[Linganth] 2004 AAA panel on critique in postsocialist states

[jllarson at umich.edu]

Call for Papers for 2004 AAA in San Francisco
Ideologies and practices of critique in postsocialist states

There was a time when criticism was inseparable from power and it had an 
impact on power relations.  This meant that, often, decent people did not 
criticize something they didn't like so as not to bring harm to other 
people, and cowards often criticized things they did like so as not to 
bring harm to themselves.  This time is long past, yet many behave as 
though it has persisted, and they are still willing to characterize every 
attempt at open criticism as naked terrorism, and every clear opinion as 
the new face of dogmatism.
	-Václav Havel, "On Evasive Thinking," originally published in 1968

The term "critique" numbered among the keywords of governments adhering to 
pursuing Marxist-Leninist ideological projects.  Criticism and 
self-criticism were promoted as mechanisms of socialist democracy and means 
to progress.  The practice of criticism in these states, however, led to 
contrary ends both within the party and among dissenters.  As Havel has 
pointed out, an apparently critical statement may perform other functions; 
likewise, a true critique may be disguised in apparently apolitical 
language.  Havel's statement continues to be relevant, both in- and outside 
of postsocialist contexts.  Papers in this panel will examine ideologies 
and practices of critique in postsocialist states, in locations where 
individuals have experienced changing cultures of critique.  For the 
purposes of this panel, we define critique as a type of communicative 
process, rather than as a single instance of judgment.  The act of 
criticizing entails dialogue with another individual, group of individuals, 
or imagined group; suitable construction of critique for a particular 
audience is often a complicated linguistic production.  Because critique is 
so often a linguistic exercise, papers on this panel will engage concerns 
familiar to linguistic anthropology, such as dialogicity, performance, and 
language ideology, among others, though participants need not be linguistic 
anthropologists nor explicitly engage with work in the subfield.  The 
ethnographic examples in this panel from across the post-socialist world 
will provide a comparative picture of contemporary forms, interpretations, 
and ideologies of critique.

Please email a paper abstract to Jonathan Larson (jllarson at umich.edu) or 
Deanna Poos (dpoos at umich.edu) before February 29, 2004.  We will finalize 
the panel and respond to you by March 8.