Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2182503
Maren Hachmeister
ABSTRACT Volunteering and care are concepts that have rarely been considered together in contemporary historical research. This article now combines both concepts in an examination of voluntary care practices in People’s Solidarity (PS, Volkssolidarität), an East German organization that has specialized in elder care since the post-war period. The study explores the motivations and perceptions of people who have volunteered in this organization from late socialism to the post-1989 transformation period. Having experienced both state-socialist and post-socialist East Germany, their particular notions of society, care, gender, ageing, and belonging have hardly been recorded so far. Their voices introduce alternative narratives of solidarity and agency, and thus contribute to a more nuanced understanding of East German transformation experiences. Revisiting informal care for the elderly is a subject that remains acutely relevant up to today. “Who cares for the elderly?” is a question these people have answered with determination and initiative over the past thirty years. The article explores the extent to which their practices of volunteering and caring intertwined with their diverse responses to the post-socialist transformation.
{"title":"Volunteering and care in old age: voices from People's Solidarity in East Germany","authors":"Maren Hachmeister","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2182503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2182503","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Volunteering and care are concepts that have rarely been considered together in contemporary historical research. This article now combines both concepts in an examination of voluntary care practices in People’s Solidarity (PS, Volkssolidarität), an East German organization that has specialized in elder care since the post-war period. The study explores the motivations and perceptions of people who have volunteered in this organization from late socialism to the post-1989 transformation period. Having experienced both state-socialist and post-socialist East Germany, their particular notions of society, care, gender, ageing, and belonging have hardly been recorded so far. Their voices introduce alternative narratives of solidarity and agency, and thus contribute to a more nuanced understanding of East German transformation experiences. Revisiting informal care for the elderly is a subject that remains acutely relevant up to today. “Who cares for the elderly?” is a question these people have answered with determination and initiative over the past thirty years. The article explores the extent to which their practices of volunteering and caring intertwined with their diverse responses to the post-socialist transformation.","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"27 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46049219","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2193373
Adam Fabry
On 1 July 2022, the Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe organized a roundtable discussion on the Hungarian parliamentary elections of 2022, which was convened by Adam Fabry, a member of the Editorial Board. The participants included Adam, Attila Antal (Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Law, Institute of Political Science), and Tamás Gerőcs (SUNY Binghamton, Department of Sociology), with the moderation of Eszter Bartha, the editor of the journal. The event sought to place the Hungarian elections in a historical and transnational context, attempting to find answers to the question of what deeper causes explain the remarkable success of Orbán’s right-wing, populist political party, Fidesz. Established originally as a democratic, liberal party, Orbán systematically transformed Fidesz into a right-wing, nationalistic-Christian-conservative political party following the sweeping electoral victory of the Hungarian Socialist Party in 1994, modelling its ideology upon the Horthy regime of the interwar era, characterized by far right-wing nationalism, chauvinism, and patriarchalism. Orbán not only has restored the legitimacy of the Christian-nationalistic thought of the interwar era, which led to the tragedy of the Holocaust and the death of over one million people in the territory of “historical” Hungary, but also effectively uses this ideological mix for the legitimation of his autocratic regime. The interwar slogans of “independence” from the Western world, which had been seen as immensely hostile to Hungary (or rather, the Hungarian imperial aspirations in the Carpathian Basin), have gained a new social and political meaning after 1989, when Western capital—with the active support of the newly formed local elite, who were all committed anti-Communists—transformed Eastern Europe into a “laboratory” of neoliberalism. Orbán’s anti-Western and “anti-EU” propaganda should be understood in this context. The event brought together critical scholars from Hungary in order to situate Orbán’s party and the economic and social policies pursued by Fidesz in a transnational context. What makes contemporary Hungary a “laboratory” of a new autocracy or outright neofascism? What can neighbouring countries learn from the Hungarian case and how can we explain the unbroken popularity of Fidesz – in spite of all the corruption scandals, the Western concerns about the robust and systematic dismantling of the democratic institutions? Can the Hungarian case be a deterrent “example” for the West? Perhaps most importantly: are there any means to halt the spread of these new autocratic or outright fascist regimes?
{"title":"Reflections on the Hungarian elections","authors":"Adam Fabry","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2193373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2193373","url":null,"abstract":"On 1 July 2022, the Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe organized a roundtable discussion on the Hungarian parliamentary elections of 2022, which was convened by Adam Fabry, a member of the Editorial Board. The participants included Adam, Attila Antal (Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Law, Institute of Political Science), and Tamás Gerőcs (SUNY Binghamton, Department of Sociology), with the moderation of Eszter Bartha, the editor of the journal. The event sought to place the Hungarian elections in a historical and transnational context, attempting to find answers to the question of what deeper causes explain the remarkable success of Orbán’s right-wing, populist political party, Fidesz. Established originally as a democratic, liberal party, Orbán systematically transformed Fidesz into a right-wing, nationalistic-Christian-conservative political party following the sweeping electoral victory of the Hungarian Socialist Party in 1994, modelling its ideology upon the Horthy regime of the interwar era, characterized by far right-wing nationalism, chauvinism, and patriarchalism. Orbán not only has restored the legitimacy of the Christian-nationalistic thought of the interwar era, which led to the tragedy of the Holocaust and the death of over one million people in the territory of “historical” Hungary, but also effectively uses this ideological mix for the legitimation of his autocratic regime. The interwar slogans of “independence” from the Western world, which had been seen as immensely hostile to Hungary (or rather, the Hungarian imperial aspirations in the Carpathian Basin), have gained a new social and political meaning after 1989, when Western capital—with the active support of the newly formed local elite, who were all committed anti-Communists—transformed Eastern Europe into a “laboratory” of neoliberalism. Orbán’s anti-Western and “anti-EU” propaganda should be understood in this context. The event brought together critical scholars from Hungary in order to situate Orbán’s party and the economic and social policies pursued by Fidesz in a transnational context. What makes contemporary Hungary a “laboratory” of a new autocracy or outright neofascism? What can neighbouring countries learn from the Hungarian case and how can we explain the unbroken popularity of Fidesz – in spite of all the corruption scandals, the Western concerns about the robust and systematic dismantling of the democratic institutions? Can the Hungarian case be a deterrent “example” for the West? Perhaps most importantly: are there any means to halt the spread of these new autocratic or outright fascist regimes?","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"211 - 225"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44297434","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2188385
Gareth Dale
Gáspár Miklós Tamás (aka TGM, or Gazsi to friends) is being remembered in his many facets: essayist, liberal dissident, Tory anarchist and even in one case as “intellectual rock star.” But I knew him as a communist revolutionary. Almost in the image of protagonists of the Victor Serge novels he had read when young: blazing at the inept and corrupt ruling classes, agitating at rallies, surrounded by papers and books, insatiably curious, and – unlike most rock stars, even of the intellectual sort – blacklisted by employers, hounded by the security services, and struggling to make ends meet. I say “almost” because he grew into this role late in life and because in his world, whether Gheorghiu-Dej’s Romania or Orbán’s Hungary, bands of comrades operating within mass workers’ movements were absent. His arrival at revolutionary Marxism was individual and circuitous. Tamás was born in mid-century, a historical breakpoint. The insurgent and internationalist struggles of 1917-23 were receding in memory, and “Communist” states were being constructed on the Stalin model. In the earlier era his parents had been incarcerated as communists. They remained party members after the war, yet “Communism” was also their enemy, and the feeling was mutual – most evidently when his father was sacked from his position in the Hungarian State Theatre. His communist parents, Tamás would joke, had given him an impeccably anti-communist education. Tamás lived across that communist fault-line and also across borders. He was foreign as a Hungarian (in Romania) and as Romanian-born (in Hungary); his identities included half Jewish, lapsed Calvinist, and atheist. His experience of class was multi-layered, with working-class friends, peasant cousins, and his father in a comfortable middle-class position until defenestrated. As a child he devoured books omnivorously, with parents and their milieu providing continual encouragement – and all under a regime that, notwithstanding its thuggery, did foster mass literacy and high culture. These were some ingredients of his brilliance, but so too was his ability to know intimately a range of ideological camps, having pitched his tent in several. In 1978 Tamás was booted out of Romania for criticizing the Ceauşescu regime’s antiMagyar policies. This act, though brutish, may have done him a favour as he dodged the worst of the Ceauşescu period and was able, in Budapest, to devote his energies to democratic change: petitioning in solidarity with Charter 77, speaking at rallies, and defying the regime to arrest him for attempting to stand in an election. Even in goulash state capitalism, being a dissident meant job insecurity and occasional violence from the cops. (He was once shielded from a police beating by a fellow activist, Viktor Orbán. It’s an image that elicits mixed emotions.)
Gáspár Miklós Tamás（又名TGM，朋友们称之为Gazsi）在许多方面都被人们铭记：散文家、自由派异见人士、保守党无政府主义者，甚至在一个案例中被称为“知识摇滚明星”。但我知道他是一名共产主义革命者。几乎就像他年轻时读过的维克多·谢尔盖小说中的主人公一样：对无能腐败的统治阶级大发雷霆，在集会上煽动，被文件和书籍包围，永不满足的好奇心，以及——与大多数摇滚明星不同，甚至是知识分子——被雇主列入黑名单，被安全部门追捕，入不敷出。我说“几乎”是因为他在晚年成长为这个角色，也因为在他的世界里，无论是盖奥尔基乌·德杰的罗马尼亚还是奥尔班的匈牙利，都没有在群众工人运动中活动的同志。他对革命马克思主义的理解是个人化的、迂回的。塔玛斯出生于本世纪中叶，这是一个历史转折点。1917-23年的叛乱和国际主义斗争正在记忆中消退，“共产主义”国家正在斯大林模式的基础上建立。在早期，他的父母作为共产主义者被监禁。战后，他们仍然是党员，但“共产主义”也是他们的敌人，这种感觉是相互的——最明显的是，当他的父亲被匈牙利国家剧院解雇时。塔玛斯会开玩笑说，他的共产主义父母给了他无可挑剔的反共教育。塔玛斯生活在共产主义断层线上，也跨越了国界。他是外国人，匈牙利人（在罗马尼亚），罗马尼亚出生（在匈牙利）；他的身份包括半犹太人、过时的加尔文主义者和无神论者。他的阶级经历是多层次的，有工人阶级的朋友、农民表亲，他的父亲在被驱逐之前一直处于舒适的中产阶级地位。小时候，他狼吞虎咽地阅读书籍，父母和他们的环境不断给予鼓励——尽管这个政权很残暴，但它确实培养了大众识字率和高级文化。这些都是他才华的一些组成部分，但他也有能力深入了解一系列意识形态阵营，他在几个阵营中都搭了帐篷。1978年，塔玛斯因批评齐奥塞斯库政权的反马扎尔政策而被罗马尼亚驱逐出境。这一行为虽然残忍，但可能帮了他一个忙，因为他避开了齐奥塞斯库时期最糟糕的时期，并能够在布达佩斯将精力投入到民主变革中：为声援《77国宪章》请愿，在集会上发言，并反抗政权以试图参加选举为由逮捕他。即使在美国资本主义国家，持不同政见者也意味着工作不安全，偶尔还会遭到警察的暴力。（他曾被另一位活动家维克托·奥尔班（Viktor Orbán）保护免受警察殴打。这张照片引发了复杂的情绪。）
{"title":"In memoriam: Gáspár Miklós Tamás","authors":"Gareth Dale","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2188385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2188385","url":null,"abstract":"Gáspár Miklós Tamás (aka TGM, or Gazsi to friends) is being remembered in his many facets: essayist, liberal dissident, Tory anarchist and even in one case as “intellectual rock star.” But I knew him as a communist revolutionary. Almost in the image of protagonists of the Victor Serge novels he had read when young: blazing at the inept and corrupt ruling classes, agitating at rallies, surrounded by papers and books, insatiably curious, and – unlike most rock stars, even of the intellectual sort – blacklisted by employers, hounded by the security services, and struggling to make ends meet. I say “almost” because he grew into this role late in life and because in his world, whether Gheorghiu-Dej’s Romania or Orbán’s Hungary, bands of comrades operating within mass workers’ movements were absent. His arrival at revolutionary Marxism was individual and circuitous. Tamás was born in mid-century, a historical breakpoint. The insurgent and internationalist struggles of 1917-23 were receding in memory, and “Communist” states were being constructed on the Stalin model. In the earlier era his parents had been incarcerated as communists. They remained party members after the war, yet “Communism” was also their enemy, and the feeling was mutual – most evidently when his father was sacked from his position in the Hungarian State Theatre. His communist parents, Tamás would joke, had given him an impeccably anti-communist education. Tamás lived across that communist fault-line and also across borders. He was foreign as a Hungarian (in Romania) and as Romanian-born (in Hungary); his identities included half Jewish, lapsed Calvinist, and atheist. His experience of class was multi-layered, with working-class friends, peasant cousins, and his father in a comfortable middle-class position until defenestrated. As a child he devoured books omnivorously, with parents and their milieu providing continual encouragement – and all under a regime that, notwithstanding its thuggery, did foster mass literacy and high culture. These were some ingredients of his brilliance, but so too was his ability to know intimately a range of ideological camps, having pitched his tent in several. In 1978 Tamás was booted out of Romania for criticizing the Ceauşescu regime’s antiMagyar policies. This act, though brutish, may have done him a favour as he dodged the worst of the Ceauşescu period and was able, in Budapest, to devote his energies to democratic change: petitioning in solidarity with Charter 77, speaking at rallies, and defying the regime to arrest him for attempting to stand in an election. Even in goulash state capitalism, being a dissident meant job insecurity and occasional violence from the cops. (He was once shielded from a police beating by a fellow activist, Viktor Orbán. It’s an image that elicits mixed emotions.)","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"1 - 13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47564301","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2183637
G. Menz
With the Cold War scaling new heights (or sinking to new lows) in the mid-1980s, former singer of the British pop trio “The Police” attempted to capture the prevailing mood by penning a pop song entitled “Russians.” “In Europe and America, there is a growing feeling of hysteria,” Sting growled. Indeed, hysteria about the Russians seems to have reared its ugly head again. But in fairness, then and now, it is not a mere case of responding to “rhetorical speeches by the Soviets.” Russia has its own role to play in this sordid conflict, as indeed it did in the 1980s. When in February 2022, earlier intelligence reports turned out to be truthful and the amassing of Russian troops along the border with Ukraine emerged indeed to have been the preparatory steps for an invasion, Western politicians and media went into overdrive, alleging that Russia was guilty of carrying out the first major act of warfare in Europe since 1945 and clearly violating both the Budapest Agreements and the sovereignty of Ukraine in doing so. The legally dubious 1999 NATO aerial attacks on Serbia seemed to have safely dropped off into the foggy netherworlds of collective amnesia. No doubt the Russian military assault has evoked strong and often emotional responses across Europe and USA and the secondary effects of the war with respect to energy security, immigration, and the ramifications of the economic sanctions are enormous. Yet, as the cliche goes the first casualty of war is always truth and in an era of heavily politicized media coverage it should come as little surprise just how tendentious and often emotional reporting on the issue and political responses to it has been. In this short essay, I will provide a bit more context to the Ukrainian conflict and submit three major points. At one point, Sting was right. There really is no monopoly on common sense, on either side of the political fence. I will also briefly discuss a few points raised in Renate Hürtgen’s essay. I will submit three points. First, the Ukrainian conflict has to be understood in context and as a confrontation between the United States and Russia. It is neither an isolated intraSlavic feud nor a regional border dispute in eastern Europe, nor indeed a conflict of “values” between a cosmopolitan liberal western “community” and the much more conservative, if not to say reactionary self-appointed guardian of a deeply grounded and rooted traditional and religious Europe. In truth, the conflict should be seen as a clash between an America that has fallen under the influence, yet again, of
{"title":"Imperial dreams and the plains of Eastern Europe","authors":"G. Menz","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2183637","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2183637","url":null,"abstract":"With the Cold War scaling new heights (or sinking to new lows) in the mid-1980s, former singer of the British pop trio “The Police” attempted to capture the prevailing mood by penning a pop song entitled “Russians.” “In Europe and America, there is a growing feeling of hysteria,” Sting growled. Indeed, hysteria about the Russians seems to have reared its ugly head again. But in fairness, then and now, it is not a mere case of responding to “rhetorical speeches by the Soviets.” Russia has its own role to play in this sordid conflict, as indeed it did in the 1980s. When in February 2022, earlier intelligence reports turned out to be truthful and the amassing of Russian troops along the border with Ukraine emerged indeed to have been the preparatory steps for an invasion, Western politicians and media went into overdrive, alleging that Russia was guilty of carrying out the first major act of warfare in Europe since 1945 and clearly violating both the Budapest Agreements and the sovereignty of Ukraine in doing so. The legally dubious 1999 NATO aerial attacks on Serbia seemed to have safely dropped off into the foggy netherworlds of collective amnesia. No doubt the Russian military assault has evoked strong and often emotional responses across Europe and USA and the secondary effects of the war with respect to energy security, immigration, and the ramifications of the economic sanctions are enormous. Yet, as the cliche goes the first casualty of war is always truth and in an era of heavily politicized media coverage it should come as little surprise just how tendentious and often emotional reporting on the issue and political responses to it has been. In this short essay, I will provide a bit more context to the Ukrainian conflict and submit three major points. At one point, Sting was right. There really is no monopoly on common sense, on either side of the political fence. I will also briefly discuss a few points raised in Renate Hürtgen’s essay. I will submit three points. First, the Ukrainian conflict has to be understood in context and as a confrontation between the United States and Russia. It is neither an isolated intraSlavic feud nor a regional border dispute in eastern Europe, nor indeed a conflict of “values” between a cosmopolitan liberal western “community” and the much more conservative, if not to say reactionary self-appointed guardian of a deeply grounded and rooted traditional and religious Europe. In truth, the conflict should be seen as a clash between an America that has fallen under the influence, yet again, of","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"201 - 209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42849324","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2182510
Jokubas Salyga
ABSTRACT The recent thirtieth anniversaries of restored Baltic territorial sovereignties coincide with a quandary in which the region appears “highly unequal but classless.” This article revisits the conduct of the 2008–2011 crisis management operations through the prisms of class struggle and social movements. It conceptualizes the imposition of austerity measures as a class-constituted social movement from above. I argue that the latter has to be positioned relationally against locally articulated forms of resistance from below that have so far remained insufficiently explored. Therefore, the practice of unearthing Baltic “militant particularisms” carries the potential of subverting the “absent protest thesis” in the imposition of austerity on the region’s populations.
{"title":"Geographies of quiescence? Social movements, panoramas of struggle and Baltic austerity politics","authors":"Jokubas Salyga","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2182510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2182510","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The recent thirtieth anniversaries of restored Baltic territorial sovereignties coincide with a quandary in which the region appears “highly unequal but classless.” This article revisits the conduct of the 2008–2011 crisis management operations through the prisms of class struggle and social movements. It conceptualizes the imposition of austerity measures as a class-constituted social movement from above. I argue that the latter has to be positioned relationally against locally articulated forms of resistance from below that have so far remained insufficiently explored. Therefore, the practice of unearthing Baltic “militant particularisms” carries the potential of subverting the “absent protest thesis” in the imposition of austerity on the region’s populations.","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"171 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45080134","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2182507
Beáta Hock
ABSTRACT In the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, the state had controlled art and culture according to strict ideological criteria – but it also subsidized cultural production. After 1989, the cultural infrastructure largely collapsed together with the state. The vacuum following socialist state subsidy opened up opportunities that were partially seized by international sponsors in the East-Central European region; the Soros Foundation and the ERSTE Stiftung were the two most important of them. Both organizations developed an extensive network of cultural workers across post-socialist Eastern Europe. With their programmes, the two foundations made considerable efforts to make known and brand East and Southeast European art on an international stage. Nevertheless, they, or rather their relevance for the cultural field of post-socialist East-Central Europe, are hardly known outside the region. Based on the insight of central actors in both these networks, this contribution revisits the activities of the two major donors and assesses their impact from today’s perspective.
{"title":"Evolving networks: International sponsors of post-socialist art scenes","authors":"Beáta Hock","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2182507","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2182507","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, the state had controlled art and culture according to strict ideological criteria – but it also subsidized cultural production. After 1989, the cultural infrastructure largely collapsed together with the state. The vacuum following socialist state subsidy opened up opportunities that were partially seized by international sponsors in the East-Central European region; the Soros Foundation and the ERSTE Stiftung were the two most important of them. Both organizations developed an extensive network of cultural workers across post-socialist Eastern Europe. With their programmes, the two foundations made considerable efforts to make known and brand East and Southeast European art on an international stage. Nevertheless, they, or rather their relevance for the cultural field of post-socialist East-Central Europe, are hardly known outside the region. Based on the insight of central actors in both these networks, this contribution revisits the activities of the two major donors and assesses their impact from today’s perspective.","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"95 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42152693","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2182512
Clemens Villinger
{"title":"Das umstrittene Erbe von 1989: Zur Gegenwart eines Gesellschaftszusammenbruchs (The Contested Legacy of 1989. Contemporary Traces of a Collapsed Society)","authors":"Clemens Villinger","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2182512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2182512","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"149 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43946557","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2182504
L. Safta-Zecheria
ABSTRACT This paper connects research on deinstitutionalization as a dominant paradigm in service provision for children and adults with disabilities to the research on transformations from state socialism to neoliberal capitalism in a long durée perspective. It focuses on the transformations of care practices and infrastructures in terms of biopolitical shifts. By building on ethnographic fieldwork surrounding a now closed neuropsychiatric hospital for children in Romania, interviews and informal conversations with formerly institutionalized children from the institution, carers, professionals and volunteers, it traces both the transformations of the institution and its follow-up services from the 1950s to 2015, as well as the practices prevalent in these institutions and the ways in which these reflected dominant moral and political orders and how they were enacted in everyday life. It concludes that although biopolitical infrastructures and practices have changed greatly during the period under study, continuities can be observed in the ways in which productivist logics still work to exclude as well as include people with disabilities – thus perpetuating practices of hierarchization in relation to social inclusion based on economic criteria. Moreover, biopolitical shifts were not linear, but involved contradictory movements and logics, and entanglements of multiple transformation processes.
{"title":"Biopolitics, care and the transformations of a large institution for children with disabilities in Romania from 1956 to 2015","authors":"L. Safta-Zecheria","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2182504","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2182504","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper connects research on deinstitutionalization as a dominant paradigm in service provision for children and adults with disabilities to the research on transformations from state socialism to neoliberal capitalism in a long durée perspective. It focuses on the transformations of care practices and infrastructures in terms of biopolitical shifts. By building on ethnographic fieldwork surrounding a now closed neuropsychiatric hospital for children in Romania, interviews and informal conversations with formerly institutionalized children from the institution, carers, professionals and volunteers, it traces both the transformations of the institution and its follow-up services from the 1950s to 2015, as well as the practices prevalent in these institutions and the ways in which these reflected dominant moral and political orders and how they were enacted in everyday life. It concludes that although biopolitical infrastructures and practices have changed greatly during the period under study, continuities can be observed in the ways in which productivist logics still work to exclude as well as include people with disabilities – thus perpetuating practices of hierarchization in relation to social inclusion based on economic criteria. Moreover, biopolitical shifts were not linear, but involved contradictory movements and logics, and entanglements of multiple transformation processes.","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"45 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46893649","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2182505
Oliver Wurzbacher
ABSTRACT The post-socialist transformation of Eastern Germany exterted a decisive influence on the world of work. The privatization and liquidation of the State-Owned Enterprises (Volkseigene Betriebe, VEB) changed the lives of their employees. Not only was an employee’s employment status suddenly called into question, but also their everyday lives and social environment. Today, many former members of the VEB workforce remain dedicated to preserving the memory of their factories. To achieve this, they drew on their social contacts from VEB settings and formed associations, initiatives, and interest groups. This article explores the new forms of togetherness and social cohesion created by those active in these groups, in addition to their motivations for establishing these associations. Adopting an actor-centred perspective, the article introduces two case studies drawn from a broader body of interview material gathered as part of a three-year ethnographic research project. Both case studies illustrate the interconnections between individual life stories and involvement with specific associations. The case studies are followed by a discussion of open-ended interpretive approaches that present possible ways of deepening the analysis of this material. With reference to the case studies, I suggest describing the groups and their activities in terms of “figurations of remembering.”
{"title":"From collective to association? Figurations of remembering and former state-owned enterprises in post-1989 Eastern Germany","authors":"Oliver Wurzbacher","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2182505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2182505","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The post-socialist transformation of Eastern Germany exterted a decisive influence on the world of work. The privatization and liquidation of the State-Owned Enterprises (Volkseigene Betriebe, VEB) changed the lives of their employees. Not only was an employee’s employment status suddenly called into question, but also their everyday lives and social environment. Today, many former members of the VEB workforce remain dedicated to preserving the memory of their factories. To achieve this, they drew on their social contacts from VEB settings and formed associations, initiatives, and interest groups. This article explores the new forms of togetherness and social cohesion created by those active in these groups, in addition to their motivations for establishing these associations. Adopting an actor-centred perspective, the article introduces two case studies drawn from a broader body of interview material gathered as part of a three-year ethnographic research project. Both case studies illustrate the interconnections between individual life stories and involvement with specific associations. The case studies are followed by a discussion of open-ended interpretive approaches that present possible ways of deepening the analysis of this material. With reference to the case studies, I suggest describing the groups and their activities in terms of “figurations of remembering.”","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"67 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46094372","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2023.2182508
Ines Keller, F. Jacobs
ABSTRACT The Sorbs are a Slavic people in East Germany who were recognized as a national minority during the GDR period. They were given certain special rights such as Sorbian language teaching, and received institutional support. In this context, in the decades after the Second World War, a differentiated organizational structure was systematically constructed in the field of Sorbian cultural work. The social changes after 1989/90 led to a profound transformation of this structure and among the actors involved. Established and institutionalized forms of cultural work were dissolved rapidly, e.g. folk art groups usually linked to schools or publicly-owned companies, such as choirs, dance groups or textile circles. In order to absorb these dissolution processes, new sponsorships often emerged, usually in the form of registered associations. In this article, we explore these developments using the example of the House for Sorbian Folk Art (1956-1995), which was a central hub of Sorbian cultural activity. On the one hand, we address questions about the house’s activities regarding to the preservation and promotion of ethnicity. On the other hand, we examine developments after the political turnaround, whereby we focus on the changing approaches to cultural heritage and the impact of its dissolution on the contemporary promotion in the field of Sorbian cultural work.
{"title":"The house for Sorbian folk art: institutional change in Sorbian folk art after 1989/90","authors":"Ines Keller, F. Jacobs","doi":"10.1080/25739638.2023.2182508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25739638.2023.2182508","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Sorbs are a Slavic people in East Germany who were recognized as a national minority during the GDR period. They were given certain special rights such as Sorbian language teaching, and received institutional support. In this context, in the decades after the Second World War, a differentiated organizational structure was systematically constructed in the field of Sorbian cultural work. The social changes after 1989/90 led to a profound transformation of this structure and among the actors involved. Established and institutionalized forms of cultural work were dissolved rapidly, e.g. folk art groups usually linked to schools or publicly-owned companies, such as choirs, dance groups or textile circles. In order to absorb these dissolution processes, new sponsorships often emerged, usually in the form of registered associations. In this article, we explore these developments using the example of the House for Sorbian Folk Art (1956-1995), which was a central hub of Sorbian cultural activity. On the one hand, we address questions about the house’s activities regarding to the preservation and promotion of ethnicity. On the other hand, we examine developments after the political turnaround, whereby we focus on the changing approaches to cultural heritage and the impact of its dissolution on the contemporary promotion in the field of Sorbian cultural work.","PeriodicalId":37199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe","volume":"31 1","pages":"109 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45810500","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：