TEXTS ON THE MOVE: TEXTUALITY AND HISTORICITY REVISITED

The last time texts were brought onto the general theoretical and methodological agenda of the human and social sciences, they were reintroduced into history in terms of an indefinite set of indefinitely complex contexts, which gave every text a specific date and location in a network of other texts and events. A couple of decades later, however, a more prominent feature of texts seems to be that they are permanently on the move: they circulate, have effects on other things, change and transform realities, and are at the same time themselves translated and modified. In the literature exploring the textuality of history, these dimensions have been under‐theorized and often ignored. To meet this challenge, we need to develop concepts and approaches that enable us to place the mobility of texts as well as their mobilizing force at the center of our current historical concerns. In this article we will explore what the consequences of this move could be, and what resources are already at hand in different scholarly traditions. Exploring the entanglements between actor‐network theory (ANT in the version of Bruno Latour), on the one hand, and literary criticism, linguistics, and book history, on the other, enables us to focus on how texts move and how they move others. We will proceed in this essay by identifying three decisive moments in twentieth‐ and twenty‐first‐century textual scholarship, often conceptualized as “turns,” which are linked to the works of three path‐breaking authors and which at the same time represent three different stages or forms of textuality: the linguistic turn (Saussure), the turn to writing (Derrida), and the turn to print (Eisenstein). Our discussions of these three moments and forms of textuality aim at uncovering how they also represent seminal moments in Bruno Latour's development of the theoretical and methodological complex now referred to as ANT.     

Unconventional Gas Development: Why a Regional Community Said No

Public concern resulting from unconventional coal seam gas (CSG) exploration and production has become a contentious planning issue in regional Australia, with public concern drawing attention to government planning obligations. To assist Lismore City Council (Northern New South Wales) in its deliberations on the topic, a referendum‐style poll on the issue of CSG industry development was held in conjunction with the local government elections of September 2012. The poll question, ‘Do you support CSG exploration and production in the Lismore City Council area?’, elicited a poll response rate of 97% of eligible voters, of which 87% voted ‘no’. This paper reports the results of an exit poll survey using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to frame motivations behind the poll result, and examines the role of the poll and exit poll survey in providing a process of deliberative democracy in the context of the CSG debate. Key details highlighted by the results were that non‐supporters of CSG exploration were primarily concerned about water quality, while supporters saw the primary benefit being regional employment. Emerging themes of this study are the need for more independent research on potential risks and benefits of CSG developments, increase in institutional transparency, and the development of renewable alternatives. The study concludes that the principles of deliberative democracy involved in the Lismore City Council poll and subsequent exit poll survey have provided an opportunity for a more open discussion and genuine discourse within the CSG debate.     

Social distance in Bosnia‐Herzegovina and the North Caucasus region of Russia: Inter and intra‐ethnic attitudes and identities*

ABSTRACT. This article examines attitudinal differences and similarities among ethnic groups in conflict‐affected societies. Conventional wisdom tells us that societies that have experienced violent struggles in which individuals of different ethnic groups have (been) mobilized against each other are likely to become polarized along ethnic lines. Indeed, both policy‐makers and scholars often assume that such divisions are some of the main challenges that must be overcome to restore peace after war. We comparatively examine this conventional wisdom by mapping dimensions of social distance among 4,000 survey respondents in Bosnia‐Herzegovina and the North Caucasus region of Russia. The surveys were carried out in December 2005. Using multidimensional scaling methods, we do not find patterns of clear attitudinal cleavages among members of different ethnic groups in Bosnia‐Herzegovina. Nor do we find patterns of clear ethnic division in the North Caucasus, although our social distance matrices reveal a difference between Russians and ethnic minority groups.