|
Soviet Ukrainian Patriotism in Brezhnev`s Dnipropetrovsk
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Andrii Portnov
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Manufactured Alienation
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Adam RamsayIvan KrastevIvan Vejvoda
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Facing Post-Truth in Central-Eastern Europe
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Arvydas GrišinasLudger Hagedorn
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
The main challenge that post-truth poses, as the concept itself suggests, is the alleged end of centrality of the idea of truth in politics. Central and Eastern Europe finds itself in a political culture where claims, ideas and utterances must no longer necessarily be grounded in proven empirical facts, in order to be held true by the broader public. This situation, however, is by no means new or unheard of. In this regard, it resembles Soviet social reality, where officially held narratives also had scant empirical grounding. Furthermore, while it were Central-Eastern European dissidents who problematized these issues and set out to successfully counter them, resulting in the events of 1989, the same dissident heritage is also used nowadays to promote agendas of populist illiberal regimes in the region. The talk explored the prospects and challenges to utilizing the dissident heritage to tackling these contemporary issues.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
The main challenge that post-truth poses, as the concept itself suggests, is the alleged end of centrality of the idea of truth in politics. Central and Eastern Europe finds itself in a political culture where claims, ideas and utterances must no longer necessarily be grounded in proven empirical facts, in order to be held true by the broader public. This situation, however, is by no means new or unheard of. In this regard, it resembles Soviet social reality, where officially held narratives also had scant empirical grounding. Furthermore, while it were Central-Eastern European dissidents who problematized these issues and set out to successfully counter them, resulting in the events of 1989, the same dissident heritage is also used nowadays to promote agendas of populist illiberal regimes in the region. The talk explored the prospects and challenges to utilizing the dissident heritage to tackling these contemporary issues.
Read more
|
|
An Aromatic Trail through the Centuries: The Damascene Rose as Art, Economics, and Anthropology on the Silk Road and Beyond
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Yavor SiderovAyşe Çağlar
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Who Is in Putin’s Army? Talking to Russian Prisoners of War in Ukraine and What We Can Learn From It
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Clemena AntonovaKirill RogovPeter Ruzavin
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
The Compatriots
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Andrei SoldatovClemena AntonovaIrina Borogan
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
“Blame-Games” and “Blame Avoidance”
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Markus RheindorfRuth WodakMiloš Vec
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world both dramatically and irrevocably. For months, politics and media have focused on COVID-19 and the countless facets of its impact of ever more uncertainty and insecurity in our lives. Following Zygmunt Bauman’s Liquid Fear (2006) and Wodak’s The Politics of Fear (2021), it has become evident that a “politics of fear (and hope)” has been reinforced and instrumentalized by numerous national governments, in significantly different ways. Accordingly, the range of discourses appear to have changed equally dramatically, in terms of both subject matter and discursive practices. Has the pandemic truly altered the strategies and mechanisms of mediatized politics? Which well-understood/well-studied discursive patterns and trends – including interdiscursivity, (re)nationalization, securitization – and which discursive strategies – like the blame-game (Rheindorf & Wodak 2018) and blame avoidance (Hansson 2015) are still to be found in times of COVID-19, perhaps in altered forms? Some may have been marginalized, while the pandemic may have acted as a catalyst for others. Drawing on the Discourse-historical Approach (DHA) in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), we will raise such questions and attempt to answer them through theoretical considerations and empirical evidence.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world both dramatically and irrevocably. For months, politics and media have focused on COVID-19 and the countless facets of its impact of ever more uncertainty and insecurity in our lives. Following Zygmunt Bauman’s Liquid Fear (2006) and Wodak’s The Politics of Fear (2021), it has become evident that a “politics of fear (and hope)” has been reinforced and instrumentalized by numerous national governments, in significantly different ways. Accordingly, the range of discourses appear to have changed equally dramatically, in terms of both subject matter and discursive practices. Has the pandemic truly altered the strategies and mechanisms of mediatized politics? Which well-understood/well-studied discursive patterns and trends – including interdiscursivity, (re)nationalization, securitization – and which discursive strategies – like the blame-game (Rheindorf & Wodak 2018) and blame avoidance (Hansson 2015) are still to be found in times of COVID-19, perhaps in altered forms? Some may have been marginalized, while the pandemic may have acted as a catalyst for others. Drawing on the Discourse-historical Approach (DHA) in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), we will raise such questions and attempt to answer them through theoretical considerations and empirical evidence.
Read more
|
|
Forced Migration, the Antinomies of Mobility, and the Autonomy of Asylum
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarNicholas de Genova
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
Rather than seeing the ever more devious reaction formations of border policing and militarization, migrant detention, immigration enforcement, and deportation by state powers as if these were purely a matter of control, it is instructive to situate this economy of power in relation to the primacy, autonomy, and subjectivity of human mobility on a global (transnational, intercontinental, cross- border, postcolonial) scale. This is true, I contend, as much for refugees as for those who come to be derisively designated to be mere “migrants.” If we start from the human freedom of movement and recognize the various tactics of bordering as reaction formations, then the various tactics of border policing and forms of migration governance can be seen to introduce interruptions that temporarily immobilize and decelerate human cross-border mobilities with the aim of subjecting them to processes of surveillance and adjudication. Indeed, it is this dialectic that reconstitutes these mobilities as something that comes to be apprehensible, alternately, as “migration,” or “asylum-seeking,” or the “forced migration” of “refugees” in flight from persecution or violence – which is to say, as one or another variety of target and object of government. Yet, even under the most restricted circumstances and under considerable constraint, these human mobilities exude a substantial degree of autonomous subjectivity whereby migrants and refugees struggle to appropriate mobility. Even against the considerable forces aligned to immobilize their mobility projects, or to subject them to the stringent and exclusionary rules and constrictions of asylum, the subjective autonomy of human mobility remains an incorrigible force.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
Rather than seeing the ever more devious reaction formations of border policing and militarization, migrant detention, immigration enforcement, and deportation by state powers as if these were purely a matter of control, it is instructive to situate this economy of power in relation to the primacy, autonomy, and subjectivity of human mobility on a global (transnational, intercontinental, cross- border, postcolonial) scale. This is true, I contend, as much for refugees as for those who come to be derisively designated to be mere “migrants.” If we start from the human freedom of movement and recognize the various tactics of bordering as reaction formations, then the various tactics of border policing and forms of migration governance can be seen to introduce interruptions that temporarily immobilize and decelerate human cross-border mobilities with the aim of subjecting them to processes of surveillance and adjudication. Indeed, it is this dialectic that reconstitutes these mobilities as something that comes to be apprehensible, alternately, as “migration,” or “asylum-seeking,” or the “forced migration” of “refugees” in flight from persecution or violence – which is to say, as one or another variety of target and object of government. Yet, even under the most restricted circumstances and under considerable constraint, these human mobilities exude a substantial degree of autonomous subjectivity whereby migrants and refugees struggle to appropriate mobility. Even against the considerable forces aligned to immobilize their mobility projects, or to subject them to the stringent and exclusionary rules and constrictions of asylum, the subjective autonomy of human mobility remains an incorrigible force.
Read more
|
|
Governance of Forced Migration in South Asia
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarSabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury
|
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
|