Suchergebnisse

The purpose of the paper is to analyze the spread of corruption in Lithuania. The overview of studies and researches conducted in Lithuania allows a few observations. Research on corruption not only demonstrates the seriousness of the problem but also seeks to acknowledge its reasons and sensitive spheres. Lithuanian case study on corruption does not give a clear answer to the question whether corruption influences the economical and political development of the country or malfunction of the economic and political system creates the fertile ground for corrupt practices. Culture of blat, mutual obligations, and informal networks have not disappeared with the old system but have been transformed into new forms adapting to new circumstances. Unclear division between public-private relations, disrespect to state, authorities and law, tolerance to socially dubious practice is often observed in various spheres. It is shown that transformation to the market economy has not abolished existing social maladies but in some cases leads to new forms of corrupt practice. Process of privatization opened possibilities for free market, private initiative, and public money. Simultaneously, privatization allowed public servants - the old nomenclature, and politicians using official position, information, personal relationships and old contacts - to become richer at the expense of the rest of the society. If a corruptive behavior is based on internalized moral norms and is considered as "a part of the game", it is not easy to change. If morality is the problem, then the law may not be the first and the best answer. It is much easier to have a political will to solve institutionalized corruption by changing administrative practice, motivation, mechanisms of control and reassessment of pay system for officials. ; Korumpuotos visuomenės etiketė dažnai bandoma klijuoti jaunoms Rytų ir Vidurio Europos demokratijoms. Straipsnyje analizuojama, kiek šis neigiamas reiškinys paplitęs Lietuvos visuomenėje. Į korupciją pereinamojo laikotarpio visuomenėse žvelgiama bendro korupcijos klausimų diskurso kontekste. Remiantis atskirų sričių mokslininkų darbais ir Lietuvoje vykdytų tyrimų rezultatais, bandoma nubrėžti ribą tarp sovietmečio palikimo ir rinkos ekonomikos padiktuotų taisyklių bei gyvenimo būdo įtakos korupcinės veiklos praktikai, akcentuojant, kad dėl šių įtakų susipypinimo tai nėra lengvas uždavinys.

The Master's thesis \"The problem of Subject in Modern and Post-modern Philosophy of Education,\" is an attempt to highlight the problem of the subject in the context of modern philosophy of education. The present work describes and analyzes the distinction between modern and classical education philosophies as well. The historical, theoretical, and scientific development of the principles and standards of education are also dealt with focusing on philosophical principles that influenced the emergence and development of certain educational principles. The paper pays attention to the problem of child objectivisation in the system of classical education and the problem of subjectivisation in modern education. The modern education system highlights the importance of experience and reflection, intentionality of consciousness, which show the relevance of phenomenology. This work discusses the interplay of the ideas of phenomenology, pragmatism, and existentialism in education. Mostly the works of the representative of existentialism P.Freire are analyzed. P.Freire stresses the problem of human freedom and humanistic education in his educational philosophy. The paper also analyzes the importance of individual experience, its reflection and practical application in the educational system of the representative of pragmatism J.Dewey. Mostly the principles of democracy and humanism as the basic educational principles are emphasized. This paper presents the classical education system as the system that is dehumanising the individual and highlights its weaknesses, whereas the modern education system, on the contrary, is viewed as humanizing and liberating the individual.

The Master's thesis \"The problem of Subject in Modern and Post-modern Philosophy of Education,\" is an attempt to highlight the problem of the subject in the context of modern philosophy of education. The present work describes and analyzes the distinction between modern and classical education philosophies as well. The historical, theoretical, and scientific development of the principles and standards of education are also dealt with focusing on philosophical principles that influenced the emergence and development of certain educational principles. The paper pays attention to the problem of child objectivisation in the system of classical education and the problem of subjectivisation in modern education. The modern education system highlights the importance of experience and reflection, intentionality of consciousness, which show the relevance of phenomenology. This work discusses the interplay of the ideas of phenomenology, pragmatism, and existentialism in education. Mostly the works of the representative of existentialism P.Freire are analyzed. P.Freire stresses the problem of human freedom and humanistic education in his educational philosophy. The paper also analyzes the importance of individual experience, its reflection and practical application in the educational system of the representative of pragmatism J.Dewey. Mostly the principles of democracy and humanism as the basic educational principles are emphasized. This paper presents the classical education system as the system that is dehumanising the individual and highlights its weaknesses, whereas the modern education system, on the contrary, is viewed as humanizing and liberating the individual.

With the beginning of the Arab Spring new opportunities for research on democratization emerged. One of the elements that could be examined is the external factors of democratization. The aspect of external factors is analyzed in the article with the focus on the French policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt because these countries experienced the biggest changes in comparison with other countries of the Arab Spring. The article analyzes the rhetoric and actions of France aimed at Tunisia, Libya and Egypt during the Arab Spring. In the article it is argued that French policy towards the analysed states is a combination of pragmatism and idealism. This coexistence leads to emergence of double standards in foreign policy with short-term interests taking priority, but the long-term aspirations are not denied, especially what concerns rhetoric of France. The article argues that synthesis of the classical realism, the neo-liberalism and democratic peace theories can provide explanation for double standards and inconsistency in the French foreign policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt during the Arab Spring. The article ends with evaluation of successes and failures of the French foreign policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt in context of the Arab Spring.

With the beginning of the Arab Spring new opportunities for research on democratization emerged. One of the elements that could be examined is the external factors of democratization. The aspect of external factors is analyzed in the article with the focus on the French policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt because these countries experienced the biggest changes in comparison with other countries of the Arab Spring. The article analyzes the rhetoric and actions of France aimed at Tunisia, Libya and Egypt during the Arab Spring. In the article it is argued that French policy towards the analysed states is a combination of pragmatism and idealism. This coexistence leads to emergence of double standards in foreign policy with short-term interests taking priority, but the long-term aspirations are not denied, especially what concerns rhetoric of France. The article argues that synthesis of the classical realism, the neo-liberalism and democratic peace theories can provide explanation for double standards and inconsistency in the French foreign policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt during the Arab Spring. The article ends with evaluation of successes and failures of the French foreign policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt in context of the Arab Spring.

With the beginning of the Arab Spring new opportunities for research on democratization emerged. One of the elements that could be examined is the external factors of democratization. The aspect of external factors is analyzed in the article with the focus on the French policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt because these countries experienced the biggest changes in comparison with other countries of the Arab Spring. The article analyzes the rhetoric and actions of France aimed at Tunisia, Libya and Egypt during the Arab Spring. In the article it is argued that French policy towards the analysed states is a combination of pragmatism and idealism. This coexistence leads to emergence of double standards in foreign policy with short-term interests taking priority, but the long-term aspirations are not denied, especially what concerns rhetoric of France. The article argues that synthesis of the classical realism, the neo-liberalism and democratic peace theories can provide explanation for double standards and inconsistency in the French foreign policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt during the Arab Spring. The article ends with evaluation of successes and failures of the French foreign policy towards Tunisia, Libya and Egypt in context of the Arab Spring.

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

From the point of view of the starting positions the most radical change is taking place in the historiography of Lithuania because, unlike the historiography of Russia, Poland and even that of Belarus, whose national narrative formed on the basis of historical methodology, the "Baltophilic" paradigm, that is, the pre-scientific paradigm of pragmatism, remains the essential component in this narrative in Lithuania. The situation of the historiography of Belarus is the most complicated one from the point of view of the possibility for change. On the one hand, it is only now that the process is going through the "national" paradigm formation stage, and on the other hand, it still features a strong prevalence of the Moscow-centric paradigm of communist origin. This can account for the radicalism of the national Belarusian narrative, which brought to life the "Litva / Letuva" distinction. However, it is impossible to explain the "Litva / Letuva" distinction by means of nationalism alone. It is necessary to further elucidate the links of this distinction with the political events of 1990-1991, which are related to the territorial claims (for Vilnius and Klaipeda) lodged by the USSR to Lithuania which was seeking independence and eventually declared independence. Also, it is necessary to see this distinction within the context of the geopolitical and strategic goals and tactics of Lithuania's neighbour to the east, which is known from the realities of 1920-1926. On the other hand, it is necessary to elucidate the links with the political conflict between Poland and Lithuania over Vilnius in 1920-1922, and on the whole, with the conflicts between the modem nations that appeared in the GDL region, as well as the links with Russia's de-polonisation and administrative policy of the 19th century.

From the point of view of the starting positions the most radical change is taking place in the historiography of Lithuania because, unlike the historiography of Russia, Poland and even that of Belarus, whose national narrative formed on the basis of historical methodology, the "Baltophilic" paradigm, that is, the pre-scientific paradigm of pragmatism, remains the essential component in this narrative in Lithuania. The situation of the historiography of Belarus is the most complicated one from the point of view of the possibility for change. On the one hand, it is only now that the process is going through the "national" paradigm formation stage, and on the other hand, it still features a strong prevalence of the Moscow-centric paradigm of communist origin. This can account for the radicalism of the national Belarusian narrative, which brought to life the "Litva / Letuva" distinction. However, it is impossible to explain the "Litva / Letuva" distinction by means of nationalism alone. It is necessary to further elucidate the links of this distinction with the political events of 1990-1991, which are related to the territorial claims (for Vilnius and Klaipeda) lodged by the USSR to Lithuania which was seeking independence and eventually declared independence. Also, it is necessary to see this distinction within the context of the geopolitical and strategic goals and tactics of Lithuania's neighbour to the east, which is known from the realities of 1920-1926. On the other hand, it is necessary to elucidate the links with the political conflict between Poland and Lithuania over Vilnius in 1920-1922, and on the whole, with the conflicts between the modem nations that appeared in the GDL region, as well as the links with Russia's de-polonisation and administrative policy of the 19th century.

From the point of view of the starting positions the most radical change is taking place in the historiography of Lithuania because, unlike the historiography of Russia, Poland and even that of Belarus, whose national narrative formed on the basis of historical methodology, the "Baltophilic" paradigm, that is, the pre-scientific paradigm of pragmatism, remains the essential component in this narrative in Lithuania. The situation of the historiography of Belarus is the most complicated one from the point of view of the possibility for change. On the one hand, it is only now that the process is going through the "national" paradigm formation stage, and on the other hand, it still features a strong prevalence of the Moscow-centric paradigm of communist origin. This can account for the radicalism of the national Belarusian narrative, which brought to life the "Litva / Letuva" distinction. However, it is impossible to explain the "Litva / Letuva" distinction by means of nationalism alone. It is necessary to further elucidate the links of this distinction with the political events of 1990-1991, which are related to the territorial claims (for Vilnius and Klaipeda) lodged by the USSR to Lithuania which was seeking independence and eventually declared independence. Also, it is necessary to see this distinction within the context of the geopolitical and strategic goals and tactics of Lithuania's neighbour to the east, which is known from the realities of 1920-1926. On the other hand, it is necessary to elucidate the links with the political conflict between Poland and Lithuania over Vilnius in 1920-1922, and on the whole, with the conflicts between the modem nations that appeared in the GDL region, as well as the links with Russia's de-polonisation and administrative policy of the 19th century.

From the point of view of the starting positions the most radical change is taking place in the historiography of Lithuania because, unlike the historiography of Russia, Poland and even that of Belarus, whose national narrative formed on the basis of historical methodology, the "Baltophilic" paradigm, that is, the pre-scientific paradigm of pragmatism, remains the essential component in this narrative in Lithuania. The situation of the historiography of Belarus is the most complicated one from the point of view of the possibility for change. On the one hand, it is only now that the process is going through the "national" paradigm formation stage, and on the other hand, it still features a strong prevalence of the Moscow-centric paradigm of communist origin. This can account for the radicalism of the national Belarusian narrative, which brought to life the "Litva / Letuva" distinction. However, it is impossible to explain the "Litva / Letuva" distinction by means of nationalism alone. It is necessary to further elucidate the links of this distinction with the political events of 1990-1991, which are related to the territorial claims (for Vilnius and Klaipeda) lodged by the USSR to Lithuania which was seeking independence and eventually declared independence. Also, it is necessary to see this distinction within the context of the geopolitical and strategic goals and tactics of Lithuania's neighbour to the east, which is known from the realities of 1920-1926. On the other hand, it is necessary to elucidate the links with the political conflict between Poland and Lithuania over Vilnius in 1920-1922, and on the whole, with the conflicts between the modem nations that appeared in the GDL region, as well as the links with Russia's de-polonisation and administrative policy of the 19th century.

The classical conception of capital constructed by Marx and notions of cultural and symbolical capital suggested by P. Bourdieu's are compared in the article. Disney's products are connected with institutionalisation and manipulation of the three forms of capital. Author of the article discusses relations and conflicts between cultural capital and the making of fetish and personification. Disney's politics of institutionalisation eliminates these conflicts and solves the problem of alienation among people within the corporation. Disney's practices of auteur and animation prevents antagonism between property of the corporation and ambitions of creators. Historical analyses show how ideologies, conceptual paradigms, action models developed by Disney met wishes of the masses, implemented modern multiculturalism, diversification and supported social fragmentation. The article criticises Th. Adorno's and W. Benjamin's views where Disney's corporation is considered as an expression of hegemonic industrial imperialism and a propagandist of American ideology. However, Disney is rather a producer of social discourses and new models of education. If even any corporation is ideological one, however stories and characters produced by Disney corporation (for example, ones about Winnie-the-Pooh, Aladdin, Alice, Mickey Mouse, Pinocchio, Pocahontas, Hercules) are mythological and philosophical parables which overpass ideological borders and open the door to the live and huge world. Humanistic and individualistic activities of Disney Corporation's creation, co-operation with consumers, and development of education programs are emphasized in the article. Disney relies on investigation of basic cultural habitus, archetypes and symbols of thinking. In this way, Disney creates the world of fantasy, dreams and Utopias. The corporation uses pragmatism as a philosophical foundation. The only truth for the corporation is production of pleasure and profit for all consumers. Everybody could find a pleasure, psychological satisfaction and stimuli for socialization and cooperation in these miraculous lands. It gives Disney profit and growth opportunities.

The classical conception of capital constructed by Marx and notions of cultural and symbolical capital suggested by P. Bourdieu's are compared in the article. Disney's products are connected with institutionalisation and manipulation of the three forms of capital. Author of the article discusses relations and conflicts between cultural capital and the making of fetish and personification. Disney's politics of institutionalisation eliminates these conflicts and solves the problem of alienation among people within the corporation. Disney's practices of auteur and animation prevents antagonism between property of the corporation and ambitions of creators. Historical analyses show how ideologies, conceptual paradigms, action models developed by Disney met wishes of the masses, implemented modern multiculturalism, diversification and supported social fragmentation. The article criticises Th. Adorno's and W. Benjamin's views where Disney's corporation is considered as an expression of hegemonic industrial imperialism and a propagandist of American ideology. However, Disney is rather a producer of social discourses and new models of education. If even any corporation is ideological one, however stories and characters produced by Disney corporation (for example, ones about Winnie-the-Pooh, Aladdin, Alice, Mickey Mouse, Pinocchio, Pocahontas, Hercules) are mythological and philosophical parables which overpass ideological borders and open the door to the live and huge world. Humanistic and individualistic activities of Disney Corporation's creation, co-operation with consumers, and development of education programs are emphasized in the article. Disney relies on investigation of basic cultural habitus, archetypes and symbols of thinking. In this way, Disney creates the world of fantasy, dreams and Utopias. The corporation uses pragmatism as a philosophical foundation. The only truth for the corporation is production of pleasure and profit for all consumers. Everybody could find a pleasure, psychological satisfaction and stimuli for socialization and cooperation in these miraculous lands. It gives Disney profit and growth opportunities.