George Steiner: The Paradox of Culture - IWM · Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen Institute for Human Sciences A-1090 Wien Spittelauer Lände 3 Tel. (+431) 313 58-0 Fax

Institut fürdie Wissenschaftenvom Menschen

Institute forHuman Sciences

A-1090 WienSpittelauer Lände 3

Tel. (+431) 313 58-0Fax (+431) 313 58-30

[email protected]

Contents

3

4

28

29

6

12

26

Summer 2003/No.3

Reflection Group

Working meetings on solidarity

and religion

Public debate on the borders of

Europe in Warsaw

Commentaries by Silvio Ferrari

and Aleksander Smolar

Panel Discussion

American Politics and the Unity

of Europe

10th IWM Summer School

Challenges to Democracy

Guest Contribution

Tzvetan Todorov: The Lunchbox

and the Bomb

George Steiner:The Paradox of Culture

17. JAN PATOCKA-GEDÄCHTNISVORLESUNG

The Czech philosopher and co-founder of Charta 77 Jan Patocka

died in 1977 following a police interrogation in Prague. In

commemoration of the 10th anniversary of this death, the IWM

launched a series of annual memorial lectures in 1987. In 2003,

in collaboration with the Renner Institute, the IWM invited

George Steiner to continue the series.

George Steiner

IN HIS LECTURE, George Steiner argued that for the Europe-ans, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment held out thepromise of an end to the torture rack, to the burning ofbooks, to political mass murder. The rapid spread of univer-sal education, the development of cultural institutions, thecultivation of higher values – all would serve to humanizeman. Exactly the opposite occurred. In both Russia andEurope the period from 1914 to 1945 became the mass-grave of history. Approximately one-hundred millionpeople were killed during the wars, either through warfare,through displacement, or through hunger and sadistic mis-treatment in the Holocaust and the Gulag. Books weredestroyed, torture became a commonplace. How can weaccount for failure on this immense scale? Could it be,Steiner asked, that high culture, the humaniora, does nothumanize? Does a fatal paradox inhere in the concept of‘culture’?

For a broader discussion of these themes, we refer in-terested readers to George Steiner’s book In Bluebeard’sCastle: Some Notes Towards the Redefinition of Culture(deutsch: In Blaubarts Burg: Anmerkungen zur Neubestim-mung der Kultur). As Steiner argues in this text, “a theory ofculture, an analysis of our present circumstance, which donot have at their pivot a consideration of the modes ofterror that brought on the death, through war, starvation,and deliberate massacre, of some seventy million humanbeings in Europe and Russia, between the start of the firstWorld War and the end of the second, seem to me irrespon-sible.” George Steiner’s numerous books, many of whichhave been translated into a dozen languages, include Tolstoyor Dostoevsky (1958), The Death of Tragedy (1961), and afamous work on translation, After Babel (1975). He is alsothe author of a number of works of fiction and a volume ofautobiography, Errata: an Examined Life (1997).

Writer, scholar and criticGeorge Steiner was bornin Paris in 1929 to Austrianparents. Steiner’s distin-guished academic careerincludes professorshipsat Yale, New York Uni-versity, the University ofGeneva, and Oxford Uni-versity. He is currentlyExtraordinary Fellow ofChurchill College at Cam-bridge University. In May2003, George Steiner wasawarded the prestigiousBörne Prize.

´´

´

´´

2

IWM NEWSLETTER 81 Summer 2003/No.3

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

Giuliano Amato (Rome / Brussels)United Europe: What Should It Be?Edward W. Said (New York)The Public Role of Writers and IntellectualsCzeslaw Milosz (Berkeley/Krakow)Lesung aus seinen GedichtenWilliam Julius Wilson (Harvard)Rising Inequality in the United States and theCase for Multiracial Political CoalitionsElie Wiesel (Boston)Hasidic ModesTadeusz Mazowiecki (Warschau)Politik und Moral im neuen EuropaAlbert O. Hirschman (Princeton)Between Private and Public SpheresGeorge Soros (New York)A Failed Philosopher Tries AgainFrançois Furet (Paris)Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the FrenchRevolutionMario Vargas Llosa (Lima/London)Democracy TodayJacques Derrida (Paris)Le secret – de la réponse et de laresponsabilitéCharles Taylor (Montreal)Two Theories of LanguagePaul Ricoeur (Paris)The Person: Its Ethical and Moral StructureZbigniew Brzezinski (New York)The General Crisis of CommunismLeszek Kolakowski (Oxford/Chicago)Die Illusionen der EntmythologisierungHans-Georg Gadamer (Heidelberg)Phänomenologie und das Problem der Zeit

Previous speakers:

George Steiner 17TH JAN PATOCKA MEMORIAL LECTURE

We present here excerpts from an Interview printedafter Steiner’s lecture in the german daily Süd-deutsche Zeitung:

Die akademische Welt, die Literaturwissenschaft als Fachhat ein gespanntes Verhältnis zu George Steiner. Im gün-stigsten Fall haben sie einander nichts zu sagen.Steiner: Die Universität wird mir nie verzeihen, und zwaraus einem prinzipiellen Grund. Seit meiner Jugend sageich mir dreimal am Tag, mein Lieber, du bist ein Postino, duträgst die Post, das ist sehr wichtig. Du hast das un-geheuere Glück, die Briefe zu bekommen, und versuchst,sie in den richtigen Postkasten einzuwerfen. Aber du hastsie nicht geschrieben. Das kommt von Puschkin, der sagt:„Danke an meine Übersetzer, danke an die Kritiker, aberich habe den Brief geschrieben.“ Und da ich das weißund da ich weiß, dass es Lichtjahre Distanz gibt zwischendem Schaffenden und den Leuten, die ihn kommentie-ren, wird mir die Universität nie verzeihen. Das ist dasgroße Tabu: Diese Bonzen nehmen sich so ernst, so ernstund vergessen, dass wir Flöhe sind im Pelz der Löwen.Das zentrale Thema Ihres Lebens war immer ihr Glaubean einen „Vertrag“ zwischen den Worten und den Din-gen, eine Korrespondenz zwischen Sprache und Welt.Ist das mehr als ein Glauben?Steiner: Wenn der Herr Derrida mir sagt, es gibt keinenSinn, wenn der Herr Rorty sagt, anything goes, kann ichdas nicht rational widerlegen, ganz unmöglich. Ich kannnur sagen, Sie irren sich, meine Herren. Die Wette, diePascalsche Wette meines ganzen Lebens, dass es docheine Beziehung zwischen Sprache und Welt gebenmuss, obzwar eine komplizierte, verwickelte, indirekte,alles was Sie wollen – aber ohne dies triebe man einfachUnsinn. Der ganze Poststrukturalismus und die De-konstruktion kommt vom Dadaismus her, von Hugo Ballund seinen Unsinn-Gedichten. Es ist ein dadaistischesSpiel. Ich glaube, es war ein Schüler von Derrida: Wäh-rend der Vorlesung schreibt er den Namen „Jesus“ aufdie Tafel und sagt: Das ist nicht Jesus, das ist dieVergangenheitsform von „ich weiß“: „je sus“. Da bin ichweggegangen, ganz ruhig, hab keinen Lärm gemacht,bin aus dem Saal gegangen, weil diese Art Wortspiele,das ist Bluff.

Süddeutsche Zeitung, 17. Mai 2003

Ute Frevert, Florian Haug (BMaA), Irena Lipowicz,Fürst Schwarzenberg

Karl Duffek (Renner Insitut) Ewald Nowotny, Brigitte Hamann, Frau Nowotny,Alfred Gusenbauer

´´

In seinem Vortrag am 8.Mai 2003 sprach GeorgeSteiner vor mehrerenhundert Zuhörern überdas große Paradox dereuropäischen Geschich-te: während Renaissanceund Aufklärung ein Endeder Folter, der Bücherver-brennung, des politi-schen Massenmords undeine Humanisierung derMenschheit durch Bil-dung und Kultur verspra-chen, ist, so Steiner, genaudas Gegenteil eingtreten.In Europa, in Russlandwurde die Zeit von 1914 bis1945 zur Mordgrube derGeschichte. Etwa hundertMillionen Menschen wur-den im Krieg, in der Ver-schleppung, im Holocaustund im Gulag durch Hun-ger und sadistische Miss-handlung getötet. Bücherwurden vernichtet, dieFolter wurde alltäglich. Inweit ausholender Gesteund mit einem Durchgangdurch eine Vielzahl von li-terarischen Quellen stell-te Steiner die Frage nachden Ursachen dieses un-ermesslichen Misslin-gens.

Photos by Petra Spiola, Vienna

3

Summer 2003/No.3IWM NEWSLETTER 81

THE GROUP DELIBERATED on the issues of solidarityand religion in the future enlarged EuropeanUnion with respect to one of the most difficulttasks ahead of Europe today – the creation of aviable political community in a geographic spacemarked by growing economic, cultural and re-ligious differences.

“Conditions for European Solidarity” wereanalysed during the meeting of May 5. The debatewas introduced by three invited experts: Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde (former judge at the Ger-man Constitutional Court, professor of law,Freiburg), Aleksander Smolar (political scientist,Paris / Warsaw) and Paul Scheffer (sociologist andauthor, Amsterdam). Three major aspects of a grow-ing solidarity deficit in Europe were analysed. Froman economic point of view, it was argued, the crisisof the welfare state reappears on a European level,reflected in a refusal of richer countries to supportweaker ones – a problem which will aggravate afterthe accession of Eastern European countries, al-ready receiving much less economic support thanaccession states in the previous phases of Enlarge-ment. Second, a lack of political solidarity has beenunearthed by the conflict over war in Iraq and therelations with the United States. These tensions canbe a major obstacle to the creation of a commonforeign and security policy in the Europe of 25.Finally, the problem of solidarity was consideredwith respect to two phenomena that have shapedthe socio-cultural image of today’s Europe: migra-tions and populism. With regard to this issue, citi-zens’ rights and duties were discussed, as well as theneed to reconcile an openness towards the outsideworld with citizen protection. Against this back-ground of a solidarity deficit, opportunities andhopes for the future were also stressed during themeeting. If one comes to consider European inte-gration as a dynamic process, solidarity can be seenas a function of the member states’ willingness toparticipate in a common project, the results ofwhich will be gradually unveiled in the future forthose who have joined forces in this project.

The meeting of of May 21 was devoted to“The Role of Religion in European Integration”.Three experts, sociologists of religion, provided thetheoretical background for the discussion: DavidMartin (Lancaster), Danièle Hervieu-Léger andNilüfer Göle (both Paris). Main features of contem-

Solidarity and Religion in Europe:Prospects for European Integration

porary European religiosity have been analysed: re-ligious homogenisation through secularisation; theexpansion of non-institutional, subjective forms ofreligiosity and the interplay between the religiousand the secular, where religious pluralism ismatched by a variety of secular cultures that hadbeen shaped by religions but have now lost explicitreference to their religious roots.

Practical issues were discussed against this in-tellectual background. The need to secure both re-ligious tolerance and cultural unity against a grow-ing religious diversity was considered in relation tothe future constitutional framework of the Unionand the nature of its secular institutions. The placeof Islam in the changing map of contemporary Eu-ropean religiosity also received considerable atten-tion. The fact that socially mobile Muslims haveentered European public space with a twofold –religious and secular – sense of belonging, it wasargued, calls for a re-definition of the Europeanpublic space, as the traditional concepts of the pub-lic and the private, of inclusion and exclusion, areno longer valid.

Finally, the question whether religion couldplay an integrative role in a culturally pluralisticEurope was posed. Since Europeans have a com-mon history of religious war, it was argued, a refer-ence to religious heritage in today’s Europe shouldbe an active process of memory construction andvalue production to promote unity instead of con-flict. On the other hand, it was claimed, if Europe isto deal effectively with the challenge of multi-culturalism, European history should be retold in astory highlighting its constitutive dialectic betweenthe Christian and the Enlightenment traditions,both centred around a fundamentally anthropo-centric attitude, which could open a way to a toler-ant, pluralis-tic Europe.

Summaries ofall meetingsare availableon the IWMwebsite:www.iwm.at

REFLECTION GROUP

The reflection group on the „Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe”, set up at the request of the

President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, within a project run by the Institute for

Human Sciences, had its second and third working meetings in Brussels in May 2003.

Alberto Quadrio Curzio, BronislawGeremek, Aleksander Smolar

Krzysztof Michalski, Giulia Amaducci(European Commission), Simone Veil

Silvio Ferrari, Will Hutton, Michel Rocard

Romano Prodi, Sandro Gozi,Béatrice De Furstenberg

4


MAY WAS a busy month for the reflectiongroup on the „Spiritual and Cultural Di-mension of Europe”. In addition to two ofits regular meetings in Brussels the groupparticipated in a public debate in Warsawon “The Borders of Europe”. The debatewas organised by the Institute for HumanSciences in collaboration with the Euro-pean Commission and the Warsaw-basedStefan Batory Foundation. It was hostedby the President of the Republic of Po-land, Aleksander Kwasniewski, and tookplace in his residence, the Warsaw Bel-weder. Participants of the meeting in-cluded members of the reflection group,invited experts, guests from Russia, theUkraine and Turkey, representatives of theEuropean Commission, leading Polish in-tellectuals and politicians, as well as jour-nalists from major Western and EasternEuropean newspapers and press agencies.

The main objective of the debate wasto reflect on those cultural affinities anddifferences between the Union of 25 andits Eastern neighbours that could orientfuture EU international policy. Anotherpurpose of the debate – held on the 29th

of May – was to foster public discussionon European Enlargement in Poland be-fore the Polish accession referendum.

The debate was divided into two ses-sions, each aimed at highlighting theproblem of the borders of Europe from an“inside” and an “outside” point of viewrespectively. The first session was intro-duced by speakers representing currentEU member states: Sandro Gozi, politicalassistant to Commission PresidentRomano Prodi; reflection group memberKurt Biedenkopf; and Timothy GartonAsh, historian, author and member of theIWM Academic Advisory Board. Repre-sentatives of countries on the Eastern bor-der of the future enlarged EuropeanUnion opened the second session: Yaro-slav Hrytsak (historian, Lviv), Yasar Yakis(former Turkish Minister for Foreign Af-fairs) and Grigory Yavlinsky (member of

Debate in Warsaw: The Borders of Europe

the Russian State Duma). The confronta-tion of both perspectives allowed for amore comprehensive view on the follow-ing topics: the inner cohesion of the futureEU; new enlargement prospects, new pat-terns of cross-border relations, future Eu-ropean foreign and security policy, EU re-lations with the United States.

The issue of European borders wasconsidered in its twofold sense, as both“the borders of Europe” and “the bordersof the future enlarged European Union“.The main criteria for determining the bor-ders of Europe and the respective modelsof Europe - the geographic Europe, theEurope of Christianity or post-Christen-dom and the Europe of the Enlighten-ment – received a comprehensive criticaloverview. From the point of view of uni-versalistic Enlightenment values, the ideaof European borders was depicted as self-contradictory. The central dilemma withrespect to the question of the borders ofthe future European Union, on the otherhand, was stated as: “openness versus vi-ability”; “diversity versus cohesion”; “thelogic of unity versus the logic of peace”.The logic of unity, it was claimed, sets lim-its on the expansion of the Union for thesake of its workability and homogeneity.The logic of peace, on the other hand,stems from Enlightenment universalismand promotes cultural inclusiveness, aswell as the political goal of extending thearea of democracy, stability and the rule oflaw. In the case of European internationalpolicy it is best served in the form of suc-cessive EU enlargements, since the Unionis most influential abroad when it offersmembership prospects.

The “diversity versus cohesion” di-lemma or the problematic relation be-tween “the logic of unity” and “the logic ofpeace” was elaborated with reference tothe main point of interest for the reflectiongroup – the cultural dimension of Eu-rope. On the one hand, it was argued,European values are universal in character

and thus the borders of Europe have to beconsidered as permanently open andstretching beyond the borders of the Eu-ropean Union. Values constitutive of Eu-rope thus cannot serve as instruments ofexclusion from the EU. On the otherhand, although the borders of Europeshould be open, the borders of the EU as acomplex political entity have to be deter-mined through political decision. Thisdoes not mean, however, that Europeanvalues are irrelevant for the EuropeanUnion. On the one hand, an openness to-wards others, a universalistic “logic ofpeace” is a fundamental European valueand as such should inspirit EU foreignpolicy. On the other hand, certain valuescan turn out particularly relevant for thecohesion and homogeneity within theEU. The necessary compromise betweenopenness and workability of the Unionhas to be determined politically, but it isculture that orients and heartens politicaldecisions.

One of the central topics discussedwas a proposal of the European Commis-sion representative, Sandro Gozi, for anew strategy of EU relations with itsneighbours that could overcome a simple“in or out” alternative, offering neigh-bouring countries “more than pure part-nership but less than membership”. Thefollowing discussion focused on newforms of cross-border co-operation andcultural exchange, such as Romano Prodi’s“Ring of Friends” initiative or FrançoisMitterand’s idea of a European confedera-tion. Guests from eastern Europe pre-sented their views on future EU bordersand its international policy, stressing theuniversalistic character of European valuesand – in the case of Turkey and theUkraine – the importance of membershipprospects for the development of theircountries. More Union involvement inthe inner problems of its eastern neigh-bours was called for.

A discussion on future EU interna-

REFLECTION GROUP

In addition to its working meetings, the members of the reflection group are taking part in public

debates in European capitals. The first of these took place in Warsaw in May 2003. Similar events

are being organized in Vienna (October 2003), Paris, Berlin (both in January 2004) and Rome (March

2004) in order to initiate and stimulate a discussion process about “Europe” as a cultural, moral and

spiritual entity. The invitees include politicians, business people, intellectuals, and journalists.

5


tional policy naturally led to the problemof its relations with the United States andto the question which significant differ-ences of opinion had emerged recently.Some of the speakers depicted America as aEuropean superpower and Europe’s natu-ral partner; while others perceived it as athreat to European unity, arguing thatAmerica may no longer be interested inhaving an integrated Europe or that thesharpening economic crisis in the US canhave dramatic consequences for the EUand even lead to its disintegration. Theneed for a major reorientation of Euro-pean foreign policy was strongly em-phasised during the debate and a numberof practical proposals were put forward.

Samanta Stecko

A summary of the minutes of the debate isavailable at both the IWM’s and the EuropeanCommission’s websites:www.iwm.at/r-reflec.htm andeuropa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/group/michalski_en.htm

Participants

Timothy Garton AshBritish historian, journalist and writer;Director of the European Studies Centre andSenior Research Fellow in ContemporaryHistory at St. Antony’s CollegeCandan AzerTurkish Ambassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary to PolandKurt BiedenkopfPrime Minister of Saxony (1990-2002); formerPresident of the German Bundesrat;professor of Law; member of the ReflectionGroup on the Spiritual and Cultural Dimensi-on of EuropeLeonid BilousovFirst Secretary at the Embassy of Ukraine inthe Republic of PolandJakub BoratynskiDirector of the International Co-operationProgramme at the Stefan Batory Foundation.Stanislaw CiosekPolish politician and diplomat; advisor onforeign affairs to the President of theRepublic of PolandBruno DethomasHead of the Delegation of the EuropeanCommission in Poland

Reflection GroupTHE BORDERS OF EUROPE

Bronislaw GeremekProfessor of European Civilisation, College ofEurope, Natolin; co-founder of “Solidarity”and chief advisor to its leader, Lech Walesa;former Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs.Member of the Reflection Group on theSpiritual and Cultural Dimension of EuropeYaroslav HrytsakProfessor of history; Director of the Institutefor Historical Research at Lviv NationalUniversityWill HuttonBritish journalist and author; Chief Executiveof The Work Foundation; member of theReflection Group on the Spiritual and CulturalDimension of EuropeDanuta HübnerSecretary of State at the Polish Ministry forForeign Affairs; Secretary of the PolishCommittee for European IntegrationTadeusz IwinskiSecretary of State for international affairs inthe Polish Prime Minister’s OfficeJaroslaw KaczynskiMember of Polish parliament; co-founder ofthe “Law and Justice” party and itsPresident since 2003Lena Kolarska-BobinskaDirector of the Polish Institute of PublicAffairs; Professor of SociologyMarcin KrólProfessor of the History of Ideas; Editor-in-Chief of the Polish „Res Publica Nowa“magazineYuri LevadaProfessor of sociology; director of the All-Russian Centre for the Study of PublicOpinion and Market Research (VTSIOM)Tadeusz MazowieckiFirst Polish democratically elected PrimeMinister; former advisor to President LechWalesa and participant in the “Round Table”negotiationsKrzysztof MichalskiProfessor of philosophy at the University ofWarsaw and at Boston University; rector ofthe Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna;member of the Reflection Group on theSpiritual and Cultural Dimension of EuropePiotr Nowina-KonopkaVice-Rector of the College of Europe, Natolin;deputy Head Negotiator on Poland’saccession to the EU (1998-1999)Janusz OnyszkiewiczFormer Polish Minister of National Defence;

co-founder of “Solidarity”Wiktor OsiatynskiProfessor of Law and Sociology at CentralEuropean University in Budapest and atChicago Law SchoolWanda RapaczynskiPresident of the Board of Agora S.A.Mykola RiabchukWriter and journalist; research associate atthe University of “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”;deputy editor-in-chief of “Krytyka” (Kyiv)Adam Daniel RotfeldUnder-Secretary of State in the PolishMinistry of Foreign Affairs; Professor ofInternational LawJacek Saryusz–WolskiMember of the European IntegrationCommittee, President of the EuropeanCentre, Natolin; Professor of European Inte-gration at Collegium Civitas, WarsawCharles of SchwarzenbergFormer President of the International Helsin-ki Federation for Human Rights; formerChairman of the Advisory Board to CzechPresident Havel and Chancellor of the officeto President HavelJan SkórzynskiHistorian and author; deputy editor-in-chiefof the Polish “Rzeczpospolita” dailyAleksander SmolarPresident of the Board of the Stefan BatoryFoundation; Senior Research Fellow at theFrench National Scientific Study Centre(CNRS)Jolanta Szymanek-DereszHead of the Chancellary of the President ofthe Republic of PolandDonald TuskMember of the Polish Parliament; Presidentand co-founder of the Civil Platform partyYasar YakisMember of the Turkish parliament; formerTurkish Minister for Foreign AffairsGrigory A. YavlinskyMember of the Russian State Duma; co-founder and chairman of the Yabloko Party

European Commission

Giulia AmaducciEuropean Commission, DG ResearchJean-Claude EeckhoutSpecial Advisor of President Romano ProdiSandro GoziMember of the Cabinet of Romano Prodi

6


American Politics and the Unity of EuropeKRZYSZTOF MICHALSKI pointed out in his introduc-tory remarks that for the last 50 years the majorobjective of American foreign policy has been theunity, or unification, of Europe, and as a result, theUS has contributed to the success of this process.This seems to have changed recently, however, notonly in the fact that American political decisionshave resulted in serious divisions among Europeancountries, but also in that it seems that the unity ofEurope is no longer an important objective ofAmerican foreign policy. The question he put upfor discussion was thus twofold: is this really thecase? And if so, what are the reasons? Is it a superfi-cial change or does it reflect deeper social processesand changes in the perception of the world on bothsides of the Atlantic?

James Hoge underlined that the development ofthe new constitution for the European Union andthe project of the EU enlargement coincided with amajor break in the transatlantic relationship. InEurope, the long-held French belief that the EUshould be a counterweight to American power hasgained ground. In reaction, Hoge stressed, only afew American policy makers are questioning thelong-held support for a more unified Europe, atleast on issues of foreign policy and security. Theyalone talk of playing off New versus Old Europe,and of lowering the position of the continent as awhole in America’s security considerations. ButHoge argued that it is in the mutual interests of thealliance parties to rebuild the relationship: As thecases of Bosnia, Afghanistan, and, recently, Iraqhave shown, the United States cannot rely only onGreat Britain, a few small countries, and ad-hoccoalitions. Despite its military powers, the US needsEurope’s resources, competencies and assistance.But, Hoge warned, America’s full support for fur-ther EU integration will probably only come aboutif European leaders cease arguing that Americanpower is the main problem facing the world. Such aposture divides Europe, and it certainly under-mines the transatlantic relationship.

A “world power”Kurt Biedenkopf began his statement by attempt-ing a definition of what “world power” could mean.

DEBATE

On June 11, in collaboration with Austria Perspektiv, the IWM organized a discussion between Kurt

Biedenkopf (former Prime Minister of Saxony; Professor of Law, Dresden), James Hoge (Editor-in-

Chief, Foreign Affairs, New York) and Aleksander Smolar (Professor of Political Science, CNRS,

Paris; President of the Stefan Batory Foundation, Warsaw; former chief advisor to the first post-

communist Prime Minister of Poland, Tadeusz Mazowiecki) on the deeper sources of the current

turbulences between Europe and the United States.

Considering its military strengths, Biedenkopf ar-gued, the US is properly termed a world power. Butwhat about the economic dimension? “We pres-ently transfer, by way of investment, one billiondollars a day from Europe to the United States inorder to finance the trade deficit of the UnitedStates, and we participate in financing the federalbudget deficit”, Biedenkopf noted, underpinninghis thesis that discussing the question whether theUnited States was a world power only under mili-tary and security aspects is not sufficient. Bieden-kopf argued that with the disappearance of thethreat from the communist East the US as a worldpower was left without a counterweight which re-sulted in “an uncertainty in the United States as towhat the raison d’être of being a world power was.”September 11 and the threat posed by terrorismhave delivered, as Biedenkopf put it, a “new ratio-nale” for the United States. Concluding, KurtBiedenkopf suggested that the relationship be-tween the United States and Europe should becomplementary rather competitive. For Bieden-kopf the common values and the tremendous inter-dependence in the field of economics and sciencebetween Europe and the US would make a processof uniting Europe against the US impossible.

Narcissm of small differencesAleksander Smolar indicated that Poland, probablythe most pro-American country in Europe, refusedto choose between Europe and the US, but tried tomaintain good relations with both. He then tookup the question whether the problems betweenEurope and the United States were transitory orwhether they were structural and thus muchdeeper. In his opinion the problem of the Iraq warwas not the beginning of the conflict but rather itsdramatization. Smolar reminded the audience thatwith 1989 and the decomposition of the SovietUnion in ’91 three major factors that had contrib-uted to the construction of the European Unionhad disappeared: the US protectorate, the fear ofthe Soviet Union, and the fear of war. In a way anti-Americanism then became a substitute ideology forEurope, which was deprived of its own identity.Smolar underlined that US foreign policy hadchanged and that Russia was a much bigger priority

Kurt Biedenkopf

James Hoge

Aleksander Smolar

7


nowadays than Europe, than Germany andFrance. Europe has been marginalized, but in away, he claimed, the Balkans saved the relationshipfor a while, since the US was kept in Europe be-cause Europe was not capable of managing theBalkans conflict. Otherwise, the US would haveleft Europe earlier. Quoting Freud’s notion of a“narcissm of small differences”, Smolar held that itwas more than possible that the future clash of civi-lizations would not be between western civiliza-tions and Muslims, but between the US and Eu-rope. Summarizing the first round, KrzysztofMichalski posed the question what had broughtabout the different perception of differences onboth sides of the Atlantic, a change that has beennoticeable for about ten years.

The last nation-stateKurt Biedenkopf called attention to the fact thatthe United States is no longer politically homog-enous. The increasing participation of minorities inpolitical decision-making and the fact that manyareas are bilingual shows that the US nowadays isnot a nation but rather a continent. If the transat-lantic community is to have a future, Biedenkopfargued, we should make use of the capabilitieswithin the United States, as well as the historicalexperience that rests with Europe. This could rep-resent a tremendous foundation of knowledge, ofwisdom, and of possible solutions for develop-ments that are in the process of taking place. Talk-ing about the European-wide problem of demo-graphic development, Biedenkopf gave promi-nence to the deep need of immigration for Europe.Aleksander Smolar hypothesized that the US wasnot a nation but maybe the last nation-state. InEurope, everybody accepted that above the nation-state there are European law and international insti-tutions in a way which is a contradiction to thedemocratic principle because it is being imposedfrom the outside and is quite often not democrati-cally legitimized. The US has been, from its origins,refusing this view, which poses a problem of sover-eignty because the US tends to object to limitationsimposed from the outside and is not very likely tomake compromises.

A mature partnershipConcluding, James Hoge encouraged Europe to tryand find its own identity, but not one that is “op-posed” to the US. “In a mature partnership, there isroom for differences, and even ones that cannot beresolved after lots of discussion”, he said. “Throughsome dialogue, through some rethinking, throughsome learning from experience”, the transatlanticrelationship would see that there is a couple of crys-tal clear reasons for that alliance.

Kerstin Krenn

AMERICAN POLITICS AND THE UNITY OF EUROPE Europäische Revue Heft 25

o Ich abonniere Transit–Europäische Revue ab Heft ____ (2 Hefte pro Jahr zum Preis von € 24,- (D) portofrei)

Ich möchte meine Bibliothek ergänzen und bestelleo Hefte 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 (bitte ankreuzen) zum Sonderpreis von je

€ 5,- (D) plus Porto

o ab Heft 11 die Nummern_________ zum Einzelpreis von je€ 14,- (D) plus Porto

o Senden Sie mir bitte kostenlos Ihr Gesamtverzeichnis.Ort, Datum, Unterschrift__________________________________

Adresse:

Name

Straße

PLZ, Ort

Transit (ISSN 0938-2062) ist zu bestellen über:Verlag Neue Kritik, Tel. +49-69-72 75 76, Fax +49-69-72 65 85Kettenhofweg 53, D-60325 Frankfurt a.M.oder online: www.iwm.at/transit.htm

Herausgegeben amInstitut für dieW issenschaftenvom Menschen

Verlag neue kritikKettenhofweg 53D - 60325 FrankfurtTel. 0049 (69) 72 75 76

Preis: Abo € 24,- (D)Zwei Hefte pro JahrEinzelheft € 14,- (D)

I. Polen imneuen Europa

II. Populismus

Transit

Krzysztof Pomian Osterweiterung: Vorurteile und Ängste

Marcin Król Polen zwischen Ost und West

Ryszard Kapuscinski In der Tramway Nr. 15

Timothy D. Snyder Ostpolitik – Tradition mit Zukunft

Alexei Miller In den Fesseln der Geschichte

José Casanova Das katholische Polen im

säkularisierten Europa

Joanna Tokarska-Bakir Trauma Jedwabne

Michal Glowinski Tatra-Utopie. Kleine Prosa

Czeslaw Milosz Pawel Hertz – Hüter des

klassischen Reims

Swiat – Polnische Kinder fotografieren ihre Welt

Alfred Gusenbauer Strategien gegen den

Rechtspopulismus in Europa

Mit Kommentaren von K. Biedenkopf, J. Gray,

J. M. Kovacs, M. Mertes und C. Offe sowie einer

Replik von A. Gusenbauer

Ralf Dahrendorf Acht Anmerkungen zum Populismus

Jacqueline Hénard Rechtspopulismus als Klassenkampf

Paul Scheffer Eine offene Gesellschaft braucht Grenzen


8

JOZSEF SZAJER WHO EXTENDED a proposal inthe European Convention for establish-ing a “Committee of National and EthnicMinorities” asserted in his introductionthat ethnic minorities exist in great num-bers in Europe but until now, they haveenjoyed no significant legal and institu-tional protection within the EuropeanUnion. There is presently a striking con-tradiction between the practice of the EUenforcing the protection of minorityrights in the accession countries on the onehand, and the lack of a legal basis for theadoption of the same kind of measures inthe EU as a whole on the other. He calledthis a hypocrisy, stressed the need for posi-tive discrimination, and suggested to cre-ate a “mini-parliament” for the minorities.

While not disputing good intentionsbehind any proposal for affirmative actionin the context of minority protection, thepanelists expressed a series of doubtsabout it. Slawomir Kapralski and RainerBauböck spoke about the difficulties indefining the concept of minority (ethnic?national? religious? linguistic?), and in de-ciding who should protect its members(region? nation-state? kin state? EU?). InBauböck’s view, regional autonomy, forinstance, can transform ethnic minoritiesinto regional majorities. Also, Kapralskicontended, one has to be granted the rightof not to be protected as a member of aminority. Part of the Romas, for example,would prefer to be recognized as membersof a transnational community. He also saidthat probably the best protection for mi-norities is the deconstruction of majorities.According to Anton Pelinka, one is simul-taneously a member of various minoritiesand majorities, and any minority protec-tion should be confined to the under-protected minorities, ethnic or other.

János Mátyás Kovács

POLITICAL DISCUSSION

On June 4 the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), the Hungarian Embassy and the Gesellschaft

Österreich-Ungarn co-organized a panel discussion on a pressing issue of the future architecture of

the European Union. Do ethnic minorities in Europe “deserve” political representation and

constitutional protection on the EU level?

Filling the Representation Gap:Ethnic Minorities in the EU

Participants:

Rainer BauböckSenior Researcher, Austrian Academy ofSciences, Vienna; Research Unit onInstitutional Change & European Integration

Slawomir KapralskiAssociate Professor ofSociology, CentralEuropean University,Warsaw

Anton PelinkaProfessor of PoliticalScience, University ofInnsbruck, and Memberof the IWM AcademicAdvisory Board

Jozsef SzajerVice Chairman of theHungarian Parliament,Fidesz; Member of theEuropean Convention

Fotos von David Stork“Die Krönung des Ion Cioaba”,

Transit 5 – Gute Gesellschaft

9


Die umgefärbte Republik. Anmerkungen zu ÖsterreichSPERLS BUCH, eine Analyse der politischen SituationÖsterreichs nach den Nationalratswahlen im No-vember 2002, bot den Ausgangspunkt für einegrundsätzliche Diskussion über Aufgaben undZuständigkeitsbereich des Staates. Auf dem Podi-um: Lorenz Fritz, Generalsekretär der Industri-ellenvereinigung, Eva Glawischnig, stellvertreten-de Bundessprecherin, Die Grünen, Barbara Helige,Präsidentin der österreichischen Richtervereini-gung und Reinhold Lopatka Generalsekretär derÖsterreichischen Volkspartei. Krzysztof Michalski,Rektor des IWM, moderierte die Debatte.

Krzysztof Michalski zitierte in seiner Einfüh-rung in das Thema als eine der Hauptthesen Sperls,dass die Politik der Wende Wirtschaftspolitik zurKernaufgabe des Staates erkläre und folglich Sozial-politik in eine Funktion der Wirtschaftspolitik um-funktioniert habe. Der Staat entferne sich so zu-nehmend von seiner Wohlfahrtsfunktion und ver-nachlässige seine sozialen Aufgaben.

Lorenz Fritz konnte dieser Kritik Sperls nichtsabgewinnen. Für ihn strebt der Staat vielmehr eine„vernünftige Arbeitsteilung“ an und gewinntdurch die Fokussierung auf seine wesentlichenAufgaben an Stärke. Fritz konnte auch den vonSperl in seinem Buch angesprochenen Neoliberalis-mus in der österreichischen Regierungspolitik nichtentdecken.

Barbara Helige, Repräsentantin der überpar-teilichen, privaten Vereinigung der österreichi-schen Richter, sprach für die Gerichtsbarkeit, derman unterstellt hatte, sich allzu schnell an die neuepolitische Situation angepasst zu haben. Die soge-nannte „Spitzelaffäre“ und die Auseinandersetzun-gen rund um den Verfassungsgerichtshof dientenBarbara Helige zur Illustration des ihrer Ansichtnach fragwürdigen Justizverständnisses der Regie-rung. Sie zeigte sich besorgt über den Mangel anRespekt gegenüber der dritten Gewalt und forder-te eine Stärkung der Autonomie der Gerichtsbar-keit.

Im Gegensatz zu Lorenz Fritz zeigte sich EvaGlawischnig, laut Krzysztof Michalski die „positiveHeldin“ von Sperls Buch, großteils mit den Thesendes Autors einverstanden. Ebenso wie Sperl mo-nierte Glawischnig das Fehlen einer Grundsatz-diskussion über die Kernaufgaben des Staates undstellte – ebenso wie Sperl – die Vereinbarkeit derchristliche Wertetradition der ÖVP mit der aktuel-len Regierungspolitik in Frage. Die stellvertretendeBundessprecherin der Grünen forderte darüberhinaus eine Diskussion über das Phänomen des

BUCHPRÄSENTATION

Am 27. Mai lud das IWM in der Reihe der Tuesday Lectures in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Zsolnay

Verlag zu einer Podiumsdiskussion anlässlich des Erscheinens von Die umgefärbte Republik.

Anmerkungen zu Österreich von Gerfried Sperl, Chefredakteur der Tageszeitung Der Standard.

Reinhold Lopatka, Barbara Helige, Eva Glawischnig, Lorenz Fritz

Populismus und insbesondere über dessen „Zähm-barkeit“ ein.

Der Repräsentant der ÖVP, GeneralsekretärReinhold Lopatka, wollte seine Partei nicht in einebestimmte Richtung gedrängt sehen und unter-strich, dass das Kabinett Schüssel 1 das Sozial-system nicht ab-, sondern vielmehr ausgebaut hät-te. Dass die Gesellschaft insgesamt ungerechterwürde, zog Lopatka in Zweifel.

Gerfried Sperl plädierte in seinem Schlusswortfür ein Überdenken der Prioritäten: Für einenKnow-How-Staat wie Österreich müsse die Förde-rung von Bildung und Forschung zentrale Bedeu-tung haben. Keinesfalls solle der Staat damit ver-bundene Lenkungsaufgaben aufgeben, aber auchder Sozialbereich solle nicht der Privatisierung an-heim gestellt werden. Gerade das Beispiel derAsylantenbetreuung zeige, dass derartige Maßnah-men kontraproduktiv seien. Durch Barbara HeligesWortmeldung kehrte die Diskussion abschließendnochmals zum Thema des „Law and order-Staates“zurück, das Krzyzstof Michalski bereits bei der Vor-stellung des Buchs angeschnitten hatte. Sperlstimmte Helige darin zu, dass die nachhaltige Be-deutung des 11. September nicht zu vernachlässi-gen sei. Die reale Terrorgefahr habe, auch in Öster-reich, in Kombination mit überzogenen Bedro-hungsphantasien die Tendenz verstärkt, autoritäreKräfte zu unterstützen. Das daraus resultierendewenig demokratische Staatsverständnis wollte Sperlkritisch beobachtet wissen: Widerstand sei am sinn-vollsten über den Ausbau der demokratischenMöglichkeiten zu realisieren.

Kerstin Krenn

By taking Gerfried Sperl’s(Editor-in-chief, Der Stan-dard) book on the politicalchanges in Austria sincethe federal elections inNovember 2002 as a start-ing point, representativesof political and public lifeengaged in a panel dis-cussion about the dutiesand responsibilities of thestate.

Wien: Zsolnay 2003ISBN 3-552-05218-6

10


Körber Fellowships:History and Memoryin EuropeFellowships 2004/2005

Ob

je

ct

iv

e

1

Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen Institute for Human Sciences

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS

D E A D L I N E

15 November, 2003

3

Ju

ry

42

Co

nd

it

io

ns

5

Ap

pl

ic

at

io

n

Pr

oc

ed

ur

e

El

ig

ib

il

it

y

Re

qu

ir

em

en

ts

The Körber Foundation and the Institutefor Human Sciences jointly award oneVisiting Fellowship and two JuniorVisiting Fellowships on “History andMemory in Europe”.

The objective is to support projects thatcontribute to a transnational perspectiveon modern European history. Theyshould not consider Europe as a giventerritorial entity but as a historical ex-perience, a cultural imagination, and/ora political point of reference. By focussingon the discursive construction of Europe,projects are particularly invited to reflecton the role of historiography as well asthe position and significance of memory.This includes in particular analyses of thedifferent ways how history, historio-graphy and memory are used and ab-used for political purposes and dis-courses of exclusiveness in the Europ-ean context. Interdisciplinary approa-ches are highly welcome.

The six-month fellowships will enable ju-nior and senior scholars to work in Viennaon a research project of their choicewithin the framework of the objective. Thefellows will participate in the scholarlycommunity and activities of the IWM.

The Körber Fellows are invited to spendsix months at the IWM during theacademic year 2004/2005 to pursue theirresearch project while working inresidence at the institute. The fellows willreceive a stipend to cover accommo-dation, living expenses, travel, healthinsurance and incidentals. The amountof the stipend for the Visiting Fellow willbe determined according to the “no gain,no loss” principle and seeks to com-pensate for a loss of income based on thecurrent salary of the recipient. JuniorVisiting Fellows will receive a stipend inthe amount of € 8000 for the six-monthterm. Furthermore, fellows will be pro-vided an office with personal computerand have access to e-mail and internet,in-house research facilities and otherrelevant sources in Vienna. The fellow-ship may be taken up between July 2004and June 2005.

Candidates for the Körber VisitingFellowship- must be citizens of any European

country or permanently reside inEurope;

- must have obtained a Ph.D. in historyor another discipline in the humanitiesor social sciences with a researchfocus related to the objective of thisprogramme;

- must hold a senior academic position(equivalent to associate professorlevel); and

- must substantiate their expertise in thefield with their publication record.

Candidates for the Körber Junior VisitingFellowships- must be citizens of any European

country or permanently reside inEurope;

- must currently pursue their doctoraldegree OR have recently obtained aPh.D. in history or another disciplinein the humanities or social scienceswith a research focus related to theobjective of this programme;

- must not be older than 35 years.

A jury of experts meets once a year toevaluate the applications and select thefinalists. Members of the jury are:

Peter BurkeProfessor of Cultural History, EmmanuelCollege, University of CambridgeUte FrevertProfessor of History, Yale University andUniversity of BielefeldBronislaw GeremekProfessor and Chair of European Civiliza-tion, College of Europe, Natolin; formerMinister of Foreign Affairs of the Republicof PolandCornelia KlingerLecturer of Philosophy, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen; Permanent Fellow ofthe IWMReinhart KoselleckProfessor emeritus of History, Universityof BielefeldLuisa PasseriniProfessor of History, European UniversityInstitute, FlorenceWolf SchmidtMember of the Executive Board of theKörber-Stiftung, Hamburg

The application consists of the followingmaterials:1. application form (to be downloaded

from the IWM website)2. a concise research proposal (max. 4

pages) in English, including- the scientific problems addressed- critical consideration of current

relevant literature- research goals and expected

results- work and time schedule- a curriculum vitae and list of

publications- names of two referees (applicants for

Junior Visiting Fellowships only)

Please visit the IWM website for details:www.iwm.at/f-koerb.htm

11


Autobiographical memory: genderedor not?Natalia Pushkareva, Professor at the In-stitute of Ethnology and Anthropology atthe Russian Academy of Sciences, wasawarded a Research Fellowship within theKörber fellowship program for her re-search project History and Gendered Me-mory. Reading European ego-documents fromthe 18th to the 20th century. Having re-searched women’s history of Russia andEurope for more than 20 years, Push-kareva had to note a complete lack ofhistorian’s works on the gender aspects ofmemory. Regardless the vast number ofpublications on the history of autobiogra-phies, including those of women, the fieldof autobiographical memory is still a veryyoung one in psychology and has not hada chance yet to overlap with history.

Pushkareva aims at writing the firstchapters of a book on the history ofwomen’s autobiographical memory from apsycho-historical point of view during herstay. Dealing with ego-documents – let-ters, diaries, memoirs, autobiographies –from three centuries she will rely on histo-riographical approaches and methods,cultural anthropology and introspectivepsychology. Guiding questions for her re-search include: What are the gender spe-cific elements of memory? Are there “male”and “female” memories or is the notion ofmemory beyond gender, with gender dif-ferences being much less significant thansocial, professional, religious, cultural andethnic ones? How are historical and auto-biographical memories related? What arethe specific features of the women’s andmen’s writing – as a form of self-represen-tation and a creating reliving of the past?What are the main characteristics of maleand female reading of written texts – sinceany historian is a representative of her/hisgender, how does gender define the selec-tion of the essential and non-essential?

Opening the archives: Dealing with anon-democratic pastMuriel Blaive, who holds a doctoratefrom the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sci-

KÖRBER FELLOWSHIPS

In 2002, the IWM and the Koerber Foundation launched a new fellowship program on history and

memory in Europe. While the second call has been published recently (see opposite page), the first

group of fellows will arrive at the IWM in early 2004.

First group of Körber Fellows about to arrive at the IWM

ences Sociales in Paris and is currently apost-doctoral researcher and lecturer at theCharles University in Prague, was awar-ded the Körber Fellowship as a Junior Vis-iting Fellow at the IWM for her researchproject Coming to Terms with a Nations’Past: The Czechs and their Archives of Com-munism. The aim of this project is to ana-lyze and reflect on the dealing of post-Communist states with their recent past.Blaive’s case study will specifically involvethe Czech Republic and its policy towardsthe opening of the former regime’s ar-chives. What attitude has the Czech soci-ety had on this issue? What have been thelegal steps taken so far? How has it affectedthe local historical work? What are theprospects for the future? What can trans-European comparison tell us about theCzech case?

In her project, Muriel Blaive will notonly address the legal background fromthe 1990 “Rehabilitation law” to the2002 parliamentary debate over the cre-ation of an Institute for the Documenta-tion of the Totalitarian Regime, but willalso concentrate on the reactions to theselegal and official steps among the archi-vists. She will also provide a survey of theCzech historians working on the Commu-nist period. What part have they taken inthe legal and ethical debates about theopening of the archives? And, even moreimportantly, what consequences has theopening of the archives had on the histori-cal research on Communism?

History’s imprint on Polish cityscapesIzabella Main, who received her PhDfrom the History Department at CentralEuropean University in Budapest in June2002, was awarded the Körber Fellow-ship as a Junior Visiting Fellow for her re-search project Memory and History in theCityscapes in Poland: the Search for Europe.The research addresses the problem ofhow history is imprinted into the city-scape and how buildings, statues andstreet names materialize the memory of thepast. Main poses the question of how thechange of the political system affected the

cityscapes – how the making, unmakingand remaking of the symbolic spacesmight indicate the problems in regard tothinking of the past. The symbolic spaceof two Polish cities and its correspondenceto memory and history as well as to powerrelations and ideologies, focusing on thetransition period, will be analyzed. Herworking hypothesis is that the transforma-tion of city space after 1989 – the renam-ing of streets and squares, the removal ofold and the construction of new monu-ments, and the relocation of governmentand power centers – does not necessarilycorrespond to official discourses, culturalpolicies, and communities’ expectations.

The changes of the symbolic land-scape during the transition period werehardly followed by a scholarly discussion,although the symbolic struggle for powerin the 1970s and 1980s was discussed bya number of scholars. Main’s project willconcentrate on the cases of Krakow andLublin. The common feature of these twocities is the process of extracting any re-minders of the communist period fromthe cityscapes, a specific “de-Communiza-tion”. Main will describe in which waysscholars, inhabitants and officials have at-tempted to diminish the visibility of thispart of urban heritage. Another goal ofthis research is to find out how a symbolic“Westernization” and “Europeanizing” iscarried out in the two cities.

12


FOLLOWING AN OPEN COMPETITION with about 450applications 45 graduate students from Easternand Western Europe and from the USA partici-pated in the Summer School.We asked three ofthem to present their personal views on two weeksof academic challenges, heated debates and, ofcourse, Tuscan dolce vita. The full versions are avail-able on the IWM website, www.iwm.at.

About 40 students from a dozen different nationshad an intellectually challenging, educating, funand relaxing stay in one of the most beautiful placesin Europe. Even though the weather was perfectand the delicious cuisine was trying to seduce thestudents to the “dolce vita” and spend their time inthe garden or at the pool instead of readingNietzsche, Singer or Walzer, the enthusiasm of thestudents was extremely promising. The experi-enced professors and the fascinating and variouschoice of important texts were able to catch the fullattention of the students, and clearly won the con-test against the Tuscan beauty.

But besides the academic challenges, the stu-dents used the chance to learn and profit from thelarge variety of nationalities and intellectual back-grounds. We had students from all humanity facul-ties, academic levels, and political views, from adozen European states and the US. The scale ofcultural and academic exchange was as wide as itcould be and started with gossiping about profes-sors in their home universities, teaching nationaldrinking songs and national anthems, defending,explaining and attacking the political daily life, po-litical culture or history of home and foreign na-tions, and ended in future plans about changingthe geopolitical situations when they will havetaken over the influential positions in their coun-tries. In short order the students were able to cometogether and discuss questions and issues theyrarely have the chance to raise with such a well cho-sen pool of people, full of fresh ideas and impressiveamounts of knowledge.

In response to a student initiative the profes-sors spoke in a large forum with the participants ofthe Summer School about the problems of the spe-cial relationship of the “new” and “old Europe” and

the United States, including their explanations andpossible solutions. This was an extraordinary op-portunity to hear the arguments and directcounterarguments of intellectuals who normally areforced to discuss such issues in the media or perhapsnot publish their opinions at all. Even thoughMarcin Król tried to effect a polarisation betweentwo hypothetical antagonists in order to provoke adirect and controversial discussion (with phraseslike: “What has Europe done for the USA after theyhelped to fight in the civil war centuries ago?”), anddespite the fact that the Europeans were obviouslyoverrepresented, the discussion was orientatedaround consensus and productive exchanges ofpoints of view – an unfamiliar approach to politicalculture for many of the participants. There wereHungarians who said “we” when they talked aboutthe European Union and lots of other small signalsof walking in the right direction.

As a result of the later arrival of the two Ger-man professors Claus Offe and Ulrich K. Preuß,the schedule in the second week became muchtighter for those who wanted to attempt this courseas well. But with their German time-management(Offe: “We have three topics today. For each wehave 15 minutes. Five for me, five for you (Preuß)and five for your (students’) questions.”) theydeeply impressed even the Germans (althoughthey had to admit that the “Tuscan flair” was inmany cases stronger then the “teutonian way” ofhandling complex situations). Discussing deTocqueville, Mill and Weber with them was morethan helpful and opened a lot of new ways ofthinking about existing conflicts and questions.

All in all the Summer School 2003 was a bigsuccess and a great experience for all participantsand had been two weeks of reading, discussing andlearning without seeming to be like hard work at all.This was a rare example of a really fruitful time andthe use of interdisciplinary and international po-tential.

Henry Haaker, Department of Philosophy, HumboldtUniversity, Berlin

SUMMER SCHOOL

In 2003, the IWM organized its 10th international Summer School in Philosophy and Politics. The

school again took place in Cortona (Tuscany) and was managed in cooperation with the following

partner institutions: the Erasmus of Rotterdam Chair and the Collegium for Interdepartmental Studies

(both at the University of Warsaw), the New Europe College (Bucharest), the Center for Theoretical

Study and the Institute for Contemporary History (both in Prague), and the Society for Higher Learning

(Bratislava). The Summer School was generously supported by the Robert Bosch Foundation.

10th International Summer School: Challenges to Democracy

13


Challenges to Democracy SUMMER SCHOOL

The IWM Summer School was a paradise inCortona for students interested in exploring issuesof liberalism, democracy, justice and related topicsin political theory. It offered four courses held bydistinguished lecturers from Europe and the USand plenty of opportunities for personal discus-sions in a beautiful setting. The small hotel, whichhad been a medieval monastery, was surrounded bya park of pine trees with a wonderful view. TheTuscan landscape provided a shield from the sum-mer heat and ample space for an enjoyable learningexperience.

The intent of the Summer School seemed to beto present a broader view on the topics of liberalism,democracy, and justice than does mainstream(Rawlsian) liberal political theory. Challenges toDemocracy were explored from the perspective oftheory and practical politics (especially, in the caseof practical challenges, through consideration ofthe meaning of the emerging Europe for demo-cratic and liberal governance).

Student CommunityOf course, as in any academic program, it is theparticipants themselves who must bear the mostsignificant burden of creating an exciting and intel-lectually rigorous atmosphere. The IWM musthave put enormous effort into selecting the partici-pants, for the program consisted of one of the mostdynamic, intelligent, and receptive group of stu-dents that many of us had ever experienced. Therewere fifty students from all around Europe, the US,and Russia. They were from different political andacademic backgrounds, yet had common interests.They were people who were extremely receptive,interested in listening and learning from one an-other, deeply engaged in their intellectual projects,and committed to the establishment of political jus-tice in the world (not only larger Europe).

The most exciting aspect of the students wastheir uncommon receptivity towards one another.For many of us, the most significant part of theprogram was the hours and hours (and hours) ofintense conversation about political and personalexperiences in the various countries represented.Some of us will remember the program as an exhila-rating rush through late-night talks about Polishsolidarity, sharing (and criticism) of national an-thems, arguments on the significance of the Euro-pean Union, stories of the devastation of war, dis-cussion of racism against East Europeans, questionson the meaning of democracy, and inquisitions intothe meanings of the readings. It was noticed, withgreat excitement, that about half of the studentparticipants were women (although none of theprofessors were). This was the first time many of ushad been surrounded by so many female politicaltheorists. Many students discussed our excitement

about this, and the gender balance opened up pos-sibilities for talking about gender in politics andacademia, which are subjects rarely raised in eitherof our home institutions.

Faculty and CoursesThe courses offered very different styles of teach-ing, most of which were positive in their own way.The faculty were very impressive on paper and, asthe weeks went by, more and more impressive per-sonally. Gray’s wonderful presentations were en-gaging even for students who were already familiarwith the topics he addressed, as long as their En-glish was strong. Ulrich Preuss’ and Claus Offe’svery thorough and systematic presentations chal-lenged the shortened attention span of students inthe second week, but were extremely rewardingand demonstrated their great dedication. Less sys-tematic in their presentations, Jacques Rupnik andAlexandar Smolar impressed all of us with theirwide and detailed knowledge of recent politicalprocesses in Europe and with their easy andfriendly attitudes towards the students. We finallymust mention the extraordinary performances ofMichael Sandel and Krzysztof Michalski. Sandelused student participation to great effect, and con-tributed to the learning atmosphere outside of classthrough his engagement with students. Michalski’sintense passion for Nietzsche was highly conta-gious, and for some students highly troubling. Thevariety of approaches used by the professors was astrength of the program, although in general webelieve that more student participation would havebeen good.

Extracurricular EventsOn the weekend, trips were scheduled to areasaround Cortona, which was a welcome break fromthe courses and the intense regime of learning. Forthose who wanted to sightsee, the trips were alovely way to visit some of the nicest parts ofTuscany. One day of the weekend was reserved fora visit to Gubbio, an uphill town with its famousbasilica where mummified bodies of saints are ex-hibited and Perugia with its renowned open-airjazz-festival that was taking place at the time. Theother trip took us to Siena, the medieval rival ofFlorence, and Montepulciano, the center of theMontepulciano wine-producing region. For thoseof us who really just like to talk (and argue) morethan anything else, the trips were a good opportu-nity to get away and continue our discussions in adifferent atmosphere. The highlight of the trips forsome of us was seeing the fresco of Good and BadGovernment in Siena.

In the IWM summer school students were con-stantly reminded that we are fighting a battle with-

14


out illusions. With tough political and socialchoices to be made, and no theory to provide acomplete formula for those choices, there is never aguarantee that our societies will become or stay de-cent. This basic idea was echoed throughout thecourses. Gray and Krol focused on the idea of valuepluralism, undermining the idea of progress in eth-ics and politics. Rupnik and Smolar reminded usthat even the happiest event of the 20th century, theRevolutions of 1989, were not celebrated cheer-fully on their 10th anniversary, as the main actorsalmost got into fight about who should take themost credit for the event.

Ana Matan is a graduate student at the Department ofPolitical Science at the University of Zagreb (Croatia), andMariah Zeisberg is a graduate student at the Politics De-partment in Princeton (USA). Apart from becoming dearfriends, they have decided to pursue several projectstogether, in order to continue their mutual exploration ofthe themes treated at the Summer School.

The Faculty

John GrayProfessor of EuropeanThought at the LondonSchool of EconomicsMarcin KrolProfessor of the Historyof Ideas at the Universityof WarsawKrzysztof MichalskiProfessor of Philosophyat Boston and WarsawUniversity, Rector of theInstitute for HumanSciences, ViennaClaus OffeProfessor of PoliticalScience at the Hum-boldt-Universität zuBerlin

The Courses

Course 1Liberalism and Its Critics I:Liberalism’s Critics and Liberalism’s Enemies: What isthe Difference?John Gray and Marcin Krol

Course 2Liberalism and Its Critics II:Does Politics Need a Theology?Krzysztof Michalski and Michael Sandel

Course 3Democracy and Its Potential for Self-destructionClaus Offe and Ulrich Preuss

Course 4After 1989: Transformations of International Order –European PerspectivesAleksander Smolar and Jacques Rupnik

Participants

Ana-Raluca Alecu,University of Bucharest,RomaniaInna Alekseeva,Novosibirsk StateUniversity, RussiaAndrei Apostol, CentralEuropean University,HungaryMonika Baar, MaxPlanck Institute for theHistory of Science, Ber-lin, GermanyMagdalena Baran,Pontifical Academy ofTheology, Krakow,PolandJan Biba, CharlesUniversity, CzechRepublicRobert Clewis, BostonCollege, USADimitri Constant, BostonUniversity, USAMagdalena Dabrowska,University Maria Curie-Sklodowska, Lublin,PolandIstvan Danka, Universityof Pecs, Budapest,HungaryTamas Dombos, Buda-pest University of Econ.

Sci. and Pub. Adm.,HungaryAnnette Dufner,University of Karlsruhe,GermanyJohn Eden, StanfordUniversity, Stanford, USALaura Ephraim,Northwestern University,Chicago, USAJulia Erokhina,University of Oxford,United KingdomRoxanne Fay, Massa-chusetts Institute ofTechnology, USABryan Garsten, HarvardUniversity, USALaurentiu Gheorghe,University of Bucharest,RomaniaSarah Giles, University ofNorth Carolina, USADavid Grewal, HarvardUniversity, USAHenry Haaker, HumboldtUniversity Berlin, GermanyJana Havlikova,Masaryk University Brno,Czech RepublicSonja Jelinkova,Charles University, CzechRepublic

Felix Koch, FreeUniversity of Berlin,Humboldt University ofBerlin, GermanyBalazs Kovacs, Buda-pest University of Econ.Sci. And Pub. Adm.,HungaryHelene Landemore,Harvard University, USAEncarna Llamas,University of Navarra, SpainBruno Macaes, HarvardUniversity, USAAnna Maslon, Universityof Warsaw, PolandAna Matan, University ofZagreb, CroatiaMonika Milewska,Polish Academy ofSciences, PolandSvjetlana Nedimovic,European UniversityInstitute, ItalyGerald Neugschwandtner,University of Vienna,AustriaAna-Maria Pascal, PetreAndrei University, Iasi,RomaniaBogdan Popa, Universityof Bucharest, RomaniaWojciech Przybylski,University of Warsaw,PolandClara Ramirez Barat,University Carlos III ofMadrid, SpainSamanta Stecko,University of Warsaw,PolandStefan Szwed, RobertBosch Foundation, Ber-lin, GermanyEunice Tai, University ofChicago, USAErik Tajalli, University ofVienna, AustriaJack Turner, PrincetonUniversity, USACamil Ungureanu,European UniversityInstitute, ItalyPetra Van Brabandt,University of Antwerp,BelgiumMariah Zeisberg,Princeton University, USA

Ulrich K. PreußProfessor of Law andPolitical Science at theFreie Universität BerlinJacques RupnikResearch Director at theCentre d’Etudes et deRecherches Internatio-nales (CERI), FondationNationale des SciencesPolitiques, ParisMichael SandelProfessor ofGovernment at HarvardUniversityAleksander Smolarmaitre de recherche atthe Centre National deRecherche Scientifique,Paris

Challenges to Democracy SUMMER SCHOOL

15


Tuesday Lectures

IWM TUESDAY LECTURES

Every Tuesday evening the

IWM hosts a speaker, often a

current fellow or monthly

guest, who holds a public

lecture related to one of the

Institute’s projects or research

fields. An e-mail information

service on upcoming events is

available on IWM’s website

www.iwm.at

Jeden Dienstag ist die Bibliothek des IWMSchauplatz eines öffentlichen Vortrags, gefolgtvon einer informellen Diskussion. Fellows undGäste des Instituts sowie internationale Wis-senschaftler und Intellektuelle werden einge-laden, ihre aktuellen Forschungsergebnisse zupräsentieren. Einen e-mail-Informations-service zu bevorstehenden Veranstaltungenbietet die Website des IWM, www.iwm.at

6. MAI 2003

Reihe: Die Rolle des StaatesUte FrevertGute Europäer – und wer sichvor ihnen fürchten könnte

Kommentar:Eva Lichtenberger, Grüne Abgeordnete imösterreichischen Nationalrat undstellvertretendes Mitglied im EU-Konvent

WER ODER WAS SIND „gute Europäer“? Sindes die Träger des Karlspreises, der alljähr-lich in Aachen verliehen wird? Sind esnomadische Freigeister wie FriedrichNietzsche, der sich in den 1880er Jahrenzum schlechten Deutschen und gutenEuropäer erklärte? Welche Erwartungenverknüpften sich mit der Vorstellungeiner solchen Gemeinschaft? Und welcheBefürchtungen lösten sie aus? Der Vortragstellte verschiedene Repräsentanten eines„europäischen Gesamtbewusstseins“ ausdem 19. und 20. Jahrhundert vor, fragtenach ihren Motiven und Zielen. Aber er

beleuchtete auch die Widerständeund Ängste, die sie hervorriefen.„Gute Europäer“, so die These, sindstets auf Ausgrenzungen bedacht,und eben das macht sie, bei allerinneren Überzeugungskraft, gefähr-lich.

Ute Frevert ist Professorin fürAllgemeine Geschichte in Yale und warGast des IWM im Mai.

Ausgewählte Publikationen:

Eurovisionen. Ansichten guterEuropäer im 19. und 20. JahrhundertFrankfurt am Main 2003

Vertrauen. Historische Annäherungen (Hg.)Göttingen 2003

Geschichtsvergessenheit –Geschichtsversessenheit. Vom Umgang mitdeutschen Vergangenheiten nach 1945(mit A. Assmann), Stuttgart 1999

In Zusammenarbeit mit derGrünen Bildungswerkstatt

13. MAI 2003

Susanne HeineIslam – zwischen Politik undReligion

DASS DIE VERBREITUNG DES ISLAM mit Feu-er und Schwert zum muslimischen Glau-bensbekenntnis zähle, ist bis heute einverbreitetes Vorurteil, in Österreich be-sonders verfestigt durch die zweimaligeBelagerung Wiens (1529, 1683) durchdie Osmanen, und weltweit transportiertdurch die Medien. Wie jede Religion hatauch der Islam verschiedene Gesichter jenachdem, in welcher Kultur er zu Hauseist. Wenn sich terroristische Gruppen aufden ‚Heiligen Krieg’ berufen, verwahrensich die Muslime selbst gegen die pau-schale Verknüpfung des Islams mit demTerrorismus und betonen, dass „Dschi-had“ die moralische Anstrengung für einrechtschaffenes Leben bedeute. Umge-kehrt haben auch viele Muslime, beson-ders außerhalb Europas, keine realisti-schen Vorstellungen vom Christentumund der westlichen Welt.

Susanne Heine ist Ordinaria für PraktischeTheologie und Religionspsychologie an derEvangelisch-Theologischen Fakultät derUniversität Wien.


Frauenbilder – Menschenrechte.Theologische Beiträge zu einerfeministischen AnthropologieHannover 2000

16


„Herrschaft und Liebe“, in: Werner Brändle /Gerhard Wegner (Hg.), UnverfügbareGewissheit. Protestantische Wege zumDialog mit den Religionen, Hannover 1997

Islam zwischen Selbstbild und Klischee (Hg.)Wien / Köln 1995

20. MAI 2003

Elena PulciniTransformations of the Selfin the Global Age

THE PAPER wasbased on theidea, shared bymany, that glo-balisation is an es-sentially ambiva-lent processwhich on the onehand sees the co-existence of the“global” processesof unification,homogenisationand homologa-tion and on the

other hand the “local” phenomena of frag-mentation, heterogenisation and differen-tiation.

From this starting point, the paperquestioned the particular effects that theco-existence of global and local producedon individual identity and the types of so-cial bond.

The basic hypothesis affirms that theglobal age is characterised by a sort ofpolarisation which on the one hand seesthe emergence of an unlimited individual-ism (narcissism, atomism, indifference)and on the other the birth of a tribalcommunitarianism (“return to the com-munity” in exclusive and destructiveforms).

Finally, the paper attempted to lookinto the possibility of a global social bondthat is sparked off by the individual per-ception of the Self as a weak and vulnerablesubject, linked to the Other (to others) bythe sharing of a common destiny and acommon humanity.

Elena Pulcini is Associate Professor of SocialPhilosophy at the University of Florence.

Selected Publications:

L’individuo senza passioni. Individualismomoderno e perdita del legame socialeTorino 2001German translation: Berlin 2003

Amour-passion e amore coniugale.Rousseau e l’origine di un conflitto modernoVenezia 1990French translation: Paris 1998

Immagini dell’impensabile. Ricercheinterdisciplinari sulla guerra nucleare(ed. with P.Messeri, Genova 1991)

In Zusammenarbeit mit demIstituto Italiano di Cultura.

27. MAI 2003

BuchpräsentationGerfried Sperl:Die umgefärbte Republik.Anmerkungen zu Österreich

MIT SEINER ANA-LYSE der politi-schen SituationÖsterreichs nachden Nationalrats-wahlen im No-vember 2002 legtGerfried Sperl,Chefredakteur derTageszeitung Der Standard, eine Streit-schrift vor; das IWM – ein Ort über-parteiischer Diskussion – nahm das zumAnlass, eine Debatte über den Zustandund die Zukunft der Republik zu veran-stalten. Siehe Bericht auf S. 9.

Es diskutierten:

Lorenz FritzGeneralsekretär, IndustriellenvereinigungEva Glawischnigstv. Bundessprecherin, Die GrünenBarbara HeligePräsidentin der österreichischenRichtervereinigungReinhold LopatkaGeneralsekretär, Österreichische Volkspartei

In Zusammenarbeit mit dem

17. JUNI 2003

Tzvetan TodorovLes enjeux de la mémoire

LES FAITS DU

PASSÉ NOUS sonttransmis sousforme de récits,qui attribuentaux protago-nistes les rôles dehéros ou de bé-néficiaire, d’agre-sseur ou de victime. L’identification avecl’un ou l’autre de ces rôles conditionnel’attitude morale de celui qui les évoque.Ce dernier est de plus menacé, au cours decette évocation, par deux dangers symé-triques, la sacralisation et la banalisation.Le rappel du passé peut à son tour être misau service d’un renforcement de notreidentité ou encore devenir le point de dé-part d’une action en faveur des autres. Lescommémorations rituelles brouillent habi-tuellement les nécessaires distinctionsétablies par le travail de mémoire. Cesquelques principes sont illustrés par des

exemples tirés de l’histoire duXXe siècle (totalitarismes,Deuxième Guerre mondiale,guerre d’Algérie) et par l’iti-néraire de deux individus,David Rousset et GermaineTillion.

Tzvetan Todorov est Directeurde recherche du Centre national

de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Paris.


Devoirs et délicesEditions du Seuil, 2002

Mémoire du mal, tentation du bienRobert Laffont, 2000

Abenteuer des ZusammenlebensBerlin 1996 / Frankfurt 1998

In Zusammenarbeitmit dem

IWM TUESDAY LECTURES

17


East-Central Europe is about to bring itswelfare reforms to the European Union.Nevertheless, in the course of the Accession,one could hardly fix the European standardsof social policy or examine to what degreethe newcomers may have approached them.Evidently, there has always been a variety ofwelfare regimes in the EU. Moreover, today’sexperts in post-communist countries do notfind stable policies and institutional arrange-ments in the West but rather another reformprocess, the “domestication” of the classicalwelfare states. True, the general trends arenot dissimilar: partial retrenchment, decen-tralization, marketisation and privatisationof public welfare services, as well as an up-surge of the voluntary sector, are the maincharacteristic features of regulating welfareon both sides of the former Iron Curtain.

Janos Matyas Kovacs(ed.)Small TransformationsThe Politics ofWelfare Reform –East and WestMünster: LITVerlag, 2003

Contents

IntroductionA Cushion That Suffocates?Transforming the “Communist Welfare State” in East-CentralEurope János Mátyás Kovács

Part I.Local Welfare Provision: The State, the Market and theNon-Profit Sector [The Example of Health Care]

The Non-Profit Sector and Health Care: A Cross-National ViewHelmut K. Anheier

The Context and Outcome of Health Care Reform in SlovakiaMartin Bútora et al.

Privatization and Decentralization in the Hungarian Health SectorÉva Orosz

Health Policy Reforms in the Czech and Slovak RepublicsAs a Political Process Martin Potucek

Changing the Welfare Mix – Does It Make a Difference?The Case of Germany Annette Zimmer

Comments Jane Lewis, Christoph Sachße

Part II.Between Governmental and Individual Responsibility:New Social Programs [The Example of the Pension System]

Public Financing for Long Term Care Beyond Residualism andFull-Coverage Universalism Adalbert Evers

These issues are addressed by the au-thors of this volume, leading representativesof their professions, in an unprecedentedway. In avoiding the convenient cliché of“Western invention” versus “Eastern imita-tion”, they provide original results in abstractand empirical analysis, and engage in sharpdiscussions on the virtues of the third sector,the privatisation of the pension system or therole of the trade unions. And nothing dem-onstrates the end of communism better thanthe fact that the frontlines between themusually intersect the Yalta divide.

The book is based on a long-term coop-erative venture of Western and East-Euro-pean scholars in the framework of IWM’sresearch program on the Social Conse-quences of Economic Transformation inEast-Central Europe (SOCO).

The Actors in Hungarian Pension Reform Zsuzsa Ferge

Conditions for a Successful Reform of Poland’s Pension SystemJerzy Hausner

The Pension Reform Debate:The Example of Central and Eastern Europe Dalmer D. Hoskins

Individualising Pensions Alan Walker

Comments Nicholas Barr, Claus Offe

Part III.The Role of Mediating Institutions:Social Policy “from Above” and “from Below”[The Example of Unemployment]

Social Partnership in Solving Unemployment Problems on theLocal Level Michal Boni

Working With Welfare: The Transformation of US Social PoliciesDavid T. Ellwood

Renegotiating the Dutch Welfare State Anton Hemerijck

Interest Mediation in the Politics of Unemployment in Great BritainMichael Hill

CommentsTamás Bauer, Antoinette Hetzler

18


Robin ArcherFellow and Tutor in Politics, Corpus Christi College,OxfordThe Future of the Left / Violence and LiberalismWhy is there no Labor Party in the United States?,forthcoming 2003; „Another America: CanSombart’s ‘Why is there No Socialism’ thesis Sur-vive Comparison with Australia?” in: Mark Thomp-son, ed: Werner Sombat and American Exceptionalism,forthcoming 2003; „Ideas of a Nation: Party Poli-tics and Religious Revivalism in Contemporary In-dia”, in: Angelika Fitz and Michael Worgotter, eds,Kapital and Karma, Kunsthalle, Vienna 2002; Eco-nomic Democracy: The Politics of Feasible Socialism,Oxford 1995.

Drago CengicPrincipal Researcher at the Institute of Social Sciences„Ivo Pilar”, Zagreb„After the Accession”„Start-up Entrepreneurs in Croatia: Some Determi-nants of Entry within the Context of CroatianEconomy”, in: Fifth International Conference onEnterprise in Transition-Proceedings, Split-Tucepi,2003; Poduzetništvo u Medimurju i novi razvojniizazovi (Entrepreneurship in Medimurje county andnew development challenges), ed., Zagreb, Institut IvoPilar, 2002; Poduzetništvo, institucije i sociokulturnikapital (Entrepreneurship, institutions and sociocul-tural capital), ed. with M. Vehovec, Zagreb, InstitutIvo Pilar, 2002.

Nathalie FrogneuxDozentin fürAnthropologie amInstitut Supérieur dePhilosophie, UniversitéCatholique de Louvain,Louvain-la-Neuve;Research Associate, IWMPatocka ProjektDer andere Weg in die Moderne. Jan Patockas Beitragzur Genealogie der Neuzeit

Nathalie Frogneux’ Forschungen konzentrieren sichauf die Frage nach der Beziehung zwischen Menschund Welt im Kontext einer nicht-dualistischenAnthropologie, genauer auf Aspekte der Kör-perlichkeit und der Leiblichkeit (Jonas, Maine deBiran, Merleau-Ponty), die sie sowohl innerhalb derGeschichte der Philosophie als auch vor demHintergrund zeitgenössischer technologischerEntwicklungen untersucht. Jan Patockas Kritik der

Visiting FellowsJuly – December 2003

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

IWM Project:

Moderne und seine Überlegungen zum Verhältnisvon Körper und Welt werfen auf diese Frage-stellungen ein neues Licht.„Les corps tragiques de l’assistance biologique”, in:N. Schiffino; F. Varone (dir.), Procréation médicale-ment assistée: régulation publique et enjeux bioéthiques,Bruxelles, 2003; „Une aventure cosmothéandrique:Hans Jonas et Luigi Pareyson”, in: Frogneux (éd.),Revue philosophique de Louvain consacré à Hans Jonas,2002/03; Hans Jonas où la vie dans le monde, DeBoeck-Université, 2001.

Krzysztof GorlachAssociate Professor of Sociology,Jagiellonian University, Krakow;Andrew W. Mellon Visiting FellowThe Restructuring of Agriculturein PolandThe World in my Backyard: PolishFamily Farms in the Face of Global-ization, Krakow, 2001; „Limitingglobalization: essay on the integra-tion with European Union”, in: Kolarska-Bobinskaet.al. (eds.), The Future of Rural Poland: Visions, Strat-egies, Concepts, Warsaw, 2001; Key Social Rural Ques-tions in Poland at the edge of the XXIst Century (co-editor: Anna Maria Pyrc), Krakow, 2000.

Heiko HaumannOrdinarius für Osteuropäische und NeuereAllgemeine Geschichte, Universität BaselErinnerung und Lebenswelt. Juden undNichtjuden in Osteuropa

Im Mittelpunkt des Projektes stehen zahl-reiche Selbstzeugnisse von Jüdinnen undJuden aus Osteuropa für die Zeit von1850 bis 1914, die ich im Hinblick aufErinnerungsvorgänge auswerten möchte, um zuzeigen, was diese für die Lebensgestaltung und fürdas Zusammenleben mit Nichtjuden bedeuteten.Kontrastierend sollen Lebenswege und Erinnerun-gen von nichtjüdischen Bauern in verschiedenenosteuropäischen Regionen verglichen werden. Die-se Schicksale werden in Beziehung gesetzt zuGedächtnismodellen sowie Forschungen zurErinnerungspolitik und –kultur. Ausgehend voneiner lebensweltlichen Orientierung möchte ich aufdiese Weise das Verhältnis zwischen individuellenVorgängen und strukturellen Bedingungen analy-sieren und herausarbeiten, wie Erinnerung das Han-deln steuert und was dies für die Arbeit des Histori-kers bedeutet.

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

19


„Geschichte als Waffe. Über die Bedeutung einerAufarbeitung der Vergangenheit Südosteuropas“,in: Dejan Mikic, Erika Sommer: „Als Serbe warst duplötzlich nichts mehr wert.“ Serben und Serbinnen inder Schweiz, Zürich, 2003; „Kommunikation imSchtetl. Eine Annäherung an jüdisches Leben inOsteuropa zwischen 1850 und 1930“, in: Wege derKommunikation in der Geschichte Osteuropas, hg. vonNada Boskovska u. a., Zürich, 2002; Geschichte derOstjuden, 5. Aufl., München, 1999; GeschichteRusslands, München / Zürich, 1996 (Neuausgabeim Druck: Zürich, 2003).

Pavel KoubaProfessor für Philosophie, Karls-Universität Prag;Leiter des Zentrums für PhänomenologischeForschung an der Tschechischen Akademie derWissenschaften, Prag; Robert Bosch Visiting FellowDer Sinn der Endlichkeit

Das Ziel des Projekts besteht darin,in einer losen Reihe von Studien denBegriff des Seins in der Welt zu kon-kretisieren und seine systematischeAusarbeitung vorzubereiten. Die tief-ste Schicht der Problematik wirddurch das Doppelverhältnis derräumlichen und zeitlichen Seins-bestimmungen umgrenzt, die dem

endlichen Sein den Charakter grundsätzlicher Am-biguität aufprägen. Studien zu den Fragen derPhänomenalität und der Interpretation werden sichauf den Begriff der Urteilskraft konzentrieren, weilgerade diese politische, zwischen dem Erkennen undHandeln vermittelnde Fähigkeit der grundlegen-den Doppeldeutigkeit der menschlichen Welt-erfahrung gerecht werden kann, und aus diesemGrund in der heutigen Diskussion eine zentrale,früher von der Rationalität beanspruchte Stellungeinzunehmen beginnt. Das Ergebnis des For-schungsaufenthaltes am IWM soll eine auf deutschgeschriebene Publikation unter dem Titel Der Sinnder Endlichkeit sein, die ein in Prag begonnenesgleichnamiges Projekt erweitern und zu Ende füh-ren wird.„Kant ohne das Problem der Metaphysik”, in: In-ternationales Jahrbuch für Hermeneutik, 2002; DieWelt nach Nietzsche, München, 2001; „TheBoundary of Metaphysics. Between Aristotle andHeidegger”, in: Focus Pragensis. Yearbook for thePhilosophy and Phenomenology of Religion 1 (2001);„Le signe du nihilisme”, in: Nietzsche. Cahier del’Herne no. 73, hg. von M. Crépon, Paris, 2000;„Endlichkeit des Friedens“, in: Politisches Denken.Jahrbuch 2000, Stuttgart / Weimar, 2000.

Mladen LazicProfessor of Sociology, University of Belgrade„After the Accession”Racji hod (Crab-walk: Serbia in the Process of Transi-tion), Beograd, 2000; „Resistance to StructuralChanges in Yugoslav Society: Post-Socialist Trans-formation and Socail Groups”, in: The Labyrinths ofCrisis: Prerequisites for the Democratic Transformationof the FRY (L. Basta Fleiner, R. Nakarada et al.),Geneve, 2001; Protest in Belgrade: Winter in Dis-content, Budapest, 1999.

Stefanie PeterFreelance Journalist, Berlin; Milena Jesenská VisitingFellow“Man of Marble” – revisited. Contemporary urbanculture and the future of Nowa Huta, once CentralEurope’s largest socialist model city

Stefanie Peter will offer a portrait of the city of NowaHuta, east of Cracow, one of the model cities ofPolish socialism. In a series of reports, Peter will go insearch of the new forms of urban culture whichhave developed in the working-class area of theformer steel combine, an area which has now beenclassified as a historical monument.„’Wie der Wind des Geistes, der hineinfährt in daswiederbelebte Volk’. Ethnographische Recherchenzum Kolbe-Kult polnischer KZ-Überlebender”, in:Historische Anthropologie, forthcoming 2003;„Reliquien des Unauffindbaren. Aufbewahrte Resteund deren Funktion im Kult um MaximilianKolbe, ‚Heiliger von Auschwitz’“, in: DietmarSchmidt (ed.), KörperTopoi. Sagbarkeit – Sichtbarkeit– Wissen, Weimar, 2002; „Konserwowac symbole“,in: Konteksty. Polska Sztuka Ludowa 1-2,Warschau1997.

Michael StaudiglHabilitand (Phänomenologie,Politische Philosophie), UniversitätWien; APART-Stipendiat derÖsterreichischen Akademie derWissenschaftenPhänomen Gewalt: Perspektivenphänomenologischer ForschungDie Grenzen der Intentionalität. ZurKritik der Phänomenalität nachHusserl, Würzburg, 2003; Jenseits desKulturprinzips. Meta-Genealogien (ed. with StefanNowotny), Wien, 2003; „Phänomenologie an derGrenze? Bemerkungen zum Status der Grenze inder Phänomenologie“, in: Recherches husserliennes16 (2001).

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

Selected

Publications:

FELLOWS AND GUESTS

20


Marius TurdaLecturer in the Educa-tion Abroad Program,Eötvös Lorand Univer-sity, Faculty of Hu-manities, Budapest,Andrew W. MellonVisiting FellowThe Biologisation ofNational Belonging: Racial Ideologies in Hungaryand Romania (1900-1940)

There is no account of how Hungarian and Roma-nian medical doctors have been influenced by eu-genics, in which context, and most importantly,what features of English and German eugenics, ifany, they appropriated. This project offers a com-parative analysis of a group that played a crucial, ifcontroversial, role in the construction of one of themost radical definitions of the nation. In order tounderstand the profound political and nationaltransformations Hungary and Romania experiencedbetween 1890-1940, a closer examination of howmedical doctors envisioned the modernisation oftheir countries and of their role in establishing insti-tutions for health and welfare related to populationissues is required.Editor of Discourses of Collective Identity in Centraland Southeast Europe (1745-1945) (first volumeforthcoming 2004); „The Magyars: A Ruling Race.Some Reflections on the Idea of National Superior-ity in Fin de-Siècle Hungary,” in: European Reviewof History/Revue européenne d‘histoire 10 (2003);„Transylvania Revisited: Public Discourse and His-torical Representation in Contemporary Romania,”in: Nation-Building and Contested Identities. Ro-manian and Hungarian Case Studies, Budapest-Iasi,2001; „Deciding the National Capital – Budapest,Vienna, Bucharest and Transylvanian RomanianCulture,” in Kurt W. Treptow, Tradition and Mo-dernity in Romanian Culture and Civilization, IasiOxford; Portland, 2001.

Zuzana BúrikováPh.D. candidate,Academy of Sciences,Bratislava; RobertBosch Junior VisitingFellowHow Holy is the HolyLand: Production, Dis-tribution and Con-sumption with Special Reference to Conservative

Roman Catholic Environment in Rural NorthernSlovakia

During my stay at the IWM I intend to write upmy Ph.D. dissertation. Based upon an ethnogra-phy of consumption in one Northern Slovak vil-lage, my thesis explores the relationship betweenconsumption and Christianity. Looking at the prac-tice of provisioning and conceptualization of com-merce, I will examine a mundane practice of thechurch’s aesthetics and morality.„The Images of Own and Other Ethnic Groups inthe Oral History of German Inhabitants of the Cityof Švedlár.” in: Slovenský národopis, 48 (2000); „’Weand the other.’ The image of in-group and out-group in oral history of the German minority”, Pa-per at the conference Ethnic and National Minori-ties in Central and Eastern Europe, Krakow, 2000(in press); „Kalendárne a prílezitostné obycaje”, in:Ivica Bumová (ed.), Oravská Poruba. Dolný Kubín,Vrábel, 2000.

Silvia CarliPh.D. candidate in AncientPhilosophy, Boston UniversityAristotle and the Nature of the„Who”

The fundamental question ofAristotle’s ontology is „what is it?”The answer to this question disclosesthe essential nature of a thing, that in virtue of whicha thing is the determinate thing which it is. But isthis kind of inquiry adequate to grasp the nature ofpersons? In relation to the latter, we do not ask,„what is it?” but rather „who is it?” The very form ofour question reveals our intuition that persons arecharacterized by a peculiar mode of being, whichdistinguishes them from all other beings. I believethat in Aristotle’s work there are elements whichsupport this intuition. The aim of my project is touse the non systematic remarks which the philoso-pher offers on the subject to understand why per-sons enjoy this peculiar status, what is their distinc-tive mode of being, and what kind of logos can beused to express it. Our working hypothesis is that,because human nature is to a large extent contin-gent, and because a person’s character reveals itselfin the actions which she performs, the being of per-sons exhibit what we would like to call a „narrativestructure”, i.e., a mode of being which unfolds as astory and which requires a story, as opposed to ageneral theory, to be formulated.

IWM Project:

Selected

Publications:

Junior Visiting FellowsJuly – December 2003

IWM Project:

Publications:

IWM Project:

FELLOWS AND GUESTS

21


Alison CashinM.S. candidate in Journalism, Boston UniversityMedia Criticism, Media Ownership, Narrative Writ-ing

Media critics have argued that the type of mediaglobalization and corporatization that has taken placein the 1990s and 2000s is antithetical to the de-mocratizing function of journalism. For Central andEastern European countries that are still navigatingthe transition from state-run media to ostensiblydemocratic media, this phenomenon has special sig-nificance. How have media critics in post-Commu-nist Central and Eastern Europe responded to theglobalization and corporatization of news media?What types of media NGOs and watchdog organi-zations have they formed? How do these groupsoperate and how do they interact?

Jakub JirsaPh.D. candidate,Central EuropeanUniversity,Budapest; RobertBosch JuniorVisiting FellowDealing with thePast – A Compari-son Between West-ern and Eastern Social Memory in the Mirror ofPolitical Philosophy

My current work – part of my PhD dissertation atCentral European University – focuses on the roleof forgiveness, resentment and social memory in po-litical philosophy. The framework of the project isformed by the discussion of collective identity andcollective remembrance problems after the fall oftotalitarian regimes in Europe (after World War II.and revolutions of 1989). The first part of theproject are philosophical analyses of forgiveness andresentment; these topics are then interpreted on thebasis of works by H.G. Adler, Jean Améry, VáclavHavel or Adam Michnik. The thesis of the projectquestions the model of unconditional forgivenessand argues for the positive role of resentment in theconstruction of collective identity and within theprocess of collective remembrance.“The ethical significance of substance-Goddifference in Spinoza’s Ethics I”, in: E-LOGOS2003; “Základní prehled ‘disidentské’ politickéteorie”, review of Barbara Falk,Dilemmas ofDissidence in East-Central Europe, in: StredníEvropa 116 (Summer 2003).

Daria LuckaTeaching Assistant of Sociology,Jagiellonian University, Krakow;Józef Tischner Junior Visiting FellowCivil Society, Nationality and Reli-gion: Allies or Enemies? The Case ofPoland (1989-2000)

Since national affiliation and Catho-lic religion still play important roles in contempo-rary Poland, I will examine to what extent they cre-ate barriers and threats to the development of civilsociety and to what extent they might become itsally. My analysis will include, for example, the mean-ing of nationality, the character of the CatholicChurch as a community, the role of a parish as astructure of civil society. I will look at empirical datafrom the perspective of theoretical approaches,namely liberal, conservative, and communitarianmodels of society.“The Communitarian Model of Civil Society”, in:Polish Sociological Review 4 (2002); „Political Par-ties and Social Movements: Two Models of theirRelations”, in: H. Kubiak, J. Wiatr (eds.), BetweenAnimosity and Utility. Political Parties and theirMatrix, Warsaw, 2003.

Mahon O’BrienPh.D. candidate in Philosophy, BostonUniversityHeidegger’s Worldview?

The various ways in which Heideggerapproaches the question concerningthe meaning of being are not quite uni-form, nevertheless, there is a certaincontiguity between the various inquir-ies. What the features of this contiguity are, how-ever, is something which requires further analysis.One of the questions which emerges in such anexamination concerns whether or not Heideggerexhibits a prevailing attitude toward the worldaround him, one that remains steadfast. Is the voicewe hear in the infamous Spiegel interview (wherewe hear a Heidegger already resigned to a fearful,eschatological outlook) the same voice we hear mani-festing an undeniable mistrust of mass society inBeing and Time? Is the thinker who is concerned,though he stops short of making any normativeclaims, with the levelling and consumptive powerof Das Man the same thinker who warns against thedangers of the technological age and its unperceiveddominion within mass society in Introduction toMetaphysics, “The Question Concerning Technol-ogy” or even his much later work?

IWM Project:

Publications:

IWM Project:

IWM Project:

Publications:

FELLOWS AND GUESTS

IWM Project:

22


1

Fellowships

The Jozef Tischner Fellow will beinvited to spend a six-month termfrom July to December 2004 at theIWM to pursue her/his researchproject while working in residence.The fellow will receive a stipend in theamount of € 8.000 to cover accom-modation, living expenses, travel,health insurance and incidentals dur-ing the stay at the Institute. Further-more the IWM will provide the JozefTischner Fellow an office with per-sonal computer, access to the Internet,in-house research facilities and otherrelevant sources in Vienna.

A jury of experts evaluates applica-tions and selects the finalist once ayear. Members of the jury are:

Marcin KrolProfessor of History of Ideas, Faculty ofApplied Sciences and Social Prevention,Warsaw University; Editor-in-chief,Res Publica Nowa

Krzysztof MichalskiRector of the IWM, Vienna; Professor ofPhilosophy, Boston and Warsaw Uni-versity

Wiktor OsiatynskiProfessor of Law and Sociology, CentralEuropean University, Budapest; Mem-ber of the Board, Open Society Institute

Bishop Tadeusz PieronekRector of the Papal Academy of Theology,Cracow

Candidates for the Jozef Tischner Fellowship- must be Polish citizens or permanently reside

in Poland. The fellowship is also open to Polish-American scholars

- must currently pursue their doctoral degree orhave recently obtained a Ph.D.

- must not be older than 35 years.

The application consists of the followingmaterials:1. the application form (please download from

www.iwm.at or request by fax: +43-1-313 58-30or e-mail: [email protected])

2. a concise research proposal in English (max. 4pages, double-spaced, A4) including- the scientific problem(s) addressed- critical consideration of current relevant

literature- research goals and expected results- work and time schedule: if the duration of the

project exceeds the six-month term at theIWM, please indicate which part you intendto complete during the fellowship at IWM

3. a curriculum vitae4. two letters of recommendation by scholars

familiar with your academic work.For details, please visit the IWM website:www.iwm.at/f-tischn.htm

Deadline for application is1 December 2003 (date of receipt)Please send the application by mail to:

Institut für die Wissenschaften vom MenschenFellowship CoordinatorSpittelauer Lände 3A-1090 Wien, Austria

Advance copies by e-mail are eligible:[email protected] header:Jozef Tischner Fellowship

Applicants will be notified of the jury decision inFebruary 2004; it is not required for the jury topublicly justify its decisions.

��



D E A D L I N E

1 December, 2003

�� (1931–2000) wasone of the most eminent contemporaryPolish philosophers. He was the founderand Dean of the Cracovian Papal Acad-emy of Theology and lectured at theJagiellonian University and the State HighSchool of Theatre in Cracow. He wroteand published more than 600 articles andbooks. Jozef Tischner was an exceptionalmoral authority and at the same time oneof the most famous, brilliant and lovedfigures in Polish public life. He wasSolidarity’s first chaplain. Professor Tisch-ner was founding member, President andnon-resident Permanent Fellow of the In-stitute for Human Sciences.

The Jozef Tischner Fellowship program isgenerously supported by grants from

Pope John Paul II.Foundation Open Society Institute (Zug)Kosciuszko Foundation, Inc., New York

The Institute for Human Sciencesawards one Jozef Tischner Fellow-ship per year to a young Polish re-searcher. The six-month fellowship isopen to all academic disciplines in thehumanities and social sciences and willenable a young scholar to work inVienna on a research project of her/hischoice that is related to one of IWM’smain research fields. The fellow willparticipate in the scholarly commu-nity and activities of IWM.

Ob

je

ct

iv

e

4

Co

nd

it

io

ns

2

3

Th

e

Ju

ry

Ap

pl

ic

at

io

n

Pr

oc

ed

ur

eD

ea

dl

in

eN

ot

if

ic

at

io

n

5

6

23


Maya SionMA in Public Policy,Administration andLaw, HebrewUniversity ofJerusalem; HebrewUniversity JuniorVisiting FellowNew PoliticalMechanisms of theEU in the Field of Law and Public Policy

Negotiating opt-outs (exemptions) from specific Eu-ropean Union treaty provisions and policies wenthand in hand with the advancement of the integra-tion process. While some opt-outs represent clashesof ideologies regarding the question how far anddeep the integration process should advance, otheropt-outs were negotiated due to domestic politicaldifficulties. It is this latter type of opt-out whichmight eventually lead to opt-in, and therefore canbe seen as a policy tool for polity management. OneBritish government opted out of the EU social policy,while the next government opted in. At Maastrichtboth the British and the Danish governments re-ceived exemptions from the single European cur-rency. Today both Member States are trying to findtheir way into the Euro-zone. Those case-studiesand others will be examined in order to trace thelife-cycle of opt-outs, which are used by nationalgovernments as a policy tool for polity managementin the integration process of the European Union.Nice: Checks and Balances on Institutional Decision-Making of EU Leaders, Working Paper, Jerusalem:The Helmut Kohl Institute for European Studies,2002.

Samanta SteckoPh.D. candidate,University ofWarsaw, Institute ofSociologyThe Spiritual andCultural Dimen-sion of an EnlargedEurope„Ideologie und Erinnerung. Was bleibt von derSolidarnosc?“, in: Transit – Europäische Revue 20;„Jednaknowa generacja II: ankieta Kultury,“Kultura Paris 10 (1997); „In Search of Demo-cratic Ethos in a Post-Communist Poland“, in:Confronting New Realities: The Impact of Reform.Selected Conference Papers, Budapest 1996.

Publications:

IWM Project:

Publications:

Natascha VittorelliDoktorandin (Geschichte), UniversitätWien; Stipendiatin im Rahmen desDoktorandenprogramms derÖsterreichischen Akademie derWissenschaftenGeschichte der erstenFrauenbewegung in densüdslawischen Gebieten der HabsburgerMonarchie – Frauenzeitschrift Slovenka

Bis Ende des Jahres sollen zwei Textmanuskripteabgeschlossen werden: das zweite Dissertations-kapitel zur Frauenzeitschrift „Slovenka“, diezwischen 1897 und 1902 in Triest erschienen ist,sowie ein Kapitel über den „Wohltätigkeitsvereinder Serbinnen Novi Sads“.„An ‘Other’ of One’s Own. Pre-WW I South SlavicAcademic Discoures on the zadruga,” in: Spaces ofIdentity 2.3/4 (2002); „Marja Borsnik in njenapripoved o ‘Slovenki’ (Marja Borsnik und ihreErzählung über die ‘Slovenka’),” in: ZbornikSlavisticnega drustva Slovenije, posvecenega MarjiBorsnik (Sammelband der Slawistischen GesellschaftSlowenien, gewidmet Marja Borsnik), Maribor2003 (im Druck); „‚Wären Sie, mein Freund, aufmich böse, wüssten Sie das?‘ Ein Beispielantisemitischer Stereotype in der südslawischenLiteratur,“ in: Konferenzband zum 1. ÖsterreichischenOsteuropaforum, Wien 2003 (im Druck).

James WoodPh.D. candidate in Philosophy, BostonUniversityPlato’s Philebus: The Dialectical Life

While at the Institute I am working onmy dissertation for the philosophy de-partment at Boston University. It con-cerns, in brief, the connection betweenmetaphysical and ethical considerationsin Plato’s philosophy as these are found specificallyin his late dialogue the Philebus. Through a closetextual reading I attempt to show that for Platothere is no essential separation between “metaphys-ics” and “ethics” because there is no essential separa-tion between human beings and the world aroundthem, or between the intellectual and sensual sidesof human nature. The meaning of the good life forhuman beings is the central theme of the dialogue,and I argue that for Plato it is also the context inwhich every philosophical question must both beasked and answered.

Publications:

IWM Project:

IWM Project:

FELLOWS AND GUESTS

IWM Project:

24


PublicationsCornelia KlingerPermanent Fellow“Ungleichheit in den Verhältnissen vonKlasse, Rasse und Geschlecht”, in: Gudrun-Axeli Knapp / Angelika Wetterer (Hg.),Achsen der Differenz.Gesellschaftstheorie undfeministische Kritik. Bd. 2.Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot 2003.

“Die Dialektik der Aufklärung im Ge-schlechterverhältnis”, in: Sonja Asal / Jo-hannes Rohbeck (Hg.), Aufklärung undAufklärungskritik in Frankreich. Selbst-deutungen des 18. Jahrhunderts im Spiegelder Zeitgenossen.Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag 2003.

Krzysztof MichalskiRector, IWM“Plomien Wiecznosci. Metafora Ognia INietzsche” (“The Flame of Eternity. TheMetaphore of Fire and Nietzsche”), in:Rzeczpospolita, no. 31 (August 2003).

Anita TraningerManaging Director“Pararhetorik”, in: Historisches Wörterbuchder Rhetorik, hg. von Gert Ueding. Bd. 6.Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003.

Mieke VerlooResearch director, MAGEEQLecture: „Kompetenz und/oder Zustän-digkeit. Zum Verhältnis von Geschlechter-theorie und Gleichstellungspraxis“, Auf-takttagung zum Zusatzstudiengang „Gen-der-Kompetenz“ an der Freien UniversitätBerlin (6. Juni 2003).

Lecture on Second National Report on theNetherlands for CEDAW.Belle van Zuijlen Instituut, Universiteit vanAmsterdam (25 June 2003).

Seminar on Impact Assessment for middlemanagement of DG-JAI (European Com-mission), with Suzanne Baer, Brussels (27June 2003).

János Mátyás KovácsPermanent FellowPaper: “On the Culture of ‘Academic Re-membering’. How Economic Sciences Re-visit Communism in Eastern Europe” atthe conference Policies of Memory: Approa-ches to Communist and Other Legacies inCentral Europe after 1989, Institute for SlavicStudies, University of Aarhus (12 June, 2003).

Paper: “America versus Europe: A Choicewithout Alternatives” at the conferencePossible and Impossible Futures for Europe,Institute for Social and European Studies,Szombathely (3 July, 2003).

Krzysztof MichalskiRector, IWMTeilnahme an der Konferenz TransatlanticRelations at a Crossroads, Duitsland Insti-tuut Amsterdam (19.-20. Juni 2003).

Birgit SauerSenior Researcher, MAGEEQ-ProjektVortrag auf dem Workshop des ResearchNetworks on Gender Politics and the State,Universität Leiden, “Family Policy in Aus-tria in the nineties”, (12.-15. Juni 2003).

„Gender Studies in den Sozialwissen-schaften“. Workshop im Rahmen des Tem-pus/Tacis-Projekts „Gender Studies in derSoziologie“, an der St. Petersburg StateUniversity (20.-22. Juni 2003).

Vortrag im Interdisziplinären Forschungs-colloquium Grenzen-Übergänge. Zur Kul-turgeschichte der Geschlechterverhältnisse amZentrum für Interdisziplinäre Frauen- undGeschlechterforschung, TU Berlin: “Politikwird mit dem Kopfe gemacht. Aspekte derTabuisierung von Gefühlen in derPolitikwissenschaft”, Berlin (9. Juli 2003).

Cornelia KlingerPermanent FellowVortrag: “Utopie und/oder Illusion? EineErinnerung an den Feminismus und andere‘dirty words’”. Zur Eröffnung der TagungKompetenz und/oder Zuständigkeit? ZumVerhältnis von Geschlechtertheorie undGleichstellungspraxis, Auftakttagung desweiterbildenden postgradualen Zusatz-studiengangs Gender-Kompetenz (GeKo)an der FU Berlin (4. Juni 2003).

Travels and TalksIrena Grudzinska Gross has been ap-pointed Executive Director of the Insti-tute for Human Sciences at Boston Uni-versity as of October 1, 2003. Dr.Grudzinska Gross studied in Poland, Italyand the United States and received herPh.D in French and Romance Languagesfrom Columbia University (1982). She hasbeen an Associate Professor at the Gradu-ate Institute of Liberal Studies at EmoryUniversity and a Visiting Associate Profes-sor in Comparative Literature at New YorkUniversity. She is General Editor of theSociety and Culture in East Central EuropeSeries of the University of California Pressand a member of the Editorial Board ofEast European Politics and Societies and thePolish monthly Res Publica. Her books in-clude The Scar of Revolution: Tocqueville,Custine and the Romantic Imagination(1991), which had several editions in fourlanguages. She edited several books on lit-erature and the transformation process inCentral and Eastern Europe and is theauthor of over 40 book chapters and ar-ticles published on these subjects in theinternational press. In 1996, Dr. Grud-zinska Gross was awarded the Knight’sCross, Order of Merit of the Polish Re-public. Between 1998-2003, she was re-sponsible for the East-Central EuropeanProgram at the Ford Foundation and wasCo-Chair of the Board of Trustees of theTrust for Civil Society in Central and East-ern Europe.

Timothy Garton Ash, Senior ResearchFellow in contemporary European historyat the European Studies Center of St.Antony’s College at Oxford University andsenior fellow at the Hoover Institution,Stanford, and Ute Frevert, until recentlyprofessor of history in Bielefeld and nowprofessor of history at Yale University andmember of the jury for the Körber fellow-ships (see p. 10), have joined the IWMAcademic Advisory Board. A complete listof members is available atwww.iwm.at/i-board.htm.

Cornelia Klinger wurde im September2003 zur außerplanmäßigen Professorinfür Philosophie an der Eberhard Karls-Universität Tübingen ernannt.

Varia

25


Andrew W. MellonEast-Central EuropeanResearch VisitingFellowships 2004/2005 in theHumanities and SocialSciences

The Council of American OverseasResearch Centers (CAORC) and theInstitute for Human Sciences (IWM)jointly award Andrew W. Mellon Vis-iting Fellowships in the Humanitiesand Social Sciences. The three-monthfellowships, funded by the AndrewW. Mellon Foundation, will enablescholars from Eastern and CentralEurope to work in Vienna on re-search projects of their choice withinthe framework of the scholarly com-munity and activities of the IWM.

Andrew W. Mellon Visiting Fellowsare invited to spend three months atthe IWM to pursue their researchprojects while working in residence atthe institute. The fellows will receivea stipend of EUR 7.630,- (paid inthree installments) to cover living ex-penses, travel, health insurance andincidentals. The IWM will provideAndrew W. Mellon Visiting Fellowswith a guest apartment, an officewith personal computer and access toe-mail and internet, in-house researchfacilities and other relevant sources inVienna. Fellowship terms are July –September 2004; October – Decem-ber 2004; January – March 2005;and April – June 2005.

The IWM is accepting applicationsfrom scholars from Bulgaria, theCzech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania,and Slovakia for its Andrew W.Mellon Visiting Fellowships. Thecandidates- must permanently reside in one of

the countries concerned- must have obtained a Ph.D. and- should hold a senior academic posi-

tion (at least associate professorlevel).

The fellowships are intended foryounger postdoctoral scholars and,although there is no specific age limit,preference will be given to those un-der 45 years of age.

Research projects must be themati-cally related to the IWM’s researchfields. Detailed information can befound under www.iwm.at or is avail-able upon request.

A jury of experts will evaluate the ap-plications and select the finalists.Members of the jury are:

Ira KatznelsonRuggles Professor of Political Science andHistory at Columbia University, NewYork

Krzysztof MichalskiProfessor of Philosophy, Boston Univer-sity and University of Warsaw; Rector,IWM

Charles TaylorProfessor emeritus of Philosophy, McGillUniversity, Montreal; Professor of Phi-losophy and Law, Northwestern Uni-versity, Chicago

1

Ob

jec

tiv

eC

on

dit

ion

s

2

The application consists of the fol-lowing materials:

Deadline for application isDecember 1, 2003 (date of receipt).

Please send the application by mail to

Institut für die Wissenschaftenvom MenschenFellowship CoordinatorSpittelauer Lände 3A-1090 Wien, Austria

Advance copies by e-mail are eligible:[email protected] header: Mellon Fellowships

Applicants will be notified of the jurydecision in early 2004; it is not re-quired for the jury to publicly justifyits decisions.



D E A D L I N E

1 December, 2003

Institut für dieWissenschaftenvom MenschenInstitute forHuman Sciences

In cooperation with:

Council ofAmericanOverseasResearch Centers

1.

2.

3.

4.

the application form (pleasedownload from www.iwm.at/f-mellon.htm or request by fax:+43-1-313 58-30 or e-mail:[email protected])a concise research proposal in En-glish (max. 4 pages, doublespaced,A4)a curriculum vitae and list of pub-lications andnames of two referees familiar withthe applicant’s academic work

Eli

gib

ilit

y

3

Ju

ry

4

5

Ap

pli

ca

tio

nN

oti

fic

ati

on

6

26


TO BE THE BENEFICIARY of an action is less gloriousthan to be the benefactor, because it hints at power-lessness and dependence. But to be the victim of acrime is obviously more respectable than being acriminal. And while no one wants to be a victim,many people nowadays want to have been a victim:they aspire to victim status.

Victimhood confers a right to complain, pro-test, and demand. It is in your best interest to retainthe role of the victim, rather than receive reparation.Instead of a one-time satisfaction, you retain a per-manent privilege.

What is true about individuals is even truer ofgroups. If it can be convincingly shown that agroup has been the victim of a past injustice, thegroup in question obtains a bottomless line of moralcredit. The greater the crime in the past, the morecompelling the rights in the present – which aregained merely through membership in thewronged group.

Of course, we now recognize more clearly thanever that history has always been written by thevictors, which gave rise in recent decades to fre-quent demands that the history of the victims andthe defeated be written, at least next to that of thevictors. This is an entirely legitimate demand, be-cause it invites us to become familiar with a previ-ously ignored past. However, speaking in the nameof victims doesn’t bring additional ethical merit.

Indeed, no moral benefit can be derived fromevoking the past if we fail to realize our group’sshortcomings or errors. But doing so is problematic.For example, in 1995 the Smithsonian Institutionin Washington sought to take a fresh look at theEnola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomicbomb on Hiroshima. John Dower, an Americanhistorian and specialist of modern Japan, studiedthe issue at length. He demonstrated how historycan be presented and valued in totally differentways: from an American or Japanese point of view,even though no one is making up facts or falsifyingsources. Selection and combination of data is enough.

For the Americans, there was „a heroic or tri-umphant account in which atomic bombs repre-sent the final blow against an aggressive, fanatic,and savage enemy.“ From the Japanese perspective,there was an „account of victimization,“ in which„atomic bombs have become the symbol of a spe-cific type of suffering – rather similar to the Holo-caust for the Jews.“

The Lunchbox and the BombAt the Hiroshima museum itself, the victim

role has been exploited in ways that similarly distortmemory. Neither the Japanese government’s re-sponsibility for initiating and continuing the warnor the inhumane treatment that prisoners of waror the subject civilian populations suffered underJapanese rule are adequately acknowledged.

Everyone chooses the point of view that fitshim best. Whether we identify with the heroes orthe victims, with the pilots of the plane that put anend to WWII or with the passive population sub-jected to the hell of atomic annihilation, we are al-ways rooting with the „innocents“ and the „goodguys.“

At the Smithsonian, the Enola Gay was to playa central role in an exhibition meant to depict theHiroshima bombing in all its complexity. However,due to the pressure of various US patriotic groups,the exhibition was canceled, because it was seen asan offense against memory. By failing to depict theAmericans in the role of heroic benefactors, it sug-gested that they were responsible for a massacre thatcould not be totally justified.

What would an account about evil be like ifthe author refused to identify himself with eitherthe hero or the victim? Dower’s research into thedifferent ways Americans and Japanese rememberHiroshima provides us with a good example. Hecould identify with both groups: he belongs to oneand his work has made him intimately familiar withthe other. The title he gave to his version of the facts,after trying out “Hiroshima as a victimization“ (theJapanese point of view) and “Hiroshima as a tri-umph“ (the American point of view), was“Hiroshima as a tragedy.“

Tragedy: the word signifies not only sufferingand distress, but the impossibility of redemption.Whatever path is chosen, in a tragedy tears anddeath inevitably follow. The cause of the Alliedforces was undoubtedly superior to that of the Na-zis or the Japanese, and the war against them wasjust and necessary. However, even “just” wars pro-voke tragedies that cannot be dismissed lightly un-der the pretense that it was the enemy that sufferedthem.

The 12-year-old child’s lunchbox blasted atHiroshima, preserved by chance, with its rice andpeas charred by the atomic explosion, weighs asmuch on our conscience as the Enola Gay. Indeed, itwas the display of the box among the artifacts that

Tzvetan Todorov, Directorof research at the CentreNational de la RechercheScientifique (CNRS) inParis, is the author mostrecently of “Hope andMemory,” published byPrinceton University Press.

GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Each anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reminds us that memory is not morally

neutral. It leans towards good or evil, and four main perspectives powerfully shape every historical

account: the benefactor or his beneficiary, and the malefactor or his victim. Tzvetan Todorov, guest of

the IWM in June, ponders the question how memories of malefactors and victims can be balanced.

27


the Hiroshima museum lent to the American insti-tution that made the exhibition unacceptable tothe former „heroes.“

Only if one musters the courage to envision thebomber and the lunchbox at the same time is itpossible to comprehend the tragic vision of historythat Hiroshima – like other episodes that haveseared our modern conscience – most clearly repre-sents.

This piece appeared in a series of commentariesproduced in collaboration with Project Syndicate, anassociation of 185 newspapers in 94 countries.www.project-syndicate.org

Tzvetan Todorov GUEST CONTRIBUTION

28


EUROPE’S CHURCHES may be empty, but re-ligion still incites heated debate, this timeabout its place in Europe’s constitution.Demands that the constitution includesome explicit reference to Europe’s Chris-tian heritage have prompted ValéryGiscard d’Estaing, the chairman of theconstitutional convention, to ponder add-ing one to the constitution’s preamble.Others want Europe to affirm its secularnature. What role should the secular andthe sacred play in the European Union’sfundamental law?

Some time ago, the Convention ap-proved Article 37 of the future EuropeanConstitution. Taken together with Article10 of Europe’s Charter of FundamentalRights, these two articles define the frame-work of Church-State relations in the EU.

Unsurprisingly, religious freedom isgiven prominence. Every European citi-zen has the right to practice the religion ofhis or her choice, to adopt another reli-gion, or to practice no religion. Underly-ing this notion is the paramount positionof individual conscience, which carrieswith it the right of every person to makehis or her own decisions on religious mat-ters, without that choice resulting in nega-tive legal consequences. Whether Catho-lic, Protestant, or Orthodox, believer oratheist, civil and political rights must beequally apportioned regardless of a citi-zen’s choice of religion or conscience.

The second guiding principle con-cerns the autonomy of religious commu-nities. The EU recognizes the “identityand specific contribution” of churches toEuropean life. That language is, of course,a little vague, but it means that religiouscommunities have characteristics that dis-tinguish them from other associations andinstitutions – and that Europe is preparedto respect these distinctions.

The third principle Article 37 estab-lishes is that a “regular dialogue” will bemaintained between the Union andEurope’s religious communities (as well asphilosophical and non-confessional orga-nizations). Separation of church and state

REFLECTION GROUP

One controversy surrounding the draft constitution for the European Union is whether or not to

include an explicit reference to Europe’s Christian heritage in its preamble. Silvio Ferrari, a noted

scholar of Church-State relations and member of the reflection group on “The Spiritual and Cultural

Dimension of Europe”, dissects the issues.

The Secular and the Sacred in Europe’s Constitutiondoes not mean mutual ignorance. Thecommon good benefits more from open,transparent dialogue than by turning adeaf ear to religion – that is, provided thatthe borders between religion and politicsare clearly defined. The state’s laicité –fundamental in most European countries– does not require isolating churches inpolitical ghettoes.

Finally, the EU undertakes to respectand not prejudice “the status under na-tional law of churches and religious asso-ciations or communities in the MemberStates.” In other words, the boundaries ofreligious autonomy and cooperation withchurches are matters that should primarilybe framed in law by the EU’s members.

This means that the EU will not in-terfere with the national systems ofchurch-state relations that now exist, andwill refrain from imposing a commonmodel of church-state relations. Polandand Italy can maintain their concordatswith the Catholic Church, France will notbe compelled to abandon its century-longseparation of church and state, and QueenElizabeth II can continue to head theChurch of England. Defining thechurch-state system and its principal fea-tures is a right of the citizens of each EUmember state.

In essence, Article 10 of the Charterof Fundamental Rights and Article 37 ofthe draft Constitution constitute a coher-ent model, reflecting characteristics thatare largely part of a common Europeanheritage: religious liberty, autonomy of re-ligious communities, church-state coop-eration, and respect for the specific differ-ences in various member states.

Of course, improvements are pos-sible. Equal treatment of religious com-munities is not mentioned in the text pre-pared by the European Convention. Al-though granting equal treatment is prima-rily a task of EU states, omitting this prin-ciple from the Constitution endangers notonly the principle of equality, but that ofreligious liberty as well. If there is no equal-ity, religious liberty is at risk.

Moreover, the nature of church-statecooperation could, perhaps, be definedmore explicitly by drawing clear distinc-tions between what constitutes the spiri-tual and the secular. Regular dialogue withreligious communities, though a goodthing, should not be extended to purelysecular areas.

It is here that efforts to include a refer-ence to Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritagein the preamble of the Constitution mustbe considered dispassionately. Of course,European civilization arises from a synthe-sis of religious and humanistic values. TheJudeo-Christian tradition, the legacies ofGreece and Rome, and the Enlighten-ment are all at the root of the way manyEuropeans regard their lives, although along process of secularization has made itmore difficult to discern this relationship.

But mentioning a specific religioustradition in Europe’s Constitution is du-bious. It would be largely symbolic and,although symbols are important and helpto foster unity, they are dangerous whenthey exclude and divide. A considerablepart of Europe’s Muslim communitywould certainly feel marginalized if such areference were included in the future Eu-ropean Constitution, which will also betheir Constitution. This would be a bo-nanza for Muslim fundamentalists, andcould be exploited by all who want to pre-vent the development of a moderate,modern European Islam.

Silvio Ferrari is Professor of Church and StateRelations at the Università degli Studi diMilano.Silvio Ferrari is Professor of Church andState Relations at the Università degli Studi diMilano. He is currently a member of the ComitatoNazionale di Bioetica, an advisory body to theItalian Prime Minister. Professor Ferraripublished over 160 articles as well as a numberof books, including most recently Ebraismo,cristianesimo e islam a confronto (Bologna,2002).

29


PUBLIC OPINION POLLS show a dramatic decline insupport for enlargement within the current EUmember states. Whether or not the crisis of Euro-pean solidarity is real is a fundamental question,because the EU will not survive without solidarity,at least not as we know it.

The sense of equality and solidarity is a neces-sary foundation of any democratic community. Inthe 1950’s the British sociologist T. S. Marshallwrote about the progress of rights, from civil rightsin the 18th century, to political (democratic) rightsin the 19th century, to social rights in the 20th cen-tury. These three dimensions – liberal, democraticand social – describe the modern European nationstate.

Solidarity played the most central role in the20th century. Indeed, it was the driving force be-hind the development of the European countriesin the wake of World War II, and led to their trans-formation into “social states” emphasizing social se-curity and a variety of welfare programs. We canmeasure this “institutionalized solidarity” in a na-tion state by the share of redistribution in its GDP.

There is also another level of solidarity, whichwe can call universal or global solidarity. Its impor-tance – reflected in various forms of internationalaid – has been very limited until now. Its objectiveis not to ensure the equality of citizens’ rights, but toguarantee minimum life conditions. Humanitarianinterventions – much discussed in the 1990’s – areanother manifestation of this global solidarity.

Between citizen solidarity at the nation-statelevel and humanitarian solidarity on the global levellies a third level of solidarity which is most interest-ing for Europeans – the EU level. In its early yearsthe European Community was mainly concernedwith peace, stability and democracy. But institu-tionalized solidarity has become increasingly im-portant in European consolidation and intra-Euro-pean redistribution played a key role in the mod-ernization of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Greece.

At the same time, the Zeitgeist has turnedagainst the ideals of solidarity since the 1970’s. Soli-darity has lost ground against new demands of in-dividual freedom, and even more against the im-perative of economic efficiency, which became evermore pressing as a result of globalization. A “revoltof the middle classes” that increasingly refuse to payfor society’s “underdogs” is accompanied by bud-

Europe’s Solidarity under Siegegetary constraints that can also make solidarity seema luxury.

The demands of solidarity are even more diffi-cult to sustain when they require inter-state redistri-bution. A refusal to carry the transfer costs associ-ated with multinational states contributed to the“velvet divorce” between the Czech Republic andSlovakia and the dramatic breakdown of ex-Yugo-slavia. Similar tensions exist in some West Europeancountries (Belgium, Spain, Italy) as well.

EU enlargement, with the prospect of in-creased cross-national redistribution, thus exposesparticularly thorny issues of European solidarity.The promised annual EU payments to the candi-date members are far below those made to currentmembers. Poland, for example, will get about 67euros per year per capita during 2004-2006, Hun-gary will receive 49 euros, and the Czech Republicwill get just 29 euros. By contrast, Greece received437 euros per capita in 2000, Ireland got 418 eu-ros, and Portugal was paid 211 euros.

To be sure, Europe, with its sluggish growth,feels less rich than in the past, when the earlier ac-cession deals were negotiated. But the difference intreatment of the current candidate countries doesnot just reflect budgetary problems. The changingattitudes of citizens of the more developed memberstates and the weakening of the sense of obligationentailed by solidarity are also responsible (probablyprimarily so).

The sense of solidarity between the candidatecountries and current EU members is further weak-ened by the problem of external security. The acces-sion states only recently regained their indepen-dence, and so retain a feeling of uncertainty as totheir security. These jitters contributed to the sup-port they gave to the US position on Iraq, which inturn provoked the irritation of some Western Euro-pean leaders and the decline of public support inthe member states for EU enlargement.

Yet another potentially important source offraying European solidarity is the changing archi-tecture of the EU. Status differentiation is progres-sively replacing the model of equal rights and obli-gations of all member states. Ten years ago,Wolfgang Schäuble and Karl Lamers suggested theformation of a “core Europe,” a group of countriesthat would speed up integration among them-selves. Similar ideas, especially concerning security

Aleksander Smolar isPresident of the StefanBatory Foundation, War-saw, and Senior Re-searcher at the CentreNational de la RechercheScientifique in Paris.

GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Is the European Union’s solidarity fracturing? After bruising enlargement negotiations and internal

differences over Iraq, and with similar divisions surrounding the new EU constitution and the

common European foreign and defense policy, one might well think just that. Aleksander Smolar was

invited by the reflection group to give a presentation on the consequences of Enlargement for a

European solidarity.

30


and foreign policy have proliferated eversince. Such a tendency can contribute to afurther weakening of solidarity and deep-ening of intra-European divisions.

The process of differentiation – in-evitable to some extent, given the numberand the diversity of member states – is alsoreinforced by the attitude of the new en-trants. “Return to Europe” is no longer thebattle cry of the new post-communist de-mocracies. Public debates now focus onfinancial support from the EU and thestatus of individual nation states, ratherthan European destiny and common Eu-ropean projects.

There are fears on both sides. This isunderstandable, given the scope of en-largement and the need for an internaltransformation of the Union. But thesefears and the atmosphere of suspicionmust be overcome. Mutual trust must bereinforced. The constitutional debate inthe next several months should focus onthese major questions: why and howEurope’s peoples want to live together.The concept of solidarity should obvi-ously be central to this debate.

The members of the reflection group havebeen invited to write commentaries to be

published in cooperation with the newspaperassociation Project Syndicate. During springand summer 2003, the columns written so farby group members and invited experts havebeen published more than 60 times (includingnewspapers in Germany, Austria, Poland,Slovakia, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, theUSA, Ukraine, Cyprus, Kazachstan, Latvia,Serbia, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Luxemburg,Finland, Nicaragua, Argentina, Uruguay, India,Costa Rica, El Salvador, Congo, Pakistan, Tai-wan, Paraguay, Nepal, Niger, Bangladesh,Ecuador, South Korea, and Thailand). The textscan be found on the IWM website atwww.iwm.at/r-reflec.htm.

Aleksander Smolar GUEST CONTRIBUTION

31


Upcoming EventsThe following events will take place at theIWM library at 6 p.m. if not statedotherwise.

October 14Alberto Quadrio CurzioProfessor of Political Economics, UniversitàCattolica, Milano; Member of theReflection Group on “The Spiritual andCultural Dimension of Europe”The European Union: Growth, Institutions,ConstitutionIn Zusammenarbeit mit

October 21Yehuda ElkanaPresident of the Central European Univer-sity, BudapestThe Education of a “Caring” Scientist:Rethinking the Foundations of theSciences

Wednesday, October 22Madeleine K. Albrightpräsentiert ihre Autobiographie18:30 UhrPalais Schwarzenberg, Marmorsaal1030 Wien, Schwarzenbergplatz 9

October 28Peter DemetzSterling Professor emeritus of German andComparative Literatur, Yale University,New HavenDie Prager Filmproduktion in den Jahrender Okkupation: Gedächtnis undVergessen

November 4Reihe: Die Rolle des StaatesYasemin SoysalProfessor of Sociology,University of EssexLocating EuropeIn Zusammenarbeit mit derGrünen Bildungswerkstatt

November 11Heiko HaumannOrdinarius für Osteuropäische und NeuereAllgemeine Geschichte, Universität BaselDracula. Von Vampiren in Osteuropa

November 18Fanny CosandeyProfesseur d’Histoire, Université de NantesLa reine de France, un personnageessentiel du fonctionnement monarchique(XIVe – XVIIIe siècle)In Zusammenarbeit mit

Thursday, November 20Géza HorváthBudapest/Szeged; Paul Celan VisitingFellow 2002Nietzsches Ecce homo ungarisch19 Uhr s.tCollegium Hungaricum1020 Wien, Hollandstraße 4,In Zusammenarbeit mit derÖsterreichischen Nietzsche-Gesellschaftund dem Collegium Hungaricum

November 25Reihe: Bruchlinien der UngleichheitWolfgang KerstingOrdinarius für Philosophie und Direktoram Philosophischen Seminar, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielNotwendige Gleichheiten, berechtigteUngleichheiten. Das Gleichheitsproblemin der Sozialstaatsphilosophie und derMultikulturalismusdiskussionIn Zusammenarbeit mit

December 2Jan SokolDekan der Fakultät für Human-wissenschaften, Karls-Universität PragWie natürlich sind die Menschenrechte?

December 9David WilletsMember of Parliament, London; ShadowWork and Pensions SecretaryConservatism in Britain, Europeand AmericaIn Zusammenarbeit mit

Current Exhibition at the IWMHerr Kowalski – Wienarium 2003Photos by Tomasz Ganko in association withSergiusz Zembrzuskiwww.footage.pl

Die folgenden Veranstaltungen finden um18:00 Uhr in der Bibliothek des IWM statt,wenn nicht anders angegeben.

32

ImpressumResponsible for thecontens of the IWMNewsletter:Institute for HumanSciences © IWM 2003

EditorAnita Traninger

Editorial AssistanceKerstin Krenn

Production Manager,LayoutIris Strohschein

PhotosIWM, Petra Spiola,David Stork (Transit 5)

DesignGerri Zotter

AddressIWMSpittelauer Lände 3A - 1090 WienTel. (+431) 31358-0Fax. (+431) 31358-30www.iwm.atThe IWM Newsletter ispublished four times ayear. Current circulation:6200. Printed by Rema Print.

Saturday, November 8, 18:30Opening of the conferenceBenita Ferrero-WaldnerAustrian Foreign MinisterRoswaida Al-MaaitahJordanian Minister for Social Development

Keynote speechCharles TaylorProfessor for Philosophy and Law, NorthwesternUniversity, Chicago; chairman of the IWM AcademicAdvisory Board

Sunday, November 9, 10:30 – 17:30Session I:Is There a Common Moral Basis forInter-Cultural Understanding?Session II:The Public Role of the Media in a CulturallyDiverse World

Participants include:Arjun AppaduraiWilliam K. Lanman Jr. Professor of InternationalStudies; Director, Initiative on “Cities andGlobalization”, Yale University, New HavenMichael GrabnerDeputy Chairman of the Executive Board „Verlags-gruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH“, StuttgartDaoud KuttabDirector, Institute of Modern Media at Al QudsUniversity in Ramallah, PalestineAdam MichnikEditor-in-chief, Gazeta Wyborcza, WarsawAlan RusbridgerEditor, Guardian, LondonAbduljalil SajidImam; Chair of the Muslim Council of Religious andRacial Harmony in Great BritainLord WeidenfeldOrion Publishing Group, LondonElizabeth Weymouth-GrahamColumnist, Washington Post; Member of the Board,Washington-Post Company, New Yorkand others

International Symposium8–9 November 2003

MuseumsQuartier Wien7., Museumsplatz 1

How far the world we live in extends depends to agreat extent on the knowledge we receive throughthe media. To an ever increasing degree the mediadecides what will appear within the horizons ofour interest and solidarity and what will remain inthe shadows of our ignorance. These are oftenmajor issues, touching on decisions about wealthand poverty, health and disease, life and death.

The media also influences how we perceive‘the other’: people with different traditions, reli-gious beliefs, or cultures. This can have an effecton our own self-understanding, thus influencingdecisions about war and peace or the way we orga-nize our society.

Is there common moral ground that can pro-vide a framework, a point of reference for debate,for the resolution of conflicts, for communicationand understanding between the different culturesco-existing in the world today? A basis that wouldencourage us to overcome our ignorance and tolimit the strangeness of ‘the other’? Could the me-dia define its public role in the context of such acommon basis by moving beyond the rules ofpower and the market?

the

and the

Cul

tura

l D

iver

sity

Public Role of the Media

Quest for Common Moral Ground

Program and registration:www.iwm.at

Bundesministerium

für auswärtige Angelegenheiten

Documents

George Steiner: The Paradox of Culture - IWM · Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen Institute for Human Sciences A-1090 Wien Spittelauer Lände 3 Tel. (+431) 313 58-0 Fax