The Ambiguity of Love: Beauvoir, Honneth and Arendt on the Relation Between Recognition, Power and Violence

Bibliography

• Allen, Allen. The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, Solidarity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, Allen. “Recognizing Domination. Recognition and Power in Honneth’s Critical Theory.” The Journal of Power 3, no. 1 (2010): 21–32. doi: 10.1080/17540291003630338
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, Hannah. Denktagebuch 1950–1973, München: Piper Verlag, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, Hannah. On Revolution. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. New York: A Harvest/HBJ Book, 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, Nancy. Simone de Beauvoir. Philosophy & Feminism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Beauvoir, Simone de. The Ethics of Ambiguity. New York: Citadel, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Beauvoir, Simone de. “Pyrrhus and Cineas.” In Philosophical Writings, edited by Sylvie le Bon de Beauvoir and Magaret A. Simons, 77–150. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. London: Vintage Books, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, Seyla. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, Jessica. The Bonds of Love. Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. Council of Europe Treaty Series, Istanbul, No. 210 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Deutscher, Penelope. The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir: Ambiguity, Conversions, Resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Federici, Silvia. Revolution at Point Zero. Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle. New York: PM Press, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex. The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: Farrae, Straus and Giroux, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. “The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom. An Interview with Michel Foucault on January 20, 1984.” In The Final Foucault, edited by J. Bernauer and D. Rasmussen, 1–20. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Frankfurt, Henry. The Reasons of Love. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, Marilyn. “Romantic Love and Personal Autonomy.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy XXII, (1998): 162–181.
   Google Scholar
• Gregoratto, Federica. “Love Is a Losing Game. Power and Exploitation in Intimate Relationships.” The Journal of Political Power (Forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Gregoratto, Federica. “Why Love Kills: Power, Gender Dichotomy, and Romantic Femicide.” Hypatia 32, no. 1 (2017): 135–151. doi: 10.1111/hypa.12308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegel, G. W. Friederich. “Love.” In On Christianity: Early Theological Writings, 302–308. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961.
   Google Scholar
• Helm, Bennet. W. Love, Friendship, and the Self. Intimacy, Identification, and the Social Nature of Persons. Oxford: OUP, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Holland-Cunz, Barbara. Gefährdete Freiheit. Über Hannah Arendt und Simone de Beauvoir. Berlin: Barbara Budrich, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Honig, Bonnie. “Towards an Agonistic Feminism. Hannah Arendt and the Politics of Identity.” In Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt, edited by Bonnie Honig, 135–166. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Honneth, Axel. Freedom’s Right. The Social Foundations of Democratic Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Honneth, Axel. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Illouz, Eva. Why Love Hurts? A Sociological Explanation. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Jónasdóttir, Anna, and A. Ferguson. Love. A Question for Feminism in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• McNay, Lois. “Social Freedom and Progress in the Family: Reflections on Care, Gender and Inequality.” Critical Horizons 16, no. 2 (2015): 170–186. doi: 10.1179/1440991715Z.00000000046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milligan, Tony. Love. London: Routledge, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Nozick, Robert. “Love’s Bond.” In Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations, 68–86. New York: Simone & Schuster, 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, Philip. The Robust Demands of the Good. Ethics with Attachments, Virtue and Respect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Thomä, Dieter. “Passion Lost, Passion Regained: How Arendt’s Anthropology Intersects with Adorno’s Theory of the Subject.” In Arendt and Adorno. Political and Philosophical Investigations, edited by Lars Rensmann and Samir Gandesha, 105–126. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, Simon, and Paul Hoggett. “Misrecognition and Ambivalence.” In The Politics of Misrecognition, edited by Samuel Thompson and Majid Yar, 17–32. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Tömmel, Tatjana Noemi. Liebe als Wille und Passion. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Wartenberg, Thomas E. The Forms of Power. From Domination to Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Zambrana, Rocío. “Logics of Power, Logics of Violence (According to Hegel).” CR: The New Centennial Review 14, no. 2 (2014): 11–28. doi: 10.14321/crnewcentrevi.14.2.0011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar