Elementi konseptizma u "Snu o strašnom sudu" Fransiska de Keveda

Negociación, lágrimas y maldiciones: La fiscalidad extraordinaria en la monarquía hispánica, 1620–1814

With the present economic crisis and the ensuing economic policy measures introduced by the Spanish government as of May 2010, a curious two-way shift has occurred in the debate on basic income. On the one hand, basic income has virtually disappeared from the official agenda, even in the form of piecemeal discussion among the political parties whereas, on the other hand, there is greater interest in it among the activists of quite a wide range of social movements. A short history of basic income in the Kingdom of Spain1 is essential here if one is to comprehend and contextualize what this means in political terms. Before providing this, however, we shall give a brief outline of the present situation in Spain as a result of the economic crisis and, more important, an account of the economic policies adopted since May 2010. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand the recent two-way shift regarding basic income, at the level of government in the political parties represented in the Spanish parliament and at the grassroots level among the social movements.KeywordsSocial MovementPolitical PartiBasic IncomeArbitrary InterferencePartido PopularThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Being a master of metaphors

The Role of Social Movements in the Governance of ICT Commons in Times of Crisis

Democratic professionalism in public services

Women’s Activism and the Public Sphere:Introduction and Overview Valentine M. Moghadam (bio) and Fatima Sadiqi (bio) The articles in this special issue were among those presented at a workshop we organized for the Sixth Mediterranean Social and Political Research Meeting, which took place from 16—20 March 2005, in Montecatini, Italy. The purpose of the workshop was to examine the proposition that the public sphere in a number of MENA countries is changing and civil society becoming "feminized" due to women's greater social participation, the proliferation of women's organizations, their involvement in or initiation of public debates and national dialogues, and their access to various forms of media. Twelve papers were submitted and presented at the workshop, leading to a very lively discussion, but only a few could be included in this special issue. The papers lay out the complexity of various versions of women's activism, their intricate relations with public space, and how that plays out in contemporary political and legal debates.In what remains, we provide a brief introduction to the guiding ideas and an overview of the papers' arguments and findings. In Habermas' conceptualization, the "public sphere" is a modern institution and a set of values that brings private persons together in public to engage in a context of reasoned debates (Habermas 1989). Civil society—the non-state realm of associational life, civility in public discourse, and state-society relations—constitutes an important part of the [End Page 1] public sphere of media and other forums of public opinion. As feminist scholars have pointed out (Fraser 1996; Lister 1997), civil society and the public sphere historically were cast as male, although women's suffrage and the women's movement expanded, democratized, and feminized these spheres in the course of the twentieth century. The public sphere has been conceptualized largely in connection with the single society and the nation-state, but processes of globalization suggest the emergence of a "global space" within which reasoned debates, associational activities, and collective action take place. This is the impetus for the new literature on "global civil society" (Florini 2000), the "transnational public sphere" (Guidry, Kennedy, and Zald 1999), "transnational social movements" (Smith, Chatfield, and Pagnucco 1997), "transnational advocacy networks" (Keck and Sikkink 1998), and "transnational feminist networks" (Moghadam 2005). A burgeoning literature on civil society, citizenship, and democratization has emerged in the context of Middle East Studies, in tandem with a body of work by feminist scholars (Brynen, Korany, and Noble 1995, 1998; El-Sayyid 1994; Norton 1995; Arat 1994; Brand 1998; Botman 1999; Joseph 2000; Moghadam 2003; Sadiqi 2003). As an earlier generation of feminist scholars noted for the West, the public sphere of politics in MENA has been cast as male and distinguished from the private sphere of women-and-the-family. Moreover, the state and the market have been long regarded as masculine domains. Rights of the citizen—limited for all in the authoritarian and neopatriarchal states of MENA—have been differentiated by gender (and religion). It is this state of affairs that is being contested by an emerging social and political constituency—women—who are motivated by aspirations for equality and enhanced rights and who also draw on international standards, conventions, and networks in support of their claims. As a social movement, women's activism in the public sphere uses strategies that do not reproduce Western frameworks but that feed into global synergy with their guiding cultural worldviews. It is only through understandings of intercultural worldviews and various meanings of "pragmatism" that MENA women's rights tactics can be appreciated globally (Sadiqi forthcoming). The papers in this special issue explore the changing nature of the public sphere in MENA and women's contributions to it, as well as women's involvement in the transnational public sphere, through an [End Page 2] examination of countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Jordan, where these changes have been observed. An examination of political developments over the past decade in MENA countries leads to the formulation of the following propositions. Proposition 1. The public sphere in a number of MENA countries is being engendered and feminized because of the emergence of women as political actors...

Modern social movements should be considered in the context of the existing public sphere, the main theorists of which are J. Habermas and P. Bourdieu. The article analyzes various aspects of the functioning of the public sphere, examines the role of mass media in the formation of the public sphere and the orientation of public opinion. Using the example of social movements in France, the author examines how the public sphere affects the functioning of social movements. Nowadays, the media largely determines the agenda and controls public debate. Besides, the experience of each person is completely mediated by the communication means. At the same time the media is largerly influenced by politics and, as a result, the public sphere loses its functions. Nevertheless, the public of organized individuals could become an effective participant in public communication, through which it is possible to legitimize the achievement of political compromises. The author concludes that social movement's analysis should be focused not only on the political, economic and social causes of demonstrations, but also on the public sphere in which they exist. In addition, the discourse constructed by the mass media is not only imposed on society, but belongs to it. Each person contributes to its creation, and social media platforms play an important role in this. If public discourse is the result of the activity of many actors, then it is necessary to consider the possibility of interference in its construction.

Kamusal alan üzerine yapılan tartışmalar özellikle 1980'lerden sonra oldukça artmıştır. Bu tartışmalarda toplumsal hareketlerin kamusal alandaki yeri ve işlevi meselesi ise her zaman önemli olmuştur. Bu çalışma, proleter kamusal alan kavramı ile toplumsal hareketler ilişkisini anlamaya yönelik bir çabadır. Habermas'ın kamusal alan kavramının tek, özerk, hegemonik, ulusal ve kuşatıcı olduğu, toplumsal hareketlerin ise, tersine, alternatif/karşıt kamular yaratabildiği, dolayısıyla çoğul kamuların bulunduğu söylenebilir. Proleter bir kamusal alan ise ancak sınıf temelli toplumsal hareketler ile kültür/kimlik temelli toplumsal hareketler arasındaki ittifaklarla etkili olabilir.

Reviewed by: Toxic Shock: A Social History by Sharra L. Vostral Donna J. Drucker (bio) Toxic Shock: A Social History By Sharra L. Vostral. New York: New York University Press, 2018. Pp. 227. Sharra L. Vostral begins Toxic Shock: A Social History with a vivid description of her experience learning about this syndrome as an American teenager in 1982. The public health concerns about contracting a sudden illness from (and possibly dying from) tampon use were broadcast extensively on television, in newspapers and magazines, and on product labels. As a teenager in California in the early 1990s, this reviewer also remembers these widespread but vague warnings about sudden death due to toxic [End Page 1261] shock syndrome (TSS) from overlong tampon use. From so few documented cases nationwide, how did TSS rise to such prominence in the United States' public health and safety discourse? Vostral addresses that and many other questions in the first book-length history of the syndrome. Vostral's central argument is that "TSS was a paradigm shift in the way that illness manifests because the supposedly inert tampon interacted with a common bacterium (Staphylococcus aureus) to cause sickness in otherwise healthy women" (p. 2). She explores this argument from five perspectives that comprise the book's five roughly chronological central chapters: the material, technological history of tampons and S. aureus; medicine and epidemiology; communication and journalism; law and lawsuits; and policy and politics. The narrative begins with a history of tampons as material technologies. It focuses on how synthetic superabsorbent materials (like those in Rely, the Procter & Gamble tampon that became the focus of TSS investigations) provide an environment where they and the bacteria act together to produce conditions where TSS can occur. The next chapter describes how scientists, physicians, and policymakers identified, traced, and publicized TSS from the late 1970s onward (chapter 2). The book also traces media attention to TSS, Procter & Gamble's withdrawal of Rely tampons from the market, and U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to require warning inserts in tampon boxes under a Ronald Reagan administration hostile to federal regulation. Chapter four centers on a lawsuit brought against Procter & Gamble by the family of a woman who died from TSS after using Rely tampons. Vostral then examines the efforts of an uneasily aligned task force made up of consumer advocates, feminist health activists from the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, Procter & Gamble representatives, and FDA Bureau of Medical Devices staff members. In early 1982, they were charged with developing standard guidelines for tampon absorbency, but they ultimately produced nothing. By 1990, the FDA Federal Register published standard absorbency ranges for different tampon sizes, though there is still no federal requirement to list tampon ingredients on the box or guidelines on how long tampons should be worn. The book's primary theoretical contribution is in the first chapter, where Vostral introduces the concept of biocatalytic technology. Biocatalytic technologies "are not primarily dangerous to humans but have the potential to catalyze microbial activity that may result in harm because of their use" (p. 38). Intriguing and potentially useful as this analytic is, it largely disappears from the rest of the book until the conclusion, when the narrative turns to the policy-oriented, legal, and activist elements of TSS's history. There is consequently a disconnect between the first chapter of the book, which develops this analytic and its potential for identifying bacteria as "a nonhuman unintended user . . . able to exploit the technology," and the remaining four chapters (p. 22). The tampon users, activists, lawyers, [End Page 1262] litigants, scientists, and policymakers in the final four chapters focus on the tampons themselves and pay little attention to S. aureus as an actor. Toxic Shock joins a wider literature of social and technological histories of menstruation and menstrual products. These include Vostral's own Under Wraps (Lexington Books, 2009); Lara Freidenfelds's The Modern Period (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009); Janice Delaney, Mary Jane Lupton, and Emily Toth's The Curse (University of Illinois Press, 1976/ 1988); and Sara Read's Menstruation and the Female Body in Early Modern England (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Vostral proves the argument that TSS changed scientific understandings of...

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes Expressed more fully in Jones (). Along the lines of the introduction and first section of the previous book in the series (Mirzoeff ). Shaun Hides, Coventry University Talking Trash: The Cultural Politics of Daytime TV Talk Shows Julie Engel Manga, 2003 New York University Press, London and New York 253 pp. (pbk), ISBN 0‐8147‐5684‐0 In Talking Trash, Julie Engel Manga sets out to investigate how viewers of “trash talk” make sense of the shows they consume. The category of “trash talk” includes productions like Jerry Springer, Ricki Lake, Jenny Jones, Maury Povich, Montel Williams, and Sally Jesse Raphael. Manga was interested in understanding “who, if anyone, engages with these shows as legitimate public discourse” (p. 7). To find out, she interviewed just over 30 regular viewers of these shows, most of them recruited from a local cosmetology college. In the first chapter, she discusses the moral panic over trash. She briefly touches upon some of the key academic work on talk shows, suggesting that the shows are key domains in which “a range of issues facing society are expressed and engaged, and through which claims to legitimacy are contested and sorted out” (p. 4). Trash talk shows are a worthwhile object of inquiry because our discourses about them dramatise the deepest of our collective neuroses. In the second chapter, Manga discusses the business of trash talk shows, demonstrating that they are driven not by television networks' desire to cultivate a forum for public discourse for “ordinary people,” but are instead shaped almost entirely by the demands of the market. In particular, talk shows continue to exist because they are a low‐cost, commercially viable genre of daytime programming, which sustains the interest of both audiences and advertisers. Chapter 3 looks at how viewers fit the show into their everyday routines, using a range of different explanations to justify their viewing, whether as a way of taking a break or as a mechanism for structuring their daily work. Chapter 4 discusses the central research question of whether the talk shows can be viewed as a legitimate form of public discourse. Manga shows that the understandings of “legitimate” public discourse, which are the motor behind many criticisms of “trash talk,” are entirely at odds with how the viewers understand this concept. The women she interviewed, perhaps not surprisingly, defended the legitimacy of the shows for a variety of reasons. In particular, respondents' views of whether a particular issue, show, or participant fit within her definition of “acceptable” public discourse was heavily correlated with the extent to which the respondent could identify with the individual or issue discussed. At the same time, most of the women distanced themselves from more “extreme” shows such as Jerry Springer, viewing them as pure “entertainment.” In her last two chapters, Manga develops the idea that “trash talk shows embody characteristics of … the carnivalesque” (p. 21). She suggests that instead of taking the dominant approach of criticising the genre for its excessive, irrational, and unproductive features (p. 192), we need to celebrate the “spaces … in our society for collectively accessing the type of sociality that underlies the carnivalesque, a space of connection beyond autonomous ego boundaries” (p. 203). Manga's book is full of rich empirical data. Her methodological approach is clearly informed by feminist ideas, and she strives to make her book a forum for respondents to discuss their ideas about the shows on their own terms and in their own words. However, the theoretical framework through which her data is analysed remains inadequate, and for this reason, the book is not all it could be—as a contribution to feminist scholarship in general, and work on talk shows in particular. Though Manga briefly mentions—but doesn't actually discuss—work by scholars such as Livingstone and Lunt, Munson, Masciarotte and Gamson, more recent work such as that of Langer, Tolson, Grindstaff and Dovey is entirely ignored. This lack of theoretical grounding has profound consequences for the quality of Manga's argument. At the most basic level, it causes the reader to question the contribution of the book. It is difficult to see how Manga's overall insights are radically different from those offered in earlier work such as Radway's Reading the Romance, and Ang's Watching Dallas, both of which are mentioned in Manga's book, but whose ideas are not engaged. Ideas about the socially constructed nature of “legitimacy” and “appropriate public discourse” are remarkably similar to those raised in Gamson's earlier study, Freaks Talk Back, and it would have been worthwhile for Manga to distinguish herself from these earlier contributions. Also, throughout the book, Manga mentions a range of theoretical concepts but never explains how she understands them. For instance, though Manga takes a central interest in the talk shows as a forum for public discourse, she does not come out and define what is meant by “public discourse.” As an underlying ideological project, Manga appears to want to redefine notions of “legitimacy,” “the public,” and “meaningful debate.” However, because we are never clearly told what definitions Manga is contesting and why the contestation matters, the desire to rethink and redefine becomes almost meaningless. This is a great shame, because feminist scholarship needs more rigorous empirical work picking at the public–private distinction. In the absence of a compelling theoretical framework, Manga's analysis of the women's opinions and statements about talk shows become little more than a paraphrasing that is less interesting than the original formulation. The weakness of the theoretical framework also creates a stylistic problem: while Manga is aware of the therapeutic discourse that animates the shows she studies, and the liberal individualism that underlies it (e.g., pp. 150–156), her own book on occasion slips into just this discourse. For example, in Chapter 3, as well as large parts of Chapter 4, the book reads not as a scholarly work, but as a prolonged counselling session with patients addicted to talk shows, or, more in the spirit of things, a talk show about talk shows. These sections of the book contain little in the way of analysis, but instead rely mainly on reproducing detailed transcripts of conversation with the women. She goes through the opinions of each of her key respondents in turn, a strategy that makes it even more all but impossible to view her study in conceptual terms. More than that, it draws the reader's attention away from the culturally constituted nature of the women's discourses on talk shows and towards an individualised reading that stresses each woman's particularities. Similarly, Manga criticises the work of other scholars who seek to assess the legitimacy of talk shows as a public forum (e.g., p. 158), yet this same proclivity pervades her own book. Nevertheless, her approach begs the question of why she herself is so centrally preoccupied with the notion of “legitimate public discourse” when it is a category so clearly constructed and defended by those whose interests are at odds with most marginalised viewers. In places where she has sketched out an adequate theoretical framework—as when she shows the relationship between the women's socio‐economic position and the discourses about talk shows to which they have access—the book becomes fascinating. The book also compellingly discusses the women's paradoxical relationships to Enlightenment ideals like impartiality and rationality, showing that although they value the carnivalesque, they also appreciate particular hosts for their ability to be impartial and rational in their behaviour towards guests. In other words, these women both appreciate a post‐modern playfulness and a modernist ethic of rationality and procedural equality. Overall, Talking Trash is too uneven to be entirely satisfying, but it does show us, through the lens of the women Manga interviewed, a couple of the central insights that a feminist cultural studies approach can provide. First of all, it reminds us that notions of legitimacy are entirely culturally constructed and often serve the interests of the most privileged and powerful. Secondly, it calls attention to the fact that if we analyse our consumption of media from the point of view of how “productive” and “useful” such practices may be, we miss out on the real significance of the moment of playful sociality. Karin Wahl‐Jorgensen, Cardiff University

The proposed scientific work represents the main research results concerning the development of a person’s environmental consciousness at adolescence in the context of the studied system of adolescents’ attitudes to the World. Ecological consciousness is considered as a subjective reflection of the personal, social and natural environment, as a single indivisible human World, which manifests itself in ecologically directed (eco-centric) human behaviour. An individual’s attitudes are understood as active, conscious, integral, selective and based on experience relations of the individual with different aspects of reality, which exist in the form of a single system.The World basic elements are revealed through the development of environmental consciousness at the level of the personal, social and natural spheres of a personality and reflect the system of relations, respectively, to oneself, to others and to the nature. Moreover, the World itself is indivisible and united.Environmental consciousness is described as a complex system, having two subsystems: the structural components of ecological consciousness and an individual’s attitudes to the World. The main structural components of environmental consciousness are cognitive, emotive, value-semantic, consumer-motivational and conative. The elements of an adolescent’s single indivisible World are its personal, social and natural spheres. Within the framework of the personal world, environmental consciousness is determined as attitudes towards oneself, social consciousness means attitudes towards others, and natural consciousness means attitudes towards the nature.Adolescents’ personal sphere is determined by their attitudes to Self, to thoughts, emotions, values ​​and needs, formed in their families and internalized into their inner picture of the World. The development of the environmental consciousness components at the level of the personal sphere is based on the development of reflection, critical thinking, as well as a reassessment of values.Adolescents’ social sphere is expressed through a system of relations and interpersonal interactions. The development of the environmental consciousness components at the social level is based on the formation of their sense of maturity and self-affirmation in a group of peers. Adolescents’ natural sphere of the World is determined by the pragmatism of relations to the animate and inanimate nature, and the development of the environmental consciousness components is based on socially significant activities in relation to the nature.The empirical study of adolescents’ attitudes to people, the nature and themselves has revealed the declining hierarchical sequence of adolescents’ attitudes to the World. In particular, the social world — the world of others and interactions with them — is the most significant for adolescents. The least significant for adolescents is the nature. Adolescents’ attitudes to themselves – their personal world – create intermediate link of the significance hierarchy.

Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest

<i>The Humanist World of Renaissance Florence</i>. By Brian Maxson.New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Pp. x+302. $95.00 (cloth); $76.00 (Adobe eBook Reader).

This study uses the concept of standing, or legitimacy, to bridge the disciplinary divide between social movement and communication scholarship on activism. Here, the authors examine whether activist standing in 269 broadcast news stories sampled between 1970 and 2012 across five social movements – Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, Immigrant Rights, Occupy Wall Street, and Tea Party – is undermined by (1) the mix of visuals included in media coverage and (2) activists’ social statuses at the intersection of gender, race, and age. The authors find that broadcast media undercut the standing of activists in some social movements more than others. Occupy activists faced the most challenges to their standing because they were more likely to be shown as angry, young protestors wearing anti-government costumes and engaged in nonnormative protest behavior than activists associated with other movements. In contrast, Tea Party movement activists, who also made anti-government claims during the same relative time frame, were not cast in a similarly negative light. The authors also find that activist standing is diminished and enhanced at the intersection of gender, race, and age. For example, the social movements with the most racial diversity – the immigrant rights and Occupy movements – were also shown as the most deviant and deserving violent repression in coverage. The authors conclude the study with a discussion of the importance of interdisciplinary research and a call for additional research on the movement–media relationship.

Abstract: The normative ideal of a public sphere, as defined by Habermas, is the realm of social life where private people come together as a public to engage in debate over the general rules that govern our lives. This debate is grounded in procedural rationality where bracketing of social difference, inclusiveness, and the force of the better argument provide the basis for mutual understanding and decision making. These ideals are used to determine the extent to which 12 forest resource advisory groups in Alberta achieve the standards of a public sphere. Results from interview and survey research show that, minimally, public advisory groups qualify as a public sphere and are engaged in representative thinking. Control of these groups by forest companies, however, tends to de-politicize the deliberative process through information management and bureaucratic constraints. Some recommendations are made that may serve to re-energize civic debate over the future of our national forests. Resume: L'ideal normatif d'une sphere publique, tel que defini par Hebermas, est domaine de la vie sociale ou les membres du public se rassemblent pour discuter des regles generales qui gouernent not vies. Ce debat est ancre dans one rationalite procedurale par laquelle la mise entre parenthese des differences sociale, I'inclusion et la force du meilleur argument forment la base d'une comprehension mutuelle Ct des prises de decisions. Ces criteres ideaux sont utilises pour determiner dans quelle mesure les 12 groupes consultatifs sur les ressources forestieres en Alberta verificent les criteres qui caracterisent une sphere publique. Des entrevues et des recherches sur le terrain montrent que les groupes consultatifs repondent a ces criteres et refletent une pensee representative seulement de maniere minimale. Le controle de ces groupes par les compagnies forestieres, capendant, tend a depolitiser le processus de deliberation par la gestion de I'information et les contraintes bureaucratiques. Cet article conti ent des recommandations qui pourront servir a raviver les debats civiques concernant l'avenir de nos forets nationales Introduction Under what conditions can private people come together and discuss issues of public concern where rational argument, not social status, form the basis of informed consensus? This is the question Jurgen Habermas addresses in his attempt to develop the historical category of the public sphere (Habermas, 1989). Based originally in 17th and 18th Century Europe, the public sphere was manifested most ideally in the coffee houses of England. In modem society, however, the public sphere is thought of not as a single realm of publicness and openness but more pragmatically as a variety of institutions and formal procedures for precipitating a public sphere. According to theorists such as McCarthy (1992), the boundaries and structures of the places where debates about issues of public concern take place are influenced by history and culture and are therefore fluid. They are negotiated by specific communities according to a set of common needs and values. Some recent articles describing the role of deliberative democracy in managing a range of Canadian-based development projects, while highlighting their successes and failures, suggest a critical role for these public spheres (Richardson et al, 1993; Ali, 1997; Mehta, 1997; McDaniels et al., 1999). Another example of these modern public spheres can be found in the forest resource advisory groups of Alberta. These groups appear to meet some of the basic criteria of a public sphere in that they purport to provide space for a representative sample of citizens to become informed about and debate the veracity of existing forest management practices. In this paper, I undertake an empirically informed normative critique of these forest resource advisory groups as a public sphere. I begin by describing the category of a public sphere in historical context and then I delineate some of the contemporary revisions to Habermas's ideal that, arguably, renders it more flexible in confronting some of the complexities of modern society. …