Suchergebnisse

The central argument of Japan and the Enemies of Open Political Science is that Eurocentric blindness is not a moral but a scientific failing. In this wide-ranging critique of Western social science, Anglo-American philosophy and French theory, Williams works on the premise that Japan is the most important political system of our time. He explains why social scientists have been so keen to ignore or denigrate Japan's achievements. If social science is to meet the needs of the `Pacific Century', it requires a sustained act of intellectual demolition and subsequent renewal

The Research Committee on Political Socialization and Education of the International Political Science Association celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2019. The RC was recognized by IPSA in 1979 following a solid and successful pioneering phase in the 1960s and '70s. The RC flourished with a full board during 40 years, more than fifty RCPSE panels at IPSA World Congresses, more than thirty RCPSE conferences in thirteen countries, more than 60 RCPSE sponsored books, and its RCPSE journal during 27 years. Research highlights include four international comparative political socialization studies and several political socialization panel studies. For more than thirty different political orientations and behaviours it has been investigated whether political socialization contributes to the explanation of the variance therein. Research focused on eight political socialisation agents and about thirty specific political socializers in these domains. Forty years of research has yielded a lot of insights and an auspicious theory development. Some topics deserve much more attention than they have received so far while new political, economic and social developments require a retest of what was discovered about political socialization in the past and a study of the many new ways, forms and contents of political socialization at the present time and in the future.

Addresses by celebrated Americans, grouped under historical headings. ; Vol.1, 1904; v.2, 1903; vol. 3-4, 1904. ; Contents.--v.1. I. Colonialism. II. Constitutional government. III. The rise of democracy. IV. The rise of nationality.--v.2. V. The anti-slavery struggle.--v.3. V. The anti-slavery struggle (continued) VI. Secession.--v.4. VII. Civil war and reconstruction. VIII. Free trade and protection. IX. Finance and civil service reform. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Library wanting: v.1.

Addresses by celebrated Americans, grouped under historical headings. ; Vol. 1, 1904; v. 2, 1903; v. 3-4, 1901. ; v.1. I. Colonialism. II. Constitutional government. III. The rise of democracy. IV. The rise of nationality.--v.2. V. The anti-slavery struggle.--v.3. V. The anti-slavery struggle (cont.) VI. Secession.--v.4. VII. Civil war and reconstruction. VIII. Free trade and protection. IX. Finance and civil service reform. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Addresses by celebrated Americans, grouped under historical headings. ; v. 1. I. Colonialism. II. Constitutional government. III. The rise of democracy. IV. The rise of nationality.--v. 2. V. The anti-slavery struggle.--v. 3. V. The anti-slavery struggle (continued) VI. Secession.--v. 4. VII. Civil War and Reconstruction. VIII. Free trade and protection. IX. Finance and civil service reform. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Addresses by celebrated Americans, grouped under historical headings. ; Contents.--v. 1. I. Colonialism. II. Constitutional government. III. The rise of democracy. IV. The rise of nationality.--v. 2. V. The anti-slavery struggle.--v. 3. V. The anti-slavery struggle (continued) VI. Secession.--v. 4. VII. Civil war and reconstruction. VIII. Free trade and protection. IX. Finance and civil service reform. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Today we are often skeptical of the role played by representations of the nation state in constructing and legitimating ways of life and public policies. We portray what once appeared to be neutral, scientific representations of our practices and our heritages as contingent historical objects. How did we become so skeptical? The answer has several parts: developmental historicism dominated the human sciences in the latter half of the nineteenth century; the turn of the century witnessed an epistemic rupture and the rise of a modernist empiricism that came to dominate the social sciences; modernist empiricists reformulated their approach during the latter half of the twentieth century in response to alternative visions of social science; and, finally, the close of the twentieth century also saw the rise of a radical historicism that spread from philosophy and literature to history and even social science. In short, we have become skeptical as we have moved towards a radical historicism that challenges scientism and decenters the grand narratives of yore.