In this paper I unpack a realistic conception of politics by tightly defining its constitutive features: conflict and order. A conflict emerges when an actor is disposed to impose his/her views against the resistance of others. Conflicts are more problematic than moralists realize because they emerge unilaterally, are potentially violent, impermeable to content-based reason, and unavoidable. Order is then defined as an institutional framework that provides binding collective decisions. Order is deemed necessary because individuals need to cooperate to (...) survive, but groups cannot spontaneously secure collective decisions and are prone to conflicts. Particularly, the fact that potentially violent conflicts emerge unilaterally means that order requires coercion. I conclude that mischaracterizing conflict and order leads to undesirable normative principles, and that this criticism can be leveraged not only against Rawlsian liberals who moralize conflicts away, but also against some agonists who underestimate the need for order and some communitarians who underplay both circumstances. (shrink)

In this paper I unpack a realistic conception of politics by tightly defining its constitutive features: conflict and order. A conflict emerges when an actor is disposed to impose his/her views against the resistance of others. Conflicts are more problematic than moralists realize because they emerge unilaterally, are potentially violent, impermeable to content-based reason, and unavoidable. Order is then defined as an institutional framework that provides binding collective decisions. Order is deemed necessary because individuals need to cooperate to (...) survive, but groups cannot spontaneously secure collective decisions and are prone to conflicts. Particularly, the fact that potentially violent conflicts emerge unilaterally means that order requires coercion. I conclude that mischaracterizing conflict and order leads to undesirable normative principles, and that this criticism can be leveraged not only against Rawlsian liberals who moralize conflicts away, but also against some agonists who underestimate the need for order and some communitarians who underplay both circumstances. (shrink)

What are the consequences of globalization for the structure of political conflicts in Western Europe? How are political conflicts organized and articulated in the twenty-first century? And how does the transformation of territorial boundaries affect the scope and content of political conflicts? This book sets out to answer these questions by analyzing the results of a study of national and European electoral campaigns, protest events and public debates in six West European countries. While the mobilization of the (...) losers in the processes of globalization by new right populist parties is seen to be the driving force of the restructuring of West European politics, the book goes beyond party politics. It attempts to show how the cleavage coalitions that are shaping up under the impact of globalization extend to state actors, interest groups and social movement organizations, and how the new conflicts are framed by the various actors involved. (shrink)

Political disputes over toleration are endemic, while toleration as a political value seems opposed to those of civic equality, neutrality and sometimes democracy. Toleration in Political Conflict sets out to understand toleration as both politically awkward and indispensable. The book exposes the incoherence of Rawlsian reasonable pluralist justifications of toleration, and shows that toleration cannot be fully reconciled with liberal political values. While raison d'état concerns very often overshadow debates over toleration, these debates – for (...) example about terrorism – need not be framed as a conflict between toleration and security. Framing them in this way tends to obscure objectionable behaviour by tolerators themselves, and their reliance on asymmetric power. Glen Newey concludes by sketching a picture of politics as dependent on free speech which, he argues, is entailed by the demands of free association. That in turn suggests that questions of toleration are inescapable within the conditions of politics itself. (shrink)

The most glamorous and even glorious moments in a legal system come when a high court recognizes an abstract principle involving, for example, human liberty or equality. Indeed, Americans, and not a few non-Americans, have been greatly stirred--and divided--by the opinions of the Supreme Court, especially in the area of race relations, where the Court has tried to revolutionize American society. But these stirring decisions are aberrations, says Cass R. Sunstein, and perhaps thankfully so. In Legal Reasoning and Political (...) Conflict, Sunstein, one of America's best known commentators on our legal system, offers a bold, new thesis about how the law should work in America, arguing that the courts best enable people to live together, despite their diversity, by resolving particular cases without taking sides in broader, more abstract conflicts. Sunstein offers a close analysis of the way the law can mediate disputes in a diverse society, examining how the law works in practical terms, and showing that, to arrive at workable, practical solutions, judges must avoid broad, abstract reasoning. Why? For one thing, critics and adversaries who would never agree on fundamental ideals are often willing to accept the concrete details of a particular decision. Likewise, a plea bargain for someone caught exceeding the speed limit need not--indeed, must not--delve into sweeping issues of government regulation and personal liberty. Thus judges purposely limit the scope of their decisions to avoid reopening large-scale controversies. Sunstein calls such actions incompletely theorized agreements. In identifying them as the core feature of legal reasoning--and as a central part of constitutional thinking in America, South Africa, and Eastern Europe-- he takes issue with advocates of comprehensive theories and systemization, from Robert Bork to Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, and Ronald Dworkin, who defends an ambitious role for courts in the elaboration of rights. Equally important, Sunstein goes on to argue that it is the living practice of the nation's citizens that truly makes law. For example, he cites Griswold v. Connecticut, a groundbreaking case in which the Supreme Court struck down Connecticut's restrictions on the use of contraceptives by married couples--a law that was no longer enforced by prosecutors. In overturning the legislation, the Court invoked the abstract right of privacy; the author asserts that the justices should have appealed to the narrower principle that citizens need not comply with laws that lack real enforcement. By avoiding large-scale issues and values, such a decision could have led to a different outcome in Bowers v. Hardwick, the decision that upheld Georgia's rarely prosecuted ban on sodomy. And by pointing to the need for flexibility over time and circumstances, Sunstein offers a novel understanding of the old ideal of the rule of law. Legal reasoning can seem impenetrable, mysterious, baroque. This book helps dissolve the mystery. Whether discussing the interpretation of the Constitution or the spell cast by the revolutionary Warren Court, Cass Sunstein writes with grace and power, offering a striking and original vision of the role of the law in a diverse society. In his flexible, practical approach to legal reasoning, he moves the debate over fundamental values and principles out of the courts and back to its rightful place in a democratic state: the legislatures elected by the people. (shrink)

The most glamorous and even glorious moments in a legal system come when a high court recognizes an abstract principle involving, for example, human liberty or equality. Indeed, Americans, and not a few non-Americans, have been greatly stirred--and divided--by the opinions of the Supreme Court, especially in the area of race relations, where the Court has tried to revolutionize American society. But these stirring decisions are aberrations, says Cass R. Sunstein, and perhaps thankfully so. In Legal Reasoning and Political (...) Conflict, Sunstein, one of America's best known commentators on our legal system, offers a bold, new thesis about how the law should work in America, arguing that the courts best enable people to live together, despite their diversity, by resolving particular cases without taking sides in broader, more abstract conflicts. Sunstein offers a close analysis of the way the law can mediate disputes in a diverse society, examining how the law works in practical terms, and showing that, to arrive at workable, practical solutions, judges must avoid broad, abstract reasoning. Why? For one thing, critics and adversaries who would never agree on fundamental ideals are often willing to accept the concrete details of a particular decision. Likewise, a plea bargain for someone caught exceeding the speed limit need not--indeed, must not--delve into sweeping issues of government regulation and personal liberty. Thus judges purposely limit the scope of their decisions to avoid reopening large-scale controversies. Sunstein calls such actions incompletely theorized agreements. In identifying them as the core feature of legal reasoning--and as a central part of constitutional thinking in America, South Africa, and Eastern Europe-- he takes issue with advocates of comprehensive theories and systemization, from Robert Bork to Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, and Ronald Dworkin, who defends an ambitious role for courts in the elaboration of rights. Equally important, Sunstein goes on to argue that it is the living practice of the nation's citizens that truly makes law. For example, he cites Griswold v. Connecticut, a groundbreaking case in which the Supreme Court struck down Connecticut's restrictions on the use of contraceptives by married couples--a law that was no longer enforced by prosecutors. In overturning the legislation, the Court invoked the abstract right of privacy; the author asserts that the justices should have appealed to the narrower principle that citizens need not comply with laws that lack real enforcement. By avoiding large-scale issues and values, such a decision could have led to a different outcome in Bowers v. Hardwick, the decision that upheld Georgia's rarely prosecuted ban on sodomy. And by pointing to the need for flexibility over time and circumstances, Sunstein offers a novel understanding of the old ideal of the rule of law. Legal reasoning can seem impenetrable, mysterious, baroque. This book helps dissolve the mystery. Whether discussing the interpretation of the Constitution or the spell cast by the revolutionary Warren Court, Cass Sunstein writes with grace and power, offering a striking and original vision of the role of the law in a diverse society. In his flexible, practical approach to legal reasoning, he moves the debate over fundamental values and principles out of the courts and back to its rightful place in a democratic state: the legislatures elected by the people. (shrink)

본 논문은 다원화 사회의 정치적 갈등이 초래되는 가치관의 차이를 환원론적 방법을 통해 분석한다. 정치적 갈등의 근본 원인은 무엇보다 바람직한 사회에 대한 가치관의 무게추가 개인에 맞추어져 있느냐 아니면 공동체 쪽으로 기우느냐에 따라 첨예한 대립적 이념구도가 형성된다. 우선 개인을 우선적 가치로 삼을 경우 정치, 사회 시스템의 구성은 개체주의 형태로 나타나며 이런 형태는 전형적으로 자유주의 모형이라고 볼 수 있다. 반면 전체 집단이 개인보다 중시되면 이는 집단주의적인 성향을 띠는 공동체주의나 사회주의 형태가 된다. 따라서 본 논문은 이러한 구도를 준거틀로 삼아 정치 이념의 차이와 갈등이라는 거대 (...) 담론에 대해 집합론적 요소로 환원시켜 그 갈등의 심층구조를 드러내고자 한다. 다시 말해 이는 세계나 사회와 같은 거대-현상을 단위 요소로 환원하여 이를 미시적으로 분석하는 것을 뜻한다. 분석 결과 부분과 전체 담론에 대한 환원 방식에 있어 동양과 서양이 차이를 보이고 있으며, 서양철학 내에서도 이념에 따라 차이가 발생하는 것을 보여줄 것이다. 또한 이러한 분석을 통해 가치관의 무게 중심축이 전체에서 개체로 이동하고 있음을 밝히고자 한다. (shrink)

The paper is focused on ideological and political conflicts about popular music in Serbia, as a good example of wrong and confused searching for identity. Basic conflict that author is analyzing is about oriental elements and the question if they are legitimate parts of Serbian musical heritage or not. Author is making an analysis of three periods in twentieth century, in which absolutely the same arguments were used, and he's paying special attention to contemporary conflicts, trying to explain (...) why all of the theories are ideologically based. Author is insisting on role market played in development and modernization of popular music in Serbia. The article is ending with some recommendations for better understanding of cultural identity in Serbia, and for recognizing popular music as specific field of interest and research. Rad se bavi ideoloskim i politickim sukobima oko popularne muzike u Srbiji kao odlicnom primeru jednog konfuznog i lose postavljenog traganja za identitetom. Zapravo, sukob o kome je rec, sve vreme se vodi oko toga da li su takozvani orijentalni elementi legitiman deo srpske muzike ili ne. Autor se fokusira na tri perioda dvadesetog veka kada su se potezali potpuno isti argumenti, a narocitu paznju posvecuje aktuelnim sukobima i izlaze zasto su sve tri prisutne pozicije na sceni ideoloski zasnovane. Posebna paznja posvecena je uticaju trzista na razvoj i modernizaciju popularne muzike. Clanak se zavrsava preporukama za jedno bolje postavljeno razumevanje sopstvenog kulturnog identiteta. (shrink)

What is the relation of politics to theory? Theories make political claims, theorists make political critiques, and academics use theory in the pursuit of institutional ends: theory is not only about politics but is itself a political practice.

In Toleranz im Konflikt and in other works the German philosopher Rainer Forst presents an intricate interpretation of tolerance as a moral-political virtue. His aim is to resolve many of the well-known paradoxes by distinguishing different components of tolerance and distinguishing the reasons that we may have for objecting, accepting or rejecting certain practices and views. Good ethical reasons for objecting to certain practices and views do not morally justify their suppression by legal means and state power. In this (...) way Forst connects his inclusive analysis of tolerance, with both his account of the contexts of justification and his defense of what he calls the moral right to justification. In his critical discussion Tim Heysse sounds the political implications of this analysis of tolerance. He criticizes its exclusive focus on political and legal power and its corresponding neglect of social power. However, he also calls attention to the fact that Forst’s analysis has the merit of revealing tolerance as a potential source of political conflict in society. (shrink)

Journal of Philosophy of Education, EarlyView.

l examine three approaches to environmental ethics and illustrate them with examples from California. An egocentric ethic is grounded in the self and based on the assumption that what is good for the individual is good for society. Historically associated with laissez faire capitalism and a religious ethic of human dominion over nature, this approach is exemplified by the extraction of natural resources from the commons by private interests. A homocentric ethic is grounded in society and is based on the (...) assumption that policies should reflect the greatest good for the greatest number of people and that, as stewards of the natural world, humans should conserve and protect nature for human benefit. Historically associated with govemment regulation of the private sector, a homocentric approach can be illustrated by federal, state, and local environmental agencies charged with protecting the welfare of the general public. An ecocentric ethic is grounded in the cosmos, or whole environment, and isbased on the assignment of intrinsic value to nonhuman nature. Exemplified by ecologically based sciences and process-oriented philosophies, an ecocentric approach often underlies the political positions of environmentalists. This threefold taxonomy may be useful in identifying underlying ethical assumptions in cases where ethical dilemmas and conflicts of interest develop among entrepreneurs, govemment agencies, and environmentalists. (shrink)

Journal of Philosophy of Education, EarlyView.

l examine three approaches to environmental ethics and illustrate them with examples from California. An egocentric ethic is grounded in the self and based on the assumption that what is good for the individual is good for society. Historically associated with laissez faire capitalism and a religious ethic of human dominion over nature, this approach is exemplified by the extraction of natural resources from the commons by private interests. A homocentric ethic is grounded in society and is based on the (...) assumption that policies should reflect the greatest good for the greatest number of people and that, as stewards of the natural world, humans should conserve and protect nature for human benefit. Historically associated with govemment regulation of the private sector, a homocentric approach can be illustrated by federal, state, and local environmental agencies charged with protecting the welfare of the general public. An ecocentric ethic is grounded in the cosmos, or whole environment, and isbased on the assignment of intrinsic value to nonhuman nature. Exemplified by ecologically based sciences and process-oriented philosophies, an ecocentric approach often underlies the political positions of environmentalists. This threefold taxonomy may be useful in identifying underlying ethical assumptions in cases where ethical dilemmas and conflicts of interest develop among entrepreneurs, govemment agencies, and environmentalists. (shrink)

The principal purpose of the present volume is to analyse critically one of the major contemporary interpretations of the origin of support for radical or extremist political behaviour - the political theory of mass society. Mass political theory is one of several major perspectives on political extremism which share a stress on the social psychological, emotional and irrational origins of dissidence. The present work may be seen as part of a growing scholarly effort reassessing such theories (...) and urging the importance of increased attention to the social structure origins, cognitive nature and rational properties of dissident support. The present work should be of interest to a fairly broad professional community and student audience, as well as to the informed and more literate layman. Of particular interest may be the detailed summary of the origins of mass political theory and of the properties of the theory itself and the lengthy case study chapter stressing the purposive, reasonable and non-exceptional character of several familiar radical political movements. (shrink)

Modern political conflict characteristically reflects and represents deep-seated but also unacknowledged and un-analyzed disagreements about what it means to be 'objective'. In defending this proposition, Peter J. Steinberger seeks to reaffirm the idea of rationalism in politics by examining important problems of public life explicitly in the light of established philosophical doctrine. The Politics of Objectivity invokes, thereby, an age-old, though now widely ignored, tradition of western thought according to which all political thinking is inevitably embedded in (...) and underwritten by larger structures of metaphysical inquiry. Building on earlier studies of the idea of the state, and focusing on highly contested practices of objectivity in judgement, this book suggests that political conflict is an essentially discursive enterprise deeply implicated in the rational pursuit of theories about how things in the world really are. (shrink)

We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is increased by offering material incentives to compromise but decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and cultural conflicts may backfire when (...) adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values. (shrink)

Conflict framing is key in political communication. Politicians use conflict framing in their online messages (e.g., criticizing other politicians) and journalists in their political coverage (e.g., reporting on political tensions). Conflicts can take a variety of forms and can provoke different reactions. However, the literature still lacks a systematic and theoretically-grounded conceptual framework that accounts for the multi-dimensionality of political conflict frames. Based on literature from political epistemology, political communication, and related (...) fields such as psychology, we present four conceptual dimensions of political conflicts: (1) the style (civil/uncivil); (2) the subject (personal/substantive); (3) whether it is about underlying moral/epistemic principles or not (deep/superficial conflict); and (4) whether it concerns a normative or factual issue. Results of a content analysis of newspaper articles and politicians’ tweets confirm the usage of these conflict dimensions in the Netherlands during a non-election period. Interestingly, most of the conflicts are civil, substantive, and do not highlight deep fundamental clashes. In light of the current societal concerns about the lack of respect in political debates and the deepening of our political divides, these findings can be considered encouraging. (shrink)

Conflict framing is key in political communication. Politicians use conflict framing in their online messages (e.g., criticizing other politicians) and journalists in their political coverage (e.g., reporting on political tensions). Conflicts can take a variety of forms and can provoke different reactions. However, the literature still lacks a systematic and theoretically-grounded conceptual framework that accounts for the multi-dimensionality of political conflict frames. Based on literature from political epistemology, political communication, and related (...) fields such as psychology, we present four conceptual dimensions of political conflicts: (1) the style (civil/uncivil); (2) the subject (personal/substantive); (3) whether it is about underlying moral/epistemic principles or not (deep/superficial conflict); and (4) whether it concerns a normative or factual issue. Results of a content analysis of newspaper articles and politicians’ tweets confirm the usage of these conflict dimensions in the Netherlands during a non-election period. Interestingly, most of the conflicts are civil, substantive, and do not highlight deep fundamental clashes. In light of the current societal concerns about the lack of respect in political debates and the deepening of our political divides, these findings can be considered encouraging. (shrink)

Hannah Arendt’s work is notably ambiguous in handling the concept of will. On the one hand, willing appears as an anti-political faculty; on the other, it is named as the spring of political action. This paper asks what does this shift mean to her political theory —hoping that it could also help us to think our current political conflicts. The main argument is that will’s consistency with the plurality of public-political life becomes intelligible only if (...) we have in mind its contentious feature as well as its bonding role among the several faculties that compose a multiple self. However, the anti-political notion of the will as a command that imposes itself as a sovereign decision seems hard to avoid. I conclude by suggesting that Arendt’s reappraisal removes its arbitrary and violent character by means of what she calls the transformation of will into love. (shrink)

This article is about the novel role of the Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (South American Nations Union) - UNASUR as a peacekeeper in the SouthAmerican region. It begins with an overview of UNASUR, its history, legal framework, and its mandate related to peacekeeping activities. Then, the efforts for regional integration and peacekeeping are addressed, with an explanation of the different frameworks backing those intents and the new peacemaking body known as UNASUR. Examples of political conflict are outlined, namely (...) those in Bolivia and Venezuela, and the ways in which the novel intervention of UNASUR deescalated the violence. After providing a brief description of South American history, its recent conflicts, and a review of some applicable conflict causation theories, the article concludes with a theoretical explanation of the role of UNASUR and its intervention for building peace in the region. This leads to questions and suggestions about how the work of UNASUR can be protected and enhanced to benefit the creation and maintenance of harmonious relationships within South American states. (shrink)

Se defiende la posibilidad de que el Estado sea tolerante cuando actúa como árbitro en los conflictos de tolerancia. Se consideran dos objeciones que dependen de cómo describimos los conflictos políticos y, en particular, los de tolerancia. Se presenta una teoría de descripciones políticas y cómo con ella podemos responder, de una manera políticamente satisfactoria, a las dos objeciones que se plantean en el artículo. Con ello, se discute la relación entre la justificación de las acciones políticas en un contexto (...) normativo ideal y su justificación en los contextos más locales y no ideales donde ocurre la acción política. This article argues for the possibility of the State to be tolerant when acting as arbitrator in tolerance conflicts. Two objections are considered, depending on how political conflicts, and in particular tolerance conflicts, are described. The article presents a theory of political descriptions and shows how this theory can respond in a politically satisfactory manner to the two objections initially raised. Finally, it discusses the relationship between the justification of political actions in an ideal normative context and its justification in more local, non-ideal contexts where the political action takes place. (shrink)

The debate over wolf recovery and management in the United States is best understood as a value-based political conflict that transcends issues strictly pertaining to science, biology and techno-rational approaches to problem solving. Political and cultural context will shape the future of the wolf as it has its past. A policy-oriented approach has much to offer the debate, especially if it is contextual and places human values and ethics at the center of its analysis. It is also (...) important for those engaged in the debate to acknowledge its value-based character. The policy implications of not doing so are serious and will become only more so in the future. (shrink)

Offers a careful analysis of how Aristotle understands civil war, partisanship, distrust in government, disagreement, and competition, and explores ways in which these views are relevant to contemporary political theory. Do only modern thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes accept that conflict plays a significant role in the origin and maintenance of political community? In this book, Steven Skultety argues that Aristotle not only took conflict to be an inevitable aspect of political life, but further recognized (...) ways in which conflict promotes the common good. While many scholars treat Aristotelian conflict as an absence of substantive communal ideals, Skultety argues that Aristotle articulated a view of politics that theorizes profoundly different kinds of conflict. Aristotle comprehended the subtle factors that can lead otherwise peaceful citizens to contemplate outright civil war, grasped the unique conditions that create hopelessly implacable partisans, and systematized tactics rulers could use to control regrettable, but still manageable, levels of civic distrust. Moreover, Aristotle conceived of debate, enduring disagreement, social rivalries, and competitions for leadership as an indispensable part of how human beings live well together in successful political life. By exploring the ways in which citizens can be at odds with one another, Conflict in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy presents a dimension of ancient Greek thought that is startlingly relevant to contemporary concerns about social divisions, constitutional crises, and the range of acceptable conflict in healthy democracies. “Through debate with other scholars, this book clarifies the meaning of stasis, a central term in Aristotle’s Politics; speculates about the limits of Aristotle’s notion of practical wisdom; and puts in dialogue Aristotle’s historical thought with contemporary debates about the nature of political conflict.” — Thornton Lockwood, Quinnipiac University. (shrink)

Este texto elabora un análisis metodológico y político de lo que implica pensar el discurso de los movimientos sociales en Colombia como lugar para comprender el conflicto político. Ello implica comenzar por una reflexión sobre lo que está juego en la política del lenguaje en la coyuntura histórica de lo que se ha dado en llamar la posverdad. Ante el reto de esta coyuntura, se propone la perspectiva de una ontología de lo político de corte posestructuralista como vía para articular (...) otros modos de comprender y ejercitar la veracidad y la responsabilidad en las prácticas del lenguaje. Siguiendo una relectura de la polémica dirigida por Habermas en contra de Foucault, y luego una interpretación de la lectura de Marx elaborada por Derrida, se propone una figura de la promesa, inseparable de la historicidad del lenguaje, como clave para pensar otros modos de la veracidad y la responsabilidad ético-política. Es desde esta otra figura de la promesa como configuradora de lo político, que se define la necesidad de una práctica teórico-filosófica del pensar-con las formas de enunciación de los movimientos y colectivos populares. (shrink)

Is the purpose of political philosophy to articulate the moral values that political regimes would realize in a virtually perfect world and show what that implies for the way we should behave toward one another? That model of political philosophy, driven by an effort to draw a picture of an ideal political society, is familiar from the approach of John Rawls and others. Or is political philosophy more useful if it takes the world as it (...) is, acknowledging the existence of various morally non-ideal political realities, and asks how people can live together nonetheless? The latter approach is advocated by “realist” thinkers in contemporary political philosophy. In Value, Conflict, and Order, Edward Hall builds on the work of Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire, and Bernard Williams in order to establish a political realist’s theory of politics for the twenty-first century. The realist approach, Hall argues, helps us make sense of the nature of moral and political conflict, the ethics of compromising with adversaries and opponents, and the character of political legitimacy. In an era when democratic political systems all over the world are riven by conflict over values and interests, Hall’s conception is bracing and timely. (shrink)

The present study expands on the growing literature concerning organizational politics by assessing the impact of team-level OP on employee performance outcomes as well as investigating the degree to which these effects are mediated by team conflict. The results, based on multilevel structural equation modeling with a sample of 349 employees from 78 firms in China, lent support for a cross-level mediating role for team conflict between political climate and employee performance. Further, moderator analyses demonstrated that (...) class='Hi'>political climate acted as a condition for task conflict to trigger relationship conflict. Thus, the results of this study contribute to both the political climate literature and the conflict literature by clarifying the processes by which climate can influence employee performance. (shrink)

갈등과 경쟁에 대해 우리가 느끼는 일반적 감정은 부정적이다. 갈등의 양과 질은 경쟁 의 양과 질에 비례한다. 오랫동안 갈등과 경쟁은 인간의 원시적 충동에서 비롯되었고, 문 명과 야만은 갈등과 경쟁의 조절 능력에 있다고 믿어왔다. 이성적 존재인 인간은 과도한 갈등과 경쟁이 초래할 해악을 사전에 방지하기 위한 윤리적 규범과 법률적 금지를 고안하 기에 이른다. 그럼에도 현실은 전혀 다른 양상을 보여주고 있다. 갈등과 경쟁을 제거하거 나 제어할 수 있다는 이성주의자들의 믿음은 현실 앞에 무력하다. 니체와 무페는 갈등과 경쟁에 대한 또 다른 시선을 우리에게 제공한다. 두 사람은 (...) 모두 갈등과 경쟁이 인간의 자 연성으로부터 비롯되고, 결코 제거할 수 없다는 점에 동의한다. 동시에 그들은 갈등과 경 쟁을 독점과 지배를 위한 과정이 아니라 공동체의 역동성을 증진시키는 길을 탐색한다. (shrink)

Normative theories of media functions require a clear distinction between the media's two roles as forum and speaker in public spheres. This article seeks to study potential violations of the rule of separating fact from opinion. The comparative content analysis takes a European political conflict, the so-called Haider debate, as a litmus test of objectivity of news reporting. The study reveals some critical consequences of the press' political involvement in the debate. In all countries under study, the (...) press tends to incorporate journalistic evaluations into the news. The Haider debate was characterized by a ‘political parallelism’ of the press in a manner which Hallin and Mancini re-defined as ‘party-press parallelism’. The newspapers favorably gave voice to speakers supporting their own positions, thus instrumentalizing opportune witnesses. As a result, the newspapers ‘synchronized’ the coverage with their editorial stances, which lead to biased news reporting in all outlets. (shrink)

Realists and non-ideal theorists currently criticise Rawlsian mainstream liberalism for its inability to address injustice and political conflict, as a result of the subordination of political philosophy to moral theory, as well as an idealising and abstract methodology. Seeing that liberalism emerged as a theory for the protection of the individual from conflict and injustice, these criticisms aim at the very core of liberalism as a theory of the political and therefore deserve close analysis. I (...) will defend Judith N. Shklar’s liberalism of fear as an answer to these challenges. I will argue that the liberalism of fear maintains realism’s conflictual and inherently political thrust while also integrating a perspective on injustice. I will defend the claim that in contrast to the two aforementioned criticisms, the liberalism of fear develops its own normative standard from which political arrangements can be assessed. It does so by replacing the idealising approach to political philosophy with a non-utopian methodology, which opens a negative perspective on what is to be avoided in the political sphere, and how to detect and deal with injustice. Due to this standard, it is a liberal theory that is uniquely able to meet the realist and non-ideal challenge. (shrink)

This fascinating study, Steven Lukes, one of the foremost political theorists writing in English today, examines value pluralism and moral conflict and their implications for political thinking and practice. In Parts I and II he discusses them directly and their consequences for how we are to think about equality, liberty, power, and authority. In Part III he focuses on the non-obvious role of morality in Marxist theory and practice, and in Part IV he examines the contributions of (...) contemporary political thinkers, including Vaclav Havel. In the final section he puts theory to the test, looking at important political issues and showing how political moralities influence the world we live in. This book will be of particular interest to teachers and students of political theory, political philosophy, and moral philosophy. (shrink)