Статья посвящена рассмотрению воздействия современных миграционных потоков в Европе на процесс формирования политической идентичности Европейского Союза. Особое внимание уделяется противоречию между понятием европейскости, в смысле восприятия того, что относится к социальной, политической и культурной общности, и космополитическим призванием европеизма, опирающимся на принцип мирового гражданства, как способ регулирования вопроса иммиграции. Анализируется влияние массовых миграций на политический баланс государств-основателей ЕС. Предлагаются также сценарии будущего взаимодействия между процессом конструирования всеевропейской идентичности и структурным характером миграционных процессов.
Аннотация. Статья посвящена анализу спорных вопросов в концепции европейской политической идентичности. Рассмотрены аспекты достижения ЕС единого политического и географического измерения. Анализируются причины отсутствия признания членами ЕС общего сог ласованного понятия идентичности и представления об общем будущем сообщества. Автор показывает, что в основе формирования европейской идентичности лежат концепции центральности индивида в обществе и христианства как модели цивилизационного развития и социокультурной интеграции. Сущность объединённой Европы не только плюралистическая, а универсалистская, поэтому необходимо переосмыслить природу Европейского Союза.
The article focuses upon the subject of the EU’s political identity in connection with the experience of the Italian Yellow-Green Government (2018-2019). Taking into account general tendencies and attitudes of previous Italian governments towards the European integration process, the author pays special attention to the “European line” proposed by the coalition between the Five-Star Movement and the League. The author concludes that the supranational political nature and growing complexity of the European Union are not compatible with the one-sided approach to conceptualizing the EU identity. As a result, it is necessary to redefine the components of the EU’s political identity, as well as reconsider certain controversial concepts, such as sovranism and populism.
This article aims to analyze how the so-called ‘pedagogy of work’ attempts to answer the challenges of unemployment and job insecurity characterizing the labor market in contemporary society. The authors reflect on the concepts of nihilist pedagogies and the ‘end of work’ by distinguishing two approaches: an active and a passive nihilist pedagogy. The passive approach, based on resignation, is opposed to an active attitude in which labor pedagogy offers tools to address current challenges. The authors support the idea that pedagogy as a human-improving science cannot adopt the position of passive nihilism in interpreting work in contemporary society. To better understand the dynamics related to job insecurity and corrective solutions by pedagogy, the authors analyzed the thoughts of three contemporary philosophers: Zygmunt Bauman, Jeremy Rifkin, and Dominique Méda. These authors redefined the concept of work in connection with the transformations because of globalization, the advent of new communication technologies, and digital work. These changes have redefined not only the concept of work but also the models of work pedagogy in the Western world: capitalism and Marxism. Considering the current challenges, the pedagogy of work needs to be rethought, starting from the problem of employability and focusing on the new occupations in demand in the Internet age. By integrating ideas on interpreting work from the theories of Bauman, Rifkin, and Méda, it is possible to propose a pedagogy of work in the age of change and to outline possible values of education inspired by it.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.