Pub Date : 2021-11-06DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211052979
Vibeke Schou Tjalve
“Judeo-Christian civilization” and “Christian democracy” have emerged as darling far Right tropes, seemingly uniting radical conservatives in the US and Europe behind a single, geopolitical imaginary. This article presents a brief political-conceptual story of how “Judeo-Christianity” and “Christian democracy” became a rhetorical meeting ground for radical conservatives across the Atlantic. But it also sheds light on why deep, historical, intellectual, and ethnographic divides beneath, make those grounds highly unstable terrain. Divides not only between European and American traditions of liberalism and conservatism but also between the experiences and practices of state power that inform them. Beneath the slogans of Christian democracy espoused in such disparate contexts as Charlottesville and Budapest, move different legacies, memories, enemies.
{"title":"Judeo-Christian democracy and the Transatlantic Right: Travels of a contested civilizational imaginary","authors":"Vibeke Schou Tjalve","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211052979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211052979","url":null,"abstract":"“Judeo-Christian civilization” and “Christian democracy” have emerged as darling far Right tropes, seemingly uniting radical conservatives in the US and Europe behind a single, geopolitical imaginary. This article presents a brief political-conceptual story of how “Judeo-Christianity” and “Christian democracy” became a rhetorical meeting ground for radical conservatives across the Atlantic. But it also sheds light on why deep, historical, intellectual, and ethnographic divides beneath, make those grounds highly unstable terrain. Divides not only between European and American traditions of liberalism and conservatism but also between the experiences and practices of state power that inform them. Beneath the slogans of Christian democracy espoused in such disparate contexts as Charlottesville and Budapest, move different legacies, memories, enemies.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"173 1","pages":"332 - 348"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74713495","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 : 2021-10-31DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211052973
A. Alekseev
The article explores how the European populist radical right uses references to rights and freedoms in its political discourse. By relying on the findings of the existing research and applying the discourse-historical approach to electoral speeches by Marine Le Pen and Jarosław Kaczyński, the leaders of two very dissimilar EU PRR parties, the Rassemblement National and the Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, the article abductively develops a functional typology of references to rights and freedoms commonly used in discourses of European PRR parties: it suggests that PRR discourses in Europe feature references to the right to sovereignty, citizens’ rights, social rights, and economic rights. Such references are used as a coherent discursive strategy to construct social actors following the PRR ideological core of nativism, authoritarianism, and populism. As the PRR identifies itself with the people, defined along nativist and populist lines, rights are always attributed to it. The PRR represents itself as the defender of the people and its rights, while the elites and the aliens are predicated to threaten the people and its rights. References to rights in PRR discourses intrinsically link the individual with the collective, which allows to construct and promote a populist model of ethnic democracy.
{"title":"“Defend your right!” How the populist radical right uses references to rights and freedoms to discursively construct identities","authors":"A. Alekseev","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211052973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211052973","url":null,"abstract":"The article explores how the European populist radical right uses references to rights and freedoms in its political discourse. By relying on the findings of the existing research and applying the discourse-historical approach to electoral speeches by Marine Le Pen and Jarosław Kaczyński, the leaders of two very dissimilar EU PRR parties, the Rassemblement National and the Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, the article abductively develops a functional typology of references to rights and freedoms commonly used in discourses of European PRR parties: it suggests that PRR discourses in Europe feature references to the right to sovereignty, citizens’ rights, social rights, and economic rights. Such references are used as a coherent discursive strategy to construct social actors following the PRR ideological core of nativism, authoritarianism, and populism. As the PRR identifies itself with the people, defined along nativist and populist lines, rights are always attributed to it. The PRR represents itself as the defender of the people and its rights, while the elites and the aliens are predicated to threaten the people and its rights. References to rights in PRR discourses intrinsically link the individual with the collective, which allows to construct and promote a populist model of ethnic democracy.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"116 1","pages":"376 - 416"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79362341","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 : 2021-10-29DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211052976
Manni Crone
Far-right parties and pundits are often portrayed as parochial nationalists obsessed with the idea of national sovereignty. Opposed to a liberal world order, they prefer a rogue world of nation-states on the loose. This essay seeks to complicate that narrative. It suggests that alongside political parties with a nationalist agenda, an increasing number of voices on the radical Right are now pushing for a re-spiritualized world order in which cultures, civilizations, and empires are to set the scene. This vision of global order echoes Christopher Coker’s recent claim that “we now live in a world in which civilization is fast becoming the currency of international politics.” But, why does this strand of the far-right prefer civilizations to nation-states? To ponder this question, this essay zooms in on the European New Right and more precisely two of its main luminaries, Alain de Benoist and Aleksandr Dugin. It shows how the New Right stretches back to classical geopolitics to imagine a future polycentric world order in which large civilizations are set free from American hegemony. The empires of the future are no longer underpinned by nation-states but by ethnopluralism—a “blossoming variety” of local, ethnic, agrarian polities.
{"title":"Towards great ethno-civilizations and spiritual empires? How the European New Right imagines a post-liberal world order","authors":"Manni Crone","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211052976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211052976","url":null,"abstract":"Far-right parties and pundits are often portrayed as parochial nationalists obsessed with the idea of national sovereignty. Opposed to a liberal world order, they prefer a rogue world of nation-states on the loose. This essay seeks to complicate that narrative. It suggests that alongside political parties with a nationalist agenda, an increasing number of voices on the radical Right are now pushing for a re-spiritualized world order in which cultures, civilizations, and empires are to set the scene. This vision of global order echoes Christopher Coker’s recent claim that “we now live in a world in which civilization is fast becoming the currency of international politics.” But, why does this strand of the far-right prefer civilizations to nation-states? To ponder this question, this essay zooms in on the European New Right and more precisely two of its main luminaries, Alain de Benoist and Aleksandr Dugin. It shows how the New Right stretches back to classical geopolitics to imagine a future polycentric world order in which large civilizations are set free from American hegemony. The empires of the future are no longer underpinned by nation-states but by ethnopluralism—a “blossoming variety” of local, ethnic, agrarian polities.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"os18 1","pages":"320 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87533566","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 : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211052974
V. Morozov
In the current Russian political landscape, there are no political forces that would fully qualify as part of the New Right. The political regime that took shape during Vladimir Putin’s presidency cannot be described as populist without major reservations (for a range of positions, see Casula, 2013; Matveev, 2017; Oliker, 2017; Laruelle, 2020). After the ideological transformation that it underwent starting in 2011–12, it can be described as conservative and traditionalist, but it still hesitates to fully embrace xenophobic nationalism, so characteristic of the politics of the New Right. What it shares with the New Right is its claim to directly represent the common people, bearers of the genuine national spirit, allegedly incompatible with the principles of liberal democracy and individual rights (Yudin, 2021). My interest in Putinism in the context of the debate on the New Right is driven by more than those similarities. I believe that Russia, as a subaltern empire (Morozov, 2015), offers a unique opportunity to discuss some of the basic structural preconditions for the emergence of the New Right in the former SecondWorld. A country that still strongly identifies with Europe but has always stood apart, Russia has an intellectual class that has for centuries tried to make sense of the double divide: one external, between Russia and Europe, and one domestic, between the elites and the masses. This article focuses on one particularly important manifestation of this interstitial identity – the fixation of the national debate on the figure of the peasant and, more broadly, uncivilised native, who serves as the embodiment of Russia’s uniqueness both for the advocates of Europeanisation and for the proponents of a Sonderweg. I interpret this phenomenon as an outcome of uneven and combined development of global capitalism (see Rosenberg, 2006, 2016 for a contemporary take on the concept). Combination manifested itself in Russia’s internal colonisation, which created a deep cultural divide between the educated class and the common people (Etkind, 2011; see also Hosking, 1997). This divide that is experienced as such until this day, by a society that is much more homogenous than it was as recently as one hundred years ago.
{"title":"Class, culture and political representation of the native in Russia and East Central Europe: Paving the way for the New Right?","authors":"V. Morozov","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211052974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211052974","url":null,"abstract":"In the current Russian political landscape, there are no political forces that would fully qualify as part of the New Right. The political regime that took shape during Vladimir Putin’s presidency cannot be described as populist without major reservations (for a range of positions, see Casula, 2013; Matveev, 2017; Oliker, 2017; Laruelle, 2020). After the ideological transformation that it underwent starting in 2011–12, it can be described as conservative and traditionalist, but it still hesitates to fully embrace xenophobic nationalism, so characteristic of the politics of the New Right. What it shares with the New Right is its claim to directly represent the common people, bearers of the genuine national spirit, allegedly incompatible with the principles of liberal democracy and individual rights (Yudin, 2021). My interest in Putinism in the context of the debate on the New Right is driven by more than those similarities. I believe that Russia, as a subaltern empire (Morozov, 2015), offers a unique opportunity to discuss some of the basic structural preconditions for the emergence of the New Right in the former SecondWorld. A country that still strongly identifies with Europe but has always stood apart, Russia has an intellectual class that has for centuries tried to make sense of the double divide: one external, between Russia and Europe, and one domestic, between the elites and the masses. This article focuses on one particularly important manifestation of this interstitial identity – the fixation of the national debate on the figure of the peasant and, more broadly, uncivilised native, who serves as the embodiment of Russia’s uniqueness both for the advocates of Europeanisation and for the proponents of a Sonderweg. I interpret this phenomenon as an outcome of uneven and combined development of global capitalism (see Rosenberg, 2006, 2016 for a contemporary take on the concept). Combination manifested itself in Russia’s internal colonisation, which created a deep cultural divide between the educated class and the common people (Etkind, 2011; see also Hosking, 1997). This divide that is experienced as such until this day, by a society that is much more homogenous than it was as recently as one hundred years ago.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"15 1","pages":"349 - 363"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75275027","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 : 2021-10-19DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211056377
Minda Holm, Nicholas Michelsen
{"title":"Editorial: The New Right’s internationalism","authors":"Minda Holm, Nicholas Michelsen","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211056377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211056377","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"1 1","pages":"317 - 319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89395061","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 : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1177/2336825x211036952
Nicholas Michelsen
The Editorial team welcomes you to the September 2021 issue of New Perspectives. The relationship between protest and memory runs through this issue. All forms of societal critique treat the past and present as the ‘antechamber’ to what may come next (Koselleck, 1988). This means every protest movement is bound up with historical storytelling, today increasingly framed by the unravelling of the post-cold war order visible in domestic political contestation, rising populism and geopolitical tensions in Europe. Standing behind this is a degree of loss of faith in the utopian philosophies of history invented to resolve the crisis of the enlightenment’s challenge to autocracy in Europe. Liberal historiography made it possible to craft memory into a stable vision of political hope during and after the cold war, and to locate societal protest within the progression from the past into a brighter future. Some of those hopes have now faded. This has particular implications for Central and Eastern Europe, linking anti-liberal populism to liberal revolt against established or rising autocracies. The contributions of this issue all, in some way, speak to this folding together of the problematisation of progress with societal crisis at the ‘end of the end of history’ (Hochuli et al., 2021). Themes taken up in this issue relating to questions of rights and gender, ontological security, the nature of the authentic national self, or the emancipatory potential of popular culture, are entangled with liberal historiography, as is the problem of what to do with the memory of a totalitarian and genocidal past. In complex ways, liberalism and its political legacies remain the principle figure at work. Too confident proclamations of the decline of liberal order can fail to recognise the continuing weight that its concepts place on the present, in and beyond Central and Eastern Europe, in forming the conditions of possibility for nationalist resurgence on the one hand (against liberal politics), and underpinning the hopes for a more democratic future (liberalism against autocracy). As Brad Evans (2021: 12) argues in his excellent recent book, Ecce Humanitas, the conceptualisation of victims has always been central to the problem of liberal modernity, because the entanglement of ideas about historical and societal progress with ‘‘the intolerable’’ is the central problem in conceiving a politics fit for humanity. Taking Arendt as a point of departure, the fact that, as she put it, ‘the world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human’ in the holocaust was both spur and nagging problem for the liberal humanism that emerged in its aftermath. Liberal politics hoped to overcome the limits of sovereign states, and inscribe a new inclusive vision of the future, but this carried with it a variety of paradoxes, not least interventionism in the name of the human itself. What to do with horror is the problem of liberal secular modernity, argues Evans, but this is
{"title":"On protest and memory","authors":"Nicholas Michelsen","doi":"10.1177/2336825x211036952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825x211036952","url":null,"abstract":"The Editorial team welcomes you to the September 2021 issue of New Perspectives. The relationship between protest and memory runs through this issue. All forms of societal critique treat the past and present as the ‘antechamber’ to what may come next (Koselleck, 1988). This means every protest movement is bound up with historical storytelling, today increasingly framed by the unravelling of the post-cold war order visible in domestic political contestation, rising populism and geopolitical tensions in Europe. Standing behind this is a degree of loss of faith in the utopian philosophies of history invented to resolve the crisis of the enlightenment’s challenge to autocracy in Europe. Liberal historiography made it possible to craft memory into a stable vision of political hope during and after the cold war, and to locate societal protest within the progression from the past into a brighter future. Some of those hopes have now faded. This has particular implications for Central and Eastern Europe, linking anti-liberal populism to liberal revolt against established or rising autocracies. The contributions of this issue all, in some way, speak to this folding together of the problematisation of progress with societal crisis at the ‘end of the end of history’ (Hochuli et al., 2021). Themes taken up in this issue relating to questions of rights and gender, ontological security, the nature of the authentic national self, or the emancipatory potential of popular culture, are entangled with liberal historiography, as is the problem of what to do with the memory of a totalitarian and genocidal past. In complex ways, liberalism and its political legacies remain the principle figure at work. Too confident proclamations of the decline of liberal order can fail to recognise the continuing weight that its concepts place on the present, in and beyond Central and Eastern Europe, in forming the conditions of possibility for nationalist resurgence on the one hand (against liberal politics), and underpinning the hopes for a more democratic future (liberalism against autocracy). As Brad Evans (2021: 12) argues in his excellent recent book, Ecce Humanitas, the conceptualisation of victims has always been central to the problem of liberal modernity, because the entanglement of ideas about historical and societal progress with ‘‘the intolerable’’ is the central problem in conceiving a politics fit for humanity. Taking Arendt as a point of departure, the fact that, as she put it, ‘the world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human’ in the holocaust was both spur and nagging problem for the liberal humanism that emerged in its aftermath. Liberal politics hoped to overcome the limits of sovereign states, and inscribe a new inclusive vision of the future, but this carried with it a variety of paradoxes, not least interventionism in the name of the human itself. What to do with horror is the problem of liberal secular modernity, argues Evans, but this is","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"70 1","pages":"227 - 229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78558092","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 : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211032900
Aliaksei Kazharski, Monika Kubová
The article uses the ontological security framework and the concept of liminality to analyze Belarus liminal status vis-a-vis Russia and the role it has played in Russia’s ontological security seeking before and after the 2020 Belarus Awakening. It argues that while the entire near-abroad, and, in particular, Ukraine have been important in terms of Russia’s post-imperial ontological security seeking strategies, Belarus occupies a unique position with respect to Russia’s securitized identity because of its perfectly marginal or liminal status. This has to do with the fact that, in the Russian geopolitical gaze, Belarus has remained almost unseparated from the Russian Self. Furthermore, the 2020 protests challenged this status but did not entirely eliminate it, leading to a restructuration of Belarus’ liminality.
{"title":"Belarus as a liminal space for Russia’s ontological security before and after the 2020 protests","authors":"Aliaksei Kazharski, Monika Kubová","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211032900","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211032900","url":null,"abstract":"The article uses the ontological security framework and the concept of liminality to analyze Belarus liminal status vis-a-vis Russia and the role it has played in Russia’s ontological security seeking before and after the 2020 Belarus Awakening. It argues that while the entire near-abroad, and, in particular, Ukraine have been important in terms of Russia’s post-imperial ontological security seeking strategies, Belarus occupies a unique position with respect to Russia’s securitized identity because of its perfectly marginal or liminal status. This has to do with the fact that, in the Russian geopolitical gaze, Belarus has remained almost unseparated from the Russian Self. Furthermore, the 2020 protests challenged this status but did not entirely eliminate it, leading to a restructuration of Belarus’ liminality.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"46 1","pages":"249 - 271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76236636","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 : 2021-07-12DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211029126
V. Navumau, O. Matveieva
One of the distinctive traits of the Belarusian ‘revolution-in-the-making’, sparked by alleged falsifications during the presidential elections and brutal repressions of protest afterwards, has been a highly visible gender dimension. This article is devoted to the analysis of this gender-related consequences of protest activism in Belarus. Within this research, the authors analyse the role of the female movement in the Belarusian uprising and examine, and to which extent this involvement expands the public sphere and contributes to the changes in gender-related policies. To do this, the authors conducted seven semi-structured in-depth interviews with the gender experts and activists – four before and four after the protests.
{"title":"The gender dimension of the 2020 Belarusian protest: Does female engagement contribute to the establishment of gender equality?","authors":"V. Navumau, O. Matveieva","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211029126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211029126","url":null,"abstract":"One of the distinctive traits of the Belarusian ‘revolution-in-the-making’, sparked by alleged falsifications during the presidential elections and brutal repressions of protest afterwards, has been a highly visible gender dimension. This article is devoted to the analysis of this gender-related consequences of protest activism in Belarus. Within this research, the authors analyse the role of the female movement in the Belarusian uprising and examine, and to which extent this involvement expands the public sphere and contributes to the changes in gender-related policies. To do this, the authors conducted seven semi-structured in-depth interviews with the gender experts and activists – four before and four after the protests.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"64 1","pages":"230 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73367660","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 : 2021-07-09DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211030426
Rudolf Fürst
A comparison of the former Eastern Bloc and China’s ways of dealing with the social implications of rock music as an alien cultural import from the West reveals significant analogies. The paper traces the process of politicisation of rock music and compares the two different cultural spaces by mapping each space’s state ideology, aesthetic traditions and identities, and discriminative political and economic tools used to marginalise rock. Here the term politicisation refers mainly to the polarisation between the communist regimes’ restrictive policies, and the attempts of the rock scenes to sustain their discriminating characteristics and relationship to protest. While in European communist states rock played a relevant subversive role, conversely, in China any ‘rocking’ of the state has largely been averted. The Chinese rock scene as an off-mainstream urban subculture has received less popular support than its counterpart in Europe and has also proved less politically significant. This comparative case study discusses the relationship between popular music and politics by tracing analogies and differences between the former Czechoslovakia, where the ideologisation and politicisation of rock reached the highest point in the Eastern Bloc, and contemporary China.
{"title":"Taming rock music in communist states: Politicisation of Western popular culture in East Europe and mainland China","authors":"Rudolf Fürst","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211030426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211030426","url":null,"abstract":"A comparison of the former Eastern Bloc and China’s ways of dealing with the social implications of rock music as an alien cultural import from the West reveals significant analogies. The paper traces the process of politicisation of rock music and compares the two different cultural spaces by mapping each space’s state ideology, aesthetic traditions and identities, and discriminative political and economic tools used to marginalise rock. Here the term politicisation refers mainly to the polarisation between the communist regimes’ restrictive policies, and the attempts of the rock scenes to sustain their discriminating characteristics and relationship to protest. While in European communist states rock played a relevant subversive role, conversely, in China any ‘rocking’ of the state has largely been averted. The Chinese rock scene as an off-mainstream urban subculture has received less popular support than its counterpart in Europe and has also proved less politically significant. This comparative case study discusses the relationship between popular music and politics by tracing analogies and differences between the former Czechoslovakia, where the ideologisation and politicisation of rock reached the highest point in the Eastern Bloc, and contemporary China.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"31 1","pages":"272 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88902680","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 : 2021-07-07DOI: 10.1177/2336825X211026448
B. Steele, Amy E. Eckert, Benjamin Meiches, S. Neumeier, Brent E. Sasley, Jelena Subotić
Jelena Subotic’s Yellow Star, Red Star examines how Holocaust memorializing changed over time in Serbia, Croatia, and Lithuania in ways that attended to national identity and EU membership. The book displays Professor Subotic’s painstaking historical work accrued from years of primary source research via archival, fieldwork, as well as a comprehensive secondary source review, and is written in an immensely tangible way. The dynamics of Holocaust memorializing, Subotic demonstrates, are as much about the present as they are about the past. The work is an achievement of historical, theoretical, political and ethical proportions. Thus, the book appeals to a broad number of audiences, disciplines, and critical reflections on the politics of historical memory. What follows is a forum that comes out of a book roundtable on Subotic’s study held at the 2019 International Studies Association-West meeting in Pasadena, California. The book had just been published by that September, and as a fresh study it proved to be a good forum to introduce the book to would-be readers and also provide some good ‘‘early’’ takes on the book in light of the research interests of the respondents and, also, how it might bear upon or be put into conversation with a variety of research fields.
{"title":"Forum: Jelena Subotic’s Yellow Star, Red Star","authors":"B. Steele, Amy E. Eckert, Benjamin Meiches, S. Neumeier, Brent E. Sasley, Jelena Subotić","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211026448","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211026448","url":null,"abstract":"Jelena Subotic’s Yellow Star, Red Star examines how Holocaust memorializing changed over time in Serbia, Croatia, and Lithuania in ways that attended to national identity and EU membership. The book displays Professor Subotic’s painstaking historical work accrued from years of primary source research via archival, fieldwork, as well as a comprehensive secondary source review, and is written in an immensely tangible way. The dynamics of Holocaust memorializing, Subotic demonstrates, are as much about the present as they are about the past. The work is an achievement of historical, theoretical, political and ethical proportions. Thus, the book appeals to a broad number of audiences, disciplines, and critical reflections on the politics of historical memory. What follows is a forum that comes out of a book roundtable on Subotic’s study held at the 2019 International Studies Association-West meeting in Pasadena, California. The book had just been published by that September, and as a fresh study it proved to be a good forum to introduce the book to would-be readers and also provide some good ‘‘early’’ takes on the book in light of the research interests of the respondents and, also, how it might bear upon or be put into conversation with a variety of research fields.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":"4 1","pages":"294 - 313"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72965318","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：