For thousands of years India's Dalits were abhorred as "untouchables," denied education and treated as bonded labour. By 1923 Bhimrao Ambedkar broke the taboo, won doctorates abroad and fought for the emancipation of his people. He drafted India's Constitution, led his followers to discard Hinduism for Buddhism. His legend still spreads through poetry and song. In 1997 a statue of Dr. Ambedkar in a Dalit colony in Mumbai was desecrated with footwear. As angry residents gathered, police opened fire killing 10. Vilas Ghogre, a leftist poet, hung himself in protest. Jai Bhim Comrade shot over 14 years, follows the poetry and music of people like Vilas and marks a subaltern tradition of reason that, from the days of the Buddha, has fought superstition and religious bigotry
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
Foreword -- Daya Kishan Thussu AcknowledgementsI. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVESAn Overview of New Media in India -- Sunetra Sen Narayan and Shalini Narayanan Theoretical Perspectives: Issues in the Indian New Media Environment -- Jatin Srivastava and Enakshi Roy Political Economy of (New) Media in India: An Institutional Perspective -- B P Sanjay II. POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND THE MARKETSocial Media and Indian Politics in the Global Context: Promise and Implications -- Awais Saleem and Stephen McDowell New Media and Social-Political Movements -- Shalini Narayanan and Anand Pradhan New Media, Governance and Transparency in India -- Abhishek N Singh and P Vigneswara Ilavarasan Regulation of New Media: The Indian Scenario -- Vikram Aditya Narayan and Raka Arya ICT and the Indian Education System: Challenges and Possibilities -- Anubhuti Yadav Brand Promotion on New Media in India -- Jaishri Jethwaney III. HISTORICAL EXCLUSIONSThe Internet in India: Crystallising the Historical Inequalities -- Uma Shankar Pandey Women and the Internet in India: Denial of Access and the Censorship of Abuse -- Geeta Seshu Disability and Social Media in India -- P J Mathew Martin and Sunder Rajdeep Index
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
Our country adopted democracy on January 27, 1950. Political democracy is the system of government formed by electing the people's representatives by the majority. If the foundation of political democracy is not social democracy, it will not last. Gautama Buddha's philosophy provides the values of freedom, equality, brotherhood, and justice. Apart from this, for the development of the whole human being, the solution of eradicating misery and misery from this world is the principle of Arya Ashtangikmarga. So social democracy can be established through the socialism of the Buddha. On this Dr. Ambedkar believed. Another democracy is needed for human life to be happy. That is economic democracy. Establishing economic democracy through state socialism is Dr. Ambedkar's main objective was. He said that there should be a provision for socialism in the state constitution itself. Ambedkar had an opinion. On August 29, 1947, Dr. Ambedkar was elected as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. He said that even though he was against the incident, he could not incorporate state socialism due to the opposition of other members. He said that the heterogeneous caste system in India would not allow the creation of an egalitarian economy of landlords and industrialists. As Ambedkar was aware, his role was to ensure that it did not take long for the provisions of state socialism to be implemented for more than ten years after the implementation of the constitution.
Rad koristi interdisciplinarni pristup u okviru kulturne politike, kako bi predstavio potrebe za decentralizacijom kulturnog sistema u Srbiji i istovremeno predložio model decentralizacije kulture koji može biti primenjen. Uvodni deo prvo predstavlja značaj decentralizacije u kulturi za Srbiju, ali istovremeno i naglašava prepreke koje su vezane za tranzicioni period u kome se zemlja nalazi. Takođe, u teoretizaciji same decentralizacije u kulturi, rad uvodi nove ključne aspekte – jednakost, ravnopravnost i pravednost, koji se predstavljaju kroz političko – ekonomske teorije poput liberalizma, socijalizma, anarhizma i feminizma, da bi se socijalna pravda uvela kao glavni princip. Iz toga proizilazi i glavna hipoteza - uz primenu principa pravednosti u modelu, može se ostvariti i princip jednakosti/ravnopravnosti u decentralizaciji kulturnog sistema Srbije. Metodološki postupak zasnovan je na interdisciplinarnim teorijsko-empirijskim istraživanjima koja obuhvataju kulturnu politiku, menadžment u kulturi, teoriju upravljanja, političke nauke, ekonomske nauke, pravne nauke i sociologiju. Cilj istraživanja je modelovanje novog kulturnog sistema decentralizacije u Srbiji, zasnovanog na principu pravednosti. Oslanjajući se na evropske primere decentralizacije kulture, kojima se teži kao pripadajućem prostoru države, rad predstavlja i istorijski pregled decentralizacije u širem smislu, političke i fiskalne, kao preduslova pune decentralizacije u kulturi. U opštem teoretisanju decentralizacije, istovremeno se i sama decentralizacija terminološki odvaja od pojmova poput dekocentracije, demetropolizacije, devolucije i delegacije, a predstavljaju se i suplementarni poput regionalizacije i supsidijarnosti, kao i međusobna uslovljenost navedenih oblika decentralizacije (političke, ekonomske i kulturne). Polazne definicije decentralizacije, trodelna definicija uslovljenosti decentralizacije u kulturi Nobuko Kavašime kao "fer distribucija resursa" i Meklijeva "decentralizacija odlučivanja", odnosno dva principa – top down demokratizacije kulture i bootom up kulturne demokratije, u radu se ne isključuju nego zajedno koriste u susretnom smislu. Rad analizira i teorije o decentralizaciji kulture (Malro i Mekli u Francuskoj, Kavašima u Engleskoj, kao i regionalne poput Dragojevića u Hrvatskoj), kao i teoretske pojmove koje smatra neophodnim za primenu decentralizacije u kulturi poput socijalne (shvatanje Džona Rolsa) i tranzicione pravde, društvene sektore sa posebnim naglaskom na civilni sektor u kulturi, populistički diskurs decentralizacije koji koristi politika, participaciju kao neophodan element decentralizacije kulture, commons i spillover efect. Analiza je obuhvatila i praktične, nekadašnje i sadašnje modele decentralizacije u kulturi u Evropi (sa posebnim naglaskom na Francusku i Englesku), nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji (sa posebnim akcentom na samoupravni sistem), država u regionu (Hrvatska posebno) i samoj Srbiji (Nacrt strategije Komisije za decentralizaciju kulture), kako bi se predstavile strategije koje se mogu iskoristiti za predloženi model. Utvrđujući putem empirijskog istraživanja (stavovi kreatora kulture u unutrašnjosti Srbije), finansijske analize javnih izdvajanja za kulturu, strateških planova i medijske vidljivosti, visok stepen centralizma, rad predlaže i konkretne mere za ostvarivanje decentralizacije u kulturi. Poseban segment istraživanja je utvrdio i potencijalnu ulogu civilnog sektora u kulturi u decentralizaciji kulture, gde se merio njegov potencijal, održivost, povezivanje (poput Asocijacije nezavisne kulturne scene Srbije i njene uloge) i prevashodno primeri dobre prakse u svetu (omladinski centri Estonije) i kod nas nekada (Otvoreni klubovi Savezne republike Jugoslavije) i danas. Glavni rezultat ovog rada je predlog modela za implementaciju decentralizacije u kulturi Srbije, koji je adekvatan specifičnim uslovima sredine i realno primenljiv. Model je nazvan "susretno-pravednim" jer u sebi sadrži više pristupa koji nisu samostalni nego upravo povezani uslovljenim obligacijama odlučivanja koje dvosmerno dolaze vertikalno (nivoi vlasti) i horizontalno (korisnici i sektori) uz primenu načela pravednosti kao glavnog kriterijuma. Model je trostepeni (kulturna decentralizacija bez političke i fiskalne, kulturna i fiskalna decentralizacija i sva tri vida zajedno) sa trogodišnjim trajanjem svake faze. On predlaže mere i strategije poput regionalizacije (politička decentralizacija), "skandinavskog modela finansiranja" lokalnih samouprava (fiskalna decentralizacija) i kao najbitnije za kulturnu decentralizaciju: jačanje regionalnih i lokalnih resursa (razvoj kadrova i publike, departizaciju, deinstitucionalizaciju, izgradnju i revitalizaciju infrastrukture i obavezne lokalne i regionalne strategije kulture), "kapilarnu decentralizaciju" kulture putem jačanja uloge civilnog sektora, obavezni "lokalni spillover" za manifestacione kreativne industrije i primenu faktora socijalne pravde u finansiranju kulture, difuziji institucija i manifestacija od nacionalnog značaja i u nacionalnoj medijskoj promociji. Naučni doprinos rada je dalja teoretizacija pojma decentralizacije u kulturi sa stanovišta principa jednakosti, ravnopravnosti i pravde. U oblasti kulturne politike, vrednost dizajniranog modela je u tome što može imati i potencijalnu praktičnu primenu, kako od strane nacionalnih, tako i lokalnih subjekata u kulturi Srbije. ; The paper uses an interdisciplinary approach within cultural policy to present the needs for decentralization of the cultural system in Serbia and at the same time propose a model for decentralization of culture that can be applied. The introductory part first presents the importance of decentralization in culture for Serbia, but at the same time highlights the obstacles that are associated with the transition period in which the country is located. Also, in the theorizing of decentralization in culture, the paper introduces new key aspects - equality, equal and justice, which are presented through political - economic theories such as liberalism, socialism, anarchism and feminism, to introduce social justice as the main principle. This leads to the main hypothesis - with the application of the principle of equity in the model, the principle of equality in the decentralization of the cultural system of Serbia can be realized. The methodological procedure is based on interdisciplinary theoretical and empirical research covering cultural policy, cultural management, management theory, political science, economic sciences, legal sciences and sociology. The aim of the research is to model a new cultural system of decentralization in Serbia, based on the principle of equity. Drawing on European examples of decentralization of culture, which strives as belonging to the state space, the paper also presents a historical overview of decentralization in the broad sense, political and fiscal, as a precondition for full decentralization in culture. In the general theorizing of decentralization, decentralization itself is terminologically detached from concepts such as decocentiation, demetropolisation, devolution and delegation, and they are also complementary such as regionalization and subsidiarity, as well as the interdependence of these forms of decentralization (political, economic and cultural). The initial definitions of decentralization, the three-part definition of the conditionality of decentralization in the culture of Nobuko Kawashima as a "fair distribution of resources" and Moeckli's "decentralization of decision-making", that is, two principles - top down of culture democratization and bootom up of cultural democracy, are not mutually exclusive but used together. The paper analyzes the theories of decentralization of culture (Malro and Moeckli in France, Kawashima in England, as well as regional ones like Dragojevic in Croatia), as well as theoretical concepts that he considers necessary for the application of decentralization in culture such as social (John Rolls' understanding) and transitional justice, social sectors with particular emphasis on the civil sector in culture, a populist discourse of decentralization used by politics, participation as a necessary element of cultural decentralization, commons and spillover efect. The analysis also included practical, former and current models of decentralization in culture in Europe (with special emphasis on France and England), former Yugoslavia (with particular emphasis on the self-governing system), countries in the region (Croatia in particular) and Serbia itself (Draft Commission Strategy to decentralize culture), to outline strategies that can be used for the proposed model. By establishing through empirical research (views of cultural creators in the interior of Serbia), financial analysis of public appropriations for culture, strategic plans and media visibility, a high degree of centralism, the paper also proposes concrete measures for achieving decentralization in culture. A specific segment of the research identified the potential role of the civil sector in culture in decentralizing culture, measuring its potential, sustainability, networking (such as the Association of the Independent Cultural Scene of Serbia and its role) and, above all, examples of good practice in the world (Estonian youth centers) and in Balkan once (Open clubs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and today). The main result of this paper is the proposal of a model for the implementation of decentralization in the culture of Serbia, which is adequate to the specific environmental conditions and realistically applicable. The model has been called "counter-righteous" because it contains more approaches that are not standalone but just linked by conditioned decision-making obligations that come two-way vertically (levels of government) and horizontally (users and sectors), by applying the principle of fairness as the main criterion. The model is three-stage (cultural decentralization without political and fiscal, cultural and fiscal decentralization and all three aspects together) with a three-year duration of each phase. It proposes measures and strategies such as regionalization (political decentralization), the "scandinavian financing model" of local governments (fiscal decentralization) and as essential to cultural decentralization: strengthening regional and local resources (development of staff and audience, depoliticization, deinstitutionalization, construction and revitalization of infrastructure and mandatory local and regional cultural strategies), "capillary decentralization" of culture through strengthening the role of the civil sector, mandatory "local spillover" for creative industries and the application of social justice factors in the financing of culture, diffusion of institutions and events of national importance and in national media promotion. The scientific contribution of the paper is further theorization of the concept of decentralization in culture from the standpoint of the principles of equality and justice. In the field of cultural policy, the value of the designed model is that it can have potential practical application, both by national and local subjects in the culture of Serbia.
Rad koristi interdisciplinarni pristup u okviru kulturne politike, kako bi predstavio potrebe za decentralizacijom kulturnog sistema u Srbiji i istovremeno predložio model decentralizacije kulture koji može biti primenjen. Uvodni deo prvo predstavlja značaj decentralizacije u kulturi za Srbiju, ali istovremeno i naglašava prepreke koje su vezane za tranzicioni period u kome se zemlja nalazi. Takođe, u teoretizaciji same decentralizacije u kulturi, rad uvodi nove ključne aspekte – jednakost, ravnopravnost i pravednost, koji se predstavljaju kroz političko – ekonomske teorije poput liberalizma, socijalizma, anarhizma i feminizma, da bi se socijalna pravda uvela kao glavni princip. Iz toga proizilazi i glavna hipoteza - uz primenu principa pravednosti u modelu, može se ostvariti i princip jednakosti/ravnopravnosti u decentralizaciji kulturnog sistema Srbije. Metodološki postupak zasnovan je na interdisciplinarnim teorijsko-empirijskim istraživanjima koja obuhvataju kulturnu politiku, menadžment u kulturi, teoriju upravljanja, političke nauke, ekonomske nauke, pravne nauke i sociologiju. Cilj istraživanja je modelovanje novog kulturnog sistema decentralizacije u Srbiji, zasnovanog na principu pravednosti. Oslanjajući se na evropske primere decentralizacije kulture, kojima se teži kao pripadajućem prostoru države, rad predstavlja i istorijski pregled decentralizacije u širem smislu, političke i fiskalne, kao preduslova pune decentralizacije u kulturi. U opštem teoretisanju decentralizacije, istovremeno se i sama decentralizacija terminološki odvaja od pojmova poput dekocentracije, demetropolizacije, devolucije i delegacije, a predstavljaju se i suplementarni poput regionalizacije i supsidijarnosti, kao i međusobna uslovljenost navedenih oblika decentralizacije (političke, ekonomske i kulturne). Polazne definicije decentralizacije, trodelna definicija uslovljenosti decentralizacije u kulturi Nobuko Kavašime kao "fer distribucija resursa" i Meklijeva "decentralizacija odlučivanja", odnosno dva principa – top down demokratizacije kulture i bootom up kulturne demokratije, u radu se ne isključuju nego zajedno koriste u susretnom smislu. Rad analizira i teorije o decentralizaciji kulture (Malro i Mekli u Francuskoj, Kavašima u Engleskoj, kao i regionalne poput Dragojevića u Hrvatskoj), kao i teoretske pojmove koje smatra neophodnim za primenu decentralizacije u kulturi poput socijalne (shvatanje Džona Rolsa) i tranzicione pravde, društvene sektore sa posebnim naglaskom na civilni sektor u kulturi, populistički diskurs decentralizacije koji koristi politika, participaciju kao neophodan element decentralizacije kulture, commons i spillover efect. Analiza je obuhvatila i praktične, nekadašnje i sadašnje modele decentralizacije u kulturi u Evropi (sa posebnim naglaskom na Francusku i Englesku), nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji (sa posebnim akcentom na samoupravni sistem), država u regionu (Hrvatska posebno) i samoj Srbiji (Nacrt strategije Komisije za decentralizaciju kulture), kako bi se predstavile strategije koje se mogu iskoristiti za predloženi model. Utvrđujući putem empirijskog istraživanja (stavovi kreatora kulture u unutrašnjosti Srbije), finansijske analize javnih izdvajanja za kulturu, strateških planova i medijske vidljivosti, visok stepen centralizma, rad predlaže i konkretne mere za ostvarivanje decentralizacije u kulturi. Poseban segment istraživanja je utvrdio i potencijalnu ulogu civilnog sektora u kulturi u decentralizaciji kulture, gde se merio njegov potencijal, održivost, povezivanje (poput Asocijacije nezavisne kulturne scene Srbije i njene uloge) i prevashodno primeri dobre prakse u svetu (omladinski centri Estonije) i kod nas nekada (Otvoreni klubovi Savezne republike Jugoslavije) i danas. Glavni rezultat ovog rada je predlog modela za implementaciju decentralizacije u kulturi Srbije, koji je adekvatan specifičnim uslovima sredine i realno primenljiv. Model je nazvan "susretno-pravednim" jer u sebi sadrži više pristupa koji nisu samostalni nego upravo povezani uslovljenim obligacijama odlučivanja koje dvosmerno dolaze vertikalno (nivoi vlasti) i horizontalno (korisnici i sektori) uz primenu načela pravednosti kao glavnog kriterijuma. Model je trostepeni (kulturna decentralizacija bez političke i fiskalne, kulturna i fiskalna decentralizacija i sva tri vida zajedno) sa trogodišnjim trajanjem svake faze. On predlaže mere i strategije poput regionalizacije (politička decentralizacija), "skandinavskog modela finansiranja" lokalnih samouprava (fiskalna decentralizacija) i kao najbitnije za kulturnu decentralizaciju: jačanje regionalnih i lokalnih resursa (razvoj kadrova i publike, departizaciju, deinstitucionalizaciju, izgradnju i revitalizaciju infrastrukture i obavezne lokalne i regionalne strategije kulture), "kapilarnu decentralizaciju" kulture putem jačanja uloge civilnog sektora, obavezni "lokalni spillover" za manifestacione kreativne industrije i primenu faktora socijalne pravde u finansiranju kulture, difuziji institucija i manifestacija od nacionalnog značaja i u nacionalnoj medijskoj promociji. Naučni doprinos rada je dalja teoretizacija pojma decentralizacije u kulturi sa stanovišta principa jednakosti, ravnopravnosti i pravde. U oblasti kulturne politike, vrednost dizajniranog modela je u tome što može imati i potencijalnu praktičnu primenu, kako od strane nacionalnih, tako i lokalnih subjekata u kulturi Srbije. ; The paper uses an interdisciplinary approach within cultural policy to present the needs for decentralization of the cultural system in Serbia and at the same time propose a model for decentralization of culture that can be applied. The introductory part first presents the importance of decentralization in culture for Serbia, but at the same time highlights the obstacles that are associated with the transition period in which the country is located. Also, in the theorizing of decentralization in culture, the paper introduces new key aspects - equality, equal and justice, which are presented through political - economic theories such as liberalism, socialism, anarchism and feminism, to introduce social justice as the main principle. This leads to the main hypothesis - with the application of the principle of equity in the model, the principle of equality in the decentralization of the cultural system of Serbia can be realized. The methodological procedure is based on interdisciplinary theoretical and empirical research covering cultural policy, cultural management, management theory, political science, economic sciences, legal sciences and sociology. The aim of the research is to model a new cultural system of decentralization in Serbia, based on the principle of equity. Drawing on European examples of decentralization of culture, which strives as belonging to the state space, the paper also presents a historical overview of decentralization in the broad sense, political and fiscal, as a precondition for full decentralization in culture. In the general theorizing of decentralization, decentralization itself is terminologically detached from concepts such as decocentiation, demetropolisation, devolution and delegation, and they are also complementary such as regionalization and subsidiarity, as well as the interdependence of these forms of decentralization (political, economic and cultural). The initial definitions of decentralization, the three-part definition of the conditionality of decentralization in the culture of Nobuko Kawashima as a "fair distribution of resources" and Moeckli's "decentralization of decision-making", that is, two principles - top down of culture democratization and bootom up of cultural democracy, are not mutually exclusive but used together. The paper analyzes the theories of decentralization of culture (Malro and Moeckli in France, Kawashima in England, as well as regional ones like Dragojevic in Croatia), as well as theoretical concepts that he considers necessary for the application of decentralization in culture such as social (John Rolls' understanding) and transitional justice, social sectors with particular emphasis on the civil sector in culture, a populist discourse of decentralization used by politics, participation as a necessary element of cultural decentralization, commons and spillover efect. The analysis also included practical, former and current models of decentralization in culture in Europe (with special emphasis on France and England), former Yugoslavia (with particular emphasis on the self-governing system), countries in the region (Croatia in particular) and Serbia itself (Draft Commission Strategy to decentralize culture), to outline strategies that can be used for the proposed model. By establishing through empirical research (views of cultural creators in the interior of Serbia), financial analysis of public appropriations for culture, strategic plans and media visibility, a high degree of centralism, the paper also proposes concrete measures for achieving decentralization in culture. A specific segment of the research identified the potential role of the civil sector in culture in decentralizing culture, measuring its potential, sustainability, networking (such as the Association of the Independent Cultural Scene of Serbia and its role) and, above all, examples of good practice in the world (Estonian youth centers) and in Balkan once (Open clubs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and today). The main result of this paper is the proposal of a model for the implementation of decentralization in the culture of Serbia, which is adequate to the specific environmental conditions and realistically applicable. The model has been called "counter-righteous" because it contains more approaches that are not standalone but just linked by conditioned decision-making obligations that come two-way vertically (levels of government) and horizontally (users and sectors), by applying the principle of fairness as the main criterion. The model is three-stage (cultural decentralization without political and fiscal, cultural and fiscal decentralization and all three aspects together) with a three-year duration of each phase. It proposes measures and strategies such as regionalization (political decentralization), the "scandinavian financing model" of local governments (fiscal decentralization) and as essential to cultural decentralization: strengthening regional and local resources (development of staff and audience, depoliticization, deinstitutionalization, construction and revitalization of infrastructure and mandatory local and regional cultural strategies), "capillary decentralization" of culture through strengthening the role of the civil sector, mandatory "local spillover" for creative industries and the application of social justice factors in the financing of culture, diffusion of institutions and events of national importance and in national media promotion. The scientific contribution of the paper is further theorization of the concept of decentralization in culture from the standpoint of the principles of equality and justice. In the field of cultural policy, the value of the designed model is that it can have potential practical application, both by national and local subjects in the culture of Serbia.
Chronicled in this selection of his writings, are Chandrashekhar Agashe's notices, letters, missives, and memoranda showcasing his tactful defences of his business, his daring challenges to his detractors, his witty rebuttals to his critics, and his humble gratitude to his supporters, as published in The Kesari, during the tumultuous years he and his business faced between 1950 and 1956.
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
Rad počiva na ideji evropskog kulturnog identiteta, pojma koji se, poslednjih decenija posebno, etablirao kao važno uporište evropske političke zajednice, zajedničkih evropskih vrednosti ali i značajnih drugosti koje uprkos heterogenosti i asimetričnosti prisutnih kultura, zajedno tvore jedinstveni evropski kulturno-istorijski prostor Evrope. Različiti integrativni procesi koji se danas sve intenzivnije odvijaju, doprinose brzoj promeni konstelacija društava i re-konfiguraciji geopolitičkog, socio-ekonomskog i kulturnog ambijenta Evrope, tražeći novo sagledavanje tvorbe evropskog kulturnog identiteta koji nastaje kao rezultat tih različitih kretanja. Medij filma stoga, predstavlja idealnu perspektivu sagledavanja tvorbe evropskog transnacionanog kulturnog identiteta. Pitanje (ne)postojanja evropskog identiteta sagledano je kroz korpus teorija studija filma i medija i drugih, a na primerima dvadeset sedam (27) filmova laureata godišnje nagrade za najbolji evropski film (EFAs), Evropske filmske akademije (EFA), u periodu 1989–2014. godine, čiji su autori, između ostalih, Pedro Almodovar (Pedro Almodovar), Mihael haneke (Michael Haneke), Paolo Sorentino (Paolo Sorrentino), Lars fon Trir (Lars von Trier, i drugi. U ovoj disertaciji, evropski kulturni identitet sagledan je kroz filmske i kinematografske upise, preko kategorija identitetske drugosti, akcentovanih i asimilovanih identiteta, kao i preko elemenata (ko)produkcione drugosti. U istraživanju smo pošli od pretpostavke da filmovi nagrađeni za najbolji evropski fil nagradom EFAs nose elemente narativa interne drugosti, duboko podeljene Evrope, koji učestvuju u konstrukciji evropskog kulturno supra-identiteta u/na filmu kao i da se evropksi kulturni identitet u filmskim ostvarenjima laureata EFAs, gradi kroz dijalog Evrope, odnosno Evropske unije sa nacionalnim kinematografijama. Sa tog polazišta pristupilo se i istraživanju fenomena evropskog kulturnog identiteta drugosti. Cilj istraživanja bio je da se u kontekstu društveno-istorijskih i političkih procesa identifikuju i objasne elementi građenja identiteta kao i da se istakne uloga drugosti u formiranju evropskog kulturnog identiteta. Istraživačka pitanja u vezi sa odnosima međuzavisnosti koje formiraju pojmovi Evropa, identitet, drugost, evropski film i evropska nagrada u građenju prepoznatljivog fenomena evropskog kulturnog identiteta i fenomena evropskog filma. Problemska osnova na temelju koje je strukturisana analiza i sistematizovani naslovi nagrađenih filmskih ostvarenja u studiji slučaja, izvedena je iz teorijskih postavki koje se odnose na sledeće fenomene i pojmove: fazu ogledala Žaka Lakana (Jacques Lacan), heterotopije Mišela Fukoa (Michael Foucault), deteritorijalizacije / nomadizma Žila Deleza i Feliksa Gatarija ( Jules Deleuze / Félix Guattari), granice Jurija Lotmana (Yuri Lottman) i liminalnosti Arnolda van Genepa (Arnold van Gennep), kao postuliranje postmodernističkih tendencija u kojima se reflektuje pitanje (evropskog) kulturnog identiteta, primenjeno na polje filmske odnosno ekranske umetnosti. Svedoci smo da se u složenim procesima integracije i previranja nacionalnih i transnacionalnih tokova u Evropi, u periodu nakon pada Berlinskog zida (1989–2014), evropski kulturni identitet u/na filmu iznova konstruisao kroz narative drugosti, rezultirajući višestrukim akcentovanim i asimilovanim identitetima, što se pokazuje na primerima filmskih ostvarenja nagrađenih za najbolji evropski film EFAs. Činjenica je da značajne evrospke institucije u svojim dokumentima evropski identitet navode kao realitet, uprkos činjenici da sama konstrukcija evropskog identiteta ukazuje na (nezavršen) permanentan proces. Temeljne pretpostavke ovog istraživana su stoga: 1. nije reč o (id)entitetu kao o datosti; 2. identitet se gradi u društvenoj interakciji; 3. drugosti su sastavni deo (kulturnog) identiteta; 4. razlikama se obogaćuju i druge kulture; 5. evropski kulturni identitet je proces tj. gradilište u permanentnom nastajanju. Ishod analitičko-istraživačkog procesa je potvrđivanje da evropski kulturni identitet jeste skup različitosti tj. drugosti koje tvore jedan entitet, evropski kulturni identitet, koji međutim nije moguće fiksirati i precizno definisati, te on nadalje ostaje fenomen otvoren za različite interpretacije. ; The work is based on the idea of European cultural identity, a concept that, in recent decades, in particular, has established itself as an important mainstay of the European political community, common European values but also significant otherness which, despite the heterogeneity and asymmetry of present cultures, together form a unique cultural and historical space of Europe. The various integrative processes that are increasingly intensifying nowadays contribute to the rapid change of constellations of societies and re-configuration of the geopolitical, socioeconomic and cultural environment of Europe, seeking a new perception and definition of both national and European cultural identity that ensues from these various developments. The medium of film, therefore, represents an ideal perspective of perceiving the creation of a European transnational cultural identity. The issue of (non)existence of European identity is considered through a corpus of theories of Film and Media Studies and others, and on the examples of twenty-seven (27) films, laureates of the annual award for the best European film (EFAs) of the European Film Academy (EFA) in the period 1989−2014, whose authors are, among others, Pedro Almodovar, Michael Haneke, Paolo Sorrentino, Lars von Trier and others. In this dissertation, European cultural identity is viewed through film and cinematic inscriptions, through the categories of identity otherness, accented and assimilated identities, as well as through the elements of (co)production otherness. In the research we started from the assumption that the films awarded for the best European film by the EFAs award carry elements of narratives of internal otherness, of a deeply divided Europe, which participate in the construction of European cultural supra-identity in/on film and that European cultural identity in the film achievements of EFAs laureates is built through the dialogue of Europe, i.e. the European Union with national cinemas. That was the starting point for the research of the phenomenon of the European cultural identity of otherness. The aim of the research was to identify and explain the elements of identity construction in the context of socio-historical and political processes, as well as to emphasize the role of otherness in the formation of European cultural identity. Research questions are related to the interdependence relations formed by the concepts of Europe, identity, otherness, European film and the European award in building a recognizable phenomenon of European cultural identity and the phenomenon of European film. The problem basis on which the analysis and systematized titles of the awarded film achievements in the case study are structured is derived from theoretical assumptions related to the following phenomena and concepts: Jacques Lacan's mirror phase, Michael Foucault's heterotopias, deterritorialization and the nomadism of Jules Deleuze and Félix Guattari, the boundaries of Yuri Lottman and the liminality of Arnold van Gennep, as a postulation of postmodernist tendencies that reflect the question of (European) cultural identity, applied to the field of film or screen arts. We are witnesses that in the complex processes of integration and turmoil of national and transnational trends in Europe, in the period after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989–2014), European cultural identity in/on film was reconstructed through narratives of otherness, resulting in multiple accented and assimilated identities, as shown by examples of film achievements awarded with EFAs for the best European film. The fact is that important European institutions recognize European identity as a reality in their documents, despite the fact that the very construction of European identity indicates a(n) (unfinished) permanent process. The basic assumptions of this research are therefore: 1. it is not about (id)entity as a given; 2. identity is built in social interaction; 3. otherness is an integral part of (cultural) identity; 4. differences also enrich other cultures; 5. European cultural identity is a process, i.e. a permanent construction site. The outcome of the analytical-research process is the confirmation that the European cultural identity is a set of differences/othernesses that form one entity, the European cultural identity, which, however, cannot be fixed and precisely defined, and it still remains a phenomenon open to different interpretations.
