Suchergebnisse

This major reassessment of the relevance of Marxism in the social sciences decisively rebuts claims that it has been consigned to the dustbin of history by the collapse of communism and apparent triumph of capitalism and liberal democracy. The book first considers how Marxism has engaged with various critiques including Postmodernism, New Right theory and Feminism before assessing its continuing utility as a framework for analysis of a range of substantive issues from class and the state to culture, ecology and globalization

A formal model in the social sciences builds explanations when it structures the reasoning underlying a theoretical argument, opens venues for controlled experimentation, and can lead to hypotheses. Yet more importantly, models evaluate theory, build theory, and enhance conjectures. Formal Modeling in Social Science addresses the varied helpful roles of formal models and goes further to take up more fundamental considerations of epistemology and methodology. The authors integrate the exposition of the epistemology and the methodology of modeling and argue that these two reinforce each other. They illustrate the process of designing an original model suited to the puzzle at hand, using multiple methods in diverse substantive areas of inquiry. The authors also emphasize the crucial, though underappreciated, role of a narrative in the progression from theory to model. Transparency of assumptions and steps in a model means that any analyst will reach equivalent predictions whenever she replicates the argument. Hence, models enable theoretical replication, essential in the accumulation of knowledge. Formal Modeling in Social Science speaks to scholars in different career stages and disciplines and with varying expertise in modeling

"The Human Paradox analyses the links among the many acute polarisations that mark contemporary times. While acknowledging the limits of progressive politics in the last half century in addressing social issues such as inequality and diversity, it examines how the new world of information can infect as well as enrich culture, economy and democracy itself. The book argues that beneath all the present social tumult lies a fundamental dilemma for human progress, namely how we can be estranged from what we call humanity. Beginning with an appraisal of populism and authoritarian nationalism, the text also examines whether, in our human development, we're bound for doom or bloom. The book concludes with exploration of a radical agenda for future social improvement. Addressing issues related to Trumpism, Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic, and exploring challenges such as a broken economy, climate emergency, artificial intelligence, while offering an outline radical agenda for future social improvement, The Human Paradox will appeal to students of subjects including sociology, politics, history, and economics"--

This article provides a theoretical framework that distinguishes between the occurrence of conflict and its severity, and clarifies the role of polarization and fractionalization in each of these cases. The analysis helps in ordering the various definitions, and in providing explanations for the empirical observations on the relationship between conflict, on the one hand, and polarization or fractionalization, on the other. The behaviour of players in conflict is described as a game, and equilibrium payoffs to all players are computed. The status quo is characterized by a set of political institutions that channel the different opposing interests and turn them into a collective decision, with a second set of payoffs. Groups rebel against the status quo political institution whenever the latter set of payoffs is dominated by the former. When society is highly polarized, the potential cost of rebellion is extremely high, and this cost may serve as the guarantor of peace. So, in highly polarized societies, the occurrence of open conflict should be rare but its intensity very severe, whenever it happens. On the other hand, highly fractionalized societies are prone to the occurrence of conflict, but its intensity will be moderate. It matters, therefore, whether one studies the intensity of conflict, conditional on conflict breaking out, or the likelihood that conflict actually occurs. Specifically, it is shown that: (i) measures of fractionalization and polarization tend to run in opposite directions, (ii) the onset of conflict critically depends on the political system in place, (iii) the occurrence of conflict and the intensity of conflict also tend to move in opposite directions, (iv) the relationship between polarization or fractionalization and conflict is non-monotonic and (v) the intensity of conflict depends positively on the degree of polarization.

The effect of the optical feedback on the polarization flipping point and hysteresis loop was studied. The polarization flipping occurred at all angles between the polarizer axis and the laser polarization. The polarization flipping point changed by an optical feedback occurred at angles from 0° to 90°. Ability of choosing or controlling the laser polarization was determined by changing the direction of vertical and horizontal polarization by polarizer rotation in the external cavity from 0° to 90°.

Auguste Comte's classical status in sociology and social theory is routinely taken to mean outdated. Coupled with this perception, there has been a pervasive tendency within contemporary discourse to presume a positivism that is largely rationalistic or scientistic and therefore critically and analytically useless. This paper explores how some of Comte's lesser acknowledged perspectives on science, history, 'progress' and what it is to be human may yet compel us to reexamine our ideas about the kind of positivism we think we have inherited and therefore need to renounce. I focus my reading of Comte through the lens of genealogies of thought not normally associated with his work, for instance, science and technology studies (STS) and posthumanist social theory.

Democrats and Republicans have polarized in their attitudes (i.e., ideological polarization) and their feelings toward each other (i.e., affective polarization). Simultaneously, both groups also seem to diverge in their factual beliefs about reality. This preregistered survey experiment among 2,253 American citizens examined how this factual belief polarization may or may not fuel ideological and affective polarization around four key issues: income differences, immigration, climate change, and defense spending. On all issues except immigration, Democrats and Republicans were equally or more divided in their factual beliefs about the present than in their ideals for the future. Corrective information decreased partisan polarization over some ideals, but not directional policy attitudes. Priming respondents' factual beliefs conversely increased polarization around defense spending, but not other issues. Much remains unclear about the complex relation between factual beliefs and polarization, but measuring ideals and priming beliefs could be promising avenues for future research.

AbstractThis article examines the group polarization process when agents are faced with a risk for which the probability of occurrence is not perfectly known. First, we show information destruction through an informational cascade phenomenon. Then, we analyze how this inefficiency is amplified if individuals with the same type of risk‐related behavior group together. Two extensions are detailed: consideration of the possibility that individual agents participate in more than one group, and introduction of agents highly confident in their own information, enabling cascades to be "broken." Under conditions, the behavior of these agents, costly at the individual level, is collectively efficient.

ABSTRACTPolitical polarization is a systemic-level and multifaceted process that severs cross-cutting ties and shifts perceptions of politics to a zero-sum game. When it turns pernicious, political actors and supporters view opponents as an existential threat and the capacity of democratic institutions to process political conflict breaks down. The article identifies four common fault lines of polarization globally – who belongs, democracy, inequality and social contract. It argues that while Latin American countries experience, to varying degrees, all four of the fault lines, it is the deep-seated, persistent social hierarchies oriented around class, race, and place that stand out relative to other countries. Reaching consensus on reforms that may renew or reformulate agreements on the terms of the social contract, boundaries of community membership, and redressing social inequality is a tall task. Yet the region's sustained consensus on the democratic rules of the game can provide the mechanisms for addressing this task if new majority coalitions can be formed.

"Gatekeeping, Technology, and Polarization" published on by Oxford University Press.