People often expect salvation or doom from the same source, be that some sort of divine power or technological invention, for instance. Certain innovations can be viewed as promising or threatening, depending on the viewpoint. In recent times, there has been a distinctive re-evaluation of the role of new information technology and social media for democracy. What seemed to rescue and reinvigorate democracy in the turn of the millennium is now regarded as its nemesis. How did this come about? During the 1990s, in the early days of the Internet, the network was seen in political research as a sphere of freedom in which democratic civic debate would increase, grassroots views of individuals would surface, and new communities would emerge among like-minded people, regardless of location and nationality. The state’s official policy of ‘one truth’ could be challenged and the abuses of those in power, big business, and the authorities could be exposed. This is in marked contrast with the current narrative of threat to democracy currently connected to the Internet and social media. The Internet was supposed to break the state information monopoly, as well as challenge the mainstream media and provide an open democratic platform for citizens. The mainstream media could no longer hide inconvenient truths or suppress dissenting voices. The gatekeeper role of media could be diverted. Vertical power relations would have to give way to horizontal communities. The increase in citizens’ discussion platforms was seen as deepening and expanding democracy and the ideal conditions for free deliberative democracy would allegedly emerge with Internet. Today, many aspects of the Internet, such as hacking, information warfare, and the power vested in Internet platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, emerge rather as threats than salvation for democracy. The bliss of free access to information has turned into fear of false information, censorship, conspiracy theories, and hate speech. Horizontal communities of like-minded people, independent of time, place, and states, have begun to be seen as threats. It is therefore important to look critically at this change: are there grounds for past technooptimism and, on the other hand, for current technophobia? In the early days of the Internet it was likened to uncharted territory and wild frontier by its first generation of visionaries. It was first and foremost seen as a marketplace of ideas and information, in which the libertarian ideals of freedom and equality would prevail. Anonymity Korvela, Paul-Erik. 2021. “From Utopia to Dystopia: Will the Internet Save or Destroy Democracy?” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 24(1), 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.352 REDESCRIPTIONS
{"title":"From Utopia to Dystopia: Will the Internet Save or Destroy Democracy?","authors":"Paul-Erik Korvela","doi":"10.33134/rds.352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.352","url":null,"abstract":"People often expect salvation or doom from the same source, be that some sort of divine power or technological invention, for instance. Certain innovations can be viewed as promising or threatening, depending on the viewpoint. In recent times, there has been a distinctive re-evaluation of the role of new information technology and social media for democracy. What seemed to rescue and reinvigorate democracy in the turn of the millennium is now regarded as its nemesis. How did this come about? During the 1990s, in the early days of the Internet, the network was seen in political research as a sphere of freedom in which democratic civic debate would increase, grassroots views of individuals would surface, and new communities would emerge among like-minded people, regardless of location and nationality. The state’s official policy of ‘one truth’ could be challenged and the abuses of those in power, big business, and the authorities could be exposed. This is in marked contrast with the current narrative of threat to democracy currently connected to the Internet and social media. The Internet was supposed to break the state information monopoly, as well as challenge the mainstream media and provide an open democratic platform for citizens. The mainstream media could no longer hide inconvenient truths or suppress dissenting voices. The gatekeeper role of media could be diverted. Vertical power relations would have to give way to horizontal communities. The increase in citizens’ discussion platforms was seen as deepening and expanding democracy and the ideal conditions for free deliberative democracy would allegedly emerge with Internet. Today, many aspects of the Internet, such as hacking, information warfare, and the power vested in Internet platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, emerge rather as threats than salvation for democracy. The bliss of free access to information has turned into fear of false information, censorship, conspiracy theories, and hate speech. Horizontal communities of like-minded people, independent of time, place, and states, have begun to be seen as threats. It is therefore important to look critically at this change: are there grounds for past technooptimism and, on the other hand, for current technophobia? In the early days of the Internet it was likened to uncharted territory and wild frontier by its first generation of visionaries. It was first and foremost seen as a marketplace of ideas and information, in which the libertarian ideals of freedom and equality would prevail. Anonymity Korvela, Paul-Erik. 2021. “From Utopia to Dystopia: Will the Internet Save or Destroy Democracy?” Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 24(1), 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.352 REDESCRIPTIONS","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49420492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
On 6 January 2021, a mob of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol building in Washington, DC, to challenge the final certification of the electoral victory of President-elect Joe Biden.1 Inspired by the morning speech of then President Donald Trump, the supporters made their way to the Capitol building to ‘stop the steal’2 and to ‘take back their country’. During the attempted insurrection, five people were killed, including a police officer, and the historical premises of the Capitol were seriously damaged. Pipe bombs and other weapons were also found nearby, demonstrating a premeditated potential use of deadly force. In this context of this political uprising and right-wing populist attempts to overturn the election results, it is truly interesting to read ‘Violence and Political Theory’, written by Elisabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings. The book examines in detail the conceptual relationships between politics and violence, and how different political theorists attempt to settle and resolve these ties. This discussion paves the way for the political theory of violence that the authors propose at the end of the book, based on an analysis of the practice and meaning of violence. Moreover, the authors show that it is common to aestheticise violence in political theory or to incorporate it into some other category ‘such as resistance, revolution, justice, punishment, self-defence, sovereignty, the gendered martial virtues and vices of courage or cowardice, or the aesthetic categories of tragedy and beauty’ (Frazer and Hutchings 2020, 176). Violence, as Fraser and Hutchings argue, ‘becomes more palatable when it takes the form of rectifying egregious wrongs and is provoked by a sense of immediate injustice in the innocent oppressed’ (Fraser and Hutchings 2020, 177). Indirectly, the book also shows how these strategies of justification materialise and come alive in events such as the storming of the Capitol, as the Trump supporters perhaps believed that they were justified in their actions for the purpose of ‘taking back the country’.
{"title":"Book review: Violence and Political Theory by Elizabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings, Polity Press, 2020, 229 pages. ISBN-13:978-1-5095-3671-9","authors":"Elina Penttinen","doi":"10.33134/rds.350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.350","url":null,"abstract":"On 6 January 2021, a mob of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol building in Washington, DC, to challenge the final certification of the electoral victory of President-elect Joe Biden.1 Inspired by the morning speech of then President Donald Trump, the supporters made their way to the Capitol building to ‘stop the steal’2 and to ‘take back their country’. During the attempted insurrection, five people were killed, including a police officer, and the historical premises of the Capitol were seriously damaged. Pipe bombs and other weapons were also found nearby, demonstrating a premeditated potential use of deadly force. In this context of this political uprising and right-wing populist attempts to overturn the election results, it is truly interesting to read ‘Violence and Political Theory’, written by Elisabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings. The book examines in detail the conceptual relationships between politics and violence, and how different political theorists attempt to settle and resolve these ties. This discussion paves the way for the political theory of violence that the authors propose at the end of the book, based on an analysis of the practice and meaning of violence. Moreover, the authors show that it is common to aestheticise violence in political theory or to incorporate it into some other category ‘such as resistance, revolution, justice, punishment, self-defence, sovereignty, the gendered martial virtues and vices of courage or cowardice, or the aesthetic categories of tragedy and beauty’ (Frazer and Hutchings 2020, 176). Violence, as Fraser and Hutchings argue, ‘becomes more palatable when it takes the form of rectifying egregious wrongs and is provoked by a sense of immediate injustice in the innocent oppressed’ (Fraser and Hutchings 2020, 177). Indirectly, the book also shows how these strategies of justification materialise and come alive in events such as the storming of the Capitol, as the Trump supporters perhaps believed that they were justified in their actions for the purpose of ‘taking back the country’.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45679087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article engages Judith Butler’s Parting Ways as a way to rethink the relations between critique and belonging as two aspects of contemporary political subjectivities. I argue that for Butler critique is an action performed by corporeal subjects. As such, it depends on cohabitation being an ontological condition. Belonging, in the sense of sharing a place with others, assesses an affirmative stance – the commitment to safeguard the common conditions for a plurality of lives. The first part of the article regards Butler’s theorization of cohabitation and plurality as a framework in which the corporeal and embodied relations with others who share a place serve as a condition for critique rather than its limit. I argue that Butler’s Arendtian social ontology aims to offer a vision of political subjectivity that differs from contemporary forms of subjectivation. I further argue that in order to promote such vision of political subjectivity, a detailed description of cohabitation is required as a multi-layered affective and emotional relation with one’s surroundings. The second part of the article focuses on how Butler performs in her text this alternative vision of political subjectivity that affirms pluralization as a normative principle. By studying Butler’s account of her Jewishness as well as textual practices shaping the text, I argue that belonging can become a formative aspect of the critical subject through the acts of norms on one’s body as well as by critical engagement.
{"title":"Critical Belonging: Cohabitation, Plurality, and Critique in Butler’s Parting Ways","authors":"Miri Rozmarin","doi":"10.33134/rds.340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.340","url":null,"abstract":"This article engages Judith Butler’s Parting Ways as a way to rethink the relations between critique and belonging as two aspects of contemporary political subjectivities. I argue that for Butler critique is an action performed by corporeal subjects. As such, it depends on cohabitation being an ontological condition. Belonging, in the sense of sharing a place with others, assesses an affirmative stance – the commitment to safeguard the common conditions for a plurality of lives. The first part of the article regards Butler’s theorization of cohabitation and plurality as a framework in which the corporeal and embodied relations with others who share a place serve as a condition for critique rather than its limit. I argue that Butler’s Arendtian social ontology aims to offer a vision of political subjectivity that differs from contemporary forms of subjectivation. I further argue that in order to promote such vision of political subjectivity, a detailed description of cohabitation is required as a multi-layered affective and emotional relation with one’s surroundings. The second part of the article focuses on how Butler performs in her text this alternative vision of political subjectivity that affirms pluralization as a normative principle. By studying Butler’s account of her Jewishness as well as textual practices shaping the text, I argue that belonging can become a formative aspect of the critical subject through the acts of norms on one’s body as well as by critical engagement.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46344081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the vast secondary literature on Carl Schmitt as well as on the Frankfurt School, the political and legal thinker Otto Kirchheimer is described as a forerunner of contemporary Left-Schmittianism. This view is sometimes expanded in the literature to the personal relationship between Schmitt and Kirchheimer after 1945 as well. A closer look at Kirchheimer’s late work, at his unpublished correspondence with Schmitt, and at additional unpublished sources contradicts such an interpretation. In fact, Kirchheimer strongly attacked Schmittianism in German debates on constitutional theory after 1945. This article finally uncovers the extent to which Schmitt tried to instrumentalize his former doctoral student to pursue his political rehabilitation in the Federal Republic via the United States. Kirchheimer, however, took a firm stand against this attempt. In his defense of modern parliamentary democracy, Kirchheimer definitely sided with the political left of his times; but he did so without any flirtation with Schmittianism.
{"title":"The Godfather of Left-Schmittianism? Otto Kirchheimer and Carl Schmitt after 1945","authors":"Hubertus Buchstein","doi":"10.33134/rds.320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.320","url":null,"abstract":"In the vast secondary literature on Carl Schmitt as well as on the Frankfurt School, the political and legal thinker Otto Kirchheimer is described as a forerunner of contemporary Left-Schmittianism. This view is sometimes expanded in the literature to the personal relationship between Schmitt and Kirchheimer after 1945 as well. A closer look at Kirchheimer’s late work, at his unpublished correspondence with Schmitt, and at additional unpublished sources contradicts such an interpretation. In fact, Kirchheimer strongly attacked Schmittianism in German debates on constitutional theory after 1945. This article finally uncovers the extent to which Schmitt tried to instrumentalize his former doctoral student to pursue his political rehabilitation in the Federal Republic via the United States. Kirchheimer, however, took a firm stand against this attempt. In his defense of modern parliamentary democracy, Kirchheimer definitely sided with the political left of his times; but he did so without any flirtation with Schmittianism.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48087744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This text reviews Stephen Kalberg’s Searching for the Spirit of American Democracy: Max Weber’s Analysis of a Unique Political Culture, Past, Present, and Future, focusing on the twofold analysis Weber offered regarding the American Protestantism. The key idea Kalberg supports is that the famous “Protestant Ethic” should be read together with Weber’s less known essay on “The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism.”
{"title":"Book Review: Stephen Kalberg. 2016. Searching for the Spirit of American Democracy: Max Weber’s Analysis of a Unique Political Culture, Past, Present, and Future. Routledge. 176p. ISBN: 9781612054452","authors":"Yannis Ktenas","doi":"10.33134/rds.351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.351","url":null,"abstract":"This text reviews Stephen Kalberg’s Searching for the Spirit of American Democracy: Max Weber’s Analysis of a Unique Political Culture, Past, Present, and Future, focusing on the twofold analysis Weber offered regarding the American Protestantism. The key idea Kalberg supports is that the famous “Protestant Ethic” should be read together with Weber’s less known essay on “The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism.”","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42862050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article suggests to read West German parliamentary debate on the first oil crisis as a semantic struggle on the concept of the West. Drawing on latest research, the West is considered to be a narrated concept with its meaning being negotiated upon when being evoked. Even though the West does not refer to any empirical reality, it is not an arbitrary concept either. Rather it repeatedly presents itself in three ideal typical narrative forms: being the civilisational, the modern and the political narrative. As shown by the analysis of the parliamentary protocols of the winter 1973/74, West German parliamentarians applied all of these narratives. However, with the civilisational narrative being referred to only marginally and the modern narrative applied with consent, it was foremost the political narrative that led to parliamentary dispute. Whereas the conservatives interpreted the political narrative in terms of the Cold War geopolitics, the social-liberal government under Chancellor Willy Brandt tried to renegotiate the political narrative by shifting focus to the European integration process. In West German parliamentary debate, the oil crisis of 1973 henceforth functioned as a catalyst for expressing different interpretations of the concept of the West, and above all, the political West. Against the background of the Cold War, these different interpretations of the political narrative of the West reflected the domestic struggle on German identity.
{"title":"Semantic Struggles in the Face of Crisis: ‘The West’ as Contested Key Concept in West German Parliamentary Debate (1973/74)","authors":"Ann-Judith Rabenschlag","doi":"10.33134/rds.353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.353","url":null,"abstract":"This article suggests to read West German parliamentary debate on the first oil crisis as a semantic struggle on the concept of the West. Drawing on latest research, the West is considered to be a narrated concept with its meaning being negotiated upon when being evoked. Even though the West does not refer to any empirical reality, it is not an arbitrary concept either. Rather it repeatedly presents itself in three ideal typical narrative forms: being the civilisational, the modern and the political narrative. As shown by the analysis of the parliamentary protocols of the winter 1973/74, West German parliamentarians applied all of these narratives. However, with the civilisational narrative being referred to only marginally and the modern narrative applied with consent, it was foremost the political narrative that led to parliamentary dispute. Whereas the conservatives interpreted the political narrative in terms of the Cold War geopolitics, the social-liberal government under Chancellor Willy Brandt tried to renegotiate the political narrative by shifting focus to the European integration process. In West German parliamentary debate, the oil crisis of 1973 henceforth functioned as a catalyst for expressing different interpretations of the concept of the West, and above all, the political West. Against the background of the Cold War, these different interpretations of the political narrative of the West reflected the domestic struggle on German identity.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69505577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: Gesammelte Schriften 1933–1936. Mit ergänzenden Beiträgen aus der Zeit des Zweiten Weltkrieges by Carl Schmitt, Duncker & Humblot, 2021, 572 pages. ISBN 978-3-428-15762-4","authors":"Hubertus Buchstein","doi":"10.33134/rds.356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.356","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69505595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The performance of naming social phenomena is a distinctive, if not the distinctive, feature of politics. This Aristotelian view is often understood in a quasi-biblical sense according to which naming is the key step for giving existence to things and elements. In the contemporary democratic age, the linguistic aspect of the process of representation is also often pointed to. In practice, political representation supposes indeed to name the represented and the representatives. Yet, a more general political meaning of the naming process can also be suggested. Linguistic conflicts on how to name a given group or a phenomenon do not necessarily create these groups and phenomena. Arguably, they contribute first and foremost to frame the collective understanding of what is at stake. Actors’ political strategies are therefore, in part, linguistic ones for imposing names, concepts and meanings. As other kinds of strategies, they may fail or win: the understanding of what is meant by a given word may or may not be challenged – as the degree of agreement on how to designate such group or such process.
{"title":"Everybody, Refugees, Assembly and the West: The Power of Naming","authors":"O. Rozenberg","doi":"10.33134/rds.365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.365","url":null,"abstract":"The performance of naming social phenomena is a distinctive, if not the distinctive, feature of politics. This Aristotelian view is often understood in a quasi-biblical sense according to which naming is the key step for giving existence to things and elements. In the contemporary democratic age, the linguistic aspect of the process of representation is also often pointed to. In practice, political representation supposes indeed to name the represented and the representatives. Yet, a more general political meaning of the naming process can also be suggested. Linguistic conflicts on how to name a given group or a phenomenon do not necessarily create these groups and phenomena. Arguably, they contribute first and foremost to frame the collective understanding of what is at stake. Actors’ political strategies are therefore, in part, linguistic ones for imposing names, concepts and meanings. As other kinds of strategies, they may fail or win: the understanding of what is meant by a given word may or may not be challenged – as the degree of agreement on how to designate such group or such process.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69505639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the names and naming of Finnish parliamentary institutions in relation to European debates, focusing on the period from the Diet of Porvoo in 1809 to the Constitution Act of 1919. The article presents a history of the adoption of the current names of the Finnish parliament – valtiopäivät and eduskunta in Finnish, riksdagen in Swedish, as well as a number of failed proposals. It analyzes how and why the names of the Finnish representative assembly were created and established. The article examines naming as a political act. The name formation was influenced by Finland’s position as a grand duchy of the Russian Empire and the constitutional and language tradition of its former mother country Sweden. However, naming of the assemblies took place in relation to wider European debates and developments. Political actors used translation and naming innovatively to (re)define, (re)describe and (re)conceptualize Finland’s status and national representation. The aim was to raise Finland and its nascent representation among European constitutional states and their parliamentary institutions. The article shows, for example, that valtiopäivät , applied since 1847 to the estate meeting in Porvoo in 1809, preceded the adoption of valtio as the Finnish word for the state, forming a crucial step in defining the Grand Duchy of Finland as a state.
本文考察了芬兰议会机构的名称和命名与欧洲辩论的关系，重点关注从1809年波尔沃议会到1919年宪法法案的时期。这篇文章介绍了芬兰议会目前的名称(芬兰语为valtiopäivät和eduskunta，瑞典语为riksdagen)的采用历史，以及一些失败的提案。它分析了芬兰代表大会的名称是如何以及为什么被创建和确立的。这篇文章将命名视为一种政治行为。这个名字的形成受到芬兰作为俄罗斯帝国大公国的地位以及其前母国瑞典的宪法和语言传统的影响。然而，会议的命名与更广泛的欧洲辩论和发展有关。政治行动者创新性地使用翻译和命名来(重新)定义、(重新)描述和(重新)概念化芬兰的地位和国家代表性。其目的是提高芬兰及其新生国家在欧洲立宪国家及其议会机构中的代表性。例如，这篇文章显示，valtiopäivät自1847年以来一直用于1809年波尔沃(Porvoo)的地产会议，在valtio被采用为芬兰语中的国家一词之前，形成了将芬兰大公国(Grand Duchy of Finland)定义为国家的关键一步。
{"title":"The (Re)Naming of the Finnish Representative Assembly 1809–1919: State-Building, Representation and Sovereignty","authors":"Onni Pekonen","doi":"10.33134/rds.348","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.348","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the names and naming of Finnish parliamentary institutions in relation to European debates, focusing on the period from the Diet of Porvoo in 1809 to the Constitution Act of 1919. The article presents a history of the adoption of the current names of the Finnish parliament – valtiopäivät and eduskunta in Finnish, riksdagen in Swedish, as well as a number of failed proposals. It analyzes how and why the names of the Finnish representative assembly were created and established. The article examines naming as a political act. The name formation was influenced by Finland’s position as a grand duchy of the Russian Empire and the constitutional and language tradition of its former mother country Sweden. However, naming of the assemblies took place in relation to wider European debates and developments. Political actors used translation and naming innovatively to (re)define, (re)describe and (re)conceptualize Finland’s status and national representation. The aim was to raise Finland and its nascent representation among European constitutional states and their parliamentary institutions. The article shows, for example, that valtiopäivät , applied since 1847 to the estate meeting in Porvoo in 1809, preceded the adoption of valtio as the Finnish word for the state, forming a crucial step in defining the Grand Duchy of Finland as a state.","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69505533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: Europa im 19. Jahrhundert by Willibald Steinmetz, Neue Fischer Weltgeschichte. Bd 6., S. Fischer, 2019, 762 pages. ISBN: 978-3-10-010826-5","authors":"Bo Stråth","doi":"10.33134/rds.355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33134/rds.355","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33650,"journal":{"name":"Redescriptions","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69505586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：