- Erasmushogeschool Brussel, Koninklijk Conservatorium Brussel (KCB), Faculty MemberVrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte, Faculty Memberadd
- Cultural Studies, Cultural Theory, Political Philosophy, Political Theory, Theatre Studies, Performance Studies, and 43 moreCultural Memory, Legal Theory, Greek Tragedy, 17th Century & Early Modern Philosophy, Political Theology, Critical Legal Theory, Legal Philosophy, Postdramatic theatre, French Revolution, Post-Marxism, Early Modern History, Aristotle, Theatre, Poetics, Theatre History, Cultural Politics, Antigone, David Mamet, Metamorphoses, Critical Theory, de Roovers, Theater and Performance Studies, Karl Polanyi, Louis Gernet, Fernand Braudel, Pierre Clastres, Giorgio Agamben, Nicole Loraux, Philosophy Of Law, Michel Foucault, Louis Marin, European Legal History, Jacques Derrida, Governmentality, Biopolitics, Theatre Anthropology, Cultural History, Rehearsal studies, Seventeenth Century, Artistic Research, History, Social and Cultural Anthropology, and Ethnographyedit
- Klaas Tindemans (°1959) is Ph.D. in Law. He teaches dramaturgy, cultural policy and political theory at the Royal Ins... moreKlaas Tindemans (°1959) is Ph.D. in Law. He teaches dramaturgy, cultural policy and political theory at the Royal Institute for Theatre, Cinema and Sound (RITCS), Brussels, and cultural history at the Royal Conservatoire Brussels (KCB). He is a researcher at RITCS and at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). He was (and is) active as dramaturge with the Antwerp actors’ collective ‘de Roovers’, with BRONKS, the Brussels youth theatre, with directors Ivo van Hove, Lies Pauwels, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, Chokri ben Chikha and Piet Arfeuille. He wrote and directed two plays: Bulger (2006) and Sleutelveld (2009), both published at De Nieuwe Toneelbibliotheek (2010). For Bulger he received the ‘Förderpreis für neue Dramatik’ in 2008 He edited books on playwright David Mamet (Willen jullie in zo’n wereld leven? David Mamet in Vlaanderen en de wereld (with Ronald Geerts en Karel Vanhaesebrouck, VUB Press, 2005) and theatre director Jan Decorte (is of tisni. Over Jan Decorte (with Guy Gypens and Johan Wambacq, 2017). He published a collection of his essays in his book De dramatische samenleving. Een politieke cultuurgeschiedenis (Pelckmans Pro, 2019, in Dutch). An English version is in preparation. His research interests and publications are situated in the field of politic theory, legal theory and performance/theatricalityedit
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Humanities and Art
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Legal philosopher Hans Lindahl argues that the regulation of immigration is, above all moral considerations, a political issue. When one tries to assess the problem of territorial boundaries – and their transgression – as a question of... more
Legal philosopher Hans Lindahl argues that the regulation of immigration is, above all moral considerations, a political issue. When one tries to assess the problem of territorial boundaries – and their transgression – as a question of distributive justice, political philosophers easily mix, not
even surreptitiously, moral arguments with political and legal considerations. Lindahl refers to Michael Walzer, who asserts the primacy of the community and consequently bounded justice, and to Jürgen Habermas, who’s idea of boundless justice makes the notion of a nation-state irrelevant: one world polity has, by definition, no boundaries
and thus no immigration issues. But Lindahl replies that law, and immigration law in particular, is forced to create boundaries by its very nature. After all, law structurally defines diverse groups of interest, and the actions of individuals – belonging or not belonging to one group or
another – are always placed or misplaced, i.e. situated inside or outside the realm of the law. Even a world legislature and a universal jurisdiction would have to decide who can claim her/his rights, or who cannot. But since law is also, by definition, contingent – it can be changed in any direction – the claim of distributive justice, as a form of moral pressure,
cannot be discarded easily. It shouldn’t be discarded, to be sure, it should be politicized. In recent performances about immigration, the moral indignation has clearly had the upper hand, sometimes with a touch of cynicism. In Necropolis, Arkadi Zaides creates a fictitious city of the dead,
where only those who died in their attempt to reach Europe are allowed. From a massive collection of data about the victims of Fortress Europe, his performance transforms into a horrifying portrait of their ‘human remains’. Het Salomonsoordeel, a documentary, participatory monologue
by Ilay den Boer involves the audience in the moral dilemmas of the ‘decider’ of the Dutch immigration and asylum agency, where den Boer worked as an intern. In The Voice of Fingers, Thomas Bellinck confronts his friendship with asylum seeker Said Reza Adib with the harsh reality of
migrants as ‘data subjects’, identified by their fingerprints. The question arises of whether artistic representations of immigration issues sufficiently tackle the political challenges of global mobility – in this collapsing world of (civil) wars, climate disasters, and economical inequalities – and the challenges it poses for the affluent societies we are living in. Is it possible, or even meaningful, for theater-makers to try
to relate their compassion – as a moral sentiment – to the frameworks of contingent policies and, subsequently, to the strict taxonomies of legislation?
even surreptitiously, moral arguments with political and legal considerations. Lindahl refers to Michael Walzer, who asserts the primacy of the community and consequently bounded justice, and to Jürgen Habermas, who’s idea of boundless justice makes the notion of a nation-state irrelevant: one world polity has, by definition, no boundaries
and thus no immigration issues. But Lindahl replies that law, and immigration law in particular, is forced to create boundaries by its very nature. After all, law structurally defines diverse groups of interest, and the actions of individuals – belonging or not belonging to one group or
another – are always placed or misplaced, i.e. situated inside or outside the realm of the law. Even a world legislature and a universal jurisdiction would have to decide who can claim her/his rights, or who cannot. But since law is also, by definition, contingent – it can be changed in any direction – the claim of distributive justice, as a form of moral pressure,
cannot be discarded easily. It shouldn’t be discarded, to be sure, it should be politicized. In recent performances about immigration, the moral indignation has clearly had the upper hand, sometimes with a touch of cynicism. In Necropolis, Arkadi Zaides creates a fictitious city of the dead,
where only those who died in their attempt to reach Europe are allowed. From a massive collection of data about the victims of Fortress Europe, his performance transforms into a horrifying portrait of their ‘human remains’. Het Salomonsoordeel, a documentary, participatory monologue
by Ilay den Boer involves the audience in the moral dilemmas of the ‘decider’ of the Dutch immigration and asylum agency, where den Boer worked as an intern. In The Voice of Fingers, Thomas Bellinck confronts his friendship with asylum seeker Said Reza Adib with the harsh reality of
migrants as ‘data subjects’, identified by their fingerprints. The question arises of whether artistic representations of immigration issues sufficiently tackle the political challenges of global mobility – in this collapsing world of (civil) wars, climate disasters, and economical inequalities – and the challenges it poses for the affluent societies we are living in. Is it possible, or even meaningful, for theater-makers to try
to relate their compassion – as a moral sentiment – to the frameworks of contingent policies and, subsequently, to the strict taxonomies of legislation?