__
Call for Papers
Theme: Rewriting the History of Political Thought From the Margins
Type: International Workshop
Institution: Chair of Political Theory, Humboldt University Berlin
Location: Berlin (Germany)
Date: 8.–9.6.2023
Deadline: 17.10.2022
__
From Liesbeth Schoonheim
The history of political thought is usually narrated as a sequence of
canonical authors reflecting on a limited set of perennial problems,
such as justice, freedom, domination, tyranny, and the just regime.
However, feminist and decolonial approaches have long contested this
narrative. By tracing diverse lineages in the history of political
thought, they seek to rectify problematic omissions while elucidating
contemporary issues. In recent years, scholars working in the history
of political thought have increasingly showed an interest in
re-centering marginalized bodies of thought. This conference aims to
set up a dialogue between these different approaches to shed light on
the thematic, methodological, and political dimensions of rewriting
the history of political thought. How can we place authors,
traditions, and concepts center-stage that are typically relegated to
the margins of the dominant historical narrative? Particular
attention will be paid to marginalized concepts (slavery,
foreignness, infidelity), non-Western and women political thinkers
who have been excluded, and political events that have been dismissed
as falling outside of the scope of political thought (for example the
“woman question” or the Haitian revolution).
In this workshop, we wish to contribute to the current discussion by
addressing case studies, methodological questions, and strategies
that aim to diffuse Western, male-centered history of political
thought. Covering the period from the late Middle Ages to the
present, this conference follows three closely interwoven threads:
1. Key concepts and themes
By diversifying lineages in the history of political theory, we can
redefine key concepts and themes. By focusing on forgotten radical
experiments, traditions of political thought and activism, and
neglected authors, some concepts in the history of political thought
(such as the state, sovereignty, authority) might lose their
centrality, while others (such as freedom, citizenship, property
rights) might have various conflicting and alternative meanings. Such
a “history of political concepts from below” (Bogues and Laudani)
starts from the use of concepts within political struggles, rather
than their theorization in canonical texts. Furthermore, if we do
start from canonical texts, we will likely find theoretical
reflections on politics scattered both in treaties on metaphysics and
ethics (e.g. Ibn Sina, Ibn Tufayl, Ibn-Rushd, John of Jandun, Elijah
Del Medigo) as well as through the works with a more forthright
political intention (e.g. Giles of Rome, Ptolemy of Lucca, Marsilius
of Padua, Leonardo Bruni, Donato Giannotti, the treatise of the
Monarchomachs, Henry Parker, Ibn Khaldun etc.). How can we relate
their reflections on politics to those in other fields, such as
ontology and metaphysics, and what does this teach us about the
various theorizations of social and political relations? Finally, the
very periodization of political thought is the object of critique:
how is exclusion and marginalization affected by the much-criticized
notion of modernity? How does de-centering hegemonic texts and events
(e.g. Machiavelli’s /The Prince/, the French Revolution) and the
re-centering of other texts or events (e.g. the treaties in North
America and the Haitian Revolution) alter our periodization and the
key concepts associated with each era?
2. Methodological issues
Rewriting the history of political thought brings up a number of
methodological issues. Political thought is typically based on texts,
while the transmission of texts is itself biased in favor of those
political and theoretical groups that have been dominant. As a
consequence, unorthodox positions as well as the position of
marginalized authors such as women and non-Western thinkers have been
lost, handed over to us by means of texts written by others, or
transmitted orally. Furthermore, if we do have texts, these might not
be widely available as they might not be translated or digitally
accessible, and they might also be of another nature than the texts
that dominate the canon – they might, for instance, be letters and
diaries rather than lectures and monographs. How can we remedy these
lacunas – what reading strategies can we develop to recuperate their
thought? Moreover, what is the best way to write about authors and
intellectual-political debates, especially when there is a dearth of
textual sources? In the absence of texts written in their own voice,
could we engage in fiction to conjure up the lost authors of the
history of political thought – and to what extent would such a
romanticized
