Suchergebnisse

"Macht ist häufig ein Kennzeichen sozialen Handelns. Deshalb ist es notwendig sich mit diesem Phänomen auch auf sozialpsychologischer Ebene auseinander zu setzen. Ziel dieses Artikels ist es den Leser zu sensibilisieren, sich der Komplexität dieses Alltagegriffes zu nähern. Durch eine Formalisierung soll diese Komplexität verdeutlicht werden. Diese Komplexität erklärt auch, warum das Phänomen Macht bisher keine umfassende psychologische Theorienbildung generiert hat.
Trotz dieser Schwierigkeiten fasst dieser Artikel wichtige Konzepte und Ergebnisse aus der psychologischen Forschung zusammen und ordnet sie Systemumfängen (Individual-, Mikro-, Meso-, Makosystem) als auch qualitativen Wirkmechanismen (affektiv, kognitiv und konativ) zu.
Somit wird eine Systematik gebildet, die veranschaulicht, in welchen Bereichen Forschungen bezüglich des sozialen Phänomens Macht ansetzen."[Autorenreferat]

This article pushes beyond hard power and soft power to insist on smart power, defined as the capacity of an actor to combine elements of hard power and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing such that the actor's purposes are advanced effectively and efficiently. It argues that advancing smart power has become a national security imperative, driven both by long-term structural changes in international conditions and by short-term failures of the current administration. The current debates over public diplomacy and soft power suffer from failures to address conceptual, institutional, and political dimensions of the challenge, three dimensions the author addresses in this article. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2008 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -- INTRODUCTION -- Chapter 1 WAR AS PEACE, PEACE AS PACIFICATION -- Chapter 2 WAR ON WASTE; OR, INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION -- Chapter 3 'O EFFEMINACY! EFFEMINACY!': MARTIAL POWER, MASCULINE POWER, LIBERAL PEACE -- Chapter 4 THE POLICE OF CIVILISATION: WAR AS CIVILISING OFFENSIVE -- Chapter 5 AIR POWER AS POLICE POWER I -- Chapter 6 AIR POWER AS POLICE POWER II -- Chapter 7 UNDER THE SIGN OF SECURITY: TRAUMA, TERROR, RESILIENCE -- NOTES -- INDEX

Why is liberalism so obsessed with waste? Is there a drone above you now? Are you living in a no-fly zone? What is the role of masculinity in the 'war on terror'? And why do so many liberals say they love peace while finding new ways to justify slaughter in the name of security? In this, the first book to deal with the concepts of war power and police power together, Mark Neocleous deals with these questions and many more by using critical theory to radically rethink war power. Neocleous generates a provocative set of claims about state power and capital accumulation, the role of violence in the making of liberal order, the police wars at the heart of this violence, and the ways in which these processes come to be called 'peace'. And he takes the reader down some unexpected paths: the 'war on waste', debates about effeminacy, the proliferation of resilience and trauma-talk, drones as the culmination of colonial bombing campaigns, and no-fly zones as the perfect accompaniment for drones. The result is a compelling book that articulates a vision of war/police power beyond the military and the police. Key Features. The first book to deal with the concepts of war power and police power together Looks beyond the institutions of 'the military' and 'the police' Thinks critically about how powers of war and powers of police coincide in the exercise of state violence and social ordering

This article pushes beyond hard power and soft power to insist on smart power, defined as the capacity of an actor to combine elements of hard power and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing such that the actor's purposes are advanced effectively and efficiently. It argues that advancing smart power has become a national security imperative, driven both by long-term structural changes in international conditions and by short-term failures of the current administration. The current debates over public diplomacy and soft power suffer from failures to address conceptual, institutional, and political dimensions of the challenge, three dimensions the author addresses in this article.

The separation of power and the branch of the judicial power are analyzed in the US and in the European countries (first of all in Italy and in Hungary). The effects of litigation on the constitutional rights in the USA and in Hungary are outlined and the new trends of political battles in the USA and in Italy which mean the moving the political combats into the courtrooms.

There are two rival conceptions of power in modern sociopolitical thought. According to one, all social power reduces to power-over-others. According to another, the core notion is power-to-effect-outcomes, to which even power-over reduces. This article defends seven theses. First, agential social power consists in a relation between agent and outcomes (power-to). Second, not all social power reduces to power-over and, third, the contrary view stems from conflating power-over with a distinct notion: power-despite-resistance. Fourth, the widespread assumption that social power presupposes the capacity to overcome resistance is false: social power includes the capacity to effect outcomes with others' assistance. Fifth, power-with can be exercised via joint intentional action, strategic coordination and non-strategic coordination. Sixth, agential social power is best analysed as a capacity to effect outcomes, with the assistance of others, despite the resistance of yet others. Seventh, power-over and power-with are not mutually exclusive: each can ground the other.