Читайте также:
|
1. Is it possible to describe ‘politics’ within means of a single ‘methodology’, i.e. to understand it within only a single theory?
These are some of the names that scholars have used to describe the field we now call "political methodology."1 The history of political methodology has been quite fragmented until recently, as reflected by this patchwork of names. The field has begun to coalesce during the past decade; we are developing persistent organizations, a growing body of scholarly literature, and an emerging consensus about important problems that need to be solved. I make one main point in this article: If political methodology is to play an important role in the future of political science, scholars will need to find ways of representing more interesting political contexts in quantitative analyses. This does not mean that scholars should just build more and more complicated statistical models. Instead, we need to represent more of the essence of political phenomena in our models. The advantage of formal and quantitative approaches is that they are abstract representations of the political world and are, thus, much clearer. We need methods that enable us to abstract the right parts of the phenomenon we are studying and exclude everything superfluous.
This new interest in data collection ultimately had two important consequences: First, it greatly expanded the potential range of issues that political scientists could address. Even today, political methodologists' most important contributions have been in the area of data collection; even the 1CPSR was founded by political scientists.3 Additionally, the availability of data naturally raised questions of how best to use it, the heart of political methodology. Although the techniques were not fully understood and widely used until many years later, political scientists first experimented with statistical techniques during this early period, including correlation, regression, and factor analysis (see Gow 1985).
Figure 1 also illustrates the second important phase in the evolution of political methodology, the "behavioral revolution" of the late 1960s. During this period, the use of quantitative methods increased dramatically. In only five years, the proportion of articles in the APSR using quantitative data and methods increased from under a quarter to over half. Behavioralists popularized the idea of quantification, and applied it to many new substantive areas.
3. why it is said that the first democracy was created in Greece?
People in ancient Greece were the ones that created democracy. But there are many different types of democracy. There are many types of democracy, the "pure" democracy that the Greeks made isn't used at all (even by the US). Now a days all countries that say they are a "democracy" aren't a full democracy, they changed some parts of it. Like in a pure democracy the citizens would vote on EVERYTHING while in the US today the people vote on some things like governors and president that best follow what they would vote for normally but when something comes up they don't have the power to vote.
5) Describe the role of ‘class’ in politics.
Class - a term used to indicate an economic, social, or political group.
Plato’s Republic divides society into three natural classes conforming to individuals’ natural dispositions: rulers; soldiers; and workers.
· The rulers, for Plato, are distinguished by the virtue of wisdom (Philosopher-Kings);
· the soldiers have the virtue of courage;
· the workers or business people have the virtue of moderation.
In Classical antiquity (ancient Greece and Rome) a slightly more-advanced agricultural economy divides society into master and slave classes. In the Middle Ages (A.D.500–1500), Marxism says that the economic classes are landlords and peasants. During industrial capitalism, classes are bourgeoisie (capitalists) and proletariat (workers).
According to Marx and historical materialism:
Interaction between the development of ‘relations of production’ and ‘forces of production’ brings about a class system of relations in society.
Human beings find new ways of producing the necessities of life, ways that seem likely to ease material problems.
New ways of production create new relations between members of the group.
At a certain point they either have to embrace the new ways of relating to each other or reject the new ways of making a livelihood
- Implement new effective production or reject it, and maintain former system of relations and freedoms.
The new methods required some people to be freed from the burden of working in the fields to coordinate the activities of the group, and to ensure that some of the surplus was not immediately consumed but set aside for the future in storehouses.
But natural catastrophes, exhaustion of the land and wars could create conditions of acute (difficult and undesirable effect) crisis, making it difficult to organise the sustainable distribution and consumption, and survival of the society itself.
So, in cases of famine or draught, people had to make political decisions concerning the distribution and exercise of power:
- either to raid other agricultural societies and tribes for means of subsistence
- or to develop new more intensive and effective forms of agriculture.
Survival of the society was the main concern and priority.
And besides depending on a military force, survival, also critically depended on adopting these new techniques of production and agriculture.
Ruling classes arose out of the organisation of such activities and, with them, towns, states and what we usually call civilisation – when the right of exercise and distribution of power rested with Rulers. – Ruling elite acquires authority – legitimate power.
For the first time social development encouraged the development of the motive to exploit and oppress others.
Humanity increased its degree of control over nature, but at the price of most people becoming subject to control and exploitation by privileged minority groups.
Ruling elite organised the labour of the exploited class in the interests of the exploiting class, acting as both:
- units of production
- and social control.
This class exploitation was usually legitimised by the exclusiveness of provision of ‘Common Good’ by the ruling elites, and it was certainly easier to gain validation when religious and/or mythological understanding of the nature was a single and dominant one.
In Mesopotamia, for example, ‘Early kings boast of their economic activities, of cutting canals, of building temples, of importing timber from Syria, and copper and granite from Oman. They are sometimes depicted on monuments in the garb of brick layers or masons and of architects receiving the plan of the temple from the gods’.
So, classes, as early as in 20th century BC and even earlier, have already been established due to the necessity of organisation of production and distribution of material resources and surpluses with inevitable exploitative exercise of political power.
6) Can a society sustain itself without the state?
State-society relations is defined as ‘interactions between state institutions and societal groups to negotiate how public authority is exercised and how it can be influenced by people. They are focused on issues such as defining the mutual rights and obligations of state and society, negotiating how public resources should be allocated and establishing different modes of representation and accountability’
The focus is not on particular institutional forms but rather on the relations and relational functions of state and society institutions. Neither the state nor civil society is seen as acting in isolation. Rather, the state derives its legitimacy through its interaction with citizens and an organised and active civil society.
We can view a citizen as ‘someone with rights, aspirations and responsibilities to others in the community and to the state. This implies a relationship among citizens, and between the state and all those living within its borders’ (Benequista, 2010, p. 4). Citizenship confers various benefits, including the right to enjoy a nationality; to vote, hold office and participate in political processes; to access education, health and other goods; to access the labour market beyond the informal sector; to own businesses, land and other forms of property; and to security of residence and freedom of movement.
The nature of the political settlement can greatly impact upon state-society relations. In many fragile and conflict-affected states, relations are based on patronage and lack of accountability. The prominence of informal institutions and relationships and unofficial processes result in divergences between formal systems and rules and actual practice.
Political elites, who benefit from patronage and income from natural resource rents and criminal activities, often have little incentive to engage with citizens and to build effective public authority. The concentration of power in a few elites also limits the participation of citizens from public life.
In some situations, citizens may be excluded from public life through state repression and violence. This results in a legacy of negative and weak state-society relations. Efforts to promote an inclusive political settlement can re-shape relations and contribute to political and social transformation.
Much of the focus in statebuilding has been on building the capacity of central state institutions. Attention must also be paid to supporting civil society and citizen engagement such that they can hold the state accountable and make it responsive to society. Where donor policy and funding has been directed at both state and civil society institutions, these interventions have often been compartmentalised based on a traditional state-civil society divide. Strategies and policies are needed that focus on the interaction between institutions and citizens at all stages of war-to-peace transition, from peace negotiations and implementation of agreements to post-conflict peacebuilding. The challenge is to build peace alliances that stretch horizontally and vertically between different levels of society.
Greater attention also needs to be paid to questions of power and to altering elite incentives. External actors will find it difficult, though, to directly influence internal political dynamics. It may thus be more effective to target international behaviour and initiatives that affect incentives, such as management of extractive industries, international tax evasion and corruption. Statebuilding approaches also need to go beyond modelling the relationship between state, elites and an undisaggregated 'society', and ask who is represented by each group, who participates in state-society negotiations, and whose demands are being expressed? For example, donor approaches to statebuilding typically have not engaged with existing knowledge about gender power relations and how statebuilding processes impact women and men differently.
8. How do you understand the ‘distribution of power’?
According to Marx and historical materialism:
Interaction between the development of ‘relations of production’ and ‘forces of production’ brings about a class system of relations in society. Human beings find new ways of producing the necessities of life, ways that seem likely to ease material problems.
The new methods required some people to be freed from the burden of working in the fields to coordinate the activities of the group, and to ensure that some of the surplus was not immediately consumed but set aside for the future in storehouses.
But natural catastrophes, exhaustion of the land and wars could create conditions of acute (difficult and undesirable effect) crisis, making it difficult to organise the sustainable distribution and consumption, and survival of the society itself.
So, in cases of famine or draught, people had to make political decisions concerning the distribution and exercise of power:
- either to raid other agricultural societies and tribes for means of subsistence
- or to develop new more intensive and effective forms of agriculture.
Survival of the society was the main concern and priority.
And besides depending on a military force, survival, also critically depended on adopting these new techniques of production and agriculture.
Ruling classes arose out of the organisation of such activities and, with them, towns, states and what we usually call civilisation – when the right of exercise and distribution of power rested with Rulers. – Ruling elite acquires authority – legitimate power.
For the first time social development encouraged the development of the motive to exploit and oppress others.
Humanity increased its degree of control over nature, but at the price of most people becoming subject to control and exploitation by privileged minority groups.
9. Do separate ‘classes’ have separate political cultures? Why do you think so?
Class - a term used to indicate an economic, social, or political group. According to Aquinas each class is important to the functioning of the whole society, but each is different and requires distinct sets of laws to govern it. Therefore, I believe separate ‘classes’ have separate political cultures.
10. Why the control of political socialisation matters?
Political socialization is the “study of the developmental processes by which children of all ages (12 to 30) and adolescents acquire political cognition, attitudes, and behaviors”.[1] It refers to a learning process by which norms and behavior acceptable to a well running political system are transmitted from one generation to another. It is through the performance of this function that individuals are inducted into the political culture and their orientations towards political objects are formed.
Political socialization is a particular type of political learning whereby people develop the attitudes, values, beliefs, opinions, and behaviors that are conducive to becoming good citizens in their country. Socialization is largely a one-way process through which young people gain an understanding of the political world through their interaction with adults and the media. The process is represented by the following model:Fred I. Greenstein, Children and Politics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969).
Political socialization is the process by which political culture is transmitted in a given society. It occurs at both the individual and community level, and it extends beyond the acquisition of political culture to encompass the learning of more sophisticated political ideas and orientations. Political socialization is a life long process and a variety of individuals and institutions contribute to its shaping effect. For example, individuals are politically socialized by such groups as their family, peers, and social class. Furthermore, they are socialized by existing laws, media, religion, education, their own gender, and more. Basically, the process is never ending and the factors which shape it are all encompassing.
Those groups and institutions which contribute to the process of political socialization are known as the agents of socialization. These sources affect the development of political values and attitudes differently, but they all contribute to the individual's understanding of and orientations toward politics. The primary agents of socialization are those that directly develop specific political orientations such as the family. Whereas, the secondary agents of socialization tend to be less personal and involved in the process of socialization in a more indirect manner such as the media.
Basic political attitudes and values tend to be formed early in childhood and tend to be relatively consistent throughout life. Thus, the family is a very important agent of political socialization. However, the degree to which these basic political orientations are retained by the individual varies as a result of the discontinuities one experiences in their political socialization. Hence, this is where the other agents of political socialization become fundamental factors in one's political development.
11. Give a characteristic to relations between agents of political socialisation, is there a rivalry for influence?
Agents of Political Socialization
People develop their political values, beliefs, and orientations through interactions with agents of socialization. Agents include parents, teachers, friends, coworkers, military colleagues, church associates, club members, sports-team competitors, and media.Richard E. Dawson and Kenneth Prewitt, Political Socialization (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969). The political socialization process in the United States is mostly haphazard, informal, and random. There is no standard set of practices for parents or teachers to follow when passing on the rites of politics to future generations. Instead, vague ideals—such as the textbook concept of the “model citizen,” who keeps politically informed, votes, and obeys the law—serve as unofficial guides for socializing agencies.Kenneth P. Langton, Political Socialization (New York: Oxford, 1969); Michael P. Riccards, The Making of American Citizenry (New York: Chandler Press, 1973).
Agents can convey knowledge and understanding of the political world and explain how it works. They can influence people’s attitudes about political actors and institutions. They also can show people how to get involved in politics and community work. No single agent is responsible for an individual’s entire political learning experience. That experience is the culmination of interactions with a variety of agents. Parents and teachers may work together to encourage students to take part in service learning projects. Agents also may come into conflict and provide vastly different messages.
We focus here on four agents that are important to the socialization process—the family, the school, the peer group, and the media. There are reasons why each of these agents is considered influential for political socialization; there are also factors that limit their effectiveness.
12.Democracy - is it just an idealist utopia or something more?
13.What do you think is the ideological meaning of democracy?
14. How political ideology influences society, what do you think are the main contributing factors?
Political ideologies influence social policy as the government establishes the rules by which companies are to abide by. They can provide or even purchase services such as national health services, state education and public housing. They can also offer subsidies to producers and consumers. Sometimes they may also persuade their people through propaganda and exhortation. They can therefore provide favourable or unfavourable policies to govern their country.
Political Ideologies Influence Social Policies,as they lay down the rules and regulation of the state from the grass-root level. The laws and amendments are passed through the parliament, as they law down the framework on which social policies of the state are going to pass.
15. Why leaders are more than just manipulators and demagogues?
I believe that a leader who leads the people. compared manipulators manipulators want to capitalize on, doing everything in their favor. a leader can be called Gandhi, who spent his entire life for the sake of the nation
16) Why do all politicians want power?
Politicians become politicians because they want power. I could give you the whole Star Wars "lust for power is a manifestation of fear an insecurity" "hate leads to the dark side" thing, but, really, I put down lust for power to lust for power. Human beings are different, some are good people, whether they're life experiences test that or not, some are good, until bad enough things happen to them, and some simply aren't. Good people don't feel the need to wield power over others, and so they don't become politicians, kings, CEOs, general, gang bangers, or the like. That the world has thus always been, and always will be, ruled by bad people is just one of life's little ironies.
17)How political and economic crises relate and interact?
Дата добавления: 2015-02-16; просмотров: 97 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |