Interview to Boaventura de Sousa Santos

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Guilherme ◽  
Gunther Dietz

In this interview, Professor Boaventura de Sousa Santos addresses, on the one hand, the process of transnationalisation of universities and the neoliberalisation of the classical model of the European university. On the other hand, he stresses that the recognition of difference and internal pluralism of science, which have pervaded the universities during the last decades, is now losing steam. However, he believes that the emergence of the Epistemologies of the South he proposes may contribute to the re-foundation of a new university more suited to the ethos of the 21st century, since the reconstruction or reinvention of confrontational politics requires an epistemological transformation. Therefore, he proposes a new, polyphonic university (or better, pluriversity) as this epistemological transformation unfolds. This means that the political alliances of the future will have an epistemological dimension characterized by an articulation or combination of different and differently relevant kinds of knowledge.

Tekstualia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 37-50
Author(s):  
Andrea Deca

This paper concentrates on Witkacy’s Pure Form and the concept of Anthropophagy that was coined by Oswald de Andrade, and their affi nity with the notions of utopia and tropicality. Tropicality is detected in the form of the imaginary construction of Witkacy regarding the South Sea Islands on the one hand, and on the other in the utopic island of Vera Cruz, reinvented by Oswald de Andrade in his mature years. The seamen of the old world fi rst conceptualised Vera Cruz in this way in legends that alluded to the lost paradise and following this trace Oswald dreamt it could be a future paradise. Both Witkacy and de Andrade, beyond being artists, were thinkers of their specifi c cultures and had their theories regarding the future of mankind.


1998 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Mair

The 20th-century has been the century of mass politics, and the mass parties that emerged at the beginning of this century became deeply rooted within wider society. The passing of this golden age of the party has now been marked by two distinct processes of change. On the one hand, parties have become more distant from society and more closely linked to government and the state. On the other hand, there has been a decline in the political identities of the parties, such that voters now find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between them. These changes, and the related transformation of politics into administration, have led to a growth in popular indifference to parties and to politics in general, as well as to a declining sense of engagement. Should this trend continue, it is mass spectacle rather than mass involvement that is likely to characterize the future of mass politics.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Druckman ◽  
Samara Klar ◽  
Yanna Krupnikov ◽  
Matthew Levendusky ◽  
John B. Ryan

Affective polarization is a defining feature of 21st century American politics—partisans harbor considerable dislike and distrust of those from the other party. Does this animus have consequences for citizens’ opinions? Such effects would highlight not only the consequences of polarization, but also shed new light onto how citizens form preferences more generally. Normally, this question is intractable, but the outbreak of the novel coronavirus allows us to answer it. We find that affective polarization powerfully shapes citizens’ attitudes about the pandemic, as well as the actions they have taken in response to it. However, these effects are conditional on the local severity of the outbreak, as the effects decline in areas with high caseloads—threat vitiates partisan reasoning. Our results clarify that closing the divide on important issues requires not just policy discourse but also attempts to reduce inter-partisan hostility.


Author(s):  
Nicolas Wiater

This chapter examines the ambivalent image of Classical Athens in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities. This image reflects a deep-seated ambiguity of Dionysius’ Classicist ideology: on the one hand, there is no question for Dionysius that Athenocentric Hellenicity failed, and that the Roman empire has superseded Athens’ role once and for all as the political and cultural centre of the oikoumene. On the other, Dionysius accepted Rome’s supremacy as legitimate partly because he believed (and wanted his readers to believe) her to be the legitimate heir of Classical Athens and Classical Athenian civic ideology. As a result, Dionysius develops a new model of Hellenicity for Roman Greeks loyal to the new political and cultural centre of Rome. This new model of Greek identity incorporates and builds on Classical Athenian ideals, institutions, and culture, but also supersedes them.


Author(s):  
Jenny Andersson

Alvin Toffler’s writings encapsulated many of the tensions of futurism: the way that futurology and futures studies oscillated between forms of utopianism and technocracy with global ambitions, and between new forms of activism, on the one hand, and emerging forms of consultancy and paid advice on the other. Paradoxically, in their desire to create new images of the future capable of providing exits from the status quo of the Cold War world, futurists reinvented the technologies of prediction that they had initially rejected, and put them at the basis of a new activity of futures advice. Consultancy was central to the field of futures studies from its inception. For futurists, consultancy was a form of militancy—a potentially world altering expertise that could bypass politics and also escaped the boring halls of academia.


Author(s):  
Matthias Albani

The monotheistic confession in Isa 40–48 is best understood against the historical context of Israel’s political and religious crisis situation in the final years of Neo-Babylonian rule. According to Deutero-Isaiah, Yhwh is unique and incomparable because he alone truly predicts the “future” (Isa 41:22–29)—currently the triumph of Cyrus—which will lead to Israel’s liberation from Babylonian captivity (Isa 45). This prediction is directed against the Babylonian deities’ claim to possess the power of destiny and the future, predominantly against Bel-Marduk, to whom both Nabonidus and his opponents appeal in their various political assertions regarding Cyrus. According to the Babylonian conviction, Bel-Marduk has the universal divine power, who, on the one hand, directs the course of the stars and thus determines the astral omens and, on the other hand, directs the course of history (cf. Cyrus Cylinder). As an antithesis, however, Deutero-Isaiah proclaims Yhwh as the sovereign divine creator and leader of the courses of the stars in heaven as well as the course of history on earth (Isa 45:12–13). Moreover, the conflict between Nabonidus and the Marduk priesthood over the question of the highest divine power (Sîn versus Marduk) may have had a kind of “catalytic” function in Deutero-Isaiah’s formulation of the monotheistic confession.


Prospects ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 249-266
Author(s):  
Lewis P. Simpson

No scene in Faulkner is more compelling than the one that transpires on a “long still hot weary dead September afternoon” in Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi, toward the end of the first decade of this century. Quentin Compson sits with Miss Rosa Coldfield in a “dim airless room” still called “the office because her father called it that,” and listens to Miss Rosa tell her version of the story of the “demon” Sutpen and his plantation, Sutpen's Hundred. As she talks “in that grim haggard amazed voice”—“vanishing into and then out of the long intervals like a stream, a trickle running from patch to patch of dried sand”—the 22-year-old Mississippi youth discovers he is hearing not Miss Rosa but the voices of “two separate Quentins.” One voice is that of the “Quentin preparing for Harvard in the South, the deep South dead since 1865 and peopled with garrulous baffled ghosts.” The other voice is that of the Quentin “who was still too young to deserve yet to be a ghost, but nevertheless having to be one for all that, since he was born and bred in the deep South the same as she [Miss Rosa] was.” The two Quentins talk “to one another in the long silence of notpeople, in notlanguage: It seems that this demon—his name was Sutpen—(Colonel Sutpen)—Colonel Sutpen. Who came out of nowhere and without warning upon the land with a band of strange niggers and built a plantation”.


2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (2) ◽  
pp. 495-505
Author(s):  
EIRINI DIAMANTOULI

Ideologically motivated attempts to elucidate Shostakovich’s political views and to determine whether and how they may be coded into his compositions have come to characterize the Western reception of the composer’s works since his death in 1975. Fuelled by the political oppositions of the cold war, Shostakovich’s posthumous reputation in the West has been largely shaped by two conflicting perspectives. These have positioned him on the one hand as a secret dissident, bent and broken under the unbearable strain of totalitarianism, made heroic through his veiled musical resistance to Communism; and on the other hand as a composer compromised by his capitulation to the regime – represented in an anachronistic musical style. Both perspectives surrender Shostakovich and his music to a crude oversimplification driven by vested political interests. Western listeners thus conditioned are primed to hear either the coded dissidence of a tragic victim of Communist brutality or the sinister submission of a ‘loyal son of the Communist Party’.1 For those prepared to accept Shostakovich as a ‘tragic victim’, the publication of his purported memoirs in 1979, ‘as related to and edited by’ the author Solomon Volkov, presents a tantalizing conclusion: bitterly yet discreetly scornful of the Stalinist regime, Shostakovich was indeed a secret dissident and this dissidence was made tangible in his music.


Target ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iwona Mazur

In recent years localization has become a popular concept in both translation practice and theory. It has developed a language of its own, which, however, still seems to be little known among translation scholars. What is more, being primarily an industry-based discourse, the terms related to localization are very fluid, which makes theorizing about it difficult. Therefore, the aim of this article is, first of all, to explain the basic terms of the metalanguage of localization, as they are used by both localization practitioners and scholars, and, secondly, to make this metalanguage more consistent by proposing some general definitions that cover the basic concepts in localization. This, in turn, should, on the one hand, facilitate scholar-to-practitioner communication and vice versa and, on the other, should result in concept standardization for training purposes. In the conclusions I link the present discussion of the metalanguage of localization to a more general debate on metalanguage(s) in Translation Studies and propose that in the future we might witness the emergence of a new discipline called Localization Studies.


2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 319-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron W. Hughes

Abstract NAASR faces an existential dilemma. It is currently caught between the desire for greater numbers and panels that take place at the Annual Meeting of the AAR on the one hand, and the idea of a more exclusive group that focuses solely on historical and scientific analysis on the other. This paper argues that the future of NAASR resides in the latter option as opposed to the former. It even goes a step further and argues that NAASR should—intellectually, if not logistically—split from the AAR because as things currently stand the AAR defines the parameters of the conversation: NAASR, by default, becomes that which the AAR is not. However, in so doing, NAASR still defines itself using the discourses and categories of the AAR. NAASR’s physical departure from the AAR would provide it with the intellectual space necessary for further growth and reflection on things theoretical and methodological.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document