Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- 1.1 Origin of the Book -- 1.2 Context and the Main Subject -- 1.3 A Glimpse of Chapter 2 -- 1.4 A Glance at Chapter 3 -- 1.5 A Peek at Chapter 4 -- 1.6 Foreshadowing the Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 2: Courts, Courtrooms, and Power Distance -- 2.1 Organizational Culture of Courts -- 2.1.1 Courts as Organizations -- 2.1.2 Concept of Organizational Culture -- 2.1.3 Applications -- 2.1.4 Organizational Culture Dimensions -- 2.2 Geert Hofstede´s Concept of Power Distance -- 2.2.1 Introduction -- 2.2.2 On Geert Hofstede´s Definition of Power Distance -- 2.2.3 Differences Between Low and High Power Distance -- 2.2.4 Critique of Hofstede´s Concept of Power Distance -- 2.2.5 (After All) Positive Reflection -- 2.3 Using the Concept of Power Distance in the Legal Context -- 2.3.1 The Relative Lack of Interest -- 2.3.2 Procedural Justice and Power Distance -- 2.3.3 Decision-Makers and Power Distance -- 2.3.4 Lay Assessors, Judicial Decision-Making, and Power Distance -- 2.3.5 Common Points -- 2.4 Searching for Inspiration -- 2.4.1 Establishing the Guiding Criteria -- 2.4.2 Krzysztof Pałecki´s Normativity-Oriented Concept of Power -- 2.4.3 Some Polemic Thoughts -- 2.4.4 Lesson Learned -- 2.5 Toward the Three-Level Power Distance Concept -- 2.6 Subjective Power Distance -- 2.7 Organizational Power Distance -- 2.7.1 The Basics -- 2.7.2 Relative Independence -- 2.7.3 Coherence -- 2.7.4 ``Incompleteness´´ -- 2.7.5 Researching Organizational Power Distance -- 2.8 Interactional Power Distance -- 2.8.1 The Basics -- 2.8.2 Relativity -- 2.8.3 Controllability and Uncontrollability -- 2.8.4 Researching Interactional Power Distance -- 2.9 Self-Critical Reflection on Three-Level Power Distance -- 2.10 Commentary on Communication Accommodation Theory -- 2.10.1 Basic Idea.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Introduction to the Transaction Edition -- Preface -- Introduction -- PART ONE -- I. Persons -- II. Perspectives -- III. Groups -- PART TWO -- IV. Influence -- V. Power -- VI. Symbols -- VII. Practices -- PART THREE -- VIII. Functions -- IX. Structures -- X. Process -- Frequent Citations -- Index

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -- INTRODUCTION -- Chapter 1 WAR AS PEACE, PEACE AS PACIFICATION -- Chapter 2 WAR ON WASTE; OR, INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION -- Chapter 3 'O EFFEMINACY! EFFEMINACY!': MARTIAL POWER, MASCULINE POWER, LIBERAL PEACE -- Chapter 4 THE POLICE OF CIVILISATION: WAR AS CIVILISING OFFENSIVE -- Chapter 5 AIR POWER AS POLICE POWER I -- Chapter 6 AIR POWER AS POLICE POWER II -- Chapter 7 UNDER THE SIGN OF SECURITY: TRAUMA, TERROR, RESILIENCE -- NOTES -- INDEX

Has power moved out of institutions into the hands of powerful individuals?

"How can we understand power in a world of ever-growing complexity? This book proposes that we can do so by rethinking the theory and practice of political hegemony through the resources of complexity theory. Taking Gramsci's understanding of hegemony as its starting point, the book argues that the intricacies of contemporary power can be mapped by applying concepts drawn from complexity theory, such as emergence, self-organisation, metastability, and generative entrenchment. It develops an original account of social complexity, drawing upon critical realist sociology, analytic philosophy of science, Marxist and continental philosophies, and neoliberal and anarchist thought. It then draws out the elements of Gramscian hegemony that already align with complexity concepts, such as the balance of forces, common sense, and the historic bloc. On this basis, the book sets out the different dimensions of complex hegemonic power before using this theory to interpret the nature of the power of neoliberalism since 2008"--

Sociology Reference Guide: Political Power & -- Authority -- Contents -- Introduction -- Global Politics: Human Rights -- Distributive Justice -- Sociology & -- the Law -- Characteristics of Totalitarianism -- Power & -- Authority: Charismatic Authority -- Power & -- Authority: Rational-Legal Authority -- Power & -- Authority: Traditional Authority -- U.S. Politics: Political Parties -- U.S. Politics: Special Interest Groups & -- Lobbyists -- U.S. Politics: The Military-Industrial Complex -- U. S. Politics: Voter Participation.

The concepts of power and state - particularly embedded in the idea of the Great Power, with a geopolitical perspective and a profoundly aggressive character - are tantamount in importance to the Russia's elite political ideology. However, the existence of different emphases within such a political ideology, ranging from the active-obstructive to the passive stances, brings into question the factors of variation that might be responsible for the elite's level of determination to pursue these concepts over an internal or foreign policy development.In addressing this query, two tasks are set: descriptive - involving a survey of the content of Russian aggressive political ideology over different periods in history; and explanatory - determining circumstances that might account for the empowerment of one or other option of Russian aggressive political ideology. Therefore, the thesis includes a comparison of historical periods with similar relevance to the Russian state. The concern here is in relation to shifting factors of variations of aggressive political ideology acting in the space-frame of one state, but in different time-frame. Resting on these frames the thesis explores the shaping of the Russian elite's defining principles of state internal and foreign policy development and traces the factors of variation responsible for the empowerment of one or other particular form of the aggressive political ideology.The factors of variation discussed in the thesis are different in nature and intensity. The primary impetus for variation in the form that aggressive political ideology would take is determined by the factor of national distress. Other factors (regime volatility, political and economic motivations, information dissemination, and challenges within the international system) are responsible for the depth and extent to which aggressive ideology is going to resonate. No factor could create the variation by itself. The argument is that a specific set of factors is required to create the conditions for variations in the form the aggressive political ideology would take and to determine whether aggressive ideology would generate or not an obstructive political decision.