Search results

Diskussion verschiedener sozialwissenschaftlicher Untersuchungsmethoden zur Erklärung der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Krise Afrikas. Kritik einzelner Thesen der Autoren einer Aufsatzsammlung im IDS Bulletin 17 (January 1986) 1 zu Problemen des afrikanischen Staates. (DÜI-Wsl)

Digital (participatory and shareable) media are driving profound changes to contemporary politics. That includes, this article argues, important changes to the production, dissemination and reception of political ideas and ideologies. Such media have increased the number and political range of 'ideological entrepreneurs' promoting forms of political thought, while also giving rise to distinct genres of political rhetoric and communication. All of this is affecting how people come to be persuaded by and to identify with political ideas. In developing and justifying these claims, I draw on the Political Theory of Ideologies, Digital Media Studies and Rhetorical Political Analysis. I begin by showing how a populist 'style', induced by broadcast media, has been intensified by digital media, affecting ideological form and content. Next I consider, in detail, a particular example – YouTube – showing how it shapes political, ideological, communication. I then present a case-study of the UK-based political YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson. I show how the political ideology he propagates can be understood as a blend of Conservatism and Libertarianism, expressed in a Populist style, centred on the 'revelation' of political truths and on a promise of therapeutic benefits for followers. In a closing discussion I argue that this may be understood as a kind of 'charismatic' authority, and that such a political performance style is typical of these kinds of media today.

My interest in the world of politics began when I was a high school student. However, in the authoritarian structure of Soviet society political science as an independent scientific discipline, was, for a long period, considered to be a "capitalist" science. When I was in Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University there was no major in political science so I chose history as my major because it was the closest.

Political science has developed rapidly in the last half-century, but this has posed at least three serious problems. First, almost no attention has been given to political activity in private bodies: the scope of political analysis is narrowed as a result. Second, the connection between political science and 'policy analysis' is wholly unclear, which raises the danger that political science may want to cover too much or too little! Third, political science has always been concerned with norms, yet aims to be a science: this is no easy relationship. Adapted from the source document.

The value of political science in information culture of society reveals; the main indicators of the public status of political science are investigated; the main functions of political science in the activity of actors of society are characterised.

Political science, as we currently understand the label, was born, in Western Europe, in the early Fifties. One may say that it was "reborn"; but that would be inaccurate, for in the nineteenth century and until World War Two the label indicated a captive discipline largely dominated by juridical or historical approaches (as in the case, e.g., of Gaetano Mosca). So political science had a new start and became a field of inquiry in its own right about half a century ago. I was, at the time, one of its founders (with Stein Rokkan, Juan Linz, Mattei Dogan, Hans Daalder, Erik Allardt, S. N. Eisenstadt, and others. See: Comparative European Politics: The Story of a Profession, edited by H. Daalder, 1997). I am thus one of the witnesses of what the "young turks" of the time had in mind, of how we conceived and promoted political science. I am now an "ancient sage" and it now pleases me to reflect, some fifty years later, on where political science has gone and on whether it has taken the right course, the course that I had wished for and expected. Thus to ask today, in the middle of Mitteleuropa, where political science has been heading is also to ask whether the new beginnings of the discipline in Eastern Europe should or should not follow the path entered by our "big brother," I mean, by American-type political science. I too have been somewhat swallowed by our big brother (to be sure, a benevolent and well meaning one) in the sense that I have been teaching in the United States for some thirty years. Let me add that I have largely benefited from my American exposure. Yet I have always resisted and still resist the American influence. And I take this occasion to say why I am unhappy about the American molding of present day political science.

In this essay Seth argues that it is not the case that international relations theory has suffered because domestic theory has prospered, but rather that both bear the marks of a signal failure to grasp the implications of, and to theorize adequately about, nationalism. She argues further that this failure is partly rooted in the phenomenon of nationalism itself, for it encapsulates many of the tensions and contradictions of modern thought. Finally, she suggests that the transformation of the international system from a system of states to a system of nation-states has had profound consequences for international relations, consequences not fully grasped in international relations theory.