Badredine Arfi

Linguistic Fuzzy-Logic Game Theory

The author develops a new game-theoretic approach, anchored not in Boolean two-valued logic but instead in linguistic fuzzy logic. The latter is characterized by two key features. First, the truth values of logical propositions span a set of linguistic terms such as true, very true, almost false, very false, and false. Second, the logic allows logical categories to overlap in contrast to Boolean logic, where the two possible logical categories, “true” and “false,” are sharply distinct. A game becomes a linguistic fuzzy logic game by turning strategies into linguistic fuzzy strategies, players’ preferences into linguistic fuzzy preferences, and the rules of reasoning and inferences of the game into linguistic fuzzy reasoning operating according to linguistic fuzzy logic. This leads to the introduction of a new notion of linguistic fuzzy domination and linguistic Nash equilibrium.

Linguistic Fuzzy Logic Methods in Social Sciences

The modern origin of fuzzy sets, fuzzy algebra, fuzzy decision making, and computing with words is conventionally traced to Lotfi Zadehs publication in 1965 of his path-breaking refutation of binary set theory. In a sixteen-page article, modestly titled Fuzzy Sets and published in the journal Information and Control, Zadeh launched a multi-disciplinary revolution. The start was relatively slow, but momentum gathered quickly. From 1970 to 1979 there were about 500 journal publications with the word fuzzy in the title; from 2000 to 2009 there were more than 35,000. At present, citations to Zadehs publications are running at a rate of about 1,500-2,000 per year, and this rate continues to rise. Almost all applications of Zadehs ideas have been in highly technical scientific fields, not in the social sciences. Zadeh was surprised by this development. In a personal note he states: When I wrote my l965 paper, I expected that fuzzy set theory would be applied primarily in the realm of human sciences. Contrary to my expectation, fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic are applied in the main in physical and engineering sciences. In fact, the first comprehensive examination of fuzzy sets by a social scientist did not appear until 1987, a full twenty-two years after the publication of Zadehs seminal article, when Michael Smithson, an Australian psychologist, published Fuzzy Set Analysis for Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Fantasy in the discourse of ‘Social Theory of International Politics’

No doubt Wendt’s ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ (STIP) is a discourse. As such, the theory is built on certain discursive conditions of possibility. Drawing on Lacan’s theory of discourse, I analyse these conditions of possibility in arguing that a desire of discursive closure is created in STIP through a fantasy. The latter sustains itself not only by pre-empting its own failure but also by maintaining the desire for discursive closure. I argue that STIP cannot escape deploying such a fantasy. More broadly, what social constructivism based on critical realism does, especially in its thin version, is construct a dichotomy between intransitive and transitive objects in its theoretic discourses. It then endeavours, via constructing fantasies, to use transitive discursive objects to sustain the desire for the constructed dichotomies, which hankers for discursive closure. This means that Wendt is more constructivist than he knows, despite his move of ‘not going all the way down’. In short, I argue that ‘ideas not all the way down’ is a discourse all the way down because of what Wendt and thin constructivists struggle to make of it.

Probing the Democratic Peace Argument Using Linguistic Fuzzy Logic

Why have the numerous debates on the “democratic peace” remained inconclusive? In addressing this question, the paper examines causality in social sciences by using propositional calculus in the framework of linguistic fuzzy logic. The paper does this by taking into account the possibility that some causal relations might be more or less of a sufficient type while others might be more or less of a necessary type, and while still others might be of both types to a lesser or greater degree of truth. The paper shows that depending on how much more or less democratic the two states are, and depending on how much more or less they feel threatened by one another, this more or less sufficiently causes a more or less possibility of fighting between the two states. Therefore, the lack of agreement on the possibility of a democratic peace is strictly speaking neither a problem of empirical validation, nor one of theoretical explanation, although these are still important issues. Instead, the lack of agreement has much to do with taking for granted a Boolean logic approach as a framework for validating the democratic peace argument. A linguistic fuzzy-logic framework predicts a much more diverse set of conclusions than just whether or not two democracies go to war.

Habermas and the aporia of translating religion in democracy

In his recent attempt to make democracy more politically hospitable to religion, Habermas calls for the potential contributions of religion to democratic politics not to be neglected. He simultaneously calls for translating religious meanings into neutral reasons as a way of including them at the level of formal politics and for maintaining the necessity of an institutional translational proviso to immunize the neutral character of the state. This article presents three arguments. First, what Habermas effectively calls for is not conventional translation in which meaning is transferred from one language (signification system) into another. Rather, his call is for an anasemic translation which is an operation of de-signification of the truth contents of religious contributions and then a re-signification. Second, because Habermas calls for translation, he necessarily runs into the aporia of translation in the sense that certain aspects of religion are untranslatable into his generally acceptable language. Therefore, Habermas’ translation proviso creates an asymmetry between religious and non-religious citizens, which is detrimental to the conditions of political legitimacy. Third, it is suggested that to address this problem the citizens must adopt an ethos of hospitality toward the untranslatable of religion as part of the conditions of political legitimacy.

Democratization and communal politics

Understanding the complex interplay between democratization and communal politics is a crucial issue for students of democracy and political practitioners. Political liberalization can exacerbate communal politics, which can then bring setbacks to democratization, even violent conflict. As prospects of political liberalization grow in a society marked by a lack of agreement on the form of the state, communal politics will shape inter‐group relations. There is an in‐group‐out‐group dilemma. The dilemma is rooted in two, potentially mutually conflicting imperatives. Democratization requires group leaders to engage in compromise and negotiation. But they may also face an imperative to promote self‐styled conceptions of the state‐idea to suit the needs of group cohesion, especially where relations between groups become highly politicised. Two factors condition whether or not the dilemma can be resolved: the strategies of the legitimate leadership of the groups, and the ‘ideological’ landscape within the group...

Rethinking International Constitutional Order: The Auto-immune Politics of Binding Without Binding

The article proposes a deconstruction of Ikenberry’s theory of constitutional order via binding institutions. I argue that binding institutions are founded and conserved through an ‘arbitrary exercise of power’ which takes the form of an originary performative violence. The binding institutions become more or less legitimate as a result of retroactively effacing the originary violence. I also argue that the binding institutions are inherently auto-immune to their own logic and rules and that this condition makes the binding of constitutional order a binding without binding, that is, a binding which is marred with undecidability and hence an impossible politics of aporia. The latter is, however, the possibility condition for invention, change and transformation of the binding institutions beyond mere adjustments and adaptations to new contexts. I am thus calling for a recognition of the chance that inheres in the politics of aporia, the chance that would make continuously possible responsible decisions within a recast form of ‘binding institutions’. This implies that we need to rethink both the very notion of ‘binding’ as well as the logic of founding and conserving international order through binding institutions. In doing so, we would avoid creating a dichotomy between ethics/responsibility and politics since we would necessarily speak of responsibility (a responsibility which is much more than just a programme of cost—benefit calculation) as inherent to the decisions (through originary performativity) that found and legitimate the order. To this end, our thinking and analysis should be one of restlessly riding a ‘negotiating’ shuttle between possible theoretical formulations of world order and the impossibility of closing the theorising process.

Pluralism to-come and the debates on Islam and secularism

The article seeks to advance the debate on Islam and secularism, not by thinking of secularism in terms of whether there is or should be state neutrality toward religion, but rather by proposing that we think in terms of a state neutrality that is anchored in pluralism to-come. The latter is not a future pluralism that will one day arrive but is rather characterized by a structural promise of openness to futurity which thus exposes us to absolute surprise simultaneously of the best and the worst in plurality, the one never coming without opening the possibility of the other. The analysis is developed via a critical examination of the presuppositions of Abdullahi A. An-Na‘im’s book, Islam and the Secular State, supplemented with key ideas from Jacques Derrida’s political philosophy. I specifically propose to shift the debate on the question of Islam and state neutrality in two ways. First, I propose that instead of thinking in terms of secularism and its mechanism – civic reason – for sustaining pluralism in heterogeneous societies, we think in terms of a secularity and a civic reason, both of which presuppose a pluralism to-come. Second, I propose that we think not simply in terms of actual pluralism but rather in terms of an autoimmune pluralism.

Reconfiguring the (Lacanian) Real ‘Saying the Real (as Khôra — χώρα) qua the impossible–possible event

I suggest in this article that there are several aspects of the Lacanian Real that so-called Lacanian literature has not adequately addressed, or barely did so. In this pursuit, I present a deconstructing reading of a number of Lacanian texts. My deconstructive reading suggests that three key features characterize the literature on the Real. First, there always is resistance that is involved in thinking about, and in experiencing the effects of, the Real. Second, the Real is most characteristically thought of in negative terms. Third, the Real is more or less thought of as a limit that cannot be transgressed. A deconstruction of these features leads to two arguments. First, I propose that the deployment of the Real as khôra within a discourse is an originary performativity which speaks of retroactively positing of a have-always-been-there Real. Second, I argue that the Real is the impossible–possible event which is at the heart of ‘saying the Real’. The deconstruction thus leads to a reconfiguration of the Real as a ‘saying the Real (as khôra)’ qua event (in the sense of Derrida) in the discourse.

Effect of electron-electron interaction on thermal conductivity of disordered systems

We present a calculation of a correction to the thermal conductivity due to the inclusion of electron-electron interaction in a disordered metallic system. We find that, to the first order in electron-electron interaction, the Wiedemann-Franz law is not satisfied.