In this short but pointed “Open Letter,” Ashrawi lists a number of aggressions perpetrated by Israeli troops and armed settlers against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Territories, to redress the ”converse version of reality” promoted by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who claims that the U.S. seeks to be “an even-handed peace broker,” yet presents Israel as a victimized, besieged country, rather than an occupying force guilty of grievous UN-recognized crimes against humanity.

In this letter, the author denounces the hypocrisy of members of the Israeli Peace Now Movement, who seem surprised, even angry, at the eruption of a second Intifada in the Occupied Territories. “A conquering army is using tanks and helicopter gunships to disperse demonstrations. What is so hard to understand here? ... Seven years of deceptions and violations of agreements, and the Palestinians rise up. What is so hard to grasp?” he asks.

In this essay, Fred Dallmayr examines the role played by Hindu-Muslim relations in India’s struggle for independence. He documents Gandhi’s long involvement in “the Muslim question” and his promotion of a “heart unity” that sees inter-communal harmony as a precondition for genuine independence. This contrasted sharply with the formal constitutional approach of prominent Muslim leaders, a contrast heightened by Gandhi’s occasional “Hindu” rhetoric, his response to the 1921 Mappila rebellion in Kerala, but most importantly, a procedural differentiation with Muslim leaders over “separate-but-equal” vs. liberal constitutionalist positions. The lessons from this investigation lead Dallmayr to conclude that a “heart-and-mind” unity has substantial salience for a cooperative approach to contemporary inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts.

In this essay, Enrique Dussel provides a textual “rereading” of Karl Marx’s theory of fetishism according to his scattered but significantcomments on religion as they extend throughout the whole of his work. In Part I, “The Place of the Subject of Religion in the Whole Work of Marx,” Dussel demonstrates Marx’s differentiation between a critique of the essence of religion and its manifestations, arguing that there is a space in Marx for a anti-fetishized liberatory religion. In Part II, “Toward a Theory of Fetishism in General,” he provides a methodological account of such a religion, as well as a panorama of the content of this essence of religion. These accounts provide the basis for more clearly identifying both religious fetishism and the fetishist character of capital.

The normative politics of Rorty’s Achieving Our Country are inextricably related to the political-philosophical principles of Contingency,irony, and solidarity, yet the nature of this relation is not explicit, particularly regarding Rorty’s earlier public/private sphere distinctionand renunciation of metavocabularies. This paper argues that Rorty’s call for patriotism as a necessary condition for political practiceand a romantic historicism that replaces intersubjectively recognized history, leads to a privatized conception of the nation, betraying the most promising principles of Contingency, irony, and solidarity, and threatening the necessary conditions of democratic and solidaristic practices. This critique also accounts for the theoretical lacunas in Rorty’s most recent essays attempting to elucidate American Empire.

In this essay, Fred Dallmayr considers the writings and activism of Arundhati Roy, author of The God of Small Things and Power Politics. First, Dallmayr examines the proper role of the writer-activist, comparing Roy to Edward Said. For each, writing and politicsare neither separate nor are they independent of the writer’s distinctive being-in-the-world. He then examines her critique of corporate business and the war machine, especially in relation to the construction of destructive “mega-dams” in India. The privatization of public services in India has done little to provide safe drinking water and electricity to some eighty percent of India’s rural population. Dallmayr finds in Roy an unmatched voice of hope and commitment to a more just, more humane future, sustained by a love that will not quit.

In this essay, Enrique Dussel provides a textual “rereading” of Karl Marx’s theory of fetishism according to his scattered but significant comments on religion as they extend throughout the whole of his work. In Part I, “The Place of the Subject of Religion in the Whole Work of Marx,” Dussel demonstrates Marx’s differentiation between a critique of the essence of religion and its manifestations, arguing that there is a space in Marx for a anti-fetishized liberatory religion. In Part II, “Toward a Theory of Fetishism in General,” he provides a methodological account of such a religion, as well as a panorama of the content of this essence of religion. These accounts provide the basis for more clearly identifying both religious fetishism and the fetishist character of capital.

The recent publication of Michel Foucault’s 1974-75 and 1975-76 lectures at the Collège de France provides an opportunity to reconsider the potential contribution of Foucault’s “analytics” of power for understanding the contemporary operation of race. Unlike the deployment of gender, which, I argue here, is best understood as a function of “disciplinary” power, the deployment of race is primarily a function of “biopower,” an expression of power that is bound up with the state apparatus. The announcement of the federal Violence Initiative in the 1990s provides an illuminating example of the operation of this power, and the chiasmic function of discourse that Foucault famously termed “power/knowledge.”

In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault offers a history of the rise of discipline in its application to the body. Foucault suggests, although he does not develop this suggestion, that the politics of discipline is war carried on by other means. The lecture series “Society Must Be Defended” can be seen as a development of this suggestion. In these lectures, Foucault offers a way of thinking about the society and its politics in terms of war, as well as a way of thinking about war. If this concept of war is integrated into the thought ofDiscipline and Punish, the work that that text does can be extended in several ways. First, we are offered an analysis of the social body that fractures the holism in the name of which penal reform is offered. Second, the disciplinary body can be seen not merely as the confluence of a series of power effects, but as the site of a contestation of power. Finally, the possibility of resistance, which has often been found lacking in Foucault’s genealogical works, appears as a live possibility.

This paper seeks to further Foucault’s work by coming to understand the specific set of conditions that govern contemporary thought and action, the “historical a priori” of our age, and from this it seeks to assess the prospects for projects of collective self-formation. It focuses on two recent innovations in molecular science: genetic counseling and performance enhancement therapies. The paper argues, on the one hand, that these sorts of practices are indicative of a fundamentally new mode of governance, neoliberalism,and, on the other, that these same techniques can be means for engendering alliances of self-formation that can resist the intolerable elements of contemporary biopolitics. The key to seeing this is shown to be understanding these new technologies as ascetic exercises (“spiritual disciplines”) and thus as falling under the rubric of spiritual development that has historically defined these arts.

Drawing on Heidegger and Foucault, I argue that we need to understand race as a technology. Race has three technological dimensions: instrumental, naturalizing, and concealment. Through this understanding, I hope to bridge two discourses that appear disconnected: Race as Color, Blood, and Genealogy (RC), which sees race as phenotypical or biological, and eclipses a discussion of political power, and Political Othering (PO), which eclipses race in its accounts of political ostracization. Finally, the implications of thetechnology of race can be understood by turning to Heidegger’s notion of Enframing, Foucault’s notion of the racist state, and Benjamin’s articulation of the inherent violence of law.

Michel Foucault’s 1976 Collège de France course provides a window on the shift into the work of his final years. Presented between the publication of Discipline and Punish (1975) and the first volume of The History of Sexuality (1976), the lectures presented a political history of power that foregrounded the function of war. This article suggests that elements of the lectures could already be found in Discipline and Punish and that they introduced categories, such as bio-power, that became increasingly important to Foucault in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Furthermore, I illustrate the historical context for Foucault’s lectures: the fading possibilities of 1968 and contemporaneous anti-totalitarian political debate.

A critical difference between 1978, the first time the U.S. Supreme Court heard on its merits a case involving affirmative action policies (AAPs), and its 2003 revisiting of the issue was that the context for hearing the issue had significantly changed from that of medical education to that of undergraduate and law school programs. This shift in context mattered. I argue here that medicine has particular interests and insights into the problem of race, and in this, its participation in the debate is critical not only for medical education and practice but for the development of sound judicial approaches to AAPs.

Admissions to upper-tier universities have become increasingly competitive. The erosion of gains made during the Civil Rights Era is evidenced by recent legal actions at the University of Michigan. In this paper I argue that affirmative action programs remain a necessary means for achieving social justice. Further, I argue that more than mere affirmative action, what is also required is Nancy Fraser’s “Transformative Action.” To reach these conclusions, the paper is divided into three parts: (1) The continued assault on Affirmative Action; (2) the SAT and race; and (3) transformative action.