Индивидуални проекти

The research in object-based teaching and learning at US colleges and universities, as well as Dr. Milkova's pedagogic practice at leading institutions such as Yale University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Oberlin College, has been at the forefront of innovating and updating 21st-century liberal arts education in the US. The project she proposes encompasses research towards a book-length manuscript that introduces to academics and museum professionals in Bulgaria the pedagogic value and benefits of teaching with collections across academic disciplines. Building upon her previous publications in English, drawing on recent scholarship in museum and higher education, and based on new research and data she obtains as a CAS fellow, Liliana will put forward (in Bulgarian) strategies applicable to different types of collections and museums in the country. The CAS fellowship will enable her to research and write the final book chapter that translates and adapts practices well-established abroad for Bulgaria’s specific context. To do this, she will investigate existing approaches to museum education through first-hand observations and interviews, workshops for faculty, students, and museum specialists that she will lead, and through a review of the relevant scholarly literature produced in Bulgaria in the last two decades.

Notwithstanding the fact that the ideological framework of Balkan nationalism as well as it’s implications in the redrawing of the political boundaries in the Balkans have been intensively studied, the way nations perceived events which led to ideological crisis and/or had disastrous consequences for their expansionist policies undermining their Great Ideas still remains overlooked. By the same token, equivalently unexplored is the issue of a comparative approach with respect to analyzing how nations that shared common paths in their national-building process perceived their national catastrophes. In this respect, this project will attempt to shed light on the vacillations of Greek and Bulgarian national narratives in periods of national disaster, that is the second Bulgarian national disaster of 1919 and the Greek national disaster of 1922, also known as the Asia Minor Catastrophe. The research, which is mostly based upon analysis of the Bulgarian and Greek press, focuses on two main aspects; the intranational and the comparative approach. The intranational approach will attempt to answer the following questions: a) how did public opinion in Greece and Bulgaria cope with events that nullified transborder nationalism leading to national catastrophes? b) Is a national catastrophe capable of putting an end to national expansionism and appeasing national sentiments? c) How do the protagonists of the catastrophic events defend themselves and narrate their version of the story? d) Is the concept of the hostile National Other, which usually refers to nations, internalized and attributed to those who were responsible for the national catastrophe? Based on the results of this intranational research the comparative approach will detect convergences and divergences in the way Greeks and Bulgarians perceived their national catastrophes.

Има една брилянтна мисъл на Александър Дюма-баща „Историята е само сбор от сухи факти, всичко зависи от това кой я разказва и защо“. Тази мисъл до голяма степен илюстрира ролята на историята в живота на обществата и най-вече в зоните, където е имало продължителни конфликти и неразрешени спорове. Балканският полуостров е една такава територия, където между почти всички съседи е имало конфликти през XX и XXI в., неразрешени териториални спорове, случаи на етнически прочиствания и асимилации, незатворени рани от войните и спорни казуси до ден днешен. И всеки използва историята така, както му е изгодно на него самият.Идеята на проекта ми е провокирана от втория ми роман “Аbsolvo te” и третият, който разработвам в момента. “Absolvo te” се базира на две истински истории, едната от Втората световна война, Холокоста и концлагерите Аушвиц и Дахау, и една от арабо-израелския конфликт. И в двата случая народите имат огромна нужда от преработването на историята, за да намерят път към бъдещето. И докато при арабо-израелския конфликт генезиса е много дълбоко в историята, конфликтът е действащ и в момента и преработването на историята е много трудно, то за германския народ това е въпрос, който се разисква вече повече от седемдесет години.От края на Втората световна война са минали точно седемдесет и седем години, а немците продължават да преработват историята от ужасите и зверствата на Холокоста. Оказва се, че четири поколения преработват тази история и все още има неразрешени моменти, знаем, че непосредствено след войната над Германия ляга сянката на „страшното мълчание“, т.е за да могат да продължат напред, те не се обръщат въобще назад, не се говори, не се дискутира Холокоста, не се пишат книги, не се правят филми. Едва поколението, раждано след войната, когато достига зряла възраст, започва да задава въпроси на своите родители как са могли да бъдат част или дори само да са допуснали зверствата на нацизма и тогава разривът между поколенията е много дълбок.В романа си „Absolvo te” аз се занимавам точно с темата за чувството за вина на германския народ и с това как обикновените, нормални хора са увлечени от насилствената машина за смърт на нацизма и нацистката идеология. Историята на този период все още не е преработен напълно от немците и днешните поколения продължават да го преработват. И до ден днешен, когато се отбелязва Денят на Холокоста и жертвите на нацизма част от германците искат да говорят по темата, искат да се отърсят от чувството за вина и да измолят макар и символично прошка, докато останалата част не иска въобще да се говори по темата и се „затварят“ в това, че е минало, че те не са били част от този процес и няма как да носят отговорност за него.В новия си роман разглеждам една много болезнена тема за България и Балканите, темата за Македония през призмата на една много болезнена част от нейната история, периода 1902 - 1919 г. Според мен, големите противоречия, които днес има между България и Република Северна Македония са защото на Балканите, за разлика от Германия, не се опитваме дори да преработваме историята, нито заедно да я дискутираме, а всеки се е хванал за своята си истина и не иска да се пуска от нея.Сърцевината на проекта е да видим как немците преработват своят най-мъчителен етап от съвременната си история и как това може да ни помогне на нас, на Балканите, и в частност на българите и македонците. Това да бъде пречупено през призмата на историята, географията и литературата.

When war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine in 2014, numerous charitable organizations, local and international NGOs and development aid programs began to offer immediate humanitarian relief in frontline communities. Today, eight years since the start of the war, their active engagement remains a valuable contribution to peacebuilding efforts and social assistance to the most vulnerable social categories. At the same time, pressure from donors and priorities of long-term engagement beyond short-term immediate relief, pushes the humanitarian sector to redefine their understanding of “vulnerability”. Development aid projects are gradually moving away from material assistance in the form of basic necessities, towards more long-term projects of community development, capacity-building, resilience and empowerment. My research project is situated in this context of international development actors redefining vulnerability in frontline communities of the Donbas. I want to explore, firstly, which social groups are identified as vulnerable and in greatest need of humanitarian assistance; secondly – how these understandings of vulnerability evolve over time when the war is no longer seen as an emergency but rather as an ongoing day-to-day reality in frontline communities, and finally – how changing understandings of vulnerability reflect ideological and bureaucratic shifts in the development aid sector.

The Concordat that the post-1918 Romanian state signed and ratified with the Holy See was a highly controversial document that had enormous consequences. There is apparently no other international document in the history of modern Romania to demand almost one decade to be enacted. Nevertheless, the research on this affair is almost non-existent after 1989. The project proposal focuses on the Concordat during its first draft (1921) until the unilateral denunciation (1948). Working on a diversity of unexplored primary sources, the project aims at documenting the legal, political, religious debates that the Concordat generated and analyzing the effects it produced upon the nation-building and the society. The project will employ an interdisciplinary approach and it will make some comparative references to the other states from the Eastern Europe.

The end of the Cold War evoked hope and despair in the USSR. As the lived experience of systemic transformation in the (former) Soviet Union remains understudied, post-Soviet opinion leaders sustain a myth of the ‘wild 1990s’. In order to justify repressive measures at home and aggressive policies abroad, for example, Vladimir Putin claims that the dismantling of authoritarian controls produced economic hardship, social discord, and cultural stagnation. My history of show business challenges these politicised narratives by exploring how producers and consumers of popular culture engaged with market reform. Reflecting distinct commercial and political pressures, and reaching diverse audiences, pop provides a prism for understanding the interplay between economic, social, and cultural change. Leading to the publication of a monograph, my project investigates how the privatisation of show business transformed cultures of entrepreneurship, the limits of permissible expression, and Cold War mental geographies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The proposed project “Interpretation of the ‘Rus’ Concept in the Ukrainian and Russian Historiography in the Russian Empire (1805–1917)” focuses on the analysis of different ways in interpretation of the concept “Rus” in Ukrainian and Russian historiography of the Russian Empire in the 1805–1917. The aim of the project is to examine the ways of interpretation of the concept “Rus” in the historiography of the Russian Empire during 1805–1917 in the context of “national” and “imperial” discourses. The confrontation of these two main narratives is supported with the fact, that from the early 19th century Ukrainian culture was undergoing the process of “national revival”, which ended up into the proclamation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1917. The main objectives of the project can be summarized as follows: 1) to investigate the interaction between the “official” ideology of the Russian Empire and the academic environment; 2) to establish the main trends in the development of scientific thought in the interpretation of the concept of “Rus” (with derivatives). My project is relevant especially today, when because of Russia’s military invasion into Ukraine the discussion around the common historical past is gaining more and more significance. One of such stumbling-block is the problem of the definition of the concept “Rus” in Russian and Ukrainian historical sciences.

In the mid-19th century, the Russian imperial government built a theatre in Tbilisi, the administrative center of its Caucasian colony, with the aim of advancing the civilizing mission in the Empire’s “Oriental” periphery. Funded by a local Armenian merchant, the building was simultaneously the first-ever European proscenium theatre in the region and a multistoried caravanserai. It thus formed the site of uneasy entanglement of fundamental concerns about art, economy, and public life as negotiated between Russian and local agents of empire, merchants, artists or the nascent Georgian nationalist intelligentsia. Retracing the evolution of the theatre-caravanserai from its conception in 1846 to its destruction by a fire in 1874, this research project explores the civilizational ambitions with which imperial agents invested it as well as the contingencies and contradictions of its usages throughout its existence. The theatre-caravanserai provides a privileged vantage point for exploring how modernity came to be projected and experienced at a moment of great modernizational hopes for the Empire’s Caucasian periphery. To do justice to the complexity of the object itself, the research project will combine insights from opera studies, art history, new imperial history, literary studies, social and cultural history and historical ethnography.

The goal of my project is to understand the cross-country differences in the wealth-income ratio, a ratio of national wealth to GDP. Understanding the wealth-income ratio is important for three reasons: First, it is an indicator of the unequal distribution of wealth within a country and is highly relevant to the ongoing academic and policy discussion of inequality. Second, it is an indicator of the existence of a financial market bubble, an intensely debated topic in recent years given the rapidly rising asset prices in many advanced and developing economies. Third, it is closely related to the share of labor income, an important dimension of how national income is distributed across different actors. I aim to improve the existing analysis of the wealth-income ratio and to present a more satisfactory explanation of, among other things, the cross-country differences in the wealth-income ratio, the role of policies and institution, and the share of housing and other real-estate wealth. My analysis will be both theoretical and empirical. My empirical analysis will utilize data from international organizations and also from other individual researchers who have compiled and published related data online.

In this project I aim at investigating the political impacts of two interrelated phenomena: housing financialization and grassroots contestation, by focusing on the special case of Spain. On the one hand, two different historical periods of housing financialisation are identified in this country (1997-2013 and 2013-2022). The participation of national and foreign financial capital has varied significantly in the production, transactions and assetisation of housing in each period. My first goal is to analyse the different characteristics, developments and impacts of housing financialisation at different scales (local, national and transnational) and dimensions (political economy and society). On the other hand, grassroots social movements in Spain have been remarkable reactions to the above processes and other inherited shortcomings of the Spanish housing system. The movement initially led by the anti-evictions organisation PAH (Platform for People Affected by Mortgages), targeted the effects of housing speculation in impoverished homeowners and achieved substantial policy changes at local, regional and national levels. The second period of housing financialisation engendered the response of newly established tenants’ unions and local housing groups since 2017. Hence, my second goal is to investigate the claims, strategies, protest repertoires and policy impacts of these different expressions of the housing movement.