Suchergebnisse

First, a comment on all three papers. The authors seem to confuse the terms dissent and dissenter with nationalism and nationalist. To me the two types of concepts are quite different. Nationalists are concerned with the establishment, exaltation, liberation or preservation of their own ethnic group–nation. Their intellectual position is basically amoral. I do not mean to imply that they have no morals, but that moral issues have little emphasis in their arguments and polemics. In contrast, the dissenters argue that some government action, law or policy is morally wrong and ought to be stopped or repealed. There may be similarities in the tactics adopted and issues espoused by these two groups. Still, scholars and especially behavioral scientists ought to keep the two types separate for analytical purposes. Of the three papers under discussion the one that "sins" the most in this respect is the one by Mr. Parming. And yet there the differentiation should have been the most explicit since the paper is trying to come to grips with the question from a theoretical point of view.

The student and scholar interested in Baltic studies face obstacles and difficulties not encountered in more popular fields. First, and at the root of many of the problems, is that the area is not well known to the average scholar in North America, to say nothing of the general public. This, among other things, means that funding, resources and scholarly respectability are to a large degree lacking.