Project / event type:
Organiser: Novi Homines

Front of my city

Deadline: 01-09-2015 - 01-10-2015
Location: Cities in Lithuania and project partner's cities

Description

The project is designed to remember the victims and their contribution during the second World War front in the cities we are currently living in and especially in those cities where front took place.

The year 2015 is symbolical - it has been 70 years after the second World War. 70 years ago people in various cities attended the war and these events eventually led to the creation of that wealth and well-being that we all can be happy about today. However, we still are encountering xenophobia, hatred to ethnic minorities and other forms of discrimination.

During this project, we would organize meetings with people who still remember the war and exchange memories between the cities which were participants in 2nd World War. In those cities where the font took place, we will note the front boundaries, build barricades, share memories and initialize live forum, so that everyone could see and visualize the horrors of the second world war. 

All historic information and memories will be collected and published in the booklet.

Partners
Keep alive memories of people who attended 2nd World war; To influence positive public opinion about those people who are still alive and have attended the 2nd World War; Promote the survival of European Memory; Encourage peace and democracy, showing people that it is not worth creating fronts in Europe nowadays.

Basic information:
Type of partner institution: NGO, Museum, University unit, School, Centre of culture
Location: All
Type of partner involvement: Financial, Conceptual, Volunteers
Deadline: 15-07-2015

Contat details:
Coordinator: Ieva Jasaitytė
E-mail: info@novihomines.lt
Phone: +37060516804
Website: www.novihomines.lt/blog
Project / event type: publication
Organiser: -

CFP The Novels of Elie Wiesel (edited volume)

Deadline: 31-01-2017
Location: -

Description

Elie Wiesel has long been a pivotal figure in Holocaust discourse. His book Night was one of the earliest works by a survivor and continues to be a significant point of reference in Holocaust literature. He went on to become an incredibly prolific writer, working in a range of genres. His death in July 2016 invites examination of what form his literary, political, and cultural legacy will take. Despite a large and distinguished body of scholarship on his writing, many of his works, particularly his more recent fiction such as The Sonderberg Case (2010) and Hostage (2012), have yet to be subject to sustained critical analysis. This volume seeks to bring together insights into Wiesel’s novels.

The editors invite abstracts on any work concerning Wiesel’s novels. Topics may include:

Wiesel and the contextualization of the Holocaust within Jewish history
The relationship between Wiesel’s fiction and non-fiction
Hypertextuality in Wiesel’s work
The role of trauma Wiesel’s fiction
The development of Wiesel’s voice as a writer
Wiesel’s political voice in his fiction
Religious and theological exploration through fiction
Please direct any questions and 500-600 word proposals to Victoria Nesfield (victoria.nesfield@york.ac.uk) and Philip Smith (Philip.Smith@cob.edu.bs) by the end of January 2017. Final pieces will be 8,000 words, due June 2017.

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 31-01-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Victoria Nesfield
E-mail: victoria.nesfield@york.ac.uk
Project / event type: workshops
Organiser: Sara Dybris McQuaid Department of Communication an

CFP: Administrations of Memory

Deadline: 15-07-2016
Location: Paris – University Paris West Nanterre La Défense, France

Description

Administrations of Memory
Call for papers deadline July 15 2016

Interdisciplinary workshop, December 9 2016
Paris – University Paris West Nanterre La Défense

Abstract
Please send no more than a two pages abstract to engsdm@cc.au.dk and sgensbuger@yahoo.fr, addressing both methodological and theoretical issues and including a short biography. We welcome papers from a large range of disciplines (political science, sociology, anthropology, political economy, history, cultural studies).
 
 
Since the beginning of the 1990s, an increasing number of governments have been implementing public policies to do with « memory ». Strangely enough, considering the rapid rise of « memory studies », political scientists have so far shown little interest in these public actions that have to do with evoking the past. At the same time, memory studies scholars have yet to engage with commemorative practices as policy processes. This study day wants to engage in a comparative examination of ‘administrations of memory’.
 
The study day aims to encourage the development of theoretical and methodological contact points between ‘Memory Studies’ and ‘Policy Studies’ in examinations of local, national and supranational processes of contending with the past. In this, we take it as a point of departure that studying the ‘Politics of Memory’ should also be studying the ‘Public Policy of Memory’. Beyond the agenda setting part of policy, we are further interested in the delivery and the evaluation of policy and how those processes are constituted by and constitutive of collective memory concerns. Here we should include the technocratic conduits and conveyors, between governors and governed (e.g. example steering mechanisms, funding bodies, and hosting procedures). The specific sites of policy implementation which is shaped by and reshaping agendas. In other words, this study day pleads for the analysis of public policies of memory as a way to foster better understandings of how contemporary societies deal in distinct and overlapping ways, with difficult histories and unsettled heritage – including our understanding of dynamics of legitimation, and its limits, in contemporary societies.
 
At an overarching level it engages with the transformation of the bureaucratic practices of the state in examining the relationship between the ‘tandem’ rise of Memory Politics and the rise of New Public Management administrations in the past 30 years. Developing the contact points between memory studies and policy studies, this research adds at once, a new set of lenses to the dimensions of the ‘memory boom’ as well as recent conceptualizations of the changes in public policy and the State.
 
Further, the research explores the governance roles of NGO’s and CBO’s, who in the absence of overarching national frameworks for dealing or contending with the past, sometimes act to fill political vacui. Such actors are often funded by highly bureaucratic donors and embedded in cosmopolitan frameworks and must as such negotiate interpellations of local, national, and supranational discursive paradigms, practices and policies.
 
In investigating both these nexuses of ‘memory politics’ we open up a new field for the sociology of policy instrumentation and public administration. This would entail investigations into: who are the actors with in the State and society organizations who happen to be in charge of “memory” but also what kind of policy processes are explicitly engaging, and engaged in, the field of memory (e.g. education, museums, state commemorations and reparations) as well as policy processes where memory dimensions are more implicitly engaged (e.g. geography/urban planning, immigration).
 
So the starting point for this research collective is to develop and apply a methodology for studying formations of collective memories and public policies together, and moreover to incorporate institutions seriously into the analysis – to analyze how policy becomes practices, is produced by practices, or co-produces practices (in relation to complexes of collective memory).
 
Proposal dealing more specifically with the following issues will be encouraged:
 
–       Historical examinations of, the dual rise of ‘Memory Boom’ and ‘New Public Management’ as they impact each other in new practices of state and society.
–       Diverging convergences of Memory Studies and New Public Management
–       Explorations of the governance roles of civil society organizations, in policy processes of evoking and invoking the past.
–       Methodologies reflexions for studying administrations of memory
–       Theoretical dialogue between memory studies and policy analysis
–       From Competitive Commemoration to Commemorative Commiseration: European comparisons, especially about the evocation of WW1 and WW2.
–       The articulation of the contemporary transformations of the State and the evolution of memory, notably in relation to post-colonial societies and to multiculturalism
–       Migration, multiculturalism and multidirectional memory policies
–       Partition between explicit and implicit public policies of memory
–       The instruments of public policies of memory
–       The estimation of publics policies of memory success or failure
–       What are the publics of public policy of memory ?
–       Bureaucracy, politics of affect and politics without policy
–       Memory policies and polities of the Future : what about time ?

Partners
Aarhus University, Department of Communication and Culture, Research Unit in Comparative Memory Studies Copenhagen University, Centre for Resolution of International Conflicts Institut de Sciences sociales du Politique (CNRS – UPOND) Labex “Les Passés dans le Présent” Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense

Basic information:
Deadline: 15-07-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Sara Dybris McQuaid, Sarah Gensburger
E-mail: engsdm@cc.au.dk
Deadline: 20-07-2016
Location: -

Description

Open Theology invites submissions for the topical issue "Alternative Religiosities in the Soviet Union and the Communist East-Central Europe: Formations, Resistances and Manifestations", under the general editorship of Dr. Rasa Pranskevičiūtė and Dr. Eglė Aleknaitė (Vytautas Magnus University).

Description
After the boom of traditional religions (i. e. prevailing national religions or those that have a relatively long history in a particular country) and alternative religious movements (i. e. religious movements that offer an alternative to the traditional religion(s) in a particular country) in post-communist/post-socialist countries, the religion(s) of this area have gained increasing scholarly attention. Research on the religious situation during the prior communist/socialist period is primarily focused on restrictions placed on traditional religions and their survival strategies, while the corresponding phenomena of the alternative religious of that time still lack proper analysis. 
The special issue invites papers that address alternative religiosities in the communist/socialist countries up to 1990. Due to Soviet control, they mostly existed underground and could remain only if expressed clandestinely. Beside the officially-established Soviet culture, connected with the Communist Party's aim to control all aspects of the public sphere, there was an unofficial cultural field that was very receptive to the arrival, formation, spread and expressions of diverse alternative religiosities and spiritualities. The disappointment with the existing narrowness of the official communist ideology and the loss of the absolute allegiance to it led to the formation and rise of unofficial socio-cultural alternatives within the system. The underground activities, including access to alternative spiritual and esoteric ideas and practices, generally existed in parallel, or even jointly, with the official culture and institutions.
Eligible topics
We invite religious scholars, historians, anthropologists, as well as authors representing other disciplines, to submit both empirical and theoretical papers including, but not limited to the following topics:
Networks and inter-community connections
Flows of ideas within the Soviet Union and communist East-Central Europe and from the outside
Centers and peripheries of the milieu of alternative religiosity in the region
Politics and actions of the regime towards alternative religiosity
Restrictions, repressions and survival strategies of practitioners of alternative religiosity
Milieu of alternative religiosity as a space of resistance
Relationships of communities of alternative religiosity with dominant religious traditions
Theoretical frameworks and methodological problems in research on alternative religiosities within the Soviet Union and the communist East-Central European region


Authors publishing their articles in the special issue will benefit from:
transparent, comprehensive and fast peer review
efficient route to fast-track publication and full advantage of De Gruyter  Open’s e-technology,
no publication fees,
free language assistance for authors from non-English speaking regions.
Guidelines for submission
Submissions are due July 20, 2016. To submit an article for the special issue of Open Theology, authors are asked to access the on-line submission system at: http://www.editorialmanager.com/openth/.

Please choose as article type: “Special Issue Article: Alternative Religiosities”. Before submission the authors should carefully read over the Instruction for Authors, available at: http://www.degruyter.com/view/supplement/s23006579_Instruction_for_Authors.pdf.

All contributions will undergo critical review before being accepted for publication.

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 20-07-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Open Theology
E-mail: Rasa.Pranskeviciute@degruyteropen.com
Website: http://www.editorialmanager.com/openth/default.aspx
Project / event type: conference / symposium
Organiser: NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Stu

CfP: Missing Memorials and Absent Bodies: Negotiating Post-conflict Trauma and Memorialisation

Deadline: 01-08-2016
Location: Netherlands

Description

Proposal submissions are welcomed towards this symposium, which will take place on September 20, 2016 at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The event will focus on the impact of absence on mourning work, memorialisation and commemoration, and the implications this bears for effective reconciliation. Drawing on memory, conflict and cultural studies, the area foci will include, but will not be limited to, the Balkans, Central and West Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America. In turn, the symposium will consider the following questions: 

How is mourning work enacted in the absence of a (complete) body?
How is memorialisation practised in the absence of a memorial site?
How is trauma and postmemory addressed in the absence of mutual acknowledgement?
How is absence represented in the cultural archive?
In addition, proposals should respond to the following themes:

Missing bodies;
Absent sites and ruins;
Acknowledgement and reparations;
Space, place and mapping;
Postmemory and multidirectional memory;
Trauma and post-war recovery.
Submissions from scholars, researchers, art practitioners and activists with a focus on memory, trauma, heritage, and/or transitional justice, will be welcomed equally.

Lastly, funds are available to cover the cost of a return travel ticket and an overnight stay for presenters travelling to and from Amsterdam.

Please submit a title, an abstract of 500 words, and a brief bio, by August 1, 2016 to Luisa Gandolfo (k.luisa.gandolfo@abdn.ac.uk).

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 01-08-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Luisa Gandolfo
E-mail: k.luisa.gandolfo@abdn.ac.uk
Project / event type: conference / symposium
Organiser: Historian Guild Association

CfP: Poznan-Budapest-1956. International conference for young researchers

Deadline: 01-08-2016
Location: Pecs, Hungary

Description

At 2016. October 13-14th the Historian Guild Association (Történészcéh Egyesület) in Hungary hosts an international conference connected to the 60th anniversary of the events in Poznan and Budapest in 1956. The organizers welcome the application of BA/BsC, MA/MsC, PhD and Post-Doc students and researchers. Every presentation has to fit in a 15 minutes long time limit. The language of the conference is English. In the future the organizers planning to publish a conference book.
The organizers wait for applications in the following topic, which will be the planned sections of the conference too:
 Destalinization in Poland and Hungary
 1956 in the World politics
 1956 and the immigration
 Punishment after 1956
 The memory of 1956 in Poland and Hungary
 Compare of Budapest and Poznan in 1956
Every section will have an invited keynote lecture and followed by three presentations.
The organizers will provide accommodation, lunch and dinner during the conference and sightseeing in Pécs.
For application please send an at least 2500 characters long resume and a short (5-8 sentences long) bio. The extended deadline for application is: 1st of August in 2016. Please send the applications to the following organizers at the same time: Dr. Tomasz Pudłocki: tomaszpudlocki@hoga.pl and Zsolt Máté: zsolt.mate@hotmail.com The subject of the e-mail have to be: 1956 conference in Pecs. The organizers will inform every applicant by 1st of August. If It is requested, for accepted applicants the organizers can provide invitation letters for scholarships to participate.

Partners
Jagiellonian University, University of Pecs, Embassy of the Republic of Poland; Történész Céh Egyesület; PTE Student Council, PTE Faculty of Humanities, PTE Interdisciplinary Doctoral School

Basic information:
Deadline: 01-08-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Dr. Tomasz Pudłocki,
E-mail: tomaszpudlocki@hoga.pl
Project / event type: workshops
Organiser: The Robert Bosch Stiftung

CfA: Berlin Seminar – Truth, Justice and Remembrance

Deadline: 15-08-2016
Location: Berlin, Germany

Description

Berlin Seminar – Truth, Justice and Remembrance
 
November 26 - December 8, 2016
 
The Robert Bosch Stiftung is pleased to announce its international Seminar on Truth, Justice and Remembrance. The seminar will take place in Berlin, Germany. The program facilitates cross-regional learning about dealing with the past in different societal contexts. Participants are equipped with the knowledge, tools and leadership skills necessary to facilitate and bring about meaningful progress on truth, justice, and remembrance in their societies during and after conflict.
 
This unique two-week seminar brings together 25 actors from (post-) conflict societies from all over the world, all of whom work on remembrance, the politics of memory, and documentation and truth-finding during and in the aftermath of conflicts.
 
The Berlin Seminar provides participants with the opportunity
to learn more about Dealing with the Past in Germany with a focus on the Nazi regime and the communist regime in the GDR as well as the ensuing public discourses;
to exchange best practices with participants from other post-conflict societies;
to work intensely on the challenges they face in their own work, organizations and societies through professional facilitation as well as through peer consultation;
to strengthen their leadership skills and to develop strategies for self-management and self-care. 
 
The program includes visits to different sites of memory and meetings with representatives from politics, civil society and media, witnesses and experts as well as advanced application workshops with selected German institutions and individuals. The program will furthermore include sessions on leadership development and systemic analysis, and offers space to discuss and reflect on the learnings in an international group from different (post-)conflict societies.
 
Robert Bosch Stiftung invites interested candidates to submit their application under the following link by August 15, 2016.
 
APPLY NOW: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSemtXidsXWwQT-uw9ESpl78IhALcd4VfLsaZ_otikwQfXzpXA/viewform?usp=send_form
 
To be considered for the program, candidates will have to meet the following criteria:
 
The program is targeted at mid-career and senior staff working for civil society organizations, government bodies and media institutions with relevant work experience in the field of dealing with the past. Practitioners, activists and experts from (post-) conflict societies directly involved in peace processes are especially encouraged to apply.
Have very good English skills in order to participate in group discussions and to write a short reflection paper.
Be open to a comparative and participatory learning experience: Participants are expected to actively engage with participants from other countries, to consult to each other on challenges they face in their home contexts, and to share reflections and lessons learned within the group.
 
Prior knowledge about Germany is not required.
 
Robert Bosch Stiftung will cover travel to and from Germany, accommodation and other related costs for local travel, lunches and drinks.

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 15-08-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Ms. Patricia Degueldre
E-mail: patricia.degueldre@bosch-stiftung.de
Website: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSemtXidsXWwQT-uw9ESpl78IhALcd4VfLsaZ_otikwQfXzpXA/viewform?usp=send_form
Project / event type: conference / symposium
Organiser: ARTIS – Institute of History of Art, School of Art

CfP: Preserving transcultural heritage: your way or my way?

Deadline: 31-08-2016
Location: Lisbon

Description

DEADLINE:  31 August 2016
The ARTIS – Institute of History of Art, School of Arts and Humanities of the University of Lisbon and the ICOMOS Portugal are pleased to invite all the researchers, specialists and other stakeholders involved in the process of safeguarding of architectural heritage created in the meeting of cultures, to participate in the International Congress Preserving transcultural heritage: your way or my way?, which will take place in Lisbon, between 05 and 08 July 2017.
Paper and poster proposals are welcome until 31 August 2016. Please submit your paper or poster by sending the proposal to the email congress.artis@letras.ulisboa.pt (see the submission guidelines below). The proposals will be selected by the session organisers and the Scientific Committee on the basis of the following criteria: relevance, innovation, scientific quality and theme of the session. On 15 September proposers will be notified regarding acceptance of their paper or poster and will receive further instructions.
The organisation encourages multidisciplinary and international research on the safeguarding of transcultural heritage (architecture, urbanism, archaeology, landscapes and decorative arts in built heritage).

Sessions
Session 1: Heritage values and management of African and American historic cities and sites with European influences
Session 2: Transcultural heritage, musealisation and memory: preservation of the Indigenous minorities’ heritage in Americas and in the Pacific region formerly under Western rule
Session 3: Contextualizing the (un)wanted: tourism and management of the architecture of totalitarian regimes in Europe
Session 4: Globalisation as generator of new transcultural heritages: preserving migrants’ architectural heritage
Session 5: Greeks, Romans and Byzantines in the Mediterranean region and Near East: guarding transcultural remains containing ancient classical influences
Session 6: Preserving shared heritage along the Silk Road, a major creator of cultural encounters
Session 7: Memories to remember and (not) forget: slaves’ heritage outside their homelands
Session 8: The “Indian melting pot” for religions and cultures: challenges concerning transcultural heritage preservation
Session 9: West versus East: differences and difficulties to the conservation of their shared heritage (European colonies in Far East / “Asiantowns” in the West)
Session 10: The discovery of ancient cultures: safeguarding of native architectural heritage in European colonies
Session 11: Religious, political and ideological fanaticisms as destroyers of “different” heritages throughout History
Session 12: European heritage as Imperialist statements in colonies: (un)desirable memories whish must be protected or to be forgotten?
Session 13: Between Far East and the Indian Sea: Indochinese and Insulindian cultures (influences, fusions and heritage safeguarding)
Session 14: The Ottoman Empire in the crossroad between Europe, Asia and Africa: fusion of cultures and heritages to preserve
Session 15: Questions, controversies, idiosyncrasies and case studies on authenticity between different cultures, when focusing the safeguarding of transcultural architectural heritage
Session 16: Should be followed or ignored? Reception of European heritage theories within non-Western cultures
Session 17: Safeguarding of architectural heritage belonging to ethnic and religious minorities inside countries with dominant cultures
Session 18: Other relevant themes

SUBMISSION  GUIDELINES
Download the submission template, and fill it with the following data:
Paper or poster?
Name of the session (only for papers)
Title of the paper, with 15 words maximum;
Abstract with 250 words maximum;
Three to five keywords;
Personal data (name, professional affiliation, mail and email addresses, and telephone contact of the authors);
The acceptance notification for submitted papers and posters will be known by 15 September 2016. After being accepted, preliminary versions of paper texts and poster drafts should be submitted until 30 November 2016, for peer-review.
For further questions, please contact the organisation. Download here the pdf of the call for papers and posters.

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 31-08-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: ARTIS – Institute of History of Art, School of Art
E-mail: congress.artis@letras.ulisboa.pt
Website: https://congressartis.wordpress.com/papers/
Project / event type: fellowships / grants
Organiser: International Visegrad Fund

Visegrad Grants

Deadline: 01-09-2016
Location: -

Description

The fund’s longest running grant program is the backbone of our grant support suitable for longer-term projects (up to 12 months) with mid-size budgets (min. support is €6,001).

Projects get financed in two tranches and the fund’s share in total budget cannot exceed 80%. €2.2 million used to be disbursed twice a year on March 15 and September 15, but newly as of May 2016, proposals are accepted quarterly—by March 1, June 1, September 1 and December 1.

Any original proposal could be granted support provided it links individuals or institutions from at least 3 V4 countries and develops project activities in the fields of culture, science and research, education, youth exchanges, cross-border cooperation (bi-/trilateral projects possible), and tourism promotion.

More information: http://visegradfund.org/grants/standard-grants/

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 01-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: International Visegrad Fund
E-mail: viseg­rad­fund@visegradfund.org
Website: http://visegradfund.org/grants/standard-grants/
Project / event type: publication
Organiser: Slavic Review

CfP: The 100-year anniversary of the Russian revolutions

Deadline: 10-09-2016
Location: -

Description

CALL FOR PAPERS : The 100-year anniversary of the Russian revolutions

Slavic Review Special Fall 2017 Issue

Deadline : September 10, 2016

Social protest movements across the political spectrum and the globe indicate
the continuing importance of the 1917 Russian revolutions. For a special Fall
2017 issue of Slavic Review we seek short essays not previously published that
draw on original scholarly research. The essays should provide a significant
new interpretative and analytic framework for the concept of revolution
generally and particularly on the global impact of the 1917 events in the short
and long term, in Russia and Eastern Europe and beyond, and their extended
repercussions and legacy to the present day across national boundaries and
realms of human endeavor.  All disciplines are welcome. Manuscripts (in
English) should highlight the conceptual impact and analytic and interpretative
themes of the work.

Papers will be 3000 words maximum, not including notes. Abstracts of a few
sentences must be submitted by September 10, 2016 to the editor at
slavrev@illinois.edu; those given the green light must be developed into papers
by November 10, 2016. (This leaves time for review and rewriting for a final
deadline of early February 2017).

Slavic Review is an international interdisciplinary journal devoted to the
study of eastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, past and
present. The journal publishes articles of original and significant research
and interpretation, reviews of scholarly books and films, and topical review
essays and discussion forums. Submissions from all disciplines and perspectives
are welcomed. A primary purpose of the journal is to encourage dialogue among
different scholarly approaches. Published since 1941, Slavic Review is the
membership journal of the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian
Studies (ASEEES, formerly AAASS). Articles are peer-reviewed and editorial
policy is guided by an international editorial board.

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 10-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Slavic Review
E-mail: slavrev@illinois.edu
Website: http://www.slavicreview.illinois.edu/
Project / event type: conference / symposium
Organiser: POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews

CfP: Museums and Their Publics at Sites of Conflicted History

Deadline: 15-09-2016
Location: POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, 6 Anielewicza St, Warsaw, Poland

Description

International conference, 13-15 March 2017
POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, Warsaw, Poland
 

Museums of history face a particular challenge in societies that have experienced conflict and violence in recent memory, radical geopolitical and ideological change, and socio-economic and technological challenges. Multiple and rival historical perspectives characterize the dynamics of public memory in these societies. Differing narratives of the past are told either in parallel, or appear in open conflict with each other, while memories still hidden and silent await their midwives for their public articulation at the right juncture.

Divided memories are characteristic of post-communist Europe and in other regions that have experienced totalitarian regimes, wars, mass violence (ethnic cleansing, population transfers), radical border changes, and other disruptions. The present day brings additional tensions: liberal democratic societies in the West are called on to respond to global crises, the massive population shifts that ensue, and creation of new national and ethnic minorities within multinational and ethnonational states. In some societies, attempts at expanding democracy and human rights, through such mechanisms as truth and reconciliation commissions, bring new waves of difficult knowledge into public circulation, challenging long-held national narratives enshrined both on the walls of major museums and in the minds of many visitors.

The purpose of this conference is to explore these issues in relation to the changing character and role of museums today. POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw is a prime site for such a conference, given the complex history it presents. While seeking to offer an authoritative historical account, without it being authoritarian, museums such as POLIN offer an open narrative in multiple voices and invite the public to play an active part in interpreting historical processes and events. The exhibition itself, using a variety of media, offers an experience that is at once thought provoking, sensory, emotional, and memorable. Projects and events such as performances, workshops, debates, and lectures invite the public to add their experiences and voices. Curating historical narratives is thus a collaborative, inclusive, and dynamic process.

Museums have a responsibility to those whose story they tell, as well as to their publics and stakeholders. As institutions of public history, they aim to build lasting relationships with their audiences, both local and international. This is especially important in post-communist and postconflict societies, where museums can play important roles in building a robust civil society and in bringing history – and historical debate – into the public domain.

The conference will explore the role of museums in negotiating new public histories in societies in transition, as old narratives and historical policies are questioned and stories once silenced are given voice. Of special interest is how the historical narratives constructed in museums help to shape new social relations in a dynamically changing present.

Scholars in various disciplines (anthropology, sociology, history, memory studies, museology, art history, and political science, among others) and museum professionals, including curators and museum educators, are invited to discuss the role of museums in negotiating contested histories in relation to their publics.

Send abstracts, maximum 300 words, and short bio to: GEOP@polin.pl

Deadline: 15th of September 2016.

Academic Committee:

Professor Bruce Altshuler (New York University)
Professor Annie E. Coombes (Birkbeck University of London)
Professor Dorota Folga-Januszewska (International Council of Museums)
Professor Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (POLIN Museum, Chair)
Dr. Gabriel Koureas (Birkbeck University of London)
Dr. hab. Iwona Kurz (University of Warsaw)
Professor Erica Lehrer (Concordia University)
Dr. Małgorzata Pakier (POLIN Museum, Conference Convener)

The conference is organized within the Global Education Outreach Program.

The conference was made possible thanks to the support of the Taube Foundation for Jewish Life & Culture, the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation, and the Association of the Jewish Historical Institute of Poland.

Partners
Concordia University, Canada Research Chairs, Birkbeck University of London, Institute of Polish Culture University of Warsaw, NYU Graduate School of Arts & Science Program in Museum Studies

Basic information:
Location: POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, 6 Anielewicza St, Warsaw, Poland
Deadline: 15-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Global Education Outreach Program
E-mail: GEOP@polin.pl
Website: http://www.polin.pl/en/conference-museums-and-their-publics
Project / event type: conference / symposium
Organiser: Youth Alliance-Krusevo

14th International Youth Conference “European Values for the Future of the of Southeastern European countries”

Deadline: 15-09-2016
Location: Krusevо, Republic of Macedonia

Description

Deadline:  15th of September 2016

Who can apply: young leaders aged 18-30  from 16 countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, France, Greece, Germany, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey)

Venue: 22nd to 26th of September 2016, Krusevо, Republic of Macedonia

Description:

Dear friends, supporters and collaborates,

On behalf of Youth Alliance-Krusevo, it is our pleasure to invite you on our 14th International Youth Conference “European Values for the Future of the of Southeastern European countries”.
The International Youth Conference  brings together the most valuable young leaders, workers and activists  from the region for the past 14 years.  If you are  with a passion for SEE regional issues and a track record of making a significant impact, we welcome you to apply to attend on the Conference.

The application form is available on our web site. You can find the application on the following link: http://www.krusevoconference.org.mk/application.php

You can find this year program on the following link: http://krusevoconference.org.mk/c.php?cID=159

Regarding the selection criteria, applicant’s background and her/his interest for participation on the Conference will be very essential. One of the main selection principle that will be evaluated are their opinions reflected on the essays.  
Also we will respect the rule "first come – first served”.

From this year the conference has provided two opportunities concerning the participation: attend on a scholarship ( 58 selected applicants with covered participation fee by the project); attend independently ( selected applicants with independent funding  of the participation fee).

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 15-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Youth Alliance-Krusevo
E-mail: conference2016@krusevoconference.org.mk
Website: https://www.facebook.com/YouthConferenceKrusevo
Project / event type: conference / symposium
Organiser: Princeton University

CfP: Transnational relations between Eastern Europe/Russia-USSR and the Middle East, late 19th century to 1991

Deadline: 15-09-2016
Location: USA

Description

Transnational relations between Eastern Europe/Russia-USSR and the Middle East, late 19th century to 1991

Period: 10-11 February 2017 
Deadline for submitting abstracts: 15 September 2016

Description of the Event
Histories of Eastern Europe [EE]/Russia – Middle East [ME] transnational relations form a relative lacuna in the scholarship on both regions; most extant work centers on Russia/USSR, and/or the Cold War, and/or state actors; and few scholars of various subfields are in conversation. Moreover, such relations are a useful laboratory to explore conceptual questions for studying transnational history.
A principal reason concerns space.

This is the case, centrally, because EE/Russia-USSR and the ME are, broadly speaking, neighbors. To be sure, especially in the globally interconnected modern period geographical distance is not directly correlated with sociopolitical distance. Even so, proximity still matters in some ways and some fields - doubly because crucial pre-World War I imperial realities complicated it in fascinating ways.

We may ask: (How) has the fact that both bits of Eastern Europe and of the Middle East were Ottoman mattered even after the late 19th century? What about the modern echoes and effects of long-standing Russian interest in, and contacts with, ‘the Middle East’ (think as far back as early medieval Russophone Scandinavian visits to Constantinople and, more famously, of Moscow as ‘the Third Rome’ after Constantinople’s fall)? Do twentieth-century transnational ties take on (a) particular form(s) and meaning(s) in such historically deeply grounded ‘neighborly’ realities?

Related, could parallel, linked, or overlapping EE/Russian-Soviet-ME trajectories allow new interpretations of modern developments that touched both (bits of) EE/ Russia-USSR and of the ME? Think, for example, of the non-aligned movement of the 1950s/60s – could one see its (south) EE members (Yugoslavia) and ME members as (re)-creating a Eastern Mediterranean space?

Lastly, and to add one more layer: (how) does it matter that in some sense both the terms ‘Eastern Europe’ and ‘the Middle East’ – though not their complex reality tout court – were constructed relative to one and the same third region, (Western) Europe? Could one see them, jointly, as a double – or even linked up – periphery? What would such a view mean, both from the linked ME/EE-Russian-Soviet and from Western European perspectives? What is certain is that for the latter, the two were and continue to be both close and – only seemingly a paradox – an ‘other:’ Eastern Europe/Russia and the Middle East were two of the “three borders … identified” during Europe’s cultural construction (Bo Stråth, “Insiders and Outsiders,” in Stefan Berger, Companion to 19th-Century Europe, 4]).


Guidelines for submission

They are interested in applications that have a firm empirical grounding and make a clear conceptual contribution, taking into questions of space such as those outlined above. Historians, as well as other scholars in the humanities, are encouraged to apply.

Application: Send a paper title, an abstract of max. 300 words, and a brief CV by 15 September 2016 to schayegh@princeton.edu.

Partners
Part of a Université de Genève/Princeton University partnership grant co-directed by Sandrine Kott (UNIGE) and Cyrus Schayegh (PU).

Basic information:
Deadline: 15-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Princeton University
E-mail: schayegh@princeton.edu
Deadline: 15-09-2016
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Description

A troubled and segmented East-European history has given rise to a troubled and segmented museum history. Museums in Central and Eastern Europe have found themselves, time and again, faced with difficult and uncomfortable choices. Immediately after the Second World War, museums had to update their exhibitions in order to narrate radically different stories. One of the major changes also included exhibiting the socialist present, such as the accomplishments of the regime, and the recent past: the violent, revolutionary coming to power of communist parties all over Eastern Europe became part of the permanent exhibition of local and national museums. Museums also had to literally hide entire collections that were suddenly found inappropriate. After the fall of communism, these collections were brought back to museum halls (although much of their history, documentation and context had been lost) and it was time for the communist collections to become bothersome and thus be hidden or even destroyed.

The workshop seeks to explore the specificities of reaction to political and social change in the context of museums and heritage sites. Museums could be considered in terms of their historiographic and political foundations, as the outcome of mobilizations of a wide variety of actors who have contributed to their creation or their dismantling (museum professionals, architects, academics, public historians, victims’ associations and other cultural brokers). In some contexts, the heritage process has contributed to a discursive criminalisation of previous regimes – for instance the transformation of detention centres in museums or memory sites. In others, it has facilitated implicit forms of rehabilitation, under the guise of commercially exploiting the legacy – architectural, artistic, political – of the former regime. Finally, a significant number of museums and memory sites were faced with the challenge and task of reinvesting their collections with a new meaning and a new narrative, framed in new historiographies and nation-building projects.

Within this framework, our workshop will bring together contributions that respond to one or more of the following aspects, relating to the central concern on whether museum displays and heritage sites have been remade to conform to new scientific and political narratives/ agendas:

-	will examine case-studies of metamorphoses of East-European museums and built heritage during the Cold War and in post-communism.
-	will discuss whether museums are sometimes in the vanguard of social and political change or are they merely reacting to societal transformations.
-	will analyse how museums and heritage sites have been mobilized to qualify, and at times to criminalize the socialist period
-	will seek to highlight the emergence and circulation of heritage models at national, regional and trans-regional levels, evident in the museums established in former detention centres, in the management of heritage assets related to past dictatorial regimes, and in the reconfigurations of exhibitions in museums around the area. 
-	will expand the debate by bringing case-studies of transnational processes going beyond the European borders (with a particular interest in Latin America)
-	will bring theoretical and methodological insights into the study of processes of heritage-making from a transnational perspective.

Please submit 300-word abstracts and a short bio (in English or in French) to reluctantheritage@gmail.com by September 15th. The successful participants will be notified by September 20th. 

While the conference will be bilingual, in English and French, no simultaneous translation will be provided. 

Funds are available to cover the expenses (travel or accommodation) for a limited number of participants. Please indicate in your paper proposal whether you will be seeking this funding.

Convenors:
Gruia Bădescu, University of Oxford
Simina Bădică, the National Museum of the Romanian Peasant
Nelly Bekus, University of Exeter
Damiana Oțoiu, University of Bucharest

Partners
- Museums and Controversial Collections. Politics and Policies of Heritage-Making in Post-Colonial and Post-socialist Contexts project of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2368, New Europe College, Bucharest. - AHRC (Care for the Future) - LABEX Pasts in the Present joint funded project The Criminalization of Dictatorial Pasts in Europe and Latin America in Global Perspective, University of Exeter and Institut des Sciences Sociales du Politique, Paris. - Political Science Department, University of Bucharest.

Basic information:
Deadline: 15-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: CEREFREA Villa Noël, University of Bucharest
E-mail: reluctantheritage@gmail.com
Project / event type: workshops
Organiser: Utrecht University

1989 and the West. New Perspectives on the Consequences of the End of the Cold War

Deadline: 15-09-2016
Location: Utrecht (the Netherlands)

Description

1989 and the West. New Perspectives on the Consequences of the End of the Cold War

Utrecht (the Netherlands), Department of History, 20-21 April 2017

 

The research group International and Political History at Utrecht University convenes a workshop on the theme ‘1989 and the West. New Perspectives on the Consequences of the End of the Cold War’.

By: Eleni Braat and Pepijn Corduwener

Deadline for proposals: 15 September 2016

 

Description:

This workshop aims to offer new perspectives on how the end of the Cold War affected and formed the states of Western Europe. The European continent seems strained by enduring political divisions between East and West, putting their distinctiveness again at the top of the political agenda, ranging from international orientation; domestic party politics; the role of migration; intelligence and security politics; to the politics of nationalism.

 

A major historical question in the field of political history and international relations history has been how the transformations resulting from the end of the Cold War have changed the political map of Europe. Most of the scholarly attention has in this regard been devoted to the former Eastern bloc, and has sought to understand how the end of the Cold War affected the countries from the Baltic to the Adriatic. Often, this has been understood in terms of the eastern halve of the continent finally ‘joining’ Europe, meaning the West. Yet Europe’s western halve was by no means a ‘static’ model whose domestic and international systems were unaffected by the end of the Cold War.

 

The ‘end of history’ thesis which saw the end of the Cold War in terms of a Western victory has long been questioned, but no overarching narrative has replaced it, leaving the question still open on how the end of the Cold War affected the West. This workshop is dedicated to that question. Most obviously, the Fall of the Berlin Wall brought an end to the existence of Western European communist parties; gave a stimulus to European integration; changed the balance of power in the European Union; altered the face of social democracy; and caused an overhaul of the intelligence and security apparatus. Yet also other, and less obvious, dimensions of the consequences of the end of the Cold War for the West, for instance regarding the politics of migration; the rise of populism; the ‘normalization’ of nationalism and the prominence of neoliberalism might be explored.

 

Aim:

This workshop seeks to bring together scholars working in various disciplines of the social sciences, including political history, history of international relations, political science and public administration, in all stages of their careers. The workshop is intended to establish close contacts and international cooperation among scholars working on the consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall for the West. The workshop is with emphasis intended to discuss papers at an advanced stage. Publication of a special issue is intended.

 

Submission guidelines:

We invite paper proposals based on original research that offer new accounts of the creation of Western Europe as a distinctive entity after the Cold War. Topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

 

-    The changing face of nationalism

-    The position of Germany in Europe

-    European integration

-    Domestic party systems and the rise of populism

-    Social movements in the West

-    Intelligence and security policies in the West

-    Social Democracy and the Third Way

-    The politics of neoliberalism

-    Migration

 

Please submit your abstract (max. 200 words) and a short bio to E.C.Braat@uu.nl or P.Corduwener@uu.nl by 15 September 2016. All abstract should include a paper title, author name(s) and affiliation(s), professional status, and contact details. Notification of paper acceptance will be given by end-September.

Partners
The research group International and Political History at Utrecht University

Basic information:
Deadline: 15-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Dr. Eleni Braat
E-mail: E.C.Braat@uu.nl
Project / event type: workshops
Organiser: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus

Workshops: Palestine in World War II – A Reappraisal

Deadline: 15-09-2016
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

Description

The 3rd international workshop of the ERC project “Experience, Judgement, and Representation of World War II in an Age of Globalization” aims to historicize the case of Palestine during WWII. Although an extensively researched subject matter, comprising studies on British imperial strategy, war history, Jewish volunteering, and Arab reactions in the face of the Allied and Axis powers, a wider and more integrated picture of the historical constellations emerging from a proper historical distance seems increasingly mandatory. Viewed against the backdrop of an understanding of WWII as a global and densely interrelated event, the organizers intend to probe the complex entanglement of continental and colonial affairs, while scrutinizing questions of the various particularities of awareness, historiography and narration.

The unique political-topographical constellation of Mandatory Palestine during the war urges a focus on the following aspects:
- the strategic importance of the Middle East and North Africa as a secondary frontline of the war compared to its continental core,
- the impact of the British imperial defense perimeter granting Palestine and the further Middle East the possibility to escape direct battlefield experiences as well as the fate of falling victim to Axis occupation,
- the impact of the war on the conflict-ridden domain of a contested territory between Jewish-national claims and Arab determinations to refuse – meshing the war with the struggle in Palestine and/or separating it from that struggle,
- the perception of the war from various Arab and Jewish perspectives and in different phases – principally, the time frame before and after the crucial battle of El-Alamein, 
- the perception of the war seen against the backdrop of different ideologies and crucial former events – foremost WWI as well as interwar experiences,
- the fall-out of the war in dominant national-Jewish narrations: the historiosophical meaning of Palestine as Eretz Israel in Jewish consciousness in relation to the focus on the mass extermination of the Jews perpetuated by the Nazis.

Overall the workshop seeks to “reintegrate” WWII as a crucial event into the history of Jewish Palestine, while taking the experience of Arab Palestine as well as the British view into account – addressing epistemological and moral questions concerning comprehension, memory and judgement of the war and its repercussions.

Paper proposals should include a title, an abstract (not exceeding two pages), institutional affiliation and contact information. Please submit proposals to kobi.kabalek@mail.huji.ac.il by September 15, 2016.

Travel costs (economy class) and the costs of accommodation in Jerusalem (3 nights) will be covered for workshop participants from abroad. Accommodation in Jerusalem will be covered for local participants upon request.

Dr. Kobi Kabalek, Postdoctoral Research Fellow 
Iris Nachum, Academic Coordinator

ERC Project “JudgingHistories”
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 15-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Kobi Kabalek
E-mail: kobi.kabalek@mail.huji.ac.il
Project / event type: conference / symposium
Organiser: ACLA

CFP: ACLA-Panel: Secret Police Files and their Afterlife

Deadline: 23-09-2016
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Description

CFP: ACLA-Panel: Secret Police Files and their Afterlife, Utrecht 2017
Deadline: 23.09.2016
Proposed Seminar for the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Comparative Literature Association (ACLA) in Utrecht, The Netherlands (July 6-9, 2017)
Organizers: 
Alison Lewis, University of Melbourne
Valentina Glajar, Texas State University
Corina L. Petrescu, University of Mississippi
Secret police archives are able to illuminate the surveillance methods deployed by the various political or security police services of the former Eastern bloc. Although secret police forces varied greatly in the nature of their record-keeping practices, they all documented their activities--including their human rights abuses--carefully and often in painstaking detail. The records ranged from transcripts of interrogations and intercepted telephone calls, reports of meetings between officers and informants, plans to arrest or charge targets, as well as descriptions of operations to intimidate, harass, and blackmail them. The files also contain many confiscated objects such as letters, manuscripts, and other personal effects. The secret police forces collected information on so-called “security objects” or “targets,” opening files on virtually all areas of society, including writers’ organizations, and literary and artistic undergrounds. They also kept files on specific individuals who they deemed warranted special, targeted surveillance. In particular it is the personal files that offer instructive insights into the existence of those whose lives were most affected by the secret police. If we read these secret police files like we read literary texts, we discover that they contain extensive narratives of lives—secret, shocking, disturbing, even gripping accounts—“file stories” (Glajar). We can read them for plot, character development, or for turning points and denouements in the narrative. Or we can read them exclusively for endings—for an arrest, a sentence, a fine or a coerced agreement to collaborate. And importantly, files do not merely record lives; they impinge and impact on them in real ways as they tell their stories. They are a form of writing that leaves indelible traces on the lives of its subjects.
We invite paper proposals that address but are not limited to the following topics relating to secret police files: 
- Writers and intellectuals and the secret police; second generation dealing with the legacy of their parents’ collaboration or victimization 
- Mea culpa texts 
- Filmic and literary representations; (street) theater performances based on files 
- The process of censorship; the censors 
- Books and manuscripts smuggled to the West; the backstories 
- Spies, double-agents, informers, and collaborators 
- Writers’ organizations and undergrounds 
- The “social elevator” phenomenon as a consequence of successful collaboration
- Minorities and subcultures under surveillance 
- The role of informers as translators 
- Exposing collaborators and the legal ramifications 
- The challenges of using secret police files in life writing
Please submit 300-word proposals for twenty-minute papers through the ACLA portal (http://acla.org/seminars) during the submission period (Sept. 1 – Sept. 23). Interested individuals are encouraged to contact the seminar organizers by email with inquiries. Seminar organizers will review all submitted papers and propose their rosters to the ACLA by Sept. 30. The ACLA Program Committee will review all submitted seminars for consideration for inclusion in the program in October.

Partners
Alison Lewis, University of Melbourne; Valentina Glajar, Texas State University; Corina L. Petrescu, University of Mississippi

Basic information:
Deadline: 23-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Valentina Glajar
E-mail: glajar@txstate.edu
Website: http://www.acla.org/secret-police-files-and-their-afterlife
Project / event type: workshops
Organiser: Gabriel Naudé Centre of the Ecole nationale supéri

CFP: Where are the libraries that were looted by the Nazis? Identification and restoration: a work in progress

Deadline: 30-09-2016
Location: Bibliothèque nationale de France and the Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France

Description

Call for papers
Where are the libraries that were looted by the Nazis ?
Identification and restoration : a work in progress

The magnitude of the looting due to the Nazi forces during World War II was revealed at the Liberation. Operations aiming at localization, return, and restitution of looted cultural goods were begun, notably in Western Europe, while the Soviet victors — more often than others– reckoned that such goods were legitimate « war trophies » because of the suffering endured. Quickly, all (and especially those who had been looted) were required to « turn the page » as if peace and life had to be accompanied by renouncement and an imposed amnesia. When new historical research made it possible to « remember », the looting of art works was the first to be examined because of its particular symbolic and financial power.

The brutal loots effectuated by the diverse Nazi forces, notably by Alfred Rosenberg’s ERR, in all of occupied Europe touched all forms of expression, including graphic and written documents: books, archives, manuscripts, engravings, etc. At the Nuremberg trials, the French accusation gave an estimate of « ten millions books » seized in countries occupied by Nazi Germany and added that the figure was probably too low. Indeed, it is well underneath reality : In France alone, at least 5 million books, possibly ten, were taken from their legitimate owners by the Nazis during the second world war.

In recent years, historians have studied the logics, proceedings, modes and orders governing these massive looting. Their works have also shown the specificities of the Nazi looting comparing them to those that have usually accompanied the wars of yesterday and today, and the fate of the vanquished. Nazi looting obey, like all others, a logic of war, which is nationalistic, expansionist and politically repressive. However, they are particularly planned in advance, organized, massive, systematic and systemic. They are interested in the archives and libraries of ministries considered strategic, Slavic associations in France, radical groupings and personalities, whether socialist or communist, and especially freemasons. But first and foremost is their link with nazi anti-Semitism.

Starting in mid 1942 and accompanying the beginnings of the “Final Solution”, the books seized concerned thousands of hunted, hidden, imprisoned and deported Jewish families whose private libraries are sent to Germany or abandoned in warehouses after being carefully sorted out. Taking these thousands of family libraries did not correspond to a strategy wishing to enrich German libraries but to the destruction of a culture, in order to accompany the physical elimination of people with the symbolic murder of their minds. These collections were often moved to new locations, during and after the war.

First sent to the Hohe Schule at the Ostbücherei and to numerous Nazis organisms after severe selections in occupied countries and in Germany, they were then sent elsewhere, displaced towards the East of the Great Reich. Annexed countries found certain looted libraries on their territory, while the soviets victors, deciding that it was legitimate to take the collections they found on the ground they conquered, embarked the collections to get behind the iron curtain. The return to democracy at the end of the 1980’s did not always bring the expected restitutions.

There are still many holes in the history of looted collections. Only a part of the documents were restituted — after the war or more recently– to their legitimate owners or to others. Where are the collections that were not restituted? Certain places of detention are known, but the collections were dispersed and traceability is difficult. Is it possible to better know where they now are? How can we invite concerned institutions — or even individuals – to think again about restitution of the collections they still detain? How have these documents been used? Have these collections contributed, paradoxically, during these seventy years to a better understanding of the cultural universe of individuals, or even of countries who suffered such spoliation? Or were the collections merely “things” possessed but not accessible? What has been the policy of countries that, becoming freed from soviet domination, discovered documents that had been looted elsewhere and taken from others? Did the construction of a unified Europe diminish the political use of a cultural good? What do we learn about the intellectual horizons of the legitimate owners? How can we reconstitute this partially lost Europe of the book? Will we be able one day to reconstruct these libraries physically or virtually?

These are some of the questions we will explore during the international colloquium organized by the Gabriel Naudé Centre of the Ecole nationale supérieure des sciences de l’information et des bibliothèques (ENSSIB), the Institut d’histoire du temps présent (IHTP, UMR CNRS Paris VIII), in co-operation with the Bibliothèque nationale de France, to take place in Paris, March 23 and 24, 2017, at the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the Université Paris Diderot.

Résumés (3000 signs /600 words) in French or English to be sent before September 30 2016, to the Comité Scientifique to the following address: martine2.poulain@free.fr

Papers will be given in French or in English. Simultaneously translation will be available.

Members of the Comité scientifique:
Laurence Bertrand Dorléac, professor of art history at Sciences Po
Sophie Coeuré, professor of contemporary history at Université de Paris Diderot
Jean-Marc Dreyfus, reader in Holocaust Studies, Manchester University
Anne Grynberg, professor at l’INALCO, researcher at the Institut d’histoire du temps présent
Jean-Claude Kuperminc, director of the Bibliothèque de l’Alliance Israelite universelle, Commission française des archives juives
Anne Pasquignon, associate to the director of Collections, Bibliothèque nationale de France
Martine Poulain, researcher at the Centre Gabriel Naudé (ENSSIB) and associate of the Institut d’histoire du temps présent
Dominique Trimbur, Foundation for the Memory of the Shoah

Partners
Bibliothèque nationale de France

Basic information:
Deadline: 30-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Comité Scientifique
E-mail: martine2.poulain@free.fr
Project / event type: workshops
Organiser: Rutgers University

Trajectories of Antifascism. Rutgers Workshop

Deadline: 30-09-2016
Location: New Brunswick, NJ, United States

Description

Trajectories of Antifascism, 03.03.2017 - 04.03.2017

Worries abound about a return of fascism. Recently, the New York Times surveyed the growth of nationalist and authoritarian movements in Austria, Russia, Turkey and beyond, to proclaim a “growing debate over global fascism.” In February, a Polish magazine published a front cover showing a white woman assailed by dark-skinned male hands under the headline “The Islamic rape of Europe”. International observers compared the image to Nazi propaganda. “This is how fascism comes to the United States,” declared a recent Washington Post op-ed article about the rise of Donald Trump. These analyses all invoke the history of 1930s Europe in order to uncover suggestive traces of interwar fascism in present day developments. Curiously, debates about fascism make little or no mention of the antifascist global movement that once existed to oppose it. Antifascism has been forgotten as a historical force and discounted as a source of critical thinking about xenophobic and exclusionary politics.

There was a time when antifascism fired the imaginations of men and women around the world. In the 1930s, activists who believed themselves to be part of a global movement for racial and economic justice gathered in linked but diverse communities from Paris and Barcelona to Belgrade and Moscow. Some of Europe’s best known writers convened antifascist congresses and called for the defense of the Enlightenment and humanistic values. Condemnations of “fascist” barbarity inspired anti-Nazi resistance from France and Italy to the furious Soviet war against Germany in the East. But after the war, antifascism appeared to wither. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had dismayed many antifascists. Now, Communist regimes in the East brazenly made the ideal into a weapon they used to consolidate their power and eliminate their enemies. The “anti-fascist protective wall” that divided Berlin is only the most famous example. In the West, a new anti-totalitarian politics imagined the Soviet Union as an equivalent threat to liberal societies and pushed antifascists to the margins. Outside Europe, the Cold War imposed its bifurcated view of the world on struggles for independence and sovereignty, even if the antifascist thought of the 1930s left its mark on anti-colonial and pan-African movements of the postwar, and people and movements in Latin America contributed to the articulation of antifascism over many decades.

Today, antifascism has been largely reduced to an embarrassing memory. A moralizing history of 20th century intellectuals has transformed the lived experience of antifascist activism into biographies of young men and women whose ideological zeal blinded them to the reality of Communist tyranny. Where antifascism lives on is in the symbolic repertoire of marginal “antifa” movements and in the slogans used by Russian nationalists in Moscow and Donetsk to justify acts of aggression in eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, new historical museums across the former East use the idea of “double totalitarianism” to obscure the history of racism, antisemitism, and indeed fascism in their own societies.

Can “antifascism” offer renewed analytic or political potential to scholars and citizens today? The global rise of right-wing nationalism, compounded by the migration crisis in Europe, suggest that the moment has come to reconsider the legacies of antifascism, to chart its varied trajectories across Europe and beyond and to probe their significance for our own time. “Trajectories of Antifascism” is the title of a two-day workshop, organized in cooperation with the German Federal Agency for Civic Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung). The workshop will take place at Rutgers University on March 3-4, 2017. We welcome proposals for papers on topics that may include:

- The global transfer and transformation of antifascist politics
“The colonies,” Pan-Africanist George Padmore wrote in 1936, “are the breeding ground for the type of fascist mentality which is being let loose in Europe today.” During the 1930s, a global network of activists insisted that anti-imperialism was central to antifascist politics. They tied events in Spain and Abyssinia to anticolonial and antiracist movements elsewhere around the world and made personal and intellectual connections within antifascist or Popular Front organizations that would come to shape postwar liberation struggles in Africa and Asia. Antifascists forced into exile in South America continued their political work against fascist and authoritarian politics there. We welcome submissions that examine the dynamic relationship between antifascism and anti-imperial, anti-colonial and Pan-African movements and that explore the personal, intellectual, and symbolic circulation of antifascist politics in a global context.

- The Soviet Union and Antifascism
The Soviet role in antifascist politics during the 1930s and 1940s is often understood statically and imagined through the eyes of Moscow or Stalin personally. We welcome submissions that explore personal, local, and transnational dimensions of international communism; cultural exchanges and crossovers (e.g. between Soviet humanism and liberal articulations of antifascism); and the conjunctures of antifascism during wartime (Spanish Civil War, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Anti-Hitler Alliance).

- Antifascism behind the Iron Curtain
It is well known that Communist regimes instrumentalized antifascism for political ends. At the same time, new research into early Holocaust memory, for example, shows that antifascism inspired a far richer understanding of war and genocide in the first years after 1945 than previously believed. This research mostly centers on France, Italy, and Spain. We call for submissions that engage with antifascist politics in Eastern Europe or proceed in a comparative vein.

- Antifascism as Symbolic Language
While there is a good amount of scholarship devoted to the intellectual history of antifascism and antifascists, the iconography and shared practices that gave antifascism its symbolic power and emotional resonance across national boundaries remain much less well understood. We welcome submissions that examine the variety of images, myths, practices and symbols that contributed to the articulation of antifascist politics and explore how they helped give life and meaning to antifascism around the globe.

- Generations of Antifascism 
Did the antifascism of the 1930s leave a legacy for later generations of leftists, for example in the 1960s?

- Antifascism and Biography
The lives of antifascists have sometimes been written as conversion narratives tracing an arc that begins with the seductive power of Communist ideology, goes to moral crisis caused by the growing knowledge of Communist atrocities, and culminates in a public repudiation of the “god that failed.” Others, including most recently (and surprisingly) Senator John McCain, have celebrated antifascists as men and women of courage and conviction, without considering seriously the ideals for which they fought. Can we map the poetics and politics of antifascist (auto)biography across the globe? Does internationalism yield particular narrative forms? Can we fruitfully compare mid-20th century conjunctures of fascist and antifascist life-writing during the mid-20thcentury?

- Sites of Antifascist Memory
How does the map of Europe – and the globe – present itself in terms of an antifascist memory? And how is this memory used for distinct political purposes? Who claims the mantle of antifascism today, and why? Submissions on this theme might consider the tensions between official and vernacular memories, engage with policies of repression and processes of silencing, but also pay attention to the revitalization of antifascist sites of memory after WW II and into the present time. The resignification of World War II memorials in the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict (e.g. the Sawur Mogyla memorial near Donetsk) is a case in point.

We welcome submissions across disciplines and from scholars at any stage of their career. The deadline for the submission of proposals is September 30, 2016. Please send a 300 word abstract and one-page CV to antifascism2017@gmail.com

By October 21, 2016, applicants will be notified about acceptance to the workshop. The deadline for submission of papers is February 1, 2017. All papers will be made available in advance through the workshop website. Presenters will be given 10-15 minutes to deliver their papers, followed by commentary by the panel discussant and then open discussion. We will be able to provide travel subsidies for the workshop participants, as well as lodging.

Our historical exploration of the trajectories of antifascism will be followed in Fall 2017 by an open conference, to be held in Germany and organized by the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, on the contemporary significance and implications of antifascism, especially for the aims and means of civic education in Germany and Europe. Invitations to this conference will be sent separately.

Organization:
Paul Hanebrink and Jochen Hellbeck 
Rutgers University
Department of History 
16 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 30-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Jochen Hellbeck
E-mail: hellbeck@rutgers.edu
Project / event type: conference / symposium
Organiser: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

CfP: Fascist Warfare: A Concept to Understand Fascism and Total War in the First Half of Twentieth Century

Deadline: 30-09-2016
Location: Bercelona, Spain

Description

Conference "Fascist Warfare: A Concept to Understand Fascism and Total War in the First Half of Twentieth Century"
16.03.2017 - 17.03.2017

The main aim of this conference is to debate about the existence of a specific way of making war typical of fascism, that is to say, of the concept fascist warfare. Or, in other words, to reflect not only on its applicability, but also on its possible analytical and interpretative implications that its development would have both for the study of war in the twentieth century and for the study of fascism. For debating this issue we aim to count on the presence of scholars who have worked fascist regimes in times of war, mainly connected with two main elements: on the one hand, combat experience of the troops (mobilisation, violence, behaviour at the front, discipline, etc.) and, on the other hand, occupation policies (shootings, deportations, antipartisan policy, requisitions, economic exploitation, relations with civil population, etc.) Thus, we aim to tackle how war was set out in the ideological/conceptual level, hence including the sphere of mentalities, and how this war was waged in the frontlines and the rearguard, therefore paying attention to praxis.
Due to the dimensions planned for this conference, we will focus mainly on four cases of study, Germany, Italy, Spain and Croatia. This way, we are seeking to obtain a picture as complete and rich as possible in cases of study on which to build our debate, fundamentally with the aim of obtaining functional conclusions both at the theoretical and empirical levels, and above all to obtain a comparative and transnational perspective of the problem tackled, something we consider essential. Equally, and absolutely involved in the 80th Anniversary of the Spanish Civil War, this comparative and transnational perspective will allow us to connect the Spanish case with the nucleus of European fascisms and their war experiences, delving into this converging way that must be, and is, one of the main workhorses of Spanish historiography.

Proposal’s development

Some years ago, in 2007, Alan Kramer published his monography Dynamic of Destruction. Culture and Mass Killing in the First World War about the development of total war in the conflict of 1914-1918 and how this influenced in the subsequent ultranationalist, violent, eliminationist and genocidal drift that defined the first half of the twentieth century, with its epitome in the Second World War. In his analysis, Kramer indicated a very interesting question regarding the specificity of the kind of war implemented by fascist regimes during the thirties and the forties, characterized by its genocidal nature and opened, according to him, with the colonial war launched by Italy in Abyssinia in 1935. Indeed, Kramer underlined that the specificity of this particular way of waging war typical of fascism would define itself by the final elimination of the «distinction between combatants and non-combatants», pointing how in the six years of this conflict between 350.000 and 760.000 Ethiopians were killed, victims of an asymmetric war based on the overwhelming use of air force, chemical weapons and politics of collective terror against any sign of real or imagined resistance. Somewhat, and with all the technical and tactical differences one may suggest, the principles followed in the Italian war in Abyssinia were an advance or, if you want, a particular interpretation of the same principles that would inspire the German Blitzkrieg since 1939, based on the maximization of firepower in a certain point or area [Schwerpunkt] aiming to completely subdue the enemy –civil or military, armed or not– by its physical destruction or by its paralysis due to the chaos provoked. Actually, those same principles were applied by the German High Command against the various resistances which found a wide range of opportunities and a reason of being within the collapse motivated by the German and Italian occupations throughout the European continent, especially in the Balkans and in the vast Eastern territories. In all likelihood, the tactical and strategical approach of the type of war waged by the rebel side in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), based on the frontal collision and the material and human attrition in operation areas particularly chosen or imposed by the enemy, as the examples of the battles of Belchite, Brunrete, Teruel or the Ebro prove, could also, somehow, have place here. Indeed, this approach was taken to its final consequences, that is to say, to the defeat by consumption of one of the parts involved in the conflict, the Republican side.
Even though Kramer’s hypothesis looks like more as the result of an intuition or as the suggestion of a possible research line than as the empirical verification of a fact, we understand that it contains a very intriguing analytical and interpretative potential that could serve to explain some questions related to the relationship between fascism and war. But, also and no for that less important, between the military/army and fascist worlds. Thereby, did a particular way of making war by fascism, that it to say, a true fascist warfare, exist? Is it possible to differentiate violence and combat practices, as well as occupation policies typical of fascist regimes? Which is the explicative potential of the concept fascist warfare, in the case of being operational? In sum, can this concept be functional and sustainable based on what we analyse on the ground level? It is here where we place the question we want to tackle with this conference. Ultimately, facing such a complex question could leave us with the doubt of if this fascist way of war is not, until certain point, a constant in History, that is to say, if the characteristics we attribute to this fascist warfare couldn’t be extrapolated to a myriad of other conflicts beyond the chronological boundaries of the interwar period, even going back in time. Nonetheless, despite the difficulties inherent to the concept, the issue appears enough intriguing and full of possibilities for us to take over Kramer’s suggestion. Therefore, we expose hereafter some of the questions and reflections that we would like to debate within this conference, although only as suggestions.
Firstly, we strongly believe that the multiple connections or the essential interrelation between fascist experiences and military cultures of the different countries in which fascism settled down with some degree of power to influence things remains a very important issue to deal with. Generally, the analysis of primary sources and the comparative approach to different cases of study suggest that the confluence of interests, goals, worldviews and ethos between the military and the fascist worlds was something very common all over Europe. Certainly, if we have something clear is that the relation between fascism and the army is not reducible to the common distinction between the conservative soldier who only owes to the observance of his duty based on certain corporative values, and the fascist militant who is driven radical and irrationally by an article of faith and certain essential ideological values, aiming to build a ‘new world’. Rather, we believe that the boundary between these two worlds was much more permeable, being proof of it –although not the only one– the connection of many people serving in the army with fascism or the assumption of many of the military values by this very fascism when inspiring the aesthetics or when creating the identity and the basic principles of the various movements that emerged in Europe during the twenties, the thirties and the forties. Hence, what is beyond any doubt is that fascism and the army’s world were not hermetic spheres and, somehow, we must explore in a deeper way the interconnections between these two worlds, both in times of peace and, above all, in times of war mobilisation, where contradictions and affinities emerged.
When weighing the different war contexts, which for obvious reasons have here a lot of interest, we shouldn’t try to search for patterns or modus operandi which could be symmetrically equated. Instead of that, we should delve into the particularities of the scenarios in which wars were fought and of the agents that waged them, as well as in the reasons why some decisions were made and some others not. Contextual analysis is, thus, essential and will be through this methodological exercise how we may find this specific fascist warfare able to identify the different conflicts that mark the interwar period, from a First European Postwar and a Russian Civil War transformed into big social and political laboratories crossed by violence, until the final moments of the Second World War and the dramatic shakes of the Second European Postwar. In this sense, we can’t equally tackle a conventional conflict fought against an external enemy, like the paradigmatic example of the German-Soviet War, and a civil war, where one of the main goals of both sides is to win for its cause some kind of social basis which could support its war effort and sabotage the enemy’s one, something that drastically limits –but not eliminates– the possibilities inherent to the first kind of conflict. Thereby, we have to take into account the specific characteristics of each war, with its causes, goals and consequences; the strength, comparatively speaking, of the enemies fighting, which is essential to understand the approach and the very logic behind the practices implemented and the modus operandi of the troops at ground; the particular development of each conflict, and even seeing it retrospectively, paying attention to the basic questions in order to understand how the main agents proceeded, such as logistical and supply problems, that one of the contenders always have the initiative with constant victories with only little setbacks, or that the two contending sides are more or less balanced during a long period of time, etc. All of this should help us to value the different policies implemented in each context. At the end, for example, it is very difficult –or even impossible– to define a common pattern regarding the German procedure in each one of the areas and scenarios in which the Wehrmacht was involved during the Second World War or, even, between the various German units posted in different moments at the Ostfront. And the same happens if we focus on other conflicts like the antipartisan war developed by the Axis powers –included the NDH– in the Balkans between 1941 and 1945, where different conflicts, interests and political projects mixed and fed back themselves. However, the question that guides ourselves here is what all these war experiences share, if they share something.
Indeed, the fascist warfare may be precisely that: a kind of conflict conceived as the propitiatory frame for implementing a specific radical political project of nation-state, homogenization and political-racial cleansing, with all its implications regarding displacement of populations, massive and/or selective murders, mobilisation of men, women and resources for the war, physical and economic exploitation, transformation of the space and mentalities, etc. Nevertheless, any war simply follows a pre-established plan, but their inner dynamics and internal logics tend to determine the different politics and priorities, mark the relation between the military and politics and, without any doubt, favour a synthesis between both spheres which, in many cases, could be backed by the existence of shared, until certain point, values and world views. And, in this sense, although we haven’t disregarded the essential relationship between fascism and war, we may have ignored all the things that connect fascisms with interwar armies, up to the point that here we could find one of the crucial keys to understand two of the most important phenomena or realities of the twentieth century: the very fascism and total war. Perhaps, all of this may inevitably drive us to something that it’s being pointed out from some historiographical traditions and areas, that is to say, the necessity of a wider, more complex and more dynamic understanding of what fascism was, perceiving it as the update of an ample social, political and cultural space identified with which we tend to name as counterrevolution.
For all of that we firmly believe that there isn’t a clear distinction between the military goals and the political ones, as it has been usually highlighted. In actual fact, these areas never weren’t conflicting between them, and the German and Spanish cases surely are the best example of it, but also the Italian for many reasons. Hence, we have come back to the point where it is essential for the research not only to identify and understand the great amount of war scenarios during the interwar period, but also the multiplicity of factors, agents and interests that intertwine in each one of those scenarios. In this sense, it is crucial to weigh the importance of the reality of war at ground level and in the small and local contexts –which precisely are where the whole environments can be interpreted–, but also to understand the individuals and the communities involved, as well as the propagandistic discourses and the official directives coming from the authorities, which beyond their formulation are implemented or, at least, they serve as a codification for the experiences lived. So that, we believe that the military has never excluded and won’t ever exclude the political, despite the many occasions in which the soldier is depicted as a simple professional implementing his duty as ordered. And, thus, it has no sense for us to think that the case of fascism and its wars could have been different. Therefore, the main aim of this conference is to openly tackle all these questions, shedding light over the courses through which this mutual relation between fascism and the military/war passed. And, also, over the different ways in which it developed in order to, ultimately, debate on the existence of the concept fascist warfare and on its interpretative value.
Finally, this conference is also about setting up the ideal platforms for developing works, debates and reflections based on the principles of comparative and transnational history, the only way in which we can improve our knowledge of crucial and complex phenomena like war and fascism, extensible as experiences to the whole European continent –and maybe further– during the interwar period.

Structure, functioning and panellists

The conference will take place during two days, both in the morning and in the afternoon. We will invite 3 foreign scholars and a Spanish one, that is to say, one for each of the aforementioned cases of study. These scholars will make 4 lectures of 45 minutes tackling the different elements needed to establish the theoretical and factual limits of the proposed debate, that is, an analysis of mentalities, occupation policies, institutional machineries and combat experiences of the German, Italian, Spanish and Croatian fascisms during the thirties and the forties, as well as their multiple interrelations. Finally, beyond the lectures, a roundtable will take place in which the invited scholars will discuss, answering the questions posed both by a moderator and/or by the public, the limits, applicability and suitability of the concept fascist warfare, starting each from their own research experiences and from the elements tackled in the lectures.
Equally, we will open the conference to the selection of four or five papers among those proposals that we receive which will complement the issues tackled in the lectures, always on the basis of the debate around the concept fascist warfare and the different topics mentioned in the previous section. Besides, the organization will cover the expenses of travel and accommodation for the selected panellists. The papers will be grouped into the same discussion table in order to be debated altogether after being presented by one or two moderators. This way, we aim the debate to be the common base among all of them and what mark the nature of the session, rather than the mere and unconnected exposition of the papers. Therefore, this minimal selection of contributions will allow us to widen the discussion as well as the chronological and thematic boundaries defined in the lectures, making the conference a useful working platform able to produce the most feedback possible. And, also, we would be able to tackle both the questions and cases of study mentioned as well as other which could emerge during the debates and because of the different contributions and research experiences of the scholars attending the conference. Thus, our main goal is to provide a first approach to the concept fascist warfare and to weigh the possibilities of continuing working in this direction.
The deadline to send proposals is September, 30th 2016. The proposals can focus on different cases and chronologies from the ones posed by the four lecturers, therefore these can deal with cases beyond the limits of the interwar period and the Second World War. These should include a title; a brief summary of 100-150 words where the author should explain his/her main thesis or the key questions he/she would deal with during the presentation; five keywords; and finally an explanation of 500-800 words where he/she briefly develops the contents posed in the summary together with the main sources used in order to defend his/her thesis, explaining at the same time his/her position regarding the effectiveness and sense of the concept fascist warfare, how his/her proposal fits in this debate, as well as what can offer and which are his/her motivations to take part in this kind of conference. All of that should also include a brief curriculum vitae of 150 words. Needless to say that we will value specially these proposals that include transnational and/or comparative approaches, but also those which make original contributions from the thematic and methodological point of view. English will be the lingua franca of the conference in order to boost exchange and debate among the participants, in that sense we ask the proposers to send their proposals in that language or in both languages (English-Spanish; English-Catalan; English-German; English-Italian; etc.) The proposals should be sent to the following email addresses: miguel.alonso.ibarra@gmail.com or david.alegre.lorenz@gmail.com 
Finally, we also consider convenient to channel the outcomes of this debate through a collective publication, where we will try to codify the conclusions of the conference and also to make known, nationally and internationally, different views of fascist warfare in a more complex, theoretical and elaborated way.

Programm

Lecturers

-Croatian case

Alexander Korb (University of Leicester)

-German case

Jeffrey Rutherford (Wheeling Jesuit University)

-Italian case

Amedeo Osti (Deutsches Historisches Institut in Rom - Istituto Storico Germanico di Roma)

-Spanish case

Javier Rodrigo (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

Partners
-

Basic information:
Deadline: 30-09-2016

Contat details:
Coordinator: Miguel Alonso Ibarra
E-mail: miguel.alonso.ibarra@gmail.com