Search

In the last decade, digital filter bubbles have become widely discussed phenomena in different fields within the broader discipline of media and communication studies. This paper focuses on the question of why they are problematic for the functioning of the public sphere. This paper argues that algorithmic personalisation can lead to the fragmentation, polarisation, and radicalisation of the public sphere because of the complex relationship between human agency and technology that mutually encourage one another through habitual adaptation. Through the concept of habit, such theoretical grounding enables a critique of existing empirical research regarding the filter bubble effect, with the argument that the main problem is not information isolation or the reduced accessibility/visibility of selected content, but the habitual adaptation of content to individual users, which can explain why users stick to certain content. The article concludes with the finding that the problem of algorithmic personalisation should be studied as a broader historic phenomenon indicative of the decline of the public sphere, which is itself caused by the conflict between public and commercial interests. Bibliografija: str. 280-283. Abstract.

In the last decade, digital filter bubbles have become widely discussed phenomena in different fields within the broader discipline of media and communication studies. This paper focuses on the question of why they are problematic for the functioning of the public sphere. This paper argues that algorithmic personalisation can lead to the fragmentation, polarisation, and radicalisation of the public sphere because of the complex relationship between human agency and technology that mutually encourage one another through habitual adaptation. Through the concept of habit, such theoretical grounding enables a critique of existing empirical research regarding the filter bubble effect, with the argument that the main problem is not information isolation or the reduced accessibility/visibility of selected content, but the habitual adaptation of content to individual users, which can explain why users stick to certain content. The article concludes with the finding that the problem of algorithmic personalisation should be studied as a broader historic phenomenon indicative of the decline of the public sphere, which is itself caused by the conflict between public and commercial interests.

Magistrsko delo z naslovom Prve ženske v slovenskem javnem prostoru: Analiza socialnih kapitalov in mrež s sociološke in zgodovinske perspektive proučuje ženske, ki so v obdobju 1848–1914 v Ljubljani vstopale v polje javnega. Na primeru 54 izbranih žensk, ki so v navedenem obdobju živele v Ljubljani, v nalogi odgovarjam na to, kakšno socialno ozadje so imele, s kom so bile poročene in na kakšne načine so se v javno življenje vključevale. V nalogi se podrobneje ukvarjam s sociološkimi koncepti – (meščanski) habitus in socialni kapital ter socialni razred – s katerimi skušam zamejiti ter prikazati značilnosti družbenega razreda, iz katerega so večinoma prihajale obravnavane ženske. Na podlagi analize več letnikov Slovenskega naroda, popisov ljubljanskega prebivalstva, mednarodne poklicne lestvice HISCLASS ter poročil nekaterih ljubljanskih društev ugotavljam, da so prenekatere posameznice tvorile vezi s takratno ljubljansko elito (kot hčere in žene), obenem pa so se v javnost involvirale tudi kot dejavne kulturnice in umetnice. Pomemben del žensk ljubljanskega družbenopolitičnega dogajanja so predstavljale izobraženke – učiteljice. Izkazalo se je, da jih je nemalo izhajalo iz deprivilegiranih okolij, kar so uspele preseči z izobrazbo ali s poroko. S pomočjo informacij o članstvu v različnih ljubljanskih društvih v nalogi podrobno prikažem dejavnost ljubljanskih žensk, njihova medsebojna poznanstva ter vpletenost njihovih mož in staršev. V nalogi prepletam tudi odnose med spoloma, razmerje med javnim in zasebnim ter vstop žensk v javnost v povezavi z nacionalnim angažmajem slovenskega naroda v obravnavanem obdobju. The First Women in Slovene Public Space: An Analysis of Social Capital and Networks from a Sociological and Historical Perspective is a master's thesis, which examines women who entered the field of public affairs in Ljubljana between 1848 and 1914. In this thesis I delve deeper into the cases of 54 women living in Ljubljana during that period, to identify their social background, their matrimonial status, and their involvement into public life. Furthermore, this paper deals in more detail with different sociological concepts – (bourgeois) habitus, social capital and social class - through which I try to demonstrate and solidify the characteristics of the social class the chosen women belonged to. According to my analysis of several editions of Slovenski narod, censuses of the Ljubljana population, the International Historical Class Scheme - HISCLASS and reports of some Ljubljana clubs and societies, I found that many aforementioned individuals formed ties with the then Ljubljana elite (as daughters and wives) and in public they were also known as cultural figures and artists. An important part of the women involved in Ljubljana's socio-political activities ere teachers. It turned out that quite a few of them came from disadvantaged backgrounds, which they managed to overcome through education or marriage. With the help of the details of membership in various Ljubljana clubs and societies, I present the details of the women’s activities, their mutual acquaintances and the involvement of their husbands and parents. In the thesis I also intertwine the relations between the sexes, the relationship between the public and private sphere and the entry of women into the public considering the national engagement of the Slovenian nation during the observed period.

Koristeći kao teorijski okvir teoriju resursne mobilizacije i teoriju političkog procesa istražit ću kapacitete organizacija civilnog društva u Srbiji u kontekstu procesa demokratizacije nakon demokratskih promjena 2000. godine. Kombinirajući teorijski okvir koji se odnosi na civilna društva postsocijalističkih zemalja s dosadašnjim istraživanjima kapaciteta organizacija civilnog društva u Srbiji i sa studijom slučaja pokreta Ne davimo Beograd, ukazat ću na čimbenike koji utječu na razvijanje kapaciteta aktera civilnog društva u uvjetima neinkluzivne javne sfere za efikasno djelovanje i produbljivanje procesa demokratizacije.

Emocije izravno i neizravno djeluju na pojedince te vode njihove akcije, određuju njihove stavove i mišljenja; međutim, društvene strukture, kultura, društvene institucije te sam kontekst povratno utječu na emocije te vode do pobuđivanja određenih emocionalnih stanja u pojedincima. Uzete zajedno ove komponente vode do različite prihvatljivosti iskazivanja emocija. Iskazivanje emocija je proces kojim pojedinci svoja emocionalna iskustva, kroz verbalne i neverbalne akcije, pretvaraju u ponašanja. Koncepti na kojima ovo istraživanje počiva uključuju primarnu socijalizaciju, vrijednosnu orijentaciju te stavove o rodnim ulogama. Cilj ovog rada jest istražiti postoje li, i ako da koje su rodne razlike u prihvatljivosti iskazivanja negativnih emocija u javnoj sferi. Istraživanje je provedeno metodom ankete, tehnikom online anketiranja koristeći softver Lime Survey na način da su linkovi za ankete podijeljeni na društvenim mrežama (Facebook i Instagram) te direktno osobnim kontaktima istraživačice koji ne koriste navedene društvene mreže. Uzorak se sastojao od 668 Facebook i Instagram korisnika. Korištene su dvije inačice anketnog upitnika, koje su se sastojale od međusobno istih instrumenata, s time da je jedan instrument (vinjete) varirao s obzirom na spol glavnog aktera u priči. Rezultati analize ukazuju da se muškarci i žene razlikuju u prihvatljivosti iskazivanja emocija u javnoj sferi. Ženama je prihvatljivije iskazivanje i negativnih i pozitivnih emocija u javnoj sferi. Ženama je također prihvatljivije nego muškarcima, da tugu u javnosti iskazuju i žene i muškarci. Kada je riječ o iskazivanju straha u javnoj sferi ženama je prihvatljivije nego muškarcima da strah iskazuju i žena i muškarac, dok je muškarcima prihvatljivije da svoj strah iskazuju žene nego muškarci. U situacijama u kojima akteri iskazuju ljutnju ne postoji statistički značajna povezanost spola i prihvatljivosti iskazivanja ljutnje. Navedene razlike samo manjim dijelom mogu se objasniti vrijednosnom orijentacijom, stavovima o rodnim ulogama, dobi te djelomično načinom na koji su osobe odgajane tijekom primarne socijalizacije. No glavni prediktori prihvatljivosti iskazivanja emocija u javnoj sferi ostaju nepoznati. Emotions directly and indirectly affect individuals and guide their actions, determine their attitudes and opinions; however, social structures, culture, social institutions, and the context itself have a reciprocal effect on emotions and lead to the arousal of certain emotional states in individuals. Taken together, these components lead to different acceptability of expressing emotions. Expressing emotions is a process by which individuals turn their emotional experiences, through verbal and nonverbal actions, into behaviors. The concepts on which this research is based include primary socialization, value orientation, and attitudes about gender roles. The aim of this paper is to investigate whether, and if so, what are the gender differences in the acceptability of expressing negative emotions in the public sphere. The research was conducted using the survey method, the online survey technique using Lime Survey software in such a way that the links for the surveys were shared on social networks (Facebook and Instagram) and directly to the personal contacts of the researcher who do not use these social networks. The sample consisted of 668 Facebook and Instagram users. Two versions of the survey questionnaire were used, which consisted of the same instruments with each other, with one instrument (vignette) varying according to the gender of the main actor in the story. The results of the analysis indicate that men and women differ in the acceptability of expressing emotions in the public sphere. It is more acceptable to women, to express both negative and positive emotions in the public sphere. It is also more acceptable for women than for men, for both women and men express their grief in public. When it comes to expressing fear in the public sphere, it is more acceptable for women than for men for both women and men to express fear, while it is more acceptable for men, for women to express their fear than men. In situations where actors express anger, there is no statistically significant relationship between gender and the acceptability of expressing anger. These gender differences can only be partly explained by value orientation, attitudes about gender roles, age and partly by the way people were brought up during primary socialization. But the main predictors of the acceptability of expressing emotions in the public sphere remain unknown.

Svrha ovog rada je pobliže pojasniti što je javna sfera, eho komore te kako društveni mediji utječu na stvaranje istih. Postoji više vrsta društvenih medija, no svaki od njih ima zajedničku karakteristiku – prenošenje informacija. No osim samog prenošenja informacija, društveni mediji imaju i mnogo veću ulogu. Jedan od oblika društvenih medija su i društvene mreže koje imaju veliku ulogu u stvaranju eho komora. Najpogodniji su prostor za razvoj istih jer mnogo korisnika (posebice mladih) koriste društvene mreže kao glavni izvor informacija te je iz tog razloga lako manipulirati korisnicima. Osim eho komora i negativnih strana društvenih medija, u radu će se prikazati i pozitivnija strana društvenih medija. Pogodan su i prostor za stvaranje javne sfere koja je nužno potrebna u svakom demokratskom društvu. Javna sfera omogućuje razvoj kreativnosti i kritičkog razmišljanja što je neophodno za uspješno djelovanje demokratskog društva. Sukladno tome, cilj rada je ukazati negativne i pozitivne strane društvenih medija. Svaki korisnik društvenih medija trebao bi biti svjestan činjenice da se o njemu skupljaju informacije te da se te informacije kasnije koriste kako bi se pripremio što prikladniji sadržaj za svakog pojedinca.

Regulacija intelektualnog vlasništva postala je sve češće i teže pitanje početkom 20. stoljeća. Dok je zakonska regulacija autorskog prava bila velik korak za novinarstvo, filozofiju i umjetnost općenito, posebice književnost, velika je razlika između ideja i sporova koji su obilježavali razdoblje prvih konkretnih zakonskih regulacija nasuprot onih koje je donio tehnološki razvoj te općeniti napredak društva. Bujanje ekonomije, posebno nastanak i strelovit razvoj zabavne industrije u drugoj polovici 20. st. i tehnološka otkrića koja su neodvojiva od nje, dodali su pitanje profita kao neodvojivog od rasprave o intelektualnom vlasništvu. Autorski radovi (barem oni vezani uz zabavnu industriju u kontekstu pop kulture) sa sobom su nosili mogućnost zarade čiji razmjeri do tada nisu bili zamislivi, a su uz sebe vezali sve više aktera koji su ulagali u takvu mogućnost. Ta nova industrija naglasila je potrebu za zaštitom autora od izdavača, diskografa i ostalih posrednika. S druge strane, pojavljivanje interneta i digitalne tehnologije je ubrzalo i osnažilo prethodnu tendenciju rasta, a njihovo otkriće i primjena postali su usko vezani uz samu ideju liberalne demokracije kao političkog sustava. Iako su pitanja slobode govora i razmjene informacija itekako bili prisutni u društvu, novi kontekst je tu raspravu nerijetko stavljao u prvi plan, a njene sudionike u drugačije odnose moći. U suvremenom kontekstu neki akteri primjenu zakonske regulative intelektualnog vlasništva doživljavaju je kao ograničavanje sloboda, a taj sentiment nerijetko dijele i sami autori. U ovom radu pokušat će se dati teorijska pozadina „etiketiranja” autorskog prava kao cenzure te sociološki analizirati percepcija regulativa od strane autora i korisnika sadržaja. The regulation of intellectual property has become a frequent and difficult question since the beginning of the 20th Century. While the legal regulation of copyright was a big step for the development of press, philosophy, and art in general, especially literature, there is a big difference between the ideas and disputes that marked the period of the first legal reforms and those that transpired with the ongoing social and technological development. The flourishing economy, especially the emergence and swift growth of the entertainment industry in the second half of the 20th Century and the technological innovations that are inseparable from it made the question of profit an essential part of the discussion of intellectual property. Creative content (at least the content within the entertainment industry) carried a possibility of profit that was unimaginable until that point, and that profit came with a network of actors ready to invest in such a possibility. This new industry highlighted the need for the author’s protection against publishers and other mediators. On the other hand, the emergence of the internet and digital technology further accelerated and strengthened previous tendencies of growth, while their discovery and implementation became closely related to the idea of liberal democracy as a political system. And while discussions about freedom of expression and the free exchange of information were very much present in society, the new environment frequently drove these discussions to the forefront of the public sphere and rearranged its participants into new relations of power. In the contemporary environment the implementation of legal regulations of intellectual property was experienced by some actors as a restriction of freedom and the same sentiment was often shared by the authors themselves. In this paper, we will try to give a theoretical overview of this phenomenon of “labeling” copyright as censorship and analyze the perception of authors and content users towards the legal regulations.

Tehnološke promjene, ponajprije digitalizacija poslovanja, prouzročile su mnoge promjene u funkcioniranju društvenih sustava, čega nije pošteđeno ni novinarstvo. Promjene u javnoj sferi, sve jači utjecaj digitalnih platformi, ponajprije na internetu baziranih informativnih portala, izmijenile su način konzumacije vijesti, a posljedično prouzročile i promjenu uloge tradicionalnih medija poput novina, radija i televizije. S obzirom na rečeno, pojavljuje se potreba za definiranjem objektivnoga mjernog instrumenta koji bi na osnovi jasno definiranih kriterija utemeljenih na postojećim teorijskim spoznajama o profesionalnom novinarstvu i njegovoj javnoj ulozi, mogao upozoriti na one, ponajprije na internetu zasnovane informativne medijske organizacije koje više ili manje ispunjavaju svoju javnu funkciju. Definiranjem Indeksa javnog interesa i njegovom širom primjenom otvorio bi se eventualni prostor jasnijega i transparentnoga javnog ulaganja u medije te omogućilo bolje definiranje novih medijskih modela.

In societies like Kosovo, where the administration and state authorities fail to expand their authorities and care to citizens, kinship and social networks are domains that somehow fill this gap. In the Balkans, due to the inefficiency of the state authorities, up to the beginning of the twentieth century patrilineal kin groups in some sense represented the public sphere; in the case of Kosovo this was even later, namely up until the end of the twentieth century. Depending on specific historical, economic and political contexts, the kinship system turned into a system based on a combination of descent and marriage throughout the course of the twentieth century. In dealing with the question of what Habermas identifies as the public sphere – a sphere of private people who jointly form a public, meaning those people who did not hold public/official positions, my research intends to analyse interchangeable positions and roles that kinship has in relation to private and public domains – meaning the role kinship has in terms of family relations, social organization and the political system. This research is based on ethnographic data I collected over the years 2011-2015 in Isniq (a village located in the west of Kosovo)., U društvima poput Kosova, gdje se upravne i državne vlasti ne pridržavaju u potpunosti pravila ponašanja, taj jaz donekle ispunjavaju rodbinske i društvene mreže. Na Balkanu, zbog neučinkovitosti državnih vlasti, patrilinearne rodbinske skupine sve do početka 20. stoljeća na neki način predstavljaju javnu sferu (Kaser 1999:23); u slučaju Kosova, to traje i dulje, naime do kraja 20. stoljeća. Ovisno o konkretnom povijesnom, gospodarskom i političkom kontekstu, sustav srodstva prerastao je u sustav koji se temelji na kombinaciji podrijetla i sklapanja braka tijekom cijeloga 20. stoljeća. Baveći se pitanjem onoga što Habermas definira javnom sferom – sfera privatnih osoba koje zajednički tvore javno, to jest "ne obnašaju javne dužnosti niti su na službenom položaju“ (Habermas 1991) – u ovom se istraživanju namjerava analizirati međusobno zamjenjive položaje i uloge koje srodstvo ima u odnosu na privatnu i javnu domenu, tj. ulogu koje srodstvo ima u smislu obiteljskih veza, društvene organizacije i političkog sustava. Istraživanje se temelji na etnografskim podacima prikupljenima u razdoblju od 2011. do 2015. godine u Isniqu (selu koje se nalazi u zapadnom dijelu Kosova).

Knjiga Paška Bilića Sociologija medija: rutine, tehnologija i moć strukturirana je u četiri poglavlja. U prvom poglavlju ''Komunikacija i društvena interakcija'' autor polazi od klasičnih socioloških teoretičara razmatrajući ulogu društvenih odnosa, kao i proces medijske konstrukcije stvarnosti. Drugo poglavlje ''Od svakodnevice do javnosti i mreža'' analizira ulogu novih medija u suvremenoj komunikaciji s obzirom na vidljive promjene u diskursu. Također, propituju se granice između javne i privatne sfere, te vrednuje utjecaj društvenih mreža na profesionalne novinarske standarde. ''Komunikacijske makrostrukture'' treće je poglavlje u kojemu se opisuju učinci globalizacije na društvo, ali na medije. Autor nadalje pojašnjava odnose između medijacije i medijatizacije, komodifikacije medijskog sadržaja te utjecaj medijskog vlasništva na proizvodnju sadržaja i osiguravanje medijskog pluralizma. Posljednje, četvrto poglavlje ''Prema metasociologiji medija'' usmjereno je na analizu epistemološke i ontološke dimenzije medija. Poseban dodatak na kraju knjige Prilog: Razgovori o sociologiji, komunikaciji i medijima donosi transkripte intervjua koje je autor u sklopu sekcije Hrvatskog sociološkog društva vodio s uglednim inozemnim autorima.

V demokraciji javna sfera odpira prostor javnega komuniciranja o pomembnih temah, o katerih mora družba, posebej politične institucije, odločati. Javno komuniciranje je možno, če obstaja svoboda govora, ki omogoča izmenjavo različnih mnenj, interesov in pogledov na svet, kar z drugimi besedami pomeni, da mora javno komuniciranje potekati čim bolj neovirano, brez cenzure in ideološkega omejevanja. Zaradi pomembnosti javne sfere mora družbeni red ščititi svobodo govora in pojave t.i. »sovražnega govora« opredeliti in sankcionirati le tedaj, kadar ima tovrstni govor za družbo, družbene skupine in državljane očitne negativne posledice. Nekateri poskušajo kot sovražni govor opredeliti tiste javne diskurze, s katerimi se ne strinjajo, kar je preširoka opredelitev. Na drugi strani pa bi nekateri radi zanikali obstoj sovražnega govora, kljub temu, da nekateri javni diskurzi direktno napadajo dostojanstvo in družbeno identiteto nekaterih družbenih skupin, posebej tistih iz obrobja družbe, ali pa celo pozivajo k nasilju. Z vidika človekovih pravic in svoboščin, na katerih je utemeljena ustavna ureditev, je svoboda govora, tudi kritičnega in neprijetnega, temeljna vrednota javnega komuniciranja, vendar le do tiste mere, ko začne javni diskurz direktno napadati, zanikati, izničevati ali celo pozivati k nasilju proti nekaterim družbenim skupinam. V študiji primera o sovražnem govoru v odnosu do nezakonitih migrantov, pokažem na mejne primere javnega govora, ki prestopijo mejo in jih lahko označimo za sovražni govor. A kljub temu ugotavljam, da sodna praksa v Republiki Sloveniji ne sankcionira sovražnega govora. In democracy the public sphere opens up a space of public communication around important topics that need to be resolved by society and political institutions. Public communication is possible only when there is freedom of speech that allows for exchange of different opinions, interests and viewpoints, which means that public communication has to be unlimited by censorship and ideologies. Because of the importance of public sphere the social order must protect the freedom of speech and the phenomena of hate speech define and sanction only when there are obvious negative consequences. Some are trying to define as hate speech all those public discourses with which they disagree with, which is too broad of a definition. On the other side there are those who claim there is no hate speech when at the same time there are those discourses that directly attack dignity and social identity of certain social groups and even call for violence, especially towards those from the periphery of society. From the viewpoint of human rights and freedoms on which we base our constitutional arrangement, the freedom of speech is the fundamental value even when it states critical and unpleasant viewpoints but not in cases of direct denial, nullifying and calling for violence towards certain social groups. In case study I show cases of speech that cross the boundary of free speech and reside in the domain of hate speech. Yet at the same time I find that judicial practice in the Republic of Slovenia is not sanctioning cases of hate speech.

V diplomskem delu predstavljam (žensko) redovništvo kot družbeni pojav ter podrobno opisujem vse njegove konstitutivne elemente. Za razumevanje (ženskega) redovništva kot družbenega pojava moramo v najširšem smislu razumeti tudi njegovo hierarhično strukturo1, kjer so na dnu piramide same članice redov, torej redovnice, na vrhu piramide pa RKC kot krovna organizacija, redovi ter redovnice pa delujejo pod njenim okriljem. Redove uvrščamo med religijske organizacije in so sestavni del strukture RKC. Ženske v RKC ne morejo pridobiti statusa klerika – ženski redovi so tako izključno laiški. Posameznik oz. posameznica si z vstopom v red (lahko) zagotovi ugleden družbeni status, saj v družbi redovništvo ne velja za običajno, temveč za nekaj posebnega in (včasih) večvrednega. Poznamo dve vrsti redov: aktivne in kontemplativne – redovniki in redovnice v aktivnih redovih so lahko v svojem okolju dejavno udeleženi, tisti, ki so v kontemplativnih redovih, pa so od okolja ločeni. Skozi izvedene intervjuje, ki predstavljajo »glas« redovnic, opisujem, kakšen je odnos redovništva v povezavi z javno sfero v Sloveniji – od diskriminacije, vpliva redovništva, uspešnosti izpolnjevanja poslanstva do sprememb v redovništvu itd. In the following diploma thesis I introduce (female) monasticism as a social phenomenon and provide detailed descriptions of all its constituent elements. In order to understand (female) monasticism as a social phenomenon we have to understand its hierarchical structure2 in the broad sense. At the bottom of the pyramid we find the female members of the religious orders – nuns –, and at the very top of the pyramid we find the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) as the umbrella organisation under whose authority religious orders and nuns work. Orders are classified as religious organisations and present an integral part of the RKC structure. Women in the RKC cannot acquire the status of priest, making female orders exclusively lay. By joining a religious order you can guarantee yourself a respectful social status. Monasticism is, in fact, not regarded as something ordinary in society but instead as something special and (sometimes) superior. There are two types of religious orders, active and contemplative. Monks and nuns in active religious orders can be actively involved in their local communities, whereas those in contemplative religious orders are isolated from their environment. In this diploma thesis I present the role of women within the RKC. Through interviews, which represent the “voice” of nuns, I describe the relationship between monasticism and the Slovenian public sphere – from discrimination, the influence of monasticism, the successfulness of nuns fulfilling their purposes, to the changes in monasticism, etc.

Korištenjem online kanala za informiranje i javnu raspravu građani imaju pristup različitim izvorima informacija te stavovima drugih. Tehnološke mogućnosti online kanala također otvaraju mogućnost veće personalizacije sadržaja od strane korisnika. Vlastitim izborom korisnika koje će pratiti na društvenim mrežama te algoritama koji mu temeljem prethodnih odabira predlažu drugi sadržaj građani se mogu naći u online eho komorama gdje primaju samo sadržaj koji odgovara njihovim prethodnim uvjerenjima. U ovom radu pokušali smo odrediti koje su indicije postojanja eho komora pri raspravi o Istanbulskoj konvenciji na Twitteru. Izračunom eksterno-internog indeksa kojim se uspoređuje odnos vanjskih i unutarnjih grupnih veza pokazalo se kako grupe s obzirom na broj i veličinu u očekivanoj mjeri komuniciraju te nema indikacija da su se u raspravi stvorile eho komore., Citizens have access to various information sources and opinions through online channels. Technological possibilities of online channels also enable greater personalization of content from a user perspective. Citizens can choose what users they will follow on social media and algorithms further personalize content displayed by suggesting new content based on previously accessed one. This can create echo chambers where citizens are only exposed to content that is in line with their opinions and preferences and foster homophily and polarization of groups. With this work we tried to determine possibility of echo chambers existing on Twitter in user discussion about Croatian ratification of Istanbul convention. By calculating external-internal index that compares relations in group and between groups we found out that groups communicate like it would be expected considering their size and number of groups. There is no indication of echo chambers existing.

Korištenjem online kanala za informiranje i javnu raspravu građani imaju pristup različitim izvorima informacija te stavovima drugih. Tehnološke mogućnosti online kanala također otvaraju mogućnost veće personalizacije sadržaja od strane korisnika. Vlastitim izborom korisnika koje će pratiti na društvenim mrežama te algoritama koji mu temeljem prethodnih odabira predlažu drugi sadržaj građani se mogu naći u online eho komorama gdje primaju samo sadržaj koji odgovara njihovim prethodnim uvjerenjima. U ovom radu pokušali smo odrediti koje su indicije postojanja eho komora pri raspravi o Istanbulskoj konvenciji na Twitteru. Izračunom eksterno-internog indeksa kojim se uspoređuje odnos vanjskih i unutarnjih grupnih veza pokazalo se kako grupe s obzirom na broj i veličinu u očekivanoj mjeri komuniciraju te nema indikacija da su se u raspravi stvorile eho komore. Citizens have access to various information sources and opinions through online channels. Technological possibilities of online channels also enable greater personalization of content from a user perspective. Citizens can choose what users they will follow on social media and algorithms further personalize content displayed by suggesting new content based on previously accessed one. This can create echo chambers where citizens are only exposed to content that is in line with their opinions and preferences and foster homophily and polarization of groups. With this work we tried to determine possibility of echo chambers existing on Twitter in user discussion about Croatian ratification of Istanbul convention. By calculating external-internal index that compares relations in group and between groups we found out that groups communicate like it would be expected considering their size and number of groups. There is no indication of echo chambers existing.

Carl Schmitt je jedan od najposvećenijih protivnika liberalnog univerzalizma sa svojim pojmom pluralističke, racionalne i uključive konsenzualne politike kao progresivnog demokratskog projekta i svojeg razumijevanja političke arene kao pročišćene, od sukoba slobodne, i na taj način progresivne kretnje demokratske logike. U ovom radu nastojat ću pokazati Schmittove pesimističke i negativne stavove, zasnovane na ontološkim i teološkim temeljima, o deliberativnom modelu politike koja tvrdi da partikularna volja može doći do koncepta zajedničkog javnog interesa ili zajedničkog dobra kroz raspravu i dijalog. Nadalje, pokušat ću pokazati da unutar Schmittovog projekta koncept diktature suverena postoji kao nužni kontrapunkt pojmu politič- kog. Schmitt odbija razumijevati politički život kao medij dijalog koji vodi razumskom konsenzusu. U ovom kontekstu, suveren iz Schmittove teorije mora se razumijevati upravo kao sila napravljena da proizvodi homogenost kroz hegemoniju. Hegemonija, u Gramscijevom smislu, nije gola opresivna sila. Namjesto toga, odnosi se na vladajuću silu sposobnu upisati vlastitu ideologiju i pogled na svijet u javnost kroz uvjeravanje. U tom okviru, ljevičarski mislitelji poput Mouffea, koji preporuča da moramo misliti »sa Schmittom protiv Schmitta« kako bismo razvili novo demokratsko političko razumijevanje, svraćaju pozornost na Schmittovu tezu da je svaki politički identitet u funkciju »mi–oni« antinomije, ali im promiče činjenica da je nemoguće deducirati koncept zbiljski demokratske javne sfere iz Schmittove teorije. Kao što će biti naglašenu u radu, demokracija u Schmittovom smislu može biti savršena forma suverenosti, takva kakva usuprot liberalnoj demokraciji rezultira homogenizacijom i isključenjem heterogenosti, te na taj način mora biti začeta kao fundamentalno hegemonijski sistem. Schmittov ideal demokracije zahtijeva da politički identiteti, javno mišljenje, javna sfera i formiranje volje vudu rezultati suverenove volje i bez prostora za raspravu., Carl Schmitt is one of the most dedicated opponents of liberal universalism, with its notion of pluralist, rational and non-exclusivist consensus politics as a progressive democratic project and its understanding of the political arena – “purified”, being free from struggles and conflict – as the progressive move of democratic logic. In this paper I will first try to show Schmitt’s pessimistic and negative stance based on ontological and theological grounds on the deliberative model of politics with its claim about the possibility of making particular wills reach the conception of common public interest or the common good through discussion and dialogue. Secondly, I’ll try to show that, within Schmitt’s project, the concept of the sovereign dictatorship exists as the necessary counterpoint to the concept of the political. Schmitt refuses to understand political life as a medium of dialogue leading to a rational consensus. In this context, the sovereign in Schmitt’s theory should be precisely understood as a force constructed to reproduce homogeneity in a hegemonic manner. Hegemonia, in a Gramscian sense, is not a bare oppressive force. Rather, it refers to a ruling force which is able to inject its own ideology and world view into the public through persuasion. In this framework, leftist thinkers like mouffe, who recommended that we should think “with Schmitt against Schmitt” in order to develop a new democratic political understanding, draw attention to Schmitt’s thesis that every political identity functions as “we-they” antinomy, yet they miss the fact that it is impossible to deduce a conception of a truly democratic public sphere from Schmitt’s theory. As it will be emphasized in this paper, democracy in the Schmittian sense can be the perfect form of sovereignty, one which in contrast to liberal democracy results in homogenization and the exclusion of the heterogeneous and thus must be conceived as a fundamentally hegemonic system. The Schmittian ideal of democracy requires that political identities, public opinion, public sphere and will formation are the products of a sovereign will and not of open and free discussion., Carl Schmitt est l’un des opposants les plus puissants de l’universalisme libérale de par sa notion de consensus politique pluraliste, rationnel et non exclusiviste en tant que projet démocratique progressiste, mais aussi de par sa compréhension de l’arène politique - « purifiée », libre de toutes luttes et de tout conflit – en tant que mouvement progressiste de la logique dé- mocratique. Dans cet article, je vais en premier lieu tenter de montrer l’opinion pessimiste et négative de Schmitt – basée sur des fondements ontologiques et théologiques – concernant le modèle délibératif de la politique et sa prétention à penser que la formation de volontés particulières pourrait toucher l’intérêt public commun ou le bien commun à travers la discussion et le dialogue. En second lieu, je vais tenter de montrer qu’à l’intérieur du projet de Schmitt le concept de dictature souveraine existe comme contrepartie nécessaire au concept du politique. Schmitt refuse de penser la vie politique comme instrument de dialogue menant au consensus rationnel. Ainsi, le souverain dans la théorie de Schmitt doit précisément être compris comme une force construite pour reproduire une telle homogénéité de manière hégémonique. Hegemonia, au sens gramscien, n’est pas une simple force oppressive ; il s’agit plutôt d’un terme qui se réfère à une force dirigeante capable d’injecter sa propre idéologie et vision du monde dans le domaine public à travers la persuasion. Dans ce contexte, certains penseurs de gauche telle que mouffe qui nous recommande de penser « avec, et contre, Schmitt » dans le but de développer une nouvelle compréhension de la politique démocratique, attirent notre attention sur la thèse de Schmitt où chaque identité politique fonctionne par l’antinomie « nous/eux ». Toutefois, ces penseurs passent à côté du fait qu’il est impossible de déduire une conception de réelle sphère publique démocratique sur la base de la théorie de Schmitt. Comme cet article le souligne bien, la démocratie au sens schmittien peut être la forme parfaite de souveraineté, une forme qui – en contraste avec la démocratie libérale – aboutit à une homogénéisation en excluant l’hétérogé- néité, et ainsi doit être conçue comme un système fondamentalement hégémonique. Selon l’idéal schmittien de démocratie, les identités politiques, l’opinion publique, la sphère publique et la formation de volontés doivent être les produits, non pas d’une discussion ouverte et libre, mais d’une volonté souveraine., Carl Schmitt ist einer der mächtigsten Gegner des liberalen Universalismus mit dessen Vorstellung von pluralistischer, rationaler und nicht exklusivistischer Konsenspolitik als einem progressiven demokratischen Projekt und dessen Verständnis der politischen Arena – „gereinigt“, frei von Kämpfen und Konflikten – als eines progressiven Schritts der demokratischen Logik. In diesem Beitrag werde ich zunächst versuchen, Schmitts pessimistische, negative und auf ontologischer und theologischer Grundlage ruhende Haltung zum Beratungsmodell der Politik darzulegen, mit dessen Behauptung über die möglichkeit, partikulare Willen zu veranlassen, durch Diskussion und Dialog die Konzeption des gemeinschaftlichen öffentlichen Interesses oder Gemeinwohls zu erreichen. Zweitens werde ich versuchen zu zeigen, dass im Rahmen des schmittschen Projekts der Begriff der souveränen Diktatur als notwendiger Kontrapunkt zum Begriff des Politischen existiert. Schmitt weigert sich, das politische Leben als ein medium des Dialogs zu begreifen, das zu einem rationalen Konsens führt. In diesem Zusammenhang soll das Souveräne in der schmittschen Theorie eben als eine Gewalt aufgefasst werden, die konstruiert ist, um eine solche Homogenität in einer hegemonialen Art zu reproduzieren. Die hegemonia im gramscischen Sinne ist nicht eine bloß repressive Kraft; vielmehr bezieht sie sich auf eine herrschende Kraft, die imstande ist, durch Überzeugungsvermögen ihre eigene Ideologie und Weltanschauung in die Öffentlichkeit zu injizieren. Linksorientierte Denker wie mouffe, die empfohlen haben, wir sollten „mit Schmitt gegen Schmitt“ denken, um ein neues demokratisches politisches Verständnis zu entwickeln, lenken in diesem Kontext das Augenmerk auf Schmitts These, jede politische Identität funktioniere durch die „wir – sie“-Antinomie, doch sie übersehen die Tatsache, dass es unmöglich ist, aus der schmittschen Theorie die Vorstellung von einer wahrhaft demokratischen öffentlichen Sphäre abzuleiten. Wie es in dieser Arbeit betont wird, kann die Demokratie im schmittschen Sinne die perfekte Form der Souveränität sein, die – im Gegensatz zur liberalen Demokratie – in der Homogenisierung und Ausgrenzung des Heterogenen resultiert und daher als ein grundlegend hegemoniales System erachtet werden muss. Das schmittsche Ideal der Demokratie erheischt, dass politische Identitäten, öffentliche meinung, öffentliche Sphäre und Willensbildung keine Produkte einer offenen und freien Diskussion, sondern eines souveränen Willens sind.

Borba za imenovanja u javnom prostoru i njezino povezivanje s politikom kažnjavanja obilježje je interregnuma u kojemu se političke manipulacije katkad povezuju s pojmom post- istine. Ta se borba pojavljuje u kontekstu razlikovanja između istine i ideologije te povezanosti proizvodnje ideologije s formacijom i zastupanjem kolektivnih identiteta u polju biopolitike u povijesti.

V magistrskem delu obravnavam vlogo tiskovnih agencij v javni sferi v procesu poročanja o izstopu Velike Britanije iz Evropske unije oziroma brexitu. Vloga agencij je, da zagotavljajo zanesljive informacije, ki jih nato mediji posredujejo svojim občinstvom, kar omogoči oblikovanje javnega mnenja. Proučujem vpliv dejavnikov velikosti tiskovne agencije in njenega bruseljskega dopisništva, velikosti države izvora agencije ter relevantnosti brexita za državo izvora in njene državljane na izpolnjevanje vloge tiskovne agencije v javni sferi. Analiza pogovorov z bruseljskima dopisnikoma Slovenske tiskovne agencije (STA) in britanske tiskovne agencije z mednarodno razsežnostjo Reuters ter uradnikom Evropske unije kaže, da vsi trije dejavniki vplivajo predvsem na dostopnost informacij. To pa vsaj do določene mere vpliva tudi na izpolnjevanje vloge tiskovnih agencij v javni sferi, saj lahko novinarji z boljšim dostopom svojim naslovnikom zagotavljajo več in bolj zanesljive informacije. Oba dopisnika sicer trdita, da ustrezno izpolnjujeta to vlogo. V raziskavi sem ugotovil tudi, da s tem, ko novinarja o Uniji ne poročata samo z nacionalnega vidika, ampak tudi z evropskega, prispevata k vzpostavljanju evropske javne sfere. This master's thesis examines the role of news agencies in the public sphere when reporting about Great Britain leaving the European Union (Brexit). Their role is to provide reliable information to the media which pass it to their audiences, what enables forming of the public opinion. I study the impact of factors of size of the news agency and its Brussels' bureau, size of the country of origin of the agency and the relevance of Brexit for the country of origin and its citizens on fulfilling news wire's role in the public sphere. The analysis of interviews with Brussels' correspondents of Slovene Press Agency (STA) and British Press Agency with international comprehensiveness Reuters and with an EU official shows that all the three factors impact the journalist's access to the information. To some extent this also impacts the fulfilling of news agencies' role in the public sphere. Namely, journalists with better access to the sources can provide more information that is also more trustworthy to their recipients. Correspondents of STA and Reuters both carry out this role, in their opinion. I have also found out that they both report about the EU from the European perspective and not just from the national perspective, which means that they contribute to the forming of the European public sphere.

Predmet ove disertacije je teorijska analiza regulatornog, komunikološkog, tehnološkog i socio-kulturnog okvira u kome nastaje i širi se „govor mržnje“, kao i analiza sadržaja i analiza efekata govora mržnje u internet komunikaciji u Srbiji. Cilj disertacije bio je da preciznije definiše sadržaj govora mržnje i kontekst u kome on nastaje, da u odnosu na kulturološke specifičnosti Srbije preciznije utvrdi granicu između mere u kojoj je neophodno omogućiti nesmetanu slobodu izražavanja i ograničiti širenje govora mržnje. Osnovna hipoteza u ovom radu bila je da je koncept govora mržnje višeznačan i da njegovo razumevanje zavisi od geografskog, kulturnog i uopšte socijalnog konteksta u kome se on manifestuje. Govor mržnje na internetu negativno utiče na javnu komunikaciju te samim tim i na proces formiranja javne sfere. Budući da tako ometa kvalitetnu raspravu o problemima od društvenog značaja, govor mržnje otežava donošenje demokratskih odluka i na direktan način urušava demokratske vrednosti u društvu. U istraživanju je sprovedena komparativna analiza evropskih i nacionalnih pravnih akata u oblasti govora mržnje i slobode izražavanja, dat je kritički pregled ključnih međunarodnih naučnih studija i istraživanja govora mržnje na internetu, kao i institucionalna analiza postojećih mehanizama za suzbijanje govora mržnje. Pored toga sprovedena je analiza odabranih aktera i analiza sadržaja internet stranica na kojima je plasiran govor mržnje prema određenim manjinskim grupama u Srbiji. U istraživanju je identifikovan, opisana i problematizovan fenomen govora mržnje na internetu u kontekstu javne komunikacije u Srbiji. U definisanju samog pojma govora mržnje, kroz komparativnu analizu različitih izvora, uočeno je da njegovo identfikovanje zavisi od toga šta se u određenom društvenom, političkom i kulturnom konetkst smatra za osnovni problem koji želi da se reši ovakvim definicijama. Posebno je istaknuta razlika u shvatanju govora mržnje u različitim pravnim tradicijama u svetu. Pored toga, u široj 4 javnosti kao i u različitoj stručnoj literaturi često nije dovoljno dobro definisana jasna granica govora mržnje u odnosu na uvrede, klevete, negaciju nekih istorijskih događaja ili opravdavanje zločina, vređanje simbola, kritiku javnih ličnosti, različitih političkih stavova i religija. Nedovoljno jasna granica između dozvoljenog i potencijalno zabranjenog izražavanja dovodi do nesporazuma i neefikasne borbe protiv govora mržnje koji bi potencijalno mogao da izazove ozbiljne negativne posledice. Oštra kritika nekog pojedinca ili neke grupe veoma lako može biti protumačena kao govor mržnje, a takav pristup zapravo zatvara prostor za diskusiju o nekom problemu i na direktan način sputava slobodu izražavanja, te ugrožava deliberativan proces u demokratskom društvu... The topic of this dissertation is the theoretical analysis of the regulatory, communication, technological and socio-cultural framework in which the "hate speech" is being developed, as well as analysis of the content and analysis of the effects of hate speech in online communication in Serbia. The aim of the dissertation was to more precisely define the content of hate speech and the context in which it arises, and in relation to the cultural specifics of Serbia, more precisely determines the boundary between the measure in which it is necessary to provide unhindered freedom of expression and limit the spread of hate speech. The main hypothesis in this work was that the concept of hate speech is multidimensional and that its understanding depends on the geographical, cultural and general social context in which it manifests itself. Hate speech online has a negative impact on public communication and, consequently, on the process of forming a public sphere. Since it hinders the quality debate on the problems of social coercion, hate speech makes it difficult to make democratic decisions and directly undermines the stability of democratic values in society. The study has conducted a comparative and normative analysis of European and national legal acts in the field of hate speech and freedom of expression, as well as other international scientific studies and research in order to better understand the problem of hate speech online, as well as institutional analysis of existing mechanisms for combating hate speech. In addition, an analysis of selected actors of hate speech was conducted through an analysis of the content of the websites where hate speech was addressed to certain minority groups in Serbia. The research described the phenomenon of hate speech online as a complex phenomenon needed to be analysed from several angles to show more clearly all the problems and all the challenges of its precise definition. In defining the notion of hate speech itself, through a 8 comparative analysis of various sources, it is noted that it depends on what is considered to be a basic problem which particular country wants to solve with such definitions. There is a particular difference in understanding of the hate speech in various international legal traditions. In general public, as in various professional literatures, the definition of hate speech is often not clear enough in relation to insults, defamation, denial of some historical events or justification of crimes, insulting symbols, and criticism of public figures, political affiliations and religions. The insufficiently clear boundary between permitted and potentially prohibited expression leads to misunderstandings and ineffective fight against hate speech that could potentially cause serious negative consequences. A sharp critique of an individual or of a group can easily be interpreted as hate speech, and such an approach actually closes the space for discussion and directly suppresses freedom of expression and endangers the deliberative process in a democratic society...

In the first part of the text the distinction between first- and second-order impartiality, along with Brian Barry’s thorough elaboration of their characteristics and the differences between them, is examined. While the former impartiality is related to non-favoring fellow-persons in everyday occasions, the latter is manifested in the institutional structure of society and its political and public morality. In the second part of the article, the concept of public impartiality is introduced through analysis of two examples. In the first example, a Caledonian Club with its exclusive membership is considered as a form of association which is partial, but nevertheless morally acceptable. In the second example, the so-called Heinz dilemma has been reconsidered and the author points to some flaws in Barry’s interpretation, arguing that Heinz’s right of giving advantage to his wife’s life over property rights can be recognized through mitigating circumstances,and this partiality can be appreciated in the public sphere. Thus, public impartiality imposes limits to the restrictiveness and rigidity of political impartiality implied in second-order morality. Prvi deo teksta razmatra distinkciju između nepristrasnosti prvog i drugog reda, zajedno sa Berijevom (Brian Barry) temeljnom elaboracijom karakteristika i razlika ovih nepristrasnosti. Dok se nepristrasnost prvog reda odnosi na nefavorizovanje bliskih osoba u svakodnevnim odnosima, nepristrasnost drugog reda se ispoljava u institucionalnoj strukturi društva i njenom javnom i političkom moralitetu. U drugom delu članka uvodi se pojam javne nepristrasnosti kroz analizu dva primera. Prvi primer jeste Kaledonijski klub sa svojim ekskluzivitetom članstva i razmatra se kao oblik udruženja koje je pristrasno, ali je ipak moralno prihvatljivo. Drugi primer predstavlja takozvana Hajncova dilema, pri čemu autor daje svoju reinterpretaciju slučaja i ukazuje na pojedine slabe tačke Berijevog tumačenja, smatrajući da se kroz postojanje olakšavajućih okolnosti može prihvatiti Hajncovo pravo da daje prednost svojoj supruzi u odnosu na prava vlasništva i da ova pristrasnost može biti prihvaćena u javnoj sferi. Na taj način javna nepristrasnost određuje granice restriktivnosti i rigidnosti političke nepristrasnosti koja je implicirana u nepristrasnosti prvog reda.

Tema istraživanja je povezivanje arhitekture i njezine društvene namjene na primjeru Radničkog narodnog sveučilišta “Moša Pijade” (RANS), danas Pučkog otvorenog učilišta Zagreb (POUZ). Polazeći od teze o specifičnim odnosima arhitekture ideološkog i kulturnog okvira, nastoji se sveobuhvatno pristupiti analizi i interpretaciji kompleksne arhitektonske, urbanističke i društvene uloge ove ustanove te time doprinijeti njenoj valorizaciji u nacionalnom i međunarodnom kontekstu. Težište je na inovativnosti arhitektonskog koncepta, funkcije i društvene uloge, koje se istražuju interdisciplinarno, pristupima povijesti umjetnosti, arhitekture i urbanizma te etnologije i kulturne antropologije. Pritom se kao interpretacijski okvir koriste teorije arhitekture i dizajna, antropologije prostora i arhitekture, antropologije rada i obrazovanja. Polazišta za istraživanje je analiza odnosa arhitekture i društva, odnosno argumentiranje teze o specifičnostima društveno angažirane arhitektonske produkcije. Analizom i usporedbom dosadašnjih prikaza povijesti i značaja ustanove, podataka iz narativnih izvora (intervjua), te uvidom u teorijske i metodološke mogućnosti koje pružaju etnološki i kulturnoantropološki pristupi prostoru i arhitekturi - ukazat će se na oblikovanje i promjene značenja i vrijednosti koje se vezuju uz građevinu; primjerice simboliku i poruke koje su se u upisivale u zgradu, komunikaciju i razmjenu znanja na koju je zgrada poticala, sentimentalne odnose koje se prema zgradi stvarali zaposlenici i posjetitelji. Propitat će se sociokulturne kategorije i odnos kulture i (g)rada u raznim razdobljima djelovanja ustanove – kompleksan odnos zaposlenika, korisnika, programa, dizajniranog arhitektonskog okruženja i danog političkog, ekonomskog i društvenog konteksta., The paper investigates the link between architecture and its social purpose, with a specific focus on the institution known today as Public Open University Zagreb (POUZ) and previously also as the Workers’ and People’s University of Moša Pijade (RANS). Given the specific relationship between the ideological and cultural framework of architecture, this is the comprehensive attempt to analyse and interpret the complex architectural, urbanistic and social role of this institution. The paper is thus intended to contribute to the regard the institution is held in both nationally and globally. The focus is on the innovative character of the architectural concept, function and social role. An interdisciplinary approach is taken, encompassing the fields of art history, architecture and urbanism, as well as ethnology and cultural anthropology. The interpretational framework employs the theories of architecture and design, anthropology of space and of architecture, and anthropology of work and of education. The paper begins with an analysis of the relationship between architecture and society; i.e., the characteristics of socially engaged architectural production are described. Overviews of the history and significance of RANS are analysed and compared, as are narrative data sources (interviews). This, in addition to the theoretical and methodological insights afforded by ethnology and cultural anthropology approaches to space and architecture, will demonstrate how the significance and symbolic values ascribed to the RANS building were shaped and modified through time. These include, for instance, the exchange of ideas and knowledge which the building prompted, as well as the emotional attachments to the building forged by its employees and visitors. The paper also examines the sociocultural categories and the relationship between culture and the city (and work) in the variety of periods since the institution was founded. This is a complex relationship between employees, users, programmes and the designed architectural environment on the one hand, and the political, economic and social context on the other.

Tko su naši suvremeni pučki tribuni? Kakva je njihova zastupnička namjera? U čije točno ime govore zastupnici naroda? I kakav ih odaziv zajednice prati? Zastupaju li u istoj mjeri »elitne«, »svenarodske« i vlastite interese unutar šire interpretativne zajednice? Stvara li svako uzimanje zastupničkog ili reprezentacijskog prava ujedno i osobit socijalni otpor (neuključenih ili prozvanih glasova), baš kao i s njime povezane političke progone? Tekst tumači javnu sferu kao dinamičko polje ideologijskih i estetičkih sučeljavanja, s posebnim naglaskom na umjetničko stvaralaštvo Olivera Frljića i Mate Matišića kao aktualnih pučkih tribuna. Obojicu prati licemjerna optužnica za »manjak patriotizma«, premda upravo napor navedenih umjetnika za uvažavanjem socijalno najranjivijih skupina i pojedinaca svjedoči u prilog osobite etike skrbi, samim time i povišene brižnosti prema zajednici kojoj se obraćaju. Tekst također sadrži i kratke razgovore s obojicom umjetnika na temu umjetnosti kao javnog zastupništva i njegovih kriza., Who are our contemporary tribuni plebis? What is their representative intent? What kind of communal response they receive, both from »elite« and from »common« interpretative communities? What kind of public resistance and public persecution follow from their choice to speak as the public representatives? The text understands public sphere as a contesting ideological and aesthetical field and therefore approaches works of Oliver Fljić and Mate Matišić as two artists who fiercely challenge the irresponsibility of the Croatian community and insist on public duty of intellectuals and artists to reveal both structural patterns and private schemata of social injustice. The fact that both of them are oftentimes accused in the media for their »lack of patriotism« is viewed as a grotesque form of social hypocrisy, since Matišić and Frljić demonstrate consistent care about the most wounded parts of our political community, therefore building intense field of social empathy and communal ethics of care. Text also includes voices of Mate Matišić and Oliver Frljić in response to the questions the author made.

Iris Marion Young prihvaća distinkciju na privatno i javno, ali negira društvenu podjelu na javnu i privatnu sferu, svaku s različitim vrstama institucija, aktivnosti i ljudskih osobina. Young privatno definira kao aspekt osobnog života i djelovanja iz kojeg, on ili ona, imaju pravo isključiti druge. Privatno nije ono što javno isključuje, nego ono što osoba sama odluči isključiti iz javne sfere. Prema Young, javnost je u demokratskom društvu heterogena. »Doista, u otvorenim i pristupačnim javnim mjestima i forumima, za očekivati je da ćemo susresti one koji su drugačiji, čija je društvena perspektiva, iskustvo i sklonost drugačija.« Važno obilježje razvijenog demokratskog društva razvijeno je civilno društvo. Civilno društvo odnosi se na dobrovoljna udruženja javnog života koji se razlikuje od države i gospodarstva, a koji omogućava prijenos problema privatnog života na dnevni red javnosti. Oni dobrovoljno – u smislu da nisu ovlašteni, ali ni vođeni od strane državnih institucija – već proizlaze iz svakodnevnog života i aktivnosti zajedničkih interesa. Razlikovanje dobrovoljnog udruženja od ekonomije i države omogućava još jasnije objasniti ulogu civilnog društva u promicanju društvene pravednosti., Iris Marion Young accepts the concepts of the private and the public, but denies the social division between public and private spheres, each with different kinds of institutions, activities, and human attributes. Young defines “private” as that aspect of a person’s life and activity that he or she has a right to exclude others from. The private in this sense is not what public institutions exclude, but what the individual chooses to withdraw from public view. According to Young the public in a democratic society is heterogeneous. “Indeed, in open and accessible public spaces and forums, they should expect to encounter and hear from those who are different, whose social perspectives, experience, and affiliations are different.” An important characteristic of a developed democratic society is a developed civil society. Civil society is voluntary associational life that is distinguished from the state and economy, and helps with the transfer of private problems to the public agenda. They are voluntary, in the sense that they are neither mandated nor run by state institutions, but spring from the everyday lives and activities of the communities of interest. Distinguishing voluntary associational life from economy as well as state helps refine the role of civil society in promoting social justice., Iris Marion Young accepte la distinction entre le privé et le public, mais refuse une division de la société en sphère publique et privée, chaque sphère étant caractérisée par des institutions, des activités et des propriétés humaines différentes. Young définit le privé comme un aspect de la vie et de l'activité personnels à partir desquels, il ou elle, a le droit d'exclure les autres. Le privé n'est pas ce que le public exclut, mais ce que la personne elle-même décide d'exclure de la sphère publique. Selon Young, la sphère publique est hétérogène dans la société démocratique. « En effet, au sein des lieux et des forums publics ouverts et accessibles, nous nous attendons à rencontrer ceux qui sont différents, qui ont une perspective de la société, une expérience et des penchants différents ». La caractéristique importante d'une société démocratique avancée est la société civile avancée. La société civile se rapporte à des associations volontaires de la vie publique, et se distingue de l'État ou de l'économie, mais permet d'amener les problèmes de la vie privé à l'ordre du jour dans la sphère publique. Ces associations émergent spontanément – au sens où elles n'ont pas les pleins pouvoirs, et où elles ne sont pas dirigées par des institutions étatiques – de la vie quotidienne et des activités communes. Distinguer les associations volontaires de l'économie et de l'État permet d'expliquer plus clairement le rôle de la société civile dans l'acte de promouvoir la justice sociale., Iris Marion Young akzeptiert die Distinktion zwischen privat und öffentlich, verneint jedoch die gesellschaftliche Einteilung in öffentliche und private Sphäre mit jeweils unterschiedlichen Arten von Institutionen, Aktivitäten und menschlichen Eigenschaften. Young definiert „das Private“ als den Aspekt des persönlichen Lebens und Handelns, wobei er oder sie das Recht haben, andere daraus auszuschließen. Privat ist nicht jenes, was das Öffentliche exkludiert, sondern jenes, was eine Person selbst von der öffentlichen Sphäre abzusondern beschließt. Young zufolge ist die Öffentlichkeit in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft heterogen. „Tatsächlich ist es in offenen und zugänglichen öffentlichen Plätzen und Foren zu erwarten, dass wir diejenigen treffen, die anders sind, deren soziale Perspektiven, Erfahrungen und Vorlieben unterschiedlich sind.“ Ein bedeutendes Merkmal einer entwickelten demokratischen Gesellschaft ist eine ausgebaute Zivilgesellschaft. Die Zivilgesellschaft bezieht sich auf freiwillige Vereinigungen des öffentlichen Lebens, das sich vom Staat und der Wirtschaft unterscheidet und die Übertragung von Problemen des Privatlebens auf die öffentliche Agenda ermöglicht. Sie gehen freiwillig – im Sinne, dass sie von staatlichen Institutionen weder bevollmächtigt noch geleitet werden – aus dem alltäglichen Leben und den Aktivitäten von gemeinsamen Interessen hervor. Die Unterscheidung zwischen einer freiwilligen Vereinigung und Wirtschaft sowie Staat bietet die Gelegenheit, die Rolle der Zivilgesellschaft bei der Förderung der Social Justice noch deutlicher zu erläutern.

In the first part of the text the distinction between first- and second-order impartiality, along with Brian Barry’s thorough elaboration of their characteristics and the differences between them, is examined. While the former impartiality is related to non-favoring fellow-persons in everyday occasions, the latter is manifested in the institutional structure of society and its political and public morality. In the second part of the article, the concept of public impartiality is introduced through analysis of two examples. In the first example, a Caledonian Club with its exclusive membership is considered as a form of association which is partial, but nevertheless morally acceptable. In the second example, the so-called Heinz dilemma has been reconsidered and the author points to some flaws in Barry’s interpretation, arguing that Heinz’s right of giving advantage to his wife’s life over property rights can be recognized through mitigating circumstances,and this partiality can be appreciated in the public sphere. Thus, public impartiality imposes limits to the restrictiveness and rigidity of political impartiality implied in second-order morality. Prvi deo teksta razmatra distinkciju između nepristrasnosti prvog i drugog reda, zajedno sa Berijevom (Brian Barry) temeljnom elaboracijom karakteristika i razlika ovih nepristrasnosti. Dok se nepristrasnost prvog reda odnosi na nefavorizovanje bliskih osoba u svakodnevnim odnosima, nepristrasnost drugog reda se ispoljava u institucionalnoj strukturi društva i njenom javnom i političkom moralitetu. U drugom delu članka uvodi se pojam javne nepristrasnosti kroz analizu dva primera. Prvi primer jeste Kaledonijski klub sa svojim ekskluzivitetom članstva i razmatra se kao oblik udruženja koje je pristrasno, ali je ipak moralno prihvatljivo. Drugi primer predstavlja takozvana Hajncova dilema, pri čemu autor daje svoju reinterpretaciju slučaja i ukazuje na pojedine slabe tačke Berijevog tumačenja, smatrajući da se kroz postojanje olakšavajućih okolnosti može prihvatiti Hajncovo pravo da daje prednost svojoj supruzi u odnosu na prava vlasništva i da ova pristrasnost može biti prihvaćena u javnoj sferi. Na taj način javna nepristrasnost određuje granice restriktivnosti i rigidnosti političke nepristrasnosti koja je implicirana u nepristrasnosti prvog reda.

U izvještaju o stanju hrvatske kinematografije, objavljenom 2001. godine, V. Majcen i H. Turković bilježe da se na Hrvatskoj Radioteleviziji emitira velik broj igranih filmova od kojih je 65 do 70% filmova iz SAD-a, 20 do 25% čine igrani filmovi iz europskih država, a preostali postotak odnosi se na filmove iz izvaneuropskih država. Prema istom izvještaju kinorepertoarom komercijalnih kina dominiraju igrani filmovi iz SAD-a koji čine 74 do 85% repertoara. Slična je situacija i u videotekama kojih je tada bilo puno više. Osim ovoga izvještaja ne postoji puno drugih istraživanja o raznolikosti igranih filmova dostupnih u Hrvatskoj s obzirom na državu porijekla. Također, nema istraživanja o dostupnosti filmova s obzirom na tip filma i na vrijeme nastanka filma. Ovim se istraživanjem nastoji osvijetliti stanje raznolikosti filmova dostupnih u Hrvatskoj tako što se istražuje raznolikost filmova koji su dostupni u hrvatskim narodnim knjižnicama. U radu se istražuje raznolikost knjižničnih filmskih zbirki s obzirom na državu i vrijeme nastanka filma te s obzirom na tip filma (igrani, dokumentarni, animirani). Predlažu se i pojedine aktivnosti na temelju kojih bi knjižnice mogle unaprijediti ponudu raznolikih filmova.