TEORIJE DRUŽBE / THEORIES OF SOCIETY – 2016/17
Weekly sessions: Tuesdays, 17-20h
Location: Classroom 17
1. November 03,2016
Slavko Splichal, Igor Lukšič, Ivan Bernik, Peter Stankovič
Introduction to the course
2. November 8,2016
Igor Lukšič (University of Ljubljana)
Igor Lukšič is professor of political science at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. His
research includes political theory, political anthropology and history of political ideas. Between 2008
and 2011 he was Minister of Education and Sport in the Government of Slovenia.
Apolitical democracy
Summary:
Democracy has always been a political project with a great goal to widen emancipation of the
individual and of the people. Neoliberalism transformed that project in a-political or even antipolitical with making democracy just a formal technique. Lecture would present contradictions of the
democratic project in a modern period through ideas of Kant, Hegel and Marx. The process of
concentration of capital has from the introduction of capitalism always required concentration of
political power: at the beginning in the level of nation-state, in some cases in form of state-capitalism
and dictatorship, today more and more in the hands of different institution of “international
community”. Can democracy as emancipatory and political project survive?
Required reading:
Charles S.Maier: Democracy since the French Revolution. In: Dunn, John. 1992. (ed.) The Unfinished
Journey 508 BC ad 1993.Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Cape Town. (125-151)
3. November 15, 2016
Katarina Peović Vuković (University of Rijeka)
Katarina Peović Vuković is an Assistant Professor at Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Department of Cultural Studies, Rijeka (Croatia) where she teaches graduate and postgraduate
seminars on critical theory, media studies, Marxism, cultural studies and applied psychoanalysis. She
is a member of collective Circle for Studies of Ideas and Ideology and of The Global Center for
Advanced Study. In 2012 she published a book Media and culture. Ideology of media after
decentralization. She has written on a relation of contemporary technology and philosophy for Crisis
& Critique, Badiou Studies, and others.
David Bowie and Melancholia
Summary:
Can we diagnose the collective melancholia as a form of a pathological answer to the death of David
Bowie? The Internet showed to be an ideal place for analysis of the unconscious since the reactions
to the death of a famous person where strongly cathected by instinctual energy. The lecture will try
to approach several questions related to this episode and other similar episodes, such as collective
mourning as new pathological form, the Internet as the dark underside of the psyche, the imaginary
identification with/of David Bowie, and the political economy of desire.
Required reading:
Freud, Sigmund (2011b/1917) "Mourning and Melancholia", Freud Complete Works. Ivan Smith,
ebook, 3041-3054. Available on: http://ffri-pik.jimdo.com/
4. November 22, 2016
Graham Murdock (Loughborough University, London School of Economics)
Graham Murdock is Professor of Culture and Economy in the Social Sciences Department,
Loughborough University, and London School of Economics.
Communication and Crisis: Economies, Ecologies and Technologies
Summary:
The lecture will link together the current crises of free market capitalism, liberal democratic politics,
and climate change - trace their origins back to the late eighteenth century and the contradictions at
the center of western modernity, and to argue that communication systems have always played a
central role. It will highlight the key role played by two recent moments of crisis in reshaping the
relations between enclosure and the commons. The first, in the mid 1970's dismantled the 'welfare
consensus' and opened the way for the resurgence of marketization and the recomposition of
advanced economies. The second, which we are now living through is defined by the intersection of
three domains of crisis – an economic and social crisis precipitated by the financial crash of 2008 and
the imposition of 'austerity' solutions; a political crisis signaled by the hollowing out of representative
democracy, the rise of populist movements, and the intensification of surveillance; and an ecological
crisis evidenced by accelerated and irreversible climate change
Required reading:
Graham Murdock, Communication in Common. International Journal of Communication 7 (2013),
154–172. Available at http://ijoc.org.
5. November 29, 2016
Tihomir Cipek (University of Zagreb)
Tihomir Cipek is professor of political science at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb,
and a research associate at the Centre for Croatian Studies. His main research areas are politics and
history of Central and South-East Europe.
Who's our neighbor? The nationalism of the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs
Summary:
On the example of the political program and the election propaganda the intention is to present the
manner in which the Austrian right-populist party FPÖ uses the nationalism in order to strengthen its
position by spreading the fear of immigrants. The discourse of the FPÖ that clearly discriminates
between the “good” and “bad” immigrants will be analyzed. According to the opinion of the FPÖ, the
good ones are those of “the Christian confession, integrated in the Austrian society” and the bad
ones are “the Muslims, the criminals, the alienated Turks”. In the center of the analysis will be the
fashion in which the FPÖ has changed the universal Christian message of the love for the neighbor
i.e. fellow human in the pre-election nationalistic slogan and the polemics that has arisen as a
consequence. It will be precisely shown what where the positions taken by a) the Catholic Church, b)
the parties of both center-right and center-left, and c) the FPÖ. On the base of this analysis it will be
shown how the conjunction between the immigration issues, the interpretation of the religious
messages and nationalism might be achieved.
Required reading:
Cas Mudde (2004): The populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition.
6. December 6, 2016
Raúl Zibechi (Multiversidad Franciscana de América Latina, Uruguay):
Raúl Zibechi is one of Latin America's leading political theorists. He is a professor at Multiversidad
Franciscana de América Latina (Montevideo, Uruguay), as well as writer and political analyst. He is
the author of numerous books, including “Dispersing Power”, “Territories in Resistance”, and “The
New Brazil: Regional Imperialism and the New Democracy”.
The New Brazil: Regional imperialism and the New Democracy.
Summary:
The lecture will reflect the geopolitical reality of the Latin America from the perspective of social
movements, touching on the organizing model of the indigenous communities, conflicts occurring
over the extraction industries in many countries, and the increasingly dominant role of Brazil in the
region. The lecture will provide a step-by-step history and analysis of Brazil’s trajectory in recent
decades, including the new forms of militarization and “sub-imperialism” it has developed; the
increasing collusion among its unions, multinational corporations, and the state; it’s devastating
conquest of the Amazon; and, most importantly, the antisystemic movements that are getting
stronger and smarter as they try to push the entire region in a more radical and humane direction.
Required reading:
Raúl Zibechi. 2014. “The New Brazil: Regional Imperialism and the New Democracy” (Brasil Potencia:
Entre la integración regional y un nuevo imperialismo). Oakland, CA: AK Press.
7. December 13, 2016
Stephen Coleman (University of Leeds)
Stephen Coleman is Professor of Political Communication in the School of Media and
Communication, University of Leeds.
'Can the Internet Strengthen Democracy?'
Summary:
http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/can-the-media-serve-democracy-stephencoleman/?K=9781137467911
Required reading:
Stephen Coleman, Giles Moss and Katy Parry Introduction: Can the Media Serve Democracy? In
Coleman S; Moss G; Parry K (eds.) (2015) Can the Media Serve Democracy? Essays in Honour of Jay G.
Blumler. Palgrave Macmillan.
8. December 20, 2016
Max Haller (Institut für Soziologie der Karl Franzens-Universität Graz)
In 1995 he was elected as a member of the Austrian Academy of Science. Visiting Professor at the
Universities of Heidelberg, Klagenfurt, Innsbruck, University of California/Santa Barbara, St.
Augustine University of Tanzania. 2003-2006 Professore di fama internazionale, University of Trento
(Italien). 2015/16 lecturer at the Universities of Vienna and Salzburg. Research Areas: Social structure
and social inequality, ethnicity and nation, European integration, international comparative social
research, sociological theory.
Values as the core of societal integration and globalization
Summary:
Value integration has been defined by Parsons as an axiom of societal integration. Yet, many critics
have argued that the existence of a common value system cannot be presupposed in any society,
that values often are not defined clearly, the conflicts between values exist, and that interests often
are more important than values. In my presentation, I will argue that the thesis of the central role of
values can be sustained if we start from the original Weberian approach, supplemented by ideas of
G. H. Mead who does not see a contradiction between interests and values (values as interests of a
group or a community). I will then argue that globalization makes necessary to develop new
encompassing values or, rather, to strengthen universal values related to world society as a whole. In
this process, the values of equality and justice, and the institution of democracy play a central role;
conditions inhibiting and strengthening them will be discussed.
Required reading:
Max Haller, Values Core Factor. E-version.
9. January 3, 2017
Peter Stanković (University of Ljubljana)
Peter Stanković (1970) is Professor at Department of Cultural Studies, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. He specializes in cultural studies, film studies, popular music, food studies and identity
politics. His recent publications include a monograph on the history of Slovenian cinematography and
several articles on popular music heritage, food as a medium of cultural exchange, and mechanisms
of symbolic exclusion of immigrants from the other former Yugoslav republics in Slovenia.
Jacques Rancière on Art and Politics
Summary:
After Bourdieu's critique of art as a mechanism of reproduction of class differences, art has become
almost something like an opponent in the critical project of cultural studies. In recent years,
however, there is a notable surge of voices that argue that art could be understood as an important
tool of emancipatory politics as well. One of the most important theorists, who think in this way, is
Jacques Rancière. His work is based on a synchronic and diachronic analysis of three different
regimes of art that constitute three different relationships toward society. These regimes are ethical,
representative in aesthetic. According to Rancière, it is only the aesthetic regime that is connected to
life and therefore capable of changing it (together with wider social circumstances).
Required reading:
Jacques Rancière (2006): The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London:
Continuum. Pg. 20–30. https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rancic3a8rejacques-politics-aesthetics-distribution-sensible-new-scan.pdf
10. January 10, 2017
Slavko Splichal (University of Ljubljana)
Slavko Splichal is Professor of Communication and Public Opinion at University of Ljubljana, fellow of
the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and Editor of the journal Javnost/The Public at
Rotledge.
Publicness, privateness and the production of discursive visibility in the digital age
Summary:
At least since Aristotle’s distinction between the public domain of political activity (polis) and the
private domain of the household (oikos), privateness and publicness stand in dialectical tension.
Privateness could be defined as the protected sphere or condition of having exclusive control over
one’s actions or (cognitive) access. In contrast, the idea of publicness primarily refers to the public
sphere, where the right of “public use of reason” or “public deliberation” of free and equal citizens
can—or ought to—take place, and where public opinion is formed and expressed. Privateness and
publicness are opposite but complementary to each other, and the boundary between privateness
and publicness is socially permeable and historically variable. Developments in communication
technology and its social uses made privateness and publicness even more controversial in the 21 st
century.
Required reading:
S. Splichal, Privacy. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy,
Wiley 2016
S. Splichal, Publicness, Publicity. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and
Philosophy, Wiley 2016
11. January 17, 2017
Ivan Bernik (University of Ljubljana)
Ivan Bernik is professor of sociology at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. His
research includes sociology of social change, modern society, and globalization and gender studies.
Modernization and Globalization
Summary:
Based on analysis of some recent sociological literature on globalization, the lecture will try to
answer two questions. The first question will deal with the conceptualization of the temporal
dimension of globalization and the second one with the relationship between the concepts of
modernization and globalization. The answer to the first question will be based on a thesis that the
prevailing sociological concepts of globalization are characterized by strong »presentism«, i.e. they
pay almost no attention to the historical forms of globalization(s). The answer to the second question
will be organized around the idea that the concept of globalization is inextricably linked to the
»traditional« sociological concept of modernization. It will be argued that the current sociological
discussions of globalization are to a large extent a continuation – although very often couched in a
new terminology – of the grand sociological debate about modernization(s) and its (their) futures.
Required reading:
Bernik, Ivan: Modernizacija in globalizacija (In Slovene, available online) or
Therborn, Göran: 2011. The World. A beginner's guide. Cambridge: Polity (Chapter 2).
Seminars:
January 24, 2017 Slavko Splichal
Slavko Splichal. 2011. Transnationalization of the Public Sphere and the Fate of the Public.
New York: Hampton.
January 31, 2017 Peter Stankovič
Chris Barker (2002): Making Sense of Cultural Studies. Central Problems and Critical Debates.
London, Sage, str. 45–85 in 108–175. Smith, Philip in Riley, Alexander (2009): Cultural
Theory: An introduction (Second Edition). Malden: Blackwell, str. 195–206 in 262–279.
February 7, 2017 Igor Lukšič
Pierre Rosanvallon. 2008. Counter-Democracy. Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
February 14, 2017 Ivan Bernik
Jones, Pip; Liz Bradbury and Shaun Le Boutillier. 2011. Introducing social theory. Second
edition. Cambridge: Polity.
Required readings:
1. Slavko Splichal. 2011. Transnationalization of the Public Sphere and the Fate of the Public.
New York: Hampton.
2. Chris Barker (2002): Making Sense of Cultural Studies. Central Problems and Critical Debates.
London, Sage, str. 45–85 in 108–175. Smith, Philip in Riley, Alexander (2009): Cultural
Theory: An introduction (Second Edition). Malden: Blackwell, str. 195–206 in 262–279.
3. Pierre Rosanvallon. 2008. Counter-Democracy. Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
4. Jones, Pip; Liz Bradbury and Shaun Le Boutillier. 2011. Introducing social theory. Second
edition. Cambridge: Polity.
Required activities:
Student should attend on all lectures and seminars. For each lecture should read required literature
and prepare a position paper on one page. For each seminar should read a required literature from
the field and discuses main topics.
Final exam - guidelines:
The four-hour essay exam consists of four questions focusing on the sources on the required reading
list. Students will be expected not only to show a command of information contained in the required
reading, but also to articulate their own comments on and interpretations of this information.
Each of the four essays is graded separately. To pass the exam the students must answer all four
questions satisfactorily (receiving at least 6 points on the 10-point grading scale). If the answers to
three of the four essays are graded 8 points or above, students will be allowed to retake the exam
only on the essay that was graded as unsatisfactory (5 points or below).
The final grade is calculated as the average of the four individual grades.