RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

 

CENTER FOR CIVILIZATIONAL AND REGIONAL STUDIES

 

INSTITUTE FOR AFRICAN STUDIES

 

30/1 Spiridonovka St., 123001 Moscow, RUSSIA

Tel.: + (7 095) 291 4119; Fax: + (7 095) 202 0786

E-mail: civ-reg@inafr.ru

 

THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

"HIERARCHY AND POWER IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATIONS"

June 18-21 2004, Moscow, Russia

 

SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS

 

 

Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies in cooperation with the Institute for African Studies (both under the Russian Academy of Sciences) is organizing in Moscow on June 18-21 2004 the Third International Conference "HIERARCHY AND POWER IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATIONS"*.

 

The working languages of the Conference are Russian and English.

 

The Organizing Committee has considered all the panel proposals received by it. The descriptions of the accepted proposals please find below. The deadline for paper proposals (in the form of abstracts within 300 words in English or both English and Russian) is November 1, 2003. Paper proposals should be sent not to the Organizing Committee but directly to the respective panel convenor(s) who is (are) to inform the applicant about his (her) application's fortune by December 1, 2003. The information to be submitted alongside with the paper abstract includes full name, title, institutional affiliation, full mail and e-mail addresses, and fax #.

 

However, in the case you feel your paper does not fit any particular panel but corresponds to the Conference general problematique, you may submit your proposal to the Organizing Committee by the same date (November 1, 2003) and it will be considered for scheduling for the Free Communication Panel.

 

All the general inquiries should be sent to the Organizing Committee, for the attention of Prof. Dmitri M. Bondarenko, Dr. Igor L. Alexeev, and Mr. Oleg I. Kavykin preferably by e-mail (conf2004@hotmail.com), or either by fax (+ 7 095 202 0786), or by ordinary mail (Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 30/1 Spiridonovka St., 123001 Moscow, Russia). The telephone number is: + 7 095 291 4119.

 

In the case the proposal is accepted, the Organizing Committee will send you the list of documents necessary to support your and your panel participants’ visa application process at the Russian Consulate or Embassy in the respective countries in the beginning of the year 2004.

 

The Conference participant’s registration fee is $ 100 (or the corresponding sum in euros or Russian rubles) which includes the visa application support at the Russian Foreign Ministry,** culture program, Conference Book of Abstracts, reception, coffee-breaks, is to be paid in cash upon arrival. The fee for an accompanying person is $ 50 (or again, the corresponding sum in euros or Russian rubles) includes the visa application support at the Russian Foreign Ministry, participation in culture program and reception. Accommodation at the hotel of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Downtown Moscow is about $ 45 per night. It is also possible to make an independent reservation in this hotel or in one of many other Moscow hotels of different class through Internet at the sites http://moscow-hotels.net and http://all-hotels.ru. Estimated meal and other daily expenses are c. $ 15 per person. However, please note that the figures above may be subjected to some changes due to processes in transnational and national economy which are obviously out of the Organizing Committee’s control. If such changes happen, the Organizing Committee will try its best to inform the Conference participants as soon as possible.

 

 

PANELS ACCEPTED FOR THE CONFERENCE (In the alphabetical order of titles):

 

Alternativity in Cultural History: Heterarchy and Homoarchy as Evolutionary Trajectories

Convenors:

Prof. Dmitri M. Bondarenko

Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies

Russian Academy of Sciences

30/1 Spiridonovka St.

123001 Moscow

Russia

Fax: + (7 095) 202 0786

E-mails: dbondar@hotmail.com; dmitri.bondarenko@inafr.ru

 

Prof. Carole L. Crumley

Department of Anthropology

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3115

USA

Fax: + (1 919) 962 1613

E-mail: crumley@unc.edu

 

It had been regarded as a common place till quite recently that cultural evolution in its sociopolitical aspect means permanent teleological move to a greater level of hierarchy crowned by state formation. However, recent research into the use of the principle of heterarchy tend to change the usual picture dramatically. Heterarchy has been defined as “...the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways” (Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy 1995: 3). So heterarchy incorporates hierarchy (even in the so-called “egalitarian” societies), being the larger frame upon which different hierarchical structures are composed. The opposite of heterarchy would then be a condition in society, where relationships in most contexts will be ordered in the direction of one principle hierarchical relationship. This organizational principle may be called “homoarchy”, and this is just what is misleadingly called “hierarchy” by proponents of the idea of transition from “egalitarian” to “non-egalitarian” societies though such societies can be found even among the most primitive ones. We believe that it is time to move away from the earlier visions of social evolution. Rather than universal stages, there are two dynamic fundamental forms of sociopolitical organization which crosscut “evolutionary stages” routinized in the scholars’ thesaurus: at any level of social complexity one can find societies organized along both homoarchical and heterarchical lines. Thus homoarchy and heterarchy represent the most universal principles and basic trajectories of the sociopolitical organization and its evolution. Then, there are no universal evolutionary stages like e.g. band, tribe, chiefdom, state as far as cultures characterized by such notions have both heterarchical and homoarchical alternatives, i.e. cultures organized differently but not inferior in terms of the overall social complexity levels We welcome papers based on anthropological, archaeological, historical evidence from cultures of any periods and geographical areas which could provide better understanding of mechanisms and factors (social, political, cultural, etc.) of homoarchical and heterarchical societies formation and transformation (including the possibility of homoarchical cultures’ overt into heterarchical and vice versa) as an important aspect of the general problem of not simply variability but alternativity in world history and cultural evolution.

 

 

Art, struggle, survival and change

Convenor:

Dr Michael Walsh

Department of Art History and Archaeology

Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Eastern Mediterranean University

Famagusta (Gazimagusa)

Via Mersin 10

Turkey

Fax: 00 90 392 365 1604

E-mail: michael.walsh@emu.edu.tr

 

This panel is designed to explore the interface between the fine / applied arts and the experience of historical struggle – be it political, social, gender, race, civil, national / international. The individual, as well as the collective experience, is sought, as an artistic response to differing socio-political (internal and external) stimuli.

The panel encourages papers that deal with: sculpture, painting, photography, architecture, graphic and poster art, exhibition and gallery priorities, mass media, criticism and all other relevant forms of representation relevant to the fine arts of any historical / cultural period.

The study is aimed at highlighting the duality which can exist between:

·                                  Art as a consequence of hierarchical power struggle, war and civil disturbance.

·                                  Art as a mode of creating / implementing hierarchical power struggle, war and civil disturbance.

Suggested Subject Areas.

o                                 Revolution, rhetoric and resistance.

o                                 The ideology of hierarchical identity.

o                                 The mythology of warfare.

o                                 The experience of warfare.

o                                 The co-existence of modern conflict and Modernism.

o                                 The imagery of protest and pacifism.

o                                 The art of warfare.

o                                 The warfare of art

o                                 The inevitability of post-conflict rappel a l’ordre.

o                                 Civil Rights.

o                                 Representing refugees and depicting human rights

o                                 Governments and state sanctioned art production.

o                                 Establishment and anti-establishment standard bearers in the arts.

o                                 Art, theology and struggle.

o                                 The ‘just’ war.

o                                 Depicting the ethics of murder, hijacking and genocide.

o                                 Art as photo-journalism.

o                                 Public consumption and tolerance.

o                                 War, history, art and entertainment.

o                                 Depicting future wars.

o                                 Prohibitions.

o                                 Independent gesture versus formalized argument / stance.

o                                 Depicting the renegade.

o                                 Destruction and deconstruction.

o                                 Creating a war-scape.

o                                 The Experience of War.

o                                 Art historical surges, purges and catalysts.

Further areas, not limited geographically or chronologically, might also include:

§                                 Idealism versus realism in state sanctioned stereotypes.

§                                 Art & Dictatorship.

§                                 Art & Democracy ?: Censorship and propaganda.

§                                 Protest art – pre, during and post-conflict.

§                                 Street Art – i.e. wall paintings from Lascaux to Belfast.

§                                 Grafitti: The art of collective identity, memory and territorialism.

§                                 Art, power, people and World Religions.

§                                 Tribal art and hierarchy in non first-world power struggles.

§                                 The appropriation of ‘primitivism’ into western canons in art theory and production as a form of hierarchy.

§                                 Hierarchy, society and class awareness/struggle.

§                                 Commercialization of fine art and the conflict of wealth / taste.

§                                 Modern methods and the manipulation of the image in mass media – i.e. internet, computer games and Hollywood.

§                                  History through art – as archival sources.

§                                 Restoring and reconstructing the past – fiction / fact and falsehood.

§                                 Portrait and power.

§                                 Nude, femininity, myth and gender hierarchy.

§                                 Architecture, control and the subconscious – politically and socially motivated design in public buildings.

 

 

Civil Society, Civil Education and Cultural Identity in the Time of Globalization

Convenor:

Prof. Igor V. Sledzevski

Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies

Russian Academy of Sciences

30/1 Spiridonovka St.

123001 Moscow

Russia

Fax: + (7 095) 202 0786

E-mail: civ-reg@inafr.ru

 

Beginning from the bourgeois revolutions era up to now the formation of the civil society, mass democracy and legal state remain examples of political modernization. Securing the rights and chances and the establishing of the democratic forms of government based on the broad participation and will of the people are actual for the whole world. The western model of the sociocultural organization of the society, based on the principles of the priority of the interests of individual rights, market economy and values of liberal democracy have shown its superior effectiveness in solving these problems.

The realization of this model as the dominant in the process of the societal transformation have become possible exclusively due to the inner changes of the modernizing type within the societies of Western Europe and North America in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

Beginning from the middle of the 20th century, however, the model of the civil society and state have experienced the influence of the qualitatively new processes which are defined as globalization. The realities of these processes are the global market formed by multinational corporations and multicultural consuming communities establishing universal norms and frameworks of the realization of the national sovereignties, global migrations and forming at the local level of the multicultural societies. They create the new existential milieu for the institutes and values of the civil societies. In this milieu the modernizing pattern of the forming of the forming of the civil society (traditional society versus modern society) is supplemented with the models of the transnational integration of the economic systems, states, cultures (local forms of social organization versus global society).

Transnational environment of the social interactions broadens the possibilities for the expansion of the western culture patterns into all regions globally – and at the same time – due to mass migrations and formation in the developed countries of the ethno-cultural minorities and diasporas – in the centers of the western civilization rises the importance of the other (non-civil) values, symbols, and behavioral stereotypes.

How these contradictory processes would tell upon the character of the modern civil society and the perceiving of its basic values by the non-western societies? How and with which results do the institutes and values of the civil societies as such interact with the institutes and values of the multicultural societies? Would this interaction strengthen the trend of the global society towards a certain institutionalized order within which the norms and values of the modern liberal-democratic societies will be dominant or this process strengthens on the whole of the tendency to social disintegration, spontaneous breakup or intentional destruction of the old structures, based on the national identities, cultural disruptions and conflicts of civilizations? Which are under these conditions the tasks, possibilities and contents of the forming of the national versions of the civil culture?

These are the practical frameworks of the supposed section. A number of more concrete problems can be discussed within these frameworks. These are:

– the compatibility of the personality-oriented political concepts of the western civilization and collectivist or religious-oriented cultural paradigms of the non-western societies;

– possibilities of the preserving and development of the national version under the conditions of globalization;

– perspectives of the multi-cultural models of the civil societies;

– interpretation of the cultural texts and models of cultural identity in the conditions of the global networks of mass media and transnational corporations;

– principles and forms of education of the young citizens of the basics of the culture of civic societies in the new context of the interaction of the norms and values of the global and local levels, including ethnic and national symbols, esthetic norms and patterns of behavior.

Important part in this context could have the targeted discussion of the problems of the modern civil education both in the aspect of the global tendencies and in the aspect of its national models. In direct connection with the problems of the transformation of the civil society in the context of globalization the following problems can be discussed:

– basic approaches and aims of the civil education (national and international experiences;

– political, legal, and multicultural foundations of the civil education;

– models of the civil education in the multicultural society (civil and ethno-cultural education);

– multiethnic school as a means and mechanism of civil education;

– psychological and pedagogic training of the actors of the civil education for the work in the global informational and local multicultural milieu;

Thus the work of the panel could give important theoretical and socially significant results.

 

 

Comparing the State in Africa: The Drama of Modern Development

Convenor:

Dr. Baz Lecocq

Hooglandse Kerkgracht 34a

2312 HV Leiden

The Netherlands

E-mail: baz@lecocq.nl

 

Dr. Erik Bähre

University College Utrecht

Utrecht University

Campusplein 1 3584 ED

Utrecht

The Netherlands

Fax: +31-30-2539905

E-mail: bahre@wanadoo.nl

 

Never really outside the focus of Africanist scholars, interest in the condition of the state in Africa have recently re-emerged. In the post-cold-war era, various national and international development agencies emphasise the crucial role good governance and public private partnerships should play in sustainable development and democratisation. Although the weakness of the state in Africa has been pointed out ever since the 1960s, historical and anthropological analysis on the ground might well show that civil society has never been as weak as most present it to be. To the contrary, it is as vibrant as ever. This paradigmatic shift does call for a renewed examination of the intricacies of the state and civil society in Africa with regards to development policies.

Particularly influential in the analysis of state initiated development is James Scott's ‘Seeing Like A state’, which provides a comparative and historical analysis of massive projects of social engineering. These projects range from forced villagisation in Tanzania to Soviet collectivisation. Scott argues that these projects were state attempts to advance ‘high modernist’ ideology, which is at least partially embedded in Enlightenment. He shows how the standardized formulas of high modernism of society and the natural environment were crucial to the state’s functioning and how this has simultaneously led to the failure of these projects.

Because of the renewed interest in strengthening states through good governance, Scott’s perspective is very attractive. At the same time, however, it raises questions concerning the state’s authority and power. Scott's emphasis on the state side of high modern development, in neglect of society's response, seems to us its weakest point. The concerned peoples' active or passive resistance, we feel, contributed as much to the failure of these projects, as the overburdening ideological and metastructural approach taken to these projects. Are development projects carried out by the state as homogeneous as envisioned by Scott? To what extent does a state with its limited financial and institutional capacity matter to people’s lives? Can the failure of high modernist development be solely contributed to its ideology or are there more complex and important processes at work?

The contributors to this panel will examine the intricacies of the state through a cross-regional comparison of African development projects, past and present that bore or bear the brunt of Scott's paradigm. These case studies of diverging development projects will reveal the dynamic dramas of power and hierarchy. The challenge is to transcend the case studies in order to reveal the dynamic dramas of power and hierarchy without oversimplifying the nature of the state or development.

 

Divine Politics and Theocracy: Religion as a Power Mechanism in the Greco-Roman World

Convenor:

Prof. Christofilis Maggidis

Department of Classical Studies

Dickinson College

Carlisle, PA 17013

U.S.A.

Fax: 001-717-2451683

E-mail: maggidic@dickinson.edu

 

Religion has been systematically and widely manipulated by hierarchies to legitimize their political authority and consolidate their power in the social arena of their own, small or large social environment. Religion can indeed be highly effective as a control mechanism — maximally in the context of a theocratic state — due to its inherent conservatism: by defining a moral/behavioral guiding code and sustaining certain metaphysical beliefs, expressed through repetitive ritual action, religion tends to become highly impervious to change, thus preserving not only its traditional beliefs and rituals, but also the social structures supporting them. Religion brings the community together and reaffirms its group identity through a socially bonding, collective mnemonic experience; the appropriation of religion by political hierarchies, however, can effectively paralyze social resistance and secure obedience to the dominant hierarchy, a distorted sense of stability, and the continuity of the sociopolitical status-quo.  This panel of papers attempts to survey synchronically and diachronically diagnostic case-studies of religion used as power mechanism in the Mediterranean, ranging chronologically from the Aegean Prehistory to the end of the Greco-Roman world. Such cases include: the mechanisms employed by competing elite factions and later the central palatial authorities to manipulate, exercise control over and finally appropriate both funerary ritual and religion, thus consolidating their power and legitimizing their political authority in Palatial Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece; the function of local and regional sanctuaries in archaic and classical Greece as territorial markers sanctifying the autonomy of city-states and their use of land and natural recourses; the “Sacred Wars” between city-states, alliances, and confederations for the direct control of panhellenic sanctuaries (Olympia, Delphi, Delos); the function of religion within the political arena of competing factions and political parties in ancient Athens, and the pivotal role of religion in the formation of amphictyonies and other confederations (Koinon, Sympoliteia); the emergence of the deified monarch (Alexander the Great and Successors, Roman Emperors); the manipulation of religion and integration of foreign cults for political reasons in the Roman Empire; the adoption of Christianity by Constantine the Great, the polemic against paganism, and the foundation of the Byzantine Empire. The interdisciplinary and comparative study of such diagnostic cases from different standpoints and through diverse methodologies and multivariate approaches further aspires to detect certain patterns of uniformity or variation in the systematic appropriation of religion by hierarchies, and to apply such knowledge to our present and future.

 

 

Ethnic Model of Power Legitimation in the Political Practice of Contemporary Multiethnic States and Quasi-States

Convenors:

Dr. Vassili R. Filippov

Department of Ethnoregional Studies

Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies

30/1 Spiridonovka St.

123001 Moscow

Russia

Fax: + (7 095) 202 0786

E-mail: fvr@east.ru

 

Prof. Alexander N. Alexeenko

Barnaul Branch

Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies

School of History

Altai State University

Prospekt Lenina, 61

656099 Barnaul

Russia

E-mail: aan@vko.kz

 

The panel is to consider the problem of ideological substantiation of the political actualization of the ethnic model of power legitimation in the political practice of contemporary multiethnic states and quasi-states.

In the context of the above mentioned problem, the following issues are to be discussed:

– paradigmatics of contemporary ethnological science and ideological substantiation of the ethnic power legitimation model and of the ethnocratic regimes legitimacy;

– the premordial paradigm in ethnology as a conceptual foundation for the political self-determination of the substantiated ethnic associations, and correspondingly, constructivism as a theoretical and methodological background of ethnicity's depolitization and substantiation of the exterritorial forms of the individual ethnocultural self-determination;

– the problem of ethnic groups as subjects of the law: collective rights of substantiated ethnic groups or the individual's right for free choice of the ethnocultural identity realization forms;

– introduction of legal norms in the ethnic sphere as a tool of the ethnocratic forms of government construction;

– ethnic models of power legitimation in the political practice of contemporary states and quasi-states.

 

 

From Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Transformation of Political Structures and Social Institutions*

Convenor:

Dr. Serguei A. Frantsouzoff

Institute of Oriental Studies

St. Petersburg Branch

Russian Academy of Sciences

18 Dvortsovaya embankment

191186 St. Petersburg

Russia

Fax: + (7 812) 312 14 65

E-mails: invost@mail.convey.ru, frants@spios.nw.ru

 

In the early 21st century the approach to the study of history based on the concept of stages (formations) still plays an important part. For the researchers guided by it the problem of transition from one stage in the development of society to another is of particular interest. If the leap from the medieval (feudal) stage (formation) to the capitalist one is perfectly documented and rather well examined, the nature and regularities of transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, which are much worse represented in the sources, give rise to many discussions and generate contradictory hypotheses.

Was this transition restricted by some regional (European and Middle Eastern) framework or was it of the world-wide scope? What part did the Great Transmigration of Eurasian peoples play in it? Was it connected with the acquirement of an official status by the Revelation religions? To what extent did the concept of succession (continuity) between the ancient and medieval societies correspond to real facts? Was the coming of the Middle Ages accompanied by a regress in political and socio-economic development and if so, how deep would that regress be? Was the destruction of the classical Antique civilization caused by a global ecological catastrophe which threw the mankind some centuries backward? Those and many other questions continue to agitate the scholars who specialize in the history of late Antiquity and early Middle Ages.

At our panel we propose to consider in the first place the changes undergone by political structures and social institutions as well as by the notions of power and social system as a whole among different peoples of the East and the West which overcame the brink between Antiquity and the Middle Ages. However, the papers dealing with other important aspects of this leap between the stages can be accepted in those cases, when they are remarkable for the novelty of material or the originality of conclusions.

 

 

Hierarchy and Power in Dates of Archaeology

Convenors:

Prof. Stephen A. Kowalewski

Department of Anthropology

University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602

USA

Fax: + (1 706) 542 3988

E-mail: skowalew@arches.uga.edu

 

Prof. Nikolay N. Kradin

Institute of History, Archaeology, and Ethnography

Far-Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

89 Pushkinskaya St.

690600 Vladivostok

RUSSIA

Fax: + (7 4232) 26 82 11

E-mail: kradin@mail.primorye.ru

 

As a discipline distinct from anthropology and history, archaeology studies the longue duree of human life. History as a narrowly defined discipline begins with the invention of writing. Ethnologists investigate recent non-state peoples, groups already influenced by modernization. Historical and ethnological studies are useful for archaeologists. Archaeological sources are more fragmentary than written sources and the observations of ethnographers. Ceramics, fragments of artifacts, and stratigraphic levels are all that the archeologist has. How is it possible to study authority with these poor data? What does a rich burial signify for status position or property? Is there correlation between public inequality, power, and domination in prehistoric, traditional societies? How may we distinguish between chiefdoms and the state using archeological sources? All these questions interest archaeologists, but we are not as excited about distinguishing chiefdoms from tribes as we are in using archaeological data to think in new ways about the past and to evaluate new concepts of complex societies.

The main themes:

1. Archeological criteria of power and domination.

2. Archaeology and inequality.

3. Egalitarianism, rank, and stratification in archaeological perspective.

4. Chiefdom, state and civilization in the view of archaeology.

 

 

Hierarchy and Power in Science: An Oxymoron?

Convenor:

Dr. Charles Rheaume

Directorate of History and Heritage

National Defence Headquarters

2429, Holly Lane

Ottawa, Ontario

Canada K1A 0K2

Fax: +1 613 990 85 79

E-mails: Rheaume.C@forces.gc.ca; crheau@sympatico.ca

 

The panel will explore the highly elitist character of science. Scientific elitism is to be seen for example through the different prizes that are instituted in order to instill emulation among scientists. It is to be observed in the competition that exists between institutions of higher knowledge for recruiting the best individual elements as well. Such factors lead to imbalance in the Republic of Science which goes against the impression that society as a whole may have of the latter’s egalitarian nature, and feeds disharmony. The association of scientists with the military is also going to be addressed, as will the role that scientists are led to play in totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic regimes in a comparative perspective. The theme of scientific elitism will be developed along the lines of the participants’ historical, sociological and anthropological expertise.

 

 

Hierarchy and Power in the Postcolonial World

Convenor:

Prof. Andrei M. Pegushev

Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies

30/1 Spiridonovka St.

123001 Moscow

Russia

Fax: + (7 095) 202 0786

E-mails: civ-reg@inafr.ru; pegushev@mail.ru

 

We expect both formal and informal discussions of different topics related to the problem of assimilation of the originally European political institutions brought by colonialism by post-colonial political systems and societies in Asia, Africa, and Insular Pacific. Papers stressing not only merely political and legal but also cultural aspects of the panel's problematique are welcomed.

Among other, the panel is to cover such topics as:

– constitutionalism and the law-giving process in general;

– central and local government: their division and interaction;

– civil society formation and its prospects;

– colonial institutional legacy as reflected in home and foreign policy.

 

 

Hierarchy, Power, and Ritual in Pre-Columbian America

Convenor:

Dr. Nikolay V. Rakutz

Institute for Latin American Studies

Russian Academy of Sciences

21 Bolshaya Ordynka

Moscow

Russia

E-mail: NVRwerwolf@rambler.ru

 

Ritual, as far as we know, played a very important role in the life of the so-called “traditional”/pre-colonial societies, because it served a solid basis of existed social hierarchy and power organization being an important measure of supporting the concrete social order.

In pre-Columbian American societies every significant fact of social life had its ritual representation and so it was in hunter-gatherers’ o agricultural societies, being them tribes, chiefdoms or early states. Local mythology “explained” the existed order, rituals should conserve it and regenerate if necessary. At the same time ritual practices or at least its organization was the task of some specialists who, because of the very important character of such practices for the society, formed its local elite and the practices mentioned above were also measure of supporting and consolidation of power structures. We have a lot of examples concerning these facts in written sources and, in the last decades they became to be more valuable because of archaeological and anthropological researches’ data.

The problem of hierarchy, power structures and ritual interrelations is very complicated and we would like to propose some of them for the previous conference: hierarchical and power structures of Amerindian societies and rituals correlated to such structures, religion and chiefdoms/early states, norms and practices of Indian societies, ritual as a regulating system, elements of pre-Columbian  hierarchical and state organization structures used in the colonial period, transformation of pagan cult centers in Christian ones, problems of the so-called “idolatry”.

 

 

Ideology and Legitimation of Power in Ancient and Medieval Societies

Convenors:

Dr. Dan'el Kahn

Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Hebrew University

Jerusalem

Israel

E-mail: danelka@netvision.net.il

 

Prof. Eleonora E. Kormysheva

Institute of Oriental Studies

Russian Academy of Sciences

12 Rozhdestvenka St.

Moscow

Russia

E-mail: eleonora@orc.ru

 

The main objective of the panel is to study the evolution and mechanism of ideology's implementation in its different aspects with regards to rulers and their power in ancient and medieval societies. The focus will be on the ancient and medieval civilisations, eastern as well as western ones. Specialists in Nubian, Egyptological, Israeli and Judaic, Hittite, Mesopotamian, Persian, as well as Greek, Roman, and early medieval Christian studies are welcomed. Chronologically the period may expand from prehistory and protohistory to the late medieval period.

The following problems may be worth special discussion: legitimation of power and the institutes of authority in the tribe, chiefdom, and kingdom; the rise of kingship and the origin of states; kingship and priesthood, sacralisation of power, ideological principles of societies as an instrument of succession, the divine ruler, the phenomenon of power desacralisation and its consequence for the society, religion and the state.

The papers may be based on archaeological evidence, data of arts, epigraphical or unepigraphical objects, inscriptions, and texts.

 

 

Legitimation of Public Authorities in the Politically Transient Societies of Eastern Europe

Convenors:

Dr. Konstantin F. Zavershinsky

Faculty of Philosophy

Novgorod State University

52-54 Grigorovskoe shosse

Veliky Novgorod 173024

Russia

Fax: (7 8162) 679 172

E-mails: kfz@novsu.ac.ru; kfz@post.com

 

Dr. Nelli A. Romanovich

“Qualitas” Public Opinion Institute

4-43 Pushkinskaya ulitsa

Voronezh 394000

Russia

Fax: (7 0732) 519 089

E-mails: nelli@riom.voronezh.su; qualitas@comch.ru

 

Within the panel framework a discussion of symbol representation and political power background in the societies in the process of political transition is proposed. The political-anthropological and civilization features of the public authorities legitimation practice in condition of the political transition in different countries is expected to be emphasized. Discussion of the conversion problem of the cultural capital into the political space is targeted at revealing the degree of the political institutions' dependency on the symbolic resources at the politicians' disposal. As evidenced by the cultural and historical practice of many societies, the capability of authority hierarchies to innovation activity is found in direct dependency upon particularities of symbolic structures of the political legitimation. The panel convenors suppose that the nature of the public authorities' legitimation problem, concerning the relations between different social sciences, will permit a productive methodological dialogue of social anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, and historical anthropologists. Such a dialogue is of particular significance for elaboration of heuristic exploratory paradigms for contemporary Russian society and East-European post-communist societies. One of the panel's goals is also to provide more close-fitting interaction of the theoretical and empirical levels in the study of cultural and historical peculiarities and symbolic structures of political legitimation space in contemporary East European societies.

 

 

Markets and Hierarchies in the History of Civilizations

Convenor:

Prof. Alexander N. Pilyasov

Ministry of Economic Development

7 Vavilova St.

117997 Moscow

Russia

Fax: (7 095) 135 1018

E-mail: pelyasov@sops.ru

 

Market is a contrast to any hierarchy (both horizontal and vertical). Market coordination has been co-existing with hierarchical for centuries. However this symbiosis in a wide historical retrospective rare becomes a subject of the scientific analysis. The attention of the majority of researchers is devoted to last, capitalist, period. The most authoritative monograph in this field done under the institutional analysis is Oliver Williamson’s “The Markets and hierarchies” (economic institutions of capitalism). The problem of relations between the authorities and the market, hierarchy and the market as two polar, but always cooperating institutions in a context of an economic history, a history of civilizations is capable to involve experts in the field of an economic history, neoinstitutionalism, regional policy, regulation of economic development, etc. The given section will expand a circle of participants of conference due to experts of an economic science, bodies federal executive and legislature, teachers of economic high schools.

 

 

Models of Government in the Late Classical and Hellenistic World

Convenor:

Prof. Jan Bouzek

Institute of Classical Archaeology

Charles University

Celetná 20

CZ-110 00 Prague 1

Czech Republic

Fax: 4202/2422 82 56

E-mail: jan.bouzek@ff.cuni.cz

 

The panel discussion should discuss four or five different models of government (exertion of power) in the Late Classical and Hellenistic world, their parallel features and differences.

1)      Greek poleis. Athenian constitution and politics are well-known, while other minor cities and federations had mainly less democratic rules, in which the smaller group of noblemen had more influence than their less rich compatriots. But generally they ruled over some of their neighbours, as leaders of a federation as a city, and the acts of their leaders had to be approved by the constitutional bodies.

2)      Macedonian kingdom and those of the diadochs. In Macedonian tradition the king was the chief of his hetairoi, his position could be challenged inside this group, as could be his succession. His decisions did not need particular approval, but hix authority depended on his military success.

3)      Odrysian and Triballean kingdoms. As we know most notable from Xenophon, these kingdoms were rather loose federations, with many subregulae, who could act independently, at least to some extent. This tradition could not be changed even by Lysimachus, whose Thracian empire had to respect the traditions.

4)      The “democratic” Thracians. These had no central government, but a loose confederacy of small landlords; the aristocrats with their clients handled in small local affairs independently; main decisions for the group were made in their gatherings.

5)       The warfare democracy: the Celts. Celtic warriors under military leadership lived in the Gefolgschaft system of družine (leader and his men). The leader has his legitimate power only on the condition of military success –otherwise he usually lost it, and sometimes even committed suicide (like Brennos after Delphi).

Thrace is a good example of a situation, in which all five models of behaviour are known as existing in one period, some of them simultaneously. The discussion should be devoted to parallels of these five basic models in other parts of the world. Some of them can be found near to Thrace proper. The kingdoms of the Geti in the north and the Scythians and Sarmatians in North Pontic are examples similar to that of the more primitively organized confederations of local noblemen.

There is one important distinction also in the official propaganda between less stable and stabilized kingdoms. In less developed stages, the king is characterized mainly as warrior or hunter. When some degree of more sophisticate kingship exists, the propaganda changes to more peaceful, depicting peace negotiations, and its aim becomes to safeguard power by stressing the mythical background of the ruler, his relations to divine forces, like at the time of Ateas in Scythia or with the Odrysians under Kotys. In Early Hellenistic empires, the diadochs presented themselves as superhuman heirs of divine Alexander, while the cities, though loosing much of their previous importance, stressed in their propaganda the civic virtues as superior to those of non-citizens. One of the means of propaganda of the city was entrusting civic dignity to its benefactor or ally. The inner autonomy of the cities, however, was respected by Hellenistic rulers; the polis autonomous ruling system proved its efficiency even in the structure of the Hellenistic empires.

 

 

Money, Currency and Power, with focus on Africa*

Convenor:

Dr. Blandine Stefanson

Centre for European Studies and General Linguistics

The University of Adelaide

Australia 5005

Fax: 61.8.83035241

E-mail: blandine.stefanson@adelaide.edu.au

 

The interrelations between money, currency and power call for a multidisciplinary approach and could bring together economists, social theorists, historians, media specialists as well as literature and film analysts. This session will focus on Africa but applications to other regions as well as theoretical approaches to the control of the populations through the manipulation of currency will throw light on the African situation.

Money offers social prestige, and a recognised and independent currency gives clout to a state at the international level at the same time as it rewards individuals for their labour. The representation of African helplessness (“Afropessimism”) requires lateral thinking and scholarship if it is to be dissipated.

When and how did African countries become poor ? Where has the African gold disappeared? When did various “currencies” such as cowries become obsolete? Are there examples of currency changes and ensuing turmoil in African history ? The year 2004 will signal a ten-year run of the 1994 fifty percent devaluation of the CFA Franc. Comparisons with other African currencies should be of interest, in particular those countries that refused the French CFA (Guinea), or those who reintegrated the zone after a short spell on their own (Mali) and recently the case of Ghana who wishes to be integrated to the CFA zone.

What is the validity of the post-colonial theoretical onslaught on colonization in the face of persistent poverty after over forty years of independence? Should Africans endorse the “Friday” syndrome (the “Vendredisme” indicted by Axelle Kabou’s Et si l’Afrique refusait le développemen?)? What is the feasibility, even on a small scale, of Nicolas Agbohou’s call for a Federation of African States and a currency that would be completely independent from the Euro (Le Franc CFA et l’Euro contre l’Afrique,Paris, Solidarit? Mondiale, 1999)?

Theories of power and financial control need to be tested by terrain investigations. Daily financial harassment has been exposed by writers and filmmakers, in the wake of the “Mandate” by Ousmane Sembéne. Of particular interest would be a comparison of the aftermath of government financial measures on the populations under different regimes. One proposal is about the role of currency in controlling the mobility of people and assets under a socialist regime: the case of Modibo Keita’s Mali. Other studies could look at the modalities of money transfers, in particular for the thousands of migrants as well as different approaches to borrowing for business purposes, in particular for women.

Inflation, devaluation and trading between countries with weak currencies (rubles and rupies etc...) should be relevant in the Russian context. Is there trading between Russia and Africa, and if not, why not? The Soviet Union was an important provider of goods, albeit specializing in arms, but what is the replacement?

A study of the representation of economic hardship in African literature and cinema, based on an informed knowledge of ownership and development, would open new perspectives in contrast with the more common anthropological emphasis on the spiritual dimension of African culture.

 

 

“New Crises” and “New Wars” in the Periphery: The Role of the Global Movement of Ideas and Capital

Convenor:

Prof. Marcie J. Patton

 

Until July 2003:

Department of Political Science and Public Administration

Bilkent University

Bilkent 06800

Ankara

Turkey

E-mail: patton@bilkent.edu.tr

 

As of July 2003:

Department of Politics

Fairfield University

1073 North Benson Road

Fairfield, CT 06840

USA

Fax: 1-203-254-4000 x2649

E-mail: mpatton@fair1.fairfield.edu

 

This panel’s concern revolves around understanding new (newly emergent) forms of crises and conflict in the periphery in the age of globalization under the conditions of the post-Cold War order. In particular, the panel seeks to evaluate the influence and impacts of September 11 on “new wars” and on “security, humanitarian and distributional crises” in the peripheral zones of the international system.  Our theoretical premise is that the interaction between the global trends and local/national processes is by no means unidirectional.  On the contrary, it is dialectical: just as the global conditions of the post-Cold War era have altered the capacity of nation-states to promote particular forms of political/military and economic arrangements, their legal, ethical and practical activities constitute the global order.

The character of new crises in many parts of the world indicates that a major transformation is taking place in the way by which production and distribution are organized globally furthering the fragmentation of politics, displacing political solidarity, and deepening inequality.  Additionally, we observe the development of “new wars,” in which the participants in the conflict involve not only political and military groupings, but also include entire communities and identities.  The objectives of “new wars” consist not only of the conquest of territory or political authority, but also the removal of the adversary population, if not their displacement within and between countries.  The panellists will explain the “newness” of crises and wars in the context of the transformative directions of the world capitalist system and the development of a new form of domination under globalization (cf. Hardt and Negri’s Empire).  However, we will not regard the new political order of globalization, based on a new logic and structure of rule, as completed, but made contingent on the articulation of nation-states’ own positionality and actions.

The panellist’s papers will attempt to theorize the contemporary processes of crisis and transformation recognizing that political controls, state functions and regulatory mechanisms continue to dominate and rule, even as new forms of production and exchange, and policing are emerging. We will acknowledge that the geographic core-periphery polarization is being replaced by a social core-periphery divide that cuts across territorial and geographic regions, and in this process the integrity of the national territorial state is undermined and the functions of the state are being reorganized.  However, the theoretical perspective of the panel rules out a complete politics of exclusion and marginalization of the peripheral zones under the complex dynamics, logic and structure of globalization.  Therefore, to investigate the new crises, the panel papers will be organized around two hypotheses.

First, from a historical perspective the parameters of crises and wars in the periphery have broadened and changed.  Although the parameters may be somewhat elastic, the structures of domination remain in place and, we argue, since September 11 have been reinforced.  Second, the global movement of ideas and capital and their articulation with local/national players play an instrumental role in the emergence of distributional, security and humanitarian crises and conflicts in the periphery. The papers will focus on economy, state power and jurisdiction in the periphery, operationalized as particular regions of the world, (Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Southeast Asia), and analyze the flow of ideas and capital in shaping the new reality of crises and conflict.

 

 

Patterns of Hierarchy and Power in Southeast Asia

Convenors:

Prof. Belinda A. Aquino

Center for Philippine Studies

Moore Hall 416

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Honolulu, HI 96822

U.S.A.

Fax: 1-808-956-2682

E-mail: lyndy@hawaii.edu

 

Dr. Victor V. Sumsky

Institute of World Economy and International Relations

Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow

Russia

Fax: 7-095- 120-6575

E-mail: vsumsky@online.ru

 

This interdisciplinary panel will attempt to analyze the interplay of hierarchy and power in Southeast Asia with particular reference to Philippine politics and society. Not having developed within mainstream Southeast Asian history and traditional structures of kings and courts, Philippine society manifests patterns of political power and behavior stemming from successive, intensive colonial experiences that have compromised, but not obliterated, much of its indigenous cultural identity. These "unique" or "deviant" patterns of hierarchy and power will be analyzed within the context of the country's major socio-political institutions, such as the military, elite, church, bureaucracy, and the more recent civil society formation.

 

 

Power as "Great Mystery"

Convenor:

Prof. Victor V. Bocharov

Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnic Sociology

St. Petersburg State University

130-129 Ligovsky Prospekt

192007 St. Petersburg

Russia

Fax: (812) 110-00-77

E-mail: victor@VB5831.spb.edu

 

There is a set of definitions of power nowadays. This notion is used in various disciplines. At the same time scholars express dissatisfaction with the existing concepts rather often. Most vividly it was determined by Michel Foucault, who has called power a "great mystery". I assume that the most important task of the panel is to attempt to formulate a universal definition of power on the basis of different disciplines' (anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, etc.) achievements.

 

 

Propaganda, Protest and Violence: Revolutions in the East and the West

Convenor:

Dr. Henry Y. S. Chan

Department of History

Minnesota State University Moorhead

Moorhead, MN 56563

U.S.A.

Fax: (1 218) 236-2899

E-mail: chanh@mnstate.edu

 

In the mass age, propaganda - the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist - is one of the most widely used tactics in power struggle. Social scientists distinguish two kinds of propaganda: integration and agitation. The former is used by the authorities to maintain its legitimacy and interests, while the latter is employed by the political opponents to arouse people against the power-holders in the existing regime. In an oppressed society, an intensification of state coercion may lead to the opposition’s change in tactic from propaganda by word to propaganda by deed, mostly in form of assassination. This would initiate a cycle of violence, and possibly set the stage for the outbreak of a revolution.

Works on revolutionary propaganda in the Western world abound (though papers on it are also welcomed), but little attention has been paid to its application in East Asian revolutions. In particular, several papers at this panel propose to examine the use of agitation propaganda in the Chinese Revolution at the turn of the twentieth century. Dr. C. K. Au, in his paper entitled “Propaganda and the Language of Violence: The Revolutionary Writings of Zou Rong (1885-1905) and Chen Tianhua (1875-1905),” studies how the revolutionaries changed the message from anti-imperialism to anti-authoritarianism. He focuses his discussion on the dissemination of anti-Manchu writings in colloquial style with an urgent call to arms against the oppressive Qing dynasty (1644-1911).  Dr. Henry Chan analyzes six cases of revolutionary terror in his paper: “Propaganda by Deed: Class, Culture and Regionalism in the 1911 Revolution.” He discusses the revolutionaries’ experience in their resort to revolutionary violence, and challenges both the Nationalist and the Communist views regarding the nature of the 1911 Revolution. In “A Loyalist’s Critique of the 1911 Revolution: Chen Botao’s (1855-1930) Studies of Martyrdom,” Dr. T. Hon shows how a Manchu sympathizer revived the memory of Song (960-1279) loyalists’ activities in Hong Kong as a form of protest against the revolutionaries for the political chaos in China after 1911. The contribution of the panel is two-fold. To Sinologists, the studies serve to shed light on some of the neglected aspects of the 1911 Revolution. To social scientists and historians, the papers offer a useful reference to the study of revolutionary propaganda in the non-Western world.

 

 

Religion and Ethnicity between Legitimation and Dissent in the Premodern Muslim World

Convenor:

Prof. Virginia Aksan

Department of History

McMaster University

Hamilton, Ontario

Canada L8S 4L9

Fax: 905-77-0158

E-mail: vaksan@mcmaster.ca

 

How religion and ethnicity relate to power has been the subject of a great deal of scholarly and popular discussion in the past few decades.  Yet discussions of the subject have generally focused on the modern period when the politicization of religion and the explosion of ethnic nationalism became the norm.  The politicization of religion and ethnicity in the Muslim world, however, are rooted in the premodern period and their uses and abuses in the nineteenth century can only be fully appreciated if we situate them within their historical context.  Only recently have scholars of the Muslim world begun to particularize the history of the pre-modern Middle East by examining the texts of intellectuals and bureaucrats writing in Arabic, Persian and Turkish with new approaches to the study of pre-modern societies. In keeping with the theme of the conference, the papers in this panel examine diverse archival and textual materials from different parts of the Islamic world, and attempt a reinterpretation of the relationship of religion and ethnicity to power. Virginia Aksan, currently working on the reforms of the Ottoman sultan Mahmud II, examines evolving views of ethnicity and loyalty in his reconstruction of the Ottoman military system.  Contrasting official expressions of sovereignty in two periods, she finds an increasingly limited, and exclusively ethnic version of subjecthood being articulated, in her paper entitled “Ottoman Definitions of Imperial Subjecthood, 1760-1830.” Dina Khoury, in a paper entitled “Islamic Reformism between Popular and Imperial Politics in the Age of Crisis and Reform,” examines the links between Indian and Middle Eastern Islam in the eighteenth and nineteenth century Iraq. She finds that transregional exchanges, both commercial and intellectual, played a role in creating a space for Muslims to rebel or offer alternatives to what the Ottoman state had defined as legitimate Islam.  In her paper, “Rebellion and Legitimacy: The Case of Yaqub-e Layth (861-879), Marta Simidchieva of York University examines the rhetorical and narrative strategies by which three medieval texts affirm or deny the legitimacy of the founder of the Saffarid Dynasty.  The paper considers a qasida by Ishaq Ibrahim b. Mamshadh (9th century C.E.); a didactic narrative from Nizam al-Mulk (11th century C. E.), and an account of the dynasty from the anonymous Tarikh-e Sistan (13th century C. E.) Special attention is given to the shifts in the religious and/or ethnocentric claims through which the authors build their case.

 

 

Studying Political Centralization Cycles as a Dynamical Process

Convenor:

Prof. Peter Turchin

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

75 N. Eagleville Rd, U-43

University of Connecticut

Storrs, CT 06269-3043

USA

Fax: 860-486-6364

E-mail: Peter.Turchin@UConn.edu

 

Many historical processes are dynamic: growth and decline of populations, territorial expansion and contraction of states, and the spread of world religions, to name just a few examples. One particularly interesting dynamic pattern in history is the oscillation of centralization and decentralization of political power, seemingly affecting all hierarchical macrosystems. Thus, chiefdoms cycle from simple to complex and then back to simple, empires rise and fall, and interaction networks expand and contract in a pattern that has been called "pulsation". What sociopolitical mechanisms may explain these dynamics?

A general approach to studying dynamical systems is to advance rival hypotheses based on specific mechanisms, translate the hypotheses into mathematical models, and contrast model predictions with empirical patterns. Mathematical modeling is a key ingredient in this research program because quantitative dynamical phenomena, often affected by complex feedbacks, cannot be fully understood at a purely verbal level. Another important ingredient is the full use of statistical techniques (such as time-series analysis) for quantitative and rigorous comparison between model-predicted and observed patterns. This general approach has proved to be extremely successful in natural sciences. Can it be instrumental in increasing our understanding of the processes responsible for sociopolitical cycles?

I would like to convene a panel of specialists from very diverse fields: historians, cliometricians, sociologists, and modelers to discuss the prospects and the practice of studying history with quantitative methods of nonlinear dynamics. Here is a tentative list of people, with their research interests, that I plan to approach about participating, assuming the panel is approved.

 

 

The Order of Things: Material Culture, Practice and Social Status

Convenors:

Dr. Marc Vander Linden

Research Center “Spaces and Societies – Comparative Approaches”

F.N.R.S. (Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research)

C.P. 175 / University of Brussels

Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50

B – 1050 Brussels

Belgium

Fax: +32.2.650.43.49

E-mail: mavdlind@ulb.ac.be

 

Alain Duplouy

Centre de Recherche sur la Cité Grecque

F.N.R.S.

C.P. 175 / University of Brussels

Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50

B – 1050 Brussels

Belgium

Fax: +32.2.650.39.19

E-mail: aduplouy@ulb.ac.be

 

Whatever the philosophy of History one adheres to, it is difficult to deny that social structures are not given abstract entities, but the outcomes of the acts of human people. In this sense, classical socio-political categories, such as chiefdoms or states, are quite unsatisfactory since they do not pay tribute to the variety of social strategies displayed by individuals and communities in order to claim, gain and maintain their place and status in society. Yet, in their constant struggle for social distinction, people do not act freely but, implicitly or not, according to a series of rules and values given by society and tradition.

Since these strategies of social distinction are much diversified and often operate at several — congruent or not — levels, they are somewhat difficult to recognise. We think that the study of material culture provide a powerful methodological tool to analyse and understand the ways people constantly build their social and political order. Indeed, as shown by countless social scientists over the last twenty years, material culture is more than the objects we used on a daily basis, but participates to the structuration of our cultural and social universe. Being under the form of symbols of power, architectural spaces or factual weapons for instance, material culture is deeply embedded in a web of social practices. In this sense, by focusing on the effective status of material items, one opens up new perspectives to approach the aforementioned social strategies.

Working with this theoretical framework, contributions to this panel will investigate the active role material culture plays in the shaping of political and social order. Because of this interest for societies “in the making”, preference will be given to research dealing with social structures in an historical perspective, for instance by placing them in the longue durée. However, this session is first of all intended as an open space of discussion for scholars deriving from any discipline, theoretical tradition, and area or period of predilection.

 

 

The Role of the Evolutionary Theory in the Political History of the 20th Century

Convenor:

Dr. Sergey V. Polatayko

Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia

Malaya Posadskaya 26, aud.210

197046 St.-Petersburg

Russia

E-mail: polatayko@peterlink.ru

 

The social development of the mankind faced nowadays with some crucial difficulties. The solutions of these problems are important not only for the direction of a further social evolution, but even for the very existence of the mankind as a biological species on the planet Earth. There are various dominants in interpreting the concept of society possible. One can move the center of gravity from the predominantly biological view on what we are calling "society" to the predominantly social-economical (or even cultural) interpretations. Despite the controversial discussions in the scientific community, there is no clarity about how the methodology of natural science can be applied to the study of social phenomena. Yet the interdisciplinary approach to the studying of developmental patterns of contemporary society is of the great importance for the very existence of the mankind now.

It is the objective of the proposed session to combine the efforts of scientists from various scientific disciplines (natural sciences, humanities) in discussing the role of the evolutionary theory in the explaining of social phenomena. We are interested both in the historical and theoretical approaches to reconstructing connections between evolutionary theory and social-political history of the 20th century.

 

 

The Will to Power and Its Realisation - The Rises and Falls of Absolute Leaders

Convenor:

Dr. Asja Nina Kovacev

University of Ljubljana

Ul. Bratov Komel 11

SI-1210 Ljubljana

Slovenia

Fax: +386-1-3001119

E-mail: asja-nina.kovacev@guest.arnes.si

 

Human history is full of constant reappearing of impressive or terrifying personalities, who conquered large parts of the world in relatively short periods of time. Therefore many important writers, philosophers, and scientists have been concerned with the question, which mechanisms had a crucial influence on the formation and the rise of powerful rulers with such abilities that could create empires under their governance, and what may have caused their decay.

There are several factors that interact in these processes and by this enable the formation of powerful emperors and kings. Different psychosocial processes that are determined by many social, political, geographical, historical, and cultural determinants are combined with the personal characteristics of the future rulers and all together contribute to their particular qualities and ability to govern different peoples and vast territories.

In 15th century there appeared a very influential book on this topic, The Prince by N. Machiavelli, which evoked many ambivalent reactions in the next centuries. Machiavelli stressed particular qualities of a successful prince, but did not pay much attention to his morality. He justified cruelty that brought to the Prince's greatness, wealth and power. While Machiavelli was obsessed with politics, Nietzche (who was very dissatisfied with the contemporary politicians) concentrated on inner determinants of power, i.e. on the will to power. He was sure that "every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will of power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension". Because of that "it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant". Contrary (or perhaps complementary) to this megalomaniac point of view (which was also reflected in the works of certain Nietzsche's contemporaries, for example in Wagner's operas, etc.) was Adler's theory, which was developed in the early 20th century and stressed that a lot of neurotic behaviour was the result of feelings of inadequacy or inferiority caused by helplessness during the childhood. People strive for the compensation (i.e. outstanding results on some other, non-inferior field) or for overcompensation (i.e. for achievements precisely on the field of their inferiority). A particular term in Adler's theory is "superiority complex", a false feeling of power on the conscious level, which is only a transformation of the actual inferiority complex on the unconscious level.

If we study biographies of some important historical personalities (from the ancient emperors to Napoleon, Hitler, and Mussolini), which certainly had crucial influences on the social, political, and cultural situation and in some cases even endangered the existence of some ethnic groups, we certainly discover a strong "will to power" in them, but also enough possibilities for the feelings of inferiority (Napoleon's smallness, Hitler's parkinsonism, Mussolini's fatness, etc.).

Papers analysing historical background, socio-cultural determinants, psychological factors, and other characteristics that determined the rise of powerful leaders, who influenced the whole world, are invited to this session.

 

 

Urbi et Orbi (Roma Aeterna)

Convenor:

Dr. Nadejda A. Selounskaia

Centre for Comparative Studies of Ancient Civilizations

Russian Academy of Sciences

32-a Leninskii pr., apt. 1501

Moscow

Russia

Fax: (7 095) 9381912

E-mail: spesbona@mail.ru

 

The project of interdisciplinary session intends to bring together the specialists in history, political science, sociology, culture science, historical anthropology, intellectual history, art history and the history of church dealing with the history of Rome or focusing their studies on the heritage of Roman culture and its reception throughout history up to the present.

Topics and key-words: Hierarchies of Power, systems of rulership, institutions in Rome from Antiquity to Medieval and Early Modern time. The Idea of Rome. Political Social and Cultural impact of Rome. The myth of Rome, the problems of representations. Hierarchies and Power in Rome and its countryside. Rome as the city-model. Roman history and the reception of Roman culture. The sources for the study: historical narratives, images, juridical sources etc. The heritage of Rome in the history of civilizations: its role in the political culture and juridical culture of Medieval and Modern Time world. The imperial idea of Rome. Roman Res publica, the stereotypes of perceptions and the interpretations of republicanism in political culture of the 19th – 20th centuries in Eastern, Central and Western Europe as well as in America. Secular and Sacred aspects of Roman history from Antiquity to Modernity. The role of Rome in the history of Christian world. Civitas Romana and Universitas Christiana. The role of Roman cathedra in polemics between the Christian East and Latin West. The images of Rome, artistic schools and traditions of Rome.


 

* For more information about the first two Conferences (Announcements, Programs, electronic versions of the Books of Abstracts and journal reviews) please visit the Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies’ Internet site at the address http://civreg.ru. At this site one may also get acquainted with the history and activities of the Center. The address of the Institute for African Studies’ Internet site is http://inafr.ru.

** Please note that according to the Russian visa regulations, the host organisation has to pay fees to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for every foreign participant and even a bigger sum for accompanying persons. However, all the foreigners wishing to enter the Russian Federation must not only apply for visas at the Russian Consulates in respective countries but also pay another fee on their own for the visas’ granting.

* A la demande de l'organisateur de la section vous pouver faire votre contribution non seulement en anglais ou en russe, mais aussi en francais. Pour obtenir l'information sur la section en langue francaise contactez, s'il vous plâit, avec son organisateur.

* A la demande de l'organisateur de la section vous pouver faire votre presentation pas seulement en anglais ou en russe, mais et en français. Pour recevoir l'information en français sur la section contactez, s'il vous plâit, avec son organisateur.