Healthy Conflict in an Era of Intractability
The essay responds to four critical essays by Rosemary Kellison, Ebrahim Moosa, Joseph Winters, and Martin Kavka on the author’s recent book, Healthy Conflict in Contemporary American Society: From Enemy to Adversary (2018). Parts 1 and 2 work in tandem to further develop my accounts of strategic em...
| Published in: | Journal of religious ethics |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2020]
|
| In: |
Journal of religious ethics
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
USA
/ Political system
/ Multi-cultural society
/ Discussion
/ Opponent
/ Mediation
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AD Sociology of religion; religious policy CH Christianity and Society NCC Social ethics NCD Political ethics ZC Politics in general |
| Further subjects: | B
prophetic criticism
B agonistic political friendship B strategic empathy B Moral Imagination B Pragmatism B Robert Brandom B Barbara Deming B Frantz Fanon B Colin Kaepernick |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | The essay responds to four critical essays by Rosemary Kellison, Ebrahim Moosa, Joseph Winters, and Martin Kavka on the author’s recent book, Healthy Conflict in Contemporary American Society: From Enemy to Adversary (2018). Parts 1 and 2 work in tandem to further develop my accounts of strategic empathy and agonistic political friendship. I defend these accounts against criticisms that my argument for moral imagination obligates oppressed people to empathize with their oppressors. I argue, further, that healthy conflict can be motivated by a kind of "secular" love. This enables my position to immanently critique and mediate the claims that one must either love (agapically) one’s opponent in order to engage them in "healthy conflict," on one hand, or that one must vanquish, exclude, or "cancel" one’s opponent, on the other. In Part 3, I demonstrate how my account mediates the challenge of an alleged standing opposition between moral imagination and socio-theoretical critique. I defend a methodologically pragmatist account of immanent prophetic criticism, resistance, and conflict transformation. Finally, I respond to one critic’s vindication of a strong enemy/adversary opposition that takes up the case of white supremacist violence in the U.S. I argue that the time horizon for healthy conflict must be simultaneously immediate and also long-term, provided that such engagements remain socio-critically self-reflexive and seek to cultivate transformational responses. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Book discussion |
| ISSN: | 1467-9795 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Enemies, For My Sake (2020)"
Kritik von "Response To Jason Springs (2020)" Kritik von "Interrogating Healthy Conflict (2020)" Kritik von "Justice, Virtue, and Power in Democratic Conflict (2020)" |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of religious ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/jore.12313 |