Image

In this talk, Abbiati will explore how contemporary novels that depict the pain of IRA terrorism represent the perspective of victims. The talk will use computational methods to investigate the structural representation of pain in literary works dealing with "The Troubles", to then consider the emotional impact of using these methods to study politically engaged fiction. By analyzing the aesthetic experience of reading literature having it processed by algorithms, the presentation aims to shed light on the impact of computational literary analysis on the reader's empathetic response.

The presentation will include lunch and take place at the Stanford Center for Spatial and Textual Analysis in Wallenberg 433A. A Zoom link is available upon request from Center Manager, Jonathan Clark (jclark93@stanford.edu).

Simone Abbiati is a third-year PhD student in Transcultural studies in the humanities at University of Bergamo. His work relates to the hermeneutic rethinking of DH methodologies regarding fictional space, and he is particularly interested in combining text mining and digital cartography to reflect on politically debated spaces in literature. He is currently working on the British-Irish border and the Basque Country, with the aim of identifying how literature mirrored different border conceptions such as complex territorialization processes and terrorism.

Sponsored by the Center for Spatial and Textual Analysis, co-sponsored by the Division of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages and The Europe Center.

Why have the politically, economically and emotionally significant parcels sent from West Germany to the Socialist east been neglected by social theory? In my talk I will argue that ideas of modernity on both sides of the Iron Curtain produced a blind spot that is worth reconsidering.

During the time that two German states existed, parcels sent to the socialist East were politically, economically and emotionally important. Successive West German government campaigns supported them as symbols of unity through tax releases, school and poster campaigns. Millions of parcels were sent each year and the socialist governments reluctantly learned to rely on their economic value. Increasingly, the exchange included large kinship networks beyond individual relations. After unification, these networks quickly dissolved and the parcels became symbols of difference between relatives, as well as between East and West Germany more broadly. Despite their material and immaterial significance these kinship practices represent an epistemic void. They play no role in the analyses of either family sociologists, nor students of political transformation. In my talk, I ask why social scientist have not paid attention to these practices and argue that ideas of modernity on both sides of the Iron Curtain produced this blind spot. Taking these exchanges seriously could still eventually lead to new insights into the co-production of state and kinship.

Tatjana Thelen is the Distinguished Visiting Austrian Chair at The Europe Center for 2023. Thelen is Professor for Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Vienna and currently serves as Distinguished Visiting Austrian Chair at Stanford. She previously held positions at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology and at universities in Zurich, Bayreuth, Halle and Berlin. Her research has centred on postsocialist transformations in Hungary, Romania, Serbia and eastern Germany with a focus on property, welfare, kinship and state. Her latest co-edited book is The Politics of Making Kinship. Historical and Anthropological Perspectives (Berghahn 2023).

At Stanford, Tatjana is teaching the course ANTHRO 124C: Anthropology of the State in Winter 2023.

*If you need any disability-related accommodation, please contact Shannon Johnson at sj1874@stanford.edu. Requests should be made by May 4, 2023.

How much and in what form do politicians accept economic inequality? The talk explores the attenuated response of governments to rising economic inequality in Europe and North America. Political interventions in the economy depend on how elected representatives learn and reason about various forms of inequality and, ultimately, and how they decide when political action is required. Regardless of actual changes in inequality, legislators with leftist identity perceive inequality as rising and unfair, while rightist politicians hold the opposite views. When legislators then think about public demand for redistribution, they rely on their own redistributive preferences as a heuristic: the more supportive politicians are about redistribution, the higher their estimation of support for redistributive policies. Politicians thereby display a false consensus effect in their assessment.

Surveys and interviews with over 800 politicians in five democracies—Belgium, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland—elicit politicians' perceptions of economic inequality, their redistributive preferences as well as their estimates of public support among citizens. Politicians belonging to conservative parties perceive inequality to be smaller than those on the left. They also attribute less unfairness to inequality. Similarly, politicians who strongly oppose a redistributive policy do not believe that a majority of citizens favor it; however, when politicians are supportive of the measure by themselves, they believe that over 60% of citizens prefer a redistributive policy. These perceptions have behavioral consequences: legislators who believe that inequality is rising and unfair raise this issue in their parliamentary speeches. The talk probes into the intentions of elected representatives when dealing with economic inequality, unequal representation and economic policymaking in European democracies.

Christian Breunig is Professor of Comparative Politics at the Department of Politics & Public Administration at the University of Konstanz. Before coming to Konstanz, he was associate professor in political science at the University of Toronto and held a post-doc position at the Max-Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne, Germany. He received my doctorate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Washington in Seattle. His research concentrates on representation and public policy in advanced democracies and has been published in the leading journals of political science. He is a PI at the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality" and directs the German Policy Agendas project which is part of the Comparative Agendas Project. In 2022-23, he is fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioural Sciences.

*If you need any disability-related accommodation, please contact Shannon Johnson at sj1874@stanford.edu. Requests should be made by April 20, 2023.

A wealth of recent political science research focuses on how media consolidation under state rule can exacerbate democratic erosion, among other things by limiting access to narratives that counter the government's viewpoint. Hungary is one of the most frequently cited examples of this corrosive media effect. We disagree with the corrosion hypothesis, and seek to test the individual-level effects of providing information that counters the government narrative through a survey experiment. This lecture will describe the problem, our proposal, and what we expect to discover.

Jason Wittenberg is professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. A former Academy Scholar at Harvard University, he has been a Fulbright scholar at the Central European University in Budapest, a visiting professor at the University of Tokyo, and a Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. Professor Wittenberg’s broad area of focus is the politics and history of Eastern Europe. He has published widely on topics including electoral behavior, ethnic and religious violence, historical legacies, and empirical research methods. His first book, Crucibles of Political Loyalty: Church Institutions and Electoral Continuity in Hungary (Cambridge, 2006), won the 2009 Hubert Morken award for the best political science book published on religion and politics. He is the co-author, most recently, of Intimate Violence: Anti-Jewish Pogroms on the Eve of the Holocaust (Cornell, 2018), winner of the 2019 Bronislaw Malinowski Award in the Social Sciences. He received his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His current projects explore liberal democratic erosion and the logic of historical persistence.

*If you need any disability-related accommodation, please contact Shannon Johnson at sj1874@stanford.edu. Requests should be made by March 2, 2023.

Ukraine has long been considered a divided society, split between Russia-leaning Russian-speaking south and east and west-leaning and Ukrainian-speaking west and center. This talk will explain why the “divided Ukraine” paradigm no longer captures Ukrainian political and social realities, focusing on profound identity transformation within the Ukrainian society that began following the Euromaidan revolution and the start of Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014, and further accelerated after the February 2022 full scale Russian invasion. Among implications of these identity shifts is decisive rejection of a “pro-Russian” orientation in numerous policy areas – from memory to language to foreign policy.

This talk will focus on the impact of identity shifts on religious politics, where President Zelensky’s recent call for Ukrainian “spiritual independence” from Moscow is transforming the relationship of the Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian state with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), the branch of Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine historically subordinate to the Russian Orthodox Church. 

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Oxana Shevel is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Tufts University and current Vice President of the Association for the Study of Nationalities (ASN) and the American Association of Ukrainian Studies (AAUS). Her work explores nation building and identity politics in the post-Soviet region. Her book, Migration, Refugee Policy, and State Building in Postcommunist Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2011) won the American Association for Ukrainian Studies prize for best book in the fields of Ukrainian history, politics, language, literature and culture. Her recent work has focused on the sources of citizenship policies in the post-Communist states, comparative memory politics, and religious politics in Ukraine. With Maria Popova, she is currently writing a book on the root causes of the Russo-Ukrainian war, entitled Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States, scheduled to be released in late 2023. 

For the past few decades political scientists of electoral politics in Europe have focused on the emergence of 'left-libertarian' values in the European electorate, particularly amongst younger voters. What has largely been ignored, though, is the growing size of voters in many countries who have 'right-libertarian' values. Using European Social Survey data, I estimate the change in the size of this proportion of the electorate across time and across country. I also find these voters with these values tend to be younger, more highly educated, and employed in the private sector. I also look at their vote-choice, and find that they are increasingly pivotal, as they switch their votes away from mainstream centre-right parties to Liberal, Green and even Social Democratic parties.

Simon Hix is the Stein Rokkan Chair in Comparative Politics at the European University Institute, in Florence, Italy. Before taking up this position in September 2021, he was the Harold Laski Professor of Political Science and the Pro-Director (Vice President) for Research at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Simon is a leading researcher, teacher, and commentator on comparative European and EU politics, and his research has focused on comparative democratic institutions, voting and party behaviour, and legislative behaviour. Simon also has extensive experience of consulting policy-makers and parties on electoral system and parliamentary reforms and party strategies.

*If you need any disability-related accommodation, please contact Shannon Johnson at sj1874@stanford.edu. Requests should be made by March 30, 2023.

Voter-endorsed challenges to international institutions present a growing problem for international cooperation. This talk discusses the challenges that unilateral, voter-endorsed attempts by one member state to withdraw from or renegotiate the terms of existing international institutions create for the institution’s other member states. It argues that such voter-endorsed “cooperation challenges” tend to reverberate abroad: First, they influence public and elite views about the merits of the international institution and thus can create contagion effects, but can also have stabilizing effects depending on how the they highlight the risks and opportunities associated with exit and renegotiation. Second, the loss of, or change in the distribution of, cooperation gains can have considerable effects on the institutions’ other member states.

Finally, these reverberations abroad influence how member states respond to unilateral voter-endorsed “cooperation challenges.” Drawing on comparative case studies of a diverse set of voter-endorsed challenges to international institutions and on survey evidence from the EU-27 as well as a panel of Swiss respondents, the talk shows that this framework can help us better understand the (non-)existence of contagion effects across member states, variation in the responses of the remaining member states to voter-endorsed challenges to international institutions, and the ultimate outcomes of such cooperation challenges.

Stefanie Walter is Full Professor for International Relations and Political Economy at the Department of Political Science at the University of Zurich. Her research examines distributional conflicts, political preferences and economic policy outcomes related to globalization, European integration, and financial crises. Current projects examine the backlash against globalization, and challenges to international cooperation.

Stefanie Walter’s work has been published in journals such as the Annual Review of Political Science, American Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, and International Organization. She is the author of “Financial Crises and the Politics of Macroeconomic Adjustments” (2013, Cambridge University Press) and co-author of “The Politics of Bad Options” (2020, Oxford University Press).

*If you need any disability-related accommodation, please contact Shannon Johnson at sj1874@stanford.edu. Requests should be made by January 12, 2023.