scholarly journals Biocentrism as one of the main categories of everyday biopolitical discourse

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
А. Y. Kravets

The main aim of the article is the conceptualization of the categorical apparatus of biopolitics. The focus is on biocentrism as one of the main categories of modern biopolitical discourse. It is stated that biopolitics today offers a variety of research directions and a specific categorical apparatus, while fluctuations in the interpretations of the main terms and categories should be noted. The main terms are considered: «biopolitics», «political man», biopower and biocentrism. The definition of the above terms in the biopolitics is systematized and proposed author’s definitions. «Homo Politicus» as a phenomenon was a complicated and problematic subject of scientific conceptualization. Proposed particulars of the biopolitical view on «Homo Politicus»: «Homo Politicus» is genetically related with another biological species and this definitely has influence to his behaviour in social and political sphere. For instance, any human being as any social primates has genetic inclination to adaptation, domination, subjugation. In case with «Homo Sapiens» this has a form of genetic and social adaptation, political domination and subjugation. The inclination to the domination from one side to the subjugation to another side is genetically «imprinted» in to the nature of the «Homo Politicus». However it is important to be mentioned that nevertheless the «Homo Sapiens» shares inclination of social primates for hierarchical social organization, at the same time he developed capabilities which are unique in animal world, such as: language, culture and morale. Thus, ideas and values created by the human being commenced changing of his behavior in social and political sphere. Author’s definitions: «Political man» as an individual with innate properties of the brain and the psyche that affects his social and political behavior can be adjusted in the process of socialization and education and change in accordance with the challenges of the twenty-first century. Biopolitics as a new evolutionary paradigm of contemporary political science that explores the «political man» as a biological species with an emphasis on psycho-physiological mechanisms of political behavior and their influence on the political process. Biopower as a new model of power relations, enshrined at the legislative level, designed to protect life in all its forms and manifestations. Biocentrism is aimed at protecting life in all spheres, understanding that a person is only part of the overall biodiversity, and therefore has no right to destroy the biosphere guided by economic benefits.


Author(s):  
B. W. Hardy ◽  
D. A. Scheufele

The issue of the civic potential of the Internet has been at the forefront of much scholarly discussion over the last 10 to 15 years. Before providing a comprehensive overview of the different schools of thought currently dominating this debate, it is necessary to briefly describe how researchers have defined the terms citizenship and new media. Across different literatures, two ways of examining citizenship emerge. The first approach examines citizenship broadly as citizen involvement in the political process. Scheufele and Nisbet (2002), for example, identified three dimensions of citizenship: feelings of efficacy, levels of information, and participation in the political process. The second approach taps citizenship much more narrowly as social capital (i.e., the more emotional and informal ties among citizens in a community) (Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001). Depending on which definition of citizenship they followed, researchers also have been interested in different types of new media use with a primary focus on the Internet. Some have examined the Internet as a medium that functions in a top-down fashion similar to traditional mass media. These scholars mostly are concerned with how online information gathering differs from traditional media use, such as newspaper readership or TV viewing. More recently, scholars have begun to examine different dimensions of Internet use, including chatting online about politics, e-mail exchanges with candidates and other citizens, and online donations to campaigns.



2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 103-123
Author(s):  
Christian Etzrodt ◽  

The goal of this paper is to develop a consistent framework for a phenomenological discourse analysis of political debates. The political sphere arises through the questioning of taken-for-granted definitions of reality: a crisis. During a crisis meaning has to be restored, and different interest groups will try to push their definition of reality, which is advantageous for them. For the analysis of such a political discourse phenomenology provides several tools that can help us to understand the background of the discourse, the severity of the crisis, the level of expertise of the participants, the source of the information, discourse strategies and what arguments the audience accepts. These tools allow a unique phenomenological approach towards political discourse analysis.



Author(s):  
Pavel Aleksandrovich Kichaev ◽  
Sergey Aleksandrovich Karpukhin ◽  
Elena Nikolaevna Malik

The article reveals the main directions of using remote technologies in the political process. The main advantages and contradictions of the formation of electronic democracy in Russia have been identified. The main prospects for the formation of the institution of electronic democracy in Russia are analyzed. The authors argue that the institution of electronic democracy allows to quickly discuss socially significant state decisions, enhances the integration of citizens into the political sphere and, in general, increases the level of trust in state institutions.



2021 ◽  
pp. 29-48
Author(s):  
Janusz Nawrot

The conducted exegesis of some particular verses from the Septuagint indicates that two initial covenants made between a representative of the chosen nation with a Gentile party (Abraham and Solomon) did not breach the obligations resulting from the Law of Moses. The theological portrait of Abraham in the Book of Genesis captures an unambiguous evaluation of his conduct in accordance with the Law although the Law itself appeared considerably later when Moses lived. The pact between Solomon and Hiram deserves a similar evaluation. However, the later covenants between the kings of Israel and Judah with Gentile rulers deserve an extremely negative evaluation. Although they did not formally violate the Mosaic prohibitions, they were evaluated as a violation of trust in the Lord as He was the only Partner of the covenant between Himself and the Israelites. Such an interpretation is possible especially in light of Deut 7:6 which accentuates the uniqueness of Israel as a nation chosen by God from among other nations. And because this selection of Israel was done on the foundation of the covenant made on the Mount Sinai, it should be a one-of-a-kind covenant that should not be replaced with another pact signed with a human being, and let alone a Gentile. In all of the cases above, starting from King Asa and ending with Archpriest Jonathan, there was a true violation of the rule whereby the Lord was the only Partner of the covenant with His people. Thus, each of the analyzed treatises met with valid criticism both from a prophet and the inspired author. It is difficult to treat these violations as a major breach of the faith of Israel because of the established diplomatic relations. However, it was the rule of God’s uniqueness as a foundation for any sphere in the life of the chosen people that was violated. It included the political sphere which should not be excluded from the chosen people’s faith.  



2021 ◽  
pp. 7-28
Author(s):  
Janusz Nawrot

The conducted exegesis of some particular verses from the Septuagint indicates that two initial covenants made between a representative of the chosen nation with a Gentile party (Abraham and Solomon) did not breach the obligations resulting from the Law of Moses. The theological portrait of Abraham in the Book of Genesis captures an unambiguous evaluation of his conduct in accordance with the Law although the Law itself appeared considerably later when Moses lived. The pact between Solomon and Hiram deserves a similar evaluation. However, the later covenants between the kings of Israel and Judah with Gentile rulers deserve an extremely negative evaluation. Although they did not formally violate the Mosaic prohibitions, they were evaluated as a violation of trust in the Lord as He was the only Partner of the covenant between Himself and the Israelites. Such an interpretation is possible especially in light of Deut 7:6 which accentuates the uniqueness of Israel as a nation chosen by God from among other nations. And because this selection of Israel was done on the foundation of the covenant made on the Mount Sinai, it should be a one-of-a-kind covenant that should not be replaced with another pact signed with a human being, and let alone a Gentile. In all of the cases above, starting from King Asa and ending with Archpriest Jonathan, there was a true violation of the rule whereby the Lord was the only Partner of the covenant with His people. Thus, each of the analyzed treatises met with valid criticism both from a prophet and the inspired author. It is difficult to treat these violations as a major breach of the faith of Israel because of the established diplomatic relations. However, it was the rule of God’s uniqueness as a foundation for any sphere in the life of the chosen people that was violated. It included the political sphere which should not be excluded from the chosen people’s faith.



Author(s):  
Nataliia Rotar

In the article the author defined the peculiar properties and structure of the political mechanisms for the integration of Russian nationalism into Crimea’s Political Area in 1991-2014. It is proved that Russian nationalism formed a political strategy of integration into the political space of the Ukrainian autonomy on the principles of creating a manageable set of actors and subjects of the regional political process and civil space, as well as the incorporation of its agents of influence into the institutions of political power of the ARC. It is substantiated that the essence of the political component of the strategy of the activities of Russian imperial nationalism in the Crimea consisted in the creation on the basis of the Russian national minority (by status) of an independent ethno-social organism with a claim to its own state-territorial formation. In the conclusions, the author notes that structurally, the process of using the political mechanisms for the integration of Russian nationalism in the ARC is presented in three consecutive stages. At the first stage, the political goals of Russian nationalism in the Crimea were identified, which were of an imperial nature, and therefore included the definition of key directions and a system of organizational measures that were oriented toward the political, economic, ethno-national, sociocultural and information spheres of life in the Crimean peninsula. At the second stage, the political institutes of the Russian Federation developed a system of advanced initiatives aimed at weakening the influence of the institutions of Ukraine's political power on the territory of the autonomy and a set of tactical methods that enabled them to react quickly to the actual challenges of pro-Ukrainian initiatives. At the third stage, a system of effective mechanisms of lobbying, institutional interaction, forms, methods and methods of reproducing the meanings of Russian imperial nationalism in the ARC at the level of all levels of the given social space – political, ethnonational, socio-cultural and economic – was formed. Keywords: Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Russia, Russian nationalism, political integration, integration mechanisms, political meanings



2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 2157-2183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Scott

This paper responds to the conceptual inflation of constitutionalism in recent years by considering the relationship between constitutions and the specific concept of constitutionalism, seeking to establish the limits to the identification of the latter outside its traditional province. It considers both constitutions and constitutionalism in general terms, but seeks in particular to elucidate the relationship between the political constitution and political constitutionalism. This task requires an explanation of the law/politics divide and the paper argues for an institutional distinction between the two concepts, as opposed to one based upon the supposedly distinctive rationalities associated with law and politics. It grafts these categories onto a concept of constitutionalism characterized by a specific functional logic, whereby the same mechanisms that constitute power also limit that power. As such, it argues that to identify constitutionalism in contexts in which constitution and limitation occur separately—as in different layers of a multi-layered constitutional order—is mistaken. Constitutionalism is defined by this distinctive dualism, which in turn grants it its legitimating potential.In light of this definition of constitutionalism, the paper considers the relationship between law and politics within the constitutional order, offering three potential accounts of the connection between them. Amongst these, it endorses the idea that law and politics are necessarily linked: Within the democratic constitution, each frames the other such that legal requirements are the outcome of a political process which itself takes a form determined by law. The two phenomena are therefore inseparable; in a certain sense, all law is politics and all politics is law. The piece ends by suggesting that this claim is true where, and only where, the conditions laid down for constitutionalism hold true. Constitutionalism is a dualist phenomenon which, where it occurs, brings with it a highly particular melding of the legal and the political.



1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 68-83
Author(s):  
Antonio Natera Peral

This essay presents a tentative framework to analyze political leadership processes. First, it suggests some characteristics linked to the concept of political leadership: (1) an interactive process, (2) the emphasis on individual political behavior, (3) the collective purpose, and (4) the non-routine influence over the political process. Second, it points out several factors affecting the development of political leadership processes: (1) the leader's political competence, (2) the pattern of leader's political behavior, (3) the leader's support network, and (4) the opportunity structure. Finally, it proposes a formulation of political leadership style idea.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document