Levinas's Political Chiasmi: Otherwise than Being as a Response to Liberalism and Fascism, Humanism and Antihumanism
In this article, I approach the relationship between the ethical and political in Levinas from the perspective of the hermeneutic strategy he employs when engaging with political thought. I argue that, in two key texts-"Reflections on the Philosophy of Hitlerism" and Humanism of the Other-...
| Published in: | Religions |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
MDPI
[2019]
|
| In: |
Religions
|
| Further subjects: | B
Ethics
B Emmanuel Levinas B Politics B Sensibility B Embodiment B Antihumanism |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | In this article, I approach the relationship between the ethical and political in Levinas from the perspective of the hermeneutic strategy he employs when engaging with political thought. I argue that, in two key texts-"Reflections on the Philosophy of Hitlerism" and Humanism of the Other-Levinas situates seemingly opposed traditions of political thought in chiastic relation to one another: liberalism and fascism, and humanism and antihumanism, respectively. Furthermore, I argue that Levinas's views on the relationship between the ethical and political in Otherwise than Being can be read as a response to the chiasmi found in the above texts. The relationship between the ontologies of liberalism and fascism is chiastic, because the latter's fatal embrace of embodied and historical existence relies on the dualism the former establishes between the subject as transcendent and the body as immanent. Humanism and antihumanism are in chiastic relation in terms of the question of violence. The latter critiques the former for the violence of its Platonist devaluation of historical cultures, and argues instead for the equivalence of cultures; however, in locating intelligibility in structures of which specific cultures are merely configurations, antihumanism repeats the devaluation of specific cultures. In an altered manner, it is, therefore, also a potentially violent view of intercultural relations. Levinas's analysis of sensible proximity to the human other is an attempt to account for the gravity of culturally situated meaning without turning it into an irrevocable fatality. I argue that the ethical does not detract from the situatedness of intelligibility, but demonstrates that we are bound to our cultural situation, not by fate, but by responsibility. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2077-1444 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religions
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3390/rel10030170 |