scholarly journals RELEVANȚA LUI WALTER LIPPMANN PENTRU SENSUL ATRIBUIT SECURITĂȚII DE CĂTRE ARNOLD WOLFERS

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-124
Author(s):  
Alexandru LUCINESCU
Keyword(s):  
Walter Lippmann

În prezent, definiția securității formulată, în 1952, de Arnold Wolfers în articolul „Securitatea națională ca un simbol ambiguu” este frecvent citată în domeniul studiilor de securitate, în timp ce definiția acestui concept, propusă de Walter Lippmann într-o carte din 1943, intitulată „Politica externă a SUA: scutul republicii”, este în mare parte absentă din acest domeniu, o situație care nu facilitează analizarea conexiunilor dintre aceste definiții. Cu toate acestea, sunt autori care citează atât definiția securității formulată de Wolfers, cât și definiția acestui concept elaborată Lippmann, dar aceștia fie nu menționează existența unor conexiuni între cele două definiții, fie le remarcă dar nu le investighează, motiv pentru care nu a fost realizată încă o analiză detaliată a acestei probleme. Pentru a elimina această lacună din studiul primelor etape ale dezvoltării studiilor de securitate, în acest articol este realizată o analiză aprofundată a legăturilor de natură logică dintre cele două definiții ale securității, iar concluzia acestui demers este aceea că reflecția lui Wolfers asupra securității a avut rolul de a explica aspecte implicite ale definiției acestui concept formulată de Lippmann, dar că, în cele din urmă, și, într-un anumit sens, în mod neintenționat, Wolfers a propus o altă definiție a securității.

THE RELEVANCY OF WALTER LIPPMANN FOR ARNOLD WOLFERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SECURITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-121
Author(s):  
Alexandru LUCINESCU
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Research Topic ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Walter Lippmann ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of

Currently, the definition of security that was put forward in 1952 by Arnold Wolfers in his article “National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol” is widely cited within the field of security studies while the definition of this concept that have been advanced by Walter Lippmann in his book from 1943, “US foreign policy: Shield of the Republic” is largely absent, a situation which hinders the turning into a research topic of the connections between these definitions. However, there are authors who cite both the definition of security advanced by Wolfers and the definition of it put forward by Lippmann, but they either do not mention the existence of connections between these definitions or take notice of them but do not investigate them, with the consequence that a thoughtful consideration of this problem is lacking. In order to fill this gap in the study of the early stages of the development of security studies, this article provides an in-depth investigation of the links between the two definitions of security which reveals that Wolfers’ reflection on security was meant to explain implicit aspects of Lippmann’s definition of this concept but that eventually and somehow unintentional Wolfers advanced a different perspective on security.

Lippmann and Dewey

2019 ◽  
pp. 80-124
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
John Dewey ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Mass Public ◽  
Adequate Understanding ◽  
New Form ◽  
Walter Lippmann ◽  
Lack Of Knowledge

During the 1920s, Walter Lippmann expressed his growing doubts about the epistemic capacities of the journalistically informed mass public, and John Dewey published three responses to these doubts—none of which grappled with the interpretive problems that Lippmann saw as the barrier to an adequate understanding of modern society. Rather than lamenting the mass public’s lack of knowledge, as Dewey did, Lippmann was mainly worried about the inevitably biased stereotypes by means of which journalists and their readers winnow down overabundant knowledge into coherent interpretations. Dewey’s hopes for a new form of journalism, his faith in ordinary people’s knowledge of the problems afflicting them, and his ideas for a new social science failed to confront this problem of interpretation. However, Lippmann’s own solution, early in the debate, was an epistocracy of statisticians, which also failed to confront the interpretive problem he had identified. The debate ended, then, with neither engagement nor resolution.

Liberalism beyond Hayek: On the Renewal of Liberalism and the Institutional Infrastructure of Freedom

2019 ◽  
Vol 139 (2-4) ◽  
pp. 305-324
Author(s):  
Lars Peder Nordbakken
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Market Economy ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Main Topic ◽  
Severe Attack ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Institutional Infrastructure ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Walter Lippmann

This paper suggests that the challenge to renew liberalism today may be seen to share some similarities with the first attempt to renew liberalism at the Colloque Walter Lippmann in 1938. Besides sharing intellectual, political and institutional dimensions, liberalism is once again under severe attack on many fronts, and it is once again seen by many to suffer a combined legitimacy and effectiveness crisis, reminding us of the main topic discussed in 1938. The first central argument of the paper is to show why a realistic and inclusive conception of liberty needs to be grounded in an extended institutional infrastructure of freedom, based on the interdependent and balanced relations between its four major institutional pillars: the rule of law, democracy, the market economy and civil society. Following this discussion, the paper challenges Friedrich Hayek’s attempt to rebuild liberalism based on a narrower conception of liberty and its institutional preconditions. The paper concludes by underpinning the need to move beyond Hayek in the renewal of liberalism in our time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document