Archive for calls, October 2015

[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]

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

Tue Oct 06 08:04:05 GMT 2015






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
---------------


[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]