Published since May 1, 1979

Analyse & Kritik

Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory

ISSN: 2365-9858

Edited by: Michael Baurmann, Julian Culp, Anton Leist, Ulf Tranow

About this journal

ANALYSE & KRITIK

is devoted to the fundamental issues of empirical and normative social theory
is directed at social scientists and social philosophers who combine commitment to political and moral enlightenment with argumentative rigour and conceptual clarity
develops social theorizing in connection with analytical philosophy and philosophy of science
promotes the dialogue between Anglo-American and Continental traditions in the social sciences and ethics
publishes articles in English

Abstracting and Indexing

Analyse & Kritik is covered by the following services:

Baidu Scholar
BLL Bibliographie Linguistischer Literatur
Cabells Journalytics
CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)
CNPIEC - cnpLINKer
Dimensions
EBSCO (relevant databases)
EBSCO Discovery Service
Genamics JournalSeek
Google Scholar
IBR (International Bibliography of Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences)
IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences)
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest)
J-Gate
JournalGuide
JournalTOCs
KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders)
MyScienceWork
Naver Academic
Naviga (Softweco)
PhilPapers
Primo Central (ExLibris)
ProQuest (relevant databases)
Publons
QOAM (Quality Open Access Market)
ReadCube
SCImago (SJR)
SCOPUS
Semantic Scholar
Sherpa/RoMEO
Summon (ProQuest)
TDNet
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb
WanFang Data
WorldCat (OCLC)
X-MOL
Yewno Discover

Topics

Volume 44 Issue 2

November 2022

Publicly Available December 2, 2022

Editorial

Open Access November 7, 2022

Focus: Ukraine and Political Realism

Open Access August 24, 2022

Mearsheimer, Realism, and the Ukraine War

Nicholas Ross Smith, Grant Dawson

Page range: 175-200

More Download PDF

Abstract

The usefulness of ‘realism’ in explaining Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine has become a keenly contested debate not only in International Relations but in wider public intellectual discourse since the onset of the war in February 2022. At the centre of this debate is the punditry of John J. Mearsheimer, a prominent offensive realist who is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago. This article argues that although Mearsheimer is indeed a realist, his offensive realism is but one of many different realist theories that can forward an explanation of the Ukraine War. Beyond the apparent hegemony of structural realism (the branch of realism to which Mearsheimer’s offensive realism belongs), it is argued that classical and neoclassical realist frameworks can provide more nuanced and, ultimately, convincing arguments as to why Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine. This is because both classical and neoclassical realism can incorporate insights from non-realist studies—such as the concepts of civilization and ontological security—and combine them into an overarching power politics framework. Although neither classical nor neoclassical realism is flawless in their explanations, they demonstrate that realism does not just have to be about international power structures but can offer multivariate accounts of why a state, like Russia, decided to act, such as invading Ukraine.

Publicly Available September 19, 2022

Realism, the War in the Ukraine, and the Limits of Diplomacy

Felix Rösch

Page range: 201-218

More Download PDF

Abstract

Since the outbreak of the war in the Ukraine, realism has made a comeback in public discourses but it is not clear what realism actually means as it seems to stand for everything: from supporting the Ukraine against Russian aggression to the war is the West’s fault. This is the result of decades of not distinguishing between neorealism and classical realism and implicitly acknowledging neorealist storytelling of having systematized classical realist thought. The present paper is a further intervention to carefully distinguish between both theoretical perspectives to uncover what they can add to current world political problems. It finishes by asking if neorealist scholars like John Mearsheimer have a point that it is the West’s fault and a diplomatic solution needs to be found. They often refer to Hans Morgenthau not least because he was one of the most outspoken critics of the Vietnam War.

Open Access September 19, 2022

The End of Open Society Realism?

Robert Schuett

Page range: 219-242

More Download PDF

Abstract

Does the ‘Zeitenwende’ herald the beginning of a new and as yet undefined open society realism? The present essay argues this question requires critical discussion of nature and value of realist political theory, particularly at a time where international society is accelerating to somewhere which is itself as yet unclear. Adding to revisionist research on political realism in International Relations (IR) theory I sketch how a political vision I call open society realism may be developed out of Classical realism, in sharp distinction to academic IR neorealism for methodological and political reasons. To strip foreign policy realism from Continental philosophy, law, and history risks that we become what political liberalism ought to avoid: a closed society with a good conscience retreating from world politics, hiding behind the ‘national’ interest as if strategic great power management is a methodic function of structure rather than the politics of an ethically conscious diplomacy.

Publicly Available November 11, 2022

Realism after Ukraine: A Critique of Geopolitical Reason from Monroe to Mearsheimer

Matthew Specter

Page range: 243-267

More Download PDF

Abstract

This article seeks to historicize both the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the debate on realism occasioned by Russian aggression in Ukraine since 2014. Using the research of Gerard Toal on Russia’s construction of its security interests in the post-Soviet spaces that include Ukraine, the article argues that neorealist geopolitical explanations fail to do justice to the roles of contingency and culture in setting Russia’s so-called ‘red lines.’ It also identifies an agency problem in realism: realists not only fail to do justice to the agency of small states like Ukraine in this conflict but elide the moral and practical agency of decisionmakers like Russian President Vladmir Putin. The article also suggests that the current realism debate is the tip of an iceberg: realism has long had a problem specifying the relation of its theory to its practice. The article concludes by discussing the long shadow of 19th century imperial history over contemporary discussions of spheres of influence and great power status.

Discussion: Andreas Reckwitz and the Society of Singularities

November 24, 2022

The Society of Singularities—10 Theses

Andreas Reckwitz

Page range: 269-278

Abstract

The article summarizes the content of Andreas Reckwitz’s book The Society of Singularities in 10 theses and briefly links it to the author’s overall work. The Society of Singularities applies a practice theory approach in order to outline a theory of Western (late-)modernity which recognizes in it a basic rivalry between two logics of social evaluation: a social logic of the general and a social logic of the particular/ singular. The question arises which historical causes for the surge of the social logic of uniqueness since the 1980s can be discerned, which structural features this type of society unfolds and which social and political consequences it has.

November 23, 2022

Does Practice Theory Work? Reckwitz’s Study of the ‘New Middle Class’ as an Example

Andreas Pettenkofer

Page range: 279-304

Abstract

‘Practice theory’—a theory program that connects the goal of offering non-rationalist explanations to a strong focus on everyday routine activities, and builds on the work of Bourdieu but tries to gain a less narrow perspective—is being used more and more widely in the social sciences. Its advocates often argue that, since practice theory is a heuristic for doing empirical work, discussing it without addressing this empirical work cannot do justice to it. Therefore, this article analyses Reckwitz’s recently translated book on The Society of Singularities , which its author presents as an example of the advantages of (one dominant version of) practice theory. As will be shown, the book demonstrates that this version of practice theory does not fulfil its promises. Looking at its difficulties is instructive, however, because it helps see more clearly how the goal of an integrative ‘theory of practice’ could be achieved.

November 7, 2022

Self-Realization and Disappointment in the ‘Society of Singularities’

Austin Harrington

Page range: 305-322

Abstract

This contribution focuses on Andreas Reckwitz’s considerations on phenomena of ‘exhausted self-realization’ and ‘disappointment’ in The Society of Singularities , as well as in his follow-up volume, The End of Illusions . Under discussion is the range of analytical distinctions that tend to come into play in this area between what one might call a generally primordial concept of self-realization and more derivative articulations of the concept that exhibit various aspects of instrumentalization—variously termed ‘self-maximization’ or ‘self-optimization’. The paper argues that while Reckwitz’s work offers great resources for an understanding of how and why ‘self-realization’ so frequently appears to take on an instrumentalizing character in late-modern social behaviour, the extent to which his work attributes this tendency to a wholly immanent cultural-cognitive logic of lifestyle singularization is open to criticism. The reasons must also be sought from within the more directly economic contexts of diminished material security and solidarity typical of contemporary societies shaped by neoliberal economic governance orders at the level of policy.

November 21, 2022

The Theory of Everything: A Sympathetic Critique of Andeas Reckwitz’s The Society of Singularities

Patrick Baert

Page range: 323-329

Abstract

After situating Andreas Reckwitz’s The Society of Singularities within the broader context of the tradition of social theory, we discuss in detail the obvious strengths of this book, notably its impressive range and originality. Subsequently, we elaborate on two limitations of Reckwitz’s argument. Firstly, we argue that Reckwitz’s use of categories such as ‘singularity’ and ‘universality’ is too all-embracing, lacking the clarity and focus needed to sustain a productive line of inquiry. Secondly, and related to the previous point, we contend that Reckwitz’s claims about the recent trend towards increasing singularity are so broad that they are difficult to refute empirically. Further, we discuss briefly contemporary political developments to demonstrate why the core societal issues at stake cannot be explained through all-inclusive categories such as singularity. Finally, we maintain that existence theory can provide an alternative fruitful perspective on some of the phenomena discussed in this book.

Volume 44 (2022)

Volume 43 (2021)

Volume 42 (2020)

Volume 41 (2019)

Volume 40 (2018)

Volume 39 (2017)

Volume 38 (2016)

Volume 37 (2015)

Issue 1-2

Volume 36 (2014)

Volume 35 (2013)

Volume 34 (2012)

Volume 33 (2011)

Volume 32 (2010)

Volume 31 (2009)

Volume 30 (2008)

Volume 29 (2007)

Volume 28 (2006)

Volume 27 (2005)

Volume 26 (2004)

Volume 25 (2003)

Volume 24 (2002)

Volume 23 (2001)

Volume 22 (2000)

Volume 21 (1999)

Volume 20 (1998)

Volume 19 (1997)

Volume 18 (1996)

Volume 17 (1995)

Volume 16 (1994)

Volume 15 (1993)

Volume 14 (1992)

Volume 13 (1991)

Volume 12 (1990)

Volume 11 (1989)

Volume 10 (1988)

Volume 9 (1987)

Issue 1-2

Volume 8 (1986)

Volume 7 (1985)

Volume 6 (1984)

Volume 5 (1983)

Volume 4 (1982)

Volume 3 (1981)

Volume 2 (1980)

Volume 1 (1979)

No ranking information is available for this journal.

Submit

Submission of manuscripts: Only original versions of articles will be reviewed for publication. Authors are requested to send an electronic copy of their manuscript to

baurmann@phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de

leist@access.uzh.ch.

Hard copies should be delivered to the postal address of the editors (see "Editorial"). Please provide the full title of the article, as well as the author’s name, affiliation and present address on the cover page of the manuscript. The text can be sent in any established format, but LaTeX is preferred. Manuscripts should not exceed 20 printed pages (about 70.000 characters).

Abstracts: An English abstract of no more than 150 words should be attached.

Footnotes: Notes should be kept to a minimum.

Quotations: Use double quotation marks for quoted text or concepts. Single quotation marks should be used for figurative or stylistic usage and for quotations within quotations. Longer quotations should be indented and quotation marks added.

References: For citation and references orient yourself on the Chicago Manual of Style to be found here.

Hybrid Open Access

In this journal, authors have the option to publish their article under an open access license. Open Access allows you as an author to retain copyright and share your findings with colleagues and interested parties worldwide without any restraints.
Please note that authors from institutions with which we have a transformative agreement can publish open access without paying an article processing charge (APC). More information on the eligible institutions and articles can be found under the "Funding and Support" tab here.

Editorial

Editors

Michael Baurmann
Universität Düsseldorf
Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut
Universitätsstr. 1
D-40225 Düsseldorf
Michael.Baurmann@analyse-und-kritik.net　

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Julian Culp
The American University of Paris
Department of History and Politics
147, rue de Grenelle
F-75007 Paris
jculp@aup.edu

Anton Leist
Ethik-Zentrum
Universität Zürich
Zollikerstr. 117
CH-8008 Zürich
leist@access.uzh.ch　

Prof. Dr. Ulf Tranow
Universität Düsseldorf
Institut für Sozialwissenschaften
Universitätsstr. 1
D-40225 Düsseldorf
tranow@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de

(Deutsch)

Online ISSN: 2365-9858
Print ISSN: 0171-5860
Type: Journal
Language: English
Publisher: De Gruyter Oldenbourg
First published: May 1, 1979
Publication Frequency: 2 Issues per Year

Analyse & Kritik

Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory

Frontmatter

Editorial

Mearsheimer, Realism, and the Ukraine War

Abstract

Realism, the War in the Ukraine, and the Limits of Diplomacy

Abstract

The End of Open Society Realism?

Abstract

Realism after Ukraine: A Critique of Geopolitical Reason from Monroe to Mearsheimer

Abstract

The Society of Singularities—10 Theses

Abstract

Does Practice Theory Work? Reckwitz’s Study of the ‘New Middle Class’ as an Example

Abstract

Self-Realization and Disappointment in the ‘Society of Singularities’

Abstract

The Theory of Everything: A Sympathetic Critique of Andeas Reckwitz’s The Society of Singularities

Abstract