This paper, based on the analysis of articles published in the scientific journal Politicka misao between 1964 and 1987, aims to offer a detailed understanding of the history of IR discipline by combining the conceptual and contextual approach, positioning articles within three major theoretical debates, categorizing them thematically and then placing them within an academic environment. Analyzed articles represent the foundation of the IR discipline, hence its history portrays the way in which, in SFRY in general, and in Croatia in particular, it attempted to create its own identity. Finally, this analysis provides key insights related to the context, theoretical framework, discourse and concept development of IR in Croatia. Adapted from the source document.
The author looks into the studies Hrestomatija politologije 1962.-2002. (Chrestomathy of Political Science 1962-2002) & Fakultet politickih znanosti 1962.-2002. (The Faculty of Political Science 1962-2002) & contends that these are the first serious contributions to the history of Croatian political science. The history of this discipline in the last 20 years has turned into a new subdiscipline of political science. The author shows that -- especially during the 1960s -- the so-called political science of the "new community" prevailed, a fact overlooked in these studies. Besides, he analyzes the concept of progress in Croatian political science used by the authors of Chrestomathy & shows that they lack understanding of the general idea of progress in political science. The author thinks that the rationalist-progressivistic concept of progress should be conceptually replaced by a contextual concept of progress in political science. 39 References. Adapted from the source document.
The impact of the thought of political scientist/philosopher John Rawls on Croatian political science in general, & the department of political science at the U of Zagreb in particular, is commemorated with this overview of the significance of Rawls's writings on justice, tolerance, & the spirit of pluralism as part of a conference held at the university on 7-8 Mar 2003. The effect of Rawls's Theory of Justice on Croatian political philosophy is as great as that of Hobbes's Leviathan & Rousseau's Social Contract. Rawls is commended for his wisdom & call for tolerance, a value in short supply both in recent Eastern European & American history. A. Siegel
In classical political & politicoeconomic theory, the opposition of the traditional & the modern is set in the very conception of political & social bodies in motion, & in their change power -- vs the antique & medieval conception. In contemporary science, as it is surveyed in this study, the political "duration" & "change" are the key mediation point of all development & change. They are often treated as a modernization rather than a transformation of a genuine polity. This is a significant difficulty in political action & its complex strategy. Strategy of change & development of a polity must include "choice" in evaluations of its proper state & the state of its referring environment, of their predictable internal & external changes, of various options, & of their alternative potential development scenarios in crossing. It is a combination of a prospective history of the complex societal change & development, & of an implementation of its own meaning of action. This combination must be founded in focused specialist analysis of comparative politicoeconomic processes whose foundation is in theories of national & world systems, & in general political & politicoeconomic theory. In a Schumpeterian equilibrium & disequilibrium relation of development of the politicoeconomic system, a permanent unexpected penetration of 'practical action' intensifies the 'Hume's fork' of analytical models without a general theory, especially the theory of the state. Almond & Pye's theory of political development dissociated itself from the development & analysis of an individual political system. Inside political system boundaries it isolated itself from major sources of real political change & development -- instead developing a politological approach to problems of the polity. Convergent general & special theories in social sciences, with a differentiation in disciplinary scientific approaches -- are the necessity of the new political economy as much as theory of complex development & change. Adapted from the source document.
In searching for a consistent theoretical framework of the political science understanding of the state, one should rely on valid substantial & methodological markers. The author identifies them in this article by means of a critical & productive dialogue with three major contemporary contributions to the pertinent understanding of the state: the theory of the state by A. Passerin d'Entreves, the history of states by B. Barret-Kriegel & the history of the modern concept of the state by Q. Skinner. In the first part of the article their key insights into the (modern) state are briefly outlined. The seminal work is that by Passerin d'Entreves, in which he presents the categorial set essential for a comprehensive understanding of the state in general, & the logic of sovereignty in particular. The state as such should be understood as might or force (from the perspective of effectiveness), as power (from the perspective of legality), & finally as authority (from the perspective of legitimacy). To conceptually define the state, comprehensively & accurately, means to be able to explain & understand how force (or might), first legalized as power, gains legitimacy in the form of authority. The concept of sovereignty marks the transepochal project of the transformation of might into power through the mediation of law which subjects it to laws. These key insights are made more precise & are partly corrected by the research done by Barret-Kriegel & Q. Skinner. The sovereign state is a doubly abstract public authority & is not a transepochal category but an epochal legal-political project, modernity's distinguishing feature. The sovereign state is an epochal political novum, as it is the first organization of political power in history that self-limits its might to ensure personal security & independence of citizens as legal subjects. As a notion of the rational & legitimate power it historically affirms itself as an antithesis to oriental despotism & the ancient patrimonial-seniorical regime. References. Adapted from the source document.
To what extent is Marx's thought conceptually and analytically relevant for a systematic understanding of modern society -- this was the subject of the theoretical dialogue which engaged many researchers, including some of the most prominent ones. This text focuses on the theoretical critical confrontation of Dag Strpic (in the article "Market or Commodity Formation/Production of Society?", which is the third, partly reworked chapter of his book Karl Marx and the Political Economy of Modernity) with the philosophical project of reconstruction of Marx's science of history in Jacques Bidet's work What is To Be Done with "Capital"?. The discussion focused on two basic issues: the logical starting point and the character of exposition of Marx's theory of capital. Bidet advocates the thesis that commodity as Marx's starting point (Section I of Book I) is inadequate, and he demonstrates the non-dialectical ("genetic") character of the categorial exposition of the capitalist-way-of-production theory as a whole. In contrast therewith, Strpic demonstrates that the logical starting point of Marx's system is adequately apprehended as "commodity in general", if one perceives it from the viewpoint of the logic of the entire system and of the subject of his analysis as "capital in general". Bidet seeks to show that Marx, in defining the capital system logic, gradually abandoned, albeit inconsistently and only in part, the dialectical figures as epistemological obstacles. Strpic, on the other hand, shows what makes the Marxian modality of materialistic dialectics constitutive not only with regard to Marx's "critique", but also to the very reality of capitalist society and the possibility of surpassing it. Notwithstanding his agreement with Bidet and Strpic that a (truly indispensable) general theory of modernity can be constituted only through creative and interpretative relying on the great works of political thought of modernity, and his sincere commendation to both for their outstanding reading of Marx's work in this context, the author concludes in his final remarks that both are open to the following objection: their projects of a contemporary general theory of modernity, regardless of all aspects in which they differ, rely too much on further development of Marx's intention, and thereby lose from sight the fundamental "theological-political" problem, which Marx dissolves in the immanentism of the process of production/reproduction of the modern civil community. Adapted from the source document.
The author claims that, due to the specific Croatian political situation, it is difficult to define the relationships between Croatian political parties & their West European models. This is equally true for social democratic, liberal, & Christian democratic parties. Throughout Croatian history, Christian democracy was weak because there was no independent Croatian state. The struggle for Croatian sovereignty gave rise to the domination of a broad-based Croatian national movement, embodied in the first half of the 20th century in the Croatian Peasants' Party, & since 1989 in the Croatian Democratic Union (CDU). Though today Croatia is independent, the neither-war-nor-peace predicament stands in the way of Croatian parties (including the CDU) coming out with clean-cut platforms. However, since the Second General CDU Convention, this party has been trying to mold itself as a broad popular party whose platform includes the fundamentals of Catholic social canon: the protection of individual dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity, cooperation, & aspiring toward the common good. Adapted from the source document.
The paper is about the analysis of the general structure & the coherence of the historical consciousness of young people in five groups of European countries, using the results of the international study Youth and History of 1995. The analysis suggests there are two main patterns of historical thinking & the construction of historicopolitical identity that the author calls the driving force of historical progressivism and the smelting-plant of patriotism. These modernist schemes of thought, grounded in the competing perceptions of the nation, democracy & Europe, make the historical consciousness ambivalent. Regarding the coherence of historical consciousness, it is somewhat lower in the countries of Eastern Europe, which can be explained by the impact of the "neuralgic spot" of the collapse of socialism & the discontinuity in social, political & cultural aspects as expressed in the ideological cleavages of that time. In the postsocialist Central-European countries on the other hand, this coherence is the highest, the fact that the author attributes to the radical shift from the ideology of socialism & the domination of the cleavage traditionalism-Occidentalism. Tables, Figures, References. Adapted from the source document.
The actual recession/depression is a radicalized continuation of a cyclical forty years long transformational slowdown of growth through basically stagnant fluctuations. With this slowdown is connected a serial of controversial, crisis-generating & finally unsuccessful general politics- & policy-change unprecedented in the contemporary world. An analysis of the societal history through sequences of developmental counterpoints & through the logic of great societal, political-economic & political cycles demonstrates that causes of cyclical economic & societal movements in general, & of actual stagnation & crisis especially, are mostly noneconomical. They are mainly political. In short, their political foundation is in a radical actual & previous change in the equilibrium of a dynamic tendency of the modern political space. This equilibrium is here called "modern normal." The modern normal (MN) is for us a tendentional space/structure of equilibria in the middle of (1) the political, (2) the personal/individual, (3) the whole world space, & (4) the space of the state/society. The actual kind of that disequilibrium or denormalization of modern normal indicates a process which is usually called totalitarian. In our actual case, the focal point is moved toward financial corporations as pseudo-statal regulators of economy, politics & society. Here, this is the Matrix-capitalism as a feedback of an urban legend & an analytical pattern. Generally, in the long run it is also a process of denormalized or bad & unsuccessful public- & business-policy, especially as development-, growth- & transformation-policy. This Matrix-capitalism, which is dominated by global financial corporations, is developing itself in a cyclically denormalised tendentional space/structure between: (1) the unpolitically "economical," (2) the unindividually "personal," (3) the unwholly "global," & (4) the unstately, unsocially, & anti-economically "denational." The Matrix-capitalism is functional only in a virtual world of ideologized economics & casino-business operations with derivatives etc. Cyclically interfaced with economic, social, cultural, political, personal, & national/world's reality, Matrix-capitalism will every time be more unsustainable even for its mega-corporative core. Adapted from the source document.
The Ministry of Science of the Republic of Croatia decided on a new Rule Book of Definition of Scientific Areas. According to the book, Politology is a scientific field in the area of social science. It is divided into 3 branches: (1) Politology, (2) Theory and History of Politics, & (3) Political Philosophy. By using documents, the author of this article shows how political science is differently structured by IPSA & APSA. The author describes 120 years of dominantly American development of political science & of professions of political scientists, which brought out a recent new world standard with around 100 subdisciplines & areas of expertise that are structured in 8 fundamental disciplines: (1) Political Institutions, (2) Political Behavior, (3) Comparative Politics, (4) International Relations, (5) Political Theory, (6) Public Policy & Public Administration/Management, (7) Political Economy, & (8) Political Methodology. The author points out that a voluntaristic intervention in the definition of scientific areas could mean an attack on the development of science, research organization, renewal of teaching staff at the university, & academic education of political scientists, as well as internationally comparable competence of Croatian experts & Croatian democratic political thought & political culture in general. 133 References. Adapted from the source document.
In this text, the state of political theory in Serbia is looked into with regard to the achieved level of self-reflection & professionalisation. Political theory is developing as a special way of research into politics which, in addition to refusing to fit to any discipline-related definitions, has its own professional standards of argumentation, approaches, theories & heroes; however, it has no well-balanced methodological instruction & no professional training. It is a pluralized field of research which tends to reject the delegitimizing & self-positioning practices, the aim of which is to pass judgment, exclude or label, & develops standards of justification & criticism. The second part of the text puts forward the assertion that political theory in Serbia is far from achieving these standards. This is not due to lack of relevant works, but to lack of self-reflection on what has been accomplished so far. There are two reasons for such a state of affairs. First, a rather unfortunate history of the discipline: it developed initially within the ideological surroundings of Marxism, which did not leave much room for theory, & then through political disorder & conflicts of the 1990s, which encouraged delegitimizing practices & self-positioning rather than criticism & self-reflection. The second reason has to do with inadequate institutionalization of political science & social sciences in general, which apparently leaves enough room for political theory, but not for professional self-identification. Adapted from the source document.
The author discusses some recent changes in the theoretical literature on globalization. He claims that the irreversibility of the globalization process is no longer taken for granted as in the enthusiastic literature on the subject during the 1990's. The globalization is no longer regarded as an untouchable structure, and for over a decade now, we are witnessing an overall questioning of the globalization process itself. Therefore, the author pays special attention to the theoretical works of Justin Rosenberg who claims that the age of globalization is over. For Rosenberg, the globalization was only an ideological construction supported by the so called globalization theory which has failed in all its aspects: as a general social theory, as a historical and sociological argument and as a basis for interpretation of actual events. As opposed to Rosebenrg, the author claims that globalization should be regarded as a 'metapolitical' concept with its semantic and political functions. Using the methodological assumptions of Reinhart Koselleck, the author shows that 'metapolitical' concepts reach their intellectual and political high point by accelerating history and by transcending the actual situation. After their revolutionary peak, they disappear or they change their meaning in order to refer to the 'new reality'. Based on the insights of Hannah Arendt, the author shows that globalization has lost its revolutionary potential, but also that the end of globalization theory would not necessarily follow. Adapted from the source document.
The author discusses some recent changes in the theoretical literature on globalization. He claims that the irreversibility of the globalization process is no longer taken for granted as in the enthusiastic literature on the subject during the 1990's. The globalization is no longer regarded as an untouchable structure, and for over a decade now, we are witnessing an overall questioning of the globalization process itself. Therefore, the author pays special attention to the theoretical works of Justin Rosenberg who claims that the age of globalization is over. For Rosenberg, the globalization was only an ideological construction supported by the so called globalization theory which has failed in all its aspects: as a general social theory, as a historical and sociological argument and as a basis for interpretation of actual events. As opposed to Rosebenrg, the author claims that globalization should be regarded as a 'metapolitical' concept with its semantic and political functions. Using the methodological assumptions of Reinhart Koselleck, the author shows that 'metapolitical' concepts reach their intellectual and political high point by accelerating history and by transcending the actual situation. After their revolutionary peak, they disappear or they change their meaning in order to refer to the 'new reality'. Based on the insights of Hannah Arendt, the author shows that globalization has lost its revolutionary potential, but also that the end of globalization theory would not necessarily follow. Adapted from the source document.
Ages ago, Plato understood justice as the purport & the essential purpose of the very existence of the state. Though Plato distinguishes between the political justice of the state & the personal justice of the individual soul, it was Aristotle who in his practical philosophy developed, apart from the general justice, an appropriate understanding of the special or particular justice & its significance for social progress. The first part of this paper deals with the different types of justice, & the second with civil society. In order to understand the contemporary theories of political justice & the roles of civil society in its realization, the author looks into the history of the European political thought & "civil society," since "civic" or "civil society" ("societas civilis"), was originally a political society. In modernity, Hegel began differentiating between the state as a political community & the "civil society" as a nonpolitical society; his intention was not to separate but to integrate them by means of the public scrutiny & the citizens' governance, Thus Hegel linked Locke's & Montesquieu's opposing definitions of the relationship between the civil society & the state. This is all the more important since Hegel's philosophy is often misinterpreted as the state totalitarianism since we overlook the dangers coming, especially today, both from the civil society reduced to economy & the absolute state, the dangers that Hegel, with his concept of customariness, detected & avoided. 11 References. Adapted from the source document.
The first part of the article gives a summary account of the basic concepts of general or meta/structural theory of modern society: metastructure, structure, system. In a critical confrontation with Marx & Habermas, the author starts by explaining his main theoretical innovation -- the concept of metastructure, as the most general supposition & a trait of the modern epoch in which the official watchword of liberty-equality-rationality vaguely & gradually comes to the fore: it is the watchword of public sociability which is, in the final instance, determined by the norms of the common word, in which all participate as equals. This discursive immediacy necessarily becomes manifest through a double mediation: of economic understanding (market/organization) & of legal-political reason (interindividual & central contractuality). In that sense, metastructure is the set supposition for the modern class structure; it is not its basis, but its referential fiction. However, it inevitably turns into its opposite -- into exploitation, domination, alienation -- in the society which calls itself 'capitalist.' The structure of such a society reveals a double bipolarity, a division into a ruling class & a ruled class, but also a division within the ruling class itself into the market pole as the first class factor (proprietors) & the pole of organization as the second class factor (managers & ones who are competent). The subordinated class is no mere multitude of passive "ruled ones." It is the "fundamental class" as a positive political actor. As opposed to class structure, which necessarily exists in a state-nation, it is characteristic of the world-system that it constantly impairs the metastructural supposition, distorting the modernness of the state-nation: the barbarism of centers in relation to peripheries is imminent to the centers themselves. The inevitable result of this historical tendency is the world-state. It abolishes neither the state-nations nor the world-system, & it is already appearing on the horizon as the final geopolitical realization of this social logic of modernity. In the second part of the article, the author briefly shows how the metastructural hypothesis is developed in his more recent & concrete research into the areas of history (the emergence of the modern form of society starting from the 13th-century Cities-states in Italy), sociology & politics (relation between social classes & political parties), & culture (general theory of ideologies). These analyses show that structure is key to the world-system, & not vice versa, in the sense where the whole would explain the part: the system (state-nation) can be adequately understood only from the starting point of (class) structure. Since the capitalist totality cannot be metastructurally organized in one go, it could not emerge as a space which is brought together, like an empire, by one institutionally unified will, but only as a plural whole, a systemic plurality of state-nations. Adapted from the source document.
