Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 
Recent protests in Poland against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (see Tomasz Kitliński’s and Tim O’Flaherty’s post) galvanized an unusual array of people from across the political spectrum. The protests were initially ignored by the government, which decided to sign the agreement aimed at protecting copyrights. Yet after the President’s, Prime minister’s and other officials’ websites were hacked by anonymous groups claiming to be fighting against ACTA in the name of freedom, Prime Minister Donald Tusk reconsidered, promised to stall the ratification process and called for debate.
Unsurprisingly, many claim the call came too late. The agreement had been already signed, although it still has to be ratified by the Polish and European Parliaments. Many organizations and individuals criticizing ACTA refused to participate in the debate with the Prime Minister, seeing the event as a publicity stunt. Nonetheless, over two hundred people turned up at the Chancellery of the Prime Minister to take part in the debate on “Freedoms and Rights on the Internet,” one that quickly turned out to be a discussion about ACTA, but also about much more, perhaps most importantly about the role of public consultations in lawmaking. There is a possibility that this may be a turning point in the democratic deliberative practices in Poland.
During the meeting Mr. Tusk gave a rather unconvincing apology for not noticing the critical comments before ACTA was signed, and did refuse to annul the agreement – a demand made be the vast majority of the participants. He maintained that without ratification by the Polish parliament it would not come to force. While the Prime Minister, often accused of caring more about popularity polls than governing, seemed genuinely surprised by the uproar caused by the agreement, he did point out that the protests could have been caused by something more than ACTA itself. Indeed, the discussants voiced their concerns about such issues as the right of companies to access sensitive data without court orders, increasing restrictions for users on goods protected by copyright laws detached from internet reality, and, last but not least, about . . .
Read more: From Solidarity 2.0 to Civil Society 1.0?
Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 
Monday morning, I took a bit of a break from my plan for the day. I decided my class preparation and work on some overdue papers would wait. After I replied to Corey Robin’s response to a critical passing comment I made about his book, The Reactionary Mind, on Facebook, I put off until later in the week my search for interesting conservative intellectuals. I decided to ignore the Republican madness, and not worry about the ups and downs in the upcoming Presidential race, and didn’t read the reports on the Super Bowl (the annual sports media event that I usually ignore but did tweak my interest this year, New Yorker that I am). Instead, I opened my computer and watched the video of the Flying Seminar meeting with Bill Zimmerman (which I missed because I was at that time at a conference in Sofia). It was a particularly interesting meeting, very nicely captured in the video (thank you Lisa Lipscomb). I entered a different world, beyond the mundane, considering the connection between radical hopes and practical projects.
This is what the Flying Seminar is. Recall, Elzbieta Matynia and I developed the Flying Seminar in response to Occupy Wall Street. OWS reminded us of our days observing and participating in the Solidarity (Solidarność) movement in Poland, and the great independent academic project of Solidarity times, the Flying University of the Polish underground. We started with a meeting with activists in Shiroto no Ran (Amateur Revolt), a counter-cultural anti- nuclear movement which came to take part in the occupation of Zuccotti Park. We then arranged a meeting with Adam Michnik, the outstanding Polish critical intellectual and political activist, who also visited the Park. Our third meeting was with Zimmerman, an old New Leftist (it takes one to know one), author of the recent book, Troublemaker: A Memoir From the Front Lines of the Sixties. Last month, after a technical delay, we posted the video recording of that meeting.
The seminar discussion . . .
Read more: Between Radical Hopes and Practical Projects: Reflections on the Flying Seminar Session with Bill Zimmerman
Monday, February 6th, 2012 
Over the last year and a half, I have looked at the field of cultural production in Detroit through several lenses. As I’ve reflected on things a little more, I have come to see that these lenses are interconnected. What’s more, they point to a way in which certain art projects in Detroit are perhaps opening up an avenue for thinking about how we might actually go about making that other world the new social movements slogans tell us is possible.
I first have looked at Detroit from the perspective of what I call the art of the commons. This lens reveals a significant (though certainly not exclusive) tendency within contemporary Detroit art that has emerged in those spaces where the distinctions between public and private seems to have dissipated as part of the process of demassification of the city’s core, which has taken place over the last four decades. (As Marx declared, “All that is solid melts into air.”) The resulting abandonment of commercial and residential property, its subsequent neglect, and its reclamation in many quarters by nature has figuratively and in not a few cases quite literally opened up a new field of cultural production. Referring back to the medieval commons (land left open for grazing, farming, and other uses by anyone without requiring individual ownership — the term “commoner,” i.e., one without hereditary title, comes from it), the art of commons trespasses the boundaries of conventional property relations of modern capitalism.
The idea that private property is essentially an ideological construction, something legitimated by hegemonic authority underlies the psychogeographic investigations of the urban landscape undertaken by the Situationist International. This is my second filter. In particular, the SI concepts of derive (drift), detournement (diversion, derailment), the gift economy, and potlatch provide useful ideal types for understanding how cultural producers in Detroit negotiate the city’s postindustrial condition. (See the post “Beneath the Pavement, the Beach!” for my analysis of Detroit art . . .
Read more: Envisioning Real Utopias in Detroit
Friday, February 3rd, 2012 
This is the first In-Depth post, a new series of long-form “informed reflection on the events of the day.” I introduce the piece on this page. Click here to read Andras Bozoki’s In-Depth Analysis. -Jeff
The decline and fall of the Soviet Empire, with the consolidation of a democratic aftermath in much of East and Central Europe, is one of the great positive historical developments of the recent past. But it is not a Hollywood movie. The people from “the other Europe” are not simply living happily ever after. Alongside of democracy, they have experienced great suffering, especially in the former Yugoslavia. And, in some places, democratic aspirations have been systematically frustrated. The prime example is in the old imperial center, Putin’s Russia (though when we look closely there are democratic developments there). Democracy has been constituted and challenged, partially instituted, promised but not delivered. It’s proven to be a messy unending struggle.
Yesterday, we saw how this looks in Romania. Today we take a close look at the complexities of political struggle in Hungary. It is an unusual case.
At first Hungary seemed to be a prime example of successful democratic consolidation, a case study of a successful transition from dictatorship to democracy. But more recently, there is a real danger that things are flowing in the opposite direction, as Andras Bozoki reported in his post last year. Many have noticed, including contributors to Deliberately Considered. Leading former democratic activists, the most prominent dissidents, have protested. People in the immediate region and in broader Europe have expressed concern trying to understand what is happening.
Click here to read Andras Bozoki’s In-Depth Analysis.
Friday, February 3rd, 2012 The Hungarian political system for twenty years was a liberal democracy, characterized by a multiparty system, free elections, representational government, strong opposition, free media, strong, independent courts and credible institutions that protected the rule of law (i.e., the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman Office). With a few striking exceptions, human rights and religious freedoms were respected. During the two decades after 1989, the incumbent governments had always lost the elections (except for 2006). The media criticized politicians. Democracy was consolidated, and in 2004, Hungary joined the European Union. Hungary remained until relatively recently (until the eve of 2006), a success story of democratic achievement. But more recently, Hungary took a serious autocratic turn, as I explored in my post last year. Here, I explore the problem of the transition from democracy more closely, as this transition has since escalated. Is it possible for my country to return to an authoritarian system as a fully-fledged member of the European Union?
Conceptual underpinnings of the regime
The policies of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his ruling Fidesz Party are based on the pillars of “national unification,” the “central arena of power,” the change of the elites, power politics and the era of “revolutionary circumstances.” This is more than just empty rhetoric. Prime Minister Orbán genuinely believes them to be true.
First: almost all of Orbán’s important messages are based on the notion of “national unification,” which has both symbolic and literal importance. He expressly criticizes the Trianon Peace Treaty that concluded World War I as well as the legacy of the Communist system and the forces of globalization, which he sees as the most important political issues of the day. Orbán suggests that the “nation” serves as the bastion to offer protection against these forces. The idea of national unification furthermore maintains that Hungarians living outside of Hungary are not minorities, but full members of the Hungarian nation with corresponding rights and privileges. As such, these Hungarians are now granted Hungarian citizenship upon request, regardless of where they live, and thus they are also automatically granted voting rights. Orbán believes that the civic rights to freedom, membership to the European Union, belonging to the political allies of the . . .
Read more: The Crisis of Democracy in Hungary, 2012
Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 By Elisabeta Pop | 
In January, the streets of București, Timișoara, Cluj, Iași and many other Romanian cities have witnessed people’s frustration, desperation, and anger directed at the political class and particularly at President Traian Băsescu. Initially, it was the resignation of Dr. Raed Arafat, the country’s popular Deputy Health Minister, over plans to privatize emergency health services that sparked off the protests. But after President Băsescu withdrew the privatization proposal and reinstated the Deputy Minister, protesters in large numbers continued to occupy the streets and squares of Romanian cities. In a further attempt of appeasement, Prime Minister Emil Boc fired Foreign Minster Teodor Baconschi, for his remarks about the protesters on his personal blog. Baconschi had called the protesters, or as he claims only some of them, “inept and violent slum dwellers.” But still, while not intimidated by blizzards, the protesters are out in the streets, waving their placards.
What is behind the Romanian “winter of discontent?” The media, commentators and protesters themselves explain that they are revolting against the “political class.” Other words that are used to describe the endless rallies are democracy, dictatorship and, more often, dignity. Demonstrators are asking: “What does Romanian democracy mean?” They are stating that “Communism fell more than 20 years ago, but our life is no better.” Many blame the large IMF loans that the current Romanian government took to keep the economy afloat and the austerity measures that “had to be implemented.” However, there is a deeper infection, or, as one Romanian theater director and writer points out, there is a “cancer” eating away at Romanian society.
The Guardian calls Romanians “an apathetic nation.” Personally, I see them as perseveringly patient and hopeful for an end to the popular and yet interminable “transition.” They have been patient at least until now when, as the Romanian saying goes, “the blade has reached the bone.”
Growing up I was taught that Romanians have to laugh at themselves. We call it “haz de necaz,” or laughing in the face of trouble. And we have been patiently laughing at ourselves in the . . .
Read more: Romania’s Winter of Discontent
Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 
Following developments in the Republican presidential nominating contest the instability of the race is stark. Every political contest involves flawed candidates: how could it be otherwise? But often the public develops a firm sense of the perspective of the candidates and chooses to join a team. As primary campaigns are waged on a state-by-state basis, it is expected that in some realms one candidate will do better than another, but psychiatric mood swings are something else. We saw the politics of allegiance in the competition between Barack and Hillary (and the wormy love apple: imagine our blue dress politics in an Edwards presidency!). In the states of the industrial Midwest, home to Reagan Democrats, Hillary posted strong numbers; Obama was more successful in states not so hard hit by industrial decline, states with a rainbow electorate, and those open to a new type of politics. Soon one knew the metrics of the race, even if the outcome was uncertain. But the Republican campaign upends these rules as voter preferences lurch wildly. This is a campaign year that reminds us of voters’ cultural fickleness – their political ADD. They are watching a reality television show and so are we (Jeff Goldfarb describes his pained reaction in “The Republican Reality Show”). If one is not newly tickled, one turns away. Media narratives set our politics.
We have gazed at candidates, quasi-candidates, and proto-candidates – Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and The Donald – dance with the stars. Can parties fire their voters? Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty could have had his turn had he the internal fortitude or cockeyed optimism to recognize that to be dismissed in August might lead to be crowned a year later. If politics were based on a comparison and conflict of ideas, this would be inconceivable.
But American politics has become, as Jeffrey Goldfarb emphasizes, a reality show – adore it, dismiss it, or despise it, but depend on it. Voters demand diversion; they want bread and circuses, at least circuses. Around the scrum are kibitzers, now Sarah Palin and Donald . . .
Read more: The Florida Primary and The ADD Electorate
Monday, January 30th, 2012 
Angry young Poles are protesting online and on the streets in the biggest demonstrations since 1989. The pretext is the government’s signing of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which jeopardizes Internet freedom. But there are more reasons for our fury: a transition which has strengthened economic inequalities and lack of perspectives for the younger generation. As sociologist Adam Ostolski writes, “Life in Poland is getting harder, the privatization-by-stealth of health services and education is going on, the prices of municipal services and staple foods are rising. Poland is now the leading country in Europe in terms of non-permanent job contracts.” Hence social anger today. Are the protests changing into a civil society movement, a Solidarity 2.0? We hope that this defiant and militant mobilization will not exclude migrants and minorities. An optimistic sign is that alternative collectives (Rozbrat in Poznan and Tektura in Lublin) are at the forefront of these events where ordinary people in Poland are demanding their rights – at last.
Poland has transitioned from fake Communism (the unrealized Marxist ideal) to turbo capitalism-cum-fake Christianity, as a religion has been instrumentalized into political anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-foreigner hatred. The economic transformation is sold as a success story, but, in fact, the situation of many groups of the population has worsened. Social justice, an empty concept under East European “socialism,” has become a dirty phrase. It’s a taboo to pronounce it, let alone practice it. Poles have been Foucault’s docile bodies of commercialization and corporatization. Until today’s wrath.
Still, the political class here believes in discipline and profit – and prejudices. The ACTA treaty was signed by the Polish government without social consultations. When the protests broke out, the first reaction of the leaders was to deny them. Later, head of the National Security Bureau, General Koziej, claimed that he wouldn’t exclude introducing emergency measures if the cyber attacks continued. When the Parliamentary Committee on Innovation was meeting to discuss ACTA, a Law and Justice (the rightist opposition party) lawmaker, Michal Suski, referred to . . .
Read more: Solidarity 2.0? Cyber and Street Protests in Poland
Friday, January 27th, 2012 
I have a longstanding weakness as a sociologist of media. There are often developments in media popular culture that I know are important, and to which I know I should pay close attention, but I just can’t stomach to read, listen or watch, leading me to be out of the loop. It started with the celebrity gossip in the supermarket scandal sheets. I could skim People magazine only with great difficulty. I remember my dismay when I did review (there were not enough words to say read) the celebrity treatment of Lech Walesa in which it was hard to discern why he was the subject of such close attention. I hit a severe watchers block when it came to the TV program Dallas. Then there were the worlds of Talk Radio and Reality TV. One of the biggest errors of my scholarly life was not paying close attention to the news craze about the OJ Simpson trial, when lack of patience with the silliness of “all OJ all the time” led me to overlook the importance of the racial politics of that media circus. I compensate for my low tolerance for junk by reading up, learning from scholars who reported on and analyzed what I had avoided. From the classic by Ien Ang, Watching Dallas, to Josh Gamson’s telling Freaks Talk Back.
But I am now proud of myself. I have finally followed a TV Reality Show from beginning to end, watching the Republican primary debates. All the elements are there, most apparent in the rise and fall of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and New Gingrich, each a worthy contestant, while an extremely unlikely President.
Bachmann gained limited attention playing in Iowa state fair, a local girl with a solid record of absurd assertions in and outside of the Halls of Congress, running for re-election and to be President of the United States.
Rick Perry seemed to be the charmed . . .
Read more: The Republican Reality Show: The Rise and Fall of Not Romney
Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 
I continue to be struck by the constancy of Barack Obama. His tactics shift and weave, but his overall principles and project are firmly rooted. In the State of the Union address, he revealed his core convictions, explained his policies and their consequences, and linked his accomplishments with his promises.
Obama is a centrist, working to define common sense, working to move the center left, as I have earlier argued. In his speech last night, he focused on fairness and the viability of the American dream. He argued for the way the government can support economic development and the interests of the vast majority of the American public. Though he did not use the language of Occupy Wall Street, his focus on fairness was clearly supported by the fruits of the social movement’s labors. And the principled debate before the American people in the coming election was illuminated, as Obama argued for his side: a “smarter more effective government” versus limited government, the Republican ideal.
The speech was elegantly crafted and delivered, something that is now expected from Obama and therefore doesn’t impress and is not really news. But the fine form delivered a well rounded argument.
He opened and closed with a call for common purpose, exemplified by the military and its virtues, as he highlighted major milestones in foreign affairs: the end of the war in Iraq and the killing of Osama Bin Laden. A move that makes me uncomfortable, though I understand that it works well.
The opening:
“Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought — and several thousand gave their lives.
We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. (Applause.) For the first . . .
Read more: The State of the Union: Opening the Debate of 2012
|
A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
Blogroll
On the Left
On the Right
|