Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Call for Papers’ Category

24-26 May 2018

University of Edinburgh

CfP deadline: 15 March 2018

Convenors: James Kennedy (University of Edinburgh) and Maarten Van Ginderachter (Antwerp University)

This workshop welcomes reflections and case studies from across the field of the social sciences and the humanities. The aim is to publish an edited volume with an international academic publisher or a themed issue of an international academic journal.

Successful applicants will have their accommodation costs completely covered and their travel expenses reimbursed. In exchange, participants will give the right of first publication to the organizers of the workshop.

Please send a 500 word abstract of your paper and a short academic biography of 5 lines to J.Kennedy@ed.ac.uk and Maarten.VanGinderachter@uantwerpen.be. Deadline is 15 March 2018.

Successful applicants will have to send in a draft paper of 6000 words (that has not been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere) by 17 May. These drafts will be circulated among the participants of the workshop.

More information will become available here.

Call for Papers

‘The (im)possibility of liberal nationalism in the age of Trump and the Catalan conundrum’ – Moving beyond the binaries of Nationalism Studies

Trump, Brexit and the rise of far right parties across Europe suggest the return of nationalism as an exclusive, populist and illiberal ideology. But not all nationalisms are similarly coloured. The secessionist nationalism of Scotland or Catalonia, for example, or the reformist nationalism of the Arab Spring suggest instances in which nationalism is more closely associated with liberalism and democracy. Arguably, of course, we only take notice when nationalism becomes ‘hot’, and its character very apparent.  At other times, its banal, everyday role as a source of personal and collective identification goes unnoticed, as does its character. These examples suggest perhaps that nationalism is labile or promiscuous, with no fixed essence, taking its character from dominant or emerging ideologies (John Hall).

One important point of reference is of course the clichéd dichotomy of civic vs. ethnic nationalism which was born in the particular historical circumstances following the Franco-German war and the ensuing conflict over Alsace-Lorraine in the 1870’s. Its scholarly roots include Hans Kohn’s distinction between western and eastern nationalism. More recently, it has also been conflated with the distinction in normative political theory between liberal and illiberal nationalism made by Will Kymlicka among others. Clearly, binaries are omnipresent within Nationalism Studies, whether they be western/eastern, civic/ethnic, liberal/illiberal or left/right. In rethinking the utility of these classic binaries the conceptual stakes involved move beyond simple East/West or even North/South divides but implicate important issues such as liberalism, civil society and democratization.

Hans Kohn’s The Idea of Nationalism (1944) sought to understand the emergence of nationalism through the story of the development of Western civilization and of the rise of liberalism, and to contrast this process with its illiberal challengers. However, something of the ideological complexity of the European context was lost in this account. Kohn, perhaps for good biographical reasons, was too keen to offer an account of a rather neat linear development of Western civilization and the rise of liberalism. And yet, across Europe liberalism was rarely if ever pristine. It co-emerged with other contemporaneous ideological movements, republicanism in the 18th century and socialism in the 19th, and more generally, with older religious identities, dating perhaps to the medieval era, but more specifically to the reformation age and its popular mobilisations: religious understandings of the world have very often been implied in the national imagination.

The conflation of liberal with civic is particularly misleading in Kohn’s account, not least since the terms evoke distinct intellectual lineages: one liberalism and the other republicanism. Put bluntly, while liberalism makes no claim to universal truth, and is thereby tolerant of diverse opinions, republicanism, derived from the writings of Rousseau, among others, has a clear vision of the good life and is rather intolerant of competing views. To put this another way, and as John Hall (2003) suggests, civic nationalism is open ‘so long as one absorbs the culture of the dominant ethnic group’; this is quite different from liberal nationalism, which has at its core a ‘recognition of diversity’ limited only by a commitment to shared liberal values: groups cannot cage individuals. This leads Hall to usefully distinguish civil or liberal forms of nationalism from a civic republican manifestation of nationalism.

Of course, underlying both civil/liberal and civic/republican nationalisms is an ethnic attachment. Here it is worth remembering that ethnic identification need not be exclusive in a strong sense. As Thomas Eriksen reminds us, ethnic group membership can be open: religious conversion, intermarriage and linguistic integration are possible and need not be coercively underwritten. Şener Aktürk (2012) has recently sought to understand exactly this by offering ‘regimes of ethnicity’ as a way of foregrounding the role that ethnicity plays in conceptions of nationhood. His choice of cases is interesting since they relate precisely to those identified by Kohn as constituting ‘Eastern nationalism’: Germany, Russia and Turkey. Aktürk points to the ways in which ethnic difference is, or is not, supported by the state through ‘membership’, by granting or not granting citizenship to immigrants from diverse ethnic backgrounds; and through ‘expression’, that is, either encouraging or discouraging the legal and institutional expression of ethnic diversity. This usefully prioritises the place of ethnicity in conceptions of nationhood, but it unnecessarily obscures its political character in that civic nationalism is dismissed as a ‘vague, empty category’.

Starting from these reflections this workshop wants to move beyond the classic binaries of Nationalism Studies towards a more nuanced, reformulated framework that might provide a way to better understand nationalisms’ shifting guises.

We are particularly interested in papers oriented to the following sorts of questions:

  • To what extent are the classic binaries still workable? What happens if we relate them separately to the issues of national identity, citizenship law and nationalist ideology (Rogers Brubaker)?
  • To what extent do distinctions supposedly made in 19th century European liberalism provide an intellectual foundation for these binaries? What about ‘historical’ vs. ‘non-historical’ nations? Where do Staatsnation, Kulturnation and Volksnation fit in?
  • How has the concept of ‘the West’ functioned as a push and pull factor in the history of nationalism? If ‘the West’ is gaining/losing appeal, how does this shape particular nationalisms? Similarly, how has the concept of the West, which has been charged with so many ideologies, been interpreted differently and over time by nationalists of diverse kinds?
  • Might liberal or ‘civil’ nationalism be distinguished from the often republican-orientated civic nationalism? What role does ethnicity play in these conceptions? And what secures liberal nationalism given the current fragility of liberal democracy? Which historical or contemporary cases shed light on this question?
  • How have specific nationalisms moved along the left-right dimension (both in cultural and economic terms) through history? The shifts between types of nationalism are of particular interest, from exclusive to inclusive national practices or vice versa. How are these shifts managed? In what historic contexts do they occur? And more generally, how is nationalism’s character shaped by the ideologies (feminism, Marxism, conservatism,…) it entwines with?

We are looking for papers by social and political scientists, historians, philosophers, …. – in short by scholars from a wide range within the social sciences and the humanities.

This workshop is coordinated by the POHIS-Centre for political history of Antwerp University, funded by the ‘International Scientific Research’ program of the Research Foundation of Flanders, in cooperation with Edinburgh University and NISE.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Federalism, defined as a form of government that strives to unite different socio-economic and cultural contexts into one political institutional framework, has a long history. Federalism requires a constant negotiation between local identity and federal integration as well as a new demarcation between the federal identity and the outsider. Since Antiquity, this political structure has undergone to a wide range of transformations that have both strengthened and threatened its existence. Recent political events, e.g. the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, highlight once more the tensions, failures and potential of federal constitutions, both in cases where these exist or The persistence of this precarious balance from the ancient to the modern states shows the potentiality and the risks of federalist structures.

This conference, generously supported by the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, aims to explore possible links between federal states in Antiquity and today. It assumes that, despite the different historical contexts that are responsible for the formation of distinct federal systems, there are recurrent themes, which affect and influence federalism in both periods. By inviting papers that are connected to three of these recurrent themes, i.e. identity in federal states, their workings, and their ideology, the conference hopes to spark debate and provide new insights into continuities and discontinuities between ancient and modern forms of federalism.

Proposals are invited for 20- to 30-minute papers on topics relating to these three aspects of federalism. More specific topics for discussion may include, but are not limited to:

  • the influence of local identity on federal politics
  • the failure and/or success of federal states
  • institutions of federal states
  • the individual within federal states
  • the philosophy of federal states
  • the direct influence of Greek federations on their modern counterparts

Please submit an abstract of no more than 400 words and a short bio to Elke Close at E.Close@ed.ac.uk by 2 June 2017. For further enquiries about the conference, please contact Kasper Swerts (kswerts@exseed.ed.ac.uk), Alberto Esu (Alberto.Esu@ed.ac.uk) or Elke Close.

Read Full Post »

CfP The personal and emotional dimension of nationhood in European history (19th century to WWII)

Workshop
31 May – 1 June 2017 Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany

CfP deadline: 15 March 2017

Convenors: Xosé M. Núñez Seixas (LMU), Maarten Van Ginderachter (Antwerp University) and Andreas Stynen (NISE, Antwerp)

This workshop welcomes case studies with a historical dimension from across the field of the humanities and the social sciences. The aim is to publish an edited volume with an international academic publisher or a themed issue of an international academic journal.

Successful applicants will have their accommodation costs completely covered and their travel expenses reimbursed. In exchange, participants will give the right of first publication to the organizers of the workshop.

Please send a 500 word abstract of your paper and a short academic biography of 5 lines to Maarten.VanGinderachter@uantwerpen.be; x.nunez@lmu.de; and andreas.stynen@nise.eu. Deadline is 15 March 2017. You will be informed of our decision by 15 April 2017.

Call for Papers

For over two decades the individual construction and personal, emotional experience of nationhood has been at the centre of scholarly attention in the fields of ethnography, sociology, political geography and social psychology. This so-called ‘affective turn’, closely related to the new history of emotions, has also been described as a shift towards the study of personal nationalism (Anthony Cohen), embedded nationalism (Jonathan Hearn) or embodied nationalism (Anne Mcclintock). These and other scholars do not merely conceptualize nationhood as a collective category construed in opposition to a national ‘Other’, but also as a personal sense of belonging predicated on emotional experiences, and reproduced by individuals in manifold dimensions of their daily life.

Benedict Anderson famously asked “why [do nations] command such profound emotional legitimacy”, but historians have only recently begun tackling this question. The paradox is that “the most personal of subjects – human feelings” has yet to be dealt with on the level of individual experience, partly because both the history of emotions and that of nationalism have generally only studied the most articulate social groups. (Matt & Stearns)

Thus, the workshop’s central issue is a variation on Katherine Verdery’s basic question: how did Europeans become national in the past? How did they draw on nationhood to construct their own sense of self? How did they invest a generic social category that was available to them in public life with personal meaning? How was it linked to their own emotional experiences? The workshop is specifically interested in applying these questions to the 19th and the first half of the 20th century.

Possible topics of enquiry include:

  • the transnational dimension, e.g. displacement of prisoners of war, expats and migrants who are forced to position themselves in revealing ways
  • autobiography, ego-documents and national identification
  • the impact of family and friendship ties, of moments of crisis, etc.
  • Saul/Paul conversions in nationalist/anti-nationalist autobiographies, or individuals who experienced a change of national loyalties in the course of their lives

Possible questions to ask are:

  • how can one generate evidence of emotions connected to nationalism, especially among ordinary people, with the available sources?
  • which emotional triggers might move individuals from a position of ‘indifference’ to active national engagement / consciousness?
  • what role do notions of loyalty, honour, sacrifice, kinship, love (and hatred) etc. play in transferring emotions to the national sphere?

This workshop is coordinated by the POHIS-Centre for political history of Antwerp University, funded by the ‘International Scientific Research’ program of the Research Foundation of Flanders, in cooperation with Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich and NISE.

Read Full Post »

asn-2017-call-for-papers

Read Full Post »

ASEN and Nations & Nationalism have established an essay Prize in honour of the memory of Dominique Jacquin-Berdal who was a devoted member of ASEN and an Editor of Nations & Nationalism.

The essay Prize has been established to encourage young scholars to publish original research in ethnicity and nationalism. Submissions are invited on all areas and themes in the field of nationalism studies.

The prize will be awarded for the best article submitted. The winning article will be announced at the 27th annual ASEN Conference, March 2017.

The prize will include a sum of £250 and 2 years’ free membership of ASEN, and may lead to publication of the article in Nations & Nationalism.

Submissions may be made by currently enrolled post-graduate students and those who have submitted their thesis within five years of the submission deadline. The final date for submissions for the 2017 prize award is 30 November 2016.

Submission procedure:

All submissions and correspondence should be made to the Managing Editor of Nations & Nationalism. Submissions must be accompanied by an official letter from the author’s supervisor confirming status and eligibility.

An author may only submit one article for consideration for the prize. Co-authored articles will not be considered. The Prize Committee reserves the right not to award a prize in any given year.

Articles must be submitted in English and in the Nations & Nationalism house style (‘Harvard’ system). Please refer to the Guidelines for Contributors http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/ASEN/NnN/Guidelines_for_Contributors.aspx
FULL INFO: http://asen.ac.uk/awards/essay-prize/

Previous Winners:

 

2016

Simon Halink

“Noble Heathens: Jón Jónsson Aðils and the Problem of Iceland’s Pagan Past”

Issue to be confirmed

 

2015

Richard Warren

“Charles Gleyre’s ‘Les Romains’: Classics and nationalism in Swiss art”

Published in Nations and Nationalism, Vol 22 Issue 2


2014
Martin Beckstein
“Nation Building in Contemporary Germany: The Strange Conversion of Hitler’s ‘Word Made of Stone’”
Published in Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 19 Issue 4

2013
Fiona Rose Greenland
“The Parthenon Marbles as Icons of Nationalism”
Published in Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 19 Issue 4

2012
David Pettinicchio
“Migration and Ethnic Nationalism: Anglophone Exit and the ‘Decolonization’ of Québec”
Published in Nations and Nationalism, Vol.19 Issue 1

2011
Marc Scully
“The tyranny of transnational discourse: ‘Authenticity’ and Irish diasporic identity in Ireland and England”.
Published in Nations and Nationalism Vol. 18 Issue 2

2009
Mariana Kriel
“Culture and power: The rise of Afrikaner nationalism revisited”.
Published in Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 16 Issue 3

2007
Robert Schertzer
“Recognition or Imposition? Federalism, National Minorities, and the Supreme Court of Canada”.
Published in Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 14 Issue 1

2006
Jonathan Fox
“From national inclusion to economic exclusion: ethnic Hungarian migration and the redefinition of the nation”
Published in Nations and Nationalism, Volume 13 Issue 1

2005
Erol Ulker
“Contextualising ‘Turkification’: Nation-building in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1908-1918”
Published in Nations and Nationalism, Volume 11 Issue 4

2003
Takeshi Nakano
“Theorising Economic Nationalism”
Published in Nations and Nationalism, Volume 10 Issue 3

 

Read Full Post »

e4cb2502-9019-409e-8f75-f475ab6edc94

Read Full Post »

The historical sociology of international relations has become firmly ensconced in the discipline – especially in the British context – but questions remain about its future. The core focus has been on specific macro-historical theories of societal development in relation to the international to the relative neglect of questions of method (e.g. should the focus only be on the macro? should issues around historical contingency and continuity be foregrounded? what are the implications of the ‘cultural turn’ in historical sociology?), modes of theorising (e.g. idiographic v. nomothetic approaches), and the production of evidence (e.g. historians versus social scientists). In addition to all of this, there has been little recent debate about variations in understanding the international in historical sociology – beyond the work of those deploying frameworks of ‘uneven and combined development’ and ‘social property relations’. Interestingly, the foundation of a new ISA group ‘Historical International Relations’ has focused on the ‘historical’ rather than the ‘sociological’: how important is the emphasis on the historical or sociological?

The section asks for papers and panels addressing these broad themes in theoretical and/or substantive terms.

Please send your panel proposals and paper abstracts to Bryan Mabee (b.mabee@qmul.ac.uk) and Kamran Matin (k.matin@sussex.ac.uk) by September 1, 2016. Panel proposals should be no more than 300 words long and include a title and abstracts for 4-5 papers. Paper abstracts should be max. 250 words.

Historical Sociology and International Relations Working Group
British International Studies Association
https://historicalsociology.wordpress.com/

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »