International Conference co-organized by the International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography (ICHTH) & The Association for Historical Dialogue and Research (AHDR)

International Conference co-organized by the International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography (ICHTH) & The Association for Historical Dialogue and Research (AHDR)

Historical Culture in Divided Societies.

From Theory to Practice

Home for Cooperation, Nicosia Buffer Zone, Cyprus, December 18-20, 2014

Α booming interest in what can be broadly called ‘public history’, ‘cultural memory’ and ‘historical culture’ has been taking place during the last decades, transforming history into a camp of contestation, a source for identities formation, a soft power for ruling fragmented societies, and a product for mass cultural consummation. Historical museums, heritage sites, commemorations, historical novels and films are mushrooming, acquiring new content, form and audience. Historical television series receive huge viewings while the internet provides an uncensored platform where history takes on any imaginable form.

Offering multiple and sometimes competing narratives about the past, these various forms, layers, and agents of public history have become the main tools for the representation of the past and, eventually, for the production of historical knowledge, superseding professional history and the Academia in general. The latter mostly concerns itself with the studying of popular historical culture, while it remains rather distant from either incorporating alternative tools for the transmission of knowledge within the academic sphere, or crafting forms of knowledge production that could communicate with a wider audience and shape the social historical awareness.

But what forms does historical culture take in circumstances of rupture and division? Who are the agents, both academic and non-academic, that influence or even determine the ways people in post-conflict societies imagine their past and relate to it? What is the agents’ role? What makes some narratives dominant? Does historical culture in divided societies always privilege traditional approaches and understanding? Or does the matrix of different agents and layers and media create more space for the articulation of alternative views that challenge the standard narratives? How do representations and interpretations of the past interplay with hopes and expectations for the present and future? And how can non-formal education and independent initiatives positively contribute to post-traumatic experiences?

In order to explore and further our understanding on these and more issues, the AHDR and the ICHTH are co-organizing a 3-day conference in the Home for Cooperation, in Nicosia, Cyprus. The conference will be divided in two parts, so as to cover both theoretical approaches and practical examples of public history. International Conference co-organized by the International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography (ICHTH) & The Association for Historical Dialogue and Research (AHDR)

Accordingly, the first day of the conference will be dedicated to a theoretical discussion of the dominant historical culture in divided societies, and the role of a variety of agents and forms, from Academia to the internet, in creating historical awareness in divided and post-conflict landscapes. Speakers of the first day include, so far, Professors Berber Bevernage (Ghent University), Stefan Berger (University of Manchester), Sanjay Seth (Goldsmiths, University of London), Eduard Wang (Rowan University), Mitsos Bilalis (University of Thessaly), Chris Lorenz (University of Leiden and at the Free University of Amsterdam), Masayuki Sato (University of Yamanashi, Japan), Sia Anagnostopoulou (Panteion University, Athens), Niyazi Kizilyurek (University of Cyprus) and Antonis Liakos (University of Athens).

On the second day presentations will focus on a wide range of innovative public history cultural products, and discuss their role in dealing with controversial issues. A variety of different forms will be considered, from museums and exhibitions; to literature, films and documentaries; to technology-supported applications (e.g. online games). Thus far, invited speakers include the Wu Ming collective from Italy, authors of a series of highly acclaimed historical novels, among them Q, Manituana, and Altai covering a wide range of times and places, from 16th century Cyprus to 18th century Americas and beyond; and Professor of International Relations, Costas Constantinou along with Giorgos Skordis (Hki Fi Sanna) from Cyprus, creators of The Third Motherland, an insightful documentary that focuses on the Cypriot Maronite community, addressing issues of identity and memory.

Call for Papers

The AHDR welcomes papers that address the second part of the conference.

Scholars, researchers and independent practitioners with a personal involvement in conceptualizing, designing or implementing projects that exemplify new directions in dealing with the past and addressing wide audiences are invited to submit a proposal. Speakers are expected to offer both a brief presentation of their project, as well as discuss its wider implications and innovative contribution in regards to methodology and/or in addressing the consequences of social conflict and division.

Papers from all fields (media makers, curators, authors, journalists, scholars, civil society actors, policymakers) and geographical areas are welcome. International Conference co-organized by the International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography (ICHTH) & The Association for Historical Dialogue and Research (AHDR)

Through this conference, the AHDR aims to create a network of interested stakeholders, who will have the opportunity to collaborate on future initiatives, including joint projects applications and funding opportunities, thus offering an invaluable platform for the exchange of information, knowledge and capacity building

The deadline for submissions is September 14, 2014. Please submit a title, short abstract (250 words maximum), and brief CV to: ahdr@ahdr.info. A brief description of the affiliated institution should also be included. Please note that the working language of the conference is English. All applicants will be notified by e-mail on whether their papers have been accepted.

Reimbursement of Expenses

Selected individuals will be provided with a maximum amount €500 to cover their accommodation travel expenses.

For any inquiries please visit http://www.ahdr.info or contact ahdr@ahdr.info

Updates regarding the conference will be posted on the AHDR website (www.ahdr.info) and the Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-for-Historical-Dialogue-Research-AHDR/224097174294320

Organizers:

Antonis Liakos, Professor of Contemporary History and History of Historiography, University of Athens, Greece & Chair of the Board of the ICHTH

Daphne Lappa, Research Associate, AHDR, Nicosia, Cyprus

The Conference is part of the AHDR’s ‘Home for Cooperation’ project.

The Home for Cooperation project benefits from a €591,000 grant from Norway through the Norway Grants 2009- 2014. The aim of the project is to support the operation and sustainability of the Home for Cooperation, which shall contribute to the bridge-building between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus.


Save The Greek Coastline

10351901_10152274061416025_2579861634349795243_n


Stathis Gourgouris interviews Aamir Mufti

Stathis Gourgouris interviews Aamir Mufti on his research on Pakistani immigration in Greece and on the occasion of his appearance at the 18th Anti-Racism Festival in Athens as a guest of the Institute Nikos Poulantzas. Excerpts from the interview were published in Efimerida ton Syntakton (July 5, 2014)

  1. What led you to turn your attention on the problem of Pakistani immigration to Greece?

 

I have been working for some years now on a research project concerning the question of migration in the EU that is comparative but focuses mostly on France and Britain. I have PhD students working on those countries as well, so those contexts have been at the core of how I think about this issue. At some point, I started looking at other countries as well, especially Germany, Spain, and Italy, in order to get a broader comparative sense of the EU-wide issues.

 

I became aware of the Pakistani immigrant situation in Greece some time before my visit to Athens in summer of 2010, when the mosque issue came to the fore. It struck me that the public discourse at that point—this is not the case anymore—was focused on whether or not there should be a functioning mosque in Athens once again, largely oblivious to the existence of literally dozens of them in the city. I had three pointed out to me one night in the streets off Monastiraki Square by a couple of kids from Bangladesh selling cheap toys. Incidentally, they were utterly drunk or stoned but pointed out to me the mosques in the area they had been to—but that’s another story.

 

It quickly became clear to me that the very recentness, relatively speaking, of African and Asian immigration into Greece, and the fact that it did not strictly follow the pattern of the former imperial countries of western Europe, made it an interesting case study that could provide some new insights into the EU as a whole.

 

 

  1. Did the discoveries of your research surprise you and in what sense?

 

The biggest (and most pleasant) surprise was to discover the level of political organization of the immigrant workers. The organization of which Javed Aslam was for many years president and now chairman has given a visibility to the plight of all non-European immigrant workers in Greece, not just Pakistanis, and especially the organized violence against them in a way that is unheard of in the larger European countries. It is really quite an accomplishment. And I think the Greek Left has to also be congratulated for working with them on immigrants’ issues. I sometimes get the impression that this struggle in this little country could be at the vanguard of the Europe-wide immigrants’ struggle. And it needs to be made more visible in the other European countries, through all available platforms. At the moment, the organization itself has a very minimal presence on Facebook or YouTube, for instance, and mostly in Urdu or Greek, not English.

 

The other “discovery” for me personally, though obviously not for anyone in Greece, was the ways in which the North-South disparities of the EU work on the ground with respect to the immigrant question. In a sane world, the politicians of the southern countries who signed the two Dublin protocols would be tried for treason. Since the overwhelming majority of undocumented workers, refugees, and asylum seekers entering the EU do so typically from the south and southeast, across the Thrace corridor or across the Mediterranean system of seas, and not from the direction of the North Pole or of Greenland, Dublin II in particular makes stunningly clear the inequality inherent to the EU as a geopolitical structure.

 

It seems to me that a Left politics of immigration in Europe, in addition to fighting for the rights and protection of these most vulnerable of all populations in the European countries, should also fight for a more equitable sharing of the population within Europe as a whole. This is not a nationalist argument. All indications are that the displaced themselves want it, rather than sleeping in the little squares and parks of downtown Athens or its peripheries.

 

Populations are moving from the world’s “peripheries” to its “centers,” but in the case of Europe, they are being largely confined to the continent’s internal “peripheries.” It is an utterly irrational solution to a very real worldwide problem. So far as I know, in all the demands made upon the Greek state as part of the “Memorandum” regime, a serious demand for the humane treatment of the undocumented has been conspicuously absent. When detained migrants start sewing their lips up with needle and thread to highlight their plight, without massive outrage in Europe, you get the impression that there is very little desire to raise an issue that might bring the injustice of Dublin into view.

 

And, incidentally, there is a broader inequality to consider as well. By one measure, in 2011, the 27 countries of the EU housed some 1.3 million refugees. The one country of Pakistan had more than 1.7 million, most from two imperial wars in Afghanistan in which European countries have played a role. One single refugee camp in Kenya, Dadaab, reportedly had 500,000, mostly from Somalia. The UK had a refugee population of 25,000, equivalent to about 5 percent of the Dadaab population. Precisely the countries least equipped to deal with the problem have to deal with it disproportionately. (The figures are from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles.)

 

 

  1. What can we learn from the “Greek immigration problem” specifically in relation to the EU experiment as a whole?

 

This is a very good but also very difficult question. In fact, there are a number of distinct but inter-related problems indicated here. In France and Britain, the immigration pattern was set in the 1950s and 1960s, before the EU, properly speaking. This reestablished the imperial metropole/colonial periphery relationship in postcolonial times. In other words, it is not an accident that these immigrant populations were from the former colonies—North and West Africa in France, South Asians and West Indians in the UK. The so-called “problem” in these countries relates to second and third generation descendants of these early immigrants—think of Alain Finkielkraut, a son of Jewish émigrés, saying that these African descent French cannot really be French. It’s about France’s historical relationship to peoples it once ruled over overseas: how can former subject peoples now be fellow nationals and citizens in a full sense?

 

The case of Greece reflects a truly EU phenomenon: these immigrants are trying to enter Europe as such, not necessarily Greece, which does not have any significant historical relations with their countries of origin—if we forget for the moment both “Black Athena” and Alexander, whose Indian territories lay precisely in the parts of northern Punjab that at least a plurality of Pakistani migrants in Greece come from! But the more serious point here is what exactly it means for a society to be proclaimed a European one by entry into the continental structure of the Union. I have argued that entering into the European system, a society like Greece in effect becomes a former imperial metropole, itself a kind of injustice to Greece, given its own history of foreign rule.

 

So I think the immigration question throws a certain light on the Europeanization of Greece, which was obviously in many ways a society of “the East” for centuries, as part of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Like nationalism in an earlier era, Europeanism (to coin a phrase) too has the remarkable ability to erase the past once it has become established in society. To me, one of the most stunning features of the Greek economic crisis was the recurring threat of withdrawal of Europeanness. Expulsion from the Eurozone would be one marker of that, but there were other kinds of indicators as well. When Christine Lagarde compared Greece unfavorably with Niger, or when Giscard D’Estaing offered pompous regrets for having brought Greece into the community,or when George Papandreou made the rather shameful and plaintive remark in October 2011 that “we are not, nor do we have any intention of becoming, India or Bangladesh”—in each of these instances, I think, something like the threat of the withdrawal of Europeanness was at stake.

 

In other words, in the midst of the crisis it became clear that the Europeanness of Greece is not determined in Greece and could be withdrawn. So it seems to me that in their systematic attention to the beating and breaking of “black” and “brown” bodies, the gangs of Golden Dawn are making a strenuous case for the Greek people not being reduced themselves to a “black” or “brown” population. There is only a difference of degree between their many statements about immigrants and the one Papandreou made three years ago.

 

 

  1. Can you say in what sense your own view of what has been called ‘post-colonial thinking’ is useful/applicable to this specific case?

 

Actually, usefulness might work in the opposite direction. Questions such as these, if they are engaged with in a serious manner, might renew and revive the postcolonial tradition of critical thinking, which has been in decline in the North Atlantic countries, having become just an academic specialization, especially in literature departments. The work of the pioneer thinkers like Edward Said sought to bring into the mainstream Western humanities and humanistic social sciences, the concerns and perspectives of an older intellectual formation—the Third Word internationalism and anti-imperialism of the 1950s-1970s, which we generally refer to by the shorthand of “Bandung,” so named for the Indonesian city that hosted the historic summit meeting of Afro-Asian countries in 1955.

 

In other words, it was a way of thinking or mode of intervention that was fully engaged in the question of the fate of the world. And serious intellectual engagement with the plight of the undocumented around the world—immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, the stateless—as a truly worldwide phenomenon might help to restore some of the dignity (and relevance) of this way of thinking, what Said called the “worldliness” of critical thinking. India-linked postcolonial criticism, which made a powerful contribution by bringing focus to the “national question,” has now become mired in it and seems to me to be at an impasse. There, the preoccupation seems to be too much nation, too much antiquity, too much textuality—in short, too much homeland—rather than an engagement with what, in reference to Said, I have called the missing homeland.

 

On the other hand, the “postcolonial” account of the history of center-periphery relations between the European imperial powers—which include not only France, Britain, Holland, Spain, Portugal and Belgium, but also Italy, Germany, and even Denmark to a certain extent—and their variously dominated or ruled territories is the natural frame of thinking to bring to the postcolonial immigrant question in the EU. Of course, a range of European thinkers of the Left, From Etienne Balibar to Sandro Mezzadra, have been doing precisely that, although much more needs to be done in this direction. What is not very useful in this regard is the sort of “postsecular” gesture Habermas and others have made as a sort of act of philanthropy toward immigrant populations who may have a variety of orientations toward a variety of religious tendencies even within, let us say, one or the other of the world religions. This philanthropy must not be confused with solidarity—it merely fixes the identity of the immigrant as, above all, a religious person.

 

 

  1. Perhaps in this sense you can reflect on how what you learned from this specific issue has elucidated your own work in its more recent phase.

 

This issue has helped me think in a new way about mobility itself, in a broad sense, in our late capitalist world. The more capital enhances its ability to behave as if it inhabits a borderless world, the more difficult it becomes for masses of people to cross actual borders. It is the imbalances of contemporary capitalism, both economic and political, that make mass migrations necessary. But the structures of the neoliberal order make that very movement perilous for the most vulnerable people.

 

Every time I hear talk of a “flat” or “borderless” world, I think of this other scenario—the drowned bodies in Evros, or off the Aegean islands and Lampedusa, that are made invisible by this “one-world talk,” as I call it. My work on world literature, for instance—I have just finished a book on the subject—is a critique of this happy talk of literary relations on a worldwide scale. In my account, world literature has always been a border regime, rather than a borderless world. My next book is a study of Said’s concept of exile, the idea that for it to be truly critical in a real sense, criticism has to make itself homeless and renounce, as he once put it, “the quasi-religious authority of being comfortably at home among one’s people.”

 

 


www.stagonesdoc.gr

«The title of this documentary could be TOMORROW’S WAR, TODAY. We have five destinations in Greece: Thessaloniki, Apopigadi, Eastern Chalkidiki, Asopos river and Volos. The war on water is not a future probability, but it’s a reality familiar to some of our fellow citizens for many years now.»

http://www.stagonesdoc.grstagonesnero


The European Union and the Politicization of Europe

Call for Papers :
The Third Euroacademia International Conference
The European Union and the Politicization of Europe

26 – 27 September 2014, Lisbon, Portugal
5* Eurostars Hotel das Letras

Deadline for Paper Proposals: 15 August 2014

See full details at: http://euroacademia.eu/conference/third-european-union-and-the-politicization-of-europe/
Conference Description:

The European Union was described by Jacques Delors as an unidentified political object and by Jose Manuel Barroso as the first non-Imperial empire. The descriptors assigned to the European Union are creative and diverse yet the agreement on what is the actual shape that the EU is taking is by no means an easy one to be achieved. Historical choices shaped and reshaped the size and functioning of the EU while the goal of an emerging ‘ever closer union’ is still in search for the paths of real and not ideal accomplishment. The agreement seems to come when it’s about the growing impact of the decisions taken in Brussels on the daily lives of the European citizens and the increasingly redistributive outcomes of the policy choices inside the EU. These dynamics created the framework for the politicization of Europe and opened a vivid debate about the direction and proportions of such a process.

The politicization of Europe takes various shapes and addresses significant puzzles. While it is clear that the EU doesn’t resemble a state it is less clear if the decisions that shape its policies are configured by Pareto efficient outcomes or by dynamics that are intrinsic to political systems and defined by emerging party politics within the European Parliament. The democratic problem or the democratic deficit issue was and continues to be one of the main challenges facing the European Union in any terms or from any position is understood or described. The problem of accountability for the decision making inside the EU was there from the beginning and it emerged gradually as more emphatic on the agenda of vivid debates as the powers of the EU have grown after the Maastricht Treaty. This was concomitant with a growing disenchantment of citizens from member states with politics in general, with debates over the democratic deficits inside member states, with enlargement and with a visible and worrying decrease in voters’ turnouts in both national and especially European elections. The optimist supporters of EU believe in its power to constantly reinvent and reshape while the pessimists see either a persistence of existing problems or a darker scenario that could lead in front of current problems even to the end of the EU as we know it.

The Euroacademia International Conference ‘The European Union and the Politicization of Europe’ aims to survey some of these current debates and addresses once more the challenges of the EU polity in a context of multiple crises that confronted Europe in recent years. It supports a transformative view that involves balanced weights of optimism and pessimism in a belief that the unfold of current events and the way EU deals with delicate problems will put an increased pressure in the future on matters of accountability and will require some institutional adjustments that address democratic requirements for decision making. However in its present shape and context the EU does not look able to deliver soon appropriate answers to democratic demands. In a neo-functionalist slang we can say as an irony that the actual crisis in the EU legitimacy is a ‘spillover’ effect of institutional choices made some time before. To address the EU’s democratic deficit however is not to be a skeptic and ignore the benefits that came with it but to acknowledge the increasing popular dissatisfaction with ‘occult’ office politics and with the way EU tackles daily problems of public concern while the public is more and more affected by decisions taken at European level.

Is the EU becoming an increasingly politicized entity? Is the on-going politicization of Europe a structured or a messy one? Do political parties within the European Parliament act in a manner that strengthens the view of the EU as an articulate political system? Are there efficient ways for addressing the democratic deficit issue? Can we find usable indicators for detecting an emerging European demos and a European civil society? Does Europeanization of the masses take place or the EU remains a genuinely elitist project? Did the Lisbon Treaty introduce significant changes regarding the challenges facing the EU? Can we see any robust improvements in the accountability of the EU decision making processes? Are there alternative ways of looking at the politicization processes and redistributive policies inside the EU? Is the on-going crisis changing the European politics dramatically? These are only few of the large number of questions that unfold when researchers or practitioners look at the EU. It is the aim of the Third Euroacademia International Conference ‘The European Union and the Politicization of Europe’ to address in a constructive manner such questions and to offer o platform for dissemination of research results or puzzles that can contribute to a better understanding of the on-going process of politicization within the European Union.

The conference is organized yet by no means restricted to the following panels:

~ The Crisis of Europe and its Political Challenges
~ The Crisis of European Solidarity
~ Greece and the Questioning of the Factual European Unity
~ Is Euro-enthusiasm Still Possible?
~ The Politicization of Europe: Desirable or Contestable
~ The Neo-medieval EU: Resembling an Enlightened Despotism?
~ The EU as a Political System: Features and Curiosities
~ Differentiated Integration and Club Based Hypotheses
~ Re-distributive Policies Inside the EU Impacting the Medium Voter
~ European Elections and Strategies for Politicization
~ European Parties and Party Politics in the European Parliament
~ Strategies for Bringing European Issues to Public Scrutiny
~ Taking ECB Out of the Political Vacuum: Strategies for Accountability
~ The Democratic Deficit Issue: A Persistent Anomaly?
~ In Search of a European Demos
~ Inclusion/Exclusion Nexuses
~ Looking for a European Civil Society
~ Appropriations and Politicization of Wider European Values and Narratives
~ Persisting Intergovernmentalism?
~ EU and Traces of Imperial Politics
~ EU and Identitarian appropriations
~ Scenarios for Change Inside the EU
~ The Future of EU Enlargement
~ The Europeanization of Balkans
~ Taking Euroskepticism Seriously
~ Assessing the EU External Action
~ Increasing Public Saliency for Supranational Issues
~ Lobbying and Policy Making Inside the EU
~ Cultural Policies and the Politicization of Europe
~ Educational Policies of Europeanization
~ Representations of EUrope
~ Arts and the Imaginary Shape of the EU
~ Mobility and Europeanization
~ Europe 2020 – Scenarios for Future

Participant’s Profile

The conference is addressed to academics, researchers and professionals with a particular interest in Europe and the European Union from all parts of the world. As the nature of the conference is intended to be multidisciplinary in nature different academic backgrounds are welcomed. Post-graduate students, doctoral candidates and young researchers are welcome to submit an abstract. Representatives of INGOs, NGOs, Think Tanks and activists willing to present their work with impact on or influenced by specific understandings of the European Union are welcomed as well to submit the abstract of their contribution.

Abstracts will be reviewed and the participants are selected based on the proven quality of the abstract. The submitted paper for the conference proceedings is expected to be in accordance with the lines provided in the submitted abstract.

A specific spot in the conference program will be dedicated to social networking and therefore all the participants interested in setting or developing further cooperation agendas and prospects with other participants will have time to present and/or promote their project and express calls for cooperation. A specific setting for promotional materials connected with the topic of the conference will be reserved for the use of participants. Books authored or edited by the participants can be exhibited and promoted during the whole period of the conference and can also be presented within the conference package based on prior arrangements.

Publication:
Selected papers will be published by Euroacademia Publishing (Paris) in an electronic volume with ISBN after the confirmation of the authors and a double peer-review process based on an agreed publication schedule. All the papers selected for publication should be original and must have not been priory published elsewhere. All participants to the conference will receive a copy of the volume.
Important Dates
DEADLINE: 15 August 2014 – 300 words abstracts and details of affiliation

The 300 word abstracts and the affiliation details should be submitted in Word, WordPerfect, or RTF formats, following this order:
1) author(s), 2) affiliation, 3) email address, 4) title of abstract, 5) body of abstract 6) preferred panel or proposed panel

The abstract and details can be sent to application@euroacademia.eu with the name of the conference specified in the subject line or through the on-line application form available at http://euroacademia.eu/conference/third-european-union-and-the-politicization-of-europe/

We will acknowledge the receipt of your proposal and answer to all paper proposals submitted.

Euroacademia is a non-profit organization, based in Paris, Brussels and Vienna, aiming to foster academic cooperation, networking and a platform for dissemination and valorization of academic research results, trends, and emerging themes within the area of concern for European studies, political science, critical studies, cultural studies, history, anthropology, social psychology, semiotics, philosophy, sociology and wider and inclusive interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches that contribute to a better understanding of the ‘self-organizing vertigo’ (Edgar Morin) of the European realm. Euroacademia’s goal is to become a hub for academic interaction on and about Europe.
For more information visit http://www.euroacademia.eu


THE JOURNAL OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING

THE JOURNAL OF

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

UHMT_2

CALL FOR PAPERS:
SPECIAL ISSUE ON PERPETRATORS
The Journal of Human Trafficking announces a call for papers for a forthcoming special issue entitled Traffickers and Slaveholders: Human Rights Violators in Comparative Perspective. The special issue, Guest Edited by Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick, welcomes original theoretical and empirical contributions on slaveholders and traffickers that address but are not limited to the following topics:

Frameworks for conceptualizing traffickers and slaveholders;
Restructuring financial and cultural incentives for perpetrators;
Corporate and individual perpetrators;
Contemporary emancipation and abolition approaches to perpetrators;
Contemporary policy assumptions about perpetrators;
The role of gender in the enslavement process;
Perpetrators’ response to emancipation efforts;
Structural and cultural factors related to perpetrator behavior;
Media treatment of perpetrators;
Masculinity and patriarchy;
Corporate responsibility.
Deadline for submissions: 3rd April 2015.

Follow this link to read the full Call for Papers.

ABOUT THE JOURNAL
The Journal of Human Trafficking is devoted to the dissemination of international scholarship on all issues related to trafficking in persons— from prevention and intervention, to protection and prosecution. The journal’s focus is inclusive to men, women, children, and transgendered individuals and open to all types of trafficking— bonded labor, forced labor, sexual exploitation, and child trafficking. Submissions on any aspect of the phenomenon are encouraged and should include but are not limited to articles on pre-trafficking circumstances/situations (e.g. economic hardships/poverty), recruitment, transit, experiences during exploitation, types of exploitation, departure, re-integration, service/care and rehabilitation of victims, as well as prevention, prosecution, and policy analyses.

The Journal of Human Trafficking publishes research on human trafficking from a variety of disciplines including, but not limited to, anthropology, criminology, communications, family studies, forensic science, social work, sociology, law, medicine, nursing and public health, psychology, and public policy. Although focused on research, the journal serves as a bridge between theory, applied research and practice to help fill the gap in understanding between scholars and practitioners.

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSIONS
The Journal of Human Trafficking receives all manuscript submissions electronically via its Editorial Manager site located at http://www.editorialmanager.com/jht. Editorial Manager allows for submission of original and revised manuscripts, and facilitates the review process and internal communication between authors, editors, and reviewers via a web-based platform. Editorial Manager technical support can be accessed at http://www.editorialmanager.com/robohelp/10.1/index.htm.

If you have any other requests, please contact Rochelle Dalla, Editor-in-Chief, at rdalla1@unl.edu and Donna Sabella, Associate Editor, at ds842@drexel.edu.

Follow this link to read the full Instructions for Authors.

EXPLORE THE JOURNAL ONLINE

Sign up for New Issue alerts
Recommend a subscription to your librarian
Submit your manuscript
Subscribe today
Review the Aims & Scope
Review the Editorial Board


PROGRESSIVE POPULISM AND SOCIAL CHANGE

SEPTEMBER 22, 2013

by ANTONIS GALANOPOULOS
Populism as a term reappeared in everyday public discourse in Greece with the first protests against the memorandum with IMF, EU and ECB and its concomitant austerity policies. The polarisation at the base of the populism/anti-populism dichotomy has been exacerbated on both a social and a political/ideological level. Every articulation of popular demands was denounced by the predominant power block as a populist one. All collective practices were stigmatised as populist and stripped of their political meaning. Everyone who distances himself even a minimum from the dominant neoliberal crisis management discourse was and is dismissed as a “populist”. Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,149 other followers