Objectives of the panel discussion: 1. To search and forecast the future of the media industry in the Fourth and Fifth Industrial Revolutions. And how would 4IR and 5IR technologies shape the media industry in the era of Artificial Intelligence Journalism, and beyond in the era of the 7G Journalism? 2. To design the world human dynamic skills map, and answer to the main question of: how would artificial intelligence tools and solutions reduce the dynamic skills gap between global human talents. 3. To discuss the future world possibilities, and challenges to set rules and regulations to manage for artificial intelligence technologies Governance in some humanitarian fields such as: – Governance to manage the AI technologies in Media and mass communications. – Governance to manage the artificial intelligence applications in healthcare and medical fields. – Governance to manage the artificial intelligence solutions and tools in Remote learning. – Governance to manage the artificial intelligence technologies in sustainable cities.
The adage “the world is our village”, was the philosophy of the twentieth Century. Our territory was without borders, neither physically, nor in the mind. Mr. Covid however changed the concept. My territorial boundaries become my protection. We find it again normal that borders delimit people that have to be protected from the outside enemy. We learned our lesson from the ‘import’ of the virus from other parts of the world (China) and transmitted by and through people that travel for leisure or professional reasons. Globalisation is over, glocalisation becomes the new buzzword meaning we are not against the globalisation, we are not anti-globalists, but want priority for the local dimension. It’s is not an era of change, but a change or era.
Local production, local consumption become the new normal. Border controls on persons and goods are again legitimated. The old-fashioned concept of territory is back. Roots are again as important, or even more important, than wings. But how can we then best cope with our hyper-citizenship, as Andrea Pitasi calls it.
The panel aims to investigate this dilemma starting from the concept of territory. Amongst others, following topics might be discussed:
• rootless people
• the spread between roots and hypercitizenship
• loyal playing field – «resilience islands»
• border controls
• the local dimension of power and territorial development
• the future of integration processes
• systemic risk and danger management
• managing social peace in times of disruption
systemic thinking & working as key to resource-efficiency and transition
In complex, global scenarios, the gap between legal norms (according to the shapes of criminal Law) and deviance from social norms is getting wider and wider as law is going more and more transnationally and supranationally (from EU to OECD, from WHO and WTO to WIPO) while in the common sense of local community identity, social norms still are relatively rigid on a more local scale which in some extreme cases become the stargate to ideological-religous-ethnical radicalization where cosmopolitanism is not yet taken for granted. From Goffmann’s Stigma and Becker’s Outsiders, through Tomeo’s conception of the conflictual structure of law , up to the dispute between Kelsen and Ehlich, finally approaching Luhman’s works in Sociology of Law based on a complex system vision based on the system /environment paradigm, this panel calls for interdisciplinary contributions (from Sociology to Law, from Philosophy to Political Science, from Economics of legal rationality to complexity studies tout court) to debate, in theory and practice, in strategy, tactics and operations, in which way the expansion of trans-supranational legislation focused on the governance of complexity is some way selecting and reshaping community-based social norms and in which ways social norms can generate irritation, resonance and noisy shiftings from the outer environment to the process of legislative expansion of the law system considering radicalization a socio-political drift of failed management of complexity, thus radicalizatio as outer environmet resonance, meaningless in se, which, nevertheless coud be positively seleced by those conceptions of law as conflictual structure.
As a country with most population, China is facing with developing economy and environmental protection; environmental pollution and ecological degradation have become to be severe problems and further affected national economy and people’s health during the last 30 years. The initials phase of the century has been the crucial stage for China’s efforts towards improving economic development, intensifying environment conservation, and controlling ecological degradation. Then, country has prioritized measures, laws and policies for developing renewable energy, especially solar and wind. China has also embraced the ‘green growth’ approach for responding to the challenges of climate change. These efforts have yielded results and China has emerged as a world leader in renewable energy. However, there is still a long way to go. The 14th five-year plan (2021-2025) seems to be critical for accelerating the energy transition, including setting a cap on coal in the national energy-transition strategy.
It is expecting to drive decarbonization and indigenous tech innovation, however, without proposing overly ambitious climate actions; during the the United Nations General Assembly in September China’s party and state leader Xi Jinping declared a carbon-neutral China by 2060. The country’s leadership has played a hugely important role in putting in motion changes to domestic policy, and this has gradually introduced a vision of ‘ecological civilisation’ (生态文明; shēngtài wénmíng) in which conservation of nature guides the continued development of the country. To reach the goals Beijing is using a variety tools in order to stimulate industrial greening: these including incentives, local clustering and green funding as well. In order to improve China’s sustainable industry transformation, the government also engages in priority procurement of green products and services. By the end of 2018, more than 90 percent of products acquired by the bureaucracy were considered energy-efficient and environment-friendly. The framework for green factories was largely completed in 2019, and hundreds more standards are in the making, nevertheless resource utilization in the manufacturing sector is still far below world- class efficiency levels. China’ environmental policy trajectory shows opportunities and challenges also for western actors: international cooperation for mitigating global warming is urgently needed and, at the same time, competition for green tech and manufacturing process must be carefully managed.
This panel proposal aims to contribute to the debate on the intersections between religion, gender and migration in globalized societies. In this context, three concepts are fundamental to the debate:
1) the contemporary cosmopolitanism
The goal of this panel is therefore to discuss how different worldviews and different systems of values are able to coexist in a complex global society. Relevant subjects such as religion, gender inequalities and hierarchies, equal opportunities, work and social mobility will be discussed. They are all strongly interconnected. Religion plays a crucial role in the process of globalization and pluralism, both in the life of individuals and in entire societies. What forms have religions taken today? Are they different from the past? Are the changes perceptible? What is the place of religion globally? To what extent has the “diffused religion” spread throughout the world, through trajectories of symbolic combinations? In this way, the values of religion evolve in terms of openness and fusion with philosophical, social, political values, opinions and attitudes in a global hybrid process.
In light of the new contemporary scenarios, religion, migration processes, gender and identity go hand in hand. What else but migration processes and experiences can convey the idea of cosmopolitanism and pluralism: different languages, different customs, different ethnic groups, different beliefs, different aspects and so on. Transnational religious networks are an excellent example of religion beyond borders, which particularly affects immigrants and women. Religion moves to a different level, which is digital. These networks can be constructive for the communities that practice them or they can slow down the process of social and religious exchange. The concept of identity is equally crucial for the orientation of people in an interconnected global society. In the logic of cosmopolitan virtues, one may wonder whether religion is barring or enabling women’s emancipation, how much immigration is linked to justice. That is, the human rights protection of migrants, since inclusive virtues tend to transcend the boundaries of gender, nationality and any status that tends to categorize individuals and to belittle their intrinsic value.
Starting from these thoughts, the panel will thus focus on the following issues: religion, globalization and pluralism; transnational religious networks; cosmopolitanism and the global women’s rights movement; human rights, migration and cosmopolitanism; global religious futures.
1. Roberto Cipriani, Panel Chair, Roma Tre University (topic Religion)
2. Francesca Cubeddu, Sapienza, University of Rome (topic Migration or gender)
3. Francesca Greco, Roma Tre University (topic Glocal sentiment)
4. Vera Kopsaj, University Gabriele d’Annunzio University (topic Migration)
5. Elisabetta Ruspini, University of Milan, Bicocca (topic Gender)
6. Sara Petroccia, Gabriele d’Annunzio University (topic Migration)
7. Luigi Solivetti, Sapienza, University of Rome, (topic Immigrants and integration: natives and foreigners)
The aim of the panel is to discuss the impact of false news on democratic public sphere. Revolt of the masses, loss of authority of the elites, disappearance of centralised mass media and user-driven content production will be singled out as constituents of the new public sphere settled on the internet.
The panel will include presentations aimed at describing trust and distrust in online and offline media and the causal relationship between authentic information and democratic processes (behavior, attitudes). Another topic to be discussed will be the digital disadvantage of several social groups hindered by social, cultural and economic inequalities resulting in susceptibility to fake news.
The emergence of fake news in the new technological eco-structure of the public sphere will be interpreted in terms of disinformation aimed at gaining dishonest political influence and promoting mass political behavior of undemocratic nature. Democratic public sphere will be shown as the major means of maintaining democratic political culture. Members of the panel will be expected to present empirical research reports that examine the fight between false and true political news in post-modern society.
The evolution of the social system demands a theoretical toolkit able to deal with the complexity that derives from such evolution. The shift of paradigm from the part/whole to the paradigm system/environment and, more recently, to the system of enormous constellation, in the sense of Pitasi´s theory, shows that the evolution of the social system implies the recognition of the complexity of the system, in a way that hierarchical, vertical and linear criteria are no longer able to fulfill the above-mentioned evolution. In this sense, development, as a social phenomenon, with an historical background, demands to be study considering its complexity. Considering that, a complex approach could allow an assessment of the problems of development, contributing to the promotion of public policies.
The idea of sustainable development, commonly referred to by the UN Sustainable Development Goals, demands not only the explanation of its concept, the theorizing about development models, but the elaboration of public policies by States, given the international commitment to achieve these goals. This has been the case, at least, since the UN Declaration on the Right to Development (1986) that, in its core, clarifies that development is achieved through the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, through access to social, environmental, cultural, political and economic development.
The multidimensionality of development, therefore, challenges the elaboration of public policies capable of aligning these objectives, admitting that its completion is almost impossible. In this perspective, the theories of complexity become useful frameworks to approach the phenomenon and guide in the elaboration of these policies, indicating, for example, the necessary interdisciplinary approach. Add to that the different regional and global development needs. If regionally, development focuses on local issues; worldwide, it demands interaction between nations. The crisis caused by the pandemic of the new coronavirus opened this characteristic.
Based on this scenario, this panel welcomes researchers that addresses interdisciplinary papers capable of addressing sustainable development in its theoretical and practical aspects, to approach public policies formulation.
After millions of years of evolution on this planet, human society has reached an overturn, in which cultural evolution has begun to determine biological evolution. The traditional borders and limits between the natural and the artificial have been completely done away with, and both the ecosystem and human civilization are going through a process of systemic change, an anthropological transformation as well as an environmental watershed, whose consequences will be unavoidable. The characteristics of this transformation are destined to either be the results of human choice and efforts, or else to be the involuntary consequences of massive environmental and economic catastrophes. That nature and humankind, that all dimensions of social and political life are increasingly interdependent and interconnected has never been clearer than today, as the recent global and systemic emergency has been unequivocally driving home to us.
The attempt to govern these dynamics, so chaotic and complex, cannot be founded on anything less than on a truly systemic vision and approach to complexity. A systemic change demands systemic strategies and actions, which must be based on a multi/inter/trans-disciplinary method and a radical reformulation of education and training, at the core of any kind of social transformation. True systemic change, it must be clear, like all emergent properties arising in complex systems, must hail from grassroots communities, and can never be applied through top-down impositions. We should also keep in mind the futility of believing that we can eliminate uncertainty and unpredictability from social systems (or any other complex system) and realize that setting objectives of control and of the elimination of error (which is intrinsic to all living things) are based on a great illusion. This implicates a necessary rethinking of our educational institutions themselves.
Without rethinking education and training, without raising the qualitative standards of educational processes, this phase of such radical transition and change is destined to remain an extraordinary opportunity solely for elites and for the few. The progress society has made so far is essentially technological in nature, whereas a similar progress in social, cultural and moral awareness has not been reached. We must also be aware that new levels of inequality and asymmetry have emerged, despite (and sometimes owing to) this very technological progress. The challenge facing us, in every disciplinary field, is to realize a substantial and fruitful dialogue among all members of society. This is the main objective of the 2021 WCSA conference. With this aim, the panel we are proposing will be inviting scholars and experts from both the so-called hard sciences and from the social sciences, representing prestigious universities, institutions, and organizations in every part of the world: among them, WAAS (World Academy of Art and Science), the U.N. Working group on Systemic Change, and many others.
A suburb or suburbia is a residential area, existing either as part of a city or urban area or as a separate residential community within commuting distance of a city. Suburbs tend to proliferate around cities that have an abundance of adjacent flat land. Suburbs first emerged on a large scale in the 19th and 20th centuries as a result of improved rail and road transport, which led to an increase in commuting. In general, they have lower population densities than inner-city neighborhoods within a metropolitan area, and most residents commute to central cities or other business districts; however, there are many exceptions, including industrial suburbs, planned communities, and satellite cities. The low density, dispersed, sprawling nature of suburbia – far from jobs, services and amenities, is leading to a car-driving non-walking life with all the associated obesity, diabetes, heart-disease and indeed depression. And of course, the dispersed model of suburbia is not only bad for us, it also costs the earth.
On the other side, Superbia is a synonym for dense urban structures, as the “ideal” urban mixed-use community that often picture perfect life.
It is not a big surprise, that suburbia became predominant built context in the world, yet it is more of surprise, that we lack serious suburban development models and policies. Urban theory of the last century seems to recognize it, but not deal with it. It is truth, that biggest political and economic power still applies to big urban centers – superbia, but many professionals are already recognizing, that suburbia is the place, where new ideas and social innovations will happen in the future. Clearly, we have to enable more people to live closer to transport nodes and at the heart of our towns and cities, we also have to retro-fit and re-design existing suburbia with a more urban density, a more compact street network and more local amenities so as to, in essence, make them much more walkable, viable and indeed sustainable centers. We have to aim reinforcing both a sense of local community and the future of inclusive, sustainable design. Superbia is getting richer and on the other hand the suburbia is getting poorer. Precarization of the working class, migration, economic inequality, racial and religious segregation, gentrification, job decline, environmental pollution … these are just some of the processes, seen in global suburbia.
It is clear, that suburbia is responsible for high level of global land and energy consumption, and it is unstoppably spreading. Mostly it is happening due to faster and faster transportation networks, easier property development process and constant need for economic growth through construction and property development. Even if there are many global, national and local sustainability strategies and treaties, none of them seems to seriously applies and challenge spread of global suburbs.
The rediscovery of our suburbs is an opportunity not to look back, but forward to a new future for an old idea whose day has come again. Suburbs of the future based on the virtues of the past and the values of the present – Superbia.
This panel aims to discuss the issues involving taxation in a global economy in which business models are transnational enabling highly digitalized companies and platforms to do business across physical national borders, diminishing the effectiveness of traditional nation-state controls. This is an evidence that the world economy and the taxation of companies are becoming more complex suggesting that the study of complexity theory may offer a powerful toolbox to address the challenges and opportunities posed by global economic flows. Self-organization, emergence, non-linearity, network theory, agents and adaptation, and related epistemic concepts such as uncertainty, variety, feedback, fuzzy logic, multidisciplinary and others should be especially useful to the understanding of global economy taxation. However, the national economic and legal systems are also crucial elements of this organization, and the interrelations between national, international and supranational regulatory levels are of great importance. This panel welcomes presentations about the multiple aspects of taxation in its three dimensions, national, international and supranational, in any disciplinary field (economical, legal, sociological, political etc.) or multidisciplinary level, that deal with complex issues with innovative approaches and methods.
This panel deals with issues related to the type of communication developed on social networks and the way in which social networks depend on communication in a feedback model. In this sense, based on the assumptions that the Law is understood from its interdependent relationship with the environment in which it is circumscribed, the subsequent inquiry lies in how the legal system selects and reinforces communication, either democratic or undemocratic.
At the same time, the table intends, with this, to observe how democratic models are influenced by this communicative confluence (social networks and Law) and how classic Western democracy is shaped by contemporary society.
In this context, the proposed debate also includes the tendency to criminalize the production and malicious dissemination of fake news during the electoral period.
Therefore, this panel welcomes research that addresses both the correlation between communication on social networks and democracy, as well as the problems related to undemocratic communications and fake electoral news.
One of the adjectives increasingly used to describe contemporary society is the term “smart”. We live in the era of smart cities, smart economies, smart homes, smart people, smart communities and smart work. On a global scale, smartness is emerging as the new horizon of contemporary society to which “meanings and practices” must be adapted. The development potential of new smart technologies, artificial intelligence and the use of Big Data is part of this framework. With regard to this premise, can smartness really represent a promising “paradigm”? And, with respect to what?
The panel aims to investigate the performative and transformative potential of all these dimensions within society, analysing what type of society the “smart” paradigm intends to develop, through the many potential forms of smartness not exhaustively listed here:
● smart society
● smart world and effects on the community
● smart people as key players
● the role of digital globalisation
● new forms of capitalism
● sociological theory to the test of smartness
● quantitative research on smart society
● the dimensions of power
● the cultural processes of digital society
● ICT and sociological theory
● control and security
● smartness and resilience
● e-citizenship in a smart world
● smartness and jurisdictional-legislative expansion
The proposed panel deals with a subject particularly relevant in the current economic, political and sociological international debate. In particular, we draw attention on the main socio-economic transformations related to significant changes in capitalism models towards a more sustainable development, as well as on their impact on traditional welfare systems still in search for new balances.
Since the year 2008 there have been significant changes and the capitalism system as we have known it so far seems to be at a “Crossroads” (Hart, 2010). In fact, since that year a series of crisis affected the world increasing poverty and inequalities. In addition to these, a revolution in information and communication technology, known as Industry 4.0, completely changed the way of working and living. These changes induced the scholars to talk about a new “great transformation”, by adopting the famous expression of Karl Polanyi (1944), used to describe the birth of the market economy. There are no doubts that the change, even if heterogeneous at sectorial and geographical level, is relevant; however, it is important to deeply analyses the dimension of such transformations, the trends and perspectives, the impact of innovations on all the areas.
With this regard, evidence suggest that rapid transformation destroys old coping mechanisms, traditional safety nets, while it creates a new set of demands and emerging needs, before new mechanisms of social protection are developed by governments.
This lesson from the nineteenth century has, unfortunately, all foreword too often been forgotten by the advocates of the Washington consensus (Williamson, 1990), as the modern version of the liberal orthodoxy. The most recent global financial crisis reminded us that the self-regulating economy does not always work as well as its proponents would like us to believe. Polanyi’s analysis clearly explains not only the deficiencies of the self-regulating market, but the potentially alarming social consequences of an unregulated market capitalism. That is the reason why it is rather urgent to find new ways as well as complementary or even alternative practices that keep together economy and society in order to start a new age of a more sustainable, social and inclusive capitalism. The central idea is that self-regulating markets do not perfectly work, their deficiencies, not only in their internal workings, but also in their consequences for less advantaged people, are so great that government intervention becomes necessary; and that the pace of change is of central importance in determining these consequences.
Starting from these assumptions, since the late 1980s, the sustainable development paradigm emerged to provide a framework through which economic growth, social welfare and environmental protection could be better harmonized. In general, as Purvis et al. (2019) have shown the conceptual foundations of this model are not clear and there appears to be no singular source from which it derives. The origins of the “three-pillar paradigm” have been variously attributed to the Brundtland Report, Agenda 21, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, yet in none of these documents is a clear framework or theoretical background made explicit. However, despite the need for timely and effective interventions, more than 30 years later, we can consider that such harmonization has proved rather elusive and not universally shared. Meanwhile, wealth concentration and inequality have increased, particularly during the last 50 years (Piketty, 2014). In 2008, the collapse of large financial institutions was prevented by the public bailout of private banks and, nowadays, low growth rates are likely to become the norm in the economic development of mature economies (Summers, 2014; Teulings and Baldwin, 2014). The three pillars of sustainability such as environment, society and economy are, therefore, simultaneously threatened by intertwined crisis.
A paradigm shift is, therefore, urgently needed, but this will certainly take time and require the involvement of several key political, economic and social actors (public and private) such as international organizations, national governments, economic organizations along with social movements and no-profit organisations throughout the world. The experiences and initiatives directly linked to post-growth and de-growth approaches coming from selected countries in Europe and, especially in Latin America, can certainly give added value and represent an opportunity to give new life and impetus to the traditional capitalist system, even if they seem to be complementary rather than alternative to it. In addition, it’s equally important a clear inversion of the policies trend adopted by the more advanced economies, aimed at a more equitable and responsible use of the available resources that does not go to the detriment of emerging and less developed countries. In other words, despite the global slow-down in growth and the pessimistic future scenarios, we believe that a fairer economy and trade are possible and desirable, but within a fairer and more inclusive society.
Starting from this general consideration, the panel aims to increase our knowledge and understanding of the complex development towards new international experiences in capitalism models and welfare systems, looking at theoretical or research-based contributions that deeply analyze the ongoing processes of integration and transformations at local and national level, the role of the actors, their strategies, the challenges for the future and the opportunities. Both quantitative and qualitative essays are welcome. Papers may either focus on developments in a single country or adopt a comparative perspective.
The success of sustainable development (in terms on economic, social, and ecologic dimensions) largely depends on the evolution of a four dimensions helix: legislation, demography, technology, and development itself. This panel deals with this helix and its observation perspective is the expansion of the legislative function in a supranational dimension, and how this expansion is most viable using the shape of citizenship expansion. Resuming in a question: How is it possible in terms of World Order Policy Modeling (WOPM)?
The complex systems approach in political and social sciences had some dramatic paradigm shifts since the late 1970s, from the whole/part obsolete one to the system/environment one and then to the autopoiesis one up to taking the current shape of complex, intangible constellation emerging by meaning and symbol interconnections which model the helix. In this sense, the premise of the approach of this panel lies on the complexity theory perspective once the obsolete perspective of social science is not able to provide theoretical e practical tools capable to cope the four dimensions helix in their complexity. For instance, let’s consider as a case the European Commission initiative on the Economics of Industrial Research and Innovation. The initiative is focused on three goals:
1. competitiveness of European industries
2. innovation as a driver of industrial competitiveness
3. support to the Green Deal Policy Agenda (green complexity).
The first two goals become much easier to attain until the EU corrects some policy modeling mistakes in its own design: some functions are supranational (like the European Commission or the Supreme Court) some others are still old fashion intergovernmental (the Council of the Ministries, the European Parliament) and intergovernmental still means Europe of the nations. This balance between supranational and intergovernmental is paralyzing. Moreover, the Europe of nations is already a failed solution of the past which is exactly the institutional interaction which lead to WWII. Innovation requires complexity, requires investments, requires openings to the possible (Gegnet) otherwise innovation becomes a mere rhetorical word concealing entropic, inflated, slow incrementality.
Evolving citizenship into Hypercitizenship, for example, could be a viable directive to facilitate the three goals above. Hypercitizenship belongs to the very roots of complex system thinking and allows to observe the global world order, its functions and operational units letting become visible what usually remains invisible to common sense politics and public opinion and, consequently, for the legislative´s initiatives in a supranational dimension.
Considering that, the proposal of this panel is that the legislative function could, or even should, consider the premises of Hypercitizenship as a complex foot path to better approach the four dimensions of the helix, to promote sustainable development. Therefore, this panel welcomes researchers that addresses the legislative expansion considering both the sustainable development and complexity, this last one according the Hypercitizenship model.
In a simplistic industrialised world, people were working in a factory. They offered labour for a fixed number of hours a week and shareholders offered capital, translated into buildings and machine. Productivity was the target, Cobb-Douglas the equation, labour-capital relation the ideologic and trade-unions approach.
Although most people are still spiritually embedded is this post-War approach, these times are over and out. In the emerging intangible global age, people become jobmakers, not job-takers, executing their job when and where they want. Relevant investments become mainly intangible. Ideas, prototypes, software, know-how, business model, customer relationship management, marketing strategies, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) … these are the real values of a company today. In the most advanced countries, just as Germany, Singapore, US, and Nordic countries, investments in intangibles are more important than tangible investments.
The paradigm shift, as the philosopher Thomas Kuhn would call it, implies a major and fast move in different fields. Regions and countries unable to adapt fast, will become the laggers. This panel welcomes presentation proposals that examine the following aspects of intangibles regulation from an interdisciplinary, complex systems approach (non-exhaustive list):
– Should Accounting rules be adapted to consider intangibles – such as human resources and the research phase of in-house development of intangibles – as assets rather than as a pure cost or expense?
– Should the current standards for the taxation of cross-border transfer and exploitation of hard-to-value-intangibles be reframed? What are the limitations of valuation techniques?
– Should financing be reshaped as banks still do not know how to cope with intangibles as they can rarely be considered as collateral? Is there a role for the public evaluation agencies and guarantee schemes?
– Should standardised evaluation methods for intangible investments be developed?
– Should “old-fashioned” protection procedures (e.g. patents, trademarks, etc.) be replaced by open-source approaches?
– How far temporary protection of research benefits should go? The covid-vaccine research raises the question for a new equilibrium between profits – necessary research investments – and general welfare?
– Should protection, if any, & authorisation mechanisms, be better dealt with at a global level, instead of the actual national approach?
– Do labour regulations, labour law and salary fixing need to be based on completely new models? What is the role of trade-unions and employer organisations in this context?
– What new approaches for public-private-partnership are possible linked to this intangible shift?
– What is the role of public policies to deal with inequality of income and wealth generated from the rise of the intangible economy?
In the recent years, Western democracies have been facing unprecedented challenges, namely electoral choices that clash with democratic and libertarian values that have characterized so far American and European political structures and identities.
Those challenges can be divided in two categories. One category includes the challenges to the principle of equality, i.e., the endorsement to political forces and leaders that openly support either racial privilege or xenophobia.
The other category includes economic issues, especially those related to the recent financial and health crises. More exactly, the most common explanation for those crises are global and financial élites, and citizens’ reaction consist of the electoral success of political forces that promise to stop, or even invert, Globalization. Needless to say, those promises are impossible to keep and, in most cases, where nationalist forces had the occasion of leading an administration, no visible improving of their electoral basis life condition has taken place. In spite of this, nationalists are still mainstream forces.
This panel aims at will explore the hypothesis that the current challenge for democracy is a crisis of rationality: as a matter of fact, contemporary democracies, in America and in Europe, are based upon the Enlightenment philosophy, especially on the assumption that all human beings are equal and free.
This assumption has been the main framework, within which democratic rules and laws have arisen in the last centuries, those rules based upon the assumption that citizens freely pursued their own aims, both in the private (business) and the public domains (politics).
Furthermore, elections and parties are based upon the idea that categories of citizens (lobbies, groups, social classes etc.) defined and defended their own interests through their representatives democratically chosen. Therefore, democracy meant that citizens are able to define their interest and to choose the political force, which best could define their own interests. In short words, democracy also is based upon rationality.
As we have seen, though, in the most recent political scenarios, citizens’ rationalistic attitude seems to be weakening.
This panel welcomes panels: which focus on
-the rationality crisis in specific social contexts
– the causes of this crisis
– possible new models of rationality that fit with current social structure.
Common Home is a shared concept between the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the Encyclical Letter Laudato si’ (Ls), published in 2015 by Pope Francis. Although it is a pontifical document, it is not restricted to the Catholic sphere and has proven to be a milestone for the dialogue between various religious around SDG. Therefore, it is also a new moment to the epistemological dialogue between religions and public agenda.
Considering that Ls is quoted in more than 2,000 scientific papers from different areas in High Impact Factor Journals, only 300 scientific papers came from the Religious Studies, including here theological studies. This issue refers to the emergence of what was called public reason and a certain litigation with theological thought that became self-referential, in a cultural dialectic movement between religious traditions, public space and secularism from 18th to 20th century.
The main reason of the Ls – which is the idea of “everything is connected” and its overture for a shared commitment in a post-secular society – demands an epistemological shift that could be reached in the complexity theory. That is because the dynamic in which different people and groups, with common problems, start to seek cooperative solutions. Generally, it is possible to recover a cooperative solution, with respect for otherness, in other words, a process in which the task of a public theology can be thought of.
Considering that, this panel welcomes papers that approach how the Common Home issue could be a way to promote a complexity consciousness in hegemonic historical social actors as the traditional religions were, not without considering its historical reminiscences still alive in some contexts.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.