Articles & Papers

This article discusses marginalisation in internet forums and blogging platforms using the example of asexuality blogs and discussion threads. While large corpora of both English and German, such as COCA and DeReKo, contain hardly any mention of asexuality and these few instances of asexuality and related expressions typically refer to plant biology, online communities do discuss aspects of life as an asexual person and their experiences of marginalization even within the LGBTQ community. Definitions of asexuality, including its delineation from other identities, and how asexual people articulate conflicts and other issues on these online platforms are discussed in detail. Particular attention is paid to how this particular group is constructed by others, how they construct themselves as not being part of the mainstream, and the role (self-)marginalisation plays in this context.

The aim of this paper is to sketch an approach for integrating the historiography of the sciences and of philosophy. More precisely, the paper suggests a method for investigating interactions within transdisciplinary constellations of researchers working in philosophy and in the exact sciences. I start off by introducing specific notions of analogy, variation, and conceptual space which provide the main ingredients of this method. The notion of a conceptual space, as well as other characteristics of the present approach, are adaptations from so-called constellation research. Originally, constellation research was developed for the historiography of philosophy – especially in the context of the origins of German idealism. However, as I will argue in the second half of the paper, it is adaptable to the historiography of science, especially of the exact sciences. To support this claim and to illustrate the integrative power of the present approach, I will (i) compare the notions of a constellation and a conceptual space with Ludwik Fleck’s notions of a »thought collective« and a »style of thought«, (ii) critically evaluate the distinction between contexts of discovery and of justification in a historiographical context, and (iii) relate the notions of analogy and variation, as introduced in the first part of the paper, to current debates about what is sometimes called »invariantism« in the philosophy of science.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being applied in drug discovery. While some protagonists point to vast opportunities potentially offered by such tools, others remain sceptical, waiting for a clear impact to be shown in drug discovery projects. The reality is probably somewhere in-between these extremes, yet it is clear that AI is providing new challenges not only for the scientists involved but also for the biopharma industry and its established processes for discovering and developing new medicines. This article presents the views of a diverse group of international experts on the ‘grand challenges’ in small-molecule drug discovery with AI and the approaches to address them.

Carving out the paradoxes of underground urban infrastructure, this paper attempts to establish a dialog between infrastructure studies, on the one hand, and Contradiction Studies, on the other hand. It starts from the premise that the technical and political characteristics of infrastructure are only thought of and made visible in case of failure or breakdown.

Using the examples of Gunther, Siegfried, Dietrich of Bern and Etzel in the ‘Nibelungenlied’, the lecture examines contradictions between royal rank and actual power to act, between the actions of rulers and the discourse of domination. They point to the genre-typical self-portrayal of the warrior nobility in the heroic epic and to the primacy of material history and the finality of the plot over the constitution of the characters, which in this respect is only ‘subordinately’ contradictory, but also to shifts in the discourse of rulership.

This article (re-)examines (marked) inconsistencies and incompatibilities in Middle High German heroic epic. Those contradictions may result from oral tradition, from the difficulties of transfering oral narratives into literacy, from the conditions of performing from memory, or from traditional narrative regularities of the genre. Frequently, they are striking side effects of a type of narration which is paradigmatic instead of syntagmatic, elliptic and aggregative, scenic and final, and therefore highly tolerant against contradictions of any kind. Contradictions and inconsistencies are (consciously or unconsciously) used (and imitated) as one of the constitutive stylistic features of heroic epic. In some cases, moreover, contradictions and inconsistencies are obviously part of an intentional poetics of contradiction ostentatiously accumulating and exhibiting different layers of knowledge and meaning. The textual strategies of heroic epic, in some respect perhaps of premodern narration in general, tend to favour discrepancies, contrasts, and contradiction instead of nuances, compromises, and smooth transitions.

Contradiction is not just a (post-)modern phenomenon. In premodern narratives, conflicting concepts and logical inconsistencies are omnipresent. This paper focuses on contradictions interdependent with knowledge: Traditional narratives may aggregate different versions of matters rooted in collective memory (heroic epic) or authoritative sources (romances of antiquity), sometimes without concern for the consistency of their own story. Narrative texts may use contradiction for didactic purposes. Contradictions may result in both construction and deconstruction of knowledge. Strategies of irritation and ambiguity involve recipients in the production of meaning. Thus, the concept of contradiction is apt to redefine premodern narrative strategies.

This contribution (re-)examines the description and multiple functions of selected antagonists in courtly romance around 1200. Excepting romance of antiquity, one rarely encounters equal opponents who represent a contrary system of values and continue to take consequent action against the hero until the end. The texts are centered on their protagonists, lacking an equal narrative counterpart. Hence, the applicability of the concept ‘antagonist’ might be called into question for Arthurian, grail, and Tristan romance.

This paper intervenes in the discussion about the relationship between discourse analysis and critique. It argues that this relationship can be understood either as an external or as an integrated relationship. In an external relationship, there is first social criticism that is then braced by discourse analysis, that is, the latter aims at giving empirical credence to the critique. However, such an external relationship cannot give us any insight concerning the critical potential that is specific to discourse analysis, precisely because in this case critique exists before and independent of discourse analysis. If, however, critique emanates from discourse analysis itself, we would speak of an integrated relationship and would no longer speak of discourse analysis and critique, but of discourse analysis as critique. It is argued that such an integrated relationship becomes visible once we think of discourse analysis as being itself a discursive formation and ask what unsettling effects this formation has on research objects, on subject formations and on the academic production context in which they are conducted.

In premodern narratives contradictions are omnipresent – conflicting concepts, logical inconsistencies, acts of objection. In a narratological perspective ›contradiction‹ – conflicts of incompatible knowledges and narrative patterns; inconsistencies in or between speech (by narrator or characters) and action; contradictory or inconsistent information and motivation – is apt to subvert, complicate, or enrich the textual production of meaning. The project ›Contradiction as a Narrative Principle in Premodern Narrative‹ (University of Bremen) explores different types of contradictions in medieval epic and romance.

This article focuses on the question, which kind of diplomacy we have to deal with within the Warsaw pact states. Taking the invasion in Czechoslovakia in 1968 as an example, three theses are discussed: (1) Brezhnev transferred his inner-party concept of „trust in cadres“ and his „scenario of power“ based on trust to foreign politics and treated Dubček as a client whom he addressed in a patrimonial and familiar way. (2) He lost faith in Dubček when the latter established a new democratic discourse denying the central power of the party. (3) The diplomatic language within the Warsaw pact states referred more to socialist common values and party discipline than to the language and setting of international meetings with third party states.

This article describes the historical context that was decisive in Saharov’s commitment to warning party leaders of the dangers of the H-bomb and calling on them to respect human rights. He also attempts to explore the different ways in which Hruščev and Brežnev approached Saharov’s criticisms. Not only does he examine the three stages of the KGB model – educate, warn and only finally arrest renegades – he also sheds light on Andropov’s repeated appeals to Brežnev to speak with Saharov. Although Saharov, too, was keen to talk to Brežnev, the meeting between the two men never took place. In the end, it was against the backdrop of the Cold War that the Politbjuro decided on the best time to get rid of Saharov, doing as little damage as possible to the prestige of the Soviet Union, and thus re-establishing the limits of the dictable.