Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2011 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Hegel and georges bataille’s conceptualization of sovereignty

Pages
217–227
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This shows not only how Bataille’s sovereignty enlightens slave/master dialectics, but also how Bataille’s encounter with Hegel conditions his formulation of sovereignty.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Georges Bataille’s intellectual attitude toward Hegel implies a certain complex structure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This makes it difficult to posit Bataille’s attitude as endorsement or rejection of Hegel.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This shows not only how Bataille’s sovereignty enlightens slave/master dialectics, but also how Bataille’s encounter with Hegel conditions his formulation of sovereignty.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Georges Bataille’s intellectual attitude toward Hegel implies a certain complex structure. This makes it difficult to posit Bataille’s attitude as endorsement or rejection of Hegel. Even if it is possible to infer that Bataille’s formulation of sovereignty directly challenges Hegel’s Phenomenology, we can still realize that in Bataille’s sovereignty, the crucial part is played by the insights taken from Phenomenology. This study tries to look at where this relationship finds its clearest expression: slave/ master dialectics. The main concern of this study, therefore, consists in analyzing the insights which we realize when we put slave/master dialectic and Bataille’s sovereignty side by side. This shows not only how Bataille’s sovereignty enlightens slave/master dialectics, but also how Bataille’s encounter with Hegel conditions his formulation of sovereignty.

Özet

Georges Bataille’ın Hegel karşısındaki entelektüel konumu karmaşık bir yapıya sahiptir. Bu karmaşıklık Bataille’ın Hegel karşısındaki konumunu ret veya kabul tercihleriyle sınırlandırmayı imkansız hale getirmektedir. Bataille’ın egemenlik kuramının Fenomenoloji’’nin bir eleştirisi olduğunu anlamak zor değilse de, Bataille’ın egemenliği formüle etmede Fenomenoloji’ye çok şey borçlu olduğu da bir gerçektir. Bu çalışma Bataille ile Hegel arasındaki bu ilişkinin en belirgin olarak ortaya çıktığı yere bakmak istemektedir: köle/efendi diyalektiği. O halde, çalışmanın temel çıkış noktası Bataille’ın egemenliği ile köle/efendi diyalektiğini birlikte okumanın ortaya koyacağı çıkarımlardır. Bu Bataille’ın egemenlik kavramının köle/efendi diyalektiğini ne derecede aydınlattığını göstermekle kalmayacak, aynı zamanda Bataille’ın Hegel ile karşılaşmasının onun egemenliği formüle etmesini nasıl etkilediğini de ortaya koyacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, M. U. (2022). Hegel and georges bataille’s conceptualization of sovereignty. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 217–227. https://ajindex.com/articles/495471

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Abreau, M. ve Mendes, M. (2002) “Commercial Bank Interest Margins and Profitability: Evidence from EU Countries” University of Porto Working Paper Series, 122. Allen, L. (1988) “The Determinants of Bank Interest Margins: A Note” Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 23: 231-235.
  2. Angbazo, L. (1997) “Commercial Bank Net İnterest Margins, Default Risk, Interest-Rate Risk, and Off-Balance Sheet Banking” Journal of Banking & Finance. 21: 55-87.
  3. Athanasoglou, P.P., Brissimis, S. N. ve Delis, M.D. (2008) “Bank-Specific, Industry-Specific and Macroeconomic Determinants of Bank Profitability” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 18: 121-136.
  4. Berger, A. (1995) “The Profit-Structure Relationship in Banking – Tests of Market Power and Efficient Structure Hypotheses” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27: 401-431. Bankacılık Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu (BDDK), Yıllık Rapor 2001.
  5. Boyd, J. H. ve Runkle, D. E. (1993) “Size and Performance of Banking Firms: Testing the Predictions of Theory” Journal of Monetary Economics, 31: 47-67.
  6. Çingi S. ve Tarım, A. (2000) “Türk Banka Sisteminde Performans Ölçümü: DEA-Malmquist TFP Endeksi Uygulaması” Türkiye Bankalar Birliği Araştırma Tebliğleri Serisi 1. Demirgüç-Kunt, A. ve Huizinga, H. (1999) “Determinants of Commercial Bank İnterest Margins and Profitability: Some International Evidence” The World Bank Economic Review, 13: 379-408.
  7. Demirgüç-Kunt, A. ve Huizinga, H. (2000) “Financial Structure and Bank Profitability” World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper 2430. Drakos, K. (2003) “Assessing the Success of Reform in Transition Banking 10 Years Later: An Interest Margin Analysis” Journal of Policy Modeling, 25: 309-317.
  8. Gerlach, S., Peng, W. ve Shu, C. Bank for International Settlements Papers, 22. www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap22x.pdf. Guru, B.K., Staunton, J. ve Balashanmugam, B. (1999) “Determinants of Commercial Bank Profitability in Malaysia” 12th Australian Annual Finance & Banking Conference, Sidney. Hawtrey, K. and Liang, H. (2008) “Bank Interest Margins in OECD Countries” North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 19: 249-260.
  9. Ho, T.S.Y., ve Saunders, A. (1981) “The Determinants of Bank Interest Margins: Theory and Empirical Evidence” Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis. 16: 581-600.
  10. Jiang, G., Tang N., Law, E. ve Sze, A. (2003) “Determinants of Bank Profitability in Hong Kong” Hong Kong Monetary Authority Research Memorandum. http://www.info.gov.hk/ hkma/eng/researc