Search

The purpose of this article is to thoroughly research Habermas’ view of technology with regard to his discourse ethics. In the first part of the article, Habermas’ theoretical starting points concerning the question of technology are presented. In the next segment, findings are presented, which can be traced mainly in an indirect way from Habermas’ discussions on media theory and from his theory of the colonization of the lifeworld. In the next step, Habermas’ relation to the phenomenon of mass media is addressed. The mass media are understood as a concrete expression of modern progress and are closely linked to technological development. In the last part of the article, Habermas’ relation to the internet is presented. The internet is widely considered an alternative to the mass media in modern times. The article presents a holistic analysis of Habermas’ relation to technology. It also presents some interesting findings regarding Habermas’ positioning towards the mass media and the internet.

The purpose of this article is to thoroughly research Habermas’ view of technology with regard to his discourse ethics. In the first part of the article, Habermas’ theoretical starting points concerning the question of technology are presented. In the next segment, findings are presented, which can be traced mainly in an indirect way from Habermas’ discussions on media theory and from his theory of the colonization of the lifeworld. In the next step, Habermas’ relation to the phenomenon of mass media is addressed. The mass media are understood as a concrete expression of modern progress and are closely linked to technological development. In the last part of the article, Habermas’ relation to the internet is presented. The internet is widely considered an alternative to the mass media in modern times. The article presents a holistic analysis of Habermas’ relation to technology. It also presents some interesting findings regarding Habermas’ positioning towards the mass media and the internet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Teorija in Praksa is the property of Teorija in Praksa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The people against Oliver Frljić, or Poland after The Curse In the spring of 2017, the play entitled The Curse, directed by Oliver Frljić premiered at one of Warsaw theatres. It was not the first attempt to perform in Poland on the part of the Croatian director, well known as a controversial artist whose plays discuss social and political issues. His previous appearances on Polish stages usually evoked an air of scandal. The content of The Curse, too, had its producers investigated by the state prosecutors soon after its premiere; and blasphemy and incitement to crime in the theatre were discussed in the public sphere. The Curse is a loose adaptation of Stanisław Wyspiański’s drama, originally written in 1899. It deals provocatively with questions about modern religiousness and non-religiousness, touching upon relations between the Polish Catholic Church and the state, and upon national identity in contemporary Poland. This paper is focused on reactions to Frljić’s play, especially on different ways of expressing public anger as the most frequent reaction; it shows how politicians, members of religious and nationalist groups and other protesters became part of the performance. It aims to explain the success of one of the most scandalous theatrical ventures in Poland, describes the peculiarity of the Polish context, the dynamics of reaction of opponents and students of Frljić’s activities, and shows the lasting consequences as well as the performative potential of the Croatian director’s presence in the Polish public sphere. A very important circumstance in researching The Curse is that – as emphasized both in the performance itself and in the public debate – Polish national values were criticized by an outsider, in other words, by the Other. The article pays particular attention to two contexts: one is engaged theatre’s potential to transcend its own boundaries and influence the social and political reality; the other is the author’s personal participation in Frljić’s performance. Naród przeciwko Frljiciowi albo Polska po Klątwie Wiosną 2017 roku w jednym z warszawskich teatrów premierę miał spektakl Klątwa w reżyserii Olivera Frljicia. To nie był debiut reżysera w Polsce, jego poprzednim działaniom na polskich scenach towarzyszyła atmosfera skandalu. Frljić jest znany jako kontrowersyjny artysta, którego sztuka dotyka sprawa społecznych i politycznych. Wkrótce po premierze prokuratura wszczęła postępowanie przeciwko realizatorom spektaklu, w związku z jego treścią; namawianie do zbrodni i bluźnierstwo w teatrze zdominowały dyskusje w sferze publicznej. Klątwa to luźna adaptacja dramatu Wyspiańskiego, napisana w 1899 roku. Prowokuje pytaniami o współczesną religijność i niereligijność, dotyka relacji między Kościołem katolickim a państwem, porusza także kwestie związane z tożsamością narodową we współczesnej Polsce. Artykuł koncentruje się na reakcjach na spektakl Olivera Frljicia, zwłaszcza na temat różnych sposobów wyrażania publicznego gniewu; pokazuje, jak politycy, członkowie grup religijnych i ugrupowań nacjonalistycznych oraz inni protestujący, stali się częścią przedstawienia. Tekst ma na celu wyjaśnienie sukcesu jednego z najbardziej skandalicznych przedsięwzięć teatralnych w Polsce, opisuje specyfikę polskiego kontekstu, dynamikę reakcji przeciwników i badaczy działań Frljicia, ale pokazuje także trwałe konsekwencje oraz performatywny potencjał obecności chorwackiego reżysera w polskiej sferze publicznej. Istotnym dla badań czynnikiem jest eksponowany i w spektaklu, i w debacie publicznej fakt, że polskie wartości narodowe zostały skrytykowane przez Innego/Obcego. Rozważania zostały przedstawione w kontekście oczywistego dla teatru zaangażowanego potencjału do przekraczania własnych granic, ingerowania w sprawy społeczne i polityczne, ale także w kontekście osobistego udziału autorki artykułu w spektaklu Frljića.

Copyright of Teorija in Praksa is the property of Teorija in Praksa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Teorija in Praksa is the property of Teorija in Praksa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Filozofski Vestnik is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Filozofski Vestnik is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zgodovina za Vse is the property of Zgodovinsko Drustvo Celje (The Historical Society of Celje) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Socialno Delo is the property of Socialno Delo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Teorija in Praksa is the property of Teorija in Praksa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Družboslovne Razprave is the property of Druzboslovne Razprave and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Družboslovne Razprave is the property of Druzboslovne Razprave and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Central to explaining ethnic conflict in the world today is our understanding of the communication practices which bind people together -- the contemporary media, particularly television, as well as ritualised forms of communication within ethnic groups -- taking account of the manner in which collective memories change because of the impact of changing social and economic structures. This is one of the conclusions of the 7th Colloquium on Communication and Culture (8th-10th April, 1994, in Piran, Slovenia). A number of participants pointed out the crucial role of the media in the process of the reinforcement of nationalist and ethnocentric practices which, according to the examples, presented during the colloquium (Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Greece), are expanding steadily all over Europe. In the near future we must expect the proliferation of conflicts, stemming from ethnic diversity, differences in language, religion, economic wealth, race, and sexual orientation. The declarations of "the End of the History" and the "Clash of Civilizations", but also that of "ethnic cleansing", are the signposts of an emerging age of intolerance that, if not moderated, could plunge the world into protracted conflicts between the rich and poor, the secular and religious, among ethnic and linguistic-cultural groups, sometimes striving for nation-states of their own. This particular point could be one of the indicators for our understanding of the future: considering that the actual form of the state is the nation-state, the interest of ethnic groups in forming their own states seems to be natural and legitimate. This, however, indicates that the current wave of nationalism has only begun. Discussing the symbols and myths which exploit the ethnic (religious, linguistic) "otherness" and form the images of "the enemy", the participants agreed that this is one of most used and dangerous elements of the culture of violence, dichotomizing self and the "others", separating ends and means; a sort of ideologically-loaded descriptor which prevents its users from seeing the formation of ethnic identities as human cultural responses within the culture of peace (in this case by identifying "the self" significantly with "the other" and viewing ends and means as a never-ending chain). Examples of the actual culture of violence in Europe presented by some participants to the colloquium may even suggest the linguistic and tactical synchronization among practices of civil violence in various parts of Europe. Presentation of an ever-growing number of ideologized media strategies, sometimes accompanied by politically exploited religion -- the fundamental obstacle to human development -- has stretched from "scientific nationalism" in Greece to ideologized "street rituals" in Northern Ireland, from systematic exclusions of "the others" in the media in France to barbaric "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia, the final result of the tragic breakdown of human communication. Is it possible to conceive of media which would not support the polarization of participants in the main ethno-religious conflicts of the world today? The point of the possible conflict regulation and resolution is the reevaluation of the importance of the public sphere (contrary to its present "refeudalization"), in which different groups can develop their diversity, their identities and promote the cultural interchange of their specific values. Considering culture as a form of human communication the question of forming the cultural identity and its relationship to "otherness" could represent the crucial point of the future human and social development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concepts of the public sphere, public, publicness, publicity, and public opinion are among the most controversial, ambiguous and opaque concepts in the social sciences. But in spite of the social, historical, and disciplinary yariability of their meanings, these concepts have been used persistently since the 18th century. The attempt to unfold the diversity of their meanings is based upon the necessity to explore the central topics to be discussed in the journal Javnost/The Public. Through critical interpretation of some fundamental contributions to the field, different conceptualizations are analyzed with the aim of identifying some persisting questions and concerns, relevant both to social research in general, and specifically to democratic theories. The text begins with the controversial notions of the fall vs. the rise of the public sphere, and the theoretical and empirical validity of the concepts related to it. Four of them are examined in more detail: (1) a/the public, in the sense of a specific social category (collectivity) that appears as a social (political) actor, or subject, specifically in relation to a given activity or project; (2) publicness, in the sense of a specific nature or character of an activity or social space; (3) the concept of the public sphere; (4) finally, the concept of public opinion, which is considered to correlate with the first three conceptual dimensions, and to add to them a fourth, that conceptualizes opinions. The sociological conception of the public is discussed, primarily in the perspective of a discursive model, where attention is directed towards different notions of rationality and the publicness of discourse. Three conceptual dimensions of publicness are debated: (a) general access to an issue, place, or message ("of the public"); (b) publicness in the sense of common or general, and thus public, interests ("for the public"); (c) publicness in the sense that something is created by public (e.g., public opinion). A short explication of the concept of the public sphere is based on Habermas' conceptualization. Finally, public opinion is discussed from two perspectives: that of a normative theory of democracy and the opposing one of "serialization of individuals", resulting from opinion polling. The concluding part of the article is devoted to the problems of a "second-generation" structural transformation of the public sphere, which is based on globalization of economy, polity, and culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Historiae Artis Slovenica is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)