Ute Daniel is going to present a working paper on 'Marx and Weber on Doing History'

The historiography of democracy mostly tends to focus on movements and endeavours the aims of which were to foster democratic developments and political participation. These topics are extremely important. But they do not help to understand why democratic constitutions were established or universal franchise was introduced (or why both was rejected). So my project asks why monarchs and
governments, parliaments and parties in the course of the 19th and early 20th century extended the franchise (or why they refused to extend it). The underlying hypothesis is, that universal suffrage – the core of democracy as we understand it today – was brought about neither by pro-democratic movements nor by governing classes convinced of the inevitability of democratic developments before 1914, but by the First World War.

Priyanka Jha gives a working paper on 'The Gaze on Justice: Outlining a Genealogy of Ideas From Anagarika Dharmapala to Dr B R Ambedkar'

 This paper argues that the construction of the notion of justice vary with the way otherness is constructed. It argues for an inclusive notion of justice and shifting from constitutional normative construction of otherness to the construction of otherness within the civilizational ethical-existential values of Kshama (forgiveness), Karuna (compassion) and Atma Gyan (knowledge of spiritual self) drawn from Buddhism.

Drawing on the feminist discussion on ‘subtle invisibilization as injustice’ it is argued that the diverse epistemes present in the critical vernaculars and the colloquial traditions within India, that have been invisibilised by dominant discourse need to made available for a political discourse on justice.

It bring on board the works of four thinkers Anagarika Dharmapala (1873-1933), Dharmanand Kosambi(1876-1947), Ananda K Coomaraswamy (1877-1947) and Rahul Sankrityayan (1893-1963) all who dynamically drew from Buddhism in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. They initiated the discourse of dignity and self worth based through the life and teaching of the Buddha, invoked as an Exemplar. This discourse preceded Navayana Buddhism as espoused by Dr B R Ambedkar.

These responses were invisibilised as ‘revivalist’ by the oriental and nationalist discourse. The category revivalist positioned Buddhism within the limits of historical time. When in fact it was concerned with the ‘return’ of ethical-existential values to guide a nation cleavaged and marred with inequalities and injustices within civilizational/ discursive formation. These thinkers worked extensively in bringing to the masses the different hues of Buddhism and its varied interpretations.

This has been done with the history of ideas methodology which attempts an overcoming invisibilisation, move beyond the western imagination and emerge out of the frames of oriental. This has been undertaken to clear the ground for discussion on a different idea of India

  

Biographical Details:

Priyanka teaches Political science in School of Undergraduate Studies at Ambedkar University in Delhi. She is presently a Junior fellow at the Max Weber Centre of Advanced Cultural and Social Studies, University of Erfurt, Germany as part of “Religious Individualisation in historical perspective’ whereby she is working on Buddhism and making of idea of India. She is interested in doing history of ideas and  Political thought and theory.

Ute Daniel is going to present a working paper on 'Betreutes Wählen. Wahlrechtsdebatten im deutschen Kaiserreich am Beispiel des Großherzogtums Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach (Anfang 20. Jahrhundert)'- 'Assisted Voting. Suffrage Debates in the German Empire with the example of the Grand Duchy of Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach (beginning of the 20th century)'

The historiography of democracy mostly tends to focus on movements and endeavours the aims of which were to foster democratic developments and political participation. These topics are extremely important. But they do not help to understand why democratic constitutions were established or universal franchise was introduced (or why both was rejected). So my project asks why monarchs and governments, parliaments and parties in the course of the 19th and early 20th century extended the franchise (or why they refused to extend it). The underlying hypothesis is, that universal suffrage – the core of democracy as we understand it today – was brought about neither by pro-democratic movements nor by governing classes convinced of the inevitability of democratic developments before 1914, but by the First World War.

Hannah Peaceman presents a working paper on Jewish political philosophy in the German-speaking Diaspora

The project aims to tackle the universality, secularity and practice of Jewish Political Philosophy in the 19th century and until the Shoah. Reference-points are Jewish-German perspectives that were involved in political debates until the Shoah. They have not been systematically accounted for since then from a philosophical perspective. The aim is to reflect their potential as critical perspectives on society that can evoke its transformation towards a pluralistic living together with reference to Jewish concepts like Tikkun Olam which means to "improve the world". The aim is to develop systematic and normative grounds for Jewish political philosophy that can be universalized and secularized.