Questions related to Political History
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am a young PhD student who has just started the second year of the 4-year PhD programme. I am a political scientist specializing in British colonial political history, mainly South Africa and Ireland.
Some time ago, I finished writing a draft of my article on the question of liberty in the British Commonwealth, where the Irish Free State was a case study. The paper argues that understanding liberty as non-interference (Berlin, JS Mill and Bentham) was a foundation of the British policy towards its Dominions. It made the Commonwealth look more like a British colonial club, which was serving the interest of the Crown, and not a confederation of freely associated members (like the EU). Another argument is that Dominions, on the other hand, were subconsciously standing on the Republican understanding of liberty (Pettit, Mill, Harrington). The research uses Ireland to illustrate the abyss between the two concepts. It shows that the passionate Irish antagonism towards the Commonwealth was, to some extent, a result of that polarization of the viewpoints.
My question is the following. One of the respected reviewers has given me a comment that I must precisely explain how the two systems with their outlook on liberty apply to the question of collective freedom, the freedom of states, and not individuals. Thus, could you please help me with that? I felt that such an issue would pop up but was postponing its resolution until the comments arrived. How may I explain the application of the two outlooks to the freedom of the states? When does an individual transform into a collective? Is it possible to see a state as an equivalent of a living organism nowadays (IMHO, it is such an outdated and controversial concept that I would not dare following it to justify my logic)?
PS I was lucky to get comments from Skinner himself; however, I would love to hear as many thoughts as possible.
Thank you for any comments and recommendations.
Warm regards :)
The cultural impact of science-fiction and dystopian literature is becoming more and more obvious these days. Words like "Robot", "Android", "Cyborg", "Automation",etc, all come from sci-fi novels, and Orwell, Huxley and Zamyatin seem to have foreseen a lot of the events that are happening around us. I was thinking it would be great if we could create a network of researchers interested in the link sci-fi/dystopia- social/political history., which could lead to a conference at my university (Aarhus university, Denmark) in 2020 or 2021.
Most of the societies across the world are going through doldrums and pathetic situations especially when it comes the homogeneity of these societies. Even we try to understand the global phenomenon is not much more different case we are also divided at global level. The major point of clash is ideological clash. Even sometimes ideological clashes change into war type of situations. Hence, it is paramount to understand what kind of vision the global leadership have to develop in order to come out from this sort of morass of ideological compartmentalization. On the other side if we try to understand the phenomenon of diversity is crucial for understanding one another. However, we cannot build in the entire world one ideological system that is true. But then how we can can achieve peace in the atmosphere of ideological clashes. What sort of policies and ideas we have to develop in the present globalized world thereby we could reach some sort of consensus. Civilisational dialogue may be the one method but there may be some other methods about which I need holistic picture from your side. Need good feedback from anyone.
I am interested in the following questions:
What are extreme democratic outcomes(EDO)? When should they be expected to take place? Do they work under sustainability theory or chaos theory?. Are they the extreme opposite of the normal democratic outcomes that are supposed to come out from democratic models based on majority rule one person one vote? Do they follow normal independent voting/preferences and ranking assumptions?.
And the reasons are:
Without having answers to the questions above, it is difficult a) to predict EDOs and therefore to avoid them; b) it is not possible to see how you can deal with them once they take place; c) it is difficult to see the link between chaos in the creation and the sustaining of the conditions behind the extreme democratic outcome; and d) it is difficult to see what needs to be done to create the conditions for extreme democratic outcomes to revert towards normal democratic outcomes.
The need for a theory of extreme democratic outcomes and democracy
The fact that polling and the media missed the coming the BREXIT and the USEXIT, the subsequent lost of BREXIT and the fact that extreme democratic outcomes did not materialize in France and the Netherlands indicate that a theory of extreme democratic outcomes and democracy is needed urgently.
I am working on a series of papers on the topic right now as it is clear that at least in the short and medium term some extreme democratic outcomes and their consequences are here to stay, and stay longer if we keep treating them as if we are dealing with normal democratic outcomes.
Is anybody here working in the lines of extreme democratic outcomes, a line where normal ideas of voting theories and preference ranking may no longer work?. Any comments?
As stated by Strömbäck (2008), the analysis of mediatization as a process of four phases, is mainly restricted to Western democracies in the period after World War II.
Hjarvard (2008) also maintaines that "Mediatization is no universal process that characterizes all societies. It is primarily a development that has accelerated particularly in the last years of the twentieth century in modern, highly industrialized, and chiefly western societies, i.e., Europe, USA, Japan, Australia and so forth. As globalization progresses, more and more regions and cultures will be affected by mediatization, but there may be considerable differences in the influence mediatization exerts".
So trying to make use of the theory's innovations and four dimensions in analysing the media's role in the current civil wars in the Middle East, with its authoritarian regimes, lack of democracy, and media for an extent to act as part of this chaos, is a real challenge. Can mediatization apply for such type of analysis? Primarily, how can we measure in an academic work, the degrees to which media is independent from the political institution?
One tip is to look at the work done by Kitchen and Lawrence in their 3 volume (2011) edition of ANE covenants, particularly volume 3 that compares the textual structure across different periods and genres.
It seems that one of the crucial aspects of a neorepublican political philosophy should be a robust account of political (self-) education. As I can see it, it draws from the classical understanding of politics seen as a free public activity of persons and treats education primarily as learning not instruction. Political education is then concerned with reflexivity, self-knowledge and political awareness. It is a constant and conscious exercise in reflexivity on the principles and goals of a political community we live in. Would anyone like to comment on such an account of political (self-) education that seems to be largely missing in both today's political science and democratic theory?
Only signatories of International Treaties have to oblige them, therefore can Non-State Space Actors (NSSA) who by their nature are not signatories have to oblige Treaties? If a NSSA claims a celestial body to what extent is their a State-NSSA/NSSA-International Law/State-International Law accountability?
I have come across fictional accounts of Japanese soliders during WWII drinking blood of a fellow solider. The aims, so far as the accounts suggest, are to strengthen the bond amongst themselves and to boost sacrifice the fellow soldier has made. Whilst it can be 'fictional', has anyone come across any actual incidents among Japanese soldiers? Or has anyone come across examples from other wars in other times?
I'm looking for sources which present the Arab Revolt in Palestine (1936-9) from the Arab and British points of view. So far, I have been able to find Swedenburg's "Memories of Revolt" and Kanafani's "The 1936-39 Revolt in Palestine".
Will greatly appreciate recommendations!
Garrett Mattingly, in Renaissance Diplomacy, considered it as a unifying factor in Western Europe.
However there has been some criticism lately of how much religion was a unifying factor and that Mattingly and others were ‘ignoring the historical contingency of their sources.’, as John Watkins put it, in his article ‘Towards a New Diplomatic History’. Watkins dates the term Res publica Christiana to the first crusade yet fails to acknowledge who coined the term or when it was said. Another author, Bjorn Weiler, cited by Watkins, seems to imply that the term came later, during the latter half of the thirteenth century, when political discourse concerning the concept of crusading was becoming more sophisticated (The "Negotium Terrae Sanctae" in the Political Discourse of Latin Christendom, 1215-1311).
A hypothesis with narrative attributions:
We have a catholic-identity-conservative (or reconstructing) government in Poland. An identity-reconstructing government in Hungary. And differently strong post-liberal or (back to) pre-liberal parties and ideologies/movements in many European societies.
Is there (rather) a similar pattern of events and contextual identity and conflict constructions like in former European times? Or is it rather that we, in a maybe Derrida-sense, make (up) these/such analogies - but maybe based on rational validity/empirical signs. Or based on our structural urgence to create (narratives of) sense/meaning.
In the above sense:
Is the European Union somehow similar to/reminding of the Congressional Europe after 1815? Trying to keep national states/national state movements from nationalising their politics.
Or is it (also/rather) somehow like the Inter-World-War period when there was a lack of meaning and meta-narratives in a post-monarchical and post-classical-bourgeois world? So that this lack/"vacuum" is filled with new meta-narratives, like then Sovyet socialism, different forms of fascism, etc. Do we experience such a lack/vacuum, and the different ideologies trying to fill it, in the current situation of Europe too?
Is there a pattern or are there similarities? Or is it somehow similar but also qualitatively different? Or is it qualitatively and/or structurally completely different?
It is often attributed to Benn but I've not been able to find anywhere where Benn said it. (Tony Benn was a British minister in the Wilson Government.)
Or is it possible to teach about and for citizenship education without referencing elections? A major motivation for, and backdrop to, citizenship education would appear to be the need for greater participation in normative, representative-based elections and voting. The argument is that young people do not vote in great numbers, and that they should engage more in "democracy". However, within my own research on education for democracy, I have found that the over-emphasis on focusing on voting, elections, and electoral processes can have the adverse affect of creating a disengagement from the core of citizenship in relation to democracy. Thus, I am interested to know how colleagues address questions of power relations, participation, social justice, solidarity, peace, political and media literacy, etc., all of which I would include within the rubric of thicker and more meaningful democracy, especially within the educational context, without reverting to the normative, mainstream (generally uncritical) focus on elections. Of course, I fully accept that voting and elections could be a part of the equation, especially if this involved alternative visions, critical engagement, and a full problematization of the meaning of such elections (are they even democratic, for example?). Lastly, during my decade-long research project with teacher-education students with samples in a number of countries, when discussing democracy the almost universal response was that they experienced themselves a limited, uncritical focus on just voting and elections to the behest of the more robust and messy nature of democracy in all of its dimensions.
I want to investigate whether there is any relationship between government revenue with the economic and political stability and corruption for Sri Lanka covering a period of 1990 to 2014
The focus is on presidents not presidencies/regimes. This is despite the fact that individuals/personalities matter a lot more than regimes in developing countries where they can override institutional checks and balances, in contrast to the case for developed economies where checks and balances are more effective in moderating an individual leader's position.
Can you explain here a brief historical account.
According to my understanding this movement, critical thought, historical approach or critical school commenced in 1970 to amend power-based or elite based flaws at historical grounds (Especially after colonialism and emperialism, third world people found themselves lost. They were without history (i.e., without identity) of their own. I know, I am making here a mistake by using the fuzzy term third world but it is, for me and for most of the people, a general term to distinguish people of undeveloped country from the people of most advanced and powerful countries. Then from 1990, the term became a weapon, a tool, a methodology to voice the voiceless at academic, social, political, cultural etc grounds. Now, this multidisciplinary approach has no boundary and is applicable for all people marginalized in any country at any level.
How far am I correct? What is the difference between its initial objective and now its application in modern time?
I possess a working proficiency in German, but feel the legal subtleties of the Prussian Civil Code, or Allgemeines Landrecht, of 1794. Are there English translations available? If so, what is the best translation? I was unable to find much information regarding this, and was hoping to get some guidance from any experts on here.
there has been numerous evidences which categorically accounts the reactionary remarks of anarchism towards the practice of reductionist planning principles in modern era. however such criticism confined to the passive expression for bringing reversal from the utopian project of capitalist planning mechanism. later, the formulation ofpost modern theorieswhich brought a new revelation interms of redefining the conceptual logic of place and space synthesised from neo marxism and radicalism.hence, what role anarchism played in defining the order of life,function and place in city space?
Attempting to explore a how influential Jacobinism was outside of France, mainly as a new political framework.
Have tried using google translate but the translation has been insufficient in gaining an understanding of the text.
The four coups to date and the perception of a generational ‘coups culture’ are they only the symptoms to much wider issues?
Was Mr Bainimarama ‘grasping at straws’ with his “Look North Policy” in an attempt to generate external means to support the Fijian Government, or are these policies a politically naïve attempt to re-engage with Australia and New Zealand on more equal terms?
In order to achieve peace and stability in Fiji – is this best conducted internal to the country or with external assistance sanctioned by all key players in an attempt to better understand and resolve the drivers to the ongoing conflict?
Does not the depth of ingrained racial tension in current time lead to a continuance of previous colonial and post-colonial (1970-1987 and then building up to the 2006 Coup) attitudes?
If restorative justice has not been successful in the past, and the rule of law has not worked where the continuance of Militocracy continues, what alternative avenues are there within a South West Pacific environment that may be considered acceptable as a method of resolving this conflict?
How do you set about resolving such ingrained historical grievances in Fiji where there is little desire for them to be resolved in an impartial manner in the first place?
What do you consider to be the drivers to seeking a path of resolution in the current climate of Fiji?
What would be the result if the UN turned to the interim Govt of Fiji and said – resolve your democracy issues and maintain a free and fairly elected government or we will no longer accept Fijian military personnel on UN missions in any capacity?
How can Fiji resolve its own issues constitutionally, particularly where there is continual change to the constitution based on personal whim by a few key actors in this crisis?
In the Fijian example, would an open invite would need to be issued by the Fijian President with concurrence from the Prime Minister and Commander RFMF to provide clarity for any group providing governance assistance? If so, to what countries would Fiji look toward in the provision of governance assistance, particularly as the September 2014 elections draw closer.
With the sanctions imposed by Australia and New Zealand having essentially failed, is there any hope of return to 'normalcy' in political relationships between Fiji, Australia and New Zealand?
Will Mr Bainimarama accept the election results of the 2014 elections if his party not win the people’s vote or will he revert to Militocracy?
Studying the neutrality of the Netherlands, especially during WW I and the inter war years, I am interested in similarities and differences with other small neutral countries.
Considering that Keynes was an active speaker of Hayek and that he was politically engaged with issues related to new forms of economic coordination that emerged with the end of the laissez-faire age, why was he absent in the Socialist Economic Calculation Debate conducted by Mises - Lange - Hayek?