News

The issue includes articles by Jodi Dean, Valery Podoroga, Evert van der Zweerde. The rubric "The End of the World" features Slavoj Žižek, Serge Margel, Torah Lane, Artemy Magun.

Here is an excerpt from the intro to the topic by Susanna Lindberg, the editor of the rubric:
The idea of the end of the world has an air of banality. Aren't we drifting along a neverending flow of sci-fi books and catastrophe films with whirls of special effects, in which the world ends in a sea of flames, in nuclear radiation, in a technological Armaggedon?—Drifted along by, but not drowned, for don't we also trust that the world is actually not at its end but only purified, reduced to another nuclear family who will start out a better world that is actually more pure and honest than our rotten civilization. Nothing really distinguishes these stories from the ancient myths of Utnapishtim, Noah, or Deucalion and Pyrrha. The point is really to tell a reassuring story of hope of a better future. Maybe it is in reaction to this imagery (and not by poltroonery) that many philosophers today tend to reject the thought of the end of the world. After all, philosophy has spent much effort to settle its affairs with a teleological notion of the end that was important in the middle of the twentieth century (the important debates on the end of history, the end of man, the end of philosophy, etc). But in reality, the problem of the end of the world is not the same as the problem of the the telos of time and human endeavors: The question of the world's end does not boil down to the question of meaning but it refers to the thought of the possibility of the impossibility of the world itself, in which meaning can take place or not.

Since the mid twentieth century, the notion of the public, or Öffentlichkeit, has become a focal point for most normative reflections on democracy. It appeared that electoral democracy and the protection of rights were not enough to integrate the people and to create an atmosphere of freedom: something else was needed, something that was not a procedure or an object but rather a space or a system of relationships. The renaissance of republicanism and the theories of deliberative democracy were developed to understand this need and to establish its conditions. Today, fifty years on, the need to foster public spirit in the twenty-first century is more urgent than ever. However, history has taught us of the structural obstacles that get in the way: the industrialization and commercialization of the media, the terrorist tactics of militant groups, and the elitism of the existing public sphere make the ideal of an inclusive common world look dim. Alternative notions, such as "counter-publics" and the "commons" have been advanced instead, but do they manage to capture the initial intuition of the ephemeral public spirit? Can the public and republican space be extended into the zones of poverty or postcolonial liminality, for example? Can it be imagined above or apart from international and geopolitical divisions?
These and related questions will be the focus of the upcoming issue of Stasis: the deadline for submission is September 15, 2017.

In contemporary debates within philosophy, as much as in the arts, it seems impossible not to con rm the assumption that art is political. Art is one of the contemporary battle elds or resources, media, or whatever term one privileges for political action or articulation. One might even go as far as noting that art as a speci c material form of practice often intervenes in the social and political sphere. One attributes to art a sovereignty of re ection, distortion, impact that no other practice—including politics—is ever able to attain. Art seems to be the better form of political action, simply because it is politics without what is problematic in politics (questions of hierarchy, power, exclusion, violence, etc.). Such descriptions often function as a kind of plea for an artistic politics against a "political politics," and they often, if not always, are constructed from what seems to be evident, namely that art is political. Yet, one can raise the question as to whether the very evidence of the art's political dimension is not rather an expression of a problem. For evidences are, as one knows at least since Plato, never simple and pure evidences. Rather it is precisely that which seems evident that one should investigate, as it can be the very reason why the true problem does not come into sight. In this very sense, the evidence of art's inherent politicality might also be conceived of as being an ideological expression, as something like a cover up, for what is really at stake. One might, as some have argued, need to again free art from politics to be able to articulate their respective contemporary relevance, speci city, and modalities. Yet, this might be seen as just another ideological gesture, as a gesture of ideologically struggling on the eld, neither only of art nor only of politics, but precisely of their relation. What the articles by Robert Pfaller, Ray Brassier, Frank Ruda, Michaela Wünsch, and Oxana Timofeeva, gathered here, in one way or the other, do, is to seek to redefine the relation of politics and art, either by addressing both or by addressing one of these terms, as part of an ideological struggle for clarity.