conception ofreasonable justification that is equally compatible with agreement or disagreement. Azmanova’semphasis is similar. She focuses on the deep, prediscursive bases of disagreement: not “deepgrammar” exactly, but something best accessed hermeneutically. Both theorists move away froma focus on consensus, even in the relatively lightweight, Habermasian, formal-pragmatic sense ofclaiming that communication implicitly aims at achieving consensus. This, Azmanova and Forstconclude, narrows the scope of discourse too much and rules too many arguments and ideas out ofbounds.

Azmanova’s judgment paradox identifies a problem that plagues normative and critical theoryeven beyond the bounds of what she discusses. It asks how we can simultaneously maximize em-pirical relevance and normative force. Turning the tables for a moment, we might put Azmanova


Book Reviews 365

and Forst in dialogue to see how well each navigates these straights. From Azmanova’s perspec-tive, it might seem that Forst travels too close to the side of idealization when he locates thebases of a right to justification in the recognition of a common humanity and the unconditional orabsolute claims of the other. The question then would be what status does this normative groundof morality have–is it rooted in a kind of philosophical anthropology, phenomenology, formalpragmatics, or something entirely different? Correspondingly, Forst might see Azmanova as fail-ing to provide sufficient critical force due to her relatively unstructured conception of discourse.Without more limits on what counts as public reasoning, asymmetries of power and languagemight interpenetrate discourse in damaging ways. Here the question would be how well are thecritical capacities of judgment, investigated in interesting ways at the end of Azmanova’s book,able to foil such discursive problems from within, in tandem with the hermeneutic capacities shedevelops?

Ultimately, these theories shine brightest when responding to some of the most trenchantcriticisms of deliberative democracy: that its reliance on procedure narrows what counts aspolitical, constrains the range of topics and forms of expression, limits the modalities of politics,excludes emotion, and privileges certain identities and ideas. Forst and Azmanova have manyresources to meet these criticisms. Each is sensitive to issues of power, and places great emphasison openness to diverse viewpoints and unblocking constraints on discourse. Moving well beyondthe earlier generation of discursive theories, they open up new modalities of politics and provideus with new ways of thinking about them.

Kevin Olson is Associate Professor of Political Science and a member of the Critical TheoryInstitute at the University of California, Irvine. He is author of Reflexive Democracy: PoliticalEquality and the Welfare State (2006).

Jacques Ranciere and the Contemporary Scene. The Philosophy of Radical Equality, ed. byJean-Philippe Deranty and Alison Ross. London and New York, Continuum 2012

Jacques Ranciere and the Contemporary Scene is a collection of essays that provides a compre-hensive view of Ranciere’s interventions into a variety of disciplines, the boundaries of whichhe tends to ignore or, rather, to critically transgress. Although most of the essays highlight con-tradictions, flaws, and tensions in Ranciere’s writings, all of them testify, implicitly at least,to the productivity of his undisciplined interventions. For they suggest that we take Ranciere’schallenges further so that they yield coherent innovations in research areas such as film stud-ies, historiography, philosophical aesthetics, pedagogy, political philosophy, etc.1 The volume’ssubtitle, The Philosophy of Radical Equality, is, however, somewhat misleading. Only a few con-tributions put the emphasis on what the editors in their introduction rightfully call the “guidingaxiom” (1) of Ranciere’s thinking, namely radical equality. Let me add one more caveat beforecoming back to the axiomatic role of equality in Ranciere’s philosophy and its reverberations inthe book. The volume in question is anything but an introduction into Ranciere’s thinking. Rather,it provides those who are already familiar with the adventures of Rancierian thought with plentyof fine-grained, rigorous readings and thus, with both fascinating and puzzling details.

The editors of the volume are right in referring to equality as the focal point of Ranciere’s entirework. More importantly, they emphasize the “performative dimension of Ranciere’s philosoph-ical writing” (1) that is part and parcel of his “praxeological egalitarianism” (4). However, theperformativity in question is not really explained to readers who are not acquainted with and/orsympathetic to such performative equality. Let me therefore add a few explanatory remarks.

Ever since turning away from his teacher Althusser, Ranciere elaborated on what he latercalled the presupposition of equality and the performative implications of such equality–mostexplicitly in his The Ignorant Schoolmaster.2 In this archival study, Ranciere appropriates, byway of lengthy quotations and narratives in free indirect style, Joseph Jacotot’s (1770–1849) ideaof the equality of all beings that have successfully learned their first language on their own, i.e.without yet understanding the instructions of possible teachers. Jacotot’s experience as a teacher



leads him to the conclusion that pupils do not need teachers who know more than their students.Rather, they need to be supported in their faith that all of them–and all of them equally–canlearn whatever they want to learn on their own. Although there is a lot of empirical evidence thattestifies to such equality, there are even more efforts to conceal or straightforwardly reject it, e.g.by dividing the one and only intelligence into hierarchical realms of ranked and rated knowledgeor so called expertise. Therefore, Jacotot claims, equality is in constant need of being verifiedand, at the same time, intensified.

As is well known, Ranciere transforms Jacotot’s presupposition of equality into a paradoxicallyanti-foundational fundament of political action. According to Ranciere, equality is not a (utopian)goal or a principle that could be grounded ontologically, transcendentally, anthropologically, orotherwise. Rather, it is a precarious presupposition, a presupposition, moreover, that is first ofall demonstrated and verified temporarily by those who claim equality although they are deniedthe status of candidates for equal treatment. Or, in Ranciere’s deliberately paradoxical wording:equality is verified when those who have no part claim and take their part. Radical equality, inother words, needs to be taken rather than (condescendingly) given or granted. For those whomight grant it are unable to see and acknowledge those who claim it. Whereas equality withinthe confines of an institutionally and hierarchically structured world can be distributed, radicalequality cannot be granted or distributed as it cannot be perceived and conceptualized withinthe status quo (dubbed “distribution of the sensible” by Ranciere) and by those who representthe order of the status quo and claim that there is ‘no alternative.’ As a consequence of this,the unequal equals who are not visible within a particular status quo–or “distribution of thesensible”–need to act as if they were already visible. They need to perform their equality to makeit real.

One of the implications of Ranciere’s account of radical equality is that theory can neitherground the equality in question nor speak for the oppressed and/or unperceived. Rather, thetask of theory consists in remembering forgotten, ignored, and short-lived struggles for radicalequality or in defending the causes of struggles that were not even perceived as struggles forequality but rather as nonsense, noise, or madness. Being well aware of the risk of speaking forothers, Ranciere’s enactment of these mostly historical struggles is intent on using the words,voices, and gestures of those whose equality he wishes to verify. “In this respect,” the editorsrightly contend, “Ranciere’s well-studied use of free indirect style thus serves a double purpose: torearticulate the repressed logical revolts of the dominated; and/or, to modestly borrow from themtheir valuable objections and alternative solutions” (5). In some cases, this kind of performativewriting leads Ranciere to edit the works of others like the writings of the proletarian writerLouis-Gabriel Gauny. At times, it results in lengthy quotes or passages in free indirect style as inthe book on Jacotot; in yet again different contexts, it makes Ranciere appropriate the aesthetictechniques and strategies of (modernist) artworks that he thinks are able to open up alternativeworlds and new conditions of equality by treating equally what was seen as different or not seenat all in the world out of which the artworks in question emerge.

Almost all contributions to Jacques Ranciere and the Contemporary Scene support Ranciere’saspiration to make the struggles for equality of others visible and reasonable by mainly quoting,appropriating, and publishing their words. The objections, corrections, and amendments that themultifaceted chapters suggest all come down to variants of immanent critique. J.M. Bernsteinfor instance proposes that (Hollywood) movies would be better contemporary allies than mostof the modernist artworks Ranciere celebrates as struggles for equality. And Lisa Trahair makesa similar point in relation to Godard’s Histoire(s) du cinema. Dimitri Nikulin cautions Ranciereagainst the danger of privileging his own voice instead of giving voice to the struggles of othersin his The Names of History. Alison Ross reminds Ranciere of the fact that Hegel is much moreof an ally and source of inspiration than Ranciere is prepared to admit in his praise for Kant andSchiller. Todd May points out that struggles for radical equality, the only actions that deserve thedesignation “politics” according to Ranciere, might not be as rare as Ranciere thinks they are.Emmanuel Renault, finally, argues that Marx is not only the main source for the early Ranciere.He contends that, in addition, the way the later Ranciere dissociates himself from Marx is highlymisleading, as the later Ranciere’s praxeology of equality is nothing but Marx.3


Book Reviews 367

Despite the fact that the points of criticism briefly mentioned are all worth considering, mostchapters primarily testify to the performative vigor of Ranciere’s practice of actively verifyingequality. The vigor in question is, on the one hand, accentuated by the immanence of the criticismthat is aroused. On the other hand, it is the difference between these contributions and Ranciere’sapproach that testifies to Ranciere’s strength. Whereas the book chapters in question are notperformative verifications (in the Jacototian sense of the word) of equality, but rather seek to makea theory more coherent, Ranciere’s most felicitous texts perform and, at the same time, verifythe equality of others in their own words. It is primarily Caroline Pelletier’s essay “No Time orPlace for Universal Teaching: The Ignorant Schoolmaster and Contemporary Work on Pedagogy”that explicitly theorizes this gap. Having analyzed the extent to which contemporary pedagogicaltheories have become Rancierian and seem to make Ranciere’s interventions superfluous, Pelletierconcludes by claiming that Ranciere goes beyond all means-ends-thinking that structures even themost compelling contemporary works on pedagogy. In her eyes, the excessive provocation (in thepositive sense) of Ranciere’s performative verification of equality consists in making life in any(pedagogical) “distribution of the sensible” difficult: “[ . . . ] its demolition of the justificationsfor pedagogy brings into unforgiving light the paradoxes of working in an institution where onecontinuously sorts students (and colleagues) hierarchically according to a notion of ability whileupholding a commitment to equality and social justice” (113).

Having read Jacques Ranciere and the Contemporary Scene, one might want to hear more asto how a Rancierian performance of equality that took the criticism mentioned into considerationmight look. A negative answer could be: probably not like Ranciere’s more or less biographicalessay at the end of the book. The disappointing thing about Ranciere’s contribution is that, despiteconjuring up “militant performativity” (213), it gives in to the academic, perhaps even narcissistic,temptation to tell the story of Ranciere’s own philosophical formation. In my view, this is theexact opposite of performing radical equality, which, according to Ranciere, is the true purposeof theory.

NOTES

1. The only exception is Paul Patton’s contribution “Ranciere’s Utopian Politics.” Patton contendsthat we should altogether refuse to accept Ranciere’s downright “postmodern” and anti-foundational analysisof contemporary political phenomena.

2. Jacques Ranciere, The Ignorant Schoolmaster. Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation (Stanford,Stanford University Press, 1991).

3. There are two exceptions of the rule of such immanent critique: Andrew Schaap’s thorough andconsiderate reconstruction of both the differences and consonances between Ranciere and Arendt, andJean-Philippe Deranty’s similarly thorough reconstruction of the role of work and workerism in Ranciere’swritings up to today.

Ruth Sonderegger is Professor of Philosophy and Aesthetic Theory at the Academy of FineArts Vienna. She is the author of Fur eine Asthetik des Spiels: Hermeneutik, Dekonstruktion undder Eigensinn der Kunst (2000) and the co-editor of Conceptions of Critique in Modern andContemporary Philosophy (2012).


Documents

Sonderegger