Suchergebnisse

The United States suffers political and social polarization at its worst since the Civil War. Is Trump the "result" or the "cause" that accelerated this malaise? As a former Washington correspondent who covered the Trump administration last four years, I tried exploring answers for this American self-questioning. Trump-style governance, so-called Trumpism, has been characterized with its unique communication style to inspire anti-elite ressentiment among American public especially for white male middle-class who feel themselves less and less belongings to mainstream in their country. This communication sometimes takes the form of "dog whistle" aiming at Trump's core supporters or at other times takes the form of sense of complicity sharing misinformation intentionally. The anti-elite undercurrent and the partisan confrontation which accelerates political polarization have been fostered in the US even since before the rise of Trump. In this respect the Trumpism can be called the "result". On the other hand, it is also pointed out that Trump would be the "cause" which overturned the hierarchical order of policymakers, bureaucrats, experts and major media institutions playing himself destroying the existing order. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic played a major role in amplifying its effects. This reminds us of importance of further exploration to find out how infectious disease has caused significant impact on the state of democracy.

Wong, Ying Suet. ; Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2009. ; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 120-131). ; In English with some Chinese and Japanese; abstract also in Chinese. ; Chapter Chapter One: --- Introduction --- p.3 ; Literature Review --- p.7 ; Structure --- p.10 ; Notes on Sources --- p.13 ; Chapter Chapter Two: --- Venereal Disease Policies in the Metropole and Their Colonies --- p.15 ; The Case of Britain --- p.16 ; VD Policy in the Metropole: The case of Britain --- p.16 ; VD Policy in the Colonies: The Case of Colonies under Britain --- p.23 ; The Case of Japan with Reference of Britain as the Pioneer Policy Maker --- p.28 ; Chapter Chapter Three: --- Venereal Disease control in the Metropole --- p.31 ; Legislation --- p.32 ; Institutions --- p.44 ; Education and Social Discussion --- p.49 ; Resistance --- p.55 ; VD control in the Japanese Military Force --- p.60 ; Summary --- p.67 ; Chapter Chapter Four: --- Venereal Disease Control in Colonial Taiwan --- p.70 ; Legislation --- p.72 ; Licensed prostitution system --- p.72 ; The VD Prevention Law --- p.79 ; Education and Social Discussion --- p.84 ; Before the VD Prevention Law in Japan in 1927 --- p.84 ; Education and Public Discussion of VD after the promulgation of the VD Prevention Law in 1927 --- p.90 ; The Changing Discourse of VD --- p.95 ; Summary --- p.100 ; Chapter Chapter Five: --- "Sex, Gender, Class, Race and Colonialism" --- p.101 ; Taiwanese Women´ةs image: Scapegoating --- p.101 ; Medical Development: State Medicine and Local Elites --- p.106 ; VD Control in the Military in Taiwan --- p.109 ; Summary --- p.111 ; Chapter Chapter Six: --- Conclusion --- p.114 ; Bibliography --- p.120

Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America is probably one of the most oftreferred books today in the United States. It is widely seen as the best book ever written on this country, its words endlessly quoted by different political camps which claim the book as their own. This article examines the ways in which the American have read this magnum opus of the Frenchman, especially during the last few decades, on the assumption that their reading is reflecting their perceptions on contemporary American society and its future. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it tries to show that Democracy has long been read in America as an (or, in not a few cases, the) important source to reflect on a remedy for an increasingly "individualistic" and thus "despotic" American society. What the American have commonly found a solution to this problem out of reading the book is the restoration of the tradition of self-government, which is highly hailed by Tocqueville as an admirable feature of American society. Second, this article aims at showing that, although the different political views between conservatives and liberals (one of the most visible political divisions in this society today) are surely affecting the American reading of Democracy, this is only one aspect of the story. Many Americans, whatever their political tendencies are, end up calling for the revival of a self-governed American society as a consequence of studying the book. This common 'conclusion' derived from their reading could be interpreted as a proof that the image that America is the country built on citizens' active participation in public affairs is widely shared among the American themselves. In this considerably diverse society that could fragment at any time potentially, the image has thus been contributing to keeping it in unity, probably to not a small extent.

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

The conflict environment is changing, and—after almost two decades of continuous COIN, stabilisation and counterterrorism missions—government and public opinion in western and allied countries are unlikely to support continued large-scale or long-duration missions of this type. Yet history demonstrates that such missions are, and are likely to remain, some of the most frequent and geographically widespread. Likewise, ground forces are critical for success in COIN and stabilisation missions, due to the need to interact closely with local government and populations, which implies the need to establish and maintain a physical presence in the area of operations, which in turn implies the need to survive and prevail in a close combat environment, which only ground forces can do. Thus, despite their unpopularity, ground forces can expect (and must be prepared) to continue engaging in these types of operations. However, the same factors that have enhanced the threat in recent decades—in particular, connectivity and the ability to conduct collaborative and remote engagement— also create opportunities for new operating methods for ground forces conducting COIN and stabilisation. These include the ability to deploy only a small element forward on the ground, conducting SFA and FID tasks, while supporting it with a QRF and other enablers that remain offshore in a sea-base or in regionally-deployed FOBs. In such a scenario the main force might be withheld from the theatre of operations and either deploy for a brief initial period only, or not at all. For a force operating in this manner, protected mobility and communications would remain essential, as would the ability to access and deliver precision fire support when required. Deployed forces would probably be modular to a very low level, operating in a mesh of multi-role, semi-autonomous small teams supporting each other and swapping roles as needed. Traditional intelligence, engineering, civil affairs, psychological operations and military governance capabilities would remain essential, but might be called forward as needed. Ultimately, however, while ground forces will almost certainly continue to play a central role in counterinsurgency and stabilisation operations, the way they perform this role, the organisation and equipment with which they do so, and the environment in which they conduct such missions is likely to change, and keep changing, into the foreseeable future.