Abstract
My relationship with the Prague critical theory conference stretches out through more than one decade. I first attended the conference in 2004 and 2005, as a simple listener; and I came back between 2013 and the current time to present my own papers.
The Prague critical theory conference has been precious for me. Not only did it provide the opportunity to be exposed to the latest themes, issues, debates in the world of critical theory but it did so in a unique context. As we all know, the methodology and the spirit of academic debates do not always match the content; attending debates on emancipation, freedom and pluralism conducted in hierarchical, exclusionary settings is not an uncommon occurrence. On the contrary, Prague provided a non-liturgical, non-theatrical context, a safe and open space for exchange and debate.
After a long absence, in 2013 I found Prague obviously changed; however, the partial loss of its ‘around the table’ spirit is compensated by the larger variety of papers and above all by the opening of new fields of critical theory. When I first landed in Prague, the main dynamic that was evident even to my inexperienced eyes was the continuing dialogue between the Frankfurt heritage and the vocabulary of Rawls’ political liberalism and a more Anglo-American take on normative political philosophy. Furthermore, during those years our debates were shaped by the necessity to assume globalization as the unavoidable framework for any theoretical work on society and politics that would still claim to be ‘critical’. This change of perception, still enduring to our present days, is also reflected in the composition of the conference. While a decade ago it appeared to me mostly as a terrain for Euro-American encounters, Prague is now evidently reaching out to include a wider number of perspectives.
Coming back after a long interval, I could sense the turnover in leadership and participation; but although new teams of directors have replaced others, Prague as a body maintained an enduring air de famille, the result of its roots being deeply into critical theory. As we all know, in recent years the expression critical theory has been applied to a wide variety of philosophical and theoretical approaches. Not only does this name apply to the followers of the Frankfurt School – it has come to define the kind of theoretical work that investigates various forms of social as well as political domination and explores the prospect for constructing social frameworks free from oppressive power. Nonetheless, its long life is the best proof that it has managed to avoid becoming the home of a group of glossatores: in fact Prague is not anyone’s school, and so it lives up to the spirit of the critical theory tradition, to a theory that engages with historically determined political and social processes. The conference shows the vitality of what – to paraphrase the title of a famous essay – is critical about critical theory. The best proof is the conference’s capacity to be responsive to new themes. As I mentioned, the encounter with political liberalism continues to be for many participants one of the most viable perspectives to think about pluralist non-exclusive societies. In my second phase of connection with the conference I have observed the emergence of a series of new fields of dialogue, such as the opening towards a (lato sensu) post-colonial perspective and even more towards new paradigms of pluralism, seeking to include in the democratic public sphere a set of arguments that do not directly originate in the sphere of communicative rationality, such as those typical of religious groups. I have also observed that a gender-sensitive perspective is now a constant feature of the conference debates and papers – although, to be honest, gender at times may still be considered more as a ‘theme’ alongside others rather than a clear methodological approach.
As I said before, Prague represents for me an instantiation of the essence of critical theory: the commitment to come to terms with the morphology of social and political structures of domination or, to put it simply, the courage to engage with the world as it is. Critical theory is also open to a normative dimension – the critique of structures of domination does imply the quest for empowering and liberating social and political practices and paradigms. However, the normative perspective that stems from a critical theory approach is necessarily embedded in the contradictions of our time and thus necessarily dialogic.
The task of critical theory today is thus particularly hard, as it implies the need to wrestle with structures of power that are extremely elusive and hard to map: the forms of domination that are typical of the contemporary neo-liberal order are wrapped in the milky light of late modernity, and such condition makes it necessary to deploy a series of analytical tools that are not always typical of mainstream critical theory. Prague, with its combination of deep-rooted tradition and capacity for innovation, may represent the laboratory to exercise this urgent intellectual responsibility.