Lutte nationale ou fondation étatique ?. Les intellectuels palestiniens, d’Oslo I à Intifada II
Is today’s recentering of the Palestinian “intellectual field” around NGO-activism and at the expense of a (muted) marxist rearguard imputable to political as well as social islamist militancy ? Why has the hegemonic presence of “Islam” in the Palestinian “public sphere”, not generated “new Muslim intellectuals”, whose exegetic commitment on the global scene does not preclude national and secular commitments ? Is it because the Palestinian “civil society” has been hindered, since the breakout of the second Intifada, by the disintegration of those infrastructures and institutions granted by the Oslo process and forced into emergency-driven actions—making it difficult for more autonomous discourses, of whatever tendency, to emerge ? This paper approaches these questions by deconstructing, in the Palestinian case, the prerequisits of an intellectual sphere; by delineating the structural constraints under which these actors labour; last, by illustrating their polarisation in the debate over suicide operations.
Sociologues et sociologies en Cisjordanie occupée: engagements et hétéronomies
L'etude des pratiques, representations et institutions des sociologues et politologues palestiniens enseignant et/ou effectuant des recherches dans le nord de la Cisjordanie occupee permet de cerner les contours d'un espace academique eclate mais selon plusieurs lignes de fracture. La cesure entre dynamique universitaire et dynamique de recherche semble constituer la variable structurante du paysage academique palestinien avec laquelle se conjugue une logique de polarisation spatiale des capitaux academiques permettant de mieux comprendre l'enclavement des sociologues observes, et d'expliquer les differents regimes d'engagement des acteurs interviewes a partir de leurs trajectoires.
The Internet and the Changing Beijing-Taipei Relations: Toward Unification or Fragmentation?
Information and its technologies facilitate the exercise of what has been called “soft power,” a concept that differentiates information from the conventional dimensions of “hard power,” which is mainly associated with military force and economic influence. Soft power, according to Nye, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, means that “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. In this sense it is just as important to set the agenda in world politics and attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or use of military or economic weapons.”1