University of Arts in Belgrade
Digital Repository of the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of BelgradeNot a member yet
4571 research outputs found
Sort by
Social Gestures as the Condition of Efficiency and (Existence) of Social Acts
No full textThe thematization of social gestures and social acts is practically inexis-tent, despite a classification of various such actions emerging in texts by great philosophers of the beginning of the last century. My intention is to argue, drawing on entirely marginal suggestions of several authors who belong to different genres of philosophy and sociology, that there are indeed acts that are justifiably called “social gestures”. Their role in the construction of a group or institution may be significant. Not only would they not be a mere parasite or addition to social acts (which usually refers to linguistic acts), but they would directly participate in the construction of social acts and enable their efficient conduct. In addition, the role of social gestures, whose main characteristics are corporeality, visibility, and vivacity, could be a kind of a priori to the existence of the social group as such
O identitetu. Društveni i umetnički kontekst
No full textMonografija se bavi problemom identiteta iz sociološkog i psihološkog ugla, tezom da identitet nije predeterminisan već zapravo konstruisan putem strukturnih procesa. Teorijski uvod u problem identieta i identifikacije polazi od konstatacije da ne postoje nužno nekakvi univerzalni ili nepromenljivi atributi ljudskog identiteta, nego da je diferencijacija i kretanje između identiteta karakteristika modernih društava. Posebno se razmatraju stavovi Ernesta Laklaua da bilo kakva artikulacija identiteta odnosno formacija objekta, samo je privremeno
kompletna; on je uvek delimično konstituisan silama koje su mu suprotstavljene (konstitutivno spolja), i uvek kontingentan u pogledu preživljavanja protivrečnosti koje on podrazumeva (sile dislokacije). Identitet stoga nastaje kroz razliku; na isti način, svekolika formacija objekta je uvek parcijalna zato što je uvek relaciona.
Monografija obuhvata tri poglavlja, koja obuhvataju nekoliko različitih analiza slučaja. Prvo poglavlje se bavi društveno-političkim problemima identiteta i identifikacije. Drugo poglavlje problematizuje specifičan kontekst teme identiteta u društveno-političkom, kulturnom i umetničkom kontekstu Jugoslavije. Konačno, u trećem poglavlju analiziraju se pojedine umetničke pozicije koje problematizuju pitanja identifikacije i subjektivikacije iz različitih rakursa
Civil Society Sector and Philanthropy in Serbia: Informality, Institutionalization and Changing Environment
No full textSerbian citizens associate philanthropy with “helping people in need.” They believe that any kind of help, not only financial and material, is philanthropy. Accounting for the local context, the definition of philanthropy is “voluntarily dedicating one’s non-material and material resources for the benefit of others or the common good.” Thus, philanthropy includes volunteering time and donating money and possessions to formal organizations, informal groups, and individuals.
Philanthropy, in some forms, has been present in Serbia since its beginnings. However, the nonprofit sector has never had a prominent role in the social welfare provision. During the socialist period spanning the second half of the 20th century, the state oversaw social welfare. Although the welfare system has moved from a socialist to a more liberal model since the beginning of the 21st century, citizens of Serbia still view the state as the essential factor in the welfare system by expanding the responsibilities of individuals and their families.
The nonprofit sector is relatively young and small. Between 2001 and 2012, the legal framework for the functioning of the nonprofit sector was adopted. It was in line with European standards. Nonprofit organizations in Serbia operate through forms of associations, endowments, and foundations. A certain number of organizations are positioned for dealing with specific issues, and they have relatively well-developed capacities for advocacy and policy dialogue.
In contrast, most of the nonprofits still have low advocacy and policy capacities. Strategical planning is rarely practiced, monitoring and evaluation are also weak. The sector is not homogenous when it comes to fundraising, with some organizations being professional, while others, most likely those small and are still at the embryonic phase of fundraising. The majority of nonprofit organizations face financial instability.
The nonprofit sector has only fragmented relationships with the state. Governmental funding of the nonprofits is available at all three levels: central, provincial, and local. These funding opportunities are directed towards projects or programs. However, the criteria for the public financial support need to be better defined and implemented. The nonprofits are exempted from tax on grants, donations, membership dues, and non-economic sources of income. For tax benefits for donors, exemptions exist for corporate donors but not for individual donors.
Additionally, the majority of Serbian citizens participate in some form of philanthropy. Informal practices are more prevalent than formal, in terms of both giving money and giving time, though the process of institutionalization of philanthropy is notable in the past couple of years. In recent years, partnerships and initiatives aiming at building a better environment for philanthropy have appeared, effects of which are still to be seen. Though the study of philanthropy as an academic discipline lacks prominence, there has been an increased interest in this research field during the past couple of years
Parlament Srbije
No full textNarodna skupština Republike Srbije je, kako je predviđeno Ustavom, najviše predstavničko telo i nosilac zakonodavne vlasti. Zadužena je i za nadzor nad izvršnom granom vlasti. U praksi, interesovanje građana za parlament se smanjuje, a nisko poverenje u Narodnu skupštinu povezano je sa urušavanjem poverenja u demokratiju. Centralizacija moći, prožimanje jednostranih narativa u javnom prostoru i dominacija u medijima u celini doprinose prikazivanju predsednika Republike kao jedinog autoriteta koji je u očima građana zadužen za sva pitanja i teme, bez obzira na ustavno uređenje, što značajno degradira položaj parlamenta. Pored centralizacije moći u rukama izvršne vlasti, parlament se suočava i s brojnim strukturalnim slabostima i lošim unutrašnjim praksama.
Ovo poglavlje analizira funkcionisanje i učinak Skupštine Srbije tokom protekle decenije (2008—2020), kao jedne od ključnih institucija koja štiti demokratiju i obezbeđuje funkcionisanje demokratskih procesa, sa ciljem da pruži uvide koji doprinose sveobuhvatnom pregledu stanja u srpskoj demokratiji. Analiza se fokusira kako na njenu formalnu moć koja je osigurana kroz zakonodavni okvir, tako i na sprovođenje njenih odgovornosti u praksi, sa ciljem da identifikuje ključne karakteristike i trendove u radu ove institucije koji utiču na njen učinak i
delotvornost. Fokus analize usmeren je na poslednja četiri mandata Skupštine koja su obeležila njeno funkcionisanje tokom poslednje decenije, u skladu s delokrugom ove publikacije (2008-2020). Položaj i učinak parlamenta procenjuju se pomoću kombinacije kvantitativnih i kvalitativnih metoda, zasnovanih na korišćenju statistike o radu i aktivnostima parlamentarnih tela i poslanika okupljenih putem platforme Otvoreni parlament, kvalitativnih procena zasnovanih na analizama javno dostupnih izvora, uključujući zakonodavni okvir, izveštaje državnih institucija i renomiranih domaćih i međunarodnih organizacija, kao i pomoću nalaza ispitivanja javnog mnjenja o stavovima građana, percepciji i poverenju u Skupštinu i narodne poslanike.As stipulated by the Constitution, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia is the highest representative body and the holder of legislative power. The National Assembly is also in charge of monitoring the executive branch. In practice, citizens’ interest in the parliament is declining, and the lack of trust in the National Assembly is associated with a collapse of confidence in democracy. The centralization of power, one-sided narratives widespread in public space and domineering the media as a whole contribute to the portrayal of the President of the Republic as the only authority in charge of all issues and topics, regardless of the constitutional system. This significantly degrades the position of the parliament. In addition to the centralization of power in the hands of the executive, the Parliament faces a number of structural weaknesses and poor internal practices.
This chapter analyses the functioning and performance of the Parliament of Serbia over the past decade (2008-2020), as one of the key institutions safeguarding democracy and ensuring the functioning of democratic processes, with the aim to provide insights that contribute to a comprehensive overview of the state of Serbian democracy. The analysis is focusing both on its formal power ensured through the legislative framework, as well as on the implementation of Parliament’s responsibilities in practice, with the aim to identify key characteristics and trends in the work of this institution influencing its performance and effectiveness. The analysis focuses on the last four mandates of the parliament that marked its functioning over the last decade, in line with the scope of this publication (2008-2020). The position and performance of the Parliament is assessed with a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, based on the use of statistics on the work and activities of the parliamentary bodies and MPs gathered through the Open Parliament platform, as well as qualitative assessments based on the analysis of publicly available sources including the legislative framework, reports of state institutions and renown domestic and international organizations, and findings of the opinion polls on citizens’ attitudes, perception and trust in the Parliament and MPs
