Post. America s Role in the World

Post www.iwm.at No. 89 Summer 2005 Newsletter of the INSTITUT FÜR DIE WISSENSCHAFTEN VOM MENSCHEN, Vienna and of the INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES a...
Author: Kajetan Boer
0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size
Post

www.iwm.at

No. 89 Summer 2005

Newsletter of the INSTITUT FÜR DIE WISSENSCHAFTEN VOM MENSCHEN, Vienna and of the INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES at Boston University

Contents 3 Politische Diskussion Gleichstellung: Mehr als nur ein Schlagwort?

19TH JAN PATOCKA MEMORIAL LECTURE American foreign politics and the concept of open society, based on the recognition that nobody possesses the ultimate truth, were the issues of a speech by George Soros. On June 20, Soros

6 Workshop Tod und Macht

held the IWM’s 19th Jan Patocka Memorial Lecture in Vienna.

8 Politischer Salon Europa – ein Pol in einer multipolaren Welt?

America’s Role in the World

9 Conference Junior Visiting Fellows’ Conference 10 Tischner Debate Inequality and Religion 12 IHS Boston Jedwabne Debate / Europe and the US 13 IWM Friends 24 Notes on Books Muriel Blaive on National Cleansing Norman Naimark on Stalin 26 Appraisal Paul Ricoeur, 1913-2005 by Charles Taylor 28 Guest Contribution Helga Nowotny on Humanities in European Research 20 Ausschreibungen / Calls for Application Jozef Tischner Fellowships Mellon Fellowships Körber Fellowships Paul Celan Fellowships

The Hungarian-born US financier George Soros is well known for his commitment in Central and Eastern Europe. Soros is the founder of a worldwide network of philanthropic organizations dedicated to promoting the values of democracy. He is also a member of the IWM’s Board of Patrons. On June 20, he gave the Institute’s annual Patocka Memorial Lecture in Vienna, entitled “America’s Role in the World – an Alternative Vision.”

The Concept of Open Society It was the second time that Soros delivered this lecture, and in a sense it was the continuation of his talk in 1995: “In my last lecture, I announced the doctrine of fallibility,” said Soros. “I did not, however, deal with the connection between fallibility and the concept of open society.” Exactly this connection was the focus of his 2005 lecture, delivered in front of an audience of more than 300 people in the Palais Schwarzenberg in Vienna. The concept of open society has guided George Soros, as he himself asserts, through his whole life since he became familiar with it through the philosopher Karl Popper. Popper’s influential two-volume book, “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” was published in 1945. To explain his thesis, Soros drew on his involvement in the recent US presidential elections: “Because that experience above all has confirmed my belief in the relevance and importance of the concept of an open society,” said Soros in Vienna.

Wrong Agenda for the World In his lecture, Soros repeatedly emphasized that the United States is the most powerful nation on earth. This position places a special obligation on the US, “to show concern for the well being of the world as a whole,” said Soros. It bears a “unique responsibility for the course that history takes.” But President Bush has set the wrong agenda for the world, said Soros, referring to the “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq in particular.

George Soros

Die 19. Jan Patocka-Gedächtnisvorlesung hielt George Soros am 20. Juni im Palais Schwarzenberg in Wien – und sprach dort über Amerikas Rolle in der Welt und das Konzept einer der offenen Gesellschaft. Soros ist Gründer eines Netzwerkes philanthropischer Organisationen, die in mehr als 50 Ländern weltweit aktiv sind, und ein Mitglied des IWMKuratoriums.

George Soros 19th JAN PATOCKA MEMORIAL LECTURE

2

George Soros was born in Budapest in 1930. He left communist Hungary in 1947 for England, where he graduated from the London School of Economics. While a student at LSE, Soros became familiar with the work of the Austrian-born philosopher Karl Popper. In 1956, he moved to the United States. Today, Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC and Chairman of the Open Society Institute. He has established a network of philanthropic organizations active in more than 50 countries worldwide. The Soros foundations network is dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society by supporting projects in education, civil society development, media and many other areas. Publications: The Bubble of American Supremacy, 2004 George Soros on Globalization, 2002 Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, 2000 The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered, 1998 Underwriting Democracy, 1991 All published with PublicAffairs, New York.

Yet even though the ramifications of the war in Iraq became apparent to the nation, George Bush was re-elected in 2004. Thus, Soros can no longer attribute the Bush administration’s policies to what he called “a temporary aberration” brought on by the trauma of 9/11. His explanation rather involves a metaphor well known in economics: the (financial) bubble – in this case the bubble of American supremacy. As Soros further explained, bubbles do not grow out of thin air: “They have a solid basis in reality, which is subjected to a distorting misinterpretation.” In other words, the United States was in an extremely powerful position as the sole superpower; the misinterpretation concerned the way it ought to use that power. And the neo-conservatives wanted to use it to install American supremacy in the world.

Does Truth Matter? For this “bubble of American supremacy,” Iraq ought to have served as the moment of truth. Yet Bush was re-elected, and with an increased majority. Having re-installed him in office, the American electorate became “complicit in his policies,” as Soros put it. So what had happened? The answer Soros came up with is that America is an open society that does not understand the concept of open society and does not subscribe to its principles. The first principle is fallibility – the recognition that one may be wrong. According to Soros, neither candidate gave a true account of himself or of the situation in the last presidential campaign. But George Bush’s deception was by far more serious in comparison to his counterpart, John Kerry. Bush finally won the elections with an appeal to emotion, particularly fear. “The electorate yearned for strong leadership at a time of peril and did not show great concern for the truth,” said Soros. “The truth did not seem to matter.”

Summer 2005

Since its founding, the IWM has promoted the work of the Czech philosopher and human rights activist Jan Patocka (1907-1977). The co-founder of Charta 77 died in 1977 following a police interrogation in Prague. In commemoration of the 10th anniversary of this death, the IWM launched a series of annual memorial lectures in 1987. Please read more about the IWM’s research on Patocka at www.iwm.at/patocka.htm Seit seiner Gründung widmet sich das IWM dem Werk des tschechischen Philosophen und Bürgerrechtlers Jan Patocka (1907 – 1977). Der Mitbegründer der Charta 77 starb 1977 nach einer Reihe von Polizeiverhören. 1987 rief das IWM anlässlich seines 10. Todestages die Serie der Jan Patocka-Gedächtnisvorlesungen ins Leben. Lesen Sie mehr zur Patocka-Forschung am IWM unter www.iwm.at/patocka.htm

The Quest for Truth With this conclusion, Soros arrived at the crux of the matter: “The concept of open society is based on the quest for truth,” he said. “It recognizes that our understanding is inherently imperfect.” But for several reasons the critical process in the US has broken down. For one, people in the US do not care. “They want to be entertained, not informed,”

No. 89

said Soros. Adding to this is the fact that no proper information is available due to a “right wing ‘message machine’.” So what can be done to restore the critical process? “It is necessary to re-examine our attitude towards reality and truth – to re-examine our commitment to the concept of open society,” said Soros. According to him, the war on terror has become the frame in which America sees the world and which is firmly established. “It is at the core of the prevailing misinterpretation of reality.” So long as it prevails, the bubble will continue to grow and America will continue to lead the world in the wrong direction. Soros thus called for a rethinking of the US view of the world. “To achieve such a change of heart America needs to understand the concept of open society and form a general consensus in its favor. In particular, we must recognize that the war on terror is a false, counterproductive and self-defeating concept.”

Audience in the Palais Schwarzenberg

POLITISCHE DISKUSSION Die Gleichstellung von Männern und Frauen hat sich die Previous speakers

2004 Ralf Dahrendorf (London)

2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

1998 1997 1996 1995 1994

1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987

Engagierte Beobachter: Intellektuelle und die Versuchungen der Zeit George Steiner (Cambridge) Das Cordelia-Paradox Giuliano Amato (Rome / Brussels) United Europe: What Should It Be? Edward W. Said (New York) The Public Role of Writers and Intellectuals Czeslaw Milosz (Berkeley/Krakow) Lesung aus seinen Gedichten William Julius Wilson (Harvard) Rising Inequality in the United States and the Case for Multiracial Political Coalitions Elie Wiesel (Boston) Hasidic Modes Tadeusz Mazowiecki (Warschau) Politik und Moral im neuen Europa Albert O. Hirschman (Princeton) Between Private and Public Spheres George Soros (New York) A Failed Philosopher Tries Again François Furet (Paris) Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution Mario Vargas Llosa (Lima/London) Democracy Today Jacques Derrida (Paris) Le secret – de la réponse et de la responsabilité Charles Taylor (Montreal) Two Theories of Language Paul Ricoeur (Paris) The Person: Its Ethical and Moral Structure Zbigniew Brzezinski (New York) The General Crisis of Communism Leszek Kolakowski (Oxford/Chicago) Die Illusionen der Entmythologisierung Hans-Georg Gadamer (Heidelberg) Phänomenologie und das Problem der Zeit

Im Passagen Verlag, Wien, sind zuletzt erschienen: Ralf Dahrendorf Engagierte Beobachter. Die Intellektuellen und die Versuchungen der Zeit (Herbst 2005) George Soros Die Macht der Fehlbarkeit Albert O. Hirschman Tischgemeinschaft. Zwischen öffentlicher und privater Sphäre Tadeusz Mazowiecki Politik und Moral im neuen Europa. Mit einem Essay von Jan Patocka William Julius Wilson Soziale Ungleichheit in den USA. Plädoyer für eine multiethnische Bündnispolitik

EU längst auf ihre Agenda geschrieben – und setzt auf das Konzept des Gender Mainstreaming. Wie dies in der politischen Praxis aussieht, untersucht seit 2003 das EUProjekt MAGEEQ. Im Mai und Juni wurden am IWM die Ergebnisse präsentiert und diskutiert.

Gleichstellung: Mehr als nur ein Schlagwort? Der Terminus Gender Equality, zu Deutsch Gleichstellung von Mann und Frau, ist ein beliebtes Schlagwort der Politik. Schließlich ist in der Europäischen Union mehr als die Hälfte der Bevölkerung weiblichen Geschlechts, doch in Punkto Gleichstellung – etwa im Berufsleben – hat man Nachholbedarf. Um nur einige Fakten zu nennen: Frauen verdienen im Durchschnitt 16 Prozent weniger als Männer. In der Hochschullehre und öffentlichen Forschung ist der Frauenanteil niedriger als ein Drittel. In den Niederlanden etwa sind gar nur fünf Prozent der ordentlichen Professuren von Frauen besetzt. Und geht es um Führungspositionen in Politik, Wissenschaft oder Wirtschaft, stoßen sie oft an die berühmte „gläserne Decke“. Wie aktuell die Thematik ist, zeigt auch der im Mai veröffentlichte Bericht des World Economic Forum, „Women’s Empowerment: Measuring the Global Gender Gap“. Insgesamt 58 Länder wurden hinsichtlich verschiedener Kriterien unter die Lupe genommen. Demnach ist es selbst den in dieser Hinsicht vorbildlichen Skandinaviern bislang nicht gelungen, den Gender Gap zu überwinden.

Since 2003, MAGEEQ has been analyzing and comparing the political practice of gender equality in several European countries and on the level of the European Union. In May and June, MAGEEQ members met with scholars and policy makers at the IWM to present and discuss the results of their research. MAGEEQ is a three-year research project (20032005) funded within the European Commission’s 5th Framework Programme and co-funded by the Austrian Ministry for Education, Science and Culture. Please read more at http://www.mageeq.net

Gegenstrategie Gender Mainstreaming Um die Kluft zu schließen, setzt man auf das Konzept des Gender Mainstreaming. Auf EU-Ebene ist der Ansatz, der auf die Identifikation und Beseitigung geschlechtsspezifischer Asymmetrien in Systemen und Organisationen gerichtet ist, bereits etabliert. Der damit verbundene Auftrag lautet, die unterschiedlichen Interessen und Lebenssituationen von Frauen und Männern grundsätzlich und in allen sozialen Aspekten zu berücksichtigen. Denn, so der gedankliche Hintergrund, eine geschlechtsneutrale Wirklichkeit gibt es nicht. Wohlgemerkt bezeichnet der englische Begriff gender weit mehr als nur das biologische Geschlecht. Es geht vielmehr um die gesellschaftlichen, sozial und kulturell geprägten Rollen von Frauen und Männern, die erlernt und somit veränderbar sind. Bei Gender Mainstreaming werden zudem beide Geschlechter in den Blickpunkt gerückt, denn Gleichstellung wird dabei nicht als „Frauenproblem“ verstanden, sondern als ein Ziel, No. 89

Summer 2005

3

Gleichstellung: Mehr als nur ein Schlagwort? POLITISCHE DISKUSSION

das Frauen und Männer gleichermaßen betrifft.

Politische Praxis im Fokus

4

Ein schöner Ansatz, aber wie sieht die politische Praxis der verschiedenen EULänder tatsächlich aus? Dies zu klären, hat sich das Forschungsprojekt MAGEEQ zum Ziel gesetzt – und stützt sich dabei auf die Methode der so genannten frame analysis: Gegenstand der Untersuchung sind offizielle Dokumente (Gesetzesvorlagen, Parlamentsdebatten), aber auch Zeitungsinterviews und andere Texte von politischen Akteuren. Die MAGEEQ-Mitarbeiterinnen suchten nach der Darstellung, den frames, von Problemen und Lösungsvorschlägen in bestimmten Themenfeldern wie Familienpolitik und politischer Partizipation von Frauen – Bereiche also, bei denen ein Gender-Bezug zu erwarten wäre. Die frames werden dabei als eine Art kognitives Schema verstanden, das Sinnzusammenhänge ermöglicht. Mit anderen Worten: Die Art und Weise, in der ein Problem präsentiert wird, beeinflusst unsere Wahrnehmung des Problems. Ein wohl wenig überraschendes Ergebnis von MAGEEQ: Es existiert eine immense Vielfalt von Definitionen, Bedeutungen und Auffassungen, die mit Gender Equality oder Gender Mainstreaming verbunden werden. „Es gibt kein einheitliches Verständnis“, erklärte dazu Projektleiterin Mieke Verloo bei der Diskussion der österreichischen MAGEEQ-Ergebnisse am 20. Mai im IWM.

Traditionelles Rollenbild im Aufwind Vor allem das Themenfeld Familienpolitik stand im Mittelpunkt der Diskussion knapp zusammengefasst lautet das Resümee des heimischen Projektteams: traditionelle Geschlechterrollen sind hierzulande deutlich im Aufwind. Im Rückgriff auf diese verschwindet etwa zunehmend das Thema „Beteiligung von Frauen am Arbeitsmarkt“, der Fokus wird stattdessen auf Familie und Kinder gelenkt. Wie Birgit Sauer und Karin Tertinegg weiter berichteten, werden im Bereich Familienpolitik wahrgenommene Probleme kaum mit dem Gender-Aspekt in Bezug gesetzt. Wird das Geschlecht thematisiert, dann meist indem Frauen als diejenigen genannt werden, die „das Problem“ betrifft und für die Lösungsvorschläge gelNo. 89

ten sollen. Männer hingegen werden diesbezüglich kaum erwähnt. Frauen werden somit als Hauptverantwortliche für Familienarbeit gezeigt, kritisieren Sauer und Tertinegg, die Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Kinderbetreuung scheint alleine ihre Aufgabe zu sein. Die Familie stehe deutlich im Mittelpunkt. In den letzten Jahren tauchte demnach etwa die Vorstellung auf, die Erwerbstätigkeit von Müttern sei (durch wirtschaftliche Notwendigkeit) erzwungen.

Politische Lösungsvorschläge Die „richtige Tendenz“ sieht Maria Rauch-Kallat, Bundesministerin für Gesundheit und Frauen, dennoch gegeben. Sie verwies in der Diskussion u.a. auf die Möglichkeit, Kinderbetreuungsgeld zu beziehen sowie Betreuungsarbeit auf die Pensionen anrechnen zu lassen. „Frauen müssen stärker in technische Berufe gehen“, lautete ihr Rat. Diese seien besser bezahlt als die klassischen Frauenbranchen. Um eine gerechtere Verteilung der Hausarbeit zu erreichen, hält die Ministerin Bewusstseinsbildung bei den Männern für besonders wichtig. Der Staat, so Rauch-Kallat, könne hier nicht eingreifen – wohl aber mithilfe von Kampagnen den Bewusstseinsbildungsprozess unterstützen. Frauen hingegen sollen selbst beim Partner die gerechtere Teilung von Hausund Betreuungsarbeit einfordern – sowie ihre Söhne (und Töchter) entsprechend erziehen. Und um den „klassischen Karriereknick“ durch Nachwuchs zu vermeiden, sollten Frauen frühzeitig mit dem Arbeitgeber planen. Die Conclusio der Ministerin: Politik kann die Rahmenbedingungen schaffen, die individuelle Lebensgestaltung ist jedoch Aufgabe der und des Einzelnen. Das Eingreifen des Staates in persönliche Entscheidungen innerhalb von Beziehungen sei, außer in Fällen von häuslicher Gewalt, nicht wünschenswert. Nicht zufrieden mit dem derzeitigen Stand der Familienpolitik zeigte sich hingegen Renate Czörgits, Vizepräsidentin des ÖGB. Sie sieht beispielsweise im

Bereich der Elternteilzeit Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten: etwa die Ausweitung auf kleinere Betriebe. Ein „flächendeckendes Manko“ konstatierte sie bei der Betreuung von Klein- und Kleinstkindern. Hier sei Österreich noch „Lichtjahre“ von den Lissabon-Zielen entfernt. Sonja Ramskogler, Landtagsabgeordnete und Gemeinderätin der SPÖ Wien, sieht vor allem die Hauptstadt auf dem richtigen Weg. In Wien gebe es Gender Mainstreaming-Projekte in allen Ressorts, die jedoch nicht die Frauenförderung ersetzen. Heidi RestHinterseer, Grünen-Abgeordnete zum Nationalrat, bemängelte in der Diskussion die „männlich dominierte Politik“. Abhilfe sieht sie nur durch strukturelle Änderungen, für den Fall einer Regierungsbeteiligung hätten die Grünen etwa die Parität vereinbart. Gertrude Brinek, ÖVP-Nationalratsabgeordnete, beschrieb in der Diskussion vor allem die „traditionelle Rekrutierung“ in der Politik – die Basisarbeit – als Belastung für Frauen.

Europa im Vergleich MAGEEQ ist allerdings kein österreichisches Projekt, sondern hat die Situation in insgesamt sechs Ländern – Griechenland, den Niederlanden, Österreich, Slowenien, Spanien und Ungarn – sowie auf EUEbene untersucht. Ergebnisse dieser Studien wurden am 10. und 11. Juni im Rahmen eines internationalen Workshops am IWM diskutiert. Sylvia Walby betonte in ihrem Eröffnungsvortrag, dass Gender Equality nicht synonym sei mit der Etablierung von Männern als Norm. Vielmehr gelte es, die Unterschiede zwischen Frauen und Männern zu akzeptieren und ihre verschiedenen Rollen in der Gesellschaft gleichwertig einzuschätzen. Der Hintergrund: Die Soziologin hat bei

Summer 2005 Renate Czörgits, Karin Tertinegg, Birgit Sauer, Maria Rauch-Kallat

Gleichstellung: Mehr als nur ein Schlagwort? POLITISCHE DISKUSSION

Durchsicht der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zum Thema eine Vielzahl von Gender Equality-Konzepten gefunden, die mitunter durch ein restriktives Verständnis von Gleichheit gekennzeichnet waren. Die Politik stand im Mittelpunkt einer Präsentation der beiden MAGEEQMitarbeiterinnen Emanuela Lombardo und Vlasta Jalusic. Die Theorie unterscheidet zwischen der quantitativen und der substantiven Repräsentation von Frauen. Während erstere auf die rein zahlenmäßige Vertretung in politischen Gremien und Organen gerichtet ist, bezieht sich letztere auf Prozesse und Ergebnisse von Politik: Werden dort weibliche Interessen und Bedürfnisse berücksichtigt? Die konkreten Ergebnisse der MAGEEQ-Teams zeigen, dass in den untersuchten Ländern fast ausschließlich der quantitative Ansatz verfolgt wird. Als Problem und Ziel werden die geringe Zahl von Frauen in der Politik und der wünschenswerte Anstieg beschrieben. Quotenregelungen und target figures sollen Abhilfe schaffen. Das Problematische daran: Damit wird unhinterfragt vorausgesetzt, dass alleine eine höhere Anzahl von Frauen zu einer frauenfreundlichen Politik führt – und dass eine Politikerin ganz automatisch für Frauenpolitik steht. Erneut tauchen fast ausschließlich Frauen als das „Problem“ auf: „Männer erscheinen als die implizite Normgruppe, man verlangt von ihnen keine Veränderung“, heißt es in der Zusammenfassung von Lombardo und Jalusic. Die Frauen hingegen hinken ihren männlichen Kollegen nach. Der (politisch) aktive männliche Bürger steht der inaktiven weiblichen Bürgerin gegenüber.

Familienpolitik international Auch das Themenfeld Familienpolitik wurde im Rahmen des internationalen Workshops diskutiert. Wie Viola Zentai und Karin Tertinegg berichteten, taucht hier der Bezug zu Gender Equality – vor allem auf EU-Ebene – häufig auf. Eine Darstellung, die allerdings fast ausschließlich auf den Arbeitsmarkt konzentriert ist. „Familienpolitik scheint vor allem als eine Angelegenheit wahrgenommen zu werden, bei der es darum geht, Brücken zu schlagen zwischen den Erfordernissen des Familienlebens auf der einen Seite und dem Arbeitsmarkt andererseits.“ Als auffällig bezeichneten Zentai und

Tertinegg die Tatsache, dass die von Problemen Betroffenen häufig geschlechtsneutral dargestellt werden. Dies könne zwar als ein Versuch gewertet werden, Männer und Frauen gleichermaßen anzusprechen, doch wenn es darum gehe, die alte Gender-Ordnung aufzubrechen, drohe Irreführung. Wird das Geschlecht hingegen thematisiert, so werden erneut vornehmlich die Frauen als diejenigen dargestellt, die von den Problemen betroffen sind.

Häusliche Gewalt Dem schwierigen Themenfeld “Häusliche Gewalt” widmete sich schließlich die Präsentation von Andrea Krizsan und Maria Bustelo. Die ungleiche Machtverteilung bei Frauen und Männern wird demnach, wenn auch selten, als Problem thematisiert, ebenso aber findet sich die Darstellung von geschlechtslosen Opfern (und Tätern) – gelegentlich mit dem Hinweis versehen, dass vor allem Frauen betroffen sind. Hinzu kommen weitere

frames, in denen häusliche Gewalt beispielsweise als Problem der Gesellschaft (z.B. verfallende soziale Normen) und der Familie präsentiert wird. Positiv vermerkten die MAGEEQMitarbeiterinnen, dass ein relativ starker Konsens herrscht: dass häusliche Gewalt existiert, dass sie ein öffentliches Problem darstellt und somit politische Aktionen verlangt. Ein großer Fortschritt also gegenüber der Situation vor einigen Jahren. Denn vor der Weltfrauenkonferenz 1995 in Beijing galt diese Form der Gewalt als privates Problem. Die radikale Version dieses so genannten Privacy Frames ist heute aus der öffentlichen Debatte verschwunden. MAGEEQ ist ein dreijähriges Forschungsprojekt (2003-2005), das innerhalb des 5. Forschungsrahmenprogramms der EU sowie vom Österreichischen Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur finanziert wird. Mehr unter http://www.mageeq.net

Participants:

5

MAGEEQ National Debate

MAGEEQ International Debate

20. Mai, IWM

10.-11. Juni, IWM

Gertrude Brinek Abgeordnete zum österreichischen Nationalrat der ÖVP Renate Czörgits Vizepräsidentin des ÖGB; Vorsitzende der ÖGBFrauen Sonja Ramskogler Landtagsabgeordnete und Gemeinderätin der SPÖ Wien Maria Rauch-Kallat Bundesministerin für Gesundheit und Frauen; Bundesvorsitzende der ÖVP-Frauen Heidi Rest-Hinterseer Abgeordnete zum Nationalrat der Grünen Birgit Sauer MAGEEQ Senior Researcher; Professor of Political Science, University of Vienna Karin Tertinegg MAGEEQ Junior Researcher; IWM Mieke Verloo MAGEEQ Research Director; Professor of Political Science, University of Nijmegen

Maria Bustelo MAGEEQ Team Leader; Universidad Complutense de Madrid Mary Daly Queen’s University Belfast Vlasta Jalusic MAGEEQ Team Leader; Peace Institute, Ljubljana Andrea Krizsan MAGEEQ Senior Researcher; Central European University, Budapest Emanuela Lombardo MAGEEQ Senior Researcher; Universidad Complutense de Madrid Maro Pantelidou Maloutas MAGEEQ Team Leader; National Center for Social Research, Athens Judith Squires University of Bristol Birgit Sauer (see left) Karin Tertinegg (see left) Mieke Verloo (see left) Sylvia Walby University of Leeds Viola Zentai MAGEEQ Team Leader; Central European University, Budapest No. 89

Summer 2005

WORKSHOP Seit 2004 beschäftigt sich ein interdisziplinäres Forschungsprojekt des IWM mit dem Thema Tod in der modernen Gesellschaft. Um das prekäre Verhältnis von Tod und Macht ging es am 17. und 18. Juni im Rahmen des dritten Workshops in Wien. Das Spektrum der behandelten Themen war sehr breit: Selbstmordattentate wurden ebenso diskutiert wie das Konzept des Hirntodes und das Tötungsrecht des Staates.

Tod und Macht

6

In the course of a workshop on June 17 and 18, a multi-disciplinary group of scholars discussed the relationship between death and power at the IWM in Vienna. It was the third in a series of meetings which are part of the research project “The Meaning of Death in Society Today,” jointly organized by the BerlinBrandenburg Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Arts, Berlin and the IWM. The project is supported by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation.

Über den Tod spricht man heute nicht gerne. Zwar ist das Sterben ein notwendiger Bestandteil menschlichen Lebens, zugleich aber markiert es dessen absolute Grenze. Was danach kommt, ist eine Glaubenssache – und damit vor allem Gegenstand der Religion. Doch die Säkularisierung der abendländisch-westlichen Gesellschaft hat der Religion den Status eines umfassenden Leitdiskurses genommen. Der Tod wurde aus der Öffentlichkeit verdrängt, das Sterben – abseits naturwissenschaftlicher Betrachtungsweisen – tabuisiert. Vor diesem Hintergrund versucht das Forschungsprojekt „Die Bedeutung des Todes in der Gesellschaft heute“ eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem Tod im Hinblick auf die für die Gegenwart charakteristischen Problemperspektiven. Im Rahmen des dritten Workshops diskutierte nun eine multidisziplinäre Gruppe von Experten in Wien über das Verhältnis von Tod und Macht. Auftakt des Workshops war ein öffentliches Podiumsgespräch unter der Leitung von IWM Permanent Fellow Cornelia Klinger.

Macht und Entmächtigung Der Kirchengeschichtler Christoph Markschies konzentrierte sich zunächst auf die historische Perspektive und konstatierte für das Christentum eine „ganz merkwürdige Verschränkung von Ermächtigung und Entmächtigung des Todes“. Diese habe lange Zeit die Geschichte des Christentums geprägt. Auf der einen Seite steht demnach die plakative Präsentation des Todes als radikale Macht beispielsweise in den Totentanz-Darstellungen. Demgegenüber steht seine Überwindung durch Rituale wie etwa die Sterbesakramente – „die rituelle Bemächtigung des Todes“, wie Markschies es nennt. Beide Darstellungen hätten in der Neuzeit an Strahlkraft verloren. Dennoch sieht der Kirchengeschichtler ihr Ineinandergreifen weiterhin als Aufgabe für die christliche Kirche. Die gleiche Grundpolarität stellte HannaBarbara Gerl-Falkovitz aus anthropologischer Perspektive fest. Zentrales Element der Macht des Todes ist für die Religionsphilosophin das „Entsetzen vor dem Tod“. Aufgabe von Gesellschaften, Kulturen und Religionen sei es, dieses Entsetzen zu bannen und die Macht des Todes zu brechen. Die moderne Gesellschaft lasse allerdings das Entsetzen No. 89

Summer 2005

nicht mehr zu, der Tod werde zunehmend als naturwissenschaftlich-biologisches Phänomen präsentiert. Folgt man der Religionswissenschaftlerin, so ist auch diese säkulare Brechung des Todes eine „Erledigung des Todes durch Entmächtigung“. Der Rechtsphilosoph Peter Strasser betonte die generelle Fremdbestimmtheit im Umgang mit dem Tod. Auch die moderne Wissenschaft als zentrale Instanz der Beschäftigung mit dem Tod fügt sich in dieses Bild ein: Der medizinische Fortschritt ist für Strasser nur eine neue Form der Abhängigkeit und Fremdbestimmung, etwa in Form des „ewigen Patienten“, der sich – umgeben von immer neuen Gesundheitsrisiken – dank Vorsorgeuntersuchungen in einer Art Dauerbehandlung befindet. „Unsere Kultur, die die Autonomie zu einem Grundmodell des gelingenden Lebens gemacht hat, scheint beim Tod am Ende“, sagte Strasser. Doch der Rechtsphilosoph sieht durchaus eine Alternative – und stellte die Möglichkeit zur Diskussion, sich gegenüber dem Tod eine „autonome Einstellung“ anzueignen. Den Menschen sei die Idee des „tugendhaften Sterbens“ abhanden gekommen, so Strassers Resümee.

Politische Macht und Tod Das Verhältnis von politischer Macht und Tod stand im Mittelpunkt eines Referates, das der Rechtsphilosoph Gerd Roellecke am folgenden Tag im Rahmen des Workshops hielt. Roellecke betonte darin die „Gesellschaftsabhängigkeit“ des Umgangs mit dem Tod und griff auf eine soziologische Differenzierung zurück, um seine These zu erläutern: zwischen Gesellschaften, die auf die Zugehörigkeit zu Ständen ausgerichtet sind, und jenen, die sich an der Erfüllung gesellschaftlicher Funktionen orientieren. Letzteren gilt jeder einzelne Mensch für wertvoll: „In Kulturen, in denen alle Menschen frei und gleich sind, darf grundsätzlich niemand getötet oder gar geopfert werden“, so Roellecke. Die offene Frage: gibt es ein Tötungsrecht der organisierten Politik, also des Staates? Aufgabe der Politik sei es, kollektiv verbindliche Entscheidungen herzustellen. Dazu benötige sie Macht – um der Erfüllung ihrer Funktonen willen müsse die Politik also physische Gewalt anwenden dürfen. „Die ultima ratio der Gewalt ist die Tötung, inso-

Tod und Macht WORKSHOP

fern hat die organisierte Politik ein Recht zu töten.“ Prekär ist dies nach Roellecke vor allem deswegen, weil dadurch Macht „verzehrt“ werde. Seine Lösung des Dilemmas: Die Anwendung müsse weiterhin angedroht werden, gleichzeitig aber sei sie faktisch so weit als möglich einzuschränken.

Die Macht des Märtyrers Unter dem Titel „Die Macht des Märtyrers“ thematisierte Hans G. Kippenberg das aktuelle Thema islamischer Selbstmordattentate. Anhand der laut dem FBI bei einem 9/11-Attentäter gefundenen „Geistlichen Anleitung“ für die Anschläge analysierte der Religionswissenschaftler die religiösideologischen Hintergründe der Selbstmordattentäter, die demnach einen Kreuzzug gegen den „heidnischen Feind“, die westliche Zivilisation führen – und dabei ihre Furcht vor dem Tod überwinden. Ein zentraler Gedanke sei die Gottesfurcht, erläuterte der Religionswissenschaftler. Furcht wird als eine Form der Verehrung verstanden, die man nur Gott erweisen darf. Der Gläubige könne somit selbst das Schrecken einflößende Heidentum überwinden, denn er müsse keine Macht neben seinem Gott fürchten. „Die Macht der wenigen wahren Gläubigen besteht darin, dass sie imstande und fä-

Peter Strasser, Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, Christoph Markschies, Cornelia Klinger

hig sind, die eigene Angst vor dem Sterben zu überwinden und mit dieser Unerschrockenheit die westliche Zivilisation das Fürchten lehren“, so Kippenberg. Die persönliche Motivation der Selbstmordattentäter spielt dabei keine Rolle. Vielmehr müsse man die Geschichte der Wertschätzung des Selbstmordmartyriums untersuchen. Denn die Selbsttötung gilt im Islam – sogar in der Schlacht – als schwere Sünde. Im Rahmen des Kriegszugs gegen die westliche Zivilisation wurde sie jedoch zum Martyrium, zum Opfer für die Gemeinschaft umgedeutet. Entstanden ist eine Art Märtyrerkult – mit Parallelen zum christlichen Märtyrertum, wie der Religionswissenschaftler abschließend ausführte. Auch dort zeigt sich demnach die Macht des „wahren Glaubens“ über die „Gewalt der Gottlosen“.

Tod und Recht Das Konzept des Hirntodes stand schließlich im Mittelpunkt eines Referates von Hans-Ludwig Schreiber. Als Jurist diskutierte Schreiber vor allem die rechtlichen Aspekte. Denn gerade für das Rechtssystem ist es notwenig, den Tod genau zu definieren. „Kaum bestreitbar wird sein, dass der Tod nicht ein biologisch-objektiv vorgegebener Zeitpunkt ist, sondern eine Zäsur in einem zeitlich ausgedehnten Prozess eines gesamtkörperlichen Sterbens“, so Schreiber. „Die Festlegung eines solchen Zeitpunktes verlangt Entscheidungen.“ Lange Zeit galt demnach der Stillstand von Kreislauf und Atmung als Kriterium für die Feststellung des Todes. Doch moderne Möglichkeiten der Wiederbelebung ließen dies nicht länger zu. 1968 tauchte erstmals das Hirntodkonzept auf: Zwar bedeute der Ausfall des Gehirns als Steuerungsorgan menschlichen Lebens nicht zwangsläufig das Ende allen Lebens im menschlichen Körper, doch der Organismus als Gesamtheit existiere damit nicht mehr. Das Hirntodkonzept ist bekanntlich vor allem für die Transplantationsmedizin wichtig. Doch das Komitee der Harvard Medical School habe den Begriff auch und in erster Linie eingeführt, um die Grenzen notwendiger medizinischer Behandlungen zu klären. Die wissenschaftliche Leitung des Forschungsprojekts wird vom IWM und der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften gleichermaßen wahrgenommen. Die Federführung über Veranstaltungen im Bereich Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften liegt bei der Berliner Akademie der Künste. Unterstützt wird das Projekt von der Fritz Thyssen Stiftung. Alle Informationen und Berichte sind online auf www.iwm.at nachzulesen. Der vierte und letzte Workshop im Dezember 2005 in Berlin wird sich dem Thema Repräsentationen des Todes in Wort und Bild widmen.

Teilnehmer: Hans-Dieter Bahr Philosophie, Tübingen und Wien Günter Blamberger Neuere deutsche Literaturwissenschaft, Köln Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde Richter des Bundesverfassungsgerichts a.D. Iris Därmann Kulturwissenschaften, Lüneburg Susanne Fröschl Geschäftsführung, IWM Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz Religionsphilosophie, Dresden Alois Hahn Soziologie, Trier Evelyn Hansen Akademie der Künste, Berlin Barbara Happe Kulturwissenschaften und Volkskunde, Tübingen, Zürich und Jena Hans G. Kippenberg Religionswissenschaften, Erfurt Cornelia Klinger IWM Permanent Fellow; Philosophie, Tübingen Wolf-Hagen Krauth Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften Christoph Markschies Ältere Kirchengeschichte, Berlin Gerd Roellecke Öffentliches Recht und Rechtsphilosophie, Göttingen Hans-Ludwig Schreiber Strafrecht und allgemeine Rechtstheorie, Göttingen Robert Spaemann Philosophie, München Peter Strasser Rechtsphilosophie, Graz

No. 89 Teilnehmer des Workshops in der Bibliothek des IWM

Summer 2005

7

POLITISCHER SALON Terrorismus und internationale Kriminalität in Verbindung mit moderner Waffentechnik sind zu Bedrohungen globalen Ausmaßes geworden. Bedrohungen, auf die Europa eine – auch militärische – Antwort finden muss, meint der deutsche General a.D. und ehemalige Vorsitzende des NATOMilitärausschusses, Klaus Naumann. Im Rahmen des dritten Politischen Salons diskutierte Naumann die Rolle Europas im Rahmen einer zunehmend multipolaren Weltordnung.

Europa – ein Pol in einer multipolaren Welt? Speaking in the IWM library, the German expert on security issues, Klaus Naumann, raised the question of Europe’s future role in a multi-polar world. The May 23 discussion was the third in a series of Political Salons hosted by the IWM and the Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse.

8

Klaus Naumann was General Inspector of the German Bundeswehr (1991-1996) and Chairman of the NATO-Security Council (1996-1999). He is a member of the advisory board of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, and Vice President of the Atlantic Treaty Association.

No. 89

Summer 2005

Die gegenwärtige Weltlage ist durch zahlreiche Unsicherheiten gekennzeichnet. Nationale Lösungen gibt es – auch für die USA – kaum mehr in einer Welt, die zunehmend multipolar geprägt ist. Welchen Platz aber wird Europa darin künftig einnehmen? Für den deutschen General a.D. Klaus Naumann, am 23. Mai im IWM zu Gast in der Reihe der „Politischen Salons“, ist Sicherheit angesichts transnationaler Risiken und Gefahren zu einer Gestaltungsaufgabe mit globaler Dimension geworden. In der Diskussion mit Michael Prüller, stv. Chefredakteur der Tageszeitung Die Presse, und Krzysztof Michalski, Rektor des IWM, erläuterte der Experte seine Vision eines starken Europa als eigenständiger Pol in einer Welt voller Bedrohungen. An erster Stelle steht für Naumann die Gefahr durch eine neue Form von Terrorismus, „die schon die Art, wie wir leben, als Bedrohung sieht“. Besonders nachdrücklich warnte der ehemalige Vorsitzende des NATO-Militärausschusses auch vor dem rapiden Fortschritt so genannter Bio-Waffen. Und selbst moderne Computertechnik kann als Waffe eingesetzt werden; mithilfe von Software könne man heute einen Staat völlig lahm legen, so der Sicherheitsexperte. Naumann verwies zudem auf „eine Unzahl von internen Problemen“ Europas, darunter etwa die unsichere Situation im Kosovo und in Bosnien. Ein „großes Fragezeichen“ sieht er über Russland: „Wir brauchen Russland als Partner“, erklärte er – doch die derzeitige Entwicklung des Landes hin zu einem autoritären Staat gebe Anlass zur Sorge. Ein weiterer geopolitischer Unsicherheitsfaktor ist nach Naumann der Nahostkonflikt als Teil eines „Krisenbogens von Marokko bis zum Indischen Ozean“. Was also tun angesichts dieser wenig beruhigenden Bestandsaufnahme? Europas Antwort darauf, so Naumann, müsse auch eine militärische sein. „Wir müssen den Gefahren begegnen und dürfen uns nicht nach innen wenden“, lautet seine Forderung. Das setzt allerdings eine einheitliche Linie der EU-Staaten voraus. Doch Naumann sieht die Europäische Union derzeit vor allem durch Michael Prüller, Klaus Naumann, Krzysztof Michalski

„nationalstaatliche Eigensucht“ geprägt, durch die weitgehende Ablehnung einer regelnden Zentralmacht. Der Weg zu einer eigenständigen Außenund Sicherheitspolitik scheint ihm noch sehr weit. Auch ein Europa, das sich als Gegenpol zu den USA definiert, kann für Naumann keineswegs die Lösung sein. Er plädiert vielmehr für ein „einiges Europa als starker Partner der USA“ – auch in militärischer Hinsicht. Europa müsse, so Naumanns Vorschlag, die eigenen Streitkräfte so planen, dass sie die Schwachstellen der USA ausgleichen. Dies sei mit wenig Geld zu erreichen – ohne eine Erhöhung der Verteidigungshaushalte. Eine Möglichkeit liegt demnach in der Entwicklung moderner taktischer Aufklärungssysteme. In der Diskussion wurde die Frage der Sicherheit in einen breiteren Kontext gestellt. Über die militärische Dimension hinaus seien auch sozialpolitische Aspekte zu bedenken. Angesprochen wurden beispielsweise gesundheitspolitische und Umweltprobleme. So stünden etwa – angesichts Millionen Toter jährlich durch Krankheiten wie Malaria und Aids – die Entwicklungshilfe-Ausgaben in keinem Verhältnis zu den Militärausgaben. Naumann stimmte dem zu: Sicherheit sei heute nicht mehr alleine mit militärischen Mitteln zu erreichen, erklärte er, zumal friedliche Lösungen stets Vorrang hätten. Und doch hält er es für unvermeidlich, dass Gewalt künftig als äußerstes Mittel der Politik angewendet werden muss. Politisch sieht er für Europa nur einen Weg, um sich den Herausforderungen zu stellen: die Staaten Europas müssten mehr Souveränität an Brüssel abgeben. „Anders“, so Naumann, „werden wir die Vision Europa nicht verwirklichen“. Klaus Naumann war Generalinspekteur der deutschen Bundeswehr (1991-1996) und Vorsitzender des NATOMilitärausschusses (1996-1999). Er ist Beiratsmitglied des International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, und Vizepräsident der Atlantic Treaty Association. Die Politischen Salons wurden 2004 als neues Diskussionsforum zu aktuellen politischen und gesellschaftlichen Fragestellungen eingerichtet. Die Reihe wird gemeinsam vom IWM und der österreichischen Tageszeitung Die Presse organisiert und von der Direktion für Sicherheitspolitik des Bundesministeriums für Landesverteidigung unterstützt.

CONFERENCE The IWM’s Junior Visiting Fellows meet on a regular basis at seminars to discuss their ongoing projects. The results of their research are then presented at the Junior Visiting Fellows’ Conference at the end of their stay. Last semester’s conference took place on June 8.

Junior Visiting Fellows’ Conference Program

Moderation:

Panel 1: Asli Baykal

Moderation:

Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology, Boston University Title:

Speaker:

IWM Project:

Respondent:

From the Urban Horizon to Logical Space: Notes on Contemporary Philosophical Pedagogy Greg Charak

Candidate for MS degree in Print Journalism, Boston University Title:

Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy, University of California, San Diego; guest scholar of Institut Wiener Kreis

Speaker:

Reduction and Liberal Renewal: the Fate of the “Höherer Standpunkt” Elisabeth Nemeth

IWM Project:

Speaker:

“Heritage” on Display: Exhibitions and Congresses for the Protection of Ancient Monuments at the World’s Fairs 1855-1915 Astrid Swenson

Ph.D. Candidate in History, Cambridge University Körber Junior Visiting Fellow IWM Project:

Respondent:

Conceptualizing Heritage in 19 th Century France, Germany, and Britain Muriel Blaive

From Bolsheviks to Busheviks: The Uzbek Political Elite Asli Baykal

Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology, Boston University

Respondent:

Department of Philosophy, University of Vienna Title:

Panel 3: Eoin O’Carroll

Surviving the Post-Soviet Transition. Changing Family and Community Relations in Uzbekistan Gabriele Rasuly-Paleczek ,

Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna Title:

Speaker:

The Economic Effects of Belief in Mountain Deities in Golok, Tibet Susan Costello

Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology, Boston University IWM Project:

Respondent:

Tibetan Pastoralists’ Uses of Wealth in an Environment of Risk: Choosing Between Tribal and Religious Moral Ideals and Market Efficiency? Christian Jahoda,

Institute for Art History, University of Vienna

Faculty of Human Sciences, Charles University, Prague

Moderation:

Panel 2: Greg Charak

Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy, University of California, San Diego; guest scholar of Institut Wiener Kreis

Moderation:

Title:

Speaker: Title: Speaker:

IWM Project:

Respondent:

City-Images in Contemporary Budapest Emilia Palonen

Disturbing ‘the torpid tranquility of the soul’: Austen’s Textual-Historical Critique Emily Rohrbach

Ph.D. Candidate in English Literature, Boston University IWM Project:

Ph.D. Candidate in Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex Körber Junior Visiting Fellow

Respondent:

Europe in the Contemporary City Image of Budapest, Graz, and Vienna Ulrike Spring

Title:

Wien Museum

Panel 4: Astrid Swenson

European Historiography 1770-1830, Revolution in Literary Time Cornelia Klinger

IWM Permanent Fellow

Speaker:

Regardless of Frontiers: The Long Arm of Censorship in Europe Eoin O’Carroll

Candidate for MS degree in Print Journalism, Boston University IWM Project:

Respondent:

Regardless of Frontiers: Press Freedom in the EU’s Newest Members Wojciech Orlinski

Gazeta Wyborcza, & IWM Visiting Fellow

No. 89

Summer 2005

9

TISCHNER DEBATE The Tischner Debates, a series jointly launched by Warsaw University and the IWM in remembrance of the Polish philosopher and priest Jozef Tischner, serve as a forum for discussion between politicians, scholars and intellectuals on a variety of relevant – and often controversial – societal issues. In April and May, the participants of the second and third debate in Warsaw discussed inequality within societies and the public role of religion.

Inequality and Religion

10

Die vom IWM gemeinsam mit der Universität Warschau begonnene Veranstaltungsreihe der Tischner-Debatten bietet Politikern, Wissenschaftlern und Intellektuellen ein Diskussionsforum zu aktuellen – und häufig kontroversen – gesellschaftspolitischen Themen. Im April und Mai standen im Rahmen zweier Debatten Ungleichheit innerhalb von Gesellschaften sowie die öffentliche Rolle der Religion zur Diskussion.

Following the first Tischner Debate in March, “On Solidarity,” two further debates took place in Warsaw on April 11 and May 20, entitled “On Inequality” and “On the Public Role of Religion.” Each of them gathered renowned Polish intellectuals and politicians and one non-Polish guest for a discussion in front of an audience of almost 1.000 people. The inequality debate on April 11 was opened by Ralf Dahrendorf, member of the British House of Lords and former Warden of St. Antony’s College, Oxford, who tackled the issue of “tolerable social inequality” which he sees as a necessary condition of any society but at the same time as an inevitable threat to communities and even countries. In Dahrendorf ’s opinion the term “inequality” can have a positive meaning when it is defined as “diversity,” thus being a requirement for any social life and social organization as well as a source of social change and social development. Furthermore, some sort of rank inequality is, according to Dahrendorf, necessary as any society includes a set of values that need to be hierarchic to bring change and development. Academic achievement was brought forward as an example to illustrate how this sort of inequality stimulates positive change. Acceptance of inequality is possible, though, only under certain conditions, as Dahrendorf claimed: First, it is acceptable when it is possible to move between social positions. Secondly, it is tolerable as long as no one has the power to deny others access to participation in economical, political and social processes. Finally, provision must be made that no one is excluded from social life.

The Problem of Growing Inequality Dahrendorf also brought attention to the fact that – among countries as well as among people in societies – “the gap between the top ten per cent and the bottom ten per cent in terms of income has grown by a significant percentage in the last 20 years.” He said that an underclass excluded from economic, political and social life has been created along with a small group of super-rich whose money may have exceeded the level of “harmless richness.” Dahrendorf concluded that although he does consider inequality as intrinsically wrong “its desirable limits need to be understood.”

No. 89

Summer 2005

Inequality and exclusion Following this speech, Zyta Gilowska, professor of economics at the Catholic University in Lublin and vice-president of the main opposition party Platforma Obywatelska (Citizens Platform) expressed her belief that easing access to public goods and enabling equal access to them is the essence of a just society. At the same time, Gilowska criticized continental European politicians for luring public opinion with an unrealistic promise of “equality of opportunities” and forced equality policies. According to Gilowska this leads to strengthening the power of ruling politicians who promised to repair inequalities by leveling up taxation while, as she said, the state should interfere only in certain areas of policy commonly perceived as unjust, such as academic developments and the upbringing of children. Lech Kaczynski, Mayor of Warsaw, one of the leaders of the Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc (Law and Justice) party and professor of law at Warsaw University, drew attention to Poland where he sees the foundations of today’s social structure as generally different from modern western countries. The majority of today’s Polish upper-class comes from the communist nomenklatura. Kaczynski critically examined the liberal argumentation as justifying on grounds of science immoral market behavior while in fact moving from lower to upper classes is possible often by means of criminal or corrupt strategies. He pointed to the vision of a fundamental role of the state in preventing social inequality while at the same time reforming the structure of inefficient public spending.

The Poor as “Socially Functional” The third speaker, Miroslawa Marody, professor of sociology at the Warsaw University, spoke of exclusion dilemmas in the age of consumption. According to the sociologist, the excluded – the poor – had been socially functional in the past by bringing a consciousness of mortality to medieval people or by providing an army of workers in mass society, while today’s consumer society requires everyone to be able to consume. She closed by underlining the importance of searching for ways to restore bonds to an atomized and individualized society in order

Inequality and Religion TISCHNER DEBATE

to prevent exclusion of non-consumers. Wiktor Osiatynski, professor of law at the Central European University and University of Connecticut, argued that political policies lack interest in the individual citizens and the excluded. He drew attention to different illustrations of discrimination and called for democratization and the rule of law as the way to challenge them.

Does Democracy Need Religion? A month later, during the third debate “On the Public Role of Religion,” the philosopher Charles Taylor claimed that democracy as a political system cannot create its own values which inevitably must be found in religion. In his introduction Taylor, who is Professor of Philosophy at Northwestern University, Chicago, and Chair of the IWM Academic Advisory Board, argued that although democracy is a system which allows and creates a pluralism of ideas it is always in need of religion as a source of values and a point of reference for debates in public life. Taylor insisted that religion is not only a historical source of identity in a democracy but also creates the essential ethical fundaments which a democracy as a pluralist political system cannot generate itself. The ethical point of reference must be searched for beyond the political system, but at the same time it is more and more tensely disputed whether religion may provide these fundaments.

mass memorials after the death of John Paul II. Mazowiecki expressed his hopes that the young generation might not only aim for a career but might also have a need for ethical fundaments. Adam Boniecki, editor-in-chief of the Polish weekly Tygodnik Powszechny, spoke of the necessity of common values intrinsic in every man that does not require debate. The Polish priest said that the state should not claim the right to speak the truth but should create equal opportunities for citizens to search for the truth, while the truth should be able to defend itself. According to him, in a democracy there must be respect for what is sacred for different people – the trouble being that for various people various ideas are sacred. Finally, Margorzata Chmielewska, Polish chairperson of the “Bread of Life” community, spoke of the necessity to apply the Gospel in everyday life and not to treat it merely as an object of religious cult. She insisted that in a democracy it should give inspiration to economic and social policies as the Gospel offers the “opposite system of values” to the world we call normal. In her vision, religion should inspire everyone in their everyday “normal life.” Wojciech Przybylski

Wojciech Przybylski, a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Philosophy, is Reasearch Assistant at the Erasmus of Rotterdam Chair, Warsaw University, and project coordinator of the Tischner Debates.

Religion and Diversity Following Taylor’s introductory speech, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the first Prime Minister of Poland after 1989, expressed his belief that in today’s Poland people are in need of religious fundaments which, according to him, was illustrated by the

Jozef Tischner (19312000), founding president of the IWM, was one of the most eminent contemporary Polish philosophers. The first chaplain of Solidarnosc, he was an exceptional moral authority and, at the same time, one of the most famous and beloved figures in Polish public life. The series of the Tischner Debates is supported by the City of Warsaw, the Austrian Cultural Forum, Warsaw, the journal Rzeczpospolita, and the Polish Broadcasting Corporation. Jozef Tischner (19312000), Gründungspräsident des IWM sowie einer der einflussreichsten polnischen Philosophen des 20. Jahrhunderts und der erste Seelsorger der Solidarnosc, war eine herausragende moralische Autorität und gleichzeitig eine der beliebtesten Persönlichkeiten des öffentlichen Lebens in Polen. Die Reihe der Tischner-Debatten wird von der Stadt Warschau, dem Österreichischen Kulturforum, Warschau, der Zeitung Rzeczpospolita und dem Polnischen Rundfunk unterstützt.

Krzysztof Michalski, Lech Kaczynski, Samanta Stecko (translator), Lord Dahrendorf, Zyta Gilowska

No. 89

Summer 2005

11

IHS BOSTON The events in the Polish town of Jedwabne in July, 1941, were the subject of a discussion organized by the Institute for Human Sciences at Boston University University. A final lecture in May on the Institute’s core issue, the transatlantic relationship relationship, closed the semester.

Jedwabne Debate / Europe and the US Die Ereignisse in der polnischen Stadt Jedwabne im Juli 1941 waren am 3. Mai Thema einer vom Institute for Human Sciences an der Boston University organisierten Podiumsdiskussion. Wenige Tage später folgte ein Vortrag zum zentralen Thema des Instituts, den transatlantischen Beziehungen Beziehungen. Die beiden Veranstaltungen bildeten den Abschluss des laufenden Semesters am IHS.

12

The book, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, sparked broad discussion when it was published in 2000. In it, the Polish born US historian Jan T. Gross describes the events of July 10, 1941, when the Jewish population of the Polish town of Jedwabne was massacred by their neighbors. In the wake of the debate, a re-evaluation by Polish historians and of public opinion of the war-time attitudes of the Polish population towards the extermination of Jews followed. On May 3, 2005, the Institute for Human Sciences at Boston University co-sponsored a panel discussion at Harvard’s Center for European Studies entitled “Jedwabne Debate: Five Years Later.” The two participants in the meeting – Anna Bikont, a journalist with Gazeta Wyborcza, and Anthony Polonsky, Professor of Political Science at Brandeis University – spoke about today’s knowledge of the events. Following the publication of Gross’ book, the issue was examined by the Polish Institute of National Memory and two volumes of documents were published, confirming the participation of the Polish people in the massacre. Bikont followed the inquiry and wrote a book illuminating both the roots of the massacre and today’s attitudes towards it. Her presentation was a review of the last five years of public reactions to the trauma of “lost innocence.” Professor Polonsky summarized the debates of historians on the subject. Although the massacre has been extensively documented, the play of the politics of memory is by no means finished.

The German Perspective The IHS at Boston University covers a wide range of issues, but has a special focus on the relationship between Europe and the United States. On May 5, 2005, in cooperation with the American Council on Germany, the Institute welcomed Hesse Minister President Roland Koch to Boston. Roland Koch’s lecture, entitled “Europe and the United States: A View from Germany,” was the fifteenth in a series of lectures and panel discussions on the transatlantic relationship launched by the Institute in November, 2002, in response to the growing tensions between the traditional allies. No. 89

Summer 2005

Roland Koch, William Drozdiak

William Drozdiak, President of the American Council on Germany, introduced Koch, underscoring the need for America to re-examine its relationship with Germany – which he called the most successful strategic alliance of the Cold War era – in light of the challenges of the 21st century. Koch began his lecture with an overview of his state’s strategic and economic importance, given its geographic location in the heart of a unifying Europe. He then offered what he called a German perspective on the transatlantic relationship. The politician described its transformation since 1989 and its future prospects in light of the inevitable emergence of China as a world power. According to Koch, the transatlantic partnership remains the most important strategic axis in the world, and this will be even truer in the future. At the moment, the United States is the only world power, but the rise of China poses an eventual threat to American hegemony, making an alliance with a unified Europe a matter of strategic importance. He added that the United States and Europe share common values, a common history, and a common culture, all of which, he implied, are in danger of being marginalized in a future world order. Koch went on to state that America will have to decide within the next ten years whether it wants to stand alone or with Europe and whether or not to support Europe’s unification. A strong proponent of the European Union, Koch argued that Europe, for its part, will have to overcome its internal conflicts and develop the political and military capacity to solve its internal problems. “Germany,” he said, is “too small for the future.” Koch said that if Europe wants a voice in the international debate of the future, it will have to be allied with the US or with Asia. He admitted that gratitude to the United States for the wealth and freedom enjoyed by Germany today is declining with each generation, but he stated, it has not disappeared. According to the politician, the only guarantee of a peaceful world order in the future is the friendship between the traditional allies. Koch expressed his firm belief that it is in the vital interest of both Europe and the United States that the future world order is designed by those who believe in democracy and freedom and who share a common culture, a common heritage, and common values.

friends_seite3

31.08.2005

18:45 Uhr

Seite 1

With Your Support, We Can Make a Change W

© Stefan Olah

e invite all our friends to actively support the Institute’s work. For this purpose, the circle of IWM friends was initiated in 2004. On one hand, with their help we wish to extend our manifold activities, such as a wide range of public events and fellowship programs. At the same time, we want to include many of our numerous former fellows and guests in the circle of IWM friends to offer more opportunities for them to take part in our programs, and to intensify the exchange with and among them.

„Being a visiting scholar at the IWM was a stimulating experience. A truly international and interdisciplinary research center, the IWM has been uniquely successful in building bridges between intellectual, cultural, and political life.“ Rita Felski

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the people who have already joined the circle of IWM friends and who are supporting the Institute: Shlomo Avineri, Bogdan Barbu, Rudolf Beer, Nelly Bekus Goncharova, Otmar Binder, Paul Blau, Pierre Bruyre, Oscar Bronner, Helga Casper, Herberth Czermak, Ralf Dahrendorf, Klas Daublebsky, Arthur Dietrich, Brigitte Döring, Malgorzata Dymnicki-Gawrys, Klaus Feldmann, Rita Felski, Norbert Griesmayer, Siegried Herbert Gruber, Hans Peter Haberland, Markus Haffner, Elisabeth Hagen, Heiko and Senta Haumann-Weber, Georg Hoffmann-Ostenhof, Hans-Henning Horstmann, Investkredit Bank AG, Slavica Jakelic, Johann Kainrath, Andreas Kappeler, Lubor Karlik, Hans Kirchmeir, Elisabeth Kittl, Herbert Klauser, Max Kothbauer, Ivan Krastev, Christine Kronaus, Karl Lewalski, Gerda Mehta, Eva Menasse, Jyoti Mistry, Erich Mladek, Erika Niel, Franz Piribauer, Raiffeisenzentralbank, Martin Rokita, Ingrid Sager, Maria Schaumayer, Elisabeth Scherbantin, Camillo Schwarz, Otto Steinhauser, Charles Taylor, Chris Taylor, Armand van Nimmen and Martha Willinger.

The IWM is registered as a non-profit organization. Financial contributions are tax deductible under Austrian tax law. Donations can be transferred to the following account:

Rita Felski is Chair of Comparative Literature at the University of Virginia. In 2000, she spent one semester as a Visiting Fellow at the IWM in Vienna.

Banking account: Erste Österreichische Sparkasse Bank code: 20111 Account number: 28056986103

www.iwm.at/friends

All donations for IWM friends are greatly appreciated. Donors who contribute Euro 100 or more (students 50 Euro - matriculation number requested) will receive an issue of our journal „Transit“ as a gift from the Institute.

For bank transfers from abroad: IBAN: AT50 2011 1280 5698 6103 BIC: GIBAATWW

TUESDAY LECTURES Every Tuesday evening the IWM hosts a speaker, often a current fellow or guest, who

Tuesday Lectures

holds a public lecture related 3.5.2005

to one of the Institute’s projects or research fields. An e-mail information service on upcoming events is available at www.iwm.at. Jeden Dienstag ist die Bibliothek des IWM Schauplatz eines öffentlichen Vortrags, gefolgt von einer informellen Diskussion. Fellows und Gäste des Instituts sowie internationale Wissenschaftler und Intellektuelle werden eingeladen, ihre aktuellen Forschungsergebnisse zu präsentieren. Einen E-Mail-Informationsservice zu bevorstehenden Veranstaltungen bietet die Website des IWM, www.iwm.at.

14

Peter Mihalyi Is Privatization the Solution? Health Care Reforms in a PostCommunist Context In the sweeping wave of post-communist de-etatization, privatization of health care spontaneously started everywhere. In many ways, these developments parallel changes taking place elsewhere in Europe, but quantitatively Eastern Europe is ahead of Western Europe. For Peter Mihalyi, it is obvious that the lessons learned under socialism regarding stateowned institutions are very useful in interpreting the alternatives of health care reform. In many of the established market economies the health care system has become “an island of socialism.” But in the globalized world, Mihalyi said, where the direction and the pace of technological progress are dictated by the American health care industry, doctors and patients of Europe are getting louder and louder in their demands for a regime change. Peter Mihalyi is Professor of Economics at the Central European University, Budapest, and Chair of the Finance Department at the University of Vezprem. 10.5.2005

Abram De Swaan The Language Predicament of the European Union By its fundamental principles the European Union is committed to use the ‘official language’ of each of the member countries in its public, ceremonial meetings or for its externally binding decisions. Its language policy, moreover, commits it to advocacy of ‘language diversity’ and public protestations of respect and concern for the ‘lesser used languages’ in the Union. Abram De Swaan pointed out that in actual practice, English has become the paramount language of cross-border No. 89

Summer 2005

communication, the first ‘second’ language for students all over the continent and the primary ‘relay’ language for interpreters and translators within the institutions of the EU. Thus, the official policy of the EU, by encouraging language diversity, accelerates the spread of English as the only way out of the confusion of tongues. According to De Swaan, the true predicament for the EU is that it cannot openly acknowledge this. Abram De Swaan, Professor of Social Science, University of Amsterdam, held the chair of sociology from 1973 until 2001. He was cofounder and dean of the Amsterdam School for Social Research (1987-1997) and is presently its chairman. 24.5.2005

Lucian Hölscher Hat die „Zukunft“ eine Zukunft? Zukunftsentwürfe sind heute ein essentieller Bestandteil sozialer Systeme und politischer Planung. Dass die Abhängigkeit moderner Gesellschaften von ihnen erhebliche Gefahren und Irrtumschancen in sich birgt, die zu einer grundsätzlichen Neureflexion herausfordern, führte Lucian Hölscher in seinem Vortrag aus. Im Rückblick auf die Geschichte vergangener Zukunftsentwürfe zeigte er, wie jung das Konzept der Zukunft ist und welch starken Veränderungen es im Laufe der letzten Jahrhunderte unterworfen war. Hölscher ging dabei vor allem der Frage nach, welche Schlüsse sich daraus für die Zukunft der “Zukunft” ziehen lassen. Lucian Hölscher ist Professor für Neuere Geschichte an der Ruhr-Universität Bochum. 31.5.2005

Christa und Peter Bürger Adorno – Adorno Christa Bürger las das Adorno-Kapitel aus ihrer intellektuellen Autobiographie, Mein Weg durch die Literaturwissenschaft, in dem von Adornos Mimesis-Begriff und

TUESDAY LECTURES

der „Grausamkeit des Formens“ die Rede ist. Peter Bürger trug einen Text aus seinen Tränen des Odysseus vor, einem Buch, das auf die Verunsicherung durch das poststrukturalistische Denken mit dem Versuch antwortet, Theorie zu erzählen. Der Text folgt den Gedanken Adornos auf seiner letzten Reise nach Brig.

1989, the would-be member states have been making vast efforts to adjust to the plethora of EU requirements, but also have seen their societies undergo a spontaneous process of Americanization. One

the face of the city. Frits Bolkestein’s talk aimed at analyzing the reasons for the feelings of malaise that were prevalent in Vienna during the fin-de-siècle of the Austro-Hungarian empire – in spite of considerable economic growth and many eminent names in the arts and sciences. Frits Bolkestein is a former member of the European Commission and was an IWM Visiting Fellow from April to June 2005.

Christa Bürger war bis 1998 als Professorin am Institut für Deutsche Sprache und Literatur der Universität Frankfurt/M. tätig.

21.6.2005 Peter Bürger war bis 1998 Professor für Literaturwissenschaft und Ästhetische Theorie an der Universität Bremen.

Norman Naimark Stalin and Europe: Soviet Foreign Policy and European Politics, 1945-1953

2.6.2005

Norman Naimark examined the development of Soviet foreign policy in the post-war era, taking as his main point of departure that Stalin was responsible for this policy and that he pursued highly flexible short- and medium-term goals. His relations with European states and their communist parties depended on the dynamics of local politics, as well as on geo-political considerations. Using a number of case studies throughout Europe, including that of Austria, Naimark argued that Europeans had much more to say about their own futures than is generally acknowledged in the historiography of the Cold War.

Susan Buck-Morss Visual Experience and Global Imagination Susan BuckMorss set the term “Global Imagination” characterized by the question of how to think globally when what connects us is not direct experience but, rather, the dissemination of images. What new, imagined community that transcends the nation is possible, given the new media of communication, she asked. To answer that question, Buck-Morss addressed the task to develop further Walter Benjamin’s media theory in the famous Artwork Essay, while echoing his insistence that our theories be “completely useless for the purposes of fascism.”

can observe people at large voting with their feet for institutions/cultures that they regard as American and good and which they build into their daily life – be it the flat tax, private pensions or Valentine’s Day. For brevity, János Mátyás Kovács called the result of this choice “Little America.” His main question was if this new “region” in the EU will represent too much diversity amidst unity. János Mátyás Kovács is Professor of Economics and IWM Permanent Fellow. 14.6.2005

Frits Bolkestein Fin de siècle of the AustroHungarian Empire

Norman Naimark is Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies at Stanford University and currently Körber Visiting Fellow at the IWM.

Susan Buck-Morss is Professor of Political Philosophy and Social Theory at Cornell University, Ithaca.

7.6.2005

János Mátyás Kovács “Little America”: On the Role of Eastern European Economic Cultures in the EU While the gates of the European Union were opening up rather slowly, Eastern Europe had no other choice but to face global challenges in its own way. Since

Around 1900, Vienna was dominated by fin-de-siècle culture. Famous Jugendstil artists such as Gustav Klimt were living and working in the capital of the Habsburg Empire, architects such as Otto Wagner and Adolf Loos were changing No. 89

Summer 2005

15

Visiting Fellows All IWM Fellows are asked to present their research projects in the institute’s quarterly newsletter. Some of the Fellows listed below have already given a more detailed insight into their work in one of the previous issues of the IWM Post.

Length of stay:

Project:

Research:

16

Naja Bentzen

Benjamin Frommer

Freelance journalist, Copenhagen Milena Jesenska Fellow July – September 2005 Diarama – Metamorphoses of Memory in South-Eastern Europe Can the formal, politically directed “coming to terms with the past” (Vergangenheitsbewältigung) follow certain EU-regulations (“DIN-norms”)? The European “clash of narratives” – involving not only Stalinism and Nazism, but also differing perspectives on and truths about the wars in ex-Yugoslavia – is partly personified by its leaders. In the interspace between the exposed reality and the historical background painting (that is, a diarama), Naja Bentzen analyses the political impulses of memory in South Eastern Europe as identity triggers, focussing on people as protagonists of change – “the good, the bad and the dead.”

Assistant Professor of History, Northwestern University, Evanston September 2004 – June 2005 Living in the Shadow of the Iron Curtain: The Czech/Slovak - Austrian/German Borderlands, 1945 – 2000

Length of stay: Project:

Petr Glombicek

Length of stay: Project: Research:

Frits Bolkestein

Length of stay: Project:

Former member of the European Commission; Visiting Professor, Universities of Leiden and Delft April – June 2005 Fin de siècle of the Austro-Hungarian Empire

Lecturer of Philosophy at Palacky’s University, Olomouc Andrew W. Mellon Fellow July – September 2005 Modern Philosophy and Its Father There is common agreement about the role Descartes has played in European intellectual history, viz. the role of the “father of modern philosophy.” This view usually goes together with certain prejudices concerning the nature of modernity and modern philosophy itself, which has been widely and deeply criticized in the last 100 years. However, reinterpretation of the turn in metaphysics ascribed to Descartes can lead to a fresh look at modern philosophy. Such a task requires a complex study of Descartes’ philosophy, namely of his project, his concept of philosophy, of metaphysics and moral philosophy. Reconsideration of his key concepts should help to understand modern tradition as distinctly our tradition without a need to distance ourselves from it.

Petr Dudek

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

No. 89

Senior Producer, BBC World Service, Czech Section Milena Jesenska Fellow April – June 2005 Is Communism in Central Europe a Closed Chapter? The project tries to describe reasons for the popularity of old-style communists in the Czech Republic and to compare it with the fates of former communist parties in other post-communist countries.

Summer 2005

Katherine Jolluck

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

Assistant Professor and Senior Lecturer in History, Stanford University June – September 2005 Women in Eastern Europe, Women and War, Women under Communism Katherine Jolluck is doing research for a book on East European women and war in the 20th Century. The book will examine women’s involvement – both voluntary and involuntary – in a variety of capacities, such as members of the military services; backbone of underground movements; mainstay of the homefront; mothers of soldiers; subjects and sup-

Norman Naimark and Katherine Jolluck with their son Benjamin

porters of war aims and propaganda; activists in peace movements; and objects of wartime destruction and dislocation, in general, and of sexual violation, in particular. The aim is to consider the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the First and Second World Wars, and the recent wars in the former Yugoslavia.

Norman Naimark

Length of stay: Project: Research:

Tomasz Kamusella

Length of stay:

Project:

Research:

Associate Professor at the Institute of Slavonic Philology, Opole University, Poland Andrew W. Mellon Fellow July – September 2005 Politics of Language and Nationalisms in Central Europe during the 19th and 20th Centuries The specificity of Central European nationalisms rests in their rigid grounding in the national language as the ultimate legitimization and basis of separate nationhood and statehood. The project aims to analyze the rise of Czech, Magyar (Hungarian), Polish and Slovak as standard (national) languages in relation to the respective national movements, which unfolded at the same time. Another focus lies on the further politicization of these four languages in a concentrated effort to achieve a higher degree of ethno-linguistic homogeneity (“purity”) in the nation-states. To achieve this goal, scholars usually worked hand in hand with politicians or entered politics themselves. In Central Europe dictionaries and grammars have been tools of political struggle, not mere references.

Wojciech Orlinski

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

Susanne Lettow

Length of stay:

Project:

Research:

Lehrbeauftragte Gender Studies, Institut für Philosophie, Freie Universität Berlin Lise Meitner Fellow October 2004 – October 2005 Gender in the Philosophical Debates on Biotechnology The technological revolutions of biological reproduction, food production, and medicine are farreaching processes with consequences, especially concerning gender relations. The project centers on the question of how these processes are articulated in philosophical discourse.

Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies, Stanford University Körber Fellow June – September 2005 Stalin and Europe, 1945 - 1953 The project examines Stalin’s foreign policy in postwar Europe based on newly declassified documents from Russian archives, as well as on the insights of the new historiography on Stalin. Along with this, it surveys European politics after the end of the war and asks how they were framed and articulated in different parts of the continent, East and West. Although the Cold War played an important role in the development of the postwar world, the manuscript concentrates on the interaction between Soviet intentions and European political developments. Seven cases of Soviet-European relations are discussed in detail: the Soviet occupation of and withdrawal from the Danish island of Bornholm, 1945-46; the Albanian “flip-flop” of 1947-48; the Italian elections of April 1948; the Berlin Blockade of 194849; the relationship between Gomulka and Stalin 1947-1951; and the Soviet withdrawal from Austria, 1948-55.

Journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Warsaw Milena Jesenska Fellow April – June 2005 Beer Drinkers, Vampires, and Freedom Fighters: Central Eastern Europe as Seen via Stereotypes of Global Popular Culture Wojciech Orlinski attempts do describe the stereotypical portrayal of Central Eastern Europe in global popular culture. An essay written by Orlinski, “Stereotyping: The Horrors From the East,” was published in the spring 2005 issue of the IWM Post (No. 88).

Marci Shore

Length of stay: Project:

Assistant Professor of History, Indiana University July 2004 – August 2005 The Wonder of Words: Cosmopolitanism and the Avant-garde in East-Central Europe, 1919 – 1930

Timothy Snyder

Length of stay: Project:

Assistant Professor of History, Yale University July 2004 – August 2005 Brotherlands: A Family History of the Slavic, German, and Jewish Nations

No. 89

Summer 2005

17

Length of stay:

Project:

Michael Staudigl

Greg Charak

Habilitand (Phänomenologie, Politische Philosophie), Universität Wien, APARTStipendiat der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften October 2003 – Juni 2005 Phänomen Gewalt. Perspektiven phänomenologischer Forschung

Ph.D. Candidate in Philosophy, University of California, San Diego; guest scholar of Institut Wiener Kreis February – June 2005 Reduction and Liberal Renewal: the Fate of the Höherer Standpunkt Greg Charak has long been interested in the relationship between philosophy and liberalism, and particularly in the historical responses of the former to the “crises” of the latter. His aim is to relate these interventions to the notion of the “higher standpoint.”

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

Marcin Zaremba

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

18

Senior Lecturer of History, University of Warsaw Andrew W. Mellon Fellow April – May 2005 Fear in Communist Poland 1994-1989 The project focuses on the diverse types of fear in Communist Poland, such as the fear of the Red Army; the fear of collectivization; the fear of authorities and authority’s fear of society.

Susan Costello Length of stay: Project:

Research:

Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology, Boston University January – June 2005 Tibetan Pastoralists’ Uses of Wealth in an Environment of Risk: Choosing Between Tribal and Religious Moral Ideals and Market Efficiency? Susan Costello’s dissertation describes the conditions of pastoral production, consumption and exchange of the Tibetan nomads who live in the high altitude Golok Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Qinghai Province, China.

Eoin O’Carroll Candidate for MS degree in Print Journalism, Boston University January – June 2005 Regardless of Frontiers: Press Freedom in the EU’s Newest Members On May 1, 2004, the EU grew from 15 to 25 states, eight of which had spent a generation behind the Iron Curtain. Eoin O’Carroll’s report studies the challenges faced by reporters in these excommunist countries.

Junior Visiting Fellows Asli Baykal Length of stay: Project:

Research:

Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology, Boston University February – July 2005 Surviving the Post-Soviet Transition. Changing Family and Community Relations in Uzbekistan Asli Baykal’s dissertation explores the pressures on Uzbek society caused by the collapse of the USSR. She examines the impact such changes have had on “traditional” means of social organization, such as family and neighborhood.

Mikolaj Kunicki

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

No. 89

Summer 2005

Teaching Fellow, Department of History, Stanford University Józef Tischner Junior Visiting Fellow July – December 2005 The Red and the Brown: The Life and Politics of Boleslaw Piasecki, 1915-1979 Mikolaj Kunicki will revise his doctoral dissertation into a book. It provides a comprehensive political biography of Boleslaw Piasecki, a prominent Polish nationalist politician, who started his career as a fascist in the 1930s and ended it as a pro-communist Catholic activist in postwar Poland. By narrowing the scale of historical observation to Piasecki’s case, the dissertation discusses the role of nationalism in Polish history and analyzes the complex entanglement of fascism, nationalism, communism and religion in 20th Century East-Central Europe. Kunicki will expand those sections that

Emilia Palonen, Asli Baykal, Astrid Swenson, Susan Costello with her son Giuseppe, Eoin O’Carroll

address the relationship between politics and religious faith in Piasecki’s thought and activism, examining Piasecki in connection with those nationalist and fascist politicians who made Christianity or Catholicism a core element of their doctrine.

Emilia Palonen

Length of stay: Project:

Dagmar Kusa

Length of stay:

Project:

Research:

Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, Boston University July 2005 – January 2006 Historic Memory and Historic Amnesia in Central European Politics Dagmar Kusa’s project will explore the differences between perceptions of controversial historic points of the general public and those of the elites (as well as their manipulation with them in their political endeavors) towards the completion of her doctoral thesis. The dissertation looks at the main factors in which historic memory is influential in the continuation of ethnic tensions and conflicts in domestic and bilateral politics in Central Europe (Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary). Much of Kusa’s thesis is based on the field research she conducted in the towns of Komarno and Sturovo in southern Slovakia, consisting of interviews, public opinion survey and an account of collective memory through the history of local public spaces. She plans to translate the final paper into vernacular for a widely readable publication in Slovakia.

Research:

Ph.D. Candidate in Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of Essex Körber Junior Visiting Fellow March – August 2005 Europe in the Contemporary City Image of Budapest, Graz and Vienna Emilia Palonen’s project focuses on contemporary articulations of “Europe” that occur through the articulations of city images.

Emily Rohrbach

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

Ph.D. Candidate in English Literature, Boston University January – June 2005 European Historiography 17701830, Revolution in Literary Time Emily Rohrbach’s research concerns early 19th Century historiographical debate and competing notions of contemporaneity in British and European historical writings.

Astrid Swenson

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

Ph.D. Candidate in History, Cambridge University Körber Junior Visiting Fellow January – September 2005 Conceptualizing Heritage in 19th Century France, Germany, and Britain The project addresses the need to historicize the central, yet often so poorly defined concepts of “heritage” and “memory.”

Ahmet Yukleyen Shai Moses

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

MA Student, Department of International Relations, Hebrew University of Jerusalem July – December 2005 The Impact of Cultural Values on Central and Eastern Europe Integration to the EU The completion of the last enlargement process rendered the European Union more heterogeneous in terms of living standards. This has strengthened the coreperiphery patterns across the Union. Shai Moses will explore this subject by examining the cultural competences that affect the convergence of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs). While the impact of economic conditions on CEECs integration is well analyzed, the impact of culture, that is the values, attitudes, and beliefs in a society, has not yet been fully established. By using a comparative research design within a positivist methodology, the paper will illustrate the cross-cultural variation between the national arenas and thus shall illuminate how these values affect convergence.

Length of stay: Project:

Research:

Ph.D. Candidate in Social Anthropology, Boston University July – December 2005 Localizing Islam in Western Europe: Comparing Turkish-Islamic organizations in Germany and the Netherlands Ahmet Yukleyen’s research focuses on the role of transnational Islamic communities in the incorporation of Turkish Muslim immigrants in Western Europe. He has done fieldwork among Turkish-Islamic communities in the Netherlands and Germany. His findings suggest that these communities do not simply transplant Islamic discourse from their countries of origin, nor do they necessarily conform to all European liberal values. Rather they play an intermediary role, negotiating between the social and religious needs of Muslims on the one hand and the socio-economic, legal and political context of Europe on the other. Comparison of the internal dynamics of these communities and their interaction with European states provides a better understanding of their role in both incorporation and compartmentalization of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe. No. 89

Summer 2005

19

Guests Majda Hrzenjak

Director of the Society for Higher Learning and Lecturer of Political Science at Comenius University, Bratislava June

The Peace Institute, Ljubljana; MAGEEQ teammember August

O P E N C A L L S F O R A P P L I C AT I O N

Month of stay:

Samuel Abraham

20

No. 89

Summer 2005

Month of stay:

IWM Fellowships 2006

_Józef Tischner Fellowships _Andrew W. Mellon Visiting Fellowships _Körber Fellowships:

History and Memory in Europe _Paul Celan Fellowships for Translators DE AD LIN E: DE CE MB ER 15, 200 5

Please visit the IWM website for all details: www.iwm.at/fellowships.htm

Publications Catalin Cioaba

Dagmar Kusa

Emilia Palonen

Paul Celan Visiting Fellow 2001 Martin Heidegger, Prolegomene la istoria conceptului de timp [Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Zeitbegriffs], übersetzt von Catalin Cioaba, Bukarest: Humanitas, 2005.

Junior Visiting Fellow “Historical Trauma in Ethnic Identity: The years of homelessness of the Hungarian minority in post-war Slovakia,” in: Jill Lewis, Eleonore Breuning, Gareth Pritchard (eds.), Power and the People: A Social History of Central European Politics,1945-56, Manchester: Manchester University Presse, 2005.

Körber Junior Visiting Fellow “The people’s President? Activism and party politics in a polarised Hungary,” in: Red Pepper [www.redpepper.org.uk], July 2005.

Petr Glombicek Andrew W. Mellon Fellow Filosof John Locke, Filosoficky casopis 1/2005 (special issue of the Czech journal of philosophy, ed. by Petr Glombícek and James Hill). “Descartes on the Nature of Language,” in: Acta Comeniana, nr. 18 (forthcoming).

Mikolaj Kunicki Tischner Junior Visiting Fellow “The Red and the Brown: Boleslaw Piasecki, the Polish Communists, and the anti-Zionist Campaign in Poland, 19671968,” in: East European Politics and Societies, vol.19 (2005).

Heiko Haumann Visiting Fellow 2003 „Dracula und die Vampire Osteuropas. Zur Entstehung eines Mythos“, in: ZS für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 28, Heft 1 (2005).

Krzysztof Michalski

Birgit Sauer MAGEEQ Senior Researcher Was bewirkt Gender Mainstreaming? Ansätze der Evaluierung durch PolicyAnalysen, Birgit Sauer und Ute Behning (Hrsg.), Frankfurt/M., New York: Campus Verlag, 2005. „Demokratisch verfassen? Aspekte der Konstitutionalisierung staatlicher Herrschaft“, in: Daniela Graf und Franz Breiner (Hrsg.): Projekt Österreich – In welcher Verfassung ist die Republik?, Wien: Czernin Verlag, 2005.

Rector of the IWM

Tim Snyder

Haumann lehrt europäische Geschichte und Zeitgeschichte an der Universität Basel. 2003 war er Fellow am IWM, wo er während seines Aufenthalts an dieser Thematik arbeitete und erste Überlegungen zur Diskussion stellte. Eine Kurzfassung erschien 2004 in internationalen Tageszeitungen (www.project-syndicate.org/ commentary/haumann1).

Europa laica e puzzle religioso. Dieci risposte su quel che tiene insieme l’Unione [Secular Europe and Religious Puzzle. Ten Responses on What Holds the Union Together], Krzysztof Michalski and Nina zu Fürstenberg (eds.), Venice: Marsilio, 2005.

Tomasz Kamusella

Shai Moses

Michael Staudigl

Andrew W. Mellon Fellow Nationalisms Across the Globe: An Overview of Nationalisms in State-Endowed and Stateless Nations, Wojciech Burszta, Tomasz Kamusella and Sebastian Wojciechowski (eds.), Poznan: Institution for Higher Learning of Humanities and Journalism, 2005.

Junior Visiting Fellow Supranational Governance in the Enlarged European Union – the Case of the Constitutional Discourse [Working Paper], Jerusalem: Institute for European Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005.

Visiting Fellow “Tod, Altern, Verletzlichkeit. Bausteine einer Anthropologie auf phänomenologischer Grundlage im Ausgang von Landsberg, Schütz und Lévinas“, in: M. Blamauer, W. Fasching, M. Flatscher (Hrsg.), Phänomenologische Aufbrüche, Bd. 11 (2005).

“Upper Silesia 1870-1920: Between Region, Religion, Nation and Ethnicity,” in: East European Quarterly, no. 4 (2005).

Norman Naimark Körber Visiting Fellow “Stalin and Europe in the Postwar Period, 1945-53: Issues and Problems,” in: Journal of Modern European History, vol. 2, no. 1 (2004).

Pavel Kouba Robert Bosch Visiting Fellow 2003 Der Sinn der Endlichkeit, Orbis Phaenomenologicus Studien, Bd. 7, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2005.

“Post-Soviet Russian Historiography in the Emergence of the Soviet Bloc,” in: KRITIKA 5, 3 (2004).

Visiting Fellow “The Life and Death of West Volhynian Jews,” in: Ray Brandon and Wendy Lower (eds.), The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, and Memorialization, forthcoming. “Nationalism and the Russian Empire” and “The Polish-Bolshevik War,” in: Encyclopedia of Russian History, London: Macmillan, forthcoming.

“Vorüberlegungen zu einer phänomenologischen Theorie der Gewalt. Einsatzpunkte und Perspektiven“, in: H. Maye und H. R. Sepp (Hrsg.), Phänomenologie und Gewalt, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2005.

Astrid Swenson Körber Junior Visiting Fellow „Kulturelles Erbe: Vom nationalen zum transnationalen Blick“, in: science.ORF.at [http://science.orf.at], April 2005. No. 89

Summer 2005

21

Travels and Talk Asli Baykal

Mikolaj Kunicki

Emilia Palonen

Junior Visiting Fellow Lecture: “A Community in Flux: Changing Family Relations in Uzbekistan,” Austrian Academy of Sciences, Commission for Social Anthropology, Vienna (May 30, 2005).

Tischner Junior Visiting Fellow Teaching: “20th Century Eastern Europe,” Department of History, University of California, Berkeley (January - May 2005).

Körber Junior Visiting Fellow Lecture: “Political Polarisation: Logics and Problems,” 6th Graduate Conference in Political Theory: Difference, Borders and Others, University of Essex (May 13-14, 2005).

Susanne Lettow Lecture: “Contested Identities: Gender, Generation and Ethnicity in Uzbekistan,” University of Vienna, Institute for Social and Cultural Anthropology (June 2, 2005).

Liste Meitner Fellow Vorlesung: „Gibt es feministische Biopolitik? Fragen an ein Konzept“, Ringvorlesung Geschlechterwissen in Transformationsprozessen, Universität Wien (12. Mai 2005).

Frits Bolkestein Visiting Fellow Interview: „Der EU gehören Grenzen gesetzt“, Der Standard (25./26. Juni 2005).

Mieke Verloo

22

IWM Non-resident Permanent Fellow Radio interview: “Gender Equality and Gender Mainstreaming,” FM4, International Program (June 9, 2005).

Katherine Jolluck Visiting Fellow Conference: Genocide on Bosniaks from Srebrenica, UN Protected Zone, July 1995 Lessons for the Future, University of Sarajevo, Institute for the Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law, Sarajevo (July 2005).

Lecture: “Body as Practice. Overcoming the Body-Mind-Dualism with MerleauPonty,” annual meeting of the International Association for Philosophy and Literature, Chiasmatic Encounters, Helsinki (July 2-6, 2005).

Birgit Sauer MAGEEQ Senior Researcher Vortrag: „Mainstreaming Gender. Geschlechterforschung im ‚Postpatriarchalismus’“, Tagung Sozialwissenschaften neu denken. Sozialwissenschaften für das 21. Jahrhundert, Universität Wien (16./17. Juli 2005). Lecture: “Lessons to learn: Gender Policies in Austria since the 1970s,” Conference of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington (July 22-24, 2005).

Krzysztof Michalski

Marci Shore

Rector of the IWM Chair of the third Tischner Debate, “The Public Role of Religion,” at Warsaw University; introduction: Charles Taylor, Northwestern University, Chicago; participants: Adam Boniecki, Tygodnik Powszechny; Malgorzata Chmielewska, “Bread of Life” community; Marcin Krol, Warsaw University; and Tadeusz Mazowiecki, former Prime Minister of Poland (May 20, 2005), report see page 10.

Visiting Fellow Lecture: “Kaviar a popel: Cesta polske avantgardy k marxismu a jeji zklamani,” Center for Theoretical Studies, Prague (May 26, 2005).

Shai Moses

Lecture: “Europe and Democracy,” Gazeta Wyborcza anniversary conference, Warsaw (May 11, 2005).

Tim Snyder Visiting Fellow Lecture: “Ukraine’s European Revolution,” Institute for Humanities, Bratislava (April 28, 2005).

Cornelia Klinger IWM Permanent Fellow Vortrag: „Gegenwart zwischen Zukunftsbesessenheit und Utopieverlust“, PromovendInnentagung der Hans Böckler-Stiftung, Springe/Hannover (30. Mai 2005). Kompaktseminar: „Der Begriff Kultur. Von der Kulturphilosophie zu den cultural studies“, philosophisches Seminar, Universität Tübingen (30. Juni - 2. Juli 2005). Vortrag und Seminar: „Vom Einen zum Anderen. Dualismenbildung und Identität“, Graduiertenkolleg Identität und Differenz, Universität Trier (6./7. Juli 2005).

No. 89

Summer 2005

Junior Visiting Fellow Presentation: “The Role of the Giscard Convention in the development of Supranational Governance,” IASEI conference, A New Constitution for Europe?, Tel Aviv (June 4, 2005).

Norman Naimark Körber Visiting Fellow Presentation: “Srebrenica in the History of Genocide: 10 Years Later,” conference Genocide on Bosniaks from Srebrenica, UN Protected Zone, July 1995 - Lessons for the Future, University of Sarajevo, Institute for the Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law (July 11-15, 2005).

Michael Staudigl Visiting Fellow Lecture: “Reflections on the Problem of Transcendence in Michel Henry,” Kolloquium Théorie de la religion et espace public, Université du Luxembourg, Faculté des Lettres (June 9-10, 2005). Lecture: “Phenomenological Reflections on Violence. Problems, Prospects, and their Impact on Phenomenological Methodology,” Université catholique de Louvain-laNeuve, Centre de philosophie du droit (June 29, 2005).

Transit

Europäische Revue Heft 29

Krzysztof Michalski In memoriam Johannes Paul II

Astrid Swenson Körber Junior Visiting Fellow Vortrag: „Erbekonzeptionen des 19. Jahrhunderts – Frankreich, England und Deutschland im Vergleich“, 1. Internationales HERMES Symposium, „Zwischen den Meeren“ - Auf der Suche nach den gemeinsamen kulturellen Wurzeln in Mittel- und Osteuropa, Weimar, Stiftung Weimarer Klassik und Kunstsammlungen (26.-28. Juni 2005).

Ukraine Leitet die „Orange Revolution“ eine neue Serie von Regimewechseln ein, vergleichbar mit jener der „Samtenen Revolutionen“ von 1989 - nun weiter östlich? Was war ihre Vorgeschichte, was sind ihre (geo)politischen Implikationen, welche Optionen zwischen einer abweisenden EU und einem besitzergreifenden Russland hat die Ukraine für die Zukunft?

Timothy Garton Ash und Die Orange Revolution Timothy Snyder Jaroslav Hrytsak Re: Birth of Ukraine

Varia On July 19, Stefan Amsterdamski, Professor of Philosophy and Sociology at the Polish Academy of Sciences, died in Warsaw. He founded the Graduate School for Social Research in Warsaw which was awarded the first Hannah Arendt Price of the IWM and the Körber Foundation in 1994. He was Visiting Fellow at the IWM in 1992/93.

Helga Nowotny, member of the IWM’s Academic Advisory Board, was appointed a founding member of the Scientific Council of the future European Research Council (ERC) in July. A guest contribution by Helga Nowotny on the Role of the Humanities in a European Research Area can be found in this issue of the IWM Post, pages 29-31. Die autorisierte Biografie von Karl Schwarzenberg, langjähriger Unterstützer und Freund des Instituts sowie Vorsitzender des IWM-Kuratoriums, ist nun im Verlag Carl Ueberreuter erschienen. Autorin ist die Journalistin Barbara Toth, die 2002 im Rahmen eines Milena Jesenska-Stipendiums Visiting Fellow am IWM war.

Roman Szporluk Die Entstehung der modernen Ukraine – die westliche Dimension

Ungleichheit Entgegen allen Vorhersagen scheint die soziale Ungleichheit am Beginn des 21. Jahrhundert in allen Teilen der Welt unaufhaltsam zuzunehmen. Ausgangspunkt der Beiträge ist die These, dass Ungleichheit weder eine vorübergehende Erscheinung noch eine marginale und reparable Pathologie der modernen Gesellschaft darstellt, sondern ein sie prägendes Merkmal - anders gesagt, dass unsere Gesellschaft Ungleichheit nicht nur voraussetzt und fortschreibt, sondern sie immer neu hervorbringt und vertieft.

Cornelia Klinger und Achsen der Ungleichheit – Gudrun-Axeli Knapp Achsen der Differenz Thomas Schwinn Gesellschaftstheorie und soziale Ungleichheit Susanne Baer Gender und Grundrechte Sabine Hark Überflüssig. Neue soziale Gefährdungen Saskia Sassen Einwanderungskontinent Europa Reinhard Kreckel Mehr Frauen in akademischen Spitzenpositionen? Vlasta Jalusic Die soziale Frage im Postsozialismus Mircea Stanescu Real. Photographien

Transit (ISSN 0938-2062) ist zu bestellen über: Verlag neue kritik Tel. +49-69-72 75 76 Fax +49-69-72 65 85 Kettenhofweg 53 60325 Frankfurt a.M. Deutschland oder online: www.iwm.at/transit.htm Herausgegeben am Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen

Preis: Abo € 24,- (D) Zwei Hefte pro Jahr Einzelheft € 14,- (D) No. 89

Summer 2005

23

NOTES ON BOOKS The IWM regularly asks its fellows, guests, and friends to share their thoughts on current publications. In this issue of the IWM Post, Muriel Blaive writes on National Cleansing by Benjamin Frommer. Norman Naimark introduces Stalin – a Biography by Robert Service.

National Cleansing

24

Benjamin Frommer’s book on retribution in response to Nazi collaboration in Czechoslovakia is a meaningful contribution to the postwar, pre-communist history of this country. With thorough research in newly opened archives and a critical reading of documents already published, the book casts a gloomy light on the fragile democratic regime reestablished in 1945. The author offers a vivid and disturbing picture of this period, describing both the duplicity of the Communists and the shameful behavior of the Democrats. Frommer does, however, point out the difficulties inherent to such retribution and casts an overall magnanimous assessment of its outcome. He also exonerates the judicial system, which he claims did its best under the circumstances. Yet the legal parameters in post-war Czechoslovakia were murky at best, and at worst trampled a number of basic legal principles and democratic rights. Drafted entirely by the Democrats, the “Great Decree” established the crime and punishment of “collaboration”, and the “Small Decree” established “honor commissions”. Combined with Decree no. 137 and Law no. 115/1946, these new pieces of legislation created an unsettling form of “democratic” retribution. In a state which called itself democratic, people were detained months before their crime was actually defined by law and were judged more than once for the same crime. The mandatory minimum sentences of the Great Decree were extremely harsh and could not be reduced. The defendant’s right of appeal was denied, as President Benes was outspokenly intent on summary justice, and the death penalty was to be carried out within two, at maximum three hours after the verdict had been pronounced. When people who had been judged according to the Great Decree were re-judged according to the Small Decree, they didn’t have the right to a defense lawyer or to call witnesses, nor to view the evidence assembled against them. Frommer writes: “…there is little doubt that the summary nature of the verNo. 89

Summer 2005

Human Earthquake dicts resulted in the execution of innocents.” Indeed, the Czechs executed an astonishing 94.9 percent of the people they condemned to the death penalty for collaboration, apparently sending “more defendants to death per capita than anywhere else in Europe.” All arrests and detentions, however arbitrary, of the spring and summer of 1945 were made retroactively legal. Czech citizens, including policemen, were exonerated from “crimes committed in the struggle for their nation’s liberation”, shielding wartime resistance acts along with brutalities such as rape, murder or torture of Germans and alleged collaborators, the impunity period conveniently stretching until 28 October 1945. Additionally, the crime of “collaboration” was retroactively defined as lasting until 31 December 1946, a sure way to deter Czechs from interfering in the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans. To conclude this depressing review, but excellent book, Frommer draws a lesson on retribution which would have been useful after 1989. The Great Decree, he warns, criminalized entire organizations, rendering the retribution process “lengthy and laborious” and ultimately causing great inequalities in judgment. Unfortunately, this lesson was not learned in time for the fall of communism. Muriel Blaive

Benjamin Frommer National Cleansing: Retribution against Nazi Collaborators in Postwar Czechoslovakia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Muriel Blaive is Assistant Professor of History at Charles University, Prague. In 2004, she spent a semester at the Institute as Körber Junior Visiting Fellow. Her book, Une déstalinisation manquée. Tchécoslovaquie 1956 (Brussels, Editions Complexe), was published in 2005.

The recent 60th Anniversary of the Potsdam Conference gave observers another opportunity to view documentary films of Stalin among the Allies. The great dictator looked every bit the senior statesman, robust, if a bit portly, smoking nervously, fingers under the cigarette in the customary Russian way, but in control of his movements and poses. He joked and made glib comments, pushed a chair out of the way of a photographer, and enjoyed the flora of the Cecilienhof palace grounds. Truman, Churchill, and especially Atlee seemed even less at ease in front of the camera. Looking at films of Stalin, however, does not give us many hints about the personality and motivations of the man, what he thought or how he experienced an event like Potsdam. How did he feel, after all, when Truman revealed the successful test of the atom bomb, which, of course, Stalin already knew about from his intelligence services. Stalin left us with no memoirs or diaries, at least as far as we know. Those around him, including his personal secretaries, kept no notes about his daily affairs except for appointment calendars. Even the meager accounts from those in Stalin’s immediate circle are not very helpful in sorting out his personae. Stalin was a master of poses and masks. He adjusted his demeanor and language depending on his interlocutors and their individual needs (and what he needed from them.) The protocols of conversations between Stalin and his Kremlin visitors reveal little about the dictator himself and more about those who saw him. The opening of the Russian archives after 1991 and access to surviving veterans of Stalin’s inner circle have given historians a chance to see behind the iconographic images of the dictator. Service’s Stalin is in some ways the culmination of this first post-Soviet generation of scholarship on Stalin. The biography is comprehensive and deeply researched; it is crisply written and smartly narrated. Students, the general public, and scholars will all be interested in reading it. Service does not claim to have solved the puzzle of Stalin.

Muriel Blaive, Norman Naimark NOTES ON BOOKS

But he does have a strong line of argument that Stalin needs to be thought of as a gifted and capable politician. Stalin was “crude” and “brutal,” but he was also able, crafty, well-informed, and knew how to weigh means and ends. He could be solicitous and engaging to those around him. In short, he was, in Service’s words, “a real leader.” Stalin was also well-read about broad philosophical and ideological issues and knowledgeable about the political complexities of Kremlin rule. He was hardly the philosopher-king that his acolytes trumpeted in the press and public. But he was deeply involved in the ideological development of the Bolshevik party and Soviet rule. This interpretation goes against the grain of the traditional scholarship, which, Service argues, was based on the political prejudices of Trotsky and of Stalin’s many ideological oppo-

nents on the left, not to mention on the Cold War-influenced accounts of the right. Service does not deny that Stalin was a mass murderer. In this sense, his renditions of the horrendous costs of Stalin’s rule are carefully updated versions of the traditional studies. But he attributes more rationality to the process and is less willing to explain Stalin’s genocidal excesses as those of a “monster” or a psychopath. Service starts off his book by stating that Stalin “was a human earthquake… from his birth in 1878 to his death in 1953.” Service’s biography is a perfect seismograph of this astonishing and murderous career. But like the problem of predicting the next major California earthquake, the deeper sources of Stalin’s destructiveness remain as elusive as ever.

Robert Service Stalin: A Biography London: McMillan, 2004; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Norman Naimark is Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies at Stanford University and currently Körber Visiting Fellow at the IWM, where he is doing research on “Stalin and Europe, 1945 – 1953.” Naimark is the author of several books, among them: The Russians In Germany: The History Of The Soviet Zone Of Occupation, 1945–1949 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), and Fires Of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing In 20th Century Europe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).

Norman Naimark

25

No. 89

Summer 2005

APPRAISAL On May 20, 2005, French Philosopher Paul Ricoeur died in Paris at the age of 92. Ricoeur had been a member of the IWM’s Academic Advisory Board from the Institute’s inception and actively contributed to its work. For the IWM Post, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, Chair of the IWM Advisory Board, has written an appraisal of this outstanding figure of modern philosophy.

Paul Ricoeur, 1913-2005 Am 20. Mai 2005 starb der französische Philosoph Paul Ricoeur im Alter von 92 Jahren in Paris. Ricoeur war nicht nur von Beginn an Mitglied des Wissenschaftlichen Beirates des IWM, sondern trug auch aktiv zur Arbeit des Instituts bei. Für die IWM Post hat nun der Kanadische aylor Philosoph Charles TTaylor aylor, Vorsitzender des Wissenschaftlichen Beirates, eine Würdigung dieser herausragenden Figur der modernen Philosophie verfasst.

26

No. 89

Summer 2005

Paul Ricoeur was an exceptional philosopher, I would say, unique in the 20th Century. First of all in his breadth. I’m not referring only to the number of subjects and questions he addressed, though the list of those is quite daunting: metaphor, language, narrativity, memory, recognition, and this is just a partial list; and doesn’t even refer to his writings on religion and science. Other philosophers may have taken up a number of issues, but they tended to treat them all through a single lens, their single trade mark approach – like deconstruction, or discourse ethics, verificationism or the linguistic turn. With Ricoeur, it was different. He was ready to start from each question, to take it from the historic debate that had grown up around it. His approach was to take it up on its own terms, as it were, and not just as grist for some already constructed mill. In order to do this, he read voraciously, read what all different schools of thought had said about it. He wanted really to grasp the question from all its possible angles, before he himself would enter the scene and offer his views about it. And he read patiently, carefully, with great hermeneutic charity, even the work of people who were far removed from his own outlook. That is why it is so hard to sum up his work. Other famous philosophers of our time have generally been thinkers with one dominant idea. They are tagged with this idea, often one which seems paradoxical and very daring in the light of historical common sense: that we can do without truth, that linguistic meaning is endlessly indefinable, that ethical validity is based not on the way things are, but on a kind of consensus, that all but “empirical” propositions are meaningless. One suspects that part of their fame turns on this, both the paradoxicality which excites, and the endless iterability, as the key insight is applied to area after area. This particular kind of fame was denied to Ricoeur, and he was for a number of decades displaced from the centre of attention in his own country by other thinkers who could offer more

exciting fare. But the compensation for this was that he provided a great range of insights, taking full account of the complexity of the matter at hand, of the partial validity of many points of view, of the continuing temptation we have to come down on both sides of certain perennial questions, like freedom and determinism, monism and dualism. And the reward is a body of work which will last. Of course, Ricoeur’s books will date in one sense. He was so careful to read everything written on a given subject, that his book on any matter after, say, 50 years will present the reader with a host of unknown and forgotten references. In this way all books go out of date. The works of great philosophers carry footnotes telling us who the obscure people were who kindled their wrath, like Herr Krug (mentioned by Hegel), and Dühring (excoriated by Engels). But on another level, Ricoeur has laid down insights, key ideas, which any adequate discussion has to take account of, and proceed from. As an example, in Soi-même comme un autre, Ricoeur makes the key distinction between two kinds of identity, which he tags with the Latin words « ipse » and « idem ». Many passages of philosophy, from Locke on, have come to confusion and grief, because they haven’t been able to focus this distinction. One applies the notion of identity to an agent who defines an identity by leading a life; the other refers rather to the identity of a continuing object. Through all his books, such crucial hinge ideas are to be found. They may not be used, because in some cases philosophers are deeply attached to the old questions and battles, and they prefer to go on fighting them over and over, with ever more resourceful arguments and twists of analysis. The ipse/idem distinction won’t stop people from making fresh attempts to tackle the issue of personal identity à la Locke, in a purely “idem” fashion, as Parfit did in Reasons and Persons. In a similar way, the key insights of Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Wittgenstein have

Charles Taylor APPRAISAL

been ignored or “normalized” by scores of philosophers who wrote after them. But as with these other great figures of the 20th Century, so Ricoeur’s work will enable some thinkers to take their issue farther, to move beyond the sterile polarization into which so many crucial questions have slid. This least self-dramatizing of great philosophers leaves us a legacy of great richness. We are all very much in his debt.

Institute for Human Sciences Vienna Lectures

Charles Taylor

With Paul Ricoeur’s death IWM loses a great friend and an invaluable advisor who contributed to the Institute’s activities from the beginning. He participated in several Castelgandolfo Colloquia (published with KlettCotta, Stuttgart, 1985 – 2000), gave the Jan Patocka Memorial Lecture 1990 on “The Person: Its Ethical and Moral Structure”, opened the conference on “The Memory of the Century” 2001 and held the IWM Lectures in the Human Sciences 2001 on “The Course of Recognition” published with Znak (Krakow), Harvard University Press and Suhrkamp

(Frankfurt a.M.) see below. Ricoeur is the author of many books, including History and Truth (1965); Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (1966); The Symbolism of Evil (1967); The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies in the Creation of Meaning in Language (1978); Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation (1981); Time and Narrative (1984); Oneself as Another (1992); Critique and Conviction (1998); The Just (2000); Memory, History, Forgetting (2004); and The Course of Recognition (Fall 2005).

Paul Ricoeur Drogi Rozpoznania Cracow: Znak, 2004 The Course of Recognition Harvard University Press, Fall 2005

27

Wege der Anerkennung Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, Frühjahr 2006

Recognition, though it figures profoundly in our understanding of objects and persons, identity and ideas, has never before been the subject of a single, sustained philosophical inquiry. This work, by one of contemporary philosophy’s most distinguished voices, pursues recognition through its various philosophical guises and meanings – and, through the „course of recognition,“ seeks to develop nothing less than a proper hermeneutics of mutual recognition. Originally delivered as lectures at the Institute for the Human Sciences at Vienna, the essays collected here consider recognition in three of its forms. The first chapter, focusing on knowledge of objects, points to the role of recognition in modern epistemology; the second, concerned with what might be called the recognition of responsibility, traces the understanding of agency and moral responsibility from the ancients up to the present day; and

the third takes up the problem of recognition and identity, which extends from Hegel’s discussion of the struggle for recognition through contemporary arguments about identity and multiculturalism. Throughout, Paul Ricoeur probes the significance of our capacity to recognize people and objects, and of self-recognition and self-identity in relation to the gift of mutual recognition. Drawing inspiration from such literary texts as The Odyssey and Oedipus at Colonus, and engaging some of the classic writings of the Continental philosophical tradition – by Kant, Hobbes, Hegel, Augustine, Locke, and Bergson – The Course of Recognition ranges over vast expanses of time and subject matter and in the process suggests a number of highly insightful ways of thinking through the major questions of modern philosophy.

No. 89

Summer 2005

GUEST CONTRIBUTION In March 2000, the European heads of state decided in Lisbon to make Europe the most attractive research area worldwide. Yet how could the humanities be positioned in this oft-quoted European Research Area? Helga Nowotny, member of the Scientific Council of the future E uropean Research Council (ERC), explores the opportunities which an ERC might hold for the humanities.

Humanities in European Research

28

Europa, so haben es die Staats- und Regierungschefs vor fünf Jahren in Lissabon beschlossen, soll zum weltweit attraktivsten Forschungsraum werden. Doch welche Rolle kommt darin den Geisteswissenschaften zu – in einer wirklich länderübergreifenden European Research Area Area? In ihrem Gastbeitrag beleuchtet Helga Nowotny Nowotny, ein Mitglied des wissenschaftlichen Rates im künftigen European Research Council (ERC), die Möglichkeiten des ERC für die Geisteswissenschaften.

The claim that the researcher’s perspective is by definition bottom-up rests on the assumption of a kind of wide-spread academic territorialism. Many years ago Tony Becher described academic tribes and their territories as a landscape in which each tribe seeks to defend vigorously against outside intruders the territory it managed to occupy. Those belonging to the tribal clans of the natural sciences usually inhabit extremely crowded spaces. Apart from driving up the property prices in these urban areas, this also makes for fierce competition which becomes the norm. The social sciences and particularly the humanities, by contrast, inhabit a landscape that is still overwhelmingly rural in character. In order to avoid living too close to their neighbors scholars can easily migrate and settle in an adjacent valley. It is therefore easy to avoid competition and to cut down communication. The rural lifestyle nourishes a different kind of individualism compared to the urban life style. It can easily become complacent and it is clear that the system is paying a high price for it – that of fragmentation and slow rates of growth. Becher was interested in exploring the topography of the academic landscape which led him to a horizontal mapping of what he observed. My interest is primarily a vertical one, exploring the relationship between those who toil in the academic landscape and those who supply the necessary funds to ensure its proper cultivation. In recent times, expectations on both sides have changed rather dramatically. The state, once seen as the primary source of research funding, has leveled its expenditure for research. The pressure for higher yields, now called performance, has increased. Researchers had to learn that they are accountable to society and its representatives in numerable ways. While this may render daily life and work more difficult, it must also be stated very clearly that the opportunities for research have vastly been expanded.

Humanities to be left behind? The overall expansion of the research enterprise is mainly due to the success of science and technology in fuelling economic growth, the increase of labor productivity and the ongoing process of globalization. The humanities have viewed this expansion with a mixture of alarm and the confused recognition that they must join if they are not to be left behind. What they often ignore is the fact that they No. 89

Summer 2005

are deeply implicated and involved in the growth of the culture industries which have acquired a global and globalizing flavor a long time ago. Closer to home is another kind of political and geographical expansion, that of the European Union. The vision that this vast territory could be transformed into a truly European Research Area, an open space inviting the productive migration of concepts and of those who carry them, of culture and its artifacts, is radical in the sense that it challenges the still prevailing dominance of the nation state and its monopoly over scientific careers. ERA must include the humanities as well. Therefore, the establishment of an ERC with the explicit purpose to fund basic research of the highest scientific quality at EU level, provided it is done on a truly competitive basis, sends a strong signal to all those who wish to use the opportunities offered by going beyond the limits of the national science systems. Its significance goes far beyond offering additional funds; it provides the opportunity of moving into a vastly expanded European space. For the humanities this space is also a conceptual one, perhaps freed for the first time from the strictures and inevitable blinders imposed by the nation state in whose shadow the humanities grew up in the last quarter of the 19th century. Unless this point is clearly grasped by the humanities, an ERC will mean little to them. The Europeanization process of research is then likely to bypass the humanities who will continue to cling to their niches. An ERC offers the construction and use of the latest state-of-the-art highways and bridges that would connect their remote valleys, allowing them to set up regional trading fairs, intervalley festivals and new kinds of cooperatives for the production of culture in the widest sense.

Autonomy, Solitude and Freedom In line with the territorial instinct of the average researcher, his or her efforts are aimed at defending and/or expanding the kind and degree of autonomy that they have succeeded in carving out for themselves. While this is certainly also the case for the natural sciences, the humanities lack the legitimacy to claim a special free space for doing basic research. For the natural sciences such a space is recognized as indispensable, whereas the humanities’ claim is fuzzy. It can only be defended under the general argument of human creativity which, in

Helga Nowotny GUEST CONTRIBUTION

order to flourish, must be free from interference and directedness from outside. Nor will it be politically helpful if nostalgic notions of solitude and freedom creep into the public discourse. The choice to work largely as a research unit of one is seen from the outside as just that – a legitimate choice, rooted in the traditional mode of scholars in the humanities working alone in the process of production of books. If the bottom-up perspective amounts to little more than the desire to be left alone, it is a lost argument from the beginning. In all fairness, however, it must be recognized that the individual researcher and scholar in the humanities must be granted his or her autonomous space and the opportunities to work productively in line with the standards set by their respective scholarly community. Mobility and networks are fine, but it is often overlooked that they heavily depend on the stability of nodes and institutions that enable the flux of ideas and the migration of concepts in the first place.

Blurred Communication Let us now contrast the researcher’s bottom-up perspective with the alleged top-down perspective of policy makers and the various funders of research. They see themselves as enlightened representatives of wider society and as the true guardians of the public nature of science. Of course they are aware that scientific content cannot be prescribed. But they insist on deliverables and policy-relevance, seeing it as their duty to shape the research agenda and to set research priorities. Over the recent years, the vertical line of communication between bottom-up and top-down has become blurred. Under the new rules of “governance” the task is no longer perceived as being one of “steering,” but of “enabling” and of “capacity building.” For the natural sciences the flow of knowledge and interaction between universities and industry has become imperative under slogans like “wealth creation.” The emphasis is now on networks and on a much stronger inclusion of “users” into the process of knowledge production. In a parallel move the wider involvement of “society” has been called forth and efforts to strengthen it have been adopted. Democratic arguments have fused with outrightly utilitarian ones, leading to the rhetoric of an enlarged circle or networks of “stakeholders” whose presence, symbolic or real, and whose support and engagement are believed to be indispensable for the creation of the much vaunted knowledge society. For policy makers and research funders this is accompanied by placing new emphasis on “problem-solving,” on “wealth creation” and on “knowledge for growth” research activities.

Problems versus Expertise As Marilyn Strathern has recently pointed out for her own discipline, anthropology, these developments have led to surprising epistemic shifts that should lead us to pause – and worry. Some research councils have come to see the world full of problems that require interdisciplinary solutions. Strathern sees a new kind of orthodoxy in the making in relation to what constitutes a research question, and along with this a reformulation as to why disciplines can be justified: they offer expertise. Disciplines may quickly disappear when they are re-moulded as being nothing but “sources of expertise.” Not only can they be weighed against other sources of expert advice, but the assumption that expertise is recognizable has its costs. Disciplines become judged by how well their expertise matches the problems. How well they match their own research question then becomes easily sidestepped, if other forms of expertise are seen as already in place. The pattern that emerges when looking through the perspective of research funders today consists of their claims to speak in the interest and from the expectations of society which has moved much closer into the territory of science that has become much less immune from participatory demands. Increasingly, the humanities are expected to provide their expertise in order to contribute to the “solution” of societal problems. This differs from the claims made on the part of social scientists in the 70s to incorporate topics of societal relevance into their research. Not only have the links to social movements practically disappeared, they have been replaced by the expectation, if not the obligation, to cultivate links to many different societal “stakeholders” and become accountable to them. The vacuum that has arisen from the relative retreat of the state from its former role has been quickly filled by research councils’ and other funding agencies’ self-set mandate to be the guardians and spokespersons for “society.”

Helga Nowotny is Chair of the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) of the European Comission. She is also a member of the IWM’s Academic Advisory Board. She is Professor em. of ETH Zurich in Social Studies of Science and former Director of its Collegium Helveticum. Her recent publications include: Unersättliche Neugier. Innovation in einer fragilen Zukunft , 2005; The Public Nature of Science Under Assault: Politics, Markets, Science and the Law (co-author), 2005; Cultures of Technology and the Quest for Innovation (editor), 2005; ReThinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (coauthor), 2001.

Research Question at Stake? These shifts have a number of serious repercussions not only for the bottom, but also for the future relationships between top and bottom. If what is at stake here – and at risk of becoming eliminated – are the research questions articulated in a bottomup mode, we need to inquire where they come from and what sustains them in the first place. For the humanities, I see three broad sources giving rise to their research questions. The first obviously is the disciplinary matrix in which research questions emerge, are selected for and cultivated as the core of disciplinary identity. While fruitful encounters with other disciplines can occur, interdisciplinarity will more often than not take the No. 89

Summer 2005

29

Helga Nowotny GUEST CONTRIBUTION

30

direction of establishing itself as a new discipline. Another important source are research questions as they have been defined by a few outstanding individuals, towering intellectual figures, whose function has been to throw a kind of search light into an otherwise under-explored research landscape. Their names often become synonymous with a set of research questions that loosely may form a research agenda, indicating topics and themes, theoretical approaches and how to go about methodologically. The books they have written function as cultural icons for what is referred to as Theory. It is taken to be programmatic, indicating a general direction. And while its pursuit is largely done in the tradition of the researcher working alone, the direction is recognized as that of a collectivity, of those who follow in the footsteps of the towering figures. A third source of research questions may emerge from researchers who operate in innovative spaces. Institutes of advanced study are a case in point. These innovative spaces seek to provide a congenial interdisciplinary atmosphere for exploring new intellectual avenues. They become breeding grounds for new ideas. Through unexpected encounters with other disciplines and research traditions, new research questions may arise which in some cases may lead to the constitution of new research objects, in themselves the outcome of different disciplinary approaches and perspectives.

Radically Different Perspectives Undoubtedly, other sources for research questions can be identified. The point of my list of three is simply to illustrate that bottom-up and top-down views can be radically different. The real challenge lies in how to establish communicative links between the two perspectives. What holds for the natural sciences is equally true for the SSH: basic research and the pursuit of research questions without knowing where they will lead and if/when they will yield something of practical utility is indispensable to sustain the research system in the medium and long-term. But unless at different levels and in different modes, both formally and informally, communicative links are open and mutually sustained the research efforts of the humanities risk becoming atrophied or irrelevant. No. 89

Summer 2005

Finally, enter the European Research Council, a new entity at EU level. Concentrating here exclusively on the opportunities it holds for the humanities, it must be clearly stated at the outset what it cannot and will not provide: funding for a vast number of research projects in the humanities in Europe. It cannot and will not substitute for funding at national level. Rather, as a strategic instrument for promoting what is now officially called frontier research at EU level, it has to uphold and implement both a bottom-up approach aiming at scientific excellence while at the same time selecting the best of the best on the basis of genuine European competition. It is obvious that this will also put the national research councils who now act as the guardians of national competition on a competitive basis against each other at the EU level.

Avoiding a Double-trap An ERC that invites the humanities to participate under its general rules of operation has to avoid a double-trap: that of following blindly the bottom-up approach by assuming that it can simply be transferred from national to EU level and that of following the inclination of the top-down approach by attempting to prescribe thematic areas, however loosely defined. Therefore, some new thinking is required and new avenues and criteria need to be set up. By situating myself into the position of a researcher in the humanities anywhere in Europe while respecting the two constraints that will have to be incorporated into the working mode of an ERC – the quest for scientific excellence under the principle of European-wide competition – I see five different possibilities. First, it would be nice to follow and prolong the best traditions of funding the humanities. By definition and tradition these are predominantly national. Yet I recognize that there must be a difference. This could come by enlarging the scope, content and modes of working of what may get funded. By deliberately transcending the previous mode of working, one could aim to incorporate or confront other national traditions in the same area or study related, but with differently posed research questions. The aim would consist in letting the humanities find new ground in the conceptual category which is established by

thinking in European terms. And since Europe cannot be thought independently from the rest of the world, a more global perspective might also make its entry. Far from prescribing themes, including those of European identity or culture, the bottom-up approach would prevail. But the criteria for entering the competition would be marked by the highest standards that national funding of the humanities has achieved in the past, with the explicit intention to prompt the humanities to move beyond.

Institutional Innovations The second possibility would consist in privileging certain institutional innovations which in the past have shown their ability to bring together researchers from different disciplines to pursue innovative research paths. What comes to mind here are the institutes for advanced study, but also other forms of active interchange with the arts or the creative industries. Likewise, special competitive schemes at the national level could perhaps be extended to the European level, if they can be shown to acquire more of a competitive edge in doing so. Thirdly, the question arises whether and how an ERC could become involved in the production of more good Theory. I realize of course that none of the admired towering figures would ever have put forth a grant proposal to such an entity as an ERC (and I refrain from speculating whether it would have passed peer-review). But this does not prevent me from thinking about the future. Could we not set up together a number of highly selective and truly excellent European Ph.D. programs in the humanities that would span whatever the best European scholarship has to offer?

Genuine and Fair Competition When discussing the fourth option, I come back to the beginning – to the picture of the humanities living in a rural academic landscape where avoiding your unworthy colleagues is easily possible by moving to the next empty valley. I would like to close these escape routes and to set up a genuine and fair competition amongst ourselves. You dislike your colleague’s work and think it is worthless? Let’s see how far your own approach will get you. Maybe each of you has limitations and maybe some of the

Helga Nowotny GUEST CONTRIBUTION

differences will be resolved, since you are really asking different sets of questions. Maybe we will never reach consensus, but at least we all are obliged to see where we agree to disagree – and why. The overall advances for the humanities, I venture to say, would be enormous. My fifth proposal starts from the observation that much of what we do in the humanities is parasitic. Hardly any of us is engaged in the primary production of literature, art and culture, but many are heavy secondary producers – writing commentaries on commentaries, interpretations of interpretations, compiling ever more sources coming after the original source, continuously feeding the enterprise of criticism of the contemporary cultural production. All of this is a recognized, valuable and legitimate activity. Also, we continue to acknowledge our intellectual debt to Shakespeare, Leonardo or Mozart, so nothing is wrong with that. The difference arises when the artists are

our contemporaries and, with few exceptions, do not enjoy the kind of tenured existence in our university department as we do. My aim here is not to promote redistributive justice. But could we not think of ways to set up new collaborative forms between the primary and the secondary producers of culture? While the natural sciences have taken the lead in promoting novel interactions and explorations between science and the arts, we have done nothing in the humanities to approach the arts from our side. But artists are usually credited with special sensibilities in anticipating and reacting to broader changes in society. Rather than waiting for their canonization, could we not engage with them in exploring different kinds of interpretations of the fascinating, repulsive, encouraging and bewildering changes that occur around us in this rapidly globalizing world? By now, I have reached the point

where at last I have de-constructed myself. I am not a researcher from the humanities. I have merely, for the sake of the argument and for provoking debate, pretended to be one. In fact, I am a social scientist who has spent the major part of her career observing and analyzing developments in the natural sciences and their mutual interaction with society. Yet I feel a deep sympathy for the humanities. I wish them to become part of an ERC and to share the vision of a Europe in the making to whose sense of identity and role in the world they have so much to contribute. This article was written before Helga Nowotny was recently appointed a founding member of the Scientific Council of the ERC. The Scientific Council will be an independent body whose role is to determine the ERC’s scientific strategy and to ensure that its operations are conducted according to the requirements of scientific excellence.

31

No. 89

Summer 2005

IWM EVENTS

Upcoming Events The following events will take place at the IWM at 6 p.m. Die folgenden Veranstaltungen finden um 18:00 Uhr in der Bibliothek des IWM statt.

27. September Reihe: Über Morgen

17. – 19. Oktober IWM Lectures in Human Sciences

Barbara Holland-Cunz Professorin für Politikwissenschaft an der Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen

Zygmunt Bauman Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the Universities of Leeds and Warsaw and one of the leading social theorists of our times

Ist die Wissensgesellschaft eine Utopie des 21. Jahrhunderts? Kommentatorin:

Michaela Sburny Wirtschaftssprecherin und Bundesgeschäftsführerin, Die Grünen In Zusammenarbeit mit der Grünen Bildungswerkstatt

On Insecurity and Other Fears (three lectures): 17. Oktober, Montag Liquid Modern Life and its Fears 18. Oktober, Dienstag Humanity on the Move 19. Oktober, Mittwoch Trust and Fear in Urban Life

Impressum Responsible for the contens of the IWM Post:

In collaboration with the Renner Institut

Spittelauer Lände 3 1090 Wien AUSTRIA

4. Oktober

32

Tito Boeri Professor of Economics at Bocconi University, Milan, and Director of the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti The Benefits of Migration In collaboration with the Istituto Italiano di Cultura

25. Oktober

Andrea Griesebner ao. Univ. Professorin für Neuere Geschichte am Institut für Geschichte der Universität Wien

Ph. (+43 1) 313 58-0 F. (+43 1) 313 58-30

Jenseits der Binarität: Geschlecht und Identität in historischer Perspektive

[email protected] www.iwm.at

11. Oktober

Danièle Hervieu-Léger Présidente et Directrice d’Etudes à l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris Les paradoxes de la tolérance: concurrences et conflits religieux dans une Europe pluraliste In collaboration with the Institut Francais de Vienne

27. Oktober, Achtung Donnerstag! Reihe: Bruchlinien der Ungleichheit

Theda Skocpol Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology, Director of the Center for American Political Studies, and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University Voice and Inequality: The Transformation of American Civic Democracy

13. Oktober, Achtung Freitag! Reihe: Bruchlinien der Ungleichheit

Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen

In collaboration with the Renner Institut

Tony Atkinson Professor of Political Economy and Warden at Nuffield College, Oxford Absolute Poverty or Relative Exclusion? Income Inequality in Rich Countries The lecture will open an international workshop, “Inequality on the Rise,” which takes place at the IWM on October 14. More information at www.iwm.at In collaboration with the Renner Institut und Arbeiterkammer

Editor Sabine Aßmann Editorial Assistance Sarah Naimark Production Manager, Layout Iris Strohschein Photos Renate Apostel, IHS Boston University, IWM, Piotr Ossowicz, Krzysztof Wojciewski Design Gerri Zotter The IWM Post is published four times a year. Current circulation: 6200. Printed by Rema Print. © IWM 2005

GZ: 05Z036175 M - P.b.b. Verlagspostamt 1090 Wien

Suggest Documents