<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Re-public : re-imagining democracy - english version</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.republic.gr/en</link>
	<description>re-public , re-imagining democracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:51:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.42</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Alberto Toscano &#8211; Liquidate &#8217;68, or, the obscure subject of French politics</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=210</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=210#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:07:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[sarkozism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Any hope of liquidating Sarkozy’s reactionary project in France, argues Alberto Toscano, will be obliged in some sense to ‘repeat’ ’68, not by cloaking new political content in the kitschified icons of rebellions past, but by repeating the spirit of political and organisational innovation contained by the best products of that experience. &#8220;In this election,&#8221; Nicolas Sarkozy proclaimed some months ago, &#8220;we’re going to find out if the heritage of May ’68 is going to be perpetuated or if it will be liquidated once and forever.&#8221; Though the voicing of political principle and its antagonistic distillates may be an increasing rarity in our world, where enmity is naturalised (and racialised) by the imperatives of “national security” or outsourced to lands failed and threatening, it was heartening to see France once again revelling in the performance, if not always the reality, of political struggle. Rather than simply taking the technocratic path, and mobilising interest rates or pensions to prod the proverbial swing-voter into action, Sarkozy – inspired, in his own words, by a ‘Gramscian’ hegemonic project – saw it fit to evoke the spectre of ‘68 to dramatise the stakes of the second round of the election that pitted him against [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=210</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Loic Wacquant &#8211; Ghettos and anti-ghettos: An anatomy of urban poverty</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=215</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=215#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[sarkozism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=215</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Loic Wacquant discusses his new book, Urban Outcasts, an analysis of the transformations of the the US ghetto and the European lower-class districts. He claims that the Red Belt banlieues in France form, what he calls, anti-ghettos: spaces of ethnic heterogeneity, porous boundaries, decreasing institutional density and lacking a shared cultural identity. In Urban Outcasts, you draw a methodical comparison between the evolution of the black American ghetto and the French popular periphery or banlieue over the past three decades. Why did you undertake this comparison and what does it reveal about the changing face of poverty in the city? Loïc Wacquant: This book was born of the confluence of two shocks, the first personal and the second political. The personal shock was the first-hand discovery of the black American ghetto &#8211;or what remains of it&#8211; when I moved to Chicago and lived for six years on the edge of the city’s South Side. Coming from France, I was appalled by the intensity of the urban desolation, racial segregation, social deprivation, and street violence concentrated in this terra non grata that was universally feared, shunned, and denigrated by outsiders, including by many scholars. The political shock was the diffusion of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=215</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Andreas Pantazopoulos &#8211; The return of the real</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=214</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=214#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[sarkozism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=214</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sarkozy&#8217;s focus on concrete, practical politics does not lack any kind of ideological context, claims Andreas Pantazopoulos. It marks, instead, the construction of a new agitational right that provides national ideology with a concrete outline and content. It is not accidental that the election of Nicolas Sarkozy in the French Presidency last spring still causes so much debate. Many are those who focus their analytical interest on the personal temperament of the French President and recognize this as the chief factor of his electoral success. A man of action, according to his own words, who tells things as he sees them, who is uncommitted to the convention of politically correctness, a politician who deals with all the hot topics of current affairs, from illegal immigration to the state of the French banlieues, whose critical positions span from his disdain for the European Central bank to the project of annulling some of the “hyperbolic” rights of some groups of public servants, who doesn’t hesitate to mix and transcend liberal and social democratic solutions for tackling social problems, but who also recycles politicians from the left, from the right, and personalities of the anti-racist movement inside the presidential majority. I believe that [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=214</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jacques Julliard &#8211; The &#8216;black October&#8217; of Sarkozy</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=211</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=211#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:06:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[sarkozism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=211</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jacques Julliard predicts a coming popular disenchantemt over Sarkozy&#8217;s policies in spring, argues that his opening towards the left is limited to the corruption of some of its leading figures, and talks about the prospects for the revitalisation of the French Socialist Party. An interview to Karina Lampsa for Re-public Karina Lampsa: There is a lot of discussion nowadays about what is being named as “sarkozism”. Do you think that Nicolas Sarkozy representts a Right different from what we already know, e.g. Mr. Jacques Chirac’s? Jacques Julliard: As you know, there is an age difference. Sarkozy is a young man, always on the move. Mr. Chirac, at the end of his service, was old and had no desire for action. Are there, otherwise, basic differences? I don’t think so. Neither one is liberal with the classical meaning of the word. Both are in favour of state interventionism, but this does not mean that they disfavour capitalism. Both, however, are not liberal with the Anglo-Saxon or the German social democracy meaning of the term. Their basic difference is that Chirac was far more hostile than Sarkozy vis-à-vis US foreign policy. K.L.: Yes, Sarkozy claims to be a “friend of the Americans”… [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=211</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nicolas Baygert &#8211; The populist shades of Sarkozism or the politics of posture</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=208</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=208#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:06:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[sarkozism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sarkozy&#8217;s politics embody a new-fledged populism, argues Nicolas Baygert. Circumventing the traditional democratic debate and directly focusing on the people’s desires, Sarkozy’s populism appears as a well-tailored idiom for contemporary voter’s behaviour. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy&#8217;s attitude has won him immense popularity. According to a TNS-Sofres poll, after his first 100 days in power, 71% of the population support his action and believe that he will bring about the promised ‘rupture.’ More than three-quarters of French judge their President energetic, courageous and close to their concerns, while 83% take in a change in the presidential style. As a candidate, Sarkozy stated that with him, nothing would be ever done like before. Today, his style clearly indicates a paradigmatic shift in the incarnation of the presidential function. In his first months in the Élysée Palace, Sarkozy has showed little patience for diplomatic niceties. Prompt and informal, he has leaded the country as a ‘proactive manager’, striving for concrete deliverables in accordance with his electoral engagements, thereby often overriding his ministers or pushing them to show straight results. Moreover, France appears to bear with a White House syndrome. The President’s Cabinet has taken a unique shape, and ministers are being substituted by [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=208</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alain Bergounioux &#8211; Nicolas Sarkozy: A new right?</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=212</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=212#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[sarkozism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alain Bergounioux finds that the core of Sarkozy&#8217;s discourse is to address the individual. Sarkozy chiefly defends the vision of a society of individuals, where collectiveness is being scorned and usually presented as a result of coercion. Three months after the electoral victory of Nicolas Sarkozy, we have now a clear view of where he stands in relation to the French Right- and to the European Right in general. They say that he won because of his ideas. This is partly true, since political ideology cannot be separated from political strategy, which is nowadays inherently linked to political communication. It is these issues that we have to sort out for a lucid analysis. We should, of course, avoid the delusion that would attribute excessive coherence to Nicolas Sarkozy’s discourse. A political ideology has to do with a more, or less successful refinement that does not seek originality but rather effectiveness. Just after the circulation of his book “Libre”, 2001, Nicolas Sarkozy defined his strategy. He credited his failure in the 1999 European elections to the obscure message of the Right that didn’t underline enough its difference from socialism, leaving major space to the Front National, which got the 15% of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=212</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Didier Chaudet &#8211; Sarkozism through its political opposition: An analysis of the centre and the right of the political spectrum</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=213</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=213#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[sarkozism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the absense of a strong opposition coming from the left, Didier Chaudet analyses Sarkozism in relation to its adversaries on the centre and the on right of the political spectrum: the Democratic Movement of François Bayrou, the National Front, and the political group led by Dominique de Villepin. In order to define “sarkozism” one would be naturally inclined to see what its opposition stands for. Since Nicolas Sarkozy is the leader of the main right-wing party, one would then look at the Socialist Party -the main centre-left-political group- as forming the “natural anti-sarkozist” camp. But the fact of the matter is that the Socialist Party, is, for now, ideologically bankrupted. It is suffering from an internal split between the social-democrats and the left wing of the party, and from the defection of some well-known political celebrities to the goverment of Nicolas Sarkozy (Bernard Kouchner or Fadela Amara for example). One could even suggest that the Socialist Party has not recovered yet from the defeat of 2002, a defeat that made it a secondary force in the French political scene. As a result, it seems that there is no strong, structured opposition anymore in the country, at least one coming [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=213</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Noel Hatch &#8211; Reclaiming the story from Sarkozism: Controlling our lives by shaping them together</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=209</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=209#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[sarkozism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Through an analysis of Sarkozy&#8217;s politics as a struggle for attaining cultural hegemony, Noel Hatch attempts to outline a counter-strategy for European social democratic parties. Like most countries in Europe, France has become a fragmengrated society – where electoral choice is dominated by a dual paradox of fragmentation and integration. The French want a dynamic economic model where everyone can access opportunities and be rewarded on merit, a society which empowers them to shape their lives and ensures mutual respect and social justice. These patterns, previously predictable and individually coordinated are now increasingly fluctuating and interdependent of one another. Shaping these contradictions has become easier than keeping them in shape. I will try and explain how this paradox is at the key of Sarkozy’s strategy for cultural hegemony and how French and European social democracy can recast Sarkozism and reclaim the story about enabling people to control their own lives, by shaping them together. A narrative of rupture for counter-revolutionary hegemony Sarkozy has not only co-opted some of the personnel of the left, he has co-opted its rhetoric. He has lifted the Gramscian notion of &#8220;cultural hegemony&#8221; – political domination via the domination of ideas. The difference is that Sarkozy [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=209</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trebor Scholz and Paul Hartzog: Toward a critique of the social web</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=201</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=201#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=201</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the debate that launches the special issue with the same title, Paul Hartzog and Trebor Scholz attempt to outline a critique of the social web along 5 axes: production, exploitation, individuality/collectivity, cultural difference, activism. Thanasis/Pavlos: How central is the question of &#8220;who owns the means of production&#8221; in relation to the net economy? Paul Hartzog: I think that what is happening now underscores the fact that ownership was never the issue. Ownership grants you the capacity to make and implement decisions about production, and to enjoy the fruits of those decisions. Ownership gives you access to production. Access has now been disaggregated and mediated. Consequently, I would say that not &#8220;means of production&#8221; but &#8220;means of access&#8221; is the crucial factor now. Let’s look at a concrete example: Wikipedia. For wikipedia to work you need to have 1) access to the production, i.e. the pages have to be editable; 2) access to consumption, i.e. the pages have to be reachable for reading, and 3) access to the Internet. Governments make access possible for ISPs who make access possible for end-users, and the owners of wikipedia make access possible by keeping the servers running and having an open-editing system. There [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=201</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tariq Ramadan &#8211; Manifesto for a new &#8220;we&#8221;</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=202</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=202#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[out of bounds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=202</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Appeal to the Western Muslims, and their Fellow Citizens We have ample reason to be concerned. The repeated terrorist attacks throughout the world along with the “war against terror” and the increased tensions arising from social problems have combined to portray Islam as a threat to the Western societies. Fear, and its accompanying emotional reactions, has become a part of the public mindset. Such reactions, while often legitimate, are also being exploited with increasing frequency for political ends. Hardly a Western society has been spared its own searing questions of “identity” or its “integration”-related tensions. Muslims find themselves faced with clear-cut alternatives: they can adopt the attitude of the “victim” or they can face up to their difficulties, become full-fledged subjects of their own History. In the final analysis, their fate is in their hands. Nothing will change until they accept full responsibility for themselves, become constructively critical, and self critical, and respond to the creeping “evolution of fear” with a firmly grounded “revolution of trust”. Handling fears, facing legitimate questions Events of recent years have brought Western populations face to face with new realities. The increasingly visible presence of millions of Muslims in their midst has made them [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=202</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thomas Siomos &#8211; Social movements and the ‘post’ world</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=34</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=34#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 20:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social movements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=34</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The alternative ‘semiotic resistance’ of the postmodern which chaotically challenged (in the mid ’80s and throughout the ’90s) the grandiose authorities of modernity gave way to the inter-thematic collectivities of willing citizens in this decade. Some of these collectivities, the loudest ones, are transformed into a movement. The following text discusses how this succession took place. From the Modern to the Postmodern It is very difficult to ignore the immense breakthrough that the postmodern era represents for the global sociopolitical, ideological and conceptual reality during the past twenty years. The world as we know it ‘came to a halt’, while a new beginning for global civilization was revealed. Those who adhered to postmodern ideas argued that the postmodern universe embodies everything that transcends the conceptual framework of the ideas of the Enlightenment. The vision of a well-ordered world, sometimes appearing as perplexing, sometimes as fascinating was replaced by a colorful kaleidoscope in which everything could be included: the Media, everyday life, pop music, spending, representation, aesthetics, the body, ethics, social movements, games, the arts, printing, resistance with imagination, the open source community, the blinking of the eye to a ‘brave new’ era. Postmodernism was documented, and ideologically and scientifically analyzed [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=34</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Raphael Vella &#8211; Democracy/despotism: Blurring text and image</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=179</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=179#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:03:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have used texts and pages from books in many of my installations, sculptures and drawings in recent years. What I find interesting in this combination is showing some aspect of the text in a new light, exposing its &#8216;other&#8217; side (for instance, in religious or political texts). In these two drawings, Plato&#8217;s text is both readable and visual; it is a text but is also an image. In a way, the traditional distinction between text and image is erased or blurred. The figural space &#8216;democratically&#8217; permits itself to be read, while the textual space allows the &#8216;luxury&#8217; of visuality to return, contaminating the purity of written philosophy. The fact that this is happening within &#8211; of all places &#8211; Plato&#8217;s Republic (the epitome of classical philosophy and political thought) is naturally quite ironic. This &#8216;crossing-over&#8217; from one medium into another also allows us to re-read Plato; we can juxtapose contemporary history and politics (George Bush, Saddam&#8217;s death by hanging) onto an ancient piece of writing and see both in a different light.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=179</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benjamin Crotty &#8211; Cultural customization or restaging a spaghetti western in a Reykjavik suburb</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=178</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=178#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hnefafylli af porski is a reperformance of the last scene from the 1964 Sergio Leone film A Fistful of Dollars. It includes a reenactment of the final showdown between Clint Eastwood’s protagonist and the bad guy Ramon, as well as a short rock concert concluding the action. The performance took place on April 2, 2007 at the Árbæjarsafn, an open-air museum comprising a reconstruction of a traditional Icelandic village, located in a suburb of Reykjavik. The actors were drawn from a local troupe, called the Stúdentaleikhúsið, while music was provided by Bertel! a four-person electronic/rock band made up of local high school students I’d found on myspace. The performance was repeated seven times in its entirety, a team of two cameramen who’d shot some music videos for local bands recorded each performance. The performance was given in Icelandic. I chose to restage a scene from A Fistful of Dollars for several reasons. To begin with, I wanted to work with an iconic film that was widely known and admired. Secondly, I was interested in certain elements from the back-story surrounding the film’s production and release. The plot of the film was directly modeled on Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo, a samurai film [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=178</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SD Nunn &#8211; Where the art isn’t</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=175</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=175#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=175</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Digital art conflates distribution with democratisation in order to appear inclusive, argues SD Nunn. In practice the internet promotes the neo-liberal ideology of self-satisfaction, functioning as a virtual mall dedicated to every conceivable form of special interest. The manifesto of digital technology promotes two contradictory ambitions &#8211; collective openness and individual control &#8211; producing opposing forecasts for mass connectivity. Prophets of dystopia regard ICT as further evidence of an ongoing Williamsesque uniformity in individuation, and claim the images on our monitors no longer signify any external object or event, but supersede and overwrite reality. Against this bleak vision, Anderson’s merry wiki-connectivity of allegedly democratised globe-changing consumers adopt an almost ironic faux-Marxist ideology, but without the soteriological imperative. No life-changing revelations are required and no revolutionary moment will lead to utopia, because the conditions for freedom already exist within a digital framework of consumer-directed capitalism. But art is not owned by either point of view, because for art to exist its form cannot be determined by any meta-ideology. Art’s purposiveness is found in its ability to convey possibility and thereby force us to see our preconceptions for what they really are; merely adherence to the rules of one possible world. Art [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=175</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arlen Dilsizian &#8211; Seeing beyond rebellious artistic practices</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=177</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=177#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arlen Dilsizian cautions against interpreting graffitti as a collective, homogenous whole and claims that its ability to inspire people who have never thought about producing art, to do so (however briefly) is its most radically important gesture. The rise of art as a distinct, partially autonomous sphere within capitalism has been analyzed many times, most notably by thinkers such as Marcuse, Adorno, Burger and Habermas. Art was seen to have failed to create a public, given its institutionalization within an ethos of modernism, where constant revolutions of style within a largely static conception of art was seen as constituting an autonomous aesthetic realm which acted as an alternative to everyday life. Within the artistic avant-garde, in the ideas of Walter Benjamin, Michel de Certeau, Henri Lefebvre, the Dada movement, Surrealists and Situationists, there has been a strong strand of continuity in that they were all attempting, one way or another, to transgress the boundaries between art and everyday space, to explore the street and the public realm through artistic practice. ‘Graffiti’ and more recently ‘street art’ are two forms of art (often conflated as one) that have been seen as a vindication of such ideas. They both involve artists illicitly [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=177</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ryan Griffis &#8211; For an art against the cartography of everyday life</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=176</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=176#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although locative media purports to provide tools for the creation and reception of counter-archives, providing a seemingly emancipatory shift toward self-representation, it is necessary to consider the affective qualities of the technology itself, says Ryan Griffis. Simply put, everyday life might be the name for the desire of totality in postmodern times. (Ben Highmore, Everyday Life and Cultural Theory) We should now talk of people making not their own history but their own geography. (John Urry, &#8220;Social Relations, Space and Time&#8221;, in Spatial Relations and Spatial Structures) The title of this essay is a remix of the title of an essay by artist Martha Rosler originally published in 1979, &#8220;For an Art Against the Mythology of Everyday Life&#8221;. Rosler&#8217;s text is an engagement with what was then the emerging context now often referred to as &#8220;post-industrial globalization.&#8221; More specifically, it is an engagement from the perspective of someone attempting to make things &#8211; art works &#8211; that can &#8220;address these banally profound issues of everyday life, thereby revealing the public and political in the personal&#8221;. She was particularly interested in both the oppressive and potentially liberating aspects of &#8220;mass media.&#8221; Here, I want to take up where Rosler left off, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=176</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Matteo Stocchetti &#8211; Re-thinking the political in the age of ambivalence: Art, new media and democratic politics</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=174</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=174#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matteo Stocchetti claims that the ‘democratization of art’ and ‘political democratization’ are two different processes and we should be careful not to confuse the two. There are reasons of scepticism, but not of despair, in the role that art and new media can play for the future of democracy. Within the narrow limits of this article I will try to explain why. Let me start from the first question: ‘Do the new media mark the ultimate democratization or the ultimate commercialization of art?’ The initial consideration that comes to my mind is that democratization and commercialization are not ‘opposites’. Historically the establishment of modern forms of parliamentarian democracy have been associated to the wider commercialization of goods until then available only to a small minority of the population. Cultural consumption in particular is clearly associated with political participation. A further point is that, ‘democratization of art’ and ‘political democratization’ are rather different processes and we should be careful not to confuse the two. Assuming that new media allows virtually everybody (in industrialized societies) to engage with artistic forms of expression, it is far from granted that political democracy in the same countries will directly benefit from this. This question echoed [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=174</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Peter Lunenfeld &#8211; Dispatches from the front: Battling for meaning in the war between downloading and uploading</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=167</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=167#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:53:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is no end to the ways in which meaningful culture is more meaningful than mindless production, no matter how participatory, argues Peter Lunenfeld. All animals download, but only a few upload anything besides shit and their own bodies. Beavers build dams, birds make nests, and termites create mounds, but for the most part, the animal kingdom moves through the world downloading, and then munching it bits at a time. Humans are unique in their capacity not only to make tools, but to then turn around and use them to create superfluous material goods – painting and sculpture – and superfluous experiences – music, stories, religion, philosophy. Of course, it is precisely the superfluous that then comes to define human culture and ultimately what it is to be human. Understanding and consuming culture requires great skills – ask anyone who has taught a child to read – but failing to move beyond downloading is to strip oneself of a defining constituent of humanity. The network technologies of the moment, which have been labeled Web 2.0 so often now that we might as well just succumb to it, offer great wonders, yet a hierarchy of cultural production persists.  Web 2.0 is seen [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=167</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blixa Bargeld &#8211; All (is) open again</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=186</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=186#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:52:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Blixa Bargeld discusses Einsturzende Neubauten&#8217;s new project which is being released without any kind of record label involvement. The project involves a series of experimentations: the recordings were financed by their supporters who could also view the album as it was being created via webcam and could have live online discussions with the band about the recording. Panos Papoulias: “Alles Wieder Offen” (All [is] Open Again) is the title of the new Einsturzende Neubauten album. To what extent is this a reference to its new and unique production process via www.neubauten.org and the Supporter Project? Blixa Bargeld: Well, this is the third record that we make in that way, so the production process is not really new anymore. What is new is the fact that, for the first time in the history of the band, we are making the record ourselves, without any aid from any record company. So, in a way, the title of the record refers to the fact that we are making the record as a record company ourselves. I just wanted to try it once in our career. I don’t want to find myself sitting in 2020 and saying “shit, you should have done the record [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=186</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eyal Weizman &#8211; Beyond colonialism: Israeli/Palestinian space</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=194</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=194#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:50:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art and democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Architect Eyal Weizman discusses his new book, Hollow Land &#8211; an exploration of the political space created by Israel’s occupation as a laboratory of advanced capitalist colonialism in which the actions of the Israeli military, humanitarian workers, settlers, and different groups of the colonised themselves are intertwined, forming intense relationships. Konstantin Kastrissianakis: In your recently published book, Hollow Land: Israel&#8217;s Architecture of Occupation you provide a multilayered understanding of what the spatial dimensions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are. Architecture and planning are revealed as strategic tools in the conflict, could you elaborate as to how this is so? Eyal Weizman: The book is looking at the various means of spatial dispossession and control that Israel has built in the West Bank and Gaza. It attempts to read them not only as an index of government top-down planning, but, instead, to see the ways in which they are reflecting conflicts and contradictions and how they mirror the play of various independent or semi independent organizations, whose actions are ‘architectural’ in as much as they have solidified into form. What this book tries to go against, in a historiographic manner, is the idea that there is a one to one relationship between [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=194</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rosalind Gill &#8211; From sexual objectification to sexual subjectification: The resexualisation of women’s bodies in the media</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=163</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=163#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:48:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[gender and new media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The figure of the autonomous, active, desiring subject has become the dominant figure for representing young women via new media. But this sexual subjectification, Rosalind Gill argues, has turned out to be objectification in new and even more pernicious guise. Fit Chick Unbelievable Knockers Earlier in 2003 this T-shirt (Fit Chick Unbelievable Knockers) became one of the best-selling items ever for the British high street fashion store French Connection. Like French Connection’s generic T-shirt ‘fcuk me’ and the World Cup inspired bestseller, ‘fcuk football’ it was a huge success. It could be seen everywhere, emblazoned across the chests of girls and young women, and competing on the street, in the club and on the tube with other similar T-shirts declaring their wearer a ‘babe ‘or ‘porn star’ or ‘up for it’, or giving instructions to ‘touch me’ or ‘squeeze here’. Even my own university, the London School of Economics, got in on the act, producing a T-shirt designed &#8212; I guess &#8211; to connote a combination of beauty and brains, sexiness and sophistication: ‘LSE BABE’. What struck me forcibly about the ‘fit chick unbelievable knockers’ T-shirt was not just what a sexualized self-presentation it offers, but also how alienated and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=163</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nelly Kambouri and Pavlos Hatzopoulos &#8211; The banality of blogging or how does the web affect the public-private dichotomy</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=165</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=165#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[gender and new media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is blogging the means by which the ‘feminine’ voices previously excluded from public discourse and kept hidden in the ‘private’ sphere, can now be released? Is blogging a means of affirming the public character of private practices, ask Kambouri and Hatzopoulos. When it comes to debating how gender intersects with digital realities, it is as if the by now mythical term ‘digital divide’ subsumes everything under its wings: in the case of gender one simply needs to point out the disproportionate access to digital goods and services that ‘women’ experience and the issue is settled. Or, is it? Not that these gendered forms of inequality should be brushed aside, but the downside is that they obstinately stick to a limited horizon. And this horizon obfuscates the more radical, interesting, and difficult questions that the focus on gender might raise for the analysis of the net society. The rise of digital technologies does not invite us, in other words, to rehash existing political concepts, but rather to, at least, engage in their reformulation. We will try to engage in such a reformulation by unpacking the following question: how is the private/public distinction re–structured on the web? The problem, here, is not [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=165</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Laura Robinson &#8211; Virtual structure vs. digital agency: Revolution, mediation, or replication?</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=162</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=162#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:47:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[gender and new media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The growing research on the complicated facets of digital inequality refutes the claims by technodeterminists that the spread of information technologies automatically mitigates the effects of exclusion and deprivation, says Laura Robinson. The two special issues on “Wiki Politics” hail information technologies as a major force in today&#8217;s society and culture. To their credit a number of the contributors recognize the dilemma of unequal power and vary in their analyses of the revolutionary aspects of new media. However, in some of the contributions, one cannot help noticing the thread of technoutopianism, which appears to laud information technologies as the cure-all for many of society&#8217;s ailments. In some of them we hear reverberations of an extreme technodeterminist stance that idealistically rhapsodizes about the newly egalitarian forms of politics, commerce, and socializing that information technologies have made possible, predicting that society&#8217;s playing field will no longer be tilted in favor of the socially well-connected, the rich, and the culturally well-endowed. The diffusion of such technologies through the population, some seem to claim, will lead inexorably toward a horizontal society shorn of hierarchies. While it cannot be denied that such developments as e-commerce, blogging, and internet-mediated political activism have altered the contours of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=162</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sir David Madden &#8211; Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW)</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=161</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=161#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[new rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sir David Madden commends the initiative for a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare as an attempt to acknowledge the welfare of sentient animals, and recognise animal welfare as an issue of importance for global social development. I was fortunate enough to be British Ambassador in Greece from 1999 to 2004. I then retired from the Diplomatic Service, served as Political Adviser to the EU Peace-Keeping Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina for 18 months, and am now back in the UK. When in Greece, I and my wife worked closely with local and international animal welfare societies. I currently do some part-time, voluntary work for the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). In particular, I am helping advise and lobby for them on an important initiative for which they act as the secretariat. The initiative for a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) aims to achieve global acknowledgement of the welfare of sentient animals, and recognition of animal welfare as an issue of importance as part of the social development of nations worldwide. A Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare would be an agreement among people and between nations that the sentience of animals deserves consideration and respect; and therefore [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=161</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bonnie Honig &#8211; The time of rights: Emergent thoughts in an emergency setting</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=158</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=158#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:31:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[new rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New rights seem to beg the question of beginnings but political theory’s focus on beginnings can be misleading, says Bonnie Honig. New rights unsettle chronological time. They plunge us into plural timeframes, and situate us in the friction of their interaction. (i) Time and the politics of becoming In potentially originary moments, it is difficult to know what properly belongs to the future and what to the past, or to which future and which past. At such moments, which are continual, justice, as William Connolly puts it, “trembles in its constitutive uncertainty, dependence and ambiguity” (The Ethos of Pluralization, 187). At such moments, we lose our grasp of the reassuring structured time of Kant’s First Critique (which Arendt saw as underpinning necessitarian thought) and experience instead the abyssal time(lessness) of the Third Critique’s aesthetic of the sublime. From such moments, there may well come what we will later call progress, new identities may be allowed or ushered onto the threshold of justice, but progress does not come with its own guarantee, nor is it a meaningful criterion to guide us. In the moment, we do not know in what progress might consist and new claims may seem laughable. Looking backwards, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=158</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ulrich Beck &#8211; Rights: Beyong methodological nationalism</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=157</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=157#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[new rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Leading contemporary sociologist Ulrich Beck points to the need of rethinking human rights on a transnational level, so that all those who are affected by a particular political decision can participate in its making. An interview to Panos Papoulias for Re-public Panos Papoulias: In your later work you have endorsed a move from national to transnational analyses. Why is that? Ulrich Beck: I think that social and political theory is, to some extent, still a prisoner of the nation-state. Most basic concepts of the social sciences –sociology, the state, democracy, community- are connected to the nation and to the nation-state form. This relates of course to the historical development of political thinking and of the social sciences &#8211; both acquired their modern form in the 19th century in the context of imagining national communities. Most of the social sciences are still sticking to what I call the container model of society and politics. In the last 20-30 years we are learning from personal and political experience and from the social sciences that we are living in an interconnected world in which the meaning of borders is changing. The congruence of territorial, social, cultural, and political borders does not exist as [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=157</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paola Cavalieri &#8211; Animals: For an expanded theory of human rights</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=151</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=151#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[new rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What can it mean to extend fundamendal rights beyond the boundaries of our species, asks Paola Cavalieri. It primarily implies that animals are transformed into subjects of legal rights, and, as a consequence, all the exploitative practices that are today made possible by their current status are prohibited. A different view of animals existed at the dawn of our civilization. There was a time and a place in which nonhumans were philosophically perceived as cognate and allied beings rather than as sentient tools. When, in the fourth century B. C., the Athenians punished a man for flaying a living ram, Xenocrates of Chalcedon, under the influence of the deep current in Greek thought which can be traced back to Pythagoras, declared that torturing is no worse than killing &#8211; that what is really criminal is taking the life of a being who is of one&#8217;s own kind, “homogenés”. (1) This view of animals virtually disappeared with the end of the Classical World. Through late antiquity and medieval times, up to recent centuries, the status of nonhumans as second-class beings was never challenged. In the past few decades, however, in the wake of philosophical developments prompted by growing movements for democratic [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=151</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Josef Bordat &#8211; Animals, humans, persons: Problematic implications of Singer&#8217;s notion of “animal rights”</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=154</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=154#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[new rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Josef Bordat raises two main concerns over Peter Singer’s concept of animal rights: the equalisation of animals and human beings and the separation of human beings into different categories. I. Obviously, in the recent ethical debate there are a lot of serious approaches towards so-called “animal rights”. Although it is undisputed that an animal as a creature has a certain sort of “dignity” and therefore an inherent “right” to be protected, it seems quiet doubtful whether this shall lead to “absolute” rights, constituted on the same level as human rights. In the debate one question is, if there should be any exceptions to the protection of the animal’s life for cases, in which animals serve human beings as aliments or for scientific purpose. For instance, following the Christian concept of the human being as “God’s image” and as the “crown of creation” makes it appear justified to permit these exceptions because of the human being’s outstanding position towards animals. However, animal rights activitists as well as some theorists like the Australian philosopher Peter Singer consider this as “speciesism”. They argue that these exceptions are a sort of “discrimination”, and place it on the same ethical level as the discrimination of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=154</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michael Geist &#8211; The open access principle</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=152</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=152#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[new rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The implementation of the open access principle, says Michael Geist, requires that in the short term the public’s access to knowledge is incrwased by adopting more open approaches to publishing. in the long term, the public will come to expect that such knowledge is readily available and we will facilitate the creation of a better informed, more knowledgeable society. An interview to Thanasis Priftis for Re-public Thanasis Priftis: Do you think that all the recent and present clashes over the multiple functions of the internet can or should be translated in the language of rights? Are &#8220;digital rights&#8221; a useful concept in this respect? Michael Geist: I think the digital rights discourse is a valuable one. &#8220;Rights&#8221; are rightly treated as something inherent in all citizens that should not be limited or removed without appropriate justification. In the online context, the digital rights discussion frames the issue in a way that is immediately understandable to individuals, policy makers, and politicians. T.P.: Do you see digital rights as individual or collective rights? M.G.: Both. Digital rights may vest in an individual &#8211; ie. online freedom of speech. It may also represent a collective right &#8211; ie. a freedom to communicate and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=152</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hara Kouki &#8211; New rights beyond wrongs and rights</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=155</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=155#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[new rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rights culture is constantly being formed due to a combination of past events and fears, present conditions, future perspectives and hopes, proposes Hara Kouki. When viewed as ready made structures inherited to us so as to classify events and people, then rights become a conservative and limiting point of view. The culture of new rights seems indeed overwhelming: rejecting traditional dualisms of West and East, male and female, tyranny and revolution, inside and outside, it puts forward an indefinite potential for democracy. Enabling everyone to participate, to think, to speak, to demand, to act, to collaborate with others in order to bring about further changes, it seems capable of embracing even more people and more rights in its diffused and decentered scope. Digital, lesbian, environmental, information, animal, consumer rights, rights that are local, particular, post national, partial, universal, antihierarchical, shifting, rights that include and are included in more possible settings, rights that re shape the structure of the world around us and, thus, our capacity of transforming it. Campaigning about new rights means creating them and, in that sense, this nascent vocabulary cannot be but revolutionary. Human rights extended beyond lefts and rights When back in the late sixties- early [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=155</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Irina Velicu &#8211; Transnational migration rights: Idiom tensions and practical paradoxes</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=153</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=153#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:26:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[migration unbound]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Irina Velicu argues that ‘homeless with more homes’, as the situation of transnational migrants, is a very ambiguous experience which make us reticent to either celebration or compassion. It is precisely this paradox that makes the idea of transnational migration rights more relevant. Let Me Think You ask me about that country whose details now escape me, I don’t remember its geography, nothing of its history. And should I visit it in memory, It would be as I would a past lover, After years, for a night, no longer restless with passion, with no fear of regret. I have reached that age when one visits the heart merely as a courtesy. (Faiz Ahmed Faiz, The Rebel’s Silhouette) Reading about migration I have been quite disappointed by the multitude of numbers and graphics used to document ‘undocumented’ illegal cases of migration or to empirically trace these ‘illegalities’. As a migrant myself, I find it hard to connect with this descriptions of flows of people treated as ‘numbers’ and statistics. When treating migration, political science might have to become ‘human’ – i.e. integrate the personal and the everyday (as opposed to only the state, the police and other formal institutions). Can we [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=153</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eva Garmpi &#8211; Digital rights: Their dynasts and saviours</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=156</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=156#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[new rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reactionary copyright law and Digital Rights Management technology have been a harsh punch to people’s freedoms, depriving them from their naturally and constitutionally entrenched human rights, argues Eva Garmpi. The term “Digital Rights” refers to those rights existing in the sphere of digitized world and applying upon digital content published and distributed in electronic format. Digital Rights indicate the freedom of individuals to perform certain actions through the use of an electronic device, a processor or generally an interaction network. The aforementioned palette of actions is akin to the individuals’ rights entrenched and ensured in the physical world, but have been impacted by the challenges the digital technology era has brought about and consequently have been subjected to a fierce polemic on part of those who erroneously conceptualize the Internet as a place of uncontrolled and unrestricted freedom. Nowadays a mere click, drag, and drop are the only essential moves to put a new idea or expression at the centre of global attention and this has come as a new challenge to traditional ways of protection such as the one traditional copyright law offers. Indeed, in most national jurisdictions digital content falls under the regulatory banner of copyright law. Thus, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=156</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ward Cunningham &#8211; Wiki and the rise of gift economies</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=141</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=141#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Creator of wiki software, Ward Cunningham, argues that the proliferation of wikis has proved that the for-pay economy is not the only way to create value and celebrates the fact that we have now more choices. An interview to Thanasis Priftis for Re-public Thanasis Priftis: When you created wiki software did you ever imagine a derivative like Wikipedia? How do you feel of the fact that some universities departments in the US ban references based on Wikipedia? Ward Cunningham: My specific purpose for the first wiki was to create an environment where we might link together each other&#8217;s experience to discover the pattern language of programming. I also had more general goals for wiki. First, I think that humans have a compelling urge to talk. In creating wiki, I wanted to stroke that story-telling nature in all of us. Second, and perhaps most important, I wanted people who wouldn&#8217;t normally author to find it comfortable authoring, so that there stood a chance of us discovering the structure of what they had to say. I knew wiki would be good for many things. I thought it would be good for an encyclopedia too but didn&#8217;t imagine that the encyclopedia would be [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=141</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alexios Zavras &#8211; The trouble with wiki politics: Lessons learned from open source software communities</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=149</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=149#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:14:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Treading on the pitfalls, but also on the successes of open source communities, Alexios Zavras raises seven principles that future online projects should follow if they are to survive in the vast sea of the Internet. In recent years, we have witnessed an abundance of empowering technologies based on communication networks in general and the Internet specifically. A common characteristic of all these technologies is the use of the Internet as infrastructure for allowing people to communicate and collaborate. We have seen many different manifestations of this phenomenon, from the first crude social networking sites to publicly open wikis to personal and institutional blogs. In this article, I will use the general term “wiki politics” to refer to all these efforts that use the power of the Internet to further and achieve various political goals. While the general consensus on the advantages of wiki politics is incontestable, it should be noted that this is neither an easy road nor a passage safe from dangers. Luckily, we can make many useful observations and draw worthwhile conclusions from a wide spectrum of similar online communities that have been in existence for a long time. Although it may seem a recent phenomenon, the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=149</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pete Ashdown &#8211; Open source politics</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=145</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=145#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:13:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Being the first politician to to use a wiki to develop his campaign platform for the 2006 US Senate election in Utah, Pete Ashdown makes the case for open source politics. An interview to Pavlos Hatzopoulos for Re-public Pavlos Hatzopoulos: What is wrong with traditional party politics? Can the extended use of collaborative technologies reverse this situation? Pete Ashdown: Your own Aristotle stated that, &#8220;In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.&#8221; Although I do not believe in the majority crushing the rights of the minority, this statement has rarely been true. Party politics is currently centered around money and who can raise the most. In spite of most politicians rejection of the claim, it is obvious most that the power goes to where the money is, and the voice of the rich is overheard above everyone else. Collaborative technologies have the power to level this. The Internet is blind to wealth, ability, race, creed, gender, and background. A good idea presented through collaborative technologies will rise to the top and be implemented, regardless of the source. That is good for all [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=145</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Hartzog &#8211; Panarchy and the wikification of politics</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=148</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=148#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:09:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul Hartzog introduces the concept of panarchy, a sociopolitical field that emerges when connective technologies, which lower the threshold for collective action, enable cooperative peer-to-peer production – of knowledge, of tools, of power. Panarchy is the emerging system of sociopolitical activity that we might refer to as the “wiki-fication” of society. By “wikification,” I refer to the rise of mass participation systems, that include 1) software production, or “open source,” 2) knowledge production, e.g. wikipedia, or 3) group/identity production, e.g. communities. Mass participation is enabled by the recent spread of connective network technologies, from cell phones to the Internet. Panarchy emerges when these connective technologies, which lower the threshold for collective action, enable cooperative peer-to-peer production – of knowledge, of tools, of power. Network technologies, because they increase human connectivity, increase both the speed and frequency of human interaction. But more connectivity also means more complexity, and therefore more unpredictability. As small events cascade into large ones, power becomes distributed throughout the system, at once everywhere and nowhere. The outcome of all of this is nothing less than the transformation of civilization. Where the current system is hierarchical, centralized, and differentiated, the new system is anarchical, diffuse, and overlapping. Where [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=148</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jonah Bossewitch &#8211; The ZyprexaKills campaign: Peer production and the frontiers of radical pedagogy</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=144</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=144#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jonah Bossewitch tells the story of the participatory campaign against blockbuster antipsychotic drug Zyprexa, suggesting that participatory culture might give to way to participatory democracy, and highlighting how collaborative technologies can play a leading role in radical actions. “Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together&#8230; Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” – Saul Alinsky Like the telegraph and the railroad in their time, the Internet has been heralded as the promoter of equality, freedom, and democracy. And like the technologies that preceded it, its impact will ultimately derive from the ways we choose to use it. In the post dot-com era, the Internet is best known for entertainment, commerce, and socializing although it is also being utilized for more earnest activities such as education, political advocacy, and direct social action. Leveraging the writable web is an important way that organizations are improving their operational efficiency. The de-facto suite of Web 2.0 applications – a mailing list, a wiki, a blog, shared public tags, and RSS, are rapidly becoming part of the typical grassroots communications toolkit. Beyond the backoffice, organizers are also learning [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=144</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kingsley Dennis &#8211; The new agoras: ‘Wikis’ as a form of collective intelligence</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=143</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=143#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:06:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Successful Wikis, such as Wikipedia make &#8216;smart&#8217; decision, argues Kingsley Dennis. They embody forms of an emerging hybridised collective intelligence, where the weaknesses of the individual are compensated by the contributions of the many. The Internet has shifted through various phases since the early appearances of web browsers in the 1990s and has fundamentally altered the way people can, and do, interrelate, communicate, think, link, and act. As the Internet increasingly becomes a space where people are becoming the creators, co-designers, and feedback mechanisms of many-to-many software applications, a new form of complex interconnectivity is forming. This was initially termed the Web 2.0 , with Tim O&#8217;Reilly describing one of the key lessons of the Web 2.0 era as being ‘Users add value’. Emerging scapes of mobility and social connectivity largely driven by user-created applications are fostering what can be called ‘amplified shared knowledge’ through shifting patterns in technological applications and user participation. Content-led development of the Internet, involving knowledge webs and knowledge sharing through digital social networks and collaborative tools such as Wikipedia, and Cellphedia, lead the way towards ‘mass amateurisation’. This can be further seen in such practices as folksonomy/tagging, blogging, podcasting, and now vlogging (video blogging). These [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=143</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Australian bill of rights initiative: Collaborating on public policy</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=142</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=142#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wiki politics are put into practice. This article focuses on the development and the rationale behind ARBI, an online project aimed at promoting awareness and discussion of human rights through the collaborative development of a bill of rights for Australia. Written by Mark Elliott, Mimi Marcus, Marcus Barber, Marcus Leonard, Alex Gibson, Lucas Maddock, Matt Daniel Public policy refers to the &#8220;the body of laws, regulations, decisions and actions of government&#8221; which effect and regulate the public. However representative democracy limits the civilian&#8217;s role in the participation of generating this policy through the reliance upon elected politicians who&#8217;s interests may or may not be aligned with the public&#8217;s. This brief case study looks at the inspirations and guiding principles of the Australian Bill of Rights Initiative, a wiki based project whose aims are to promote awareness and discussion surrounding human rights through the collaborative drafting of a bill of rights for Australia. Australia is now the only common law country in the world without a bill of rights. The UK and New Zealand have statutory bills, whilst Canada, Fiji, India, South Africa and the United States, to name but a few, have constitutional bills of rights. The notion that Australia [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=142</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hana Shepherd and Amir Goldberg &#8211; Tagging politics and consensus</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=147</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=147#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 10:56:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What are the possible consequences for a lack of consensus in tagging systems, ask Hana Shepherd and Amir Goldberg. Might there be bias in retrieval of sites that might systematically disadvantage particular types of resources or particular types of users from straightforward and intuitive online participation? Put differently, is folksonomy merely the tyranny of the majority in a new guise? As you might have noticed in your last browse through the online world, more and more sites allow users to “tag” resources. From the more popular ones like the social bookmarking site del.ici.ous and the ever-present YouTube and Amazon, to the less-well-traveled information and data-organization sites like Furl, LibraryThing, and Citeulike, tags are everywhere. Tags allow users to attach their own keywords to online resources (websites, blogs, pictures, videos, books, etc.), theoretically allowing for more efficient and user-driven retrieval of resources. But sites that use tagging, or at least web developers interested in the much-hyped Semantic Web, have their eyes set on a higher goal as well. Tags on a site are examined in the aggregate, with the idea that they can be used to develop “folksonomies,” or user-driven metadata, as a way of characterizing data online by looking at [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=147</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Laurence Pawley &#8211; Horizontal politics in a vertical world: The BBC and Action Network</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=146</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=146#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 10:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Examining the BBC&#8217;s experiments on facilitating participatory e-democracy, Laurence Pawley finds that such re-imaginings of political action must be accompanied by a re-imagination of the institutions that provide them. The growth of the ‘new’ politics enabled by technological developments like blogs and wikis has, generally speaking, emerged from outside of established nodes of political power. The informal, collaborative methods of action proposed by these spaces have predominantly been taken up by looser social movements and individuals, with the anti-capitalist movement and maverick ‘political bloggers’ serving as obvious examples. But what happens when similar opportunities are facilitated by a national institution, with substantial links to the state? Can active citizenship be promoted through an organisation associated with a centralised, linear mission to ‘inform, educate and entertain’? This is the question raised by the BBC’s Action Network mini-site (originally launched in 2003 as iCan). The site takes the form of a facilitative space, aimed in at individuals who wish to develop single-issue campaigns in their local area. Users can leave ‘notices’ (effectively equivalent to a standard online messageboard) or create more permanent ‘campaign’ pages in a collaborative blog format. The site has won several awards for its contribution to e-democracy, and its [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=146</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McKenzie Wark: Gamer theory for collaborative knowledge production</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=132</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=132#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[McKenzie Wark celebrates Wikipedia as an example of a new kind of social relation, as a model for producing knowledge outside the commodity form&#8230; An interview to Korinna Patelis for republic.gr Korinna Patelis: Do you enjoy the wiki entries on who you are? McKenzie Wark: I just had a look at it now. It reads OK. It&#8217;s neutral, and the facts are right, which is what one hopes for in a wikipedia entry. K.P.: Do you to refer to wikipedia entries in your academic work? K.W.: Wikipedia is something I use every day, particularly in the classroom. I encourage students to look there first but to check what they find with another source. In some courses I have them write or improve wikipedia entries as one of their assignments. It&#8217;s a great public knowledge resource. K.P.: In using terms such as &#8216;information&#8217; or &#8216;use&#8217; you apply instrumental rationality to knowledge, using terms often used in utilitarian thought. Knowledge is way more than an aggregate of information, no? K.W.: Information is something we can quantify, and hence commodify. In some ways that&#8217;s a good thing. It&#8217;s an improvement on the state&#8217;s monopoly on the right to know. But I&#8217;m also interested [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=132</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Geert Lovink &#8211; Theses on wiki politics</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=135</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=135#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wikis reflect a culture of pragmatic non-commitment, argues Geert Lovink. One edits, adds, deletes, changes and quits. Then it is time to stand up, get a coffee, smoke a cigarette, talk on the phone or chats, and return to the screen again&#8230; An exchange with Pavlos Hatzopoulos for Re-public Pavlos Hatzopoulos: Are wikis the opposite of blogs? The creation of collective intelligence vs. solipsism? Geert Lovink: It is interesting that you position blogs and wikis as antagonistic players. Usually, within the Web 2.0 craze, blogs, wikis and social networking site are portrayed as complimentary applications. It is true that blog culture, as it exists right now, facilitates the idea that &#8216;I am the only mind that exists&#8217;. In my essay Blogging, the Nihilist Impulse, I have analyzed the blogosphere as one that is by and large introspective. Blogs recast postmodern techno subjectivity in a way that has not yet been fully researched. Why? Because the outcome would be straight-out boring. The fact is that most blogs have a two-month lifespan and contribute little to the liberal myth of our time which proclaims that bloggers are &#8216;citizen journalists&#8217;. This is a sad state of affairs, in particular for the first and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=135</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trebor Scholz  &#8211; What the MySpace generation should know about working for free</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=138</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=138#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:26:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Driven by hormones and a sea of desires, millions are sucked into networked screens for hours on end. For the media and news industries these are the heydays of participatory cultures. Cultural anthropologists study “interactivity,” and the networked sociality of teens, fans, and bloggers of all ages who are trying to impress their friends or seek a platform for their ideas. Rather than balancing affordances and pitfalls (democratizing effects such as the massification of voice and harmful aspects such as addiction and continuous partial attention), this essay focuses on creative labor from the perspective of the MySpace generation. The topic is not the free labor of the networked lifestyle variety (i.e. 24/7 laptop workers) I rather concentrate on the immaterial creative/affective labor performed in the sociable web. In the North American context the suggestion of work within the framework of social networking sites immediately calls up accusations of blindly leftist, world-removed academism. These complaints only demonstrate the critics’ socialization into naturalized corporate interests, which become closer to their heart than their very own. Rather than getting lost in wishful thinking, however, this essay aims to highlight new kind of “immaterial labor.” The expressive work on MySpace, FaceBook, or blogs is [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=138</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yanis Varoufakis &#8211; What does it take to transform an e&#8217;mob into an empowered demos? Toward a democratic critique of ‘the politics of wiki’</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=134</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=134#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wiki is a terrible way to organise a debate in the context of conflicts of material interest, argues Yanis Varoufakis. As long as our societies are typified by a stark separation of the political from the economic sphere, reserving equal rights for the former while allowing the latter to be characterised by increasing inequality in the allocation of property rights, wiki can play no significant role in civilising them. 1. Introduction I begin with the supposition that anyone interested in the politics of wiki is motivated by a concern for the increasingly sorry state of our democracies. And I conclude, bleakly, that the politics of wiki is an integral part of the receding political sphere. That, rather than heralding a revitalised politics, it is part and parcel of the ethos of fragmentation that devalues political goods and turns democracy into an empty shell. Wiki is, no doubt, a remarkable piece of technology. By catering for truly collaborative work, irrespectively of whether the group comprises two people or a multitude strewn all over the planet’s surface, it opens up new vistas for participatory projects. Nonetheless, like all technologies, its impact depends on the social relations and the institutional framework in which [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=134</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michel Bauwens &#8211; P2P politics, the state, and the renewal of the emancipatory traditions</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=133</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=133#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michel Bauwens explores the possibilities opened up by P2P projects for progressive politics, arguing that they could present an alternative to neoliberal privatization, and to the Blairite introduction of private logics in the public sphere. Peer governance and democracy As peer to peer technical and social infrastructures such as sociable media and self-directed teams are emerging to become an important if not dominant format for the changes induced by cognitive capitalism, the peer to peer relational dynamic will increasingly have political effects. As a reminder, the p2p relational dynamic arises wherever there are distributed networks, i.e. networks where agents are free to undertake actions and relationships, and where there is an absence of overt coercion so that governance modes are emerging from the bottom-up. It creates processes such as peer production, the common production of value; peer governance, i.e. the self-governance of such projects; and peer property, the auto-immune system which prevents the private appropriation of the common. It is important to distinguish the peer governance of a multitude of small but coordinated global groups, which choose non-representational processes in which participants co-decide on the projects, from representative democracy. The latter is a decentralized form of power-sharing based on elections [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=133</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Bollier &#8211; The commons and emergent democracy</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=136</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=136#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:29:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New genres of online collaboration are producing robust new types of “democratic practice” online, claims David Bollier. Whether and how they will affect conventional politics and governance may be another issue, since it is not yet clear that the new social technologies will significantly intervene in the conduct of power and make it more accessible and accountable. It is becoming increasingly clear that the conventional, centralized institutions of the 20th Century are ill-equipped to meet the complex challenges of our time. They are just too slow, bureaucratic, secretive, politically compromised and/or unresponsive. Meanwhile, we are witnessing the rise of all sorts of distributed online networks that are proving to be highly efficient, versatile and reliable. Wikis, social networking websites, blogs, streaming video websites, podcasts and other innovations are changing how we learn, form social relationships and create culture. They are substituting “social production” for commercial transactions. They are generating new forms of political power and institutional authority. This raises the tantalizing question, Can the new online technologies of cooperation usher in a new type of “wiki politics” and governance? This much is clear: the new genres of online collaboration are producing robust new types of “democratic practice” online. Whether and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=136</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joseph Reagle &#8211; Equality, gender, and speech in open communities</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=131</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=131#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In addition to decision-making and legal necessity motivating closed subgroups within open communities, minority groups troubled by perceived bias in the larger community sometimes also seek a separate &#8220;safer&#8221; space. The creation of such a space, the female only WikiChix mailing list, broke from the model of female friendly, but non-exclusive, spaces in other open content communities and prompted arguments that such moves could become absurd, are unnecessarily divisive, and contrary to the egalitarian ethos of the larger community. This led to WikiChix being detached from any support or formal affiliation with Wikipedia. I conclude by arguing this break from open but focus-friendly subgroups should only be a last resort and we should better understand the circumstances that necessitate it. One should not be surprised that a source of contention in &#8220;open content communities&#8221; are situations in which a subset of community members create a closed, exclusive, space. The conditions that prompt such proposals and the rhetoric marshaled to support or attack them give insight into a community&#8217;s attempts to understand and implement both openness and equality. A common feature of online communities operating under an ethos of open and egalitarian values is frustration with the co-existence of group decision-making [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=131</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thanasis Priftis &#8211; A chance to learn: PASOK and the free open source paradigm</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=139</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=139#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can public organisations offer to citizens advanced and integrated services? Can they learn to adapt themselves and innovate? Can they become the vehicle of a deeper social change and participation? These are few of the questions in mind for the last 2 years that I am involved with PASOK as a member of its Internet Technologies and Services Department. For answers to these questions, as this short paper will demonstrate, we look upon the FLOSS development methodologies and procedures not only as a viable business decision but, primarily, as a platform of collaborative politics, as well as an investment model serving the public interest at large. An opportunity for change Political parties &#8211; organisations are complex systems of relationships, procedures and decisions. PASOK&#8217;s political agenda is, gradually, shifting towards a culture of sharing and collaboration. Such procedures generate a cultural &#8220;shock&#8221; for public institutions, in general. They are, nevertheless, fundamental to transparent and sustainable policies. Facilitation of collaborative politics tends to be the organisation&#8217;s new main service. A goal, that if is to be approached, demands great effort from PASOK to reintroduce itself at a new level: not deciding policies but incubating their creation. Doing politics out of the ordinary [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=139</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mark Wagstaff &#8211; Communities against inertia</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=137</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=137#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While governments have generally been slow-footed to take up the technological challenge, we are now seeing user-driven structures being used in more sophisticated ways to co-opt communities of choice to government interests, says Mark Wagstaff. As the internet is a neutral entity, such co-option is inevitable, and will doubtless provide a spur to greater resistance, to seek for a more authentic &#8220;us&#8221; against &#8220;them&#8221;. Citizens become active to achieve a presence. This status has broad meanings, allied with the synonyms grouped by Richard Sennett around recognition and respect (p. 49). The response to non-location is powerful, and has to be, to move against inertia. Indeed, popular political language speaks often of &#8216;movements&#8217; and this invocation of mobility, inherent in the term &#8216;revolution&#8217;, implicitly critiques the existing situation as somehow static, inert. The problem, of course, is that the existing situation is not inert, but often travelling with severe rapidity in directions which citizens cannot trust. It is the people&#8217;s own inertia which must be overcome, to counter acceleration with movement. Absence of recognition provokes sensations of powerlessness, made more acute by the liberal orthodoxy that dependence is a social wrong (pp. 102-3). On the one hand, liberal theorists, following Kant, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=137</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bruno Latour &#8211; We are all reactionaries today</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=129</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=129#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An interview with the vanguard contemporary thinker, Bruno Latour, on the end of progressivism, the limits of representation, the irrelevance of contemporary parliaments, the politics of things&#8230; (The interview is also available on podcast) An interview to Konstantin Kastrissianakis for Re-public Konstantin Kastrissianakis: If today we live in the era of simultaneity, in a space where everything is contemporary, can we use the terms “conservative” or “regressive” or should we abandon them altogether? Bruno Latour: Everybody is reactionary today. The problem is not there: the problem is which ones to choose. The division of things between progressivist and reactionary ought to be abandoned precisely because the topography of time, the repartition of political passions, has been overturned. Because in modernism, we were relatively easily oriented towards a progressivist direction. So we could distinguish between progressivist and reactionary attitudes with relative ease, reactionary being linked to the attachment to the past and progressivist to future emancipations. Today, however, things have changed to the extent that attachments are not only in the past but also in the future. For example, ecological questions, issues concerning the city and urbanism etc. As I have said in “making things public”, we have gone from a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=129</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Richard Dawkins &#8211; About time</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=125</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=125#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Time is pretty mysterious stuff – almost as elusive and hard to pin down as conscious awareness itself. It seems to flow – like an ever-rolling stream – but what is it that does the flowing? We have the feeling that the present is the only instant of time that actually exists. The past is a shadowy memory. The future a vague uncertainty. Physicists don’t see it like that. The present has no privileged status in their equations. Some modern physicists have gone so far as to describe the present as an illusion, a product of the observer’s mind&#8230; For poets, time is anything but an illusion. They hear its wingèd chariot hurrying near; they aspire to leave footprints on the sands of it; wish there was more of it &#8211; to stand and stare ; invite it to put up its caravan, just for one day. Proverbs declare procrastination to be the thief of it; or they compute, with improbable precision, the ratio of stitches saved in it. Archaeologists excavate rose-red cities half as old it. Pub landlords announce it gentlemen please . We waste it, spend it, eke it out, squander it, kill it. Long before there were [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=125</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jason del Gandio &#8211; The coming-temporality: A time for revolution</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=122</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=122#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:42:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This essay outlines a mode of temporality that establishes conditions for the possibility of political revolution. Jason del Gandio takes his initial cue from Giorgio Agamben’s book, The Coming Community. In that work Agamben explores a political mode of existence that (a) claims no fixed or fixable identity, (b) proposes no fixed political agenda or ideology, (c) self-organizes according to its impulse toward ever-increasing “democratic” relations and, as such, (d) excludes the very possibility of State governance, thus (e) positing the possibility of political revolution. Agamben’s theory, while keen in many ways, never investigates the temporality of this coming community. I address that concern here by exploring some interrelated questions. For instance, at what time does this community arrive or come to fruition? Also, what is the temporal structure of this community? That is, how does time function as an experiential-political structure within this mode of existence? And last, how might the temporality of this community either advance or impede the possibility of revolution? This essay answers these questions not by expounding upon Agamben’s own thinking, but rather, by beginning where Agamben leaves off: with a theory of “the coming-temporality” explicated through the concepts of non-arrival, hyper-adaptability, spatiality, disruption, and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=122</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gaynor Macdonald &#8211; Temporalising the Indigenous other: The politics of tradition in nation-building</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=128</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=128#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indigenous rights were once denied because Indigenous peoples were not considered modern: now they are denied if they are. Native title requires them to be ‘traditional&#8217;, argues Gaynor Macdonald, and to call someone ‘traditional’ is to imply they do not share &#8216;our&#8217; time. A century ago it was common, acceptable even, to understand Indigenous Australians as backward savages. The theory of human difference was social darwinism, popular because it confirmed the inferiority of anyone with darker skin. Destined to disappear, there was no need to feel remorse for the savagery of the colonial processes by which Indigenous lands were appropriated, nor to include them in the ‘us’ of Federation. Evolutionism provided a form of historicism in which the non-western other became the primitive form of the modern, progressive western self. Indigenous Australians were relegated to another time and space – prior, remote, backwards, primordial. As Darwinism became scientifically unjustifiable and biological theories of difference went out of fashion, ‘cultural difference’ took its place but did not stop the temporalisation. Half a century later, the enduring image by which French anthropologist Levi-Strauss contrasted the ‘primitive world’ to his own was temporal: ‘The characteristic of the savage mind … is its timelessness’. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=128</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mark Wagstaff &#8211; Historical invention and political purpose</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=126</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=126#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[History-writing is this conditional perception, yoked to political purpose, whose shifts and contradictions will shoot us on the one day, and pardon us the next, says Mark Wagstaff. History, the saying goes, catches up with you. It cannot be outrun. History appears to exist independently of politics or imagination, something past, which yet continues, an objective narrative accessible to succeeding generations on equal terms. History catches up with you because the narrative of occurrences persists. From this perspective, history is fact. But it cannot be so. When we discuss history, we mean history-writing, the invention of history. Egon Friedell called history-writing &#8216;the philosophy of what has happened&#8217;, and this sense of an investigative and imaginative discipline underpins Friedell&#8217;s analysis of how history is written and why. Historians do not address facts, so much as associations. Take the individual life. When someone dies, Friedell suggests, they are removed from the realm of fact and become legend, even among those who knew them. What he implies is that there is imperfect recollection of the totality of the person: certain impressions and associations, often for arbitrary reasons, stand out more than others. The past, where all individuals are legend, becomes both unclear and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=126</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brad Evans and Keir Milburn &#8211;  The untimely event</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=124</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=124#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:08:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brad Evans and Keir Milburn write on the revolutionary rupture that the &#8220;untimely event&#8221; carries. Nowhere is this revolutionary potential of the untimely more apparent than with the Zapatista rebels in Mexico&#8230; Nietzschean time In the Nietzschean world two concepts of time exist. The Chronos with which we are most familiar runs, so to speak, like clockwork. It is time captured, precisely engineered, sequenced and serving to record a teleology. The Aion, on the other hand, is that which works for all time. Moving to a different rhythm it is time unprogrammed into an inevitable sequence. It forces a rupture in the predictability of our present anticipations. Denying the time to come its comfort and security it poses a direct challenge to a future that has always already been preconceived. It is the Untimely. What necessarily follows is that those who operate along untimely lines do not come into focus through assimilation, conformity or proven fitness to any normalised calibration. On the contrary, their image is given an alternative light since they are the farthest away from any given point of equilibrium. In these terms the untimely do not only trouble the working order of things, but force an entirely [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=124</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alex Aylett  &#8211; Situated chronologies: Time, nature, and the city</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=123</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=123#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recognizing the limits of mechanical time would be one step towards reinventing our relationship to nature and finding a new place for ourselves within it. It would also help us to create political and economic systems that achieve a better balance between short term gains and long-term costs, argues Alex Aylett. Cities both produce and are a product of self-reinforcing visions of our relationships to time, and to nature. Like pipes, wires and roads, these relationships form part of the taken-for-granted infrastructure that gives the urban its shape and makes it possible. We are used to thinking of time in minutes and seconds, and we are used to thinking of ourselves as somehow separate from nature. Just as we build cities, we have built these relationships, built them into ourselves and into the spaces we inhabit. It is the environmental effects of these constructions of time and nature, made concrete in the city, that I want to discuss. Becoming aware of the extent of our own creativity has become a staple of critical social theory at the turn of the 21st century. The social construction of gender, sexuality, science, ethics, and truth have been brought up as a way of [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=123</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eleni Sideri &#8211; Past strategies and present exigencies: Time and social networks in modern Tbilisi</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=127</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=127#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The paternal/provider role of the Soviet State is being gradually replaced in the case of Georgia by a more individualistic and money orientated society. Time is not only money, says Eleni Sideri, it also flows and this fluidity offers new opportunities, contradictory experiences, and also disappointments to social agents. Gjorgi is a 50-year-old, ethnic Greek, Georgian. He used to teach Russian literature, but in 1980s he grasped the opportunity of Perestroika and turned into tourism. The last decade, though, was disastrous for him since the political instability in Georgia left him unemployed and his health gradually deteriorated. During my fieldwork in Georgia, I used to stop by at his house since we were almost neighbours. He spent most of the working hours repairing things, sometimes an old broken chair, sometimes painting a wall. Gjorgi was not satisfied with that situation because as he believed, “only women stay at home at these hours. Men should go to work”. In his opinion, unemployment turned him almost into an effeminate man. His wife, Tamara, a 40-old-year schoolteacher, however, did not agree. “I always used to be at work (as she does until today) during these hours” she says coming into the living-room, feeling [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=127</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Robert Hassan &#8211; No future: Democracy in the age of neoliberal speed</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=115</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=115#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, now-focussed executive government bypasses people and parliaments to function in the service of now-centred economic imperatives, argues Robert Hassan. Democracy will eventually die if we continue to unthinkingly accept that our short-termism and reliance on abstract market mechanisms will look after our future. The subject of global warming has been simmering away in the public consciousness, so to speak, for over a decade now. During that period, debate on the validity of the science has shifted inexorably towards a consensus around the fact that it is now happening, and that industrialisation is largely to blame. Nonetheless, on Halloween Day 2006 British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered a frightening future scenario to a world encultured into not thinking beyond the next six months. He bullet-pointed the Stern Report on global warming and solemnly declared it the ‘most important report on the future published by the Government in our time in office’. The contents and meaning of the actual 700-page report may have been upstaged by the prominence and some might say, celebrity, of its messenger. Still, we live in a media-soaked and celebrity-oriented world. The Report’s author, Sir Nicholas Stern has no name recognition, so it was Blair who delivered [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=115</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jonathan Pugh &#8211; Reflections upon the relationship between space, time and governance</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=116</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=116#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:29:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time/politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jonathan Pugh shows how the conception of ‘space’, ‘time’ and ‘governance’ as separate spheres of inquiry often makes us lose sight of the importance of the overlapping, and often conflicting, ‘space-time imaginaries’ that we experience in our everyday lives. The relationship between governance, space and time is extremely important: not least because political philosophers and geographers rarely talk across the dividing line between their disciplines. Geographers often focus too much upon how we understand space and time, at the expense of the political considerations of their work. And political theorists often seem to think that the same ideology they come up with will be relevant across the world, in all places and at all times. In talking across that dividing line, as we are beginning to do in the “Space of Democracy and Democracy of Space”, we can therefore make a ‘practical turn’, one that draws as much upon common sense and the everyday experiences of people, as the theoretical trajectories of different fashions in academia. In this short article I aim to briefly outline how conversations between geography and political philosophy could work, to give us a more practical focus in academia more generally. Political theory and the question [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=116</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
