Suchergebnisse

Is the science capable to act as the subject of political action? This question is considered as one of themes of the modern philosophy of science. It could not be posed within the framework of the philosophy of science concentrated only on the analysis of logical structures of scientific knowledge or on problems of its dynamics defined by procedures of rational reconstruction of history of science. In this framework, influence of factors of a sociо-cultural context on the formal and substantive aspects of scientific processes was not a subject of the philosophical analysis. However, the internal logic in development of philosophy of science led to expansion of a circle of its interests. This circle included processes of interfluence of science and the cultural environment in its historical development. It affected sense of the major epistemic values: truth, objectivity, rationality. Their interpretation as variable dependent on a sociо-cultural context led to relativism which, in fact, devaluated the philosophical analysis of science. In attempts to counteract relativism the idea of political agency of science had to be rejected, which contradicted the obvious realities. The philosophy of science became in need of reform. Its initiator was historical and socio-cultural epistemology. The central thesis of reform is recognition of equal rights, continuity and interdependence of the principles of truth, ob­jectivity and historicism forming triple complementarity (by analogy with the well-known principle of N. Bohr). In the reformed philosophy of science political agency of science is a fact and a factor in the development of both the science itself, and the socio-cultural context.

Research on social processes in the production of scientific output suggests that the collective research agenda of a discipline is influenced by its structural features, such as "invisible colleges" or "groups of collaborators" as well as academic "stars" that are embedded in, or connect, these research groups. Based on an encompassing dataset that takes into account multiple publication types including journals and chapters in edited volumes, we analyze the complete co-authorship network of all 1,339 researchers in German political science. Through the use of consensus graph clustering techniques and descriptive centrality measures, we identify the ten largest research clusters, their research topics, and the most central researchers who act as bridges and connect these clusters. We also aggregate the findings at the level of research organizations and consider the inter-university co-authorship network. The findings indicate that German political science is structured by multiple overlapping research clusters with a dominance of the subfields of international relations, comparative politics and political sociology. A small set of well-connected universities takes leading roles in these informal research groups.

New Political Science, a leading section of the American Political Science Association for more than forty years, condemns Glenn Beck's dangerous and inflammatory mischaracterizations of Frances Fox Piven. Professor Piven, who has been a member of New Political Science since its founding in 1967, is an internationally-recognized scholar and activist. Piven, and her now-deceased husband and co-author Richard Cloward, have devoted their careers and lives to improving the political and economic opportunities of ordinary Americans, especially those living in poverty. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractNongovernmental organizations are important in policy processes, but most studies supporting this argument are conducted in democracies. This article, therefore, focuses on China's environmental policy to discuss how environmental NGOs (eNGOs) conduct policy advocacy in authoritarian contexts. Based on interviews with eNGOs and scholars in China, I provide a typology to describe policy advocacy channels based on their formality and consistency and explain how channels are selected based on the political resources of eNGOs. This article reveals how policy advocacy is affected by one of the prominent features of authoritarian states—a monopoly of political power—and indicates that many tactics identified in current literature can be explained by the political resource endowments of NGOs. Additionally, this article also provides insights on the potential changes of the advocacy channels when the political control is tightened in the Xi era and how eNGOs cope with the new political situation.

"Political Realism" published on by Oxford University Press.

The article presents the analysis of such concepts as "historical regularity", "chance" and "great personality". It is stressed that while studying epistemological problems of historical science we must focus on the system categories being used in general methodology of science, first of all on the category "scientific theory". The role and place of personality in historical and political process is reviewed. It is noted that in order to solve the urgent problems of social development, there is a need for leaders who, through their own energy, will, mind and abilities, can implement quality changes.

The article presents the analysis of such concepts as "historical regularity", "chance" and "great personality". It is stressed that while studying epistemological problems of historical science we must focus on the system categories being used in general methodology of science, first of all on the category "scientific theory". The role and place of personality in historical and political process is reviewed. It is noted that in order to solve the urgent problems of social development, there is a need for leaders who, through their own energy, will, mind and abilities, can implement quality changes.

AbstractAs political polarization increases across many of the world's established democracies, many citizens are unwilling to appreciate and consider the viewpoints of those who disagree with them. Previous research shows that this lack of reflection can undermine democratic accountability. The purpose of this paper is to study whether empathy for the other can motivate people to reason reflectively about politics. Extant studies have largely studied trait‐level differences in the ability and inclination of individuals to engage in reflection. Most of these studies focus on observational moderators, which makes it difficult to make strong claims about the effects of being in a reflective state on political decision making. We extend this research by using a survey experiment with a large and heterogeneous sample of UK citizens (N = 2014) to investigate whether a simple empathy intervention can induce people to consider opposing viewpoints and incorporate those views in their opinion about a pressing political issue. We find that actively imagining the feelings and thoughts of someone one disagrees with prompts more reflection in the way that people reason about political issues as well as elicits empathic feelings of concern towards those with opposing viewpoints. We further examine whether empathy facilitates openness to attitude change in the counter‐attitudinal direction and find that exposure to an opposing perspective (without its empathy component) per se is enough to prompt attitude change. Our study paints a more nuanced picture of the relationship between empathy, reflection and policy attitudes.

At one time the study of politics centred on the state but for much of this century the emphasis has been on political behaviour and policy-making with governmental decisions explained as a response to societal forces. In the last decade or so, state-centric theorists have sought to bring the state back, arguing that it is more autonomous than society-centred theorists have suggested. I record the retreat of the state in the Anglo-American study of politics and the related rise of a particular kind of political science, going on to outline the more recent growth of a 'new institutionalism' which places the state at the very centre of political science. Bringing the state back in to the study of British politics must necessarily involve bringing the constitution back in but in ways that avoid the limitations of the constitutional approach and a narrow legalism.

Why did democracy survive in some European countries between the wars while fascism or authoritarianism emerged elsewhere? This innovative study approaches this question through the comparative analysis of the inter-war experience of eighteen countries within a common comprehensive analytical framework. It combines (social and economic) structure- and (political) actor-related aspects to provide detailed historical accounts of each case which serve as background information for the systematic testing of major theories of fascism and democracy

"Written by a powerful international team of theorists, this book offers a sophisticated analysis of the central political concepts in the light of recent debates in political theory. All political argument employs political concepts. They provide the building blocks needed to construct a case for or against a given political position. To address such issues as whether or not development aid is too low, income tax too high, or how to cope with poverty and the distribution of wealth, citizens must develop views on what individuals are entitled to, what they owe to others, and the role of individual choice and responsibility in these areas. These matters turn on an understanding of concepts such as rights, equality and liberty and the ways they relate to each other. People of different political persuasions interpret such key political concepts in different ways. This book introduces students to some of the main interpretations, pointing out their strengths and weaknesses. It covers a broad range of the main concepts employed in contemporary political and theoretical debates. Separate chapters look at liberty, rights, social justice, political obligation, nationalism, punishment, social exclusion, legitimacy, the rule of law, multiculturalism, gender, public and private, democracy, environmentalism, international justice and just war. This book is perfect for students of political theory and political ideology, and indeed anyone approaching political theory for the first time"--Publisher's description

Written by a powerful international team of theorists, this book offers a sophisticated analysis of the central political concepts in the light of recent debates in political theory. All political argument employs political concepts. They provide the building blocks needed to construct a case for or against a given political position. To address such issues as whether or not development aid is too low, income tax too high, or how to cope with poverty and the distribution of wealth, citizens must develop views on what individuals are entitled to, what they owe to others, and the role of individual choice and responsibility in these areas. These matters turn on an understanding of concepts such as rights, equality and liberty and the ways they relate to each other. People of different political persuasions interpret such key political concepts in different ways. This book introduces students to some of the main interpretations, pointing out their strengths and weaknesses. It covers a broad range of the main concepts employed in contemporary political and theoretical debates. Separate chapters look at liberty, rights, social justice, political obligation, nationalism, punishment, social exclusion, legitimacy, the rule of law, multiculturalism, gender, public and private, democracy, environmentalism, international justice and just war. This book is perfect for students of political theory and political ideology, and indeed anyone approaching political theory for the first time.