Face Off: The Ironic,The Irenic and the Face Between

The formation of a school, whether feminist, critical, Marxist or other involves the establishment of a doctrine – literally a teaching – and a group of students or followers – the disciples who form the discipline. No doctrine without disciples has been the history of the schools and the formative principle of academic movements. They exist in the end to convert their students, old to young, male to female, female to male, or female to female, or any other possible combination of orientations. And conversion implies orthodoxy, institutionalization and hierarchy or at least a relation to hieros and hierarchy. This paper examines these themes in terms of the specific example of feminist legal studies and a curious recent discursive event, a polemical exchange on the identity of the movement, the face of feminist legal studies, as viewed through a eulogy and a challenge to that praise. Thanks to Richard Collier, Margaret Davies, Margaret Halliwell, Elena Loizidou, Desmond Manderson, Ngaire Naffine for correspondence, for relevant discussions, and candid responses. Especial thanks to Thanos Zartaloudis for a peculiarly detailed and hospitable reading, offered at a time when it would have been much easier, both just and more appropriate for him to say very little, almost nothing. And emotive thanks as well to Linda Mills for her customary frankness and finely honed attention.     

Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics

The aim of this article is to explain that, in the context of the production of scientific knowledge, it is logically impossible to define some institutional structures enabling the maximization of the social surplus.Our argumentation relies on the theory of Popper according to which it is impossible to anticipate the result of a given process of production of scientific knowledge. Consequently, we conclude that it is impossible to compare the respective efficiencies of alternative structures of production of scientific knowledge.The document consists in a critical review ofthe literature in economics of innovation and knowledge. JEL Classification: D8, L1, O3     

The Sense of Freedom. The Surprise of Being-in-Common

‘Globalization’ implies, among other things, the radical crisis of the metaphysical and theologico-political conceptions of sense. The crisis of the device built upon the concepts of the abstract individual, the nation and the State is at the same time the crisis of the subject as a master and an owner of sense (each time, the sense). But, if human beings are subtracted by the national, historical and metaphysical identities, by the system of the meanings-image, they are exposed to the possibility itself of sense as what precedes and exceeds every constituted identity or reality. This article aims at exploring in Jean-Luc Nancy’s thought the strict relationship between the ‘non-appropriable’ nature of sense and the being-in-common of human beings considered not as abstract individuals, but as multiple-singularities. A community that is the opening itself of sense, is not sacrificed to an originary or future Unity, but it is offered to the event of the present; to the existences as events and to an ‘immediate mediation’ as surprise. The experience of this offer as surprise is what Nancy calls ‘freedom’. Graduate student at the University of Venice, Italy; conducting a study of ‘the centres of temporary detention’ for migrants in Italy. The translations of all extracts are mine unless otherwise provided. These pages are dedicated to the migrants of the Association Solidariedade Imigrante of Lisbon, Portugal (to each one and to all of them, their friendship is for me such a great gift). I would like to thank Vania Trento Miotto and Thanos Zartaloudis with all my heart for the precious help in the revision of this article. Obviously, the responsibility for these pages rests entirely with me.     

Freedom and Sovereignty a Fatal Relationship Outlined with Jean-Luc Nancy and Marquis De Sade

Sovereignty and freedom are interlinked in a manner of both ambivalence and interdependence. Neither can sovereignty confirm itself without presupposing for itself a pure state of freedom; nor can freedom conceive and realise itself without interweaving with sovereignty. Both concepts collide with each other as sovereignty usually signifies a certain social or cultural power or order; and freedom regularly is related to a sovereign subjectivity. Therefore, the question is: how far might sovereignty serve as a source of freedom that, at the same time, has to be limited by this freedom itself. When the sovereign (subject) defines where the limits of freedom are, he will mostly define the limits of experiencing such freedom for all those who have to follow his decision on the limit. Further, if the free (sovereign) subject itself defines its own limits, it will supposedly end up rejecting its interweaving with any other subjectivity beyond its own. The problem remains: both sovereignty and freedom cannot be realised if they are already limited.     

How to Improve Forensic Science

Some institutional structures for inquiry produce better approximations to truth than others. The current institutional structure of police forensics gives each lab a monopoly in the analysis of the police evidence it receives. Forensic workers have inadequate incentives to produce reliable analyses of police evidence. Competition would create such incentives. I outline a system of “competitive self regulation” for police forensics.Each jurisdiction would have several competing forensic labs. Evidence would be divided and sent to one, two, or three separate labs.Chance would determine which labs and how many would receive evidence to analyze.Competitive selfregulation improves forensics by creating incentives for error detection and reducing incentives to produce biased analyses. JEL Classification: K14, K42, H11