Suchergebnisse

In the past few years, the area of politics and culture has moved from the margins of cultural inquiry to its center as evidenced by the number of persons who identify themselves as working within the area and by its growing institutionalization within sociology. "Politics and culture" suggests that each term constitutes an autonomous social realm; whereas "political culture" suggests the boundaries of cultural action within which ordinary politics occurs. Bourdieu's emphasis on boundary making, Foucault's disciplinary mechanisms, and Habermas's conception of the public are setting the research agenda of scholars who focus on macro-level social change. Interdisciplinary dialogues are emerging, conducted on a landscape of historical and contemporary empirical research. Four sub-areas have crystallized: first, political culture, which focuses on problems of democratization and civil society; second, institutions, which includes law, religion, the state, and citizenship; third, political communication and meaning; and fourth, cultural approaches to collective action. Promising directions for future work are historical ethnographies, participant observation and interview studies of political communication, and studies of political mobilization that examine how emotion operates in politics. Paradigms are not yet firm within this area, suggesting that politics and culture is a disciplinary site of theoretical, methodological, and empirical innovation.

This paper argues that the distribution of material capabilities in state society relations is the main factor shaping the regime of Middle Eastern states. This premise suggests that sustainable democracy in the Arab world fails to flourish because states with their centralized bureaucracies are too powerful compared to the large portions of the societies. Even with the somewhat limited power and influence of the most affluent members of civil society, there are no real autonomous actors in the Middle Eastern beyond the central state. Civil Society is too weak to check the state's continuing power. This is the most fundamental cause for the lack of democratization in the Middle East. States are too strong societies are too weak.

Does an open open society require a free market? Dr Naomi Moldoisky of the University of Melbourne reinforces Hayek's insistence that free societies must rest on free markets.

In this polemical analysis of the rise of neoliberalism in the UK and the political culture it threw up, the author argues that the market state no longer serves the nation, but transnational capital. Consequently, inequality and poverty have been structured into society. Government rhetoric about the small state, 'big society' and localism are cons that smooth the way to privatisation, the undermining of democracy, and the imposition of market morality. It is by resisting the market state and its political culture that new social movements can 'socialise' global capital-in-crisis as the labour movement once socialised industrial capital.

Nowadays, when we talk about democracy and civil society, it is simply impossible to imagine it without freedom of speech and expression. The right of the human to express any thought in any manner is of great importance to the democratic society. Speech is used to express thoughts and opinions. When people face limitations in speech, they face limitations in thoughts. Certain ideas cannot reach their minds because they do not know about their existence. Freedom of speech is often considered as liberty and primary principle of a fullfledged society. It's an individual right, which is to be available to everyone. Freedom of speech takes special place in democratic countries. Freedom is an integral part of democratic society and in this case it is considered as a positive right, but it does not exist in its absolute form all the time. There are certain restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, especially when it crosses the border into hate speech. The theme of this paper is just for distinguishing the moment of crossing the border in free expression. Also, since we are living in a democratic society, we should behave that way. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize and avoid hate speech, to behave responsibly, with dignity and with respect for anyone who is different from us, in any sense.