Suchergebnisse

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)

Usturali, Adil/0000-0001-9115-2162 ; WOS:000402454300004 ; This article argues that Habermas's position on the relationship between religion and politics reaffirms his two-track political theory of the secular state and civic duty. His hard-core theory of secularism coupled with an ethics of citizenship seeks new ways of including religious citizens in modern pluralistic societies. The analysis of secularism both as a concept and as a guiding principle in Habermas's work shows that most critics have misinterpreted his specific use of the term. The result of this is that most secularist and accommodationist critics of Habermas's ethics of citizenship disregard his two-track political theory and its co-originality principle that assumes the equal status of public and private autonomies of citizens. My aim is thus to shift critical attention to the central aspects of Habermas's work on religion, specifically to the task of translating religious reasons into an all-accessible language. This task of translation faces several difficulties due to some points that are left unclear by Habermas, such as determining the line separating the informal and the formal spheres, and how to avert the risk of majoritarian hijacks of democracy that could altogether undermine the Habermasian framework.

In this essay I explore the appeal of the psychoanalytic category of fantasy for critical political theory, by which I mean a theory grounded in a political ontology that offers a rationale for both normative and ideological critique. I draw on the work of William Connolly, Susan Faludi, Jacqueline Rose, and Judith Butler, among others, to consider the explanatory and critical implications of the concept of fantasy for questions of identity, and political identity in particular. I argue that fantasy is a useful device with which to explore and probe the political and ideological aspects of a practice or narrative because it foregrounds the combined significance of the symbolic and affective dimensions of life. Moreover, a psychoanalytic perspective can facilitate a move away from an epistemological or moralizing understanding of fantasy and political identity, shifting the emphasis instead toward a more ontological and ethical understanding.

This article justifies approaching classic works of political theory as relevant to problems that concern us. Perennial problems are shown to exist in three increasingly controversial senses. First, past authors addressed a problem which we can ponder. Second, past authors addressed a problem which authors who wrote on these authors also addressed and which we can ponder. Third, numerous authors expressed beliefs relevant to a problem which we can ponder. The errors identified by opponents of perennial problems arise from empirical misjudgments concerning the ways that different authors addressed such problems, not from the assumption that such problems exist.

This contribution focuses on the survival of Afrikaans within the framework of a multilingual South Africa. The first section provides a brief historical reconstruction of the power-political shifts that Afrikaans underwent between 1966 and 2004. In the second section some of the arguments that were used for and against Afrikaans between 1994 and 2004 are presented. In the last section these arguments are shifted to the terrain of contemporary normative political theory, where three aspects are important: the question of addressing language loss in the world; the importance of multicultural citizenship, and the need for a more profound and multilingual understanding of democracy. In short: a democracy is not just characterised by the instrumental counting of votes, but also by the qualitative articulation of different voices.

UID/FIL/00183/2013 ; The quest for winning and preserving politicalpower in Machiavelli's The Prince is led by the bellicose versionof the pre-classical and mythological concept of metisor cunning rationality. In opposition to a domestic version ofcunning rationality, understood as the rationality of the weak,Machiavellian mētis is a prudential and deceptive rationalityof the strong. Bellicose cunning rationality does not, however,prevent the prince from falling into the hubris of violence,and does not avoid undermining cunning rationality itself.Our article evaluates and circumscribes the contribution, aswell as the theoretical and practical limits of the Machiavellianbellicose cunning rationality. ; publishersversion ; published

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

G. A. Cohen, in his Rescuing Justice and Equality, argues that fundamental moral principles do not rest on factual grounds. I contest that and argue instead that all fundamental moral principles (indeed, all moral principles) are fact-sensitive. They are the most deeply embedded principles in an interdependent web of beliefs—beliefs which include factual beliefs. Indeed, all functioning moral beliefs, moral principles and moral practices are in such interdependent webs. There are no fundamental moral principles which are fact-insensitive. What is fundamental are the most deeply embedded moral principles in interdependent webs of belief and practice. If you will, forms of life. G.A. Cohen, dans son livre Rescuing Justice and Equality, maintient que les principes moraux fondamentaux ne reposent pas sur des bases factuelles. Je conteste cette idée et argumente que tous les principes moraux fondamentaux (en fait tous les principes moraux) sont sensibles aux faits. Ce sont les principes les plus profondément enracinés dans des faisceaux de croyances interdépendantes – croyances qui comprennent des croyances factuelles. Toutes les croyances et pratiques, tous les principes moraux fonctionnels sont pris dans ce genre de faisceaux interdépendants. Il n'y a pas de principes moraux fondamentaux qui soient insensibles aux faits. Plus ils sont fondamentaux, plus les principes moraux sont profondément enracinés dans des faisceaux interdépendants de croyances et de pratiques. Ainsi en est-il des façons de vivre.

In this chapter we sketch a body of political thought that became predominant in the second half of the twentieth century among academic political philosophers, primarily in the English-speaking world, but increasingly elsewhere, too. To call this type of political thought 'analytical' may not be particularly revealing, but no other term better describes the movement in question. Sometimes 'liberal political theory' is used, and there is indeed a close connection between analytical theory and liberalism. But that label is in one way too broad and in another too narrow for this kind of political thinking: too broad because liberalism has assumed many different philosophical guises in the course of a history much longer than that of our subject; and too narrow because those who engage in this kind of political theory use methods of analysis and techniques of argument that are not confined to liberals.

This book is based on the principle according to which the formation of the current global Grand Système was the result of cleavages that, in their critical, enmeshed moments, always offered a rel-atively wide variety of alternatives. These alternatives have, however, been systematically obliterated by reductive thought that tends to simplify reality. In other words it looks at immediate feasibility in the management of the social system while rejecting countless possibilities and variables by suppress-ing community and society issues that are richer in the different cultures. This simplification has also been occurring in the theoretic field." ; FCT

Uskonnon asema Niccolò Machiavellin (1469–1527) politiikan teoriassa on herättänyt laajaa keskustelua. Toisten mukaan Machiavelli oli harras katolilainen ja huolestunut siitä, että poliittisessa toiminnassa ei voi seurata kristillisiä ohjeita. Toisaalta on väitetty, että Machiavelli oli ateisti, jonka tarkoituksena oli erottaa politiikka ja moraali toisistaan ja hävittää uskonto kokonaan. Useimmiten Machiavelli nähdään uuspakanallisuuden kannattajana, sillä hän ihaili antiikin Roomaa ja sen uskonnollisia käytäntöjä.Machiavellin "reformaatiota" väitöstyössään tutkinut Paul-Erik Korvela esittää, että kaikki nämä näkemykset ovat harhaanjohtavia.Renessanssin aikainen kirkko ja erityisesti sen ylin johto olivat kiinnostuneita lähinnä poliittisen ja taloudellisen valtansa kasvattamisesta. Machiavelli ei kuitenkaan kritikoinut kirkon maallista valtaa sinänsä. Hän piti ongelmana kirkon uskottavuuden puutetta, jos johtajat eivät viitsineet edes teeskennellä elävänsä kristinuskon periaatteiden mukaan. Machiavelli näki kristinuskon painottuvan liikaa "tuonpuoleiseen". Häntä voi pitää jonkinlaisena reformaattorina: uskonnon tulisi ottaa enemmän huomioon ympärillä oleva maailma, eikä se saisi sisältää ilmeistä ristiriitaa maallisen elämän vaatimusten ja pelastukseen tähtäävän toiminnan välillä. Machiavelli erosi kuitenkin muista reformaattoreista, sillä hän ei varsinaisesti puuttunut teologisiin yksityiskohtiin. Machiavellille poliittisen elämän moraalittomuus oli kristillisestä näkökulmasta katsottuna normaali tila eikä poikkeus. Poliittisessa toiminnassa vaaditut hyveet olivat Machiavellin mielestä hyvin erilaisia kuin kristilliset kardinaalihyveet. Kristillisiin hyveisiin sitoutuminen ei ollut järkevää, koska poliittinen toiminta vaati kuitenkin ennen pitkää niiden hylkäämistä. Menestyäkseen politiikassa ei ollut viisasta sitoutua mihinkään hyveisiin, etenkään kristillisiin.Machiavellin argumentit kristinuskoa vastaan eivät palaudu kirkon maallisen vallan vastustamiseen. Kritiikki on perustavampaa ja reformatorisempaa kuin usein on ajateltu.

Community Radio as it is theorized in political theory and development theory and practice.