Motivational Tendency Differences Between the Pre-qin Confucianism and Legalism by Psycholinguistic Analysis

Among the hundred schools of thought that flourished during the pre-Qin era, Confucianism and Legalism are the most important ones as their thoughts cast a longstanding influence on the Chinese culture—cultural-psychological formation of the Chinese people. Most of the previous researches focused on analyzing the similarities and differences of the thoughts of Confucianism and Legalism, and few of them analyzed their motivational tendencies. This paper conducted a word frequency analysis of pre-Qin Confucian and Legalist classics with CC-LIWC, an independently developed program for classical text analysis, and made comparative research into the motivational tendencies of the two schools of thought in terms of psycholinguistic differentials. According to our research results, the use of words representing power (M = 0.1377, SD = 0.0104, p = 0.014) and reward (M = 0.0151, SD = 0.0042, p = 0.037) is more frequent in Legalist classics than in Confucian classics, whereas the use of words representing affiliation (p = 0.066), risk (p = 0.086), and achieve (p = 0.27) shows no significant difference between Confucian and Legalist classics. This paper believes that both Confucianism and Legalism are mainly motivated by power, which is the most distinct feature of their motivational tendencies, and that Legalism is more motivated by power and reward than Confucianism; both Confucianism and Legalism are outcomes of the monarchy society with the former showing the reserved side of monarchy and the latter showing the uninhibited side of monarchy; an effective political methodology is absent in Confucianism, while utilitarianism constitutes the cornerstone of the political philosophy of Legalism.

Assessing Racial/Ethnic and Gender Gaps in Political Science PhD Students’ Methodological Self-Efficacy

ABSTRACT Most research on diversity within political methodology focuses on gender while overlooking racial and ethnic gaps. Our study investigates how race/ethnicity and gender relate to political science PhD students’ methodological self-efficacy, as well as their general academic self-efficacy. By analyzing a survey of 300 students from the top 50 US-based political science PhD programs, we find that race and ethnicity correlate with quantitative self-efficacy: students identifying as Black/African American and as Middle Eastern/North African express lower confidence in their abilities than white students. These gaps persist after accounting for heterogeneity among PhD programs, professional and socioeconomic status, and preferred methodological approach. However, small bivariate gender gaps disappear in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, gaps in quantitative self-efficacy may explain racial/ethnic disparities in students’ broader academic self-efficacy. We argue that the documented patterns likely lead to continued underrepresentation of marginalized groups in the political methodology student body and professoriate.

The Crisis in the Rise of Representative Liberal Democracy to Populist Authoritarianism with Post-Truth Politics

In this century, representative liberal democracy is universally considered as the most perfect political regime. However, it is emphasized that the same political regime is exposed to a major crisis for the last 10-20 years as well as looking for ways out. Pursuant to many political scientists, the representative liberal democracy has the authoritarianism tendency that is defined as populism, and they relate it post-truth politics. It is also underlined that due to the politics with such negative elements, democracy contains paradox in terms of practice and discourse. Political regimes become functional within a certain social structure and it is obvious that democracy as a type of political system becomes functional within global world order, namely capitalism. In the research, political methodology, which studies the quantitative and qualitative methods, has been. This study aims to clarify how global capitalism throws representative liberal democracy into major functionality crisis, and the political and administrative rise of populist authoritarianism through post-trust. The sample of the study consists of academics working as lecturers in universities in Northern Cyprus. The results show that, there is a difference between demographic charecteristics of the participants responses to representative liberal democracy, know about populist authoritarianism and post truth politics. There is also a relationship between the political scientists’ authoritarianism tendency and authoritaritarianism defined as populism, as well as between liberal democracy role over the major crisis and role of global capitalism throws representative liberal democracy into major functionality crisis.

Introduction

What does it mean to say that, from first to last, Kelsen’s political thinking was focused on the real You and Me? Why such a hard-edged defence of Kelsen as a man of political realism for our time? The introductory chapter situates the book’s central theme against the current wave of substantial interest in Kelsen’s legal philosophy and democratic theory. It elaborates on the book’s political methodology of doing combined intellectual biography and comparative conceptual analysis, and explains its combative writing style. This scene-setter suggests forgetting the jurist for a little while, and outlines how the book’s five analytical chapters bring Kelsen’s life and thought into a productive tension with today’s Schmittians and conventional views of foreign-policy realism.

Constantine Karamanlis

This chapter discusses the impact of Constantinos Karamanlis on Greek politics. Karamanlis, leader of the Greek Right, served as prime minister for fourteen years (1955–63 and 1974–80), and as president of the republic for ten (1980–5 and 1990–5). A major (and, at times, dominant) figure from the mid-1950s until the mid-1990s, he was pivotal in the attainment of economic development and the founding of an established democracy in 1974–75, as well as Greece’s association with the EEC (1961) and its eventual succession (1979–81). The chapter discusses his long political career, his popular support base and the evolution of the Greek Right from the early 1950s until the late 1970s. It also evaluates Karamanlis’ political methodology: it disputes the assumptions of older bibliography which focused on his personal impact only, and puts forward the more contemporary thesis that Karamanlis was the leader of a team that expressed a wider ideological trend and the need to adjust to Western governance in the post-war era. Last but not least, Karamanlis’ legacies are discussed, mostly on the European identity of the country; arguably, this legacy allowed the Greek Right to survive the grave economic and social crisis of the 2010s.