Афонские контакты Первой архипелагской экспедиции 1769—1775 гг. и дело странствующего инока грека Николая Михайлова
This article critically studies the hegemonic discursive construction of the EU’s current (2012) economic crisis, as it is articulated by political and economic elites and by mass media. The study focuses on the political economy of the particular crisis and through the critical concept of reification, the study emphasizes the hegemonic naturalization of the economic crisis by the “free market” economistic ideology. The article problematizes the positioning of Greece as the “crisis epicentre” in Europe, understanding Greece as a scapegoat and as a laboratory where political strategies of capitalist restructuring of the EU are performed. Through the frame analysis of Bild-zeitung’s headlines on the coverage of crisis-struck Greece, the article discusses a) the “culturalization” of the crisis and the diversion from a structural public debate on the global economic crisis b) the disciplinary function of crisis’ publicity, related to social control and the production of new, neoliberal social subjectivities c) the alienating effect of the culturalist crisis discourses to transnational publics, resulting to the misrecognition of the ideological and structural reasons of the given crisis, the misrecognition of the effects of the crisis and crisis-politics in people’s lives, the misrecognition of popular socio-political struggles in countries worse struck by crisis politics, and the eclipse of transnational solidarity and identification to the common issues that European people in particular are facing.
The collective works consists of 27 articles of historians and philologists on different aspects of philhellenism and its influence in European culture and thought from eighteenth till twentieth centuries.
This article analyzes neoliberal articulations of the economic crisis in Greece, as they appear at theEkathimerini daily. Neoliberalism is primarily understood as the ideology organizing the political strategies of late capitalist production. The analysis focuses on the ways the capitalist crisis is presented in the context of Greece, as well as the ways that socio-political opposition to neoliberal reforms are addressed.Ekathimerini reproduces the hegemonic explanations of the crisis that view the crisis as a national and moral problem rather than a global and systemic one. The analysis draws concepts from both discourse theory and critical theory. Discourse theory analyzes the neoliberal discourse organizing the political interventions for the reproduction of capitalism in the crisis-context, while political economy critiques the materiality of the capitalist process, which itself is based on discourses and political interventions. The article concludes that Ekathimerini's crisis-coverage contributes to the form of social engineering organized by neoliberal policies in Greece, in order to produce the political and social norms for a post-crisis configuration of capitalism.
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.
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.