Abstract
After the Holocaust, the world said `Never again!' That declaration has since been repeated often, to no avail. The insufficiency of this declaration is symptomatic of a problem with redemptive politics: They might spur us into action to deliver the world from violence, cruelty and injustice, but they might also overwhelm us with paralysing responsibility and provoke a retreat into bad faith. Emmanuel Levinas offers a more sober, but also more promising, view of politics that resists redemptive aspirations. Critical international theorists have explored the resources that Levinas offers for thinking about world politics, but they have underestimated those resources because they have attributed to him a redemptive account of politics. From this perspective, they have criticised his infamous response to the massacres at Sabra and Chatila during Israel's war with Lebanon. Reconsidering his comments about that event, I defend Levinas and suggest that the charges against him stem from that misunderstanding of his view of politics. Once reconstructed, these comments point towards a challenging — but more productive — politics of disquietude that might inform a more constructive approach to the prevention of genocide.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.