CFP Special Issue "Ideas in Movement: Transnational and Women’s History Perspectives"

 Please, consider contributing to the Special Issue of Lychnos - Annual of the Swedish History of Science Society.

Special Issue "Ideas in Movement: Transnational and Women’s History Perspectives" (Special attention will be paid to the underrepresented and understudied regional contexts, like Nordic, Baltic Sea region, South-Eastern, Central European or East European regions.)

Guest editors: Helena Bergman and Yuliya Yurchuk

Languages of publication are English and Swedish.

The purpose of the thematical issue is to shed light on women’s role in transnational circulation of ideas and knowledge production. While history of ideas often focuses on canonical thinkers, including “great” women, many women’s contributions to the field of intellectual history remain in the shadow. This thematic issue seeks to fill in this gap and expand the scope of discussion on women’s role in the history of ideas beyond the great and well-known names. The issue aims to consider how gender influences the production, transmission, and reception of ideas. More concretely, the issue’s aim is to work forward to a better understanding of women’s role in the production and circulation of ideas, their contribution to science and knowledge across all kinds of borders: national, cultural, societal, ideological, etc. By focusing on women’s history in this way the Issue aims to highlight the role of women in bringing a societal change as well as cast light on the women’s role in intellectual exchange and development of sciences and ideas.

In a broader context, the issue aims to contribute with new knowledge to the discussion on how women thinkers influenced the intellectual landscape transnationally and how their ideas were received and adapted to different contexts and by different communities in different contexts. Special attention will be paid to the underrepresented and understudied regional contexts, like Nordic, Baltic Sea region, South-Eastern, Central European or East European regions.

For this theme of the 2026 edition of Lychnos, we welcome contributions that empirically and theoretically study women’s history of ideas from different thematic, chronological, and analytical perspectives. We are particularly interested in papers that explore the following issues:

The transnational exchanges of ideas and intellectual networks across national or imperial boundaries, with attention to how gendered experiences and identities shaped intellectual field

Gendered dynamics within intellectual movements or traditions—how women have contributed to and shaped history of ideas

The influence of feminist perspective on the history of ideas and intellectual movements, and how this perspective can contribute to better understanding of production of ideas and knowledge.

Theoretical and methodological approaches to transnational women’s history of ideas

Historical examples of gendered intellectual communities, including the work of women’s groups and networks that crossed borders and challenged prevailing norms.

We approach these questions from a multidisciplinary vantage point and encourage the authors to think creatively and build bridges between different disciplines and history of ideas.

Timeframe:

December 30, 2025: submission of abstracts to guest editors.

January 20, 2026: confirmation of acceptance will be communicated by guest editors.

March–April 2026: Zoom meeting with authors to discuss individual contributions and the common framework (half-day, exact date to be communicated later).

May 1, 2026: Final manuscript submitted for peer review. Manuscripts must follow the guidelines for writers at Lychnos.

June 15: Manuscript after peer review sent to authors.

August 20: Final manuscript sent to guest editors.

September 20, 2026: Manuscript ready for printing.

https://tidskriftenlychnos.se/announcement/view/262

CFP: 10th Annual Tartu Conference on East European and Eurasian Studies: Global Flows and Frictions in Eastern Europe and Eurasia

 The 10th Annual Tartu Conference on East European and Eurasian Studies has opened the call for papers for its 2026 conference. More information can be found below and on the conference website: https://tartuconference.ut.ee/. The deadline for submitting proposals is 25 January 2026.

10th Annual Tartu Conference on East European and Eurasian Studies

Global Flows and Frictions in Eastern Europe and Eurasia

10-12 June 2026, Tartu, Estonia

The Centre for East European and Eurasian Studies (CEURUS) at the Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies invites proposals for full panels, roundtables, and individual papers for its 2026 annual conference. The Tartu Conference on East European and Eurasian Studies provides an academic forum that brings together scholars from area studies, comparative politics, international relations, economics, history, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, and related disciplines to discuss topics and questions affecting all aspects of life in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. The organisers expect that, as in previous years, more than 200 scholars will attend the event.

The 10th edition of the Tartu Conference invites participants to reflect on the effects of (de-)globalization across Eastern Europe and Eurasia.

We welcome contributions that critically examine how people, ideas, capital, information, technology, and goods have moved across borders, fostering various forms of integration and interdependence in the past and present. Papers exploring the potential benefits of global entanglements – such as cultural transfers, transnational solidarities, or regional and international security cooperation in defence, intelligence sharing, conflict prevention, and peacebuilding – are encouraged, as are studies addressing the challenges of increasing globalization and its possible harmful effects, like cyber vulnerabilities, geopolitical dependencies, and the spread of disinformation. We are equally interested in investigations into the local and everyday impacts of globalization, such as economic inequalities and regional disparities, brain drain and demographic decline, and climate change and environmental degradation, shedding light on who benefits and who is marginalized or excluded.

We also welcome submissions that engage with contestations of globalization or the impact of anti-globalization political discourse and policies in the region. This may include processes of fragmentation, disentanglement, and the (potential) shift to multipolarity in the international order; the rise of anti-globalist sentiment, challenges to liberal internationalism, liberal democracy, and populist movements; and processes of re-regionalization and the reassertion of national identities.

In line with these themes, this year’s keynote lecture will be delivered by Dace Dzenovska, Associate Professor in the Anthropology of Migration at the University of Oxford and Principal Investigator of the ERC-funded Emptiness project. Her research examines “emptying places” in Latvia, Ukraine, Armenia, and Russia, shedding light on how the movement of people, flows of capital, and changes in political authority are reshaping the world we live in.

The Tartu Conference invites submissions for panels, roundtables, and individual papers addressing the conference theme, as well as other topics relevant to the past and present developments across Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Comparative research focusing on the area and beyond, as well as interdisciplinary perspectives, are welcome. The Programme Committee will consider all proposals; however, full panel proposals are encouraged.

Individual paper proposals consist of an abstract of no more than 250 words. Panel and roundtable proposals should list all speakers (3 or 4 per panel/roundtable), along with their paper abstracts and, if available, information about the chair and the discussant (alternatively, these can be assigned later by the Programme Committee). In the formation of panels, we are committed to promoting diversity in gender, career stage, and institutional/country affiliations to foster a broad range of perspectives and enhance scholarly dialogue.

The deadline to submit proposals is 25 January 2026. Please visit the Submit Proposal page to upload an individual paper, panel, or roundtable proposal. All submissions will undergo review by the Programme Committee. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by email by 25 February. Accepted participants will be expected to register by 24 April and pay a registration fee of 120 euros. Students are eligible for a reduced fee of 80 euros. The registration fee includes coffee breaks, the opening reception, and the conference dinner. Please see the Rules of Participation and Important Dates for other deadlines and requirements.

For scholars whose primary affiliation is with an institution in Ukraine, participation fees will be waived. Please note that all participants are expected to attend in person, and we are unable to accommodate requests for online participation or proposals for hybrid sessions.

All participants should plan to make their own travel and accommodation arrangements. The organisers will issue visa invitations upon request. Practical information regarding travel and accommodation is available on the conference website: https://tartuconference.ut.ee

We look forward to seeing you in Tartu! If you have any questions, please contact the organisers at: tartuconference@ut.ee

Programme Committee

Catherine Gibson, University of Tartu

Aigerim Nurseitova, University of Tartu

Alicja Curanović, University of Warsaw

Riikka Taavetti, University of Turku

Shpend Kursani, University of Tartu

Taras Fedirko, University of Glasgow and the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), Vienna

Tenth Annual Conference on the History of Recent Social Science (HISRESS)

 Tenth Annual Conference on the History of Recent Social Science (HISRESS)

Geneva Graduate Institute, Switzerland

Thursday, 11 June & Friday,12 June 2026

This two-day conference of the Society for the History of Recent Social Science (HISRESS), at the Geneva Graduate Institute in Switzerland, will bring together researchers working on the history of post-World War II social science. It will provide a forum for the latest research on the cross-disciplinary history of the post-war social sciences, including but not limited to anthropology, economics, psychology, political science, and sociology as well as related fields like area studies, communication studies, design, history, international relations, law, linguistics, and urban studies. The conference, hosted by the Geneva Graduate Institute, aims to build upon the recent emergence of work and conversation on cross-disciplinary themes in the postwar history of the social sciences.

Submissions are welcome in such areas including, but not restricted to:

The interchange of social science concepts and figures among the academy and wider intellectual and popular spheres

Comparative institutional histories of departments and programs

Border disputes and boundary work between disciplines as well as academic cultures

Themes and concepts developed in the history and sociology of the natural sciences, reconceptualized for the social science context

Professional and applied training programs and schools, and the quasi-disciplinary fields (like business administration) that typically housed them

The traffic of social science into science and technology programs

The role of social science in post-colonial state-building governance

Social science adaptations to the changing media landscape

The role and prominence of disciplinary memory in a comparative context

Engagements with matters of gender, sexuality, race, religion, nationality, disability and other markers of identity and difference

The two-day conference will be organized as a series of one-hour, single-paper sessions attended by all participants. Ample time will be set aside for intellectual exchange between presenters and attendees, as all participants are expected to prepare unpublished papers (not longer than 10,000 words, excluding footnotes and references) for circulation to other participants and read all pre-circulated papers in advance.

Proposals should contain no more than 1000 words, indicating the originality of the paper. The deadline for receipt of abstracts is February 2, 2026. Final notification will be given in March 2026 after proposals have been reviewed. Completed papers will be expected by May 15, 2026.

Please note that published or forthcoming papers are not eligible, owing to the workshop format.

The conference sponsor, HISRESS (the Society for the History of Recent Social Science), has launched a new journal (History of Social Science), published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. The journal is accepting submissions.

All proposals and requests for information should be sent to submissions@hisress.org.

Planning Committee

Jamie Cohen-Cole (George Washington University), Bregje van Eekelen (TU Delft), Philippe Fontaine (École normale supérieure Paris-Saclay), Leah Gordon (Brandeis University), Joshua Klein (Geneva Graduate Institute), Pokuaa Oduro-Bonsrah (Geneva Graduate Institute), Jeff Pooley (University of Pennsylvania)

CFP: Problems of Growth Nineteenth Ischia Summer School on the History of the Life Sciences

 Problems of Growth

Nineteenth Ischia Summer School on the History of the Life Sciences

Biblioteca Antoniana, Ischia, Italy, 28 June – 5 July 2026

Applications are invited for this week-long summer school, which provides advanced training in history of the life sciences through lectures, seminars and discussions in a historically rich and naturally beautiful setting. The theme for 2026 is 'Problems of Growth’. The deadline is Friday 27 February 2026.

Organizers: Christiane Groeben (Naples, local organizer), Nick Hopwood (Cambridge), Erika L. Milam (Princeton), Staffan Müller-Wille (Cambridge) and the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn

Confirmed faculty: Daryn Lehoux (Queen’s, Canada), Dániel Margócsy (Cambridge), He Bian (Princeton), Patrick Anthony (Uppsala), Alison Bashford (UNSW), Hannah Landecker (UCLA), Edna Suárez-Díaz (UNAM), Sabina Leonelli (TU München)

For funding we are most grateful to Cambridge HPS, Cambridge Intesa Sanpaolo Fund, George Loudon, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Dohrn Foundation, Science History Institute, Centro Etnografico delle Isole Campane, Center on Science and Technology at Princeton University and the Italian Society for the History of Science. 

More information: <http://ischiasummerschool.org/>

About the school

The Ischia Summer School on the History of the Life Sciences provides advanced training in a lively international field that offers a long-term perspective on some of the most significant ideas, practices and institutions in the world today. The school, which has a tradition of association with the Naples Zoological Station, was revived in 2005 after a break of two decades and has run every other year since then other than during the coronavirus pandemic. We can accommodate up to 26 graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. The event provides a structured learning experience plus extensive opportunities for participation and interaction. English is the working language and we encourage exchange of ideas across disciplinary boundaries, national cultures and historical periods. Spending the week on an island, staying in the same hotel and sharing breaks and meals maximizes opportunities for exchange. These are enhanced through social events, including a welcome reception and a day trip to Naples, the morning spent learning about the history and current research of the Station, the afternoon free for sightseeing. There will also be a free afternoon to explore Ischia itself.

Introduction to the theme

Growth affords hope and attracts fear. Balanced growth feeds populations, fuels prosperity and imparts purpose to individual and collective lives. The unfettered growth of cells, pathogens, parasites and populations threatens physiological, economic and ecological collapse. Even balance may be a problematic ideal: norms of flourishing and beauty have guided discrimination by vaunting harmonious over retarded, excessive or monstrous growth. The sustainability of life on Earth, attempts ‘to change the story of cancer’ and the politics of human diversity: growth is at the heart of them all. Yet compared with other vital processes, notably inheritance, development and reproduction, growth in the life sciences has lacked status and attention. This summer school provides an opportunity to explore knowledges and practices of growth between antiquity and the present day while bringing together problems usually kept apart.

For Aristotle, vegetative growth was the lowest function of the soul and for that reason fundamental to plants, beasts and humans. Unlike fire, vegetative growth had a natural limit. Where minerals grew by external accretion or juxtaposition, living beings had the distinctive ability to expand by assimilation of nutrients from the inside out, whether organ by organ or from a preformed seed. Surgeons tried to remove those tumours, cankers and warts that resulted from an imbalance of humours among other causes. Generation, which was hard to imagine in mechanical terms, was often framed as a special form of growth. Late medieval philosophers brought together generation, projectile movement and the accumulation of capital as sharing the same basic problem, how a movement severed from its mover could continue to produce. In a balanced world, gain in one part was compensated by loss elsewhere. Large animals, according to Aristotle, produced fewer offspring, and the relative growth of one organ entailed the diminution of another. At Italian universities during the Renaissance, these ancient ideas were taken up and reformed by scholars including Girolamo Fabrici d’Acquapendente, Andrea Cesalpino and Marcello Malpighi in attempts to reground the systematic study of nature and naturalize growth and development.

By contrast, it seems, modern approaches to growth, in biology as in economics, aimed for an overall increase—in size, in number of individuals and in productivity. As the ultimate source of economic progress the physiocrats postulated an inherent capacity of nature to reproduce. Naturalists like Lazzaro Spallanzani located the same reproductive and regenerative capacities in minute parts that made up animal bodies. But proper growth was also reckoned to occur within certain limits. In the principle of population Thomas Robert Malthus expressed the limit set for the potentially geometric growth of human numbers by the merely arithmetic growth of food supplied from the land. More generally, in the hands of the population biologist Raymond Pearl the S-shaped curve came to capture the colonization of a new space, with slow initial acceleration towards exponential growth and then deceleration as environmental resistance increased and the ‘carrying capacity’ was reached. Based on computer simulations of the catastrophic consequences of runaway population and economic growth, the Club of Rome’s bestselling report The Limits to Growth (1972) is a point of origin for debate over ‘degrowth’ and ‘sustainable growth’.

Classical discussion of growth within organisms had been informed by the canons of beauty appropriate to each stage of life, with more attention to proportion than size. Beginning in the eighteenth century, longitudinal measurements of human growth aligned with demands for military manpower and projects of social reform. Measurement fed debate over the roles of heredity and environment. On the one hand, anthropometry ultimately produced distinct growth equations for groups defined by age, sex and race. Unbalanced growth was associated with monstrosity and other ways of falling short of the white, male model. On the other, failure to grow became an index of deprivation, most obviously, as physiologist Angelo Mosso argued, in the stunting of factory children. Eugenicists, notably criminologist Cesare Lombroso, were concerned with imbalance at the level of populations.

Standards justified clinical intervention in pathologies of growth. James Tanner, who led the Harpenden study into growth through puberty into adulthood, pioneered the treatment with growth hormone of children who looked set to miss out on the advantages of height. Since the 1980s ultrasound measurements of fetuses have identified growth restrictions on an ever larger scale. Yet even after major surveys from Turin to Nairobi, it is controversial to what extent the standards should be universal or tailored to demographic groups.

In the nineteenth century the knotty issues involved in defining individuals that were explored productively at the Stazione Zoologica di Napoli made growth hard to distinguish from maintenance and reproduction. An influential formulation held that reproduction represented growth beyond the individual limit. From the 1860s embryonic development was discussed in terms of the differential growth of parts. Inspired by D’Arcy Thompson’s On Growth and Form (1917), Julian Huxley set an agenda with Problems of Relative Growth (1932) and the notion of allometry, or the shape-changing growth of a part at a different rate from the organism as a whole. Mechanisms could be studied in ontogeny or changing patterns traced in phylogeny. In a famous essay, ‘On being the right size’, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that ‘Comparative anatomy is largely the story of the struggle to increase surface in proportion to volume’: more complicated forms enable the larger sizes that maintain body temperature at lower metabolic rates.

Within a species, tissues and organs must somehow ‘know’ when to stop growing. The cell theory framed organismal growth as the division and expansion of these elementary parts. Cancer, the disease that made biomedicine, came to be understood as a pathology of malignant growth. Research elucidated factors, not least growth factors, notably nerve growth factor discovered by Stanley Cohen and Rita Levi-Montalcini, that promoted, regulated and interfered with cell division. Alongside chemotherapies, weedkillers were developed that acted by causing rapid, uncontrolled growth. Synthetic auxins, the hormones that regulate cell division and expansion in plants, became notorious as the defoliant Agent Orange used by the British in the Malayan Emergency and the United States in the Vietnam War.

This sketch raises large questions. Should understandings and practices of growth be seen as having first sought balance, then promoted unlimited increase before recognition of the costs of growth called the whole framework into question? Or did gospels of growth acknowledge the need for some balance? Should we grasp growth as a modern or capitalist imperative, a potentially relentless power and a creative one through the transformation of quantity into quality? Or is a reason for its neglect in reflection on the life sciences (as distinct from economics and agronomy) that growth implies mere increase in size or number while the truly remarkable changes have seemed to result from qualitative alterations? Reflexively, reservations about growth apply to knowledge, too; simply accumulating data has seemed inadequate when we might need a whole new paradigm. A long-term theme and implicated in urgent problems, growth in and around the life sciences provides a rich field for historical deliberation and for trade between disciplines.

Programme

The school starts with registration and a reception on the afternoon of Sunday 28 June, and ends after dinner the following Saturday night. Departure is on Sunday 5 July. Lectures last for up to 30 minutes in one-hour slots, leaving at least 30 minutes for discussion. Seminars focus on pre-circulated texts. Groups of students will prepare each one with the seminar leader.

Daryn Lehoux (Queen’s, Canada)

Lecture: Aristotle on nutrition, growth, residues and seed

Seminar: The ‘faculty’ of growth in Galen

 

Dániel Margócsy (Cambridge)

Lecture: Soil, vermin and ghosts: The limits to growth in agriculture and medicine in early modern Europe and Indonesia

Seminar: Humans and horses: Theorising size in early modern European Medicine

 

He Bian (Princeton)

Lecture: Growth and regeneration in early modern Chinese thought

Seminar: Growing empire, coining new names: Manchu as a language for flora and fauna nomenclature

 

Patrick Anthony (Uppsala)

Lecture: Toward a history of extractive sciences—and the end of the mineral frontier

Seminar: From bio-geography to necro-geography: Sciences of life and death during the Circassian genocide 

 

Alison Bashford (UNSW) 

Lecture: Growth, limits and the afterlife of Malthus

Seminar: Fertility decline and modernity’s great deceleration: Where is reproduction/population in degrowth scholarship?

 

Hannah Landecker (UCLA)

Lecture: The butcher’s philosophy: Transmuting knowledge of life into knowledge of growth in modern agriculture and medicine

Seminar: Practical approaches to working with visual documents: Exploring cases and patterns in an industrial trade journal archive

 

Edna Suárez-Díaz (UNAM)

Lecture: Geographies of malnutrition: The clinic, the lab and the committee

Seminar: Traditions of knowledge and intervention: Studying malnutrition and mental development in the land of Zapata

 

Sabina Leonelli (TU München)

Lecture: Growing data crops: Extractivism and agriculture

Seminar: Colonial trends in agricultural data sharing

Public lecture: Intelligenza ambientale: Come usarla per salvare il pianeta

Cost

The fee for students is €400 each, which includes hotel accommodation and all meals for the week. Students need to pay for their own travel to Ischia. The directors will consider requests to waive the fee for accepted students unable to raise the money themselves, when supported by a detailed financial statement and a letter from their department head.

Applications

Applications should be sent by email to <administrator@ischiasummerschool.org> and should include, please:

• a statement specifying academic experience and interest in the course topic (max. 300 words),

• a brief CV,

• a letter of recommendation.

The deadline for applications is midnight CET on Friday 27 February and applicants will be notified of the outcome by 13 March 2026.

Rozita Dimova: The Future University in Central and Eastern Europe. Building and Dismantling the Ivory Pyramid.

 Rozita Dimova, ed.: The Future University in Central and Eastern Europe. Building and Dismantling the Ivory Pyramid. Palgrave Macmillan 2025.  ISBN 978-3-031-93129-1

About this book

This edited volume introduces a fresh approach to higher education that redefines traditional paradigms. It explores pressing concerns about the future of universities and education, addressing key issues such as transformative shifts stemming from an increased emphasis on vocational and specialised training at the expense of traditional liberal education, the relationship between university education and political dynamics and the pace of technological advancement and shift to online learning. The volume aims to satisfy the need for a comprehensive and forward-looking examination of the future of universities and higher education. In addition to the broader examination of global trends, several chapters offer unique insights in Central and Eastern European higher education which offer readers a deeper understanding of the intricacies of the educational landscape in these regions.

The book confronts the central question of whether the foundational principles of traditional science and education are under threat, and how they should adapt to an ever-changing landscape. Advocating for a potential redefinition of education, the authors challenge institutional norms and promote innovative approaches to meet the diverse needs of students in an uncertain world. It not only provides a reflective platform for envisioning the future of universities and higher education, but also acknowledges the far-reaching implications for academia, society and all stakeholders involved in this transformative journey.

About the editor

Rozita Dimova is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Hungary, and Research Fellow, Founding and Permanent Board Member at the Center for Advanced and Interdisciplinary Research, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia.

100th anniversary of Zygmunt Bauman's birth (1925-2017).

We are pleased to invite you to the upcoming seminar in the "Polish Marxism" series, taking place on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 4:00 PM CET.

The date of the seminar is symbolic, as it marks the 100th anniversary of Zygmunt Bauman's birth (1925-2017). While Bauman was one of the most famous Polish sociologists, and his works on “liquid modernity” became a canon of postmodernist philosophy, his earlier works still remain in the shadows in mainstream academic discussions, causing confusion and controversy around the biography of the celebrated scholar. This seminar is an attempt to reconcile the young and the old Bauman, devoted communist and postmodernist critic. We will discuss how Bauman’s early engagement in the socialist projects of “solid” modernity can reframe our thinking about his later postmodernist works. We will explore questions about the utopian hopes that underlie Bauman’s early Marxist works, the role of Jewish roots in the complex formation of his identity, and the special place of human freedom in his later thought. Following the approach developed in our seminars, we will reflect on Bauman as someone shaped by the specific conditions of the development of Polish Marxism and who was its major contributor. We hope that during this seminar, we can all gather to listen, discuss, and enjoy Bauman’s (post)modernist polyphony.

The discussion will move chronologically, starting from the presentation of Bauman’s biographer, Izabela Wagner. We will then focus more on the content of Bauman’s Marxist sociology. Finally, we will finish with the panel of later Bauman’s works:

• prof. Izabela Wagner: Once Upon a Time.... (exactly 100 years ago) was born Zygmunt • • • Bauman: the puzzled story of a man trapped between his Master Status, and Identity

• prof. Jarosław Kilias — East European Marxist Sociology: An Unrealized Project and a Utopia

• Panel discussion - In search of human freedom and dignity: late Bauman's thought - prof. Adam Chmielewski, prof. Matt Dawson, dr Jack Palmer. Moderator: prof. Sławomir Czapnik

Further details of the presentations and biographies of the invited guests will be announced in the coming days.

The event will be held online via the Zoom platform: https://uw-edu-pl.zoom.us/j/94400425428?pwd=RSvRF1wE5I8HBe3ZJpDbyoExbSzfbA.1

CFP: Social and Humanities Research in/on Central and Eastern Europe: Envisioning Futures from a Tumultuous Present

 In 2025, TOPOS, the journal for philosophy and cultural studies, celebrates its 25th anniversary. To mark the occasion, the editorial team and the Department of Social Sciences at the European Humanities University will organize an on-site conference titled “Social and Humanities Research in/on Central and Eastern Europe: Envisioning Futures from a Tumultuous Present,” which will take place on December 12-13, 2025, in Vilnius.

Social and Humanities Research in/on Central and Eastern Europe: Envisioning Futures from a Tumultuous Present

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

European Humanities University, 01126 Vilnius (Lithuania)

12.12.2025 - 13.12.2025

Bewerbungsschluss: 10.11.2025

We want to take this anniversary as an opportunity for joint reflections on the state of social and humanities research into the region of Central and Eastern Europe, and of that region’s significance to exemplarily bundle questions in social and cultural studies. We plan several conference panels devoted to the following questions:

What are the main challenges in academic knowledge production about Central and Eastern Europe today? Which trends do you observe?

How do you see the role of academic journals as platforms for the exchange of knowledge (given the rising importance of various digital platforms – YouTube, etc.)? Do journals have a particular significance in and for the region? Which possibilities do you see for collaboration and exchange between different journals focusing on the region?

How does academic work in the humanities and social sciences refer to, and react to, the mass migration of researchers due to war, repressions, etc., or of outright political violence against them? How does the particular potential to resist oppression traditionally ascribed to humanities scholarship present itself under today’s circumstances?

Knowledge production in Central and Eastern Europe has historically struggled to enter international debates and dialogue on matters related to the region.  What is the situation of this asymmetry today?  How can the marginalization of voices from the region be overcome?

After the conference, we envision publishing a special Forum section in a 2026 TOPOS issue presenting and continuing the panel discussions.

Working language – English

We cordially invite everyone interested to participate in the conference. To apply, please fill out the form at this link: https://forms.gle/K6hhib2pTpzYnaC46

The application deadline is 10 November 2025.

The outcome of the proposal review process will be communicated by November 15.

The conference is free of charge.

Tatsiana Astrouskaya, : Cultural Dissent in Soviet Belarus (1968–1988). Intelligentsia, Samizdat and Nonconformist Discourses (Rusian language translation)

 Татьяна Островская: Культура и сопротивление. Интеллигенция, инакомыслие и самиздат в советской Беларуси (1968–1988). Перевод с английского Ибатуллин Роберт. Новое литературное обозрение 2025. ISBN 978-5-4448-2682-9 [= Tatsiana Astrouskaya, : Cultural Dissent in Soviet Belarus (1968–1988). Intelligentsia, Samizdat and Nonconformist Discourses]

Аннотация: Книга Татьяны Островской посвящена диссидентским идеям и дискурсам, которые циркулировали в среде беларусской советской интеллигенции — как в самиздате и неподцензурных зарубежных публикациях, так и в официально издаваемой литературе, имевшей не меньшее значение для передачи неконвенциональных образов культуры и идентичности. Охватывая широкий спектр интеллектуальных дискурсов, автор акцентирует внимание прежде всего на феномене и практиках нонконформизма и культурного инакомыслия, а не на собственно политических формах сопротивления. Идейное наследие и деятельность беларусских интеллектуалов впервые в историографии рассматриваются в наднациональной перспективе: Т. Островская прослеживает их связи как с русской и украинской интеллигенцией, так и с беларусским эмигрантским сообществом. Хронологические рамки исследования лежат между событиями, относившимися к Пражской весне и ее насильственному подавлению, изменившими представление советских интеллектуалов о себе и социалистическом строе, и 1988 годом, когда инакомыслие в Беларуси переросло в открытое политическое движение. Татьяна Островская — историк, PhD, научный сотрудник Гердеровского института в Марбурге, Германия.

Save the date: The Making of the Humanities XII (Torun 2026)

In 2026, the twelfth Making of the Humanities conference will be hosted by Nicolaus Copernicus University, in Torun, Poland, October 7-9, 2026.

Under the title “The Structure of Humanistic Revolutions,” this conference will seeks to critically explore the transformations that have shaped the history of the humanities. Drawing inspiration from Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” we will engage in a reflective analysis of how “revolutions” within humanistic disciplines have been conceptualized, contested, and institutionalized over time.

Please note that although we invite submissions that explore this theme, we remain open to abstracts addressing other subjects as well.

Deadline for all submissions: April 19, 2026.

Notification of acceptance: June 1, 2026.

More information about submitting abstracts and panels is available at the conference webpage: https://mohxii.umk.pl/pages/home/

online event/book presentation: Naum Trajanovski “A History of Macedonian Sociology: In Quest for Identity”

 online event: Naum Trajanovski will present his book with the title “A History of Macedonian Sociology: In Quest for Identity”. INZ Ljubljana and zoom, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, at 11 AM CET

You are kindly invited to a new lecture in the History on the Edge series, which will take place on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, at the INZ premises or via the ZOOM link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85093074535?pwd=chFdSCgScVg8fw1djh3bVz8h9gqWtm.1 .

This time, the lecture will take place at 11 a.m., but if you join us in person, you’re welcome to come for coffee 20 minutes before the lecture begins.

Naum Trajanovski will present his book with the title “A History of Macedonian Sociology: In Quest for Identity”. The lecture will be held in English.

A History of Macedonian Sociology: In Quest for Identity

The book A History of Macedonian Sociology: In Quest for Identity is the first English-language monograph about the institutional development of sociology in (North) Macedonia. It maps and discusses the contexts, goals, and merits of the pioneering attempts for sociological research in the interwar period, early post-war educational and publishing politics, the institutionalization of sociology in socialist Macedonia in the course of the 1960s, its cross-national exchanges, as well as its major trajectories and debates up until the present days. Against the backgrounds of the political and intellectual histories of Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav Macedonia, it argues that the development of the sociological activities, themes, and arguments is entwined with the Macedonian nation- and state-building.

The History on the Edge lecture on the book will provide an overview of the main arguments concerning the various historical phases of Macedonian sociology, with a particular focus on their embeddedness within the Yugoslav/post-Yugoslav contexts.

online event: Paweł Jarnicki: O hipotezie, że Thomas Kuhn splagiatował Ludwika Flecka [On the hypothesis that Thomas Kuhn plagiarised Ludwik Fleck],

 online event: Paweł Jarnicki: O hipotezie, że Thomas Kuhn splagiatował Ludwika Flecka [On the hypothesis that Thomas Kuhn plagiarised Ludwik Fleck], 21.11.2025, 11.30, Zoom 

21 listopada o godzinie 11.30 na posiedzeniu ogólnopolskiego seminarium Filozoficznych problemów wiedzy organizowanym przez Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii PAN, Politechnikę Warszawską oraz Uniwersytet Warszawski opowiem „O hipotezie, że Thomas Kuhn splagiatował Ludwika Flecka”. W skrócie: Będzie o rzadko formułowanej pisemnie i wprost hipotezie, że Thomas Samuel Kuhn, pisząc "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962), splagiatował teorię stylów i kolektywów myślowych Ludwika Flecka sformułowaną w "Entstehung und Entwicklung eiener wissenschafltlichen Tatsache" (1935). Przedstawię dowody poszlakowe i argumenty, które uzasadniają podjęcie bardziej szczegółowych badań, które pozwolą tę hipotezę odrzucić lub potwierdzić, i powiem, jak wyobrażam sobie taki projekt badawczy.

Spotkanie odbędzie się na platformie ZOOM, podajemy szczegóły logowania:

link do spotkania: https://zoom.us/j/98272534200?pwd=5mpmlZNBA3jG2PCyhatqFq2USuOIhs.1

Identyfikator spotkania: 982 7253 4200

Kod dostępu: 267234.

CfP Praktyka teoretyczna // Theoretical Practice 4/2026 - Terapia szokowa” a narodziny peryferyjnego kapitalizmu akademickiego w Polsce (1990-1999) // “Shock Therapy” and the Birth of Peripheral Academic Capitalism in Poland (1990-1999)

CfP Praktyka teoretyczna // Theoretical Practice 4/2026 - Terapia szokowa” a narodziny peryferyjnego kapitalizmu akademickiego w Polsce (1990-1999) // “Shock Therapy” and the Birth of Peripheral Academic Capitalism in Poland (1990-1999)

Redaktorki/redaktorzy:

Krystian Szadkowski

Język numeru:

polski

Termin nadsyłania abstraktów:

31.11.2025

Termin nadsyłania artykułów:

31.03.2026

Planowana data publikacji:

grudzień 2026

1 stycznia 1990 roku zainaugurował w Polsce kryzysową dekadę. Był to moment rozpoczęcia prześnionej ekonomicznej wojny domowej: wypowiedzianej zorganizowanym robotnikom, instytucjom publicznym i społeczeństwu. Wprowadzony wówczas „plan Balcerowicza”, program zamrożenia płac, uwolnienia cen, wymienialności waluty, liberalizacji handlu oraz rozpędzonej prywatyzacji majątku państwowego w Polsce, połączony ze skrajną polityką oszczędności – „terapią szokową” – na trwałe zmienił życie milionów ludzi. Lata dziewięćdziesiąte w Polsce, upłynęły w cieniu tej wojny domowej i jej konsekwencji. Stawka była wysoka – chodziło o niedopuszczenie do masowej rewolty robotniczej mogącej w przyszłości podważyć fundamenty nowego systemu. Miał on nosić od teraz znamiona „naturalności” i „ahistoryczności”. Kapitalizm nie kładzie jednak kresu historii, tak jak nie odstępuje od wojny – jest ich kontynuacją z wykorzystaniem innych narzędzi i metod. Tego samego przekonania byli twórcy polskich reform. Już w 1993 roku, spoglądając na efekty działań, które pozbawiły pracy i środków do życia miliony polskich pracowników wszystkich sektorów Leszek Balcerowicz stwierdził: „Wielka reforma gospodarcza w trudnych czasach może być przyrównana do wojny, tyle że prowadzonej innymi środkami”. Faktycznym celem tych działań było „wytrwać” i utrzymać bezwzględny kurs pacyfikacji klasy robotniczej.

W tym numerze chcemy opowiedzieć tą historię na specyficznym i dotąd słabo zbadanym gruncie - narodzin kapitalistycznych stosunków w peryferyjnym systemie akademickim rozważanych na tle specyfiki lat dziewięćdziesiątych w ogarniętej „odgórną” wojną klasową neoliberalnej Polsce. Przekształcenia sektora nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego zachodzące w tym okresie miały decydujące znaczenie dla stabilizacji nowej peryferyjnej pozycji kraju w globalnym podziale pracy, jak również dla usankcjonowania społecznego konsensusu wokół nowego i szybko „znaturalizowanego” porządku kapitalistycznego. I na odwrót. Stabilizacja peryferyjnej kondycji Polski włączonej w sieć nowych stosunków gospodarczo-politycznych określiła trwale możliwości rozwojowe systemu nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego. „Terapia szokowa” stanowi zatem klucz do zrozumienia peryferyjnego kapitalizmu akademickiego.

Cios wymierzony w szkolnictwo wyższe i naukę miał wywrzeć głębokie konsekwencje. Obszary te doświadczyły znacznie drastyczniejszych niż pozostałe składowe sektora publicznego cięć już skromnych środków budżetowych. O ile w większości sektorów administracji publicznej i gospodarki mieliśmy do czynienia z redukcjami na poziomie średnio jednej trzeciej, o tyle w nauce i szkolnictwie wyższym w 1990 roku wyparowała ponad połowa wszystkich środków publicznych – wyrwy tej nie dało się też wypełnić środkami prywatnymi. Gdy spojrzymy na statystyki zwolnień w 1990 roku, sektorami w największym stopniu redukującymi zatrudnienie nie były wcale gwałtownie prywatyzowane przemysł ciężki czy górnictwo, ale właśnie nauka i szkolnictwo wyższe, gdzie z dnia na dzień zatrudnienie straciło blisko 40% pracowników technicznych i administracyjnych czy badaczy i nauczycieli akademickich – wiele opuściło uczelnie migrując zagranicę czy odpływając do przedsiębiorstw. Balcerowicz, w trakcie jednego ze spotkań komisji budżetowych, miał stwierdzić, że „nauka i kultura muszą wyżywić się same”. Było to o tyle niemożliwe, że przemysł i państwo jako stali partnerzy socjalistycznej nauki ulegali właśnie równoległej dezintegracji.

Jako całość sektor określono jako nieefektywny, zacofany i ostatecznie wsobny (autarkiczny), zorientowany przede wszystkim na zaspokajanie potrzeb odchodzącego systemu polityczno-gospodarczego. Co więcej, socjalistyczne szkolnictwo wyższe i nauka miały być obszarami, w których zakorzenił się stary typ człowieka – homo sovieticus, na bazie którego nie sposób było budować nowego systemu gospodarczo-politycznego. Wojna wypowiedziana nauce i szkolnictwu wyższemu w Polsce była w tym kontekście świadomą i wykalkulowaną decyzją rządzących – i w konsekwencji pogłębiła jedynie peryferyjną pozycję nie tylko sektora, ale i całego kraju. W wąsko zakrojonym neoliberalnym imaginarium nie było miejsca na suwerenny rozwój w oparciu o wiedzę i naukę. Przepisem na sukces miała być imitacja i import zachodnich technologii i ideologii.

Ideologicznym narzędziem zmiany w nauce był dobrze dziś znany język „doskonałości naukowej” i „nauki na światowym poziomie”. Komentując pierwsze lata transformacji sektora nauki w 1994 roku, przewodniczący Komitetu Badań Naukowych, instytucji odpowiedzialnej za politykę i finansowanie badań, prof. Witold Karczewski podsumował obraną przez siebie ścieżkę następująco: „Polska zastosowała raczej ciężkie ‘Darwinowskie’ podejście dając (już w 1991 roku) niemal nic, albo bardzo mało środków budżetowych miernym “badawczym Lewiatanom”, oraz ponad 60% wszystkich dostępnych środków mniej więcej 30% instytucji badawczych znajdujących się na szczycie listy rankingowej (stworzonej w trybie peer-review przez samych naukowców)”. Nawet tak nierówna dystrybucja środków nie pomogła najlepszym. Konkurencja o zawsze zbyt małe środki (od tego momentu, stały element krajobrazu polskiej nauki), ograniczonych w nieproporcjonalny do innych sektorów sposób, skutkowała wytworzeniem w polskim środowisku naukowym specyficznych mechanizmów obronnych. Inspirowany darwinizmem społecznym dyskurs „naukowej doskonałości” wydawał się być jedyną szansą na uzasadnienie możliwości otrzymania choćby skromnego finansowania. Poza stworzeniem tego toksycznego dyskursu konkurencji, który szybko obrócił się przeciwko niemu samemu – środowisko akademickie nie było zdolne niemal do żadnej masowej, zorganizowanej formy oporu przeciwko wypowiedzianej mu wojnie.

Poddając rozkładowi tkankę badań naukowych, „terapia szokowa” w sposób dotkliwy naruszyła jednocześnie kruchą równowagę na polskim uniwersytecie. Nie tylko dążąc do usunięcia z uczelni publicznych tych obszarów nauki, które związane były bezpośrednio z interesami państwa i partii, ale również w celu wygaszenia rozbudowanej sfery instytutów badawczo-rozwojowych, powiązanych z odchodzącym w niepamięć i prywatyzowanym przemysłem. Zadaniem, które stanęło przed nową władzą, było przecież szybkie umasowienie sektora szkolnictwa wyższego. Choć jeszcze w 1990 roku Janusz Grzelak, podsekretarz stanu w Ministerstwie Edukacji Narodowej, uzasadniał konieczność ograniczenia naboru na studia ze względu na kłopoty kadrowe (w efekcie masowego „drenażu mózgów” z sektora za granicę i do prywatnych przedsiębiorstw), lokalowe (znajdująca się w opłakanym stanie infrastruktura połączona z rosnącymi czynszami i eksmisjami uczelni) i brak miejsc w akademikach (które to miejsca na początku lat dziewięćdziesiątych były postrzegane jako warunek możliwości realnego studiowania), taka troska szybko ustąpiła bezwzględnemu rozszerzaniu dostępu kosztem jakości nauczania i materialnych warunków umożliwiających studiowanie. Paląca konieczność przeprowadzenia tego procesu nie wynikała jednak z chęci demokratyzacji dostępu do wysokiej jakości edukacji wyższej, ale z rosnących potrzeb kadrowych tworzonej na gorąco peryferyjnej gospodarki kapitalistycznej, podłączanej na siłę do nowego centrum. Wiele wysiłku włożono w zaprojektowanie nowych programów kształcenia ekonomii, która w Polsce do dziś pozostaje skansenem ekonomii neoklasycznej, wzbudzającej uśmiechy politowania nawet wśród najskrajniejszych neoliberalnych ekonomistów z Zachodu. Nie chodziło jednak o postępy w nauce, a o tworzenie armii posłusznych funkcjonariuszy kapitalizmu. Z tego powodu rdzeń umasowienia tworzyło rozwinięcie kształcenia z zakresu ekonomii, zarządzania, filologii obcych oraz pedagogiki (absorbujących łącznie blisko 40% populacji wszystkich studentów już w latach dziewięćdziesiątych).

Inną stroną tego procesu było stopniowe zanikanie materialnej infrastruktury wspierającej studiowanie. Niszczejące akademiki i stołówki, których kosztami remontów starano się obciążać studiujących, zamykane czy dziko prywatyzowane kluby studenckie, wszystko to składało się na ruiny, na których przyszła na świat nowa figura studenta-pracownika. Odarty z czasu wolnego, z własnej kultury, ze środków pozwalających na koncentrację na studiowaniu, student-pracownik zmuszany był do poszukiwania sposobów na utrzymanie się przy życiu – od prekarnych form zatrudnienia po wakacyjną emigrację zarobkową czy lumpenprzedsiębiorczość.

Wbrew pozorom „terapia szokowa” nie pozostawała jednak bez odpowiedzi. Intensywność protestów w latach dziewięćdziesiątych przeciwko wprowadzanym reformom była znacznie większa niż ta odnotowywana jeszcze do niedawna w Polsce. Również w sektorze nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego mieliśmy do czynienia zarówno z cichym, jak i zorganizowanym oporem, a niekiedy również z działaniami ofensywnymi. Miały one jednak specyficzne oblicze. Ton ruchowi studenckiemu we wczesnych latach dziewięćdziesiątych w Polsce nadawało Niezależne Zrzeszenie Studenckie – organizacja zrodzona ze strajków okupacyjnych lat osiemdziesiątych, stanowiąca studenckie ramie „Solidarności”. Na poziomie ideologicznym była to paradoksalna mieszanka związku zawodowego studentów, broniącego ich interesów materialnych, organizacji antykomunistycznej, jak również gorliwych krzewicieli kapitalizmu i zwolenników urynkowienia publicznego szkolnictwa wyższego. Na pierwszy rzut oka wydaje się to materializacją sprzeczności. Sprzeczność ta wpisana jest jednak w całokształt oporu akademickiego i studenckiego lat dziewięćdziesiątych. Życzenie pogłębiania stosunków kapitalistycznych w sektorze wyrażane przez niektórych protestujących odejdzie w niepamięć dopiero wraz z wystąpieniami jednoznacznie lewicowego w swym programie „Stowarzyszenia na rzecz Bezpłatnej Edukacji” z drugiej połowy interesującej nas dekady. Przez całe dziesięciolecie mogliśmy jednak obserwować ciche, codzienne akty oporu i solidarności: praktyki studenckiej odmowy pracy.

Wszystko to złożyło się na krajobraz, w którym uformował się współczesny peryferyjny kapitalizm akademicki w Polsce. Próbując zmierzyć się z jego historią, postaramy się odmalować również jego współczesne kontury.

***

Do publikacji w numerze będziemy rozważać wyłącznie teksty świadomie stosujące marksistowską krytykę ekonomii politycznej (strukturalnego dostosowania, przejścia do kapitalizmu, kapitalistycznego systemu-świata, nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego), krytyczną analizę wydarzeń protestacyjnych czy marksistowską krytyczną analizę dyskursu i mierzące się z materiałem źródłowym z interesującej nas dekady.

Abstrakty należy przesyłać na adres: praktykateoretyczna@gmail.com

Przykładowe tematy:

Narodziny studenta-pracownika;

Produkcja studenckiej podmiotowości w warunkach akumulacji pierwotnej;

Sprzeczności umasowienia szkolnictwa wyższego;

Rola organizacji międzynarodowych w transformacji nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego;

Społeczny darwinizm w dyskursie o nauce, jej finansowaniu i ewaluacji;

Studencki i akademicki opór wobec polityki oszczędności;

Historie mówione protestów w nauce i szkolnictwie wyższym okresu transformacji;

Wywłaszczenie studenckich dóbr wspólnych.

CFP: Of Those Who Stand in the Shadows – Family, Friends, Organizations, and Their Significance in the Biographies of Scholars, April 23–24, 2026, Toruń, Poland

CFP: Of Those Who Stand in the Shadows – Family, Friends, Organizations, and Their Significance in the Biographies of Scholars, April 23–24, 2026, Faculty of History, Nicolaus Copernicus University,  Toruń, Poland

The world of science has traditionally been dominated by the image of scholars, most often men, presented as monumental figures — conducting research, engaging in social activities, or pursuing other interests, yet detached from ordinary everyday life. In such portrayals, these individuals are primarily researchers and representatives of their disciplines. They are only secondarily “flesh-and-blood” individuals, to the extent necessary to illustrate their achievements. This traditional image, however, is undeniably distorted. First, one cannot be a scholar without being a human being. After all, it is our humanity, experiences, and interests that largely determine which research areas a scholar chooses to explore. Secondly, behind almost every scholar stands a person “in the shadows” — most often a wife/husband or partner — whose quiet dedication, care for the home, children, and daily matters allows the researcher to “detach from the mundane and wander among the stars.” At the proposed conference, we aim to examine the figures and roles of these quiet heroines and heroes. We are convinced that giving a voice to and drawing attention to those who are usually invisible will contribute to a better understanding of how the world of science functions, in all its dimensions. A second, equally interesting area of exploration is the issue of marginalization. It is often observable that men are credited with a greater role in joint research than their partners, even when their contributions are equal. Apart from close family members, other individuals, institutions, or organizations (whether social or governmental) often stood in the shadows of scholars and may have influenced their academic paths, research choices, or the execution of their work. For this reason, although we intend to focus primarily on individual figures, we also welcome reflections on institutional influences. We have deliberately chosen not to impose chronological restrictions on the conference. While we are aware that most presentations will likely focus on the 20th century, we hope that previously invisible figures from other eras will also emerge. Suggested areas of reflection include: 

• The figure of the wife/partner (husband/partner) supporting the scholar. 

• The influence of the wife/partner (husband/partner) on the scholar’s work environment. 

• The image of family in scholars’ egodocuments (memoirs, letters, etc.). 

• Women’s participation in joint research and its perception by the academic community. 

• Friends and acquaintances influencing scholars’ work and life. 

• The influence of institutions/organizations on a scholar’s career and research activities. 

The suggested topics are, of course, only examples. 

The organizers are open to all other issues related to the central theme of the conference. Please submit your participation form (attached below) to the following email address by December 31, 2025: egodokumenty@umk.pl. Notification of acceptance will be sent by the end of January 2026, and the conference program will be published in March 2026. The conference fee is 300 PLN, payable to the account number. 45 1160 2202 0000 0000 3174 8579 with the note “egodokumenty” and the participant’s name by February 28, 2026. The primary language of the conference is Polish; however, we also welcome papers in English. Sincerely, Dr. Janusz Bonczkowski Dr. Hab. Hadrian Ciechanowski Conference Secretary: Lic. Weronika Zimoch

Application Form Of Those Who Stand in the Shadows – Family, Friends, Organizations, and Their Significance in the Biographies of Scholars April 23–24, 2026 Faculty of History, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bojarskiego 1, 87-100 Toruń, Poland 

Name and Surname: 

Academic Degree/Title: 

Affiliation: Email: Phone (optional): 

Title of Presentation: Abstract (max. approx. 200 words): 

Participation: online/stationary 

online event: Albert Venger: Ukrainian intellectuals - medievalists in the first half of the twentieth century

 online event: Albert Venger: Ukrainian intellectuals - medievalists in the first half of the twentieth century // "IB\HW" Альберт Венгер. «Українські інтелектуали - медієвісти в першій половині ХХ ст.», Saturday, November 8, 2025, at 9 AM CET

“Історичний вебінар\Historical webinar”, рубрика «Історіографічні дослідження. На службі Кліо», презентують вебінар за участі дослідника України модерної доби, усної та інтелектуальної історії, кандидата історичних наук Альберта Венгера.

Join Zoom Meeting: 

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86567938528?pwd=qp6aaCA93CJzvJsNVGkFv3r1yZdafL.1

У доповіді розглянемо траєкторії академічних біографій трьох поколінь українських медієвістів. Митрофан Бречкевич, перша половина академічної кар’єри якого випала на імперські часи, а друга на радянські. Миколи Пакуля який закінчив університет у пізньоімперські часи, як вчений сформувався у радянський час. Михайло Лойберг – медієвіст який здобув радянську освіту та розпочав наукові дослідження у 1940-х рр.

8 листопада 2025. Мова українська.