Fellowship program

CAS SEE Fellows at the „Engagement for Social Change: Moving beyond Resistance“ conference

The current, 7th generation of CAS SEE fellows participated in the „Engagement for Social Change: Moving beyond Resistance“ conference held in Belgrade, 19-21 April, 2018.

Francesca Forle presented her paper Rythmòs in Acting Together. A Tool to Improve Stability and Orient Power Hierarchies“ at the “Thinking of Engagement” panel of the first day, together with Olga Nikolić, Igor Cvejić, Sotiria Ismini Gounari and Jelena Vasiljević at the University of Belgrade Rectorate.

During the second day of the conference, current Fellow Polona Sitar presented her paper „Menstrual Movements and Feminist Spirituality: The Red Tent Case Study“ at the “Yes, We Can(‘t): Women’s Engagement” panel with Anna Bednarczyk, Kathleen Zeidler and CAS SEE non-resident Fellow, Monica Cano Abadía presenting her paper on „Risking Vulnerability in Feminist Activism: The #metoo Case“.

The workshop on the book „Where did revolution go?“ by/with Donatella della Porta chaired by Gazela Pudar Draško (Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory) also hosted current Fellows Barbara Turk Niskac, Tiziano Toracca and Filip Milacic, together with researchers from the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory; Jelena Vasiljević, Srđan Prodanović, Marjan Ivković and Irena Fiket.



An Interdisciplinary Seminar on Non-Verbal Normativity

Date and Venue: February 8, 2018 at Društvo arhitekata Rijeka (DAR)

Organization: CAS SEE & DAR

Non-verbal normativity surrounds us. In design and architecture practices, the visual communication and the built environment transmit rules and shape behaviour in a variety of, arguably, understudied ways. Signalization, political and lifestyle propaganda in various media, nudging images, technical drawings of city plans, ideologies articulated through architectural choices and propagated through artistic practices – are among the most prolific bearers of norms in the society.

This seminar gathers a number of Autumn 2017 CAS SEE Fellows investigating the non-verbal normativities in a variety of approaches and disciplines and the practitioners of design and architecture to open the discussion about the nature, relevance and effects of the “rules without words” in the contemporary normative landscape, where climate change is reframing the discussions on globalization, the illiberal governments are slowly and persistently changing the fundamentals of the discourse on governance and freedom, and the vast digital realm floods the international social life with innovations in social coordination as well as informational and affective strategies of uncontrollable quality and intent.


17.00 | Olimpia Giuliana Loddo and Davide Pisu: The Architect’s Normative Drawings

17.30 | Carlo Burelli: Art, Power and Propaganda: Lessons from the Roman Empire

17.50 | Mónica Cano Abadía: The Non-Verbal Normativity of Gender Performativity

18.10 | Discussion

18.40 | Davide Pala: A Moral Framework for Assessing Hostile Architecture

19.00 | Milorad Kapetanović: Regulation of Informal Construction in Rijeka in the Anticipation of European Capital of Culture Rijeka

19.20 | Nataša Janković: Architectural terRI[s]tories: Mapping the Process of City Transformation.

19.40 | Gerrit Wegener: Johnnie meets Jackie in Rijeka. In between the lines of Normativity and Individuality

20.00 | Discussion

Olimpia Giuliana Loddo

How to understand the normative nature of a picture?

“Pictures have often been considered as means of representation or as forms of expression. However, an agent can use pictures for different goals (Mitchell, Nyíri) and more specifically, pictures can have a normative sense (Lorini).

The expression ‘normative sense’ is vague and it hides different possible meanings. In general, it is possible to use a picture to impose a norm (e.g. traffic signs, urban planning), in this case, some scholars talk about graphic rules or drawn norms (Moroni and Lorini, Maynard).

It is also possible to use a picture to translate a norm: this is a specific form of intersemiotic translation (Jakobson). The intersemiotic translation of rules can be a precious instrument of legal clarification: for instance, in contractual design. In this case, the normative picture is a partial or total visualisation of normative text (Haapio).

This paper aims to point out that the normative nature of the drawing reflects the intention behind the drawing activity or the attitude of the users of the drawings.

In fact, on the one hand, an agent can produce a picture or locate it in a particular place to create a new norm, in the matter in question, the activity of the drawer could be considered part of the procedure that leads to the creation of a norm.

On the other hand, an agent can produce a picture that refers to an existing norm. The production of a picture that represents an existing norm can have different functions that I will point out by analysing three different examples. The first example concerns the activity of a contract designer that can use the picture to clarify the clauses of a commercial contract (this can transform a contract into a valuable instrument of management). Moreover, a second example concerns an activist that can illustrate several norms to overcome the linguistic and technical barriers between the lawgiver and the potential norms’ addresses. The third case relates the activity of a painter that produces normative pictures to reinforce norms already valid in a community.

The different forms of normative visualisation can follow specific strategies. In general, there are at least three different strategies of norm visualisation: Pushmi-pullyu representations (i.e., in R. Millikan’s lexicon, forms of normative visualization that appeal to more primitive mechanisms of imitation); the representation of the unpleasant consequences of the norm violation; the creation of a system of symbolic graphic representations. The different, forms of norms visualisation can reflect and be influenced by the norm’s typology.

However, the different forms of norm visualisation do not reflect the relation between norms and pictures. In other words, in this presentation, I will show that it is impossible to understand the specific function a normative picture without analysing both the actual use of that picture and the social and historical context in which that picture is produced. The bare observation of a picture cannot reveal its specific normative nature.”

Olimpia G. Loddo earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Milan in 2012 and cooperates as postdoctoral volunteer research assistant with the Department of Law of the University of Cagliari. She is assistant editor in “Argumenta. Italian Journal of Analytic Philosophy”. Her current research interests  include general theory of law, social ontology, customary law, philosophy of norms, deontic logic, phenomenology of law. She is the author of several articles published in (national and international) peer reviewed journals. Essays and translations (from English and German) by Olimpia Loddo have also been published in edited collections on phenomenology of law, anthropology of revenge, philosophy of images. She is co-editor (with Pier Luigi Lecis, Giuseppe Lorini, Vinicio Busacchi, and Pietro Salis) of the edited collection “Truth, Image and Normativity”. She edited (with Roberto Pusceddu) the book “Anancastico in Deontica” [The Anankastic in Deontics], LED, 2017 (auth. Giuseppe Lorini). She is the author of the book “Ideologie e concetti in azienda. Un’analisi filosofica degli usi aziendali” [Ideology and concepts in the Firm. A philosophical analysis of company customs], ESI, 2017.


How Long is Now?

“Thinking about architecture, we are confronted with the heritage of former generations as well the questions of how to understand, act on, act with and further develop these structures and how to create today a vision of and for the future. My vision of an interaction with the existing building stock may be summed up with a poetically formulation by Mark Wigley, who names preservation a “forward-thinking celebration of life”. But how can we think forward and celebrate life while respecting the memory as testimony inscribed both materially as well as immaterially into architecture – without creating a death archive? In my opinion, the key to find possible answers lies in a better understanding of the presence of and in architecture first. The objective of my current research work is to re-examine its different dimensions as there are Architecture as thing (“Ding”) in its material presence, the presence for the beholder and Architecture as (re-)presentation of a(n ideal) future.

Based on thoughts of the Ontology of Things, namely inspired by E. Husserl, M. Heidegger and G. Böhme, I want to name the forms of presence ecstasies and distinguish spatiality, eidos, physiognomy and sensation. With the help of this concept I aim to pave a possible path to overcome in a first step the thinking in polarities as inside / outside, essence / expression, the thing as such / aesthetic effect or rationality / affectivity.

The  fourth of the ecstasies bridges over from the material realism of architecture as thing to its reception by the subject, understood as being sensitive for its perceptible presence and emotional impact. To perceive a building is as well to take part on its past and possible future. Looking back, there are traces of testimony in social as well as in historical dimensions. Looking forward, the present stimulates the imagination of the beholder. Thus we are thinking of the relationship of building and beholder via the ecstasies as a double bind, that tries to solve the above named polarities and, at the same time, helps to overcome the division between subject and object. Furthermore there are as well the sensitive qualities of a thing as there are qualities, which has been given by an act of creation.

All three mentioned forms of presence take architecture as a spatial thing out of time. But I suggest to understand architecture as architecture insofar as it gets identity from the event which will have taken place in or as architecture. The event defines the now of architecture. It is not only a confrontation of the person(s) involved and architecture itself but an interaction in and with architecture which gives the opportunity of an active (re-)appropriation of the existing object. An event cannot be planned or be foreseen. It will only be known when it will have taken place. Architecture as framework for upcoming events exists in the tense of the past perfect progressive. This framework is given by the existence of ecstasies. They are created in a process of design and development and can be seen as result of the production aesthetic. The ecstasies are inscribed into the three-dimensional reality of the present building. And they are received in sensitive affection by a beholder who gets into interaction. In result, I aim to open up an understanding of the perception of architecture as a whole of sensitive (ecstasies) and rational (language and semiotics) reception.

The now is longer than any single point in time seems to be. is related to space and temporality, as every single moment in the history of a building seems linked with every other moment in the past, present and future. The further construction of the building stock results in a continuous architecture (Weiterbauen), that allows to understand, write and read “architecture as the most living act of memory” (Jacques Derrida).”

After studying Architecture (Diploma) and Art History (Master’s  of Art) at the Technische Universität Berlin, Gerrit Wegener has been conducting research projects at the crossroads of Philosophy, Art History and Theory of Architecture. His doctoral  thesis was on Jacques Derrida  and his  writings on architecture. While seeking to identify and assess the contribution  of  Derrida to the Theory of Architecture, he further explored  the possible contribution of mainly  20th century French philosophy to architectural discourse. In  parallel to his academic work, Gerrit Wegener has been working  as a freelance architect, art historian and professional project manager with a focus on design and construction within existing structures, taking into account aspects of heritage and historical preservation.


Legalising informal construction in Rijeka

“This presentation is an extension of the original research proposal which dealt with individual informal construction and its legalization process in the light of European Capital of Culture. Through it, I aimed to get better insight in Rijeka as a case of relatively high construction regulation, in historical terms and compared to the rest of former Yugoslavia. It also seemed convenient, considering the sensitivity of the European Capital of Culture project and potential investments it would attract, which are less state-dependent compared to large sports events. In particular, I was interested to observe whether will Rijeka 2020 affect finalization of legalization process, if its larger development projects will create space for more regulation or will cause new problems. However, in the presentation, I detour from this narrow focus, due to several conclusions I derived from initial field research. ECC project is too specific and developing too slowly to create visible results in five months of the fellowship and activities planned within ECC project are happening slower than I expected. But more importantly, particular dynamics of space regulation appear to be unaffected by the ECC, but only continued by historical relationship and failures/successes of legalization.

I found necessary to expand the research question to this relationship. What is a local history of legalization (individual informal construction regulation)? How is this process specific to Rijeka? What is given in this process (what developmental projects are presented as universal objectives with their values and hegemonies? Which actors are implementing/resisting these projects and what is their politics?
Local professionals frame legalization as unilateral, universal process. It is not mere space regulation, setting objectively existing construction in understandable terms (registries and databases) but also a highly normative implementing process. Legalisation advocators and the critique of informal construction often present the phenomenon in a specific mixture of orientalism (Balkanism), modernization and distinction. Even activists advocating better public space management and arguing re-evaluation of socialist modernism or against neoliberal thefts in large construction developments see individual construction as a problem.

Without arguing for or against this process, it is necessary to take a broader perspective and examine social dynamics of space governance and management; to see how the history of this process produced legitimization of power relationships of modernizers and those to be regulated (modernized). In the legalization process, working-class culture and heritage of Rijeka city are undermined and taken for granted. Further, I demonstrate how even socialist projects which indeed did plan and involve workers, deny workers voices. In legalization process, working-class culture is systematically delegitimized and rendered invisible in public space behind a heritage of historicist, imperial or modernist projects.”

Mišo Kapetanović holds a PhD in Balkan Studies from the University of Ljubljana. He studied Philosophy and Sociology at the University of Banja Luka and received a Joint Master degree in Global History and Global Studies from the University of Vienna and the University of Leipzig. His doctoral research dealt with the visual language of contemporary informal construction (title: “Roadside Architecture in Bosnia and Herzegovina Between Consumerism and Vernacularity”). He has written on representations in contemporary pornography, queer music experiences in the Balkans, and the history of urban planning in socialist Yugoslavia. Before Rijeka he was a research fellow at the Centre for Southeast European Studies at the University of Graz and worked as a researcher on a project “Documenting Human Losses in Croatia 1991–1995” for Croatian NGO Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past.


Are There Genuine Reasons Against Intending Harm?
  “Are bad intentions wrongs per se? In other words, are there normative reasons against intending harm and other bad effects which are not derived from reasons against harming or bringing those effects?
The defenders of the Doctrine of Double Effect and all those who subscribe to the thesis that intentions are non-derivatively relevant to the moral permissibility of actions, must answer these questions affirmatively. For there to be a genuine deontological constraint against intending harm, reasons against intending harm must be reasons per se.
In this talk, I evaluate and find wanting three kinds of theoretical justifications of reasons against intending harm as reasons per se: agent-centered, victim-centered, and impersonal. They state, respectively, that bad intentions are wrongs because they are bad for the agent, or for the victim, or because they are bad, period.
I conclude that although the failure of these justifications is not a decisive evidence to think that there are no genuine reasons against intending harm, it is a good enough evidence to raise serious doubt about it.”
Anton Markoč is currently a post-doctoral fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at the University of Rijeka. He holds a PhD and an MA in Philosophy from Central European University and BSc and specialist degrees in Political Science from University of Montenegro. He specializes in moral and political philosophy, broadly construed, and has competence in similar fields, including the history of moral and political thought, moral psychology, and philosophy of action. His PhD dissertation, “It’s Not the Thought that Counts: An Essay on the Irrelevance of Intentions to the Moral Permissibility of Actions”, was supervised by János Kis and it defended the view that intentions are non-derivatively irrelevant to the moral permissibility of actions. In 2015, he was a Fellow in Philosophy at Harvard University, where he was supervised by T. M. Scanlon. In 2015-2016, he was an adjunct lecturer at University of Donja Gorica in Podgorica, Montenegro, where he taught courses in moral and political philosophy, while in 2014, he worked as a tutor in philosophy at CEU’s Roma Graduate Preparation Program.


The thermodynamics of “muljavine i pizdarije”: state, infrastructure and moral economy of district heating in Bor (Serbia) and Rijeka (Croatia)

“In this seminar I provided an anthropological perspective on how citizens in two post-Yugoslav industrial towns – Bor (Serbia) and Rijeka (Croatia) – encounter and negotiate district heating. I explored how moral economy and neoliberal discourses are embedded in people’s encounter with urban material infrastructure (e.g. pipes and manhole covers) and how the state becomes reinvigorated in such encounters. I used ethnographic material I collected in Bor (2012/2013) and a new material collected in Rijeka in order to discuss post-Yugoslav legacies and possibilities for political action/agency. ”

Deana Jovanović is currently a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies of Southeastern Europe at the University of Rijeka. Deana holds a PhD in Social Anthropology (the University of Manchester), and she researches urban, political, and environmental anthropology. Her research focuses on anticipations of futures in deindustrialised and reindustrialised urban environments across East Europe.


The Center for Advanced Studies Southeast Europe (CAS SEE) is pleased to announce the recipients of the Autumn 2016 CAS SEE Fellowship Awards at the University of Rijeka. The purpose of the CAS SEE Fellowship Programme is to further the research and creative work in the fields of the humanities and humanistic social sciences in the Balkans. Fellows will present their work within the CAS-Collegium, creating an intellectually heterogeneous atmosphere and fostering a productive self-examination or even friction, which may lead to new and unexpected ideas and innovation.

Please join us in congratulating the following Autumn 2016 CAS SEE Fellowship Awards, University of Rijeka recipients:

Andrew Hodges (Manchester – UK)

Project – title: Social Inequalities on the Urban Periphery? Vocational Education, Ultras’ Participation and Cultures of Resistance in the Classroom 

Carlos González Villa (Madrid – Spain)

Project – title: The Slovene Reaction to the European Migrant Crisis: Class and Ideology at the edge of Schengen

Deana Jovanovic (Manchester –  UK)

Project – title: Industrial Urban Spaces: after Yugoslavia

Anton Markoč (Budapest –  Hungary)

Project – title: It’s Not the Thought that Counts: The Irrelevance of Intentions to the Moral Blameworthiness of Actions

Ernesto C. Sferrazza Papa (Torino – Italy)

Project – title: Walls and bodies: a philosophical research on the material government of human mobility