Search results

Defining the dimensions of political culture is a precondition in the elaboration of the theory of this phenomenon & for its systematic empirical study. It has been demonstrated that Almond-Verba's concept of the dimensions of political culture, in the form of a matrix of the three orientations (cognitive, affective, & evaluative) times four political objects ("system," "input-objects," "output-objects," & "I" as an object) is not plausible. If political culture is defined as a set of beliefs about politics (which it indeed is), then it is clear that each belief at the same time contains an intricate mix of knowledge, emotions, & evaluations. This makes it difficult to determine the dimensions according to the mentioned orientations. It seems this was sensed by Almond himself in one of his later works. Using his more recent concept, we define the dimensions of political culture according to the "objects" of politics & not vice versa, according to the orientations in relation to these "objects." Thus, we have elaborated on the three fundamental dimensions according to the three fundamental objects of politics: the "system" as a universal object, the "process" as a dynamic object of politics, & the "conduct" as a manner of decision making & the outcome of governing. It has been found that each of these basic dimensions of political culture has a series of subdimensions (a total of about 25). Surely, this matrix may be added to or perhaps amended, but basically it is unassailable, since it represents a sort of map of political culture. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

The purpose of this essay is to prove the connection among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure, ie, within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims -- primarily in line with the functional theory of culture -- that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure, that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture, ie, that "culture is a structure's way of life," that culture determines the structure) & the contemporary interactional approach (in which -- primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" -- complex relations among various cultural variables & structural variables are analyzed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or the end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate & useful in understanding & maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important & more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis has shown how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depend on the elements of the very political structure (party systems & coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc.). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently its role greatly depends on the relations among political actors & the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

The essay describes the evolution of the concept of political culture, from the concepts such as Comte's 'consensus,' Durkheim's 'collective awareness,' Weber's 'significance of individual actions,' to Parson's 'action frame of reference,' & Mead's 'national character.' The development began with Comte's search for differentia specifica of social sciences in relation to other positive sciences & finished in 1963 with the introduction of the concept of political culture into political science by G. Almond & S. Verba. Our analysis has shown that many definitions of political culture point out that its essence lies in people's beliefs since political culture is a set of beliefs regarding politics. As much as it may seem a paradox, it cannot be reduced to mere individual beliefs, but represents a system of inter-subjective opinions on various political objects. This explains the possible discrepancies between the political events & the political beliefs of the people, between their behavior & political culture, & so on. Contrary to the belief of some authors, it has been shown how political culture may & should be taken as a common denominator for a variety of opinions on politics. Political attitudes, values, norms, public opinion, & political ideologies are nothing but different manifestations of political culture. Thus, the concept of political culture includes diverse facets of the subjective attitude of people towards politics. This is the asset & not the downside of this concept, as some authors would have it. It is pointed out that the manifold manifestations of political culture do not carry the same 'weight' in explaining the political activism of people & the functioning of political systems. The relationship between these manifestations is extremely complex & a challenge for research. It is this very relationship that could explain the stable & less stable (ie, stable & vacillating) reactions of people in their political activity. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the notion of the rule of law from the functional/logical, & not historical standpoint: he starts from the hypothesis that there is the functional logic of managing social behavior & social developments by means of legal norms. This logic, with some preconditions, creates certain institutions. The recognition of members of a society as free & equal is the fundamental assumption. It means that government agencies have the right of independent action but are at the same time also disempowered. This requires the quality of laws to be evaluated on the basis of rationality & normativity. The second part of the text lists the institutional conditions for the rule of law: division of power, legal restrictions of all government institutions & independent judiciary. A guarantee of basic right must be included in these functional elements. The author thinks that our future is to be marked by social pluralization, the need for security & the concurrent processes of globalization, & individualization. These processes are surely going to affect the institutions of the state of law. 43 References. Adapted from the source document.

The article is a critical analysis of Husserl's essay, "The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology" (1937). The author first outlines Husserl's diagnosis of the crisis of science, philosophy, & culture, followed by the elements & the mechanisms of that crisis. The root of the crisis of European science & culture lies in foregoing the genuine productive humanity. The authentic humanity cannot be based nor explained from its objectifications but solely through the analysis of its productive imagination. The author also deals with the crisis of spiritual sciences, which he claims have brought about the loss of insight into the ultimate purpose of the existence of Europe as a brainchild of the historical humanity. Adapted from the source document.

The author claims that Haberle's theory of the constitution is a science of culture, opposed to formalism, decisionism, positivism, & statism. It is based on the continuity & the relationship among culture-building, law, & state. The subjects of the constitution-formative authority are mutually culturally linked citizens who decide on the objectively given subject-matter & procedures. The theory of the constitution as a science of culture is based on the assumption that serious conflicts among the open societies of Western Europe are highly unlikely. This represents a significant departure from the positivist theory of the state grounded in the conflict of interests & opinions as well as the strong regulatory role of the state. The author challenges Haberle's disregard for the crisis potential of modern societies & proposes that these two opposed theories should complement each other. The author goes on to describe Haberle's research method, which includes an analysis of both the cultural context & the normative/constitutional solutions. He applies this research method to the constitutional laws of Germany, Switzerland, & Austria, & also when comparing large & small states, or developed & underdeveloped ones. Haberle espoused Taylor's definition of culture: culture & civilization are equated so that the systems of culture are on the one hand products of activity, & on the other the conditioning element of future activity. According to Haberle, the culture of a community starts from the traditional, innovative & pluralist aspects that are the orientation points for constitutional science as a science of culture. Regarding tradition, culture is mediation of things past. The innovative aspect is based on the idea that culture is a further development of things past. Since culture is not uniform, its pluralist aspect should not be forgotten. Thus the citizens of a democratic constitutional state make up the cultural/anthropological premise, while the state is only one aspect of the constituted res publica. The constitutional state today goes beyond the scope of the national state since the regional European constitutional state has been evolving together with the outlines of "the world community of constitutional states.". 9 References. Adapted from the source document.

Husserl's concept & definition of the "living world" represents a sort of the pinnacle of his later philosophical works. In the form of a new universal science -- transcendental phenomenology -- & by defining the living world as -- for us -- an immediate & contiguous world, the known & acknowledged intersubjectivity, Husserl provides a critique of the modern age, ie, the domination of the paradigm of the objectivist sciences. Husserl's phenomenology also delves into the equally central political & social problems of the contemporary age; Husserl calls for the establishment of a new rationality in judging social & political issues. Particular attention is given to Husserl's vehement critique of antiliberalism as well as his novel relation I-we ie, the individual & the community or the state. Adapted from the source document.

(See Part I in Politika Misao, 1999, 36, 1, 113-139.) Part II seeks to prove the connection among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure: the notion that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure; & the contemporary interactional approach, which considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis demonstrates how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that, in the future, they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also in attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. Adapted from the source document.

The purpose of this essay is to prove the connections among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure ie, within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims -- primarily in line with the functional theory of culture -- that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure, & that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture ie, that "culture is a structure's way of life," that culture determines the structure) & the contemporary interactional approach (in which -- primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" -- complex relations among various cultural variables & structural variables are analyzed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition," but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate & useful in understanding & maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important & more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis shows how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depends on the elements of the political structure (party systems & coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently, its role depends on the relations among political actors & the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.