Affect and reason in divided societies: entanglement, conflict, possibility

References

• Alapuro, Risto. 1988. State and revolution in Finland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asma, Stephen T., and Rami Gabriel. 2019. The emotional mind: The affective roots of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clough, Patricia Ticineto, and Jean Halley. 2007. The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. 2021. Just, reasonable multiculturalism: Liberalism, culture, and coercion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, William E. 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, culture, speed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, William E. 2005. Pluralism. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Damasio, Antonio. 2003. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. London: Harvest.
   Google Scholar
• Dawes, Simon. 2015. “Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Offend.” OpenDemocracy.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 1987. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forst, Rainer. 2011. The ground of critique: On the concept of human dignity in social orders of justification. Philosophy & Social Criticism 37, no. 11: 965–976.
   Google Scholar
• Forst, Rainer. 2014a. Justice, democracy, and the right to justification – Rainer Forst in conversation. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Forst, Rainer. 2014b. The right to justification: Elements of a constructivist theory of justice. Trans. Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forst, Rainer. 2015. Noumenal power. Journal of Political Philosophy 23, no. 2: 111–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, Samuel R. 2020. “Democracy, religion, and public reason.” Dædalus, Summer: 37–58.
   Google Scholar
• Gilliam, Christian. 2018. Immanence and micropolitics: Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, and Deleuze. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grigera, Juan. 2017. Populism in Latin America: Old and new populisms in Argentina and Brazil. International Political Science Review 38, no. 4: 441–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellström, Anders, Tom Nilsson, and Pauline Stoltz. 2012. Nationalism vs. nationalism: The challenge of the Sweden democrats in the Swedish public debate. Government and Opposition 47, no. 2: 186–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, William. 2019. Essays in radical empiricism. Anodos Book.
   Google Scholar
• Kompridis, Nicholas. 2006. Critique and disclosure: Critical theory between past and future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liveriero, Frederica. 2020. Reasonableness as a virtue of citizenship and the opacity respect requirement. Philosophy & Social Criticism 46, no. 8: 901–921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massumi, Brian. 2003. Parables for the virtual: movement, affect, sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massumi, Brian. 2015. Ontopower: War, powers, and the state of perception. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1968. The visible and the invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 2007. The Merleau-Ponty reader. Edited by Ted Toadvine and Leonard Lawlor. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rostbøll, Christian. 2008. Deliberative freedom: Deliberative democracy as critical theory. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Savransky, Martin. 2021. The pluralistic problematic: William James and the pragmatics of the pluriverse. Theory, Culture & Society 38, no. 2: 141–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosberg, David, and Romand Coles. 2016. The new environmentalism of everyday life: Sustainability, material flows, and movements. Contemporary Political Theory 15, no. 2: 160–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seigworth, Gregory J., and Melissa Gregg. 2009. The affect theory reader. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, Kirstine. 2015. “Terrorist or loser? Reactions to the terror attacks in Copenhagen, February 2015.” Odense: Center for Mellemøststudier.
   Google Scholar
• Spinoza, Baruch. 2002. Ethics. Trans. Samuel Shirley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Tønder, Lars. 2011. Freedom of expression in an age of cartoon wars. Contemporary Political Theory 10, no. 2: 255–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, Piers Norris, and Gerald Gaus. 2019. Public reason in political philosophy: Classical sources and contemporary commentaries. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vetlesen, Arne Johan. 2018. Narratives of entitlement. In Moral evil in practical ethics, edited by Shlomit Harrosh, and Roger Crisp, 80–102. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar