Showing posts with label Calls for Contributions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calls for Contributions. Show all posts

Monday, 18 May 2026

CFA: Borders, Sovereignties, and Environments in Eastern Europe (16th–20th Centuries)

 CALL FOR PAPERS • "Borders, Sovereignties, and Environments in Eastern Europe (16th–20th Centuries)” • Titles and abstracts submission deadline: June 25, 2026


Call for papers for a special issue of Cahiers d’histoire russe, est-européenne, caucasienne et centrasiatique to be released in 2028

Coeditor: Jawad DAHEUR (CNRS-EHESS, CERCEC)


Long conceptualised within the stable framework of nation-states, interactions between societies and their environments take on a renewed significance when examined in spaces marked by unstable territorial frameworks,  multiple authorities and changing political regimes. Eastern Europe—understood here in a broad yet concrete sense, stretching from the eastern Baltic region and Polish periphery to the Black Sea, and including  present-day Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova—offers a particularly rich field of study in this respect. Over the long term, it has been characterised by highly mobile borders, overlapping and competing claims to sovereignty, and diverse forms of governing territories and populations.

Since the sixteenth century, this region has been shaped by the interaction of political formations, each with its own distinct logic. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, an elective and composite monarchy, coexisted with the expansion of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, which eventually became an empire, while the northern shores of the Black Sea remained under Ottoman influence through flexible provincial structure and vassal entities such as the Crimean Khanate. These configurations were further complicated by the integration of certain territories into more western political entities, such as the Habsburg Monarchy in Galicia from the late eighteenth century, or the longstanding German presence on the Baltic shores.

These dynamics gave rise to differentiated and often competing forms of governance. Borders functioned as multifaceted arrangements—military, fiscal, legal and social—that structured access to resources, regulated mobility and created territorial hierarchies. The borderlands of the Pontic steppe, shaped by Crimean Tatar incursions and Cossack mobility, exemplify this enduring porosity, while other areas were subject to attempts at stricter territorial control through military or administrative means. River basins—the Dnieper, Dniester, Dvina and Neman—structured spaces of circulation that extended beyond political boundaries. External borders were complemented by numerous internal ones: differentiated legal statuses, specific fiscal regimes, internal customs boundaries and systems of mobility control. The Pale of Settlement imposed on the Jewish population of the Russian Empire from the late eighteenth century onwards, the privileges granted to Cossack communities, and special legal regimes applied to colonists in the southern steppes all illustrate a complex spatialisation of statuses and mobility.

Such configurations make Eastern Europe a particularly fertile ground for a mixed  approach drawing at once on the history of sovereignties and on environmental history. They invite us to move beyond national frameworks by highlighting the mismatch between political borders and ecological, social and cultural dynamics. Environments—forests, wetlands, agricultural land and steppe regions—developed according to their varied biophysical logic cutting across institutional discontinuities. At the same time, successive shifts in sovereignty brought about sometimes rapid transformations in legal frameworks, property modes and modes of resource exploitation. The partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the late eighteenth century, Russian expansion towards the Black Sea, and the political and territorial changes  of the twentieth century all exemplify these processes. The key issue, therefore, is not simply to measure the impact of political power on environment, but to analyse the gaps, frictions and adjustments between state projects and ecological dynamics.

The history of this region can be understood as a series of reconfigurations in which relationships between territory, resources and authority are constantly reshaped. The nineteenth century saw an intensification of state intervention in the environment: colonisation of the steppe, agricultural expansion, agrarian reforms, forest regulation and hydraulic engineering. The development of urban and port centres such as Odessa, Riga, Königsberg and Warsaw reflects the growing integration of these spaces into regional and international economic circuits. These processes transcended political borders without rendering them irrelevant, while each change in sovereignty redefined legal frameworks and modes of natural resource exploitation without fully homogenising these practices.

The twentieth century marked a major turning point. The collapse of empires and their subsequent integration into the Soviet sphere profoundly transformed the relationship between power and environment. Centralised planning—collectivisation, industrialisation and large-scale infrastructure projects—reflected an ambition to master natural environment, even as these efforts ran into material constraints. Post-Soviet developments  have prolonged these tensions, combining the redrawing of borders, territorial conflicts and transformations in environmental governance within contexts shaped both by the legacies of the twentieth century and by uneven integration into broader international frameworks.

Thematic Axes

Proposals must address environmental history, borders and sovereignties in Eastern Europe across a time span from the sixteenth to the twenty-first century. They should embed environmental analysis within explicit reflection on political, legal and territorial discontinuities, demonstrating how these have shaped relationships between societies and environments. Particular attention will be given to contributions that highlight the plurality of governing frameworks, focus on spaces situated across political borders, or examine territories that have undergone changes in sovereignty. Preference will also be given to contributions based on diverse sources drawing on archives from several states or written in different regional languages—particularly German, Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Yiddish, Hungarian, Romanian or Ottoman Turkish—in order to better capture circulation, disjuncture and reconfiguration in spaces shaped by plural sovereignties.

Contributions may address one or more of the following themes, without this list being exhaustive, and may also develop alternative lines of inquiry at the authors’ initiative.

1. Shifting Borders and Environmental Dynamics

This axis welcomes studies of environmental dynamics that traverse, bypass or redefine borders. Contributions may focus on river basins, wetlands or steppe regions, analysing how political discontinuities—territorial redrawing, shifting borders or overlapping jurisdictions—shape (or fail to shape) environmental processes, including natural disasters (climatic hazards, erosion, floods, forest fires) and their management. Particular attention may be paid to the differentiated effects of changing sovereignties, to mismatches between political and ecological temporalities, and to forms of continuity or rupture produced by territorial reconfigurations.

2. Sovereignty and Governance of the Environment

This thematic axis explores concrete ways in which competing powers—empires or nation-states, para-state entities —seek to appropriate, regulate and transform environments through colonisation policies, forest regulation, water management, resource taxation or economic planning, land reforms, ‘modernisation’ development programmes. Contributions may examine the instruments of governance (legal, fiscal, technical and scientific) deployed in contexts of overlapping or successive sovereignties. Particular attention will be paid to frictions between governing projects and local practices, especially in borderlands or newly integrated territories.

3. Internal Borders, Legal Hierarchies and Access to Resources

This thematic axis focuses on forms of internal fragmentation of sovereignty (differentiated statuses, exceptional legal regimes, administrative or fiscal boundaries) and their interactions with the environment. Contributions may analyse how these mechanisms structure access to resources, dynamics of exploitation and mobility, accounting for diverse actors—peasant communities, local elites, military or paramilitary groups, populations subject to specific legal statuses, colonists and migrants, state officials—as well as their practices and modes of engagement with the environment. Attention may also be paid to processes of adaptation, circumvention or resistance, and to the socio-environmental inequalities these arrangements produce.

4. Cross-Border Circulation and Socio-Environmental Reconfiguration

This axis addresses the circulation of resources, people, knowledge and techniques across politically fragmented spaces. Contributions may analyse how borders can restructure flows rather than simply blocking them, and how such circulation is shaped by environmental dynamics that constrain, direct or transform them. Topics may include exchange networks, infrastructure (ports, waterways, rail and road systems), and chains of interdependence linking various environments at many levels. Particular attention may be paid to reconfigurations associated with moments of changing sovereignty, and to the reciprocal adjustments between infrastructure, circulation and their environment.

By bringing together the history of borders, history of sovereignties and environmental history, this issue aims to contribute to a renewed understanding of Eastern Europe as a space of recurrent but unevenly paced recompositions, where environments and forms of power are embedded in relations of interdependence and mutual transformation over the long term. Contributions should explicitly demonstrate how the analysis of borders—understood as lines, zones or territorial arrangements—and sovereignties—in their plurality and reconfigurations—provides a key entry point for understanding these dynamics.

Titles and abstracts submission deadline: June 25, 2026

Short project abstracts (500 words maximum) should be sent to chreecc[at]ehess.fr

Please include name, institutional affiliation and e-mail address in all correspondence.

Authors of selected proposals will be notified by July 15, 2026.

Languages: French, English

Manuscripts submission deadline: March 1, 2027

Maximum article length: up to approximately 70,000 characters (space characters and notes included)

Evaluation: In accordance with the policies of Cahiers d’histoire russe, est-européenne, caucasienne et centrasiatique, the accepted articles will be submitted for double-blind peer review by two external referees.

Publication date: 1st half of 2028

Coeditor: Jawad Daheur

For additional information, please contact:

Coeditor jawad.daheur[at]ehess.fr

And/or the redaction: chreecc[at]ehess.fr 

Wednesday, 22 April 2026

Call for abstracts: Theorizing Science Studies from Central and Eastern Europe

 Call for abstracts: Theorizing Science Studies from Central and Eastern Europe

Deadline: April 30th, 2026 (https://sc.amu.edu.pl/cfp-theorizing-science-studies-from-central-and-eastern-europe/)

We invite contributions to the edited volume Theorizing Science Studies from Central and Eastern Europe, to appear in Palgrave’s Transnationalizing Theory in Science and Technology Studies series, which is in line with the transnationalization initiatives of the Society for Social Studies of Science.

The volume is dedicated to developing theory, understood not as abstract universalism but as the production of concepts, categories, and analytical frameworks capable of intervening in contemporary debates on science and knowledge from the situated standpoint of Central and Eastern Europe.

Where discussions of center–periphery dynamics in science studies have largely been articulated through a Global North–South axis, less attention has been paid to the semi-peripheral positions of regions such as Central and Eastern Europe. We understand this region not as a geographical container but as an epistemic formation shaped by socialist and post-socialist trajectories, by projects of science-based modernization, and by unequal integration into global academic capitalism.

These experiences furnish distinctive resources for conceptual work that remain insufficiently articulated within dominant frameworks of science studies. Historically, the region produced notable contributions to the social studies of science–from Fleck’s historical epistemology to the “science of science” of Znaniecki and Ossowskis, from Marxist theories of knowledge by Lukács and Bogdanov to Soviet scientometrics developed in the USSR. Some elements of this legacy have entered Western canons, while others have been forgotten or provincialized. Meanwhile, the post-1990 reconfiguration of knowledge production in the region fostered increasing epistemic dependence, in which imported categories replaced local theoretical invention.

Our wager is that theorizing from Central and Eastern Europe is not a matter of adding new regional content to an existing conceptual map, but of unsettling the categories through which science and knowledge are commonly understood. Concepts are not neutral: they inherit the political ontologies of the worlds that produced them. Rather than relying on categories shaped by particular histories of capitalism, state formation, and scientific autonomy, this volume seeks forms of conceptual innovation that emerge from different historical experiences and epistemic conditions. Such work may both provincialize dominant assumptions within science studies and generate alternative problem-spaces and analytical lenses capable of reframing how science is understood globally.

We therefore welcome contributions that treat historical materials, (post-)socialist experiences, and regional epistemic conditions as resources for theory-building rather than as objects of documentation. To theorize “from” the region does not mean producing regional theory for its own sake, but using situated experiences to think with, and to challenge, prevailing categories in science studies.

Authors might engage, for example, with (post-)socialist approaches to science and its organisation; with notions of autonomy and dependency in knowledge production; with semi-periphery and “Global East” as analytical positions; with Marxist theories of knowledge and technology; or with attempts to conceptualize alternatives to academic dependency. These suggestions are illustrative rather than exhaustive. What matters is conceptual ambition and the orientation toward theory as situated practice.

Abstracts (max. 1000 words): April 30, 2026; Decisions: May 15, 2026; Full chapters: November 30, 2026.

Editors: Jakub Krzeski (Nicolaus Copernicus University), Ivan Kislenko (Adam Mickiewicz University), Emanuel Kulczycki (Humboldt University / DZHW), and Krystian Szadkowski (Adam Mickiewicz University).

Please submit abstracts to Jakub Krzeski (j.krzeski@umk.pl) and Ivan Kislenko (ivan.kislenko@amu.edu.pl)


Sunday, 19 April 2026

Call for abstracts: Theorizing Science Studies from Central and Eastern Europe

 Call for abstracts: Theorizing Science Studies from Central and Eastern Europe

Deadline: April 30th, 2026 (https://sc.amu.edu.pl/cfp-theorizing-science-studies-from-central-and-eastern-europe/)

We invite contributions to the edited volume Theorizing Science Studies from Central and Eastern Europe, to appear in Palgrave’s Transnationalizing Theory in Science and Technology Studies series, which is in line with the transnationalization initiatives of the Society for Social Studies of Science.

The volume is dedicated to developing theory, understood not as abstract universalism but as the production of concepts, categories, and analytical frameworks capable of intervening in contemporary debates on science and knowledge from the situated standpoint of Central and Eastern Europe.

Where discussions of center–periphery dynamics in science studies have largely been articulated through a Global North–South axis, less attention has been paid to the semi-peripheral positions of regions such as Central and Eastern Europe. We understand this region not as a geographical container but as an epistemic formation shaped by socialist and post-socialist trajectories, by projects of science-based modernization, and by unequal integration into global academic capitalism.

These experiences furnish distinctive resources for conceptual work that remain insufficiently articulated within dominant frameworks of science studies. Historically, the region produced notable contributions to the social studies of science–from Fleck’s historical epistemology to the “science of science” of Znaniecki and Ossowskis, from Marxist theories of knowledge by Lukács and Bogdanov to Soviet scientometrics developed in the USSR. Some elements of this legacy have entered Western canons, while others have been forgotten or provincialized. Meanwhile, the post-1990 reconfiguration of knowledge production in the region fostered increasing epistemic dependence, in which imported categories replaced local theoretical invention.

Our wager is that theorizing from Central and Eastern Europe is not a matter of adding new regional content to an existing conceptual map, but of unsettling the categories through which science and knowledge are commonly understood. Concepts are not neutral: they inherit the political ontologies of the worlds that produced them. Rather than relying on categories shaped by particular histories of capitalism, state formation, and scientific autonomy, this volume seeks forms of conceptual innovation that emerge from different historical experiences and epistemic conditions. Such work may both provincialize dominant assumptions within science studies and generate alternative problem-spaces and analytical lenses capable of reframing how science is understood globally.

We therefore welcome contributions that treat historical materials, (post-)socialist experiences, and regional epistemic conditions as resources for theory-building rather than as objects of documentation. To theorize “from” the region does not mean producing regional theory for its own sake, but using situated experiences to think with, and to challenge, prevailing categories in science studies.

Authors might engage, for example, with (post-)socialist approaches to science and its organisation; with notions of autonomy and dependency in knowledge production; with semi-periphery and “Global East” as analytical positions; with Marxist theories of knowledge and technology; or with attempts to conceptualize alternatives to academic dependency. These suggestions are illustrative rather than exhaustive. What matters is conceptual ambition and the orientation toward theory as situated practice.

Abstracts (max. 1000 words): April 30, 2026; Decisions: May 15, 2026; Full chapters: November 30, 2026.

Editors: Jakub Krzeski (Nicolaus Copernicus University), Ivan Kislenko (Adam Mickiewicz University), Emanuel Kulczycki (Humboldt University / DZHW), and Krystian Szadkowski (Adam Mickiewicz University).

Please submit abstracts to Jakub Krzeski (j.krzeski@umk.pl) and Ivan Kislenko (ivan.kislenko@amu.edu.pl)


Sunday, 22 March 2026

CFP: Academic Freedom, Integrity, and Governance in Central Asia: Theory, Practice, and Emerging Challenges

 Central Asian Affairs is seeking contributions for its upcoming special issue, “Academic Freedom, Integrity, and Governance in Central Asia: Theory, Practice, and Emerging Challenges.”


Guest editors:


Dmitry Dubrovsky, PhD, Department of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague


Feruza Madaminova, PhD, International School of Finance Technology and Science (ISFT Institute), Tashkent


Assylzat Karabayeva, PhD, College of Social Sciences, KIMEP University, Almaty


Special Issue Scope


Academic freedom—understood as a normative foundation of higher education and a precondition to produce reliable knowledge—has become both an object of intense debate and a growing field of scholarly inquiry. Classical and contemporary theories conceptualize academic freedom variously as an individual right of scholars, an institutional condition of university autonomy, and a relational practice shaped by governance, power, and professional norms. In recent years, these theoretical debates have gained renewed urgency across different world regions.


These issues were central to two panels at the conference “Academic Freedom in Flux: Purpose, Beneficiaries, and Practices in the Contemporary World,” held on 16–18 October 2025 at the Tashkent State University of Economics. Discussions highlighted a set of challenges that transcend national contexts: the managerialization of higher education; the tightening of regulatory and political oversight over universities; and shifting modes of interaction between academic institutions and the state, society, business, and civil society.


For Central Asia, these debates are particularly salient. Ongoing reforms in higher education and research, coupled with the growing prominence of science and education in national development strategies, have reconfigured the institutional environment in which academic freedom is practiced. While reform agendas are often framed in terms of global competitiveness and integration into international academic markets, they simultaneously raise fundamental questions about how academic freedom and institutional autonomy are interpreted, negotiated, and protected in practice.


This special issue approaches academic freedom not only as a legal or declarative principle, but as a socially embedded practice shaped by governance regimes, professional cultures, and informal norms. Attention is paid to the tension between formal regulation and informal arrangements in research and higher education, including state–university relations, the effectiveness of academic self-governance, and the institutionalization of academic integrity.


A new and increasingly consequential dimension of these debates concerns the rapid diffusion of artificial intelligence in higher education and research. AI-driven tools—ranging from text generation and data analysis to automated assessment and surveillance—are reshaping everyday academic practices. In the Central Asian context, these technologies raise pressing questions about academic integrity, authorship, evaluation, control, and trust, as well as about new forms of dependency, oversight, and inequality. The intersection of AI, academic freedom, and integrity thus represents a critical and underexplored area for empirical and theoretical inquiry in the region.


At the same time, Central Asia’s historical experience makes it essential to address broader structural issues, including epistemic justice, academic imperialism, and academic colonialism. Scholars working in and on the region continue to navigate global hierarchies of knowledge production that affect research agendas, publication practices, and standards of academic “excellence.” Gender equality and inclusion, while not the primary focus of this issue, remain an important contextual dimension of academic development and are welcomed as part of broader, analytically grounded contributions.


Proposal Guidelines


This special issue invites submissions that engage theoretically and empirically with academic freedom, academic integrity, and institutional autonomy in Central Asia, both historically and in the present. The editors particularly welcome contributions based on original empirical materials and approaches from sociology, political science, history, education studies, and related disciplines.


Suggested themes include:


Theories of academic freedom and their applicability beyond Western institutional contexts

Managerial reforms and their consequences for academic freedom and institutional autonomy

Governance, self-rule, and power relations within universities

State-university relations and regulatory regimes shaping research and teaching

Academic integrity: norms, enforcement mechanisms, and institutional cultures

Artificial intelligence in higher education: implications for academic integrity, evaluation, and freedom

Formal rules versus informal practices in research and higher education

Epistemic justice, knowledge hierarchies, and global academic inequality

Academic imperialism, colonial legacies, and decolonial approaches in and about Central Asia

Academic labor, precarity, mobility, and patterns of brain drain and circulation

Gender Equality and inclusion in academia as a contextual and institutional dimension

Soviet and post-Soviet legacies of higher education and their contemporary reinterpretations

Deadline: May 15, 2026


All submissions should be sent to madaminovaferuza.f@gmail.com.


Please use the subject line: “Central Asia Affairs – Special Issues“


Sunday, 15 March 2026

Call for articles: "From science to pseudoscience. Historical perspectives."

 The journal “Analecta. Studies and Materials from the History of Science” announces a Call for Papers for the 2026 issues of the journal. The theme for the year is:

"From science to pseudoscience. Historical perspectives."

We are looking for texts that analyze, from a historical perspective, the intricacies of scientific theories that have been verified, abandoned, or lost popularity over time. Authors are requested to submit abstracts of up to 300 words by May 1, 2026. Once abstracts have been accepted, the final texts should be submitted by September 30, 2026.

Please send emails to: czasopismo.analecta@gmail.com

---

The journal “Analecta. Studies and Materials from the History of Science” announces a Call for Papers for the 2026 issues of the journal. The theme for the year is: 


"From science to pseudoscience. Historical perspectives." 


We are looking for texts that analyze, from a historical perspective, the intricacies of scientific theories that have been verified, abandoned, or lost popularity over time.


The editorial board invites submissions in Polish and English that fit one or more of the following approaches to the problem:



1. Traditional and folk medicine – herbal medicine, herbal practices, and others from an ethnological and historical perspective.

2. Dead ends in science. Defunct branches of former science: alchemy, physiognomy, phrenology, galvanism, and others.

3. Para-science, parapsychology: history, sources, and development of mediums, spiritualism, hypnotism, and others.

4.    Religious/social organizations and their relationship with science: Scientology, Christian Science, Freemasonry, and others.

5. Science and ideology. Pseudoscience and its consequences: anthropometry, hygienism, eugenics, and others)

6. Conspiracy theories: Flat Earth, moon landing, Roswell, and others. History and sources.

7. New Age as alternative science. History and sources of palmistry, astrology, crystals, and other practices in popular and scientific publications.

And other historical, cultural, and sociological approaches to the title issue.


Authors are requested to submit abstracts of up to 300 words by May 1, 2026. Once abstracts have been accepted, the final texts should be submitted by September 30, 2026.


Friday, 6 February 2026

CFA: Special Issue: "Popularisation: An Entangled History of Science and Religion"

 Special Issue: "Popularisation: An Entangled History of Science and Religion"


Guest Editors: Dr. Elena Schaa and Annika Kraft


The popularisation of academic knowledge continuously shapes the way we make sense of the societal and natural world. Consequently, the societal function of religion as the main system of meaning-making changed. Since the professionalisation of the sciences (including the humanities and social sciences) in the 19th century, popularisation has made the specialised knowledge produced at diGerent academic institutions and ventures available to a wider audience. For religion, the professionalisation of the sciences has largely been described in terms of secularisation or disenchantment. While much has been written on the replacement of religion including the refutation of such a thesis, little has been said about the many ways science and religion have been and continue to be entangled. Recent research has shed light on the way religion may serve as a medium to make sense of academic knowledge or the lack thereof (Grieser 2015), communicate knowledge (De Cruz 2020, Schrempp 2012), critique science (Schaa 2024), or shape the pursuit of new knowledge (Borrelli 2015). In the case of popularisation religion is both the object of boundary-work and a resource to make scientific knowledge meaningful.

Building on this research, the Special Issue seeks to explore the entangled history of science and religion in the case of science popularisation, by addressing themes such as but not restricted to: [1] religion as a medium for popularisation of academic knowledge, [2] popularisation as a practice of worldview making, and [3] popularisation of academic knowledge shaping the concept of religion/s. We invite historical case studies with diGerent foci on academic disciplines, media, or practices that elucidate/examine popularisation as a key aspect of the entangled history of science and religion. In return, the contributions elucidate popularisation as a key term for science-and-religion studies. The special issue will shed new light on how religion forms the societal role science plays in shaping historical and imagined realities of modern societies through popularisation.

We intend to propose a Special Issue on the topic of ‘popularisation,’ comprising approximately 5-7 contributions in German, English and possibly French or Italian. We welcome contributions that deepen our understanding of the entangled history of science and religion by bringing case studies in conversation with reflection on popularisations. Please send an abstract of up to 300 words along with a brief bio, to Elena Schaa schaae@tcd.ie or Annika Kraft annika.kraft@uni-muenster.de by March 1st 2026 .

We do not yet have a place for the special issue, but we are in conversation with an open-access journal, which will subject all contributions to a double-blind peer review process.


Literature

Asprem, Egil (2016), ‘How Schrödinger’s Cat Became a Zombie. On the Epidemiology of Science-Based Representations in Popular and Religious Contexts.’, In: Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 28, 113-140.

Borrelli, Arianna (2019) ‘Poetic Imagination in Scientific Practice: Grand Unification as Narrative Worldmaking’, In Johannsen, D., Kirsch, A., Kreinarth, J., Narrative Cultures and the Aesthetics of Religion (Leiden: Brill), 314–344.

De Cruz, H. (2020), ‘Awe and Wonder in Scientific Practice: Implications for the Relationship Between Science and Religion’, In: Fuller, M., Evers, D., Runehov, A., Sæther, KW., Michollet, B. (eds) Issues in Science and Theology: Nature – and Beyond, , (Cham: Springer).

Gladigow, Burkhard (1995) ‘Europäische Religionsgeschichte’, In: Kippenberg, H. G., Luchesi, B., Lokale Religionsgeschichte. Marburg: diagonal-Verlag, 21-42.

Grieser, Alexandra (2015), ‘Imaginationen des Nichtwissens: Zur Hubble Space Imagery und den Figurationen des schönen Universums zwischen Wissenschaft, Kunst und Religion’, In Traut, L.

and Wilke, A. (eds), Religion – Imagination – Ästhetik: Vorstellungs- und Sinneswelten in Religion und Kultur, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 451–486.

Schaa, Elena (2024), A Medium of Cultural Critique and a Framework for Interpretation: Religion in Werner Heisenberg's Popular Writings , (Trinity College Dublin).

Schrempp, G. (2012), The Ancient Mythology of Modern Science: A Mythologist Looks (Seriously) at Popular Science Writing , (Montreal, Ithaca: McGill-Queen’s University Press).

Sunday, 1 February 2026

Call for Papers: Subverting Hierarchies through Women’s Intellectual History in Eastern Europe in the Long Twentieth Century

 Call for Papers: Subverting Hierarchies through Women’s Intellectual History in Eastern Europe in the Long Twentieth Century



Call for Papers

for a special journal issue to be submitted to History of European Ideas

Subverting Hierarchies through Women’s Intellectual History in Eastern Europe in the Long Twentieth Century

Editors: Isidora Grubački (Institute of Contemporary History, Ljubljana), Zsófia Lóránd (University of Vienna), Emily Steinhauer (independent scholar)



Call for Papers (download):  WIH CfP (https://inz.si/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/WIH-CfP_final_L.pdf)



In Eastern Europe, the long twentieth century—the period roughly between the 1890s and the 2000s—was marked by struggles for women’s rights, abruptly changing gender regimes, and a maelstrom of diverse as well as often monolithically dominant –isms. In these various contexts, women intervened into various male-centered discourses from a women-centered position, while writing, thinking, and arguing about processes of emancipation, education, (forced) modernization, the break with the traditional rural community, and many other themes which speak not only toward European but global processes too. As a recent collection of texts and contexts from the history of feminism and women’s rights in East Central Europe has shown, women’s interventions in the public sphere encompassed topics including war, sexuality, and the politicization of motherhood, to name only three.[1] Yet, women from Central and Eastern Europe still remain marginal in the fields of European and global intellectual history, falling between the cracks of studies on the Western part of the Northern hemisphere, but also those, still largely male-dominated, of Central and Eastern Europe and even of the Global South. This omission means that the contributions of women from Eastern and Central Europe remain largely absent—not only in relation to the experience of the decades-long emancipation project of real existing socialism, but also in terms of longer-term negotiations with other ideologies such as agrarianism, nationalism, and anarchism, as well as the ways in which identity and belonging have been shaped by migration and shifting borders in this post-imperial space. These dynamics make the region specific and relevant as a region on a global scale.



This special journal issue examines women’s intellectual history in Central and Eastern Europe throughout the long twentieth century. However, rather than merely addressing an existing gap, it seeks to challenge and redefine the field as such by engaging with carefully selected case studies of women’s political thought in the region. The inclusion of women from Central and Eastern Europe into intellectual historical investigations means revisiting the gender of who produces intellectual discourses worthy of attention, from where they can speak, and through which fora (i.e. type of sources) they communicate. In this context, rethinking the methodology of intellectual history from the perspective of Eastern and Central European women can help us think about research in intellectual history beyond the traditionally practiced methods. Even more importantly, this also means thinking beyond traditionally used sources, a call articulated for decades by intellectual historians of women’s thought.



This journal issue identifies and hence engages with two major tasks. Women’s intellectual history must reflect upon the existing power-structures that have shaped the interpretation of material and so canonized some texts and dismissed others, namely on the basis of gender and region. Archival sources must be brought back into the methodological framework of intellectual history. This also means opening up the field to new genres of texts, as well as new understandings of text- and knowledge-production, such as the collaborative processes behind textual genesis. In this context, this collection of articles contributes to the ongoing scholarly effort to challenge the hierarchy of gender while additionally seeking to subvert two enduring hierarchies that have traditionally shaped intellectual history: hierarchies of regions and hierarchies of sources.



We invite papers focusing on women’s thought from / in Eastern and Central Europe (including émigré histories) in the long twentieth century (1890–2000) that engage with methods and approaches from intellectual history and the history of political thought.



Please send proposals, which include an abstract (max. 1 page) with a short bibliography (including references to theory and methods) of your planned paper and a short CV, by April 17, 2026, to the following address: heressee.zeitgeschichte@univie.ac.at



Contributors will receive a longer concept paper which outlines the intellectual scope of the special journal issue as well as further practical guidance. An initial online meeting of all contributors and editors is scheduled for mid-June 2026 and will provide the opportunity to workshop papers before the deadline for finished papers: October 15, 2026.



[1]Zsófia Lóránd, Adela Hîncu, Jovana Mihajlović Trbovc, and Katarzyna Stańczak-Wiślicz, eds., Texts and Contexts from the History of Feminism and Women’s Rights: East Central Europe, Second Half of the Twentieth Century (Budapest–New York: Central European University Press, 2024).

Sunday, 2 November 2025

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.


Thursday, 16 October 2025

CfA: Reproductive Governance from Below: Childbearing, Trust, and Community Norms in East Central Europe, 1850–1945

 CfA: Reproductive Governance from Below: Childbearing, Trust, and Community Norms in East Central Europe, 1850–1945

The deadline for the submission of abstracts is December 1, 2025.

The deadline for the accepted papers: April 1, 2026.

This Special Issue encourages reconceptualization of fertility as a structuring force, reversing conventional explanations of demographic behavior. Rather than treating reproduction as a passive outcome of ethnicity, religion, or economy, it analyses the decisions made by families and communities, challenging the teleology of demographic transition theory while moving beyond classic family history and historical demography. The Special Issue focuses on East Central Europe, especially the Habsburg Empire and successor states, where similar institutions produced divergent reproductive strategies. This imperial context offers an ideal comparative laboratory, combining shared legal frameworks with varied kinship systems and community norms. The innovative aspect of this approach lies in the reversal of causality: instead of reading fertility as a reaction to external pressures, the Special Issue shows how practices of childbearing reshaped authority, economic strategies, and community cohesion. It foregrounds reproductive governance from below, calling attention to the ways in which midwives, older women, and village judges, for instance, sustained or contested norms. This perspective complements analyses of church and state, stressing interactions between formal and informal authorities. Methodologically, the Special Issue integrates historical anthropology, microhistory, and gender history with demographic tools, network analysis, and GIS. It pioneers the use of underexplored “crisis archives,” such as the documents produced during abortion trials and inheritance disputes, presbytery minutes, folklore, and various ego-documents, which, precisely because they emerge from moments of tension, reveal hidden negotiations of norms.

Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):

the role of trust, reputation, and the influence of informal authorities (midwives, older women, village judges) on reproductive decision-making

the role of informal and formal authorities: comparing community actors with clergy, teachers, and officials across local contexts

the role of community cooperation, female solidarity, and the informal market for abortion through abortion trials

the role of “folk” knowledge about birth control, with particular regard to the roles of doctors, midwives, and older women

the light shed on childbearing practices by conflicts and crises, as evidenced in abortion trials, reconciliation papers, inheritance disputes, and domestic-violence cases

the role of reproductive strategies and abortion decisions in rural Jewish and Roma communities

methodological reflections on analyses of childbearing practices and the sources on which these analyses are based.

We welcome submissions from scholars in various disciplines, including history, the history of science, the history of education, art history, literary history, and cultural studies. We especially encourage submissions that offer interdisciplinary perspectives and engage with current historiographical debates.

Please send an abstract of no more than 500 words and a short biographical note with a selected list of the author’s three most important publications (we do not accept full CVs) no later than December 1, 2025.

Proposals should be submitted to the special editor of the issue by email:

koloh.gabor@abtk.hu

The editors will ask the authors of selected papers to submit their final articles (max. 10,000 words) no later than April 1, 2026.

The articles will be published open access after a double-blind peer-review process. We provide proofreading for contributors who are not native speakers of English.

All articles must conform to our submission guidelines.

The Hungarian Historical Review is a peer-reviewed international quarterly of the social sciences and humanities, the geographical focus of which is Hungary and East-Central Europe. For additional information, please visit the journal’s website: https://hunghist.org/

Contact:

koloh.gabor@abtk.hu

Sunday, 24 August 2025

CFA: Hormonal Bodies in Body Politics (Zeitschrift für Körpergeschichte)

 CFA: Hormonal Bodies in Body Politics (Zeitschrift für Körpergeschichte)

Guest editors: Sophia Wagemann (Charité Berlin), Xenia Steinbach (Hannover Medical School)

Deadline for proposals: September 19, 2025

Deadline for first drafts: February 27, 2026

Hormones regulate the body: they control vital physiological functions, drive growth, shape sexual development, enable or inhibit reproduction, influence psychological processes, and are often considered to be out of balance. These varied roles are fundamental to Western biomedical discourse, as well as to how many people in transatlantic societies perceive themselves and others. Concepts such as the female hormonal cycle, puberty, menopause, and andropause demonstrate how the paradigm of hormonal regulation also imposes a temporal structure on the body. As the extraction and synthesis of hormones became possible, they came to appear both immanent to and external from the body – circulating not only within it but also around it, in the form of medications such as hormone replacement therapies, psychopharmaceuticals, contraceptives, abortifacients, as well as in cosmetics and as endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment and everyday products. The ‘hormonal body’ thus becomes a medium of transformation and optimization, positioned between the poles of stabilization and threat – both of which may arise from internal and external sources. In this multifaceted role, the relationship between hormones and bodies has been the subject of investigation within the History of Science and Science and Technology Studies (STS) for several decades. Research in these fields has critically examined the problematic incorporation of culturally entrenched notions of masculinity and femininity, particularly in relation to so-called ‘sex hormones’, and has challenged scientific attempts to biologically fix binary gender categories with genes, hormones, and chromosomes (Fausto-Sterling 2000; Oudshoorn 1994; Richardson 2013; Satzinger 2009; Sengoopta 2006). Furthermore, scholars have explored how hormone research and the pharmaceutical industry became intertwined, showing how narratives of deficiency – most often projected onto female bodies – shaped a lucrative market for hormonal products (Stoff 2004, 2012; Ratmoko 2010; Gaudillière 2005; Nordlund 2011; Watkins 2007). Studies focusing on hormonal medications have also emphasized the precarious and risk-laden nature of hormone use (Gaudillière 2006; Nemec and Olszynko-Gryn 2022; Balz et al. 2008; Schwerin et al. 2016). Lastly, hormone-based therapies have been analyzed as essential components of gender-affirming treatments, with attention drawn to the significant barriers nonbinary and trans individuals face in accessing such medications (Preciado 2013; Nass 2023).

Building on this body of research, this Special Issue seeks to explore new modes of describing historical hormone–body relations, addressing themes such as:

- Pharmaceuticals and hormonally mediated bodies

- Historical perspectives on hormonal embodiment beyond sex hormones

- Hormones as objects that traverse bodily boundaries

- Processes of embodiment and body politics in relation to hormones

- New perspectives on hormonal temporalities

- Postcolonial and non-Western perspectives on hormone–body

intertwinings

- Histories of DSD (Differences of Sex Development) or TIN∗ (trans, inter and nonbinary) medicine and hormonal interventions

- Body–environment relations

- Praxeological approaches to hormonal bodies and their regulation

We intend to propose a Special Issue on the topic of ‘hormonal bodies,’ comprising approximately 5-7 contributions in both German and English. Contributions are welcome not only from the field of history but also from historically-oriented research in the cultural, social, media, and literary sciences.

To be considered for inclusion in our proposal for a special issue please send your abstract (about 400 words) and a short bio to Sophia Wagemann (sophia.wagemann@charite.de) or Xenia Steinbach (steinbach.xenia@mh-hannover.de) by September 19, 2025.

All submissions to Body Politics will undergo a double-blind peer review process.

Further information on the Open Access journal Body Politics can be found here: http://bodypolitics.de/en/about-the-journal/

Referenzen/References

Balz, Viola; Schwerin, Alexander; Stoff, Heiko; Wahrig, Bettina (Hg.) (2008): Precarious Matters/Prekäre Stoffe. The History of Dangerous and Endangered Substances in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2000): Sexing the Body. Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

Gaudillière, Jean-Paul (2005): Better Prepared than Synthesized. Adolf Butenandt, Schering AG and the Transformation of Sex Steroids Into Drugs (1930-1946). In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (4), S. 612–644.

Gaudillière, Jean-Paul (2006): Hormones at Risk. Cancer and the Medical Uses of Industrially produced Sex Steroids in Germany, 1930–1960. In: Thomas Schlich und Ulrich Tröhler (Hg.): The Risks of Medical Innovation. Risk Perception and Assessment in Historical Context. London, New York: Routledge (Routledge Studies in the Social History of Medicine, 21), S. 136–154.

Nass, Biba O. (2023): Microdosing Testosteron. Ein alternativer Beipackzettel. Berlin: Querverlag.

Nemec, Birgit; Olszynko-Gryn, Jesse (2022): The Duogynon Controversy and Ignorance Production in Post-thalidomide West Germany. In: Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online (14), S. 75–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2021.09.003.

Nordlund, Christer (2011): Hormones of Life. Endocrinology, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Dream of a Remedy for Sterility, 1930-1970. Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications.

Oudshoorn, Nelly (1994): Beyond the Natural Body. An Archaeology of Sex Hormones. New York, London: Routledge.

Preciado, Beatriz (2013): Testo Junkie. Sex, Drugs, and Biopolitics in the Pharmacopornographic Era. New York: The Feminist Press at CUNY.

Ratmoko, Christina (2010): Damit die Chemie stimmt. Die Anfänge der industriellen Herstellung von weiblichen und männlichen Sexualhormonen 1914-1938. Zürich: Chronos Verlag.

Richardson, Sarah S. (2013): Sex Itself. The Search for Male & Female in the Human Genome. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Satzinger, Helga (2009): Differenz und Vererbung. Geschlechterordnungen in der Genetik und Hormonforschung 1890-1950. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.

Schwerin, Alexander; Stoff, Heiko; Wahrig, Bettina (Hg.) (2016): Biologics. A History of Agents Made From Living Organisms in the Twentieth Century. 3. Aufl. London, New York: Routledge (Studies for the Society for the Social History of Medicine).

Sengoopta, Chandak (2006): The Most Secret Quintessence of Life. Sex, Glands, and Hormones, 1850-1950. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Stoff, Heiko (2004): Ewige Jugend. Konzepte der Verjüngung vom späten neunzehnten Jahrhundert bis ins Dritte Reich. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.

Stoff, Heiko (2012): Wirkstoffe. Eine Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Hormone, Vitamine und Enzyme, 1920-1970. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Watkins, Elizabeth Siegel (2007): The Estrogen Elixir. A History of Hormone Replacement Therapy in America. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.


Sunday, 13 July 2025

CFP: Ludwik Fleck and the Historiography of Science: The Theory of Thought Styles and Thought Collectives at the Centennial

Paweł Jarnicki and Mauro Condé are pleased to announce a forthcoming edited volume on Ludwik Fleck, to be published by Springer. You can find the call for papers here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rk3Q8xNf9bLu9XPG8uOufmNnkk8wLFGO/view?usp=sharing. They would be grateful if you could share it widely within your networks. We all look forward to receiving your proposals and contributions for this book. 

Monday, 5 May 2025

Now online: Call for Papers: Eastern Marxisms – A Special Issue of Historical Materialism

 Now online: Call for Papers: Eastern Marxisms – A Special Issue of Historical Materialism

Guest editors: Anna Beria (Kingston University, London), Isabel Jacobs (Queen Mary University of London), Giorgi Kobakhidze (Université Toulouse II Jean Jaurès), Jiří Růžička (The Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences)

 

The distinctive tradition of post-war critical and radical thought in East and Central Europe has long been forgotten or suppressed. Even more controversially, the idea that this tradition found its most productive expression in a unique form of Marxist thought is often denied. This is because ‘Eastern Marxism(s)’ – whatever the term may encompass – has frequently been conflated with the rigid, state-imposed, Stalinist version of Marxist ideology. We believe the time has come, especially in light of the contemporary multiple crises of capitalism, to reassess and revive this tradition. However, while ‘Western Marxism’ has been retrospectively canonised around figures such as Lukács, Korsch and Gramsci, ‘Eastern’ Marxism(s) in CEE face much more significant challenges in terms of temporal, personal and also regional demarcations.

According to a still widespread Western-centric view, which identifies Eastern Marxisms with the ‘dogmatic’ state doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, a properly ‘Eastern’ period of Eastern Marxism begins with the rise of Stalin, loses steam with the critique of Stalin in the 1950s and 60s, and finally reaches its inevitable demise when the regimes supporting it collapse in 1989–91. Individual radical theorists from the CEE are, of course, well-known to some in the West, but they tend to be regarded as exceptional personalities, solitary figures who arose despite their Eastern context, thanks in large part to their exposure to Western influence (K. Kosík, E. Ilyenkov, Praxis School etc.).

A closer historical examination might reveal a very different picture. As a more or less coherent body of philosophical ideas, political doctrine, and socio-economic theory, Marxism emerged in CEE before World War II, whereas, in the West, one finds only scattered Marxist thinkers rather than a fully developed Marxist tradition. Even the so-called founding figures of Western Marxism shaped their perspectives outside Western Europe, primarily in response to the Russian Revolution – a shared foundational moment of both ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ Marxisms. Conversely, what has been termed ‘Eastern Marxism’ (e.g., by Marcuse and Merleau-Ponty) has typically referred exclusively to ‘Marxism-Leninism’, which appears to be rather a belated offshoot of Second International Marxist orthodoxy, albeit with a strong emphasis on political revolution.

It may therefore be more appropriate to shift the East/West Marxist divide to the post-1945 era, or more precisely, to 1956 for the Eastern Bloc. From this perspective, the term ‘Eastern Marxism’ should designate various currents of Marxist thought that primarily criticised and sought ways out of Stalinism. While all of these currents reflected their international intellectual moment and reacted to developments in the West, the ideas that emerged were their own, made possible by the specific context of the often-neglected region of CEE and its post-Stalinist condition.

As a result, the simplistic perspective that reduces Eastern Marxism(s) to the rise and fall of Marxist-Leninist dogma neglects the fact that we can hardly speak about the division line between the eastern and the western Marxisms in the pre-war era. ‘Marxism-Leninism’ continued to develop within the epistemological and ontological (but not political) constraints set up by the Marxist orthodoxy, while the ‘revisionist’ or heterodox currents of that time should not be viewed as precursors of western Marxism but, rather, as a reaction to both theoretical and practical shortcomings of the orthodoxy as well as to the interwar (often) revolutionary conditions of the CEE region. There is no denying that an East/West divide can be discussed, but it should not be framed through the shallow opposition of a creative postwar West versus a dogmatic postwar East. Instead, it should be drawn based on concepts that capture the differences between these respective ‘modes’ of Marxism – both as totalities that encompass internal plurality and as responses to the specific historical and social conditions in which they emerged.

This project of questioning and scouring the past of Eastern Marxism(s) calls for different research methods from those used for researching the Marxisms of the West. ‘Western Marxism’ could be reconstructed with knowledge of German, along with some French and English and a selective reading of Gramsci in translation. And, by the early postwar period, almost all the key works were either published or available in accessible archives. The ‘tradition’ of Eastern Marxism(s) has been written in dozens of languages, sometimes published in now-obscure journals, or in samizdat, or hidden in dresser drawers until the 1990s, when many of the born-again-right-wing authors no longer wanted their old leftist writings to be made public, and when few publishers in any case wanted to publish them.

While the context of capitalism and fascism that gave birth to Western Marxism is relatively comprehensible to the international reader, the diverse context of Central and Eastern Europe is barely understood, obscured by stereotypes and Cold War tropes and rhetorics that continue into contemporary leftism. The reconstruction of a plurality of Eastern Marxisms and their emancipatory-theoretical fellow travellers calls for a large collaborative effort, pooling linguistic and locally embedded knowledge and access to libraries and archives across CEE and providing the detailed historical context necessary to illuminate the region’s theories, as a vast source of globally unknown theorising on issues that remain urgent today: science and ecology, humanism and technology, nationalism and internationalism, history and political subjectivity, planning and participation, material determination and cultural emancipation.

We particularly invite contributions that are conceptually oriented rather than pure case studies and address the following non-exclusive questions and themes in relation to the critical and radical thought in East and Central Europe post-1956:

What are the difficulties and potentials of searching for a definition of Eastern Marxism? Which working definitions of Eastern Marxisms can be developed?
In what ways does the term ‘Eastern’ categorise the Marxist perspectives from CEE?
What distinct and interrelated currents can be identified within different Eastern Marxist traditions?
When and where does Eastern Marxism begin and end? Continuities and ruptures within the tradition? Problems of periodisation?
Relevance of Eastern Marxisms today?
East meets West. The intersections, dialogues, parallel developments and mutual influence between Eastern and Western Marxisms
East meets South. Imperialism, colonialism and humanism in Eastern Marxisms and anticolonial and decolonial praxis?
Regional differences, distinctions, schisms and local Marxist traditions within Eastern Marxisms?
We welcome proposals for contributions to the Eastern Marxisms special issue of Historical Materialism. Interested authors are invited to submit a title and an abstract (maximum 300 words) outlining the proposed article to info@historicalmaterialism.org by 20 June 2025. Please clearly indicate in the subject line or body of the email that the submission is intended for the Eastern Marxisms Special Issue.

Following a selection process, chosen contributors will be invited to submit full articles to Historical Materialism. All articles will be subject to the journal’s standard peer-review process and editorial evaluation.

Please note that an invitation to submit a full article does not guarantee publication, and acceptance of the abstract does not imply any commitment by the journal to publish the final piece. Deadline for the submission of full papers is 1 March 2026.

Wednesday, 12 March 2025

Call for Articles: "Betrayal Revisited: Historical Perspectives on Treachery in Central Europe" (Střed/Centre 2/2025)

 Call for Articles: "Betrayal Revisited: Historical Perspectives on Treachery in Central Europe" (Střed/Centre 2/2025)


By early 2025, arguments about ‘betrayal’ have made a triumphant return to the domain of global politics, underscoring the emotive underpinnings of a particular US- and NATO-centric global order, particularly from the perspective of the Global North. At the same time, rhetoric from many of the main actors involved has operated with the concept of betrayal since nobody wants to betray the trust of the respective ‘nation’. This situation has evoked memories of historic betrayals, from the Munich Agreement to the Phoney War, from the Yalta Conference to the failure of the Budapest Memorandum, as well as individual betrayals both domestic and foreign. The resurgence of interest in treachery in Central Europe is in line with a number of historiographical trends since the 1990s. On the one hand, it is driven by a new generation of historians seeking to challenge post-socialist narratives with their black-and-white, national typologies. On the other hand, it is a reaction to the resurgence of such dualistic narratives in conservative and right-wing historiography. Concurrently, and not by chance, Julien Benda’s La trahison des clercs (The Treason of the Intellectuals, orig. 1927) experienced a revival in the region, marking the return of yet another discourse on betrayal.

The present issue of the diamond open access journal Střed/Centre will contribute to this growing Central European debate on the histories of treachery and betrayal. Contributions are invited on the period from the onset of the 19th century to the present day, and the space stretching from Bregenz to Luhansk and from Dubrovnik to Tallinn. Comparative and transnational approaches are particularly welcome in this context.


Potential themes or questions to discuss are:

- What terms are used in the languages of Central Europe to discuss concepts of betrayal or treachery in a variety of historic political or personal contexts? Where does this language come from and how has it evolved?

- What criteria are used by governments or in the general public for evaluating treachery or betrayal? Which discourses and which emotional regimes do they relate to (social, cultural, gender, religious, colonial, national etc.)?

- How has the criteria employed in incidents of treachery changed over time? How has this affected the criteria for atonement? How far is atonement for treachery ever possible?

- Where and why have notorious figures of betrayal or treachery appeared or disappeared over the course of the last two centuries? How far have they involved new forms of collective identification in the Central European region (e.g. class, gender, ethnicity) in evolving forms of state or society?

- What happens when discourses about betrayal clash with each other? – e.g. different national perspectives (as in the 1938 ‘Munich betrayal’), or conflicts about betrayal on a more personal level such as adultery or oath-breaking.

- How and why are certain incidents or figures of treachery long-lasting? Who sustains these historic incidents in the public memory, and how are they reconfigured for new purposes in later decades by regimes or society?

- To what extent are there key sites or spaces in Central Europe which evoke memories of betrayal, treachery or treason? 

- How far do incidents or discourses about treachery have regional limits, or are they also transnational with some examples from Central Europe having an international resonance?


Please send a title and an abstract of no more than 250 words to the editors at stred@mua.cas.cz by April 10, 2025. Authors of accepted proposals will be expected to submit their full papers by October 1, 2025.

Information about the journal and the guidelines can be found in the “For Authors” section of the journal’s website: https://asjournals.lib.cas.cz/Stred/home?lang=en 

Languages of publication: English, Czech, Slovak, German


Sunday, 8 December 2024

Call for articles: Traveling Intellectuals, Transforming Ideas: Histories of Knowledge Transfer in the Twentieth Century

 Call for articles: Traveling Intellectuals, Transforming Ideas: Histories of Knowledge Transfer in the Twentieth Century


The Hungarian Historical Review invites submissions for its first issue in 2026, the theme of which will be

Traveling Intellectuals, Transforming Ideas:

Histories of Knowledge Transfer in the Twentieth Century

The deadline for the submission of abstracts: February 14, 2025.

The deadline for the accepted papers: September 1, 2025.

This Special Issue aims to explore the relationships between the transnational mobility of intellectuals and the transformation of ideas by focusing on the various mechanisms of knowledge transfers in the past century. Thanks to increasing access to transborder and transcontinental travel, the movement of intellectuals and ideas from global centers to peripheries, from peripheries to centers, and between peripheries resulted in multiple creative adaptations as knowledge was transplanted from one institutional and epistemic context to another. The special issue explores how these processes were facilitated and highlighted through the opportunities offered by various INGOs affiliated with UNESCO and other organizations with a global reach, such as the World Bank, ILO, FAO, WHO, etc. It also considers how such transfers were influenced by geopolitics, with intellectuals often contributing to—and occasionally challenging—the prevailing hegemonic projects of global powers, especially those of the United States and the Soviet Union after 1945. Drawing in part on the renewed interest in the spatiality of knowledge production and in the importance of biographical focus, the special issue seeks to highlight the histories of such travels and transformations and asks how concepts, methods, systems of thought, intellectual roles, and cultural products were reinterpreted and repurposed in new environments.

Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):

knowledge transfer from East to West, West to East, South to North, North to South

the transnational mobility of scientists, experts, artists, writers, journalists, etc.

the roles of cultural and scholarly mediators and brokers in knowledge transfers

the roles of professional networks and epistemic communities in knowledge transfers

the roles of states, UNESCO, INGOs, and philanthropic organizations in knowledge transfers

relations between secret police or intelligence agencies and transnational travels

how center-periphery and inter-periphery relations impacted transfers

methodological reflections on the analyses of transfers and their various sources

We welcome submissions from scholars in various disciplines, including history, the history of science, the history of education, art history, literary history, and cultural studies. We especially encourage submissions that offer interdisciplinary perspectives and engage with current historiographical debates.

Please send an abstract of no more than 500 words and a short biographical note with a selected list of the author’s three most important publications (we do not accept full CVs) no later than February 14, 2025.

Proposals should be submitted to the special editor of the issue by email:

laszlo.szabolcs@abtk.hu

The editors will ask the authors of selected papers to submit their final articles (max. 10,000 words) no later than September 1, 2025.

The articles will be published open access after a double-blind peer-review process. We provide proofreading for contributors who are not native speakers of English.

All articles must conform to our submission guidelines.

The Hungarian Historical Review is a peer-reviewed international quarterly of the social sciences and humanities, the geographical focus of which is Hungary and East-Central Europe. For additional information, please visit the journal’s website: www.hunghist.org

Saturday, 29 June 2024

Contradictions/Kontradikce: A Journal for Critical Thought. Call for Papers for volume 9 (2025), Marxist Orthodoxies in Central and Eastern Europe

 Contradictions/Kontradikce: A Journal for Critical Thought. Call for Papers for volume 9 (2025), Marxist Orthodoxies in Central and Eastern Europe (https://kontradikce.flu.cas.cz/en/about-us)


Many classical studies of the intellectual history of Marxism in the Eastern Bloc focus on what is called “critical”, “revisionist” or “humanist” Marxism. The other pole - “dogmatic”, “official” or “orthodox” thinkers - receive, however, far less attention. As a result, the official position is portrayed as static, or - in many cases - simply identifiable with Stalinism. While this perspective has served understandable political purposes (challenging the identification of Marxism with Soviet orthodoxy), it overlooks the dramatic changes in the official doctrine and its attitude to certain currents. What was “orthodox” took on different meanings as the party line changed, and room for interpretation and debate remained regarding what should be considered, at any given moment, orthodox.


Moreover, this one-sided interest in unorthodox Marxism overlooks the variety of historical meanings taken by the term “orthodoxy,” which reach beyond the context of ruling Communist Parties. The roots of the distinction between orthodoxy and “revisionism” in Marxism go back to the famous debate within the Second International between adherents of (“orthodox”) Kautsky on one hand and (“revisionist”) Bernstein on the other. But we can follow the continual re-articulation of orthodoxy and revision throughout much of the history of Marxism in the 20th century. In this sense the distinction appears as a battlefield, where the supposed true essence of Marxism was hotly debated and contested, giving orthodoxy varying meanings, often denoting almost contradictory contents. Advocates of orthodoxy sometimes championed revolution against reforms, sometimes defended an ideological party line against deviationists or sectarians, sometimes proclaimed the self-sufficiency of Marxist philosophy against the outside, non-Marxist elements, and sometimes, as in the case of György Lukács, made orthodoxy into a centrepiece for moving Marxism away from an emphasis on specific ideological content, toward an orthodoxy of the method. Consequently, being orthodox depended on the concrete historical and social context revealing specific power relationships within the Marxist community.   


In the next issue of Contradictions, we will investigate orthodoxy in its multiple meanings. We encourage contributions that address the following non-exclusive questions and themes:


the genealogy of the orthodoxy/revisionism division; 

the relationship between Marxist epistemology and politics;

criticism of Marxist humanism and empiricist traditions; 

studies of the Marxist method and its application in other sciences; 

institutions of political control over Marxist theory; 

evolution and institutionalisation of “official doctrine”



The deadline for articles is January, 15th, 2025. We ask prospective contributors to submit 300-word (max.) abstracts by September 30, 2024. Send abstracts and articles to kontradikce@flu.cas.cz. Further guidelines for authors are available here.


Submissions can take the form of:


Studies and essays: These may be articles of a more or less traditional academic

character, but with an emphasis on the social significance of the material presented

and on original and provocative argumentation. But we also welcome more essayistic

contributions that break with some of the conventions of scholarly form. We are

interested in rigorously theoretical essays, works of high scholarly value but which

might not find a place in other scholarly journals. Texts for this volume should be no longer than 8,000 words (including notes and bibliography). Include a list of key words and an abstract of approximately 200–300 words. All studies and essays will be subject to independent, double-blind peer review.

Discussion contributions: polemical texts addressing a theme of particular interest to

the journal’s readership. Approximately 2500–5000 words.

Translations and materials: Important contributions to Central/Eastern European

social thought that can be brought to international attention in English translation; and previously unpublished or long-unavailable “materials,” accompanied by annotation that presents the materials’ significance to contemporary readers. 3000–10,000 words.

Reviews of recent publications. Reviews may be brief (1000–2500 words) or may constitute longer review essays (2500–7500 words). We especially welcome review essays or bibliographical overviews that present and discuss works relevant to freudo-marxist studies in CEE. Otherwise, we welcome any reviews on topics and issues related to the history and contemporary developments of the radical intellectual traditions and movements in the region. Please contact us beforehand if you are interested in writing a review. 

We accept submissions written in English, Czech, or Slovak.






Wednesday, 19 June 2024

call for articles: The People and their Universities

 call for articles: The People and their Universities: Academic Knowledge Communities in Europe in the aftermaths of empires, war, and socialism


For the book series New Europes (transcript, Bielefeld), we are seeking contributions for a new volume dealing with the histories of academic knowledge communities and their institutions in Europe, with a special focus on Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe (CESEE).

THE PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIVERSITIES: ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITIES IN EUROPE IN THE AFTERMATHS OF EMPIRES, WAR, AND SOCIALISM

For the book series New Europes (transcript, Bielefeld), we are seeking contributions for a new volume dealing with the histories of academic knowledge communities and their institutions in Europe, with a special focus on Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe (CESEE).

We understand academic knowledge communities broadly as social groups who are in one way or another connected to the production of knowledge – as researchers, lecturers, laboratory and teaching assistants, as technical and administrative staff, as ministerial supervisors or (private) benefactors, as spouses, children, friends, or otherwise related to this sphere. The most common institution of these communities is the university. Understood as complex effects of epistemic practices, social distinction, built structures and administrative interaction, they are formed by knowledge communities that cultivate specific material, bodily, and intellectual practices within distinct generations, epochs and environments. As key places of truth, expertise, and authority in all aspects of learning. They represent epistemic order, but at the same time they serve as epistemic laboratories and sites of revolution or political control. Throughout history, they have stabilized political orders and caused upheaval.

The societies in CESEE have experienced the twentieth century as a history reaching from imperial disintegration to the disintegration of the socialist bloc, and, thus, academic knowledge communities in these regions seem to share a histories of political transformation processes between imperial projects, nation-building processes and a long phase of socialist transformation after 1989. However, these developments may not all follow the same big caesurae, ethno-national or generational logics, and migration or political and ideological movements.

The ambition of the volume is to understand how formal and informal communities of academic knowledge experience the end of the continental empires, two World Wars and the rise and fall of different socialist regimes. However, more than a history of universities in times of political upheaval, we hope to cover the way processes and movements such as nationalisation, mobilisation, resistance, Sovietization, Thaw, 1968, Solidarność, Postsocialist Transformation, Neoliberalism, affect communities of knowledge within and around these institutions.

The volume seeks to collect transitional and stable aspects between the many different historical layers and, in the sense of a "thinking between the posts" (Chary/Verdery), asks about the agency and role of universities and academic communities in the transformation processes in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

For our volume, we invite proposals which could consist of the following:

a) Articles of approx. 8.000 words exploring case studies such as

- the histories of universities from Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe,

- knowledge communities in transitional periods from the region otherwise defined,

- conceptualization of the links between epistemic orders and social and political histories.

b) We also welcome shorter pieces (up to 3.000 words) which focus on a primary document which helps understand significant ruptures in the history of a particular academic community from the region.

c) A third format we welcome are conversational pieces (up to 3.000 words) which cover the topic through a more personal angle.

New Europes book series:

The book series New Europes aims to provide a new understanding of Europe's past and present in the face of current crises such as Russia's war against Ukraine, climate change, the post-pandemic recovery, and the rise of new forms of authoritarianism. These challenges call for multidisciplinary, transnational, historical and critical approaches to existing paradigms for thinking about Europe. The editors encourage authors to revisit established narratives of European, national and subnational histories, to correct the neglect of geographical areas such as Eastern Europe in general studies of Europe, and to seek out new methodologies for interpreting documentary evidence. Books in the series are accompanied by richly commented selections of primary sources for independent study, alongside co-authored as well as single-authored books on topical issues. Edited by a group of scholars from History, Political Science, Gender Studies, and Literary Studies, the series aims to serve three sets of readers: the general public interested in contextualising present conflicts; readers seeking to deepen their expertise of modern European society in global contexts; and those involved in education at the level of schools as well as higher education, looking for inspirations and approaches in research and teaching of European history.

Timeframe:

- Please send us an abstract of 200 words by 30 June 2024

- The final contribution must be submitted by 15 October 2024 and will then go into peer review

- Possible genres: research articles, commentary pieces; annotated documentary sources

- Publication of the volume is planned for Winter 2025

For questions, please inquire with the editors Dina Gusejnova (d.gusejnova@lse.ac.uk), and Friedrich Cain (friedrich.cain@univie.ac.at).

Thursday, 9 May 2024

Call for articles, Authoritarian Geographies in the Former Soviet Bloc and Eastern Europe

Call for articles, Authoritarian Geographies in the Former Soviet Bloc and Eastern Europe, Journal of Historical Geography.

The journal of Historical Geography is pleased to announce a call for a special issue section dedicated to exploring the historical particularities of how geographic information was produced, memorialized, and represented within authoritarian states, with a particular focus on the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, Balkans, and Eastern Europe. This special issue seeks to unravel the intricate layers of political influence and spatial narratives embedded in the cartographic practices, museum exhibitions, monuments, and toponymy of these regions. Through interdisciplinary lenses encompassing historical geography, history of science, political science, cultural studies, and memory studies, we aim to critically examine the ways in which authoritarian regimes manipulated geographic knowledge to assert power, construct national identities, and control territories, as well as how these legacies persist in contemporary landscapes.

We invite scholars to delve into diverse case studies that shed light on the multifaceted nature of geographic information production under authoritarian rule, the processes of memorialization and commemoration, and the politics of toponyms. Contributions may explore topics such as the role of maps and atlases in propagating state ideologies, the transformation of urban spaces through monumental architecture and commemorative practices, the contestation over place names and their symbolic significance, and the challenges of representing and interpreting authoritarian pasts in post-socialist societies. Additionally, we invite contributions that examine the ways in which geography and geographical representations have supported violence and conflicts in the region, exploring how spatial imaginaries, territorial disputes, and cartographic manipulations have fueled tensions and shaped geopolitical dynamics throughout history. By critically engaging with the historical geographies of authoritarianism in this region, we seek to contribute to broader discussions on memory, power, and representation in contemporary geopolitics.

Those seeking to contribute 8,000 - 10,000 essays (including notes) would need to send a brief (one page) description of their project and a maximum two-page CV by the 25th of May to Dr. Sofia Gavrilova, S_Gavrilova@leibniz-ifl.de If accepted, your completed manuscript would need to be sent by the 15th of November.


Thursday, 22 February 2024

Call for Papers: Reassembling the Computer Networks of Eastern and Central Europe: From the Collapse of Soviet Bloc to the Russia-Ukraine War

Call for Papers: Reassembling the Computer Networks of Eastern and Central Europe: From the Collapse of Soviet Bloc to the Russia-Ukraine War


Special issue of Internet Histories. Digital Technology, Culture and Society and a conference "Histories and Legacies of the Digital: from Communist Cybernetics to Local Histories of the Internet"Abstracts due by April 2, 2024. URL: https://www.lvivcenter.org/en/conferences/computer-networks-cfp-2/ .


Being neither unified nor static, the Internet has been continuously reassembled under the influence of various direct and indirect factors and agents. It has been affected by decisions of the Internet governing institutions, state and corporate tensions, natural disasters, pandemics, and climate change, as well as by changing political orders at wars and in so-called-peace (Dyer-Witheford & Matviyenko, 2019; Aben, 2022a, 2023). Today's telecom and Internet infrastructures in Eastern and Central Europe (ECE) present one of the most vibrant cases of such reassembling against a historical backdrop of constantly shifting and conflicting ideological, institutional, technological and political realities that still remain understudied.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union that led to the emergence of multiple independent states in the 1990s also intensified the development of today's predominantly private Internet and IT industries. The faster and cheaper Internet has enabled the growing exploitation of platform labour and visible militarization of the Internet by cyberattacks, digital infrastructure hacks, and surveillance. Corporate and state claims to control parts of the Internet infrastructure within and outside state borders have led to ongoing tensions and reconfiguration of the established networks. Moreover, such processes were sped up by conflicts and wars such as the 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, the 2008 cyberattacks on Georgia during the Russia-Georgia war, or the current Russia-Ukraine war that presents continuous rebooting of the Internet technologies in response to the demands of the war. All these and similar factors and events continue to shape and reshape the Internet infrastructures in ECE entangled in Soviet technological and political legacies.

The computer network projects in the former Soviet Bloc influenced by a series of factors, from cybernetic techno-optimism (Gerovitch, 2004) to the rigorous competition between government bureaucrats and economists in the planned economy (Peters, 2016), from far-reaching decisions on the hardware architecture (Zhabin 2020) to transnational academic networks exchange (Rindzevičiūtė, 2016;  Wasiak 2015; Leslie & Gryczka, 2014). The implications that could be drawn from such projects for multiple network infrastructures after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc remain relatively understudied.

ECE countries have undergone an extensive process of modernisation and, at times, privatisation of their telecommunications infrastructures (Campbell, 1995; Bareikytė, 2022). Over the past thirty years, various IT and telecom companies, start-ups and platforms have emerged in these countries, which extensively developed the IT-outsourcing markets or digitalised their public digital infrastructures, with Estonia being perhaps the most prominent example (Kattel & Mergel, 2019). Simultaneously, the example of Estonia illustrates how the development of the idea of an "information society" was built upon a discourse of "rupture" from Soviet cybernetics while still referring to its legacy (Velmet, 2020). This special issue and the conference focus on deepening the exploration of such projects and their path dependencies (Bijker et al. 1993) for the countries that emerged from the Soviet Union after the so-called transformation period (Förster, 2000).

To date, there is a need for broader historical and critical research on the contemporary histories of the post-Soviet private and public ECE telecommunications and platform industries as a sociotechnical phenomenon (Abbate, 2000; Driscoll & Paloque-Berges, 2017). It is also worth taking into account the multiple temporalities (Koselleck, 2004) that Soviet and post-Soviet in different countries or even localities of the region represent. This is crucial to better understand the historical politics of digitalization in Central and Eastern Europe and to explore political and ethical questions of data privacy, algorithmic accountability or platform labour rights in relation to these histories and their legacies (Aben 2022b).

Furthermore, as the war in Ukraine explicitly indicates, the Internet infrastructures are undergoing key historic transformations entangled with military action and the extensive use of simple to hyper-complex digital systems as part of warfare. The Internet's operational capacity had already been boosted by new demands, initially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine made it necessary to process the industrial volumes of data for military operations. Both civilian and military Internet infrastructures, nearly indistinguishable today, remain vulnerable to the highest-impact disruptive cyberattacks on the largest telecom infrastructures.

We therefore explicitly invite papers that address this gap with research on the contemporary histories and socio-cultural, critical explorations of the post-Soviet telecom, IT, and Internet infrastructures, as well as the related digital technologies and institutions in the ECE countries in times of war.

Topics can include, but are not limited to:

Socio-technical historical accounts of the computer networks and infrastructures in the Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe

Cybernetic histories and legacies (Soviet and beyond)

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the privatization or non-privatization of Internet infrastructures

Telecom and Internet infrastructures in ECE and its dis/entanglement with Soviet legacy

War-driven technological changes of the Internet infrastructure

Local histories and precise case studies of the ECE Internet

Methodological approaches to study ECE Internet and telecom infrastructures

Contact Information

For questions, please contact: cfp_internet_histories@lvivcenter.org.ua

Robert T. Tomczak: Studenci z Rzeczypospolitej na Uniwersytecie w Bazylei w latach 1500–1800. Studium prozopograficzne [Students from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth at the University of Basel, 1501–1800. A prosopographical study].

Robert T. Tomczak: Studenci z Rzeczypospolitej na Uniwersytecie w Bazylei w latach 1500–1800. Studium prozopograficzne [Students from the Po...