It’s a translation from Liberation, but still reads like your friend’s blog post: VersoBooks.com.
Via Daily Nous. Count me as skeptical about such a venture, though UK PhD programs are quite hands-off anyway. The program is at Staffordshire, which as far as I can tell, has two philosophers heading up the program, Douglas Burnham and David Webb. (Here’s the About Us page, which spends more time on the wonders of Staffordshire, which would-be distance PhDs might never see, than about the program itself.) The department already has an online MA.
News reviews up at Antipode…
At NDPR here. Having not read this yet, this looks like a great text to work through the next time I teach a course on violence. Here, May goes through Balibar’s “civility” approach as a counter to violence and non-violence:
If violence, or at least its threat, cannot be eliminated, what can be done to address it? Balibar briefly considers and rejects two options before embracing a third. The two he rejects are nonviolence and counterviolence. Nonviolence is to Balibar an “abstraction” (22) from violence. It fails to recognize that violence is always a threat, opting instead to occupy a position that seeks to be beyond the threat of violence. Counterviolence, by contrast, seeks to invoke violence against violence, hoping to end violence by violent means. This strategy, however, is simply an “inversion” (22) of violence, one whose consequence is often to repeat the cruelties that it set out to oppose. Instead of these two strategies, which share a false commitment to the idea that the threat of violence and in particular of the extreme violence of cruelty can be terminated, Balibar believes we must embrace a strategy of anti-violence or civility. He insists that “unless a politics of civility is introduced into the heart of the politics of transformation, indications are that the latter will not by itself create the conditions for emancipation (but only those of another form of servitude).” (104)
At the International Philosophical Seminar in mp3 here. The introduction is by Serge Trottein (ENS), though I cut into it by forgetting to hit the record button. I essentially take up Badiou’s thinking of the decision as well as his claim not to belong to a long period in onto-theology. The set up for the conference was to responds to Badiou’s two manifestos for philosophy as a means of thinking the entirety of his work. There is a lengthy Q and A that follows.