RailCity oder Hauptbahnhof?

In der neueren Designtheorie wird zur Zeit – auch in Bezug auf die Rhetorik – vermehrt der Aspekt der Wirkungsintention diskutiert; in Abgrenzung zur Analyse von 'Bedeutung' stehen in diesem Modell Produktion und Analyse in einem wirkungsgeleiteten Verhältnis. Ausgehend von der These, dass sich die beabsichtigten Nutzungen eines Gebäudes anhand des in und an ihm wirkenden Designs beschreiben lassen, wird am Beispiel des Berner Hauptbahnhofs ("SBB RailCity Bern") gezeigt, wie sich dessen 'design for shopping' zum 'design for transport' verhält. Die Architektur des Bahnhofs wird in diesem Setting weniger als 'gebauter Raum' verstanden als vielmehr als Träger und Auslöser von Informationsumgebungen, Blick- und Gangführungen, Stimmungsinszenierungen und Reizen – mit dem Ziel, Reisende und potentielle Konsument in ihrer jeweiligen Erlebniskette zu führen.

Approaching Migrant Youth Marginalization through the Capabilities Approach: Methodological Proposals

Adopting the capabilities approach and the terminology that has been respectively developed, we could assume that Amartya Sen’s “capabilities” consist in the actual living that people manage to achieve (“functionings”) as a result of actual free will. Sen’s freedom does not “only [depend on the] mere degree of the presence or absence of coercion or interference (from others)” (Otto and Ziegler 2006) but also on “the range of options a person has in deciding what kind of life to lead” (Dreze and Sen 1995, 10). In his book, Identity and Violence, Sen, without explicitly connecting the capabilities approach with his views on “genuine multiculturalis” (Sen 2007), in fact, introduces this extended conception of freedom in the way we examine identity matters. Since freedom becomes perceptible as the range of options a person has, concerning the kind of life he wishes to live, cultural freedom can be defined through the concept of the multiplicity of belonging. In other words, cultural freedom constitutes itself a capability, which is realized when nothing and no one, not even myself, can tie me down to a kind of cultural rigidity that tends to exclude and marginalize me. This latent connection of “capabilities” with “multiple identities” (Sen 2007) challenges us to search for the contribution Sen’s approach could have in the understanding and confrontation of issues concerning migrants, away from theoretical patterns that overemphasize the cultural otherness as an impediment to inclusion. Besides, Sen himself, without of course focusing exclusively on migrants, has already approached the matter of social exclusion with terms of his capabilities approach (Sen 2000).

Transformations in French Anti-Semitism?

The increase in the number of anti-Semitic acts since the start of the Second Intifada has sparked off a broad debate on the return of anti-Semitism in France. This article focuses on the question whether this anti-Semitism is still based on the alleged superiority of the Aryan race as in the time of Nazism, or if it represents the birth of a “new Judeophobia” that is more based on anti-Zionism and the polemical mixing of “Jews,” “Israelis,” and “Zionists.” One supposed effect of this transformation is that anti-Semitism is in the process of changing camps and migrating from the extreme right to the extreme left of the political arena, to the “altermondialistes,” the communists, and the “neo-Trotskyists.” The article provides answers to the following questions: Are anti-Jewish views on the increase in France today? Do these opinions correlate with negative opinions of other minorities, notably Maghrebians and Muslims? Do they tend to develop among voters and sympathizers with the extreme right or on the extreme left of the political spectrum? And how are they related to opinions concerning Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? My evaluation of the transformations in French anti-Semitism relies on two types of data. The first is police and gendarmerie statistics published by the National Consultative Committee on Human Rights (CNCDH), which is charged with presenting the prime minister with an annual report on the struggle against racism and xenophobia in France. The other is data from surveys, notably surveys commissioned by CNCDH for its annual report and surveys conducted at the Center for Political Research (CEVIPOF) at Sciences Po (Paris Institute for Political Research). The data show that anti-Semitic opinions follow a different logic from acts, that the social, cultural, and political profile of anti-Semites remains very close to that of other types of racists, and that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism do not overlap exactly.