Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
In: Modern Politics and Government, S. 225-238
In: PS: political science & politics, Band 30, Heft 4, S. 712-716
ISSN: 0030-8269, 1049-0965
In: PS: political science & politics, Band 30, Heft 4, S. 712-716
One of the essential atarting points of any branch of science is a consistent, broadly understood terminology. Generally accepted definitions of key terms within a discipline are important in order to judge claims by scholars about a given topic. Fortunately, among those who work on the topic of nationalism, there is a growing convergence of definitions of "nation" and "nationalism." Unfortunately, both terms are often still misused, used loosely, or used inconsistently, especially among those in political science who discuss these terms in passing. Authors of introductory textbooks, who are careful in their usage of other terms, often use these two words in varying—and even contradictory—ways in different parts of the same book. Because of their importance for the discipline, however, political scientists should be very mindful of their use of the terms "nation" and "nationalism."In this article, definitions for "nation" and "nationalism" are proposed, with each definition followed by sections on common ways the terms are misemployed in political science. I provide examples of both misuses and "loose uses." While the line between misuse and loose use is somewhat fuzzy (a point reinforced below in the discussion of nations vs. ethnic groups), I consider a misuse to be one in which the term is used in a way that is completely outside how the term is used by nationalism scholars. A loose use is one in which the author has captured only part of the concept or has stretched the meaning of the term to an extreme degree.
In: International social science bulletin, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 51-74
ISSN: 1014-5508
In an introduction to summaries of papers delivered at the 2nd Congress of the Int Polit Sci Assoc (Sep 1952) the following points are made: (1) while the meetings had adequately indicated the 'complexities inherent in the analysis of political ideologies,' it failed to establish acceptable lines of methodological approach; (2) 'the relations between political theory (or philosophy) and political ideology remained unexplored.'; (3) a lack of terminological precision hampered results (discrepancies in the use of `symbol,' differing definitions of 'ideology,' and lack of differentiation between political ideologies and other ideologies); & (4) emphasis was on the East-West conflict rather than historical experience. The summaries of the paper are grouped under the following headings: (1) Dealing with the analysis and dissemination of ideologies. J. Blanchet, 'Ideologies et Transformations Sociales.' Jacques-Serge Billy, 'Le Problems de la Finalite des Societes Politiques et lea Explications Ideologiques.' H. D. Lasswell, 'The Political Role of Ideologies.' K. Lowenstein, 'Political Ideologies and Institutions and the Problem of Their Circulation.'; (2) Case studies of specific ideologies. S. D. Bailey, 'The Revision of Marxism.' R. D. Lang, 'Conservative Thought in Europe 1818-30'; (3) Case studies of ideologies in specific geographical areas. R. D. Lucic, 'Means of Propagating Ideologies and the Conditions for Their Development in the Various Parts of the World (Yugoslavia).' M. Azis Ahmad, 'Political Ideology of Pakistan.' D. N. Banerjee, 'Political Ideologies and Their Influence on Political Behavior with Special Reference to the Results of Their Propagation and the Conditions of Their Acceptance'; (4) Case studies of internationalism as an ideology. W. N. Hogan, 'International Organization and the Dissemination of Ideologies. J. Ellul, 'Propagande et Ideologie.' F. Lenz, 'An Introduction into the Sociology of Broadcasting'; (6) Special Studies. I. de Sola Pool, D. Lerner & C. E. Rothwell, 'The Measurement of Ideological Change.' P. Feldkeller, 'Donnees Psychologiques Fondamentales de la Psycho-politique'; (7) Referring to Research. R. Aaron 'Le Role des Ideologies dans les Changements Politiques'. Q. Wright, 'Current Research on the Subject of Political Ideologies and Their Dissemination.' J. Meyriat, Recherches en Cours dans les Differents Pays d'Europe sur les Ideologies Politiques et Leur Diffusion.' D. Wolsk.
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 60, Heft 4, S. 751-767
ISSN: 1467-9248
The political theory of ideologies proposes a distinct way of conceiving of and analysing political thought, especially as it appears 'in the wild'. Exploring the claim that there is a form or mode of thinking specific and proper to politics, and that it is the concern of the political theory of ideology, the article examines two of the leading contemporary approaches in this field: the morphological analysis of Michael Freeden and the discourse analysis associated with Ernesto Laclau. In showing how each produces a distinct object for theoretical analysis (respectively, 'the concept' and 'the signifier') the case is made for constituting a third object – the political argument – the apprehension of which requires the integration of aspects of the rhetorical tradition into the political theory of ideologies. The conclusion briefly outlines some of the possible implications, for political theory and analysis more generally, of the rhetorical conception of political thought and ideology.
The article presents a critical overview of underlying ideas, social context, and original teachings of two "mediating ideologies" (social democracy and conservatism) and two mass "political phenomena" (nationalism and populism). Each of them constitutes a form of more or less effective political compromise, which ought to neutralize constant tensions and clashes between the leading modern ideologies of freedom and equality, i.e. liberalism and communism. However, the clash of ideologies which were prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries has lost much of its intensity today, although the social causes that gave rise to them have remained unchanged: social inequalities, abuse of freedom, and uneven distribution of social power. At the same time, the main social forces and political organizations that had been the symbols and striking forces of freedom and equality in the preceding decades - the political parties of the "left " and "right", including the never clearly defined "political center" - also lost their identity and power. Th e then political mortal enemies look and behave today almost exactly as they did then: in the ideological sense, "everyone wants everything" (allegedly representing/ defending the interests of "all citizens"); in the organizational sense, there is almost no difference between them; whereas the difference in the manner they behave when in power is almost negligible.
BASE
In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
"Party Families and Political Ideologies" published on by Oxford University Press.
In: Journal of political science education, Band 18, Heft 3, S. 407-410
ISSN: 1551-2177
In: Journal of political ideologies, Band 12, Heft 3, S. 211-217
ISSN: 1469-9613