Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this thesis is to develop a new perspective for the classification of sectarian forms of organisation and the study of their dynamics . It is not intended as a definitive study of any particular group s or of the British far-left as a whole . Existing typologies of sectarianism in the sociology of religion are subjected to a critique on two grounds: 1) They often have a theological characters based on the content of the belief systems of sects rather than on the social structure . 2) Their roots lie in an 'essentialist' tradition of static hierarchical classifications of dynamic phenomena . One of the reasons for studying political groups in this context is that they have not been subjected to these classificatory assumptions, and can be approached more objectively in the development of new perspectives . The argument proceeds to the exposition of grid and group, both as a 'polythetic' system of classification and as one based on a matrix rather than a hierarchy . This provides us with a potentially dynamic classificatory approach . In order to test and advance the model two themes are selected for special attention in terms of grid and groups from an historical review of the far-left since the second world war. These are the schismatic character of the groups and their tendency toward . utopianism which are examined in selected groups over the decade that followed their watershed of 1968 . Utopianism is discussed in the framework of the relationship posited by grid and group , between spatial and temporal aspects of the cosmology and the social structure . It is argued that this approach is more informative than traditional general notions of relative deprivation . Splits and alliances are examined in terms of the organisational dynamics and mode of exercise of power in sectarian forms; and conclusions are drawn about the patterns of relative stability which emerge as groups are distributed across the grid/group matrix . Finally the distribution of power within the selected groups is compared with the perceptions o f the members o f how power is exercised .

Some scientists suggest that it might be possible to reflect a portion of incoming sunlight back into space to reduce some of the impacts of climate change. Others argue that such solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering is inherently incompatible with democracy. We draw the following claims from articulations of this argument: (1) that SRM would stretch democratic institutions to the breaking point; (2) that it would preclude opting out, which is essential to democracy; (3) that it would require undue technocracy; and (4) that it would concentrate power and promote authoritarianism. Underlying these claims are two implicit assumptions, that technology has predetermined social effects, and that democracy should be deliberative in orientation. In this article, we reject the argument that SRM is necessarily incompatible with democracy. First, we counter-argue that SRM lacks innate political characteristics, and that democracy need not be deliberative to serve as a standard for governance. We then rebut each of the above claims, countering that democratic institutions are resilient; that opting out is not essential to democracy; that SRM might not require undue technocracy; and that its implementation might not promote authoritarianism. Although we reject the incompatibility argument, we do not argue that SRM is necessarily, or even likely to be, democratic in practice