Suchergebnisse

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT IS CONSIDERED AS A CONNECTING TIE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AND THE POLITICAL LOYALTIES THAT PREDOMINATE WITHIN SOCIAL CLASSES. TWO DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS FOR CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCE ARE EXAMINED: (1) THE SOCIAL CONTEXT AS A SOURCE OF GROUP LOYALTY AND SELF-IDENTIFICATION AND (2) THE SOCIAL CONTEXT AS A FACTOR THAT STRUCTURES SOCIAL INTERACTION. RESULTS INDICATE THAT THE SOCIAL CONTEXT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE SOCIAL CLASS CONTENT OF FRIENDSHIP GROUPS, BUT THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF CONTEXT PERSISTS EVEN WHEN SUBJECTIVE CLASS MEMBERSHIP AND FRIENDSHIP GROUP COMPOSITION ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. FINALLY , THE POLITICAL IMPACT OF THE SOCIAL CONTEXT APPEARS TO VARY, BOTH IN MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTION, AS A FUNCTION OF CLASS LOYALTIES, FRIENDSHIP GROUP COMPOSITION, AND THE LARGER POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.

ACCORDING TO THE "EXPECTATION/DISILLUSION" INTERPRETATION OF THE DECLINE OF PRESIDENTIAL POPULARITY OVER TIME, POPULARITY DECLINES AS UNREALISTICALLY HIGH EXPECTATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE INEVITABLY GIVE WAY TO MORE REALISTIC ASSESSMENTS. THIS PAPER PUTS THAT INTERPRETATION AND SEVERAL SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF IT TO THE TEST THROUGH ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM A SERIES OF NATIONWIDE POLLS CONDUCTED BETWEEN 1977 AND 1979. LEE SIGELMAN IS PROFESOR AND CHAIRMAN, AND KATHLEEN KNIGHT IS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY. THE DATA EMPLOYED IN THIS PAPER WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE INTER-UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM FOR POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RESEARCH. THE DATA FOR CBS NEWS /NEW YORK TIMES POLLS, 19771979, WERE ORIGINALLY COLLECTED BY CBS NEWS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES. NEITHER THE COLLECTORS OF THE ORIGINAL DATA NOR THE CONSORTIUM BEAR ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ANALYSES OR INTERPRETATIONS PRESENTED HERE. WE ARE GRATEFUL TO RICHARD BRODY AND ANONYMOUS REVIEWERS FOR THEIR HELPFUL COMMENTS ON AN EARLIER DRAFT OF THIS PAPER.

This is Chapter 12 of the author's book in Chinese, The Inside Stories of China-US Diplomacy after Tiananmen. As a senior PRC diplomat who experienced the Tiananmen event, Chen makes an insightful background analysis of the process and way of thinking of the Chinese leaders in foreign policy making during that period. The JCC published the first chapter of Chen's book in vol. 11, no. 30, February 2002 and the last chapter of his book in vol. 12, no. 37, November 2003. (J Contemp China/GIGA)

PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS THE STUFF OF CEREMONIAL ORATIONS. 'POWER', ONE SUCH ORATION PROCLAIMED IN 1905, 'INVOLVES DUTY. THE PRIVILEGE OF CITIZENSHIP IMPOSES A CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITY ... IN A DEMOCRACY THE GREAT VICE AS WELL AS THE GREAT DANGER IS THE INDIFFERENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN.' NOT VERY HEADY STUFF, AND NOT PARTICULARLY UNCOMMON EITHER IN 1905 OR IN 1984. WHAT SETS THESE WORDS APART IS LESS THEIR CONTENT THAN THEIR SOURCE, AND THE FACT THAT THEIR AUTHOR, ROBERT LAIRD BORDEN, WOULD EVENTUALLY BECOME CANADA'S PRIME MINISTER AND, IN THAT CAPACITY, THE ARCHITECT OF CANADA'S FIRST DECADE OF FOREIGN POLICY. FOR BORDEN AND HIS GENERATION, POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY FLOWED FROM THE BALLOT BOX - FROM THE CITIZEN TO THE POLITICIAN OR, AS BORDEN WOULD HAVE WISHED, TO THE STATESMAN. IT WAS NOT THAT HE CONFUSED THE TWO, OR THAT HE FORGOT THAT THE TWO ROLES OFTEN OVERLAPPED. AS A PRACTICAL POLITICIAN. BORDEN VEERED TO THE IDEALIST SIDE AS OFTEN AS SAFETY ALLOWED: AND AS AN IDEALIST HE OCCASIONALLY PERMITTED HIMSELF VISIONS OF WHAT THE FUTURE SHOULD HOLD - A FUTURE THAT INVOLVED DREAMS OF A MORE PERFECT WORLD, IN WHICH THE PUBLIC GOOD BECAME PRACTICAL PUBLIC POLICY, AND PUBLIC POLICY WAS SUPPORTED BY PUBLIC OPINION.

THIS PAPER IS CONCERNED WITH TWO PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF INFRINGING ANOTHER'S RIGHTS, AND WILL SUGGEST THAT BOTH REST ON MISTAKES. THE FIRST (WHICH WOULD BE REGARDED AS AN OBVIOUS TRUTH BY MOST MORAL AND SOCIAL PHILOSPHERS) IS THAT INFRINGING RIGHTS IS SOMETIMES MORALLY PERMISSIBLE; THE SECOND IS THAT EVEN PERMISSIBLE INFRINGEMENTS PRODUCE RESIDUAL DUTIES TO THE RIGHTHOLDER ON THE PART OF WHOEVER INFRINGES HIS RIGHTS. IN DISCUSSING THESE PROPOSITIONS THE AUTHORS FOCUSES ON A CLASS OF CASES WHICH SEEM TO PROVIDE CLEAR OCCASIONS FOR THEIR APPLICATION, NAMELY, THOSE IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS CAUSE OTHERS PROPERTY LOSSES AND OWE COMPENSATION AS A RESULT.