Suchergebnisse

This article aims to understand autonomism as an ideology of territorial order and institutional design. In particular, I ask whether the theory and practice of autonomism is consonant with federalist principles. "Autonomism" is a normative term that advocates the use of autonomist principles, and it has an intricate relationship with federalism, but is generally distinct from it. Autonomists are wary of federalism because they believe it has homogenizing and uniformizing tendencies. Autonomism as an ideology of territorial order and institutional design exhibits a number of clear anti-federalist stances, but yet it is based on the general federalist principle that multiple levels of government can lead to better governance in multinational states. To this complex anti-federalist and federalist hybrid stance, autonomism adds a nuanced anti-secessionism stance. Adapted from the source document.

Despite the consensus opinion that alterglobalism is in crisis and apparently without a clear objective or vehicle for promoting global change through the ineffective World Social Forum "model," a significant anticapitalist tendency continues to remain active. However, questions remain over autonomism's ability to avoid ghettoizing itself and provide more than intense internal criticism of other more institutionalized and "vertical" currents. Autonomism originated in Europe in the seventies and eighties, specifically around the Autonomia and Autonomen radical social movements in Italy and Germany. Based on Italian workerist theories of worker self‐management and autonomy from the mediating institutions of both capital and labor, the movement has since absorbed strong influences from radical feminism, the North American counterculture, French poststructuralism, neoanarchism, Mexican neo‐Zapatism, and the Argentinean worker‐recuperated factory and self‐management movements.

The analysis of digital activism has so far been dominated by a techno-determinist approach which views the content of various forms of activism supported by digital communication, as directly reflecting the properties of the technologies utilised by activists and the historical evolution of such technologies. This line of interpretation has been manifested in the popularity acquired by notions as "Twitter protest" or "revolution 2.0" in the news media and in academic discourse in reference to recent protests. Moving beyond this reductionist trend, this article proposes an ideological approach to the study of digital activism and its historical transformation, which may better account for the combination of political, cultural and social factors involved in shaping it. I identity two main waves of digital activism, which correspond not only to two phases of technological development of the Internet (the so-called web 1.0 and web 2.0), but also to two different protest waves, the anti-globalisation movement, and the movement of the squares that began in 2011, each with its own dominant ideology. I argue that reflecting the seismic shift in perceptions and attitudes produced by the 2008 financial crash, and the connected shifts in social movement ideology, digital activism has moved from the margins to the centre of the political arena, from a countercultural posture to a counterhegemonic ambition. I describe this turn as a transition from cyber-autonomism to cyber-populism as the two defining techno-political orientations of the first and second wave of digital activism. Reflecting the influence of neo-anarchism and autonomism in the anti-globalisation movement cyber-autonomism viewed the Internet as an autonomous space where to construct a countercultural politics outside the mainstream. To the contrary, informed by the populist turn taken by 2011 and post-2011 movements cyber-populism approaches the Internet as a "popular space", a generic space which is populated by ordinary citizens, and mostly dedicated to non-political activities, such as gossip, celebrity culture, or interpersonal communication, but which can nevertheless be politicised, and turned towards the purpose of popular mobilisation against the neoliberal elites responsible for economic and social disarray. This shift which substantially modifies the way in which activists conceives of and utilise digital media goes a long way towards explaining the differences in digital activism practices, and their contrasting views of the Internet as a tool and site of struggle.

Abstract Lying in the Baltic sea, at the entrance of the Gulf of Bothnia, 70km from the Finnish coast and 36 km from that of Sweden, the archipelago of Åland is an autonomous Finnish province. What distinguishes the archipelago is its Swedish monolingualism, autonomous government recognized by international treaties, and demilitarization. This article proposes some reflections on the concept of sovereignty in Åland in the 20th century particularly on two key elements the island's strategic position and its autonomy. After a historical overview of Åland in the 1800s, emphasizing their strategic relevance in the Baltic, I will focus on the irredentist period, in which emerged secessionist movement that called for the island's anexation to Sweden.

Defence date: 23 November 2007 ; Examining Board: Prof. Raffaele Romanelli, La Sapienza University, Rome ; Prof. Marina Cattaruzza, University of Bern ; Prof. Drago Roksandić, University of Zagred ; Prof. Heinz Gerhard Haupt, EUI-HEC ; This thesis is made available in Open Access in October 2018 as requested and wanted by the family of the author who tragically was killed on 31 January 2015. It is his family's desire that the author's research is open and available to all. ; no abstract available