Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (75) (remove)
Document Type
- Report (50)
- Article (15)
- Review (4)
- Working Paper (3)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (75) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (75)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (75) (remove)
Keywords
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (75) (remove)
This is the third article in our series Trouble on the Far-Right.
I am the author of two books about the French nouvelle droite (ND – New Right): Where Have All The Fascists Gone? and Rethinking the French New Right: Alternatives to modernity. In 2014, I published a piece entitled „The French New Right Neither Right, nor Left?“. Surprisingly, the French ND leader Alain de Benoist responded with a polemical and largely ad hominem article in the same journal.1 I must stress that I neither identify with a political party, nor a political movement. I do not support any ideological current. De Benoist does. He is self-described as a man of the right. Hence, he cannot even claim intellectual objectivity.
In this piece, I want to offer some comments on my debate with de Benoist. I argue that while we should strive towards intellectual objectivity, we cannot be silent in the face of falsehoods. In this respect, the ND plays a dishonest game. Its leader and other ND intellectuals feign intellectual objectivity and the platitudes of transcending right and left, but they want cultural hegemony and the triumph of their decidedly radical right-wing ideals...
This is the seventh post in the blog series „Movements and Institutions“.
Social movements challenge systems of rule and thus institutions. They are expressions of the non-identical, the gaps and fissures in today’s world. That’s what makes social movements interesting and relevant for a critical research agenda. Thus, more than applying ready-made concepts to cases, scholars should inquire into the interactions between social movements and institutions as relationships between rule and resistance. This article proposes one way to go about such a critical research agenda.
Social movements and institutions are central actors in national and transnational politics as well as core categories of social inquiry. Despite their importance, both terms are still haunted by a lack of thorough definitions. We introduce a blog series with ten weekly contributions on their interrelation, outlining several innovative approaches and suggesting some vantage points for rethinking ‘Movements’ and ‘Institutions’ in a productive manner.
With the Open Conference "Being a Citizen in Europe" in Zagreb (Croatia, 29-30 June 2015) external scholars were invited to connect to the bEUcitizen-project and to explore theoretical foundations and political as well as practical realities of today’s European citizenship. The structuring idea was to highlight potential core barriers towards EU citizenship and to do so by way of conceptual discussions as well as empirical analyses mapping a variety of citizenship practices in the EU. This was reflected in four thematic streams gathering contributions from both external and bEUcitizen researchers. The streams reflected on different kinds of barriers, conceptual and practical ones. They revolve around the normative promise of citizenship, the diversity of practices and possible paths of future development.
While stream 1 reflected on the dynamic of (re)configuring citizenship as a bounded or unbounded concept, stream 2 applied a comparative perspective on the diversity of rights-based citizenship practices. Stream 3 addressed the political dimension of EU-Citizenship and discussed a lack of citizenship participation as a farreaching barrier as well as possible remedies. Finally, stream 4 focused on linguistic diversity and the difficulties it creates regarding the conceptual and practical dimension of EU-citizenship. Taken together the contributions lucidly reflect the variety of disciplines cooperating in the bEUcitizen-project and their different points of view on EU-citizenship.
The crucial lesson from the contributions to the Open Conference for the theoretical task of WP 2 and the bEUcitizen-project more generally is that without conceptual clarity about the meaning of EU-citizenship the task of identifying practical barriers and evaluating the latter’s effects remains ambivalent. A shared understanding of the meaning of a (future) EU citizenship is still missing. What shall EU citizenship be or become: a fully-fledged democratic citizenship or a market-citizenship, bundling certain rights implied by the internal market freedoms? This undecided question is at the core of the debate on EU citizenship. In order to prevent citizens from turning their backs on the EU a public contestation of our understanding of the EU is needed. European democracy à venir requires an ongoing public debate about what European integration is all about and where it should lead us to – even and especially when there is no consensus about it.