Suchergebnisse

Should political theorists engage in ethnography? In this letter, we assess a recent wave of interest in ethnography among political theorists and explain why it is a good thing. We focus, in particular, on how ethnographic research generates what Ian Shapiro calls "problematizing redescriptions"—accounts of political phenomena that destabilize the lens through which we traditionally study them, engendering novel questions and exposing new avenues of moral concern. We argue that (1) by revealing new levels of variation and contingency within familiar political phenomena, ethnography can uncover topics ripe for normative inquiry; (2) by shedding light on what meanings people associate with political values, it can advance our reflection on concepts; and (3) by capturing the experience of individuals at grips with the social world, it can attune us to forms of harm that would otherwise remain hidden. The purchase for political theory is considerable. By thickening our understanding of institutions, ethnography serves as an antidote to analytic specialization and broadens the range of questions political theorists can ask, reinvigorating debates in the subfield and forging connections with the discipline writ large.

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020.

Excepting the first half of Athēnaiōn Politeia, whose authorship remains controversial, there are no works of historical inquiry in the Aristotelian corpus. This contributes to the impression that Aristotle's political theory abstracts from history. This judgment is reinforced by statements in the Poetics diminishing history and historians in favor of poetry and the poets. I offer a more nuanced interpretation, relying principally on an intertextual reading of the Athēnaiōn Politeia and Book Five of the Politics. Both texts direct the reader's attention to history, though in dramatically different ways. I argue that Aristotle's uses of history are essential to his conversational engagements with the narratives that human beings construct in order to make sense of their experiences and to clarify options for choice. Read in a dialogic spirit, these texts underscore the possibilities and hazards of civic agency and preserve the importance of history, as well as poetry, for Aristotle's political theory. ; Exceptuada la primera mitad de la Athēnaiōn Politeia, cuya autoría sigue siendo discutida, no hay obras de investigación histórica en el corpus aristotélico. Esto fortalece la impresión de que la teoría política aristotélica se abstrae de la historia. Esta opinión es reforzada por las afirmaciones contenidas en la Poética, que atenúan la importancia de la historia y los historiadores en favor de la poesía y los poetas. Esta contribución ofrece una interpretación más matizada, que se apoya sobre todo en una lectura intertextual de la Athēnaiōn Politeia y el libro 5 de la Política. Ambos textos dirigen la atención del lector hacia la historia, pero en una manera completamente diferente. En este artículo argumento que los usos que hace Aristóteles de la historia son fundamentales para sus intercambios dialógicos con las narraciones que los seres humanos construyen para dar sentido a sus experiencias y aclarar sus opciones a la hora de elegir. Si se leen en este espíritu dialógico, estos textos resaltan las posibilidades y los riesgos de la acción política y salvaguardan la importancia tanto de la historia como de la poesía para la teoría política aristotélica.

This textbook is part of series on political science and focuses on political theory. Chapter titles include: Political Theory: An Introduction, Freedom, Equality, Social Justice, Rights, Citizenship, Nationalism, Secularism, Peace, and Development. Made available by the National Repository of Open Educational Resources of India.

Recent calls to 'decolonise the curriculum' are especially pertinent to the teaching of political theory, which has traditionally been dominated by a canon made up overwhelmingly of White (and male) thinkers. This article explores why and how political theory curricula might be decolonised. By mapping core political theory modules provided at UK universities, and examining associated textbooks, the article shows that non-White thinkers and discussions of colonialism and race are marginalised and neglected. It then argues that there are intellectual, political, and pedagogical reasons why this neglect is problematic and should be reversed. Finally, the article reflects on the experience of rewriting and delivering a core second-year undergraduate modern political thought module at a post-92 London university, including assessing the impact of the changes on the attainment gap between White students and Black and minority ethnic students.

In the various conversations, deliberations, postings, panels, and forums in which I have participated, I confess that I often have felt like Admiral James Stockdale, who ran for Vice President on Ross Perot's independent ticket in 1992. In the vice-presidential debate with Al Gore and Dan Quayle, he began his opening remarks with the questions: "Who am I? And why am I here?" Less metaphorically, the question I must confront is: What is a political theorist doing in these deliberations over Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT)? What does DA-RT have to do with political theory? We may recall that Admiral Stockdale's question, profound in its existential implications, and elegant in its practical simplicity, was responded to with laughter and turned into a joke, as Stockdale was read as a nice, but confused, old man. He was considered irrelevant to the election. Political theory, similarly, has been sidelined, dismissed, as irrelevant to this discussion, indeed, perhaps to the entire discipline, because we don't deal with "data." We may be nice colleagues, and some colleagues may begrudgingly acknowledge that perhaps political theory needs to be taught to our students, but we are often not seen as serious participants in the conversation called political science, and that has extended to the DA-RT debates.

Can political theorists justify their ideas? Do sound political theories need foundations? What constitutes a well-justified argument in political discourse? Don Herzog attempts to answer these questions by investigating the ways in which major theorists in the Anglo-American political tradition have justified their views. Making use of a wide range of primary texts, Herzog examines the work of such important theorists as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, the utilitarians (Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill. Henry Sidgwick, J. C. Harsanyi, R. M. Hare, and R. B. Brandt), David Hume, and Adam Smith. Herzog argues that Hobbes, Locke, and the utilitarians fail to justify their theories because they try to ground the volatile world of politics in immutable aspects of human nature, language, theology, or rationality. Herzog concludes that the works of Adam Smith and David Hume offer illuminating examples of successful justifications. Basing their political conclusions on social contexts, not on abstract principles, Hume and Smith develop creative solutions to given problems.

Political theory in the West continued to suffer from the disturbing one-sidedness of atomistic (individualistic) and holistic (universalistic) orientations precluding a proper understanding of the nature of a differentiated society and the place of the state as a public legal institution within it. In this contribution attention is asked for the theoretical legacy within which Prof. Daan Wessels pursued his teaching, research and public performances. Traditional theories of the state never succeeded in delimiting the competency of the state because they did not proceed from an understanding of the sphere-sovereignty of the jural aspect of reality that serves as the guiding or qualifying function of the state as a public legal institution, having its foundation within the cultural-historical aspect of reality.

"Reprinted from Political science quarterly. v. xxiv, no. 2" ; Mode of access: Internet.

Series title also at head of t.-p. ; Microform. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Series title also at head of t.-p. ; Mode of access: Internet.

A review of: Nathaniel TkaczWikipedia and the Politics of OpennessUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2015ISBN 9780226192307 US$25.00

This is the first book to explain how to use key methods in analytical political theory. The methods discussed include contractualism, reflective equilibrium, positive political theory, thought experiments and ideological analysis. Many discussions of political theory methods describe and justify these methods with little or no discussion of their application, emphasizing 'what is' and 'why do' over 'how to'. This book covers all three. Each chapter explains what kinds of problems in political theory might require researchers to use a particular method, the basic principles behind the method being proposed, and an analysis of how to apply it, including concrete principles of good practice. The book thus summarizes methodological ideas, grouped in one place and made accessible to students, and it makes innovative contributions to research methods in analytical political theory. Read more at http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-theory/methods-analytical-political-theory#EP2v8RWdozzbQZay.99

Rezension zu: Margaret Moore, A Political Theory of Territory (New York: Oxford, 2015).

Book review of: Hess, Andreas (2014) The Political Theory of Judith N. Shklar: Exile from Exile, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.235 pp.ISBN: 978-1-137-03249-2.Price: $ 110,00 (Hardcover)