{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014723926380368098, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.592991913746631, '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}}
Recognition, Responsiveness and Misrecognition

Jacob Schiff and Claudia Leeb address in their contributions the significant, and still inadequately thought, issue of the inclusive and exclusive character of recognition. Whereas Schiff extends our thinking about recognition through literature and the possibility of increasing responsiveness to others through narrative, Leeb analyzes the control of and violence toward the other enacted and exercised in recognition. In both essays we see how the discourse of recognition, whether recognition is conceptualized as the agonistic struggle for being acknowledged by the other or dialogical mutual understanding, is haunted by the seemingly intractable facticity and deeply rooted systemic character of misrecognition. The self that is to recognize the other might well be constitutively or systematically implicated in power, defined by self-interest, or conditioned by finitude, such that dialectical reversals of power and dialogical communication do not conclude with free and uncoerced reconciliation for each and all but with another constellation of inclusion and exclusion. There is a justifiable fear that the universal, even when it is framed in terms of justice and equality, fails to reach and appreciate the singular life of others in their concrete and contingent specificities or uniqueness. Insofar as the other is not merely one more particular subsumable under a universal category, even that of consensus or inclusion, recognition appears inadequate to radical alterity or what is not only relatively but excessively other. The other who is not recognized as another myself can be a danger or disturbance, or perceived as such, to the self’s understanding and enactment of the relation between self and other. The very occurrence of recognition and understanding are informed by the differences and asymmetries of those involved regardless of their good or ill intentions. Recognition threatens violence to or power over the subaltern and marginal, the dominated and exploited, not only by exclusion but by inclusion; for instance, by representing and assuming their voices for them and yet—through their actual social-political location and their perceived silence—against them. The ethics of universal benevolence, cosmopolitanism, and humanism need to be confronted with existing social structures of power if they are not to naively reproduce and excuse them. Responsiveness