Archives

Private Actors in Politics and Policy-Making: Trespassers Producing Norms?

A Platform CEFRES workshop organized by Jana Vargovčíková (CEFRES & FF UK) and Kateřina Merklová (FF UK).
Where: CEFRES, Národní 18, conference room on 7th floor.
Language: English.

See the call for papers here.

Discussants:

Hélène Michel (SAGE, Institut d’Études Politiques in Strasbourg) Michael Smith (CERGE-EI, Czech Academy of Sciences) Ondřej Císař (Institute of Sociology, Czech Academy of Sciences) Mitchell Young (Institute of International Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague).

9:15-9:30 — Welcome & Opening
9:30-11:30 — Panel 1

Armèle Cloteau, Laboratoire Printemps, UVSQ –Paris Saclay, France: “The Angels of Europe – European External Affairs employees: in-house entrepreneurs of Europe”

Lola Avril, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France: “Lobbying and influence: lawyers in competition law as actor in european policies”

Oriane Calligaro, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium: “The Open Society Foundation, Advocacy NGOs and the Making of EU Anti-Discriminatory Norms”

11:30-11:45 —  Coffee Break
11:45-13:00 — Panel 2

Katarína Svitková, Charles University, Czech Republic: “The Role of Private and Hybrid Actors in Urban Resilience and Security”

Olivier Gajac, Centre Émile Durkheim, Bordeaux, France: “The Private Universities in the Education System in Turkey: Shared Interests Among Economic Actors, Political Power and New Elites”

13:00-14:30 — Lunch
14:30-15:50 — Panel 3            

Jaromír Mazák, Tomáš Diviák, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic: “Transactions in multidimensional social networks: The case of the Reconstruction of the State”

Tomáš Korda, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic: “Emancipation of the universal will from the particular one”

15:50-16:00 —Coffee Break
16:00-17:20 — Panel 4

Milos Resimic, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary: “The role of networks in privatization in post-Milosevic Serbia”

Vít Šimral, University Hradec Králové, Czech Republic: “Regulating Lobbying in Europe: No Model Fits All”

Critical Intellectuals: from Legislators to Interpreters to Mediators?

UntitledA lecture by profesor Gregor McLennan organized by Centre for Science, Technology, and Society Studies (Institute of Philosophy AV ČR), Program Prvouk 19 “Interdisciplinary sciences”, Department of Historical Sociology FHS UK and CEFRES.

Where: Jinonice, U Kříže 8, Praha 5 – room 6022.

Language: English.

The lecture is going to be held within the frame of the cycle “Historical Sociology Confrontations”.

Zygmunt Bauman once characterized the shift from modernity to postmodernity in terms of the changing style of intellectuals, from the model of the ‘legislator’ to that of the ‘interpreter’. With the blurring of any sharp contrast between modernity and postmodernity, a third figure, that of the ‘mediator’, has come to the fore. Working through various ways in which the rather bland connotations of mediation can be upgraded and energized, I identify the late Stuart Hall as an outstanding mediator in the last 50 years of critical social thought – though this involves questioning some received wisdom about Hall within cultural studies itself. And it turns out that one condition of being a notable intellectual mediator is the retention of a definite degree of ‘legislation’, in this case Hall’s continued (if stretched) allegiance to Marxism. I then consider (also affirmatively) the very different case of Ernest Gellner, who is sometimes thought to have been so legislatively modernist (and thus also ‘Eurocentric’ and ideologically ‘secularist’) as to have little to offer the ‘postsecular’ frame of understanding that is increasingly prominent in our times.

Gregor McLennan is Professor of Sociology and Head of the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies at the University of Bristol. Building on previous writings on Marxism, pluralism, sociology and cultural studies, Prof McLennan’s more recent work has examined the theoretical challenges posed by contemporary postcolonialism and postsecularism.

Contact:
– Filip Vostal (FLÚ AV ČR, CEFRES) filip.vostal@gmail.com
– Nicolas Maslowski (FHS UK) nicolas.maslowski@gmail.com
– Marek Skovajsa (FHS UK) marek.skovajsa@fhs.cuni.cz

 

 

 

 

 

 

Architecture and Art as Historical Sources: On the Borders of Humanities and Social Sciences

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.

Architecture and Art as Historical Sources: On the Borders of Humanities and Social Sciences

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.

 

Ritual Change in South Asia: Circulations, Transfers, Transgressions

Where: CEFRES, Národní 18, conference room, 7th floor.

Organizers: Cécile Guillaume-Pey (CEFRES & FMSH) and Martin Hříbek (FF UK).

Language: English

A workshop organized by CEFRES and the Faculty of Arts of Charles University, with the participation of researchers from the Heidelberg University (Germany), of University College Cork (Ireland), of Wageningen (Netherlands) and of Charles University.

Program

Panel 1 – Discussant: Barbora Spalová (Assistant Professor, Charles University, Prague)

9:45 AM – Max Stille (Ph.D. student, University of Heidelberg) : Bengali Islamic sermons between ritual and non-ritual frames of interpretation

10:20 AM – Alexis Avdeeff (Maître de Conférences, Université de Poitiers) : Chanting destiny: the commercialization of a traditional “divinatory art”

10:55 AM – Break

11:25 AM – Martin Hříbek (Assistant Professor, Charles University): Animating images of Durga: Art, ritual and technologies of enchantment on the streets of Calcutta

Break

Panel 2 – Discussant: Luděk Brož (Institute of Ethnology, The Czech Academy of Sciences)

2 PM – Lidia Guzy (Assistant Professor, University College Cork): From ritual music to stage, museums and politics. Ritual transfers in Western Odisha, India

2:35 PM – Rhadika Borde (Ph.D. Student, Wageningen University): Politicized rituals of worship: Activist involvement in the Dongaria Kondhs’ worship of the Niyamgiri Mountain in Odisha, India

3:10 PM – Break

3:30 PM – Soňa Bendíková (Assistant Professor, Charles University) : The Kota funeral: change of rituals in time

4:05 PM – Cécile Guillaume-Pey (Postdoctoral research fellow, IIAC, Paris): Drinking letters or talking with spirits? Ritual change in a Sora religious movement

Outline

Rituals are not atemporal, infallible devices that always “work” regardless of the performers’ motivations and social contexts in which they are embedded. Rituals are social and historical constructs sometimes considered to be unsatisfying or useless by the participants. They might even “fail” and are then recast, abandoned or replaced. Highlighting the flexibility and polysemy of rituals, recent studies have emphasized the relevance of a diachronic approach that considers the experience of the actors engaged in the performance, how they criticize and reinvent it, and the ways in which they appropriate alternative ritual models.

This workshop aims to investigate the processes of transformation, circulation and transfer of rituals in South Asia. Whether adjusting a “traditional” ritual form in a new social, political or religious context, or integrating new media – writing, audio or video – to diffuse a religious message, the papers will highlight the different ways in which actors reshape their ritual practices and invent new liturgical forms.

 

Inside the Lobbying Regulation Processes in Central Europe: Negotiating Public and Private Actors’ Roles in Governance

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.