Search results

After the 9/11 attacks & the subsequent military action in Afghanistan & Iraq, is the transatlantic community headed towards a divorce of Europe & the United States? Or, quite the opposite, are we witnessing a dawn of a new, revitalized, globally active western community? The article focuses on possible evolution of the transatlantic community, & aims at judging various future arrangements of security & defense area against the background of realist approach of international relations. The analysis proceeds in four steps. First of all, the realist theoretical background is laid down, as compared to other possible approaches, including the one of Robert Kagan. Self-interest & the crucial importance of security of an international actor are presented as basic principles. Secondly, the military capabilities of the United States of America & Europe are compared, as the gap between them justifies the concept of strong America & weak Europe. The third part presents four possible scenarios of future transatlantic relations. Since the position of the United States is to be considered constant for foreseeable future, the article closely examines the relationship between NATO & the EU. The structure on which the scenarios are based com-bines two processes: the process of European integration in security & defense, & the evolution of transatlantic cohesion. Military capabilities, effectiveness of political leadership, & a capacity for global action are considered to be the substantial aspects for the evaluation of the balance of power. Finally, the scenarios are compared with the assumptions of the realist theory. The results differ substantially from Kagan's who claims that the strengthening of Europe will result in a closer transatlantic community. The realist approach foresees either a close alliance based on subordination of Europe to the United States in case of substantial external threat, or a strong Europe opposing the power of the United States. Adapted from the source document.

Evgenij Dobrenko ; In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in dt. Sprache ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 93.52788

Neoliberal institutionalism, developed by Robert Keohane, & liberal theory of international relations elaborated by Andrew Moravcsik, nowadays represent two grand International Relations (IR) theories drawing on liberalism as one of the main theoretical approaches in this discipline. However, Keohane conceived of neoliberal institutionalism as a synthesis of realism & liberalism & Moravcsik proceeds from a specific understanding of liberalism & defines liberalism by the criteria of empirical social science. This essay examines, therefore, whether neoliberal institutionalism & liberal theory indeed involve & assemble together the main ideas of liberalism. The perspective applied in the essay is based on the intellectual history of liberalism and, in this way, regards the assumptions about the most fundamental actor in international relations & about the evolution of international relations as the intellectual core of liberalism. According to liberalism, individuals & collective social actors constituted by individuals (social & bureaucratic groups) are the most fundamental actors in international relations & international relations undergo transformation, in the course of which cooperation gradually prevails over conflict. Neoliberal institutionalism considers the state to be the most fundamental actor in international relations & assumes that the nature of international relations transforms & they acquire a more cooperative character. Liberal theory claims that individuals & social groups are the most fundamental actors & that international relations undergo transformation that is marked by the growth of cooperation. Consequently, whereas neoliberal institutionalism involves the intellectual core of liberalism only to some extent, liberal theory implies that there is a grand theory that subsumes the main ideas of liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

This study is based on the twin exigencies of introducing the concept of abstract author into the scheme of narrative construction, and distinguishing sharply between this object of analysis and the concepts of concrete author and narrator. In accordance with the definition advanced by Wolf Schmid, whose vision on the issues of narrative instances appears most judicious, the abstract author ('der abstrakte Autor') can be defined as 'the principle that, in a work, determines the articulatory layer, the semantic layer, and the layer of the objectivity deployed, as well as the aesthetic organisation and the hierarchy of these layers in the total structure in one specific way' ('dasjenige Prinzip, das in einem Werk die sprachlautliche Schicht, die Bedeutungsschicht und die Schicht der dargestellten Gegenständlichkeiten sowie die ästhetische Organisation und Hierarchie dieser Schichten in der Gesamtstruktur so und nicht anders beschaffen sein lässt', Schmid 1973. S.24). More succinctly and generally, the abstract author (henceforth: AA) is the principle according to which the meaning of a literary work is constructed. If we wish to switch from phenomenological to structuralist terminology, we can define the AA as the construction principle of the paradigmatic elements of the work. Thus the AA is fundamentally distinguished from both the concrete author and from the narrator in whose name (voice) the story is being told – itself a creation of the AA. This means that the latter is not directly represented in the text, in view of the fact that it is a reconstructed virtual construction. Naturally, this aspect of the AA considerably complicates a study devoted to the reconstruction of various types of AAs as regards concrete literary texts (in our case, great Russian prose forms from the 1920s and 1930s) in view of the fact that it cannot be based on the principle of the reconstruction according to which the AA must be reconstructed. Taking into account that a) no single reconstruction principle could ever be exhaustively explained, and b) various interpretations of facts and motives are possible even within a single analytical doctrine, the final result of this kind of reconstruction will unavoidably contain fairly controversial or debatable aspects. In principle, a certain objectivity could be achieved by blending a large number of different analytical strategies in order to arrive at a reconstruction of the AA, but in view of the fact that this kind of undertaking is not able to be carried out within the framework of a dissertation project, one is obliged to accept a priori a certain sketchiness in the results obtained. As regards methodology, we considered it better to base our undertaking on a structuralistic approach. This does not mean, however, that we regard structuralism as a methodological panacea. Our choice was ultimately determined by the fact that the conclusions reached on the basis of structuralistic analysis are highly illustrative, in the sense that the mechanism of deduction can be represented in the form of logically unambiguous causality. At points where the conclusions of the structuralistic approach appeared to us to be incomplete representations of a work's meaning, we resorted to other approaches. In order to analyse texts from the period in question (the 1920s and 1930s) we applied an analysis model first presented by B. A. Uspensky, and subsequently elaborated by W. Schmid, albeit it with a few specifications, which will be discussed shortly. The Uspensky-Schmid model is based on the division and analysis of the narrative into five levels: spatial, temporal, phraseological, psychological and ideological. It is a rather economic and practical scheme which provides a thorough analysis. Our refinement refers only to the last, ideological, level. We recognize J. Lintvelt's view (Lintvelt 1981) which does not see this as a separate layer, basing his argument on its intertwining with other levels. However, W. Schmid insisted on its retention, indicating that it could also manifest itself independently of the other levels, namely, as a direct, explicit evaluation. In this case the ideological level is then a facultative phenomenon only functional in the narrative scheme of the text when there are explicit ideological utterances. We propose using an old definition of ideology set down by A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés, who, in Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langue (1979), define ideology as the syntagmatic aspect of the taxonomic concept of axiology. The acceptance of this definition brings with it a number of important consequences: 1) In view of the fact that the narrative text, a product of subjective consciousness, inevitably consists of axiologically meaningful relationships, the axiological level is an immanent element of every narrative text, independent of explicitly manifested ideological rhetoric. 2a) Regardless of its intertwining with the syntagmatics of other narrative levels, there is still the possibility of a paradigmatic reconstruction of the ideology, based on the axiomatics of these narrative levels. 2b) If the analysis of the other four levels is correctly executed, the ideology component will inevitably be the most concise, since it merely summarises all the conclusions that are drawn from analyses of the other levels and brings them into the required equilibrium. After all, to formulate it slightly differently, analysis means the exposure of the axiologically meaningful relationships that have been imposed on the text by the abstract author. Additionally, the mutual hierarchy of the narrative instances must be further determined, a specification one must consistently take into account as one reconstructs the AA. The point at issue here is the more detailed determination of the hierarchical dispositions of instances of abstract author and abstract reader due to Bely's death? Should Moscow be supplemented by the novel Petersburg by the same author because it is apparently symmetrical to Moscow? In that case, should we not also expand the notion of the analysed text to include the novel The silver dove, the first part of an unwritten trilogy of which the novel Petersburg is the second part, etc.? Such questions are allied to the concept of text itself and can arise in infinite shapes and quantities; it is clear that the AA's structure depends on how we respond to them. In our opinion the answers to such questions fall within the competency of the abstract reader who is, par excellence, sensitive to the literary work's nuances in meaning. For this reason we suggest representing the relationship between the abstract author and the abstract reader as an opposition between the principle to be reconstructed and the reconstructing principle, which presupposes a corresponding hierarchical disposition between both. Furthermore, more precision is needed with respect to the analytical methods used in this study. Taking into account the fact that, ideally, the perfectly accurate researcher should concur with the abstract reader, as outlined above, it is useful to call to mind the following aspects: a) the infinitely great competency of the abstract reader with regard to all intertextual connections of a given work and with regard to all meaningful connections, in all their variations, of the work with the extra-literary world – from social-political realia to the psychic circumstances of the concrete author. b) the infinite analytical flexibility of the abstract reader who uses the greatest possible quantity of analytical methods in his interpretative strategy, aiming at the most complete reconstruction of the AA. In view of the fact that, within the framework of a rather restricted study, it is not possible to present a more or less complete description of the AA of even a single work by means of the methodology of even a single analytical approach, it is advisable to limit the analysis to a single feature, albeit one that is shared by the majority of the chosen texts. This means we have mainly confined our efforts to the particular construction which governed the generation of the selected individual texts and which we could provisionally indicate as the abstract meta-author. We believe that the principle of negative anthropology, which – at least regarding Russian literature – was new in the first third of the twentieth century and which contains the denial or explicit 'denigration' of all manifestations of the specifically human, constitutes this kind of integral concept. We must emphasis that this concept – at least in its basic features – is not a twentieth-century invention. However, it does form a sharp contrast with literature of the nineteenth century imbued with humanism. For the analysis of this attitude, large-scale works of prose (novels, short stories) were chosen as the most representative for the 1920s and 1930s. The basis of the selection was the pursuit of maximum diversity with regard to ideology (in the narrowest sense of the word), genre and stylistics, and pragmatics. Taking their fundamental principles into account, the texts were chosen from the following literary movements or paradigms: (post)symbolism (Bely, Moscow), skaz (Klyèkov, Èertuxinskij balakir'), (post)modernism (Nabokov, The Gift), socialist realism (Gaidar, The Tale of the Military Secret). During the course of the analysis it became clear that the following two fundamental constructive principles that nourish the concept of negative anthropology could be identified in the above-mentioned texts. The essence of the matter is that W. Booth (Booth 1961) recognised the usefulness of designing a system of narrative hierarchy within communicative interaction. He defined a receptive side for each of the positions: in his scheme, the concrete author (Flesh-and-Blood Author) was correlated to the concrete reader (Fleshand- Blood Re-Creator), the narrator (or, in his terminology, Teller of This Story) was correlated to the fictive reader (Credulous Listener), and, finally, the abstract author (Implied Author) was correlated to the Postulated Reader, or the 'abstract reader', as Wolf Schmid would refer to him later. In Schmid's view, the abstract reader is the 'ideal recipient of the author', a definition with which we entirely agree. In our opinion, however, this does not apply to the phylogenetic constituent of this concept as Schmid tends to present it. In his view, the picture of the abstract reader seems to be determined in advance by the corresponding structural configurations of the work; in other words, it is a more or less passive communicative duplication of the AA. However, further examination indicates that in the reasoning in question the objectivity of the semantic configurations in the text is implicitly postulated; in other words, there is a presumption that the full (all-embracing) meaning of the work is not only given a priori but is also materially present in the text components themselves. In reality, however, the full meaning (and here we concur with W. Iser) is realised by the reader who fills in, as it were, the gaps in meaning intentionally or unintentionally embedded in the work by the author. In theory, there are an infinitely large number of such gaps and, correspondingly, every time a reader fills in a different number or group of gaps one can speak of a different structure of the total meaning of the work. Only God is capable of filling in all the gaps, making Him the most ideal recipient to figure in all models of narrative instances according to the communicative model. Nonetheless, we must also take into consideration the possibly less obvious fact that the text whose meaning is to be reconstructed in the analysis is not a protoplasmic entity but the product of certain conventions or analytic procedures. Both the conventions and the analytic procedures applied to the text belong to the competencies of the abstract reader. We shall explain this in more detail below. When dealing with, for example, Pushkin's novel Yevgeny Onegin, it is clear that the text itself provides no answer to the question whether this work has been completed. Our decision to regard this work as finished or unfinished affects its significance and, correspondingly, the picture of the AA. In our opinion, the instance of the abstract reader is responsible for the decision concerning the boundaries of the text; in other words, the decision to limit interpretative activity to eight chapters, or ten, or to state, as a matter of principle, that the work has only one boundary – a beginning. In each of these cases, the complete meaning of the work will have a different structure. The same argument can be applied with regard to varying editions of one and the same work. Consider the case of collected stories. How can one correctly determine this text's boundaries? Should we reconstruct each story's AA, so that something like a portrait gallery is created, or is it more sensible to regard a collection of stories as a single text and to reconstruct an integral AA on the basis of all the stories? Or, as in the case of the novel Moscow by Andrei Bely analysed in this dissertation: is it valid to regard the three sections of this work as separate texts – after all, they were published as separate books at different times, and the stylistic variations are evident? Is it valid to speak about an AA as a self-contained concept in view of the fact that the novel actually remained unfinished 1. Space destabilisation In view of the fact that it is only through history that man realises himself as an intrinsic integrity, he is most easily marginalised in the most unequivocal, i.e., most effective, way in a universe in which history in the usual sense of the term is seriously problematised by spatio-temporal ambivalence. The spatio-temporal continuum evaporates in this set-up, which may manifest itself in various ways but essentially involves the same mechanism. In some texts, normally seen as belonging to the modernistic paradigms (in our case, Moscow, Èertuxinskij balakir', The Gift), a destabilisation of the normal world view has occurred and this is more or less evident to the reader: the attributes of a certain point in space can easily belong to a different point, just as the attributes of a certain object can turn out to be the attributes of a different object. One spatial area can be projected upon a different spatial area, and, in such cases, the boundaries between the areas become so transparent that distinction between them is no longer possible. All objects and points in this kind of space enter, as it were, into relationships of mutual equivalence, or if we regard it in semiotic terms, all objects enter into relationships of crosswise reference without having an unambiguously phraseable singular denotation. Another way to destabilise space, however paradoxical it may sound, is by structuring space by means of mythopoetic patterns. We believe that mythopoetic structures occur in every narrative text, which seems largely self-evident. In view of the fact that in narrative texts we deal with subjectivity pur sang, it is perfectly logical that this subjectivity will lend varying axiological colour to the different segments of space. In conjunction with our cognitive schemes, i.e., the structure of our brains, this colour is generated according to the principle of binary opposition. In this way each narrative space has an axiological marking on the basis of duality (high-low, here-there, citycountry, etc.), for which in historical terms the priority lies with the myth as the first (spontaneous) project in human history to be given structure. The issue is merely one concerning the extent to which this mythopoetic – or as one may prefer, quasimythopoetic – scheme becomes manifest, and even the rather confined analysis we have performed demonstrates that this is largely the situation in Russian prose of the 1920s and 1930s. It is understandable that in both cases space destabilisation results in the elimination of the human subject. In the former case, when space is characterised by a high degree of relativity, man adopts in a metonymic way space's capacity to undergo all kinds of metamorphoses whose degree of radicalness can vary: from the possibility of metempsychosis, as in the case of the reincarnated protagonists in Nabokov's The Gift, to the division of protagonists in a synchronous system of look-alikes, of which each one has a role in the distinction of meaning and which only begin to acquire consolidated meaning when they have been conceptually united (cf. the Korobkin brothers, Mandro – Dromarden, Lizaša – Leonora, and Kierko – Titelev in Moscow; Ul'jana – Maria in Èertuxinskij balakir'; the whole herd of doubles in The Gift). In the latter case, when space has been structured according to the myth, for a number of reasons man is also eliminated: a) man, as we know him, necessarily realises himself in history (only God realises himself in infinity), whereas myth knows no linearity and therefore no history. Thus only a certain notion of man or a model of subjectivity can possibly realise itself in myth, but not man as such b) the concept of realisation itself (of man or of other objects that occupy mythical space) is weakened here by virtue of the fact that determinism rules in myth – a genuine paradigmatic formation – which substantially weakens the independence and the responsibility of the protagonists somehow engaged in realising themselves c) which also directly combines points a) and b): myth, which does not recognise the singularity of here and now, does not accommodate the aspect of subjectivity, which is a constitutive element of man (and without this relationship, there can be no subjectivity). 2. Theatricalisation of narrative space An important factor in the construction of the great narrative forms of this period is the theatricalisation of space: in some cases the accent is placed on an analogous segmentation of space (Gaidar) when, for example, the entire adventurous part of the narrative is linked to a concrete topos, while the lyrical part, as a whole, is connected to another area, etc.; in other words, the narrative space, just as in theatre space, is divided into semiologically clearly delineated segments. In other cases the theatricalisation can be achieved by assigning purely dramatic characteristics to the protagonists. In this latter case there is a strikingly varied list of procedures that can be applied to create a 'theatrical text' in which the majority of the protagonists, or even all of them, are assigned a role. The most prominent technique is the construction of a character on the basis of a marionette or automatic dummy (Bely) with the corresponding imitation of its expressiveness and speech which become isomorphous with the discrete, emphatically affected expressiveness of a doll, where the character disintegrates into disassociated sememes and is only held together by the context. In such cases, to emphasise the artificiality a complicated, deviating syntax and an extremely extensive vocabulary of occasionalisms is employed. A less conspicuous strategy (as in Gaidar and also in many social-realist authors of the 1920s and 1930s) consists of a return to the constructive configurations of pre-realistic theatre in which the only possible actors are masks or, to use a more recent term, types, whose dynamics are determined entirely by fable and not by any intrinsic structure or stratification of character. Each of them has an ontologically determined role (of course, this concerns only the ontology of that specific space) and the mode of existence here is such that there are no a priori opportunities to switch roles; this space simply does not enable this kind of transformation. A strictly natural effect of this type of situation is the extremely normative behaviour of the characters in both their actions and their verbal expressions. Another method of desecrating narrative space is rooted in the symbolistic paradigm (or to be more precise, in the paradigm of early Russian symbolism) which is typified by the representation of this world as a close-knit semiotic universe whose characters refer to a supratextual substance that governs this world. A consequence of this worldview is the acceptance of fairly strict definitions of determinism and its unavoidable companion destiny. The concept of destiny assumes a certain marked role for each of the characters; after all, a complete behavioural paradigm (as regards destiny) can be created for a (marked) role, whereas this is impossible for the vital realisation of a person in his existence: in this latter case only the syntagmatic logical coherence can be determined, and that coherence is incomplete by definition. The narrative in The Gift (as in several other of Nabokov's novels) is constructed in this way, i.e., in functional-behavioural terms of destiny. This is also the case in Èertuxinskij balakir' by Klyèkov, in which the centre of the narrative is occupied by a kind of minus type: a character that not only lacks psychology (in as much as this kind of reduction is possible for humans), but also every manifestation of his own will which could testify to even an illusory independence from the functional universe. We must consider that a person's dramatic accessories (e.g., a person on stage) are essentially emancipated from existence and as a result revealingly attest to the nature of the processes that eliminate humans from the prose of the era. The observation of AA structures in 1920s and 1930s Russian prose thus offers the opportunity to bring to light a collection of these texts' implicit features, which manifest themselves in the first third of the twentieth century and which consequently enabled radical qualitative change in the entire structure of Russian prose. If executed with sufficient accuracy, the reconstruction of AAs in works from different periods can offer new insight into the history of literature. In more precise terms, it can open a new history of literature, a history engaged in the diachronous modification of the models according to which creative texts are generated at a certain points in time.