|
Leonhard Emmerling
Adorno, Th. W. (1997). Aesthetic Theory (R. Hullot-Kentor, Trans.). London: The Athlone Press.
Ammann, J.-C. (1997). Über die Notwendigkeit von Kunst. In Ammann, J.-C. (1997). Annäherung, Regensburg: Lindinger + Schmid.
Anderson, K. (1999). Secular Eschatologies and Class Interests. In C. Gustafson and P. Juviler (Eds.), Religion and Human Rights: Conflicting Claims (pp. 1 - 12). Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe
Auckland Art Gallery (Ed.). (2007). Turbulence - 3rd Auckland Triennial. Auckland: Auckland Art Gallery.
Böhmecke, M. (2005). Studie: Ehrenmord. Tübingen: Terre des Femmes, commissioned by Feleknas Uca, Member of the European Parliament. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from www.frauenrechte.de/tdf/pdf/EU-Studie_Ehrenmord.pdf
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall Inc.
Descartes, R. (1986). A Discourse on Method. (John Veitch, Transl.). London and Melbourne: Dent.
Emmerling, Leonhard (Ed.). The Inconceivable. Exhibition catalogue St Paul St, Auckland, 13.7. – 12.8.2006.
Garrett, R. (March 2007). Walking with Letters. Artlink, Vol 27, (1), pp. 46 – 49.
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Vol.1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Vol. 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hetherington, K. (1998). Expressions of Identity – Space, Performance, Politics. London, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Hirschhorn, T. (2004). Bataille Monument. In C. Doherty (Ed.), From Studio to Situation (pp. 133 – 148). London: Black Dog Publishing.
hooks, b. (1991). In A. Juno and V. Vale (Eds.), Angry Women, (pp. 78 - 93) San Francisco: Re/Search Publications.
Horkhomer, M. and Adorno, Th. W. (1969). Dialektik der Aufklärung (1947), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. With an epilogue by Jürgen Habermas.
Ignatieff, M. (2000). The Rights Revolution. Toronto: Anansi Press Limited.
Ignatieff, M. (2001). Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Lacan, J. (1977). Le stade du miroir comme formateur de la fonction du Je, (1949). In Lacan, J. (1977). Ecrits. Vol 1 (pp. 1 – 7). Paris: Seuil.
Laclau, E. (2000). Contingency, Hegemony, Universality - Contemporary Dialogues on the Left. London, New York: Verso.
Lorenz, K. (1974). On Aggression, (M. Kerr Wilson, A. Helen and K. Wolff, Trans.). London: Methuen & Co Ltd.
Morsink, J. (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting and Intent. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Judging Other Cultures: The Case of Genital Mutilation. In M. C. Nussbaum, Sex & Social Justice (pp. 118 - 129). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollis, A., & Schwab, P. (Eds.). (1979). Human Rights: Cultural and Ideological Perspectives. New York: Praeger.
Rorty, R. (1998). Truth and Moral Progress: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schirrmacher, Ch. (2007, March, 8). Feste Verwurzelung des Ehrenmords im Islam. Ehrenmord in islamisch geprägten Gesellschaften. Schweizerzeit aktuell.
www.schweizerzeit.ch/0807/ehrenmord.htm. Last retrieved on October 5, 2007.
Stewart-Harawira, M. (2005). Cultural Studies, Indigenous Knowledge and Pedagogies of Hope. In Stewart-Harawira, M. (2005). Policy Futures in Education. Volume 3, Number 2.
[1] See Nussbaum (1999: 129). On the same topic of Female Genital Mutilation, seeMichael Ignatieff’s surprisingly relativistic position Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry (2001: 72). He comments on Chinese politics: “The Great Leap Forward in China, in which between twenty-three and thirty million people perished as a result of irrational government policies implacably pursued in the face of their obvious failure, would never have been allowed to take place in a country with the self-correcting mechanisms of free press and political opposition. So much for the argument so often heard in Asia that people's ’right to development’, to economic progress, should come before their right to free speech and democratic government.” (90)
Regarding the problems of “honour killing”, or namus: In its name, six women were killed in Berlin in 2004, within six months. Until 2003, Turkish civil law provided in Art. 462 for mitigation in cases of provoked killings, which was amended in 2005. In rural areas of Turkey, honour killings still hardly attract punishment. See also Schirrmacher (2007) and Böhmecke (2005).
[2] See Anderson (1999: 115): “The claim to universalism is a sham. Universalism is mere globalism and a globalism, moreover, whose key terms are established by capital.” See also Pollis & Schwab (1979: 1): Human rights are a “Western construct of limited applicability”.
[3] Lorenz (1974: 94). The English translation of “Comment Kampf”, which Lorenz used in his text “Das Sogenannte Böse” (Vienna 1963) as fraternity sword-fight or “Chivalry” does not transport the meaning of the French “Comment” which can be translated as “Like…”. It nevertheless transports the meaning of “Comment” as a rule of behaviour, especially in groups, which are defined by class distinctions.
[4] In September of 1999, the Brooklyn museum of art displayed an exhibit called “Sensations”, in which a work by Chris Ofili was shown, a depiction of a half naked Virgin Mary, covered in elephant feces. In October, 1999 Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said that the BMA should have its funding pulled and should not be sponsored by the City of New York.
[5] This, of course, is also the case with theatre, literature and music.
[6] See Emmerling (2006: 5).
[7] See Garrett (2007: 46).
[8] See Hirschhorn (2004: 133-148).
[9] Kindly communicated by Tina Engels-Schwarzpaul, Auckland.
[10] “From a theoretical point of view, the very notion of particularity presupposes that of totality (even total separation cannot escape the fact that separation is still atype of relation between entities - the monads require a 'pre-established harmony' as a condition of their non-interaction). And, politically speaking, the right of particular groups of agents - ethnics, national or sexual minorities, for instance - can be formulated only as universal rights. The appeal to the universal is unavoidable once, on the one hand, no agent can claim to speak directly for the 'totality' while, on the other, reference to the latter remains an essential component of the hegemonic-discursive operation. The universal is an empty place, a void, which can be filled only by the particular, but which, through its very emptiness, produces a series of crucial effects in the structuration/destructuration of social relations. It is in this sense that it is both an impossible and a necessary object.” (2000: 58)
[11] “If rights conflict and there is no unarguable order of moral priority in rights claims, we cannot speak of rights as trumps. The idea of rights as trumps implies that when rights are introduced into a political discussion, they serve to resolve the discussion. In fact, the opposite is the case. When political demands are turned into rights claims, there is a real risk that the issue at stake will become irreconcilable, since to call a claim a right is to call it nonnegotianable, at least in popular parlance. Compromise is not facilitated by the use of rights claim language. So if rights are not trumps, and if they create a spirit of nonnegotiable confrontation, what is their use? At best, rights create a common framework, a common set of reference points that can assist parties in conflict to deliberate together.” (2001: 20)
Cf. also Ignatieff (2000: 22 and elsewhere).
|
