From Salvation to Pragmatic Indifference?: Europe in Italian Political Discourse
In: Debating Europe, S. 69-85
1416 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Debating Europe, S. 69-85
The present study adresses the problem of citizen indifference in democracy and argues that there is a causal connection between sovereign state interest and the pervasive influence od indifference among citizenry. This research argues that political indifference is the result of precise dynamics that gradually dissolve the democratic foundations of the state and impose a stronger authority. A a consequence, three dynamics of indifference are proposed as drivers of sovereign interest to render a citizenry passive on issues of democratic importance. There are 'paranoid thinking' based on fear, where a problem marked by urgency activates insecurity and instigates citizens to request the state´s strong intervention. The 'epistemology of control' based on a central structure of command marks the second dynamic as a progressive pluralisation of powers, with political pratices increasingly substracted to the public's jurisdiction. Finally, the third 'dynamic invisibility and marginality' signals the disappearance of the initial problem from the public interest. I suggest that the use of discourse constructed around these three dynamics is the key to controlled opinions in lieuof a flagrant ideological indoctrination. The resulting effect is that the state is strengthened whilst the civic engagement of citizens desintegrates, yet within processes that remain 'democratic' in form if not substance. Resumo O presente estudo aborda o problema da indiferença dos cidadãos na democracia e argumenta que existe uma conexão causal entre o interesse estatal soberano e a influência generalizada da indiferença entre os cidadãos. Esta investigação argumenta que a indiferença política é o resultado de dinâmicas precisas que gradualmente dissolvem os fundamentos democráticos do Estado e impõem uma autoridade mais forte. Como consequência, três dinâmicas de indiferença são propostas como impulsionadoras do interesse soberano para tornar uma cidadania passiva em questões de importância democrática. Há um 'pensamento paranóico' baseado no medo, onde um problema marcado pela urgência ativa a insegurança e instiga os cidadãos a solicitarem a forte intervenção do Estado. A "epistemologia do controlo", baseada numa estrutura central de comando, marca a segunda dinâmica como uma pluralização progressiva de poderes, com práticas políticas cada vez mais subtraídas à jurisdição do público. Finalmente, a terceira "invisibilidade e marginalidade dinâmica" assinala o desaparecimento do problema inicial do interesse público. Sugiro que o uso do discurso construído em torno dessas três dinâmicas é a chave para opiniões controladas em lugar de uma doutrinação ideológica flagrante. O efeito resultante é que o estado é fortalecido enquanto o engajamento cívico dos cidadãos se desintegra, mas dentro dos processos que permanecem como 'democráticos' em forma, se não em substância.
BASE
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 72, Heft 1, S. 163-177
ISSN: 1468-2508
The article identifies the problematic field of understanding the essence, nature and semantic components of political technology. The place and meaning of the adjective "political" in the content of the concept of "political technology" are determined. The conditions for the acquisition of political functions by social technologies are indicated. An attempt is made to remove the numerical uncertainty regarding the concept of political technology. The peculiarity of the adoption of political technologies in their activities by other social actors is shown. The article also provides a comparative analysis of the definitions of "technology", this term is considered in relation to political science. The signs of technology and components of its procedure are revealed. The conditions of technologicalization of the political process and its stages are considered. The author studies this phenomenon in two interrelated aspects: as a quantitative increase in the technical component of this political activity and as a formalization of socio-political activity. Different authorial approaches of scientists to determining the structure of political technologies are analyzed. The author's vision of the structure of political technologies from the point of view of their political indifference is offered. The components of the structure of political technologies are: goal-setting, conceptual component, substantive component, procedural component, performance and evaluation component. A brief description of these components is given. The functions of political technologies from the standpoint of their political indifference are studied. The methodological bases which are a basis for definition of these functions are offered. Political interests are the drivers that motivate political actors to use one or another political technology or a set of such. According to the author, the most significant functions are highlighted. The examples of separate political technologies that characterize the allocated functions are given. The indifference of political technologies is shown: political technologies are "indifferent" to the political process, to those who use them in their content, structure and functions. ; У статті визначено проблемне поле розуміння сутності, проаналізовано природу і семантичні складники політичних технологій. Визначено місце і значення прикметника «політичне» у змістовному наповненні поняття «політичні технології». Позначено умови набуття соціальними технологіями функцій політичних. Здійснена спроба зняти числову невизначеність щодо поняття «політичні технології». Показана особливість прийняття на озброєння політичних технологій у своїй діяльності іншими, відмінними від політичних акторів соціальними суб'єктами. У статті проведено порівняльний аналіз визначень поняття «технологія», цей термін розглянуто стосовно політичних наук. Виявлено ознаки технології і складники її процедури. Розглянуто умови технологізації політичного процесу і її етапи. Автор вивчає це явище у двох пов'язаних аспектах: як кількісне збільшення технічного складника цієї політичної діяльності і як формалізацію соціально-політичної активності. Проаналізовано різні авторські підходи вчених до визначення структури політичних технологій. Запропоновано авторське бачення структури політичних технологій з позиції їхньої політичної індиферентності. До складників структури політичних технологій віднесено цілепокладання, концептуальний компонент, змістовний компонент, процесуальний компонент, результативно-оцінний компонент. Наведена коротка характеристика складників такої структури. Досліджено функції політичних технологій з позиції їхньої політичної індиферентності. Запропоновано методологічні основи, які виступили базисом для визначення цих функцій. Саме політичні інтереси є драйвером, що спонукає політичних акторів до застосування тієї чи іншої політичної технології або сукупності таких. Виділено найбільш значущі, на думку автора, функції. Наведені приклади окремих політичних технологій, які найбільш яскраво характеризують виділені функції. Показана індиферентність політичних технологій. За змістом, структурою і функціями політичні технології «байдужі» щодо політичного процесу, до того, хто їх використовує.
BASE
A 1The Contract of Mutual Indifference --I.`Consider that this has been' --II.A Different Kind of Contract --III.The Duty to Bring Aid --IV.An Open Structure of Value --B 2Socialist Hope in the Shadow of Catastrophe --3.Progress Without Foundations? --4.Marxists before the Holocaust.
This thesis addresses the concept of indifference and its moral implications – indifference to other people, indifference to ourselves and indifference to what is around us. The thesis begins with an argument that considers the connections between the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of action, attempting to lay bare, and therefore avoid, the pitfalls of reductionist tendencies. The argument is then expanded to the topic of political philosophy, showing the heritage of this reductionist thinking as a form of personal elimination present in some political theories. At this point, the argument turns to the assessment of the moral importance of reciprocity, analyzing such notions as to accuse someone, to confess before someone, to forgive someone and to help someone. ; Esta tese consiste numa tentativa de interpretar moralmente o conceito de indiferença – ou seja, indiferença em relação a outras pessoas, a nós próprios ou aquilo que nos rodeia. A tese começa com um argumento acerca das várias relações entre a filosofia da mente e a filosofia da acção, de forma a tentar evidenciar, e evitar, as tendências reducionistas inerentes a ambas as disciplinas. O argumento é de seguida alargado à filosofia política, de forma a demonstrar que o eliminativismo presente em muitas teorias políticas é o justo herdeiro do reducionismo anteriormente tratado. A tese oferece no final uma interpretação do conceito de reciprocidade, analisando noções morais como as de acusar alguém, confessar-se perante alguém, perdoar alguém e ajudar alguém.
BASE
In: The British journal of politics & international relations, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 114-123
ISSN: 1369-1481
In: Foreign affairs: an American quarterly review, Band 77, Heft 5, S. 145
ISSN: 2327-7793
In: The new leader: a biweekly of news and opinion, Band 86, Heft 2, S. 9-11
ISSN: 0028-6044
In: New perspectives on political economy: NPPE ; a bilingual interdisciplinary journal, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 65-71
ISSN: 1801-0938
Nozick (1977) was a methodological critique of the Austrian School of economics. He took the view that the praxeological school was guilty of a logical contradiction. On the one hand, it eschews the concept of indifference. On the other, it utilizes that of supply. But, Nozick argued, for there to be any supply of a good, people must be indifferent to constituent elements of it. Block (1980) attempted to answer Nozick's criticism, making the point that "supply" is a coherent concept, and people are indeed indifferent to units of which it is comprised, but before human action. During human action, there cannot be any such thing as indifference, in the technical sense. Machaj (2007) criticizes both Nozick (1997) and Block (1980). The present paper is a response to Machaj (2007).
In: American politics research, Band 37, Heft 5, S. 879-898
ISSN: 1532-673X
In: Local government studies, Band 30, Heft 4, S. 519-537
ISSN: 1743-9388
In: Socio.hu: társadalomtudományi szemle : social science review, Band 2015, Heft 4, S. 89-107
ISSN: 2063-0468
In: Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 113-124
ISSN: 1469-2899
In: Local government studies, Band 30, Heft 4, S. 519-537
ISSN: 0300-3930