Get started
Work

Editorial

Year: 2020
Type: editorial
Abstract: When a back date issue of any academic journal is published a little later than its timeliness, the joy of its publication is overwhelming.However, it poses some critical questions: whether could this be made theme-based, works cited by the contributors later than the publishing year, its relevance on time scale and so on.This volume could not be made thematic, as it has to be evolved based on available papers of IUC associates and a few other contributions by scholars of repute.On the other hand, it provides opportunities with changing times.It is a peer review journal with its own advantages, including style of presentation and importance in ranking system of UGC.The authors had a chance to look at their papers afresh and recent work could be cited on the topics.Some contributions therefore carry references of later years than 2011.There are nine essays belonging to different disciplines and exploring new areas or debates within the respective discipline.Essays from political thought, philosophy, political sociology, literature review on Partition, a combination of history, art, gender and sexuality, history of ideas and community identity of Sri Vaisanavas in South India, understanding tribes through popular cultural studies, and reflection on English literary study and pedagogic issues have enriched this volume.Two book reviews, one by a philosopher and the other by a development sociologist, are included.Mangesh revisits the famous debate between Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, which was triggered by Francis Jeansonís carping review of the latterís book on political philosophy, The Rebel (1951).He gives an overview of the debate which addressed a wide range of issues including the meaning of history, the nature of revolution, as well as the relationship between freedom and necessity.Camus objected to Jeansonís and Sartreís uncritical attitude towards the pronouncements of Hegel and Marx.He condemned the duoís failure to decipher the Hegelian roots of communist cynicism, their refusal to acknowledge the unraveling of the Marxist prognosis and the authoritarian character of the USSR, as also their cavalier censure of all non-Marxist revolutionary traditions.In turn, his two detractors accused Camus of theoretical naiveness, indifference to history, as
Language: English
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W7220177376
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: