Pub Date : 1998-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1998.11008680
I. Connell
AbstractThe author discusses two important perspectives on “tabloidization” and its supposed impact upon news discourses: the polarisation perspective attributes to the changes in news journalism a sharpening differentiation and polarisation between tabloid and broadsheet newspapers, while according to the homogenising view, sensational journalism which once seemed to be confined to the lowbrow media, now spreads to all media. The article argues that tabloidisation debates often do not compare like with like, which results in mistaken conclusions. A case in point is fabulous reportage as a specific form of journalistic discourse that cannot be considered a trivial form of news discourse, but a discourse sui generis, a distinct genre. Consequently, it does not make sense to compare broadsheet news discourse with fabulous reportage in tabloid newspapers; a valid comparison is between tabloid news discourse with broadsheet news discourse. The article presents such a comparative content analysis of news disco...
{"title":"Mistaken Identities: Tabloid and Broadsheet News Discourse","authors":"I. Connell","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1998.11008680","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1998.11008680","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe author discusses two important perspectives on “tabloidization” and its supposed impact upon news discourses: the polarisation perspective attributes to the changes in news journalism a sharpening differentiation and polarisation between tabloid and broadsheet newspapers, while according to the homogenising view, sensational journalism which once seemed to be confined to the lowbrow media, now spreads to all media. The article argues that tabloidisation debates often do not compare like with like, which results in mistaken conclusions. A case in point is fabulous reportage as a specific form of journalistic discourse that cannot be considered a trivial form of news discourse, but a discourse sui generis, a distinct genre. Consequently, it does not make sense to compare broadsheet news discourse with fabulous reportage in tabloid newspapers; a valid comparison is between tabloid news discourse with broadsheet news discourse. The article presents such a comparative content analysis of news disco...","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"7 1","pages":"11-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73230970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008642
P. Iosifides
In December 1992, the European Commission published its Green Paper Pluralism and Media Concentration in the Internal Market: an assessment of the need for Community action (COM (92) 480 final). This was the outcome of several requests on behalf of the European Parliament and some of the interests concerned. The purpose of the Green Paper was to assess the need for action at Community level in the light of the disparities between national rules on media ownership and consider potential options. By adopting the Green Paper, the Commission sought to provide a basis for discussion and receive opinions of all interested parties the European Parliament, competent national authorities, European organisations representing television and radio broadcasters, publishers, journalists, audio-visual creative artists and producers, satellite and cable distributors and advertisers. At the same time, it sought to stress the importance which it attaches to preserving pluralism in the frontier-free area (i.e. the Internal Market). In the Commission's view, the freedoms of the Internal Market cannot be put into practice at the expense of pluralism; instead, their implementation must help to strengthen that market through the opportunities which it gives both to citizens and the media. This paper sets out to examine the European Union policy on media concentrations prior to and after the publication of the 1992 Green Paper. It is divided into five parts. Focused working definitions of the terms pluralism and diversity are firstly provided. An historical background of the European media pluralism and competition/concentration policies is then presented, followed by an outline of the main points of the Commission's Green Paper. The interested parties' reaction PETROS IOSIFIDES
{"title":"Pluralism and Media Concentration Policy in the European Union","authors":"P. Iosifides","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008642","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008642","url":null,"abstract":"In December 1992, the European Commission published its Green Paper Pluralism and Media Concentration in the Internal Market: an assessment of the need for Community action (COM (92) 480 final). This was the outcome of several requests on behalf of the European Parliament and some of the interests concerned. The purpose of the Green Paper was to assess the need for action at Community level in the light of the disparities between national rules on media ownership and consider potential options. By adopting the Green Paper, the Commission sought to provide a basis for discussion and receive opinions of all interested parties the European Parliament, competent national authorities, European organisations representing television and radio broadcasters, publishers, journalists, audio-visual creative artists and producers, satellite and cable distributors and advertisers. At the same time, it sought to stress the importance which it attaches to preserving pluralism in the frontier-free area (i.e. the Internal Market). In the Commission's view, the freedoms of the Internal Market cannot be put into practice at the expense of pluralism; instead, their implementation must help to strengthen that market through the opportunities which it gives both to citizens and the media. This paper sets out to examine the European Union policy on media concentrations prior to and after the publication of the 1992 Green Paper. It is divided into five parts. Focused working definitions of the terms pluralism and diversity are firstly provided. An historical background of the European media pluralism and competition/concentration policies is then presented, followed by an outline of the main points of the Commission's Green Paper. The interested parties' reaction PETROS IOSIFIDES","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"58 1","pages":"85-104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77756580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008651
L. McLaughlin
AbstractThis essay argues that the alliance between feminist media studies and cultural studies has encouraged many feminists to keep a critical distance from the important area of political-economic critique of culture. In addressing issues of social class, feminist media scholars have tended to treat the category as an irrelevant addendum to the gender-race-class trilogy, to undertheorise class, or to treat it as synonymous with social status. This essay contends that indifference to class and the treatment of class as a category that can be read off of a text or an audience fails to realise that class is only meaningful as a relationship of antagonism between different classes at the site of forces and relations of production. The result is that little attention is paid to how forms of patriarchy, Women’s lives and cultural practices are incorporated into and structured by the capitalist mode of production.
{"title":"Class Difference and Indifference in Feminist Media Studies","authors":"L. McLaughlin","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008651","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis essay argues that the alliance between feminist media studies and cultural studies has encouraged many feminists to keep a critical distance from the important area of political-economic critique of culture. In addressing issues of social class, feminist media scholars have tended to treat the category as an irrelevant addendum to the gender-race-class trilogy, to undertheorise class, or to treat it as synonymous with social status. This essay contends that indifference to class and the treatment of class as a category that can be read off of a text or an audience fails to realise that class is only meaningful as a relationship of antagonism between different classes at the site of forces and relations of production. The result is that little attention is paid to how forms of patriarchy, Women’s lives and cultural practices are incorporated into and structured by the capitalist mode of production.","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"6 1","pages":"27-40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80470418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008653
Dominic Wring
AbstractThe paper will seek to analyse the internal debate that has raged throughout the party’s history as to what constitutes the most appropriate form of political communication. Two contrasting views are identified: these are “educationalism,” that is the belief that the best way to win public support is through a determined and sustained political education programme relying on meetings, leaflets, labour intensive grassroots. work and informed de-bate; by contrast, what is labelled .persuasionalism. sees the media and mass communication as central to campaigning and places emphasis on the less tangential, image based appeals to what are perceived to be the largely disinterested electorate. The discussion will assess the centrality of the educationalist perspective to Labour Party strategy in the early part of its existence, that is the first half of this century. What will then be demonstrated is how what has broadly been defined as persuasionalism first challenged and then supplanted educationalism ...
{"title":"Soundbites versus Socialism: the changing campaign philosophy of the British Labour Party","authors":"Dominic Wring","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008653","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe paper will seek to analyse the internal debate that has raged throughout the party’s history as to what constitutes the most appropriate form of political communication. Two contrasting views are identified: these are “educationalism,” that is the belief that the best way to win public support is through a determined and sustained political education programme relying on meetings, leaflets, labour intensive grassroots. work and informed de-bate; by contrast, what is labelled .persuasionalism. sees the media and mass communication as central to campaigning and places emphasis on the less tangential, image based appeals to what are perceived to be the largely disinterested electorate. The discussion will assess the centrality of the educationalist perspective to Labour Party strategy in the early part of its existence, that is the first half of this century. What will then be demonstrated is how what has broadly been defined as persuasionalism first challenged and then supplanted educationalism ...","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"14 1","pages":"59-68"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74095214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008657
A. Calabrese
AbstractThe intellectual and political assaults on the welfare states of affluent societies are one half of a process of what Joseph Schumpeter calls “creative destruction”. The other half is the social construction of the idea and reality of the global information society. In this essay, the reasoning applied to dismantle the welfare state is examined, with particular attention being paid to its implications for the role of the state as cultural patron and guarantor of rights of access to the means of communication. Also examined are ways in which dominant visions of the information society draw upon the same reasoning that is applied to dismantling the welfare state. Contrary to prevailing mythology, the main trajectory of the development of the global information society is not toward the establishment of a free market, but rather it is aimed at the articulation and enforcement of rights of property ownership on behalf of global media and telecommunication cartels. One response to these decades-long de...
{"title":"Creative Destruction? From the Welfare State to the Global Information Society","authors":"A. Calabrese","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008657","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe intellectual and political assaults on the welfare states of affluent societies are one half of a process of what Joseph Schumpeter calls “creative destruction”. The other half is the social construction of the idea and reality of the global information society. In this essay, the reasoning applied to dismantle the welfare state is examined, with particular attention being paid to its implications for the role of the state as cultural patron and guarantor of rights of access to the means of communication. Also examined are ways in which dominant visions of the information society draw upon the same reasoning that is applied to dismantling the welfare state. Contrary to prevailing mythology, the main trajectory of the development of the global information society is not toward the establishment of a free market, but rather it is aimed at the articulation and enforcement of rights of property ownership on behalf of global media and telecommunication cartels. One response to these decades-long de...","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"119 1","pages":"7-24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86102599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008640
B. Luthar
{"title":"Exploring Moral Fundamentalism in Tabloid Journalism","authors":"B. Luthar","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008640","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008640","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"12 1","pages":"49-64"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88802488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008658
N. Garnham
AbstractTo concern ourselves with the welfare state is to concern ourselves with entitlements. This raises the question, entitlements to what? This essay examines the relevance of the thought of welfare theorist Amartya Sen for the subject of communication theory and policy. Sen’s perspective originates from a normative egalitarianism derived from a Kantian emphasis on the position of the other, which he poses in contrast to utilitarian views on welfare. Sen observes that it is possible to make the same set of resources or utilities available to different persons or groups and realise that some are capable of making more effective use of them than others. Applying this “capabilities” approach to communication policy leads to the conclusion that it is not access in a crude sense that is crucial, but the distribution of social resources which make access usable. The point of framing the analysis in this way is that the focus shifts from a mechanistic and crude preoccupation with utilities to enhancing the s...
{"title":"Amartya Sen’s “Capabilities” Approach to the Evaluation of Welfare: Its Application to Communications","authors":"N. Garnham","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008658","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractTo concern ourselves with the welfare state is to concern ourselves with entitlements. This raises the question, entitlements to what? This essay examines the relevance of the thought of welfare theorist Amartya Sen for the subject of communication theory and policy. Sen’s perspective originates from a normative egalitarianism derived from a Kantian emphasis on the position of the other, which he poses in contrast to utilitarian views on welfare. Sen observes that it is possible to make the same set of resources or utilities available to different persons or groups and realise that some are capable of making more effective use of them than others. Applying this “capabilities” approach to communication policy leads to the conclusion that it is not access in a crude sense that is crucial, but the distribution of social resources which make access usable. The point of framing the analysis in this way is that the focus shifts from a mechanistic and crude preoccupation with utilities to enhancing the s...","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"86 1","pages":"25-34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74954608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008646111
C. Sádaba, W. Schulz
Three different models of the public sphere have gained wide attention in the academic literature. In a recent article Gerhards (1997) contrasts two of these models, the discursive public and the liberal public, respectively. The former is linked to the well-known work of Habermas on the transformation of the public sphere (1962) and to some of his more recent reflections and modifications (Habermas 1992a,b). The latter model is rooted in theories of liberal democracy which were developed in political science. Gerhards also traces influences, among others, to the writings of Luhmann (e.g., Luhmann 1971). Both models are ideal types in the sense Max Weber introduced this term, i.e. they give a rather abstract, idealised notion of some basic features and functions of the public sphere. However, Habermas and Gerhards both claim that their respective models have empirical value and are suitable for a description of observable phenomena (Habermas 1992b, 451; Gerhards 1997). The two models have some key features in common. They both conceive of the public sphere as an intermediary system which links the basis with the top of the political system or, as Habermas puts it, the private and collective actors of the periphery with the political institutions in the centre. Both conceptions have some obvious resemblance with political systems models of the type devised by Easton (1965). Systems models of this type contrast input processes, output processes and conversion processes. Mass media are considered by these models as just one of several channels or agents through which the interests and the will of the people are transformed or converted into political decisions. The models differ with respect to the position and role of political actors, particularly of interest groups. In the liberal model organised collective actors, like interest groups and political parties, dominate the public sphere and provide inputs to the political decision centre. WINFRIED SCHULZ
{"title":"Changes of the Mass Media and the Public Sphere","authors":"C. Sádaba, W. Schulz","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008646111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008646111","url":null,"abstract":"Three different models of the public sphere have gained wide attention in the academic literature. In a recent article Gerhards (1997) contrasts two of these models, the discursive public and the liberal public, respectively. The former is linked to the well-known work of Habermas on the transformation of the public sphere (1962) and to some of his more recent reflections and modifications (Habermas 1992a,b). The latter model is rooted in theories of liberal democracy which were developed in political science. Gerhards also traces influences, among others, to the writings of Luhmann (e.g., Luhmann 1971). Both models are ideal types in the sense Max Weber introduced this term, i.e. they give a rather abstract, idealised notion of some basic features and functions of the public sphere. However, Habermas and Gerhards both claim that their respective models have empirical value and are suitable for a description of observable phenomena (Habermas 1992b, 451; Gerhards 1997). The two models have some key features in common. They both conceive of the public sphere as an intermediary system which links the basis with the top of the political system or, as Habermas puts it, the private and collective actors of the periphery with the political institutions in the centre. Both conceptions have some obvious resemblance with political systems models of the type devised by Easton (1965). Systems models of this type contrast input processes, output processes and conversion processes. Mass media are considered by these models as just one of several channels or agents through which the interests and the will of the people are transformed or converted into political decisions. The models differ with respect to the position and role of political actors, particularly of interest groups. In the liberal model organised collective actors, like interest groups and political parties, dominate the public sphere and provide inputs to the political decision centre. WINFRIED SCHULZ","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73705390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008663
T. Flew
AbstractA major debate in Australian cultural studies in the 1990s has been the “cultural policy debate.” Drawing upon theories of governmentality developed by Michel Foucault and others, there has been a move to understand cultural institutions in terms upon their relationship to the formation of citizens in modern liberal democracies. While such work can provide considerable insight into contemporary media and cultural policy processes, there are significant gaps in the Foucaultian approach, most notably its difficulties in incorporating the significance of citizenship rights to policy processes. The article explores general issues about the relationship between citizenship, participation and policy formation, and discuss their significance in light of Australian media policy debates about content regulation for commercial broadcasters, local content regulations and, more recently, censorship and the future of public broadcasting. It questions attempts to automatically equate citizenship with participat...
{"title":"Citizenship, Participation and Media Policy Formation","authors":"T. Flew","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008663","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractA major debate in Australian cultural studies in the 1990s has been the “cultural policy debate.” Drawing upon theories of governmentality developed by Michel Foucault and others, there has been a move to understand cultural institutions in terms upon their relationship to the formation of citizens in modern liberal democracies. While such work can provide considerable insight into contemporary media and cultural policy processes, there are significant gaps in the Foucaultian approach, most notably its difficulties in incorporating the significance of citizenship rights to policy processes. The article explores general issues about the relationship between citizenship, participation and policy formation, and discuss their significance in light of Australian media policy debates about content regulation for commercial broadcasters, local content regulations and, more recently, censorship and the future of public broadcasting. It questions attempts to automatically equate citizenship with participat...","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"33 1","pages":"87-102"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87262759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13183222.1997.11008638
B. James
Public discourse in the West about the postcommunist economies of East Central Europe centres on the pace of privatisation, the adoption of capitalist financial institutions, and foreign investment in industries ranging from automotive to nuclear power (Clash 1996, Kraar 1996). The inevitability and desirability of capitalism are assumed, and the central focus is on macro-economic indicators of progress. Little attention is given to the material consequences of, and responses to, economic upheaval among those who are experiencing its costs, including rising unemployment and a growing disparity between rich and poor. Instead, human experience is reduced to questions of preference for the old system versus the new, and responses are reported in aggregates that gloss over distinctions based on class, education, or other significant factors. For example, The Economist reports that a steadily rising number of East Europeans are happy to live under the rigors of the free market, and that outside the former Soviet republics, nearly two-thirds are broadly chirpy about their new system (Feeling Perkier 1996, 48-49). To the extent that class ever enters into the dominant discourse of post-communist transition, it is typically articulated to the emergence of a nouveau riche entrepreneurial class (Boris on Bond Street 1995). In addition to masking issues of class, these examples also reveal a logical inconsistency. As Stjepan Metroviæ (1993, 1994) has pointed out, Western experts treat capitalism as if it were a rootless, self-sustaining abstraction, severed from history and culture. But at the same time, those who proclaim the unequivocal moral virtues of capitalism are hardly able to disguise the underlying, ethnocentric assumption that it will be the American brand of BEVERLY JAMES
西方关于东欧后共产主义经济的公开讨论集中在私有化的步伐，资本主义金融机构的采用，以及从汽车到核电等行业的外国投资(Clash 1996, Kraar 1996)。假设资本主义的必然性和可取性，中心焦点是进步的宏观经济指标。很少有人注意到经济动荡的物质后果，以及那些正在承受其代价的人对经济动荡的反应，包括失业率上升和贫富差距扩大。相反，人类的经验被简化为对旧制度和新制度的偏好问题，而反应被汇总报道，掩盖了基于阶级、教育或其他重要因素的差异。例如，《经济学人》报道，“越来越多的东欧人乐于生活在严格的自由市场之下”，而在前苏联加盟共和国之外，“近三分之二的人对他们的新体制普遍感到高兴”(《感觉更活跃》1996,48 -49)。在某种程度上，这个阶级曾经进入后共产主义转型的主导话语，它通常是与暴发户企业家阶级的出现联系在一起的(“鲍里斯在邦德街”1995)。除了掩盖类的问题外，这些示例还揭示了逻辑上的不一致。正如Stjepan Me æ troviæ(1993,1994)所指出的，西方专家将资本主义视为一种无根的、自我维持的抽象，与历史和文化相分离。但与此同时，那些“宣称资本主义具有明确的道德美德”的人几乎无法掩饰其潜在的、种族中心主义的假设，即资本主义将成为贝弗利·詹姆斯(BEVERLY JAMES)的美国品牌
{"title":"Working Class Identities in Postcommunist Culture","authors":"B. James","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008638","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008638","url":null,"abstract":"Public discourse in the West about the postcommunist economies of East Central Europe centres on the pace of privatisation, the adoption of capitalist financial institutions, and foreign investment in industries ranging from automotive to nuclear power (Clash 1996, Kraar 1996). The inevitability and desirability of capitalism are assumed, and the central focus is on macro-economic indicators of progress. Little attention is given to the material consequences of, and responses to, economic upheaval among those who are experiencing its costs, including rising unemployment and a growing disparity between rich and poor. Instead, human experience is reduced to questions of preference for the old system versus the new, and responses are reported in aggregates that gloss over distinctions based on class, education, or other significant factors. For example, The Economist reports that a steadily rising number of East Europeans are happy to live under the rigors of the free market, and that outside the former Soviet republics, nearly two-thirds are broadly chirpy about their new system (Feeling Perkier 1996, 48-49). To the extent that class ever enters into the dominant discourse of post-communist transition, it is typically articulated to the emergence of a nouveau riche entrepreneurial class (Boris on Bond Street 1995). In addition to masking issues of class, these examples also reveal a logical inconsistency. As Stjepan Metroviæ (1993, 1994) has pointed out, Western experts treat capitalism as if it were a rootless, self-sustaining abstraction, severed from history and culture. But at the same time, those who proclaim the unequivocal moral virtues of capitalism are hardly able to disguise the underlying, ethnocentric assumption that it will be the American brand of BEVERLY JAMES","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"43 1","pages":"19-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80328165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","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：