Suchergebnisse

Political ideologies play a less important role in the political belief systems of the general public than is commonly assumed. The concept of nationalism is reviewed & its saliency is tested. Two models of nationalism are compared. The ethnocentric model predicts that, within a nationalist group, the national in-group should be viewed more favorably than the out-groups, & that in-group & out-group evaluations should be negatively correlated. The historical model incorporates explicitly politicized group orientations. It assumes that group orientations are rationally linked, & allows the concept to be defined in terms of specific historical conditions. A study was conducted during July/Aug 1974, consisting of 221 personal interviews. The Ss were randomly chosen from the population of Calgary. The data give only weak support to the ethnocentric model of nationalism, & only for the apolitical group orientations in the sample. The politicized orientations were related in a manner suggesting the historical model. The existence of two conflicting ideological patterns in the political belief systems of the Ss contradicts the assumptions at the beginning of the study. 11 Tables, 3 Appendices. Modified HA.

A l'aide d'un sondage effectué à Calgary, l'auteur étudie comment deux modèles de nationalisme permettent de décrire et d'expliquer les croyances politiques du grant public. Le premier modèle, fondé sur la notion d'ethnocentrisme, n'est que faiblement corroboré par les données et fait apparaître les importantes faiblesses de ce concept. Le second modèle, qui prend sa source dans l'interprétation historique du nationalisme, s'avère utile dans la description de diverses associations de sentiments politiques, parmi lesquelles deux sont examinées plus en profondeur, la première regroupant l'aliénation à l'égard de l'Ouest, l'antipathie vis-à-vis du Canada français et une certaine acceptation des activités américaines au Canada, et la seconde regroupant les sentiments inverses. Dans les deux cas, l'association semble trouver son attache idéologique dans le niveau d'éducation et de partisanerie politique.

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.