Search results

This book examines the underlying theoretical issues concerning the nature of political freedom. Arguing that most previous discussions of such freedom have been too narrowly focused, it explores both conservativism from Edmund Burke to its present resurgence, the radical tradition of Karl Marx, as well as the orthodox liberal model of freedom of John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Isaiah Berlin. Political Freedom argues that these three accounts of political freedom - conservative, liberal and radical - all have internal weaknesses which render them unsatisfactory.In the second part of the book

A comparative approach for measuring political freedom in contemporary nations is presented. Historical research on the connection between freedom & development is reviewed. Potential problems in measuring political freedom are addressed (eg, the need to overcome cultural & subjective biases), with political freedom defined as individual existence in a collectivity in which individuals are guaranteed certain individual & collective freedoms. The five clusters of rights & freedoms that compose the proposed Political Freedom Index are personal security; the rule of law; political participation; freedom of expression; & nondiscrimination. Data from 101 countries indicate that those with meager human rights records & without democratic government possess the lowest composite measures of political freedom. 5 Tables, 25 References. J. W. Parker

What is the logic of an information law which:• makes available a State Department Memorandum rationalizing the President's use of troops overseas without congressional consent, but has thus far failed to make available World War II documents concerning allegedly repatriated Russian soldiers,• which makes available a Federal Trade Commission staff study on auto warranties but leaves numerous other advisory studies difficult to locate and their status unclear,• breaks loose a key Federal Reserve Board vote but has thus far left the votes and minutes of other multi-member agencies difficult to locate?The answer is that the logic is not in the law itself, but in the kind of pressure put upon the bureaucracy to follow it. The Freedom of Information Act which became effective July 4, 1967 is not self enforcing. It depends upon the initiative and energy of those who want government information, giving them a tool with which to prod an unwilling bureaucracy. To date, this prodding has come principally from the press and interested business organizations; meaning that the information made available has been oriented toward the single news story, often an expose, or the isolated regulatory decision. This is certainly a valuable use of the Act but the pressure of interested citizens is not sufficient to force the government to make available the scope of information and indexing needed for scholarly research.The organized scholarly community, while traditionally supporting the principle of free access to government information, has made no systematic effort to either assess the newly available information or to pry loose information presently withheld.

PROFESSOR LAZARSFELD ONCE REFERRED TO SOCIOLOGY AS BEING IN A sense a residuary legatee, the surviving part of a very general study, out of which specializations have successively been shaped.The same might be said of political science. In the West the first deliberate and reflective studies of political life were made in Greece at the end of the th century BC, and in the succeeding century. The histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, some of the pamphlets attributed to Xenophon, above all the normative and empirical studies of Plato and Aristotle were among the direct ancestors of contemporary political science. Parallel examples are to be found in the intellectual history of China, India and Islam. It seems that at certain stages in the development of great societies questions of legitimacy, power and leadership assume supreme importance; and intense intellectual effort, using the best analytical tools available, is devoted to the study of man as brought to a focus in the study of politics.

Over two decades ago, anthropologist Gayle Rubin began a now-classic article with a deceptively simple declaration: "The time has come to think about sex" (1984). Although Rubin was not the first thinker to place sex at the center of her work, her systematic sketch of Western sexual ideology made it possible to think about the political ramifications of sex in new and productive ways by disentangling the physical acts of sex from gender and sexuality (i.e., how we understand, interpret, and ascribe meaning to those acts). Among her many useful insights was the recognition that sex and sexuality are part of a hierarchical value system that serves as the basis for other forms of social, economic, and political power. Sex is the starting point of all human life and, consequently, sexuality subtends all other institutions from marriage to families, communities, states, and international organizations. What Foucault (1978) called biopower—the regulation of bodies, including sex—has continued to change and expand, giving rise to new forms of biopolitics—the regulation of populations and sexuality. Such regulations include moral policing and criminal sanctions, biomedical intervention, family and immigration laws, and a host of other tools that have tended to establish heterosexuality as the only normal and sanctioned sexual behavior. Regulating sex, and particularly reproduction, is an essential objective of the state because, ultimately, sex and reproduction are key to how the state regulates the fundamental element of its own composition: citizenship.