Suchergebnisse

The Ministry of Science of the Republic of Croatia decided on a new "Rule book of definition of scientific areas". By the "Book", politology is a scientific field in the area of social sciences. The field is divided in three branches: 1. politology, 2. theory and history of politics, 3. political philosophy. The author of this article shows by documents how the "political science" is quite differently structured by IPSA and APSA, and describes 120 years of dominantly American development of "political science" and of professions of political scientists which brought out a recent new world standard with around 100 subdisciplines and areas of expertise which are structured in 8 fundamental disciplines: 1. political institutions, 2. political behaviour, 3. comparative politics, 4. internationa relations, 5. political theory, 6. public policy and public administration/management, 7. political economy, 8. political methodology. The author points out that a voluntaristic intervention in the definition of scientific areas could mean an attack on development of science, research organisation, renewal of teaching staff on University, and on academic education of political scientists, as well as on internationally comparable competence of Croatian experts, and Croatian democratic political thought and political culture in general. (SOI : PM: S. 240)

The thirtieth anniversary of the Casopis za suvremenu povijest published by the Hrvatski institut za povijest (Croatian Institute for History) in Zagreb (1969-1999) gives the occasion for a review and analysis of its contents, looks, and accomplishments. Casopis was initiated at the then Institute za historiju radnickog pokreta Hrvatske (The Institute for History of the Workers Movement in Croatia) in order to expand the research beyond workers and their political and union organisations and beyond the period of the World War II, which were dominant themes at the Institute. This intention resulted in the expansion of the research and in the publication of the results in the journal. The tradition of co-operation with researchers outside of the Institute and with those abroad continued. The journal published numerous themes from national history as well as history of other nations and minorities. The problems of historical methodology and of evaluation of books and other works were not neglected. One of the marks of the journal is the presence of polemics. The journal succeeded in maintaining these characteristics in spite of changes of the political situations, by which it was stamped. (SOI : CSP: S. 459)

Defining the dimensions of political culture is a precondition in the elaboration of the theory of this phenomenon and for its systematic empirical study. It has been demonstrated that Almond-Verba's concept of the dimensions of political culture, in the form of a matrix of the three orientations (cognitive, affective, and evaluative) times four political objects ("system", "input-objects", "output-objects" and "I" as an object) is not plausible. If political culture is defined as a set of beliefs about polit (which it indeed is), then it is clear that each belief at the same time contains an intricate mix of knowledge, emotions, and evaluations. This makes it difficult to determine the dimensions according to the mentioned orientations. It seems this was sensed by Almond himself in one of his later works. Using his more recent concept, we define the dimensions of political culture according to the "objects" of politics and not vice versa, according to the orientations in relation to these "objects". Thus we have elaborated on the three fundamental dimensions according to the three fundamental objects of politics: the "system" as a universal object, the "process" as a dynamic object of politics, and the "conduct" as a manner of decision-making and the outcome of governing. It has been found that each of these basic dimensions of political culture has a series of subdimensions (a total of about twenty-five). Surely, this matrix may be added to or perhaps amended, but basically it is unassailable, since it represents a sort of a map of political culture. (SOI : PM: S. 137)