scholarly journals «Volver a casa»: la logística de los prisioneros de guerra en las guerras de Italia (1740-1748) = «Coming back Home»: The Logistics of Prisoners of War in the italian Wars (1740-1748)

Author(s):  
Javier Bragado Echevarría

En este trabajo analizamos la logística desarrollada en torno a los prisioneros de guerra durante la Guerra de Sucesión Austríaca en sus campañas italianas, prestando especial atención a los años 1746, 1747 y 1748. En esos años se produjo la derrota del ejército franco-español en Piacenza (1746), y entre 1747 y 1748 tuvieron lugar los últimos intercambios de prisioneros de los ejércitos español, francés, sardo, austríaco e inglés como consecuencia de las negociaciones del Tratado de Aquisgrán. Para reconstruir este proceso se ha recurrido a estados de prisioneros, convenios de canje, correspondencia de comisarios de guerra y capitulaciones de plazas. Por lo tanto, se contextualiza una realidad social de la guerra menos conocida por la historiografía y se establece un punto de unión entre dos épocas para las que contamos con un mejor conocimiento de la cuestión: la Guerra de Sucesión y la Guerra de la Convención.AbstractIn this article we analyze the logistics developed for prisoners of war during the War of Austrian Succession in its different Italian campaigns, taking special consideration of the years 1746, 1747 and 1748: they include the defeat of the French-Spanish army in Piacenza (1746), and the last exchanges of prisoners of the Spanish, French, Sardinian, Austrian and English armies that took place between 1747 and 1748 as a result of the negotiations of the Treaty of Aachen. In order to reconstruct this historical process we have studied prisoners´ lists, their exchange agreements, war delegates´ letters and surrender agreements of military fortresses. Therefore, a social reality of war less known by historiography is contextualized in a period which connects the Spanish War of Succession and the War of the Convention, two contexts in which POWs are better known.

Author(s):  
Irina Sizemskaya

Social philosophy is knowledge that is called to answer the question about the goals of human existence and human historical life. In this sense, it is a valuative philosophy. This determines the specificity and boundaries of its object. It includes: 1) society as self-organizing system of sociality reproduction, 2) historical process in its relation with value meanings and constants of human existence, and 3) social epistemology, exploring the possibilities and ways of adequately social reality comprehension. Social philosophy conceptually crosses theoretical sociology and the philosophy of history within the boundaries of its problem field. The main theme of social philosophy is a theme of human, focusing research interest on the question “Who are we and where are we going?” Today boundaries of social philosophy are blurring under the postmodern influence on the humanities. Philosophical vision of social reality is replaced by the description of narratives designed by communicative practice that cannot be represented as a whole and do not obey to general analytical logic. This actualizes an appeal to social philosophy as a way of explanation of socio-cultural realities and, in this connection, to the problematics specifying the existing ideas about its object.


2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 25-45
Author(s):  
Viktor S. Levytskyy

The article considers the problem of the relations between modernity and secularization. The author argues that the discourse on secularization is the most appropriate strategy for modern self-understanding. The discourse itself is not homogeneous. One approach is a classical theory of secularization, which considers the secularization as a universal world-historical process, which passed the stages “modernization – secularization – rationalization.” Other approach is to interpret modern society as a post-secular society, but with relevance to religious ethos. This approach considers Modernity as a unique social reality with a specific type of rationality and a set of behavioral strategies, which were formed as a result of the transformation (secularization) of religious social reality, the center of which was a Christian myth. Accordingly, modernization becomes the result of secularization, and not vice versa, as the proponents of the first approach assumed. The thematization in the discourse on the secularization of a new type of society, which J. Habermas called post-secular society, demonstrates a crisis of principles constituting the Modernity’s foundations. Predictions of the epoch of an irreligious society did not come true, and secular reason is now forced to reckon with other types of rationality and take them into account, including in public space. This situation suggests that we are witnessing the birth of a new form of social reality. Thus, the article concludes: (1) discourse on secularization is recognized as the most adequate strategy of the comprehension of Modernity; (2) secularization should be viewed as a consistent detranscendentalization of Christian social reality; (3) the emergence of a post-secular society indicates fundamental transformations in the field of the most general ideas about the nature of cultural mind and cultural identities.


2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Clémence ◽  
Thierry Devos ◽  
Willem Doise

Social representations of human rights violations were investigated in a questionnaire study conducted in five countries (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Romania, and Switzerland) (N = 1239 young people). We were able to show that respondents organize their understanding of human rights violations in similar ways across nations. At the same time, systematic variations characterized opinions about human rights violations, and the structure of these variations was similar across national contexts. Differences in definitions of human rights violations were identified by a cluster analysis. A broader definition was related to critical attitudes toward governmental and institutional abuses of power, whereas a more restricted definition was rooted in a fatalistic conception of social reality, approval of social regulations, and greater tolerance for institutional infringements of privacy. An atypical definition was anchored either in a strong rejection of social regulations or in a strong condemnation of immoral individual actions linked with a high tolerance for governmental interference. These findings support the idea that contrasting definitions of human rights coexist and that these definitions are underpinned by a set of beliefs regarding the relationships between individuals and institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document