Search results

The paper focuses on reflection of the First World War in presidential speeches in years
1990–2013. This period delimits mandates of former Czech presidents Václav Havel and Václav
Klaus. Ways in which both presidents referred to the historical event and in which they utilized its
interpretation for legitimization of their political goals are compared. As its theoretical framework,
the study utilizes an approach that has been developed by Jeffrey Alexander and Philip Smith as
part of their program in cultural sociology. The study aims to identify the most significant cultural
codes and narrative strategies of the analyzed speeches and to relate them to (supra)nationalistic
metanarratives that they help to maintain. The study also points to the fact that presidential
speeches represent an important case of utilization of past for the purposes of legitimization of
state policy while also being a practice with which states are established.

Why are things different on the other side of national borders; and how can this be explained sociologically? This inaugural lecture tries to answer these questions, starting from the example of the bicycle in the Netherlands. It distinguishes four processes that have contributed to increasing similarity within nations: growing interdependence within nations; increasing density of networks and institutions; vertical diffusion of styles and standards; and the development of national we-feelings. Together, these processes have contributed to the development of national habitus: increasing similarities within nations, and increasing differences between people living in different countries. These processes have reached their apex in the second half of the twentieth century. Since then, they have diminished, leading to increasing variations within countries, and growing similarities between comparable groups in different countries. This analysis poses new questions and challenges for sociologists. First, it leads us to rethink comparative research: what are we comparing when we compare nations, and is this still a viable unit of analysis? Second, it leads us to consider how the transfer of styles and standards occurs in our informalized, globalized, and mediatized age. Third, sociologists should analyse the new forms of inequality resulting from these processes, such as the growing rift between 'locals' and (bike-loving) cosmopolitans.