All of those working in the broad field of environmental studies (and I here include, among others, philosophers, geographers, political ecologists, sociologists, cultural historians and critics) are likely to agree to two points. First, the term “nature” which has been so central to our various debates, has lost its all-purpose conceptual status and can no longer be bandied around as it once was. This does not mean that we have ceased to use it. Indeed, it still regularly recurs in ecological laments and admonitions (it is “nature”, after all, that we are being told is being lost, damaged, polluted and eroded; and it is nature that we are enjoined to respect, protect and conserve). But we readily acknowledge now that this is no more than a kind of shorthand: a convenient, but fairly gestural, concept of eco-political argument whose meaning is increasingly contested. This bears on the second point of presumed agreement, namely, that we can, broadly speaking, discern two main parties to this contest over the nature of nature: the realists on the one hand, and the contructivists on the other. Since this distinction will be familiar to readers in its general outline, I shall not here elaborate in any detail upon it. But a few specifications might be added at this point.
Reflections on Norberto Bobbio, Anthony Giddens and the Left-Right Distinction
In a brief exchange with my mother following the British election in 1998, she told me that her bet was that ‘John Major and all the rest of them’ would now be kicking themselves for not having gone ‘New Tory’ and moved a little further to the left. The New Labour success indicated, she thought, that had they done so they could easily have stayed in power. I was not at all sure she was correct in this, but her remark interested me as reflecting both the impossibility of discoursing about politics without the left-right distinction, and one of the main reasons why its continued relevance to the European political situation is being called increasingly into question.
Maria Bucur, Rayna Gavrilova, Wendy Goldman, Maureen Healy, Kate Lebow, and Mark Pittaway
It is not the first time a journal is attempting a livelier format of intellectual exchange among academic specialists in the history of Russia/the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. But it is the first time that specialists working on questions of gender in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe are coming together to discuss a theme, theory and methodology issue together in this fashion, across a vast area and a very rich and differentiated scholarship. My interest in generating this dialogue is connected to my graduate training in the early 1990s, which came at a point when the social history of Eastern Europe was starting to gain new dimensions, linked to oral history and to the evanescent everyday life field that was gaining an important foothold at that time through the work of Alf Lüdtke and a group of social historians and historical sociologists working at University of Michigan and a few other institutions at that time. I was also becoming interested in gender as a category of historical analysis and found the Alltagsgeschichte approach embraced by this group of scholars particularly conducive to making gender topics visible and relevant in historical research and writing.
An Academic Review
dimension of overall sustainability is totally neglected. The aim of indicators is to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies formulated and achieved ( Bennett and James1999 ; Parris and Kates 2003 ); to communicate with diverse stakeholders
Sophia Yablonska's Travelogues in the History of Modern Ukrainian Literature
Maria G. Rewkowicz claims that “autobiography as a literary genre was quite widespread among feminist writers in the 1970s and 1980s.” 56 Giving examples such as Kate Millett's Flying (1974) and Sita (1977), Anja Meulenbelt's The Shame Is Over
A “Social Quality Observatory” for Central and Eastern European Countries?
Laurent J. G. van der Maesen
the most part in utilitarian-individualistic assumptions—to pay attention to “the social” without explaining what they mean by it is taking humanity from the fire into the frying pan, if you will. Nor does the interesting study by Kate Raworth (2017
Emotional Experience in Islamic Sermons (Bengali waʿẓ maḥfils)
. anubhūtike nāṛā diẏe yābe-baẏe ānbe cintā o biśwāse ek boiplabik paribartan. pakṣāntare baktānijei yadi tā̃r kathāguloke gāẏe nā mākhāẏ tāhale śrotār mane se kathā konoi dāg kāṭe nā. sutarāng anẏake kā̃dte hale tā̃r āge nije kā̃dār kona bikalpa nei.” 96
Communism and Feminism Revisited
Francisca de Haan, Kristen Ghodsee, Krassimira Daskalova, Magdalena Grabowska, Jasmina Lukić, Chiara Bonfiglioli, Raluca Maria Popa, and Alexandra Ghit
Control of Procreation,” in Of Marriage and the Market: Women’s Subordination Internationally and Its Lessons , ed. Kate Young, Carol Wolkowitz, and Roslyn McCullagh (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984), 127–144. 8 Jeraj, “Vida Tomšič,” 578. 9