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.
◌ PROGRAM ◌
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
Experts, Good Citizens, Democratic Public Debates and Global Warming
“Among climate experts there is an overwhelming consensus that (i) global warming is occurring, that (ii) this fact is alarming and that (iii) humans are causally responsible for it. Despite this, 16% of American citizens deny that (i) global warming is occurring, 48% of them question (ii) its seriousness, and 50% think that (iii) human activity has no role in causing it (Anderson 2011). These discrepancies can be observed in many other countries as well.
In this talk I will provide a normative framework to assess the attitude of those citizens that, like American citizens, in democratic public debates concerning the elaboration of public policies, mistrust experts, i.e. trustworthy epistemic authorities, in regard to beliefs that are justified and almost undisputed within the scientific community. I will argue that this attitude is bad, because citizens that show it do not possess the virtue of the epistemic trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities (ETITEA), which is demanded by the non-exhaustive ideal of the good citizens publicly debating in democratic contexts. According to this non-exhaustive ideal, as a necessary but not sufficient condition, in democratic public debates citizens trust trustworthy epistemic authorities as a way to respect themselves and each other as peers in circumstances of epistemic dependence. In more detail, I will show that the virtue of ETITEA is required by three ideas specifying the non-exhaustive ideal of the good citizens publicly debating in democratic contexts, i.e. (i) the idea of rational citizens, (ii) the idea of reasonable citizens, and (iii) the idea of responsible citizens.
First, ETITEA is demanded by the idea of rational citizens (i). Rational citizens normally want to believe justified beliefs. Moreover, they want to act successfully, and know that justified beliefs lead to successful actions more than unjustified beliefs. Yet rational citizens know that in most domains, i.e. all domains in which they are not experts, they do not have first-hand evidence justifying the related beliefs, and cannot even acquire the expertise necessary to understand either the evidence or the claims relative to the evidence. In the light of this, rational citizens dismiss the idea of epistemic independence as irrational, acknowledge their epistemic dependence, and show trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities and their claims. In this way they can rationally hold beliefs in domains in which they are not experts, successfully act on their basis, and show respect to themselves.
Second, ETITEA is required by the idea of reasonable citizens (ii). On the one hand, reasonable citizens respect a reciprocity constraint, therefore they restrain themselves from publicly advancing unjustified and highly sectarian beliefs, because they do not meet almost uncontroversial scientific standards and would not be endorsed by everyone. On the other, reasonable citizens accept, among the burdens of judgement, the fact of epistemic dependence on epistemic authorities as a condition that all citizens (more or less) equally share. Both features lead reasonable citizens to acknowledge the need of ETITEA as a way to respect each other as peers in circumstances of epistemic dependence.
Third, ETITEA is demanded by the idea of responsible citizens (iii). Responsible citizens do not want to unduly harm others and know that public policies based on unjustified beliefs likely harm others. Also, they are aware that they cannot autonomously shape justified beliefs in those domains in which they have no direct expertise. Responsible citizens, therefore, in public debates concerning the elaboration of public policies show trust in trustworthy epistemic authorities in those domains in which they are laypersons. This is a way to respect both co-citizens and citizens of other countries.
Having elaborated this normative framework, I will employ it to assess the public mistrusting attitude showed, within democratic contexts, by citizens toward those trustworthy epistemic authorities addressing global warming, and argue that it is bad because it shows a lack of rationality, reasonableness, and responsibility. Finally, I will outline some public and feasible strategies that should be used to modify this bad attitude.”
Davide Pala is a Post-doc Fellow at the CAS-SEE of Rijeka. Previously he was a Post-doc Fellow at the “Fondazione Burzio” of Turin and a PhD Student at the University of Turin, in the Department of Cultures, Politics and Society. He was Visiting Post-doc Fellow at the University of Frankfurt (Justitia Amplificata) and at the University of Manchester (Mancept). He works in the field of normative political theory applied to international issues. In particular, his research focuses on global justice, world poverty and economic inequalities. On the matter he wrote several articles focused on institutional cosmopolitanism, capability approach, legal positivism and nationalism. He is currently developing a normative republican account of world poverty.
The conference investigated the concept of testimony, notably war testimony, from different perspectives, i.e., literature, philosophy, sociology and political activism.
The first day of the conference and a roundtable on the third day were entirely devoted to the analysis of the holocaust poet Paul Celan through the contributions of Sue Vice, Pajari Räsänen, Matthew Boswell and Nina Čolović. A philosophical analysis of Celan’s poetry was provided by Petar Bojanić, while Bertrand Badiou was a key figure, providing testimony of Paul Celan’s poetry and biography.
The second day, with panels chaired by CAS Fellows Mónica Cano Abadía and Olimpia Loddo, focused on the role played by poetry in the testimony of the Yugoslav war. A first-hand testimony was offered by the Bosnian writer Asmir Kujović, while Lidija Dimkovska, a Macedonian writer based in Slovenia, paid a moving tribute to a long list of writers that are the voice of a post-Yugoslav languages. Andrijana Kos-Lajtman analyzed the influence of Dadaism on Manifest Mlade Bosne by Darko Cvijetić. Senadin Musabegović described the role played by poetry in testifying the real face of nationalism.
In the panel “Rhetoric, Politics and Poetry after Yugoslav Wars,” Jay Surdukowski showed how Radovan Karadžić used poetry to justify his war crimes. In her presentation To War or to Write, Elizabeta Šeleva described poetry as a means to redesign reality through the creation of an alternative “literary ought.” Goran Lazičić described the rhetoric and politics of testimony in the novels of the Serbian writers Svetislav Basara and David Albahari.
During the third day of the conference, with panels chaired by CAS Fellow Davide Pala, Olivera Marković-Savić showed the use and misuse of the term ‘veteran’ after the end of the Yugoslavian war, and she stressed the legal misrecognition of veterans by the Serbian state. Šeherzada Džafić talked about poetry focussing on war as a powerful form of both testimony and ethical learning, while Selma Zilić Šiljak presented the clash between dominant narratives of war and the horizontal and private accounts of it in Velika Kladuša.
In the first panel of the fourth and last day, chaired by CAS Fellow Mišo Kapetanović, Cornelia Grabner gave voice to the Movement for Peace in Mexico, while Robert von Hallberg focused on the relationship between testimony and poetry in the US. Danijela Majstorović shared her research on the construction of the Yugoslav new woman and the role of the Women’s Antifascist Front (AFŽ). Marzuq Al Halabi talked about Mahmoud Darwish, the prophet of the Palestinian revolution who created a bridge between Palestine and other international movements.
The last panel, chaired by Marco Abram (Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso), revolved around memorial sites in Rwanda (Matthew Boswell) and the role of women poets in the peace process in Colombia (Cherilyn Elston). Afterwards, Djurdja Trajković moderated a roundtable in which the role of poetry as a form of testimony was discussed. A poetry reading about conflicts in peripheral capitalism closed the conference.
After the conference, the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory of Belgrade hosted one workshop and two lectures. The workshop consisted in a critical discussion of the important book “Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities” by Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. Fourteen commentators highlighted different aspects of it, e.g., the relation between race and nation (e.g., Carlo Burelli, Davide Pala), on the one hand, and the link between race and gender, on the other hand (e.g., Mónica Cano Abadía). Djurdja Trajković closed the workshop by stressing the strict historical connections between nationalism, racism, and classism. The first lecture, given by Manuela Bojadžijev and entitled “Is (neo-)racism a form of violence of the past?”, provided a conceptualization of the distinctive features of racism and a great overview of the main literature analyzing racism from the 50’s onwards. The second lecture, given by Sanja Milutinović Bojanić and entitled “Rhetoric of Emancipation vs. Rhetoric of Misogyny”, showed the central traits of the rhetoric of both emancipation and misogyny and illustrated them through the analysis of several historical occurrences of both emancipation and misogyny.
The coming year will mark three decades since the publication of Immanuel Wallerstein’s and Etienne Balibar’s seminal work Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. The book, characterized by a specific ”dialogical” structure, has become influential in the study of racism and in the interdisciplinary school of cultural studies. The publication of the work was preceded by a series of Wallerstein’s and Balibar’s debates at the Maison des sciences de l’homme in Paris between 1985 and 1987. In the course of these encounters, the two authors developed the unique dialogical method, the ”practice-of-theory”, which consisted in the gradual elaboration and intertwining of the three fundamental concepts – race, nation and class – through simultaneous historical-empirical and theoretical analyses.
Wallerstein and Balibar formulate in this study a complex analysis of the roles that the classificatory schemes of race, nation and class played in the process of the genesis and global spreading of capitalism, above all their role in legitimizing the extreme social inequalities that capitalism produces and deepens. Upon the analysis, the authors’ central theoretical claim is that one can identify fissures, ruptures and contradictions in the fabric of the conceptual and empirical inter-imbrication of the three categories, suggesting that any strategy of resistance to forms of social domination grounded in the race-nation-class nexus must identify and exploit these contradictions. The authors finally draw our attention to the fact that the race-nation-class constellation is constantly being reinforced in global capitalism, which also requires constant reflection about new strategies of resistance.
The seminar at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory aims to comprehensively reflect on the relevance and heuristic value of Wallerstein’s and Balibar’s study for the present day. Within its temporal limits, the seminar will try to employ the ”practice-of-theory” method of the book in its analysis and attempts at re-actualization. The participants are invited to engage in forms of critical reconstruction, either of particular aspects of the book or its whole, and to explore avenues for the possible application of Wallerstein’s and Balibar’s perspective in analyzing manifold ways in which the fundamental categories of race, class and nation are (individually or synthetically) today used to legitimize or challenge capitalism, globally as well as in the region of former Yugoslavia.
Time: December 18th 2017 at 14:30
Venue: Belgrade, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory (address: Kraljice Natalije 45, 4th Floor)
14:30 – 14:40 | Welcome Word – Petar Bojanić (Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade)
14:40 – 15:00 | Introductory Remarks – Manuela Bojadžijev (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin/Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations-und Migrationsforschung, BIM)
15:00 – 15:20 | Regional Reception – Marjan Ivković i Djurdja Trajković (Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade)
15:20 – 15:35 | Coffee break
15:40 – 19:00 | Reflections on the Book
Rastko Močnik (University of Ljubljana and Faculty for Media and Communication, Singidunum University, Slovenia and Serbia), Gordan Maslov (Center for Social and Humanities Research, Croatia), Valida Repovac Nikšić (Faculty of Political Science, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Nataša Sardžoska (Center for Advanced Studies of Southeastern Europe at the University of Rijeka, Croatia), Vedran Džihić (University of Vienna, Austria; Center for Advanced Studies of Southeastern Europe at the University of Rijeka, Croatia), Petar Bojanić (IFDT), Marjan Ivković (IFDT), Srdjan Prodanović (IFDT), Djurdja Trajković (IFDT), Jelena Vasiljević (IFDT), Adriana Zaharijević (IFDT), Carlo Burelli (Center for Advanced Studies of Southeastern Europe at the University of Rijeka, Croatia), Mónica Cano (Center for Advanced Studies of Southeastern Europe at the University of Rijeka, Croatia), Davide Pala (Center for Advanced Studies of Southeastern Europe at the University of Rijeka, Croatia)
Petar Bojanić (Center for Ethics, Law and Applied Philosophy; Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade)
Djurdja Trajković (Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade)
Marjan Ivković (Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade)
Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade
Center for Advanced Studies of Southeastern Europe (CAS SEE), University of Rijeka
Seminar is supported by Haus der Kulturen der Welt (HKV), Berlin
The Center for Advanced Studies – Southeast Europe (CAS SEE) is pleased to announce the recipients of the Autumn 2017 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 2017 CAS SEE Fellowship Awards, University of Rijeka recipients:
Mónica Cano Abadía (Zaragoza, Spain) The Re-Radicalization of Critical Thinking: Toward a Global Social Justice.
Gerrit Wegener (Berlin, Germany) Continuous architecture. The most living act of memory.
Olimpia Giuliana Loddo (Cagliari, Italy) Investigation on the Ontology of Normative Pictures.
Nataša Janković (Belgrade, Serbia) Architectural terRI[s]tories: Mapping the process of city transformation.
Davide Pala (Torino, Italy) World Poverty, Radical Inequalities and Neo-Republicanism.
The Center for Advanced Studies, Southeast Europe (CAS SEE) at the University of Rijeka is pleased to announce the recipients of the 2017-2018 CAS SEE Fellowship Awards.
The purpose of the CAS SEE Fellowship Programme is to further the research or creative work in the humanities and humanistic social sciences in the Balkans. Fellows will present their work within the CAS-Collegium on a bi-weekly basis, creating an intellectually heterogeneous atmosphere and fostering a productive self-examination and even friction, which may lead to new and unexpected ideas and innovation.
Please join us in congratulating the following 2017-2018 Spring and Autumn CAS-SEE Fellowship Awards, University of Rijeka recipients:
Mateja Kurir Borovčić (Ljubljana, Slovenia) Architecture as ideology: the perspectives of critical theory from modernism to the present
Gruia Badescu (Oxford University, UK) Spatializing Cultural Policies and Activism in Croatia and Romania: A Comparative, Transnational Study
Marek Szilvasi (Budapest, Hungary) Between Commodity and Common Public Good: Access to Water and its Relevance for Roma People in Europe
Natasha Sardžoska (Skopje, Macedonia) Mapping of spatial memory in limitrophe cities, landscapes, borders and bodies in Istria
Gregor Moder (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia) Critical Theory. Truth in Politics: Comedy, Sophistry and Critique
Marija Ott Franolić (Zagreb, Croatia) Read, Think, Act
Milorad Kapetanović (London, UK) Regulation of Informal Construction in Rijeka in the Anticipation of European Capital of Culture Rijeka
Mónica Cano Abadía (Zaragoza, Spain) The Re-Radicalization of Critical Thinking: Toward a Global Social Justice
Chiara Destri (University of Milan, Italy) No Democracy For Devils: Democratic Authority, Citizenship and Parties
Caterina Bonora (University of Bremen; Jacobs University Bremen, Germany) Ne da(vi)mo Beograd and the “new wave” activism in the post-Yugoslav space
Tom Whyman (University of Essex, UK) Research Proposal: Adorno’s Concept of Natural-History: Crisis and Critical Theory
Davide Pala (University of Torino, Italy) World Poverty, Radical Inequalities and Neo-Republicanism: What Does Non-Domination Normatively Demand and Institutionally Imply in regard to the Poorest?
Carlo Burelli (University of Milan, Italy) A Theory of Order