Settings and search
CFP 2026/2027
2/2026: A delicate balance: Cooperative practices in contemporary culture
(CFP: February 1–28, 2026)
We are interested in various forms of cooperation and participation as they unfold across papers, practices and discourses of contemporary culture. Our intention is to reassess the continued relevance of what Jack Stillinger termed ‘the myth of solitary genius’ and to consider how this concept relates to modes of text production undertaken collaboratively with others: fellow authors, readers and other actors in the literary field. Is creative output, at its core, the product of individual labour – writing as a continual confrontation with one’s own limitations and reliance on exclusively personal resources? Or, conversely, is literature – and literary culture in its broadest sense – constituted through collaborative practices, particularly in digital environments that facilitate multi-author forms of creation? We observe a variety of collaborative formations: groups, generations, orientations and collectives (whether artistically or ideologically driven); institutions of cultural life – journals, societies, galleries and other associations that co-create communicative frameworks; and educational settings premised on participatory cultures. However, such collectives may equally give rise to informational (filter) bubbles closed to alternative ideologies or worldviews. This prompts further questions: Who supports creators, and who constrains, corrects or supervises them? What is the significance, in contemporary cultural production, of ghostwriters, sensitivity readers and readers invited by authors to participate in shaping a text? To what extent are such collaborative interventions acknowledged as an open and integral aspect of the work, and to what extent are they deliberately concealed, confined to preparatory spaces inaccessible to audiences? Ultimately, what factors determine the final form of a cultural text? How should we understand the collaborative role of artificial intelligence? And to what degree can we sustain the ‘delicate balance’ – evoked by Richard Sennett – between individually and collectively pursued aspirations in today’s cultural field?
3/2026: Culture animation: The third wave
(CFP: April 1 – May 3, 2026)
Culture animation has gained increasing prominence in public discourse; however, it has remained in a theoretical and methodological impasse for several decades. Research into its origins and practices is insufficient, and although animation draws on the achievements of anthropology, pedagogy and sociology, it now requires not only disciplinary allies but also a clearly defined conceptual standpoint of its own. In post-1989 Poland, cultural animation emerged as a practice that combined artistic activity, social engagement and theoretical reflection. Initially, it was rooted in the social movements of the 19th and 20th centuries and the countercultural traditions of the communist period (the first wave). In the 1990s, its role was to support the democratisation of Polish society; in this context, it attracted the attention of anthropologists and cultural studies scholars, who regarded it as a form of ‘applied cultural anthropology’ and a tool for fostering local social ties (the second wave). Today, these ambitions and expectations appear increasingly difficult to sustain. Contemporary animation is shaped almost entirely by good-practice models, operates under diverse terminologies and is embedded in professional milieus with distinct canons and expectations. What is needed is a renewed conceptual framework – one grounded in social attentiveness and the integration of local perspectives into international debates on repairing the increasingly fragile social fabric of Western societies (the third wave). This need was signalled by the theme of the most recent Non-Congress of Culture Animators – ‘New Stories.’ Our intention is to refine this notion and thereby contribute to telling the narrative of cultural animation anew. We seek to highlight its strategic role in building a cohesive and resilient society and, above all, foreground its critical potential.
4/2026: Stories and archaeologies of the future
(CFP: July 1–31, 2026)
We are witnessing the fading of narratives that once envisioned the future through the lenses of space exploration, global peace and the triumph of rationality. In their place, stories foregrounding ecological catastrophe, the threats of artificial intelligence and post-apocalyptic imaginaries have come to dominate contemporary culture. From a theoretical standpoint, we draw on Immanuel Wallerstein’s hypothesis that the current capitalist world-system is in a structural crisis (a systemic bifurcation) – it has exhausted its capacity to operate under existing principles and has entered a phase of transformation into something yet unknown. Although the contours of this ‘something else’ remain indeterminate, it is increasingly evident that such narratives, and the practices embedded within them, act as influential agents in shaping the emergent system. Our aim is not to predict the future but to examine how it is narrated and constructed to treat these acts of narration as cultural practices unfolding in a broader contest over the shape of the world. The authors contributing to this issue will analyse narratives of the future as a significant component of contemporary culture – one that performs multiple functions such as guiding collective imagination in its fears and fantasies; organising and orienting institutional activities; and co-defining the role of the humanities and social sciences. What do we do for – and in the name of – the future when we write, read, present our research and teach? We propose to consider several previously separate lines of inquiry – studies on utopias, the history of science fiction, popular culture research and analyses of cultural practices emerging in response to catastrophic scenarios – as a single field. Our intention is to engage with narratives woven across diverse cultural domains: popular culture (particularly broadly defined fantasy), public political discourse, scientific and philosophical debates, everyday practices, institutional routines and the rhythms of both major and minor cyclical events, including our own life plans.
1/2027: Writing as an act of resistance: Speaking the pain academia leaves unsaid
(CFP: September 1–30, 2026)
In what Byung-Chul Han terms a ‘society of positivity,’ pain and suffering have been privatised. Within academia, they are granted legitimacy only when reframed as narratives of ‘coping.’ There is no sanctioned space to write candidly about what truly afflicts us: precarisation, inequality, symbolic violence or the solitude inherent in research work. Any attempt to articulate such experiences exposes the writer to dismissal and an intensified sense of otherness. At the centre of this issue lies the question of the significance of writing as a form of resistance to dominant – and often harmful –discourses that prescribe how the world ought to be thought and narrated. While laying claim to critical reflection and intellectual freedom, academia tends to retreat into an illusion of neutrality. In practice, it generates knowledge calibrated to institutional and market priorities, overlooking what is most crucial: the lived experience of abuse and exclusion. More critically still, it ignores its own silence and its complicity in reproducing hegemonic narratives. Drawing on critical voices in scholarly discourse – from Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak to bell hooks and Howard Becker – we ask: Why is academia so willing to analyse the suffering of others while resisting scrutiny of its own? In the effort to keep pace with academic trends, it has also developed its own mechanisms of commodifying and trivialising reflective writing: visibility and scholarly value are tied not to the monograph but to the article of predetermined length, constrained by rigid structure and prescribed stylistic norms. Intellectual labour is thus reduced to quantifiable outputs and evaluative metrics. Points and ranking systems often overshadow ethics and social responsibility. Consequently, the question of the responsibility borne by writers, teachers and academic researchers becomes inseparable from a more fundamental issue: On whose side do we stand when we choose what to write – and what what to leave unspoken?