…Welcome to the Genealogy of Consent…
–a political theory blog–
Behind the Scenes
My name is Giulio Caperchi, I am an Italian-American freelance researcher currently based in Boston, Massachusetts. I majored in Humanities and International Relations at Huron American University in London and earned a masters degree in Social and Political Theory at Birkbeck College, University of London.
If you wish to contact me personally you can reach me at giuliocaperchi at gmail dot com
What is the Genealogy of Consent?
The Genealogy of Consent is a blog concerned with political theory and its relevance to contemporary political discourse. Its aim is to analyze past and present political narratives so as to shed light on the ideological biases embedded within them.
A “genealogy” of consent is a project aiming to delve deep within the political, sociological, economic and cultural histories of discourses which we have come to accept as normal and as common sense.
A critical analysis of the origins and development of political discourses will reveal that the narratives we consent to and deem as customary are actually the product of political struggles and of the displacement of alternative paradigms and world views.
The goals of this blog are to firstly reveal the contradictory history of political discourses and secondly to re-habilitate and give a voice to displaced ones, with hopes of demonstrating that there exist a plurality of moral, ethical, political and social possibilities open to us.
We believe that the pluralization of political theory may explode the narrow ideological confines erected by contemporary hegemonic politics, thereby broadening the intellectual horizon for a myriad of alternative political narratives.
- History of political thought
- Latin American social movements
- Constitutional theory
- Participatory budgeting
- Participatory democracy
- Political philosophy
- Democratic theory
- Political economy
- Eighteenth century liberalism
- Neo-classical economy
- Civic Republicanism
“I am not looking for an alternative. . . . You see, what I want to do is not the history of solutions, and that’s the reason why I don’t accept the word “alternative.” I would like to do genealogy of problems, of problematiques. My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism.”