|
The Remains of the Real
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Jan SowaLudger Hagedorn
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Telling History: On Creating the Polish History Museum and its Exhibitions
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Dariusz StolaLudger HagedornRobert Kostro
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Hagia Sophia as Symbol and Hostage of Actual Politics
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Alexey LidovAyşe ÇağlarClemena Antonova
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
On 10 July 2020, by a decree of the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the basilica of Hagia Sophia – the central monument of the Byzantine Empire and the entire Orthodox world – was turned from a museum into a mosque. The conversion attracted worldwide attention and the leaders of the US, the EU and Russia, as well as most international institutions, appealed to Erdoğan not to go ahead with the plan. However, all the warnings were ignored and the first festive Muslim service was held on 24 July, with the country’s leadership in attendance. In this talk, various aspects of the conversion of Hagia Sophia, including political, religious, cultural and art-historical issues of this most significant event, were discussed.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
On 10 July 2020, by a decree of the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the basilica of Hagia Sophia – the central monument of the Byzantine Empire and the entire Orthodox world – was turned from a museum into a mosque. The conversion attracted worldwide attention and the leaders of the US, the EU and Russia, as well as most international institutions, appealed to Erdoğan not to go ahead with the plan. However, all the warnings were ignored and the first festive Muslim service was held on 24 July, with the country’s leadership in attendance. In this talk, various aspects of the conversion of Hagia Sophia, including political, religious, cultural and art-historical issues of this most significant event, were discussed.
Read more
|
|
Beyond the “Power of the Powerless“
|
-
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Milan HanysMuriel Blaive
|
-
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
-
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Religious Perspectives on Global Solidarity in the Era of Global Crises
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Clemena AntonovaLudger Hagedorn
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
All three global crises of recent times – the financial crisis of 2008, the refugee crisis, and now the coronavirus crisis – have been, among other things, tests of solidarity. But what is it that decides in a concrete situation, whether solidarity is extended to those in need or not? Especially interesting are those cases, when people feel forced to make difficult choices between solidarity to one group versus solidarity to another. The talk tried to distinguish between two concepts of solidarity, one that could be called civic solidarity (to one’s family, friends, compatriots, etc.) and another one offering a broader sense of global solidarity (to all human beings as such).
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
All three global crises of recent times – the financial crisis of 2008, the refugee crisis, and now the coronavirus crisis – have been, among other things, tests of solidarity. But what is it that decides in a concrete situation, whether solidarity is extended to those in need or not? Especially interesting are those cases, when people feel forced to make difficult choices between solidarity to one group versus solidarity to another. The talk tried to distinguish between two concepts of solidarity, one that could be called civic solidarity (to one’s family, friends, compatriots, etc.) and another one offering a broader sense of global solidarity (to all human beings as such).
Read more
|
|
The Importance of Being Funny
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ludger HagedornMila Ganeva
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
This talk was part of a book project on the cultural history of Jewish artistic presence in German-speaking cabaret and film in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. (During her fellowship at the IWM, Mila Ganeva was researching materials at the Austrian Exile Archive at ÖNB and the Österreichisches Kabarettarchiv in Graz.) In this presentation for the colloquium, she focused on a representative figure of cabaret and film, the German-Jewish comedian Siegfried Arno. Arno, who was labeled by contemporaries “our Buster Keaton”, was enormously successful on both the cabaret stage and the silver screen. In the 1920s, Arno and many of his colleagues were also at the centre of the so-called “cabaret wars”, as they were accused (and often sued) by the Centralverein of the German Citizens of the Jewish Faith of excessive use of Jewish jokes and fuelling antisemitism. The presentation reviewed Arno’s role in the very public debate about Jews in cabaret and film, and explored some of his actual performances in films as well as on the stage of the Kabarett der Komiker.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
This talk was part of a book project on the cultural history of Jewish artistic presence in German-speaking cabaret and film in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. (During her fellowship at the IWM, Mila Ganeva was researching materials at the Austrian Exile Archive at ÖNB and the Österreichisches Kabarettarchiv in Graz.) In this presentation for the colloquium, she focused on a representative figure of cabaret and film, the German-Jewish comedian Siegfried Arno. Arno, who was labeled by contemporaries “our Buster Keaton”, was enormously successful on both the cabaret stage and the silver screen. In the 1920s, Arno and many of his colleagues were also at the centre of the so-called “cabaret wars”, as they were accused (and often sued) by the Centralverein of the German Citizens of the Jewish Faith of excessive use of Jewish jokes and fuelling antisemitism. The presentation reviewed Arno’s role in the very public debate about Jews in cabaret and film, and explored some of his actual performances in films as well as on the stage of the Kabarett der Komiker.
Read more
|
|
Europe’s Futures Colloquium II
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Alida VracicPéter Krekó
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
“We Are All Refugees”: Informal Settlements and Camps as Converging Spaces of Global Displacements
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarFaranak Miraftab
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Surviving Human Trafficking: Activism as a Way Through the Struggle
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ivan VejvodaMilica Kravić AksamitMisha Glenny
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
What is Political Cruelty?
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Aishwary Kumar
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
“The important point for liberalism is not so much where the line is drawn,” Judith Shklar writes in a fascinating moment in her critique of cruelty, “as that it be drawn, and that it must under no circumstances be ignored or forgotten.” Where is this line? And who lives under its ambiguous constitutionality? Neither in her 1989 theses on the “liberalism of fear” nor in her 1982 demand that liberals start “putting cruelty first” does Shklar fully pursue the consequences of this morally unforgiving yet spatially uncertain line of liberal intolerance of cruelty. And while she does starkly pose the question “what is moral cruelty?” in terms of its debilitating effect on human freedom, the limit—border—that circumscribes liberalism’s constitutional response to extreme violence continues to waver. In this paper, Aishwary Kumar offers an archeology of this vacillating, political “line” that runs through liberal resistance against cruelty. By way of exploring its global implications, he follows Shklar on the cosmopolitical path she takes, along with BR Ambedkar and Hannah Arendt, into that “most ancient,” most exemplary form of organized violence and constitutional stasis known to legal and moral philosophy: the “Indo-European caste society,” which in her later writings Shklar sometimes replaces by the adjacent term “warrior society.” Her legalism is not causal. For it is in that trans-continental tradition that a relation is forged between caste and war, and the sovereignty of the line—maryada—attains its apotheosis. Might a semblance of political courage still be retrieved from that tradition of cruelty—a modern part of which becomes genuinely “anticolonial”—and rehabilitated into norms of democratic government today?
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
“The important point for liberalism is not so much where the line is drawn,” Judith Shklar writes in a fascinating moment in her critique of cruelty, “as that it be drawn, and that it must under no circumstances be ignored or forgotten.” Where is this line? And who lives under its ambiguous constitutionality? Neither in her 1989 theses on the “liberalism of fear” nor in her 1982 demand that liberals start “putting cruelty first” does Shklar fully pursue the consequences of this morally unforgiving yet spatially uncertain line of liberal intolerance of cruelty. And while she does starkly pose the question “what is moral cruelty?” in terms of its debilitating effect on human freedom, the limit—border—that circumscribes liberalism’s constitutional response to extreme violence continues to waver. In this paper, Aishwary Kumar offers an archeology of this vacillating, political “line” that runs through liberal resistance against cruelty. By way of exploring its global implications, he follows Shklar on the cosmopolitical path she takes, along with BR Ambedkar and Hannah Arendt, into that “most ancient,” most exemplary form of organized violence and constitutional stasis known to legal and moral philosophy: the “Indo-European caste society,” which in her later writings Shklar sometimes replaces by the adjacent term “warrior society.” Her legalism is not causal. For it is in that trans-continental tradition that a relation is forged between caste and war, and the sovereignty of the line—maryada—attains its apotheosis. Might a semblance of political courage still be retrieved from that tradition of cruelty—a modern part of which becomes genuinely “anticolonial”—and rehabilitated into norms of democratic government today?
Read more
|