{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027689514298683614, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031774852473899226, 'mean_word_length': 5.279202279202279, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Queer Social Philosophy: Critical Readings from Kant to Adorno (review)

the conversion of the freedom of desire to the freedom from desire.” Kleist “ultimately destroys the limits of individual subjectivity” in that “the individual, as exemplar of the particular, is sacrificed to the universal law of justice” (151). In the three main chapters the focal points are canonical texts, including Kant’s Conflict of the Faculties, Goethe’s Unterhaltungen deutscher Ausgewanderten, and Kleist’s Michael Kohlhaas. The introduction turns on a reading of Kleist’s Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden, whereas the conclusion draws attention to a lesser-known text by Kierkegaard, En literair Anmeldelse (1846). The specific readings are subtle and stimulating; even those long acquainted with the texts will gain new insights. Of course, there are some less persuasive claims. Gailus’s take on Kant’s view of the French Revolution is vitiated by a lingering misapprehension of Kant’s politics, one that does not recognize his profound aversion to tyranny. What concerned Kant was how to abolish tyranny, embodied in Prussia by the notorious “enlightened despot” Frederick II, while preserving sovereignty. Hence his welcome for the glimpses of the public, manifested in mass spectatorship during the revolution, offering an alternative for the embodiment of sovereignty. Conversely, the execution of Louis XVI would serve to redistribute and strengthen tyranny. Kant and Kleist should be seen as mirroring each other in their politics. Much to be regretted is that the brilliance of Gailus’s analyses is dimmed by – and I use the word technically here, not pejoratively – an avoidable provincialism. Once again a work of German theory operates within limiting borders. It is baffling that a work so open to interdisciplinarity and multivocality should lack all mention of John Locke, Edmund Burke, or David Hume and should have only glancing mentions of Spinoza, Negri, and Deleuze. Perhaps most disappointing is the absence of any reference to gothic, a genre category whose attendant secondary literature has yielded highly sophisticated accounts of the passions in a time of revolution.