Abstract
I am certainly neither one of the first participants of the Prague conference nor one of the most assiduous. I have, nevertheless, been so far to 7 meetings since I first came over in 2001, which amounts to about once every two years. My first invitation came from Alessandro Ferrara, who had himself shortly before been invited to Mexico City; and every year since I have been thankful to find regularly in my mail a Letter of Invitation, usually thanks to María Pía Lara, but with the support of many other present and past coordinators, many of whom I now know quite well. And I always look forward to learning from all kinds of different discussions and themes, as well as meeting old and new friends, from an expanding list of continents and countries, in the lovely month of May – and in Prague, one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, where Marek Hrubec and other local colleagues always receive us so well.
The first time I came to Prague I did not present a paper: I had previously just arrived in Germany for my Promotion with Axel Honneth. But already the following year I took part in a workshop on Hardt and Negri’s Empire, organized by Martin Saar and other colleagues. Since then I have been able to place out for public discussion many and very different ideas, ranging from social and political theory to the political reality in Brazil (where I am from), from social science to idealist philosophy. I cannot judge the effect that such a variety of themes has had on my listeners, but being able to present and discuss ideas and intuitions that were not always fully developed has been, at least to me, very useful.
But if I had to describe what Prague is about for me, I would say it is chiefly a place to discuss all the different perspectives possible from a critical theory point of view, and learn from them. I was delighted from the beginning to be able to listen to so many colleagues from all over the world, some of whom I knew only from their books, and to discuss all kinds of themes in an open, horizontal way (which is not always given, especially when you do not come from – let us say – hegemonic parts of the world).
While I write this note, I have in mind many of the participants I usually meet in Prague, but it would be unfair to mention names. Maybe I could mention themes: in Prague, there is enough room for questions and perspectives of every kind. From rationality to democracy, from subjectivity to power, from (the critique of) fascism to communication, from religion to rights, from alienation to feminism, from recognition to utopia, and beyond: resonance, intersubjectivity, autonomy, emotion, individuality, poverty, acceleration, authenticity, justification, economy, evil, racism, technology, aesthetics, every topic can be discussed. Sometimes critical theory’s roots become clearly visible, as when Marx, Hegel, German Idealism or the Enlightenment are invoked, or when classical sociology or psychoanalysis make themselves present. And sometimes discussions edge closer to contemporary liberal political theory and the Anglo-Saxon analytical tradition. Some perspectives are close to those roots, being radical in an etymological sense, or even orthodox, whereas some of them are deeply heterodox and post-post-post every possible definition, inviting authors and perspectives that were not present in critical theory discussions at its beginnings. Some are highly abstract, or theoretical, or normative, as reflections on ideals must be; and some are very concrete, as analysis of political and social reality or debates on contemporary crisis usually are. And last, but not least, a growing number of participants from other parts of the world are making themselves visible, bringing in fresh traditions and discussions beyond the usual European and North American bias. It is risky to try to classify all these Prague debates; but, if we had to display them visually, maybe they could be seen as located somewhere within a chart of two perpendicular axes: from modern subjectivity and rationality to intersubjective, communicative rationality and deliberative democracy; and from concrete social crisis to utopia and emancipation.
Of course, this location leaves the direction that each debate takes completely open: it is definitely possible to question the limits of subjectivity, or not to believe in emancipation, to avoid concrete analysis or to doubt the potentials of deliberative democracy. It is precisely this openness that defines Prague: the possibility of risking new interpretations, and, who knows, of developing new possibilities also in a historical, social and political sense. A definitive quality of the Prague conference is its being beyond the current publish-or-perish instrumental rational logic. Prague is a place for discussion and reflection for the sake of discussion and reflection, but not only: for a discussion and reflection that does not lose sight of the main interest of critical theory – the critique of every irrational state of affairs, every relationship in which humankind is humiliated, subjugated, oppressed.