Towards an Orthodox Marxian Reading of Subsumption(s) of Academic Labour

This paper deploys an orthodox Marxian reading of the concept of subsumption of labour under capital. It does so through a brief, critical overview of the components of the Marxian conceptual instrument of subsumption of labour under capital (formal, real, hybrid and ideal subsumption). Recapitulating Marx’s concept, it sheds some light on the consequences of such a reading as a way of understanding the current transformation of the global higher education sector into a capitalist production sector per se. The reconstruction is then considered here as an attempt to approximate the specifics of the subsumption of labour under capital within the higher education sector. Moreover, the paper aims at showing that a discussion of the university dominated by capital with reference to the functioning or constituting of markets does not provide real opportunities for the understanding and solution of such problems as precarization, exploitation or acceleration of academic work. Thus, it joins a wider stream of Marxist higher education research and could be seen as a conceptual contribution to a critique of the political economy of higher education.

W oczekiwaniu na Paruzję. Myśl eschatologiczna w prawosławnym piśmiennictwie słowiańskim do początku XVI wieku

Wydział Filologii Polskiej i Klasycznej: Instytut Filologii Słowiańskiej

„Livre des merveilles”. Burgundzka wizja Orientu późnego średniowiecza w miniaturach manuskryptu fr. 2810 z Bibliothèque nationale de France

Wydział Historyczny: Instytut Historii Sztuki

Religijne motywy w tworczości syberyjskiego pisarza Wiktora Astafjewa

Wydział Neofilologii: Instytut Filologii Rosyjskiej

Badania archeologiczne a obrazowanie wizualne przeszłości

One can say that our times are dominated by visual communication. Usually all day long we have been faced by various pictures, visual forms and symbols. According to the subject of the book 'Archaeology-Culture-Ideologies' I found it interesting to pay attention to the problem of visual representation, or better say visual symbols in nowadays communication and culture, their meaning and importance. From this point of view I would like to show the role of archaeologists who discover, interpret or even create some of them. The subject is not new of course, but the most often it is taken into consideration by the scholars who practice in social anthropology or philosophy and quite rarely it appear in studies of archaeologies, especially in Polish tradition. In my opinion the subject concerning visual symbols communication and archaeology arise several important questions that are also valid for the theme of book 'Archaeology-Culture-Ideologies'. The first is socio-cultural role of our discipline, next the danger of political and propaganda misuse of the results of archaeological research and then also commercialisation of the archaeological activities. The problem of visualisation and visual-communication can be the matter of various studies. In my paper from the beginning I would like to present the general view concerning visual symbols and figural motifs and the main ideas and approaches to study them from different humanistic perspectives. Then in my presentation I am going to discuss the question why in our culture the visual symbols and representations became so popular – compare to other ways of human expression, for example verbal symbol communication. I would like to see the problem in historical perspective as well. There are a lot of evidences, which support the statement about the power of visual symbols in history. In ancient times for example Horace in 'Ars Poetica' suggested that human mind usually is much more impressed by eyes than by ears. In my opinion that is quite often in human culture that visual impression is before mental one. Visual representations and symbols are very powerful, they can show and communicate various phenomena, they act immediately and quite often in easily way they can associate. So for archaeological research it could be very important to make some studies concerning the ancient symbols and general iconography and also it would be grateful to make some attempts for the study what kind of potential meaning could have visual symbols. In my paper I can only make some general statement about it. But the most important for the topic is reflection on prehistoric and ancient visual symbols and representation and their presence in contemporary culture. So after some general statements concerning the visual symbols examined from various perspectives finally I would like to point out with support of some examples how ancient and prehistoric visual symbols and images are still used and captured by contemporary culture and what is or should be the role of archaeologists activity concerning this matter.

Herod Wielki i „nowa” Jerozolima

Summary: Herod the Great (73-4 B.C.E.) was a Roman client king of the small Jewish state Judaea in the last three decades before the common era. An essential aspect of Herod's reign was his role as a builder. Remarkably innovative, he created an astonishing record of architectural achievement, not only in Judaea but also throughout Greece and the Roman East. Herod’s own inclinations caused him to engage in a building program that paralleled that of his patron, Augustus. The most famous and ambitious project was the expansion of Jerusalem and rebuilding of the Second Temple. Josephus Flavius, a 1st-century Jewish historian, in his descriptions of the visual structure of Jerusalem delivers the picture of the Jewish society in the latter Second Temple Judaea, who were fundamentally antagonistic toward images. For Josephus, Roman iconography, such as Herod’s eagle from the Jerusalem Temple, represents not only political domination but also an unambiguous religious abomination. Visual conservatism in the public realm finds important verification in the excavated remains of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and the Herodian Quarter (Upper City). Geometric patterns and forms predominate on the floor mosaic, stone furniture, in architectural detail and funerary remains. No human imagery is present in the Jewish context. However, Herodian structures in Jerusalem reflect the architectural and visual vocabulary of their time which contains popular elements of Roman domination in the ancient world.

Simone Weil’s questions about God

We can say that the 20th century was not an era for seeking the truth in the first place. Philosophers and others were absorbed with the idea that we cannot know anything for certain. No one is able to claim that something is really true. However, we can find philosophers who were willing to die for the truth. We can discover them in the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Churches. For example, father Pavel Florensky, a Russian philosopher and priest, played an important role in solving the problem of correlation between culture and religion. He died executed by the firing squad at the Solovki Gulag on December 8th, 1937. Another such philosopher was St. Edith Stein. She was martyred equally for the truth of the Catholic Faith and for the truth of Mosaic Faith. Edith Stein was put on a train heading for the East and died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz probably on 9th August, 1942. The third person, who died for the truth in those horrible times, was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The integrity of his Christian faith and life led him to a concentration camp, where he was hanged on April 9th, 1945. Looking at those great people of European history in the 20th century, we can see some contrasts and similarities to the life and activity of a French thinker – Simone Weil. Simone Weil was looking for the truth all her life. She was Jewish, but she was attracted to Roman Catholicism and sure that the truth is in God. Simone Weil persuades us that it is at the same time possible and impossible to know God, because “Dieu ne peut ętre présent dans la création que sous la forme de l’absence”.