Suchergebnisse

We examine scholarship on the role and influence of advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. We identify common theoretical questions in the disconnected literatures on social movements, interest groups, and nonprofits, and we propose a unifying conceptual framework for examining advocacy organizations. Focusing on the post-1960s growth in advocacy organizations, we examine major organizational characteristics including organizational structures, membership and participation, resources, and interorganizational networks and coalitions. Our analysis of organizational influence focuses on five dimensions of the policy process: (a) agenda setting, (b) access to decision-making arenas, (c) achieving favorable policies, (d) monitoring and shaping implementation, and (e) shifting the long-term priorities and resources of political institutions. Finally, we identify recurrent theoretical and methodological problems, including the compartmentalization of research within disciplines, an overreliance on studies of large national organizations, a disproportionate focus on recruitment and selective incentives, and limited research on the influence of advocacy organizations. We conclude by highlighting productive pathways for future scholarship.

This article aims to provide an overview of the importance of political advocacy to our profession and offers practical guidance on how to effectively engage in it. It is not intended to be a comprehensive guide on what is a wide and varied subject matter but instead seeks to draw on personal experience to provide information and assistance to those wishing to explore the subject.

This article is devoted to the history of the Department of Political Science and Sociology of Political Processes of the Faculty of Sociology at Lomonosov Moscow State University. The stages of the organization and formation of the Department, the processes of teaching formation and methodological activities, which have occurred over the thirty-year history of the Faculty of Sociology, are considered, and the priority areas of the professors research works are outlined.

On Thursday September 12, 2019, Shannon Manning spoke to our Political Careers Lecture Series. She spoke about her 20 years' experience in grassroots advocacy and communications. Shannon Manning serves as Senior Vice President of Advocate Engagement at DDC Public Affairs, a public relations organization which handles public and private sector PR. Shannon has played a […]

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.

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.

TWO STREAMS OF POLITICAL THOUGHT WERE PRESENT AT THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN NATION.ONE WAS NOTABLE FOR FRIENDSHIP,BROTHERHOOD,INDIVIDUAL SPONTANEITY AND DISTAIN FOR THE MATERIAL.A FOLLOWER WAS T.PAINE,AND ITS BASIS IS IN ROUSSEAU.THE DECLARATION AND ARTICLES EXPRESSED IT.THE SECOND WAS FOR SOCIAL ORDER,RATIONALITY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTION BY HAMILTON AND MADISON.

AbstractThis article addresses Andrew Rehfeld's attempt to ensure a place for
political theory within political science, which he does partly by
showing how political theory fits into a defensible definition of
political science and partly by excluding much political theory from
the discipline in order to safeguard the rest. His account of what
the discipline should comprehend is overly narrow, however, and does
not serve the interests of the sorts of political theory he strongly
believes are worth doing. I argue instead that political science
must be defined by its subject matter alone, and that political
theory's contribution to this subject matter must be defended.

The dominant belief among both teachers and graduate students of political science seems to be that political theory constitutes the heart of their subject; yet political theory is not, in practice, the core of political science teaching. Such is the schizoid condition of political science and political scientists that is revealed by the investigations of the Committee for the Advancement of Teaching of the American Political Science Association. The hypothesis advanced in this note presents a dual reason for the unfortunate situation: it is partly that political theorists have failed to keep up with the times and have not engaged in sufficient value-free theoretical study of the raw data of politics, and partly that vast numbers of political scientists have falsely concluded that one of the most important parts of the traditional study of political theory—political ethics—is not susceptible of scientific treatment and should rigorously be eschewed.