Search

Retrospection and transformation of the phenomena of criticism and crisis in social theory in recent decades have led to the weakening and even “illegitimate” renunciation of the said doublet. The paper presents an analysis of the renewal of discourse on criticism/crisis and its effects with special consideration of the possibilities of structural criticism. We included several authors of recent analyses as well as the viewpoints that have led to reconsideration of historical and analytical dynamics of two categories, structure and conjuncture, as a form of analysis of current structural processes in terms of structural analysis and criticism. The paper comprises three parts. The first part is a reflection on the reason criticism and crisis have been subjected to different processes of derogation despite their original connection. In the second part, we show the effects of different ways that crisis has manifested itself in capitalism and explain its dispersive and “non-punctual” modalities. The third part raises the question of chances of reuniting the crisis and “immanent criticism” based on structural criticism, and we further articulate its connections with immanent criticism. Structural criticism is viewed as a connection between immanent criticism and transcendent orientation that is focused on the reconnection between crisis and criticism, the elements related to capitalism., Preispitivanje i transformacija fenomena kritike i krize u društvenoj teoriji su poslednjih de cenija doveli do slabljenja pa i do delegitimacijskog osporavanja navedenog dubleta. U radu se razmatraju mogućnosti obnove diskursa o kritici/krizi s mogućim delatnim učincima, uz poseban osvrt na mogućnosti strukturalne kritike.Različiti autori recentnih analiza se uzima ju u obzir, te se razmatraju stanovišta koja vode do ponovnog razmatranja istorijskog i ana litičkog dinamizma kategorija strukture i konjunkture kao razrade aktuelnih strukturalnih procesa u terminima strukturalne analize i kritike. Rad se sastoji iz tri dela. U prvom delu razmatramo zbog čega su kritika i kriza koje su izvorno spojene podvrgnuti različitim proce sima derogiranja. U drugom delu pokazujemo efekte promene načina ispoljavanja krize u kapitalizmu, tačnije osvetljavamo njenu disperzivne i ne-punktualne modalitete. U trećem delu postavljamo pitanje o šansama ponovnog spajanja krize i kritike na osnovu navigacije strukturalne kritike, nadalje artikulišemo njene veze sa „imanentnom kritikom“. Strukturalna kritika se analizira kao spoj između imanentne kritike i transcendentnog usmerenja koji radi na reconnections between crisis and critique as the elements of relationship to capitalism.

Originating from the fields of philosophy and history, the term historicism is often used by architectural historians. Aiming to contribute to the theoretical framework for the analysis of architectural historicism, the paper first explores the meaning of the concept in its native field of philosophy of history. The paper is aligned with the recent scholarship which interprets historicism as a worldview and deduces three historicist principles – principles of holism, individuality, and development. This paper argues that an historicist outlook marked wider creative achievements of an epoch, and that architecture of the period approximately ranging from the 1750s to the 1950s did not evade its influence. Finally, the paper illustrates the three principles in the idea of building for the age which haunted architects of the Western civilisation for almost two centuries.

Originating from the fields of philosophy and history, the term historicism is often used by architectural historians. Aiming to contribute to the theoretical framework for the analysis of architectural historicism, the paper first explores the meaning of the concept in its native field of philosophy of history. The paper is aligned with the recent scholarship which interprets historicism as a worldview and deduces three historicist principles – principles of holism, individuality, and development. This paper argues that an historicist outlook marked wider creative achievements of an epoch, and that architecture of the period approximately ranging from the 1750s to the 1950s did not evade its influence. Finally, the paper illustrates the three principles in the idea of building for the age which haunted architects of the Western civilisation for almost two centuries.

Retrospection and transformation of the phenomena of criticism and crisis in social theory in recent decades have led to the weakening and even “illegitimate” renunciation of the said doublet. The paper presents an analysis of the renewal of discourse on criticism/crisis and its effects with special consideration of the possibilities of structural criticism. We included several authors of recent analyses as well as the viewpoints that have led to reconsideration of historical and analytical dynamics of two categories, structure and conjuncture, as a form of analysis of current structural processes in terms of structural analysis and criticism. The paper comprises three parts. The first part is a reflection on the reason criticism and crisis have been subjected to different processes of derogation despite their original connection. In the second part, we show the effects of different ways that crisis has manifested itself in capitalism and explain its dispersive and “non-punctual” modalities. The third part raises the question of chances of reuniting the crisis and “immanent criticism” based on structural criticism, and we further articulate its connections with immanent criticism. Structural criticism is viewed as a connection between immanent criticism and transcendent orientation that is focused on the reconnection between crisis and criticism, the elements related to capitalism., Preispitivanje i transformacija fenomena kritike i krize u društvenoj teoriji su poslednjih de cenija doveli do slabljenja pa i do delegitimacijskog osporavanja navedenog dubleta. U radu se razmatraju mogućnosti obnove diskursa o kritici/krizi s mogućim delatnim učincima, uz poseban osvrt na mogućnosti strukturalne kritike.Različiti autori recentnih analiza se uzima ju u obzir, te se razmatraju stanovišta koja vode do ponovnog razmatranja istorijskog i ana litičkog dinamizma kategorija strukture i konjunkture kao razrade aktuelnih strukturalnih procesa u terminima strukturalne analize i kritike. Rad se sastoji iz tri dela. U prvom delu razmatramo zbog čega su kritika i kriza koje su izvorno spojene podvrgnuti različitim proce sima derogiranja. U drugom delu pokazujemo efekte promene načina ispoljavanja krize u kapitalizmu, tačnije osvetljavamo njenu disperzivne i ne-punktualne modalitete. U trećem delu postavljamo pitanje o šansama ponovnog spajanja krize i kritike na osnovu navigacije strukturalne kritike, nadalje artikulišemo njene veze sa „imanentnom kritikom“. Strukturalna kritika se analizira kao spoj između imanentne kritike i transcendentnog usmerenja koji radi na reconnections between crisis and critique as the elements of relationship to capitalism.

Originating from the fields of philosophy and history, the term historicism is often used by architectural historians. Aiming to contribute to the theoretical framework for the analysis of architectural historicism, the paper first explores the meaning of the concept in its native field of philosophy of history. The paper is aligned with the recent scholarship which interprets historicism as a worldview and deduces three historicist principles – principles of holism, individuality, and development. This paper argues that an historicist outlook marked wider creative achievements of an epoch, and that architecture of the period approximately ranging from the 1750s to the 1950s did not evade its influence. Finally, the paper illustrates the three principles in the idea of building for the age which haunted architects of the Western civilisation for almost two centuries.

Retrospection and transformation of the phenomena of criticism and crisis in social theory in recent decades have led to the weakening and even “illegitimate” renunciation of the said doublet. The paper presents an analysis of the renewal of discourse on criticism/crisis and its effects with special consideration of the possibilities of structural criticism. We included several authors of recent analyses as well as the viewpoints that have led to reconsideration of historical and analytical dynamics of two categories, structure and conjuncture, as a form of analysis of current structural processes in terms of structural analysis and criticism. The paper comprises three parts. The first part is a reflection on the reason criticism and crisis have been subjected to different processes of derogation despite their original connection. In the second part, we show the effects of different ways that crisis has manifested itself in capitalism and explain its dispersive and “non-punctual” modalities. The third part raises the question of chances of reuniting the crisis and “immanent criticism” based on structural criticism, and we further articulate its connections with immanent criticism. Structural criticism is viewed as a connection between immanent criticism and transcendent orientation that is focused on the reconnection between crisis and criticism, the elements related to capitalism., Preispitivanje i transformacija fenomena kritike i krize u društvenoj teoriji su poslednjih de cenija doveli do slabljenja pa i do delegitimacijskog osporavanja navedenog dubleta. U radu se razmatraju mogućnosti obnove diskursa o kritici/krizi s mogućim delatnim učincima, uz poseban osvrt na mogućnosti strukturalne kritike.Različiti autori recentnih analiza se uzima ju u obzir, te se razmatraju stanovišta koja vode do ponovnog razmatranja istorijskog i ana litičkog dinamizma kategorija strukture i konjunkture kao razrade aktuelnih strukturalnih procesa u terminima strukturalne analize i kritike. Rad se sastoji iz tri dela. U prvom delu razmatramo zbog čega su kritika i kriza koje su izvorno spojene podvrgnuti različitim proce sima derogiranja. U drugom delu pokazujemo efekte promene načina ispoljavanja krize u kapitalizmu, tačnije osvetljavamo njenu disperzivne i ne-punktualne modalitete. U trećem delu postavljamo pitanje o šansama ponovnog spajanja krize i kritike na osnovu navigacije strukturalne kritike, nadalje artikulišemo njene veze sa „imanentnom kritikom“. Strukturalna kritika se analizira kao spoj između imanentne kritike i transcendentnog usmerenja koji radi na reconnections between crisis and critique as the elements of relationship to capitalism.

This paper offers an alternative theoretical consideration of ethnic identification in psychology. Mainstream social psychological theories are largely positivist and individualistic. New possibilities of theoretical understanding open up as the relational and symbolic nature of ethnicity enters psychological inquiry. This paper takes culture and self as two conceptual domains of social identification, following a meta-theoretical position of cultural psychology. The central focus is the cultural development of the person in social context of a given culture, specifically their ethnic identification, to which end, it looks at several processual aspects. First, ethnic culture is approached as a guiding principle and practice in everyday understanding and experience of one’s own ethnicity. Second, ethnic identification is considered a social and personal act of meaning making, which happens in a given social context, through practical activity and the discursive positioning of a person. Third, since rather than considered a conscious aspect of belonging, ethnicity is assumed and taken for granted, ruptures are considered as destabilizing events that create an opportunity for ethnic meaning reinterpretation and developmental transition. In the meaning making process, symbolic resources are conceived of as primary self-configuring tools, which are also culture[1]configuring. Ethnic meaning making is theorized as a central social[1]psychological process through which ethnic culture and a person as an ethnic subject emerge in historical perspective. Finally, the uniqueness of a singular person in the shared ethnic culture is conceptualized based on symbolic distancing from the immediate social context, through the model of knitting personal and socio-historical semiotic threads., Ovaj rad nudi alternativno teorijsko razmatranje etničke identifikacije u psihologiji. Glavne socijalno-psihološke teorije već su razmatrane kao pozitivističke i individualističke. Nove mogućnosti teorijskog razumevanja otvaraju se kada se u psihološko izučavanje uvedu relaciona i simbolička priroda etniciteta. Ovaj rad uzima kulturu i sopstvo kao dva konceptualna domena socijalne identifikacije, koji slede iz meta-teorijske pozicije kulturne psihologije. Glavni fokus rada je kulturni razvoj osobe u socijalnom kontekstu date kulture, specifično njene etničke identifikacije, u cilju čega posmatra nekoliko procesualnih aspekata. Prvo, etničkoj kulturi se pristupa kao vodećem principu i praksi u svakodnevnom razumevanju i iskustvu sopstvenog etniciteta. Drugo, etnička identifikacije se smatra socijalnim i ličnim aktom kreiranja značenja, koji se dešava u datom socijalnom kontekstu, kroz praktičnu aktivnost i diskurzivno pozicioniranje osobe. Treće, s obzirom da se etnicitet ne razmatra kao svesni aspekt pripadnosti, već se podrazumeva i uzima zdravo za gotovo, rupture se razmatraju kao destabilizujući događaji koji stvaraju prilike za reinterpretaciju etničkih značenja i razvojne promene. U procesu kreiranja značenja, simbolički resursi se smatraju primarnim samo-konstruišućim oruđima, koji su istovremeno konstruišući za kulturu. Kreiranje etničkih značenja se teoretizuje kao centralni socijalno-psihološki proces kroz koji etnička kultura i osoba kao etnički subjekat nastaju u istorijskoj perspektivi. Na kraju, jedinstvenost singularne osobe u zajedničkoj etničkoj kulturi konceptualizuje se na osnovu simboličkog distanciranja od neposrednog socijalnog konteksta kroz model pletenja ličnih i socio-istorijskih semiotičkih niti.

This paper presents three interconnected examinations of Asger Sørensen’s arguments in Capitalism, Alienation and Critique, which thematize Sørensen’s overarching understanding of the relationship between theory and practice: his general methodological perspective on critical theory, its distinctive epistemology and its anchoring in the empirical world. The paper authors each try to push Sørensen on these crucial points by considering how Sørensen’s variant of critical theory actually operates, scrutinizing in more detail the particular relationship between the ‘experience of injustice’, which for Sørensen constitutes the empirical foothold for critical theory, and the theoretical diagnosis of social reality which the critical theorist should formulate against the backdrop of this experience., Ovaj rad predstavlja tri povezana ispitivanja argumentacije Asgera Serensena u Kapitalizmu, otuđenju i kritici, koja tematizuju Serensenovo generalno razumevanje odnosa teorije i prak se, drugim rečima njegovu metodološku perspektivu u pogledu kritičke teorije, njene speci fične epistemologije i njene ukorenjenosti u empirijskom svetu. Marjan Ivković, Srđan Pro danović i Milan Urošević nastoje da problematizuju Serensenovo stanovište razmatrajući način na koji Serensenova kritička teorija zapravo funkcioniše, analizirajući detaljnije odnos između ,iskustva nepravdeʻ, koje za Serensena predstavlja empirijsko uporište kritičke teo rije, i teorijske dijagnoze društvene stvarnosti koju kritički teoretičar formuliše na temelju tog iskustva

Until a decade ago, a comprehensive contestation of the so-called “transitional” paradigm was largely missing in the post-socialist era. This reality changed in the last ten years, especially in the region of former Yugoslavia. Some social movements in this region have started questioning the very essence of the economic and social misconceptions of the post[1]socialist condition. This paper first provides an elaboration of the very conceptual edifice of the ruling paradigm (hence the object of the critique of the three social movements in question), as well as a theoretical and methodological framework. It goes on to map out the epistemic discursive content of the respective social movements in Belgrade, Zagreb and Sarajevo, thereby assessing the conceptual content of their critique of the post-socialist transitional paradigm. Finally, given the similarities between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the paper seeks to explain variations in the critique by how the structural and contextual features impact the perspective from which it is constructed., Do pre desetak godina, sveobuhvatna kritika takozvane ‘tranzitološke paradigme’ je u dobroj meri izostajala u eri post-socijalizma. Ovakva realnost promenjena je u poslednjoj deceniji, a posebno u bivšoj Jugoslaviji. Pojedini društveni pokreti su u ovoj regiji počeli da propituju suštinu ekonomskih i društvenih protivrečnosti post-socijalističkog stanja. Ovaj članak po-činjem elaboracijom konceptualne konstrukcije vladajuće paradigme kao objekta kritike tri društvena pokreta kojima se bavim – a onda i elaboracijom teorijskog i metodološkog okvira. Potom nastavljam sa mapiranjem epistemološkog diskursa tri pokreta u Beogradu, Zagrebu i Sarajevu – i time ispitujem konceptualni sadržaj njihove kritike post-socijalističke paradi-gme. Konačno, uzevši u obzir sličnosti između Srbije, Hrvatske i Bosne i Hercegovine, ovaj članak teži da objasni varijacije u prirodi kritike – imajući u vidu način na koji su strukturne i kontekstualne karakteristike ove tri zemlje uticale na perspektivu iz koje su kritike bile konstruisane.

This paper extends Alan John Simmons’s conceptual distinction between Lockean (or consent) and Kantian (or justificatory) conceptions of legitimacy that he applied to the question of the legitimacy of states, to the issue of legitimacy of public decisions. I criticise the consent conception of legitimacy defended by Simmons, and I defend the Rawlsian version of the justificatory conception of legitimacy from his objection. The approach of this paper is distinctive because the two conceptions are assessed by investigating, using the method of reflective equilibrium, their respective prescriptions concerning the treatment of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and epidemiologic measures. I argue that the method of reflective equilibrium does not support the consent conception. Considering the issues of treatment of APD and of epidemiologic measures, I argue that the consent conception of legitimacy is not well-equipped for the evaluation of norms that are not strictly self-regarding. This causes a deficit of prescriptions for relevant social responses. Further, by considering the case of responses to epidemics, I argue that such a conception can avoid harmful consequences only by recurring to additional, and independent, premises. This does not cause incoherence but reduces the coherence of a normative system. Finally, the consent conception is not equipped to support social cooperation in an optimal way, which has proved to be necessary in critical conditions, like a pandemic. On the other hand, I argue that the method of reflective equilibrium supports the Rawlsian version of justificatory conception of legitimacy, because of its advantages in handling the indicated issues. In addition, I maintain that this justificatory conception is respectful of freedom and equality of agents as moral self-legislators, and, thus, it is not vulnerable to Simmons’s main criticism., Ovaj rad proširuje konceptualnu distinkciju Alana Džona Simonsa između lokovske koncep cije legitimiteta (koja se zasniva na pristanku) i kantovske koncepcije legitimiteta (koja se za sniva na opravdanju) koju je primenio na pitanje legitimnosti država, odnosno na pitanje le gitimnosti javnih odluka. U radu kritikujem koncepciju legitimiteta zasnovanog na pristanku koju Simons zastupa, te branim rolsovsku verziju koncepcije legitimiteta zasnovane na oprav danju od prigovora. Ovaj rad je karakterističan po tome što se ove dve koncepcije legitimi teta procenjuju kroz istraživanje, primenom metode refleksivne ravnoteže, njihovih odgova rajućih propisa koji se tiču lečenja antisocijalnog poremećaja ličnosti (ASPD) i epidemioloških mera. Tvrdim da metod refleksivne ravnoteže ne podržava koncepciju legitimnosti zasnovane na pristanku. Izumajući u obzir problem lečenja ASPD-a i problem epidemioloških mera, tvr dim da koncepcija zasnovana na pristanku nije dobro opremljena za procenu normi koje se ne tiču striktno govoreći nas samih. Ovo prouzrokuje nedovoljan odgovor za relevantne društvene probleme. Dalje, razmatrajući slučaj odgovora na epidemije, pokazujem da ova koncepcija legitimnosti može da izbegne štetne posledice samo pozivanjem na dodatne i nezavisne premise. Iako neuzrokuje nekoherentnost, ovo umanjuje koherentnost normativ nog sistema. Konačno, koncepcija legitimnosti zasnovana na pristanku nije dobro opremljena da podrži društvenu saradnju na optimalan način, što se pokazalo neophodnim u kritičnim uslovima poput pandemije. S druge strane, tvrdim da metod refleksivne ravnoteže podržava Rolsovu verziju koncepcije legitimiteta zasnove na opravdanju zbog svojih prednosti u rešavanju navedenih problema. Pored toga, pokazujem dal koncepcijaegitimiteta zsnovana na opravdanju poštuje slobodu i jednakost delatnika kao moralnih samozakonodavaca, te da nije podložna Simonsovim glavnim kritikama.