Meta-relativist agenda in contemporary visual arts theory and practice

The borders of visual art on the eve of the 20th-21st centuries are being extremely expanded both at the empirical and theoretical levels and so is the agenda of contemporary philosophy of art. Is the unprecedented polyphony of discourses a methodological drawback or is it a heuristic opportunity that can help to broaden our knowledge about the essence of art and the notion of a work of art? What is visual art and what is artwork speaking the 21st century language? The study examines the current trends and innovations in the visual arts field and how they can be interpreted. Authors come to conclusion that the times of normative or negativist approaches are over. The plethora of transformations is a value-in-itself and can be seen as a legitimate methodological situation, namely, as a meta-relativist turn. Examples that are presented in the paper deal with different sides of “a work of art formula”: span of discourse, artist, audience, art space, art market, new technologies, etc. Those cases demonstrate the ambivalence of current visual art practices that can be interpreted either as complete negation of the preceding standards or as new discourses that are equally legitimate with the older ones. Meta-relativist approach treats all existing discourses and practices as equally legitimate and thus provides the method to broaden our understanding of the essence of art and definition of an artwork. The study suggests that it is a contemporary tool for further intra- and inter-disciplinary dialogue.

Rights Rhetoric

Two competing narratives of rights constitutionalism have emerged in the rights discourse in Asian democracies. One account is often characterized as a universalist approach toward individual rights, driven by Western notions of liberalism and focused on civil and political liberties. In contrast, some Asian states have asserted a relativist approach toward rights, prioritizing communitarian interests and economic development over individual freedoms of expression, assembly, and personal liberty. Pitted against each other, these two frames have produced dichotomies perceived as being in tension with each other: between universalism and relativism, between individualism and communitarianism, and between civil-political rights and economic development. These constructed dichotomies perpetuated during the “Asian values” debate have continued even in the aftermath of that discourse to shape rights rhetoric and practice in the states that had been its strongest proponents. Yet the established political and constitutional paradigm has begun to shift. The changing political and popular landscape has been due in part to sustained political participation and growing rights consciousness since the turn of the twenty-first century in modern Malaysia and Singapore. This emerging culture of constitutionalism sets the backdrop for developing constitutional adjudication in these aspiring Asian democracies.

The construction of knowledge on “quality” in higher education: A study of universities’ websites in India

In the context of India, the current paper studies the ways in which select public and private universities are representing themselves on their own website. In the process, the objective is to reveal what claims on “quality” in higher education (HE), are made by these universities; and how and why marketing power/knowledge influences these claims. Adhering to a critical realist discourse analysis approach, the paper not only describes the discourse on “quality” in HE on the selected universities’ websites but also makes an attempt to explain why marketing power/knowledge has come to have causal influence over the ways of knowing about “quality” in HE. Invoking, a moderate constructionist theory which is compatible with critical realism, it is accepted that knowledge on “quality” in HE is constructed discursively. However, these constructions are also shaped by non-discursive factors such as materiality, structural, institutional and physical embodied elements. The paper finds marketing power/knowledge is invested in the statements—both visual and textual, particularly on private universities’ websites. As mainstream marketing literature and practice recognize HE as a service and conceptualizes student/parent as a consumer, these universities’ websites have emerged as a site of playing out internet marketing strategies. There is an emphasis on tangibilization of the so-called HE service so that a prospective “student/parent-consumer” can see and find it cognitively easy to understand “quality” in HE. Consequently, one finds an emphasis on the discourses of “rankings”, “recognitions”, and “infrastructure” on these websites. In addition to this, one also finds influence of post-modern marketing and post-modern attitude towards truth on these statements. Marketers believe more in the appeal of these statements than in their authenticity. However, instead of invoking a relativist approach where only cultural factors are invoked to explain these influences, this paper hints towards materiality such as the ephemerality of the web, among others, as causal factors shaping these discourses.

Perspectives: A dialogue upon the question of value in film education

The question of aesthetic value remains a source of tension within diverse film education environments. While film-makers and audiences have visceral experiences of the value of cinema, these experiences are troubled by a contemporary film studies that tends to adopt a more relativist approach, suggesting that the experience of value is reflective of sociocultural subjectivity. Speaking from two different perspectives, Alan Bernstein and Andrew Burn explore the role of value in film education, and film culture more widely, in 2019. While Bernstein argues for a reinstatement of value as a fundamental aspect of how film is experienced and understood in educational contexts and beyond, Burn contextualizes questions of value within a wider framework of semiotic and aesthetic theory, arguing for a multimodal approach that takes into account the multifaceted nature of film.

Deconstruction

Although the term is often used interchangeably (and loosely) alongside others like ‘post-structuralism’ and ‘postmodernism’, deconstruction differs from these other movements. Unlike post-structuralism, its sources lie squarely within the tradition of Western philosophical debate about truth, knowledge, logic, language and representation. Where post-structuralism follows the linguist Saussure – or its own version of Saussure – in espousing a radically conventionalist (hence sceptical and relativist) approach to these issues, deconstruction pursues a more complex and critical path, examining the texts of philosophy with an eye to their various blindspots and contradictions. Where postmodernism blithely declares an end to the typecast ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘modernist’ project of truth-seeking rational enquiry, deconstruction preserves the critical spirit of Enlightenment thought while questioning its more dogmatic or complacent habits of belief. It does so primarily through the close reading of philosophical and other texts and by drawing attention to the moments of ‘aporia’ (unresolved tension or conflict) that tend to be ignored by mainstream exegetes. Yet this is not to say (as its detractors often do) that deconstruction is a kind of all-licensing textualist ‘freeplay’ which abandons every last standard of interpretive fidelity, rigour or truth. At any rate it is a charge that finds no warrant in the writings of those – Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man chief among them – whose work is discussed below.

Aristotelian Ethics and Veganism

I argue that ethical veganism and animal rights activism is preferable to a moral relativist approach to vegetarianism and animal use, even in cases of activism labeled “extreme.” The moral relativist says that being a vegetarian or a meat eater is a matter of personal choice. I argue that the strong commitments of ethical vegans and animal rights activists are admirable from a virtue ethics perspective; they are not extreme. On the contrary, they accord with the ideal that Aristotle called the "Golden Mean." Aristotle himself was not vegan. He viewed the universe in a fundamentally hierarchical way and would have had no objections to the human use of animals. However, he believed in the idea of a Natural Law, and this can be used to support contemporary ethical veganism and animal rights activism. If animals possess rights, then it is the moral duty (rather than personal choice) of every human to stop his or her consumption of animal products. From this perspective, the harms that may be caused by veganism (particularly economic harms) are of lesser significance than the value of veganism and animal rights activism. The moral relativist argument against the alleged extremism of ethical vegans is improper. The highly controversial tactics employed by some vegan and animal rights activists including the use of violence, harassment and property damage can be understood as reasonable and morally necessary from a virtue ethics perspective if we extend our concept of moral community to include all sentient beings.

Self Visitation, Traveler Time, and Compatible Properties

IntroductionTed Sider aptly and concisely states the self-visitation paradox thus: ‘Suppose I travel back in time and stand in a room with my sitting 10-year-old self. I seem to be both sitting and standing, but how can that be?’ (2001, 101). I will explore a relativist resolution of this paradox offered by, or on behalf of, endurantists. It maintains that the sitting and the standing are relative to the personal time or proper time of the time traveler and is intended to yield the result that Ted is sitting at a certain initial personal/proper time but is not standing relative to that time. Similarly, it is also supposed to yield that Ted is standing relative to a later personal/proper time, but not sitting relative to that time. Such a traveler-time relativism has been offered by Paul Horwich (1975, 433-5; 1987, 114-15) and also by Simon Keller and Michael Nelson (2001, 344). I will show that this relativist approach is a non-starter. It is so because Ted is sitting and standing at both the initial and the later personal/proper time.

Multiple objectivity: an anti‐relativist approach to situated knowledge

PurposeThe paper aims to describe the inadequate nature of both “mono‐objectivist” approaches, which deny any role of social influence in science, and relativist social constructions, which fail to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. It outlines an alternative conceptual framework that allows for the possibility of social construction of science, while preventing epistemological relativism.Design/methodology/approachThe study utilizes the cybernetic concept of recursion to show how science can bend back on itself, investigating its own foundations, without undermining its ability to improve our empirical understanding of the world. The paper makes use of several case studies to define specific mechanisms that show how the process of knowledge production in science can steer a course between reduction to a single “right answer,” and fragmentation into subjective interpretations.FindingsThe paper concludes by showing how the cybernetic recursion of multiple objectivity can also be applied to cybernetics itself. In particular, it suggests that such recursive investigations allow us to reconsider the Law of Requisite Variety, and envision an alternative form that can better account for the complexity that arises in self‐generating systems.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is unlikely to be of use to scientists looking for epistemological proof of singular right answers, or social constructivists looking for proof of epistemological relativism.Practical implicationsThe paper suggests that researchers in constructivism need not limit their work for fear that it will lead to relativist conclusions.Originality/valueThis paper fulfils an identified need to offer an alternative to current developments in the field of science and technology studies.

"Between Orientalism and Postmodernism: The Changing Nature of Western Feminist Thought Towards the Middle East"

Abstract1980s postmodernism provided a viable theoretical alternative to existing discourses. Where pre-postmodern second-wave feminism subscribed to prescriptive notions of what a woman should or should not be, postmodern feminists (or post-feminists) instead articulated a much more diverse, malleable, morally and culturally relative notion of what it means to be a woman. This new relativist approach meant that feminists were now making a conscious effort to engage with third-world women in a way that acknowledged cultural particularities. Today Muslim women are struggling to find a place for themselves. Western feminists have the potential to play an important role in the process of change in the Muslim world. The nature of this role has yet to be determined. In recent decades, Western feminists have had a tendency to superimpose their own culturally specific notions of equality on the Muslim world. Now, there is the risk that a new generation of postmodern intellectuals will decide to slowly disengage. With this in mind, finding the middle ground has never been more urgent.