Kljub zelo razsežni viziji, na primer v Delorsovem poročilu iz leta 1996 Učenje: zaklad v sebi (Delors, 1996) in Fryerjevem poročilu Učenje za enaindvajseto stoletje (Fryer, 1997), so razprave o ...državljanstvu, ki diskretno obveščajo tudi politično sfero o vseživljenjskem učenju, zasnovane preozko in preveč poenostavljeno, da bi jim uspelo zaobjeti pojem aktivnega državljanstva. Ekonomija "thatcherizma" (zaradi katere še Marxa doživljamo pozitivno) ostaja v Veliki Britaniji nesporna- a tudi precej neopažena. Postala je nekakšna vodilna usmeritev v tem pogledu, da jo doživljamo kot izraz razumnosti oziroma zdravega razuma: delujemo znotraj "diskurzivnih plašnic" in se pri tem vse manj zavedamo, kako nam te zmanjšujejo sposobnost izražanja našega potenciala in odkrivanja možnosti pri delu. Končno smo pri tem, da previdno taktiziramo z lastnimi pogledi in stališči.
The wars and conflicts that accompanied the breakup of the former Yugoslavia are inextricably linked to “language”. The “breakup” of Serbo-Croat into several national languages and the determination ...of Slovenes and, to a lesser extent, Macedonians to restrain the influence of Serbo-Croat on their respective languages was a prelude to the country’s political breakup. Military violence was carefully prepared by linguistic means: hate speech, which quickly turned into war speech, dominated the words of politicians, media, culture and everyday conversation. This would not have been possible without resorting to the past and to the mythologized history of the warring parties (the Battle of Kosovo Polje, Yugoslavia before the Second World War, the Second World War itself). The analysis of the political and media discourses carried out in this study revealed three major types of semantic inversions on which the underlying discursive mechanisms largely rely: diachronic inversions (the resurgence of the terms “Ustashe”, “Chetniks”, “Turks”), semantic and logical travesties (in which terms such as “defend” and “liberate” lose their primary meanings) and semantic asymmetries (the enemy is an inhuman “aggressor” and “slaughterer”, while “our” side is made up of “innocent victims”, “martyrs” or “heroes”). As a result, the terms and utterances used lose their semantic and referential “basis”, so that they can no longer fully function except within the discursive universe that generated them.
PDF
