This article connects value-sensitive design to Gibson’s affordance theory: the view that we perceive in terms of the ease or difficulty with which we can negotiate space. Gibson’s ideas offer a nonsubjectivist way of grasping culturally relative values, out of which we develop a concept of political affordances, here understood as openings or closures for social action, often implicit. Political affordances are equally about environments and capacities to act in them. Capacities and hence the severity of affordances vary with age, (...) health, social status and more. This suggests settings are selectively permeable, or what postphenomenologists call multistable. Multistable settings are such that a single physical location shows up differently – as welcoming or hostile – depending on how individuals can act on it. In egregious cases, authoritarian governments redesign politically imbued spaces to psychologically cordon both them and the ideologies they represent. Selective permeability is also orchestrated according to business interests, which is symptomatic of commercial imperatives increasingly dictating what counts as moral and political goods. (shrink)

This paper aims to show how the legacy of socialism with a human face represents a far more serious obstacle for the postsocialist transition than the heritage of rigid socialism. This is because an amalgamation of the perception of the autochthonous character of socialism accompanied by the perception of its soft, human face, creates an anti-capitalist mentality (Ludwig von Mises) that leaves an enormous impact on the long-term understandings of the concepts of individual, society, state, and reforms. This sort of (...) mentality is deeply entrenched in Serbia, where a full-scale process of “debolshevization” has never been initiated. The continuity with socialist legacy is apparent in key segments of the ill-fated transition: political, institutional, economic, symbolical, and no less moral. (shrink)

For a long time, academic institutes stigmatized activism and dissociated it from academic practice. It was looked down upon and considered to be disruptive and western institutes continued silencing critical thinking and practice, and encouraged what they named 'critical distance'. These practices of exclusion must push us, city inhabitants, to ask: what is the point of excluding activism from academic practice? How can we bridge between theory and activism? How can we decenter city planning? If cities belong to the people, (...) why are public authorities trying to erase the public's print in the urban realm? Who gets to speak and why? In our group as the ‘Radicals’, we discussed the gap between urban theory and practice, while encouraging the audience to reflect on how urban concepts adopt multiple definitions within different geographies and communities. (shrink)