Search

This paper reconstructs prevalent academic discourses of student plagiarism: moralism, proceduralism, development, and writing/inter-textuality. It approaches the discourses from three aspects: intention, interpretation and the nature of the academic community. It argues that the assumptions of the moralistic approach regarding suspect intention, the transparency of interpretation, and the homogeneous nature of the academic community are in effect sustained by discourses of proceduralism and development. This results, first, in the simplistic rendition of student identities as honest/dishonest, and, second, in the proposal of or acquiescence to the triad of prevention, detection and punishment. The paper concludes that radical re-conceptualization of plagiarism may only be discovered in the discourse of inter-textuality where intention, interpretation and the academic community are construed as social practices concerning the negotiation of various identities and values--those of students as well as those of academics. (Contains 1 note.)

This paper contests what has remained a core assumption in social psychological and general understandings of the Milgram experiments. Analysing the learner/victim's rhetoric in experimental sessions across five conditions (N = 170), it demonstrates that what participants were exposed to was not the black‐and‐white scenario of being pushed towards continuation by the experimental authority and pulled towards discontinuation by the learner/victim. Instead, the traditionally posited explicit collision of 'forces' or 'identities' was at all points of the experiments undermined by an implicit collusion between them: rendering the learner/victim a divided and contradictory subject, and the experimental process a constantly shifting and paradoxical experiential‐moral field. As a result, the paper concludes that evaluating the participants' conduct requires an understanding of the experiments where morality and non‐destructive agency were not simple givens to be applied to a transparent case, but had to be re‐created anew – in the face not just of their explicit denial by the experimenter but also of their implicit denial by the victim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Part of a comprehensive study to analyse British broadsheets' coverage of the First Gaza War, this paper examines the moral arguments presented in editorials. Doing so, it showcases a non-dualist, relational inquiry of the representation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of focusing on what is empirically 'true', morally 'right', and ethnically 'Israeli/Jewish' or 'Palestinian/Arab' as extra-discursive categories, it approaches them as discursive constructions and asks what relations, what forms of lives the editorials cultivate in representing them. The analysis demonstrates that whilst newspapers overwhelmingly imagine isolated and ahistorical essences to clash in Palestine-Israel, they do not exclusively do so. Traces of a discourse of relations, where 'I' (Palestinian or Israeli) is partly constituted by the 'Other' (Israeli or Palestinian) can also be found in the editorials. It is with the vicissitudes of such relational accounts that the article concludes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we develop a conceptual and methodological approach that psychologists and other social scientists can employ to study emergence. We consider relevant social psychological approaches and conclude that, for the most part, social psychology has tended to focus on processes of normalisation following disruptions, rather than examining emergence in itself. An exception to this is G. H. Mead, whose work we draw on to theorise emergence with a focus on contemporary "affective politics." In the second part of the paper, we use focus group data on the European Union referendum in the UK to empirically illustrate our theoretical points. We discuss in particular three axes for exploring the emergent politics of Brexit: political values, political authority, and the authority of affect. We conclude our discussion by reflecting on some of the theoretical and political implications of our analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including neoliberalism in the economy and politics of western democracies, anti‐immigration and anti‐Islamic right, and failure of capitalism to sustain equal and sustainable societies.

The paper unpacks the far-reaching theoretical and practical issues that underlay the classical debate between cognitive psychologist Ulric Neisser and discursive social psychologists Derek Edwards and Jonathan Potter on Watergate witness John Dean's memory. Accounting for their disagreements, Neisser claimed the mantle of the cognitive-ecological approach to memory and emphasized the psychologist's ultimate priority of truth over discourse, while Edwards and Potter claimed that of discursive/rhetorical psychology and focused exclusively on discourse over truth. As such, the debate at the time ended in mutual misunderstanding and the shadow of theoretical incommensurability. However, a rhetorical analysis of the arguments suggests that Neisser was right about truth when he intuitively sensed the importance of discourse, and Edwards and Potter were right about discourse when they did not lose sight of truth. Therefore, beyond the impasse there has remained a promise inherent in the debate: it demonstrated an imaginative attempt to undermine the absolute dichotomy of truth and rhetoric and demonstrate their mutual inter-dependence. As will be argued, such integration of traditional concerns of the psychologist entails the re-conceptualization of the discipline as political and moral science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper revisits the fabled yet substantially neglected public exchange between Hannah Arendt and Gershom Scholem in the wake of Arendt’s publication of the book Eichmann in Jerusalem. Analyzing the central concept of the correspondence, Ahabath Israel, the paper investigates what may be considered two diametrically opposed constructions of Jewish identity and politics. Scholem’s particularistic “politics of continuity” is analyzed in terms achieving continuity or even unity between past and present, the sacred and the secular. This construction is supported by his ultimate dividing line being between the Jewish and non-Jewish, where his correspondent’s place is constructed outside the boundaries of the group. In turn, Arendt introduces the rigidly universalist constitutive categories of post-Enlightenment liberal democracies, where the firm demarcation is drawn exactly between the sacred and secular, the religious and the politics. Consequently, the intrusion of a religious tradition is understood by her as an attempt by Scholem to render otherwise earthly objects beyond the limits of criticism, manifesting not only a racist but a downright totalitarian tendency. Having presented these radical positions — Occidentalism and Orientalism, respectively —, the paper will conclude with pondering the possibility of their reconciliation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the construction of social identity in Israeli historian of religion Gershom Scholem's letter to American political theorist Hannah Arendt in the wake of the Eichmann trial. The paper asks, first, whether Arendt is depicted as a natural insider or a moral outsider of the relevant human community and what this construction entails as to the nature of the group itself. And second, what the relationship may be between (non-) members of the group and the universal demand of writing about the Holocaust in a morally just way. In pursuing these issues, it is suggested that Scholem's ultimate account as to Arendt's subject position is that of the Jewish anti-Semite: a person who is Jewish but by her acts effectively renounces this position. The closing parts of the paper analyse the implications of the letter and the resulting relationship constructed between the political tradition of Judaism and that of liberalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]