Suchergebnisse

We find ourselves in a time that has brought significant changes to the way we communicate. The technological progress and rise of social media have shaped both the news media and the contemporary political landscape, impacting and altering political discourse. As a result, the role of social media in political communication has become pervasive, and politicians now tend to communicate more directly with the public without the intermediary of traditional media. The position of the mainstream media as a neutral actor in reporting the news has also been tainted as the media has become increasingly dependent on advertising and thus more vulnerable to the pressures of corporate or state sponsors. Combined, we find ourselves situated in an era where more people are turning to social media for their news, while terms such as disinformation, fake news, post-truth, hate speech and conspiracy theory have become commonplace. In this new public square of communication, it often happens that one person's conspiracy theory is another person's truth, one person's facts are another's fake news, and one person's hate speech is someone else's freedom of speech. ; We find ourselves in a time that has brought significant changes to the way we communicate. The technological progress and rise of social media have shaped both the news media and the contemporary political landscape, impacting and altering political discourse. As a result, the role of social media in political communication has become pervasive, and politicians now tend to communicate more directly with the public without the intermediary of traditional media. The position of the mainstream media as a neutral actor in reporting the news has also been tainted as the media has become increasingly dependent on advertising and thus more vulnerable to the pressures of corporate or state sponsors. Combined, we find ourselves situated in an era where more people are turning to social media for their news, while terms such as disinformation, fake news, post-truth, hate speech and conspiracy theory have become commonplace. In this new public square of communication, it often happens that one person's conspiracy theory is another person's truth, one person's facts are another's fake news, and one person's hate speech is someone else's freedom of speech. ; We find ourselves in a time that has brought significant changes to the way we communicate. The technological progress and rise of social media have shaped both the news media and the contemporary political landscape, impacting and altering political discourse. As a result, the role of social media in political communication has become pervasive, and politicians now tend to communicate more directly with the public without the intermediary of traditional media. The position of the mainstream media as a neutral actor in reporting the news has also been tainted as the media has become increasingly dependent on advertising and thus more vulnerable to the pressures of corporate or state sponsors. Combined, we find ourselves situated in an era where more people are turning to social media for their news, while terms such as disinformation, fake news, post-truth, hate speech and conspiracy theory have become commonplace. In this new public square of communication, it often happens that one person's conspiracy theory is another person's truth, one person's facts are another's fake news, and one person's hate speech is someone else's freedom of speech. ; We find ourselves in a time that has brought significant changes to the way we communicate. The technological progress and rise of social media have shaped both the news media and the contemporary political landscape, impacting and altering political discourse. As a result, the role of social media in political communication has become pervasive, and politicians now tend to communicate more directly with the public without the intermediary of traditional media. The position of the mainstream media as a neutral actor in reporting the news has also been tainted as the media has become increasingly dependent on advertising and thus more vulnerable to the pressures of corporate or state sponsors. Combined, we find ourselves situated in an era where more people are turning to social media for their news, while terms such as disinformation, fake news, post-truth, hate speech and conspiracy theory have become commonplace. In this new public square of communication, it often happens that one person's conspiracy theory is another person's truth, one person's facts are another's fake news, and one person's hate speech is someone else's freedom of speech. ; We find ourselves in a time that has brought significant changes to the way we communicate. The technological progress and rise of social media have shaped both the news media and the contemporary political landscape, impacting and altering political discourse. As a result, the role of social media in political communication has become pervasive, and politicians now tend to communicate more directly with the public without the intermediary of traditional media. The position of the mainstream media as a neutral actor in reporting the news has also been tainted as the media has become increasingly dependent on advertising and thus more vulnerable to the pressures of corporate or state sponsors. Combined, we find ourselves situated in an era where more people are turning to social media for their news, while terms such as disinformation, fake news, post-truth, hate speech and conspiracy theory have become commonplace. In this new public square of communication, it often happens that one person's conspiracy theory is another person's truth, one person's facts are another's fake news, and one person's hate speech is someone else's freedom of speech. ; Današnji čas je prinesel pomembne spremembe v načinu, kako komuniciramo drug z drugim. Tehnološki napredek in razmah družbenih medijev sta vplivala tako na informativne medije kot na sodobni politični prostor, kar ima pomembne posledice za politični govor. Vloga družbenih medijev v politični komunikaciji se je povečala, saj politiki čedalje bolj neposredno komunicirajo z javnostjo brez posredništva tradicionalnih medijev. Poleg tega je čedalje bolj pod vprašajem nevtralnost osrednjih medijev pri poročanju, saj so vedno bolj odvisni od oglaševanja in tako pod posrednim ali neposrednim vplivom različnih korporativnih ali državnih sponzorjev. Tako smo se znašli v času, ko vse več ljudi informacije pridobi v družbenih medijih, medtem ko so izrazi dezinformacija, lažne novice, postresničnost, sovražni govor in teorije zarote postali vsakdanji del govora. V novem javnem prostoru komunikacije se pogosto zgodi, da je to, kar kdo dojema kot teorijo zarote, za koga drugega resničnost, da so to, kar kdo dojema kot dejstva, za koga drugega lažne novice, in da je to, kar kdo dojema kot sovražni govor, za koga drugega svoboda govora.

Magistrsko delo proučuje diskurzivni vidik varnosti izražen skozi parlamentarni diskurz poslancev, ki so delovali v slovenskem parlamentu v obdobju t. i. begunske krize, od septembra 2015 do marca 2016. Skozi mikrodiskurzivno in jezikovnostilno analizo poskuša prikazati, ali so poslanci begunce obravnavali skozi prizmo varnosti, torej vprašanje beguncev sekuritizirali. Z analizo parlamentarnih sej je prikazan proces sekuritizacije kopenhagenske šole, ki sekuritizacijo opisuje kot govorno dejanje, ki referenčnemu objektu predstavi vprašanje kot eksistenčno grožnjo in s tem zahteva izredne ukrepe, ki odstopajo od 'običajne' politike. Če občinstvo to sprejme je sekuritizacija uspešna. V parlamentarnem diskurzu so analizirana jezikovna sredstva, kot so vršilci dejanj, metafore in druge stilno zaznamovane besede, pomembna pa je tudi ustrezna raba terminov beguncev in migrant. V ozadju je predstavljena t. i. begunska kriza na ravni EU, zahodnobalkanski poti in v Sloveniji. Opisan je tudi slovenski parlament ter politični oziroma parlamentarni diskurz, ključne pa so varnostne študije, znotraj katerih je kopenhagenska šola predstavila teorijo sekuritizacije, ki jo proučuje magistrsko delo ; The master's thesis examines the discursive aspect of security, expressed through the parliamentary debates, which took place in the Slovenian parliament during the 'refugee crisis' in Slovenia, September 2015 – March 2016. Through micro-discursive and linguistic analysis, this work seeks to show whether refugees were securitized, treated by the members of Parliament as a security issue. The analysis of parliamentary debates tries to show the process of securitization initially outlined by the Copenhagen School, which focuses on the speech act, that presents an issue to the referent object as an existential threat and demands extraordinary measures outside of normal politics. If the audience accepts this, securitization is successful. The use of linguistic means is analysed in the parliamentary discourse, such as agents, metaphors and other expressive words, and the correct usage of terms refugee or migrant. The master's thesis background is presented by the 'refugee crisis' in the European Union, on the Western Balkan Route and in Slovenia. The emphasis is also on the Slovenian parliament and parliamentary discourse, but the most important are security studies, within which the securitization theory is presented by the Copenhagen School, which is analysed in the master's thesis.

The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; V prispevku so obravnavane značilnosti sodobne ameriške predsedniške politične retorike s posebnim poudarkom na govorih Baracka Obame, s katerimi se je odzval na uboje temnopoltih Američanov. Trije od analiziranih govorov vsebujejo Obamov odziv na sodne odločitve, ki so zavrnile obtožbo policistov, odgovornih za uboj, v enem od govorov pa se je odzval na množični umor temnopoltih faranov s strani belega skrajneža. Študija temelji na analizi jezikovnih kategorij vrednotenja, ki so pojmovane kot okviri vrednotenja. Okviri vrednotenja udeležence v diskurzu osvetlijo s presojami vedenja in pripisovanja čustev ter z vrednotenjem predmetov in pojavov. Koncept okvirov vrednotenja temelji na spoznanjih teorije medijske komunikacije in teorije jezika vrednotenja v sistemsko-funkcijskem jezikoslovju. Ugotovitve analize kažejo, da Obama uporablja preplet pozitivnih in negativnih vrednotenj različnih vrst, da bi presegel rasno kategorizacijo in se izognil neposrednemu pripisovanju krivde. Raziskava pokaže tudi, da Obama rasne razdelitve pogosto uokvirja tako, da udeležence na nasprotnih straneh poenoti z istim okvirom.

Abstract. During the first shockwave of the Covid-19 pandemic, the risk of infection was inaccurately touted as 'the great equaliser'. However, the virus' rapid spread and the state of emergency accelerated the magnitude of pre-existing inequalities by taking a heavy toll on already marginalised, exploited and extremely poor segments of societies. Focussing on sub-national contexts in Bulgaria and Kosovo, this article demonstrates how Bulgarian Roma and Kosovo Serbs were not only hit the hardest by the introduction of ad hoc lockdowns and curfews, respectively, but also how disciplinary mechanisms of control and surveillance were embedded in public methods and cultural policies of scapegoating and ascribing images of societal irresponsibility and backwardness upon these two minority groups. Keywords: Bulgaria; Kosovo; minority groups; pandemic; ad hoc restrictions; stigmatisation

This article examines how arguments about Russia are portrayed in the Norwegian petroleum debate regarding offshore drilling in the high north. Based on discourse analysis as a framework. the article examines how advocates of drilling have managed to get wide acceptance in the public sphere for their argument that Norway "must drill to help the environment." Such a statement is possible only if there are certain widely held perceptions in the Norwegian public about "Russia & the environment." These perceptions have little to do with recent experience regarding Russian petroleum industry or Russian environmental standards in general, but have more to do with notions which date back to the collapse of the Soviet Union. References. Adapted from the source document.

Since small countries like Norway can seldom affect the policies of superpowers, an important question to ask is whether Norway could influence the human right situation in China through dialogue and co-operation? In the West, China has been known for human rights violations exemplified by the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. During the first decade of the 21st century the tone has changed, however. While the human right situation is still bad in China, the country has signed and ratified many UN conventions, engaged in human rights dialogues with Norway, Canada and Australia, and slowly increased the civil liberties of its citizens. The Norwegian dialogue with China has taken place on three levels: political consultation, roundtable discussions, and diplomat meetings. L. Pitkaniemi

An argument is presented that instead of hiding behind political correctness; political scientists and journalists should recognize that negative campaigns benefits democracy. Examples of negative campaigning in the 2008 US Presidential election are discussed. Negative campaigning is defined. A literature review is included of criticisms against negative campaigning and the effects thereof. The author argues that criticisms of negative campaigning are presented outside historical context and rests on a naive understanding of democracy. It is suggested that it is an insult to voter intelligence to presume that false information can be disseminated by negative ads. It is maintained that negative campaigning lead to full disclosure and increased factual information to voters. Examples are provided of the losing party using negative campaigning as an excuse, rather than focusing on underlying political issues. It is argued that the media fuel the fire of negative campaigns by guaranteed extensive coverage, thus turning negative campaigns into good political strategy. The value of negative campaigns is increased voter interest, which lead to a better democracy. References. E. Sundby

Książka stanowi tom studiów autorstwa polskich i zagranicznych językoznawców poświęcony zmianom we współczesnych językach słowiańskich, szczególnie widocznym w słownictwie i słowotwórstwie. Uwzględnienie aspektu stylowo-funkcjonalnego w rozwoju leksyki pozwala lepiej zrozumieć dynamikę zmian językowych i skuteczność działań komunikacyjnych. Celowościowy i pragmatyczny charakter zachowań komunikacyjnych ujawnia się szeroko w uwzględnionych przez Autorów kontekstach społecznych, politycznych i kulturowych. Prace zostały pogrupowane w trzy działy tematyczne: - Zjawiska, procesy i tendencje rozwojowe w słownictwie specjalistycznym (terminologii); - Dynamika mechanizmów słowotwórczych i leksykalnych; - Zmiany leksykalne we współczesnej komunikacji językowej i dyskursie. Wyodrębnione działy pomagają uporządkować przedstawioną w tomie problematykę, wskazując na dominantę tematyczną w poszczególnych tekstach. Zakresy tych grup nie są jednak ostre, złożona i wielowarstwowa problematyka tendencji i zmian we współczesnym słownictwie słowiańskim jest omawiana w różnym stopniu w każdym z wydzielonych działów. W większości prac zastosowano podejście konfrontatywne, pozostałe stanowią podstawę do takiego ujęcia. Do badań wykorzystany został bogaty materiał języków słowiańskich: polskiego, czeskiego, słowackiego, białoruskiego, rosyjskiego, ukraińskiego, bułgarskiego, słoweńskiego, a także innych języków, jak np. nowogreckiego. ; This volume of studies by Polish and international linguists is devoted to changes in modern Slavic languages, which are especially noticeable in the spheres of vocabulary and word formation. Taking into consideration the stylistic and functional aspect of lexis development allows for a better understanding of the dynamics of language change and the efficacy of communicational acts. The purposeful and pragmatic character of communicational behaviour manifests itself widely in the social, political and cultural contexts considered by the Authors. The works comprising the volume are divided into three thematic sections: - Phenomena, processes and tendencies in the development of specialist lexis (terminology); - Word formation and lexical mechanisms dynamics; - Lexical change in modern language communication and discourse. The sections help organize the volume by highlighting the dominant theme in particular texts. The scopes of the sections are, nevertheless, not sharply delineated – each section is to an equal extent devoted to the complex and multifaceted subject-matter of the tendencies and changes in modern Slavic vocabulary. Most of the works comprised in the volume adopt a contrastive approach, the remaining ones can serve as bases for contrastive studies. The text analyse the rich material of the Slavic languages – Polish, Czech, Slovak, Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Slovene – as well as of other languages, like Modern Greek. ; Publikacja finansowana ze środków Instytutu Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk

"Post-war expansion of the welfare state is one of the most central changes in Norwegian society
today and is often a topic in public debate. When certain conceptions about the welfare state
are developed and they are no longer based on systematic analyses but rather ideas and attitudes,
they can turn into myths. However, to be termed myths requires documentation, and
here social research plays an important role. This book rejects and elaborates central myths in
the public debate about the welfare state. The book is structured as an anthology, written by six
welfare sociologists at the University of Bergen. The first article introduces the history of The
Myth of the Welfare State, a book published by Pax in 1970, then revised a few years later, and
with a follow-up version in 1995, 25 years after that. The book became a flaming light within
the social policy debate, because it criticized the welfare state for not solving the problem of
poverty. Although this problem, relatively seen, is reduced, the following five articles show
that, within the framework of the welfare state, there is room for new important critical discussions.
One myth focuses on the idea that a combination of a comprehensive state and an active
civil society with much voluntary work is not possible. Another concerns the idea that welfare
results in dependency. A third is about the "Elder Boom". A fourth concerns single mothers
and assumes that these unlawfully try to get access to welfare. And finally, the last discusses
the ideas that crime should result in punishment and "prison pain". Together, the articles are a
contribution to make the debate about the welfare state richer and more dynamic." - "Utbyggingen av velferdsstaten i etterkrigstiden hører til en av de mest sentrale endringer i
det norske samfunn, og er ofte et tema i den offentlige debatt. Når bestemte forestillinger om
velferdsstaten utvikles og de ikke lenger bygger på systematiske analyser, men på ideer og
holdninger, kan de bli til myter. At det er snakk om myter, må imidlertid dokumenteres, og her
spiller samfunnsforskningen en viktig rolle. Denne boken tilbakeviser og nyanserer sentrale
myter i den offentlige debatt om velferdsstaten. Boken er bygget opp som en antologi, skrevet
av seks velferdssosiologer fra Universitetet i Bergen. Den første artikkelen gir en innføring
i historien om Myten om velferdsstaten, en bok utgitt av Pax i 1970, siden revidert noen år
etter og med en oppfølger i 1995, 25 år etter. Boken ble en brannfakkel i den sosialpolitiske
debatt, fordi den kritiserte velferdsstaten for ikke å håndtere fattigdomsproblemet. Selv om
dette problemet, relativt sett, er redusert, utgjør de etterfølgende artiklene om fem aktuelle
velferdsmyter en argumentasjon for, at det, innenfor velferdsstatens rammer, er rom for nye
viktige kritiske diskusjoner. Én myte handler om at en sterk stat ikke kan forenes med et aktivt
samfunn med stor grad av frivillighet. En annen handler om at velferd skaper avhengighet. En
tredje handler om eldrebølgen. En fjerde handler om at alenemødre antas å lure til seg velferd.
Og endelig handler en siste myte om at kriminalitet må møtes med straff og 'fengselspine'.
Artiklene er samlet sett et bidrag til å gjøre debatten om velferdsstaten rikere og mer dynamisk."

"Ich habe keine Ahnung." (Kermani, 2009, 86) Das behauptet Navid Kermani in seinem Essay Die Terroristen sind unter uns, der 2009 im Band Wer ist Wir? Deutschland und seine Muslime erschienen ist. Es ist ein sehr wichtiger, ja zentraler Satz, der oft gedacht, aber selten öffentlich ausgesprochen wird. Niemand, der eine leitende Position in der Politik, der Wirtschaft oder beim Militär bekleidet, darf es sich leisten, diesen Satz in den Medien zu äußern, aber auch im Wissenschaftsdiskurs darf er nicht verwendet werden, es sei denn als Zitat. Es gibt mindestens drei Eigenschaften dieser Aussage, die sie für die erwähnten Diskurse ungeeignet machen. Erstens das Sprachniveau: durch den etwas saloppen Beiklang lässt sich die Aussage dem umgangssprachlichen Niveau zuordnen und nicht dem Niveau offizieller oder wissenschaftlicher Reden. Zweitens ihre Struktur: durch die Ich-Form wird der Satz zur Aussage des sprechenden Subjekts über sich selbst, nicht über einen Sachverhalt. Und drittens die Semantik: Das verneinte Substantiv spricht dem Subjekt nicht nur jedes rationale Wissen ab, das sich argumentieren und belegen ließe, sondern auch jede andere Grundlage, auf der sich eine Aussage zu einem Sachverhalt formulieren ließe, also auch Vermutungen, Vorurteile, Spekulationen, Gefühle oder die Intuition. Das Problem dabei ist nicht, dass auch diese alternativen Grundlagen fehlen, sondern dass sie, durch die Wahl des Substantivs "Ahnung", überhaupt als Möglichkeit eingeräumt werden. Wenn durch diese Merkmale die zitierte Aussage aus dem Rahmen fachbezogener Diskurse fällt und sogar für journalistische Textformen unpassend ist, so ist sie im literarischen Diskurs durchaus zulässig. ; The essays of the German writer and professor of Middle East Studies, Navid Kermani, focus on current political and social issues, such as migration, terrorism and the problems of multicultural societies. The article offers an analysis of selected essays and gives a brief overview of their context, including a discussion about the relation between literature and politics as it evolved after World War II in Germany. The analysis makes it possible to see Kermani's essays in the tradition of open dialogical essays that goes back to the writings of Michel de Montaigne, as shown in the theories of Peter V. Zima. The processes of fictionalization that are used by Kermani in his political essays are compared with those used in so called "post-truth" political discourse. Although these processes are comparable and their effects unpredictable, it is possible to locate some basic differences in their narrative structures that can either suggest that the narrator is all-knowing, which reinforces his position of power, or can stress the narrator's tentativeness, which opens the possibility for the reader to enter into a dialogue with him, thus leading to the kind of constructive dialogue that is of fundamental importance for democratic societies. It is the raising of questions and articulation of doubt that Kermani sees as his main task when writing his essays. ; Navid Kermani, nemški pisatelj in profesor orientalistike, se v svojih esejih posveča aktualnim političnim in socialnim vprašanjem, kot so migracije, terorizem in večkulturne družbe. Članek podaja podrobnejšo analizo izbranih Kermanijevih esejev ter jih umesti v tradicijo dialoško odprte esejistike (kakor jo po teoriji Petra V. Zime zastopa na primer Michel de Montaigne) in v kontekst nemških povojnih razprav o razmerju med literaturo in politiko. Nato postopke fikcionalizacije, kakor se kažejo v Kermanijevih političnih esejih, primerja s postopki v tako imenovanih postfaktičnih političnih diskurzih. Čeprav so postopki primerljivi in njihovi učinki načelno nepredvidljivi, je mogoče locirati temeljne razlike v njihovi narativni strukturi, ki lahko sugerira vsevednost pripovedovalca in s tem krepi njegovo pozicijo moči ali poudarja njegovo negotovost ter tako bralcu odpira možnost, da z njim stopi v konstruktiven dialog, ki je temeljnega pomena za demokratične družbe. Prav v odpiranju vprašanj in artikuliranju dvomov Kermani kot avtor esejev vidi svoje pisateljsko poslanstvo.