Cycnos | Volume 28 n° Spécial Le Refus 

Viorella Manolache  : 

(Re)territorialisation of marginality as a refusal of a mechanic center


The study approaches the marginal voices as alternative forms placed into a tensioned / recessive relation with the center, the domain of “normality”, the dominant pole, into a common equation, appealing to the weak oppositions. This study will establish that the offensive of the recessive elements confirms the dichotomy of the world, proposing a versus rule: Center vs. Margin, Liminality vs. Marginality, Hard vs. Soft/Alternative Models, Communitas vs. Societas, Center vs. Periphery, Dominant vs. Recessive Pole, Dominant  vs. Secondary Groups.

The present study will approach a weak perspective on marginality and the refusal of a canonic formula: Ştefan Augustin Doinaş and Luceafărul Review, placing in the same relation marginal hypostases (the wanderer, the drifter, the tourist, theadventurous, aliens vs. locals, sedentary vs. nomads), establishing that the margin, the limit, the separation of the interiors and the exteriors, the front exposed for the subsistent dimension exists only to the extent it is exposed, inaccessible and not to be appropriated by a dense, opaque, unexposed, immanent, and nonexistent center.


mots-clés : Center vs. Margin , Center vs. Periphery, Communitas vs. Societas, Dominant vs. Recessive Pole, Dominant vs. Secondary Groups, Hard vs. Soft/Alternative models, Liminality vs. Marginality

Texte intégral

1Within the structures of the non-Euclidian displacements reminded by Henry Poincaré1, (de)forming, fractal, chaotic, or by the displacement currents in Maxwell’s theory, the present study2 will be limited (to a marginal border) to show that a weak perspective on marginality is at once possible and (im)possible. Set in perspective as a space with fractal and chaotic geometry, situated on a pluralist design, marginal voices are media conquered by strained networks, with impact on the construction of the images, representations and subjects who interact within these networks, establishing an unequal relationship between the dimension of the whole and that of the shattered pieces.

2Marginality refers to an agonistic relationship between the center and the margins of a structure - system, subsystem, poly-system or universe. Politically, along with the monopolistic attempt to absolutism of each ideology, the ideological representations depreciated the alternative forms, freeing a “secondary mythology” (in relation to the center – the domain of “normality”, and the source), marginality becoming ideology as well, while the marginal becomes an activist ∕ an outsider who survives history, sabotaging it.

3The relationship between recessive and marginality, can be (re)activated by using a term such as liminality3, as a return of postmodernism on (pre)modern values in structure, systems, subsystems, poly-systems as some no man's lands.

4According to Mihai Spăriosu4, marginality refers to an agonistic relationship between center and the margins; liminality, in turn, would have a neutral relationship between two or more structures as happens between two or more border states. Marginality cannot provide access to new worlds, cannot initiate them, the way liminality does. If the socio-cultural institutional structures operate in an indicative way, the liminality processes operate in a subjunctive mode. Concerned about liminality, Adrian Oţoiu5 approached it in relation with marginality and structural inferiority, with the theories upon multiculturalism and cultural a-theological forms or with exilic inferiority.

5Such weak oppositions depend on the manner in which we notice the report among the visceral elements from the inner cavities of this new political paradigm, as well as on the identification of the main features that bring ontological justification to the establishment of a new mental structure – the weak thought (“pensiero debole6). Without taking into account such a vernacular trajectory, by which to confer to the typologies of postmodernism a protochronous dimension (centering it within a routine climate or, on the contrary, de-centering it, by a marginal overbid), one can decide rather to take "refuge" inside a "territory freed from the fascination with modernity". Thus, the idea of a strong renewal, often considered compulsory, can be renounced, and one can provide the opportunity to glance “without a faked innocence” and “after almost one hundred years of utopian, blind view into the future”, not as much "back", as "laterally". For there is no idea of the reinstalling  another center that occupies the fore in such an option, but rather the recourse to the “gentile wicked tricks”, translated in a re­cessive conduct, in a “strategy of delay” that would contribute to a "digressive change of the previous movement".

6The minute, petty, singularly and limited power games, the marginal onesassault the strong and structured power games, although the marginal constitutes, to a greater extent than the state and institutional “battles”, the object of unrest and of the multiple theoretical investigations. As diffused and dissented as it appears, marginal power represents a manner of resistance with the principal objective related always to the facts of power and to the instances of power with an immediate action.

7Most of the attitudes related to the contrary oppositions emphasize the fact that the report that is instituted is marked by the prevalence of the recessive, by its irreducible meaning that it can be considered even superior to the dominant.

8Under the circumstances where the persistency of discursive, traditional-mimetic patterns, founded on the agonistic categories of difference stubbornly persists in the struggle for power, the present study becomes a singular initiative to defend within the perspective of political philosophy, the alternative model, rising above these differences in a weak synthesis, making possible the acceptance of both the center and the margin, by mutual correction, adjustment, affirmation and retrieval.  The investigation is no longer in the position to opt or sacrifice one for the other, but takes into consideration one with the other. The present study does not propose a research of the evolution of the recessive pole toward the dominant pole, but an evolution on the “orbit” of each of the two poles, with the permanent possibility of their overcoming.

9When we turn toward the consideration of a global picture, the “periphery” appears as a counter-part to the conventionalism and the respect for authority and tradition associated with the “center”. The periphery is associated with the term “non-center”, as an “exit” option, as a conventional alternative to protest – “voice” and /or  conformity, ”loyalty”.

10The subject of margin and marginalization in political philosophy, but also that of their correspondents developed “in negative” (of inclusion, retrieval and integration, by the relationship with all the elements mentioned that also defines this topic) can be approached starting from the relationship among the concepts such as marginality, alterity and minority.

11Thus, the offensive of the recessive elements on the center confirms the dichotomy of the world, installing what Poincaré called the world with four dimensions.

12The mechanical center can be identified with the center that sucks in the products of culture, appropriates the credit from them and offers their legitimacy, and when it chooses to return the cultural products appropriated, they are deprived of most, or any, meaning. The center is the engine of the empire of power producing one sole monotonous discourse, where all the elements found an equal “voice”, with a particular architecture in the East and in the West.

13The luxury to identify oneself as a tolerated outsider is virtually impossible. Thus, the malady (be it a political one) becomes the symbol, the emblem of a “society of excluded”. The circulation center-periphery remains permanent, and never any position is definitively either won or lost. A real marginality – fed by the imaginary - continues to manifest itself; the representatives of the marginal may have changed, but marginality remains, with a different rapport between a certain center and a certain periphery. The “centrals” in the strong meaning of the word, lose power, while the “secondary centers” crystallize in the micro-groups and in the multitude of the poles of attraction.

14According to Virgil Nemoianu7 any sketch for a theory of the secondary corresponds to the tensions between two main parts. The first would be related to a relatively ordered confederation of nuances, details, secondary elements, exploring also the changing relations and patterns within a multitude of nuances and transformations, decomposing the decline and the disappearance of any main structural types and of any hegemonic pretensions. The second envisions the entropic retrieval, each advancement being conceived as a step down for the substance, as a refusal of potential and a blockage of the options.

15Capitalizing on Tönnies8, Giovanni Sartori9 operates a clear-cut distinction between Gemeinschaft (Community) and Gesellschaft (Society). For Tönnies, community is a lively organism, applied to the primary group, while society becomes a mechanical aggregate founded on mediations of the exchange and on contract. Sartori opts for a weaker interpretation of community, extending the concept to that of secondary group, considering that alterity is the counter-weight necessary for identity: “any community presupposes an insulation, a togetherness of recollection that is also a closing against whatever means the outside, an exclusion, that is, a certain conception of “us” that is not conceived in relationship with “them” or from “their” perspective.

16The refusal of a canonic formula: Ştefan Augustin Doinaş and Luceafărul Review

17We will be approaching in this part, Zygmunt Bauman’s wanderer and Ştefan Augustin Doinaş’ drifter, as marginal hypostases for the dichotomy communitas vs. societas.

18With one mention: this part becomes a singular approach, having in view that, if Ştefan Aug. Doinaş’s article (“The Last Vagabond” published in Luceafărul Review) had proposed in the Romanian scene of 1943, a journey (as Doinaş confessed) initially undetermined and without the concrete knowledge of its analytical itinerary, Bauman has become familiar with the Romanian scene (unaware of Doinaş’s initial theory!) only in 2000 (through the publication of Postmodern Ethics, at Timişoara, Amarcord Publishing House).

19Luceafărul Review has been published in two intervals: from 1934-1939 and from 1940 to 1945. The first interval had in view a programmatic, axiological, teleological project, the second (re)apparition has assumed a recessive relationship between the periphery (messianic orientation or balkanization in Istrati’s case) and the nuclear one. Following an orthodoxy orientation, Luceafărul Review from 1930, has adopted an uncensored initiative and occidental experiences, having in mind the expressionist feeling or the existentialist experiences, traducing them into an aesthetic finality. This is why the Luceafărul’s project articulated some actual objectives: taking into account the local dimension of the cultural development; the affirmation of the cultural identities, blending all the social categories and the cultural life etc.

20More limited and heavily contoured around the idea of literary realism, Luceafărul, from 1940, has proposed a cultural project focused on cultural models with a dual side, from the socio-historical, philosophical goal toward a social, practical, useful one, pleading for raising the ethical over the aesthetic.

21The texts published in Luceafărul Review during 1940 – 1945, leave the impression that  mankind’s destiny and imaginative power are moderated not only by biology and psychology, but, mainly, by history. This adjustment can be recognized in the selection of the causal bondage, which can defined the art of constructing the central Romanian destiny, not as a case study, but as an approach of a social group placed under the history accidents (as a particular case the Vienna Diktat, from 1940). New realism expressions could be recognized in the limitation of the convention’s role (poetic and narrative) and in the dilation of the omologic representatively, in the sense in which the fictional reality recreates the essential marks of the real world.

22We should mention that with or through the model proposed by Luceafărul magazine– a modelanchored in what Bauman named „social space” – the activity of the magazine was subordinated to the imperative of setting a distinction (be it stuck in the well-tempered Transylvanian pattern of traditionalisms).  This subordination determined a change in the manner of reaction and in the correct decoding of the messages of synchronization or of the messages that include and carry along particularities emitted by Western culture in this perimeter. These Western particularities were often received only in a fragmented manner in the Sibian margin of Mitteleuropa, against a background of intellectual drowse.

23By the appeal to a well-known Habermasian aporia we shall accept the presupposition according to which Sibiu was a good mediator for all that is related to the activation and constitution of a new generation – marked by the existence within a less rigid sphere, politically - engaging (associational) aside the “feeling of friendship” and a series of structures designed explicitly as well at the level of the political perspective, of the communicational project, as implicitly, within the network of social relations, in the design of the very relational fabric.

24 (Re)issued under the auspices of the Association of the Schoolmasters of Sibiu county, Luceafărul magazine from 1934-1939 determinedly engaged in the affirmation of the national specificity, resorting in a pedagogical and traditionalist key in affirming the national specificity, arriving, in a pedagogical, traditionalist, peasantry (”poporanist”) key, to the emphasis of the values of the Transylvanian village and of its social, national and spiritual roots, as an instrument of regaining balance for the attempts of (con)formation and resort to tradition – imperatives  envisioning the highlights of regional nationalism and its organic integration into pan-Romanian flux of the time.

25The magazine self-declared a tribune of affirmation for the national specificity – through articles oscillating between rituality, fatalism, eugenic aspiration at the purity of race. In its Sunday Transylvaninism the magazine will limit itself to the didactic construction of the collective intellectual profile, bringing to attention the peasantry in its dimension of pattern for the Romanian ethical modernism. The project represented a plea for the idea that the vernacular intellectual model of the 30s was differentiated from the international(ist) one only in its local signs. Also, part of this plea was the appeal to an integral nationalism and to the rediscovery of the local creative forces, capable to recognize in the catalytic reaction of its conservative structures: royalty, orthodoxies, nationality etc., in front of a possible historical cataclasis.

26Along with the faint demarcation line set between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft10, one can notice that the resurrection of the marginal model was also (inter)mediated by Luceafărul in the 30s. Published in Luceafărul (1943, III, 122-129), Ştefan Aug. Doinaş’s article The Last Vagabond: Panait Istrati11, anticipates Bauman’s undertaking, stating that “since this journey does not start from a well-determined point, it does not know its itinerary yet, because we want to experience what the writer himself has experienced in his life. Some overzealous people could jump to the conclusion that we tend to propose for each writer a critical method adequate to his/her temperament: this belief would be wrong. In our case, however, we believe that the most fortunate attitude is that of not trying to find any systematization of the material, which coincides to the very attitude that Panait Istrati had regarding life”.

27According to Doinaş, Istrati’s adventure as a conscious vagabond is slowed down by a certain bourgeois spirit, salutary to the soul, which is specific to the person who always wants to live peacefully with his or her neighbour.

28The issue of vagabondage is superimposed by Doinaş himself to the life state of modern man, through attributes that consider the fact that modern man is eternally alone; even in a crowd, he is isolated; he lives with all his plenitude the tragedy of individualisation; evermore unintegrated, he is always intoxicated, to a painful voluptuousness, with the longing for other simultaneous existences; from the so called “crisis of individuality”, modern man experiences a continuous closeness to death – this is because modern man is an individuality and only individualities die.

29From this point on, the vagabond - Panait Istrati – fails to completely represent modern man. His characters experience everything in a direct way, never reflexively, without experiencing a tragicalness that would do nothing else but authenticate their life. This is because for modern man the option is the limitation to a concrete aspect of life which requires earning the spiritual self, and this is possible only through will, an attribute which, according to Doinaş, Istrati lacks: “By knowing, therefore, that Istrati’s vagabond does not effect option, and by knowing on the other side that “option is the one thing in the world that best resembles suicidal” (V. Jankelevitch), we will understand why the real tragicalness is absent from the work we are discussing. Modern man has finally learned to indulge in negative attitudes as well. From this point of view, Istrati’s man is completely different from the modern man. If it is true that “the strongest is the one that can have revenge but does not do it, the one who can love but does not do it”, then we will concede that Istrati’s man is a weak being, hesitant, because he loves and he takes violent revenge, always aiming beyond his possibilities”12.

30The type of prodigious vagabond that Doinaş proposes is gradually separating himself from modern man as he gives up the spiritual attributes, settles for what only theeffective involvement in life offers him.  The last vagabond becomes the type situated between the fiery romantic and the lucid modern, tormented by the lived life and the imagined one, like a tragic God who turns to himself, resuscitating and reviving himself. The Last Vagabond thus stays a wonderful being in his antonymic structure, a Diogenes, with the lamp of his heart, in broad daylight, looking for Man13.

31While Bauman proposes two postmodern types the vagabond vs. the tourist or, in an early lexical version, the pair aliens vs. locals, sedentary vs. nomads, Doinaş places in the same analytical equation the adventurous vs. the vagabond.

32Seemingly the same versus formula is used by Bauman as well, in order to separate the vagabond from the tourist’s profile. A communitas in which the rambler is simultaneously accepted as screenwriter and director (Bauman), the vagabonds being the beaters who gather together and drop down exhausted, singing praise hymns to existence (Doinaş) – a spectacle to which willingly or unwillingly we are present!

33Bauman uses the terms “flaneur” and “flaneuses” to designate the pattern of the beholder whose tireless curiosity - the wanderer’s freedom – is accepted both as a script writer and a producer. Such a conception of distinct fields (political and philosophical) launches the operational contrast between communitas and societas. Supposing that societas is characterized by heterogeneousness, irregularity, differentiating the orders or nominal system, communitas is marked by homogeneity, equality, the absence of orders, anonymity: “In other words, communitas melts down that what societas struggles to cast into shapes and to hammer out/forge. Otherwise societas shapes and solidifies all that in communitas is liquid and without mold”14.  

34Unlike the sedentary, the nomads/migrants keep moving. They go around a well structured territory with firm and attributed bearing to each fragment. A trait that separates them from the pilgrims is that nomads don’t have a final destination to mark their itinerary beforehand, and no stopping is favored but all crossing places to be just halting points. They move from one place to another in a strictly normal sequence, following rather the order of things than inventing the order, dismantling it when they leave. Between nomads and drifter/wanderer, the latter conveys a suited metaphor for that what Bauman calls “humans belonging to the post modern condition”15.

35Drifters require no destination; they are pushed ahead by an unfulfilled desire, hope, because “the drifter is a pilgrim without destination, a nomad with no itinerary. The drifter travels in a shapeless space, whereas every consecutive establishment is local, temporary, and episodic”.

36Like the drifter, the tourist has his own biographical time and answers only to the flexible experience of space. According to Bauman, the tourist’s esthetic capacity, the curiosity, the need of amusement, his desire and ability to live new experiences can be called an absolute freedom of organizing the space from the tourist’s world; the kind of freedom that the drifter can only dream about. Just as the drifter, the tourist is extraterritorial, living outside the territory like a privileged, like an independent, as a right given to be free to choose in a world called by Bauman, the tourist’s shell.   Both the drifter and the tourist move around places where other people live who can deal with the settlements of these delimitations; the drifter and the tourist having only a brief and formal encounter with them (hypocritical meetings). According to Bauman “this is the life formula of the drifter and the tourist, physically close, and spiritually far”16.

37In the postmodern era the drifter and the tourist are no longer insignificant types. They turn into patterns destined to dominate/control and mould the entirety of life and the whole day by day, into stereotypes that all practice is measured, because social field represents for Bauman a source of energy and the esthetic - a playing field.

38In conclusion, the marginal element could be integrated into the community of being(s). According to Jean-Luc Nancy17, in the institution and in the exposure of the being, in the being which is abandoned in the world, the “essence” is exposed to the self. The self represents a case of philosophical and political “regime”, precisely as it happens with the category of otherness, because to be in-self represents the condition to be for existence. This is where the being falls this is the essential accident, for the Self is the sovereignty, the coming, the event of the being. In accord with Nancy, in-it(him/her)self represents the margin, the limit, the separation of the interiors and the exteriors, the front exposed for the subsistent dimension that exists only to the extent it is exposed, inaccessible and not to be appropriated by a dense, opaque, unexposed, immanent, and nonexistent center. Hence, there is no communion or common being, but only being-in-common, a being which shares and whose hallmark is the aseitas of existence which identity is exposed.

39The new meaning of existence represents a purpose and an ideal of accomplishment, an end of history, a fulfilled humanity. Meaning, language, the other, singularity become in the traditional lexicon of the political doctrines, an anti-thesis, the logic of the limit establishing that anything that is between two belongs to everyone (not open for the dispute of appropriation).

40The marginals are placed between the disaggregation of the masses and the aggregation of the group, such an exposure extracting the sap from the simultaneous imminence of the withdrawal and involvement in relation, in liberty and necessity, the indecisive mark of the foreigner and the peer, of singularity and collectivity, of  attraction and rejection.

Notes de bas de page numériques

1 Poincaré Henry, Ştiinţă şi ipoteză (Science and Hypothesis), Scientific and Enciclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1985.

2  “This work was supported by the strategic grant POSDRU/89/1.5/S/64162, Project "Europaeus program postdoctoral", cofinanced by the European Social Found within the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007 – 2013”.

3  The term of liminality enters in the Romanian circulation with the translation of Arnold von Gennep (The Rites of Passage, 1996) şi Victor Turner (The forest of symbols, 1967), being extended by referring to the communitas. The liminoid indicated the liminal attribute of some ritual situationsfrom contemporary societies.

4  Mihai Spăriosu, The Wreath of Wild Olive: Play, Liminality and the Study of Literature, Sunny Press, New York, 1997.

5  Adrian Oţoiu, Trafic de frontieră: strategii transgresive în proza generaţiei’80 (Frontier Traffic: The Prose of the Generation of the Eighties), Paralela 45 Publishing House, Piteşti, 2000.

6  Gianni, Vattimo, Pier Aldo Rovatti, Gândirea slabă (Weak Thought), Pontica Publishing House, Constanţa, 1998.

7  Virgil Nemoianu, O teorie a secundarului (Theory of the Secondary. Literature, Progress and Reaction), Univers Publishing House, Bucharest, 1997.

8 A. Tönnies , Comunità e Società, Ed. di Comunità, Milano, 1963.

9  Giovanni Sartori, Ce facem cu străinii? Pluralism vs. Multiculturalism (Pluralism, Multiculturalism and Foreigners ) Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 2007.

10 A. Tönnies,  Comunità e Società, Ed. di Comunità, Milano, 1963.

11  Such a (re)activation of the Last Vagabond – Panait Istrati – choosing (intentionally) to present this issue (at the Formes et Stratégies du Refus conference at Nice – a familiar space/ alternative for Istrati), (re)confirms the need of investing the margin with a dynamical (un-fixed) cultural.

12 Ştefan Aug. Doinaş, The Last Vagabond: Panait Istrati  (Luceafărul, 1943, III, 122-129).

13 Idem.

14 Z.Bauman, Etica postmodernă (Postmodern Ethics), Amarcord Publishing House, Timişoara, 2000, p.129.

15 Bauman, op.cit., p.261.

16  Ibid., pp. 263.

17  Jean-Luc Nancy, Comunitatea absentă  (The Inoperative Community), Ideea Design& Print Publishinh House, Cluj, 2007.


Bauman, Zygmunt, Etica postmodernă (Postmodern Ethics), Amarcord Publishing House, Timişoara, 2000;

Doinaş, Ştefan Aug. The Last Vagabond: Panait Istrati, in Luceafărul, 1943, III, 122-129;

Florian, Mircea, Recesivitatea ca structura a lumii (The Recessivity as a Structure of the World). Vol II. Eminescu Publishing House, Bucharest, 1987;

Manolache, Gheorghe, Regula lui doi (The Rule of the Two), “Lucian Blaga” University Publishing House,Sibiu, 2004;

Manolache, Gheorghe, Recuperarea unei sincope culturale: Luceafarul – serie nouă: 1934-1939; 1940-1945 (The Recuperation of a Cultural Syncope: Luceafarul: New Series: 1934-1939; 1940-1945), TechnoMedia Publishing House, Sibiu, 2008;

Nancy, Jean-Luc, Comunitatea absentă  (The Inoperative Community), Ideea Design& Print Publishinh House, Cluj, 2007;

Nemoianu, Virgil,  O teorie a secundarului (Theory of the Secondary. Literature, Progress and Reaction ), Univers Publishing House, Bucharest, 1997;

Oţoiu, Adrian, Trafic de frontieră: strategii transgresive în proza generaţiei’80 (Frontier Traffic: The Prose of the Generation of the Eighties), Paralela 45 Publishing House, Piteşti, 2000;

Sartori, Giovanni, Ce facem cu străinii? Pluralism vs. Multiculturalism (Pluralism, Multiculturalism and Foreigners) Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 2007;

Spăriosu, Mihai, The Wreath of Wild Olive: Play, Liminality and the study of literature, Sunny Press, New York, 1997;

Vattimo, Gianni, Pier Aldo Rovatti, Gândirea slabă (Weak Thought), Pontica Publishing House, Constanţa, 1998.

Notes de la rédaction

Institut des Sciences politiques et des relations internationales, Académie roumaine, Bucarest

Pour citer cet article

Viorella Manolache, « (Re)territorialisation of marginality as a refusal of a mechanic center », paru dans Cycnos, Volume 28 n° Spécial, mis en ligne le 30 juin 2012, URL :


Viorella Manolache

Viorella Manolache – graduated Political Science Faculty, Law Faculty, has a master in Journalism and Public Relations and a PhD, University of Bucharest, Faculty of History, with the thesis “Post-communist Romanian Elites”; post PhD student of the strategic grant POSDRU/89/1.5/S/64162, Project "Europaeus program postdoctoral", cofinanced by the European Social Found within the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007 – 2013; scientific researcher at the Romanian Academy, Institute of the Political Science and International Relations, Romanian Academy, at the Department of Political Philosophy. Author of several books: Romanian Postmodernity - Between Ontological Experience and Political Necessity, 2004; Political Blindness as a Heredity Syndrome, 2005; Fetishism. Hypostasis of the Romanian Cultural Press, 2006; Elitism. Modern Conceptualization, 2006; Antielites. Typical and Atypical Forms of Elitism, 2007; Romanian Political Elites, 2008; Elites in Marsh, 2009 ; Alternative Currents of the Prefix Post - Philosophical and Political Evaluations, 2010;  co-author with Henrieta Anişoara Şerban — Mapping Marginality, 2010; The Dynamics of the European Model regarding Creative Localism within Offensive Modernism (During the First Half of the 20th Century), 2011; coordinator of the international collective volume Center and Margin at the Mediterranean Sea (Political Philosophy and International Reality), 2009 and Beyond Propaganda: A Historical and Political Instrumentation of the Romanian Film, 2011. Constant participation with studies and research projects in the collective (national and international) volumes, reviews, conferences and workshops; editor and responsible of the current issues of Romanian Review of Political Sciences and International Relations; member in the Romanian Philosophy Society; responsible of the socio-political department of the cultural association “Mediterana”; member in the Advisory Board of the international review Maghreb Journal of Cultural Studies and Translation, Morocco.