Search results

This article analyses the political, social, economic and technological dimensions of interoperability of information and communication technologies in the services of local council and public administrations. New empirical research features an everyday life-event: a hypothetical Mrs Miller moving house. Seven councils from six EU states detail how interoperable their local services are and their plans and perspectives for interoperability. The article argues that interoperability is best conceptualized holistically and is not only a technical issue. It concludes with an analysis and comments on public policy.

In contradistinction to a common misconception of Nietzsche as a theoretician who only concerned himself with power, it is argued Nietzsche can be understood as a philosopher who conceived of power in relation to will, freedom, cause and effect, and responsibility. His conception of freedom poses a challenge to mainstream liberal and juridico-rights based political philosophies; it arguably also challenges some of the claims propounded by today's foremost critical theorist, Jürgen Habermas. What is overlooked, due to an unduly deconstructive restriction, is the saliency of freedom in Nietzsche's thought which, moreover, is linked to an abiding interest in responsibility - a point overlooked by Foucault, Habermas and critics of Nietzsche.

As the distance between science and society is collapsed with the growth of contemporary knowledge societies, so a range of different approaches to the democratic governance of science superseding its Enlightenment government is emerging. In light of these different approaches, this article focuses on the figure of the scientific citizen and the variable dimensions of a new scientific citizenship. Three models of democracy - advanced consumer, deliberative and radical/pluralist - are put forward as both partly competing and partly complementary frameworks within which the new rights and responsibilities of the scientific citizen can be articulated and discussed. In each case the theory and practice of scientific citizenship are viewed against the background of contemporary developments within the field of science communication; the rise of the public understanding of science movement; the new enthusiasm for advancing public engagements with science, and the legitimate place of different forms of public protest and dissent within new designs for democratic governance.

What is so special about science? Taking up the old epistemological challenge, this article seeks to rephrase the question of scientific autonomy beyond conventional essentialist criteria of demarcation between science and society. The specificity of science is primarily sought in its studied `lack of haste', its socially sanctioned withdrawal from the swift pace of everyday life and from `faster' cultures such a politics and business. This `unhastened' quality defines science's peculiar delaying tactics, which systematically slow down and objectify ordinary conversations, actions, and conflicts, attracting `slow' personalities who read and write more and talk less than the `fast cats' who are attracted to more decisionist, stress-driven and hasty cultures. Such a description, rather than claiming performative innocence, simultaneously expresses the ambition to strengthen what it characterizes, i.e. to liberate science from the stress and haste which are increasingly imposed upon it by the `external' pressures and performance criteria of enterprise culture and political correctness, and by the growing impact of media publicity and the academic celebrity system. In this fashion, the article simultaneously advances a new factual description of the specificity of scientific practice and a new normative/political project to enhance scientific and intellectual autonomy.

The study of the notion of ideology shows that this corpus lends itself to a wide variety of different definitions. A certain opposition runs all the way through this set of definitions. Ideology would appear to be torn between a conception that emphasises its distortion and dissimulation dimensions and another conception which views as a set of social representations. After rapidly presenting the main characteristics of these two polar extremes, Paul Ricoeur's suggestion that these two conceptions can be united is discussed and illustrated by the concept of the `spirit of capitalism', as defined in the book by Boltanski and Chiapello (1999). It is shown that this constitutes an ideology which is in fact an attempt to encompass both these conceptions. It is also shown that the concept of `trial' as proposed in that book helps greatly to understand how this reconciliation is actually possible.

This article explores the concept of trust put forth by Niklas Luhmann and Talcott Parsons. It shows the outline of Luhmann's theory of trust and its connections to his autopoietic systems theory. It also deliberates upon the role of trust in the Luhmannian research of future society as well as examines the role of trust in risk society and shows why norms, values and familiarity play only a peripheral role in today's society. Trust is a way to control everyday interaction of the future. But what are the challenges and limits of Luhmann's concept of trust?