Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose While the spatial dimensions of augmented reality (AR) have received significant attention in the marketing literature, to date, there has been less consideration of its temporal dimensions. This paper aims to theorise digital timework through AR to understand a new form of consumption experience that offers short-lived, immersive forms of mundane, marketer-led escape from everyday life. Design/methodology/approach The authors draw upon Casey’s phenomenological work to explore the emergence of new dynamics of temporalisation through digitised play. An illustrative case study using AR shows how consumers use this temporalisation to find stability and comfort through projecting backwards (remembering) and forwards (imagining) in their lives. Findings The proliferation of novel digital technologies and platforms has radically transformed consumption experiences as the boundaries between the physical and the virtual, fantasy and reality and play and work have become increasingly blurred. The findings show how temporary escape is carved out within digital space and time, where controlled imaginings provide consumers with an illusion of control over their lives as they re-establish cohesion in a ruptured sense of time. Research limitations/implications The authors consider the more critical implications of the offloading capacity of AR, which they show does not prevent cognitive processes such as imagination and remembering but rather puts limits on them. The authors show that these more short-lived, everyday types of digitised escape do not allow for an escape from the structures of everyday life within the market, as much of the previous literature suggests. Practical implications The authors argue that corporations need to reflect upon the potential threats of immersive technologies such as AR in harming consumer escapism and take these into serious consideration as part of their strategic experiential design strategies to avoid leading to detrimental effects upon consumer well-being. More nuanced conceptualisations are required to unpack the antecedents of limiting people’s imagination and potentially limiting the fully fledged escape that consumers might desire. Originality/value Prior work has conceptualised AR as offloading the need for imagination by making the absent present. The authors critically unpack the implications of this for a more fluid understanding of the temporal logics and limits of consumer escapism.

Abstract This article reviews some key concepts of the Arab(ic) Nahḍah with the aim of highlighting the usefulness of a more genuinely linguistic, i.e., grammar- and etymology-oriented approach for a deeper understanding of some basic features of the foundational period of Arab modernity. My contention and starting-point is that the Nahḍah was, among other things, an era in which the Arab subject came to sense its own agency. This is reflected not only in the many phenomena we are used to associate with the Nahḍah - the emergence of the intellectual, of critical journalism, of historicism, sentimentalism, new literary genres, etc. - but also in the morpho-semantics of key Nahḍah terminology. I argue (a) that the self-referential t-morpheme that features in many words signifying important Nahḍah concepts, such as taraqqī, taqaddum, or tamaddun, can and should be seen in the same light, i.e., as an indicator of a new emphasis on the self. Moreover, I argue that both the grammatical form of the new vocabulary (e.g., the -iyyah suffix for abstracts, verbal nouns, the causative patterns of form II and IV) and its \"original\", \"basic\" (root) meanings underline (b) secularisation and the concomitant centrality of the human being, as well as (c) proactivity, energetic verve, and creativity, i.e., the subject's being a cause of change in time (hence history). Thus, each new conceptual term is a little 'Nahḍah in a nutshell,' containing the very essence of Nahḍawi thought and the actual experience of feeling \"modern\".

This article explores the intertwining of the political and the moral, focusing on just war theory (JWT). It argues that a crucial venue through which adversarial politics infiltrates moral reasoning is the latter’s need of temporalisation, especially when called upon to perform moral judgment. Temporalisation is facilitated by temporal contexts and narratives so that the temporal boundaries of the situations-to-be-judged become essentially contested. The essential contestedness of temporal boundaries can subjugate normative language and moral reasoning to the dictates of adversarial politics and relativism. Temporalisation can change morality into an instrument of politics, rather than the other way around. To overcome these problems and salvage morality from relativism, the article suggests that we focus on the structural facilities of international institutions. It argues that international institutions can salvage moral reasoning by changing the structure of incentives facing politicians and encouraging politicians not to aim predominantly at their own, domestic audience, but equally at international and universal audiences.

The article explores how the literature on 'failed states' (re)produces the modern state as a regulatory ideal, obscuring its contingent character and its violent foundation. So, discursive practices, based on an Eurocentric account, construct the 'failed state' as deviant. The resultant hierarchy of states, in turn, creates favorable conditions for interventionist practices, whose agents are depicted as members of a 'progressive' and 'benevolent' 'international community'. As state failure is interpreted as exclusively domestic process, a well-demarcated boundary between the domestic level of 'anarchy' and the international realm of 'order' and 'progress' results. This article shows that the traditional image of an anarchical system versus an ordered and progressive state is turned on its head when viewed from the perspective of 'failed states'. In the latter, domestic anarchy is contrary to a modernizing international realm. By labelling the 'other' as 'traditional', 'failed', and 'backward' in distinction to a 'modern', 'successful' and 'progressive' international, the dominant discourse conditions us to conceive of these realms as homogeneous in themselves and radically different from each other, rather than as liminal areas with numerous ambiguities and overlaps.

Leibniz’s main historiographical work, the opus historicum, can almost be described as a phantom. Not only has it not been completed and only partially published posthumously in print, but its conception and thematic scope are also unclear or controversial in research. What one considered it to be depended above all on the accessibility - i. e., the printing - of the papers left behind. Since the middle of the 18th century, it has been largely identified with the Origines Guelficae, a century later with the Annales imperii. Nor do Leibniz’s own statements about his great work offer simple answers. This article tries to clear up misunderstandings and to create more clarity. This is done in anticipation of the edition of the entire working material - including the linguistic history - in Series V, which, it is hoped, will bring the contours of the planned work to light more sharply. Le principal écrit historiographique de Leibniz, l’opus historicum, peut être qualifié de fantôme. Non seulement il n’a pas été achevé et n’a été imprimé que partiellement à titre posthume, mais sa conception et sa portée thématique sont également peu claires ou controversées dans la recherche. Ce que l’on en savait dépendait avant tout de ce qui était accessible - c’est-à-dire publié - des manuscrits de Leibniz. Depuis le milieu du XVIIIes., on l’a d’abord largement identifié aux Origines Guelficae, et, un siècle plus tard, avec les Annales imperii. Même les propres déclarations de Leibniz sur sa grande oeuvre n’offrent pas de réponses faciles. L’article tente ici de dissiper les malentendus et de clarifier la situation. Cela se fait en anticipant l’édition de l’ensemble du matériel de travail - y compris l’histoire linguistique - dans la série V, qui, espérons-le, mettra en lumière les contours de l’oeuvre prévue. Leibniz’ historiographisches Hauptwerk, das opus historicum, kann man geradezu als Phantom bezeichnen. Es ist nicht nur nicht vollendet worden und nur in Teilen postum im Druck erschienen, auch seine Konzeption und sein thematischer Umfang sind in der Forschung unklar oder umstritten. Was man dafür hielt, hing vor allem von der Zugänglichkeit - also dem Druck - der hinterlassenen Papiere ab. Seit der Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts hat man es zunächst weitgehend mit den Origines Guelficae identifiziert, ein Jahrhundert später mit den Annales imperii. Auch Leibniz’ eigene Aussagen über sein großes Werk bieten keine einfachen Antworten. Der Beitrag versucht, hier Missverständnisse auszuräumen und mehr Klarheit zu schaffen. Dies geschieht im Vorgriff auf die Edition des gesamten Arbeitsmaterials - einschließlich des sprachgeschichtlichen - in Reihe V, durch die, so ist zu hoffen, die Konturen des geplanten Werks schärfer ans Licht treten werden.

Leibniz’s main historiographical work, the opus historicum, can almost be described as a phantom. Not only has it not been completed and only partially published posthumously in print, but its conception and thematic scope are also unclear or controversial in research. What one considered it to be depended above all on the accessibility - i. e., the printing - of the papers left behind. Since the middle of the 18th century, it has been largely identified with the Origines Guelficae, a century later with the Annales imperii. Nor do Leibniz’s own statements about his great work offer simple answers. This article tries to clear up misunderstandings and to create more clarity. This is done in anticipation of the edition of the entire working material - including the linguistic history - in Series V, which, it is hoped, will bring the contours of the planned work to light more sharply. Le principal écrit historiographique de Leibniz, l’opus historicum, peut être qualifié de fantôme. Non seulement il n’a pas été achevé et n’a été imprimé que partiellement à titre posthume, mais sa conception et sa portée thématique sont également peu claires ou controversées dans la recherche. Ce que l’on en savait dépendait avant tout de ce qui était accessible - c’est-à-dire publié - des manuscrits de Leibniz. Depuis le milieu du XVIIIes., on l’a d’abord largement identifié aux Origines Guelficae, et, un siècle plus tard, avec les Annales imperii. Même les propres déclarations de Leibniz sur sa grande oeuvre n’offrent pas de réponses faciles. L’article tente ici de dissiper les malentendus et de clarifier la situation. Cela se fait en anticipant l’édition de l’ensemble du matériel de travail - y compris l’histoire linguistique - dans la série V, qui, espérons-le, mettra en lumière les contours de l’oeuvre prévue. Leibniz’ historiographisches Hauptwerk, das opus historicum, kann man geradezu als Phantom bezeichnen. Es ist nicht nur nicht vollendet worden und nur in Teilen postum im Druck erschienen, auch seine Konzeption und sein thematischer Umfang sind in der Forschung unklar oder umstritten. Was man dafür hielt, hing vor allem von der Zugänglichkeit - also dem Druck - der hinterlassenen Papiere ab. Seit der Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts hat man es zunächst weitgehend mit den Origines Guelficae identifiziert, ein Jahrhundert später mit den Annales imperii. Auch Leibniz’ eigene Aussagen über sein großes Werk bieten keine einfachen Antworten. Der Beitrag versucht, hier Missverständnisse auszuräumen und mehr Klarheit zu schaffen. Dies geschieht im Vorgriff auf die Edition des gesamten Arbeitsmaterials - einschließlich des sprachgeschichtlichen - in Reihe V, durch die, so ist zu hoffen, die Konturen des geplanten Werks schärfer ans Licht treten werden.

This article inquires the relevancy of multiple temporalisations for the discourse analysis of testimonial interviews. Step by step and by help of a range of empirical cases, the author widens the analytical scope (from questions, lines of questions, to supported interrogation by help of files and archives). He does so in order to reconstruct the efficient resources and means of forensic and administrative interrogations. The interviews turn out to be most powerful once they establish duplicity, meaning a partial separation of speech-production and speech-reception. Conclusively the author argues for a symmetrical view on scientific (qualitative) interviews and forensic interrogation. The separation of production and reception is widely ignored in qualitative methods. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0701159