Suchergebnisse

The perceptions of science by the Croatian public & the political elite are a combination of scientific-technological optimism, the exemption of science from social responsibility, the skepticism regarding the speed of changes that science brings into people's lives, & a mixture of cognitive realism & optimism, & the reservations towards the cognitive possibilities of science. Also, the perceptions of science by the public & by the elite differ significantly. The public perceptions link modernism & traditionalism, confidence & a lack of it in the socially responsible role of science (& technology). Politicians nurture three different views of science. The first view implies both the beneficial & the neutral social role of science. The second view implies the reservations of the elite regarding the humanistic social role of science & its cognitive power, while the third way links the cognitive limitations of science & the skepticism regarding the way in which it changes the traditional way of life. The perception of science by the public depends on the social composition, while the politicians' views are significantly influenced by their political worldview & orientations & party allegiance. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

The Council of Europe, founded in 1949 to promote greater unity & safeguard the political & cultural heritage of the continent, has become the largest international governmental organization in Europe with its 46 members. It proclaimed the year 2005 the "European Year of Citizenship through Education." The promotion of democracy & democratic political culture is one of the chief objectives of the Council of Europe, & the interest & active participation of citizens in public affairs are the conditions necessary for the development of democratic political culture. The awakening of citizens' interest & civic involvement begins at school. The Republic of Croatia as a member of the Council of Europe will observe 2005 as a Year of Citizenship through Education. In January of that year, the Croatian Ministry of Education, Science, and Sports set up a special commission consisting of 22 members representing educators & teachers from all three levels of the educational system, nongovernmental organizations, ministry departments, & mass media. The commission developed an action plan which it presented to the public in March of 2005 & which contained the principal objectives that the country's schools should seek in their teaching democratically minded citizenship. Z. Dubiel

Ovaj se rad bavi jezičnom politikom i društvenim promjenama koje su se dogodile u Hrvatskoj za vrijeme i nakon rata koji je trajao od 1991. do 1995. godine. Počinjem opisom povijesne pozadine, rata i devedesetih godina 20. stoljeća, koje je obilježila velika količina jezičnog purizma i preskriptivizma u Hrvatskoj te stvaranje postjugoslavenskih država u kojima je pripadanje naciji predstavljalo ključ za definiranje državljanstva. Istraživanjem odnosa između promjena u jezičnom i društvenom poretku, problematiziram više tema. Tvrdim da je zakonski okvir prava manjinskog jezika osnažio i legitimizirao nacionalistički imaginarij, stvarajući daljnje društvene podjele i učvršćujući hijerarhije koje među nacionalnim kategorijama promoviraju određeni nacionalisti. Iz tog razloga, tvrdim da nekritičko odobravanje ili promoviranje lingvističke različitosti mogu biti opasni. Nadalje, u aktivističko-antropološkom smislu, razlažem moguće razloge zbog kojih su znanstvenici društvenih i humanističkih znanosti rijetko sudjelovali u sociolingvističkim raspravama koje se tiču novog hrvatskog standardnog jezika. Tvrdim da bi takvim raspravama u znatnoj mjeri doprinijelo sudjelovanje znanstvenika humanističkih i društvenih znanosti, jer bi se stvorila veza između sociolingvistike i ostalih grana humanističkih i društvenih znanosti te bi se tako odmaknuli od, prema mojem sudu problematične, politike usredotočene na "identitet". ; This paper focuses on language policy and social changes which have taken place in Croatia during and since the 1991-5 war. I first describe the historical background, the war and the nineties being marked by excesses of linguistic purism and prescriptivism, alongside the formation of post-Yugoslav states in which national belonging was key to defining citizenship. Through examining the relationship between changing linguistic and social orders, I raise a number of issues for discussion. I argue that the legal framework of minority language rights has consolidated and legitimated a nationalist imaginary, increasing social divisions and reinforcing hierarchies asserted by some nationalists between national categories. For this reason, I suggest that the uncritical endorsement of or promotion of linguistic diversity can be dangerous. Second, in an activist-anthropological vein, I discuss possible reasons why academics trained in the social sciences and humanities have rarely participated in sociolinguistic debates concerning the new Croatian standard. I suggest such discussions could greatly benefit from interventions by social scientists, so as to bring sociolinguistics into contact with other strands of the social sciences and humanities and move away from what I believe to be a problematic policy focus on "identity".

The author discusses the basic structure of Mancur Olson's political economy. He highlights three concepts on which it is based: public goods, interest groups, & selective incentives. The last concept represents Olson's innovation in contemporary political science. The author's central methodical assumption is based on the insight that Olson's key theory is linked with the so-called public goods paradox. Unlike private goods, public goods are noncompetitive & nonexclusive, which means that it is not possible to bar those who do not share the costs of their production from using them. On the basis of this, Olson has developed the original theory of interest groups. By looking into the costs of organizing along interest lines as a collective activity whose result is a public good, he distinguishes between large, heterogeneous, & small, homogeneous groups. Besides, he has shown that, regarding public goods, individuals tend to behave as free riders, defaulters who try to avoid the costs of securing these goods. The author shows that Olson has, notwithstanding certain flimsiness of his reductionist methodology, significantly revamped political science. Adapted from the source document.

Carl Schmitt je jedan od najposvećenijih protivnika liberalnog univerzalizma sa svojim pojmom pluralističke, racionalne i uključive konsenzualne politike kao progresivnog demokratskog projekta i svojeg razumijevanja političke arene kao pročišćene, od sukoba slobodne, i na taj način progresivne kretnje demokratske logike. U ovom radu nastojat ću pokazati Schmittove pesimističke i negativne stavove, zasnovane na ontološkim i teološkim temeljima, o deliberativnom modelu politike koja tvrdi da partikularna volja može doći do koncepta zajedničkog javnog interesa ili zajedničkog dobra kroz raspravu i dijalog. Nadalje, pokušat ću pokazati da unutar Schmittovog projekta koncept diktature suverena postoji kao nužni kontrapunkt pojmu politič- kog. Schmitt odbija razumijevati politički život kao medij dijalog koji vodi razumskom konsenzusu. U ovom kontekstu, suveren iz Schmittove teorije mora se razumijevati upravo kao sila napravljena da proizvodi homogenost kroz hegemoniju. Hegemonija, u Gramscijevom smislu, nije gola opresivna sila. Namjesto toga, odnosi se na vladajuću silu sposobnu upisati vlastitu ideologiju i pogled na svijet u javnost kroz uvjeravanje. U tom okviru, ljevičarski mislitelji poput Mouffea, koji preporuča da moramo misliti »sa Schmittom protiv Schmitta« kako bismo razvili novo demokratsko političko razumijevanje, svraćaju pozornost na Schmittovu tezu da je svaki politički identitet u funkciju »mi–oni« antinomije, ali im promiče činjenica da je nemoguće deducirati koncept zbiljski demokratske javne sfere iz Schmittove teorije. Kao što će biti naglašenu u radu, demokracija u Schmittovom smislu može biti savršena forma suverenosti, takva kakva usuprot liberalnoj demokraciji rezultira homogenizacijom i isključenjem heterogenosti, te na taj način mora biti začeta kao fundamentalno hegemonijski sistem. Schmittov ideal demokracije zahtijeva da politički identiteti, javno mišljenje, javna sfera i formiranje volje vudu rezultati suverenove volje i bez prostora za raspravu. ; Carl Schmitt is one of the most dedicated opponents of liberal universalism, with its notion of pluralist, rational and non-exclusivist consensus politics as a progressive democratic project and its understanding of the political arena – "purified", being free from struggles and conflict – as the progressive move of democratic logic. In this paper I will first try to show Schmitt's pessimistic and negative stance based on ontological and theological grounds on the deliberative model of politics with its claim about the possibility of making particular wills reach the conception of common public interest or the common good through discussion and dialogue. Secondly, I'll try to show that, within Schmitt's project, the concept of the sovereign dictatorship exists as the necessary counterpoint to the concept of the political. Schmitt refuses to understand political life as a medium of dialogue leading to a rational consensus. In this context, the sovereign in Schmitt's theory should be precisely understood as a force constructed to reproduce homogeneity in a hegemonic manner. Hegemonia, in a Gramscian sense, is not a bare oppressive force. Rather, it refers to a ruling force which is able to inject its own ideology and world view into the public through persuasion. In this framework, leftist thinkers like mouffe, who recommended that we should think "with Schmitt against Schmitt" in order to develop a new democratic political understanding, draw attention to Schmitt's thesis that every political identity functions as "we-they" antinomy, yet they miss the fact that it is impossible to deduce a conception of a truly democratic public sphere from Schmitt's theory. As it will be emphasized in this paper, democracy in the Schmittian sense can be the perfect form of sovereignty, one which in contrast to liberal democracy results in homogenization and the exclusion of the heterogeneous and thus must be conceived as a fundamentally hegemonic system. The Schmittian ideal of democracy requires that political identities, public opinion, public sphere and will formation are the products of a sovereign will and not of open and free discussion. ; Carl Schmitt est l'un des opposants les plus puissants de l'universalisme libérale de par sa notion de consensus politique pluraliste, rationnel et non exclusiviste en tant que projet démocratique progressiste, mais aussi de par sa compréhension de l'arène politique - « purifiée », libre de toutes luttes et de tout conflit – en tant que mouvement progressiste de la logique dé- mocratique. Dans cet article, je vais en premier lieu tenter de montrer l'opinion pessimiste et négative de Schmitt – basée sur des fondements ontologiques et théologiques – concernant le modèle délibératif de la politique et sa prétention à penser que la formation de volontés particulières pourrait toucher l'intérêt public commun ou le bien commun à travers la discussion et le dialogue. En second lieu, je vais tenter de montrer qu'à l'intérieur du projet de Schmitt le concept de dictature souveraine existe comme contrepartie nécessaire au concept du politique. Schmitt refuse de penser la vie politique comme instrument de dialogue menant au consensus rationnel. Ainsi, le souverain dans la théorie de Schmitt doit précisément être compris comme une force construite pour reproduire une telle homogénéité de manière hégémonique. Hegemonia, au sens gramscien, n'est pas une simple force oppressive ; il s'agit plutôt d'un terme qui se réfère à une force dirigeante capable d'injecter sa propre idéologie et vision du monde dans le domaine public à travers la persuasion. Dans ce contexte, certains penseurs de gauche telle que mouffe qui nous recommande de penser « avec, et contre, Schmitt » dans le but de développer une nouvelle compréhension de la politique démocratique, attirent notre attention sur la thèse de Schmitt où chaque identité politique fonctionne par l'antinomie « nous/eux ». Toutefois, ces penseurs passent à côté du fait qu'il est impossible de déduire une conception de réelle sphère publique démocratique sur la base de la théorie de Schmitt. Comme cet article le souligne bien, la démocratie au sens schmittien peut être la forme parfaite de souveraineté, une forme qui – en contraste avec la démocratie libérale – aboutit à une homogénéisation en excluant l'hétérogé- néité, et ainsi doit être conçue comme un système fondamentalement hégémonique. Selon l'idéal schmittien de démocratie, les identités politiques, l'opinion publique, la sphère publique et la formation de volontés doivent être les produits, non pas d'une discussion ouverte et libre, mais d'une volonté souveraine. ; Carl Schmitt ist einer der mächtigsten Gegner des liberalen Universalismus mit dessen Vorstellung von pluralistischer, rationaler und nicht exklusivistischer Konsenspolitik als einem progressiven demokratischen Projekt und dessen Verständnis der politischen Arena – "gereinigt", frei von Kämpfen und Konflikten – als eines progressiven Schritts der demokratischen Logik. In diesem Beitrag werde ich zunächst versuchen, Schmitts pessimistische, negative und auf ontologischer und theologischer Grundlage ruhende Haltung zum Beratungsmodell der Politik darzulegen, mit dessen Behauptung über die möglichkeit, partikulare Willen zu veranlassen, durch Diskussion und Dialog die Konzeption des gemeinschaftlichen öffentlichen Interesses oder Gemeinwohls zu erreichen. Zweitens werde ich versuchen zu zeigen, dass im Rahmen des schmittschen Projekts der Begriff der souveränen Diktatur als notwendiger Kontrapunkt zum Begriff des Politischen existiert. Schmitt weigert sich, das politische Leben als ein medium des Dialogs zu begreifen, das zu einem rationalen Konsens führt. In diesem Zusammenhang soll das Souveräne in der schmittschen Theorie eben als eine Gewalt aufgefasst werden, die konstruiert ist, um eine solche Homogenität in einer hegemonialen Art zu reproduzieren. Die hegemonia im gramscischen Sinne ist nicht eine bloß repressive Kraft; vielmehr bezieht sie sich auf eine herrschende Kraft, die imstande ist, durch Überzeugungsvermögen ihre eigene Ideologie und Weltanschauung in die Öffentlichkeit zu injizieren. Linksorientierte Denker wie mouffe, die empfohlen haben, wir sollten "mit Schmitt gegen Schmitt" denken, um ein neues demokratisches politisches Verständnis zu entwickeln, lenken in diesem Kontext das Augenmerk auf Schmitts These, jede politische Identität funktioniere durch die "wir – sie"-Antinomie, doch sie übersehen die Tatsache, dass es unmöglich ist, aus der schmittschen Theorie die Vorstellung von einer wahrhaft demokratischen öffentlichen Sphäre abzuleiten. Wie es in dieser Arbeit betont wird, kann die Demokratie im schmittschen Sinne die perfekte Form der Souveränität sein, die – im Gegensatz zur liberalen Demokratie – in der Homogenisierung und Ausgrenzung des Heterogenen resultiert und daher als ein grundlegend hegemoniales System erachtet werden muss. Das schmittsche Ideal der Demokratie erheischt, dass politische Identitäten, öffentliche meinung, öffentliche Sphäre und Willensbildung keine Produkte einer offenen und freien Diskussion, sondern eines souveränen Willens sind.

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.

Haberle claims constitutional law is a comparative experiential science closely linked with political science with which it shares the research subject. The constitutional state has been going through a permanent process of changes; the central question is who is the prime mover of constitutional changes: constitutional/legal institutions, constitutional/legal science, & political science or public opinion & political culture of citizens? By analyzing the recent history of the changes of the German constitutions he suggests that all these factors contribute to constitutional changes. Nevertheless, as an expert for law & political science, who considers himself as belonging to the wider European scientific community, Haberle thinks that the decisive influences in constitutional changes stem from legal & political sciences & concludes: Sine qua (scientia) mortalium vita non regitur liberaliter (Without science, mortals do not command their life freely). Adapted from the source document.

The theory of public choice is a major link between political science & economic science. It includes economic research into the issue of non-market decision making, ie, the application of economic analysis to political decision making. The champions of the theory of public choice have the most confidence in the market & market institutions. They try to explain political decision making by means of the standards operating in the market. The public choice theory approach is based on the concept of methodological individualism & homo oeconomicus, since individuals try to promote their own interests both in the market & in politics. Theoreticians of public choice investigate voters' behavior, the roles of politicians, political parties, & interest groups in complex democratic societies. Central for their research is the political process in which voters behave as buyers, & politicians as entrepreneurs, while bureaucrats are prone to self-aggrandizement; their ambition is to boost the significance of their office. The theory of public choice emphasizes the category of exchange (political exchange) & the catalectic approach to economy. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes Fayola's work in light of recent trends in the theory of administration. He looks into Fayola's organic approach & the immanent division of the content of his work into constitutive & functional aspects. Fayol's concepts are built on the foundations of the science of administration, since they are used as the criteria for classification of subject matter & for defining management. Also, his concepts are so well-defined that only an occasional new concept is added to them. The shortcomings of Fayol's thinking are the product of the limitations of his time & his internal organic approach, as well as of the basically static structure of organization & administration. 1 Table, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

The article brings up the basic issues of comparative public policy, a separate research orientation in contemporary political science. First, the principal works that have defined this research discipline are looked into. The contributions of two subdisciplines of contemporary political science -- public policy & political economy -- are highlighted. The second part of the article investigates the fundamental methodological issues, synthesized into two basic dilemmas: what should be understood under the term government activity, & how it is possible to measure this performance. The author is of the opinion that most works from the field of comparative public policy are largely devoted to the comparison of governments' financial activities, which are the easiest to measure due to a broad accessibility of the data on public expenditure, public sector growth, unemployment, etc. Referring to the Canadian author Louis Imbeau, the author stresses the need for a broader understanding of comparative public policy that would include those comparisons that do not exclusively rely on governments' financial activities. 2 Tables, 34 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 analyzes the relationship between political science & political education by identifying the fundamental contributions of political science to the design, implementation, & promotion of political education & lists the most significant political science arguments proving the necessity of political education. Drawing on research by Putnam, Ostroom, & others, he tries to show how the so-called social capital, to a large extent inclusive of the contents of democratic political culture, is a major factor in the efficient operation of democratic government & in the political development of democracy. The three most important issues (dimensions) of politics that compose the axis of political education are analyzed in detail, dealing with the relationships between politics & democracy, citizenship & identity, & cohesion & diversity (fragmentation & pluralization) in society. The answers to these questions (liberal, communitarian, republican, postmodern) influence the concept of political education: its terms, goals, programs, methods, & other aspects of its implementation. The author stresses the complexity of these dimensions & consequently the sensitivity of political education. Adapted from the source document.

The author introduces the concept of agonistic democracy as an alternative to the deliberative model, along the lines of John Gray & Chantal Mouffe in their insistence on the primacy of the political in the public sphere & the agonistic character of social relations. On the one hand, the primacy of the political calls our attention to the drawbacks of the solutions to political & social conflicts by means of legal procedures. On the other, the agonistic theory of plural societies insists on relinquishing the harmonious view of society; ie, we have to come to terms with the fact that there are certain unsolvably & irreducibly deep conflicts. Agonistic democracy highlights social conflicts & divisions with the explicit purpose of their discursive grouping, the formation of a hegemonic discourse & the permanent reshuffling of the existing power relations, & to avoid their downsizing. Its goal is to turn antagonism (friend-foe) into agonic (friend-adversary). The paper ends on a cautionary note by identifying the shortcomings of all democratic models, including those by Gray or Mouffe, which is particularly important to bear in mind at a time when we are becoming -- or have already become -- bigger losers in peacetime than in an open conflict. Hence, there is not perfect democratic model or a perfect recipe for eradicating tragic conflicts. 20 References. Adapted from the source document.

The notions of Left & Right form a fundamental semantic pattern within which voters construct their political perceptions & attitudes. Their universal meaning lies in a simple spatial approach to politics as conflict; functionally, Left & Right are "shortcuts" for political communication. In the empirically oriented political science, the Left-Right scale has become a standard variable in public opinion polls. After the initial pessimistic interpretations, in the last 20 years or so, this scale has increasingly demonstrated its validity & reliability. The sources of the Left-Right identification may be manifold, & not solely ideological. Also, the Left-Right scheme has demonstrated a remarkable potential to -- in time -- encompass new political contents & thus create a need for new cross-national & longitudinal studies. Voters -- not scientists -- are those who define what is Left & what is Right. 19 References. Adapted from the source document.