Suchergebnisse

This article provides an introduction to discussions and empirical studies of the decentered state. The first section traces the historical origins of the concept of the decentered state. Group theory and interorganizational theory drew attention to the role of diverse actors in policymaking. The study of policy networks explored these actors and their relationships. The concept of the hollow state arose to describe a state made up of proliferating networks. Finally, postfoundationalists amended these earlier ideas by insisting that the state should not be reified. There are, then, at least three different versions of the decentered state—the pluralist state, the hollow state, and the stateless state. The second section shows how the postfoundationalism of decentered theory transforms the earlier debates about network governance and pluralist democracy. The final section suggests that decentered theory privileges empirical studies of the stateless state and in particular of narratives, rationalities, and resistance.

(.)La mayoría de las universidades ofrecen cursos sobre los textos clásicos de teoría política al menos desde Platón a Marx. Los teóricos políticos por lo general justifican esos cursos sobre la base de que estos textos abordan problemas perennes; problemas tales como "¿Por qué debemos obedecer al gobierno?", "¿qué es un Estado justo?", y "¿cuáles son los fundamentos de la moral política?". Recientemente, sin embargo, contextualistas lingüísticos, con Quentin Skinner y J. G. A. Pocock a la cabeza, se han manifestado en contra de la existencia misma de los problemas perennes. Ellos sostienen que textos escritos en diferentes lugares y en diferentes momentos abordan pro¬blemas inconmensurables porque, por ejemplo, los significados lingüísticos, las intenciones de los autores, o la condición humana, dependen por completo de contextos históricos específicos (.)

This article responds to Stephen Turner's discussion of my article, "Historicism and Critique." I emphasize that radical historicism consists of substantive philosophical commitments. One commitment is to a historicized epistemology that presents objective knowledge as a product of a comparison between rival webs of belief. Another commitment is to a historical ontology that presents aggregate concepts in the social sciences as inherently pragmatic. These substantive commitments provide a plausible basis for various forms of critique. They lead to analyses of genealogical and ideological critique that differ from appeals to genealogy as a kind of groundless skepticism toward, and problematization of, all substantive commitments.

This paper argues that historicism can provide substantive philosophical grounds for critical theory and various modes of critique. Unlike the developmental historicism that dominated the nineteenth century, we start from a radical historicism tied to nominalism, contingency, and contestability. This radical historicism is compatible with a commitment to truth claims, including the truth of historicism and the truth of particular genealogies and other accounts of the world. Genealogy can be viewed as radical historicism in its critical guise, denaturalizing the ideas it targets. In addition, however, radical historicism provides possible grounds for both historical ontology and a revised version of ideology critique. Ideology is conceived here in relation to failures in consciousness itself rather than the alleged conflicts of a material base.

Cet article présente l'approche interprétative de la gouvernance, une approche inspirée par la philosophie herméneutique, qui met l'accent sur l'intentionnalité, l'historicité et la réflexivité et qui propose de repenser la gouvernance. Cette approche a été développée pour répondre aux défis posés par les théories du choix rationnel et leurs remises en cause des premières études sur la gouvernance qui, pour comprendre les réformes néolibérales, s'appuyaient sur un positivisme tempéré et sur la littérature des réseaux de politiques publiques. En considérant la gouvernance comme le produit d'un travail de mise en sens et en s'appuyant sur une conception non essentialiste de l'État, cette approche répond ainsi à l'idée de méta-gouvernance défendue par les tenants du choix rationnel. Cet article présente cette approche en insistant sur l'intentionnalité et l'historicité, en l'illustrant par des exemples d'histoires de gouvernance, et en proposant en conclusion les implications d'une telle approche pour l'analyse des politiques publiques. La théorie interprétative encourage une approche plus éclectique des données, suggère la méfiance vis-à-vis de tout modèle ou cadre formel, et accorde un rôle renforcé donné au storytelling .

This book explores philosophical, sociological, and democratic approaches to organization. Bevir offers a humanist and historicist perspective, arguing that people creatively make and remake organizations in particular contexts. By highlighting the meaningful and contingent nature of action, he reexamines the concepts of state, nation, network, and market, and he calls for democratic innovations.

This article discusses the interpretive approach to governance. The interpretive approach comes from a hermeneutic philosophy, emphasizing intentionality, historicism, and reflexivity. These philosophical ideas decentre governance. The first wave of governance studies relied on a lukewarm positivism, extending the literature on policy networks to cover neoliberal reforms. This account of governance faced challenges from rational choice theory and from the idea of metagovernance. The interpretive approach responds to these challenges. The interpretive approach to governance responds to rational choice by decentring governance; patterns of governance arise as the products of meaning in action. The interpretive approach responds to metagovernance by decentring the state; the state is stateless. The article illustrates this interpretive approach, with its emphasis on intentionality and historicism, using stories of network governance. It then concludes by discussing the implications of the interpretive approach to governance for policy analysis. Interpretive theory encourages: a more eclectic approach to data, a suspicion of formal models and frameworks, and a greater role for storytelling. Adapted from the source document.