Search results

The article attempts to reconstruct some of the political stakes in the conceptual and methodological debates among two groups of literary critics during the 1960ies and the 1970ies in Bulgaria: the structuralists and their opponents, the so-called "Imperssionist critics". This debate seems to be a pertinent context for addressing the emergence of poststructuralism since it was the intellectual ferment, in which Julia Kristeva formed her conceptual background, before later becoming among the first poststructuralist critics of structuralism in France. Before, emigrating, Kristeva was part of the group of the "impressionist critics", who were developing ways of resisting official Marxist doctrine while retaining claims for Marxists legitimacy. They were very critical of the structuralists, who also were attempting to gain legitimacy, though by aligning with Marxism as a materialist science, a stance the "impressionists" viewed as contributing to alienation. ; Статья пытается восстановить поли- тический залог в концептуальных и методологических дискуссиях между двумя группами литературо- ведов в 1960-х и 1970-х годах в Болга- рии – между структуралистами и их противниками, так называемыми «импрессионистскими критика- ми». Эта дискуссия, по-видимому, является важным контекстом воз- никновения постструктурализма, поскольку она представляет собой интеллектуальную среду, в кото- рой Юлия Кристева первоначально сформировала свои идеи, перед тем как впоследствии стала одним из первых критиков структурализма во Франции. До эмиграции Кристева является членом группы импрес- сионистских критиков, которые пытаются разработать стратегии противостояния официальной марк- систской доктрине, не отказываясь от поиска марксистской легитим- ности. Они критикуют структура- листов, которые также стремятся к легитимности, но основываясь на настойчивости марксизма как материалистической науки – пози- ция, в которой «импрессионистские критики» видят фактор, способству- ющий отчуждению.

International audience ; The arrangements offered by international community as solutions to Yugoslav dissolution process have significantly affected the development of the Kosovo conflict. These policies failed to produce consensus between the parties in conflict, instead, as the paper demonstrate, they played the role of a catalyst in the initiation of the conflict. This paper, by offering a detailed reconstruction of the process by which the international community tried to settle the Kosovo case, demonstrates how the dynamics of the conflict interacted dynamically with international community attitudes and policies towards the case. The paper discusses the attitudes and policies of international community toward the Kosovo case underlining its attachment to traditional prerequisites of international order instead of inherited causes of conflict. There are three important events that underline the interference of international community in the case of Kosovo before the war: the Conference on Yugoslavia that followed up the creation of the Badinter Committee, the Dayton Agreement and the Rambouillet Talks. These events are explained in details in three separate sections since they have immediate implications for the situation in Kosovo and consequently for the development of the conflict. We first discuss the contribution of existing normative framework to models of international community behavior and their effects in the case of Kosovo conflict following with the reaction of the conflicting parties towards offered arrangements. Both moments are assumed to be of importance in providing a larger picture in the understanding of the outgrowth of Kosovo conflict.

International audience ; The arrangements offered by international community as solutions to Yugoslav dissolution process have significantly affected the development of the Kosovo conflict. These policies failed to produce consensus between the parties in conflict, instead, as the paper demonstrate, they played the role of a catalyst in the initiation of the conflict. This paper, by offering a detailed reconstruction of the process by which the international community tried to settle the Kosovo case, demonstrates how the dynamics of the conflict interacted dynamically with international community attitudes and policies towards the case. The paper discusses the attitudes and policies of international community toward the Kosovo case underlining its attachment to traditional prerequisites of international order instead of inherited causes of conflict. There are three important events that underline the interference of international community in the case of Kosovo before the war: the Conference on Yugoslavia that followed up the creation of the Badinter Committee, the Dayton Agreement and the Rambouillet Talks. These events are explained in details in three separate sections since they have immediate implications for the situation in Kosovo and consequently for the development of the conflict. We first discuss the contribution of existing normative framework to models of international community behavior and their effects in the case of Kosovo conflict following with the reaction of the conflicting parties towards offered arrangements. Both moments are assumed to be of importance in providing a larger picture in the understanding of the outgrowth of Kosovo conflict.

When something or someone is being declared "the best of everything possible" this a priori and a posteriori wrong. This is not useful for that "something" or that "someone" because their natural competitors do not share that thought and they do not sleep. Nobody can stop the development, regardless of the direction, in some or other assessment criteria. Long ago the political democracy has been declared such a perfect "something". But credibility in it begins to fall exactly where it has taken strong roots. For opponents, this is a thing that has been known long ago. Now there are empirically on the subject, but there are no convincing explanations of the data. The article offers a possible interpretation of that crisis of confidence in democracy. Specific tools developed by author and called by him Scanner, were used for the analysis. The conclusions are: democratization as a process is supported by its actual effectivity, and it is cyclical; there are many different democratic models competing with each other; nowhere ever has existed uninterrupted and one-way democratic development; democratic content is most often helpless a form countering undemocratic aggression outside. The text is not a requiem for democracy, but an attempt to breathe new life into the political process and to understand the emerging new phenomena in the world understood in today's mainstream as a subversion of modernity – for example in USA (Trump (UK (Brexit (China (Xi Jinping (Russia (Putin (Philippines (DuTerte (South Africa (Zuma (Turkey (Erdogan (and many other places in the 21st century.