In recent years, there has been an increased attention to temporality in political theory, and such attention is sorely needed. For too long political theory, with the exception of occasional phenomenological forays, has remained grounded in a particular experience of time as linear and sequential. This book aims to unsettle the dominant framework by putting time itself, and the experience of time in everyday life, at the center of its critical analysis. Smita Rahman focuses on the experience of time as (...) one where past, present, and future intermingle with each other and refuse to adhere to a sequential structure. Rather than trying to tame the flux of time, this book places this "out of joint" experience of time at the center of its analysis of global politics. Rahman takes the highly abstract concept of time and decenters it to speak to a wide range of political issues across disciplines by exposing the cultural construction of the foundational concept of time in political theory and attending closely to the challenges of cultural incommensurability that it encounters in a globalized world of difference. Specifically, the book looks at interrogation practices in Afghanistan, the challenges of coping with the burdens of collective memory in Algeria, South Africa, and Rwanda, the difficulty of uncritically applying such a framework to the Muslim world through the language of secularism, and finally at the beginnings of democratic emergence in Bangladesh to explore a politics of contingency. (shrink)

What are the political implications of a complex image of time, where time does not unfold progressively in a neat linear structure, but where the past is always present and the future impinges on the now? If the past is inescapably present, how do societies that live with grievously injured pasts come to terms with them in the present for the sake of the future? How do they try to address the collective memories of their people, when such memories are (...) marked by violence and conflict, without resorting to vengeance? Drawing from the philosophical writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, this article examines the way in which two countries have recently attempted to negotiate the politics of memory – Algeria and Rwanda. It poses such questions as how much should be forgotten and how much should be remembered? It also asks the difficult question of how such pasts can be overcome and transfigured in the present for the sake of the politics of an affirmative politics of the future. (shrink)

What are the political implications of a complex image of time, where time does not unfold progressively in a neat linear structure, but where the past is always present and the future impinges on the now? If the past is inescapably present, how do societies that live with grievously injured pasts come to terms with them in the present for the sake of the future? How do they try to address the collective memories of their people, when such memories are (...) marked by violence and conflict, without resorting to vengeance? Drawing from the philosophical writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, this article examines the way in which two countries have recently attempted to negotiate the politics of memory – Algeria and Rwanda. It poses such questions as how much should be forgotten and how much should be remembered? It also asks the difficult question of how such pasts can be overcome and transfigured in the present for the sake of the politics of an affirmative politics of the future. (shrink)