PL EN


2018 | 8 | 21-38
Article title

Byzantine spirit of the Undead and its legacy in the Sick Man of Europe

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
This paper examines the source and consequences of permanent liminality in the political-legal administration of the Byzantine Empire. The paper argues ambiguous and incomplete identities of individuals, groups, and society associated with certain authoritarian political arrangements and consequent arrested liminal period(s) contributed to the decline of the Empire. Further, and significantly, the unresolved situation of disaggregated identity, or spirited away demos, persisted in the Ottoman Era and continues to infect contemporary socio-political affairs in regions in the Balkans and other countries of the former Soviet Union which now seek to balance the interests of a nation-state with the diversity of Europe. The paper does not consider the Orthodox Spirit, but rather analyzes the role of pseudo-intellectuals and sophists who derail the democratic and philosophical Hellenist traditions with authoritarian policies and tools. The research compares and links the institutional attempts of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires to manage and manipulate differences and distinctions through mechanisms such as theatricalization and the millets. The argument concludes that these strategies created the basis for the perpetualization of the sick man of Europe to the extent they focused on juggling the distinctions and identities of the empires rather than pursuing the development of the democratic self. Thus, in liminality is revealed and contained undead and viral authoritarian spirits, sometimes manifested in populist or extremist ethnic leaders, whose technologies trick the demos and disrupt the democratic imagination.
Keywords
Year
Volume
8
Pages
21-38
Physical description
Dates
published
2018
Contributors
  • National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
author
  • Rollins College, Winter Park, United States of America
References
  • Ahrweiler H., The Making of Europe: Lectures and studies, Athens 2000.
  • Ahrweiler H., Laiou A., Studies on the internal diaspora of the Byzantine Empire, Washington D.C. 1998.
  • Andric I., The Development of spiritual life in Bosnia under the influence of Turkish rule, Durham 1990.
  • Aristophanes, The Knights, Cambridge 2014.
  • Augé M., Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity, London 1995.
  • Banac I., The National question in Yugoslavia, Ithaca 1995.
  • Barbir K., Memory, heritage, and history: The Ottomans and the Arabs, [in:] Imperial legacy: The Ottoman imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, edit. L.C. Brown, New York 1996, pp. 100-114.
  • Bateson G., Naven: A Survey of the problems suggested by a composite picture of the culture of a New Guinea Tribe drawn from three points of view, Stanford 1958.
  • Bayly C., The Birth of the modern world, 1780-1914: Global connections and comparisons, Malden 2004.
  • Borkenau F., Die Uebergan vom feudalen zum buergerlichen Weltbild: Studien zur Geschichte der philosophie der manufakturperiode, Darmstadt 1971.
  • Foucault M., The Archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language, New York 1972.
  • Gennep A., The Rites of passage, Chicago 1960.
  • Horvath A., Mythology and the trickster, [in:] Democracy and myth in Russia and Eastern Europe, edit. H. Wydra, A. Woll, London 2007, pp. 27-45.
  • Horvath A., Thomassen B., Wydra H., Breaking boundaries: Varieties of liminality, New York 2015.
  • Inalcik H., The Meaning of legacy: The Ottoman case, [in:] Imperial legacy: The Ottoman imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, edit. L.C. Brown, New York 1996, pp. 17-29.
  • Itzkowitz N., The Problem of perceptions, [in:] Imperial legacy: The Ottoman imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, edit. L.C. Brown, New York 1996, pp. 30-38.
  • Jeffreys E., Haldon J., Cormack R., Byzantine Studies as an Academic Discipline, [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 2008, pp. 3-20.
  • Karajlić N., Fajront u Sarajevu, Beograd 2015.
  • Koselleck R., Critiques and crisis: Enlightenment and the pathogenesis of modern society, Oxford 1988.
  • Ostrogorski G., History of the Byzantine state, New Brunswick 1969.
  • Plato, Sophist, Blacksburg 2001.
  • Rusinow D., Yugoslavia’s disintegration and the Ottoman past, [in:] Imperial legacy: The Ottoman imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, edit. L.C. Brown, New York 1996, pp. 78-99.
  • Szakolczai A., Identity formation mechanisms: A Conceptual and genealogical analysis, “EUI Working Paper” 1998, No. 98(2).
  • Szakolczai A., Dreams, visions and utopias: Romantic and realist revolutionaries, and the idyllic, [in:] Utopia: Social Theory and the Future, edit. M. Jacobsen, K. Tester, Farnham Surrey 2012, pp. 47-68.
  • Szakolczai A., Comedy and the public sphere: The Re-birth of theatre as comedy and the genealogy of the modern public arena, London 2013.
  • Szakolczai A., Theatricalized reality and novels of truth: Respecting tradition and promoting imagination in social research, [in:] Imaginative methodologies in the social sciences: Creativity, poetics and rhetoric in social research, edit. M. Jacobsen, M. Drake, K. Keohane, A. Petersen, London 2014, pp. 155-194.
  • Todorova M., Imagining the Balkans, Oxford 1997.
  • Turner V., The Ritual process: Structure and Anti-Structure, New York 1969.
  • Turner V., From Ritual to theatre: The Human seriousness of play, New York 1982.
  • Vasil’ev A., History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Madison 1964.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-78afbabe-7780-4da2-b489-84d5cad96eb0
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.