Suchergebnisse

The aim of this article is to show transformations of social services (social security, health care, education, social care and social work) in the perspective of welfare pluralism. The analysis shows that the development of social services in Western capitalist countries went through three different stages. In the first stage the major provider of social services was voluntary sector (NGO) and only at the end of eighteenth century public social services were established. The rapid growth and extension of publically provided social services in Western societies started after World War II. This period of social services development is characterized by the tendency to transfer the responsibility for social risks from private to public realm and is called the golden age of the welfare state. Since the end of 1970s the conception of welfare state undergoes sharp critique in Western democratic countries. The article claims that the new type of social services system, radically different from the postwar welfare state, is emerging.

The aim of this article is to show transformations of social services (social security, health care, education, social care and social work) in the perspective of welfare pluralism. The analysis shows that the development of social services in Western capitalist countries went through three different stages. In the first stage the major provider of social services was voluntary sector (NGO) and only at the end of eighteenth century public social services were established. The rapid growth and extension of publically provided social services in Western societies started after World War II. This period of social services development is characterized by the tendency to transfer the responsibility for social risks from private to public realm and is called the golden age of the welfare state. Since the end of 1970s the conception of welfare state undergoes sharp critique in Western democratic countries. The article claims that the new type of social services system, radically different from the postwar welfare state, is emerging.

The aim of this article is to show transformations of social services (social security, health care, education, social care and social work) in the perspective of welfare pluralism. The analysis shows that the development of social services in Western capitalist countries went through three different stages. In the first stage the major provider of social services was voluntary sector (NGO) and only at the end of eighteenth century public social services were established. The rapid growth and extension of publically provided social services in Western societies started after World War II. This period of social services development is characterized by the tendency to transfer the responsibility for social risks from private to public realm and is called the golden age of the welfare state. Since the end of 1970s the conception of welfare state undergoes sharp critique in Western democratic countries. The article claims that the new type of social services system, radically different from the postwar welfare state, is emerging.

The aim of this article is to show transformations of social services (social security, health care, education, social care and social work) in the perspective of welfare pluralism. The analysis shows that the development of social services in Western capitalist countries went through three different stages. In the first stage the major provider of social services was voluntary sector (NGO) and only at the end of eighteenth century public social services were established. The rapid growth and extension of publically provided social services in Western societies started after World War II. This period of social services development is characterized by the tendency to transfer the responsibility for social risks from private to public realm and is called the golden age of the welfare state. Since the end of 1970s the conception of welfare state undergoes sharp critique in Western democratic countries. The article claims that the new type of social services system, radically different from the postwar welfare state, is emerging.

The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.

The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.

The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.

The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.

There are two dominant groups of theories that try to explain possibilities of the emergence of the European public sphere. The first group of authors are advocates of the supranational European public sphere. They claim that three key conditions have to be satisfied that European public sphere could emerge: there should be common language and culture, supranational media and common European identity. These theories argue that it is impossible to satisfy the conditions; so supranational European public sphere is non-existent. Cultural pluralism is seen as a key obstacle. The second set of theories is looking for the Europeanised national public spheres. Scholars assert that cultural pluralism is not a barrier, some of them even speak about the existence of Europeanised public spheres. To summarise, theories of the European public sphere give different answers to the question how cultural pluralism influences public discussions, whether it is a major impediment to the emergence of European public sphere or not. The paper aims to analyse if understanding is possible and achievable in multicultural public sphere between representatives of different cultures. This question is not widely developed in literature; moreover, there is a lack of empirical research in this domain. So, the paper seeks to fill this gap. The paper uses Habermasian definition of the public sphere: it is a sphere produced through the communicative action. Rational and critical discussions take place in the public sphere, communicating sides seek understanding and agreement. In order to answer the question, European Parliament plenary sessions are examined using discourse analysis method. In this paper 20 European Parliament plenary sitting from year 1999 to 2007 are analysed. Discussions in the sittings were related to the question of Turkey's accession to the European Union. Metaphors used by speakers of different nationalities were picked from the minutes of parliamentary sittings. Metaphors should not be seen just as rhetorical mean, they are used to understand abstract phenomena in terms of concrete experience. Metaphor analysis reveals how speaker understands certain situations. As a result, it is possible to evaluate how different members of the European Parliament understand the same things, whether they give divergent or similar meanings to the metaphor, whether their use of the word is culturally specific or not. This analysis showed that representatives of different cultures use the same conceptual metaphors at the universal level. However, they use special metaphoric expressions at the lower level, emphasise different details. This research has showed that the same word can invoke different associations between people of different cultures. This means that the possibility of rational and critical discussions in the multicultural public sphere becomes limited. Several conclusions are made relying on the results of the European Parliament discourse analysis. Firstly, cultural pluralism can create a background for misunderstanding and misinterpretation in the public sphere. Second, linguistic pluralism may also become an obstacle because some aspects of meaning may be lost in the processes of translation between languages. Even if one common language (lingua franca) would be used in discussion, culturally different meanings can be attached to the same concepts. This research proves that cultural homogeneity would create the best conditions for the public sphere to be formed and to function well, because the possibility of cultural misunderstanding would be minimised. Finally, this paper shows that in order to reach mutual understanding and agreement in multicultural public sphere, it would be advisable to make clear how used concepts are understood by other participants in the public discussion.

There are two dominant groups of theories that try to explain possibilities of the emergence of the European public sphere. The first group of authors are advocates of the supranational European public sphere. They claim that three key conditions have to be satisfied that European public sphere could emerge: there should be common language and culture, supranational media and common European identity. These theories argue that it is impossible to satisfy the conditions; so supranational European public sphere is non-existent. Cultural pluralism is seen as a key obstacle. The second set of theories is looking for the Europeanised national public spheres. Scholars assert that cultural pluralism is not a barrier, some of them even speak about the existence of Europeanised public spheres. To summarise, theories of the European public sphere give different answers to the question how cultural pluralism influences public discussions, whether it is a major impediment to the emergence of European public sphere or not. The paper aims to analyse if understanding is possible and achievable in multicultural public sphere between representatives of different cultures. This question is not widely developed in literature; moreover, there is a lack of empirical research in this domain. So, the paper seeks to fill this gap. The paper uses Habermasian definition of the public sphere: it is a sphere produced through the communicative action. Rational and critical discussions take place in the public sphere, communicating sides seek understanding and agreement. In order to answer the question, European Parliament plenary sessions are examined using discourse analysis method. In this paper 20 European Parliament plenary sitting from year 1999 to 2007 are analysed. Discussions in the sittings were related to the question of Turkey's accession to the European Union. Metaphors used by speakers of different nationalities were picked from the minutes of parliamentary sittings. Metaphors should not be seen just as rhetorical mean, they are used to understand abstract phenomena in terms of concrete experience. Metaphor analysis reveals how speaker understands certain situations. As a result, it is possible to evaluate how different members of the European Parliament understand the same things, whether they give divergent or similar meanings to the metaphor, whether their use of the word is culturally specific or not. This analysis showed that representatives of different cultures use the same conceptual metaphors at the universal level. However, they use special metaphoric expressions at the lower level, emphasise different details. This research has showed that the same word can invoke different associations between people of different cultures. This means that the possibility of rational and critical discussions in the multicultural public sphere becomes limited. Several conclusions are made relying on the results of the European Parliament discourse analysis. Firstly, cultural pluralism can create a background for misunderstanding and misinterpretation in the public sphere. Second, linguistic pluralism may also become an obstacle because some aspects of meaning may be lost in the processes of translation between languages. Even if one common language (lingua franca) would be used in discussion, culturally different meanings can be attached to the same concepts. This research proves that cultural homogeneity would create the best conditions for the public sphere to be formed and to function well, because the possibility of cultural misunderstanding would be minimised. Finally, this paper shows that in order to reach mutual understanding and agreement in multicultural public sphere, it would be advisable to make clear how used concepts are understood by other participants in the public discussion.

The article develops normative assumptions about what the political ideologies, democracy and political parties ought to be and advocates a reconsidered version of liberalism, which is perceived as an alternative to the prevailing modern political ideologies. Assumptions of reconsidered liberalism about the role of ideologies in democracy are generalized in the concept of ideological pluralism. The article also presents a concept of comprehensive democracy as an alternative to representative, direct, deliberative, civic and other modern conceptions of democracies. In this perspective democracy is perceived as a mode of collective decision-making process. Normative criteria for the basic elements of a collective decision making process, i.e.: participants of decision-making processes, decisionmaking procedures, content of decisions and implementation of decisions, are formulated. Assumptions about the alternative role of political parties in democracy are derived from the conception of the comprehensive democracy. It is proposed to assign to political parties functions such as civic education, organizing and moderating public deliberations, monitoring policy implementation.

The article develops normative assumptions about what the political ideologies, democracy and political parties ought to be and advocates a reconsidered version of liberalism, which is perceived as an alternative to the prevailing modern political ideologies. Assumptions of reconsidered liberalism about the role of ideologies in democracy are generalized in the concept of ideological pluralism. The article also presents a concept of comprehensive democracy as an alternative to representative, direct, deliberative, civic and other modern conceptions of democracies. In this perspective democracy is perceived as a mode of collective decision-making process. Normative criteria for the basic elements of a collective decision making process, i.e.: participants of decision-making processes, decisionmaking procedures, content of decisions and implementation of decisions, are formulated. Assumptions about the alternative role of political parties in democracy are derived from the conception of the comprehensive democracy. It is proposed to assign to political parties functions such as civic education, organizing and moderating public deliberations, monitoring policy implementation.

The article, seeking an answer to the question of the role of political parties in the life of each modern democratic state and society, focuses on one of the key issues of the existence of each political party - their funding. Having established that state support in trying to protect these political entities from the potential influence of external individual donors, based on the experience of foreign countries it is necessary to provide insights into the possible models of such financing, their advantages and disadvantages. The article also reviews recent attempts to change the funding model of political parties in the Republic of Lithuania and the reasons for such attempts, and presents arguments that justify the possible influence of such inspirations on political processes in the country.

The article, seeking an answer to the question of the role of political parties in the life of each modern democratic state and society, focuses on one of the key issues of the existence of each political party - their funding. Having established that state support in trying to protect these political entities from the potential influence of external individual donors, based on the experience of foreign countries it is necessary to provide insights into the possible models of such financing, their advantages and disadvantages. The article also reviews recent attempts to change the funding model of political parties in the Republic of Lithuania and the reasons for such attempts, and presents arguments that justify the possible influence of such inspirations on political processes in the country.