Social Impacts Related to the Constitutional Court’s Decision on Rejecting Interfaith Marriage
Impactos sociales relacionados con la decisión del Tribunal Constitucional de rechazar el matrimonio interreligioso
Resumen (es)
La existencia de una sociedad indonesia dinámica y pluralista se ve amenazada por la regulación del matrimonio. Así lo afirmó el Tribunal Constitucional de la República de Indonesia en el caso de revisión de la Ley número 1 de 1974 sobre el matrimonio y su renovación en la Ley número 16 de 2019 sobre las modificaciones de la Ley número 1 de 1974. La existencia de esta regulación se convierte en un factor desencadenante de la degradación de la diferenciación y la diversidad social. Esta investigación formula dos problemas, a saber: a) ¿por qué se prohíben los matrimonios interreligiosos en Indonesia? y b) ¿cuál es el impacto social de la regulación sobre la prohibición de los matrimonios interreligiosos en Indonesia? El propósito de esta investigación es realizar un análisis del impacto social de la prohibición de los matrimonios interreligiosos en Indonesia a través de la decisión del Tribunal Constitucional. Mediante el uso del método de investigación de entrevistas con informantes en las áreas de Buleleng Regency y Denpasar Municipality, así como el análisis crítico del discurso para estudiar los artículos de estas leyes y reglamentos, este artículo proporcionará un análisis y las implicaciones que surgen de la prohibición de los matrimonios interreligiosos. La respuesta es que la prohibición de los matrimonios interreligiosos tiene un impacto en la desprivatización de la vida social de los ciudadanos. Esto significa que el Estado ha intervenido en el ámbito de la intimidad de cada individuo a través de las regulaciones que crea. En segundo lugar, con la decisión del Tribunal Constitucional, se evidencia un impacto en la despluralización social. Significa que se bloquea el potencial de fusión entre ciudadanos de diferentes orígenes religiosos. La Ley Número 1, 1974, sobre el Matrimonio, y su actualización en la Ley Número 16, Año 2019, sobre Enmiendas a la Ley Número 1, Año 1974, se ha convertido en un detonante para la convergencia social. Su existencia “amputa” las líneas fundamentales que sustentan las diversas vidas de la sociedad indonesia.
Resumen (en)
The existence of a dynamic and pluralistic Indonesian society’s social life is threatened by the marriage regulations that have been established. This was stated in the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia in the case reviewing Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage and its amendment in Law Number 16 of 2019 concerning Amendments to Law Number 1 of 1974. The existence of this regulation triggers the degradation of differentiation as well as social diversity. This research formulates two problem statements: a) Why are interfaith marriages in Indonesia banned? and b) What is the social impact of the regulation prohibiting interfaith marriages in Indonesia? The purpose of this research is to analyze the social impact of the prohibition of interfaith marriages in Indonesia through the decision of the Constitutional Court. By using the research method of interviews with informants in the Buleleng Regency and Denpasar Municipality areas, as well as critical discourse analysis to study the articles in these laws and regulations, this paper will provide an analysis of the implications arising from the prohibition of interfaith marriages. The findings indicate that the prohibition of interfaith marriages impacts the deprivatization of the social lives of citizens. This means that the realm of intimacy for each individual has been intervened in by the state through the regulations it creates. Second, the decision of the Constitutional Court has an impact on social depluralization, meaning that the potential for amalgamation among citizens of different religious backgrounds is blocked. Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage and its update in Law Number 16 of 2019 concerning Amendments to Law Number 1 of 1974 has become a trigger for social convergence. Its existence ‘amputates’ the fundamental lines that support the diverse lives of Indonesian society.
Referencias
Abazari, A. (2018). Opposition instead of recognition: The social significance of “determinations of reflection” in Hegel’s science of logic. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 44(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453717723957 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453717723957
Angella, M. (2016). Work, recognition and subjectivity: Relocating the connection between work and social pathologies. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431015594443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431015594443
Apata, G. O. (2022). Adorno on philosophy and sociology. Theory Culture & Society, 39(7–8), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221141088 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221141088
Arnason, J. P. (2022). Lessons from Castoriadis: Downsizing critical theory and defusing the concept of society. European Journal of Social Theory, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310221117353 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310221117353
Askay, D. A. (2015). Silence in the crowd: The spiral of silence contributing to the positive bias of opinions in an online review system. New Media and Society, 17(11), 1811–1829. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814535190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814535190
Auxier, B. E. y Vitak, J. (2019). Factors motivating customization and echo chamber creation within digital news environments. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119847506 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119847506
Ayala, R. A. (2017). Book review: Robert Brym (with Bonnie Fox), From culture to power: The sociology of English Canada. International Sociology Reviews, 32(5), 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580917725268 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580917725268
Bauman, Z. (2023). Organization for liquid-modern times? Critical Sociology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205231170923 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205231170923
Benzer, M. (2011). Social critique in the totally socialized society. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 37(5), 575–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453710393317 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453710393317
Boucher, G. (2021). The Frankfurt School and the authoritarian personality: Balance sheet of an insight. Thesis Eleven, 163(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136211005957 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136211005957
Casuso, G. (2022). Social criticism, dissonance, and progress: A socio-epistemic approach. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211040571 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211040571
Ceilutka, K. (2023). The discontents of competition for recognition on social media: Perfectionism, ressentiment, and collective narcissism. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 49(4), 409–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211072883 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211072883
Chafe, R. (2023). Rejecting choices: The problematic origins of researcher-defined paradigms within qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231165951 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231165951
Dabrowski, T. C. (2016). Concrete philosophy: The problem of judgment in the early work of Herbert Marcuse. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 42(6), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715574735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715574735
Decker, K. S. (2012). Perspectives and ideologies: A pragmatic use for recognition theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 38(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453711427260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453711427260
Deflory, C. L. Perron, A. y Bonet, M. M. (2022). A methodological and practical guide to study peripheral voices in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221100639 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221100639
Delanty, G. y Harris, N. (2021). Critical theory and the question of technology: The Frankfurt School revisited. Thesis Eleven, 166(1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136211002055 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136211002055
Dubois, E. Minaeian, S. Labelle, A. P. y Beaudry, S. (2020). Who to trust on social media: How opinion leaders and seekers avoid disinformation and echo chambers. Social Media + Society, 6(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120913993 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120913993
Durazzi, N. y Geyer, L. (2022). Social inclusion and collective skill formation systems: Policy and politics. Journal of European Social Policy, 32(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211035699 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211035699
Engster, F. (2016). Subjectivity and its crisis: Commodity mediation and the economic constitution of objectivity and subjectivity. History of the Human Sciences, 29(2), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695116637282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695116637282
Erman, E. y Moller, N. (2016). What distinguishes the practice-dependent approach to justice? Philosophy and Social Criticism, 42(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715580475 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715580475
Evans, J. (2023). On the very idea of normative foundations in critical social theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 49(4), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211059512 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211059512
Evans, J. D. (2023). Philosophy and the study of capitalism. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 49(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211072889 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211072889
Ferrarese, E. (2011). Judith Butler’s “Not particularly postmodern insight” of recognition. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 37(7), 759–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453711410029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453711410029
Furlong, D. E. y Lester, J. N. (2022). Toward a practice of qualitative methodological literature reviewing. Qualitative Inquiry, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004221131028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004221131028
Galeotti, A. E. (2015). The range of toleration: From toleration as recognition back to disrespectful tolerance. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 41(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714559424 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714559424
Garlick, S. (2011). Complexity, masculinity, and critical theory: Revisiting Marcuse on technology, eros, and nature. Critical Sociology, 39(2), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920511421032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920511421032
Gearhart, S. y Zhang, W. (2018). Same spiral, different day? Testing the spiral of silence across issue types. Communication Research, 45(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215616456 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215616456
Gerber, D. y Brincat, S. (2016). Dialectical tensions: Marcuse, Dunayevskaya and the problems of the age. Thesis Eleven, 134(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513616647564 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513616647564
Giladi, P. (2018). Epistemic injustice: A role for recognition? Philosophy & Social Criticism, 44(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453717707237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453717707237
Giladi, P. (2023). Does contemporary recognition theory rest on a mistake? Philosophy and Social Criticism, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537231170905 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537231170905
Grusauskaite, K., Carbone, L., Harambam, J. y Aupers, S. (2023). Debating (in) echo chambers: How culture shapes communication in conspiracy theory networks on YouTube. New Media and Society, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231162585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231162585
Han, J., Lee, Y., Lee, J. y Cha, M. (2022). News comment sections and online echo chambers: The ideological alignment between partisan news stories and their user comments. Journalism, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211069241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211069241
Honneth, A. (2017). Recollections of a transition. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 43(3), 245–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453716680731 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453716680731
Honneth, A. (2018). Taylor’s Hegel. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 44(7), 773–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453718781249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453718781249
Honneth, A. (2019). Recognition, democracy and social liberty: A reply. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 45(6), 694–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719843439 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719843439
Hutchinson, B. (2011). The shadow of resistance: W. G. Sebald and the Frankfurt School. Journal of European Studies, 41(3-4), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244111413703 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244111413703
Ioris, A. A. R. (2022). World out of difference: Relations and consequences. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221101316 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221101316
Karlsen, R., Johnsen, K. S., Wollebaek, D. y Enjolras, B. (2017). Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication, 32(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117695734 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323117695734
Kautzer, C. (2014a). Self-defensive subjectivity: The diagnosis of a social pathology. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 40(8), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714541585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714541585
Kautzer, C. (2014b). Self-defensive subjectivity: The diagnosis of a social pathology. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 40(8), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714541585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714541585
Kellner, D. y Winter, R. (2021). Marcuse today: An introduction. Theory, Culture and Society, 38(7–8), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764211051422 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764211051422
King, B. (2010). Putting critical theory to work: Labor, subjectivity and the debts of the Frankfurt School. Critical Sociology, 36(6), 869–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920510377519 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920510377519
Kozlarek, O. (2021). From the humanism of critical theory to critical humanism. European Journal of Social Theory, 24(2), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431020960958 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431020960958
Lamont, M. (2018). Addressing recognition gaps: Destigmatization and the reduction of inequality. American Sociological Review, 83(3), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418773775 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418773775
Langer, P. C. (2016). The research vignette: Reflexive writing as interpretative representation of qualitative inquiry—A methodological proposition. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(9), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416658066 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416658066
Lee, J. (2014). Genre-appropriate judgments of qualitative research. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 44(3), 316–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393113479142 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393113479142
Lee, R. L. M. (2011). Modernity, solidity and agency: Liquidity reconsidered. Sociology, 45(4), 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511406582 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511406582
Liu, Y. (2022). Paradigmatic compatibility matters: A critical review of qualitative-quantitative debate in mixed methods research. Sage Open, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079922 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079922
Lucas, S. R. y Szatrowski, A. (2014). Qualitative comparative analysis in critical perspective. Sociological Methodology, 44(1), 1–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175014532763 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175014532763
Marcelo, G. (2013). Recognition and critical theory today: An interview with Axel Honneth. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 39(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453712470361 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453712470361
Markova, I., Zadeh, S. y Zittoun, T. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on generalisation from dialogical single case studies. Culture and Psychology, 26(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X19888193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X19888193
Martin, J. D., Hassan, F., Anghelcev, G., Abunabaa, N. y Shaath, S. (2022). From echo chambers to ‘idea chambers’: Concurrent online interactions with similar and dissimilar others. International Communication Gazette, 84(3), 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048521992486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048521992486
Masquelier, C. (2012). Marx, Cole and the Frankfurt School: Realising the political potential of critical social theory. Capital and Class, 36(3), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816812460884 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816812460884
Matthes, J. Morrison, K. R. y Schemer, C. (2010). A spiral of silence for some: Attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication Research, 37(6), 774–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362685 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362685
Morgan, D. L. (2018). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816686433 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816686433
Moss, L. y Pavesich, V. (2011). Science, normativity and skill: Reviewing and renewing the anthropological basis of critical theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 37(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453710387064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453710387064
Oh, K. (2022). Critiquing racist ideology as harmful social norms. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221131499 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221131499
Passe, J. Drake, C. y Mayger, L. (2018). Homophily, echo chambers, & selective exposure in social networks: What should civic educators do? Journal of Social Studies Research, 42(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.08.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.08.001
Petrucciani, S. (2019). Rethinking socialism with Axel Honneth. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 45(6), 683–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719842359 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719842359
Rasmussen, D. (2012). Mutual recognition: No justification without legitimation. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 38(9), 893–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453712465734 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453712465734
Ravenek, M. J. y Rudman, D. L. (2013). Bridging conceptions of quality in moments of qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200122
Roulston, K. y Shelton, S. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563803 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563803
Sarkela, A. (2022). Vicious circles: Adorno, Dewey and disclosing critique of society. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 48(10), 1369–1390. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221117092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221117092
Schulz, J. (2022). “Vergangenheitsbewaltigung” revisited: Distinguishing two paradigms of working through the past. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221117562 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221117562
Sherrick, B. Hoewe, J. (2018). The effect of explicit online comment moderation on three spiral of silence outcomes. New Media and Society, 20(2), 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816662477 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816662477
Singh, K. D. (2015). Creating your own qualitative research approach: Selecting, integrating and operationalizing philosophy, methodology and methods. Vision, 19(2), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262915575657 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262915575657
Sinnerbrink, R. (2011). The future of critical theory? Kompridis on world-disclosing critique. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 37(9), 1053–1061. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453711416088 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453711416088
Sohn, D. (2022). Spiral of silence in the social media era: A simulation approach to the interplay between social networks and mass media. Communication Research, 49(1), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219856510 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219856510
Splichal, S. (2015). Partial retraction: Legacy of Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann: The spiral of silence and other controversies. European Journal of Communication, 30(3), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115589265 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115589265
Steele, M. (2017). Social imaginaries and the theory of the normative utterance. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 43(10), 1045–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453717715294 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453717715294
Stoetzler, M. (2015). Authority, identity, society: Revisiting the Frankfurt School. Sociology, 49(1), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514563640 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514563640
Strydom, P. (2012). Cognition and recognition: On the problem of the cognitive in Honneth. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 38(6), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453712442141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453712442141
Susen, S. (2020). No escape from the technosystem? Philosophy & Social Criticism, 46(6), 734–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719866239 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719866239
Tarca, L. V. (2018). The right to be right: Recognizing the reasons of those who are wrong. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 44(4), 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453718759161 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453718759161
Thompson, M. J. (2014). Axel Honneth and the neo-idealist turn in critical theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 40(8), 779–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714541583 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714541583
Tifft, S. E. S. (2020). Heidegger and Marcuse: A history of disenchantment. Journal of European Studies, 50(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244120918479 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244120918479
Tornberg, P. y Tornberg, A. (2022). Inside a white power echo chamber: Why fringe digital spaces are polarizing politics. New Media & Society, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122915
Trainor, A. A. y Graue, E. (2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528100
Tsfati, Y., Stroud, N. J. y Chotiner, A. (2014). Exposure to ideological news and perceived opinion climate: Testing the media effects component of spiral-of-silence in a fragmented media landscape. International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161213508206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161213508206
Urcia, I. A. (2021). Comparisons of adaptations in grounded theory and phenomenology: Selecting the specific qualitative research methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211045474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211045474
Valdivia, G., Himley, M. y Havice, E. (2022). Resources are vexing! Progress in Environmental Geography, 1(1–4), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687221117554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687221117554
Wolff, E. (2015). Responsibility to struggle – Responsibility for peace: Course of recognition and a recurrent pattern in Ricoeur’s political thought. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 41(8), 771–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714563875 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453714563875
Wollebaek, D., Karlsen, R., Johnsen, K. S. y Enjolras, B. (2019). Anger, fear, and echo chambers: The emotional basis for online behavior. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119829859 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119829859
Yasin, B. (2018). Utopia as ‘genuine progress’: Adorno and the historicity of utopia. Thesis Eleven, 144(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513618756091 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513618756091
Yun, T. (2014). Freedom, legalism and subject formation: The question of internalization. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 40(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453713518322 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453713518322
Ze’ev, I. G. (2010). Adorno and Horkheimer: Diasporic philosophy, negative theology and counter-education. Policy Futures in Education, 8(3–4), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010.8.3.298 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010.8.3.298
Zebracki, M. y Luger, J. (2019). Digital geographies of public art: New global politics. Progress in Human Geography, 43(5), 890–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518791734 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518791734
Zerback, T. y Fawzi, N. (2017). Can online exemplars trigger a spiral of silence? Examining the effects of exemplar opinions on perceptions of public opinion and speaking out. New Media and Society, 19(7), 1034–1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625942 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625942
Cómo citar
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Los autores mantienen los derechos sobre los artículos y por tanto son libres de compartir, copiar, distribuir, ejecutar y comunicar públicamente la obra bajo las condiciones siguientes:
Reconocer los créditos de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor o el licenciante (pero no de una manera que sugiera que tiene su apoyo o que apoyan el uso que hace de su obra).
VIeI está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
La Universidad Santo Tomás conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia anteriormente mencionada.
