Search results

Political movements and citizens across the globe are increasingly challenging the traditional ways in which political authorities and governing bodies establish and maintain social control. This edited collection examines the intersections of social control, political authority and public policy.Each chapter provides an important insight into the key elements needed to understand the role of governance in establishing and maintaining social control through law and public policymaking. Close attention is paid to the roles of surveillance and dissent as tools for both establishing and disrupting the social control of political institutions. This collection examines the vast implications of increased participation in governance by citizens through dissent, revealing the ways in which this represents both a disruption of social control and a mechanism for increased accountability through surveillance and media. Through its examination of issues such as police militarization, police legitimacy, religion and the state, immigration, mental health policy, privacy and surveillance, and mass media and social control in a post-truth environment, this collection will prove invaluable for researchers, policy makers and practitioners alike

Names such as Armor, Pettigrew, Glazer, Jencks, Herrnstein, Clark and Moynihan have not yet appeared in the pages of Ring magazine, but it seems only a matter of time. It is no secret, after all, that these men, all intellectual heavyweights, are engaged in an ongoing, fierce slugging match over a host of issues related to the "limits of social policy." Their verbal fisticuffs have been characterized by a good deal of fancy footwork, plenty of hard hitting, some low blows and inevitable cries of foul. For some time Public Interest was booking the best cards, but with more than 150 pages of its February, 1973, issue devoted to a detailed critique of Jencks's Inequality, it may be assumed that the Harvard Educational Review became, as it was during the Jensen brawl, the main arena of conflict. The bulk of recent attention was focused on the hard punching of Jencks's critics, but it would be a pity if the brilliant footwork of Kenneth Clark went unnoticed. His performance is simply remarkable.

The relationship between nationalism & public policy remains largely unexplored. Focusing on the link between sub-state nationalism & social policy, this article formulates three main arguments. The first is that social policy is likely to factor into processes of identity- & nation-building spearheaded by sub-state nationalism, & that nationalist movements typically trigger pressures for the decentralization of social policy. The second is that recognizing the importance of this connection should not lead to hasty conclusions about the impact of societal & institutional pressures on public policy. Nationalism is not only a societal force; it is also a political construction that reflects broad institutional legacies. The third is that the historical sequence of nationalism & policy development may create institutional forces preventing the congruence between policies & ethno-linguistic boundaries, in spite of pressures emanating from nationalist movements. The analysis of Social Security politics in contemporary Belgium provides ground to these claims. 59 References. Adapted from the source document.

Review of critics of the logical positivist description of scientific method & academic accounts of policy making suggests that analogies & metaphors are central features of the social-scientific enterprise. Critics of metaphorical thinking in social science argue that these "devices" are used uncritically & obscure reality because they are too intuitive & too interpretative to be considered scientific. But this approach is probably dangerous because it assumes that metaphors, analogies, & models have only scientific consequences. As devices of thinking, they also have effects on public life as well. Assessment of analogies & metaphors must depend on their implications for reforming the world. At issue is the question of whether policy sciences use analogies & metaphors in a responsible fashion & whether policy scientists are willing to take responsibility for the world they imagine. 65 References. HA.