Suchergebnisse

This is the introductory chapter to the book Food Heritage and Nationalism In Europe which is going to be published 2019-11-28. This introductory chapter focuses on the construction of food as heritage, and on the powerful entanglements of food, heritage and nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries. Drawing on the rich, interdisciplinary, global scholarship of the last twenty years, it provides a broad European picture. It covers the recent food wars, the uses and misuses of food in banal nationalism, as well as its abuses in the mixophobic nationalism by European populist movements. Food nationalism has been marked by ethnicity and is highly gendered. Women wrote cookery books which provided an all-pervasive approach, widely upheld by middle-class families, leading to national styles of cooking. Yet writing about national cooking tended to be based on the invented traditions of an unreflective nationalism, failing to acknowledge the long entangled history of exchanges and transfers in food and the way it was cooked. The Columbian exchange was but one of many instances of translation, connection and hybridization. Empires, migrations, diasporas and exiles, as well as globalization brought not only new produce but also new ideas of cookery reshaping ways of cooking and eating all over Europe and beyond. ; CoHERE received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 693289.

This introductory chapter focuses on the construction of food as heritage, and on the powerful entanglements of food, heritage and nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries. Drawing on the rich, interdisciplinary, global scholarship of the last twenty years, it provides a broad European picture. It covers the recent food wars, the uses and misuses of food in banal nationalism, as well as its abuses in the mixophobic nationalism by European populist movements. Food nationalism has been marked by ethnicity and is highly gendered. Women wrote cookery books which provided an all-pervasive approach, widely upheld by middle-class families, leading to national styles of cooking. Yet writing about national cooking tended to be based on the invented traditions of an unreflective nationalism, failing to acknowledge the long entangled history of exchanges and transfers in food and the way it was cooked. The Columbian exchange was but one of many instances of translation, connection and hybridization. Empires, migrations, diasporas and exiles, as well as globalization brought not only new produce but also new ideas of cookery reshaping ways of cooking and eating all over Europe and beyond ; This is the introductory chapter to the book Food Heritage and Nationalism in Europe edited by Ilaria Porciani. This book is a result of the European Union- funded Horizon 2020 research project CoHERE (Critical Heritages: performing and representing identities in Europe). CoHERE received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 693289.

INTRODUCTION: Reframing constituency communication in changing times -- Part I. POPULISM IN ACTION -- 1: The constituency communication of M5s (Italy) (R. De Rosa) -- 2: The constituency communication of Podemos (Spain) (F. Campolongo, F. Raniolo and V. Tarditi) -- 3: Comparing M5s and Podemos (R. De Rosa and F. Raniolo) -- Part II. SOVRANISM IN GOVERNMENT -- 4: The constituency communication of Lega; (Italy) (R. De Rosa) -- 5: The constituency communication of Right and Liberty (Poland) (O. Annusewicz and A. Bejma) -- 6: Comparing Lega and Right and Liberty (A. Bejma and R. De Rosa) -- CONCLUSION: Toward a post-representative democracy? (L. Ceccarini, R. De Rosa and J.L. Newell).

The paper examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the political process in Italy in 2021. The author analyzes the change of government in February 2021 and the country's economic recovery and resilience plan, as well as changes in the party-political landscape that occurred in the second year of the pandemic. The study showed that there is an increase in the factors of personalization of power and the strengthening of the executive branch and stagnation of the party landscape in the absence of a clear leader among political forces. The center-right and center-left coalitions are comparable in terms of citizens' support, but at the same time the level of frustration is growing, reflecting the dissatisfaction of citizens with any of the parties. We can say that there is a certain feeling of the lack of alternative to the proposed development model and the absence of the very request for an alternative. Against this background, the ideas of sovranism so popular recently, it seems, no longer have any prospects.

AbstractThis article examines the reception of the Iranian state's authoritarian discourse by the Italian far right to interrogate the mechanisms of authoritarian diffusion from the point of view of the receiving actors. Coding Iran's state propaganda and searching for overlaps and resonances with the far right's discourse, this article argues that the receiving audience selectively translates the content coming from Iran for the Italian public with the goal of reinforcing its own political discourse. The article contributes to the debate on authoritarian diffusion by providing fresh empirical findings from a rarely studied case study and by shifting the focus to political discourse and narratives. This article also foregrounds the agency of the receiving audience, rather than the authoritarian state's, with the goal of interrogating the resources and infrastructures that enable diffusion, rather than the motivation or the success of the 'sending' authoritarian state. This article expands the understanding of complex dynamics of authoritarian diffusion and contributes to examine the establishment of transnational connections between state and non-state illiberal actors in the era of 'sovranism' and right-wing populism.

Interculturalism is a way to deal with the cultural difference, which is a growing issue today and often manipulated in politics. In recent years, the populism (along with sovranism, nationalism, and authoritarism) has been the true enemy of the intercultural discourse, widening intolerance and racism in both social interactions, media communication, and urban contexts. The article aims at analyzing the fundamentals of Interculturalism and their apparent discrepancy with populism, providing reflexivity as a remedy to the current loss of sense of the intercultural discourse which sometimes became functional to the institutional racism. Firstly, the article recalls the basic values to understand the different nuances of interculturalism; secondly, it argues that leaving the "passion for interculturalism" up to the practicalities disempowers the intercultural discourse within the ambivalence of the field level. The authors argue about the need to focus also on the intermediate level in which embedding a rigorous discourse, inspired by the "reflexivity" critique. This is applied to the policy making in some crucial social and educational fields. The social planner is meant to use clear "middle ray concepts" and to distinguish the intercultural solutions from the populistic ones, on the basis of 4 antinomies: simplicity vs. complexity; rapidity vs. duration; conflict vs. conciliation; self-centered self vs. decentered self.

UID/FIL/00183/2019 ; Marxist internationalism was grounded in the cosmopolitan scope of capitalism, on the interdependences it created between national economies, and on the belief that it would collapse under its own contradictions. While the rst two tenets maintain their validity, the latter currently does not rests on a convincing scienti c basis. ere is nevertheless ample scope for positively retrieving the internationalist idea with practical implications, as shows the example of macroeconomic cooperation within the European Union. European integration is stuck on the cliff of a new mercantilism. Member states see European economy as the theatre of a competition between national economies, each seeking to maximize exports and to gain new market shares. Relations of economic power model the political relations among partners, design hierarchies, and result in economic and cultural hegemonies. On the eve of World War I, the socialist front broke on the political and cultural response to economic nationalism, mercantilism, and militarism, splitting between those who aligned with national interests and those who remained true to internationalism, from the vantage point of which nation- al con icts mirrored radical class con icts. e dilemma that confronts the present-day left is similar, and a consistent part of it is tempted to answer the continental crisis taking a clear step away from internationalism. Sovranism, i.e. unwinding European integration in the hope to take back national sovereignty, in particular, goes along with scepticism or open hostility to the common currency. Sovranist claims rest, however, both on a radical misappreciation of the factors that weighted on the eurozone crisis and on a defensive, rather than a progressive, attitude towards supranational integration. Rather than being an alternative to nationalist mercantilism, these claims are no more than its ip side. e present contribution defends these theses through an analysis of the main fault lines of the eurozone's current political constellation. It highlights the shortcomings of the sovranist conception of international economy and shows how a truly internationalist response that promotes further European integration, instead of fighting it, is both viable and realistic. A newly reconsidered internationalism would widen the scope for national political autonomy if it manages to turn the European integration process from a system of antagonistic interdependence into a system of true international cooperation. ; publishersversion ; published