Academic literature on the topic 'Hypostatisation'

The realm of discursivity is in truth heteroclite, submitted to metamor-phoses that testify the various correspondences between the axis of being (the on) and that of the existent (gegonos) is testified. Discursivity “pre-sentifies” in a manifested manner a referent that at the same time is not able to determine its existence without associating itself with a situation of knowledge, implicitly with a form of rendering and representation. Be-ing articulated as a conceptual hypostatisation of reason (the philosophic discourse), or a form that creates significance (the artistic discourse), a textual and socio-historical device (the literary discourse), as a closing up of the circle of interpretations (the scientific discourse) or as resignation in silence (the religious discourse), discourse itself emerges as a reflection of conscience about things, that is, it acts, produces, searches for affirmation, thus and ultimately crafting out a possible world.

Recently, various scholars have attempted to combine the philosophies of Martin Heidegger and Bruno Latour, despite seeming contrasts between them. The present study adds a new perspective to the opening up of this theoretical borderland. In this article, I show how Heidegger’s dispute with the philosophical tradition’s essentialistic and substantialistic treatment of being, and Latour’s dispute with sociology’s hypostatisation of the social, share the expression of an epistemological battle against substances, which is most evident in both of their attempts to include technology and things in their thought. Substances are mostly expressed in nouns. Because of this, Heidegger’s and Latour’s disputes have a grammatical dimension, which in different ways aims to emphasise verbs rather than the nouns in their respective terminology. This grammatical dimension of their shared dispute with substantialism will be demonstrated in this article. I conclude by arguing that Latour’s a famous methodological injunction, ‘Follow the actors!’ can be rewritten as ‘Follow the verbs!’.

Enactivism maintains that the mind is not produced and localized inside the head but is distributed along and through brain-body-environment interactions. This idea of an intrinsic relationship between the agent and the world derives from the classical phenomenological investigations of the body (Merleau-Ponty in particular). This paper discusses similarities and differences between enactivism and Jean-Paul Sartre’s phenomenology, which is not usually considered as a paradigmatic example of the relationship between phenomenological investigations and enactivism (or 4E theories in general). After a preliminary analysis of the three principal varieties of enactivism (sensorimotor, autopoietic and radical), I will present Sartre’s account of the body, addressing some key points that can be related to the current enactivist positions: perception-action unity, anti-representationalism, anti-internalism, organism-environment interaction, and sense-making cognition. Despite some basic similarities, enactivism and Sartre’s phenomenology move in different directions as to how these concepts are developed. Nevertheless, I will suggest that Sartre’s phenomenology is useful to the enactivist approaches to provide a broader and more complete analysis of consciousness and cognition, by developing a pluralist account of corporeality, enriching the investigation of the organism-environment coupling through an existentialist perspective, and reincluding the concept of subjectivity without the hypostatisation of an I-subject detached from body and world.

Made in languaging aims to help ecolinguists with recrafting ideation and human practices. Inspired by Alexander and Stibbe, I turn to how ecolinguistic expertise can favour life-sustaining relations. In approaching normative goals, I start with how knowledge is made, self-sustains and is disseminated. Ecolinguistic analysis of languages, discourse and narratives can thus be enriched by tracing how practices inform languaging. In turning to epistemic agency, I emphasise the following: (1) building corpora popularia, organised bodies, in order to enhance life-sustaining relations; (2) illuminating life from the inside; and (3) developing bioecological awareness. I contend that, while all living beings use coordinative activities to bring forth what appears to us, humans also use wording types and practices. As we use the already known, languaging enables subjecthood, a person’s little worlds, and a group’s common realities. Hence, what appears as (and to) experience is made in languaging. When linked to normative concerns, the resulting middle worlds also offer means of putting knowledge to work. As in social epistemology, one might regard ‘wealth and well-being’ as a marker of public good. Yet, critical work shows, appeal to these values is anthropomorphic. In order to encompass nonhumans and the biogenic, one can reject market orientatation by tracing languaging, and knowing, back to living. In showing benefits of so doing, I contrast two evolving wording types. The case of growthism, I suggest, attests to praxis and contrasts starkly with the ideational value of life-sustaining relations. Yet, in both cases, languaging meshes practices, happenings and the effects of action. The move shows how one can challenge the hypostatisation of ideology by pursuing how epistemic agency can contribute to the future of evolution.

This paper is prompted by the concluding comments to a recent paper (Denis "Hypostatisation"), which suggests that the neoclassical use of the concept of equilibrium expresses a formal mode of thought. Heterodox tendencies from Marxian to Austrian and Post Keynesian economics, that paper continues, exemplify a dialectical mode of thought in their common rejection of neoclassical equilibrium theorising. Heterodox currents in economics are-particularly in terms of their analysis and policy prescription-often as divided amongst themselves as they are from the orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the present paper suggests, there may be something profound uniting these disparate heterodox trends: the adoption of a dialectical method. The paper draws on the work of Sciabarra ("Marx", "Total"), who argues that Marxian and Austrian economics are intellectual cousins sharing a methodological approach. He suggests that making process primary, which we might expect of Austrian economists, is the essence of dialectics, which we might identify with Marxism. If that is the case, then perhaps (a) we can only understand the method of neoclassical economics by contrasting it with a dialectical approach, and (b) we can explore methodological common ground between the various heterodox currents by examining their attitude, both implicit and explicit, to dialectics. Pluralism in economics requires, not merely toleration-though indeed it does require that-but mutual engagement, a conversation. For that to take place we need an understanding of what divides and unites the various approaches. This paper is offered as a contribution to the development of that mutual understanding.

Une des principales observations de la linguistique féministe depuis dans son émergence dans les années 1970 est la nature androcentrée de la langue. Afin de contrer ce biais masculin, des changements linguistiques ont été proposés parmi lesquels le langage inclusif, qui continue de susciter un intérêt considérable bien au-delà des sphères féministes et académiques. Toutefois, l'activisme linguistique féministe ne se limite pas à la création de formes plus inclusives. Les groupes de conscientisation ont été identifiés comme une forme majeure de l'activisme féministe des années 1970. Ces espaces ont permis aux femmes de se rendre compte que ce qu'elles pensaient être des expériences individuelles étaient en fait partagées. Ces expériences communes n'étaient pourtant pas nommées. Un exemple de ces expériences est le comportement inapproprié des hommes, en particulier au travail, comme des avances sexuelles. Pour pallier l'absence de noms, les femmes ont alors été encouragées à nommer ces expériences de leurs points de vue, par exemple en inventant le terme "harcèlement sexuel". Le fait de créer des néologismes pour nommer des expériences ne s'est pas arrêté après les années 1970 et le féminisme contemporain est aussi accompagné de tels néologismes. Parmi les néologismes anglais les plus récents, nous pouvons citer "himpathy", qui désigne la sympathie inappropriée dont bénéficient souvent les hommes puissants accusés de comportements misogynes. Comme pour les néologismes inventés autour des années 1970, peu d'attention a été accordée aux néologismes plus récents. La transformation d'une expérience innommée en une expérience nommée est au cœur de la présente thèse qui analyse 24 néologismes anglais apparus au cours du féminisme contemporain. Plus précisément, elle cherche à (i) observer quelles expériences sont nommées par ces néologismes, (ii) étudier dans quelle mesure ils sont utilisés et comment, et (iii) explorer leur effet sur la perception des concepts dénotés. Premièrement, nous constatons que ces néologismes redéfinissent l'activisme linguistique féministe des années 1970. Ils ne se contentent pas de nommer les expériences des femmes par rapport à celles des hommes, mais placent au centre les expériences des personnes minorisées ou marginalisées en raison de leur genre, de leur sexualité, ainsi que de leur race ou de leur religion. Deuxièmement, le degré de conventionnalisation de ces néologismes, c'est-à-dire dans quelle mesure et comment ils sont utilisés, est observé dans le corpus NOW (News on the Web). Cet aspect est particulièrement pertinent pour l'étude des néologismes féministes, puisque l'une des motivations derrière leur création est de rendre les expériences qu'ils dénotent plus visibles dans la société. Cependant, il a été démontré que la diffusion peut également conduire à la dépolitisation de leur signification. L'analyse de corpus montre que ces néologismes récents ne varient pas seulement dans leur degré de diffusion, mais aussi dans le processus de (dé)politisation qu'ils traversent par le biais de changements sémantiques et/ou de stratégies discursives. Troisièmement, en exploitant des résultats préliminaires de la littérature sur la néologie, la présente thèse étudie le pouvoir de la dénomination avancé dans la linguistique féministe lié à la notion d'hypostase. Sur la base d'un questionnaire, on constate que les participant·es qui connaissaient les néologismes avant le questionnaire perçoivent les concepts dénotés plus utiles, par exemple en termes de pertinence sociale. L'activisme linguistique féministe s'est surtout concentré sur le langage inclusif, au point de donner l'impression que l'activisme linguistique féministe se limite à ce dernier. La présente thèse contribue à la linguistique féministe en étudiant un aspect négligé de l'activisme linguistique féministe : les néologismes féministes
One of the main observations of feminist linguistics since its emergence in the 1970s has been the androcentric nature of language. In order to counter this male bias, a number of linguistic changes have been proposed, including gender-fair language, which continues to receive considerable interest well beyond the feminist and academic spheres. However, feminist linguistic activism is not limited to the creation of gender-fair forms. Consciousness-raising groups were identified as a major form of feminist activism in the 1970s. These spaces enabled women to realise that what they thought were individual issues were in fact common to all of them. These were social issues, yet they were nameless. One example of such an issue is the inappropriate behaviour of men, particularly at work, such as sexual advances. To counter the absence of names, women were encouraged to name these experiences from their point of view, for example by coining the term sexual harassment. The creation of neologisms to name experiences did not stop after the 1970s, and contemporary feminism is also accompanied by such neologisms. One of the most recent English neologisms is himpathy, which refers to the inappropriate sympathy often shown to powerful men accused of misogynistic behaviour. As with neologisms coined around the 1970s, little attention has been paid to more recent neologisms. The transformation of an experience without a name into an experience with a name is at the heart of the present thesis, which analyses 24 English neologisms that have emerged in contemporary feminism. More specifically, it seeks to (i) observe which experiences are named by these neologisms, (ii) measure the extent to which they are used and how, and (iii) explore their effect on the perception of the concepts denoted. First, we find that these more recent neologisms redefine feminist linguistic activism of the 1970s. Not only do they name women's experiences in relation to men but they also place at the centre the experiences of people who are minoritised or marginalised because of their gender, sexuality, as well as because of their race or religion. Second, the degree of conventionalisation, i.e. to what extent and how they are used, of these neologisms is observed in the NOW (News on the Web) corpus. This aspect is particularly relevant to the study of feminist neologisms, since one of the motivations behind their coinage is to make the experiences they denote more visible in society. However, it has been shown that diffusion can also lead to the depoliticisation of their meaning. The corpus analysis shows that these recent neologisms do not only vary greatly in their degree of diffusion, but also in the process of (de)politicisation they undergo via semantic changes and/or discursive strategies. Third, exploiting preliminary findings from the literature on neology, this thesis investigates the power of naming posited in feminist linguistics in relation to the notion of hypostasis. On the basis of a questionnaire, it is found that participants who knew the neologisms before the questionnaire perceived the denoted concepts as more useful, for example in terms of social relevance. Much of the focus on feminist linguistic activism has revolved around gender-fair language, to the extent that it might give the impression that feminist linguistic activism is gender-fair language. The present thesis contributes to feminist linguistics by studying an overlooked part of feminist linguistic activism: feminist neologisms

This chapter explores key concepts that are central, but not exclusive, to Gerhard’s life and work: national identity; exile; serialism; and musical meaning. The categories of ‘universal’ and ‘particular’ are used to clarify certain potential contradictions in the deployment of these concepts in our understanding of Gerhard. Further, it is suggested that a rigorous parsing of the artwork into phases of creation and interpretation, roughly congruent with Bense’s aesthetics, will sharpen our insights and conclusions.

Cooren here applies his model of ‘ventriloquism’ to law and to the performances of legal speech, which allows him to detect the slight shifts in agency so characteristic of legal argumentation, and which helps reveal the complexity and polyphony of the apparently homophonic judicial utterance. From the Latourian notion of distributed action and the structure of faire faire – a theorem that consistently earns a central place in Latour’s oeuvre, Cooren launches his study by problematising anew canonical givens such as the binaries of passivity/activity and autonomy/heteronomy. We must not forget that ventriloquism involves not only the ventriloquist’s manipulation of the puppet but also the puppet’s manipulation of the ventriloquist, insofar as the latter says things that she, quite frankly, would never say were the puppet not attached to her hand. It is this strange loop of action and passion, autonomy and heteronomy, animation and inanimation, that characterises not only the puppeteer’s performance but also the lawyer’s and the judge’s performances, and, indeed, the structure of communication in general. What, then, does it mean to speak in the name of the law? Without succumbing to the snares of spontaneous hypostatisation, Cooren argues, in contrast to numerous theorists, that the law indeed possesses a sort of agency of its own. A host of legal and non-legal beings (prior judgments, witness testimony, documents of all kinds, emotions like frustration and anger, balances of power, statutes, healthcare reform policies, duplicity, etc.) are figured and mobilised to say certain things in the saying of the law: they are voiced by lawyers and judges, of course, but they also lend their own voices to the latter, shaping the means through which the law may pass.