|
Contradictions in the Governance of Environmental Mobility: Evidence from African Cities
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Achilles KallergisAyşe Çağlar
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Liberalism Challenged: Debating the Causes That Weaken Liberalism, and Illiberalism’s Amplifying Feedback Loop Effect
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Clemena AntonovaMarlene LaruelleYavor Siderov
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Fluid Zones of Hegemony
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ayşe ÇağlarEzgican Özdemir
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Marginalized (not only) in Times of Lockdown
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Alison SmaleLudger HagedornNoémi Kiss
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
In recent months, culture and the arts have suffered severely under pandemic-related restrictions. While artists, freelancers, independent projects, and even publicly funded cultural institutions are struggling for economic survival, we easily overlook the fact that—also in “normal times”—the autonomy of culture is increasingly being called into question. With respect to the immediate effects of this political and economic pressure on the arts, there is a major divide between cultural centers and those operating on the periphery. Most heavily affected by the asymmetric consequences of these pressures are not the trend-setter elites in cultural centers, or the publicly funded (non-)artists on the semi-peripheries, but all those who do not move to the cultural capitals. That is, those who decide to uphold cultural projects on the periphery—where they are most direly needed. Within Europe, there is also a significant East-West divide, not only in terms of the distribution of funding, but also in regard to the autonomy of art. This talk dealt with the situation of cultural actors on the periphery, confronted with emigration, poverty, de-/nationalization, walls, borders, ghettos, diseases, regime changes, and a new intra-European colonization.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
In recent months, culture and the arts have suffered severely under pandemic-related restrictions. While artists, freelancers, independent projects, and even publicly funded cultural institutions are struggling for economic survival, we easily overlook the fact that—also in “normal times”—the autonomy of culture is increasingly being called into question. With respect to the immediate effects of this political and economic pressure on the arts, there is a major divide between cultural centers and those operating on the periphery. Most heavily affected by the asymmetric consequences of these pressures are not the trend-setter elites in cultural centers, or the publicly funded (non-)artists on the semi-peripheries, but all those who do not move to the cultural capitals. That is, those who decide to uphold cultural projects on the periphery—where they are most direly needed. Within Europe, there is also a significant East-West divide, not only in terms of the distribution of funding, but also in regard to the autonomy of art. This talk dealt with the situation of cultural actors on the periphery, confronted with emigration, poverty, de-/nationalization, walls, borders, ghettos, diseases, regime changes, and a new intra-European colonization.
Read more
|
|
Global monsters, local fears: How to preserve the crumbling social order
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ivan VejvodaMilla Mineva
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
Typology and Principles of Regional Integration in Comparative Perspective
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Clemena AntonovaMario Apostolov
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
The end of the ideological Cold War divisions created a cheery sentiment of renewed unity in Europe and the world, with chances for development for all. As the stability of the bipolar structure vanished, strengthening regional integration entities seemed to become the bricks for the new organizational edifice of world society.
At first, this vision was substantiated by countries coming together in various regional groupings, led by pragmatic interest, overcoming age-old perceptions of neighbours typically fighting each other. Several types of regions formed: a top-down integration as in the European Union and its institutions; a bottom-up expansion of regional supply chains as in East Asia; the more limited approach of free trade agreements as in USMCA; or simply regions without regionalism. This talk will look for common principles underpinning the various efforts at regional integration, such as the joint pursuit of peace and economic development, assistance to laggards, etc., building on existing theories (Neofunctionalism, New Regionalism and Comparative Regionalism), trying to go beyond.
Read more
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
The end of the ideological Cold War divisions created a cheery sentiment of renewed unity in Europe and the world, with chances for development for all. As the stability of the bipolar structure vanished, strengthening regional integration entities seemed to become the bricks for the new organizational edifice of world society.
At first, this vision was substantiated by countries coming together in various regional groupings, led by pragmatic interest, overcoming age-old perceptions of neighbours typically fighting each other. Several types of regions formed: a top-down integration as in the European Union and its institutions; a bottom-up expansion of regional supply chains as in East Asia; the more limited approach of free trade agreements as in USMCA; or simply regions without regionalism. This talk will look for common principles underpinning the various efforts at regional integration, such as the joint pursuit of peace and economic development, assistance to laggards, etc., building on existing theories (Neofunctionalism, New Regionalism and Comparative Regionalism), trying to go beyond.
Read more
|
|
“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
|
|
Beyond the “Power of the Powerless“
|
-
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Milan HanysMuriel Blaive
|
-
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
-
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
From Biopolitics of Care to Necropolitics of War
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Sergei MedvedevMisha Glenny
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
|
A Black Box in Dark Times: Russian Public Opinion in the Midst of Despotism and War
|
|
Seminars and Colloquia
|
Ivan KrastevKirill Rogov
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|
Series: Seminars and Colloquia
|