In a reevaluation of the meaning of politics, it is argued that while economics contains theory & language that can facilitate an understanding of the public interest, it does not provide an escape from political disagreement, whether based on inevitable differences of interest or belief, or on self-serving efforts to advance one cause at the expense of another. As a language of discourse, economics is shown to be compatible with a broader conception of human nature than is sometimes claimed by its practitioners or acknowledged by its critics. 53 References. Adapted from the source document.
A review essay on a book by Brian Lee Crowley, The Self, the Individual and the Community: Liberalism in the Political Thought of F. A. Hayek and Sidney and Beatrice Webb (New York: Oxford U Press, 1987 [see listing in IRPS No. 54]). This book illuminates similarities between Hayek & the Webbs in their depoliticized economistic view of the nature of social thought. It is suggested that Crowley would better understand Hayek's (anti)politics if he considered the historical context from which it emerged. The form of Hayek's political anthropology (the individualist ethos of self-seeking enterprise) is attributed to the pluralistic nature of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in which he was raised. Crowley's work is considered in line with the current interest of the Aristotelian conception of politics, centered on the idea of active, participatory citizenship. This revival emerges in opposition to the antipolitics of classical liberalism & socialism, & their failure to satisfactorily address the issue of the relationship of man, state, & society. L. Taub
Providing students with all the essential information required and a full definition of terms, this companion to Western European politics presents past events, prominent personalities, important dates, organizations and electoral information in an accessible, easy-to-read format.
A critical review of James Hinton's Protests and Visions: Peace Politics in Twentieth Century Britain (London: Hutchinson Radius, 1989). Hinton argues that British peace politics has been characterized throughout the century by imperialist pacifism (IP) -- the belief in GB's civilizing mission to create a more harmonious international order. GB's renunciation of its weapons would set an exemplary standard for other nations to follow. Hinton aruges that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's (CND) program of unilaterlism -- the demand that GB unconditionally relinquish its nuclear weapons & thus take the lead internationally -- was a variant on this perspective. What CND failed to grasp was contemporary GB's very limited leverage on the behavior of other nation states. Although Hinton's arguments are valid, it is noted that unilateralism was a more complex program than Hinton recognizes; by focusing on IP, he underplays the more creative & politically successful aspects of CND's campaigning: eg, its role in the making of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in Dec 1987. 16 References. Modified AA
The Middle East field is in a crisis within the broader discipline of political science. A review of major departments of political science reveals surprisingly few that have full professors with the politics of the Middle East as their primary research focus. This lacuna exists at such universities as Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Chicago, Ohio State, Emory, Brown, Dartmouth, North Carolina, Rice, Pittsburgh, Brandeis, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. Some of these departments have no Middle East faculty at all, others have denied tenure to deserving junior faculty, while still others have an interest in the region but claim to lack resources to make the necessary appointments.The situation is clearly better at institutions such as Columbia, NYU, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Johns Hopkins SAIS, Indiana, UCLA, Texas, Princeton, Georgetown, George Washington, Rutgers, and a few others. Nonetheless, there are problems here too. Some faculty are administrators and do not teach a full load. Others may be nearing retirement and are concerned that they will not be replaced by a scholar who also specializes in the Middle East. Although we can disagree about particular institutions or individuals (e.g., Is so-and-so "really" a Middle East scholar?), it is evident that this field is in danger of being marginalized both in professional recognition by the discipline as a whole, and in political science departments that may appreciate having Middle East politics courses on the books, but not the scholarship of the course instructor.Disregard for the Middle East field can be attributed to an array of political and disciplinary factors with which most of us are familiar. And one could reasonably expand the problem to include all area studies.
