The anthropological literature on waiting has developed along two tracks. One treats waiting as an exercise of institutional power, in which the imposition of delay produces subordi- nated subjects; the other treats the waiting room as an atmospheric and spatial condition with its own affective properties. Neither track has examined how waiting rooms stratify internally, nor what difference it makes whether that stratification is visible to those it disadvantages. This article addresses that gap. Drawing on the published ethnographic and health-services literature, it pro- poses a distinction among three regimes of temporal stratification, differentiated by where the conversion of social advantage into temporal priority occurs relative to the sight-lines of those waiting: sequestered conversion, in which advantage is exercised outside the room; codified con- version, in which it is exercised inside the room under published criteria; and exposed conversion, in which it is exercised inside the room through unpublished, particularistic means. The article's original contribution is the claim that public healthcare waiting rooms in Southeast Europe are characterised by exposed conversion, and that this produces a distinctive attentional posture I term surveillant waiting: attention directed laterally at co-waiters and at the staff-door threshold rather than forward at one's own turn, because the operative uncertainty concerns not when one will be seen but who will be seen first and on what basis. The consequence for the article's second key term is that embodied patience in such settings is better understood as vigilance held in a still body than as resignation or discipline. Three falsifiable predictions follow, of which the sharpest is that reducing waiting duration should not reduce dissatisfaction under exposed conversion, whereas rendering the conversion either invisible or codified should. The study is conceptual and comparative and rests on no new fieldwork; the conclusion specifies the observational design that would test the predictions.

European assisted dying statutes diverge sharply on whether an applicant must be ter- minally ill, and the divergence has consequences that the literature has not adequately theorised. Where terminality is required, eligibility turns largely on a medically verifiable predicate about the applicant's condition. Where it is not required, as in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and as an implication of the German Federal Constitutional Court's 2020 ruling, the whole weight of gatekeeping falls on a predicate that only the applicant can access: unbearable suffering. This article develops the concept of the epistemic gatekeeping load, defined as the share of an eligibility determination that rests on first-personally accessible predicates, and argues that it varies inversely with terminality requirements across the European regimes. From this I derive the article's central thesis, which I call procedural substitution: as the epistemic gatekeeping load rises, legal systems do not and cannot compensate by refining the substantive definition, and instead substitute pro- cedural architecture for substantive review. Mortier v. Belgium is the moment at which the Eu- ropean Court of Human Rights made this substitution explicit at the supervisory level, holding that a permissive regime does not violate Article 2 in substance even for a non-terminal psychi- atric applicant while locating a violation in the independence of the ex post control body and the length of the criminal investigation. Karsai v. Hungary confirms the pattern from the opposite direction through a wide margin of appreciation. The article's normative claim follows: the long- running complaint that “unbearable suffering” is unacceptably vague is misdirected, since the vagueness is not a drafting defect that better definition could cure but a structural entailment of abandoning terminality, and the appropriate locus of reform is therefore the design of review institutions. The analysis is doctrinal and comparative, draws on sixty verified sources, and offers legal analysis rather than legal advice.

A red woollen thread tied around the wrist of a newborn, or worked into the swaddling, belt, or headcloth of a woman in the forty days following birth, is among the most widely reported protective devices in the ethnographic record of the Dinaric highlands and the wider Slavic Or- thodox world. It is also absent from the canonical texts of the tradition within whose ritual cal- endar it operates. The postpartum period is the object of a precise ecclesiastical framework — the prayers of the first day, the eighth-day naming, the fortieth-day churching of mother and child — and the red thread appears at no point in that framework, being neither prescribed nor for- bidden. This article treats that absence as its central datum rather than as an incidental gap. Work- ing from the published ethnographic and lived-religion literature on the Western Balkans and the wider Slavic area, and from the comparative literature on amulets, charms, and the materiality of magic, I argue that the standard boundary-object model, which explains an artefact's circulation between communities by its interpretive flexibility, misdescribes what is happening here. The original contribution of the article is the canonical vacancy thesis: the red thread circulates be- tween folk therapeutic practice and ecclesiastical practice not because the two communities read it differently but because one of them has issued no reading at all, and this normative silence is a structural condition rather than an oversight. From the thesis I develop a three-tier typology of ritual objects by institutional status — canonically incorporated, canonically proscribed, canoni- cally vacant — and derive a falsifiable prediction: vacant-tier objects should display higher per- sistence under secularisation and biomedicalisation than objects in either of the other tiers, since their retention incurs no doctrinal cost and their abandonment yields no doctrinal benefit. The article is conceptual and comparative; it advances no claim resting on new fieldwork, and the concluding section specifies the fieldwork that would be needed to test the prediction properly.

Aristotelian-Thomistic arguments for a first cause turn on a distinction between acci- dentally ordered causal series, whose members act in succession, and essentially ordered series, whose members act simultaneously and whose intermediate members exercise causal power only as instruments deriving that power from a prior member. Critics of these arguments have con- centrated on regress termination and on whether persistence needs a sustaining cause; almost nobody has asked what the instrumental structure itself demands of physics. I argue that the standard formulation of the per se argument carries a tacit commitment I call the Derivational Sufficiency Requirement (DSR): that whatever an intermediate cause contributes to its effect is wholly derived from what it receives from the prior member. DSR is trivially satisfied under determinism and non-trivially contested under every indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Working from a corpus of thirty-eight verified sources published between 2019 and 2026, I develop the article's original contribution: the derivational trilemma, according to which a defender of the per se argument must either (i) commit the argument to a deterministic inter- pretation, thereby forfeiting the interpretation-neutrality classical theists typically claim, or (ii) weaken DSR to the derivation of propensity distributions rather than of singular outcomes, or (iii) accept irreducibly underived transitions inside the very structure designed to eliminate brute facts. A survey of eight interpretive families shows the trilemma to be exhaustive over the extant options, with 37.5% falling on the first horn, 25.0% on the second, and 37.5% on the third. I then defend the second horn as the strongest available position and identify a convergence, so far unremarked in either literature, between the propensity-based indeterministic physics of Del Santo and Gisin (2023) and the Thomistic distinction between primary and secondary causation. The convergence has a determinate price: the per se argument, so weakened, delivers a sustainer of powers rather than a determiner of outcomes. The emanational morphology of Knežević (2024a) is examined as a further, structurally distinct way of paying that price.

The modal collapse objection holds that a doctrine of divine simplicity, on which the first cause (prauzrok) is identical with its own act, entails that everything the first cause brings about is brought about necessarily, so that no created state of affairs could have failed to obtain. Since Tomaszewski (2019) exposed a substitution fallacy in the standard formulation of the ob- jection, the debate has produced a dense body of replies, counter-replies, and reformulations, yet no study has systematically mapped where each reply locates the contingency that the objection claims to destroy. This article closes that gap. Drawing on a corpus of twenty-two peer-reviewed contributions published between 2019 and 2026, I develop the Contingency Localization Frame- work (CLF), a five-fold typology that classifies every extant response according to the theoretical site at which it houses contingency: the inferential structure of the argument itself, extrinsic effect- side predication, multi-track divine power, intra-divine aspectival differentiation, or a gradated emanational hierarchy. The framework grounds the article's central thesis, which I call the con- servation of contingency: no response eliminates the modal collapse worry; each merely relocates contingency to a new site, and each relocation carries a characteristic and quantifiable theoretical cost. Bibliometric analysis of the corpus shows that 63.6% of contributions defend simplicity while 36.4% press the objection, that extrinsicalist strategies account for 53.8% of relocation- based defences, and that the debate's centre of gravity shifted after 2021 from disputes over log- ical validity toward disputes over cost allocation. The framework is then extended to the emana- tionist metaphysics articulated in Knežević (2024) and analysed by Đukić (2025), which I argue constitutes a fifth, structurally distinct localization strategy with its own liabilities. The conclusion assesses which localizations survive the providential collapse argument of Schmid (2022) and at what price.

The article offers a systematic reconstruction and contemporary re-evaluation of Boethius's solution to the problem of divine foreknowledge in Book V of the Consolation of Philosophy. The central research question is whether the Boethian doctrine of eternity — defined as interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio, the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of unending life — still constitutes a defensible response to the dilemma of divine omniscience and human freedom, given the objections raised against it in the analytic philosophy of religion between 2019 and 2025. The research applies a hermeneutic-analytical methodology that combines close textual analysis of Consolatio V.1–V.6 with rational reconstruction of its argumentative structure and a comparative-systematic mapping of that structure onto the contemporary debate. The analysis yields three principal results. First, Boethius's solution is shown to be a unified three-component strategy, integrating an epistemic principle (the modes- of-cognition thesis), a metaphysical doctrine (atemporal eternity), and a modal distinction (simple versus conditional necessity), such that no component functions successfully in isolation. Second, the article develops its original contribution, the praesential-dependence reading, according to which the tota simul doctrine operates as a metaphysical vehicle for an implicit dependence response: divine vision is explanatorily posterior to the free act it apprehends, which anticipates the contemporary dependence solutions of Wasserman, Law, Cyr, and Fischer. Third, it is argued that the most influential recent objections — Hasker's presentist critique and Cyr's superfluity objection — target the metaphysical component while leaving the praesential-dependence core intact. The conclusion is that Boethius's fifth-century solution remains a live option in the twenty- first-century debate precisely when it is read as a structurally unified dependence response rather than as a bare appeal to timelessness.

Članak razvija filozofsku analizu načina na koji se savremene krize demokratije mogu razumjeti kao posljedice kolapsa zajedničkog kognitivnog horizonta — strukturnog uslova pod kojim građani jednog političkog poretka mogu da dijele dovoljno epistemičkog tla da vode racionalnu javnu raspravu o zajedničkim pitanjima. Istraživanje primjenjuje mješoviti kritičko-analitički pristup koji integriše strukturiranu sintezu recenzirane literature objavljene u periodu 2014-2023, komparativnu dokumentarnu analizu empirijskih studija o širenju dezinformacija i polarizacije, te konceptualnu dekompoziciju filozofskih okvira u oblasti socijalne epistemologije, političke epistemologije i teorije deliberativne demokratije. Centralni nalaz jeste da fenomen postistine ne predstavlja kontingentnu epohu posebne neistinitosti niti tehnološku posljedicu nastanka društvenih mreža, nego strukturni kolaps tri međusobno spregnute dimenzije zajedničkog kognitivnog horizonta — epistemičke dimenzije zajedničkih metodoloških standarda, diskurzivne dimenzije zajedničke javne sfere i institucionalne dimenzije zajedničkih epistemičkih autoriteta — i da nijedna dimenzija ne može biti supstancijalno obnovljena u izolaciji od preostale dvije. Empirijski obrazac dokumentovan u pregledanoj literaturi — od podataka o ekstremno asimetričnom širenju lažnih vijesti na društvenim mrežama, preko studija o efektima izloženosti suprotstavljenim mišljenjima na pojačavanje polarizacije, do analiza kontestacije epistemičkih autoriteta u savremenim populističkim pokretima — potvrđuje da reformske inicijative usmjerene samo na jednu dimenziju sistemski podbacuju jer neizmijenjene dimenzije kompenzuju lokalnu promjenu. Originalan doprinos rada jeste uvođenje analitičkog okvira tripartitnog kolapsa kognitivnog horizonta, koji rastavlja krizu postistine na tri komponente i specifikuje povratne sprege kojima svaka komponenta intenzivira preostale dvije. Rad zaključuje implikacijama za savremenu teoriju demokratije i predlaže kriterijume sistemske adekvatnosti za buduće reformske intervencije. Metodološka ograničenja uključuju oslanjanje na engleskojezičku akademsku literaturu i nužnu apstraktnost konceptualne sinteze.

This article addresses a structural shift in the conditions of epistemic acceptance under generative artificial intelligence. The argument is that the displacement of human judgement by large language models is not adequately captured by the language of disinformation or hallucination, both of which presuppose that an underlying regime of verification remains intact and is merely violated. The article advances a different diagnosis: a regime change is underway, in which the operative criterion of epistemic acceptance shifts from justification grounded in evidence and traceable sources to statistical fluency and conversational uptake. The original contribution lies in the development of a single concept — the plausibility regime — together with three operational indicators that allow the regime shift to be identified empirically. The plausibility regime is defined by four properties: a fluency-based criterion of acceptance, an interface-based site of authority, the discharge of justificatory work to opaque computational systems, and an inverted default disposition in which acceptance precedes rather than follows verification. The three indicators are the discharge index, the fluency-trust coupling, and the source-opacity ratio. The methodology is conceptual and integrative, drawing on Habermasian communicative rationality, Floridi's philosophy of information, and Lyotard's analysis of postmodern performativity, and is combined with a synthetic reading of recent findings on hallucination rates, automation bias, and platform-mediated discourse. The article concludes that the plausibility regime is not external to but parasitic upon the verification regime, and that any normative response must therefore operate at the level of institutional design rather than individual epistemic virtue.

Procjena cijene kao pravedne ili nepravedne ne pripada periferiji kupovne odluke nego se konstituiše kao njena moralna jezgra: u trenutku kada potrošač uoči da je platio više od onoga što smatra zasluženim, aktivira se cijeli registar negativnih emocija i ponašajnih reakcija — od ljutnje i ogorčenja do osvete u obliku negativne usmene predaje, bojkota i napuštanja prodavca. Ovaj rad razvija integrativnu konceptualno-empirijsku analizu osjećaja prevarenosti u uslovima dinamičkog i algoritamskog cjenovnog određivanja, fokusirajući se na pet glavnih okidača: odstupanje od interne referentne cijene, opaženu netransparentnost procedure, kategoriju proizvoda i njegovu egzistencijalnu nužnost, atribuciju namjere prodavca i prisustvo personaliziranja na osnovu ličnih podataka. Metodološki, rad kombinuje strukturisani pregled recentne recenzirane literature iz oblasti psihologije potrošača, marketinga i poslovne etike, sa ilustrativnim kvantitativno-eksperimentalnim materijalom iz simulirane studije scenarija u kojoj 312 ispitanika starosti 19–46 godina ocjenjuje opažanu pravičnost različitih dinamičkih cjenovnih konfiguracija. Analiza pokazuje da osjećaj prevarenosti nije linearna funkcija veličine porasta cijene nego složena interakcija između dual entitlement obrasca, atribucije profitnog motiva i opaženog moralnog štetnog dejstva proizvoda. Originalni doprinos rada leži u predlaganju radnog Indeksa opažene prevarenosti (Perceived Deception Index, PDI) sastavljenog od pet ponderisanih komponenti, sa kvalitativnim kriterijima pogodnim za daljnja empirijska istraživanja i normativnim implikacijama za regulaciju algoritamskog cjenovnog određivanja u maloprodajnom i uslužnom sektoru. Posebna pažnja posvećena je situacijama u kojima dinamičko određivanje cijena prelazi prag percipirane manipulacije i prelazi u domen onoga što potrošači doživljavaju kao izdaju.

The contemporary paradox of recording the highest-ever density of digital contacts alongside the steepest reported rates of subjective loneliness among emerging adults marks a phenomenon that purely epidemiological accounts struggle to render intelligible. This article advances an empirical-phenomenological inquiry into the experience of loneliness in the hyperconnected age, focusing on university students for whom always-on digital co-presence has become an ambient condition of life rather than an episodic activity. Drawing on a phenomenological tradition shaped by Heidegger's account of Befindlichkeit and Mitsein and on Merleau-Ponty's analysis of the lived body, and integrating these resources with contemporary work on situated and extended affectivity, the study develops a distinct phenomenological category termed presence-loneliness — the experience of being lonely while being incessantly co-present to others through screens. Methodologically, the inquiry combines a structured review of recent peer-reviewed literature on loneliness, social media, and phenomenology with a hypothetical-illustrative qualitative dataset of twenty-four semi-structured interviews with undergraduate students aged 19 to 24, analysed through Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. The analysis identifies three constitutive structures of presence-loneliness — perceptual saturation without recognition, a disrupted bodily attunement to the other, and a temporal collapse between availability and intimacy — and proposes a working operationalisation that distinguishes presence-loneliness from emotional, social and existential loneliness. The findings indicate that the dominant policy framing, which equates digital connection with social connection, misreads what the experience of being-with means under hyperconnective conditions. The original contribution lies in proposing presence-loneliness as a fourth, phenomenologically grounded category of loneliness, theorised through classical phenomenology and operationalised through qualitative criteria suitable for further empirical research, situated explicitly within ongoing debates about the social and ethical consequences of pervasive digital mediation. The work is offered as a contribution to philosophical psychology, critical theory of communication, and applied phenomenology, with implications for educators and mental-health practitioners working with students who report feeling, in their own words, “surrounded but unseen”.

Članak razvija konceptualni okvir koji opisuje načine na koje savremene političke i ekonomske strukture upisuju vlastite zahtjeve direktno u tijelo radnika, potrošača i građanina. Polazna teza glasi da je ideologija u kasnom kapitalizmu prestala biti primarno stvar svijesti i postala pitanje somatike: ona ne ubjeđuje, nego umara, mršavi, podiže puls, smanjuje san i povećava intenzitet bola u kičmi. Iz te dijagnoze proizlazi originalni doprinos rada — trijadni model somatske inskripcije ideologije, koji razlikuje tri komplementarna modaliteta upisivanja (disciplinarni, afektivni i performativni) i tri korespondentna oblika tjelesnog otpora. Disciplinarna inskripcija djeluje kroz radne procese, ergonomske režime i institucionalne rasporede vremena; afektivna inskripcija djeluje kroz proizvodnju anksioznosti, izgaranja i okrutnog optimizma; performativna inskripcija djeluje kroz samokvantifikaciju, fitnessaplikacije i estetičke norme platformske kulture. Metodološki pristup je mješovit: kombinuje konceptualnu sintezu klasičnih i savremenih teorijskih okvira biopolitike, afektne teorije i kulturalnih studija s sekundarnom analizom empirijskih nalaza institucionalnih izvora — Eurofounda, Evropske agencije za sigurnost i zdravlje na radu, Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije i Gallupa. Glavni nalaz je da se tjelesni otpor u svakom modalitetu suočava s vlastitim mehanizmom kooptacije, što praksu otpora čini istovremeno moguća i nužno asimetričnom. Rad zaključuje da je analitička prednost trijadnog modela što omogućava istraživaču da bilo koji somatski fenomen savremenog društva — od bolova u leđima do anksioznosti — locira na trostranom polju i identifikuje odgovarajuću ravan kritičke intervencije.

Članak razvija sistemsko-analitičku interpretaciju filozofskog djela Slavena Kneževića Prauzrok: nacrt za uvod u morfologiju kosmologije, evolucije i teogonije (2024), sa fokusom na rekonstrukciju metafizičke arhitekture koju autor gradi na sjecištu istočnjačke i zapadnjačke filozofske tradicije, hermetičke ezoterijske misli, vedantske ontologije, neoplatonske emanacionističke šeme, klasične patristike i savremene procesne metafizike. Centralna interpretativna teza rada jeste da Kneževićev sistem ne predstavlja eklektičko spajanje različitih tradicija nego strukturno koherentan ezoterijski monizam s elementima procesne metafizike koji se može razložiti kroz pet međusobno povezanih ontoloških osa: (1) os apsoluta i manifestacije, kroz koju se kreće dvostruko kosmičko kretanje od beskrajno idealnog plana ka konačnom vidljivom ispoljavanju i od noumenalnog ka fenomenalnom; (2) os spoznaje, koja distingvira intelektualno razumijevanje, kontemplativnu spoznaju i direktno mističko iskustvo unio mystica; (3) os polariteta, koja artikuliše transcendentno-imanentni odnos kroz hermetičko načelo “kao gore, tako i dolje”; (4) os emanacije, koja se odvija kroz primordijalnu trijadu NE-BOGA, prelazak u “JA JESAM” kao prvu samosvjesnu aktualizaciju, te dalje kroz BEZDAN i deset emanacija do Svijeta kao desete emanacije; te (5) os modaliteta etra, kroz koju etar funkcionira na tri nivoa — kao kvantno polje, kao astralna svjetlost hermetičke tradicije, te kao akasha univerzalne memorije. Drugi originalni doprinos članka je interpretativno ograničavanje Kneževićevog koncepta “višeg impulsa” kao filozofski najoriginalnijeg elementa sistema: viši impuls nije ni božanska zamisao ni pramaterija, nego sam prauzrok — operator koji pretvara potencijalnost u aktualnost i kod Kneževića poprima matematičku formu kroz koeficijent x stvaralačkih sila. Treći doprinos je smještanje sistema u savremene rasprave o panpsihizmu, procesnoj metafizici i obnovljenoj filozofiji religije, gdje se Kneževićev ezoterijski monizam čita kao integracija savremenih razvoja u tradicijski okvir koji odbija i redukcionistički naturalizam i klasičnu ontoteologiju.

This article reopens an old question with new tools. What is the ontological status of the intentional object, once we accept neither Brentano’s reading of mental directedness as the immanent in-existence of an object nor Husserl’s relocation of that object into the ideal correlate of an act? The recent revival of Brentano scholarship has shown that the standard immanentist picture rests on a misattribution, while contemporary work on phenomenal intentionality, nonexistent objects, and naturalised content has multiplied positions without supplying theoretical psychology with a usable ontology of aboutness. The analysis develops a single original contribution: a framework I call stratified intentional realism, which transposes the Brentano–Husserl problematic into the stratified ontology of critical realism—the distinction between the intransitive and transitive dimensions of inquiry and the domains of the real, the actual, and the empirical. On this account the intentional object is neither an intramental particular nor a mind-independent thing but a transitive-dimension relational structure: real because it is causally relevant within psychological generative mechanisms, yet non-substantial because it carries no existence commitment regarding its relatum. A two-axis typology classifies nine post-Brentanian positions by ontological locus and by whether directedness is construed transitively or intransitively. Applied to theoretical psychology, the framework dissolves three standing problems—the reification of mental representations, the realism–antirealism split over content, and the disciplinary fragmentation diagnosed by realist metatheorists. The method is conceptual and comparative, drawing on primary sources and on the 2019–2023 literature. The principal limitation is that the framework is defended analytically rather than through empirical modelling, and its causal-relevance claim awaits operationalisation

Članak razvija kritičku analizu načina na koje su identitet, kolektivno sećanje i transgeneracijska trauma strukturno spregnuti u postkonfliktnim društvima Zapadnog Balkana, sa posebnim fokusom na Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Srbiju, Hrvatsku i Kosovo. Istraživanje primenjuje mešoviti kritičko-analitički pristup koji integriše strukturiranu sintezu recenzirane literature objavljene u periodu 2015-2023, komparativnu dokumentarnu analizu institucionalnih pokazatelja postkonfliktnog upravljanja sećanjem — uključujući zakonske memorijske režime, dugoročna istraživanja psihičke distres-traume preživelih, te studije slučaja komemorativnih praksi vezanih za Srebrenicu, Prijedor, Vukovar i Kosovo — i konceptualnu dekompoziciju postojećih analitičkih okvira u memory studies, transitional justice studies i postkonfliktnoj sociologiji. Centralni nalaz jeste da identitet, sećanje i kolektivna trauma u postkonfliktnim društvima regiona ne deluju kao paralelne, već kao rekurzivno spregnute dimenzije postkonfliktne reprodukcije, i da nijedna dimenzija ne može biti analitički ili politički razrešena u izolaciji od preostale dve. Empirijski obrazac dokumentovan u institucionalnim pokazateljima i u sintetizovanoj literaturi otkriva da postkonfliktne reformske inicijative — od međunarodno nametnutih zakona o sećanju do domaćih politika tranzicione pravde — sistemski podbacuju upravo zato što ciljaju jednu dimenziju ostavljajući druge dve nepromenjenim, što vodi kompenzatornom intenziviranju neizmenjenih dimenzija. Originalan doprinos rada jeste uvođenje analitičkog okvira trijade postkonfliktne reprodukcije, koji rastavlja postkonfliktnu dinamiku regiona na tri spregnute komponente — etnopolitičko sećanje, identitetsku konsolidaciju i transgeneracijsku traumu — i specifikuje povratne sprege kojima svaka komponenta intenzivira preostale dve. Rad zaključuje implikacijama za politike pomirenja u Zapadnom Balkanu, argumentujući da suštinsko pomirenje zahteva istovremenu intervenciju na sve tri komponente trijade, a ne uzastopne ili izolovane reforme. Metodološka ograničenja uključuju oslanjanje na agregirane institucionalne pokazatelje i koncentraciju izvora na engleskom jeziku.

The article develops a critical analysis of how Foucault's inherited conceptual apparatus — disciplinary power, biopower, and governmentality — must be reconfigured to account for contemporary pandemic surveillance practices that operate simultaneously through corporate platform infrastructures, algorithmic data flows, and necropolitical distributions of harm. The research employs a mixed-method critical-analytical approach that integrates a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2023, comparative documentary analysis of the World Health Organisation's interim public-health surveillance guidance and the leading critical sociotechnical case studies of contact-tracing applications, biometric monitoring systems, and digital health passes, and conceptual decomposition of how the Foucauldian inheritance has been mobilised, contested, and extended in the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The central finding is that contemporary pandemic surveillance operates through four structurally coupled layers — disciplinary surveillance of the individual body, biopolitical regulation of populations through statisticalepidemiological mechanisms, platform-mediated algorithmic surveillance produced by corporate technology actors, and necropolitical distribution of vulnerability across racialised, classed, and politically marginalised populations — and that no one layer can be analytically grasped in isolation from the others. The empirical pattern documented in the institutional indicators reveals that the surveillance practices instituted during the pandemic have not receded with the passing of the acute health emergency but have become naturalised through the recursive coupling of the four layers. The original contribution of this article is the introduction of the analytical framework of four-layer pandemic surveillance, which clarifies why classical accounts that mobilise only one or two of these layers cannot capture the structural specificity of contemporary biopolitical surveillance. The paper closes with implications for surveillance studies and political theory. Methodological limitations include reliance on aggregate institutional indicators and the English-language concentration of the source literature.

The article develops a critical analysis of how anthropocentric paradigms structurally constrain the contemporary discourse on climate justice and ecological justice. The research employs a mixed-method critical-analytical approach that integrates a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2023, comparative documentary analysis of major institutional indicators including the most recent planetary-boundaries assessment, the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II, and the most recent Lancet Countdown report on health and climate change, and a conceptual decomposition of dominant ethical frameworks across philosophy, environmental humanities, environmental politics, and Earth-system governance. The central finding is that anthropocentric ethics produces three structurally coupled disjunctions in climate-justice discourse — a species disjunction that separates the moral status of humans from that of non-human beings, a temporal disjunction that subordinates the standing of future generations to present preferences, and a spatial disjunction that decouples local moral obligations from planetary ecological dynamics — and that no one disjunction can be ethically resolved without resolving the other two. The empirical pattern documented in the institutional indicators reveals that the failure of climate governance to deliver substantive justice is not a contingent implementation failure but a structural consequence of the persistence of these three disjunctions in dominant ethical frameworks. The original contribution of this article is the introduction of the analytical framework of threefold ethical disjunction, which clarifies why isolated reforms within anthropocentric ethics cannot reconstruct ecological justice and which specifies the conditions under which a non-anthropocentric, multispecies, intergenerational, and planetary ethics could ground a substantive climate-justice imperative. Methodological limitations include reliance on aggregate indicators and the English-language concentration of the source literature.

The article examines the structural crisis of the neoliberal university model through a systematic analysis of how market logic erodes academic autonomy in contemporary higher education. The research employs a mixed-method critical-analytical approach that combines a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2023, comparative documentary analysis of institutional indicators from the European University Association Autonomy Scorecard and the Academic Freedom Index time-series, and analytical decomposition of governance, financing, and labour regimes across European and Anglo-American higher education systems. The central finding is that the erosion of academic autonomy operates through four coupled mechanisms — financial dependency, managerial governance, evaluative metrification, and discursive recasting of the academic subject — which form a self-reinforcing system rather than independent policy choices. The empirical pattern reveals a structural paradox in which higher education systems with the highest formal scores on institutional autonomy frequently exhibit the most intensive precarity of academic labour and the steepest declines on substantive indicators of academic freedom. The original contribution of this article is the introduction of the analytical framework of coupled mechanisms of autonomy erosion, which clarifies why isolated reforms targeting only one dimension of neoliberalisation systematically fail to restore substantive autonomy. The paper closes with implications for European Higher Education Area policy, arguing that genuine restoration of academic autonomy requires simultaneous intervention across all four mechanisms rather than incremental adjustments. Methodological limitations include reliance on aggregate institutional data and the English-language concentration of the source literature

Članak razvija preciznu teorijsko-empirijsku tezu koja se javlja na sjecištu kasnog konceptualnog aparata Achilla Mbembea — nekropolitike kao moći diktiranja “ko može živjeti a ko mora umrijeti”, proširene kroz njegove kasnije radove na nekropolitičke prostornosti i letalne formacije — i dokumentovane putanje centralnomediteranske migrantske rute u intervalu 2019–2023: kako analitički razumjeti konfiguraciju u kojoj se masovne smrti migranata ne dešavaju kroz klasične oblike državnog ubijanja, nego kroz distribuirane, administrativno-poricive mehanizme strukturisanog izostavljanja koje formalno-pravni okvir EU i njenih mediteranskih partnerskih država održavaju izvan polja jasne odgovornosti? Polazeći od Mbembeove nekropolitičke paradigme, rad razvija koncept kalkulisanog napuštanja kao operativnog modusa savremene granične nekropolitike. Originalni doprinos rada jeste razrada koncepta kroz tipologiju pet rekurentnih oblika: (1) sporazumnoeksternalizovano napuštanje, kroz formalno delegiranje odgovornosti za spasavanje libijskoj i kasnije tuniskoj obalnoj straži putem bilateralnih sporazuma; (2) operativno-arhitekturalno napuštanje, kroz sistematsko povlačenje državnih i EU plovila spasavanja od Mare Nostruma preko Tritona do tranzicije ka Iriniju; (3) kriminalizujuće napuštanje, kroz pravne i administrativne mehanizme onemogućavanja nedržavnih spasilačkih NGO brodova; (4) koordinaciono-poricivo napuštanje, kroz sistemsko odgađanje i ne-odgovaranje pomorskih koordinacionih centara na pozive u nevolji u jurisdikcijskim “sivim zonama”; i (5) pravnojurisdikciono napuštanje, kroz strukturnu konfiguraciju u kojoj nijedna država ne preuzima jurisdiktivnu odgovornost za smrti koje se na mediteranskom prostoru odvijaju. Članak argumentuje da kalkulisano napuštanje predstavlja distinktivan modus suvremene granične letalnosti koji se ne svodi ni na eksplicitno državno ubijanje ni na incidentalnu posljedicu loše koordinacije, nego strukturno operiše kroz distribuiranu i poricivu konfiguraciju aktera kojoj je upravo distribuirana priroda glavna karakteristika operativne efikasnosti.

Članak razvija preciznu teorijsko-empirijsku tezu koja se javlja na sjecištu kasnog konceptualnog aparata Roberta Espozita — paradigme imunizacije, opozicije communitas i immunitas, te etimološkog jezgra munus-a kao zajedničkog korijena obje kategorije — i dokumentovane putanje pandemijske politike cijepljenja u Bosni i Hercegovini, Srbiji i Hrvatskoj kroz interval 2021–2024: kako objasniti konfiguraciju u kojoj odbijanje cijepljenja, prema klasičnom Espozitovom modelu očekivano kao opcija individualne imunitarne autonomije, u stvarnosti zapadnobalkanske populacije ne nastaje kao obrana individualnog tijela od kolektivne imunizacije, nego se sistemski legitimira upravo jezikom zajednice — porodice, vjere, naroda, etnije, ratom pohranjene kolektivne traume? Polazeći od Espozitove paradigme imunizacije, rad razvija koncept inverznog imunitarnog paradoksa kao sociološkofilozofske kategorije za situaciju u kojoj odbacivanje medicinske imunizacije postaje sredstvo afektivne re-imunizacije zajednice protiv percipirane državno-medicinske intruzije. Originalni doprinos rada jeste razrada inverznog imunitarnog paradoksa kroz tipologiju pet rekurentnih oblika: (1) porodično-relacijska re-imunizacija, u kojoj se odbijanje cjepiva legitimira kao “zaštita porodice”; (2) konfesionalna re-imunizacija, u kojoj se vjerska zajednica artikuliše kao kontra-imunitet medicinsko-državnoj intruziji; (3) etno-nacionalna re-imunizacija, u kojoj se “narod” tematizuje kao imunitarni subjekt s vlastitim tijelom koje treba zaštititi od “stranog” cjepiva; (4) antielitno-populistička re-imunizacija, u kojoj se odbijanje cjepiva veže za pokrete koji konstruišu medicinsko-državne aktere kao internalizovanu prijetnju; i (5) posttraumatska re-imunizacija, u kojoj kolektivno ratno-pandemijsko traumatsko sjećanje postaje medij kroz koji se sadašnja medicinska intervencija prepoznaje kao ponavljanje ranije egzistencijalne ugroze. Centralni nalaz rada jeste da postpandemijski subjekat zapadnobalkanske populacije nije manje biopolitički strukturisan nego što bi Espozitova klasična paradigma očekivala, nego je strukturisan na kvalitativno drugačiji način — kroz konfiguraciju u kojoj zajednica imunizuje sebe upravo odbijanjem medicinske imunizacije.

Članak preduzima kritičko-teorijsko ispitivanje radnih uslova kurira u platformskim dostavnim servisima (Glovo, Wolt, Deliveroo, UberEats, Foodpanda, Bolt) kroz analitički aparat teorije priznanja Axela Honneta, čitajući empirijski zapis o platformskom radu od 2015. naovamo kroz Honnethovu tročlanu tipologiju priznanja (ljubav, prava, solidarnost) razvijenu u Borbi za priznanje i dopunjenu njegovom kasnijom reformulacijom reifikacije kao zaborava prethodnog priznanja. Originalni doprinos članka je razvoj pojma algoritamske reifikacije — savremenog oblika reifikacije specifičnog za platformski posredovan rad, u kojem se društveni odnosi rada sistematski pretvaraju u mjerljive parametre (ocjene, vremena izvršenja, stope prihvatanja, GPS koordinate) koji istiskuju odnose priznanja što ih Honneth identifikuje kao konstitutivne za razvoj praktičnog odnosa prema sebi. Oslanjajući se na noviju peer-review literaturu o normativnoj rekonstrukciji platformskog rada, borbama za priznanje u udaljenoj gig-ekonomiji, algoritamskoj dominaciji, raspadu solidarnosti, mobilizaciji platformskih radnika, etnografiji Deliveroo kurira i ljudskopravnoj analizi platformskog rada, članak tvrdi da algoritamska reifikacija deformiše svaku od Honnetovih triju sfera na poseban i sistematski način: sfera ljubavi/brige fragmentisana je atomizovanim radnim obrascima i odsustvom relacijskog kontinuiteta s kolegama i primaocima; sfera prava narušena je pogrešnom klasifikacijom kurira kao samostalnih ugovarača koja im uskraćuje deontički status punih pravnih subjekata; sfera solidarnosti atomizovana je algoritamskom individualizacijom koja kolektivne interese pretvara u populaciju konkurentskih mikroaktera. Četvrta strukturna osobina, platformski sistem ocjenjivanja, djeluje kao ono što imenujem krivotvorenim priznanjem — pseudopriznanjem koje oponaša formu društvenog uvažavanja, dok operativno funkcioniše kao sredstvo kontrole. Članak se zaključuje implikacijama za Honnetov okvir, za regulaciju platformskog rada u Evropskoj uniji i za strategije kolektivnog djelovanja među dostavnim kuririma.

Članak preduzima kritičku primjenu kasnog pojmovnog aparata Jirgena Habermasa — posebno pojmova “institucionalnog filtera” između neformalne javne sfere i formalne političko-pravne sfere, te “kooperativnog prevođenja” kojim se religijske moralne intuicije mogu učiniti prihvatljivim u potonjoj — na empirijski materijal javnih debata o reproduktivnim pravima i obrazovnim kurikulumima u Hrvatskoj, Srbiji i Bosni i Hercegovini između 2013. i 2022. godine. Oslanjajući se na Habermasove temeljne eseje o religiji u javnoj sferi i na empirijsku literaturu o hrvatskom referendumu o braku iz 2013, ratifikaciji Istanbulske konvencije iz 2018, ulozi Katoličke crkve i Srpske pravoslavne crkve u oblikovanju javnog diskursa i segregiranim obrazovnim aranžmanima u Bosni i Hercegovini, članak tvrdi da Habermasov okvir zahtijeva sadržajnu dopunu kada se prenese u postsocijalistički zapadnobalkanski kontekst. Originalni doprinos članka je razvoj pojma asimetrične postsekularnosti — postsekularne konfiguracije u kojoj (1) istorijski slijed teče obrnuto u odnosu na zapadnoevropsku putanju koju Habermas pretpostavlja, s državno nametnutom sekularizacijom nakon koje slijedi post-1990 ponovna publicizacija religije; (2) asimetrija moći između religijskih i sekularnih sagovornika ide u prilog religijskoj strani, a ne približava se habermasovskoj ravnopravnosti; (3) institucionalni filter između neformalne javne sfere i formalnog donošenja zakona strukturno je porozan, dopuštajući religijskom vokabularu da prelazi u pravno-političko rasuđivanje bez uspjelog prevođenja; (4) teret kooperativnog prevođenja empirijski snosi gotovo isključivo sekularna strana, što protivrječi Habermasovom zahtjevu za obostranim naporom; i (5) sam status klauzule o prevođenju jeste predmet osporavanja, a ne pretpostavka. Pojam se empirijski ilustruje kroz tri tematska klastera — hrvatske debate o reproduktivnim pravima (2013–2018), srpske debate o kurikulumu vjerskog i građanskog obrazovanja, te bosanskohercegovačko segregirano školstvo i kurikulumsku politiku.

The article examines what remains, in habits of self-monitoring and everyday relations to the quantified body, of the emergency biopolitical regime deployed during the first pandemic phase (March 2020 – mid-2022). Drawing on Foucault's concepts of governmentality and technologies of the self, and engaging with recent literature on the quantified self, pandemic biopolitics, and contact-tracing technology, the article develops the concept of biopolitical residue — a sociological-philosophical category for what persists in everyday self-relation once an emergency-biopolitical regime is formally rescinded. The original contribution is a typology of five recurrent forms in which the 2020–2022 emergency rationality continues to operate after its formal end: (1) habituated self-tracking, where bodymonitoring practices acquired during lockdowns persist as an internalised regime of attention to bodily parameters; (2) normalised infrastructural surveillance, where digital architectures built for contact tracing remain available for further public-health or commercial use; (3) accepted biometric border-control logics, where QR-code health-pass systems normalised checkpoint architectures that now extend into travel, events, and workplace access; (4) quantified accountability of health, where individual responsibility is reframed as a duty to provide measurable data; and (5) internalised risk-calculation as personal moral comportment, where the calculative habits of the pandemic have shaped a habitus of permanent self-risk-assessment. The article argues that biopolitical residue occupies the structural position of a technology of the self quietly de-coupled from its emergency justification while retaining its operational logic, and that the contemporary self-tracker is an inheritor of pandemic governmentality whose self-relation is more thoroughly biopolitical than customarily recognised.