scholarly journals The identity politics: competition of new theoretical meanings and political strategies

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-35
Author(s):  
Maria Mchedlova ◽  
Daria Kazarinova
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Identity Politics ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Political Strategies ◽  
Cultural Meanings ◽  
Subject Field ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Instrumental Practice ◽  
Politics Of Life

The fragility of the modern unstable world has created both theoretical and methodological crises, and opened up opportunities for discursive and politicalpragmatic transcending the boundaries of linear normative constructions of Modernity. The inclusion of the concepts of identity and identity politics paradigm in the interpretation of political reality, and in instrumental practice appropriate strategies and technologies that lead to improving the performance of scientific research, and at the same time – to the aggravation of the uncertainty and destructive due to the use of political practices, guided around them. The subject field of these concepts is diversified and fragmented, reflecting the multiplicity of referents and generating conceptual and political-instrumental competition. The aim of the research is to trace the theoretical response to changing reality, which is poorly described by the traditional institutional paradigm of political science and requires the incorporation of socio-cultural meanings, which then becomes a catalyst and legitimizing basis for certain political practices. The authors address the conceptual positions of the theories of protest identity (M. Castells) resentiment (F. Fukuyama), pseudo-politics (M. Lilla), politics of life (A. Giddens), tribes and new tribalism (M. Maffesoli) and retrotopia (Z. Bauman).

scholarly journals On the subject field and methodological foundations of legal and political science.

2020 ◽  
pp. 435-445
Author(s):  
Kresina I.O.
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Theoretical Concept ◽  
The Political ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Subject Field ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
Independent Field ◽  
Wide Range

Legal and political science is a relatively new trend in political science, which began to emerge in Ukraine only in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The current stage of conceptualization and institutionalization of legal political science is characterized by the formation of its own theoretical base, the expansion of the circle of researchers dealing with this issue. It is necessary to identify the sources of the formation of legal and political science, its object and object, tasks and functions, that is, to create a fundamental theoretical concept that reflects the level of knowledge achieved and is a kind of basis for further scientific research in this direction. The transformative processes that took place in society and science in the second half of the XX century had a decisive influence on the process of designing legal and political science into an independent field of knowledge. and which eventually led to: 1) increased attention of scholars to the consideration of politics and law in the unity of their value-meaning characteristics; 2) the identification of political law as an independent area of ​​scientific research; 3) intensifying the development of interdisciplinary political and legal studies. Legal and political science is, in fact, a post-nonclassical stage in the development of political science, which determines its originality in terms of subject and methodological aspects. Formed on the border of political science and jurisprudence, legal and political science is an integrative system of knowledge that combines the cognitive resources of both sciences. Legal and political science aims to cover a fairly wide range of issues of state-legal construction. At the same time, the specificity of legal political science is that it focuses on the study of the political constituent of law, studying the socio-political conditions of the exercise of law, the influence of political phenomena and processes on the creation and functioning of legal norms. That is, it is interested in law not as a set of certain norms, their nature and character, but above all the political conditionality of law thr

scholarly journals Political Science in The Age of Resentment

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-183
Author(s):  
D. B. Kazarinova
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Identity Politics ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Political Methodology ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
Collective Work ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
New Research

Review of the book «Modern political science: Methodology» ed. by O. V. Gaman-Golutvina and A. I. Nikitin, Moscow, Aspect Press, 2019.The article examines some of the resentment related issues of modern politics, using a number of methodological approaches (identitarian approach, constructivist institutionalism, cultural and civilizational approaches, psychological-political and elitist, as well as gender approaches), described in the collective work of the Russian renowned academics "Modern political science: Methodology". These are the cleavages between traditional politics vs post- and pseudo-politics (shift from the normal politics made by consolidating broad strata to self-centered, exclusive, and increasingly differentiated and closed groups of pseudo-policies), conventional political leadership vs populism and anti-elitism (the rapid growth of populists on a global scale, the spread of anti-establishment sentiment, "populism of power" and the crisis of responsible leadership), formal and informal institutions vs personification of politics (reducing the role of institutions and increasing the importance of the human factor ), socio-economic basis of policy vs socio-cultural basis (emphasis on ethnic, religious and gender factors). The resentment as both the cause and effect of identity politics, is a result of an unfair distribution of goods and evils of globalization, or the manifestation of accumulated negative emotions and unjustified expectations. It generalizes these trends and issues and requires new research approaches, since traditional rationalistic approaches based on the theory of rational choice become less effective. To meet the challenges of resentment era, political science should keep balance between rationalism and reflexivity. This balance provides a single epistemological basis for the study of current political reality. It has been successfully reached by the authors of the book "Modern political science: Methodology". The book posits the idea of the fundamental irreducibility of methodology to the sum of the methods. In this regard the volume differs from similar publications aiming to present a wide scope of political methodology. The logic of the representation used by the editors is moving from general to particular, from societal to human, from global to local. The book demonstrates the wide diversity of methodological approaches and the rejection of the ideas of universalism, which adequately characterizes the state of Russian political science. The work is remarkable because it not only reflects, but also structures the Russian political science.

scholarly journals Political sociology and political management in the subject field of political science

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
N. S. Fedorkin
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Political Sociology ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Subject Field ◽  
Gradual Development ◽  
Political Management ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
The Subject

The article deals with the methodological problems of transformation processes in political science in the late XIX-th-early XX centuries and in the period between the two world wars. The author reveals the causes and origins of the crisis phenomena in political science due to the new political realities in the world and new trends in the political science development. The process of modern political science formation is analyzed in its gradual development (formal-legal, traditional, behavioral and post-behavioral). The special role of the Chicago revolution in political science, which created the environment and the ground for the emergence of the “behavioral” revolution, is revealed. The main program provisions of the “behavioral” revolution are indicated, its results, the main vectors of political science development in the post-behavioral era are revealed.The role of structural functionalism (G. Almond and his school) in the formation of modern political science is revealed. The article deals with the interaction of political science with related social disciplines, which led to the emergence of some hybrid disciplines of political knowledge, including political sociology and political management. The content of the hybridization concept is revealed. The role of sociology in this process as the “main donor” of political science in the considered era is revealed. Object-subject areas of political sociology and political management, their place and role in the mechanism of socio-political systems functioning in the subject field of political science are defined. Generalizing conclusions are made.

scholarly journals New Institutionalism in the system of theoretical and methodological foundations of political science

2019 ◽  
pp. 136-146
Author(s):  
Nataliia Rotar
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
New Institutionalism ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
Science Theory ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
The 19Th Century

The article analyzes the place and role of New Institutionalism in the system of theoretical and methodological foundations of political science. It is proved that the limitations of any science by the methodology leads to the fact that a significant number of problems, the study of which does not fit into the rigid framework of the scientific method, do not attract the attention of researchers. The conclusions note that in political science there does not exist and never existed a definite universal methodology, the general principles of which would be equally understood and applied by all researchers studying politics and which would guarantee the necessary, objective and universal knowledge for the sphere of politics. Those methodological approaches that have been used in political science since the 19th century correspond, first of all, to the subject and objectives of cognition of politics, which are dynamically changing and will change depending on changes in political reality. Therefore, the complex of methodological approaches that has been formed today is not exhaustive, and the methodology of New Institutionalism cannot be designated as universal. Most of the methodological approaches used today in political science are borrowed from other sciences, with the exception of the neo-institutionalism methodology, the basic principles of which were not adapted, but formed as a set of methods and theories for studying political. The methodological foundations of political science indicate its dependence, like any other science, on the philosophical models of cognition characteristic of a particular historical time. Initially, the development of the methodology of political science was influenced not only by the subject and purpose of the study, but also by the prospects for the practical use of the results obtained using certain methodologies and their socio and cultural purposes. Keywords: political science, methodology of political science, theory of political science, New Institutionalism.

Political science approaches to integrity and corruption

Human Affairs ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Rose ◽  
Paul Heywood
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Political System ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
Negative Pole ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Public Ethics

AbstractIntegrity ought logically to be a particularly important concept within political science. If those acting within the political system do not have integrity, our ability to trust them, to have confidence in their actions, and perhaps even to consider them legitimate can be challenged. Indeed, the very concept of integrity goes some way towards underwriting positive views of political actors. Yet, despite this importance, political science as a discipline has perhaps focused too little on questions of integrity. Where political science has looked at the subject of integrity, it has often done so without using the specific linguistic formulation “integrity”. Most commonly, the focus has instead been on “corruption”—a strand of research which has produced results that cannot always be translated into discussions of integrity, by virtue of its narrower focus upon the “negative pole” of public ethics. Other measures, such as “Quality of Government”, focus on positive attributes, notably impartiality, but this also fails fully to capture the notion of integrity: dishonesty can be impartial. Specific formal “codes” used within public life and among political practitioners can be much more nuanced than the most widely used measures, and can be much closer to what we understand—academically—as “integrity”. This paper argues that the hard conceptual and empirical work of elaborating integrity into a fully operationalizable concept offers the potential reward of an analytical concept that is more closely aligned with political reality.

PLACE AND ROLE OF NON-ACADEMIC EDUCATION IN THE SUBJECT FIELD OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

2020 ◽  
pp. 44-54
Author(s):  
Galyna Zhukova
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Education ◽  
Academic Education ◽  
Educational Activities ◽  
Subject Field ◽  
Demographic Groups ◽  
Existing Structures ◽  
Academic System ◽  
The Subject

Growing problem of inconsistency of the academic system of education with the new needs of society and individual, lack of existing structures of education contribute to the emergence of a different approach for the organization of educational activities, which is non-academic. As a philosophical phenomenon, it fully complies with the students' diverse interests and possibilities. Nonacademic education functions outside the academic education, free from strict rules and regulations, it focuses on specific educational requests of different social, professional, demographic groups.

scholarly journals Tolerance and intolerance: Cultural meanings and discursive usage

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-186
Author(s):  
Maykel Verkuyten ◽  
Rachel Kollar
Keyword(s):  
National Survey ◽  
Culturally Diverse ◽  
Cultural Meanings ◽  
Subject Positions ◽  
Lay People ◽  
The Subject

The notion of tolerance is widely embraced across many settings and is generally considered critical for the peaceful functioning of culturally diverse societies. However, the concepts of tolerance and intolerance have various meanings and can be used in different ways and for different purposes. The various understandings raise different empirical questions and might have different implications for the subject positions of those who are tolerant and those who are tolerated. In this study, we focus on cultural understandings of tolerance and intolerance and how these terms are used in discourses. We first describe how in an open-ended question in a national survey lay people use a classical and a more modern understanding of tolerance to describe situations of tolerance and intolerance. Second, we analyze how those who tolerate and those who are tolerated can flexibly use these different understandings of (in)tolerance for discursively making particular “us–them” distinctions. It is concluded that the notions of tolerance and intolerance have different cultural meanings which both can be used for progressive or oppressive ends.

The tenure of English judges

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. McIlwain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Object ◽  
William Iii ◽  
Science Association

At the meeting of the Political Science Association last year, in the general discussion, on the subject of the recall, I was surprised and I must admit, a little shocked to hear our recall of judges compared to the English removal of judges on address of the houses of parliament.If we must compare unlike things, rather than place the recall beside the theory or the practice of the joint address, I should even prefer to compare it to a bill of attainder.In history, theory and practice the recall as we have it and the English removal by joint address have hardly anything in common, save the same general object.Though I may not (as I do not) believe in the recall of judges, this paper concerns itself not at all with that opinion, but only with the history and nature of the tenure of English judges, particularly as affected by the possibility of removal on address. I believe a study of that history will show that any attempt to force the address into a close resemblance to the recall, whether for the purpose of furthering or of discrediting the latter, is utterly misleading.In the history of the tenure of English judges the act of 12 and 13 William III, subsequently known as the Act of Settlement, is the greatest landmark. The history of the tenure naturally divides into two parts at the year 1711. In dealing with both parts, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself strictly to the judges who compose what since 1873 has been known as the supreme court of judicature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document