Search

In this paper, I will investigate the complex relationship between intuition, trustworthiness, and trust. I will first examine some of the more prevalent accounts of trust which either (over)emphasize the cognitive aspect of generating trustworthiness, or indeed acknowledge the importance of affects and emotions, but only as part of a neatly organized dual structure − which is in essence complementary with the cognitive understanding of how we start trusting each other. I will argue that intuitions provide a more detailed insight into trustworthiness because they are simultaneously cognitive and affective in nature. I will also consider how inferential and holistic intuitions might influence our understanding of trustworthiness, especially in times of crisis., U ovom radu ć u istražiti složen odnos između intuicije, pouzdanosti i poverenja. Prvo ć u ispitati neka od preovlađujuć ih tumačenja poverenja koja ili (pre)naglašavaju kognitivni aspekt generisanja poverenja, ili pak priznaju važnost afekta i emocija, ali samo kao deo uredno organizovane dualne strukture – što je u suštini komplementarno sa kognitivnim razumevanjem toga kako uspostavljamo međusobno poverenje. Tvrdiću da intuicije pružaju detaljniji uvid u pouzdanost jer su istovremeno kognitivne i afektivne prirode. Takođe ć emo razmotriti kako inferencijalne i holističke intuicije mogu uticati na naše razumevanje pouzdanosti, posebno u vremenima kriza.

U ovom radu ćemo nastojati da ispitamo neke od savremenih teorijskih specifičnosti političke upotrebe humora. Osnovno polazište glasi da politički humor podrazumeva da se ismeva upravo ono ponašanje koje se isuviše rigidno zasniva na normama, konvencijama ili predrasudama koje su od presudne važnosti za reprodukciju datog društvenog poretka. Humor utoliko nužno referira na ono što je opšte u društvenom delanju i upravo taj njegov aspekt ga čini privlačnim za političku upotrebu i društveni angažman. Na osnovu ovih apstraktnih uvida, nastojaćemo da ponudimo tri smera političke upotrebe humora. Naročitu pažnju ćemo posvetiti tome na koji način sama stabilnost sistema utiče na političke domete humorističkog sagledavanja političkih događaja., In this paper, we will try to examine some of the contemporary theoretical specifics of the political use of humor. The main starting point is that political humor ridicules precisely those behaviors that are too rigidly based on norms, conventions or prejudices that are crucial for the reproduction of a given social order. Humor thus necessarily refers to what is general in social action, and it is this aspect of it that makes it attractive for political use and social engagement. Based on these abstract insights, I will try to offer three directions of political use of humor. I will pay special attention to the way in which the overall stability of the system itself affects the political achievements of the humorous view of political events.

Rad se bavi preciznijim određivanjem pojmova opšteg dobra, javnog interesa i zajedničkog sagledavajući njihovu upotrebu u političkoj filozofiji i političkim naukama u istorijskoj perspektivi. Opšte dobro je od davnina bila jedna od ključnih tema moralne i političke filozofije. Danas se kao sinonim za termin opšteg dobra često koristi pojam javnog interesa. Ipak, nastojaćemo da pokažemo da oni nose donekle drugačije značenje. Skorašnji značajan odjek dugovekovne debate o opštem dobru može se prepoznati u raspravama oko pojma zajedničkog (eng. commons) koji se odnosi na kulturne, materijalne i intelektualne resurse na čije korišćenje pravo polažu svi članovi određene zajednice. Sva tri pojma pomažu dubljem razumevanju dobrobiti zajednice i načina da se ta dobrobit ostvari, iako proučavani autori u svojim teorijama različito naglašavaju značaj kolektiviteta ili individue. Pojam opšteg dobra se, posebno za predmoderne mislioce, odnosio na dobro zajednice iz kojeg sledi dobro njenih članova, pa se stoga pozivanje na interese pojedinaca smatralo nemoralnim. Kasnije, s razvojem koncepta javnog interesa, pojedinac je postavljen u centar promišljanja, a dobrobit zajednice dovedena u vezu sa onim što je u interesu njenih članova. Naposletku, pojam zajedničkog vraća kolektivitet u igru, a „zajedništvo“ postaje ključni termin u rešavanju pitanja degradacije i održivosti širokog spektra dobara., The paper endeavours to offer a closer definition of the concepts of common good, public interest and the commons, analysing their usage in a contemporary and historical perspective. The common good has been one of the key subjects of moral and political philosophy since ancient times. Today, the term public interest is often used as a synonym for the term common good. However, we will try to show that they carry a somewhat different meaning. A recent significant echo of the long-standing debate on the common good can be recognized in the discussions surrounding the concept of commons, which refers to cultural, material and intellectual resources to which all members of a community claim the right to use. All three notions contribute to a deeper understanding of community well-being and the way to realize that well-being. However, authors that are studied in the paper emphasize differently the importance of the collectivity and the individual in that process. The concept of the common good, especially for pre-modern thinkers, refers to the good of the community from which follows the good of its members, while the appealing to the interests of individuals is considered immoral. Later, with the development of the concept of public interest, the individual is placed in the centre of consideration, and the well-being of the community is brought into relation with what is in the interest of its members. Ultimately, the notion of the commons brings the collectivity back to focus, and “togetherness” becomes a key term in addressing the issues of degradation and sustainability of a wide range of goods.

Ovo nije knjiga o gluposti: njenu istoriju, teoriju i „fenomenologiju“ mnogi su već ispisali (među drugima, Tabori 2006; Gliksman 1986). Ali ovo jeste knjiga koja ima veze sa onim s čim se glupost obično povezuje, sa neznanjem i greškom. Veza sreće i gluposti odvajkada je zapravo bila, ako ne neposredno asociranje prvog pojma sa manjkom znanja, onda svakako upozorenje na blisko srodstvo nesreće i znanja

Srđan Prodanović (Lik Boltanski i Nensi Frejzer, Dominacija i emancipacija, prev. Olja Petronić, Mediterran Publishing, Novi Sad, 2018)

This paper presents three interconnected examinations of Asger Sørensen’s arguments in Capitalism, Alienation and Critique, which thematize Sørensen’s overarching understanding of the relationship between theory and practice: his general methodological perspective on critical theory, its distinctive epistemology and its anchoring in the empirical world. The paper authors each try to push Sørensen on these crucial points by considering how Sørensen’s variant of critical theory actually operates, scrutinizing in more detail the particular relationship between the ‘experience of injustice’, which for Sørensen constitutes the empirical foothold for critical theory, and the theoretical diagnosis of social reality which the critical theorist should formulate against the backdrop of this experience., Ovaj rad predstavlja tri povezana ispitivanja argumentacije Asgera Serensena u Kapitalizmu, otuđenju i kritici, koja tematizuju Serensenovo generalno razumevanje odnosa teorije i prak se, drugim rečima njegovu metodološku perspektivu u pogledu kritičke teorije, njene speci fične epistemologije i njene ukorenjenosti u empirijskom svetu. Marjan Ivković, Srđan Pro danović i Milan Urošević nastoje da problematizuju Serensenovo stanovište razmatrajući način na koji Serensenova kritička teorija zapravo funkcioniše, analizirajući detaljnije odnos između ,iskustva nepravdeʻ, koje za Serensena predstavlja empirijsko uporište kritičke teo rije, i teorijske dijagnoze društvene stvarnosti koju kritički teoretičar formuliše na temelju tog iskustva

U ovom radu ćemo pokušati da razmotrimo kritički potencijal sociologije Ervinga Gofmana. Polazna hipoteza će biti da Gofmanovo shavatanje zdravog razuma koje je ponudio u Analizi okvira otvara mogućnost za formulaciju kritičkog uvida u strukturalne datosti svakodnevne društvene prakse. Pokušaćemo takođe da pokažemo da je ovakvo Gofmanovo razumevanje zdravog razuma bilo pod jakim uticajem pragmatizma i fenomenologije, te da su često zanemarene epistemološke razlike između ova dva teorijska pravca ostavile posledice i na gofmanovsku sociologiju. Naime, u Analizi okvira možemo uvek iznova da iščitamo svojevrsnu teorijsku napetost između pragmatičkog insistiranja na autonomnom teorijskom značaju zdravog razuma i redukcionističkih nastojanja koje su fenomenolozi gajili spram ove forme mišljenja. Shodno tome, tvrdićemo da je upravo ova ambivalencija po pitanju uloge zdravog razuma u tumačenju društvene stvarnosti predstavlja glavni razlog što kritički potencijal Gofmanove sociologije ostaje u velikoj meri implicitan po svom karakteru., In this paper, I will try to appraise the critique potential of Erving Goffman’s sociology. The starting hypothesis will be that Goffman’s understanding of common sense offered in Frame Analysis opens the possibility of attaining a critical insight into the structural givens of everyday practice. I will also try to show that Goffman’s understanding of common sense was under heavy influence of pragmatism and phenomenology - and that the often-overseen epistemological differences between these two schools of thought had significant consequences on his sociology. Namely, in the Frame Analysis we can easily find a certain tension between insistence on the autonomous theoretical importance of common sense put forward by the pragmatist and reductionist tendencies towards this type of thought found among the phenomenologists. Therefore, I will argue that this ambivalence regarding the role of common sense in interpreting social realty is the main reason why critique potential of Goffman’s sociology remains implicit in its character.

Predmet ove disertacije čini razmatranje svakodnevnih praksi kroz prostore stanovanja u Zemunu. Namesto prihvatanja holističkih okvira, samo istraživanje je izgrađeno na temeljima osobene ontološke matrice koja akcentuje lokalne kontingencije gde se praktični život odvija relaciono i procesualno, prvenstveno kroz formiranje ključnih odlika društvenog života kroz prostore stanovanja i njegovo odigravanje koje se zbiva kroz svakodnevne prakse. Počev od pretpostavke da se formiranjem prostora stanovanja u konkretnom slučaju Zemuna suštinski formiraju i zasebne stvarnosti i progresivno odvajaju kolektivi kroz rezidencijalne zone, ovo istraživanje stremi ka tome da rašlani vezu između društvenog života i prostora. Stanovanje je stoga preuzeto kao alternativni pristup urbanim prostorima. Promišljajući ih kao komplikovane i heterogene konfiguracije ono podvlači kako su kolektivi upućeni na različite stvarnosti i forme života, posebno kroz bitno drugačije oblike oblike prostornosti i prakse koje se mogu pratiti direktno kroz vezu sa stanovanjem. U tom smislu, primenom kombinovanog metoda koji uključuje statističku analizu, zatim analizu istoriografske građe i drugih sekundarnih izvora podataka poput propisa i urbanih planova, utvrđuju se bitne socijalne razlike između rezidencijalnih zona u Zemunu kakve su Staro jezgro, masovno izgrađena naselja, kao i izbeglička naselja. Uočavanje ovih razlika je uzeto kao osnov za izbor ukupno 15 domaćinstava gde su uočene socio-prostorne putanje izrazite. Drugi segment ovog istraživanja upravo korišćenjem etnografije pristupa komparativnom ispitivanju svakodnevice i prakse u datim slučajevima. Osim razmatranja celokupnog aranžmana u kom se obrazuje svakodnevica domaćinstava u datim slučajevima, nastoji se najpre prići bliže prostornosti u vidu smeštanja praksi, formiranja distinktivnih prostornih modusa i povrh svega, značenja koja akteri pridaju prostoru. Ono što je takođe ispitivano jeste izgled svakodnevice koji se zbiva putem tela i, Subject of this dissertation consists of considering the everyday practices through the dwelling spaces of Zemun. Instead of adopting holistic framework, research itself is based upon unique ontological matrix that accentuates the local contingencies where practical life takes place relationally and processually, primarily through the formation of the principal features of social life through dwelling spaces and their enactment through everyday practices. Starting from an assumption that the formation of a dwelling space in the particular case of Zemun essentially forms distinct realities and progressive separation between the collectives through residential zones, aim of this research is to discern the connection between social life and space. Dwelling is thus taken as an alternative approach to urban spaces. Conceiving them as complicated and heterogeneous configurations that direct collectives to different realities and life forms, it underlines how the collectives are directed to different realities and forms of life, particularly through different forms of spatialities and practices that might be detected directly through link with dwelling. In this sense, using a combined method that includes statistical analysis, analysis of historiographic material and other secondary sources of data such as regulations and urban plans, significant social differences between residential zones in Zemun such as the Old Core, mass-built settlements, and refugee settlements are determined. Registering these differences was taken as the basis for selecting a total of 15 households where the observed socio-spatial trajectories are pronounced. Second segment of this research precisely revolves around employing the ethnography in order to access to the comparative examination of everyday life and practice in given cases. In addition to considering the overall arrangement that forms an everyday life of households in these cases, it seeks first to come closer to space in the form of p

This article investigates the discursive logic of the antibureaucratic revolution through discourse analysis of three Serbian dailies: Politika, Borba, and Veernje Novosti. We conceptualize this discursive logic as a "hybrid discourse," employed by Slobodan Miloevi's faction of the political elite and by prominent Serbian press outlets in their discussions and reporting on the diverse Serbian protest movements of the day. The core of the hybrid discourse, as our analysis demonstrates, consisted of the symbolic interweaving of different types of citizens' discontent in order to present them as one single demand for societal "reform" that resonated with the agenda of the Serbian political elite. We argue that the hybrid discourse and the antibureaucratic revolution itself had a structural role related to the crisis of systemic legitimacy in Yugoslavia. The hybrid discourse performed the operation of what we term the "reversing of the symbolic fixing of antagonism between the ordinary actors' discontents and the structurally inevitable reforms," introducing instead the discursive fusion of the two vocabularies.

The main productive heuristic tool we offer here for thinking, analysis and practice is the phenomena of engagement for social change. We see engagement as a spectrum of ways in which the citizens of a given society reflect on the norms and rules of social action (legally institutionalized, culturally dominant or specific to certain spheres of social action: professional, private or economic), which constitute the structure of their institutional reality, and ways in which they act, on the basis of this reflection, either in order to change parts of this institutional reality, or in order to reinforce them. Not all norms are “bad”. Therefore, engagement is any collective practice characterized by reflection on the existing social norms and rules, and consequently acting upon or against their change. Change and engagement become inseparable and irreducible and it is this relation we want to bring into light with this collection.

In this paper I will explore the relation between engagement and social science. I will try to argue that positivist epistemology found in the early days of social sciences still greatly influences our understanding of social engagement. In the first part of the paper, I will analyze the epistemology of social sciences advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon and try to show that, for them, scientific method was primarily the means for taming social change, as well as projecting private desires and plans onto the public sphere. In the second part, I will offer an alternative account of social engagement using the epistemic role of the community found in pragmatism.

In this symposium, Alessandro Ferrara's recent book The Democratic Horizon: Hyperpluralism and the Renewal of Political Liberalism - an attempt to expand the framework of Rawls' political liberalism in order to enable it to meet the challenge of today's hyperpluralism - is discussed from a variety of angles by four contributors. Among the themes addressed are the potential of political liberalism for grounding a critical attitude; the different potential for accommodation offered by political liberalism for religious and moral, as opposed to economic, pluralism; Rawls' implicit understanding of truth; the prospects of true democracy in ethnically divided societies that embrace consociationalist and particularly consensualist forms of governance; and the proper role of human rights in paths from decency to democracy from the perspective of an expanded political liberalism. In the final section, Alessandro Ferrara replies to his critics and accepts some of their suggestions.

This paper tries to critically analyse Jeffrey Alexander’s cultural sociology. In the first part of the paper I will examine Alexander’s conception of hermeneutical structuralism which argues that conventional systemic sociology and richness of experience found in everyday praxis can be reconciled. In the next section I will provide a critique of this kind of approach to social theory and maintain that Alexander’s sociology is, in principle, reductionist regarding everyday life. In addition, I will also point out some of the comparative advantages that pragmatically oriented theory has in the attempt of integrating theoretical and practical knowledge. In the final section of the paper, I will try to illustrate some of the major shortcomings of Alexander’s sociology on the concrete example of advances in computer technology.

This article stems from the impression of being condemned to late and moralizing reactions in regard to advances in the life sciences.We suggest a return to a speculative and theoretical approach in posing the question(s) of the limit of possible thinking of the enhanced human. This return allows for the possibility to show, not just inductively, but “clearly and distinctly,” the specific justifications and lines of reasoning of anthropocentric prejudice or species narcissism. It also enables us to move freely and precisely along the limits of thinking the human/non-human. In this way, we hope to put forward a few markers or guideposts that would further the debate about notions of human enhancement.

U ovom članku nastojaćemo da ostvarimo sistematičan uvid u odnos između svakodnevnih praksi i javnog prostora. Kroz analizu radova dvojice uticajnih teoretičara iz ove oblasti, Fukoa i Lefevra, pokušaćemo da pružimo teorijsko obrazloženje intuiciji da (javni) prostor predstavlja jedan od osnovnih konstitutivnih elementa slobodnog delanja. U prvom delu članka, analiziraćemo Fukoov pojam heterotopije kako bismo ukazali na mogućnost one „prostorno posredovane“ samorefleksije koja veoma nalikuje na filozofsku askezu iz takozvane kasne faze njegovog dela. Potom ćemo razmotriti u kojoj meri Lefevrovo stanovište da javni prostor predstavlja hegelijansku konkretnu apstrakciju – koja sobom povlači dijalektičku analizu i praćenje složenih istorijskih protivrečnosti – dopunjuje i produbljuje vizuru koju uspostavlja Fuko svojim pojmom heterotopija. U tom smislu, biće pokazano da, uprkos svim razlikama u teorijskim polazištima, oba autora brane ideju jednog javnog prostora u kojem se brišu doznačavanja – kako bi se „otvorio prostor“ slobodnom delatniku., In this paper we will try to offer a systematic insight into the relation of everyday practices and public space. By examining the work of two of the most influential authors in this field, Foucault and Lefebvre, we will try to provide a theoretical explanation of intuition that (public) space represents one of the key constitutive elements of free action. In the first part of the paper, we will consider Foucault’s notion of heterotopia in the interest of pointing towards a “spatially intermediated” self-reflection which, to a great degree, resembles the philosophical askesis form his so called letter work. Afterwards, we will consider in which sense Lefebvre’s position that public space represents a Hegelian concrete abstraction - which entails dialectical analysis and tracking of complex historical contradictions - complements and deepens perspective that Foucault puts before us in his heterotopias. In that vein, it will be shown that both authors, despite the difference in their theoretical starting points, defend the idea of such a public space in which all signifiers are removed in the interest of „opening space” for the free agent