Aesthetics of Democracy

Hosting University

Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (GU)

Additional Participating Inst.

TU Darmstadt (TUDa)

Speaker

Völz, Johannes, Prof. Dr.
American Studies (Goethe University Frankfurt)

Deputy Speaker

Loidolt, Sophie, Prof.’in Dr.
Philosophy (TU Darmstadt)

Drügh, Heinz, Prof. Dr.
German Studies

Fahrmeir, Andreas, Prof. Dr.
Modern History

Felcht, Frederike, Prof’in. Dr.
Scandinavian Studies

Geisenhanslüke, Achim, Prof. Dr.
Comparative Literature

Hediger, Vinzenz, Prof. Dr.
Film and Media Studies

Krause-Wahl, Antje, Prof.’in Dr.
Art History

Melamed, Laliv, Prof.’in Dr.
Film and Media Studies

Loidolt, Sophie, Prof.’in Dr.
Philosophy

Saar, Martin, Prof. Dr.
Philosophy

Schäfer, Heike, Prof.’in Dr.
American Studies

Völz, Johannes, Prof. Dr.
American Studies

Yang, Zhiyi, Prof.’in Dr.
Chinese Studies

Program launches on April 1, 2026.

First Funding Period (5 years)

Cohort 1 (Years 1–4)
12 PhD Candidates

Cohort 2 (Years 3–5)
12 PhD Candidates

Second Funding Period (4 years, contingent upon approval by the DFG)

Cohort 2 (Year 6) (continued from First Funding Period)
12 PhD Candidates

Cohort 3 (Years 6–9)
12 PhD Candidates

In both public discourse and academia, democracy is generally understood as a form of government, consisting of institutions and processes through which political interests are formed, expressed, and represented. In contrast, the Research Training Group (RTG) “Aesthetics of Democracy” examines democracy as both an institutional framework and a comprehensive context of collective life. According to this definition, democracy encompasses diverse forms of communalization (“Vergemeinschaftung”) that extend beyond the state level. These forms include those that are formally constituted and established, such as clubs, associations, and unions; those that structure private life, such as families; and those that exist in brief connections, such as encounters in public spaces. Understood as a form of coexistence, reflections on community in the media and the arts, as well as newly created forms of social life, are fundamental elements of democracy. However, it is incorrect to assume that these various forms of contact are harmonious associations. Rather, they are marked by conflict, disagreement, and an irreconcilable diversity of perspectives. We assume that democracy, as a form of government, is based on conditions established at the various levels of social coexistence. Everyday practices and experiences of coexistence—both harmonious and conflict-ridden—are the foundation for the stability, revitalization, and dynamic development of democracies. Therefore, questions concerning the future viability and resilience of democracy must be informed by a more thorough understanding of the forms of democratic coexistence, even beyond its present (and by no means homogeneous) structures.

The RTG’s unique focus on the sensorial dimension of democratic coexistence, or the aesthetics of democracy, sets it apart from major strands of democracy research. Previous research on democratic coexistence centered on the practices, rituals, and norms of lived democracy. Researchers working in this vein have developed different conceptual approaches that are potentially compatible with the RTG. These approaches include “way of life,” “form of life” or “life form,” “political form of society,” and “social democracy.” However, questions concerning sensorial experience and the experiential dimension of democracy have largely been neglected. The RTG’s approach understands democracy as a form of coexistence, and it asks how this initially vague concept of democratic form may be concretized. Herein lies its innovative contribution to the research field. Researching the form of democratic coexistence requires analyzing the perceptible forms of social life, which the RTG takes as its starting point. To examine the interplay of forms of government and forms of coexistence, the RTG draws on methods from the humanities. The interdisciplinary collaboration between literature, art, film and media studies, history, and philosophy enables the RTG to investigate the orders, practices, things (objects), and experiences that shape democratic coexistence.

According to our working hypothesis, democracy is an open and reflexive form of coexistence, characterized by debates about how it should be shaped. The negotiation of its form is the form itself. In aesthetic terms, democracy can be experienced sensorially while simultaneously being shaped by debates about how the sensorial is formed. This hypothesis is based on the observation of an internal tension between institution and instituting—between the stabilizing, binding, and orienting effects of solidified form and the dynamic, transformational potential of continuously negotiating form. This observation leads to the overarching question posed by the RTG: How can the tension between form and transformation be more precisely defined in relation to the aesthetics of democracy, exemplified by individual objects of research? In which sensorial forms does this tension become manifest?

The RTG addresses this question using a heuristic that distinguishes four dimensions of the aesthetics of democracy: (a) aesthetic orders, (b) aesthetic action, (c) aesthetic objects, and (d) aesthetic experience. These four dimensions cannot be viewed in isolation. Rather, the RTG assumes they interact with one another. Doctoral projects from various humanities disciplines are intended to illuminate whether and how the tension between form and transformation can be most clearly described and systematized by focusing on aesthetic orders, aesthetic action, aesthetic objects, or the aesthetic (sensorial) experience of democracy.

The RTG’s four research areas are derived from these four distinct heuristic dimensions. Depending on the research topic and methodology, each dissertation project is assigned to one research area. The decisive factor in allocation is how closely the research project aligns with one of the four dimensions. Nevertheless, each project examines the interplay between these dimensions. We believe this is the only way to gain insight into the tension between form and transformation.

The group of Principal Investigators is determined by the disciplinary diversity necessary for researching the aesthetics of democracy. Vinzenz Hediger, Antje Krause-Wahl, and Laliv Melamed contribute expertise in visual culture and media to the RTG. Frederike Felcht, Achim Geisenhanslüke, and Heike Schäfer contribute literary aesthetic perspectives that intersect with democracy thematically, formally, and historically. Literary scholars Heinz Drügh, Johannes Völz, and Zhiyi Yang and historian Andreas Fahrmeir address the political aesthetics of democracy from historical and contemporary perspectives. Sophie Loidolt and Martin Saar link reflections on democracy to political theory and social philosophy.

The RTG aims to train excellent early-career researchers and make an innovative contribution to interdisciplinary democracy research. This research makes full use of and expands the epistemic potential of the humanities.

Goethe University Frankfurt and the Technical University of Darmstadt—the latter of which is represented by the RTG’s deputy spokesperson—are collaborating with the Hochschule für Gestaltung Offenbach am Main and the Hochschule für Bildende Künste – Städelschule, regional partners with expertise in aesthetics and society. Eighteen international partner institutions from five continents—Africa, South America, North America, East Asia, and Europe—further expand on-site expertise and strengthen perspectives that recontextualize, question, or complement established Euro-Atlantic approaches to democracy. The RTG’s approach is programmatically committed to the guiding principle of Public Humanities. The RTG has established thirteen non-university partnerships with civil society organizations and public institutions at the municipal and federal levels. With these partners, the doctoral researchers will develop transfer projects that allow them to reflect on preliminary research results in collaboration with social actors. The insights and experiences gained through these projects will inform their own research. So, the PhD candidates contribute to intensifying the exchange between the humanities and society and provide new impulses for innovatively advancing interdisciplinary research on democracy.

Over the past decade, public discussions of democracy have revolved largely around the diagnosis of crisis. Although public discourse (Applebaum, Gessen, Mishra, Roy), political and sociological theory (Chatterjee, Geiselberger, Gudavarthy, Krastev/Holmes, Levitsky/Ziblatt, Mounk, Runciman, Urbinati), and empirical social sciences (Merkel, Przeworski, Schäfer/Zürn) have all expressed different views—with some questioning or even rejecting the diagnosis of an existential crisis of democracy (Kriesi, Manow, van Rahden)—a minimal consensus seems to have emerged: the continued existence of Western liberal democracies as they emerged in the late 18th century can no longer be taken for granted. The expectation that liberal democracy had entered a phase of progressive global dominance with the “end of history” (Fukuyama), widespread in the 1990s, has been proven false.

The discourse on the crisis of democracy is particularly revealing with regard to its competing diagnoses (some of which are more controversial than others). These include the rise of populist and radical right-wing movements in societies that were once considered stable democracies (Moffitt, Mudde, Ostiguy, de la Torre, Müller); the acceptance of anti-democratic views in society (Amlinger/Nachtwey, Heitmeyer, von Moltke); the loss of voters by major parties (Decker); the weakening of the separation of powers (Kneip); the perceived lack of adherence to fundamental democratic norms (Levitsky/Ziblatt); the erosion of opportunities for participation under the conditions of an administration-oriented “post-democracy” (Crouch, Rancière 1997); the widespread loss of trust in the effectiveness of democracy in the face of growing economic inequality (Przeworski, Manow 2018, Jörke); the loss of future prospects, and therefore, future-oriented democratic agency, in the “too-late modernity” (Bröckling, Kornbluh 2024; Abadi); and, lastly, the revelation of Western democracy as a means of colonial and imperial rule (Mbembe 2017; Mishra; Tully).

This broad spectrum of crises has sparked a reflection on the meaning of the concept of “democracy” as “the rule of the people.” Are political institutions and procedures the foundation of democracy? Or is it political norms of action that enable the political system to function in practice? Does democracy depend on the intertwining of statehood and civil society? Is democracy characterized by the democratic constitution of social institutions, ranging from parliaments to associations to families? Or does democracy constitute an even broader context of coexistence, extending beyond politics and institutions into the social and cultural spheres?

The latter position, which views democracy as a form of coexistence as well as a political system, draws on a rich tradition in political philosophy and theory reaching back to diverse Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Immanuel Kant. This tradition was further developed in the 19th century by thinkers such as G.W.F. Hegel, Alexis de Tocqueville, and J.S. Mill. Despite their differences, these thinkers all reflected on the importance of customs, rituals, and forms of sociability for the composition of democracies. In the 20th century, various schools of thought further developed this idea in ways that continue to resonate today. These include American pragmatism, which, according to John Dewey and Sidney Hook, conceives of democracy as a “way of life” (see Frega, Putnam, Hetzel/Wille, and, from a critical perspective, Talisse); deliberative democratic theory, which sees democracy as a form of government and a form of public deliberation and negotiation based on reason (Habermas, Cohen, Gutmann, and Thompson among others); ordinary language philosophy, which follows Wittgenstein in viewing democracy as a “way of life” based on shared language games, everyday practices, and core convictions (Wittgenstein, Cavell 1988, Laugier 2016, Zerilli, and many others). Another notable approach is radical democratic theory (Connolly, Laclau/Mouffe, Marchart, Mouffe, Saar 2019a), which locates the genuinely political—and therefore democratic—in an event that ruptures established procedures and institutions. Thus, for radical democratic theorists, the democratic emerges beyond routine politics in moments of negativity, dissent, and disruption. These moments have no fixed location and may manifest anywhere in the lifeworld.

If democracy is understood as a comprehensive context for collective life—whether as a “way of life,” “form of life,” “political form of society” (Lefort), or “social democracy” (Frega)—then it demands a task that goes beyond the boundaries of political theory. This task requires the contributions of other disciplines. Taking the discourse on coexistence seriously requires examining the relevant concept of form and the manifestations of social forms. The humanities, with their long tradition of formal and aesthetic analysis, have developed the methods of exploring social forms as aesthetic forms (Levine, Kornbluh, 2019). In addition to social philosophy and political theory, the RTG is primarily constituted by disciplines that have been on the margins of democratic research but are suited to contribute to the sensory, aesthetic, and experiential dimensions: literary studies, art history, film studies, media studies, and history.

Analyzing the frequently conflicting interplay of perceptible forms of sociality opens democracy up to investigation, definition, and criticism. This idea is based on a broad conception of democracy that extends beyond the boundaries of the constitutional political system and an equally broad conception of aesthetics. Following Achim Geisenhanslüke, we understand aesthetics “both as a theory and as a reference to the lifeworld” (Geisenhanslüke 2024, 214). Thus, the aesthetics of democracy are not merely an accessory or ornament to mask the actual substance of collective self-government. Rather, the very core of democracy, whether as a political system or an everyday experience, consists of sensory-based, sensory-effective forms of the lifeworld.

The RTG program takes as its starting point the conceptual intersection of aesthetics and democracy, drawing on several foundational ideas in Immanuel Kant’s aesthetic theory and its expansions by Hannah Arendt. These ideas serve as significant starting points, not end points. By basing his aesthetic theory on aesthetic judgment, or judgment of taste, Kant addresses questions concerning aesthetic form, sensorial experience, conceptual processing, and ultimately, political community formation. As Moritz Baßler and Heinz Drügh explain, Kant describes aesthetic judgments as encompassing “sensory impressions, concepts, and feelings simultaneously” (Drügh and Baßler 2021, 10). Aesthetic judgment begins with sensory perception—visual, auditory, olfactory, or synesthetic—making it clear that aisthesis has an immediate physical dimension in the here and now. At its extreme, it even puts the body at stake. However, the aesthetic also consists “in the astonishing technique of combining the experience of being wholly ‘there’ in perception and feeling with a form of distancing provided by conceptual processing” (Drügh and Baßler 2021, 13). The conceptual work must remain provisional, approximate, and, at best, playful because sensory impressions and the feelings they evoke cannot be definitively captured in words. For Kant, however, aesthetic judgment does not remain subjective. Those who make aesthetic judgments seek validation from others. Aesthetic judgments, as Kant says, are “proposed” or “imputed to others.” In Stanley Cavell’s words (2005), they are “passionate utterances” whose claimed normativity cannot be imposed through conceptual logic and argumentation.

By merging Kant and Arendt, we recognize the immediate political function of aesthetic judgment because in imputing judgment to others through passionate speech and address, which factual judgments do not require, it creates a community of judgment. Echoing Kant, Arendt speaks of an “enlarged way of thinking” (Kant 1970, §40), which consists of adopting the perspective of others in aesthetic judgment. Imputing one’s own judgment to others requires, at the very least, imagining and assuming the sensorial position of the other. The act of aesthetic judgment affirms plurality, referring primarily to the diversity of perspectives and points of view. Additionally, making a judgment creates a “space of appearance”: a public sphere of speaking and acting within which a shared political world takes shape (Arendt 1958). Arendt writes: “Strictly speaking, politics is not so much about human beings as it is about the world that comes into being between them and endures beyond them” (2005, p. 175). Thus, aesthetic judgment grounded in a plurality of perspectives becomes “democratic judgment”—a “world-constituting practice of freedom that is rooted in plurality” (Zerilli xv). However, as Sophie Loidolt writes, the shared world of the space of appearance is necessary for the realization of democratic plurality itself (Loidolt 51). Plurality is never simply given. “Plurality is […] essentially something we have to take up and do” (Loidolt 2).

Plurality is also key to refuting the suspicion that this conception of a shared world is based on closed entities—aesthetic and political orders marked by fixed boundaries between inside and outside. When taken to its logical conclusion, Kant’s or Arendt’s account of sensus communis allows for a practice of plurality that transcends established common sense, becoming a dissensus communis—a dynamic reconfiguration of what is considered meaningful and intelligible, without abandoning reference to a shared world in favor of privatized, relativistic parallel worlds (Räber 84). While pluralistic judgment strives for agreement, it may also be understood as a medium of conflict, reconfiguring what falls within the scope of judgment and the categories employed. Following Juliane Rebentisch’s reading of Arendt, the objective of democratic conflict is “the defense of a human world” (Rebentisch 2022, 26). It is a “conflict over plurality,” in which the meaning of plurality itself becomes plural (Connolly).

At this central point of our approach, a political aesthetic informed by Kant and Arendt (which likewise features many connections to American pragmatism) dovetails with radical democratic theory. When we examine the specific aesthetic forms of democratic coexistence, we begin from the premise that conflict and dissensus are essential to democracy. Following Jacques Rancière (2010), practices of dissensus activate conflicts in a dual sense. The division of sense (dis-sensus) refers to both meaning and sensorial perception of the world. In this dual sense, dissensus is a dynamic force that “liquefies” aesthetic and social forms. The image of liquefying forms is based on the work of Cornelius Castoriadis (1984 [1975], 1994), who is often associated with radical democratic theory (Karalis, Marchart). Castoriadis’s conception of the interaction between the “instituting imaginary” and the “instituted society” provides a foundational model of social—especially democratic—emergence and creativity compatible with many theories and disciplines (Klooger, Iser, and Bieger/Saldívar/Voelz). In the tense relationship between the instituted and the instituting, form and transformation, all forms—social and aesthetic—appear fundamentally transformable. Conversely, the emergence of new forms requires recourse to pre-existing forms. Practices of engagement with the instituted can also be understood as practices of critique. However, the objectives and results of critical engagement with the instituted remain open for the time being. Thus, dissensus regarding the instituted society can lead not only to calls for reform but also to defending established forms—or even rejecting instituted social forms altogether (in our case, the institutions of democracy). Insofar as democracy remains open to critique, it must always integrate criticism that goes beyond its concrete form. Speaking of an aesthetics of democracy does not mean elevating permanent revolution to the core of democracy; rather, it means placing the permanent possibility of sensorial and political transformation at the center. In this sense, as Martin Saar notes, echoing Claude Lefort, “democracy is not anything [unambiguous], but rather something constituted by inherent contradiction and tension, grounded less in any ascertainable identity than in a void always requiring renewed determination—a contradiction or indeterminacy” (2018, 282).

To investigate the tension between form and transformation in the aesthetics of democracy, the RTG examines the viability of various relevant concepts currently discussed regarding the interrelation of democracy as a political system and social coexistence. These concepts include “way of life” (Dewey), “social democracy” (Frega), “public sphere” (Habermas et al.), “civil society” (Calhoun, 1992, 2010; Alexander et al.), “political forms of society” (Lefort), and “form of life” (Wittgenstein et al.). Our conception of democracy as a “form of coexistence” allows individual RTG doctoral projects to explore the advantages and disadvantages of various conceptual options in democratic theory discourse regarding their specific research focus.

The concept of “form of life,” which has recently garnered much attention in academic debates, currently offers a particularly wide array of point of departure for investigating the tension between dissensus and form in democratic systems. It appears in the work of thinkers in the Wittgensteinian tradition, such as Cavell, Zerilli, and Laugier (2016), as well as in contemporary pragmatism (Frega, Hetzel/Wille), critical theory (Honneth, Jaeggi, Loick, Celikates), and biopolitics, particularly in its intersection with radical democratic theory (Agamben 1994, 1998, 2013, 2014; R. Esposito, 2008; Foucault 2017; Fusco; Kishik; anticipated in Foucault 1963). Giorgio Agamben’s work is particularly relevant here, since to him “form of life” becomes the epitome of a “new politics” which overcomes the biopolitical division between bios and zoe—characterizing, as it does to him, all forms of sovereignty including democracy—and instead views existence as potentiality (Agamben 1994). Beyond political theory, the concept of “life form” or “form of life” is explored in relation to political—primarily democratic—issues in historiography (van Rahden), literary studies (Gailus, Glaser/Culler, Kohlmann), and film studies (Campbell), with the biopolitical use of the term dominating the latter two fields. Equally important to the RTG are debates on “form of life” in the biopolitical context which critically interrogate democracy in the Western, liberal form and explore alternative forms of sociality. These include researchers from postcolonial and decolonial studies (A. Allen, Mahmood, Mbembe 2019, Santos/Sobottka, Wynter), Black Studies (Hartman 2019, McKittrick 2021, Moten 2018, Weheliye), and the interdisciplinary field of posthumanism and the anthropocene (Braidotti, Henry et al., Grove, Haraway 1992, Nealon). Conversely, the concept of “life form” has recently been championed by defenders of liberalism (Lefebvre, Özmen).

This overview of current research on the concept of “form of life”/”life form” does not signal a conceptual choice for the RTG’s work. Rather, it illustrates the protean connections that may inform the RTG’s research question. This leaves open the possibility that competing concepts, such as “political forms of society,” “civil society,” and “social democracy,” may be more productive for analyses in individual doctoral projects. Our goal is to develop or refine concepts from political theory—including the aforementioned—to generate new approaches to researching the aesthetics of democracy with a focus on the negotiation of form and dissensus.

As we merge political and aesthetic theory, we also identify strands of aesthetic theory that are particularly relevant to the RTG. Building on the line of thought from Kant to Arendt to Rancière and Castoriadis, three established strands of aesthetic theory emerge as particularly relevant to our research approach: first, aesthetics as the social order of what is sensorially (aisthetically) perceptible (Rancière 2010, J. Frank 2010 and 2024, Panagia 2016, 2018; see also Arendt 1958); second, aesthetics in the sense of the interrelation of aesthetic forms, judgments, and experience (on form: Sklovskij, Tynjanov, Adorno 1958, Jameson, more recently Levinson, Altieri, Armstrong; on judgment: Kant, Arendt 1982, Zerilli, Baßler/Drügh, Ngai; on experience: Dewey, Shusterman, Seel); and third, aesthetics as the imaginative creation of what is not (yet) realized in society (Castoriadis 1984, Iser, Fluck, Peper).

Each of these three strands of aesthetic research may be linked to our initial point of reference based on the work of Kant and Arendt. However, since our approach sees practices of judgment and contestation as the basis of democracy as a sensorial form of coexistence, it is crucial to further clarify the relationship between these forms of coexistence and forms of government and state.

First, our perspective allows us to consider democracy—and the political more generally—beyond institutionalized public life and state institutions. According to Arendt, this would entail incorporating private aspects of life into the public sphere. Rahel Jaeggi, for example, notes: “If the space of appearance … is no longer equated with an institutional sphere of publicity … it becomes possible to integrate small, informal public spheres into the political domain and, conversely, allow effective public spheres to emerge from the private” (Jaeggi 1997, 155). However, this reveals a limitation of Arendt’s thinking, which Juliane Rebentisch describes as a “dichotomous logic” (Rebentisch 2022, 75). Arendt’s analyses center on binaries, such as “private” and “public,” “unfree” and “free,” “worldless” and “in the world,” but provide little understanding of the nuanced space in between these polar opposites. Going beyond Arendt, it is useful to speak not of differently scaled public spheres, but of different “modes” or ways of being democratic. These modes “transcend the restriction to certain institutional locations, procedures, and rules, as well as practices that make other and new forms of the democratic visible” (Hetzel/Wille 174). This illuminates forms of democracy that cut across established boundaries between the public and private, the political and pre-political, the deliberative and entertaining, and the rational and emotional.

One consequence of this approach is that the aesthetics of democratic coexistence may be examined in states without democratic constitutions. An example of this is the talent show Super Girl, which attracted enormous viewership on Chinese television in 2005. The finale of the singing competition, reminiscent of Germany’s Deutschland sucht den Superstar and American Idol, was watched by 400 million people who voted Li Yuchun the winner via text message, catapulting her to superstar status in China. In liberal-democratic, late-capitalist Europe and North America, voting on casting shows is seldom associated with democracy, but rather with the media representation of competitive markets (Ehrenberg, Pradtke, Reckwitz 2017). However, in anti-democratic China, a talent show vote accessible to all cell phone users was associated with “direct democracy” (Dong 84). Due to its “political implications,” Jingsi Wu describes the involvement of such a large “electorate” as a “provocative and revolutionary step” (53) that fostered an “aesthetic public sphere.” What was significant here was not only the voting process itself, but the possibility of altering the makeup of the media and social space of appearance through voting in the first place. Li Yuchun broke with the state-influenced norms of femininity and, with her decidedly tomboyish look, created a public representation of queer culture (Zhao). In doing so, she participated in using digital technologies and popular cultural media for identity performances free from state sanction (Yang 2023a). Within the framework of our research program, the television voting on Super Girl may be regarded as more than a mere simulation of political democracy. The approval manifested through the vote for Li Yuchun’s representation of queerness can be interpreted as an intervention in the visibility regime of the public sphere. In this sense, Super Girl may be seen as a phenomenon of aesthetic democracy in a non-democratic state. However, the “aesthetic public sphere” cannot be understood as isolated from the state. Here, too, democracy as a form of coexistence and as a political form are intertwined. Super Girl can only emerge as a form of democratic coexistence through a negative reference to anti-democratic state power.

On the other hand, the struggle for aesthetic and social forms of democracy is also directly related to the state. This is because the form of the state is highly changeable itself. Based on discussions of state theory in political science by Weber, Hall, Tilly, Leibfried, et al., we proceed from the notion that the state is not an unchangeable system of institutions, rules, functions, and procedures. On the one hand, states always exist in historically specific processes of transformation, influenced by international and national factors as well as prevailing state structures (Leibfried et al. 2). On the other hand, a state’s actions tend to extend beyond the scope of the state itself. Andreas Fahrmeir illustrates this with a historical case study of diplomatic relations in Europe after the Congress of Vienna. Diplomacy remained the domain of monarchs, whose dynastic networks were transnational. Rather than by a dichotomy between internal and external relations, the interstate system was characterized by “degrees of ‘foreignness’” (Fahrmeir et al. 2016, 135). Additionally, even under stable conditions, states are bureaucratic or legal entities whose boundaries are blurred. As market participants, they bleed into the private sector. Thus, the term “public sector” (“öffentliche Hand”) ambiguously encompasses all realms of the state, describing economic endeavors carried out by public bodies and enterprises with both public and private legal forms. The intertwining of the private and public spheres forms the basis for the recently identified “new delineation of private and public responsibilities” (Lessenich 17; see also Jessop). From one perspective, this may appear to be a retrenchment of the state; from another, it appears to be a expansion of state power into “institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, calculations, and tactics” for the administration of the population. Foucault describes this as “governmentality” (Foucault 2007, 108; also Saar 2011). So, the governmental state ultimately permeates private life itself. The more closely the state is examined, the more complex—and, in many ways, blurry—the picture becomes.

Because of its formal vagueness, the democratic state requires aesthetic forms as much as the body politic does. More precisely, the aesthetic shape of coexistence requires an aesthetic imagination of the state. Literary scholar Jacqueline Rose has proposed a productive way to capture the imaginary quality of the state by using the Freudian psychoanalytic phrase “states of fantasy.”  Rose argues that fantasy is neither the antithesis of social reality nor a purely private matter: “[Fantasy] fuels, or at least plays its part in, the forging of the collective will” (Rose 3; see also Pease, Brown 2010). Laliv Melamed (2023a, 2023b) demonstrates in her analysis of state and civil society media practices in Israel and the Middle East that “states of fantasy” (the phrase flickers between “fantasy of the state” and “practices of fantasizing”) are expressed in the aesthetic realm. This is evident in military state secrets, for example. Intelligence and military operations require aesthetic representation (see also Michael Taussig’s concept of “public secrets”). These operations require self-produced “operative images,” which anticipate their subsequent use in media reports (Melamed 2023b; cf. Hediger 2018b). However, what becomes perceptible in the media does not create transparency and clarity. Instead, it creates a space of approximation that virtually demands the participation of the collective imagination. “[…] mediation unsettles the unicentric truth of the secret” (Melamed 2023b, 37). Timothy Melley opens up a similar field of research in his work on the “covert sphere” (2012, 2015). The operations of the U.S. security state, which are removed from public deliberation, do not preclude collective communication about the state. Rather, they shift it into a mode in which the aesthetic articulation of imagination and fantasy plays a central role. Popular and artistic media create fictions about the state that become part of public “knowledge” about it. Such artifacts may even influence state activity. These fictional representations of the national security state may function as propaganda or as a satirical or moral critique of the state (Melley 2015, 161; see also Voelz 2018 and M. Frank). This insight into the significance of fiction for imagining the state raises the research question: Which aesthetic forms, procedures, and genres enable state fantasies to become modes of sensorial negotiation of democratic coexistence?

The study of the aesthetics of democracy has been a relatively marginal topic, existing at the intersection of political theory, political philosophy, and individual subdisciplines in the humanities. In contrast, the RTG proposes a new, systematic approach. Through the cooperation of various humanities disciplines, it enables the interdisciplinary investigation of the aesthetic dimensions of democratic coexistence. This approach departs from the still-dominant preconception, following Walter Benjamin, that the aestheticization of politics is fundamentally anti-democratic. Instead, the RTG aligns more closely with an alternative research tradition. According to this tradition, the various dimensions of the aesthetic are not indicators of the “other” or the decline of democracy but are elemental to it (Rebentisch 2012; Carnevali; Menke; Baßler/Drügh; Früchtl; Lefort). A key distinguishing feature of the RTG is its attempt systematically to decode democratic coexistence with respect to aesthetics and form—that is, in relation to aesthetic orders, action, objects, and experience.

Therefore, the program is also innovative in debates concerning the crisis in liberal democracies, a topic that has dominated public discourse in recent years. Against the backdrop of an analysis of democratic coexistence for which the concept of form is central, democratic crisis phenomena may be understood as ambivalent democratization phenomena (see Manow). These democratization dynamics often lead to tipping points at which an originally democratizing movement can become anti-democratic and illiberal in its anti-institutional impulse. To understand these ambiguities more deeply, researching the aesthetics of democracy is a very promising endeavor because the tension between democratization and de-democratization arises in part from the discomfort with representation among those who should be (but are not) represented. This creates connections to cultural and media sociological strands of populism research (Moffitt, Ostiguy, Voelz/Freischlager; critical in part: Müller). From this perspective, populism and other democratic crises—such as conspiracy theories, anti-elitism, and polarization—do not simply appear as external threats to democracy. Rather, they can also be interpreted as expressions of democratic coexistence itself.

Gender and diversity are important aspects of the RTG as the problem of democracy, examined here using aesthetic categories, is partly a question of coexistence between unequal and different people (Young, 1990). Although democracy’s self-image is based on the equality of all its members, differences remain pertinent because democracy is a space where diverse individuals encounter one another and must negotiate shared rules of coexistence. This is democracy’s open and undetermined form, which we aim to describe in more detail. However, many factual inequalities and instances of unequal treatment—which frame this negotiation or render it impossible—shape conceptions of the ideal or normal political subject, including certain real, attributed, or imagined identities and excluding others (Benhabib 1996).

Feminist democratic theory and critique have long highlighted these systemic exclusions in the history of ideas and in systematic terms (Brown 1988; Pateman 1988; Philipps 2021). The ideal of “the citizen” in democracy has often been coded as male (Sauer 2021). Similarly, queer theory has expanded this critique, as norms of citizenship often intersect with biopolitical notions of reproduction and family morality (Bersani 1987; Quaestio 2000; Edelman 2004). The extent to which processes of racialization, as well as racialized “othering,” mold conceptions of democratic community has also been analyzed in depth (Mills 1997; Hanchard 2018; Shelby 2018). Historically, democracies have undeniably been tied to and have promoted nation-state projects (Güven 2015). However, where nation-states are founded on exclusionary structures, this is in tension with the universal and cosmopolitan claims implicit in the very idea of democracy itself.

The RTG’s research program addresses the contradictions between the proclaimed universality of democracy and the exclusions that are factually reproduced by applying the critical resources mentioned above from feminist political theory, critical race theory, queer theory, postcolonial studies, and Black studies. To avoid uncritically engaging with the supposedly unmarked concept of “democracy,” the RTG incorporates a reflection on lines of inclusion and discrimination at the research level, in the overall theoretical framework, and in the individual dissertation projects. The RTG also reflects on its own forms of representation. This includes raising awareness of the social, cultural, and other backgrounds that are assumed and considered normative in research processes and of which materials and discussion partners are considered authoritative and exemplary. The RTG is also committed to diversity-sensitive and non-discriminatory forms of speech, representation, and interaction.

To facilitate research on the concrete manifestations of the aesthetics of democracy, the relationships between democracy as a form of coexistence and democracy as a state and as a form of government must be further conceptualized. As a heuristic analytical framework for the aesthetic dimension of the tension between form and transformation, we work with a multilevel model of democratic coexistence in which the aesthetic appears in four registers. These registers are: (a) aesthetic orders (at the infrastructural and institutional levels preceding individual practices); (b) aesthetic action (at the interpersonal level of practices); (c) aesthetic objects (where social practices and imaginative counterproposals are expressed and materialized); and (d) aesthetic experiences (which concern collective forms of subjectivation).

This four-level model serves as a tool for examining concrete expressions of democratic coexistence from multiple aesthetic dimensions. The four research areas are derived from this model. Each area initially focuses on one level, all of which are interrelated. Doctoral projects are assigned to one research area based on which level constitutes the primary perspective in the project design. At the same time, these projects also investigate the interactions between the four dimensions.

In our multilevel model, which draws analogies to models from social philosophy (Saar 2019c) and cultural sociology (Reckwitz 2016), aesthetic orders provide a framework for democracy as a form of coexistence. They provide the conditions for shaping levels of action, objects, and experience. Aesthetic orders determine what is and is not perceptible. In this regard, Jacques Rancière’s influential formulation of the “distributions of the sensible” (Rancière 2010, 36) is central. However, the conceptual distinction he suggests between the perceptible and the imperceptible requires closer examination, as political-aesthetic orders are internally differentiated. For example, they differ in terms of center and periphery (Lotman 1979 and 1990; see also Koschorke and Voelz 2018). Aisthesis (the perception of what is included within the domain of the perceptible) overlaps with aesthetic categories and value ascriptions. Thus, the distinction between what is included and excluded overlaps with the distinction between the “admissible” and “inadmissible” (Manow 48), and the distinction between the representable and the non-representable overlaps with the distinction between the “presentable” and “non-presentable” (Ostiguy 75). Therefore, we do not understand the level of aesthetic order to be dichotomous; it does not primarily operate on the basis of binaries such as “visible/invisible” or “perceptible/imperceptible.” Instead, we assume that aesthetic orders arrange aisthesis hierarchically. The imperceptible is not necessarily located outside the order of the sensible but may appear within it, albeit in a concealed place. Once structuralist models of order become dynamic, the research shifts to the hierarchies of sensorial expression and perception. These hierarchies result from “strong evaluation” (Taylor 1989), consecration and sacralization (Appadurai, Karpik, Leypoldt), and banishment (Geisenhanslüke, 2018). Binary categories (“inside or outside,” “presence or absence”) are replaced by categories that describe spectral gradations, such as “foreground and background” or “relevance and irrelevance” (Tamarkin). Additionally, gradual descriptions of aesthetic form, such as “vivid and pale,” “loud and quiet,” “thick and thin,” and “blurry and clear,” are useful for analyzing aesthetic orders.

Although aesthetic orders can take a material, objective, and often lasting form within institutions and infrastructures, we do not view them as transhistorical, but rather as subject to historical change. Aesthetic orders are both the subject and the framing of democratic dissensus. Therefore, studies of aesthetic orders are also studies of their negotiation. Thus, investigating aesthetic orders necessitates considering the interactions between the four levels of our model.

Exemplary thematic complex, Research Area 1:
From the perspective of “aesthetic orders,” our first thematic complex explores invisibility, a central yet under-theorized social phenomenon. It does not refer to physical invisibility, but rather to a structural lack of attention to something that is visible but overlooked, bypassed, or looked through (Rebentisch 2022; Brighenti). In our framework, invisibility can be conceptualized as a solidified order of the sensible, based on exclusions and characteristics that undermine real forms of democratic coexistence, even if invisibility sometimes becomes the subject of dissensus, particularly in aesthetic terms. While invisibility as a (non-)relation has been studied more frequently in recent social philosophy (Honneth 2003; Schaffer 2008), migration research (Wilcke), de/postcolonial studies (Král; Schmidt-Linsenhoff; Hayes 2024a, 2024b), Black studies (Hartman 1997; Harney/Moten 2016; Moten, 2018), and queer studies (Edelman), it has rarely been addressed as a challenge to democratic theory. Most of this research has focused on moments when the previously invisible enters political demonstration (Rancière, 2002). In our research program, we propose that democratic theory must complement aisthesis with a critical theory of institutionalized and habitualized forms of perception, so as to better understand the dynamic between form/order and dissensus. Studies of artistic forms of invisibility in literature and art—such as contemporary “erasure poetry” (Schaefer 2024a, 2024b) and art photography (Azoulay, Krause-Wahl, 2022a)—offer particularly productive insights for this endeavor.

Our conception of “aesthetic action” does not refer to a specific type of action; rather, it refers to a particular perspective from which actions are perceived. Actions are aesthetic to the extent that their sensory aspect comes to the forefront. Social practices such as appearing to one another, affecting one another, and collaborating in engagement with the world appear as fundamentally aesthetic-affective. This allows for the usage of the conception of a “social aesthetics” (Carnevali). From our overarching perspective, we are interested in how particular aesthetic actions contribute to the dynamic of conflict and transformation. Aesthetic actions are useful for analysis because we assume that “actions themselves […] are constitutive of what can later confront them as a fixed order of practices—in a dialectic of constituting and constituted, or institution and instituted” (Saar 2019c, 164). In their solidified states, actions become social forms, such as customs, usages, rule-following, or rituals. However, actions are also the medium for contesting these social forms. The central question of the second area is what insights particular social practices, when considered aesthetically, may provide into the dynamic between form and transformation. Though they are not commonly labeled as such, many areas of critical and cultural theory focus on subtypes of these actions, such as performativity (Austin, Butler), performance (Schechner, Goffman, Fischer-Lichte), and agency (Taylor 1988; K. Frank). These terms and the critical traditions surrounding them can be reframed in light of the RTG’s question. Theoretically and empirically, it is worth analyzing whether aesthetic practices of democracy are also practices of democratization—that is, forms of social action motivated by de-hierarchization, reduction of privilege, and valorization of individual singularity.

Exemplary thematic complex, Research Area 2:
The second area of potential topics focuses on social form-building at the level of “aesthetic action”—specifically, judgment. Current aesthetic research recognizes affluent democracies as fostering effective community formation through attunement in style (Bassler/Drügh). Following Andreas Reckwitz’s concept of a “society of singularities” (2017), “style communities” (Venus) may seem to be constantly differentiating (fantasy, black metal, science fiction, etc.). However, considering Hannah Arendt’s (1982) interpretation of Kant’s Critique of Judgment, one might question whether style communities could be perceived differently. In these communities, the meaning and feeling of community are established through aesthetic judgment—a process that encompasses individual idiosyncrasies and commonalities. As discussed above, in Kantian terms, personal sensual perception—or aesthetic judgment—is conceptually “imputed” to others. Arendt views this intersubjective judgment as a fundamental democratic procedure. Whether style communities are truly democratic spaces of pluralistic judgment (Loidolt 2017; Rebentisch 2022) or symptoms of segmented publics driven by the logic of creative economies depends in part on whether these spaces allow dissensus to be integrated into their form or externalized through distinction.

This area examines the dynamic between form and dissensus from the perspective of objects and their materiality. Along with the ephemeral “space of appearance,” the tangible “world of things” constitutes the “inter-esse” of the collective world (Arendt, 1958). The “world of things” can give and transcend form in democratic coexistence. As with action, aesthetic objects should not be considered a special class of objects. Objects are aesthetic when viewed from a certain perspective and when certain modes of interaction or use are emphasized. Aesthetic objects must be studied in relation to practices because “objects are embedded in social practices” (Reckwitz 2016, 38). However, they are also products of social practices (see Appadurai 1986 and Latour/Weibel). Following John Dewey (1939), we presume that democratic practices give rise to competing visions and representations of community. These visions and representations are “articulated” in aesthetic objects (see Taylor 1988, 38–41), whether as commodities, in the design of private and public spaces, in the arts, or as forms of communication in various media. Aesthetic objects are essential to democracy. In Arendt’s view, they lend temporal stability to the political space of appearance, which must continually be re-actualized. Although new things are constantly produced, existing objects persist beyond any particular social action. Objects foreground their own materiality, just as the political world alludes to the “earth” that grounds it. This poses basic challenges for democracies and raises questions about uninterrogated notions of “dwelling” and their tendency to exploit natural environments, often in “democratically legitimized” ways. This becomes especially apparent when unmade “things of nature” are grouped under the category of objects, which implies that they belong to living matter or, at the very least, have agency (Latour 2001, 2014; Bennett 2009). Climate protection, for example, requires a long-term political vision, which often clashes with the short-term focus of democratic policy (see Abadi, Moellendorf). Authoritarian regimes sometimes “solve” this temporal dilemma by imposing permanent political rule. Democracy, however, must look for strategies elsewhere. Philosophy and the arts—such as American Transcendentalism—can be used to study longstanding traditions that have sought either to productively aestheticize or overcome the temporal incongruence between nature and democracy, (Bennett 2002, Buell 1995, Cavell 2003, Guthrie, Schaefer 2020, van Rahden/Völz, Voelz 2010, Voelz 2019). Interdisciplinary fields such as anthropocene studies (Latour; Haraway; Nixon; Bennett 2020), ecocriticism (Buell 2003; Schaefer 2004; Zapf), posthumanism (Wolfe; Braidotti; Clarke), new materialism (DeLanda; Meillassoux), and biopolitics (Lemke, Campbell, Sitze; Felcht 2016a) provide diverse contexts that can help shape and contextualize research into the aesthetic objects of democracy.

Exemplary thematic complex, Research Area 3:
The third area of potential research topics focuses on the level of “aesthetic objects” and addresses the recent growing interest in ecological and nature-theoretical questions, as well as the development of new theories. Approaches such as new materialism and new ecologies have produced topics and vocabularies that could be grouped under the umbrella of “philosophy of life,” a long-marginalized area of research, especially in the German context. Currently, many researchers at the intersection of philosophy, literary and cultural studies, sociology, political theory, and intellectual and scientific history are developing new forms of contemporary vitalism and formulating novel political perspectives based on it (Arsiç; Bennett 2009; Braidotti; Worms). This is reflected in an understanding of materiality which seeks to overcome categorical distinctions between humans, nature, and objects and which attributes living qualities to both objects and abstract communalities. These theories often draw on literature, in which the world of things is commonly animated and where animals are regularly anthropomorphized. Thus, the RTG welcomes a field that focuses on the theoretical and literary animation of things in the context of “vitalist” theories of democracy (see Latour’s “parliament of things” [2002]). The epistemic interest here lies in describing the conditions for life and for the survival of democratic communities, as well as the mechanisms of political resilience and regeneration, especially in light of the new relationships between political communities, nature, and things. Thus, the implications of describing democracy as a “form of coexistence” become a central focus of inquiry.

The fourth level of our model focuses on the collective dimension of sensorial experience. For this level, we use the term “aesthetic experience.” This term refers to the affects, emotions, feelings, and processes of meaning-making that are triggered by sensorial stimuli, objects, and interactions, as well as their mediation or articulation—especially in media (including “social media”). In other words, we define aesthetic experience as the actualization of structures of affect and emotion, as well as the creation of spaces of meaning accompanying them. We consider the competing definition that restricts aesthetic experience to encounters with art that culminate in subjective reflection to be a subtype (Deines et al.; Kern/Sonderegger; Shusterman/Tomlin). Unlike in the Deleuzian or Massumian approach, we believe affects cannot be categorically separated from feelings and emotions as if they were pre-social, pre-cognitive, or autonomous. In analyzing the aesthetic-affective experience of democratic coexistence, we find it more productive to begin with subjectively experienced affects and consider their necessary mediation, cognitive processing, and formal describability (Ahmed; Berlant; Brenman; Brinkema; Cvetkovich; Stewart et al.). We assume that democratic coexistence is saturated with affects, emotions, and passions that exhibit collective patterns, which can be analyzed as aesthetic forms. These affects, emotions, and passions are not confined to the subjective realm of the individual experiencing them; they are also transmitted as moods, atmospheres, coloring of meaning, or through the explicit communication of feelings. If democratic sociality consists of individuals and collectives determining how to shape their shared existence, then affective atmospheres always inform their discursive and deliberative modes of negotiation (Slaby/Bens 349). However, practices of negotiation are not only embedded affectively in the political sphere, but also in supposedly non-political social interactions. The form of democratic coexistence is shaped by “structures of feeling” (Raymond Williams) and “affective landscapes” (Lawrence Grossberg). The boundaries of these structures do not align with the established distinctions between “political” and “pre-political,” or “public” and “private.” Regarding the RTG’s overarching question of how to more precisely determine the dynamics between form and transformation in democratic coexistence, the dimension of aesthetic experience is a largely unexplored field of research. Since collective patterns of feeling accompany the struggles for transformation and preservation of form, it is worth inquiring whether a “grammar” of collective emotions can be detected in democratic contestation. Key emotions include enthusiasm (Mohrmann), hope (Appadurai 2007; Möllerndorf), anger (Stauffer), indignation (Innerarity; Creech), envy (Ngai 2005; Völz 2017), resentment (Fassin), disgust (Menninghaus; Wolff; Ngai 2005), and boredom (Anderson; Gräfe). However, systematic analyses of the affective dynamics of democratic debates about meaning and sensibility are lacking.

Collective emotions and their aesthetic forms also define areas in which democratic coexistence is limited, whether due to populist or illiberal attacks (Hediger/Simon; Illouz; Levitsky/Ziblatt; Runciman; Mounk; Voelz/Freischlager 2019) or deeply entrenched exclusionary mechanisms. The diagnoses of “social death” central to Afropessimism, for example, derive their intensity in part from the seemingly transhistorical persistence of the affective structures underlying racism against Black people. Afropessimism posits an ontological exclusion of Black bodies from the body politic (Wilderson, following Patterson). These dominant structures of feeling appear to paralyze democratic debates. Black artists and theorists respond with aesthetic counterstrategies. Current practitioners of the “Black Aesthetic” movement demonstrate this response (Bradley; Hartman 2019; McKittrick 2021; Moten 2018; Weheliye). Hence, for research on the aesthetic experience of democracy, it is essential to consider not only forms of democratic coexistence but also a life in which “togetherness” is thrown into question.

Exemplary thematic complex, Research Area 4:
The fourth area of potential research topics addresses the relationship between genres of social media and political violence in India with regard to “aesthetic experience.” Social media platforms such as WhatsApp, WeChat, X, and TikTok—the infrastructures of contemporary global digital culture—are permeated by the techniques and effects of war. The militarization of everyday social life on these platforms is evident in the normalization of terms such as “online troll armies,” “digital warriors,” “camouflage,” and “infiltration.” These terms reveal the emergence of new techniques of war that engender violence in both virtual and real spaces. These spheres are linked by intense sensorial experiences that connect bodily sensations (including physical harm), imagination, and cognitive, discursive, and remediation processes (Bolter/Grusin; Erll/Rigney). India’s democracy is a recent example of such hybrid forms of everyday militarization and violence, as it is increasingly challenged by illiberal and populist forces (see also Malreddy). Associated aesthetic experiences can be studied by examining the relationships among everyday digital media technologies, image-making practices, and forms of violence. Studying genres of social media, from Telegram channels to DIY lynching video tutorials, may provide insight into public spheres where hate and violence area able to spread. So, a new area of media analysis emerges, offering nuanced insights into the political culture of authoritarian populism under the Modi regime. Such an analysis explores how the government mobilizes and utilizes a spectrum of emotions, including fear, guilt, shame, anger, hate, and betrayal, and how these emotions are manifested in everyday democratic life (Gudavarthy 2019, 2023).

The central goal of the qualification concept is to enable PhD students to write excellent dissertations under ideal conditions within a defined timeframe. Candidates will receive intensive interdisciplinary supervision in an environment that considers the scholarly significance and practical applicability of their findings. This will prepare them for careers inside and outside of academia. Various instruments will help them achieve this, including mandatory duties and numerous elective options for specialization. These specializations will be tailored to the career aspirations that doctoral students develop or refine throughout the program.

At the heart of the concept is the intensive supervision of dissertations by two principal investigators (PIs), ideally from different disciplines. There is also the option of extended mentorship, such as involving international partners in the supervision process. Doctoral students will receive additional feedback at various stages of the program from Mercator Fellows, “Democratic Vistas” postdoctoral fellows, and professorial members of “Democratic Vistas” (e.g., during or after the annual joint workshop). Regular meetings between advisors and PhD students, as well as PhD students’ mandatory oral progress reports in colloquia and in writing prior to master classes, ensure ongoing opportunities for participants to reflect on the focus, timeline, and status of their research and to receive swift support should any problems arise.

The study program consists of three elements: the Core Module (first and second semesters), the Working Group (first through eighth semesters), and the Engagement Lab (first through eighth semesters, with specialization in the fifth and sixth semesters). Each element provides common theoretical and conceptual foundations, intensive dissertation support from various perspectives, and transfer elements.

1) The Core Module provides PhD students with the basic skills they need to start their research, helps them quickly network with each other, and equips them with the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the RTG.

At the beginning of the first semester, doctoral students will participate in a two-day orientation program consisting of an onboarding meeting with their advisor, drafting a supervision agreement, an orientation workshop where PhD students present their projects, and preparing a project-specific data management plan. The orientation phase is supplemented by a one-day workshop on key competencies for getting started in doctoral studies and good academic practice (“Getting Started”). The RTG will organize a first public conference, the Opening Workshop, in the same semester.

During the first two semesters, the core component of the core module is a weekly seminar that is mandatory for all PhD students. Hosted by two PIs per semester, this two-term PhD seminar is dedicated to two of the four fields of research of the RTG (aesthetic orders, aesthetic action, aesthetic objects, and aesthetic experiences) each semester. Seminar participants will read and discuss central texts from an interdisciplinary perspective, considering the overarching theoretical and methodological foundation of “aesthetics of democracy.” Participants will also be introduced to the methods of the relevant disciplines.

2) The Working Group primarily focuses on the progress of the dissertations. In small workshop groups, two to four doctoral candidates working on thematically related topics will meet regularly with their respective PIs to discuss common problems.

Progress on the dissertations and their implications for the entire program are discussed further in colloquia led by PIs, which alternate with the workshop groups.

From the third to seventh semesters, doctoral students will participate in five master classes with invited Mercator Fellows. During these classes, guest scholars will provide feedback on the candidates’ work, stimulating the development and completion of their dissertations. Additionally, the master classes provide doctoral candidates with deadlines for submitting longer texts.

Twice per cohort, a two-day retreat will take place. All PhD students, PIs, fellows, and guests will attend. Doctoral candidates are involved in selecting these guests. The retreat provides a forum for all participants to collaborate on advancing research on the program’s overarching research question. Additionally, at the beginning of each cohort, the RTG organizes a “Getting Started” workshop. In the fourth semester, the RTG organizes communications and media training workshops, as well as reflection workshops on social media. Depending on their needs, PIs may recommend that members attend additional GRADE (Goethe Research Academy for Early Career Researchers) workshops, particularly those on literature research and management, as well as career counseling.

3) In the Engagement Lab, PhD students interact with the wider academic and civil society communities beyond the program. The lab is guided by the belief that all dissertations should reflect on and empirically test the practical implications of their research. The lab also facilitates intensive networking with civil society and public partners. In the spirit of the Public Humanities, this fosters the transfer and exchange of ideas with civil society actors and public institutions.

Mandatory lab activities include organizing graduate conferences and participating in the annual workshop of the Frankfurt network, “Democratic Vistas: Reflections on the Atlantic World.” This established program component expands the circle of scholars participating in the RTG. Both postdoctoral fellows and PIs involved in “Democratic Vistas” but not the RTG will contribute perspectives from other relevant disciplines, especially the social sciences, such as sociology and political science, to stimulate discussion. Optional activities include actively participating in national and international conferences, organizing workshops and lecture series with visiting fellows, and collaborating with visiting academics and guests from the wider public.

Collaborating with university and non-university partners will be central to the lab. Over the course of two semesters, doctoral students will work individually or in small groups with public or civil society partner institutions of the RTG to develop “Lab Projects,” which will promote interactive knowledge transfer with civil society in the spirit of the Public Humanities. These projects may include smaller exhibitions, as well as media, artistic, or political projects. Thus, PhD candidates will develop skills in conceiving, planning, and implementing academic and non-academic projects, enhancing their employability beyond academia and paving the way for potential DFG-funded knowledge transfer projects.

The above concept results in the following example curriculum for mandatory events:

All PhD students have the opportunity to gain teaching experience by offering courses, either together with a PI or independently. All courses must be approved by the relevant departments in accordance with their regulations.

In addition to the discipline-specific qualification program offered by the RTG, participants will have access to a comprehensive training program in key skills and career development. The RTG works closely with GRADE, which supports doctoral researchers across all disciplines. GRADE offers an extensive training program with courses on academic methods, academic composition, management skills, and personal development to strengthen key skills. RTG members can access all GRADE courses and programs free of charge. In addition to a wide range of courses, RTG members have access to individual coaching, networking events, career development activities, and language courses.

During the research and writing phases of their dissertations, doctoral students can attend workshops on topics such as academic writing, literature research, and communication skills, and receive professional assistance in conducting and presenting their doctoral projects. During the writing phase—especially toward the end of the funding period—workshops on leadership, teamwork, career planning, publication strategies, and grant applications will strengthen the key skills acquired during the doctoral process. These workshops will further develop participants’ skills and prepare them for the next steps in their academic or non-academic careers. Additional support is provided by a series of events called “Get on the Right Track—GRADE Career Talks,” where individual career options are presented and companies and nonprofit organizations are introduced as potential future employers. These offerings complement the RTG’s internal employability strategy, which leverages networking opportunities with civil society in the Rhine-Main region in the context of public humanities to establish career opportunities outside academia. Potential careers include positions in the public sector, foundations, cultural institutions, and civil society organizations. The skills acquired in the Engagement Lab also open up a wide range of career paths in the private sector, including media, marketing and communications, consulting, and human resources.

PhD candidates are encouraged to supplement mandatory events with a selection from the RTG’s optional program. In addition to courses and workshops, this may include stays abroad. The optional program includes the following:

Internationalization is the top priority in the RTG, which is why partnerships have been established with 18 internationally renowned institutes and centers. PhD candidates are encouraged to spend up to six months at a partner institution abroad. These partners have agreed to waive tuition fees for these stays, and the RTG helps cover travel and living expenses. These partners also encourage their own doctoral students to spend up to one semester in Frankfurt and participate in the RTG program. The RTG supports doctoral students from disadvantaged educational regions with scholarships that facilitate international exchange.

The RTG cooperates with the following international partner institutions:

• Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, Department of Government
• EHESS – École des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris, France, Centre d’études des mouvements sociaux (CEMS) and Centre d’études John Dewey
• EHESS – École des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris, France, Centre d’études sociologiques et politiques Raymond-Aron (CESPRA)
• Fordham University, New York, USA, Department of English
• Kolkata and Kazi Nazrul University, India, Institute of Language Studies and Research (ILSR)
• Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, Centre for Political Studies
• Malmö University, Sweden, School of Arts and Communication
• National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan, Department of Chinese
• New School for Social Research, NYC, USA, Department of Philosophy
• New York University, USA, Department of Comparative Literature
• Princeton University, USA, German Department
• Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile, Escuela De Administracion Publica Department
• Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil, Programa de Pós-Graduacao em Filosofia
• Université de Montréal, Canada, Département de littératures et de langues du monde
• Université Félix Houphouët Abidjan-Cocody, Ivory Coast, German Seminar
• University of Glasgow, Scotland, School of Geographical and Earth Sciences
• University of the Western Cape, South Africa, The Centre for Humanities Research
• University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, English Department

Spending a semester abroad, typically at one of the partner institutions, is expressly supported and encouraged. This experience allows doctoral students to deepen their research and expose them to other academic cultures. Doctoral students plan the international stay in close coordination with their advisors and the RTG leadership. It generally lasts for one semester at the host university.

Personalized career counseling is part of the supervision from the outset. Doctoral candidates benefit from the broad range of international contacts maintained by participating scholars, academic institutions, civil society, and public partner organizations. This support begins with the initial meeting with the advisor and continues through subsequent evaluation meetings.

The following is an example timeline for a standard four-year doctoral program (eight semesters or 48 months):

addition to providing internal supervision and career support, the RTG will work closely with GRADE. Through its extensive training program and networking events tailored to different career stages, GRADE helps doctoral candidates manage their research projects effectively and plan their future careers. GRADE also offers individual coaching to doctoral candidates on topics such as self-positioning, self-management, interactions with supervisors and colleagues, crises in the research process, work-life balance, and future career prospects.

GRADE also offers events and services for international PhD candidates to promote networking and social life. Apart from German courses, social events, and excursions in the Rhine-Main area, these services include personal consultation during open office hours. Together with the Goethe Welcome Center, GRADE provides international doctoral candidates with individually tailored support upon arrival and during their initial adjustment period (such as assistance with finding accommodation, residence permits, visas, opening a bank account, and health insurance).

GRADE provides early-career researchers with the opportunity to further develop their skills in small, self-organized groups. To promote the independence, teamwork, and academic organizational skills of PhD students at the earliest stage of their careers, RTG researchers are encouraged to form working groups known as GRADE initiatives.

Additionally, the RTG assists PhD candidates with applications for DFG Knowledge Transfer Projects based on their experiences with science communication and collaborations with civil society and public partners from the Engagement Lab.

Prof. Dr. Johannes Völz is the spokesperson for the RTG, and Prof. Dr. Sophie Loidolt is the deputy spokesperson. These leadership positions are filled based on gender parity and interdisciplinarity. The two spokespersons are responsible for the program’s continued conceptual development and operational management. They are also responsible for the RTG’s strategic orientation and coordination with the DFG office.

A six-member executive board will be formed to manage the RTG. In addition to the spokespersons, the board includes the academic coordinator, as well as one representative each from the group of PIs and the doctoral candidates. The PIs and the Doctoral Assembly elect their respective representatives to the Executive Board every two years. Meeting twice per semester, the board represents the RTG’s goals and makes decisions regarding the budget, guest and Mercator Fellow invitations, as well as collaborations with universities and external partners. The Executive Board is the highest committee responsible for coordinating research and projects within the RTG.

An eight-member Advisory Board assists the Executive Board with scientific orientation, equal opportunity, and the study and qualification program. The Executive Board proposes members of the Advisory Board, who are then elected by the General Assembly for the duration of one funding period. The Advisory Board comprises four experienced academics and four individuals from the RTG’s non-academic partners.

For the first funding period, the following scholars have agreed to serve on the Advisory Board: Prof. Dr. Juliane Rebentisch (HFBK Hamburg), Prof. Jason Frank (Cornell University, USA), Patricia Hayes (University of Cape Town, South Africa), and Anindya Sekhar Purkayastha (Institute of Language Studies and Research, Kolkata and Kazi Nazrul University, India). Representatives from civil society and public partner institutions include: Franziska Nori (Director, Frankfurter Kunstverein), Jürgen Kaube (Editor-at-Large, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), Dr. Deborah Schnabel (Director, Anne Frank Educational Center), and Matthias Wagner K (Director, Museum of Applied Arts Frankfurt). The Advisory Board meets annually, alternating between online and in-person meetings. The Executive Board meeting will discuss the recommendations and expertise of the Advisory Board.

Doctoral candidates meet in the Doctoral Assembly at least once per semester, as do PIs in the PI Assembly. These assemblies facilitate internal discussions about structural issues regarding the RTG and allow participants to share experiences from the program and supervision. They also enable both PhD students and PIs to evaluate and contribute to the development of the qualification program and the mentoring system’s structure. The Doctoral Assembly is explicitly asked to propose diversity-sensitive, masculinity-critical mentoring structures to the General Assembly and Executive Board. The Doctoral Assembly also elects the Internal Ombudsperson. The respective assembly submits proposals—especially those concerning the invitation of international guests and Mercator Fellows and the program’s further development—to the Executive Board through a representative. Participating in shaping the program also helps develop skills and experience in academic self-administration.

The General Assembly is the largest and most important decision-making body. It includes all RTG participants and meets once a year. The General Assembly discusses the development of the supervision and qualification program’s quality and provides feedback on the RTG’s overall direction. The participatory process for shaping the RTG includes a written survey and an independent statement by the doctoral researchers and PIs. These statements are subsequently presented to the General Assembly. Upon the Executive Board’s recommendation, the General Assembly elects Advisory Board members once per funding period. The General Assembly is also authorized to establish committees to address specific issues. These committees submit their reports and recommendations to the Executive Board. The General Assembly adopts the RTG’s Code of Conduct.

The conception of the RTG is based on years of collaboration between the PIs. All PIs are members of the research focus “Democratic Vistas: Reflections on the Atlantic World” at the Forschungskolleg Humanwissenschaften. RTG spokesperson Johannes Völz founded this network, which consists of around 25 professors from the humanities and social sciences in the Rhine-Main region researching democratic coexistence in the Atlantic sphere. The PhD candidates will benefit from this network’s future activities. International Democratic Vistas postdoctoral fellows, guest scholars, speakers, and partner organizations enrich the international research network accessible to PhD students. RTG members also have access to the Democratic Vistas research infrastructure. For example, the book series “Democratic Vistas/Demokratische Horizonte” (Transcript Verlag) provides a platform for RTG publications.

A unique feature of the RTG is its dialogue with civil society partners and public institutions in the spirit of the Public Humanities. Public Humanities occupy a central place in the RTG’s study program, especially in the Engagement Lab. To this end, the RTG consortium has established a network of thirteen regional and supra-regional partner organizations from civil society and the public sector. In the field of culture and media, these partners include the Crespo Foundation, the German Film Institute & Film Museum, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, the Frankfurter Kunstverein, the event spaces of the Hessian Literature Forum and the Literaturhaus Frankfurt, as well as the Museum of Applied Arts (MAK). Partners in politics and civic education include the Anne Frank Educational Center and the Center for Critical Computational Studies (C³S), with the latter of which doctoral students will develop a program for critical computational literacy for educational institutions and civil society. Other partners include the initiative “Mehr als Wählen” and the federally funded Foundation for Sites of Democratic History, based in Frankfurt am Main. The RTG has partnered with the Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany on Lab projects concerning democratic resilience and testing different citizen participation formats. In all of these collaborations, doctoral students will work alongside partner organizations to develop projects that build on their research, embed it in civil society contexts, and expand upon it. The experience gained in these lab projects will inform their research, for example, by reflecting on the communicability of research hypotheses in nonacademic contexts.

The selection process consists of two stages. During the first stage, applicants must submit a ten-page exposé of their proposed research project, a letter of motivation detailing their preferred supervision, and other standard application materials, such as a cover letter, two letters of recommendation, a CV, transcripts, and certificates. The most important admission criteria are an excellent university degree obtained in a timely manner (respecting individual biographical circumstances) and an innovative project idea. Additional admission criteria include knowledge of basic academic methods, an interdisciplinary orientation, the ability to reflect on one’s own project, intercultural skills, and an interest in civic engagement.

Based on the applications received, a select group of candidates will be invited to second-stage interviews in Frankfurt with the selection committee. In the first stage, the selection committee consists of all PIs. In the second stage, each participating discipline is represented by at least one PI on the committee. Goethe University’s equal opportunities and disability officers also participate in these interviews. If an in-person interview is impossible, a video conference will be offered as an alternative. During the individual interviews, each applicant will present their research project for 10–15 minutes in German or English and discuss it with the PIs in both languages, language skills permitting.

Additionally, the committee will ensure that group members demonstrate professional and scientific biographical diversity, and that their proposed research projects are compatible in terms of content and methodology. This will enable the formation of thematically focused, interdisciplinary workshop groups. The final selection will be made based on the interviews conducted.

Abadi, Cameron. 2024. Climate Radicals: Why Our Environmental Politics Isn’t Working. New York: Columbia Global Reports.

Adorno, Theodor W. 1958/1959. Ästhetik. Ed. Eberhard Ortland. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Adorno, Theodor W. 1970. Ästhetische Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Adorno, Theodor W. 2003. “Der Essay als Form.” 1958. Noten zur Literatur. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 11. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 9–33.

Agamben, Giorgio. 1994. “Lebens-Form.” Gemeinschaften: Positionen zu einer Philosophie des Politischen. Ed. Joseph Vogl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Agamben, Giorgio. 2013. The Highest Poverty: Monastic Rules and Form-of-Life. Trans. Adam Kotsko. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Agamben, Giorgio. 2014. L’uso dei corpi. Vicenza: Neri Pozza.

Ahmed, Sara. 2014. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Second Edition. London: Routledge.

Alexander, Jeffrey. 2006. The Civil Sphere. New York: Oxford UP.

Allen, Amy. 2016. The End of Progress: Deconolizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia UP.

Altieri, Charles. 2001. “Taking Lyrics Literally: Teaching Poetry in a Prose Culture.” New Literary History 32.2: 259–281.

Amlinger, Carolin and Oliver Nachtwey. 2022. Gekränkte Freiheit: Aspekte des libertären Autoritarismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Anderson, Ben. 2021. “Affect and Critique: A Politics of Boredom.” Society and Space 39.2: 197–217.

Appadurai, Arjun, Ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in the Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Appadurai, Arjun. 2007. “Hope and Democracy.” Public Culture 19: 29–34.

Applebaum, Anne. 2020. Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism. New York: Doubleday.

Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Arendt, Hannah. 1982. Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Arendt, Hannah. 2005. “Introduction into Politics.” The Promise of Politics. Ed. Jerome Kohn. New York: Schocken. 93–200.

Armstrong, Isobel. 2000. The Radical Aesthetic. Malden: Blackwell.

Arsić, Branka. 2016. Bird Relics: Grief and Vitalism in Thoreau. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things With Words. London: Oxford UP.

Azoulay, Ariella. 2012. Civil Imagination: A Political Ontology of Photography. London: Verso.

Barthes, Roland. 1964. Mythen des Alltags. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Baßler, Moritz and Heinz Drügh. 2021. Gegenwartsästhetik. Konstanz/Göttingen: Konstanz UP.

Benhabib, Seyla, Ed. 1996. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Benjamin, Walter. 1980. “Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit.” 1939. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 473–508.

Bennett, Jane. 2002. Thoreau’s Nature: Ethics, Politics, and the Wild. Erneuerte Auflage. Lanham: Rowman.

Bennett, Jane. 2009. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke UP.

Bennett, Jane. 2020. Influx and Efflux: Writing Up with Walt Whitman. Durham: Duke UP.

Berlant, Lauren. 2007. “Nearly Utopian, Nearly Normal: Post-Fordist Affect in La Promesse and Rosetta.”Public Culture 19.2: 271–301.

Bersani, Leo. 1987. “Is the rectum a grave?” October 43: 197-222.

Bolter, Jay David and Richard Grusin, Eds. 2000. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bradley, Rizvana. 2023. Anteaesthetics: Black Aesthesis and the Critique of Form. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Braidotti, Rosi. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.

Brenkman, John. 2020. Mood and Trope: The Rhetoric and Poetics of Affect. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Brighenti, Andrea Mubi. 2010. “Visibility and Democracy.” Visibility in Social Theory and Social Research. Ed. Andrea Mubi Brighenti. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 167-185.

Brinkema, Eugenie. 2018. The Forms of the Affects. Durham: Duke UP.

Brown, Wendy. 1988. Manhood and Politics: A Feminist Reading in Political Thought. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.

Brown, Wendy. 2010. Walled States, Waning Sovereignty. Zone Books. Cambridge: MIT P.

Bröckling, Ulrich. 2019. “Dialektik der Modernisierung: Rezension zu ‘Das Ende der Illusionen’ von Andreas Reckwitz.” Soziopolis: Gesellschaft beobachten.

Buell, Lawrence. 1995. The Environmental Imagination: Thoreau, Nature Writing, and the Formation of American Culture. Cambridge: Belknap.

Buell, Lawrence. 2003. Writing for an Endangered World: Literature, Culture, and Environment in the US and Beyond. Cambridge: Belknap.

Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York: Routledge.

Calhoun, Craig J., Ed. 1992. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Calhoun, Craig J. 2010. “The Public Sphere in the Field of Power.” Social Science History 34.3: 301–335.

Campbell, Timothy and Adam Sitze, Eds. 2013. Biopolitics: A Reader. Durham: Duke UP.

Campbell, Timothy C. 2017. The Techne of Giving: Cinema and the Generous Form of Life. New York: Fordham UP.

Campello, Filipe. 2022. “Re-imagining Cosmopolitics: Love as Taking Care of the world.” Social Love and the Critical Potential of People. Eds. Silvia Cataldi and Gennaro Iorio. New York: Routledge. 145–157.

Carnevali, Barbara. 2020. Social Appearances: A Philosophy of Display and Prestige. New York: Columbia UP.

Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1984. Gesellschaft als imaginäre Institution. Entwurf einer politischen Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1994. “The logic of magmas and the question of autonomy.” Philosophy Social Criticism 20.1/2: 123–154.

Cavell, Stanley. 1988. In Quest of the Ordinary: Lines of Skepticism and Romanticism. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Cavell, Stanley. 2003. Emerson’s Transcendental Etudes. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Cavell, Stanley. 2005. Philosophy the Day After Tomorrow. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Celikates, Robin. 2018. “Forms of Life, Progress, and Social Struggle: On Rahel Jaeggi’s Critical Theory.” From Alienation to Forms of Life: The Critical Theory of Rahel Jaeggi. Eds. Amy Allen and Eduardo Mendieta. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP.

Chatterjee, Partha. 2019. I Am the People: Reflections on Popular Sovereignty Today. New York: Columbia UP.

Chuh, Kandice. 2019. The Difference Aesthetics Makes: On the Humanities ‘After Man’. Durham: Duke UP.

Clarke, Bruce. 2008. Posthuman Metamorphosis: Narrative and Systems. New York: Fordham UP.

Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Ed. Alan P. Hamlin and Philip Pettit. Oxford: Blackwell. 17–34.

Creech, Joe. 2006. Righteous Indignation: Religion and the Populist Revolution. Urbana: U of Illinois P.

Crouch, Colin. 2004. Post-Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.

Cvetkovich, Ann. 2012. Depression: A Public Feeling. Durham: Duke UP.

de la Torre, Carlos, Ed. 2015. The Promise and Perils of Populism: Global Perspectives. Lexington: UP of Kentucky.

Decker, Frank. 2018. “Parteiendemokratie im Wandel.” Handbuch der deutschen Parteien. Eds. Frank Decker and Viola Nau. Wiesbaden: Springer. 3–40.

Deines, Stefan, et al., Eds. 2012. Kunst und Erfahrung: Beiträge zu einer philosophischen Kontroverse. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

DeLanda, Manuel. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Continuum.

Derby, Lauren. 2009. The Dictator’s Seduction. Durham: Duke UP.

Dewey, John. 1998. “Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us.” 1939. The Essential Dewey. Eds. Larry Hickman and Thomas Alexander. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana UP. 340–343.

Dong, Wie. 2022. The Cultural Politics of Affect and Emotion: A Case Study of Chinese Reality TV. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Drügh, Heinz. 2014. “Commodity.” Encyclopedia of Aesthetics. Ed. Michael Kelly. Second Edition. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford UP. 109–114.

Drügh, Heinz. 2015. Ästhetik des Supermarkts. Konstanz: Konstanz UP.

Drügh, Heinz. 2018. “Konsumobjekte in der Pop Art: Richard Hamilton und Rolf Dieter Brinkmann.” Handbuch Literatur & Materielle Kultur. Eds. Susanne Scholz and Ulrike Vedder. Berlin: De Gruyter. 332–340.

Drügh, Heinz and Susanne Komfort-Hein, Eds. 2019. Christian Krachts Ästhetik. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.

Drügh, Heinz  Moritz Baßler, Eds. 2019. Konsumästhetik. Umgang mit käuflichen Dingen. Bielefeld: transcript.

Drügh, Heinz. 2019. “Mmes. Maisel & Moshfegh: Die Epoche Pop, gesehen von heute aus.” Schliff Literaturzeitschrift 10: 123–137.

Drügh, Heinz. 2020. “Design und Ästhetik.” Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 65.2: 43–60.

Drügh, Heinz  Moritz Baßler. 2021. Gegenwartsästhetik. Göttingen: Konstanz UP.

Drügh, Heinz. 2022a. “Von niedlichen Einhörnern, Hasen und Gemüse: Autofiktion als profane Ästhetik.” WestEnd: Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 2022/1: 141–153.

Drügh, Heinz. 2022b. “Warenform.” Grundthemen der Literaturwissenschaft: Form. Eds. Robert Matthias Erdbeer, Florian Klaeger, Klaus Stierstorfer. Berlin: De Gruyter, 620–631.

Edelman, Lee. 2004. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham: Duke UP.

Edelman, Lee. 2019. “Queerness, Afro-Pessimism, and the Return of the Aesthetic.” Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature (REAL) 35: 11–26.

Ehrenberg, Alain. 1991. Le culte de la performance. Paris: Calmann-Levy.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. 1971. “The American Scholar.” 1837. The Collected Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Belknap. 49–70.

Erlich, Victor. 1973. Russischer Formalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Erll, Astrid and Ann Rigney. 2009. Mediation, Remediation, and the Dynamics of Cultural Memory. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Esposito, Roberto. 2008. Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.

Fahrmeir, Andreas. 2003a. Ehrbare Spekulanten: Stadtverfassung, Wirtschaft und Politik in der City of London (1688–1900). München: Oldenbourg.

Fahrmeir, Andreas. 2007. Citizenship: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Concept. New Haven: Yale UP.

Fahrmeir, Andreas  Annette Imhausen, Eds. 2013. Die Vielfalt normativer Ordnungen: Konflikte und Dynamik in historischer und ethnologischer Perspektive. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Fahrmeir, Andreas, Gunther Hellmann  Miloš Vec, Eds. 2016. The Transformation of Foreign Policy: Drawing and Managing Boundaries from Antiquity to the Present. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Fahrmeir, Andreas. 2017. Die Deutschen und ihre Nation: Geschichte einer Idee. Ditzingen: Reclam.

Fahrmeir, Andreas. 2020a. “Democracies, Change, Sustainability, and Transformation: Historical Perspectives.” Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 16: 74–82.

Fahrmeir, Andreas, Ed. 2020b. Deutschland: Globalgeschichte einer Nation. München: C. H. Beck.

Fahrmeir, Andreas and Christoph Cornelißen, Eds. 2021a. Vom Konklave zum Assessment Center: Personalentscheidungen im historischen Wandel. Darmstadt: WBG Academic.

Fahrmeir, Andreas. 2021b. “Citizens in Limbo: Naturalization Concepts between Privilege and Membership in 19th-Century Western Europe and the United States.” Citizenship Studies 25: 456–473.

Fahrmeir, Andreas. 2022. “‘Befremdliche Praktiken’ mit ‘gespenstischen’ Folgen? Britische Perspektiven auf Wahlen im Kaiserreich.” Kohäsionskräfte in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie vor 1914. Eds. Peter Beule and Stefan Müller. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 23–34.

Fassin, Didier. 2013. “On Resentment and Ressentiment: The Politics and Ethics of Moral Emotions.” Current Anthropology 54.3: 249–267.

Felcht, Frederike. 2012. “Die Politik globalisierten Lebens in Ulrich Peltzers Teil der Lösung.” Literatur und Literaturwissenschaft im Zeichen der Globalisierung. Eds. Anna Kochanowska-Nieborak and Ewa Płomińska-Krawiec. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Felcht, Frederike. 2013. Grenzüberschreitende Geschichten: H.C. Andersens Texte aus globaler Perspektive. Tübingen: A. Francke.

Felcht, Frederike. 2014. “Die Waffe Mensch: Hungerstreiks im globalen Kontext.” Protest, Empörung, Widerstand: Zur Analyse von Auflehnungsbewegungen. Eds. Iuditha Balint, Hannah Dingeldein and Kathrin Lämmle. Konstanz: UVK.

Felcht, Frederike. 2016a. “Biopolitik in skandinavischer Literatur: Einführende Betrachtungen und eine exemplarische Lektüre von Strindbergs I havsbandet (‘Am offenen Meer’, 1890).” NORDEUROPAforum 19: 120–135.

Felcht, Frederike.2016b. “Nye kartofler: De choses qui parlent (et) de nationalité.” Ding, ding, ting: Objets médiateurs de culture. Espaces germanophone, néerlandophone et nordique. Eds. Kim Andringa, Frédérique Harry, Agathe Mareuge and Bénédicte Terrisse. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Felcht, Frederike, Henrik Blumentrath, Anna Echterhölter and Karin Harrasser. 2019. Jenseits des Geldes: Aporien der Rationierung. Leipzig: Spector.

Felcht, Frederike. 2020. Die Regierung des Mangels: Hunger in den skandinavischen Literaturen 1830–1960. Heidelberg: Winter.

Felcht, Frederike. 2021. “‘Vårt land är fattigt.’ Sult og fattigdom i Nordens selvbilleder.” Scandinavian Exceptionalisms. Culture, Society, Discourse. Eds. Jens Bjerring-Hansen, Torben Jelsbak and Anna Estera Mrozewicz. Berlin: Nordeuropa-Institut.

Felcht, Frederike. 2022. “‘Hun eiet ikke ord.’ Fattigdommens poetik i Ingeborg Refling Hagens Loke saar havre (1922).” Stjerner over granskogbunnen. Om Ingeborg Refling Hagens forfatterskap. Eds. Eva Marie Syversen and Ole Karlsen. Oslo: Novus.

Fischer-Lichte, Erika. 2004. Ästhetik des Performativen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Fluck, Winfried. 1997. Das kulturelle Imaginäre: Eine Funktionsgeschichte des amerikanischen Romans, 1790-1900. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Foucault, Michel. 1963. Naissance de la clinique: une archéologie du regard medical. Paris: Press universitaires de France.

Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Ed. Michel Senellart. Trans. Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave.

Foucault, Michel. 2017. Subjectivity and Truth: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1980-1981. Eds. Frédéric Gros et al. Trans. Graham Burchell. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Frank, Jason. 2010. Constituent Moments: Enacting the People in Postrevolutionary America. Durham: Duke UP.

Frank, Jason. 2024. “Ästhetische Repräsentationen des Volkes.” WestEnd: Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 2024/1. Special issue “Ästhetik der Demokratie”. Ed. Johannes Völz: 65–78.

Frank, Katherine. 2006. “Agency.” Anthropological Theory 6.3: 281–302.

Frank, Michael. 2017. The Cultural Imaginary of Terrorism in Public Discourse, Literature, and Film. New York: Routledge.

Frega, Roberto. 2019. Pragmatism and the Wide View of Democracy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Früchtl, Josef. 2021. Demokratie der Gefühle: Ein ästhetisches Plädoyer. Hamburg: Meiner.

Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.

Fusco, Gian Giacomo. 2023. Form of Life: Agamben and the Destitution of Rules. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.

Gailus, Andrew. 2020. Forms of Life: Aesthetics and Biopolitics in German Culture. Ithaca: Cornell UP.

Geiselberger, Heinrich, Ed. 2017. Die große Regression: Eine internationale Debatte über die geistige Situation der Zeit Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2006. Masken des Selbst. Aufrichtigkeit und Verstellung in der europäischen Literatur. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2008. Gegendiskurse: Literatur und Diskursanalyse bei Michel Foucault. Heidelberg: Synchron.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2012. “Theologie und Anarchie: Die Sprache der Gerechtigkeit in Walter Benjamins Zur Kritik der Gewalt.” Literatur und Anarchie. Das Streben nach Herrschaftsfreiheit in der europäischen Literatur vom 19. bis ins 21. Jahrhundert. Eds. Rainer Barbey and Heribert Tommek. Heidelberg: Synchron. 63–78.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2013. “Scham: Theorie und Geschichte einer starken Empfindung.” Scham. Eds. Joachim Küchenhoff, Joachim Pfeiffer and Carl Pietzcker. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. Freiburger Literaturpsychologische Gespräche, Jahrbuch für Literatur und Psychoanalyse 32. 21–39.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2018. Die Sprache der Infamie II: Literatur und Niedertracht. München: Fink.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2019. Die Sprache der Infamie III. Literatur und Scham. Paderborn: Fink.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2020. “Ein hässliches Gefühl? Zur Geschichte der Eifersucht in Psychoanalyse und Literatur.” Psyche: Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse und ihre Anwendungen 74: 687–711.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2021a. “Das Angenehme: Für eine neue Ästhetik des Sinnlichen.” Komparatistik. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Allgemeine Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft 2019. Eds. Annette Simonis, Martin Sexl and Alexandra Müller. Bielefel: Aisthesis. 121–131.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2021b. “L’absence de l’exquis dans l’esthétique de l’idéalisme allemand.” L’exquis. Eds. Elizabeth Guilhamon, Nicole Pelletier and Géraldine Puccini. Bordeaux: Presse Universitaires de Bordeaux. Eidôlon 131. 167–174.

Geisenhanslüke, Achim. 2024. Der Geschmack der Freiheit: Kant und das politisch Unbewusste der Ästhetik. Baden-Baden: Rombach Wissenschaft.

Gessen, Masha. 2020. Surviving Autocracy. New York: Riverhead.

Glaser, Ben and Jonathan Culler. 2019. Critical Rhythm: The Poetics of a Literary Life Form. New York: Fordham UP.

Goffman, Erving. 1956. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Gräfe, Anne. 2024. Langeweile Aushalten: Kontingenzerfahrung in der Gegenwartskunst. Berlin: Kadmos.

Grossberg, Lawrence. 2018. Under the Cover of Chaos: Trump and the Battle for the American Right. London: Pluto.

Grove, Jairus Victor. 2019. Savage Ecology: War and Geopolitics at the End of the World. Durham: Duke UP.

Gudavarthy, Ajay. 2019. India After Modi: Populism and the Right. New Delhi: Bloomsbury India.

Gudavarthy, Ajay. 2023. Politics, Ethics and Emotions in ‘New India.’ New York: Routledge.

Guthrie, James R. 2001. Above Time: Emerson’s and Thoreau’s Temporal Revolutions. Columbia: U of Missouri P.

Gutmann, Amy and Dennis F. Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton UP.

Güven, Ferit. 2015. Decolonizing Democracy: Intersections of Philosophy and Postcolonial Theory. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Neuauflage. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Hall, John A., Ed. 1986. States in History. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hamlin, Alan P. and Philip Pettit. 1989. The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hanchard, Michael G. 2018. The Spectre of Race: How Discrimination Haunts Western Democracy. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Haraway, Donna. 1992. “Otherworldly Conversations; Terran Topics; Local Terms.” Science as Culture 3.1: 64–98.

Haraway, Donna. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke UP.

Harney, Stefano and Fred Moten. 2016. Die Undercommons: Flüchtige Planung und schwarzes Studium. Wien: Transversal Texts.

Hartman, Saidiya. 1997. Scenes of Subjection, Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Oxford UP.

Hartman, Saidiya. 2008. “Venus in two acts.” Small Axe 12.2: 1–14.

Hartman, Saidiya. 2019. Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments: Intimate Histories of Social Upheaval. New York: Norton.

Hayes, Patricia. 2024. “Fanie Jason: Wenn der Grund der Bilder bebt.” Horizonte der Demokratie. Eds. Johannes Völz and Till van Rahden. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

Hayes, Patricia. 2024. “Einheit und Kampf: Afrapix und die Sedimentierung der Fotografie.” WestEnd 21.1: 101–16.

Hediger, Vinzenz and Patrick Vonderau, Eds. 2009a. Films that Work: Industrial Films and the Productivity of Media. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP.

Hediger, Vinzenz. 2009b. “YouTube and the Aesthetics of Political Accountability.” The YouTube Reader. Eds. Pelle Snickars and Patrick Vonderau. New York: Columbia UP. 252–264.

Hediger, Vinzenz, Malte Hagener and Alena Strohmaier, Eds. 2016. The State of Post-Cinema. Tracing the Moving Image in the Age of Digital Networks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hediger, Vinzenz and Miriam de Rosa, Eds. 2017. Post when? Post what? Thinking the Moving Image Beyond the Post-Medium Condition. Cinema & Cie 14.26/27. Mailand: Il Castoro.

Hediger, Vinzenz. 2018a. “Can We Leave the Cave and Have It Too? On the Meaning of Cinema as Technology.” Technology and Film Scholarship. Experience, Study, Theory. Ed. Santiago Hidalgo. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP. 213–238.

Hediger, Vinzenz. 2018b. “Epistemology of the Checkpoint: Gillo Pontecorvo’s Battaglia di Algeri and the Doctrine of Counterinsurgency.” Cinema’s Military Industrial Complex. Eds. Lee Grieveson and Haidee Wasson. Berkeley: U of California P. 157–176.

Hediger, Vinzenz. 2021a. “How to Fight a Pandemic with Status Elevation: The Home Shopping Governance of Donald J. Trump.” Pandemic Media. Preliminary Notes Towards an Inventory. Eds. Philipp Dominik Keidl, Laliv Melamed, Vinzenz Hediger and Antonio Somaini. Lüneburg: Meson. 343–356.

Hediger, Vinzenz. 2021b. “Sichtbares Unrecht: Zur normativen Kraft des Dokumentarischen.” Normative Ordnungen. Eds. Rainer Forst and Klaus Günther. Berlin: Suhrkamp. 478–501.

Hediger, Vinzenz and Rembert Hüser, Eds. 2022. Jean-Luc Godard: Film denken nach der Geschichte des Kinos. München: Fink.

Hediger, Vinzenz and Felix Simon. 2024. “Unauthorized Fictions: Political Conflict as Spectacle and the Question of Trust in the Age of Trump.” Tacit Cinematic Knowledge: Approaches and Practices. Eds. Rebecca Boguska, Guilherme Machado, Rebecca Puchta and Marin Reljic. Lüneburg: Meson. 241–264.

Heitmeyer, Wilhelm. 2018. Autoritäre Versuchungen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Henry, Rosita et al. 2023. “Weedy Life: Coloniality, Decoloniality, and Tropicality.” Special issue. eTropic 22.1.

Hetzel, Andreas and Katrin Wille. 2023. “Demokratie als Lebensform: Einleitung in den Schwerpunkt.” Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie 48.2: 173–188.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: U of California P.

Honneth, Axel. 2003. “Unsichtbarkeit: Über die moralische Epistemologie von ‘Anerkennung’.”Unsichtbarkeit. Stationen einer Theorie der Intersubjektivität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 10–27.

Honneth, Axel. 2015. Die Idee des Sozialismus: Versuch einer Aktualisierung. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Hook, Sidney. 1938. “Democracy as a Way of Life.” The Southern Review 4.3: 45–57.

Illouz, Eva. 2024. Explosive Moderne. Trans. Michael Adrian. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Innerarity, Daniel. 2019. Politics in the Times of Indignation: The Crisis of Representative Democracy. London: Bloomsbury.

Iser, Wolfgang. 1991. Das Fiktive und das Imaginäre: Perspektiven literarischer Anthropologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Jaeggi, Rahel. 1997. “Authentizität und Alltag: Die Hannah Arendt-Rezeption zwischen Kritischer Theorie und Postmoderne.” Deutsche Ζeitschrift für Philosophie. 45.1: 147–165.

Jaeggi, Rahel. 2013. Kritik von Lebensformen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Jameson, Fredric. 2016. Marxism and Form: 20th-Century Dialectical Theories of Literature. 1974. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Jessop, Bob. 2002. The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity.

Kant, Immanuel. 1974. Kritik der Urteilskraft. 1790. Ed. Wilhelm Weischedel. Vol. 10. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Karalis, Vrasidas, Eds. 2014. Cornelius Castoriadis and Radical Democracy. Leiden: Brill.

Karpik, Lucien. 2007. L’économie des singularités. Paris: Gallimard.

Kern, Andrea and Ruth Sonderegger, Ed. 2002. Falsche Gegensätze: Zeitgenössische Positionen zur philosophischen Ästhetik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Kerner, Ina. 2021. “Zur Kolonialität der liberalen Demokratie.” ZPTh—Zeitschrift für Politische Theorie 12.2: 182–199.

Kishik, David. 2012. The Power of Life: Agamben and the Coming Politics. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Klooger, Jeff. 2009. Castoriadis: Psyche, Society, Autonomy. Leiden: Brill.

Kneip, Sascha. 2015. “Verfassungsgerichte in der Demokratie: Zwischen Krisenerzeugung und Krisenmanagement.” Demokratie und Krise: Zum schwierigen Verhältnis von Theorie und Empirie. Ed. Wolfgang Merkel. Cham: Springer. 407–438.

Kohlmann, Benjamin. 2022. British Literature and the Life of Institutions: Speculative States. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Kopenawa, Davi. 2013. The Falling Sky: Words of a Yanomami Shaman. Trans. Nicholas Elliott and Allison Dundy. Cambridge: Belknap.

Kornbluh, Anna. 2019. The Order of Forms: Realism, Formalism, and Social Space. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Koschorke, Albrecht. 2012. Wahrheit und Erfindung: Grundzüge einer Allgemeinen Erzähltheorie. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.

Král, Françoise. 2014. Social Invisibility and Diasporas in Anglophone Literature and Culture: The Fractal Gaze. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Krastev, Ivan and Stephen Holmes. 2019. The Light That Failed: Why the West Is Losing the Fight for Democracy. London: Penguin.

Krause-Wahl, Antje. 2003. “Nachbarschaften – Reflexionen zum ‘künstlerischen Schaffen’ in der Informationsgesellschaft: Der Film Vicinato II, Relationale Ästhetik und immaterielle Arbeit.” Modelle künstlerischer Produktion. Eds. Friedrich Weltzien and Amrei Volkmann. Berlin: Reimer. 99–109.

Krause-Wahl, Antje. 2005 “Der Bangkok Beuys kocht Thai Curry: Überlegungen zu den (Selbst)Konstruktionen Rirkrit Tiravanijas.” Globalisierung / Hierarchisierung. Kulturelle Dominanzen in Kunst und Kunstgeschichte. Eds. Irene Below and Beatrice von Bismarck. Marburg: Jonas. 106–121.

Krause-Wahl, Antje. 2008. “Das Vermitteln gestalten: Joseph Beuys, Lehrer.” Joseph Beuys und Düsseldorf. Ostfildern: Stadtmuseum Düsseldorf. 11–26.

Krause-Wahl, Antje. 2016a. “Andy Warhol’s Interview: Arbiter of Queer Style.” Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body and Culture 20.2: 51–80.

Krause-Wahl, Antje. 2016b. “Page by Page: Fashion and Photography in the Magazine.” Magazines. Ed. Gwen Allen. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Krause-Wahl, Antje. 2018. “Ökonomien der sozialen Medien: Bildpolitik und Gemeinschaftsbildung in den digitalen Netzwerken der Gegenwartskunst.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 81.4: 575–588.

Krause-Wahl, Antje. 2022a. “(Un)Sichtbar werden: Körper in den Fotografien Jimmy DeSanas.” Inquiries into Art, History, and the Visual 4: 863–891.

Krause-Wahl, Antje. 2022b. Kunst, Mode, Magazine. Eine queere Geschichte von Bildern und Oberflächen.München: Silke Schreiber.

Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2020. “Is There a Crisis of Democracy in Europe?” Politische Vierteljahressschrift 61.2: 237–260.

Latour, Bruno. 2001. Das Parlament der Dinge: Naturpolitik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Latour, Bruno and Peter Weibel, Eds. 2005. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Latour, Bruno. 2014. “Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene.” New Literary History 45.1: 1–18.

Laugier, Sandra. 2015. “The Ethics of Care as a Politics of the Ordinary.” New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 46.2: 217–240.

Laugier, Sandra. 2016. “Care, the Ordinary, Forms of Life.” Iride: Filosofia e discussion pubblica 29: 109–122.

Lefebvre, Alexandre. 2024. Liberalism as a Way of Life. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Lefort, Claude. 1988. Democracy and Political Theory. Trans. David Macey. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.

Leibfried, Stephan, et al. 2015. “Introduction: Transformations of the State.” The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State.” Eds. Stephan Leibfried et al. New York: Oxford UP. 1–32.

Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction. New York: New York UP.

Lessenich, Stephan. 2015. Die Neuerfindung des Sozialen: Der Sozialstaat im flexiblen Kapitalismus. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Levine, Caroline. 2015. Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Levinson, Marjorie. 2007. “What Is New Formalism?” PMLA 122.2: 558–569.

Levitsky, Steven and Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.

Leypoldt, Günter. 2014. “Singularity and the Literary Market.” New Literary History 45.1: 71–88.

Link, Jürgen. 1996. Versuch über den Normalismus: Wie Normalität produziert wird. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Loick, Daniel. 2018. “On the Politics of Forms of Life.” From Alienation to Forms of Life: The Critical Theory of Rahel Jaeggi. Eds. Amy Allen and Eduardo Mendieta. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2016. “Hannah Arendt’s Conception of Actualized Plurality.” Phenomenology of Sociality: Discovering the ‘We.’ Eds. Thomas Szanto and Dermot Moran. London: Routledge. 42–55.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2017. Phenomenology of Plurality: Hannah Arendt on Political Intersubjectivity. New York: Routledge.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2018. „Experience and Normativity: The Phenomenological Approach.“ Phenomenology and Experience: New Perspectives. Eds. Antonio Cimino and Cees Leijenhorst. Leiden: Brill. 150–165.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2019. “Who One Is – A Political Issue? Hannah Arendt on Personhood, Maximal Self, and Bare Life.” Political Phenomenology. Experience, Ontology, Episteme. Eds. Thomas Bedorf and Steffen Herrmann. London: Routledge. 165–192.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2020. “Sinnräume: Ein phänomenologisches Analyseinstrument, am Beispiel von Hannah Arendts Vita Activa.” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 68.2. 167–188.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2021a “Order, Experience, and Critique: The Phenomenological Method in Political and Legal Theory.” Continental Philosophy Review 54.2: 153–170.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2021b. “What is Critique—for Phenomenology? A Foucauldian Perspective.” Phenomenology as Critique. Eds. Andreea Smaranda Aldea, David Carr and Sara Heinämaa. London: Routledge.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2021c. “Wirklichkeit als politische Kategorie: Hannah Arendt über Wahrheit und Lüge in der Politik.” Faktum, Faktizität, Wirklichkeit: Phänomenologische Perspektiven. Eds. Inga Römer, Sergej Seitz and Georg Stenger. Hamburg: Meiner.

Loidolt, Sophie. 2024. “Hannah Arendt: Plurality, Worldliness, and Action: Inverting the Image of Totalitarianism.” Routledge Handbook of Political Phenomenology. Eds. Steffen Herrmann et al. London: Routledge. 180–190.

Lotman, Jurij M. 1979. “The Origin of Plot in the Light of Typology.” Trans. Julian Graffy. Poetics Today 1.1–2: 161–184.

Lotman, Jurij M. 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Trans. Ann Shukman. Bloomington: Indiana UP.

Mahmood, Saba. 2011. Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Malreddy, Pavan Kumar. 2024. Insurgent Cultures: World Literatures and Violence from the Global South. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Manow, Philip. 2018. Die Politische Ökonomie des Populismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Manow, Philip. 2020. (Ent-)Demokratisierung der Demokratie. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Massumi, Brian. 1995. “The Autonomy of Affect.” Cultural Critique 31: 83–109.

Mbembe, Achille and Janet Roitman. 1996. “Figures of the Subject in Times of Crisis.” The Geography of Identity. Ed. Patricia Yaeger. Ann Arbour: U of Michigan P. 153–186.

Mbembe, Achille. 2014. Kritik der schwarzen Vernunft. Trans. Michael Bischoff. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Mbembe, Achille. 2017. Critique of Black Reason. Trans. Laurent Dubois. Durham: Duke UP.

Mbembe, Achille. 2019. Necropolitics. Trans. Steve Corcoran. Durham. Duke UP.

McKittrick, Katherine. 2021. Dear Science and Other Stories. Durham: Duke UP.

McKittrick, Katherine. 2022. “Dear April: The Aesthetics of Black Miscellanea.” Antipode 54.1: 3–18.

Meillassoux, Quentin. 2008. After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. Trans. Ray Brassier. New York: Continuum.

Melamed, Laliv. 2014a. “Close to Home: Privatization and Personalization of Militarized Death in Israeli Home Videos.” New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film 11.2–3: 127–142.

Melamed, Laliv. 2014b. “Learning by Heart: Humming, Singing, Memorizing.” Silence, Screen, and Spectacle: Rethinking Social Memory in the Age of Information. Eds. Daniel Rachel, Lindsey A. Freeman and Benjamin Nienass. New York: Berghahn: 95–117.

Melamed, Laliv. 2015. “Infrastructures of Occupation: Three Films from Israel-Palestine.” American Anthropologist 117.2: 393–397.

Melamed, Laliv and Jason Fox, Eds. 2018. “Ways of Organizing: Documentary Resources, Documentary Habitats, Documentary Programming.” Special issue. World Records 2.

Melamed, Laliv, Philipp Dominik Keidl, Vinzenz Hediger and Antonio Somaini, Eds. 2020. Pandemic Media: Notes Toward an Inventory. Lüneburg: Meson.

Melamed, Laliv. 2021. “Seeking an Advice: A Political Economy of Israeli Home Videos”. A Global History of Amateur Film Cultures. Eds. Enrique Fibla and Masha Salazkina. Indianapolis: Indiana UP. 95–111.

Melamed, Laliv. 2022. “What Is a Girlfriend? Toward a Political Concept of the Girlfriend.” Discourse: Journal of Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture 43.3: 421–446.

Melamed, Laliv. 2023a. Sovereign Intimacy: Private Media and the Traces of Colonial Violence. Oakland: U of California P.

Melamed, Laliv. 2023b. “A NonReport: The Operative Image and the Politics of the Public Secret.” JCMS62.4: 33–56.

Melley, Timothy. 2012. The Covert Sphere: Secrecy, Fiction, and the National Security State. Ithaca: Cornell UP.

Melley, Timothy. 2015. “Security, Secrecy, and the Liberal Imaginary.” Telos 170. Special issue “Security and Liberalism”. Ed. Johannes Voelz: 149–67.

Menke, Christoph. 2013. Die Kraft der Kunst. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Menninghaus, Winfried. 2002. Ekel: Theorie und Geschichte einer starken Empfindung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Merkel, Wolfgang, Ed. 2015. Demokratie und Krise: Zum schwierigen Verhältnis von Theorie und Empirie. Cham: Springer.

Mills, Charles. 1997. The Racial Contract. Ithaca: Cornell UP.

Mishra, Pankaj. 2017. Das Zeitalter des Zorns: Eine Geschichte der Gegenwart. Trans. Laura Su Bischoff and Michael Bischoff. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.

Moellendorf, Darrel. 2022. Mobilizing Hope: Climate Change and Global Poverty. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Moffitt, Benjamin. 2016. The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Moffitt, Benjamin. 2019. “Populism and Media in Western Europe.” Routledge Handbook of Global Populism. Ed. C. De La Torre. London: Routledge. 235–248.

Mohrmann, Judith. 2015. Affekt und Revolution: Politisches Handeln nach Arendt und Kant. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Moi, Toril. 2017. Revolution of the Ordinary. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Moten, Fred. 2017. Black and Blur. Durham: Duke UP.

Moten, Fred. 2018. The Universal Machine. Durham: Duke UP.

Mounk, Yascha. 2018. Der Zerfall der Demokratie: Wie der Populismus den Rechtsstaat bedroht. München: Droemer.

Mudde, Cas, Ed. 2017. The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. New York: Routledge.

Müller, Jan-Werner. 2016. Was ist Populismus? Ein Essay. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Nealon, Jeffrey. 2015. Plant Theory: Biopower and Vegetable Life. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Ngai, Sianne. 2005. Ugly Feelings. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Ngai, Sianne. 2012. Our Aesthetic Categories. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Nixon, Rob. 2018. “The Anthropocene: The Promise and Pitfalls of an Epochal Idea.” Future Remains: A Cabinet of Curiosities for the Anthropocene. Eds. Gregg Mitman, Marco Armiero and Robert Emmett. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Ostiguy, Pierre. 2017. “Populism: A Socio-Cultural Approach.” The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Eds. Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser et al. Oxford: Oxford UP. 73–98.

Ostiguy, Pierre, Francisco Panizza and Benjamin Moffitt, Ed. 2020. Populism in Global Perspective: A Performative and Discursive Approach. Abingdon: Routledge.

Özmen, Elif. 2023. Was ist Liberalismus? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Panagia, Davide. 2016. Ten Theses for an Aesthetics of Politics. Minneapolis: Minnesota UP.

Panagia, Davide. 2018. Rancière’s Sentiments. Durham: Duke UP.

Pateman, Carole. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Patterson, Orlando. 1982. Slavery and social death: a comparative study. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Pease, Donald E. 2010. The New American Exceptionalism. Minnesota: Minnesota P.

Peper, Jürgen. 2022. Ästhetisierung als Zweite Aufklärung: Eine literarästhetisch abgeleitete Kulturtheorie. Bielefeld: Aisthesis.

Perloff, Marjorie. 1996. Wittgenstein’s Ladder: Poetic Language and the Strangeness of the Ordinary. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Phillips, Anne. 2021. Unconditional Equals. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Pradtke, Andre. 2014. Casting Shows als Märkte für Marktpotentiale: Ökonomische Theorien, Thesen und Tests zum Phänomen der Superstars und zur Gestaltung von “Casting Show”-Formaten. Marburg: Metropolis.

Przeworski, Adam. 2019. Crises of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Putnam, Ruth Anna. 2017. “Democracy as a Way of Life.” Pragmatism as a Way of Life: The Lasting Legacy of William James and John Dewey. Ed. David Macarthur. Cambridge: Belknap.

quaestio [Nico Beger/Sabine Hark/Antke Engel/Corinna Gentschel/Eva Schäfer], Eds. 2000. Queering Demokratie: sexuelle politiken. Berlin: Querverlag.

Rancière, Jacques. 1997. “Demokratie und Postdemokratie.” Politik der Wahrheit. Eds. Alain Badiou and Rado Riha. Wien: Turia und Kant.

Rancière, Jacques. 2002. Das Unvernehmen. Politik und Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Rancière, Jacques. 2010. Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics. London: Continuum.

Rebentisch, Juliane. 2003. Ästhetik der Installation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Rebentisch, Juliane. 2012. Die Kunst der Freiheit. Zur Dialektik demokratischer Existenz. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Rebentisch, Juliane. 2013. “Participation in Art: 10 Theses.” Contemporary Art. Themes and Histories, 1989 to the Present. Eds. Alexander Dumbadze and Suzanne Hudson. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. 267–276.

Rebentisch, Juliane. 2013a. “Über eine materialistische Seite von Camp: Naturgeschichte bei Jack Smith.” Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft 1: 165–177.

Rebentisch, Juliane. 2013b Theorien der Gegenwartskunst zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.

Rebentisch, Juliane and Felix Trautmann. 2017. “Zerrbilder der Gleichheit: Demokratie und Massenkultur nach Tocqueville.” WestEnd: Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 2017/1: 99–117.

Rebentisch, Juliane. 2018. “Erscheinen: Politische Öffentlichkeit nach Hannah Arendt.” WestEnd: Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 2018/2: 29–44.

Rebentisch, Juliane, et al., Eds. 2018. Negativität. Kunst, Recht, Politik. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Rebentisch, Juliane. 2021. “Kritische Ästhetik nach Habermas.” Mittelweg 36: 46–47.

Rebentisch, Juliane. 2022. Streit um Pluralität: Auseinandersetzungen mit Hannah Arendt. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Reckwitz, Andreas. 2016. “Die ‘neue Kultursoziologie’ und das praxeologische Quadrat der Kulturanalyse.” Kreativität und soziale Praxis: Studien zur Sozial- und Gesellschaftstheorie. Bielefeld: Transcript. 23–48.

Reckwitz, Andreas. 2017. Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten: Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Rose, Jacqueline. 1996. States of Fantasy. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Roy, Arundhati. 2022. AZADI: Fascism, Fiction, and Freedom in the Time of the Virus. Chicago: Haymarket.

Runciman, David. 2018. How Democracy Ends. London: Profile.

Saar, Martin. 2011. “Relocating the Modern State: Governmentality and the History of Political Ideas.” Governmentality: Current Issues and Future Challenges. Eds. Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne Krasmann and Thomas Lemke. New York: Routledge. 34–55.

Saar, Martin. 2013. “‘Multitude’ oder Volk? Neubestimmungen des Subjekts demokratischer Politik.” Die Versprechen der Demokratie. Ed. Hubertus Buchstein. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 89–104.

Saar, Martin. 2014. “Heterogene Demokratie.” Philosophische Rundschau 61.3: 183–205.

Saar, Martin. 2015. “Macht und Menge: Spinoza und die Philosophie der Demokratie.” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 63.3: 518–535.

Saar, Martin. 2018. “Gegen-Politik: Zur Negativität der Demokratie.” Negativität. Kunst—Recht—Politik. Eds. Thomas Khurana, Dirk Quadflieg, Francesca Raimondi, Juliane Rebentisch and Dirk Setton. Berlin: Suhrkamp. 281–292

Saar, Martin. 2019a. “Macht und Lebensform.” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 126.1: 139–149.

Saar, Martin. 2019b. “Ohnmacht und Unfreiheit: Demokratische Politik nach der Postdemokratie.” Zur Kritischen Theorie der Politik heute. Eds. Ulf Bohmann and Paul Sörensen. Berlin: Suhrkamp. 473–493.

Saar, Martin. 2019c. “Ordnung—Praxis—Subjekt, Oder: Was ist Sozialphilosophie?” WestEnd: Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 2019/2: 161–174.

Saar, Martin. 2020 “Muss die Demokratie erst demokratisiert werden?” Was bedeutet Demokratie in der EU im 21. Jahrhundert? Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurt U of Applied Sciences. Schriftenreihe des Center for Applied European Studies (CAES) 3. 360–67.

Saar, Martin. 2024. “Gesang einer Lebensform: Demokratie zwischen Ethik und Biopolitik.” Horizonte der Demokratie: Offene Lebensformen nach Walt Whitman. Eds. Johannes Völz and Till van Rahden. Bielefeld: Transcript. 87–91.

Santos, James William and Emil Albert Sobottka. 2022. “Genealogy, Immanent Critique and Forms of Life: A Path for Decolonial Studies.” Human Affairs 33: 101–114.

Schaefer, Armin and Michael Zürn. 2021. Die demokratische Regression: Die politischen Ursachen des autoritären Populismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Schaefer, Heike. 2004. Mary Austin’s Regionalism: Reflections on Gender, Genre, and Geography. Charlottesville: U of Virginia P.

Schaefer, Heike, Ed. 2006. America and the Orient. Heidelberg: Winter.

Schaefer, Heike. 2013. “The Parodic Play with Realist Aesthetics and Authenticity Claims in Cheryl Dunye’s Black Queer Mockumentary The Watermelon Woman.” Realisms in Contemporary Culture: Theories, Politics, and Medial Configurations. Eds. Dorothee Birke and Stella Butter. Berlin: De Gruyter. 195–213.

Schaefer, Heike. 2014. “Daring to Care: Body Politics, Social Justice, and the Drama of Health Care in Contemporary US American Theater.” The Health of the Nation. Eds. Meldan Tanrisal and Tanfer Emin Tunc. Heidelberg: Winter. 231–245.

Schaefer, Heike. 2016. “The Novel as ‘the Most Complex Artifact of Networking’: The Relevance of Network Theory for the Study of Transcultural Fiction.” Network Theory and American Studies. Eds. Ulfried Reichardt, Heike Schaefer and Regina Schober. Amerikastudien / American Studies 60.1: 139–156.

Schaefer, Heike. 2017. “‘Mind is primarily a verb’: Experiential Knowledge in John Dewey’s Pragmatist Evolutionary Thinking and in Modernist Poetry.” Literary Knowledge Production and the Life Sciences. Eds. Karin Hoepker and Heike Schaefer. Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 48.3: 179–194.

Schaefer, Heike and Alexander Starre, Eds. 2019. The Printed Book in Contemporary American Culture: Medium, Object, Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schaefer, Heike. 2020. American Literature and Immediacy: Literary Innovation and the Emergence of Photography, Film, and Television. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Schäfer, Heike. 2024a. “Gedichte Lesen in Krisenzeiten: Demokratie und Lyrik von Walt Whitman zu Claudia Rankine.” Horizonte der Demokratie: Offene Lebensformen nach Walt Whitman. Eds. Till van Rahden and Johannes Voelz. Bielefeld: Transcript. 119– 144.

Schaefer, Heike. 2024b. “Un/published: Presence and Absence in Contemporary Erasure Poetry.” American Literary History 36.2: 463–488.

Schaffer, Johanna. 2008. Ambivalenzen der Sichtbarkeit: Über die visuellen Strukturen der Anerkennung. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Schechner, Richard. 2020. Performance Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Schmidt-Linsenhoff, Viktoria. 2010. Ästhetik der Differenz. Postkoloniale Perspektiven vom 16. bis 21. Jahrhundert. Marburg: Jonas.

Seel, Martin. 2007. “On the Scope of Aesthetic Experience.” Aesthetic Experience. Eds. Richard Shusterman and Adele Tomlin. New York: Routledge. 98–105.

Shelby, Tommie. 2018. Dark Ghettos: Injustice, Dissent, and Reform. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Shusterman, Richard. 2007. “Aesthetic Experience: From Analysis to Eros.” Aesthetic Experience. Eds. Richard Shusterman  and Adele Tomlin. New York: Routledge. 79–97.

Shusterman, Richard and Adele Tomlin, Eds. 2008. Aesthetic Experience. New York: Routledge.

Sklovskij, Viktor. 1971. “Die Kunst als Verfahren.” Russischer Formalismus: Texte zur allgemeinen Literaturtheorie und zur Theorie der Prosa. Ed. Jurij Striedter. München: W. Fink. 3–35.

Slaby, Jan and Jonas Bens. 2019. “Political Affect.” Affective Societies: Key Concepts. Eds. Jan Slaby and Christian von Scheve. London: Routledge. 340–351.

Slotkin, Richard. 1986. “Myth and the Production of History.” Ideology and Classic American Literature. Eds. Sacvan Bercovitch and Myra Jehlen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 70–90.

Stauffer, Andrew M. 2005. Anger, Revolution, and Romanticism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Stengers, Isabelle. 2007. “La proposition cosmopolitique.” L’émergence des cosmopolitiques. Eds. Jacques Lolive and Olivier Soubeyran. Paris: La Découverte. 45–68.

Stengers, Isabelle. 2009. Au temps des catastrophes. Résister à la barbarie qui vient. Paris: La Découverte.

Stengers, Isabelle. 2011. Cosmopolitics II. Trans. Robert Bononno. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.

Stewart, Kathleen. 2007. Ordinary Affects. Durham: Duke UP.

Sauer, Birgit. 2001. Die Asche des Souveräns. Staat und Demokratie in der Geschlechterdebatte. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Talisse, Robert. 2003. “Can Democracy Be a Way of Life? Deweyan Democracy and the Problem of Pluralism.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 39.1: 1–21.

Tamarkin, Elisa. 2022. Apropos of Something: A History of Irrelevance and Relevance. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Taussig, Michael. 1999. Defacement: Public Secrecy and the Labor of the Negative. Stanford: Stanford UP.

Taylor, Charles. 1988. “Was ist menschliches Handeln?” Negative Freiheit? Zur Kritik des neuzeitlichen Individualismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 9–51.

Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Tilly, Charles. 1975. “Reflections on the History of European State-Making.” The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Ed. Charles Tilly. Princeton: Princeton UP. 3–83.

Tully, James. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key. Bd. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Tynjanov, Jurij. 1971. “Das literarische Faktum.” Russischer Formalismus: Texte zur allgemeinen Literaturtheorie und zur Theorie der Prosa. Ed. Jurij Striedter. München: W. Fink. 393–431.

Urbinati, Nadia. 2014. Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

van Rahden, Till. 2019. Demokratie: Eine gefährdete Lebensform. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

van Rahden, Till and Johannes Völz, Ed. 2024. Horizonte der Demokratie: Offene Lebensformen nach Walt Whitman. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Vasudevan, Ravi. 2005. “Devotional Transformation: Miracles, Mechanical Artifice, and Spectatorship in Indian Cinema.” The Journal of Sacred Texts and Contemporary Worlds 1.3: 237–257.

Venus, Jochen. 2013. “Die Erfahrung des Populären. Perspektive einer kritischen Phänomenologie.” Performativität und Medialität Populärer Kulturen. Eds. Marcus S. Kleiner and Thomas Wilke. Wiesbaden: Springer. 49–73.

Viveiros de Castro, E. 2004. “Perspectivismo e multinaturalismo na América Indígena.” O que nos faz pensar 14.18: 225–254.

Viveiros de Castro, E. 2014. Cannibal metaphysics. Minnesota: Minnesota UP.

Voelz, Johannes. 2010. Transcendental Resistance: The New Americanists and Emerson’s Challenge. Hanover: UP of New England.

Voelz, Johannes, Laura Bieger and Ramón Saldívar, Eds. 2013. The Imaginary and Its Worlds: American Studies after the Transnational Turn. Hanover: Dartmouth College Press.

Voelz, Johannes. 2017a. The Poetics of Insecurity: American Fiction and the Uses of Threat. New York: Cambridge UP.

Völz, Johannes. 2017b. “Wendungen des Neids: Tocqueville und Emerson zum Paradox einer demokratischen Leidenschaft.” WestEnd: Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 2017/1: 141–154.

Voelz, Johannes. 2018. “Toward an Aesthetics of Populism, Part I: The Populist Space of Appearance.” Yearbook ofResearch in English and American Literature (REAL) 34: 203–228.

Voelz, Johannes and Tom Freischläger. 2019. “Towards an Aesthetics of Populism, Part II: The Aesthetics of Polarization.” Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature (REAL) 35: 261–286.

Voelz, Johannes. 2019. “Notes Toward Thoreau’s Posthuman Democracy.” An Eclectic Bestiary: Encounters in a More-Than-Human World. Eds. Babette Tischleder and Birgit Spengler. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2019. 181–194.

Voelz, Johannes. 2022. “The Post-Liberal Aesthetic; Or, How Can Literary Criticism Help Unsettle America’s Polarization?” American Literary History 34.1: 354–368.

Voelz, Johannes and Axel Honneth, Eds. 2023. “W.E.B. Du Bois: Der Klassiker zwischen den Disziplinen.” Special issue. WestEnd: Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 2023/1.

Völz, Johannes and Till van Rahden, Eds. 2024. Horizonte der Demokratie: Offene Lebensformen nach Walt Whitman. Bielefeld: Transcript.

von Moltke, Johannes. 2022. “The Metapolitics of Identity: Identitarianism and Its Critics.” German Studies Review 45.1: 151–166.

Weber, Max. 1921. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Die Wirtschaft und die gesellschaftlichen Ordnungen und Mächte. Tübingen: Mohr.

Weheliye, Alexander G. 2014. Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human. Durham: Duke UP.

Wilcke, Holger. 2018. Illegal und unsichtbar? Papierlose Migrant*innen als politische Subjekte. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Williams, Raymond. 1960. Culture and Society, 1780–1950. New York: Columbia UP.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1998. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Ed. Eike von Savigny. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Wolfe, Cary. 2010. What Is Posthumanism? Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.

Wolff, Nathan. 2019. Not Quite Hope and Other Political Emotions in the Gilded Age. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Worms, Frédéric. 2013. Über Leben. Berlin: Merve.

Wu, Jingsi. 2011. “Enlightenment or Entertainment: The Nurturance of an Aesthetic Public Sphere Through a Popular Talent Show in China.” The Communication Review 14.1: 46–67.

Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument.” The New Centennial Review 3.3: 257–337.

Yang, Zhiyi. 2016. “The Tower of Going Astray: The Paradox of Liu Yazi’s (1887–1958) Lyric Classicism.” Modern Chinese Literature and Culture 28.1: 174–221.

Yang, Zhiyi and Jeremy E. Taylor, Eds. 2020. “Elite Accommodation, Collaboration and Cultural Production in Japanese-Occupied China.” Special issue. European Journal of East Asian Studies 19.2.

Yang, Zhiyi. 2020a. “The Everyday Life under the Occupation: Doggerels in the Bitter Tea Studio as Texts of Liminality.” 淪陷的日常:作為閾限文本的〈苦茶庵打油詩, Modern Chinese Literature 中國現代文學 38: 93–118.

Yang, Zhiyi. 2020b. “The Memory of an Assassin and Problems of Legitimacy in the Wang Jingwei Regime (1940–1945).” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 80.1: 37–83.

Yang, Zhiyi. 2022a. “An Alternative Lyric Modernity? Modern Classicism and Zhou Zuoren’s Wartime Doggerels.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 142.2: 335–352.

Yang, Zhiyi. 2022b. “Sinophone Classicism: Chineseness as Temporal and Mnemonic Experience in the Digital Era.” The Journal of Asian Studies 81.4: 1–15.

Yang, Zhiyi and David Der-wei Wang. 2023. “Classicism in Digital Times: Cultural Remembrance as Reimagination in the Sinophone Cyberspace.” Special issue. Prism: Theory and Modern Chinese Literature 20.2.

Yang, Zhiyi. 2023a. “Writing in the Digital Sand: Technology and Classicist Poetry in the Chinese Cyberspace.” Prism: Theory and Modern Chinese Literature 20.2: 341–366.

Yang, Zhiyi. 2023b. Poetry, History, Memory: Wang Jingwei and China in Dark Times. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P.

Yang, Zhiyi. 2024. “Genosse Whitman: Der Barde der Demokratie unter chinesischen Linken.” Horizonte der Demokratie: Offene Lebensformen nach Walt Whitman. Eds. Johannes Völz and Till van Rahden. Bielefeld: Transcript. 67–86.

Young, Iris. M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Zapf, Hubert, Eds. 2016. Handbook of Ecocriticism and Cultural Ecology. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Zerilli, Linda. 2016. A Democratic Theory of Judgement. Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Zhao, Jamie J. 2022. “Queer Chinese Media and Pop Culture.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford: Oxford UP.