Suchergebnisse

The author introduces the concept of agonistic democracy as an alternative to the deliberative model, along the lines of John Gray & Chantal Mouffe in their insistence on the primacy of the political in the public sphere & the agonistic character of social relations. On the one hand, the primacy of the political calls our attention to the drawbacks of the solutions to political & social conflicts by means of legal procedures. On the other, the agonistic theory of plural societies insists on relinquishing the harmonious view of society; ie, we have to come to terms with the fact that there are certain unsolvably & irreducibly deep conflicts. Agonistic democracy highlights social conflicts & divisions with the explicit purpose of their discursive grouping, the formation of a hegemonic discourse & the permanent reshuffling of the existing power relations, & to avoid their downsizing. Its goal is to turn antagonism (friend-foe) into agonic (friend-adversary). The paper ends on a cautionary note by identifying the shortcomings of all democratic models, including those by Gray or Mouffe, which is particularly important to bear in mind at a time when we are becoming -- or have already become -- bigger losers in peacetime than in an open conflict. Hence, there is not perfect democratic model or a perfect recipe for eradicating tragic conflicts. 20 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author compares Hobbes' state of nature & Rawls' original position in an attempt to answer the question: How to arrive at a community starting from individualistic premises? The comparison shows a striking similarity between Hobbes' & Rawls' initial positions showing itself in the radical equality of the denizens in both "states of nature" & the insistence on the part of both authors to secure recognition of such equality. The essentially similar conditions in the state of nature suggest that the difference between their "social contracts" should lie in the other parts of their theories. The decisive differences lie in Rawls' assumption that individuals are motivated by a sense of justice (much stronger than in Hobbes' theory) that enables a choice of principles of justice in Rawls' state of nature. The agreement on principles is an expression of human sociability, while an agreement on a sovereign is a concession to human unsociability. 17 References. Adapted from the source document.

The Social Democratic Party of Croatia & Slavonia was founded in 1894, a spin-off of similar political developments in other parts of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Due to the economic & social backwardness of Croatia, industrial workers were rather few in number, & trade unions were banned. The party was mostly made up of craftsmen; there were no intellectuals who would be proponents of socialist theory & programs. That is why its efforts were directed toward the hands-on protection of workers' interests. Another aspect of its mainstream political activities was their opposition to both Croatian & Serbian nationalism & chauvinism & their advocacy of Croatian independence. Due to their unwavering support for human rights & democratic political freedoms, Croatian social democrats were often subject to state repression. The author draws parallels with today's political situation as well as conclusions about the agenda of the leftist parties in Croatia. Adapted from the source document.

Using a miscellany of multidisciplinary theoretical approaches (primarily sociological definitions of social & urban problems & the political science theory of the urban regime) as his starting point, the author analyzes the attitude of Split's leading politicians to the more recent problems of that city. His analysis is based on the findings of research conducted in Feb-Mar 2002, conducting structured interviews with a sample of 20 prominent local politicians. The results show that the leading Split officials consider the social conditions prevailing in that city to be unfavorable & encumbered with a plethora of hardships, the most prominent among them being rampant unemployment, decay of the city's industry, traffic isolation, socially disadvantaged citizens, & urban devastation. The interviewed politicians mostly think that those & other problems are to a large extent caused by the state of the Croatian society or, better to say, by the key factors of the social context (conversion of ownership, economic & general social crisis, patriotic war, etc) of the independent Croatia. An analysis of the interviews reveals the pronounced political tensions & divisions in Split & shows how they obstruct finding the solutions for the city's problems. The opinions & attitudes of the leading politicians in Split reveal, on the one hand, a considerable propensity toward an elitist, even authoritarian, approach to the resolution of these problems, & on the other, an insufficient willingness for solving the city's problems by means of cooperating with other social actors. 2 Tables, 22 References. Adapted from the source document.

Using a miscellany of multidisciplinary theoretical approaches (primarily sociological definitions of social & urban problems & the political science theory of the urban regime) as his starting point, the author analyzes the attitude of Split's leading politicians to the more recent problems of that city. His analysis is based on the findings of research conducted in Feb-Mar 2002, conducting structured interviews with a sample of 20 prominent local politicians. The results show that the leading Split officials consider the social conditions prevailing in that city to be unfavorable & encumbered with a plethora of hardships, the most prominent among them being rampant unemployment, decay of the city's industry, traffic isolation, socially disadvantaged citizens, & urban devastation. The interviewed politicians mostly think that those & other problems are to a large extent caused by the state of the Croatian society or, better to say, by the key factors of the social context (conversion of ownership, economic & general social crisis, patriotic war, etc) of the independent Croatia. An analysis of the interviews reveals the pronounced political tensions & divisions in Split & shows how they obstruct finding the solutions for the city's problems. The opinions & attitudes of the leading politicians in Split reveal, on the one hand, a considerable propensity toward an elitist, even authoritarian, approach to the resolution of these problems, & on the other, an insufficient willingness for solving the city's problems by means of cooperating with other social actors. 2 Tables, 22 References. Adapted from the source document.

In this article, the author relates the role of money & finances with the basic structuring of social relations. Money is the only universal form of social wealth, its measure & its meaning. Up to the present, however, the economic theory has been underestimating & overlooking money's politico-economic role. This is revealed most radically in periods of major financial & economic crises. Consequently, the author points out that today's economy of depression often depresses the economists themselves & their science. Bidet's theory of modernity, along with Habermas's, is the last large-scale attempt at theoretical explanation of the social totality, but his theoretical reconstruction of society by means of underlying "metastructures" is based on non-financial & non-monetary forms of social mediation. In contrast, the author of this article seeks to prove that precisely money & finances belong to the central metastructure of market society. What is important here is not only the subversive role of money as the monopoly-holding & political good in the exchange, but also its financial form of debt, resulting from the particular social role of debt accumulation. Society is connected with debt accumulation, & the economic sovereignty of money is its political legitimacy as debt. Therein lies its sociality, the foundation of underlying communication & of cooperation as metastructure of market society development. The present-day crisis has propelled the debt accumulation problem to absurd levels. It has brought to light that the greatest contradictions of today's market society are based on the economic & social globalization of finances. Contemporary capitalism is a genuine financial capitalism, which is why there can be no solution without a politico-economic & cultural reconstruction of the monetary regime & of financial economy. Accordingly, the author shows that the solution to the current economic crisis points precisely to the "metastructure" of market society. Adapted from the source document.

By using the analytical framework of the theory of modernization, the author analyzes the fundamental features of social community in postmodern society, in which it rests on kinship, religion, & cultural patterns. In modern society a new form of social community is established -- nation. It emerges within a constituted political framework as a community of individuals, subordinated to an integral legal framework. Contrary to the western model of "state-nation," there is the East European model of "culture-nation" or ethnic nation, which might be said to be an incompletely modernized social community. The dominating model in Croatia is one of the cultural or ethnic community. The consequences of such a model are the strengthening of authoritarian tendencies & the arrested development of democracy. In such a concept of social community there is no place for opposition. In Croatia, cultural & political modernization in the direction of social community with a more prominent role of intellectual elites & other social actors is vital. 15 References. Adapted from the source document.

This paper aims to examine the perspectives of pupils and students with disabilities regarding their roles in the implementation of education policy for children and students with disabilities. The role of pupils and students with disabilities in the implementation of education policy is analysed using the Contextual Interaction Theory, created by Hans Bressers. The main assumption of the Contextual Interaction Theory is that policy is a process based on negotiation and participation of various social groups and organisations, that is, on multi-actor interactions. The data were therefore collected by focus group interviews. Eight focus groups were held between January 2014 and December 2015, including 45 participants (pupils with disabilities in upper secondary school classes and students with disabilities). The negative perception of disability, insufficient knowledge of advocacy for their needs, the lack of consideration for the beneficiary perspective and a low inclusion rate of beneficiaries in the implementation of education policy are the obstacles to an increased participation of pupils and students with disabilities in the implementation of education policy. ; Cilj je ovoga rada istražiti poglede učenika s teškoćama u razvoju i studenata s invaliditetom o njihovoj ulozi u provedbi obrazovne politike prema djeci s teškoćama i studentima s invaliditetom. U ovom se istraživanju za analizu uloge učenika s teškoćama i studenata s invaliditetom u provedbi obrazovne politike primijenila Kontekstualna teorija interakcija (Contextual Interaction Theory) utemeljitelja Hansa Bressersa. Osnovna je pretpostavka Kontekstualne teorije da je politika proces koji se temelji na pregovaranju i sudjelovanju različitih društvenih skupina i organizacija, odnosno interakcija različitih aktera. Stoga su podatci prikupljeni fokus grupnim intervjuom. Provedeno je osam fokus grupa, u razdobju od siječnja 2014. do prosinca 2015. godine, kojima je obuhvaćeno 45 sudionika (učenika s teškoćama u razvoju završnih razreda srednjih škola i studenata s invaliditetom). Negativna percepcija invaliditeta, nedostatno znanje za zagovaranje potreba, neuvažavanje korisničke perspektive i slabo uključivanje korisnika u proces provedbe obrazovne politike prepreke su većem sudjelovanju učenika s teškoćama u razvoju i studenata s invaliditetom u provedbi obrazovne politike.

The author looks into Buchanan's contribution to the contemporary political economy. His starting point is that Buchanan's concept of economy as exchange links political science & economics, showing that this is feasible, since Buchanan has rejected the theory of allocation, a standard in economics, & promoted the market theory based on exchange. The theory of allocation is dubious for Buchanan since it reduces the subject of economics to a set of problems & not to a characteristic form of human activity. That is why he uses the concept of the symbiotic, meaning the attitude based on the study of links among various actors that are beneficial for all. Buchanan's basic concept evolved & was shaped in the 1980s in the form of the constitutional political economy, which is an attempt to explain the possibilities of different legal-constitutional rules that determine the basic framework for selecting economic & political actors. The author claims that for political science, particularly important is the fact that Buchanan defines this type of political economy as a redux of the political in economics. In this way, on the one hand, it became questionable in economics as a discipline, & on the other, more acceptable for political science. However, the fact that Buchanan's work transcends the rigid boundaries of social disciplines does not mean that he unreservedly paves the way for political science. On the contrary, Buchanan is pursuing such a fundamental revision of the rigid boundaries among disciplines in social sciences that it may challenge the present status of political science. 31 References. Adapted from the source document.

Pokrovčeva knjiga Slobodno stvaranje prava: Herman U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (2018) nameće pitanje izraženo naslovom ovog rada na koje rad odgovara u tri koraka: prvo, pretpostavkom da je pitanje odgovorivo samo idealnim tipovima pravnih disciplina / funkcija; drugo, upućivanjem na kontekst Kantorowiczevih gledišta, osobito na objavu presuda; treće, ocjenom da je Kantorowicz podijelio pravnu znanost u prepletene funkcije a ne u odvojene discipline. U tu svrhu rad nudi idealne tipove disciplina i funkcija pravne dogmatike, pravne historije, pravne teorije i, kao najsloženiji i najkorisniji skup funkcija, pravnopolitičku analizu. Pretpostavka je, koja se ne dokazuje, da ne postoji ni oštra granica između pravne znanosti i susjednih znanosti: sociologije, ekonomije, psihologije, filozofije. ; Is Herman U. Kantorowicz's classification of legal disciplines - which includes general legal science, legal dogmatics, legal history, sociology of law, philosophy of law, and legal policy - a division of scholarly knowledge of law into distinct disciplines/sciences or into intertwined functions of a single scholarly discipline/science? The question is prompted by the book written by Zoran Pokrovac entitled Slobodno stvaranje prava: Hermann U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (Free Law: Hermann U. Kantorowicz and the Free Law Movement ) and published by "Breza" and the Faculty of Law of the University of Split in 2018. Answering this question may assist Croatian legal scholars in finding standards of scholarly excellence, especially of research de lege ferenda. This paper offers an answer in three steps. The first is the recognition that scholarly practices differ considerably, which means that the question may be answered only by construing and correlating ideal types of legal disciplines / functions that are compatible with Kantorowicz's general ideas, prominent interpretations of legal scholarship, and Croatian mainstream legal scholarship since. The second step provides a context of Kantorowicz's ...

In interpreting current social and political processes, one should recognize new and mutually different political and democratic forces, which should offer an alternative to trends which had generated the crisis. Since totalitarian regimes such as fascism and communism (and even neoliberalism) did not solve the crisis of capitalism in the past, writers like Habermas, Searle, Luhmann, Wolin, Vesting and others do not consider them as potential solutions for the contemporary crisis. The solutions are not being sought within the framework of universalisation of particular interests either. Even less they look for a solution within some universal virtue that would represent all other virtues. On the contrary -- the contemporary theory recognizes that humanity in its lifeworld operates within different media and that the unified lifeworld is represented in different, incommensurable media, so the new theory attempts to create a modus vivendi among various representations of the world, not one single unitary interpretation. Contemporary theories are interested in the issue of coexistence between incommensurable differences, and thus they ask: how to preserve pluralism of social life. This process remains open. On the other hand, any idea of a single solution within a single unified medium leads to renewal of totalitarianisms, or even a world war, a new Holocaust or a new Hiroshima. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy in the context of the present-day debates on the theory of morals & politics. The starting point of Habermas' theory is his idea of discourse ethics. This is cognitivist ethics in the tradition of Kant, Rawis, Tugendhat & Apel that is built around the concept of normative correctness analogous to the descriptive notion of truth. This idea is best expressed by Kant's categorical imperative, according to which the validity of norms depends on their generalizability. Habermas, in line with Kant, is aware of the impossibility to rationally found universalist ethics. Instead of the final (deductive) foundations he offers the reflexion about the assumptions of a meaningful discourse i.e. the argumentation rules that must be respected if language communication is to be meaningful. Habermas' outline of the theory of law in his book Between Facts and Norms (Faktizirat und Geltung) builds on this moral-theoretical position. In modern society the function of law is to facilitate social communication: law is the legitimate framework of social communication on which the actors can rely. Habermas considers the specific link between human rights & popular sovereignty as the source of legitimacy. Human rights & popular sovereignty mutually condition each other & at the same time there is tension between them. The absolutization of individual rights makes democracy impossible since decision-making is obstructed; absolutization of popular sovereignty leads to the tyranny of the majority & the loss of rights. Habermas thinks that law can be legitimized by communicational mediation between the individual rights & popular sovereignty, in line with the principle that the claim to validity can only be laid by those norms that are approved of by all potentially affected individuals as rational discourse participants. Popular sovereignty is consistently procedurally interpreted. On the one hand, it is practised by means of public discourses & on the other through decision-making processes within democratically structured political institutions. The two dimensions of legitimizing law are different yet complementary: public discourses take place in civil society, political decisions are made in democratic institutions of the state. This is also an outline of the specific position of Habermas' political theory of deliberative democracy. It is equally distant from the model of liberal democracy which emphasizes possessive individualism & the protection of citizens' private interests, & from the republican democratic model that emphasizes political participation of active citizens. The theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of civil society: It is a sort of a practical verification of discourse ethics. Civil society is a sphere of autonomous public communication that is complementary to state administration but cannot substitute it. Communication power is exercised in the "siege mode" i.e. multiple discourses of civil society should contribute to the rationality & legitimacy of the decisions made by the political system, but do not have to replace them nor expose them to populist pressures. 2 Figures, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy in the context of the present-day debates on the theory of morals & politics. The starting point of Habermas' theory is his idea of discourse ethics. This is cognitivist ethics in the tradition of Kant, Rawis, Tugendhat & Apel that is built around the concept of normative correctness analogous to the descriptive notion of truth. This idea is best expressed by Kant's categorical imperative, according to which the validity of norms depends on their generalizability. Habermas, in line with Kant, is aware of the impossibility to rationally found universalist ethics. Instead of the final (deductive) foundations he offers the reflexion about the assumptions of a meaningful discourse i.e. the argumentation rules that must be respected if language communication is to be meaningful. Habermas' outline of the theory of law in his book Between Facts and Norms (Faktizirat und Geltung) builds on this moral-theoretical position. In modern society the function of law is to facilitate social communication: law is the legitimate framework of social communication on which the actors can rely. Habermas considers the specific link between human rights & popular sovereignty as the source of legitimacy. Human rights & popular sovereignty mutually condition each other & at the same time there is tension between them. The absolutization of individual rights makes democracy impossible since decision-making is obstructed; absolutization of popular sovereignty leads to the tyranny of the majority & the loss of rights. Habermas thinks that law can be legitimized by communicational mediation between the individual rights & popular sovereignty, in line with the principle that the claim to validity can only be laid by those norms that are approved of by all potentially affected individuals as rational discourse participants. Popular sovereignty is consistently procedurally interpreted. On the one hand, it is practised by means of public discourses & on the other through decision-making processes within democratically structured political institutions. The two dimensions of legitimizing law are different yet complementary: public discourses take place in civil society, political decisions are made in democratic institutions of the state. This is also an outline of the specific position of Habermas' political theory of deliberative democracy. It is equally distant from the model of liberal democracy which emphasizes possessive individualism & the protection of citizens' private interests, & from the republican democratic model that emphasizes political participation of active citizens. The theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of civil society: It is a sort of a practical verification of discourse ethics. Civil society is a sphere of autonomous public communication that is complementary to state administration but cannot substitute it. Communication power is exercised in the "siege mode" i.e. multiple discourses of civil society should contribute to the rationality & legitimacy of the decisions made by the political system, but do not have to replace them nor expose them to populist pressures. 2 Figures, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

Although Gavella could not have ever heard of Goffman's work, since he was primarily learned in German philosophical tradition, the two theoreticians do share a common interest in the two-way relationship of theatrical acting and everyday performing. True, Gavella is in the early fifties an already well established director and thinker, while Goffman only starts to develop his dramaturgical methodology, but both in their reflections draw on the same philosophical ground, that is, on phenomenology: Gavella in order to build his theory of acting on a certain difference with respect to the everyday performing, whereas Goffman in order to build a theory of everyday performing on a certain similarity to acting. Gavella had hard time in establishing the mentioned difference, still firmly believing in the utopian aspects of his aesthetics, while Goffman was accused of cynicism, of a distopian view of the prison-house of social »language«. The stunning correlation of crucial concepts and ideas of both of these theoreticians (»face-work«; »norm«, »normalcy«, »tact«, »mask«, »sincerity«, »looking-glass self«, »misunderstanding«, etc.) testify to a common obsession with the ways in which the study of misperformances in everyday face-to-face interaction reveals a fundamental crack in social ontology, and therefore in essential, irreducible selfhood as well. Far from matching the refined spectrum of Goffman's endlessly multiplying »frames of experience«, Gavella's extensive anthropological digressions on tacit norms and values ruling social interaction insist on consequences of such insights for the analysis of a specific, Croatian »social atmosphere«. In his view, Croatian milieu engendered a kind of sociality that, due to various historical, economical and political factors, demonstrates symptoms of »deep disturbances« and therefore, on one hand, does not provide a »material of actor's creativity« rich enough, while on the other, is in dire need of the actor's help to find a way out of its cultural impasses.

In this article the author analyses the transformations of the biopolitics concept from its initial introduction into political-science discussions through the organicist theory of the state to Foucault's critical theory of the subject. In the contemporary debate of social-humanistic theorists, biopolitics delineates a wide area of biomedical, genetic & biotechnological changes of life structures. The addition of a new concept of life to the political sphere requires a redefinition of modern foundations of political construction of the community. The author critically analyses various theories of biopolitics, thus showing that the reception of Foucault's take on biopolitics is a synthetic path toward overcoming the one-sidedness of naturalism/biologism & politicism in the understanding of life & politics in a global age. Biopolitics goes beyond its conceptual definition & becomes a first-rate problem of relations between human life & the way in which state regulates life in the global order of power ever since the traditional understanding of sovereignty & of natural & human rights ceased to be valid. Adapted from the source document.