DYSFUNCTIONAL CULTURES AND THE MAKING OF HOMO ECONOMICUS: EXPERT PERSONAS AND LIBERAL CONSENT IN AUSTERITY REGIMES
Since the early years of the debt crisis in 2010, a large part of liberal intellectuals and public commentators in Greece has argued for an interpretative framework with the notion of ‘national identity’ as the root of all troubles. Their narrative presents the crisis as an opportunity for Greeks to rediscover themselves and acquire a more ‘Western’ and market-friendly outlook while austerity is realized. Here, the crisis is read as an outcome of a ‘deviant culture’ that now has the opportunity to recover. In this article we focus on how thуe discourse of media personas who are ‘non-political actors’ -a philosophers and a marketing gurus- popularized this framework especially between the years 2010 to 2012. We argue that these discourses, working to shape new social identities of flexibility, mobility and competition, compatible with the requirements of neoliberalism to overcome the crisis, work more effectively when voiced by supposedly ‘neutral’ agents.
Between 1770 and 1774 Russia built something unique to its history An Archipelagoprincipality in Aegean sea. On the one hand, the Archipelago principality included subjects of the Russian Empress. On the other hand, though, those subjects of the Empress preserved their self-government and their ‘freedoms’; yet their existence never corresponded to Russian imperial realities and Russian laws were not yet written for them. These Catherine II’s subjects were reassured that they had their own ‘deputy general’, that they would live in future in their ‘republic’ or ‘archduchy’, although ‘now’ they had to be completely obedient to their ‘sovereign’ Alexey Orlov.
The relatively arbitrary use and interchangeability of the understanding of “subjecthood,” “protection,” “possessions,” “being in power” and some other terms indicate that no conclusive understanding of the character of relations between the Russian Empire and the Archipelagic principality took shape, not among the rulers and not among those who carried out their orders. Thus no set meaning of these concepts could ever develop. However, Russia did not forget about her Greek possessions and the Empress turned her eyes again towards South-Eastern Europe. Thus her ‘Greek Project’ (described in her letter to Joseph II in Vienna in 1782), her plans to send a new expedition to the Levant and her newly created network of Russian consulates in the Mediterranean helped to develop both new lines of Russian political thought and political vocabulary.
The subject of this book is the study of various national and cultural stereotypes that existed in Japan and Russia concerning each other in the historic past in in our days.
This chapter analyses the image of Japan in the late Soviet mentality and its role in the intelligentsia's world-view.
Drawing on the case of Russia’s post-Soviet education reform, the paper explores the interaction between borrowed reformatory solutions and culture codes in the process of neoliberal educational modernisation. Through the examination of the concept of ‘commercial service’ the article shows how bottom-up societal resistance is maintained and normalised in the real-life language of the reform debate among policy-makers, teachers, parents and the general public. Building on policy-as-discourse studies, the analysis unpacks specific conceptual frames behind societal interpretation of educational commercialisation. The article finds that the public debate is stalled by an extreme polarisation and a seeming intractability of such conceptual categories as ‘money’, ‘commerce’, ‘moral upbringing’, and ‘the soul.’ It further argues that instead of mediating borrowed and domestic social meanings, the official reform narrative serves to strengthen the polarisation of opinions, while leaving under-conceptualised a number of important links between market values of competitive individualism, material profit and entrepreneurship and domestic values of egalitarianism, collegiality, moral education and non-materialist values. The article concludes with a discussion of the role of the state in transmitting borrowed policy ideas to the public and the interplay between grassroots resistance and national education policies.
This book is the essential guide for understanding how state power and politics are contested and exercised on social media. It brings together contributions by social media scholars who explore the connection of social media with revolutions, uprising, protests, power and counter-power, hacktivism, the state, policing and surveillance. It shows how collective action and state power are related and conflict as two dialectical sides of social media power, and how power and counter-power are distributed in this dialectic. Theoretically focused and empirically rigorous research considers the two-sided contradictory nature of power in relation to social media and politics. Chapters cover social media in the context of phenomena such as contemporary revolutions in Egypt and other countries, populism 2.0, anti-austerity protests, the fascist movement in Greece's crisis, Anonymous and police surveillance.