Having been introduced in Sweden in the 1980’s, one would perhaps have thought postmodern philosophy to be a thing of the past. As it turns out, the debate on postmodernism is still very much alive. But the term ‘postmodernism’ in 2021 is complex and sometimes misunderstood. In public discourse, the term has moved beyond its status as a continental philosophy or as a denomination for certain historical conditions of the late twentieth century. Today, it appears, people use ‘postmodernism’ as an invective for relativism, post-truth and ‘empty words’. Two books, published in 2020, even warn the Swedish people for a postmodern invasion of both the academics and Swedish government. The humanities, apparently, are especially corrupted by postmodern thinking. Is this true? As a rhetorician, I ask myself to what extent postmodern theory has had an influence on Swedish rhetoric in the 40 years since the discipline was re-established within higher education.  This essay examines course syllabuses, teaching material, Swedish articles in the periodical Rhetorica Scandinavica, doctoral theses, and the complete works published by Sweden’s eight professors of rhetoric. Early on, I found that there was very little information available about the development of  Swedish rhetoric –even less about a postmodern rhetoric in a Swedish context. Thus, this essay is to be looked at as both a history of Swedish postmodern rhetoric – the first of its kind – and as an examination of the occurrence of postmodern theory within Swedish rhetoric. I find that postmodernism has not, as opposed to the critics’ claims, played a key role in the development of Swedish rhetoric. Its presence has, however, significantly increased within the field of rhetoric since 2010, and I discuss why that might be. Further, I discuss what can be said to define the Swedish postmodern rhetoric, and what the future might hold for this specific branch of rhetorical studies and research.

[pt] Nesta tese enfrento problemáticas dos Direitos Humanos pela filosofia política e crítica ao direito. Num primeiro momento, apresento crítica à tradição e uma breve genealogia de como se dá o pensamento e a história desses direitos, tanto da ordem dos discursos de fundamentação como da sua afirmação social. Em seguida, trabalho a encruzilhada dos Direitos Humanos a partir da relação com a soberania e a biopolítica, respectivamente, segundo Jacques Derrida e Michel Foucault. Por um lado, é de se destacar o acentuado caráter histórico e político dos Direitos Humanos, de outro, questionar seu potencial de transformação social. A encruzilhada aparece e a problematização se dá, pois, se os Direitos Humanos são esforço do histórico de mobilizações contrário a injustiças sociais e modelos jurídicos conservadores, também, passam a fazer parte de nossa era de direitos como fundamento e manifestação legítima do direito. Inclusive, por vezes, se voltam contra seus próprios fins. Nesse contexto, os Direitos Humanos estão atrelados ao ímpeto civilizatório ocidental, ao capitalismo global, à ordem internacional e às violências de estado, ao mesmo tempo em que se manifestam com as lutas políticas, as conquistas sociais e as defesas contra violações de direito. A partir disso, problematizo os Direitos Humanos diante de seus fins e de sua força como direito, também, lanço a problemática de como pensá-los diante dos caminhos cruzados, da diferença das forças e da contínua abertura à mudança social presentes em sua atualidade. Com essa delimitação, estudo o potencial dos ‘Direitos Humanos na encruzilhada’, segundo a produção social e a definição da humanidade. Isso se dá, pela intersecção da soberania e da biopolítica, conforme são ultrapassados limites do direito e atingidos novos domínios da vida e da sociedade. O que implica reformular questões em torno da normatividade, da força e da realização dos Direitos Humanos. Por fim, destaco algumas tensões em meio às relações sociais e às composições de poder dos Direitos Humanos no cenário político atual. / [en] This thesis consists of a study about problems concerned to Human Rights from political philosophy and critique of law. At first, with a critique of the tradition of Human Rights and a brief genealogy of how thought and history of Human Rights took place, both in terms of foundational speeches and social statements. After that, due to open fractures with the philosophy of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, the idea is to distinguish how Human Rights function when related to sovereignty and biopolitics. It is important to highlight the historical and political nature of law, and to question its potential of social transformation, once Human Rights are at the crossroads: If Human Rights are an effort of the history of mobilizations contrary to social injustices and conservative legal models, they also become our era of rights as foundations and part of legitimate law. Even, at times, they turn against their own ends. In this context, the concept of Human Rights is linked to western civilization, global capitalism, international order and state violence, at the same time that Human Rights are made with political struggles, social conquests, institutional protection and defense against rights violation. In this context, is important to investigate how to think about Human Rights once considered the difference of forces of their formation and continuous openness to changes. This work turns to the potential of Human Rights at the crossroads, which is crucial to the crossroads itself, according to its social production and ability to define the political and humanity. Which results from the intersection of sovereign power and biopolitics, as the premises of law are displaced and the Human Rights reaches new domains of life and society. This implies reformulating questions about normativity, enforcement and achievement of Human Rights. At the end, it is consequential to highlight tensions of these rights in the midst of social relations and compositions of power in the current political scenario. / [fr] Dans cette présente thèse, les questions de Droits de l Homme sont confrontées à la philosophie politique et à lacritique du Droit. Dans un premier temps, il se fait une critique de la tradition et une brève généalogie de la manière dont la pensée et l histoire de ces droits se déroulent, tant au niveau des discours de raisonnement que de leur affirmation sociale. Ensuite, le travail se retrouve dans une sorte de croisement des Droits de l Homme à partir du rapport à la souveraineté et à la biopolitique, respectivement, selon Jacques Derrida et Michel Foucault. D une part, il faut souligner l important caractère historique et politique des Droits de l Homme, d autre part, s interroger sur leur potentiel de transformation sociale. La croisée des chemins apparaît et la problématisation s opère, car si les Droits de l Homme sont le résultat de l effort historique de mobilisations contre les injustices sociales et les modèles juridiques conservateurs, mais, ils s inscrivent aussi dans notre ère des droits comme fondement et manifestation légitime du droit.Parfois, ils se retournent même contre leurs propres fins. Dans ce contexte, les Droits de l Homme sont liés à la poussée civilisatrice occidentale, au capitalisme mondial, à l ordre international et à la violence d État, mais aussi aux luttes politiques, aux conquêtes sociales et à la défense face aux violations des droits. A partir de là, les Droits de l Homme sont premièrement problématisés face à leurs fins et leur force en tant que droit, et, ensuite, problématisés sur la façon de les penser face aux chemins croisés, à la différence des forces et à l ouverture continue aux changements sociaux présents de nos jours. Dans cette délimitation, il convient de souligner le potentiel des Droits de l Homme à la croisée des chemins à partir de leur production sociale et de leur capacité à définir l espace politique et celui de l humanité. Cela arrive à travers l intersection de la souveraineté et de la biopolitique, au fur et à mesure que les limites du droit sont dépassées et que de nouveaux domaines de la vie et de la société sont atteints. Cela implique de reformuler les questions autour de la normativité, de la force et de la réalisation des Droits de l Homme. Enfin, les tensions de ces droits sont questionnées face aux relations sociales et aux compositions du pouvoir dans le scénario politique actuel.

Missing children is one of the horrors that we are confronted with in today's society. The case study method, a feminist co-search methodology, is used to give a missing child's mother the opportunity to tell and re-tell the painful story. During this co-search process the following aspects of doing ethics and pastoral care and counselling with the mother are constantly negotiated. The term "missing child" is defined and the relevance between the distinction of "missing children" and "run-away children" is discussed. Furthermore, this study explores the many diverse practices of narrative pastoral care and counselling with parents of missing children within an economically disadvantaged community. The conceptualisations regarding loss, hope and meaning-making and how these are utilised in the life of a missing child's mother is discussed. / Practical Theology / M.Th.

This study postulates the existence of a notion of transcendence in immanence in the thought of Jacques Derrida. The deconstruction of, amongst others, Husserlian phenomenology and Saussurean structuralism, affords Derrida the opportunity of presenting a thought of contamination, haunting and impurity, which is a thought of transcendence in immanence. The hypothesis of a notion of transcendence in immanence in Derrida’s thought is refined by specifying it as temporal transcendence in immanence. Accordingly, the intimation of transcendence in immanence does not amount to the ontological acceptance of a separate transcendent realm. On the contrary, what appears is a monism: the infinite finitude of temporality. In conversation with the notion of temporal transcendence in immanence intimated in Derrida’s thought, this study proposes a notion of theological transcendence in immanence. Theological transcendence in immanence is presented as an inflected interpretive performance of salient themes from the tradition of Christian theology prior to the advent of modernity. From this perspective, all being is referred to God and finite creation is deemed to be a contingent, non-necessary participation, at an unquantifiable analogical remove, in the life and being of God. The notions of space, time and meaning that emerge from such a premise are subsequently explored, and brought into conversation with the corresponding notions in Derrida’s work. The study concludes by asking whether the conversation between the notions of temporal and theological transcendence in immanence can in any way be furthered, or whether the two positions should rather be regarded as irreconcilable, that is, as lying separatively transcendent to each other. In response, it is suggested that the notion of transcendence in immanence implies the attempt to relate juxtaposed positions after the fashion of transcendence in immanence. The possibility of temporal transcendence in immanence inhabiting theological transcendence in immanence after the fashion of transcendence in immanence is firstly considered and rejected. Thereupon, the reverse option, namely that of theological transcendence in immanence making use of temporal transcendence in immanence, iii while at the same time transcending it, is considered and judged to be a suitable provisional outcome of the conversation with Derrida. / Religious Studies and Arabic / D. Litt. et Phil. (Religious Studies)

Jacques Derrida n’a écrit qu’un seul ouvrage sur Baudelaire : Donner le temps I. La fausse monnaie (1991). Dans cette étude, il s’agit de préciser, notamment autour de la question de la perversité, les liens unissant le poète au philosophe en accordant une attention particulière aux textes « Le mauvais vitrier » (Baudelaire), « The Imp of the Perverse » (Edgar Poe), « La fausse monnaie » (Baudelaire) et Mémoires d’aveugle (Derrida). Imbriquées dans une logique de l’événement, les deux notions de perversité et de don peuvent s’éclairer mutuellement et ont des répercussions jusque dans les textes et pour la littérature elle-même. / Jacques Derrida only wrote one book on Baudelaire, entitled Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money (1991). With special focus on a number of other texts, including “The Bad Glazier” (Baudelaire), The Imp of the Perverse (Edgar Allan Poe), “Counterfeit Money” (Baudelaire) and Memoirs of the Blind (Derrida), this analysis clarifies the relations linking the poet to the philosopher, particularly with regard to the question of perversity, or rather, in Poe’s words, perverseness. Bound up in event logic, the two notions of perversity and gift can explain one another and their repercussions are far-reaching both in the texts and in literature itself.

Toutes les illustrations qui ponctuent cette thèse ont été réalisées par Chantal Poirier. Elles ont été insérées dans le texte selon un ordre méticuleusement aléatoire. / Le texte qui suit, malgré son libellé onomastique (le nom « John Cage »), son orientation disciplinaire (la « théorie littéraire ») et sa visée thématique (« la révision du commentaire critique »), se place d’emblée dans une posture d’écriture et de création. Il consiste à proposer comme point de départ l’identité de la forme textuelle et de sa dérivation métatextuelle, en d’autres mots : de la voix citée et analysée avec l’autre voix citante et analysante. Cette prémisse dérive elle-même d’une confrontation locale : les spécificités et les idiosyncrasies de la textualité mise en place par John Cage à partir des années quarante (partitions littéraires des recueils Silence et A Year from Monday, mésostiches de M et X, réécritures et « writing through » d’Empty Words…). En effet, l’examen par la théorie littéraire d’un corpus aussi disséminé et « néologique » que l’est celui de John Cage pousse son rédacteur à poser la question de sa propre écriture (« autoréflexivité ») et à rendre possible une réalisation artistique personnelle (« performativité »). C’est donc à travers la contingence d’une langue et d’une subjectivité au travail que la théorisation (textuelle) du texte cherche ici à s’élucider et à s’écrire. Le travail commence par installer les modalités à la fois circulaires et circulatoires de la théorie littéraire, une tension rhétorique et épistémologique qu’il identifie sous le nom d’« aporie autoréflexive » (le texte théorique est concerné par la question de lui-même). Il s’efforce ensuite d’analyser la nouveauté de l’œuvre littéraire cagienne, en empruntant un schéma dialectique et antagoniste : d’un côté, une « textualité-objet », originale et orthographique, de l’autre, une « textualité-sujet », disséminante et intertextuelle, anarchique et jubilatoire. Enfin, le texte propose la révision, la recomposition, la « réécriture » du commentaire critique sur les bases nouvelles d’une textologie autoréflexive et performative — une indiscipline d’écriture qui utilise sciemment les coordonnées linguistiques de son élocution (néologie, typographisme, procédés citationnels…) et qui fait place sans camouflage ou refoulement à la personnalité intertextuelle, contextuelle, métissée du rédacteur. Par l’entremise d’une sorte d’« exemplarité textuelle » (Cage), ce travail insiste pour une synthèse à la fois productive et expressive des voix analysées et analysantes dans les études littéraires. On verra que, par moments, cette proposition implique que le texte se marginalise. / The following text, despite its onomastic labelling (the name “John Cage”), its disciplinary orientation (“literary theory”), and its thematic aim (“the revision of the literary commentary”), positions itself as a writing and creative venture. It starts by stating the strict identity of texts and metatexts, in other words, of the quoted, analyzed voice, with the quoting, analyzing other voice. This premise derives from a specific confrontation: the specificities and idiosyncrasies of John Cage’s literary production since the late 1940s (the literary scores from the anthologies Silence and A Year from Monday, the mesostics from M and X, the rewritings and “Writing through’s” from Empty Words…). Indeed, the examination by literary theory of a body of work as disseminated and “neological” as John Cage’s encourages the literary critic or theoretician to ask the question of his own writing (“self-reflexivity”) and also to make possible an original artistic realization (“performativity”). It is therefore through the possibilities of a language and of a subjectivity at work that the (textual) theorization of texts tries herein to elucidate and to write itself. This work starts by setting up the modalities both circular and circulatory of literary theory—a rhetorical and epistemological tension that will be identified as the “self-reflexive aporia” (the theoretical text is primarily concerned by the question of itself). It then tries to analyze the novelty of Cage’s literary work, using a dialectical and antagonistic configuration: on one hand, an “objective textuality”, original and orthographical; on the other hand, a “subjective textuality”, disseminating and intertextual, anarchic and unrestrained. Finally, this text proposes the revision, recomposition and “rewriting” of the critical commentary on the basis of a new self-reflexive and performative textology. That is: a sort of undiscipline in writing that knowingly manoeuvres the linguistic coordinates of its elocution (neology, typographism, quotation processes…) and that does not try to conceal or repress the intertextual, contextual, heterogenous and disparate personality of its author. Through a sort of “textual exemplarity” (Cage), this work insists on a synthesis both productive and expressive between the voices analyzing and the voices being analyzed. We will see accordingly that this proposition implies, from time to time, that the text be marginalized.

Der Begriff Performativität geht zurück auf die Sprechakttheorie und wurde von dem Sprachphilosophen John L. Austin "ins Spiel" gebracht. Er verweist mit dem Terminus auf die handlungspraktische Dimension des Sprechens, d.h. dasjenige zu vollziehen oder zu produzieren, was im Sprechen benannt wird, und es nicht lediglich zu bezeichnen. Vor dem Hintergrund von Derridas Iterabilitätsbegriff hat insbesondere Judith Butler das Konzept in die Gendertheorie eingeführt. Das Sein oder So-Sein eines Geschlechtes ist demnach kein ontologischer Status, der aus einer vordiskursiven Wirklichkeit schöpft, sondern das Ergebnis (sich wiederholender) performativer Inszenierungen, die sich selbst erfolgreich als Sein darstellen.

Dekonstruktion bezeichnet ein durch den poststrukturalistischen Philosophen Jacques Derrida entwickeltes Lektüreverfahren, das sich gegen den tradierten hermeneutischen Ansatz richtet. Es stellt eine letztgültige, im Text enthaltene Bedeutung in Abrede, legt Brüche und Verwerfungen frei und postuliert die Unabschließbarkeit des Interpretationsvorgangs. Statt selbst einen Sinn zu behaupten, erfüllt sich der Zweck der Dekonstruktion in der Prozessualität, das heißt im Akt des Fragens selbst.

Jacques Derrida n’a écrit qu’un seul ouvrage sur Baudelaire : Donner le temps I. La fausse monnaie (1991). Dans cette étude, il s’agit de préciser, notamment autour de la question de la perversité, les liens unissant le poète au philosophe en accordant une attention particulière aux textes « Le mauvais vitrier » (Baudelaire), « The Imp of the Perverse » (Edgar Poe), « La fausse monnaie » (Baudelaire) et Mémoires d’aveugle (Derrida). Imbriquées dans une logique de l’événement, les deux notions de perversité et de don peuvent s’éclairer mutuellement et ont des répercussions jusque dans les textes et pour la littérature elle-même. / Jacques Derrida only wrote one book on Baudelaire, entitled Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money (1991). With special focus on a number of other texts, including “The Bad Glazier” (Baudelaire), The Imp of the Perverse (Edgar Allan Poe), “Counterfeit Money” (Baudelaire) and Memoirs of the Blind (Derrida), this analysis clarifies the relations linking the poet to the philosopher, particularly with regard to the question of perversity, or rather, in Poe’s words, perverseness. Bound up in event logic, the two notions of perversity and gift can explain one another and their repercussions are far-reaching both in the texts and in literature itself.

I offer a cloud of observations about language and art. I will prioritize my questions about how language operates in art, the way it functions within my own studio practice, and locate aesthetic interstices throughout. There will be insights gleaned from the various orderers of order (Lacan, Saussure) and orderers of disorder (Derrida, Agamben), walks in terra-incognita, and even some poetry on my part. I will take this chance to orient myself among different structures and deconstructions that have piledup around language, aesthetics and art.