Suchergebnisse

In modern Russia Peter the Great, according to representative opinion polls, is considered to be the best figure in the entire history of the country, significantly outstripping in popularity even domestic politicians of the 20th-21st centuries. This very high "folk" reputation significantlycontradicts the views of social scientists who see in Peter I not so much a successful national reformer, a "revolutionary on the throne", but a despot unscrupulous in his means, who for centuries to come linked modernization of the country with increased state coercion and heavy wars. However, comparative approach shows that other countries of catching up development pattern in the XVIII-XX centuries followed as a rule not the path of evolutionary reform but that of radical reforms aimed primarily at strengthening the army. Peter's Russia stands out against this background only in that it was the first to choose "modernization for the sake of military victories" and therefore, since the time of Peter I, remained among the "great powers" despite constant socio-economic backwardness. The legitimacy of this choice can be substantiated with the help of a world-systems analysis that emphasizes the great role of national sovereignty for the success of catch-up modernization. In fact, Peter I chose the war with strong Sweden as a main lever of modernization and a way to radically change the "rules of the game" - not only to open direct trade between Russia and Western Europe, but also to include it in the "great powers". The example of Peter the Great's reforms, whichalmost coincided with the Northern War, clearly shows that military mobilization can play the role of a "big push" in a country that is catching up, creating the prerequisites for all other qualitative transformations. At the same time, "modernization for the sake of victories" that took shape under Peter the Great initiated a trend that is dangerous for Russia as a country of catching up development, when its military successes hindered the seemingly unnecessarynational modernization, with military failures stimulating it.

This text considers the notion of miracle in relation to the writings of Shakespeare and Derrida. Royle shows how the word 'miracle' (and cognates including 'miraculous') comes, in the later sixteenth century, to acquire less narrowly religious senses, and how this dehiscence is at play in Shakespeare, especially in the figure of Falstaff, in Henry IV Part One. He explores some of the ways in which the history and development of the 'miraculous' prefigure the emergence of 'the uncanny' some two hundred years later. Particular attention is given to the affinities between the writings of Shakespeare and Cixous that transpire from reading Derrida on the miracle.

National reconciliation and economic reconstruction prospects in South Africa, in the aftermath of the first multiracial elections, Apr. 1994. Summaries in English and Spanish p. 443 and 457.