Suchergebnisse

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.

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; Eleni Fournaraki, «Wherefore deprive her of the vote?». Universal male suffrage and the exclusion of women from politics in 19th century Greece Through study of the Greek case, this article tries to explore the exclusion of women from political rights in the context of liberal democracy as a historiographical problem. In contrast to the vast majority of representative states at the time, political circumstances prevailing in Greece led to the constitutional establishment of universal male suffrage in 1864, though not without provoking the discontent of a sizeable portion of the political scene for several years thereafter. According to «conventional» historical accounts, there can be no doubt that women's exclusion from «universal suffrage» in 1864, while not explicity articulated in the Constitution or any pertinent legislation, was regarded as self-evident. Furthermore, prior to 1910-20 the possibility of attributing the vote to women did not preoccupy party politics, while a suffragist movement did not appear before the Inter-war period. Our own approach can be summarized as follows: exploration of the meaning of women's exclusion from political rights in a democratic conjuncture that assured those rights to all adult men may reveal the full dimensions of the conflict dynamic that democratic conquests presuppose. In the first place, this dynamic applies to men themselves, or more precisely to the less privileged among them. As empirical data reveal, the question of women's political rights, even if acquiring those rights was not an existing possibility, could appear as a constructive element of the political discourse: women's exclusion could have been put forward as one of the issues in the argument against universal male suffrage. It is precisely the self-evident and trivial nature of this exclusion together with that of children which could offer a more convincing argument against the conception of suffrage as a natural right. A lack of internal coherence and consistency in the argument of the advocates of «universal suffrage», could be pointed out through the emphasis, conversely, on the irrationality of a regime that guaranteed political participation down to the very last «illiterate» or «vagrant» man, while depriving all women of the vote, especially those who had the ability to possess and administrate property. Support for suffrage for those women was not totally absent from such argumentation, which served to reveal the contradictions that women's exclusion from political rights brought to the heart of the modern system for the legitimization of sovereignty. Through examination of the arguments employed by the science of constitutional law to justify exclusion, we observe a broader process of redefinition and rationalization of the existing gender hierarchy, in modern terms. Crystallized in the last quarter of 19th century, this process appealed to the notion of the biological and psychological «specificity» of «female nature)) in order to legitimize the incompatibility of women as a whole with politics.

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.