Suchergebnisse

This bibliography lists political theory articles appearing in over 100 major journals. Readers are invited to send information concerning articles of interest to political theorists published in reviews not among those normally included in our listing.

Modern political thought arrived on the heels of two revolutionary realizations: We are not at the center of the universe (Copernicus), which was not created for us (Darwin). How might political theory respond to a third revolutionary realization, that we are not alone, that other creatures, sentient and highly intelligent, share our vast universe? We explore answers through a dialogue between two political theorists, a human and an alien. Rather than superimposing astropolitics upon anthropolitics, we use the encounter to ask new questions, e.g., should PT foster bridges between humans and aliens, or harden the boundaries? Pitting Dark Forest Theory against the Campfire Theory, we outline the coming existential and existentialist turns in political theory, complementing Earth politics with exopolitics.

Seeks to participate in the continuing discussion among various viewpoints, disciplines, & subdisciplines both within & outside political science by describing central arguments & methodological issues within feminist political theory on the state. In particular, the methodological significance of discourse theory for feminist political theory & for empirical approaches to gendered state action & policies is explored. Feminist discourse analysis represents the kind of productive interdisciplinarity encouraged by Berte Siim (2001), as well as challenging the universality of an excessively limited view of political science culture. References. K. Coddon

In a world that continues to be riven by armed conflict, the fundamental moral and political questions raised by warfare are as important as ever. Under what circumstances are we justified in going to war? Can conflicts be waged in a 'moral' way? Is war an inevitable feature of a world driven by power politics? What are the new ethical challenges raised by new weapons and technology, from drones to swarming attack robots? This book is an engaging and up-to-date examination of these questions and more, penned by a foremost expert in the field. Using many historical cases, it examines all the core disputes and doctrines, ranging from realism to pacifism, from just war theory and international law, to feminism and the democratic peace thesis. Its scope stretches from the primordial causes and perennial drivers of war to the cyber-centric space-age future of armed conflict in the 21st century.

Reviews and discusses 4 books which occupy distinct positions within the domain of psychoanalysis and social theory.

In recent decades, a 'realist' alternative to ideal theories of politics has slowly taken shape. Bringing together philosophers, political theorists, and political scientists, this countermovement seeks to reframe inquiry into politics and political norms. Among the hallmarks of this endeavor are a moral psychology that includes the passions and emotions; a robust conception of political possibility and rejection of utopian thinking; the belief that political conflict — of values as well as interests — is both fundamental and ineradicable; a focus on institutions as the arenas within which conflict is mediated and contained; and a conception of politics as a sphere of activity that is distinct, autonomous, and subject to norms that cannot be derived from individual morality. For political realists, a 'well-ordered society' is rarely attainable; a modus vivendi without agreement on first principles is often the only practical possibility. Not only will 'full compliance' never be achieved, but also it is an assumption that yields misleading accounts of political norms. While realists offer a number of compelling criticisms of ideal theory, there are some lacunae in their stance. It is not yet clear whether realism constitutes a coherent affirmative alternative to idealism. Nor have realists clarified the extent of conflict that is consistent with political order as such. And because both sides accept 'ought implies can' as a constraint on the validity of political norms, much of the debate between realists and idealists revolves around deep empirical disagreements that are yet to be clarified.