The European Union’s common agricultural policy (CAP), in addition to its primary production and farm income goals, is a large source of funding for environmentally friendly agricultural practices. However, its schemes have variable success and uptake across member states (MS) and regions. This study tries to explain these differences by demonstrating differences between policy levels in the understanding of the relationship between nature and farming. To compare constructs and values of the respective policy communities, their discursive construction as it appears (...) in the main strategic EU and MS agricultural policy documents is analysed. The theoretical framework integrates elements from existing frameworks of CAP and environmental discourse analysis; specific agri-environmental discourses, their elements and interplay, are identified. The six discourses suggested here are ‘Productivism’, ‘Classical neoliberal’, ‘Ecological modernisation’, ‘Administrative’, ‘Multifunctionality’ and ‘Radical green’. The discourse analysis of selected documents reveals that there are indeed differences in how farming and the environment are generally conceptualised at different levels of CAP decision-making. At EU level, farming is primarily understood as a sector whose main task is to produce food (‘Productivism’), and the environment is used as a justification for CAP payments (‘Multifunctionality’). At the national/regional level, Rural Development Programmes reflect different value systems: in England, environmental protection is mainly seen as sound management of natural capital (‘Classical neoliberal’); in Finland, a benefit for producers and conscious consumers (‘Ecological modernisation’); in Croatia, a necessity limiting productivity (‘Productivism’) and imposed by an external authority (‘Administrative’ discourse). This diversity shows that differences can visibly manifest despite the Commission constraining the discursive space, helping to explain the differential implementation and success of environmental measures. (shrink)

Automated algorithms are silently making crucial decisions about our lives, but most of the time we have little understanding of how they work. To counter this hidden influence, there have been increasing calls for algorithmic transparency. Much ink has been spilled over the informational account of algorithmic transparency—about how much information should be revealed about the inner workings of an algorithm. But few studies question the power structure beneath the informational disclosure of the algorithm. As a result, the information disclosure (...) itself can be a means of manipulation used by a group of people to advance their own interests. Instead of concentrating on information disclosure, this paper examines algorithmic transparency from the perspective of power, explaining how algorithmic transparency under a disciplinary power structure can be a technique of normalizing people’s behavior. The informational disclosure of an algorithm can not only set up some de facto norms, but also build a scientific narrative of its algorithm to justify those norms. In doing so, people would be internally motivated to follow those norms with less critical analysis. This article suggests that we should not simply open the black box of an algorithm without challenging the existing power relations. (shrink)

Critical theories often express scepticism towards the idea that social critique should draw on general normative principles, seeing such principles as bound to dominant conceptual frameworks. However, even the models of immanent critique developed in the Frankfurt School tradition seem to privilege principles over particular moral experiences. Discussing the place that particular moral experience has in the models of Honneth, Ferrara and Adorno, the article argues that experience can play an important negative role even for a critical theory that is (...) committed to the necessity of conceptual mediation, as moral experiences can undermine our confidence in the appropriateness of our moral concepts. Building on McDowell’s account of moral perception and Brandom’s interpretation of Hegel’s theory of experience, one can reconstruct Adorno as providing a “radically negativist” approach to immanent critique that takes particular moral experience seriously. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The present article extracts the normative and the crypto-normative from the polemical contexts in which they have been deployed as charges to study them in their more affirmative dimensions. Polemics increasingly contribute to a disabling dismissal of normativity that ultimately blocks nuanced re-conceptualizations of normative operations. Against this backdrop, the article attempts a first theorization of crypto-normativity as a concept in its own right independently from the Habermasian-Foucauldian polemics that initially framed it. However, instead of emerging as an escape (...) route from normativity, crypto-normativity is defended as part and parcel of a broader set of normative “technologies” that assist human beings in their critical reshuffling of themselves and of their realities. (shrink)

At once historical and philosophical, Michel Foucault used his genealogical method to expose the contingent conditions constituting the institutions, sciences and practices of the present. His analyses of the asylum, clinic, prison and sexuality revealed the historical, political and epistemological forces that make up certain types of subjects, sciences and sites of control. Although noting the originality of his work, a number of early critics questioned the normative framework of Foucault's method. Nancy Fraser argued that Foucault's genealogical method was ‘normatively (...) confused’ as it implied political critique yet claimed to be value-neutral. Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor also questioned the normative basis of Foucault's appeals to critique, arguing it was self-refuting as Foucault left no room for the subject to escape power. Although a debate among these scholars was planned for the mid-1980s, Foucault's death in 1984 meant this could not occur. A number of edited volumes sought to fabricate a debate, with defenders of Foucault excavating his published monographs to construct responses to his critics. While the monographs remain the central texts of Foucault's oeuvre, over the past decade his Collège de France lectures have been published and translated into English. This article offers a schematic survey of the influence of the Collège de France lectures in recasting different points in the debates over normativity, critique and resistance. (shrink)

This paper argues against a common misunderstanding of Foucault's work. Even after the release of his lectures at the Collège de France, which ran throughout the 1970s until his death in 1984, he is still often taken to have made an "ethical" turn toward the end of his life. As opposed to his genealogies of power published in the 1970s, which are relentlessly suspicious of claims of individual agency, his final monographs focus on the ethical self-formation of free individuals. I (...) suggest that this basic misinterpretation makes possible interpretations of Foucault's work as being sympathetic to neoliberal government, by linking the ethical turn to a "liberal" or "neoliberal" turn in his thought. I present a case against the ethical turn by arguing that Foucault's main focus, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, is a concern for the ways in which we become obligated by truth. (shrink)

The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Volume 60, Issue 1, Page 118-149, March 2022.