Austerity has in recent years become established as the European response to crisis. The necessity of fiscal consolidation is often expressed with a vocabulary evocative of guilt and imagined pleasure. It should therefore not surprise us that austerity recently became subject to Lacanian psychoanalysis, building on Todd McGowan's thesis on the transition from the society of prohibition to the society of commanded enjoyment. The current literature recognizes the dichotomy of spirits of capitalism: the first, ascetic and thrifty spirit demanding private sacrifice and the second, consumer spirit demanding specifically private enjoyment in the name of social duty. These spirits of capitalism are strategies for dealing with the loss of jouissance necessitated by the acceptance of symbolic order through socialization. The Phallic fantasy of full, uncastrated enjoyment is channelled through the strategy of deferral, aiming for full enjoyment in undetermined future (first spirit) or the repetitive attempt of immediate fulfilment (second spirit). Author supplements the existing argument in two crucial ways. Firstly, he traces the ways in which spirits of capitalism are mirrored in the changing positions of the political-economic mainstream. Secondly, using Arrighi's analysis of systemic cycles of accumulation, the author offers an additional structural component to the spirits of capitalism pendulum. Adapted from the source document.
Odlukom Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva da napusti Europsku uniju, kao i usporavanjem procesa proširenja Europske unije na zemlje Zapadnog Balkana i Tursku, pojavila se nova fraza u europskom političkom rječniku: Europa izvan Europske unije. Ta fraza, koju promoviraju tvorci britanske vanjske politike, vraća na dnevni red raspravu o europskom identitetu. U ovom članku analiziraju se kompleksni i različiti odgovori na pitanja kao što su tko je, što je, kad je i gdje je Europa, gdje je njezina granica i tko su Drugi u odnosu na nju. Pitanju identiteta Europe pristupa se iz konstruktivističke perspektive, kroz analizu definiranja Sebstva i Drugosti. Iako je Europa nakon Hladnog rata proklamirala kao svoj cilj ujedinjenje i emancipaciju od Drugih, ona je ostala vezana uz Sjedinjene Američke Države kroz koncept euroatlantizma, a u nekim aspektima i uz Rusiju kroz ideju o Euroaziji. U suvremenim okolnostima Europska je unija sve udaljenija od ideala o jednoj i ujedinjenoj Europi. Umjesto toga, ona više liči na lȕk, sa svojim jezgrom, unutarnjom i izvanjskoj periferijom, kao i s vanjskim akterima koji su polupovezani s Europom zbog povijesnih i strateških razloga. Zbog toga se postavlja pitanje je li Europu uopće moguće definirati kao cjelinu u odnosu na njezine susjede i na druge zainteresirane aktere (Rusiju, SAD i Tursku) ili je njezin identitet određen upravo nemogućnošću takvoga jednoznačnog definiranja. ; Following the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and in the light of the slowing down of the EU enlargement in the Western Balkans and Turkey, a new phrase emerged in the European political vocabulary – Europe outside the European Union. This phrase, promoted by British foreign policy designers, brings the issue of the European identity back on the agenda. Who, what, when and where is Europe, and who are the Others in relation to Europe? In this article, we analyse the complex and mutually divergent replies to the question of the European identity by using a constructivist approach, based on the definitions of the European Self and Other. Despite proclaiming an ambition to unite and emancipate itself from the Others, Europe remained connected to the United States after the Cold War through the concept of Euro Atlanticism. The competing concept of Eurasia – marking a link between Europe and Russia – is also becoming popular in the areas of European inner and external peripheries. Contemporary Europe is far from being "united in diversities" – it looks more like an onion instead with its core countries, internal and external peripheries and influential external stakeholders that are semi-detached to it for historical and strategic reasons. The author therefore puts forward a question of whether it is at all possible to define Europe as the Other to its neighbours and other external stakeholders such as Russia, the US and Turkey. Would it not be more appropriate to define Europe through a permanent notion of being in-between its own Others, rather than through its own clearly marked and defined Self?
