Cyfroteka.pl

klikaj i czytaj online

Cyfro
Czytomierz
00333 007055 15375363 na godz. na dobę w sumie
The Centrality of the Regime for Political Science - ebook/pdf
The Centrality of the Regime for Political Science - ebook/pdf
Autor: Liczba stron:
Wydawca: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego Język publikacji: Angielski
ISBN: 978-83-235-2648-3 Data wydania:
Lektor:
Kategoria: ebooki (j. angielski) >> Philosophy
Porównaj ceny (książka, ebook, audiobook).

The book concentrates on the crucial Aristotelian concept of politeia, trying to show how its understanding has evolved for years, often towards fallacious interpretations. The text also points out how reconstruction of the original meaning of the concept can help in creating the frames for modern political science to avoid the traps of ethnocentrism and methodological reductionism that appear in most of today’s models used by the political science and by the theories of the political systems.

In the last 20 years interest in Aristotle’s works has increased, resulting in reconsideration of their problems, especially of Aristotelian political thought. Many researchers offered redefinitions of politeia, but it is worth noticing that most of the previous analysis did not take into consideration central role of the concept and its constant liveliness, suggesting rather its archaic character and usefulness only from the historical point of view. Clifford Agnell Bates Jr proves the opposite: for him politeia is the universal concept that helps to understand the internal structure of modern political systems, their dynamics and mutual relationships.

Clifford Angell Bates Jr About The Centrality of the Regime for Political Science


Znajdź podobne książki Ostatnio czytane w tej kategorii

Darmowy fragment publikacji:

Clifford Angell Bates Jr ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== Clifford Angell Bates Jr ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== Reviewers Miłowit Kuniński Tomasz Żyro Commissioning Editor Beata Jankowiak-Konik Editing and proofreading Julie A. Ponzi Index Clifford Angell Bates Cover Design Zbigniew Karaszewski Layout and Typesetting ALINEA Janusz Olech ISBN 978-83-235-2640-7 (print) ISBN 978-83-235-2656-8 (e-pub) ISBN 978-83-235-2648-3 (pdf online) ISBN 978-83-235-2664-3 (mobi) © Copyright by Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2016 Publication with financial support of American Studies Center, University of Warsaw Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego PL 00-497 Warszawa, ul. Nowy Świat 4 e-mail: wuw@uw.edu.pl www.wuw.pl First edition, Warszawa 2016 ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C H A P T E R 1 The Rise of The Political Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Oresteia and the Background of the Polis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The Household and the Polis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Divine and the Human Foundation for the Polis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The Polis and the Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Democratic Regime and the Rule of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 C H A P T E R 2 The Centrality of Politeia for Aristotle’s Politics: The Continuing Significance of Aristotle for Social and Political Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Translating the Greek Word Politeia into English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Aristotle’s Use of the Term Politeia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The Politeia of Politics 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 The Politeia as a Window to See Political Change and Conflict . . . . . . . . . 45 Aristotle’s Proto- “Neo-Institutionalism” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 C H A P T E R 3 The Centrality of Politeia for Aristotle’s Politics: The Marginalization of Aristotle’s Politeia in Modern Political Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Empires and the Political . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 The Marginalization of Politeia in Medieval Christian Political Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The Marginalization of Politeia in Modern Political Thought . . . . . . . . . . . 58 The Trajectory of the Modern State as the Only Political Form . . . . . . . . . 60 The State as the Willing Body Politic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 The Rise of the Nation as a Political Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 The Example of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== 6 Contents C H A P T E R 4 Contemporary Comparative Politics and Reviving Aristotle’s Regime Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 The Birth of Behavioral Comparative Politics and the Political System . . . 78 Early Reactions Against Behaviorist Comparative Politics Model . . . . . . . 83 The “Return to the State” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Revisiting Regime Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Returning to Aristotle’s Concept of Politeia as the Basis of a Model for Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== Introduction This little book tries to make the case for the centrality of what Aristotle called “the politeia” and contemporary political scientists call “the regime” in any attempt to have a science of politics. For the past decade, I have been engaged in an effort to clarify the concept of sovereignty, its origins, and its evolution in the history of political thought. The concept of sov- ereignty is a modern one that, nevertheless, can trace some of its origins from the nature and character of medieval kingship. Sovereignty plays a central role in how the modern state operates in the world, as well as playing a key role in the relations among nations. Now many scholars dealing with the issue of sovereignty have not been happy to accept this idea as a product of the medieval era and instead have sought to find its origins in Greek political thought, if not in the politics of the Greek polis. All too often they try to connect it with the concept of the kryos, or the politeuma. This has been assisted by the trend from the 17th century on to translate polis as “state” or “city-state.” I took up this issue in my earlier book, Aristotle’s Best Regime (Bates 2003, 17-26). And I agreed that it is anachronistic to do this because the very nature of the state, a concept created by Machiavelli and perfected by those following in his footsteps, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, et al., is fundamentally different from the concept of the polis. It is true that both the polis and the state are instruments of political community, but the state is the modern one with the modern philosophical assump- tions about nature’s defectiveness and the need for man to conquer it, while the polis is the ancient one with the ancient, classical philosophical assumption that nature is the ground that not only sustains the life of man, but also scopes out the potentialities of man’s excellences (a.k.a the virtues of man). But my eureka moment came when I realized that the state’s rela- tionship may not be at the level of the political community, i.e, its body, but may instead be in its form; that the state is the tool that gives form to the modern political community; and that those who say that Machia- ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== 8 Introduction velli is silent about Aristotle’s politeia [a.k.a. regime or constitution] and speaks instead of “new modes and orders” and coins the concept of la stato [a.k.a the state] may be missing what old Nic (that is Machiavelli) might have done. We scholars might have noticed his bait and switch, but we may have missed that which was, in fact, switched. That the con- cept of the state, la stato, might be not the new political body, but in fact that which gives form to and life to that political body. That the state, is Machiavelli’s replacement for the Aristotelian concept of the politeia [the regime]. So the contrast is not between the polis and the state, but between the politeia and the state, between the two tools that give shape to or form to the political community. But we have then a problem with what Hob- bes and others do with Machiavelli’s state—for they make it the body pol- itic, the collective will of the body politic. What Machiavelli understood to be the tool that would give shape to the political order and give it life, became for Machiavelli’s successors the whole of the political order—that is to say it shifts from being an instrument in the creation of the whole to being the whole itself. For these later thinkers the state is the very body politic, itself. Thus the state becomes the form of the political community in modern political thought. So the conceptual contrast is not between the state and the polis, but between the state and the concept of the politeia, the regime. And the point of contention is not then the question of naturalness of the Ancient form (the polis) versus the conventionality of the modern form (the State), but rather the difference is the fact that the state—being an act of will and willing of the one who brings it to being and as a willed thing—its form is generally unitary and its whole is united as one (or ought to be, if healthy and strong) versus a whole that emerges out of discrete and even heterogeneous parts which might come together and share a life together but are not truly one united whole. The politeia (or the regime) is that which brings together the parts that form the given political community—but those parts remain, in fact, discrete parts. Thus any concept of the “general will” would be alien to the character of the politeia (regime) and because of that the politeia allows for a much more dynamic understanding of both the nature and the workings of the political community. This book will first look at the nature of the political community and it then shows the central role that the politeia or the regime (as many modern political scientists would today label the term) plays in giving ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== Introduction 9 the political community its form, its shape, and its character. Then after an examination of Aristotle’s treatment of the concept, we turn to a how this critical concept is increasingly marginalized in the study of poli- tics. And finally we will turn to the attempt of political scientists in the mid-20th century to re-create a concept or framework that will allow observers of political behavior to capture the dynamic nature of politics and how those attempts all end up falling short of what Aristotle already had given the students of political science with his treatment of the poli- teia or regime. ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw== CHAPTER 1 The Rise of The Political Community It is clear, at least for Aristotle, that to be fully human, human beings need the political community to fulfill their natures (Politics 1.2.1252a25- 53a40).1 The claim made by Aristotle that “human beings are political ani- mals” (Politics 1.2.1253a2-6 and 3.6.1278b18-19) has, in the past several years, become a controversial topic in Aristotle scholarship. In many ways, scholars have made the political animal argument to stress the natural sociability of humans, against the view held by Hobbes and other modern political theorists, who argue that human sociability is not per se natural. The rejection of human natural sociability culminates in the rejection of Aristotle’s claim that the polis (city) or the political community is natural (see Hobbes 1991; and Rousseau 1964; also see Strauss 1988, 47-55).2 A good portion of the scholarship concerning the political animal question in Aristotle’s political thought falls short, however. There are at least four ways this scholarship, in addressing why the political com- munity must be authoritative over all other human associations, fails adequately to address the question: 1. There is a tendency among cer- tain scholars—in their attempt to defend the natural sociability of human beings against the denial of Hobbes et al—either to undermine or to ignore the distinction between the political community and the household (see Arnhart 1990; Arnhart 1994; and Arnhart 1995; Masters 1989a; and Wil- son 1993). In so doing, these scholars—who claim to be defending Aris- totle’s understanding of political animals—seem to forget that Aristotle explicitly states that those who fail to note that the difference between the household and the polis is a difference in kind and not merely different in number or size “do not argue rightly” (Politics 1.1.1252a7-15). 2. Another 1 John Ferguson argues that the Aristotelian dictum that man is a political animal is “not far from the center” of Aeschylus’ Oresteia in that “man finds his ful- fillment only in ordered society” (Ferguson 1972, 106). 2 Kullmann’s (1980) article once again brought critical attention to this argu- ment in Aristotle. R. G. Mulgan (1974) replies to Kullmann (1980) and begins the current controversy over Aristotle’s claim that “man is a political animal.” ##7#52#aSUZPUk1BVC1WaXJ0dWFsbw==
Pobierz darmowy fragment (pdf)

Gdzie kupić całą publikację:

The Centrality of the Regime for Political Science
Autor:

Opinie na temat publikacji:


Inne popularne pozycje z tej kategorii:


Czytaj również:


Prowadzisz stronę lub blog? Wstaw link do fragmentu tej książki i współpracuj z Cyfroteką: