scholarly journals Aftermath of Progressive Politics and the Question of Social Reproductive Crisis

2021 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 138-167
Author(s):  
Bo-Myung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Progressive Politics

On Metaphysics and the Political: A Polemics of Reading Baudelaire in the 1930s

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-259
Author(s):  
Joseph Acquisto
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
The Political ◽  
Modern Poetry ◽  
Progressive Politics ◽  
The World ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Insight Into

This essay examines a polemic between two Baudelaire critics of the 1930s, Jean Cassou and Benjamin Fondane, which centered on the relationship of poetry to progressive politics and metaphysics. I argue that a return to Baudelaire's poetry can yield insight into what seems like an impasse in Cassou and Fondane. Baudelaire provides the possibility of realigning metaphysics and politics so that poetry has the potential to become the space in which we can begin to think the two of them together, as opposed to seeing them in unresolvable tension. Or rather, the tension that Baudelaire animates between the two allows us a new way of thinking about the role of esthetics in moments of political crisis. We can in some ways see Baudelaire as responding, avant la lettre, to two of his early twentieth-century readers who correctly perceived his work as the space that breathes a new urgency into the questions of how modern poetry relates to the world from which it springs and in which it intervenes.

Progressive Politics in the Global Age

2002 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 590
Author(s):  
Timothy Patrick Moran ◽  
Henry Tam
Keyword(s):  
Progressive Politics ◽  
Global Age

A screwball property: Love It or List It as postfeminist realty TV

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 543-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean M Bruce
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Critique ◽  
Contemporary Culture ◽  
Modern Life ◽  
Gothic Novel ◽  
Progressive Politics ◽  
The Family ◽  
Television Programme ◽  
Family Home ◽  
Screwball Comedy ◽  
Depression Era

This article argues that the property television programme, Love It or List It (2008–), employs conventions from the classic screwball comedy to both consolidate its position within the lucrative realty TV market – especially in response to the recent (2008) recession – and negotiate modern gender dynamics within the home. Its Depression-era (1930s) financial and aesthetic resonances are not incidental. And, as with much contemporary culture, this modern iteration of the screwball comedy is not discretely contained by medium or genre of influence: Love It or List It also borrows flourishes from documentary, tabloid TV, melodrama and the gothic novel. In keeping with its reference to a kind of baseball pitching style that is difficult for hitters to anticipate, the screwball’s tendency to suddenly switch course has been identified as its central means for engaging in cultural critique. Love It or List It as an exemplar of reality TV’s recombinant style is still very much like its cinematic predecessor: it has the adeptness to say many things to many audiences. This article makes no claims for Love It or List It’s progressive politics; rather, as with some classic screwball comedies, it explores the possibility that equivocating, shifting course or otherwise abandoning narrative logic register a profound ambivalence about marriage, coupledom and the family home as sacrosanct loci of modern life.

Rethinking public ownership as economic democracy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Cumbers
Keyword(s):  
Financial Crises ◽  
Policy Discourse ◽  
Public Ownership ◽  
Economic Democracy ◽  
Progressive Politics ◽  
Corporate Scandals ◽  
Institutional Structures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Economic Elites ◽  
Neoliberal Policies

Despite the spectacular failure of market fundamentalism in Europe and the US, with a seemingly never-ending spate of corporate scandals and financial crises, the grip of a neoliberal economic policy discourse among political and economic elites seems unshakeable. If anything, neoliberal policies of privatisation, labour market deregulation and state and welfare retrenchment seem to have been ratcheted up since the 2008-9 financial crisis. How can a left and more progressive politics– even in the form of a moderate eco-Keynesianism – be reasserted in these circumstances? This chapter argues that there has, until recently, been a serious vacuum in left and progressive circles about alternative economic models that might challenge the mainstream consensus. Cumbers uses the lens of public ownership, and examples from recent research in Denmark and Germany, to argue for the need to remake and re-scale institutional structures and practices on the left to successfully contest neoliberalism and construct more progressive, egalitarian and sustainable economies and societies.

scholarly journals Crisis and opportunity: Varieties of capitalism and varieties of crisis responses in Estonia and Slovenia

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magnus Feldmann
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
General Pattern ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Varieties Of Capitalism ◽  
Wage Bargaining ◽  
Progressive Politics ◽  
Social Council ◽  
Crisis Responses

A growing literature has analysed capitalist institutions in Slovenia and Estonia, two countries often viewed as representing very different varieties of capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe. Slovenia has been unique in the region, given its highly centralized wage bargaining and the importance of corporatist institutions, notably the tripartite Economic and Social Council; it is thus an exception to the general pattern of weak unions and ‘illusory corporatism’ across the region. By contrast, Estonia is commonly viewed as a prime example of a liberal market economy, in which industrial relations are decentralized. This article analyses how these distinctive institutional configurations have shaped the two countries’ responses to the global economic crisis beginning in 2007–2008. It explores whether these institutions have undergone changes as a result of the crisis, and also seeks to identify lessons from this experience for the future prospects for corporatism and tripartism, and also for the revitalization of trade unions and progressive politics in Central and Eastern Europe more generally.

Whose knowledge for what politics?

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (S1) ◽  
pp. 199-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karena Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Political Institutions ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Practice ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
Progressive Politics ◽  
Primary Object ◽  
Contemporary Study ◽  
The One

We find ourselves amidst an explosion of literature about how our worlds are being fundamentally changed (or not) through processes that have come to be clumped under the vague title of ‘globalisation’. As we wander our way through this literature, we might find ourselves – with others – feeling perplexed and anxious about the loss of a clear sense of what politics is, where it happens, what it is about, and what we need to know to understand and engage in it. This in turn leads many of us to contribute to a slightly smaller literature, such as this Special Issue, seeking to theorise how the space and character of politics might be changing, and how we might adapt our research strategies to accommodate these changes and maintain the confidence that we, and the disciplines we contribute to, still have relevant things to say about international politics. While this is not a difficult thing to claim, and it is not difficult to find others to reassure us that it is true, I want to suggest here that it is worth lingering a little longer in our anxiety than might be comfortable. I suggest this because it seems to me that there is, or at least should be, more on the table than we're yet grappling with. In particular, I argue here that any attempt to theorise the political today needs to take into account not only that the character and space of politics are changing, but that the way we study or theorise it – not only the subjects of our study but the very kind of knowledge we produce, and for whom – may need to change as well. As many others have argued, the project of progressive politics these days is not especially clear. It no longer seems safe to assume, for example, that the capture of the state or the establishment of benign forms of global governance should be our primary object. However, just as the project of progressive politics is in question, so is the role of knowledge, and knowledge production, under contemporary circumstances. I think there are possibilities embedded in explicitly engaging these questions together that are far from realisation. There are also serious dangers in trying to separate them, or assume the one while engaging the other, however ‘obvious’ the answers to one or the other may appear to be. Simultaneous with theorising the political ‘out there’ in the international must be an engagement with the politics of theorising ‘in here,’ in academic contexts. My project here is to explore how this challenge might be taken up in the contemporary study of politics, particularly in relation to emerging forms of political practice, such as those developed by activists in a variety of contexts. My argument is for an approach to theorising the political that shifts the disciplinary assumptions about for what purpose and for whom we should we produce knowledge in contemporary times, through an emphasis on the strategic knowledges produced through political practice. Such an approach would potentially provide us with understandings of contemporary political institutions and practices that are both more incisive and more enabling than can be produced through more familiarly disciplined approaches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document