Search results

Confusion reigns almost supreme in the field of political science, particularly when the meaning of terms is involved. Some of our most commonly used words have so many meanings, shades of meaning, and connotations that hearers and readers are frequently at a loss as to the meaning and significance of terms used unless the speaker or writer defines them as he uses them. A cursory examination of the term "state" brought to light no fewer than one hundred forty-five different definitions, even though only a few writers were included who might be classed as radical. Less than half of the definitions were in general agreement. Even this statement is based on the assumption that when the same words were used by two writers they were used to mean the same thing; and I doubt whether the assumption is entirely justifiable. Furthermore, "state" is not the only term in political science which is defined in multifold ways. A similar situation was found when others, especially "law," "government," "political," "administration," were investigated.The process of communication between political scientists, as well as between these scientists and laymen or between laymen and laymen, comes to be a guessing game. Consciously or unconsciously, it is suggested, we are spending much of our time guessing what the sender means when he uses even technical words.

Political science engages similar types of identity on different terms. There are extensive literatures describing phenomena related to national, ethnic, class, and gender identity; however, these literatures in isolation give us little insight into broader political mechanics of identity itself. Furthermore, many of the theoretical approaches to identity in political science tend to proceed from the macro-level, without conceptualizing its building blocks. How should we conceptualize and operationalize identity in political science? In this article, we examine the existing literature on identity in ethnic politics, nationalism studies, and gender politics to show this disconnect in conceptualizing identity across research agendas. We then provide an integrated model of identity, focusing on how gradations of visibility, conceptualization, and recognition form the basis of claims and conflicts about the politics of identity. We conclude by elucidating a path to overcoming these issues by opening space for a rethinking of identity in political science.

1. Development of State -- 2. Theory of the Origin of the State -- 3. New Political Science -- 4. Challenges to State Sovereignty -- 5. Forms of Government -- 6. Judiciary -- 7. Indian Government and Politics -- 8. Organisation of State Government - Tamilnadu -- 9. Local Self Government in Tamil Nadu -- 10. India in the 21st Century

The article shows the weakness of mainstream Polish political science. Its main weakness, according to the author, is omitting the industrial and corporate power conflict among the factors determining the contemporary politics. As a result, the relations between political science and political economy have become weak. Its place as a source of inspiration for political scientists has been taken by social philosophy. It seeks the various non-economic sources of politics. The postulated critical political science puts in the spotlight the main processes of the global capitalist economy located in a phase of stagnation and closing in on the natural limits of its duration. In particular, closer attention should be focused on tracking a new, already the fifth configuration of the market society. It will be the several partial processes weave; the recovery process of autonomy by the state to corporations and the financial sector (deglobalisation); the process of recovering control of the state by the old and new social movements (democracy participatory), and the process of transformation of the energy economy, coupled with the process of changing lifestyles: from consumerism to paideia as a human community responsive to its activity on the development, openness and creativity in shaping new rules for civilization. ; Artykuł ukazuje słabości mainstreamowej polskiej politologii. Główną jej słabością według autora jest pomijanie wśród czynników determinujących współczesną politykę konfliktu przemysłowego i władzy korporacji. W efekcie osłabły związki nauki o polityce z ekonomią polityczną. Jej miejsce jako źródło inspiracji dla politologów zajęła filozofia społeczna. Poszukuje ona różnych pozaekonomicznych źródeł polityczności. Postulowana politologia krytyczna umieszcza w centrum uwagi główne procesy globalnej gospodarki kapitalistycznej, znajdującej się w fazie stagnacji i zbliżającj się do przyrodniczych granic swego trwania. W szczególności bliższej uwagi wymaga śledzenie nowej, już piątej konfiguracji społeczeństwa rynkowego. Będzie to spolot kilku procesów cząstkowych; procesu odzyskiwania autonomii przez państwa wobec korporacji i sektora finansowego (deglobalizacja); proces odzyskiwania kontroli nad państwem przez stare i nowe ruchy społeczne (demokracja partycypacyjna), a także proces transformacji energetycznej gospodarki, sprzężony z procesem zmiany stylu życia: od konsumpcjonizmu do paidei jako wspólnoty ludzkiej ukierunkowującej swoją aktywność na potrzeby rozwojowe, na otwartość i kreatywność w kształtowaniu nowych zasad funkcjonowania cywilizacji ogólnoludzkiej.

Catch up with any event you have missed.

The public event podcast series from UCL Political Science brings together the impressive range of policy makers, leading thinkers, practitioners, and academics who speak at our events.

Further information about upcoming events can be found via our website: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/political-science/political-science

The Political Science Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces it awards for basic research support and dissertation improvement grants for fiscal year 2011. The Program funded 25 new projects and 44 doctoral dissertation improvement proposals. The Political Science Program spent $5,234,470 on these research, training and workshop projects and $483,822 on dissertation training grants for political science students. The program holds two grant competitions annually —Regular Research, August and January 15; Dissertation Improvement, September 16 and January 15— and constitutes a major source of political science research funding as part of fulfilling NSF's mission to encourage theoretically focused empirical investigations aimed at improving the explanation of fundamental social and political processes and structures.

A nomenclature is a system of names or signs, or both, used in any field of knowledge. Such systems are of value to scientists in a field if they enable positions to be seen more clearly or distinctions to be drawn more readily.In a recent article, Huntington Cairns says: "There prevails, secondly, confusion with respect to the instrument—linguistics—with which the anthropologist, the jurist, or the social scientist must pursue his investigations and through whose medium he must state his conclusions. … But once the social scientist passes from these simple aspects to the realm of theory, linguistics becomes a problem and it is in his struggle with this problem that he is most envious of the symbolism of the mathematician."1Confusion and uncertainty appear to be present in several sections of political science. Linguistics is a problem for us in theory; in addition, it is a serious one in teaching and in the field of research.When a problem appears in a field of knowledge which handicaps effective work, experiments are in order, not only to analyze the phenomenon itself, but, in addition, to find ways or means by which the causes producing the unfortunate circumstance may be removed, or at least reduced. Can the apparent confusion and uncertainty among political scientists concerning the meaning of terms, labels, or intellectual positions be reduced? This is an important problem which directs our attention to the possibility of developing a nomenclature for political science.