Antiglobalization Social Movements

This paper examines how sound can be a part of race-making. It draws upon empirical research and a nurse’s account of 'noisy' mourning rituals in a multicultural hospice ward, I argue that the insurgent force of noise as a manifestation of difference is a form of 'corporeal generosity' (Diprose, 2002), producing impossible dilemmas for care, whilst also provoking surprising ethical relations and potentialities. Derrida’s ideas about the aporias of the gift and absolute responsibility are used to make sense of the pushy generosity of otherness as it is made to matter through sound.

"CALL FOR BOOK CHAPTERS: "MAPPING THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA IN TURKEY"

Editors: Barış Çoban & Bora Ataman

Extended Deadline for abstracts:
January 1st 2013

http://alternativemediamap.net/

We aim to map the alternative media in Turkey, which is varied in form, structure and working styles such as “cracks”, “rhizomes” and “fronts”. Similarly to what has occurred with the mainstream media, both large and small examples of the alternative media, alongside their widespread prevalence inside the country, have also already transcended the national borders. We argue that mapping the alternative media, embracing newspapers, radio and television channels, cinemas, blogs, forums and platforms, essentially the full range of conventional and new media organs and vehicles, is one of the most useful research approaches to comprehending the nature of alternative politics in Turkey.

The alternative media works as a source of memory and an archive helping to understand the historical and current structure of alternative politics in Turkey. IT also gives voice to alternative ideologies and politics and makes their political activities visible. In addition, the alternative media, which mainly represents the “otherised”, oppressed and marginalised groups, forms the vanguard of struggle against the hegemony and barbarism of the oppressive, globalized neo-liberal society.

Alternative media, as an umbrella term, applies to those media organs which are typically bottom up organisations. In principle, their organizational structures and decision making processes are democratic, participatory, polyphonic and dialogic. Their opposition to the mainstream media finds its roots, in its form and content, in social and political struggles and is based in radical ideologies such as anarchism, radical democracy and Marxism. The existence of alternative media indicates the struggle to construct a truly democratic and free sphere of communication from a number of broad perspectives, varying from the idea of simply being independent from either the state or capital, to being completely opposed to them. In this context, it is also possible to claim that every organ of the alternative media, as a centre of subaltern resistance, is part of a greater alternative communication network.

This so-called alternative network (or networks) is/are the voice of different political or social groups, communities, minorities or even individuals at the grassroots level. Thus, they open the way for these groups to actively participate in political and social life, as either real “agents” or as “spectacles” in the field of symbolic struggle. Therefore, individuals or groups can find opportunities to get involved in both real and symbolic struggles for hegemony, not only as consumers, but also as producers; as active agents.

Therefore, alternative media institutions either on the micro- or macro-scale cannot be considered as combatants solely at the informational level. In addition to their struggle to gather, record and spread news and ideas concerning local, national and transnational problems, they also provide a response to the establishment through real political actions. It is not unusual to see their active participation in protests, or even note that they hold the leadership positions in the organisation of some of these dissident political actions. Therefore, their active struggle with the hegemonic powers can also be considered as an effort to create alternative political forms. More commonly however, alternative media operate as the symbolic production centre of alternative politics and as an incubation ground for the intellectual and ideological constructs of social movements.

Alternative media, along with other dissident institutions, are seen as paving the way for a brighter and more just future by being the voice of the voiceless and contributing to the imagining of a different world. Threatening so-called representative democracy by supporting participatory social, cultural and political activities is also deemed useful to this end. By engaging in such activities, they may be able to cause the transformation of political culture in general. More importantly, however, the ways in which subordinate constituents of the society interpret politics and their own means of participation could change in a positive manner. Moreover, such efforts may also lead to the construction of efficient counter-public spheres alongside the more common examples of alternative spaces.
Diverse anti-systemic, reformist and revolutionary ideological orientations, varied political discourses and different modes of action constituting the alternative media landscape mostly open up an opportunity for the “oppressed” to actively participate in these alternative political spaces that are, to a certain extent, diverse, colourful, vivid and, most importantly, innately dialogic.
In this context, we argue that the “duty” of academia should be to understand these alternatives without stigmatizing them as the source of conflicts within the prevailing social system. After all, we as editors, would like to study these initiatives since the imagining of an alternative world may only be possible by embracing the oppressed and their voice, even though the world around us is not particularly welcoming.

Abstracts of papers are sought on topics such as:
• Radical- militant media (affiliated with revolutionary organizations)
• Radical media (Struggling within legal parameters to push the limits of the existing system
• Identity and rights-based media (Human rights, labour and trade-union rights, gender, environment, ethnicity, struggles based on faith or denomination
• Transnational and diaspora-based alternative media
• Independent, objective, opposition media
• Dissident voices, “cracks” in the mainstream media

However, it should be noted that the categories above do not refer to independent categories with clear differences. It is possible to say that; most examples of the alternative media operating in Turkey can be included under more than one of the rubrics mentioned above. Nevertheless, the alternative media organs in Turkey, despite a degree of permeability in the boundaries that separate them, may be seen as belonging more to one or another of the above-mentioned classifications, therefore, these categories will constitute the book’s chapters.

Furthermore, we are mainly interested in the case studies (comparative if possible) and empirical research possessing theoretical and methodological clarity, and focusing on at least one of three basic dimensions of media studies; such as “Production”, “Text”, or “Audience”, without missing the multi-layered and intertwined relationships between these dimensions.

Abstracts of a maximum of 250 words in Turkish and English outlining the topic, theoretical and methodological approach as well as the research question, should be submitted to either Barış Çoban (bcoban@dogus.edu.tr) or Bora Ataman (bataman@dogus.edu.tr) until January1st 2013.

Announcement of the abstracts selected will be made by February 1 2013.

The deadline for full paper submissions is August 1, 2013

The editors are planning to publish book in Turkish and English and have made an agreement with Yordam, to publish in January 2014.

After the evaluation of the abstracts, negotiations with foreign publishing houses will begin for the English version.
Barış Çoban & Bora Ataman (Eds.)
Extended Deadline for Research Proposals: January 1st, 2013"

Romanian nationalism during the national-communist times (1964-1989) has been considered by historians and political scientists as a consequence of international relationships. After the death of Stalin, Romanian communists searched for popular and international support against the control Soviet Union pretended to have on the country. However, the development of national discourse in a communist contest was forced by more than mere circumstances: Romanian public discourse floated around the nation since the 19th century, so communist intellectuals had plenty of national symbols and figures to rely on. The aim of the present paper is to show why Romanian national-communist cultural politics were based on the re-evaluation of cultural materials already present in the national cultural discourse. These cultural materials were merged in a Marxist-Leninist framework to be part of a nationalistic cultural project. The article discusses the centrality of the recovery of Romanian national ideology into the strategy of consent pursued by the communists, while showing the marginality of Romanian Communist Party in the interwar national discourse.

"Proponemos un enfoque de sistemas mundiales para el debate actual sobre el fracaso europeo
en el cumplimiento de los criterios de Lisboa para la equiparación con Estados Unidos
en 2010. Mientras que la funesta realización de Europa se documenta en otros artículos, la
perspectiva del sistema mundial es relativamente novedosa en el debate y argumenta que
Europa devendrá comparable a largo plazo con los típicos países de América Latina durante
la «internacionalización de los mercados internos» que empezó allí en los años ‘60 y ‘70.
Europa no está siendo «amenazada» por «condiciones americanas»: Ambos continentes se
enfrentan a los mismos desafíos, a los que América en un sentido capitalista resistió de forma
más productiva en los años ’90. La falta de política industrial en la tradición del Comisionado
Jacques Delors es aquí una variable importante. La Europa de los 25 (UE-25) se
caracteriza, según este argumento, por una alta penetración de corporaciones multinacionales
y otros indicadores de dependencia, cuyo efecto neto en el desarrollo se está polarizando.
Hay también una dimensión histórica en el proceso de Lisboa. Las teorías de sistemas
mundiales mantienen que la era actual de globalización ya tiene su paralelo en el siglo XIX.
Los datos de la CEPAL/ECLAC de Naciones Unidas citados en este estudio demuestran
claramente que estas épocas de globalización en el siglo XIX y después de 1973 supusieron
una relativa transferencia de ingresos de Europa Occidental y Oriental y de Japón, en
favor de Estados Unidos y sus zonas de influencia o «dominions», mientras que la era de la
regulación después de 1945 (Arrighi, 1995) relocalizó claramente los ingresos relativos
hacia los europeos occidentales y orientales y los japoneses. América Latina también ganó
durante la época de sustitución de importaciones desde aproximadamente 1930 hasta en
torno a 1973. Es de esperar que Europa Occidental y Oriental, América Latina, y también
Japón, –que deben su ascenso relativo en la sociedad global después de 1945 a sus estrategias
de sustitución de importaciones–, serán esencialmente perdedores durante las próximas
décadas de globalización.
La política de capital humano (gastos de educación pública por PIB) también está desempe
ñando un importante papel en la explicación de las diferencias internacionales de crecimiento.
La relevancia de los factores Delors para la explicación de la eficiencia económica,
justicia de género, empleo, cohesión social y desarrollo sostenible se muestra en un análisis
de regresión múltiple con 130 países. Se aprecia que Europa efectivamente corresponde
a tal análisis; lo que es peor, también se espera que la Latinoamericanizacion de la sociedad
europea continuará, si Europa no regresa a la agenda Delors. En resumen, Europa
hará bien en seguir la senda de Jacques Delors y no la de Argentina."