On Jordan Peterson,Postmodernism, and PoMo-Bashing

Jordan Peterson says that postmodernists say no interpretation is better than another. I would no sooner identify Peterson’s adversaries as those who have been misled by “postmodernism” than I would identify them as misled by “sustainability,” “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” or “intersectionality.” Such fare is mainly symptomatic. “Postmodern” invocations are often like “sustainability” invocations: inessential. This piece is not a defense of postmodernism. It is a critique of PoMo-bashing.     

The Interactions and Experiences of Armenians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey from the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 to the Present

This article will examine the interactions of Armenians and Jews as well as shared and dissimilar experiences in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey from the early 20th century to the present to compare how affinities and differences in political outlook have affected their relationship. It has been stated at times in academia, by politicians, and members of the press that the Armenian and Jewish Diasporas have had similar historical experiences mostly through hardships. Despite that being the case, this article will show that throughout their experiences as non-Muslim minorities in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey Armenians and Jews have never developed any coordinated collaboration; instead, they have pursued perceived respective ethnic interests, largely influenced by historical memory and geopolitics. At the same time, the Young Turks and later the Turkish state engaged in policies, especially toward non-Muslim minorities, that have been described as contradictory, ambivalent, or both in nature, influenced by changing perceptions of citizenship and identity as well as geopolitics.     

The new constitutions of east Germany

The restoration of the Lander in the former GDR in 1990 and the unification of Berlin called for a round of constitution drafting in the east that resulted in considerable discussion and controversy within the attentive public and, especially, among legal scholars in all of Germany. Controversy focused on two general issues: direct democracy and certain constitutional provisions such as social rights and state goals. Direct democracy is nothing new for the Länder, since most West German Land constitutions provided for referenda long before the Wall collapsed. But the three‐step process adopted in the east, and in particular the relatively low signature requirements for initiatives and petitions, both of which were in fact first introduced by Schleswig‐Holstein in 1990, did not meet with universal approval. Even more controversial were certain provisions in the Land constititions, for example, Brandenburg, that probably violate the Basic Law, and a number of unenforceable social rights and state goals that raise questions about feasibility and false expectations. This leaves us with questions about just how different from their western counterparts the constitutions in the new Lander really are and whether, given the relatively weak position of the Lander in the policy‐making process in the German federal system and the EU, their constitutional provisions matter that much.