Call for Papers: Issue 25 (2025 ) "judgement"
2024-11-13
Junctures: The Journal for Thematic Dialogue invites submissions on the theme of “judgement.”
In the contemporary moment we regularly see both forthright judgements and a recoiling from the violence of such judgements. On the one hand, there has been a widespread (re)turn to the political right, bringing with it a gleeful dismantling not only of the gains made for marginalised identities and communities in the post-1960s period but an undisguised reimplementation of forms of discrimination and oppression. Meanwhile on the left there is a staunch refusal to allow space for anything that carries the whiff of, or bears some resemblance to, discredited attitudes, particularly with regard to cultural or gender identity. On the other hand, there is a growing view that critique, criticism, critical theory and critical thinking, rather than furthering progressive thought and countering unreasonable and entrenched beliefs, can be damaging. Judgement can perpetuate combative, competitive modes of being—affirming a state of opposition between competing ideologies. Judgement can tend to represent and reaffirm existing paradigms and conventions—that which already exists—rather than being conducive to generating unexpected and imaginative insights, spaces and relationships—that which might happen. Judgement can appear arbitrary and groundless in contexts (contemporary art, for example) where the criteria for value are unclear or unstable. Judgement, no matter how rigorously supported, can be stultifying, imposing the illusion of resolution, closure or an end-point rather than opening up more discussion. And judgement can be culturally blind, based on ignorance or disregard for world views different to one’s own, or harmful to mental health or wellbeing, a repercussion more conspicuous than ever in today’s culture of candour and diagnosis. Yet the refusal to judge could be regarded as allowing reprehensible or unsupportable views to go unchallenged, or as a pusillanimous acceptance of the prevailing state of affairs. To refrain from explicit judgement might be a failure to recognise that, as Barbara Herrnstein Smith has written, “We evaluate all the time. It’s not a matter of should or shouldn’t. We can’t stop … We continuously orient ourselves different toward things that seem better or worse, more or less desirable.” Smith’s position, simultaneously challenging entrenched values and socio-political power relationships while acknowledging the inevitability of judgement, constitutes a sophisticated form of post-modern relativism. Recent critical theory that advocates for less judgemental forms of discourse is more aligned with the ontological turn, as with Rita Felski’s 2015 book The Limits of Critique, a critique (for want of a better word) of what she calls (using Paul Ricoeur’s words) “the hermeneutics of suspicion.” The editors welcome proposals for articles in any field or discipline and from diverse perspectives on the current status of critical judgement.
