At the recent Telos Conference in New York City, Telos Editor Russell A. Berman discussed the themes of the upcoming issues of the journal. Telos 166 (Spring 2014), which is now available, is entitled “After Faith” and addresses the endurance of religion despite the movement toward secularization. Telos 167, coming this summer, takes the related question “Are We Post-Secular” as its theme, and brings together a variety of contributions from around the world.
|
Telos Editorial Associate Jay Gupta recently spoke with C.S. Soong on Pacifica Radio’s Against the Grain, a show about politics, society, and ideas. Their conversation turned to ethics, objective vs. subjective truth, and the manner in which war is reported in the media. Listen the full interview at the Against the Grain website here. Telos 166 (Spring 2014) is now available for purchase in our store. The following paper was presented at the Eighth Annual Telos Conference, held on February 15–16, 2014, in New York City. As an occasional feature on TELOSscope, we highlight a past Telos article whose critical insights continue to illuminate our thinking and challenge our assumptions. Today, Matt Applegate looks at Paul Piccone’s “Students’ Protest, Class-Structure, and Ideology” from Telos 3 (Spring 1969). |
   |
|||
|
Telos Press Publishing · PO Box 811 · Candor, NY 13743 · Phone: 212-228-6479 Privacy Policy · Data Protection Copyright © 2025 Telos Press Publishing · All Rights Reserved |
||||
According to the secularization thesis, religious faith should have long ago disappeared, overwhelmed by the forces of progress. Yet while explicit membership in denominational communities is certainly less an obligatory feature of contemporary culture than it was a generation or two ago, modes of religion still play important roles in aspects of social life. This issue of Telos explores some of the ramifications of this afterlife of faith. 
Two french communist authors recently devoted a book to an attempt at the systematic demolishment of the logic of democracy. What makes their gesture interesting is that their critique of democracy is made in the very name of autonomy, equality, and emancipation, that is, of the very principles that democracy is supposed to promote and uphold. One usually knows how to react to attacks on democracy coming from the other side, from those who ground their arguments in a celebration of some sort of hierarchy principle, those who deduce the political from an ontology of violence, or aim at naturalizing orders and political differences. In those cases there is usually not much to be said at all, because anti-democratic arguments are usually not recognized as belonging to the same conversation as democratic ones: when they are actually heard, anti-democratic arguments are usually subject to different logics of validation, enunciation and justification than democratic ones. This is for instance what the notion of extremism generally does: to locate a voice or an argument outside of the recognized universe of discourse, and hence somehow deprived of an equal standing, possibly subject to some version of the old Jacobin motto: “there shall be no freedom for the enemies of freedom.” The paradox is interesting in itself, because it betrays the presence of a certain politics of thought and speech that is already at work way before we get to discuss in a rational process the truths of political forms, and yet has substantial effects on what is heard (and not heard) in the supposedly transparent sphere of public discourse. It also forces us to recognize the recurring, foundational role of the limit, of the gesture that at the same time opens up and delimits the space of what is possible and what is acceptable, which is often overlooked or simplified in the context of democratic theory. 
Paul Piccone’s 1969 essay 
