Suchergebnisse

Relations between the center and regions in Russia, being always in the limelight of attention in political science literature, remain a battlefield of different scholarly interpretations. Several narratives shape the current debate on Russian subnational regionalism or, in very legalistic terms, "federalism." One is bent on applying to Russia such normatively-loaded concepts as multilevel and networked governance, meta-governance, indigenous governance, civil society participation, and others with strong liberal and institutional pedigrees. In this vein, Russia might be referred to—for example, along with Germany and France—as a "post-imperial democracy," with an implicit anticipation of the prefix "post-" to signify Moscow's commitment to a democratic, rather than imperial, future. Seen from this perspective, with all its specificity Russia still conforms to basic standards of democratic rule and therefore can be approached, described, and analyzed in the language applicable to the liberal west, where institutions mitigate controversies over interests and create consensus over rules of the game.

AbstractThis paper argues for two interrelated claims. The first is that the most innovative contribution of Timothy Williamson, Herman Cappelen, and Max Deutsch (a.k.a., the intuition deniers) in the debate about the epistemology of thought experiments is not the denial of intuition and the claim of the irrelevance of experimental philosophy but the claim of epistemological continuity and the rejection of philosophical exceptionalism. The second is that a better way of implementing the claim of epistemological continuity is not Deutsch and Cappelen's argument view or Williamson's folk psychological view (i.e., off-line simulation). This is so because while the argument view makes the basis of the relevant classificational judgement evidentially too demanding; the folk psychological view makes it too weak and error-prone to count as an adequate explanation. Drawing from a certain reading of Aristotle'sNichomachean Ethicsthat flowers in Miranda Fricker and John McDowell, I argue for the reason-responsiveness view. Like the extant views, the reason-responsiveness view vindicates the claim of epistemological continuity. But unlike the extant views, it does not share those problematic features. Further, I show that the reason-responsiveness view offers a way for champions of the claim of epistemological continuity to resist Avner Baz's objection to the claim of epistemological continuity and his objection to the philosophical use of thought experiments while taking on board some attractive elements of his view.

1916 was the year Randolph Bourne published his inspirational essay "Transnational America". Amidst the fanaticism of xenophobic discourses, intellectual and political persecution, and the call to war, Bourne tenaciously stood up to a liberating and reinvigorating ideal of cosmopolitan citizenship that would redefine the terms of identity, belonging, and the nation itself. This paper will attempt a critique of Bourne's thesis in light of later arguments for cosmopolitanism (Bhabha, 1996; Appiah, 1996), as a way to shed more light on both the potentials and the limitations of Bourne's theory. Particular attention will be paid to important to his search for an organic culture linking high and low cultural forms that valued ethnic difference against 'melting-pot' homogeneity vis-à-vis the narrative of American exceptionalism that still undergirds his theory, in order to discuss contradictions usually underplayed in the criticism of Bourne's work.

This essay examines Texas representative Ron Paul's foreign policy discourse during the 2008 presidential campaign. The author argues that Paul encased his opposition to America's foreign policy within a secular jeremiad. Although Paul failed to win any of the Republican primaries, his opposition to America's involvement with Iraq and other parts of the globe is a microcosm of a larger debate occurring among U.S. foreign policy elites on the extent of America's role within the world and about the very nature of its exceptional status. This analysis informs a theoretical understanding of American exceptionalism and interrogates a larger debate in U.S. foreign policy.

This essay examines presidential candidate Bill Clinton's rhetoric regarding America's role in the world during the 1992 presidential campaign. Despite the fact that foreign policy was George H.W. Bush's strength during the campaign, candidate Clinton was able to develop a coherent vision for America's role in the world that he carried into his presidency. I argue he did so by fusing together the American exceptionalist missions of exemplar and intervention. In doing so, Clinton altered a tension embedded in debates over U.S. foreign policy rhetoric. To further differentiate his candidacy from President Bush, Clinton encased this discourse within a secular jeremiad that offered Clinton the opportunity to attack President Bush on the one hand, while articulating his own vision for American domestic and international affairs.

The international system faces two antithetical transnational forces. On the one hand, there is globalization, and on the other a prevalent rise in nationalist and sovereign claims emerging as a backlash to the growing net of transnational relations. Subsequently and following the revolution in individualization since the Cold War, individuals now have more than one social affiliation, and their affiliative choices are taken increasingly autonomously. With their presence in processes of foreign affairs, public demands can no longer be overlooked. The present article discusses the governmental and NGO actors of fundamental freedom across the globe, international advocacy aimed at either reaching global agreements, or at pointing out violations, and public diplomacy as the gray area between human rights and diplomatic practice. The second part of the article has for subject the interplay between foreign policy and human rights, and the improvement of human rights mediation. O. van Zijl

This essay examines the rhetorical arguments of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and President Woodrow Wilson as they relate to the League of Nations. While this subject has been studied before, it is argued that the debate should also be understood through the lens of America's exceptionalist narratives. The League of Nations deliberations serve as a microcosm of a much larger tension within the history of U.S. foreign relations about America's role within the world. By examining the rhetoric of Cabot Lodge and Wilson, we obtain a deeper understanding of this important historical event and American foreign policy culture.

La tematización que Martin Heidegger realizó sobre la noción de "lo político" fue siempre subsidiaria respecto de la primacía que el autor de Sein und Zeit le asignó a la de πόλις, entendida como el sitio esencial en el que la historia se despliega. Contra Heidegger, sin embargo, la referencia a "lo político" se multiplica en la filosofía política contemporánea. En años recientes, de hecho, un "giro ontológico" en esta disciplina ha proclamado una distinción analítica entre "la política" —ámbito referido a las prácticas y expresiones empíricas de las relaciones de poder y toma de decisiones— y "lo político" —es decir, el modo en el que la sociedad es instituida. Paradójicamente, Heidegger fue entendido como el precursor teórico de esta maniobra, también denominada "diferencia política". Esta problemática re-apropriación de la "diferencia ontológica" heideggeriana indica que "la política" refiere al nivel de los entes, mientras que "lo político" tiene estricta relación con el ámbito del ser. Poniendo atención en la reflexión heideggeriana sobre das Politische, sin embargo, el presente texto problematiza esta re-apropiación contemporánea, considerando el problema teórico que está a la base de la transpolación de la ontología fundamental al ámbito de la política. En particular, se buscará mostrar la manera en la que Heidegger lidió con lo que puede ser entendido como una "fascinación por lo extra-ordinario", impugnando la omnipresencia de "lo político". Una interrogación guiará nuestra examinación, a saber: ¿Heidegger sucumbió ante esta fascinación? O más apropiadamente, ¿su obra resulta aprisionada entre la crítica a la imposición del esencialismo metafísico en la modernidad y una "fascinación por lo extraordinario" tal como la que es asumida inexaminadamente en el elogio contemporáneo de "lo político"? ; Martin Heidegger's thematization of the notion of das Politische was always secondary to the primacy he assigned to πόλις, understood as the essential site of history's unfolding. In contrast to Heidegger, reference to das Politische is becoming more prevalent in contemporary political philosophy. In recent years, in fact, an "ontological turn" in political philosophy has claimed an analytical distinction between "politics"—which refers to the manifold practices and empirical expressions of power relations and decision-making—and "the political"—understood as the way in which society is instituted. Paradoxically, however, several authors have traced Heidegger's notion of "ontological difference" as precursory to this theoretical maneuver called "political difference." This questionable re-appropriation of "ontological difference" assumes that "politics" refers to the level of beings, while "the political" strictly relates to the realm of being. Focusing on Heidegger's considerations on das Politische, my paper will problematize this contemporary re-appropriation by emphasizing the theoretical problem inherent to the extrapolation of politics from ontology. In particular, I will attempt to show how Heidegger dealt with what can be understood as a "fascination with the extraordinary" by rejecting the omnipresence of das Politische. The main question that guides my entire examination is whether Heidegger succumbed to this fascination. Or, more specifically, is Heidegger's work confined by his critique of the imposition of metaphysical essentialism in modernity and a "fascination with the extraordinary" that contemporary re-appropriations simply overlook in their adoption of "the political"?