Dissensus or Impass?
Embodied Doubles and Historical Ruptures
April 26, 2017
What creates the conditions for some to maintain a hermeneutic refusal of multiple perspectives while others are pressed into “double consciousness”? How do splits or doubles across dissensus affect possibilities to act in the world, and knowledge of those possibilities? Might such questions help us understand how analytic categories –consciousness, ontology, ideology—are themselves crafted in relation to processes of social conflict or reconciliation, circumstances of material excess or lack?
How do scholars straddling two (or more) disciplines address these issues? How do we—as scholars/activists/humans—work through our own refusals and impasses?
We welcome papers on these and related themes and topics:
Double/triple consciousness. How is it that some hold multiple perspectives and others do not? What is the role of double consciousness in academia? For the “native” scholar or informant? How do double burdens affect knowledge production (especially knowledge about knowledge)?
Race and perspective. The historical, structural forces that maintain inequality remain difficult to perceive—for whom? Do we look for White or Black or Brown ontologies? Do we ask how whiteness maintain dis-attention as a universal perspective?
Double binds. When and how do embodied subjects hit political impasse (Damned if you do or you don’t. To tell or not?)? Where do choices emerge or disappear for those facing double binds?
Competing ontologies. How do some conditions split ontological or ideological or perceptual registers, creating impasse (or erasing dissensus), while others impose unity or claim commensurability?
Historical oscillations: Revolution/conservation, anarchy/order, rupture/reconciliation: if binary mechanisms no longer dominate theory, they remain active in political ideologies and mainstream accounts of events: what do they enable?
If you are interested in participating, click here and submit a brief abstract by Wednesday March 1, 2017.