Spanish political life has undergone important transformations in the last decade. A rare way of approaching them is through the changes that have taken place in public opinion. This paper draws attention to a new generation of intellectuals who, in the middle of the last decade, burst into the public sphere with the task of shoring up the inherited institutional order, which was then beginning to be strongly questioned. These young people saw themselves as the bulwarks of a modernisation of public opinion, as the introducers of scientifically informed models of analysis. Initially aligned with the Ciudadanos project, they have managed to survive the party's volatility and have gradually reconfigured their positions on the political scene. In this article we are particularly interested in those who have repositioned themselves on the right-wing spectrum and in how events, especially the crisis of 2017, have pushed them towards positions that have rectified the institutional order they came to defend.
In this article, I argue that the norms governing argumentative exchanges-such as norms of adversariality and politeness-and their interaction with factors like the speaker's social identity can give rise to situations of discursive injustice, in which the illocutionary force of the act of arguing is distorted by the interlocutor. I further contend that when such injustices affect speech acts of arguing, the harm inflicted on the speaker is particularly insidious, as it limits her ability to use argumentation as a legitimate and necessary resource in situations where backing up and validating other speech acts is required. Finally, I argue that this phenomenon not only undermines the speaker's capacity to argue, but in extreme cases may reinforce broader dynamics of exclusion, leading to her silencing and even to the loss of the very perception of the possibility of arguing.
In this paper we characterize some of the functions that narrative arguments play in the argumentation of populist political discourses and offer tools for their weighting. First, we demonstrate with an example that these arguments are part of the discursive procedures through which populist discourse constructs "the people". We suggest that the construction of "the people" and the introduction of an alien goal to the collective subjects grouped in this construction can be accomplished through a narrative argument that appeals to historical narratives. Then, we raise the question of how to weigh the narrative arguments of populism when they are opposed by others that appeal to a narrative of narrower range that justifies the particular demands of the collective subjects. We suggest some questions that may make it easier for citizens to weigh these arguments by virtue of their own identity, that is, their adherence to certain discourses.
The main aim of this article is to deepen and attempt to elucidate some aspects related to the definition of bullshit. Our starting point will be the definition provided by the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt, which is considered the first systematic clarification of the term. Therefore, in the first place, we will analyze the four main characteristics established by Frankfurt: indifference toward the truth, indifference toward the audience's beliefs, intention to deceive and incompatibility with lying. Then we will present the arguments suggested by different authors to problematize this original definition. We will also pay attention to the theories developed by some of these authors who, moreover, have proposed other types of bullshit. Finally, we will defend Tobies Grimaltos and Sergi Rosell's proposal, in which bullshit is defined as indifference to the Gricean maxims of conversation, since we believe it can shed light on such a complex and varied phenomenon as bullshit.
This article analyses the crisis of democracy and the rise of new political extremisms based on the concept of "post-democracy" developed by Colin Crouch and articulated by Roberto Esposito. It looks specifically at the case of Venezuela, where democratic erosion led to a chavista-madurista autocracy. It explores how in Venezuela there was a "democratic fatigue" brought about by post-democracy and neoliberalism, which eroded the weak political institutions inherited fromthe Spanish colony. They had an imperial exploitation logic inherited from the Roman Empire and did not respond to local needs. Faced with empty institutions, the "messianic" option of chavismo emerged, which, with a Manichean discourse of popular rebellion and a caudillista leader, promised the historic redemption of the oppressed. Thus, the Venezuelan post-democracy transited from democratic exhaustion to authoritarianism. It is concluded that the weak foundation of Venezuelan institutions, their social inadequacy and consequent delegitimisation were a breeding ground for the emergence of redemptive extremisms such as chavismo, within the framework of neoliberal post-democracy.
Recognizing the importance of different types of argumentative agency and the identitary functions of argumentation allows us to approach polarization from the perspective of argumentation theory. To explore polarization as an argumentative phenomenon I will start from the definition of group polarization as a deliberative process of reinforcement of beliefs and attitudes. I contend that polarized argumentation is characterized by the fact that it is based on the us-them opposition and makes systematic and deliberate use of mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion in the deliberative group. To illustrate this, I will consider the use of personal pronouns in public deliberation, the identification of reasons with group reasons, and the use of a kind of argument that I have dubbed "argument ad coetus."
This paper seeks to present the role of nature in Marx's thought, as well as the contemporary conceptions of the relationship between ecology and Marxism. In this regard, it is assumed that a discernible concern for nature is present in Marx's works, linked with his analysis of capitalist society and evolving in tandem with his broader theoretical framework. John Bellamy Foster and Kohei Saito allow us a closer examination of Marx's concerns regarding the interaction between nature and human societies. In contrast, Jason W. Moore challenges some of the premises of the duo. Furthermore, we examine the manner in which the question of nature conditions the political practices of our era, highlighting the importance of both Marx's critical apparatus and his political strategies.
This article addresses a widespread phenomenon in public discourse, namely, the proliferation of a series of argumentative moves deployed by different agents who dispute meaning in the public arena and which have an insidious character. Such character, which will be explained using theoretical tools taken from argumentation theory, political epistemology, and the philosophy of language, lies in the fact that under an inoffensive appearance, under the impression of being merely an exercise of reason, they produce epistemic harm. The harm implied in these strategies will be understood as destroying some common epistemic resources produced by manipulating discussion rules and naturalizing a certain form of epistemic irresponsibility. To illustrate this phenomenon, the analysis of a case taken from the public discussion arena in Argentina will be offered, namely, the insidious way of not-defending a dictatorship deployed by a vice-presidential candidate in that country.
Since Popper's remarks about the "conspiracy theory of society" in the mid-20th century, conspiracy theories have had a very bad reputation. The proliferation of absurd conspiracy theories in the 21st century has contributed to this trend. In this article, however, I will discuss the main arguments that have been presented to defend the thesis that conspiracy theories, as a whole, are unjustified, and I will show that they are not convincing. Moreover, I will argue that the common use of the term "conspiracy theory" has epistemic and political implications that are problematic. Contrary to what seems to be commonly assumed, we should not reject explanatory hypotheses solely because they refer to conspiracies.
In this article, I study the effects of hateful speech on public deliberation. I aim to fulfil this goal by studying the public debate on mass tourism in the Canary Islands. In the first part of the paper, I reconstruct the public debate and identify the different participants and positions that exist in the debate regarding the regularization of mass tourism. Then, I focus on the accusations of "tourismphobia" directed at one of the participants: the social movement Canarias Se Agota. I argue that the accusations of tourismphobia encourage a biased and manipulative portrayal of the actions of residents to engage in the public debate as a xenophobic backlash against tourists. I propose to formalize the accusations of tourismphobia as 'hateful speech' because they convey a detestable message about the victims without focusing on a legally protected characteristic (sex, race, religion, ethnicity, etc.). Lastly, I consider three effects these accusations have on public debate: the distortion of the message that Canarias Se Agota aims to convey, the elimination of the topic under discussion, and the distortion of the position of the accuser in the debate.
The present article is part of the recent interpretations of populism. It aims to show the main criticisms of two schools (liberals and the "left") that tend in the same ontological direction. The deferment between both is based on the definition of its diverse categories, such as democracy or politics. It provokes a particular way of interpreting populism that prevents the debate between the two schools. Nonetheless, we try to show convergence. A Marxist criticism could say that populism -due to its ideological emptiness- does not allow the full development of the class struggle and the emancipation of the working class. In the same sense, a liberal perspective could see populism as a threat to democracy because human rights and the preservation of democracy could be -in some vision- emancipatory. The claim for permanent content would be the ontological convergence between two schools that seem too different.
Throughout this interview, Enzo Traverso delves into various aspects of his intellectual work and trajectory. This text explores issues related to his academic background and political vocation, as well as considerations on the introduction of subjectivityin history, the relationship between history and memory, and the dynamics of violence and contemporary political movements.
This text analyzes and contextualizes Singular Pasts by Enzo Traverso, focusing on how it examines the subjective turn in contemporary historiography, characterized by the introduction of the "I" in historical narration. Traverso associates this phenomenon with presentism and neoliberalism, highlighting the privatization of memory and the atrophy of utopian imagination. However, he warns that this new form of writing should not be limited to the intimate but should integrate individual experiences within a broader historical framework. The essay offers a critical and provocative analysis, encouraging debate about the transformation of historical writing in recent decades
This article proposes an approach to the book The End ofJewish Modernity by historian Enzo Traverso through a critique of Israel's colonial national political theology. Traverso's work proves necessary and highly relevant to unravel the apocalyptic drift of Zionism in the first quarter of the 20th century.
The main purpose of this article is to delve further into Enzo Traverso's intellectual history-based reading of certain forms of melancholy. By means of a conceptual analysis of how this concept is framed, this text will highlight the ways in which the Italian historian's interpretation offers an unorthodox interpretation of this affective fixation on the past-one that transcends the psychoanalytic framework, which has often prefigured it as a pathology. This will allow us to critique certain interpretations of melancholy by recovering its critical and emancipatory potential.
This article analyzes the history and memory of revolutions in dialogue with the work of Enzo Traverso. To this purpose, it delves into the crisis of the revolutionary tradition today, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It also analyzes how Traverso's concept of "left-wing melancholy" is a response from which to work reflexively and critically on the relationship with the revolutionary past without falling into nostalgia or even into taxing condemnation, which incidentally will serve to rethink the relationship between history and memory. Finally, the article studies how the often negative contemporary memory of revolutions is explained by the new hegemonic frameworks of memory, often more moral than historical, and the central role that victims and violence have acquired in recent times
This text includes both the presentation by Pere Is & agrave;s Solanes and Francisco Morente Valero, as well as the speech delivered by Enzo Traverso on the occasion of his appointment as Doctor Honoris Causa by the Autonomous University of Barcelona, held on November 26, 2024.
This article analyzes the Us-Them dynamic in modernity. Special emphasis is placed on presenting the concept of the paradox trap: that discursive and material framework that traps those considered "Them" and generates dynamics from which it is difficult to escape. Faced with the paradox trap and the essentialization of social groups, Kafkaesque responses have been given-based on the assumption of the negative and stigmatizing definitions-and Genetian responses have been given-based on the rejection of the entire order of values. Conciliatory solutions such as those of Marx or Cesaire, make us reflect on the importance of recovering some of the Enlightenment ideas that would allow us to dynamit the Us-Them logic.
This essay attempts to account the critical outlook of historian Enzo Traverso, with regard to the "Jewish question", as it is called often. About this, his books on the splendor of the Jewish intelligentsia during the XIX and XXth centuries in Europe are of notice; in them, the author highlights the intellectual trajectory of important figures in the worlds of art and social science, as well as in left-leaning activism. Nevertheless, in his last book on the subject, El fin de la modernidad jud & iacute;a, Traverso makes a hard-hitting critique of a supposed conservative turn of Jewish thought, since the creation of the State of Israel. From this stance, stems our criticism of such position, which seems unfair and unconvincing to us.
