USD $60.00
Search Results
Author:
Abstract
Despite the commonplace nature of such terms as “secular Judaism” and the near synonymous relationship between modern secularism and classical liberal Christianity, there exists little discourse about “secular Islam.” One speaks of the “dynamic tension between Islam and secularism” or of split identities and loyalties between the two poles, but almost never of the possibility of secularity and Islam existing together, unproblematically, within the same civic subjectivity. While critiquing the distinction between secularity and laicism in the Turkish context, the article pursues a provisional, phenomenological explication of this dilemma and suggests why a conceptualization of secular Islam is ultimately necessary for European and German discourses about religion and civic culture.
Author:
Abstract
Despite the commonplace nature of such terms as “secular Judaism” and the near synonymous relationship between modern secularism and classical liberal Christianity, there exists little discourse about “secular Islam.” One speaks of the “dynamic tension between Islam and secularism” or of split identities and loyalties between the two poles, but almost never of the possibility of secularity and Islam existing together, unproblematically, within the same civic subjectivity. While critiquing the distinction between secularity and laicism in the Turkish context, the article pursues a provisional, phenomenological explication of this dilemma and suggests why a conceptualization of secular Islam is ultimately necessary for European and German discourses about religion and civic culture.
This article focuses on Refugee Status Determination (rsd) procedures, in order to understand the relationships among language, translation / interpreting, evidentiary assessment, and what we call the ‘listening state’. Legal systems have only recently begun to consider whether adjudicative processes ought to take place in multiple languages concurrently, or whether the ideal procedure is to monolingualize evidence first, and then assess it accordingly. Because of this ambivalence, asylum applicants are often left in the ‘zone of uncertainty’ between monolingualism and multilingualism. Their experiences and testimonies become subject to an ‘epistemic anxiety’ only infrequently seen in other areas of adjudication. We therefore ask whether asylum applicants ought to enjoy a ‘right to untranslatability’, taking account of the State's responsibility to cooperate actively with them or whether the burden ought to remain with the applicant to achieve credibility in the language of the respective jurisdiction, through interpretation and translation.
Author:
In the first issue of the Journal of Literary Multilingualism, we collected together a range of scholars assessing and debating the field of Literary Multilingualism Studies, but we also realised that a single issue could only scratch the surface of this dynamic and growing field of study. Moreover, we were aware of some absences and blind spots and of the need to be constantly revising, questioning and examining the field. This forum, appearing in each issue of the journal, aims to continue the conversation started in Issue 1: it is a space for shorter, more informal reflections on the field and its future, in forms that might include position papers, dialogues between scholars, roundtable discussions, responses to articles within the journal, and responses to recent multilingualism conferences or events. We welcome proposals for Forum contributions, particularly from marginalised perspectives or on neglected aspects of literary multilingualism. Please contact us directly to discuss ideas.
For this first forum, we asked David Gramling, who has recently spoken about ‘breaking up’ with multilingualism, how his attitude to the field has changed in recent years, and why. We also asked him to think of the direction Literary Multilingualism Studies should take in the future, in terms of its objects, its theories, and the genres it treats.
Institutions, Social Import, and Market Forces in the German Literary Field
Contributors:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and
Aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven gibt dieser Band Einblicke in den deutschen Literaturbetrieb, dessen Institutionen und Umschlagplätze. Diskutiert werden Themen wie der Effekt der Digitalisierung auf den Buchmarkt, Literatur und Öffentlichkeit, Buchmessen und Bibliotheken, die Rolle von Literaturwissenschaftler_innen im Literaturbetrieb, postmodernes und postmigrantisches Theater, Herausforderungen literarischer Übersetzung, publizistische Literaturkritik und das Verhältnis von Literatur zu anderen Medien wie Film und Fernsehen. Der Begriff Mischkalkulation – ein stehender Begriff im Literaturbetrieb – reflektiert bei der vorliegenden Sammlung von Essays, Interviews, wissenschaftlichen Analysen und Arbeitsproben von Übersetzern auch eine wissenschaftliche Ökonomie, nämlich die Mischung aus präzisen Einzelstudien und übergreifenden Beiträgen unterschiedlichster Art.
Institutions, Social Import, and Market Forces in the German Literary Field
Aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven gibt dieser Band Einblicke in den deutschen Literaturbetrieb, dessen Institutionen und Umschlagplätze. Diskutiert werden Themen wie der Effekt der Digitalisierung auf den Buchmarkt, Literatur und Öffentlichkeit, Buchmessen und Bibliotheken, die Rolle von Literaturwissenschaftler_innen im Literaturbetrieb, postmodernes und postmigrantisches Theater, Herausforderungen literarischer Übersetzung, publizistische Literaturkritik und das Verhältnis von Literatur zu anderen Medien wie Film und Fernsehen. Der Begriff Mischkalkulation – ein stehender Begriff im Literaturbetrieb – reflektiert bei der vorliegenden Sammlung von Essays, Interviews, wissenschaftlichen Analysen und Arbeitsproben von Übersetzern auch eine wissenschaftliche Ökonomie, nämlich die Mischung aus präzisen Einzelstudien und übergreifenden Beiträgen unterschiedlichster Art.