Qing History, Wei Yuan and Contemporary Political Dialogue

Author(s):  
Jane Kate Leonard
Public Voices ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
John Anderson

This paper explores the way in which the music of John Adams responds to terrorism and looks at some of the controversies surrounding his work. It represents a reflection on how the musical and the political can interact in the modern world, engaging his work on the level of political dialogue.


Author(s):  
Karolina Borońska-Hryniewiecka ◽  
Jan Grinc

This article offers the first ever comparative analysis of the involvement of V4 parliaments in the sphere of European Union (EU) affairs. Its underlying research objective is to determine what conditions V4’s parliamentary participation in various EU-oriented activities such as domestic scrutiny of the government’s EU policy, the political dialogue with the Commission, the Early Warning System for subsidiarity control, and the green card initiative. Based on the actual scrutiny output, parliamentary minutes, and data from questionnaires, we address the questions: (1) To what extent domestic legislatures act as autonomous as opposed to government-supporting actors in these arenas? (2) Do they mostly act as EU veto players, or try to contribute constructively to the EU policy-making process by bringing alternative policy ideas? (3) What are their motivations for engaging in direct dialogue with EU institutions in addition to domestic scrutiny? and (4) How MPs envisage their own EU-oriented roles? While the article reveals that V4 parliaments mostly act as gatekeepers in the sphere of EU affairs, it also casts a new light on the previous literature findings related to the EU-oriented performance of the Czech and Polish lower chambers. We conclude that, generally, V4 parliaments refrain from fully exploiting their relatively strong formal prerogatives in EU affairs—a fact that can be partly explained by the composition of their ruling majorities.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 658-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neringa Klumbytė

This article explores intersections between power, subjectivity, and laughter by focusing on Šluota ( The Broom), a humor and satire journal published by the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party during late socialism (1970s to mid-1980s). In Lithuania, while the official newspapers and journals were commonly distrusted, The Broom was perceived as a grassroots media. In this article, the author asks how officially sanctioned socialist humor was translated into readers’ sincere laughter; how sensual and political dialogue was created between state authorities, artists, and readers. The author shows that in the case of the official culture of humor presented in The Broom, laughter cannot be easily classified as performance of resistance or support for the regime. In The Broom, the discourse of power was never monologic and simply oppressive. It was situational, contextual, and changing. Officially sanctioned laughter was infused with and mediated by private emotions and values. Moreover, the journal provided space for artistic creativity and self-expression that reshaped official political aesthetics. Laughter blurred the distinctions between the state and the citizen, the public and the private, the hegemonic and the sincere. The author argues that laughter is an experience and a performance of political intimacy through which various agents imagine a self, society, and the state and reproduce various power orders. Political intimacy refers to coexistence of state authorities and other subjects in fields of social and political comfort, togetherness, and dialogue as well as in the zones of shared meanings and values.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-201
Author(s):  
John E. Herman

What would Chinese history look like if we were to examine it from the perspective of the peoples living along China's periphery? How might a non-Chinese perspective challenge the dominant themes in Chinese historiography, themes which represent Chinese history as a linear narrative arising from the Central Plain and its original inhabitants, the Han Chinese? If, for example, we rely solely on Chinese sources to tell us about Chinese-Jurchen/Manchu relations during the first half of the seventeenth century, we will have privileged Chinese sources, affirmed the authority of the Chinese perspective, and suppressed voices that might offer an alternative perspective. Only an aggressive deconstruction of such “authoritative” Chinese texts can expose biases and logical inconsistencies, unpack cultural tensions that demand more rigorous scrutiny, and tease out into the open silenced voices from spaces buried deep in the text. Those historians who engage in such a methodological approach, however, run the risk of being accused of applying fanciful postmodernist conjecture or presentist interpretations to the past. This is why the recent (since the 1980s) addition of Manchu language sources to our examination of Qing history (1636–1912) has had such a seismic impact on the field.


2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Hermann Henrix

The Good Friday prayer “for the Jews” that was promulgated on February 4, 2008 triggered significant controversy. This article reviews how this controversy expressed itself in European countries in various ways and with differing intensity. It was eventually resolved at the level of political dialogue. Cardinal Kasper’s important commentary on the prayer, publicly approved by Secretary of State Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, calmed the public discussion. But this did not resolve the theological questions raised by the prayer, the focus of the second half of the article. When in today’s Church, the words of prayers that are in accord with Scripture call to mind negative experiences in the Christian-Jewish history, can they be used as the Church’s prayer? Can the two Good Friday prayers for the Jews co-exist, that of the 1970 missal and that of 2008? The fundamental theological problem raised by the two different prayers is not the issue of mission, but rather the question of salvation. How does one resolve the tension between the fact that God’s covenant with the Jewish people has not been revoked and the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ? Is it possible to create a Christian-Jewish bridge by referring to Jesus Christ? These questions remain unresolved, but theologians are now addressing them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document