Suchergebnisse

"During my first year of graduate school in 1975, Professor Harvey C. Mansfield led a discussion section for graduate students in a survey course on the history of political thought. There he argued that there was a "hole in the center of liberalism," by which he meant that a political philosophy whose central tenet was to permit people maximum freedom to pursue self-defined ends did not contain and probably could not contain standards to guide the best uses of that freedom."(.)

The Perestroikan movement in political science has never sought to have a unified program or agenda or any formal organizational existence. It has instead provided venues—public letters, conference panels and receptions, and especially a listserve—through which political scientists could air and debate their dissatisfactions with and their aspirations for the profession. Many concerns have surfaced, but the three most persistent have been calls for broader recognition of the contributions of non-quantitative methods, exhortations to pursue more substantively significant research topics, and advocacy of competitive elections in the American Political Science Association.

It is perhaps worth noting at the outset that I am fascinated by discussions of methodology in the context of particular, actual research projects. But I find most books and articles on methodology to be rather tedious. Some are heavy-handed in selling the author's pet approach, and in the case of even the best advice, I often find myself thinking of all the intellectual and logistical reasons it would have to be modified for real projects of which I'm aware. I've nonetheless occasionally participated in more general and abstract discussions of methodology, for two reasons: I know they are a necessary part of promoting shared understandings in our field of what constitutes good or at least legitimate political science, and I know that students entering the field do need some general guidance before they can come to grips with the specific challenges presented by their own research interests.

"How can liberals offer 'stories of peoplehood' that can compete with illiberal populist and nationalist stories? Rogers Smith has long argued for the importance of 'stories of peoplehood' in constituting political communities. By enabling a people to tell others and themselves who they are, such stories establish the people's identity and values and guide its actions. They can promote national unity and unity of groups within and across nations. Smith argues that nationalist populists have done a better job than liberals in providing stories of peoplehood that advance their worldview: the nation as ethnically defined, threatened by enemies, and blameless for its troubles, which come from its victimization by malign elites and foreigners. Liberals need to offer their own stories expressing more inclusive values. Analyzing three liberal stories of peoplehood--hose of John Dewey, Barack Obama, and Abraham Lincoln--Smith argues that all have value and all are needed, though he sees Lincoln's, based on the Declaration of Independence, as the most promising."--

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction -- Part I. Theorizing Peoplehood -- One. Stories of Peoplehood and the Spiral of Politics -- Two. A Theory of the Politics of People Building -- Three. Narrative Structures and the Politics of Peoplehood (with Meral Ugur Cinar) -- Four. Personal Stories and Communal Stories in the Politics of Peoplehood -- Part II. Exploring American Peoplehood -- Five. Individual Rights in American Stories of Peoplehood -- Six. Contesting Meaning and Membership in American Peoplehood -- Part III. Moderating Peoplehood -- Seven. From Providentialism and Exceptionalism to a Politics of Moderate Peoplehood -- Eight. The American "Promiseland" and Mexican Immigrants -- Nine. Multiple Citizenships and the Legacies of Imperialism -- Epilogue -- Acknowledgments -- Notes -- References -- Index.

From anxiety about Muslim immigrants in Western Europe to concerns about undocumented workers and cross-border security threats in the United States, disputes over immigration have proliferated and intensified in recent years. These debates are among the most contentious facing constitutional democracies, and they show little sign of fading away.Edited and with an introduction by political scientist Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship, Borders, and Human Needs brings together essays by leading international scholars from a wide range of disciplines to explore the economic, cultural, political, and normative aspects of comparative immigration policies. In the first section, contributors go beyond familiar explanations of immigration's economic effects to explore whose needs are truly helped and harmed by current migration patterns. The concerns of receiving countries include but are not limited to their economic interests, and several essays weigh different models of managing cultural identity and conflict in democracies with large immigrant populations.Other essays consider the implications of immigration for politics and citizenship. In many nations, large-scale immigration challenges existing political institutions, which must struggle to foster political inclusion and accommodate changing ways of belonging to the polity. The volume concludes with contrasting reflections on the normative standards that should guide immigration policies in modern constitutional democracies.Citizenship, Borders, and Human Needs develops connections between thoughtful scholarship and public policy, thereby advancing public debate on these complex and divisive issues. Though most attention in the collection is devoted to the dilemmas facing immigrant-receiving countries in the West, the volume also explores policies and outcomes in immigrant-sending countries, as well as the situation of developing nations-such as India-that are net receivers of migrants

Is civic identity in the United States really defined by liberal, democratic political principles? Or is U.S. citizenship the product of multiple traditions-not only liberalism and republicanism but also white supremacy, Anglo-Saxon supremacy, Protestant supremacy, and male supremacy? In this powerful and disturbing book, Rogers Smith traces political struggles over U.S. citizenship laws from the colonial period through the Progressive era and shows that throughout this time, most adults were legally denied access to full citizenship, including political rights, solely because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Basic conflicts over these denials have driven political development and civic membership in the U.S., Smith argues. These conflicts are what truly define U.S. civic identity up to this day.Others have claimed that nativist, racist, and sexist traditions have been marginal or that they are purely products of capitalist institutions. In contrast, Smith's pathbreaking account explains why these traditions have been central to American political and economic life. He shows that in the politics of nation building, principles of democracy and liberty have often failed to foster a sense of shared "peoplehood" and have instead led many Americans to claim that they are a "chosen people," a "master race" or superior culture, with distinctive gender roles. Smith concludes that today the United States is in a period of reaction against the egalitarian civic reforms of the last generation, with nativist, racist, and sexist beliefs regaining influence. He suggests ways that proponents of liberal democracy should alter their view of U.S. citizenship in order to combat these developments more effectively

How can we build thriving political communities? In this provocative account of how societies are bound together, Rogers Smith examines the importance of 'stories of peoplehood', narratives that promise economic or political power and define political allegiances in religious, cultural, racial, ethnic and related terms. Smith argues that no nations are purely civic: all are bound in part by stories that seek to define elements intrinsic to their members' identities and worth. These types of stories can support valuable forms of political life but they also pose dangers that must be understood if they are to be confronted. In contrast to much contemporary writing, Stories of Peoplehood argues for community-building via robust contestation among sharply differing views. This original argument combines accessible theory with colourful examples of myths and stories from around the world and over 2,500 years of human history

Is civic identity in the United States really defined by liberal, democratic political principles? Or is U.S. citizenship the product of multiple traditions - not only liberalism and republicanism but also white supremacy, Anglo-Saxon supremacy, Protestant supremacy, and male supremacy? In this powerful and disturbing book, Rogers Smith traces political struggles over U.S. citizenship laws from the colonial period through the Progressive era and shows that throughout this time, most adults were legally denied access to full citizenship, including political rights, solely because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Basic conflicts over these denials have driven political development in the U.S., Smith argues. These conflicts are what truly define U.S. civic identity up to this day. Smith concludes that today the United States is in a period of reaction against the egalitarian civic reforms of the last generation, with nativist, racist, and sexist beliefs regaining influence. He suggests ways that proponents of liberal democracy should alter their view of U.S. citizenship in order to combat these developments more effectively

Is civic identity in the United States really defined by liberal, democratic political principles? Or is U.S. citizenship the product of multiple traditions - not only liberalism and republicanism but also white supremacy, Anglo-Saxon supremacy, Protestant supremacy, and male supremacy? In this powerful and disturbing book, Rogers Smith traces political struggles over U.S. citizenship laws from the colonial period through the Progressive era and shows that throughout this time, most adults were legally denied access to full citizenship, including political rights, solely because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Basic conflicts over these denials have driven political development in the U.S., Smith argues. These conflicts are what truly define U.S. civic identity up to this day. Smith concludes that today the United States is in a period of reaction against the egalitarian civic reforms of the last generation, with nativist, racist, and sexist beliefs regaining influence. He suggests ways that proponents of liberal democracy should alter their view of U.S. citizenship in order to combat these developments more effectively.