180075 PS Migration, concepts of an enemy and cultural conflicts (2018S)

Objectives: Elaboration of a differentiated, critical-reflected, thus: philosophical approach to subjects as human migration, concepts of an enemy, integration, exclusion, inclusion, cultural identities, relation between politics and ethics/morals (especially in regards to conflicts between ethical and/or moral concepts). We’ll look at those subjects from a philosophical perspective and always try to bear in mind a historical dimension. The course will also provide an introduction in some crucial topics of political philosophy and ideology critique as well as an exploitation of relevant subjects by means of selected texts. The methodical approach to these texts will, beyond others, also include methods of conceptual history.

Contents: Human migration movements have always been part of human history. On the level of individuals or small groups they have taken and take place constantly. But sometimes also larger groups of people are leaving their previous homes. In most cases they do so because of resource scarcity, armed conflicts or persecution. From a historical view, interactions of larger groups of migrants with the residents of their destinations went seldom free of conflicts. This may be caused by differences in opinion concerning resource allocation as well as by cultural antagonisms. The latter may be shaped by specific cultural practices, controversial ideological or religious attitudes, but also by imaginations about such attitudes on the each other side as well as imaginations about actually available resources. At this point prejudices are frequently coming into play. Prejudices may be innocent, sometimes even positive, if the suggested qualities are interpreted as convenient. More often they tend to devaluate persons, things or ideas and then not rarely to transform into concepts of an enemy. In any case they are clichéd and stereotyped. Some authors argue this would help orienting oneself within a complex world and an increasingly more difficult society. If this idea should be true, such kind of orientation works in any way by oversimplification and sacrifice of appropriate interpretations.
As soon as we are talking about us and the others or strangers, we consider larger, more or less coherent, homogenous groups. At this point we are usually at risk to create gross simplifications, and we are also talking about explicit or implicit ideas of social identity. The latter frequently have, inter alia, to do with „asymmetric counter terms“ (Koselleck 1995, 211 seqq.), which manifest themselves in dichotomies of „friend“ and „enemy“ (Schmitt 1991, esp. 26 seqq.) and may be loaded with very „hostile feelings“ (Kolnai 2007, 7 – 65, 100 – 142). What may concepts as integration or inclusion mean in this context? Which possibilities are there, which borders, and for whom? What happens in case of conflicts that are neither imagined nor conjured, for example if (maybe as a result of failed integration) anyway existing problems within a society, such as a manifest gender gap, are or seem to be aggravated? And which basis can be found to elaborate solutions or even perspectives that seem to be reasonable for all persons concerned?

Methods: Presentations, lecture, discussion, joint readings, film analysis.