Suchergebnisse

Wittgenstein and Normative Inquiry -- Copyright -- Contents -- List of Contributors -- 1: Introduction: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Normative Inquiry -- 2: Normativity and Ethics in the Tractatus: Method, Self and Value -- 3: Wittgenstein: Values, Normative Inquiry, and the Problem of "Criticizing from Outside" -- 4: Wittgenstein's Blue Book, Linguistic Meaning and Music -- 5: Wittgenstein in Pitkin's Republic -- 6: "The Machine as Symbol": Wittgenstein's Contribution to the Politics of Judgment and Freedom in Contemporary Democratic Theory

This is the first book to focus on governance and cultures of consumption, expanding the debate and raising new conceptions and policy agendas. It questions the changing place of the consumer as citizen in recent trends in governance, the tensions between competing ideas and practices of consumerism, and the active role of consumers in governance

The Encyclopedia of Governance provides a one-stop point of reference for the diverse and complex topics surrounding governance for the period between the collapse of the post-war consensus and the rise of neoliberal regimes in the 1970s. This comprehensive resource concentrates primarily on topics related to the changing nature and role of the state in recent times and the ways in which these roles have been conceptualized in the areas of Political Science, Public Administration, Political Economy, and Sociology.

This article responds to Charlotta Friedner Parrat's critique of our argument that the English School of international relations should embrace a more thoroughgoing interpretivism. We address four of Friedner Parrat's objections to our argument: that our distinction between structuralism and interpretivism is too stark; that our understanding of the relationship between agency and structure is problematic; that our approach would confine the English School to the study of intellectual history; and that the English School should eschew explanation. We argue that if the School is to use structuralism, it must be clearer about how it understands structures and their relationships to agents. We argue too that interpretivism not only offers a better account of situated agency, but also that it provides the English School with one way to move beyond the description and classification of institutions in international society towards better explanations of international relations.

This article introduces the Special Issue on 'Interpretivism and the English School of International Relations'. It distinguishes between what we term the interpretivist and structuralist wings of the school and argues that disagreement about its preferred approach to the study of international relations has generated confusion about what it stands for and weakened its capacity to respond to alternative approaches. It puts the case for a reconsideration of the underlying philosophical positions that the school wishes to affirm and suggests that a properly grounded interpretivism may serve it best. The final part of the article discusses the topics and arguments of the remaining pieces in the Special Issue.

This article analyses the evolution of the English school's approach to international relations from the work of the early British Committee in the late 1950s and early 1960s to its revival in the 1990s and afterwards. It argues that the school's so-called 'classical approach' was shaped by the crisis of developmental historicism brought on by the First World War and by the reactions of historians like Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight to the rise of modernist social science in the twentieth century. It characterises the classical approach, as advanced by Hedley Bull, as a form of 'reluctant modernism' with underlying interpretivist commitments and unresolved tensions with modernist approaches. It argues that to resolve some of the confusion concerning its preferred approach to the study of international relations, the English school should return to the interpretivist commitments of its early thinkers.

Many advocates of interpretive approaches to the study of politics emphasize that what is at stake is a conflict between "quantitative" versus "qualitative" methods. By contrast, we begin by suggesting that political scientists are free to use whichever method they find most useful for their research purposes. Instead of methodological reasons for making the interpretive turn, political scientists have ethical reasons for adopting this paradigm. In particular, interpretive approaches give political scientists a better account of the nature and role of values in human life, a sense for how the historical past is ethically relevant, the ability to advance politically engaged sociologies, and a deliberative critique of technocracy. Political scientists should be free to critically engage, scrutinize, and even normatively evaluate human ethical positions.