Browsing by Author "Stevens, Simon"

Now showing 1 - 11 of 11
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemOpen Access
    An Anti-homeless Public Space
    (Centre for Urban Research on Austerity, 2019-11-03) Stevens, Simon
    In this post, Dr Simon Stevens exposes the strategies used by local authorities and managers of pseudo-public spaces in English cities, to disperse, deter and dehumanise homeless residents. Seen through the eyes of a detective searching for a homeless witness of an alleged crime, the narrator exposes how our cities are responding to the ongoing crisis of homelessness following a decade of austerity.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The Concept of the Canon: Genealogy and its Contribution to Normative Arguments
    (European Consortium for Political Research, 2016-09-07) Stevens, Simon
    This work is very much in progress, with emerging ideas that I hope to develop into a full paper. Nevertheless, it is not without a position: the aim is to show how genealogy can be absorbed into normative theory, by tracing a path to the idea of sequential genealogy. I begin with Nietzsche, specifically drawing on a quote which I feel accurately describes genealogy’s original premise: of being committed to the principle of the historical contingency of all truths, concepts, practices and beliefs. From this brief grounding, I emphasise Foucault’s main contribution to genealogy, as a project with the purpose of thinking “differently” (Foucault, 1990, p. 8) through the reflection that a denaturalizing method brings: therefore as anti-polemical. I support this through citing David Owen’s similar comments regarding genealogy. From this concept of the alternative, I look at Tyler Krupp and Mark Bevir’s assertion that although genealogy is an enemy of the given, universal ‘truth’, it need not be so towards a contingent one. In this then is room for genealogists, being those with the ‘different’ way of thinking, to communicate with normative theorists who provide the “regulative ideal” (Bevir, 1999, p. 126). Genealogy here finds a balance between “unmasking” (Hoy, 2008, p. 276) and simple reflection that does not lead to polemics: staying true to Foucault’s understanding of it. By utilising Krupp however, I maintain a place for genealogy in a world of acknowledged contingency. In this is a space of communication, effectively where ‘thinking differently’ and the acceptance of a contingent truth as “best account of the world currently on offer” (Bevir, 2008, p. 269) can combine: here genealogy can either contribute to normative theory by being a useful “toolbox” (Foucault, 1994, pp. 523-524) from which to pick and choose, or as “the better version to the “best account”. From the belief that genealogy can accept contingent claims and even become one, I then look at how this leads into David Hoy’s discussion of the “vindicatory genealogy” (Hoy, 2008, p. 276). I claim that in this vision of a genealogy which can vindicate a historically contingent idea, we can build a theory of genealogy which explicitly separates narration from reflection, where the former is simply a “technique of inquiry” (Bevir, 2008, p. 275) or method of denaturalisation, and the latter is the subsequent valuation of this; I call this sequential genealogy. To bolster this idea I come back to Nietzsche, pulling the concepts discussed thus far together to show how we can perceive of genealogy as two separate, sequential activities. As a result, I make two observations. First, that when we think of and use genealogy in this way, we begin our genealogical project from a methodological starting point. Secondly, that if this is so we are able to draw on normative criteria in a genealogy (to either critique or vindicate that which we have historicised in the reflection which follows said narration), without contradiction, for normative criteria we use can simply be understood as narratives that we have previously put a value on. I conclude with a tentative notion: of genealogy, when seen in this way, as a ‘show not tell way of doing normative theory’. Not forgetting the original premise of the abstract I submitted, I make a post-comment on the effect this may have on our political theory canon.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemOpen Access
    Genealogy as an Approach to Political Theory
    (Political Studies Association, 2016-03-23) Stevens, Simon
    The aim of this paper is to present an increasing need for genealogy as an approach within Political Theory, as a response to the growing impact discourse surrounding PhD funding. I begin by establishing this paper’s point of departure, regarding the distinction between institutional expertise and “normative political expertise” (Lamb 2016, 9), and the concern over the latter, as argued by Robert Lamb. I examine an opposing trend to Lamb’s concept, but find it not in another theorist’s writings, but the funding structures that Political Theory comes under. In essence, I make an interlocutor from PhD funding requirements, which require us to show impact, implicitly asking us to exercise that “normative political expertise”. I then explore what ‘impact theory’ would look like within Political Theory and Political Thought (with occasional glances at Political Philosophy). I subsequently offer a strong and weak reading of this impact theory. Following on from this, I assert the need for Political Theory to increasingly engage in genealogical methods as a middle way, in response to this ‘impact discourse’ and its reliance on “normative political expertise”. In such a difficult position to be in, of accepting ‘impact’ and thus encouraging normative political expertise, or rejecting the notion and receiving no funding (thus becoming an exclusive pursuit enabled by personal wealth), I argue Political Theorizing needs genealogy more than ever, as a form of conceptual analysis which examines “conceptual analysis itself” (Waldron 1995, 166). I conclude by claiming genealogy does not seek to undermine the knowledge or theories that expertise has produced, merely to unsettle the role we give expertise. I claim genealogy can do this, without contradiction, for it is not just a methodology, but a philosophy in itself.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Homelessness, Public Space and Civil Disobedience
    (Wiley, 2023-05-05) Stevens, Simon
    This paper argues that anti-social behaviour, in the context of homelessness, ought to be seen as acts of civil disobedi-ence. Firstly, I identify public space as a hostile space for people experiencing homelessness. Secondly, I detail how this reveals a default interpretation of them as anti-social through their mere presence. Thirdly, I explore how this de-politicises. I go onto define and examine civil disobedience theory, as a counter narrative to anti-social behaviour. I then argue how acts of disruption by people experiencing homelessness in public space can qualify as civil disobedience. I acknowledge this as a wicked problem but claim that flipping the default framing of homelessness in this way has normative gain, undoing the de-politicising othering that anti-social behaviour narratives have caused.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    How to Be Good at Telling Others to Be Good: A Case for Epilogue Storytelling
    (European Consortium for Political Research, 2019-09-04) Stevens, Simon
    The first part of this article looks at the methods we use in ideal theory to achieve a principles-first approach – idealisations, thought experiments and reflective equilibrium - and the criticisms this brings from nonideal theorists. Specifically, the criticisms I focus on are the issues with translating ideals into reality, thus questioning the use of ideal theory, and the more extreme claim that ideal theory methods create principles built upon falsehoods. I then bring another perspective to bear upon the issues of ideal theorising: Patricia Hill Collins Black Feminist Epistemology and how it problematizes a position of the abstracted, ‘detached observer’ (Collins, 2000, p. 19). The conclusion to these criticisms is to propose an addition to the way we do ideal theory – epilogue storytelling. I explain what this is and how it can connect to existing schools of thought regarding normative guidance, focussing briefly on moral sentimentalism.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemEmbargo
    Leper Islands: Coronavirus and the homeless other
    (Routledge, 2021-12-31) Stevens, Simon
    This chapter theorises the discourses around the homeless prior to, during and after the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK. It begins by examining how their vulnerability to the virus was communicated through Covid-19 Government Press Conferences, which emphasised the emergency provision of accommodation for rough sleepers. The chapter goes on to explore the prevalence, pre-Covid-19, of hostile strategies mobilised in response to the problem of homelessness, to show how homelessness in ‘normal’ circumstances was not considered an emergency. I use the idea of Foucault’s regulatory power to explain the predominance of punishing dispersal methods, and George Bataille’s work on taboo, to elucidate the homeless othering which encouraged such an approach. This provokes us to then ask what is it that makes street homelessness an emergency now? The answer I propose, in the shadow of Foucault’s biopolitics, is the public health threat they currently present, rather than any lasting commitment to ending homelessness. The offer of emergency accommodation seems at first sight to contradict previous dispersal methods and signal a potential shift in policy and prejudice. When, however, we apply this biopolitical framework, the Government’s approach appears more consistent with past attitudes, because it used accommodation as a means of securing the general population against a ‘homeless bio-hazard’. I end the chapter, therefore, questioning any real long-term commitment to solving homelessness postCovid-19, utilising Machiavelli’s concepts of Fortuna, Virtu and Accidente.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemEmbargo
    Life and Letting Die: A Story of the Homeless, Autonomy, and Anti-Social Behaviour
    (Sage, 2017-05-01) Stevens, Simon
    If I were to say that the architecture in our public spaces is ‘really speaking to us’, you would be forgiven for thinking this is a piece about the aesthetics of our cities. In some ways in fact, it is, but not in any artistic sense. I am not discussing a collection of monuments, town houses or grandiose buildings. Alas, the architecture I talk of is more humble and yet perhaps more sinister. There is a message encoded into it, within our parks, streets and centres, which seems to be part of a wider narrative. This essay is an attempt to read it, find out what it says, and consider how that may affect our concept of autonomy, but also, to encourage us to reflect on how we choose to read it: to think on what theoretical framework we should discuss homelessness. The aim is not to necessarily reconceptualize something then, but is more in the tradition of making the familiar seem unfamiliar: not only in what we think, but how we come to think what we do and the extent to which the former is limited by the latter. To achieve this, the leading question I therefore ask is: what does the organization of public space in reaction to a homeless presence tell us about autonomy, and how we think about autonomy?
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A Story of the Homeless and Anti-Social Behaviour
    (European Consortium for Political Research, 2018-08-24) Stevens, Simon
    If I were to say that the architecture in our public spaces is ‘really speaking to us’, you would be forgiven for thinking this is a piece about the aesthetics of our cities. In some ways in fact, it is, but not in any artistic sense. I am not discussing a collection of monuments, town houses or grandiose buildings. Alas, the architecture I talk of is more humble and yet perhaps more sinister. There is a message encoded into it, within our parks, streets and centres, which when presented together, seems to be part of a wider narrative. This paper is an attempt to read it and find out what it says, but also, to set up a discussion on how we choose to read it. In short, this is a substantive example of a storytelling approach to political theory which I believe could help us when we wish to aspire to public engagement . I hope this example allows me to discuss the method behind it in the panel.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    What is legitimate to study? In pursuit of the normative in normative theory
    (American Political Science Association, 2017-08-31) Stevens, Simon
    When both academic critique and funding criteria essentially say to political theory, ‘what is the point?’, anxiety creeps into the heart of every normative theorist and agonising self-reflection ensues; the study of the political without advisory comment and application may not seem a legitimate use of public finances, where demands to ‘make better use’ of research (in a UK context at least) reveal a common tendency towards impact (Council E. a., 2017). Thus, our response appears urgent: not just for the standing of the subject, but for its very survival, for the continuation of PhD funding relies upon the quality of the reply. The problem is, the replies do not merely conflict, they rest upon fundamentally opposed views of what the subject actually is – effectively, whether or not it should be in pursuit of actual impact. With the premise of an impact agenda therefore set up, in this paper I intend to deliver three objections to a consequential ‘impact theory’, and seek to resolve those objections with an altered methodological approach. I hope this gives us a normative theory that can be seen as ‘legitimate’ in terms of being able to explicitly rise to the challenge of ‘why it should be funded by the taxpayer’, and ‘legitimate’ in the sense that it still retains its philosophical identity; that social prescription does not come at the cost of, what I believe, should be key elements of theorising – conceptual analysis and deep reflection.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    What is Legitimate to Study? In Pursuit of the ‘normative’ in Normative theory
    (European Consortium for Political Research, 2017-09-08) Stevens, Simon
    When both academic critique and funding criteria essentially say to political theory, ‘what is the point?’, anxiety creeps into the heart of every normative theorist and agonising self-reflection ensues; the study of the political without advisory comment and application may not seem a legitimate use of public finances, where demands to ‘make better use’ of research (in a UK context at least) reveal a common tendency towards impact (Council E. a., 2017). Thus, our response appears urgent: not just for the standing of the subject, but for its very survival, for the continuation of PhD funding relies upon the quality of the reply. The problem is, the replies do not merely conflict, they rest upon fundamentally opposed views of what the subject actually is – effectively, whether or not it should be in pursuit of actual impact. With the premise of an impact agenda therefore set up, in this paper I intend to deliver three objections to a consequential ‘impact theory’, and seek to resolve those objections with an altered methodological approach. I hope this gives us a normative theory that can be seen as ‘legitimate’ in terms of being able to explicitly rise to the challenge of ‘why it should be funded by the taxpayer’, and ‘legitimate’ in the sense that it still retains its philosophical identity; that social prescription does not come at the cost of, what I believe, should be key elements of theorising – conceptual analysis and deep reflection.