Suchergebnisse

Este trabajo rastrea la emergencia, desarrollo y cambios en los conceptos de "cuestión social", "problema social" y "justicia social" en el socialismo, anarquismo, marxismo, liberalismo y catolicismo, como corrientes de pensamiento social en México. Al aplicar el método de la historia conceptual de Reinhart Koselleck, se concluye que las corrientes de pensamiento comparten en su ideología los conceptos adaptados, en diferentes grados y sentidos. Los resultados muestran que el desarrollo de las corrientes fue heterogéneo, como la función de los conceptos en sus ideologías. El aporte es un panorama del pensamiento social mexicano de larga temporalidad que permite observar lógicas del lenguaje social, del modus operandi de las ideologías en México y de las convergencias de la teoría y práctica de la política nacional con el mundo.

Cover -- Contents -- 1 Juvenile Justice in Flux -- 2 Juvenile Crime and How to Reduce It -- 3 The Implications of Science for Juvenile Justice -- 4 A Preventive Risk-Management Model of Juvenile Justice -- 5 The Procedural Implications of Social Science Research -- 6 The Future of (Juvenile) Justice -- Appendix -- Notes -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- R -- S -- T -- V -- W -- Y -- Z.

Edited by Naresh K. Malhotra, this volume of Review of Marketing Research delivers a high powered range of articles from leading researchers and universities. The issue provides insights of interest to marketers throughout the discipline. Topics covered include a critical review on consumer experience and experimental marketing, designing and pricing digital content products/ services and nation equity. Authors include senior Chaired professors from such prestigious institutions as Wharton and Columbia. This volume adds to the already formidable body of knowledge built up by this highly respected book series.

A pesar de su innegable éxito, el concepto de biopolítica dista mucho de tener una definición clara y precisa. De hecho, casi podríamos decir que cuenta con tantas interpretaciones como autores se han decidido en su uso. Partiendo de este hecho, el propósito de nuestro artículo será triple: en primer lugar, tratar de definir el concepto de biopolítica, en su conexión con otros conceptos clave del vocabulario foucaultiano como gubernamentalidad o biopoder, así como apuntar ciertas precauciones analíticas para su uso. En segundo lugar, proponer una propuesta metodológica capaz de aplicar esta definición de la biopolítica a un contexto histórico determinado, diferenciando cuatro condiciones de la vida humana: la económica, la parental, la política y la ideológica. Y finalmente, ofrecer un breve ejemplo de aplicación de esta máquina hermenéutica sobre un caso particular, en concreto en la España del primer franquismo, en el periodo comprendido entre 1939 y 1959. ; Despite its undeniable success, the concept of biopolitics is far from having a clear and fixed definition. Actually, one could almost say that it has just as many interpretations as the amount of authors that have used it. On this basis, the purpose of our article is threefold: Firstly, we try to define the concept of biopolitics, in connection with other key concepts from Foucault's vocabulary like governmentality and biopower, while also pointing out some analytical precautions regarding their use. Secondly, we propose a methodology that enables the application of this definition of biopolitics to a particular historical context by distinguishing four spheres of human life: the economic, the parental, the political and the ideological. And finally, we give a brief example of the application of this hermeneutic machine about a particular case and a specific historical period, namely the early era of Franco's regime in Spain between 1939 and 1959.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a question seldom addressed in a straightforward manner by political theorists: whether populism is intrinsically anti-science. This article identifies three different ways in which populist actors worldwide have grounded their scepticism, distrust, or hostility to scientific inputs, to the extent that they are relevant for political action: (1) they raise a moral objection against scientists who have been allegedly corrupted by foreign interests, turning them into enemies of the people; (2) they present a democratic objection against the technocratic claim that scientific experts should rule regardless of the popular will; and (3) they employ an epistemic argument against scientific reasoning, which is said to be inferior to common-sense and folk wisdom, and antithetical to the immediateness of political action. While these objections have been wielded in a selective and unsystematic way, they all speak to the core feature of populism, which is the people versus elites divide: the moral objection targets scientists as members of an elite in cahoots with alien powers; the democratic objection targets an unelected elite that seeks to undermine the people's rule; the epistemic objection questions that the standard to validate knowledge-claims is a complex and detached-from-ordinary-experience rationality.

AbstractRather than aiming to produce more 'rational' or more 'other‐regarding' citizen judgements (the outcome of which is uncertain), deliberative democratic exercises should be re‐designed to maximise democratic participation. To do this, they must involve citizens and experts, a novel arrangement that will benefit both cohorts. For the former, a more inclusive form of deliberation will offer an opportunity to contribute to political discussion and be listened to by people with political or policy‐based authority. For the latter, it will provide a venue through which expertise can be brought to bear on democratic decision making without risk of scapegoating or politicisation. More broadly, deliberation that prioritises dialogue (over, say, opinion change) affirms the principle that political decisions reflect value judgements rather than technically 'right' or technically 'wrong' answers—judgements that are legitimate if arrived at through discussion involving the people due to be affected by the resultant policy. This article sets out the advantages of this form of deliberation—which bears some similarity to certain types of citizen science—in the context of the UK government's responses to Covid‐19; both the confused decision making evident to date, and the forthcoming re‐opening phases that will prioritise or advantage some constituencies over others.

Rather than aiming to produce more 'rational' or more 'other‐regarding' citizen judgements (the outcome of which is uncertain), deliberative democratic exercises should be re‐designed to maximise democratic participation. To do this, they must involve citizens and experts, a novel arrangement that will benefit both cohorts. For the former, a more inclusive form of deliberation will offer an opportunity to contribute to political discussion and be listened to by people with political or policy‐based authority. For the latter, it will provide a venue through which expertise can be brought to bear on democratic decision making without risk of scapegoating or politicisation. More broadly, deliberation that prioritises dialogue (over, say, opinion change) affirms the principle that political decisions reflect value judgements rather than technically 'right' or technically 'wrong' answers—judgements that are legitimate if arrived at through discussion involving the people due to be affected by the resultant policy. This article sets out the advantages of this form of deliberation—which bears some similarity to certain types of citizen science—in the context of the UK government's responses to Covid‐19; both the confused decision making evident to date, and the forthcoming re‐opening phases that will prioritise or advantage some constituencies over others.

This paper is a critique of the current US patent system along general consequentialist lines. I present a pro tanto case against it because of its effects on scientific inquiry. The patent system is often thought to be justified (or necessary) because it provides incentives to innovate. I challenge this concern. Economists and legal scholars have spent a good portion of time analyzing particular aspects of the patent system. I here synthesize their work, showing how it amounts to a pro tanto moral case against patents. This is the case even though patents are said to incentivize innovation, its disclosure, and its transfer to interested parties. I explore all of these possibilities, finding them to only weakly (at best) support the institution of patent rights. Juxtaposing this weak case for patents along with various problems that patents cause for science, we find a pro tanto case against our current patent system. To my knowledge, no one has tried to synthesize the various concerns I raise, with particular attention to not only the patent's system purported ability to incentivize innovation, but also to disclose and transfer technology.

Characteristics of the growing scientific study of global dynamics, or globology, are discussed, analyzing long-term trends & the potential for crisis at the world-system level. Shortcomings of Marxist & utilitarian-economist approaches are reviewed, noting however the usefulness of discussing SC relations on a global scale, particularly in core-periphery terms. Several significant long-term cycles are also identified, eg, formal colonial rule, free trade, interstate economic competition, & armed conflict, single-state hegemony, & mergers among industrial sectors. The issue of "circulating" hegemonies among different state powers is addressed, & a strong potential for global stagnation & conflict is identified. 2 Figures, 2 Illustrations, 30 References. L. Whittemore.