Vanguards of modernity: society, intellectuals, and the university
In: Nykykulttuurin tutkimusyksikön julkaisuja 32
245 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Nykykulttuurin tutkimusyksikön julkaisuja 32
Euroopan komissio luotiin jotta se voisi ajaa yhteisöjen intressiä. Sen vuoksi siitä päätettiin tehdä itsenäinen. Mutta koska Euroopan Unionin vaikutus jäsenmaissaan on hyvin vahvaa, myös talouden kannalta, haluavat jäsenmaat vaikuttaa komissioon mahdollisimman paljon. Tämän vuoksi komission itsenäisyys vaarantuu. Perustamissopimukset koettavat hoitaa ongelman luomalla komissiolle joita-kin suojamekanismeja. Mutta ovatko ne riittäviä? Vaikuttaa siltä, että komissioon pystytään vaikuttamaan liikaa sen jokapäiväisessä työssä. Tämä vaikuttaminen alkaa jo komission nimittämisvaiheessa ja jatkuu koko ajan komission pohtiessa uuden lainsäädännön tarvetta ja komission valmistellessa uutta lainsäädäntöä. Komission lakiehdotelman sisältöön vaikuttavat usein paljonkin muut instituutiot, jäsenvaltiot sekä intressiryhmät. Tämä johtaa siihen, että komissio ei täysin pysty toteuttamaan yhteisöjen in-tressiä. Monin eri tavoin komission päätöksiin voivat vaikuttaa yksittäisten tai use-ampien jäsenmaiden edut, vaikka tarkoitus olisi ajaa yhteisöjen etua. The European Commission was created so that it could work to fulfil the Community Interest. Therefore it was decided to be an independent institution. But because the European Union affects its Member States very deeply, not least in budgetary ways, the Member States seem to want to influence the Commission as much as possible. Therefore the independence of the Commission is at stake. The Treaties try to deal with the problem by setting some protective mecha-nisms on the Commission. But is it enough? It seems that the Commission gets in-fluenced too much in its everyday work. This influencing starts already at the nomi-nation of the Commissioners, continues all the while when the Commission is decid-ing if new Community legislation is needed and while it drafts new legislation. The substance of the drafts are often influenced very much by the other institutions, Member States and interest groups. What this means is that the Commission can't fulfil its task at seeking the best of the Communities. In many different ways the decisions of the Commission may further the good of one or some interested parties instead of the Community In-terest.
BASE
In: Studia historica septentrionalia 75
In: Vaasan Kauppakorkeakoulun Julkaisuja
In: Tutkimuksia 44
In: Vesientutkimuslaitoksen julkaisuja 34
In: Helsingin Teknillinen Korkeakoulu. Tieteellisiä Julkaisuja 51
This master's thesis approaches the debate around biotechnology, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the notion of food sovereignty as they are addressed by an Indian, food sovereignty activist group called Navdanya. Basing on the material produced by Navdanya, I am determining, by the means of a theory guided content analysis, what kind of an alternative food sovereignty is. Furthermore, I am examining how food sovereignty can be considered as a means of resistance to the impacts of the GMOs in India. I am arguing that the introduction of the GMOs to India created an opportunity to govern populations and furthermore life and nature. I am examining this by utilising Michel Foucault's theory of biopolitics as a theoretical framework. In order to find out how governance and resistance are practiced, I utilise Foucault's notions of truth and power by illustrating how they can be utilised as a means to create governance and resistance. Therefore, I formulated a "truth regime of biotechnology" to represent the governance, operated by the actors supporting the utilisation of the GMOs, as well as to describe how the governance is created and justified under the regime. As a means of resistance, Navdanya produces alternative truths and puts into practice an alternative of food sovereignty – "the new politics of truth". Navdanya succeeds in its resistance by managing to create the alternative truth of food sovereignty, which does not utilise or reproduce the truths of the biotechnology regime. Navdanya does this by managing to detach the power of the biotechnology regime's truths from their economic and political roles they play in society. The traditional complexity with resistance, in relation to the State of India, is present, which can be however explained by utilising the new ways in approaching the notion of resistance in the context of the Global South.
BASE
In: Ekonomi och samhälle nr. 12