Suchergebnisse

"This book explores the politics of memory in Southeastern Europe in the context of rising populisms and their hegemonic grip on official memory and politics. It speaks to the increased political, media, and academic attention paid to the rise of discontent, frustration and cultural resistance from below across the European continent and the world. In order to demonstrate the complexities of these processes, the volume transcends disciplinary boundaries to explore memory politics, examining the inter-connections between memory and populism. It shows how memory politics has become one of the most important fields of symbolic struggle in the contemporary process of "meaning-making," providing space for actors, movements and other mnemonic entrepreneurs who challenge and point to incoherencies in the official narratives of memory and forgetting"--

What is objectionable in the `new look' in pol'al sci is not quantification as such, but false quantification. From the objective voting behavior of Supreme Court justices,. Schubert & Kort (See SA 4978) have drawn certain uniformities & posited mathematic principles enabling prediction of future action of the Court. This is to confuse the sci'st with the bookmaker, trying to predict behavior of individual units. Moreover, using content analysis to set up a scale of mathematical determinants is here a petitio principii as in the first place it should be proved that judges think in that way. Until behaviorists concern themselves with this level of analysis, their labors remain marginal to the essence of the discipline. IPSA.

AT THE 1980 AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION MEETING IN WASHINGTON, A NEW ASSOCIATION DEDICATED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF AN INTEGRATED BIOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVE IN THE POLITICAL SCIENCES WAS FORMED, THE ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES. THIS ARTICLE REVIEWS THE HISTORY AND RATIONALE BEHIND THIS INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY AND SOME OF OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSOCIATION.

I want to dissent initially from the rather constricting frame of reference that Schubert has established in his paper. He has every right in the world to set rhetorical snares, but I have no intention of walking into them. If I may summarize, Schubert asserts that he is a spokesman for a radical new direction in the study of public law, claiming that the old ways are moribund. He further urges that we should look with envy at the creative function of the social psychologists who supplied the Supreme Court with the banners it carried in Brown v. Board of Education while we were bumbling around with historical and philosophical trivia. He concludes that instead of wasting our time with talmudic disputations on whether the Supreme Court reached the "right" or the "wrong" decisions in specific cases, we should settle down to build a firm "scientific" foundation for our discipline.Not the least amusing aspect of this indictment is that I find myself billed as the defender of the ancien régime, as the de Maistre of public law. Therefore, for the benetfit of the young and impressionistic, let me break loose from Schubert's rhetorical trap: I too think that much of the research done in public law—and, for that matter, in political science generally—has been trivial.

This book presents an alternative roadmap for a world characterised by geopolitical uncertainty. The surging expectations about a future world of democratic values and high economic growth, born out of superpower bonhomie at the end of the Cold War, did not lead to the promised outcomes. Instead we are faced with deeply destabilising challenges, like climate change, widespread state fragility, terrorism, arms race, disruptive newer technologies, global economic fragility, and ineffectiveness of multilateral institutions, old and new. The volume: Surveys the intellectual discourse, the attempts to redesign the global institutions, and the geopolitical trends since the end of the Cold War for an understanding of the contemporary geopolitics; Analyses the characteristics of the contemporary geopolitics, the seeming intractability of the global challenges, and the ongoing discourse about preventing their further deterioration; Foregrounds the Gandhian praxis and IR Theory for managing power transitions anchored in mono violent mobilisation of empowered masses, ensuring institutional resilience and illustrates them through ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan; Outlines an approach, based on the Gandhian experience of managing political change, towards conflict, geopolitical uncertainties, and institutional ineffectiveness for securing a better future globally, including South Asia. Accessibly written, this volume will be indispensable for foreign policy experts, government think tanks, and career bureaucrats. It will also be essential for scholars and researchers of international relations, foreign policy, politics, and governance and public policy, as well as be of interest to the general reader.--

"Functional differentiation has long been at the heart of sociological thought, and as such has become a defining feature in the evolution of modern society; one which distinguishes it from pre-modern societies which have instead typically differentiated by means of segmentation, or stratified social systems such as class. Drawing on the latest developments on differentiation theory in international relations and sociology, this book brings together contributions from leading IR scholars and sociological theorists to offer a unique interdisciplinary synthesis in which contemporary world politics is discussed as a differentiated social realm. Bringing Sociology to International Relations is an illuminating and innovative new resource for scholars and students which strives to respond to a significant question across all its chapters: what happens when this well-established sociological theoretical framework is transposed from the domestic level, for which it was originally designed, to the larger and more complex subject of international relations?"--Provided by publisher