Suchergebnisse

"Social science is the science of human interaction. In recent years, behavioral studies, which attempt to interpret human relations in empirically specifiable, if not quantitative terms, have been fruitful, especially in defining concepts such as influence and power. Felix Oppenheim in this book extends the behavioral analysis of power to the key concept of freedom. He uncovers in the process significant connections among influence, control, power, "un-freedom," freedom, dependence, and independence. Like power, freedom is a matter of degree, and Mr. Oppenheim analyzes it in its several dimensions. He distinguishes freedom in the social sense from other empirical meanings, such as freedom of choice, "free will," free actions, and self-determination, as well as from valuational usages of the word, such as "freedom from want" and "government by consent." Indeed, those who proclaim "freedom" as a supreme political goal are often mistaken about their own valuations, or exploit to their own advantage ambiguous notions of freedom held by others. Mr. Oppenheim employs familiar political doctrines to illustrate the confusion stemming from failure to make these distinctions. In his conclusion, which is an inquiry into the meaning of valuing freedom, Mr. Oppenheim carefully avoids propounding value judgments. Though this is an analytic study, Mr. Oppenheim has written it in lucid, non-technical language. It should appeal to readers in many fields--philosophy, political science, sociology, psychology, economics, and law"--Jacket. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

I shall first propose definitions of social freedom (to be distinguished from other concepts of freedom) which could be acceptable regardless of one's moral point of view. The second part examines the possibility of measuring various parameters of social unfreedom and freedom. Finally, I shall inquire into the possibility of aggregating these various magnitudes into a measure of an agent's net total freedom.

It has been argued by T. R. Conrad ('The Debate about Quota Systems,' American Journal of Political Science, 1976, 20, Feb, 135-149) that the concept of egalitarianism is normative as well as descriptive. It is shown that a purely descriptive concept of equality can be formulated & applied to rules in variously organized groups. Any quota system will be inegalitarian to some degree; only purely random selection can be egalitarian, which is not to say that such selection is the best or fairest policy. Modified HA.