^{CfP as PDF for download}

In the introduction to his Negative Dialectics , Adorno formulated the claim in 1966 that only an unreserved critique of existing conditions offers a prospect of human liberation. In doing so, he places himself in the tradition of the categorical imperative, which attempts to define the maxims of right action in a radical contrast between morality and reality.
Following this tradition, the planned congress for students and doctoral candidates will explore the question of the extent to which a relentless confrontation of opposites can contribute to either resolving or enduring them. To this end, it is necessary to juxtapose different views of the relationship between criticism and reconciliation. Can irreconcilable thinking be uncompromising when identification is an all too justified desire in view of the loss of a binding spiritual cosmos due to the fall of both religious belief systems and philosophical metaphysics of the mind? The renitence of a general criticism of the given conditions is wisely accused of having a destructive effect, insofar as it denies the reconciliation of ego and reality to which everyone is equally entitled; however, this objection itself takes on a cynical twist: "We won't get anywhere like this, every child knows that / It's time for harmony my friend, otherwise we'll die blind! / So celebrate the shit - as funny as it sounds - / and just dance to every song that swings" (Käpt'n Peng).

Current aesthetic reflections reflect an essential experience of loss, the causes of which are inadequately captured by a sometimes post-modern, sometimes post-democratic interpretation of society. The inability to be outraged by injustice and injustice that can be observed in many places cannot be explained solely by the laziness and indolence of individuals, but must also be attributed to the constitution of a society whose constraints and functional mechanisms preform the subjective consciousness, domesticate its critical potential and appropriate it for a false reconciliation. In order to avoid a true reconciliation of conflicts of interest being thwarted by their levelling out in the administrative processes of politics and academia, it is necessary to insist on the claim to truth of critique despite and because of all the diversity of possible theoretical perspectives. The congress therefore takes the opportunity to work out the definitions of this pair of terms and their socio-political consequences through an interdisciplinary examination of the topic of critique and reconciliation. At the same time, the socio-critical mission of science is to be recalled and advanced.

Abstracts on the following (and other) topics from all academic perspectives are welcome:

• Systematic and philosophical-historical definitions of the terms critique and reconciliation

• Reconciliation in politics and history (e.g. via truth and reconciliation commissions)

• Theological understandings of criticism and reconciliation (e.g. soteriology, theodicy, contextual theology)

• Reconciliation between religions and cultures

• Psychological dimensions: Reconciliation and alienation of ego and reality

• Criticism of binary gender construction and reconciliation of trans and cis gender identities

• Artistic-aesthetic reflection on criticism and reconciliation (from visual art to pop culture)