Lefort's ‘Outline of the Genesis of Ideology in Modern Societies’ constitutes an important attempt to reinvigorate the notion of ideology through a critique of the Marxist use of the term while retaining the basic features of Marx's own understanding. In particular, Lefort attempts to understand the transformations through which ideology goes in non-bourgeois social forms. He achieves this primarily through a critique of the naturalism inherent in Marx's understanding of society and ideology. In this article, I argue that Lefort's understanding (...) of ideology and his critique of Marx belong squarely within the phenomenological tradition, despite the fact that Lefort does not make this explicit. More importantly, I argue that there is a strong continuity between Lefort's understanding of ideology and Husserl of the ‘Vienna Lecture’. The article ends with a short application of these thoughts to ideology in the age of globalization. (shrink)

Amongst historians of economics it is generally assumed that while the term economics derives from the Greek term oikonomikos —the theory of household management—the ancient Greeks did not develop what we call economics. This paper traces the relation between the Greek term and the modern—a relation which is generally said not to exist. The paper is a critical theoretical attempt to begin to trace the underlying assumptions of modern economic theory as well as the more general question of the legacy (...) of ancient Greece on the modern world. (shrink)

A considerable literature exists regard-ing the moral obligation to keep one's promises. Several authors have focused on the exceptional circumstances which may or should excuse this moral duty. Less frequently discussed is the question of how this general moral obligation and its possible exceptions play out in the context of negotiable written promises to pay money, i.e., so-called "commercial paper."This paper focuses on the application of the legal rules governing commercial paper, and on the ethical implications involved in the application (...) of those rules. More specifically, it asks whether the assertion of the technical doctrine known as "holder in due course," and the denial of that status in some cases, promotes ethical behavior in the marketplace. By examining the circumstances of one case, involving a substantial investment and a large bank, I hope to shed some light on how the legal and ethical rules do in fact "intersect.". (shrink)

While the terrorism studies literature speaks of a shape of terrorism unique to modernity, the exact nature of modern terrorism, let alone the nature of modernity or its starting point, remain much in dispute. In this article we suggest that the confusion and conflict within the literature arises from a tendency to focus on certain outward or inessential features associated with modernity. In order to truly answer the question of what makes modern terrorism modern, the question needs to be set (...) on a new footing, one which inquires into the necessary and not instrumental relationship between modernity and terrorism—i.e., that inquires into the possibility of an inner dynamic which can take us from the nature of modernity itself to terrorism. In this article we suggest that the intellectual resources for an understanding of modern terrorism in the fullest sense can be found within the preeminent nineteenth-century philosopher of the birth of the modern, G.W.F. Hegel. More specifically, through a reconstruction of Hegel’s account of the French Revolution we can uncover the possibility of understanding modern terrorism as an ontological rather than a temporal category. In other words, we can uncover resources that help us grasp what modern terrorism is, rather than in what age—with its instrumental possibilities given by, say, technology or ideology—it is found. What makes modern terrorism truly modern, we will argue, is a particular shape of self-consciousness that, Hegel shows us, stands as the deep structure of early modernity, and which contains within it an inner dynamic towards a uniquely modern shape of terrorism. While all terrorism that occurs within modernity is not modern, a truly modern terrorism can be identified. (shrink)