Suchergebnisse

The nation is often portrayed as a natural political unit, a bearer of common values facilitating democracy & equality. However, the construction & reproduction of nations is also intimately tied to hierarchies & mechanisms of power, not least gender power. This article shows how nation & gender arc construed simultaneously in ideas & symbols, as well as in everyday practices. The article argues that memory work is a possible way to gain insight into the everyday construction of gender & nation, & to develop new theoretical understandings. An overview of central themes of the discussion on gender & nation is presented. Memory work makes explicit the ambivalent processes by which women as acting subjects are denied agency & turned into objects of the nation. References. Adapted from the source document.

Georgia's foreign policy since the mid-1990s would appear to be a regional anomaly. While Georgia's neighbors have either accommodated to Russia's geopolitical interests or sought to navigate between Russia and the West, Georgian governments have pursued a comparatively stable pro-Western foreign policy orientation. Thus, structural arguments like geographic proximity, or Russia's assertive foreign policy, cannot account for the variation in foreign-policy orientation among post-Soviet states. Moreover, although alternative explanations, like Georgia's European identity and commitment to democracy, or explanations related to qualities of the Mikheil Saakashvili government, are not without merits, they cannot fully account for the continuity in Georgia's pro-Western foreign policy over time. This article argues that the collective memory of the traumatic years 1989–1994 is a key factor for understanding Georgia's foreign policy continuity. The collective memory and trauma related to loss of territory, together with a weak state and Russia's negative involvement, have shaped the strategic thinking of Georgia's foreign policy elites. This trauma explains Georgia's shift to a pro-Western foreign policy in the mid-1990s and the continuity of this policy up until today. This argument is supported by the author's interviews with key Georgian decision-makers responsible for foreign policy decisions.

Cultural heritage is not just something from the past, but always also reflects contemporary needs and desires. In the Traces of the Cold War describes the making of a diverse and innovative Swedish military heritage. The book shows how memories and material remains from a period characterized by fear and geopolitical tensions are infused with new meanings when bunkers, decommissioned military facilities and technology are transformed into luxury housing, attractive tourist destinations and museum exhibitions.
Through field-visits to military heritage sites across Sweden, the authors examine what material objects, narratives and emotions that today represent the Cold War. These examinations show how military structures and equipment from a time associated with threat and danger become captivating elements of the cultural heritage, while also communicating specific ideas regarding security and protection.
In the Traces of the Cold War takes a novel approach to cultural heritage by relating collective memory-making to security policy. Based on theoretical perspectives from critical heritage studies (CHS) and feminist international relations (IR), the analysis focuses on constructions of national belonging and underlines the role of gender and sexuality in narrations of security and protection.
In a democracy, the subject of military violence must always be a matter of ethical and political conversations. Setting out from this assumption, the authors critically discuss how Cold War heritagisation produces militarization as "natural" and necessary. The book invites reflection on how history is written as well as on what the requirements are for a safe and secure society.
In the Traces of the Cold War presents the results from an interdisciplinary research project. The authors are all researchers at Stockholm University and have written the book together.