Suchergebnisse

The point of departure for the author is an observation that the queer theory in Polish humanities is either uncritically accepted or authoritatively rejected. None of these extremes perceives discussion which arose around the queer theory and the assumption which is at its basis of the social construction of sexuality in the West European and American studies. The article presented here attempts to show, sum up and put in order the accusations and doubts addressed to M. Foucault, J. Butler, and E.K. Sedgwick by researchers who are representatives of the essentialist standpoint (J. Boswell, R. Norton) or – on the grounds of queer theory – represent critical approach to its assumptions (D. Eribon, D. Halperin). ; Śmieja Wojciech, Przeciw konstrukcjonistom. Teoria "queer" i jej krytycy [Against constructionists. Queer theory and its critics]. "Przestrzenie Teorii" 13. Poznań 2010, Adam Mickiewicz University Press, pp. 223-242. ISBN 978-83-232-2176-0. ISSN 1644-6763. The point of departure for the author is an observation that the queer theory in Polish humanities is either uncritically accepted or authoritatively rejected. None of these extremes perceives discussion which arose around the queer theory and the assumption which is at its basis of the social construction of sexuality in the West European and American studies. The article presented here attempts to show, sum up and put in order the accusations and doubts addressed to M. Foucault, J. Butler, and E.K. Sedgwick by researchers who are representatives of the essentialist standpoint (J. Boswell, R. Norton) or – on the grounds of queer theory – represent critical approach to its assumptions (D. Eribon, D. Halperin).

The aim of this paper is a synthetic presentation of the theory of household finances in the area of economics, sociology and psychology. An overview of the theories, regardless of the field of science, shows a progressive increase in the complexity and individualisation of household finances. At the same time the extension of the scope of the research (of sociological and psychological aspects of decisions made by and within a household) has contributed significantly to a better representation of reality in economic theories. The development of the concept regarding the functioning of households clearly shows the growing importance of household finances. This does not mean reducing the role of public policy in ensuring the economic security of households. On the contrary, the growing financialisation of household budgets poses new challenges to public policy. The condition of household budgets increasingly affects the overall economy and in order to achieve the target level of effectiveness, greater precision in the design of public solutions is required.

This article examines the reasons for adopting a non‑institutional character of the Visegrad cooperation in the years 1991‑1992. Its focus concerns two causes of the initial reluctance to institutionalise the Visegrad Group: the high level of unpredictability in Central Europe after the collapse of Communism and the symbolic role the Group was expected to play outside the region. These issues are considered through the prism of two theories in International Relations: neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. Both provide theoreti‑ cal grounds to support the research hypothesis which assumes that the infor‑ mal character of the Visegrad cooperation was a pragmatic choice of its found‑ ing members. However, neorealist and neoliberal explanations of how the political background and security issues could have influenced their decision vary. The article concludes that the neorealist approach holds more explana‑ tory power in this regard, suggesting that the choice of the Visegrad states was dictated by the preservation of their national interests and subjected to ex‑ ternal limitations, rather than motivated by a common intention to facilitate their regional cooperation. ; Arkadiusz Nyzio

In the author's opinion we can agree that the theories of contractualism provide an excellent foundation for the legitimization of democracy. At the same time, he claims that democracy, and liberal democracy in particular, cannot be said to be the necessary outcome of social contract. Hobbes was the advocate of absolute monarchy, although his theory permiabsolute aristocracy as well as absolute democracy. Locke, a supporter of a limed monarchy, emphasized the principles of people's sovereignty. Rousseau, an apologist for thel will, tended to support such the solon that it is not the people's will but the wisest ones' whichrulthe sciety as long as they have the people's benefit in mind. Glorifying hisgeneral will, Roussau has become the founder of modern political totalitarianism. When discussing the relations between state and religion/church the above three classic speculators on the theory of social contract assumed the individual freedom of religious beliefs. Ultimately, it is the state though that regulates the external manifestations of faith, as it is the only political entity to arbitrate conflicts between individual interests, and express the pubgood, whatever that means.

Publications in western specialized journals which describe the Russian Federation's international behavior have always followed a certain paradigm of international relations. The article is an analysis of opinions and beliefs held by commentators and analysts writing for "Foreign Affairs", based on their publications about the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on march 2014. They have been scrutinized using three predominant theories of international relations: realism, liberalism and constructivism. The research proved that western commentators and analysts writing about the annexation of Crimea usually present a single paradigm of international relations. Moreover, they believe it to be the only effective tool in explaining countries' foreign policy, thereby depreciating the value and usefulness of other paradigms. ; Publikacje w zachodniej prasie specjalistycznej dotyczące zachowań międzynarodowych Federacji Rosyjskiej od zawsze wpisują się w jakiś konkretny paradygmat stosunków międzynarodowych. Artykuł jest analizą opinii i poglądów prezentowanych przez komentatorów i analityków publikujących na łamach "Foreign Affairs", przeprowadzoną na podstawie ich publikacji dotyczących aneksji Krymu przez Federację Rosyjską w marcu 2014 r. Przeanalizowano je przez pryzmat trzech teorii stosunków międzynarodowych głównego nurtu, tj. realizmu, liberalizmu i konstruktywizmu. W wyniku badań uzyskano potwierdzenie opinii, iż zachodni komentatorzy i analitycy zazwyczaj wyraźnie prezentują wybrany paradygmat stosunków międzynarodowych, pisząc o aneksji Krymu. Ponadto uznają, iż jest on jedynym skutecznym narzędziem wyjaśniania polityki zagranicznej państw, a tym samym deprecjonują znaczenie i przydatność pozostałych paradygmatów.

While many people all over the world become conscious about serious defects and inefficiencies of the prevailing political systems based on representative democracy, alternative solutions for more just and inclusive systems of governance continue developing. Alternative forms of democracy based on the idea of civic participation and deliberation have more and more followers, who are willing to implement innovative participatory and collective decision making practices in various areas and at various organizational levels. However, the strife for greater self-governance, reinforcement of citizens role in political decision-making processes and establishment of bottom-up control over public expenditures is often considered as a merely utopian project, especially by those who benefit most from the current status quo. In this article, I examine the fundamental ideological challenges for the new egalitarian approaches and argue that instead of making dichotomous distinction between utopianism and realism, realistically utopian approach is the most desirable.