Suchergebnisse

U ovom članku, na temelju primarnih kvantitativnih i kvalitativnih podataka, analiziramo mnogostruke mehanizme koji proizvode nejednakosti u suvremenom hrvatskom društvu i višedimenzionalnu klasnu strukturu koja iz njih proizlazi. Naš je pristup potaknut koncepcijom Pierrea Bourdieua, koju smo znatno revidirali i prilagodili proučavanju postsocijalističkih društava u jugoistočnoj Europi. U tekstu prikazujemo četiri analitička koraka koja su nas vodila do koncepcije sveukupne društvene nejednakosti kao nejednakosti u društvenim moćima. Ti koraci uključuju: (1) konstrukciju društvenog prostora u Hrvatskoj, (2) identifikaciju ključnih generatora društvenih nejednakosti (eksploatacijskih tržišnih mehanizama i mehanizama društvenog zatvaranja), (3) analizu životnih stilova i povlačenja simboličkih granica te (4) analizu diferencijalnog povezivanja i uspostavljanja društvenih granica. Rezultati pokazuju da se, uzimajući u obzir sveukupnu društvenu nejednakost, u suvremenom hrvatskom društvu mogu uočiti četiri klase i sedam klasnih frakcija: (1) Klasa bogata kapitalima, s dvije frakcije – ekonomskom i političkom; (2) Klasa srednje razine kapitala, s kulturnom i socijalnom frakcijom; (3) Međuklasa, koja dijeli neke objektivne karakteristike s Klasom srednje razine kapitala, a druge s Klasom siromašnom kapitalima, ali ima distinktivni stil života i obrasce diferencijalnog povezivanja te (4) Klasa siromašna kapitalima, u kojoj je moguće razlučiti tri frakcije: agrarnu, rurbanu i manualno-uslužnu. U završnim razmatranjima donosimo sintetski prikaz klasne strukture suvremenog hrvatskog društva, raspravljamo o novom pojmu egzistencijalne klase (konceptualiziranom na temelju naših teorijskih i empirijskih analiza) te objašnjavamo najvažnije značajke vlastitog postbourdieuovskog pristupa. ; In this article, based on primary quantitative and qualitative data, we analyze the multiple mechanisms generating inequalities in contemporary Croatian society and the multidimensional class structure resulting from them. Our approach has ...

This article is focussed on an early phase of Dahrendorf's work in which he was interpreting Marx's works, with the analysis of concepts of social class, stratum and relation between power and authority. The main points of Dahrendorf's interpretation of Marx and his understanding of the concepts of class, stratum, authority and power are presented and discussed in a critical manner. For the purpose of this article, Dahrendorf's main works, in which he was dealing with these issues, are used - Soziale Klassen und Klassenkonflikt in der industriellen Gesellschaft, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, Pfade aus Utopia. Arbeiten zur Theorie und Methode der Soziologie, Die Idee des Gerechten im Denken vom Karl Marx and Lebenschancen. Adapted from the source document.

Parental leave reforms that aimed at higher father's involvement in childcare began in the 1970s. However, the number of fathers who took parental leave increased only in the 1990s when Scandinavian countries began introducing father's quotas or paternity leaves, that is, earmarked leave periods to be used by fathers or otherwise lost. Croatia introduced the two-month father's quota as late as in 2013. Although the reform did not contribute to a sudden increase in the number of fathers on parental leave, there is always a steady, albeit small, number of fathers taking up leave. This article aims to provide an insight into fathers' experiences on parental leave in Croatia. Relying on interviews with 11 middle-class fathers in the City of Zagreb, the article explores father's motives for taking leave, their experience regarding the initial decision and the procedure of exercising their right to leave and their experience of being on leave. Results suggest that the fathers were very eager to use their right to leave and spend time with their children. They mostly used longer leaves (more than 3 months) and the experience of being home alone with the child made the fathers learn new skills in relation to childcare and housework, but also rethink their relation to work and family. ; Reforme roditeljskih dopusta usmjerene na uključivanje većeg broja očeva u brigu o djeci započele su 1970-ih, međutim broj očeva koji su koristili roditeljske dopuste povećao se tek 1990-ih kada su skandinavske države počele uvoditi kvote za očeve, odnosno očeve dopuste. Te su kvote periodi dopusta namijenjeni isključivo očevima te u slučaju neiskorištenosti od strane oca propadaju. Hrvatska je uvela dvomjesečnu kvotu za očeve tek 2013. Iako reforma nije doprinijela značajnom povećanju broja očeva koji koriste dopuste, u Hrvatskoj uvijek imamo određeni stabilan, iako mali, broj očeva koji koriste dopuste. Namjera ovog rada je pružiti uvid u iskustva očeva na roditeljskom dopustu u Hrvatskoj. Intervjuima s 11 očeva srednjeg društvenog sloja u Gradu Zagrebu dobiven je uvid u motivaciju očeva za korištenjem dopusta, njihova iskustva u vidu donošenja odluke i postupku ostvarivanja prava na dopust te njihova iskustva tijekom samog korištenja roditeljskog dopusta. Rezultati pokazuju kako su očevi bili jako motivirani koristiti svoje pravo na dopust i provesti vrijeme s djetetom. Uglavnom su koristili duže dopuste (više od 3 mjeseca) te im je iskustvo bivanja samih s djetetom omogućilo stjecanje novih vještina u brizi za djecu i za kućanstvo, ali ih je i potaknulo da promisle o svojem odnosu prema poslu i obitelji.

Članak analizira uzroke koji su doveli do stvaranja socijalističkog Radničkog vijeća u Rijeci (Fiume) 1918. godine i prikazuje biografije osoba spomenutih među trideset i jednim članom vijeća. Polazeći od nacionalnih historiografija koje uglavnom ne spominju ovu radničku organizaciju, pokazujem kako radničko-klasna identifikacija, shvaćena politički, ne smije biti izostavljena iz povijesnog razmatranja. Osporavajući klasične nacionalne narative, članak naglašava kako socijalisti nisu bili anacionalna snaga. Socijalisti su smatrali nacionalnu identifikaciju stvarnim faktorom, ali nisu smatrali nužnim prigrliti nacionalnu državu kao politički oblik. Također, smjernice djelovanja Radničkog vijeća svjedoče uključivanju socijalista unutar lokalnog riječkog Habsburškog društva. Stoga socijalistička aktivnost pokazuje kako multinacionalno iskustvo Habsburške monarhije nije bilo zaboravljeno 1918 godine. Međutim, to iskustvo je bilo oživljeno i preoblikovano u drugačijim oblicima poput zahtjeva za uzdizanje Rijeke na nivo nezavisne republike. Nadalje, biografije radnika pokazuju kako nakon kratkog postojanja Radničko vijeća, njegovi članovi prate različite političke staze. Ipak pored političkog pristupanja talijanskom nacionalizmu, fašizmu ili političkoj pasivizaciji, u nekim osobama opstojala je ljevičarska orijentacija. Još jedan prilog važnosti istraživanja kontinuiteta klasne identifikacije. ; The article analyses the causes behind the creation of the socialist Workers' Council in Rijeka (Fiume) in 1918 and presents biographies of figures mentioned among its' thirty-one members. Starting from a historiography that generally omitted references to this workers organization, I show that working-class identification, understood politically, has not to be omitted from historical considerations. By contesting typical national narratives, the article emphasize that socialists were not an unnational force. Socialists considered national identification a realistic factor without endorsing nation-state as a political option. Additionally, the Workers' council directions testify socialists' inclusion inside the local Fiumian Habsburg society. Thus, socialists' activity demonstrates that the multinational experience of the Habsburg monarchy was not forgotten in 1918. Yet, it was revived and reshaped in other forms such as the request for establishing Fiume as an independent republic. Further, workers' biographies show that following Workers' council short experience various political trajectories were taken. Besides political affliations with Italian nationalism, fascism or political passivity, in some individual persisted a left-wing orientation. Another contribution on the importance of researching the continuity of class identification.

In his Homo sacer trilogy G. Agamben engages with a series of important issues related to contemporary political philosophy & ethics. Agamben shows that the period of National Socialism & Fascism confronts us with an epochal project of subject destruction. The core & uniqueness of this project are derived from an ideologically & biologically founded naturalism. Thus perceived naturalism uses, ie., misuses, the technical possibilities & means of the politics of power of modernity, creating a system of perfect organization with the purpose of destroying the Other. Such a naturalistic policy can be termed historically unique, since its goal is no longer the destruction of individuals, groups, classes or peoples, or even of mankind as a whole. Its aim is to destroy the humanity of man, precisely in the sense ascribed to this concept by Kant -- namely, man's subjectivity. In other words, a fundamental idea is revoked here: the idea of mankind as such, which encompasses the idea of common mankind, and, in this way, the very idea of subjectivity is negated. Adapted from the source document.

The concept of "bureaucracy" covered the field of negative stances in postrevolutionary Yugoslavia. Its fuzziness allowed different, though ostensibly all anti-Stalinist, interpretations by the Party-State discourse (mainly Kardelj and Bakaric) vs. the discourse of the "loyal opposition" (Branko Horvat and the Praxis group). The first group wanted to dismantle State centralization but insisted there was no ruling class. The second group could not, for various reasons, insist on a ruling class but discussed its power and effect. The term "bureaucracy" grew from a useful start of public discussion finally into sterile talmudism. But it's very limits indicate a crucial, though absent, concept and state of power. Adapted from the source document.

The concept of "bureaucracy" covered the field of negative stances in post-revolutionary Yugoslavia. Its fuzziness allowed different, though ostensibly all anti-Stalinist, interpretations by the Party-State discourse (mainly Kardelj and Bakaric) vs. the discourse of the "loyal opposition" (Branko Horvat and the Praxis group). The first group wanted to dismantle State centralization but insisted there was no ruling class. The second group could not, for various reasons, insist on a ruling class but discussed its power and effect. The term "bureaucracy" grew from a useful start of public discussion finally into sterile talmudism. But its very limits indicate a crucial, though absent, concept and state of power. Adapted from the source document.

The author is deconstructing the logics and the consequences of 'structural adaptation' to the laws of the market and profit in Serbia from the 1960s until today. The paper consists of three systematic parts. The first one is a description of the period from 1965 to 1991. It is shown that the roots of capitalist restoration can be found in economical reforms undertaken within nominal socialism, which opened the way for a more free action of the market mechanisms. The second part of the paper is dedicated to the so-called 'Milosevic period' (1991 - 2001) during which, under the auspices of degenerated political capitalism and in a blocked context, the process of structural adaptation continues, in favour of the continuative nomenclature of the former collective owners, or the new class of lumpenbourgeoisie information. The third part is an analysis of the neoliberal period after the 'democratic' changes in 2001 and the character of its own comprador political capitalism, which enters the final phase of the structural adaptation and redistribution of wealth towards the higher classes. Based on the results of the analysis, the author concludes that the process of a decade of destruction of Serbian society was conditioned by an agenda, i.e. it was conditioned by class interests. Adapted from the source document.

Jacques Bidet's theory of modernity is a fascinating research project which confronts us in a challenging way with a series of key theoretical & practical problems. The text focuses on the concepts of metastructure, domination, class & democracy. The most important concept is "metastructure," which is to be perceived as all coordination & legitimation resources (on the economic, legal-political & cultural levels -- the overcoming of any transcendental order) at the disposal of the citizens of modernity. These resources can be combined in several different ways, in varied structures of modernity. How are we to understand the ontological status of this metastructure? A full answer confronts us with another question: is it possible to offer a scientific explanation of the genesis of this modern (meta)structure? Thus, if metastructure is some sort of general grammar of modernity, the social structures are an actualization of the possibilities of metastructure according to the spectrum ranging from the extreme of planned collectivism to the extreme of liberistic capitalism. Consequently, the duality of modernity is manifest in the fact that it is characterized, on the one hand, by universalistic legitimacy and, on the other, by the persistence of forms of (class) domination. According to Bidet, in capitalism a dominant class will be established with two poles -- property & competence -- which correspond to the interlinkage of market & organization in such a form of society. For this reason, an attempt to achieve emancipation from the domination of the proprietor, in the case of planned collectivism, developing to the full the organizational dimension in order to satisfy the social needs in a more egalitarian way, necessarily results in the organizer's domination. But the thesis that the dominant class in capitalism has two poles (property & competence) is met with the objection that simultaneously too much & not enough is said about the second pole of this class (of managers). Namely, it remains unclear how we must think the unity of capitalist domination in the plurality of spheres of social power; & if, on the contrary, we must abandon this unity, why should we limit ourselves to only two poles? The author concludes with a discussion of two questions which he deems to be decisive: to what extent can the inequalities related to property or competence be designated as class relations or forms of domination? And what is the relation between various modalities of class relations or relations of domination, & the institutions of modern poliarchic democracy which is centered on the multi-party system? Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes two famous critiques of the bourgeois state: Marx's thesis on the withering away of the state as an instrument of force of the economically dominant bourgeois class, which, by means of the quasi-neutral state as the higher third instance, controls the class antagonisms whose disappearance will make the state as an instrument of repression obsolete; & Carl Schmitt's thesis that the state will become unnecessary in the world in which there are no longer any enemies, only offenders who violate humanistic norms & human rights. 8 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes two famous critiques of the bourgeois state: Marx's thesis on the withering away of the state as an instrument of force of the economically dominant bourgeois class, which, by means of the quasi-neutral state as the higher third instance, controls the class antagonisms whose disappearance will make the state as an instrument of repression obsolete; & Carl Schmitt's thesis that the state will become unnecessary in the world in which there are no longer any enemies, only offenders who violate humanistic norms & human rights. 8 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author used the 1956 Hungarian anti-Stalinist rebellion as the starting point for a thorough rethinking of the political structures of man's existence, in particular of political power. Such a rethinking is based on the insight regarding the autonomy of the political with regard to the economic and class structure of society. From this is derived not only the specific rationality of state and politics, but also the specific political evils related to the very nature of political power. Specific rationality, specific evil -- therein lies the double and paradoxical originality of the political. It is the task of political philosophy to make this originality explicit and to clarify its paradox: the greatest political evil is linked with the greatest political rationality, and political alienation exists precisely because the political is relatively autonomous. The autonomy of the political is not only the idea of man's stepping into man-hood through citizen-hood, but also the distinctive character of the political connection in relation to the economic connection. The understanding and criticism of the political paradox can be approached only if one sets clear boundaries to the political sphere and perceives the validity of the distinction between the political and the economic. Every criticism presupposes this distinction, and it does not abolish it in any respect. In order to rediscover the sense of the political, one must return to Rousseau's reflection in continuation of a return to the thinkers of classical antiquity (Aristotle's Politics in particular) as basis for any criticism of power. The truth of the political, as the reality of state ideality, is the legal equality of all before all, irreducible to class conflicts, to the dynamics of economic supremacy and alienation. But the state is also -- will, administration and physical coercion. Thus the political as a reasonable organisation implies politics as decision: the political is always accompanied by politics. Unlike the political, which exists only in great moments, in "crises", at "turning points", at crossroads of history, politics is perceived as a set of actions aimed at winning, executing and retaining power. Precisely politics poses the problem of political evil. This however does not mean that power is identical to evil. But power is particularly prone to evil; throughout history it has been perhaps the greatest opportunity for evil and the greatest demonstration of evil. The reason for this is that power is a momentous thing, that power is the instrument of historical rationality of the state. This is the fundamental political paradox. A practical solution to this paradox -- to achieve that there is a state, but that there is not too much of it -- is possible only through democratic control of the people over the state and through invention of institutional techniques the purpose of which is to make possible the exercise of power and to make impossible any abuse thereof. Adapted from the source document.

The first part of the article gives a summary account of the basic concepts of general or meta/structural theory of modern society: metastructure, structure, system. In a critical confrontation with Marx & Habermas, the author starts by explaining his main theoretical innovation -- the concept of metastructure, as the most general supposition & a trait of the modern epoch in which the official watchword of liberty-equality-rationality vaguely & gradually comes to the fore: it is the watchword of public sociability which is, in the final instance, determined by the norms of the common word, in which all participate as equals. This discursive immediacy necessarily becomes manifest through a double mediation: of economic understanding (market/organization) & of legal-political reason (interindividual & central contractuality). In that sense, metastructure is the set supposition for the modern class structure; it is not its basis, but its referential fiction. However, it inevitably turns into its opposite -- into exploitation, domination, alienation -- in the society which calls itself 'capitalist.' The structure of such a society reveals a double bipolarity, a division into a ruling class & a ruled class, but also a division within the ruling class itself into the market pole as the first class factor (proprietors) & the pole of organization as the second class factor (managers & ones who are competent). The subordinated class is no mere multitude of passive "ruled ones." It is the "fundamental class" as a positive political actor. As opposed to class structure, which necessarily exists in a state-nation, it is characteristic of the world-system that it constantly impairs the metastructural supposition, distorting the modernness of the state-nation: the barbarism of centers in relation to peripheries is imminent to the centers themselves. The inevitable result of this historical tendency is the world-state. It abolishes neither the state-nations nor the world-system, & it is already appearing on the horizon as the final geopolitical realization of this social logic of modernity. In the second part of the article, the author briefly shows how the metastructural hypothesis is developed in his more recent & concrete research into the areas of history (the emergence of the modern form of society starting from the 13th-century Cities-states in Italy), sociology & politics (relation between social classes & political parties), & culture (general theory of ideologies). These analyses show that structure is key to the world-system, & not vice versa, in the sense where the whole would explain the part: the system (state-nation) can be adequately understood only from the starting point of (class) structure. Since the capitalist totality cannot be metastructurally organized in one go, it could not emerge as a space which is brought together, like an empire, by one institutionally unified will, but only as a plural whole, a systemic plurality of state-nations. Adapted from the source document.