1,721,214 research outputs found
Quatre principes de l'analyse morphologique
No full textFoley James. Quatre principes de l'analyse morphologique. In: Langages, 20ᵉ année, n°78, 1985. Le retour de la morphologie, sous la direction de Jean Molino. pp. 57-72
La prothèse dans le verbe latin sum
No full textFoley James. La prothèse dans le verbe latin sum. In: Langages, 2ᵉ année, n°8, 1967. La phonologie générative, sous la direction de Sanford A. Schane. pp. 60-66
Introduction
Full text linkIn 2019, the incoming executive of the European Commission nominated a vice-president for migration and security issues bearing the title “Commissioner for Protecting the European Way of Life”. This allusion to a continent under attack, and in need of protection, prompted months of controversy about the meaning attached to “European” borders and boundaries. The centre-right European People’s Party, who proposed the title, insisted they had not meant to raise the drawbridge against refugees: “this means to rescue people in the Mediterranean [...] not to close harbours” (Zalan, 2019). Yet both supporters and critics saw matters differently and interpreted it as a move designed to absorb xenophobic narratives into the EU’s most cosmopolitan structure. Marine Le Pen hailed “an ideological victory”; by contrast, socialist and Green MEPs saw it as surrendering to a notion of an embattled “European civilisation” promoted in the discourses of leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. The controversy would eventually force a small but crucial change, with “protecting” becoming “promoting” the European way of life. But the polarised reaction had already established a crucial fact about the continent’s political identity: today, any talk of a “European way of life” carries new ideological baggage. Where the continent’s institutional boundaries and political responsibilities have expanded, so have anxieties about proximity to a non-European “other”
The management of accountability: state transformation and class politics in Scotland’s COVID-19 response: reassessing COVID-19 in Europe
No full textThe COVID-19 lockdowns stand as one of the most abrupt and consequential shifts in modern state-society relations, rivalling wartime disruptions. A key puzzle of this period is the convergence of policy responses despite the rise of multi-level governance, which has diffused power and sovereignty. This chapter explores the politics of pandemic management within Scotland’s devolved relationship with the United Kingdom. Drawing on interviews with governance officials and civil society actors and analysis of devolved policy documents, it demonstrates that although the responses of Holyrood and Westminster differed in presentation, they shared substantial similarities in their interventions and outcomes. The chapter argues that these stylistic differences served to manage class-based grievances and exemplify the “management of accountability” – a strategy that enables the organisation of irresponsibility. What emerges is a story of the dysfunctional tension between levels of multi-level governance, in which constitutionalised politics were focused upon superficial conflicts over scale and jurisdiction, and functioned to depoliticise underlying questions of social inequality. The Scottish Government’s discursive focus on resilience aimed to reconcile a persistent climate of emergency with the stability of socio-political structures and systems, while also mitigating class-related grievances. The surface-level political story of the pandemic in Scotland would, therefore, centre on national, rather than class, conflicts embodied in the multi-level state
Revising Humanitarianism and Solidarity: Migration management and Peripheral Europeanism in the UK, Poland, and Hungary
Full text linkRevising humanitarianism and solidarity: migration management and peripheral Europeanism in the UK, Poland, and Hungary
Full text linkThis chapter addresses three cases where governments have adopted explicitly Euro-critical or anti-EU stances linked to migration. The primary aim was to understand how nations that reject the established European narrative of international protection have framed their obligations to alleviate the suffering of war and conflicts. This has been broken into three conceptual areas for comparative purposes: humanitarianism, solidarity, and sovereignty. While observing areas of distinction between these states and the EU, the analysis suggests the difficulties involved in hardened contrasts between a cosmopolitan-humanitarian EU and national-sovereigntist states. Instead, the chapter presents a more nuanced picture of how states have developed distinct accounts of humanitarianism and international order. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that narratives of Europeanness developing on the liminal periphery have been reshaping core notions of “European” identity embodied in the official pronouncements of the Commission.</p
English for Social Science II (C)
Full text linkGrado en Filosofía, Grado en Psicología, Grado en Trabajo Social y Diploma en Cooperación Internacional al Desarrollo, Instituto de Idiomas Moderno
Preface: the organisation of irresponsibility? COVID-19 and the governance of state-society relations in Europe
No full textNo abstract available
- …
