Suchergebnisse

A vast body of literature emphasizes that successful political development relies on stable and united political parties that underpin clear and responsive policymaking. By this perspective, divided government and party volatility represent pathologies that imperil political accountability and development. Indeed, studies contend that divided government - where different parties control the executive and legislative branches of government - lead to policy deadlock while party volatility - characterized by frequent party splits, solo switches, mergers, dissolutions or the establishment of new parties - confounds representation and accountability. Clearly, each on its own is seen as a considerable threat to political performance and democratic development; the confluence of the two points virtually to an inevitable political doom.

A vast body of literature emphasizes that successful political development relies on stable and united political parties that underpin clear and responsive policymaking. By this perspective, divided government and party volatility represent pathologies that imperil political accountability and development. Indeed, studies contend that divided government - where different parties control the executive and legislative branches of government - lead to policy deadlock while party volatility - characterized by frequent party splits, solo switches, mergers, dissolutions or the establishment of new parties - confounds representation and accountability. Clearly, each on its own is seen as a considerable threat to political performance and democratic development; the confluence of the two points virtually to an inevitable political doom.

A vast body of literature emphasizes that successful political development relies on stable and united political parties that underpin clear and responsive policymaking. By this perspective, divided government and party volatility represent pathologies that imperil political accountability and development. Indeed, studies contend that divided government – where different parties control the executive and legislative branches of government – lead to policy deadlock while party volatility – characterized by frequent party splits, solo switches, mergers, dissolutions or the establishment of new parties – confounds representation and accountability. Clearly, each on its own is seen as a considerable threat to political performance and democratic development; the confluence of the two points virtually to an inevitable political doom.

The broadest concept of defense is that of preventing unwanted change. This implies human evaluations of complex systems, estimating a given change as for the better or for the worse. The distinction between perceived betterment and actual betterment is difficult to make, but not meaningless. 'National Defense' is particularly concerned with conflict systems and threat systems. A conflict process is a change in which one party is perceived to become better off, the other worse off. Again there may be a difference between perceived and actual conflict. Threat systems originate when one party says 'You do something 1 want, or 1 will do something you don't want'. Possible responses are submission, defiance, flight, counterthreat (deterrence), or threat diminution (armor, walls). National defense is basically non-economic; it does not justify itself by cost-benefit analysis, but by absolute values of sacrifice and sacredness. The state is strengthened by sacrificing its own soldiers, not by killing the enemy, for that makes the enemy sacred. National defense however now threatens to destroy us all. The most important conflict in the world today is that between the unilateral national defense organizations of the world and the human race itself. The only national defense that is now feasible is stable peace.

For generations, critical social theorists have turned to the framing of 'pathology' to provide a theoretical infrastructure for their critique. Such an approach famously undergirds much of the Frankfurt School's canonical work. Axel Honneth, current chair of the Institute of Social Research, continues this tradition. While Frankfurt School approaches have largely tied pathology diagnosis to a critique of historically mediated reason, a plurality of alternate conceptions exist. With the ascendancy of an intersubjective approach to critical social theory, the pathologies of the social have increasingly been comprehended as 'pathologies of recognition'. Advocates of such a framing point to the ease of establishing an immanent basis to their critique, and of the empirical evidence supporting the need for recognition. Yet, today's academy is increasingly spilt between those who embrace a 'pathologies of recognition' framework, and those who consider the development a 'domestication' of the Critical Theoretical tradition. This special issue brings together contributors from both sides of this divide. While the optimal framing of social pathology remains contested, the contributors to this collection are committed to furthering forms of social critique which transcend the limited liberal framings of injustice and illegitimacy.

This paper is an introduction to the special issue on Pathologies of Recognition. The first subsection briefly introduces the notion of recognition and trace its development from Fichte and Hegel to Honneth and his critics, and the second subsection turns to the concept of a social pathology. The third section provides a brief look at the individual papers.

If cultural evolution is purposive cities should have improved the quality of human life. City life is examined first in relation to the satisfaction of human needs. The inner areas of giant cities are perceived by their inhabitants as undesirable places to live. But the special problems of giant cities when subject to closer analysis are seen to be rooted in the larger pathology of the thrust for growth and power in modern civilisation.