[ecrea] Call for papers Utility: pleasures, benefits and power - for Akademisk kvarter/Academic Quarter

Call for
Akademisk kvarter/Academic Quarter; volume 14; 2016

Utility – pleasures, benefits and power
Guest editors:
Patrik Kj¿rsdam Telléus, AAU
Anne Marie S¸ndergaard Christensen, SDU

This issue of Academic Quarter will focus on the concept of utility.
As seen in the standard dictionary definition of the term, i.e. ‘the 
state or quality of being useful’, the concept of utility is 
fundamentally a normative concept. However, the term frequently appears 
in discourses that present themselves as purely descriptive. In such 
contexts, the normativity of utility is not challenged but simply 
axiomatically enforced. We seem to be more preoccupied with asking if 
something is useful or not, and how useful it is, rather than asking 
ourselves why something is regarded or promoted as useful or not useful.
The consequence of this somewhat muted discourse is that we might 
experience discomfort with the term, and with what it promotes, simply 
because we are not in agreement with its pre-established normativity. At 
the same time, we lack a platform to express and address this 
disagreement within a particular discourse. A case could be the ideas of 
efficiency connected to the institutions of the welfare state. A 
theoretical example, in line with this, could be the analysis of utility 
in the political economy of Amartya Sen (1985, 1999).
Another effect is the one of silent agreement, where we accept, without 
actively choosing to do so, the given normativity. We then act 
accordingly and conform to the utility as it is established and 
recognized. The problem here is that we might legitimize, promote and/or 
excise behavior that we on the other hand disapprove of, or simply that 
we are (or choose to be) unaware of the morality of the behavior. 
Hannah Arendt’s coverage of the Eichmann trial is the prime example of 
an analysis of this mechanism (Arendt, 2008). It embodies both the 
practical and the theoretical aspects of it.
At the same time, utility is a superb concept to apply, if we wish to 
declare and endorse a behavior and/or quality that we value. It is 
rationally accessibly in its calculating enactment, and it is 
empirically recognizable in its consequent enactment. This makes the 
term comprehensible and suitable both at a conceptual (abstract or 
symbolic) level, as well as in the form of experience and action. This 
is seen on a daily basis in the ordinary use of the term, and it is 
brilliantly formulated in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill (2001).
Utility is therefore a term easy to embrace and easy to abuse, and this 
makes it a perfect object of further and continuous analysis. (See e.g. 
Sen & Williams, 1999)
It is also here that we see that the Humanities have a special interest. 
It may seem that the Humanities avoid the concept of utility in general 
or even that the Humanities may fear it. This is seen in debates about 
the usefulness of liberal arts education, or the lack of explicit 
benefits stemming from research in the Humanities.  Similarly, when the 
term literacy is slightly altered from targeting linguistic and semiotic 
capabilities to referring to device-dependent operational skills. The 
Humanities appear to be under attack from an adversary that uses the 
term utility as a means to question the value of the Humanities itself.
However, utility is not a natural kind. It is not in itself an object of 
natural science, but a product of human action and thought. Humans 
create, use and define utility, and therefore it is quite natural for 
the Humanities to be the ones looking more closely at the concept. By 
engaging with an analysis of utility, the Humanities can disarm the 
enemy, not by defending itself from the attack, but by simply claiming 
the arsenal for oneself.
In this issue of Academic Quarter, we welcome analyses of utility of all 
sorts, for example conceptual or consequential analyses, analysis of the 
use of the term utility in empirical studies, discourse analysis or 
investigations into moral, scientific or political perspectives. We 
would like to see endorsements as well as critical positions; historical 
as well as current approaches; and contributions ranging from 
meta-ethical clarification to problem solving declaratives. At the end, 
we would like to have an issue that presents a spectrum of analytical 
treatments of the concept of utility. They should enable the reader to 
confront the main concern at stake, i.e. whether or not we ought to a) 
continue our use of the term utility, b) improve on our use of the term 
utility, or c) simply abandon our use of the term utility.
Authors, who wish to contribute to the issue, might for instance address 
topics like:
Utility as a motivation for action
Utility as a speech act
Utility as a vale of ignorance
Utility as a prerequisite for art, literature and the media
The theme of utility in literature, art, film and media
Utility as a structure of power
Utility as a rigid designator
Utility as a human condition
Utility as a definition of change
Utility as a cultural benefit
Utility as ultimately good or evil
…
The first step is to submit an abstract of about 150 words to be mailed 
to Patrik Kj¿rsdam Telléus ((patrik /at/ learning.aau.dk)) and Anne Marie S. 
Christensen ((amsc /at/ sdu.dk)) no later than December 1, 2015. The editors 
will then review the abstracts and notify the authors of their decisions 
by December 15. Accepted articles – using the Chicago System Style Sheet 
(http://www.akademiskkvarter.hum. aau.dk/ pdf/AK_word_template.docx) – 
should then be e-mailed to the editors no later than March 1, 2016. 
Articles will then be reviewed anonymously in a double, blind peer 
review process by May 1. The articles should be around 15,000-25,000 
keystrokes (3,000-3,500 words), and they can be written in English or in 
the Scandinavian languages. Assuming that the articles are accepted by 
the peer reviewers and the editors, they should be revised and the final 
version sent in by June 1, 2016. The issue will be published in July 2016.
Academic Quarter is authorized by the Danish bibliometrical system, and 
the journal is subsidized by Det Frie Forskningsråd | Kultur og 
Kommunikation.

References
Arendt, Hanna (2008, org. 1964) Eichmann I Jerusalem – en rapport om 
ondskabens banalitet [Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of 
Evil] Gyldendal, K¸benhavn, DK
Mill, John Stuart (2001, org. 1863) Utilitarianism Hackett, 
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Sen, Amartya (1985) Commodities and Capabilities Oxford India 
Paperbacks, Oxford University Press, India
Sen, Amartya (1999) Development as Freedom Oxford University Press, 
Oxford, U.K.
Sen, A. and Williams, B. eds. (1999) Utilitarianism and Beyond Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.


---------------
ECREA-Mailing list
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier and ECREA.
--
To subscribe, post or unsubscribe, please visit
http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ vub.ac.be)
URL: http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~ncarpent/
--
ECREA - European Communication Research and Education Association
Chauss�de Waterloo 1151, 1180 Uccle, Belgium
Email: (info /at/ ecrea.eu)
URL: http://www.ecrea.eu
---------------