Suchergebnisse

On Thursday September 12, 2019, Shannon Manning spoke to our Political Careers Lecture Series. She spoke about her 20 years' experience in grassroots advocacy and communications. Shannon Manning serves as Senior Vice President of Advocate Engagement at DDC Public Affairs, a public relations organization which handles public and private sector PR. Shannon has played a […]

Over two decades ago, anthropologist Gayle Rubin began a now-classic article with a deceptively simple declaration: "The time has come to think about sex" (1984). Although Rubin was not the first thinker to place sex at the center of her work, her systematic sketch of Western sexual ideology made it possible to think about the political ramifications of sex in new and productive ways by disentangling the physical acts of sex from gender and sexuality (i.e., how we understand, interpret, and ascribe meaning to those acts). Among her many useful insights was the recognition that sex and sexuality are part of a hierarchical value system that serves as the basis for other forms of social, economic, and political power. Sex is the starting point of all human life and, consequently, sexuality subtends all other institutions from marriage to families, communities, states, and international organizations. What Foucault (1978) called biopower—the regulation of bodies, including sex—has continued to change and expand, giving rise to new forms of biopolitics—the regulation of populations and sexuality. Such regulations include moral policing and criminal sanctions, biomedical intervention, family and immigration laws, and a host of other tools that have tended to establish heterosexuality as the only normal and sanctioned sexual behavior. Regulating sex, and particularly reproduction, is an essential objective of the state because, ultimately, sex and reproduction are key to how the state regulates the fundamental element of its own composition: citizenship.

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference, COP26, will take place in Glasgow in November. Can it succeed? What does 'success' actually mean in the context of the climate crisis?

Today we're looking at the UK's constitution. What form does it take? And is that changing?

Originally published in 1983, this book locates the behavioural approach to the study of politics in its social science and historical context. The text reviews the findings in a number of fields - public opinion, electoral behaviour, political participation, policy outputs, political recruitment, political welfare and socialisation.

Politics, Law and Psychology are fields that come together in the symbolic. This text takes evidence from those three areas to develop an analysis of political symbols and political transitions. The development of the analysis goes through three stages. The first succinctly describes the concept of transition and its meaning. The second closely examines the notion of the symbol, in terms of its definition, to explain aspects that allow us to understand it, characterise it and make its functions clear. Finally, from the author's experience as a witness and as an actor, I suggest three ways of understanding symbols in the processes of political transition: as symbols of change, as symbols of acknowledgment, and as symbols of support.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- Preface -- I: Introduction -- 1. A Theory of Political Alienation -- II: On the Limitations of Traditional Approaches to the Study of Political Alienation -- Introduction -- Contexts and Methods of Research: Notes on the Data Chapters of this book -- 2. Socio-Cultural and Political Alienation -- 3. Social Background Factors and Political Alienation -- III: On the Psycho-Political Process of Alienation -- 4. The Process of Political Alienation -- 5. Psycho-Political Correlates of Political Alienation In Four Urban Communities -- 6. On the Causes and Expression of Political Alienation among American University Students -- 7. Political Alienation among Political Scientists and Sociologists -- IV: On the Consequences of Political Alienation -- 8. The Consequences of Alienation: A Theory of Alienated Political Behavior -- 9. Alienation and the Adoption of Basic Political Orientations in a University Community -- 10. Alienation and the Adoption of Basic Political Orientations in Black Communities -- 11. Alienation and Communications Behavior -- 12. From Political Alienation to Revolutionary Support -- 13. Get Involved! and Get Alienated? Political Involvement and Political Alienation in Urban Communities -- V: Conclusion -- 14. From the Lonely Crowd to the Strident Society -- Notes -- Methods Appendix -- Index

AbstractThis article addresses Andrew Rehfeld's attempt to ensure a place for
political theory within political science, which he does partly by
showing how political theory fits into a defensible definition of
political science and partly by excluding much political theory from
the discipline in order to safeguard the rest. His account of what
the discipline should comprehend is overly narrow, however, and does
not serve the interests of the sorts of political theory he strongly
believes are worth doing. I argue instead that political science
must be defined by its subject matter alone, and that political
theory's contribution to this subject matter must be defended.

By presenting alternative conceptions of how to link political theory to practice and education, this volume inaugurates a discussion hitherto not often attempted by modern political philosophers. Originally published in 1980. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vas

We provide a justification for political liberalism's Reciprocity Principle, which states that political decisions must be justified exclusively on the basis of considerations that all reasonable citizens can reasonably be expected to accept. The standard argument for the Reciprocity Principle grounds it in a requirement of respect for persons. We argue for a different, but compatible, justification: the Reciprocity Principle is justified because it makes possible a desirable kind of political community. The general endorsement of the Reciprocity Principle, we will argue, helps realize joint political rule and relationships of civic friendship. The main obstacle to the realization of these values is the presence of reasonable disagreement about religious, moral, and philosophical issues characteristic of liberal societies. We show the Reciprocity Principle helps to overcome this obstacle.