10.13125/CH/3444
At first glance, it could seem slightly out of place to dedicate an issue of a newly founded journal dedicated to hermeneutics – albeit to a critical strand of hermeneutics – to a topic such as migration, forced displacements or refugees. Indeed, for the lay reader, is not hermeneutics, at least methodologically, primarily concerned with the interpretation of texts? Let us concede, still at this first, naïve level, that such an approach might indeed look strange. But allow us to wager that it might contribute to grasp what is at stake and perhaps even change the terms of this fundamental debate. Indeed, when applied to an analysis of societies as such, including their political and ethical problems, it provides a perspective that is lacking in other approaches...
application/pdf
2533-1825
3444
1
en
urn:nbn:it:unica-24290
Gonçalo Marcelo
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Critical Hermeneutics
Introduction – On the Challenge of Migration: Critical Hermeneutical Perspectives
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/ecch
2
Articles
2018-08-10
2018-08-10
2018-08-10
2018-08-10
I-XVI
1
Gonçalo Marcelo
2018/08/10
10.13125/CH/3444
I
2533-1825
1
en
XVI
urn:nbn:it:unica-24290
Introduction – On the Challenge of Migration: Critical Hermeneutical Perspectives
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/ecch/article/download/3444/3012
2
Critical Hermeneutics, 2 (2018)
Biannual International Journal of Philosophy
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/ecch/index
ISSN 2533-1825 (on line); DOI 10.13125/CH/3444




Introduction – On the Challenge of Migration: Critical
                      Hermeneutical Perspectives


                              Alison Scott-Baumann
                                  Gonçalo Marcelo




                                                 The time is out of joint; O curs’d spite,
                                                    That ever I was born to set it right.
                                                                 (Shakespeare, Hamlet)




       At first glance, it could seem slightly out of place to dedicate an
issue of a newly founded journal dedicated to hermeneutics – albeit to
a critical strand of hermeneutics – to a topic such as migration, forced
displacements or refugees. Indeed, for the lay reader, is not
hermeneutics, at least methodologically, primarily concerned with the
interpretation of texts? Let us concede, still at this first, naïve level,
that such an approach might indeed look strange. But allow us to wager
that it might contribute to grasp what is at stake and perhaps even
change the terms of this fundamental debate. Indeed, when applied to
an analysis of societies as such, including their political and ethical
problems, it provides a perspective that is lacking in other approaches.
       First, because a key lesson of hermeneutics is that no existing,
historically constituted society is a tabula rasa that could, as it were,
be ruled by a whole set of “invented” ideals, no matter how fair they
might seem, and that every “revolutionary” attempt to start a political
order from scratch ultimately ends up in “terror”. Second, because a
Editors’ Introduction




closely connected lesson is that, in the realm of human action,
(e)valuation is a constitutive principle. Regardless of the naïve, and
sometimes even toxic attempts by (neo)positivism, virtually nothing in
the practical realm (comprising ethical, political and social issues) is
value-free. That much is asserted by key authors working at the
intersection between philosophy and economics, such as Hilary Putnam
(2004) or Amartya Sen (1987), when they put forward their analyses
of   the    fact-value        entanglement,    but   the   same    applies    to   a
hermeneutical perspective on the practical realm.
        The combination of the first two hermeneutical lessons allows us,
on the one hand, to grasp the existence of shared collective traits, such
as collective identities and their cultural heritage, including their partial
sedimentation           (to   which   Ricœur   would   call   “ideological”   in   a
constitutive sense) but also, on the other hand, to understand how,
their existence and relevance notwithstanding, these must be
prevented from becoming completely reified, as if, in virtue of a bad
analogy pushed too far by an essentialist epistemology, identities came
to be seen as being completely self-sustained and thus exclusive and
hostile towards its “others”. On the contrary, a social hermeneutics,
and namely one that takes stock of Paul Ricœur’s notion of narrative
identity, understands the inherently fluid and mutable character of any
collective identity.
        What is thus the advantage of using a hermeneutic method to
grasp social reality and even attempt to change it? Such a method,
implicitly or explicitly advocated by, among others, Michael Walzer
(1987), Charles Taylor (1994), Axel Honneth (2009) and Paul Ricœur
(1981) in some of their writings (see also Marcelo, 2012), being non-
ideal, is able to uncover the historicity of every social order, including
its founding beliefs and, while acknowledging their importance in terms
of the symbolic constitution of the societies and communities it guides,
is also able to criticize them, precisely in virtue of the fact that is a



II
                                                 Critical Hermeneutics, 2 (2018)




critical hermeneutics. This means that the conditions of belonging are
not a priori deemed irrational but also, at the same time, that in order
for them to be ethically justified, they have to pass the critical test.
      Now, there are many ways in which this criticism can be
exercised, and that range from the genealogical and immanent critique
(seeing to what extent given practices or ideals have deviated, or not,
from their alleged founding meaning) all the way to a transcendent
criticism that compares given values, that are always historical and
situated, with other, alternative possibilities. But this much is certain:
a hermeneutical assessment of social reality is always constitutively
open to other possibilities of meaning, be it in the form of a Gadamerian
fusion of horizons, or a Ricœurian productive conflict of interpretations.
      Now, if we draw some of the practical consequences of this
critical hermeneutic paradigm when applied to social reality, we do
realize its importance. First, in virtue of the practical perspectivism we
just alluded to we come to the conclusion that one of its consequences
is some sort of epistemic humility. Second, and more importantly, this
humility is a reminder of the incompleteness of every viewpoint and
thus a call for a shared common understanding in which we are, as it
were, constitutively open to our others.
      In other words, one of the practical consequences of the critical
hermeneutical paradigm is that it actively calls for an intersubjective
grounding of our own selfhood. Therefore, problems such as the ethical
challenge of welcoming the other (of going from hostility to hospitality,
as Kearney recalls – see Marcelo, 2017) in the many forms that
hospitality can take, and to remove the impediments to it – including
the critique of the exclusionary rhetoric put forward by xenophobic
political leaders and grounded on a reified and sometimes almost
solipsistic understanding of monolithic political or cultural identities –
are intrinsically hermeneutic.




                                                                             III
Editors’ Introduction




        And this is why, we believe, it makes sense to tackle the problem
of migrations from a critical hermeneutical perspective. As Nina Arif
reminds us in her paper, which we allude to below, we are witnessing
today the highest recorded numbers of displaced people worldwide.
The problem of forced migrations is of course not new. People have
been crossing borders, or attempting to do so, either for strictly
economic reasons (including escaping famine) or other humanitarian
disasters, such as armed conflicts, for centuries. However, the sheer
number of displaced people today, the importance of the Syrian civil
war, the drama lived by many asylum seekers that have died in the
Mediterranean sea, and the dreadful reaction felt in many countries of
the European Union, stoked by xenophobic right-wing populism, as
Europe seems to place the security of its borders (in what been dubbed
the “fortress Europe” approach) over and above solidarity and basic
respect for Human Rights, brought this disgraceful situation to the fore.
        As seen from a Western and, more specifically, European
perspective, the “refugee crisis” (and by crisis we mean here not so
much the number of people coming to Europe’s borders, which is
meagre if compared to other neighbouring countries of the Syrian
conflict, but rather to Europe’s shameful reaction to it) deepens an
already-existing European crisis, felt at least since the Euro crisis and
the way it displayed deep divisions between EU’s member countries,
and clearly pinpointed the lack of a mobilizing collective project. What
is more, if we take a look at this from a more global perspective, with
the rise of anti-immigration sentiments in many places of the world,
the Brexit problem and the threat of new armed conflicts, it seems we
might have the ingredients for a possible perfect storm coming. And
the risk is that, amid all of this, those who will suffer most are already
those who are worse-off; and these are, of course, forced migrants.
        It was with this complex of problems as a backdrop that we set
ourselves to organize this special issue on migrations. The issue is



IV
                                                 Critical Hermeneutics, 2 (2018)




mostly made up of philosophical contributions but also open to other,
more empirical contributions, in order to make sense of the whole
situation. The first two articles are invited contributions from social
scientists who make use of philosophy in their work. Their papers allow
us to take a hold of the situation from other viewpoints, namely the
social sciences and direct work with migrants, and an analysis of the
way in which the media wrongfully portrays immigrants, and that
contributes to normalizing right-wing and xenophobic discourse.
      The opening paper of this issue, Elsa Lechner’s and Letícia
Renault’s “Migration Experiences and Narrative Identities: viewing
alterity   from   biographical   research”   gives   an   account     of   the
ethnographic work done by the authors with migrants on refugees. The
authors draw on some key works on hermeneutics, such as those of
Ricœur, Richard Kearney or Johann Michel, to highlight the very
important task of giving voice to migrants and refugees’ themselves.
Lechner and Renault acknowledge both the intersubjective constitution
of subjectivity, and the way in which identities are constituted, at least
partially, in a narrative way. Accordingly, they draw on Ricœur’s notion
of narrative identity to depict how they interacted with migrants in
“biographical workshops” they conducted in Portugal. Their practice
and their reflection upon what they do is of the utmost importance in
this context because forced migrants often lack both voice and
recognition. Given they are not usually granted the status of equal
partners in interaction (precisely because they are not part of the
politeia receiving them, not citizens) they are, more often than not, not
heard. As such, they come to be depicted by others, such as the media
or politicians and not always under the most favourable light (to say
the least). Therefore, one of the tasks that falls upon researchers on
this problem is precisely to create the spaces and conditions for the
self-expression of migrants, a process that sheds light on the
responsibility of researchers themselves, insofar as giving migrants the



                                                                              V
Editors’ Introduction




opportunity to share their own life stories is tantamount to granting
them at least some basic form of recognition.
        Some striking examples of the biased coverage that some media
grant to migrants are given in Nina Arif’s “Consenting to Orientalism
when Covering Migration: How the British Media Dehumanises Migrants
in the Context of the Syrian Civil War”. Arif shows in what way right-
wing     discourses      (sometimes     populist   or   far-right     xenophobic
discourses) remain unquestioned even in liberal mainstream media,
contributing for them to be accepted as “the new normal” and thus
“manufacturing          consent”   as   Chomsky    showed.     Arif    ties   this
dehumanization of migrants, so widespread in the media, to the Brexit
vote, fuelled by a misled fear of migrants. She also traces back this
misrepresentation to the influence of an “Orientalist” view similar to
Said’s model, figuring the migrants as unwanted and exotic others who
cannot or should not represent themselves, and who are ultimately
seen, as is blatantly the case for Muslims, as threatening and violent.
Providing some examples of this by putting forward a discourse
analysis of the media coverage of the 2017 Westminster attacks, Nina
Arif ultimately undertakes another important task for what Michael
Walzer (1987) called the “connected critic”: to provide people with the
knowledge allowing them to deconstruct false narratives, which is also,
of course, of the utmost importance in this time of fake news and
populist manipulation, mostly bearing on migrants.
        The next paper, written by Alexandra M. Moreira do Carmo and
titled “A Crise da Existência e o Existencial da Crise. Ser para os outros
fora do quadro do essencialismo” [The Crisis of Existence and the
Existential of the Crisis. Being-for-others Outside the Framework of
Essentialism] takes a step back and reflects upon the overall existential
significance of the crisis. Alexandra do Carmo traces back the
contemporary social crises, including the crisis of the Humanities and
the refugee crisis (that displays a crisis of hospitality through the



VI
                                               Critical Hermeneutics, 2 (2018)




demonstration of xenophobia), to a more original crisis which,
according to her, has not yet been overcome. Drawing on Heidegger,
Alexandra do Carmo puts forward a sharp critique of essentialism,
understood as abstract idealizations that border on objectivism and,
according to Husserl, draw science away from the lifeworld. According
to Alexandra do Carmo, the migration crisis is therefore a sign of a
deeper contemporary epochal crisis, which is an existential crisis and
that prevents us from understanding and welcoming change and the
people who, from the outside, bring it about. In order to grasp it and
eventually overcome it she analyses, with Maldiney and the neurologist
Viktor von Weizsäcker, the “existential of the crisis”, namely the fear
of the stranger, and calls for an openness to the transcendence it
represents.
     The final four papers all deal with this topic of how to host the
stranger, ranging from the problem of xenophobia to the challenge of
going from hostility to hospitality. Eduardo Morello’s and Élsio José
Corá’s paper “Recém-chegados, Apátridas e Refugiados: Os Modos de
Aparecer do ‘Estranho’ na Obra de Hannah Arendt” [Newcomers,
Stateless and Refugees: Ways of Appearing of the ‘Stranger’ in Hannah
Arendt’s Work] dive deep in Hannah Arendt’s work to probe the many
ways of seeing the stranger that we can find in her philosophy. They
detect two major ways of being a stranger, according to Arendt: as an
inherent condition of all newcomers, and as a symbol of something
frightening, when we are dealing with stateless persons or refugees.
Examining the fragility of the latter, they explain how, to Arendt, this
means they are deprived of their singularity (reduced to an absolute
difference), their self-narrative and their place in the world, and the
way in which this can be tied to a suspicion stemming from given
political communities. They are thus also deprived of a proper welcome,
unlike the newcomers upon whom hope is bestowed.




                                                                           VII
Editors’ Introduction




        In turn, Vinicio Busacchi’s “Why Those Who Disregard Foreigners
Despise      Themselves”      offers   a   powerful     take   on    the   ethical,
anthropological and social consequences of being hostile to strangers,
and namely foreigners. Taking up a Hegelian inspiration, i.e., a striving
for freedom and justice as emancipatory practices, Busacchi draws a
close link between the way we treat others and our own self-
development. One of the crises that he pinpoints runs deep: the peril
of the collapse of democracy. A regime, and in this case democracy, is
endangered when it ceases to ameliorate itself. Recalling the important,
and often forgotten, notions of conflict and crisis in Ricœur’s philosophy,
Busacchi argues that they must be occasions for a renewal of
democracy. But when, as so often is the case, the exercise of
democracy is reduced to a mere formality, as happens in so-called
liberal representative democracies of present times, and the pervasive
ideology      is   blatant   individualism,   the     possibility   of   populism,
xenophobia and the like can be pushed to the extreme. This, Busacchi
exemplifies with the way in which Italian media treats migrants in a
pejorative way – as Nina Arif’s paper does for the British case. And he
concludes that, given each of us also bears within him or herself an
inner stranger, to overcome prejudice against foreigners is also to do
it vis-à-vis one’s inner stranger; conversely, to despise the foreign
other is also, mutatis mutandis, to despise oneself.
        On the other hand, the final two papers focus on the more
positive – albeit difficult – (im?)possibility of hospitality. Matheus
Carvalho’s text, “Alternativas para el Desafio Ético de la Hospitalidad:
Un diálogo entre el cosmopolitismo, Derrida y Taylor” [Alternatives for
the     Ethical     Challenge    of    Hospitality:     A   Dialogue       between
Cosmopolitanism, Derrida and Taylor] goes through a comparison
between cosmopolitanism, hospitality and multiculturalism. Carvalho
starts with a presentation of cosmopolitanism as entailing a right to
hospitality insofar as it establishes “citizens of the world”; he pinpoints



VIII
                                                  Critical Hermeneutics, 2 (2018)




the origins of the cosmopolitan tradition in ancient Greece and follows
its thread until Kant and the right to hospitality. Afterwards, Carvalho
moves to Derrida’s deconstructive notion of hospitality, which is at
odds with the Kantian emphasis on Law, insofar as the Derridean notion
is strictly ethical and perhaps irreconcilable with the right to hospitality
that is supposed to be instantiated in concrete laws. Finally, Matheus
Carvalho comes to Charles Taylor’s proposal of multiculturalism as a
concrete political proposal to foster the welcoming of diversity within
an anthropology that focuses on the dialogic construction of identities
through processes of mutual recognition. For Carvalho, these three
different and yet related possibilities can be possible justifications for
the ethical duty to host strangers such as those that the refugee crisis
produces.
      Finally, Victor Gonçalves’ paper with the title “Renaturalizar o ser
humano para renovar o sentido de hospitalidade, entre Derrida e
Nietzsche” [Renaturalizing the Human Being to renew the Meaning of
Hospitality, between Derrida and Nietzsche] deepens the analysis of
Derrida’s proposal of unconditional hospitality, in the context of the
Levinasian ethical heritage. Taking stock of some of the aporias present
in Derrida’s take on this issue, Gonçalves proposes to take up
Nietzsche’s account of a “renaturalization of the human” interpreting it
as a post-humanist and post-nationalist hospitality. His wager is that
Nietzsche’s “amoral” stance, resulting in the depiction of a Übermensch
that is, without doubt, postnational (given that it refuses any
nationalist, culturalist or identitarian bond) could, in theory, use its
self-overcoming instinct to found a new society of equal and free
human beings which, as such, could be capable of a “poetic” or
“unconditional” hospitality, in the vein of Derrida. In other words: self-
ownership would, perhaps paradoxically, be a condition of possibility of
a radical hospitality, one which operates without strict rules (i.e.,
without the concrete “laws” of hospitality that Derrida derided). In such



                                                                              IX
Editors’ Introduction




a scenario, all would be permanently foreigners, guests and hosts,
given that national fault lines would no longer matter and this,
hypothetically, would end with the asymmetry between citizens of a
given polity and foreigners. Even if only as a thought experiment, one
cannot overlook the possibility put forward by Victor Gonçalves, of a
post-Nietzschean way to fulfil Derrida’s (im) possible hospitality.
        Ultimately, we dedicate this issue to the unheard and hope that
by bringing together a range of different voices, we can help a little to
amplify the voices of the migrant, the refugee, the asylum seeker, and
her child and his father. We do this against the almost deafening
rhetoric of exclusionary debate whether left wing or right wing. Such
debate is conducted in ways that remind us of Popper’s definition of
science: he argued that, whereas it is impossible to incontrovertibly
prove the truth of a scientific theory, that theory must at least be
disprovable (Popper, 1959). If a theory is falsifiable it may be hoped
that it is evidence based and may therefore stand a chance of being
debatable, even if not useful. If a theory is not falsifiable then it is
unlikely to have any claim to reality. Popper’s theory is problematic
and not really hermeneutical but it provides an illuminating analogy
that helps us to understand why Salvini, Le Pen, Trump and others are
so seldom challenged: their assertions are so disconnected from reality
as to be unfalsifiable. This latter is the characteristic of the populist
demagogues’ assertions: their claims about migrants are so extreme
and so unreal as to be impossible to falsify. Being thereby unrelated to
reality they are therefore also very difficult to counter as they have no
basis in truth, only in emotion and suspicion. These unevidenced
narratives flourish in a setting such as the national British securitization
agenda which establishes a backdrop for xenophobia and precludes
free discussion (Scott-Baumann, 2017a). Such non-dialogic utterances
on migration must be tackled, and this issue provides a range of
different sources of evidence, different languages, different linguistic



X
                                                Critical Hermeneutics, 2 (2018)




registers and different ethical approaches to encourage educated
communities to respond to populist assertions.
      As one positive and prescient inspiration we draw upon Paul
Ricœur as a model for replacing populist discourse with balanced and
critical hermeneutics. In his 1996 paper “Being a Stranger” (translated
in Ricœur, 2010) Paul Ricœur argues three points; we should loosen
our rigid insistence upon the privileges of national citizenship against
the weak position of the asylum seeker. We should offer hospitality
better than currently, whether in the form of asylum, tourist rights,
immigration support or refugee status. However, he asserts that we
can only achieve these changes once we are comfortable as strong and
secure citizen–members of our own country. As so often with Ricœur,
these words from the late 1990s prove prescient twenty years later.
With regard to his first point we should be prepared to soften the border
between the outsider and the insider. Secondly the hospitality we offer
is often paltry and functions to confine, demean and exclude the
refugee and the asylum seeker: we should be more generous.
      In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the
Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 all individuals have the right to a
nationality. Ricœur explains how the nation state has created silos that
each citizen feels safe inside, except that we don’t feel safe. He ends
his paper Being a Stranger on this challenge: we will only be
appropriately generous and hospitable to others, in the Kantian sense,
when we ourselves understand and accept that we truly belong to our
own nation and that we are secure in our European nationhood and
citizenship, which is inherently supranational as well as national. For
Ricœur this means learning at least two languages and reaching out
beyond our borders. However, as Lorey points out, the neoliberal
approach exaggerates our precarity through securitisation of borders
and of identity. This induces and increases our fear of economic ruin
allegedly caused by the “other” (Lorey, 2012: 64).



                                                                            XI
Editors’ Introduction




        A crucial aspect of the way we treat foreigners that is not
considered in by Ricœur in this paper and to which we devote thought
in this special issue, is the way in which the Western world somehow
seems to believe it can be immune from the problems suffered by
outsiders: other people suffer, and we often act as if there is nothing
we can do about it. Other people become refugees and migrants, and
we act as if it won’t affect us. Other people are trafficked, but not us.
None of this is actually true because we know from experience that we
are capable of pathos and Vinicio Busacchi shows how we weaken our
own personhood by our refusal to help those in need who are less
fortunate than ourselves.
        Criminal groups and sub criminal networks all over Europe are
making a lot of money from migrants: they buy and take over migrants’
bodies and their minds for sex and drugs and also for violent crimes
including terrorism. We are complicit in this because we are allowing
migrants to be preyed upon as a direct result of our rejection of them
as viable human beings: many of them are penned like animals in
holding camps, rendered subhuman by our negligence and prejudice
and delivered up negligently and unintentionally to crime because no
other option remains to them (Nadeau, 2018).
        Ricœur, in the paper just cited above, writes as one who has
steeped himself in government papers and policies, and indeed this
was the case. In 1996 he sat on the Hessel commission on migrants,
set up by Rocard, and wrote this piece as a direct result of his
experiences.        He has written it as a philosopher who is addressing
policy issues with both philosophical and policy understanding, quoting
Human Rights legislation and differentiating between different types of
stranger, as found in French law. He was thus using different
“registers”. Linguistic “registers” differ depending on the tasks that we
are asking of language and in “Being a Stranger” Ricœur combines and
contrasts deep understanding of European thought, philosophical,



XII
                                                 Critical Hermeneutics, 2 (2018)




governmental and statist. This is true of some of the papers in this
issue, using philosophical and social science registers to clarify
journalistic ones.
      The register we each use to communicate is of major importance
and has assumed frightening moral freighting (even more than under
usual circumstances), as we are putting together this issue of Critical
Hermeneutics against a barrage of unceasing and vindictive invective
from groups across Europe loosely known as “populist”. Ricœur
attributed ethical agency to our use of language and we hope to
achieve this with this collection of papers; this moral imperative is
definitely not heeded by the aggressive, non-dialogic tone adopted by
populist demagogues and discussed by Nina Arif, and this makes it
even more important for us to bring together the range of different
registers that can and must be deployed across Europe to resolve the
migration crisis at both a single state and at a European Union level.
In this issue of Critical Hermeneutics we have brought together
different voices, academic, activist and journalistic, in order to explore
how a world that believes itself to be so civilised, can create such a
cesspit of degradation and can then also believe that we will not be
affected by it. Thus we have invited different registers, and some even
differ within the same paper, as is the case of Vinicio Busacchi and Nina
Arif: both use major thinkers to illustrate their positions and also
discuss the statistics that become the sordid reality for migrants. Both
writers rectify common misperceptions about the supposed harm done
by migrants to their host countries.
      Elsa Lechner and Leticia Renault in their research, got close to
migrants to record their experiences, something which philosophers
tend not to do. They use biographical research to capture the stories
of those whose opinions are not asked for and whose voices are not
heard: the migrants. The absent voice of the migrant is also charted
by Nina Arif, who shows how the media dehumanise migrant stories by



                                                                            XIII
Editors’ Introduction




anonymising and rendering subhuman those who dare to seek shelter
in another land and, as Achille Mbembe elaborates, dare to submit to
a death sentence meted out by those who should know better. Here
we return to Ricœur’s allusion to our existential discomfort with
ourselves: if nations accept the diet of hate dished up to them by media
and government, they are trapped in unfalsifiable narratives and dwell
in uncomfortable unrealities in which they half believe that outsiders
are dangerous. We must continue the debate that this issue has
initiated, to bring together different evidence bases and different
registers and different languages, to amplify unheard voices, to
consider how governments can help and to develop Ricœur’s balanced
challenges to us so that we can learn about ourselves through learning
about the other. Ricœur’s work provides us with the frames for
deploying different registers to illuminate each other (Scott-Baumann
2017b)
        This is no easy task. It is a challenge and a wager. One that,
albeit modestly, we hope that this critical hermeneutical issue helps to
overcome.




XIV
                                               Critical Hermeneutics, 2 (2018)




References


Honneth, A. (2009). Reconstructive Social Criticism with a Genealogical
Proviso: On the Idea of “Critique” in the Frankfurt School. In A.
Honneth, Pathologies of Reason: On the Legacy of Critical Theory.
Trans. by D. Ingram. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lorey, I. (2012). State of Insecurity. London: Verso Books.

Marcelo, G. (2012). Making Sense of the Social. Hermeneutics and
Social Philosophy. Études Ricœuriennes / Ricœur Studies vol. 3 no. 1:
67-85.
Marcelo, G. (2017). Narrative and Recognition in the Flesh. An
Interview with Richard Kearney. Philosophy & Social Criticism 43(8):
777-792.
Nadeau, B. L. (2018). Roadmap to Hell: Sex, Drugs and Guns on the
Mafia Coast. London: Oneworld Publications.
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery.              London:
Routledge.
Putnam, H. (2004). The Collapse of the Fact-Value Dichotomy and
Other Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Ricœur, P. (2010). Being a Stranger. Trans. by A. Scott-Baumann.
Theory, Culture & Society vol. 27, n. 5: 37-48.
Ricœur, P. (1991). From Text to Action. Essays in Hermeneutics, II.
Trans. by K. Blamey and J. B. Thompson. Evanston: Northwestern
University Press.
Ricœur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on
Language, Action and Interpretation. Ed. and trans. by J. B. Thompson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott-Baumann, A. (2017a). Ideology, utopia and Islam on campus:
how to free speech a little from its own terrors. Education, Citizenship
and social justice vol. 12(2): 159-176.




                                                                           XV
Editors’ Introduction




Scott-Baumann, A. (2017b). Trust within reason: how to trump the
hermeneutics of suspicion on campus. In Muslims, Multiculturalism and
Trust. Eds. A Yaqin, P Morey & A Soliman. New York: New Directions
Palgrave.
Sen, A. (1987). On Ethics and Economics. Oxford and New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Taylor,     C.    (1994).   Multiculturalism:   Examining   the   Politics   of
Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Walzer, M. (1987). Interpretation and Social Criticism. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.




XVI
