Suchergebnisse

How far may we hope to go in theorizing about international affairs? That question is at the center of this article, which consists of several more or less eclectic stabs at the problem.I shall be writing as though some theory of power politics were the only possible candidate for being the theory of international relations. Let that be regarded as an act of methodological faith—certainly I can think of no scientific demonstration of it, and I would rather leave the philosophy of the matter for another occasion. There are a number of stock objections against any general theory of international relations oriented towards power politics, and these I shall try to rebut, chiefly by extending and correcting my own previous efforts in the genre. I shall then introduce objections of a rather more abstract sort, and, again from my own previous work, I shall try to show that the difficulties which these latter present are indeed formidable. But I hope it will be understood that neither kind of objection need be relevant to meories of international relations other than those built around the concepts of force, power, and security.

Globalization represents a significant paradigm shift in political science. Whereas well into the 1990s, most sub-fields of the discipline focused on the nation-state, the actions of governments, and the relationships between governments and other societal actors, globalization has forced us to revise many of our existing theories. In a truly globalizing environment, politics cannot focus solely on the state. Scholars across the discipline have moved away from studying governments to studying governance within both a national and international context. Domestically, the evolving interest in the policy network/community approach demonstrates the increasing role of the private and community sectors in governance arrangements. Internationally, regime theory has extended the frontiers of political science to study private regimes, multinational corporations and the ever-increasing importance of NGOs. Despite calls from scholars like Rosenau to speak of a post-international system following the end of the Cold war1, or from Keohane and Milner to better understand the relationship between domestic politics and international politics2, little theorizing work has actually been able to incorporate knowledge from the sub-fields of political science in order to present a truly holistic view of the emerging global order.

Paper read before the Am. political science association, Washington, D.C., Sept. 10-12, 1953.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Introduction: Trends and Prospects -- 1: The Transformation of the Urban Community -- 2: The Form and Structure of the Future Urban Complex -- 3: The Urban Field -- 4: The Rising Demand for Urban Amenities -- 5: The Shape of the Future -- 6: Notes on Southern California -- 7: The Metropolitan Area as a Racial Problem -- 8 : The Apocalyptic Future -- The Urban Fortress -- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE CAUSES AND PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE -- Inevitability Comes to New York -- For Further Reading -- Index.

Contents: The new economic course in the U.S.S.R., by Naum Jasny; Soviet farm policy; In defense of reaction, by Peter Meyer; "Blat" is higher than Stalin! by J. S. Berliner.

All politicking is done by `interested' persons &the term `interest group' involves a truism, not a pathological condition. Interest groups are essential pol'al aggregates whose form, functions & power depend upon stated SP conditions. Interest groups have intrapersonal & interpersonal dimensions. Group leaders usually possess the intensive perspectives of their group, whereas the rank & file usually have signif'ly varied & split involvements in their groups. The `individual' interest can be conceived in group theory terms, so can the `national interest.' A strong anitgroup ideology is found in 19th cent democratic & socialist movemements, which tended to fluctuate between semianarchism & executive dictatorship. Group theory pictures the developing society more accurately in many ways than such other theories, while simultaneously interest groups are still treated as pests or threats to democracy. Pol'al philosophy should seek to reconcile fact & value in this situation & has a variety of theories from the past to utilize. Interest groups, broadly regarded as instruments of pluralism & localism, are an especially American practical alternative to the program of communist centralism in ideology & gov. AA.

All politiking is done by "interested" persons and the term "interest group" involves a truism, not a pathologi cal condition. Interest groups are essential political aggre gates whose form, functions, and power depend upon stated socio-political conditions. Interest groups have intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions. Group leaders usually possess the intensive perspectives of their group, whereas the rank and file usually have significantly varied and split involvements in their groups. The "individual" interest can be conceived in group theory terms, so can the "national interest." A strong antigroup ideology is found in nineteenth-century democratic and socialist movements, which tended to fluctuate between semi-anarchism and executive dictatorship. Group theory pic tures the developing society more accurately in many ways than such other theories, while simultaneously interest groups are still treated as pests or threats to democracy. Political phi losophy should seek to reconcile fact and value in this situation and has a variety of theories from the past to utilize. Interest groups, broadly regarded as instruments of pluralism and lo calism, are an especially American practical alternative to the program of communist centralism in ideology and government.

A bibliography of 58 items was produced in a survey of contemporary comparative fam res based on interviews with 20 European investigators in 1956 & a total/sum survey of 40 soc sci'ts engaged in internat'l fam res in 1961. A typology of these res re the dimensions of primary vs secondary data collection & the degree of internat'l collaboration produced 4 types: Type (I) Inventorying Published Works on Family Patterns (many societies but no original field work); Type (II) Comparative Studies (2 or more societies, field work, but researcher functions alone); Type (III) Collaborative Comparative Studies (2 or more societies, field work, relations with sponsors & colleagues); Type (IV), Comparative Studies Involving International Teams (covering 2 or more societies, extensive field work, maximum collaboration among several countries). Content analysis finds cross-nat'l fam researchers to be less prescriptive (action oriented) than intra-nat'l fam studies. The res surveyed was either descriptive (factual, informational) or analytic (explanatory) in methodological stance, focussing on the basic issue of extending the dissemination of the generality of res propositions adduced from theoretically conceived but empirically discovered findings in the O's home setting. In this, the present group of internat'l researchers share the interests of the early comparative sociol'ts of the 19th cent, but their stance, style, theory & methods have been shown in this survey to be quite diff. AA.