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
Opposition in Serbia: oppression, delegitimization and extra-institutional engagement
No full textthis chapter analyses the opposition’s position and role in Serbia in its evolution since the introduction of pluralism and the collapse of the communist regime. We observe the opposition during the last 30 years from the two main aspects: institutional and ideational. We also provide an overview of the contextual factors to show some specificities of the post-socialist democratisation process and democratic backsliding in Serbia. The institutional elements we observed provide insight into the actors’ formal position and power; they show us the main mechanisms and resources at the opposition’s disposal and evaluate the possible inequalities or disbalances of powers between the actors. Conversely, the ideational aspect shows the dominant narratives and relationships between the opposition and position. These narratives reflect the understanding of democracy and the role the opposition should play in the political system. They also reflect changes over time and enable us to understand different concepts of democracy and democratisation. The chapter is divided into four sections, corresponding to four different phases reflecting specific circumstances and dynamics. The first phase is the Milošević decade (1990-2000), which covers the initial transitional period, characterised by severe authoritarian tendencies and societal conflicts during the Yugoslav break-up process. The second phase, that of democratisation (2000-2012), starts from the Milošević defeat and initial institutional development, throughout the first troubles in the democratic transition and riffs in the ruling coalition. The third phase (2012-2020) begins with the second turnover of power and optimism about social consensus and the consolidation of democracy. However, it develops into competitive authoritarianism and almost complete annulation of pluralism. The final phase is short (so far) and ongoing – defined by the protest waves, boycotts of elections and Parliament, and the return of the opposition in the institutions
Control and Archaism
No full textThe presentation will delve into the relationship between control society and archaism. Deleuze’s conceptualization of control implies the reconfiguration of
former spaces of discipline. While the Foucauldian model of discipline was characterized by enclosed spaces (such as prisons, armies, and churches),
Deleuze’s notion of control highlights a continuous network where individuals are no longer molded but modulated. This prompts us to ponder the shift in the
temporal structure that occurs during the transition from a disciplinary society to one governed by control. Specifically, this presentation aims to explore the
disparities in our historical perspectives when viewed from disciplinary and control paradigms. In this context, I will explore Deleuze and Guattari's concept of
‘archaism’. According to Deleuze and Guattari, archaism is an inherent aspect of capitalism, its continual endeavor to reconstruct territoriality and replicate
antiquated coding patterns. Capitalism necessitates archaism due to its lack of inherent belief structures. In essence, the system, which the duo name the
‘age of cynicism’, requires the revival of old codes to sustain its systems of subjugation and dominance. As my presentation will demonstrate, one can
discern a transformation in the evolution of archaism as society shifts from discipline to control. By comparing the fascist archaism of the thirties in
Germany and the archaism of contemporary alt-right movements, I will show that a disciplinary society presupposes a more centralized form of archaism,
which is highly susceptible to state control and deeply ingrained in the institutional fabric of social life. Conversely, a control society implies a
diversification and creativity in archaic attitudes, hinting at its potential for emancipation—a viewpoint emphasized by Deleuze and Guattari themselves
in ’Anti-Oedipus’
Who Cares for Families? Narrative(s) of Return in Postsocialist Europe
No full textThe introduction to the special section “Who Cares for Families? Narrative(s) of Return in Postsocialist Europe” identifies and analyzes its core concept—the narrative of return. Families of today are talked about differently, and how they are narrativized matters. The narrative that stresses that family is under threat and in need of defense or a special form of care, figuring care as restitution of natural, traditional, or family proper, is termed the narrative of return. The trope of return is strongly normative and non-descriptive, as it relies on mythical temporalities that ought to be restored in our present. The article first defines the choice of concepts—narrative, return, care, and threat. Second, it applies this conceptual frame in the transnational context, particularly within the transnational anti-gender campaigns in the populist moment. Third, it focuses on the postsocialist part of Europe, where, as the entire special section aims to demonstrate, the narrative of return gained particular currency. In Eastern Europe, these narratives are integral to larger projects of restoration of national agenda and serve as a tool of double emancipation: from the Soviet past and from the European Union present. Political actors using narrative(s) of return advocate and successfully push through fundamental changes in the political frameworks and value systems of the postsocialist countries. In sum, the article aims to demonstrate the conceptual background of a political tool
