Słowa kluczowe
discourse analysis
Eastern Europe
Ernesto Laclau
post-socialism
transition
transitology
Jak cytować
Abstrakt
From the time of its introduction, the concept of ‘transition’ has effected a tectonic shift in our understanding of post-socialism. In the process which has taken place during the last couple of decades after the collapse of East European socialist regimes, it has become transformed from one of the signifiers of the political and social change which occurred into a cornerstone for thinking, analyzing and predicting the future of post-socialism. Furthermore, in this article it is posited that all the political and social processes occurring in the ex-socialist countries are defined in relation to transition as an all-encompassing form of post-socialist experience. Relying on the discursive theory of Ernesto Laclau, this article attempts to consider together the usually separated questions of epistemology and ontology, and to ask what is the connection between scientific origins of the concept of transition and its political legitimacy. We claim that transition is a “sutured“ structure composed of various social experiences and political strategies, which naturalizes and universalizes the contingent power struggles that are taking place and will take place in the future of post-socialist countries. Therefore, severing the existing bonds between transition and the actually existing post-socialism is a necessary precondition for creating a more complex and productive understanding of the societies of East and South East Europe.Bibliografia
Agamben, Giorgio. 1993. Stanzas: Word and Phantasm in Western Culture. Minneapolis – London: University of Minnesota Press.
Althusser, Louis and Etienne Balibar. 1970. Reading Capital. London: New Left Books.
Balibar, Etienne. 1977. On The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. London: New Left Books.
Buden, Boris. 2010. “Children of Postcommunism.” Radical Philosophy 159:18-26.
Brown, Annette, ed. 1999. When is Transition Over? Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Canguilhem, Georges. 1991. The Normal and the Pathological. New York: Zone Books.
Carothers, Thomas. 2002 “The End of the Transition Paradigm.” Journal of Democracy 13:5-21.
Cifrić, Ivan. 1998. “Tranzicija i transformacija” [Transition and transformation]. In Društveni razvoj i ekološka modernizacija, edited by Ivan Cifrić. Zagreb: Croatian Sociological Association.
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2002. “The Transition to the Human World of Democracy: Notes for a History of the Concept, from Early Marxism to 1989.” European Journal of Social Theory 5: 219-242.
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2005. The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and International Order. New York: Columbia University Press.
Haggard, Stephan and Robert R. Kaufman. 1997. “The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions.” Comparative Politics 29:263-283.
Hann, Chris, Caroline Humphrey and Katherine Verdery. 2002. “Introduction: postsocialism as a topic of anthropological investigation.” In Postsocialism: Ideals, ideologies and practices in Eurasia, edited by Chris M. Hann, 1-29. London: Routledge.
Heller, Michael. 1998. “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets.” Harvard Law Review 111:621-688.
Humphrey, Caroline. 2002. The Unmaking of Soviet Life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Humphrey, Caroline and Ruth Mandel. 2002. “The Market in Everyday Life: Ethnographies of Postsocialism.” In Markets and Moralities, edited by Caroline Humphrey and Ruth Mandel, 1-18. London: Berg.
Jankauskas, Algimantas and Liutauras Gudžinskas. “Reconceptualizing Transitology: Lessons from Post-Communism.” Lithuanian annual strategic review (2007):181-199.
Jeffries, Ian. 1996. A Guide to the Economies in Transition. London: Routledge.
Jović, Dejan. 2010. “Problems of Early Post-Communist Transition Theory: From Transition from to Transition to.” Croatian Political Science Review 47:44-68.
Kapstein, Ethan B. and Nathan Converse. 2008. The Fate of Young Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Klaus, Vaclav. 1994. “Systemic change: The delicate mixture of intentions and spontaneity.” Cato Journal 14:171-177.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Times. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2006. “Ideology and Postmarxism.” Journal of Political Ideologies 11:103-114.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2007. Emancipation(s). London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto and Paul Bowman. “Politics, Polemics, and Academics: An Interview by Paul Bowman.” Parallax 11 (1999):93-107.
Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto and Lilian Zac. 1994. “Minding the Gap: The Subject of Politics.” In The Making of Political Identities, edited by Ernesto Laclau, 11-40. London: Verso.
Lalić, Dražen, Pero Maldini and Ivana Andrijašević. 2011. “Otupjelo oruđe: neprimjerenost tranzicijskog koncepta za analizu konsolidacije demokracije.” [A blunt instrument: the inadequacy of the concept of transition for analysis of the consolidation of democracy]. Anales of the Croatian Political Science Association 7:29-49.
Lane, David. 2007. “Introduction: two outcomes of transition.” In The Transformation of State Socialism System Change, Capitalism or Something Else? edited by David Lane, 1-32. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lavigne, Marie. 1999. “What is still missing?” In: When is Transition Over?, edited by Annette Brown, 13-38. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Maldini, Pero. 2006. “Političko-kulturalni preduvjeti demokratizacije [Political and cultural preconditions for democratization].” Croatian Political Science Review 43:87–108.
Marchart, Oliver. 2007. Post-foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Marody, Mira. 1998. “Post-transitology, or Is there Any Life After Transition?” In Building Open Society and Perspectives of Sociology in East-Central Europe, edited by Piotr Sztompka, 43-53. Montreal: University of Quebec Press.
Mezzadra, Sandro. 2007. “Living in Transition: Toward a Heterolingual Theory of the Multitude.” Transversal 11. http://eipcp.net/transversal/1107/mezzadra/en.
Miller, Jacques Alain. 2006. “Suture: elements of the logic of the signifier.” The Symptom. http://www.lacan.com/symptom8_articles/miller8.html.
Močnik, Rastko. 2003. “Social change in the Balkans.” Eurozine, March 20. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2003-03-20-mocnik-en.html.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political. New York: Routledge.
O’Donnell, Guillermo and Phillipe C. Schmitter. 1986. Transition from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Petsinis, Vassilis. 2010. “Twenty years after 1989: moving on from transitology.” Contemporary Politics 16:301–319.
Pop-Elechies, Griogore. 2009. “Between historical legacies and the promise of Western integration: democratic conditionality after communism.” European Journal of Social Theory 12:337-357.
Procacci, Giovanna. 1991. “Social economy and the government of poverty.” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller, 151-168. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Pupovac, Ozren. 2010. “Present perfect, or the time of post-socialism.” Eurozine, May 12. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-05-12-pupovac-en.html.
Rustow, Dankwart. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.” Comparative Politics 2:337-363.
Stark, David. 1992.“Path Dependence and Privatization Strategies in East Central Europe.” East European Politics and Societies 16:17-54.
Thomassen, Lasse. 2005. “Antagonism, hegemony and ideology after heterogeneity.” Journal of Political Ideologies 10:289–309.
Turnock, David. 1997. The East European Economy in Context. London: Routledge.
Tomić-Koludrović, Inga and Mirko Petrić. 2007. “Da societa in transizione a societa mista: la Croazia tra due modernizzazioni [From Transitional to Mixed Society. Croatia between Two Modernizations].“ In La questione adriatica e l’allargamento dell’Unione europea, edited by F. Botta, I. Garzia and P. Guaragnella, 127-161. Milan: Franco Angeli. http://www.seumproject.eu/pwdSources/pdf/ITK–Two_modernizations.pdf
Licencja
Autorzy:
„Praktyka Teoretyczna” jest pismem, które chce realizować idee wolnego dostępu do wiedzy i poszerzania domeny dobra wspólnego. Ma służyć rozwojowi nauki i krytycznej refleksji w Polsce i na świecie w imię idei wolnego dostępu do wiedzy (Open Access). Całe pismo jest udostępniane za darmo w Internecie na warunkach licencji CC-BY-NC-SA (Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Na tych samych warunkach 4.0 Międzynarodowe) w wersji 4.0 (szczegółowe warunki: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Artykuły w nim zamieszczone mogą być dowolnie przechowywane, kopiowane, drukowane, rozpowszechniane i wykorzystywane do celów naukowo-dydaktycznych przy zachowaniu warunków licencji. Apelujemy tylko o uznanie autorstwa i podanie źródła w myśl przyjętych w środowisku naukowym standardów.
Nie ma natomiast możliwości komercyjnego wykorzystania zgromadzonych zasobów bez pisemnej zgody wydawcy. Dostęp do czasopisma nie może być dystrybuowany za opłatą czy w jakikolwiek inny sposób limitowany przez inne podmioty.
Autorzy tekstów przyjętych do publikacji w czasopiśmie „Praktyka Teoretyczna” są zobowiązani do wypełnienia, podpisania i odesłania na adres redakcji umowy o udzielenie nieodpłatnej licencji do utworów, z zobowiązaniem do udzielania sublicencji CC [PL.pdf, PL.doc, EN.pdf, EN.doc].
Zgodnie z umową, autorzy tekstów opublikowanych w czasopiśmie „Praktyka Teoretyczna” udzielają wydawcy czasopisma niewyłącznej i nieodpłatnej licencji oraz zezwalają na użycie sublicencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Na tych samych warunkach 4.0 Międzynarodowe (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0).
Autorzy zachowują prawa do dalszego, swobodnego rozporządzania utworem.
Autorzy nadsyłanych artykułów powinni upewnić się, czy wykorzystywane przez nich materiały nie są chronione prawami autorskimi na rzecz innych osób i ponoszą odpowiedzialność za ewentualne uchybienia w tym względzie.