| Popis: |
In the focus of my contribution to the panel will be the following question: How did it come about that today's bioethics in Croatia is so much influenced by, and even identified with, a pseudoscientific movement called "Integrative Bioethics"? The origins of this phenomenon, as I will try to show, can be traced back to the 1970s and the 1980s – the period of mass application of the Marxist theoretical matrix to the social sciences and the humanities. During this period, the so called "Philosophy of Praxis", a self- proclaimed school of "creative Marxism" developed by members of the Department of Philosophy of the University of Zagreb and with ardent followers in many university centers of former Yugoslavia, became extremely influential. Due to its ideological compatibility with the political program of the Communist Party on the one side and its good reputation in international Marxist circles (for its "critical" and "anti-dogmatic" character) on the other, the Praxis School and its members gained a position of authority not only in theoretical but also in practical matters – in appointing faculty members, approving dissertation themes, influencing university and high-school curricula, publishing self-reviewed journals and books, deciding over research projects and grants, organizing conferences, issuing media reports, etc. Surprisingly, in the 90s, during the transition and war period in Croatia, the situation has hardly changed. What did change though is the ideological coating of the new/old academic power-holders. One of the most favorite directions of doctrinal evolution – or "personal development", as one might call it – was the one from Creative Marxism to National Liberalism to Socially Sensitive Anti-neoliberalism. As I will try to show, the movement called "Integrative Bioethics" (or the "Zagreb Mantra") emerged as a byproduct of this kind of doctrinal change. The connection with its predecessor (Praxis School) is not so visible in the doctrinal content itself (e.g. critical stance towards traditional ethics) as it is detectable from the formal characteristics of the movement – its "discursive practice" indicating normative vacuity and practical futility, except for its proved usefulness for power grab – its tendency to spread and gain control over academic institutions. |
