Suchergebnisse

This article explores the concept of "human security" as an academic & fledgling policy movement that seeks to place the individual -- or people collectively -- as the referent of security. It does this against a background of evolving transnational norms relating to security & governance, & the development of scientific understanding that challenges orthodox conceptions of security. It suggests that human security is not a coherent or objective school of thought. Rather, there are different, & sometimes competing, conceptions of human security that may reflect different sociological/cultural & geostrategic orientations. The article argues that the emergence of the concept of human security -- as a broad, multifaceted, & evolving conception of security -- reflects the impact of values & norms on international relations. It also embraces a range of alliances, actors, & agendas that have taken us beyond the traditional scope of international politics & diplomacy. As a demonstration of change in international relations, of evolving identities & interests, this is best explained with reference to "social constructivist" thought, in contradistinction with the structural realist mainstream of international relations. In a constructivist vein, the article suggests that empirical research is already building a case in support of human security thinking that is, slowly, being acknowledged by decisionmakers, against the logic of realist determinism. 46 References. Adapted from the source document.

Op het terrein van de sociologische discoursanalyse in Nederland neemt Gerhard Nijhof een bijzondere positie in. Samen met Paul ten Have kan hij beschouwd worden als een van de nestors op dit gebied. Maar in tegenstelling tot Paul ten Have, die vooral naam heeft gemaakt op het terrein van de conversatieanalyse, heeft Gerhard Nijhof zich vooral gestort op de manier waarop sociale werkelijkheden via taal geconstrueerd worden. Gerhard Nijhof is al vanaf begin jaren tachtig actief in de ontwikkeling van een benadering die hij in navolging van Peter Zima aanduidt als tekstsociologie. Tekstsociologie is ook de titel van het boek, dat eind 2003 van de persen rolde. Het boek pretendeert geen systematische inleiding te geven, maar is een bundel van ten dele eerder gepubliceerde en soms enigszins bewerkte artikelen. Het boek laat zich lezen als een persoonlijke ontdekkingstocht in het veld van discoursanalyse. Mede daardoor is het een zeer leesbaar boek. De keerzijde van een bundeling met eerder verschenen artikelen is echter dat sommige theoretische argumentaties wel erg vaak herhaald worden. Toch is het een boek dat aan te bevelen is aan degenen, die zich willen oriënteren in deze manier van sociologie bedrijven.

Epistemology, as I understand it, is a branch of philosophy especially concerned with general questions about how we can know various things or at least justify our beliefs about them. It questions what counts as evidence and what are reasonable sources of doubt. Traditionally, episte-mology focuses on pervasive and apparently basic assumptions covering a wide range of claims to knowledge or justified belief rather than very specific, practical puzzles. For example, traditional epistemologists ask "How do we know there are material objects?" and not "How do you know which are the female beetles?" Similarly,moralepistemology, as I understand it, is concerned with general questions about how we can know or justify our beliefs about moral matters. Its focus, again, is on quite general, pervasive, and apparently basic assumptions about what counts as evidence, what are reasonable sources of doubt, and what are the appropriate procedures for justifying particular moral claims.

In Political Liberalism, John Rawls describes a metaethical procedure -- political constructivism -- whereby political theorists formulate political principles by assembling and reworking ideas from the public political culture. To many of his moral realist and moral constructivist critics, Rawls's procedure is simply a recent version of the "popular moral philosophy" that Kant excoriates in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. In this article, I defend the idea of political constructivism on philosophical and political grounds. Initially, I argue that political constructivism is the best available methodology for self-legislating, socially embedded and fallible human beings; then I show that political constructivism may produce principles that could garner the principled assent of Euro-American Muslims such as Taha Jabir Al-Alwani. The article concludes by considering how political constructivism might be employed to formulate new political principles for Euro-American societies experiencing and confronting the Islamic revival. Adapted from the source document.