The Summer Seminar on Nationalism, Religion and Violence organized by Charles University in Prague and International Hellenic University in Thessaloniki, supported by the LSEE, PRIO and CEFRES, is preparing for its fourth year. A key goal of the Summer Seminar, taking place in Prague from June 20 to July 1, 2016, is to contribute in a substantial way to the study of violence and to catalyze the growth of the study of violence as a field.
- led by the best international researchers in the field
- bringing together lecturers from the most prestigious institutions such as USHMM, Sciences Po, University of Montreal or George Washington University
- targeting students and graduates of Political Science, History, Anthropology, International Relations, International Law, Journalism & other related disciplines
- course for both undergraduates, (post)graduate students and activists
- taking place at the oldest university in Central Europe
See the complete program, the list of lecturers and how to register on the website of the summer school:
http://nrvsschool.fsv.cuni.cz/
A session led by Monika Brenišínová
In various theoretical discussions on architecture, we may notice that there is not a singular way of approaching it. From the classical perspective of the history of art classical art historical perspective, it is possible to identify at least three basic methods of inquiry: archaeological building survey („Bauforschung“, A. von Gerkan, in Czech “SHP”, D. Líbal); style-critical and style-historical analyses (H. Wölfflin, H. Focillon, M. Dvořák); semantic analysis (G. Passavant, E. Hubala). When we consider art in general, things however get even more complicated. If we take into account the fact that even among historians of art a consensus about the definition of art as such does not exist, what will happen when we will look at art from the perspective of another scientific discipline? When we conceive art as an historical source, traditional art historical categories such as the aesthetic point of view, the author’s fantasy, the styles or commonplaces (loci communes) quickly lose their significance. Moreover, historical work with visual sources is largely interpretative and requires a significantly critical approach. Thus we suddenly find ourselves on the borders of humanities and social sciences. And it is exactly such space, outside the frontiers of clearly defined disciplines, where the space and time change their shapes and where other disciplines – such as anthropology – can be brought into play.
Readings:
- Clifford Geertz. ‘Art as Cultural System.’ MLN 91(6): 1473–1499, 1976.
- George Kubler. ‘History: Or Anthropology: Of Art?’ Critical Inquiry, 1(4): 757-767, 1975.
Session led by Monika Brenišínová.
Readings
- Clifford Geertz. ‘Art as Cultural System.’ MLN 91(6): 1473–1499, 1976.
- George Kubler. ‘History: Or Anthropology: Of Art?’ Critical Inquiry, 1(4): 757-767, 1975.
In various theoretical discussions on architecture, we may notice that there is not a singular way of approaching it. From the classical perspective of the history of art classical art historical perspective, it is possible to identify at least three basic methods of inquiry: archaeological building survey („Bauforschung“, A. von Gerkan, in Czech “SHP”, D. Líbal); style-critical and style-historical analyses (H. Wölfflin, H. Focillon, M. Dvořák); semantic analysis (G. Passavant, E. Hubala). When we consider art in general, things however get even more complicated. If we take into account the fact that even among historians of art a consensus about the definition of art as such does not exist, what will happen when we will look at art from the perspective of another scientific discipline? When we conceive art as an historical source, traditional art historical categories such as the aesthetic point of view, the author’s fantasy, the styles or commonplaces (loci communes) quickly lose their significance. Moreover, historical work with visual sources is largely interpretative and requires a significantly critical approach. Thus we suddenly find ourselves on the borders of humanities and social sciences. And it is exactly such space, outside the frontiers of clearly defined disciplines, where the space and time change their shapes and where other disciplines – such as anthropology – can be brought into play.
In the frame of IMS and CEFRES’s common seminar “Between Areas and Disciplines”, Jana Vargovčíková (CEFRES-FF UK) will present her PhD work on Modes of Legitimating Lobbying in Central Europe and their Ambivalences. Her presentation will be discussed by CNRS Research Professor Pierre Lascoumes, a member of the European Studies Center (CEE), and a specialist among others on political corruption, law-making process, and contemporary forms of economic crime.
Where: CEFRES library, Na Florenci 3.
Language: English.
A session led by Lara Bonneau
It is possible to conceive transdisciplinarity as sharing of objects or methods by several disciplines. Besides objects and methods, it can also be – and this might be its first form – the sharing of a common lexicon. The tendency of certain human sciences – philosophy in particular – to use concepts elaborated by other disciplines in other contexts was sharply criticized by Alan Sokal in 1994, in what remains known as the Sokal Affair. The physicist tried to discredit the way certain philosophers were using concepts that belonged to the natural sciences, showing their ignorance about the real meaning of these concepts in their original field and thereby reducing their work to vain language games. Indeed, the use of analogy and metaphor in the human sciences can be put into question. During this session, I will try to show that, if it is not without danger, the use of analogy and metaphor is inherent to the scientific activity, which can moreover be both legitimate and fruitful. I will start with a concrete example: the way the art historian Aby Warburg uses analogy and metaphors from the natural sciences. I will then rely on a more reflexive text about the legitimacy of this method entitled Théorie de l’acte analogique in Simondon’s L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information.
Readings:
- Gilbert Simondon. L’individu et sa genèse physico-biologique. Paris: PUF, 1964, pp. 264-268.
- Alan Sokal. ‘A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies.’ Lingua Franca May/June 1996, available at: http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9605/sokal.html
- Aby Warburg. Miroirs de faille, A Rome avec Giordano Bruno et Edouard Manet. Paris: Presses du réel/L’écarquillé, 2011, pp. 62, 64.
In the frame of IMS and CEFRES’s common seminar “Between Areas and Disciplines”, Mátyás Erdélyi (CEU, Budapest & CEFRES) will present a chapter of his PhD work on The Making of a Productivist Middle Class in the Habsburg Monarchy. His presentation will be discussed by CNRS researcher Wolf Feuerhahn, co-director of the Alexandre Koyré Center and chief-editor of the Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines.
Where: CEFRES library, Na Florenci 3.
Language: English.
