Suchergebnisse

The key values of the Open Society – freedom, justice, tolerance, democracy, and respect for knowledge – are increasingly under threat in today's world. As an effort to uphold those values, this volume brings together some of the key political, social and economic thinkers of our time to re-examine the Open Society closely in terms of its history, its achievements and failures, and its future prospects. Based on the lecture series Rethinking Open Society, which took place between 2017 and 2018 at the Central European University, the volume is deeply embedded in the history and purpose of CEU, its Open Society mission, and its belief in educating skeptical, but passionate citizens

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANSACTION EDITION -- PREFACE AND SUMMARY -- Summary of argument -- Part I: THE AMBIVALENT STATE -- 1 TWO FACES OF MODERN NATIONALISM -- An issue fudged -- Coming to terms with duality -- 2 SERVING TWO MASTERS -- Props to the economy -- Reservoirs of extraordinary patriotism -- Keepers of the faith -- Part II: CAPTIVE LEADERS -- 3 PIERRE TRUDEAU IN THRALL TO CANADIAN INTEGRITY -- In bondage to a higher destiny -- Trudeau's advocacy of federalism -- 4 THE RED TSAR AS A PAWN OF GREAT RUSSIAN CHAUVINISM -- Patrons in need of a client -- The Georgian Affair -- 5 JFK: MESSENGER FOR SECOND RECONSTRUCTION -- A nation requiring redemption -- Playing the minority card -- 6 DISRAELI'S TRIBUTE TO BRITISH IMPERIALISM -- Sponsorship and dependence -- The Bonapartist moment -- Part III: TORMENTS IN CAPTIVITY -- 7 THE TREADMILL OF ETHNIC HONOUR -- Social control in closed communities -- The degradation in emancipation -- Onto the treadmill -- 8 ON THE RACK OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICS -- Bonds of multiple fealty -- Pulled between rival patrons -- Taking the strain -- 9 TRIALS OF COMMITMENT -- The objective test of culture -- Weighing up the evidence of roots -- Arrested in the lobby -- Part IV: THE FRAMEWORK OF CONTAINMENT -- 10 THE POWER OF COMMUNALISM -- The fraternal imperative -- Communalism and class -- 11 MINORITY RIGHTS AND NATIONAL STRATEGIES -- The utopian period -- Vehicles in collision: 1848-1918 -- Dismantling the Old World: 1918-40 -- The postwar era - A golden age of decolonization -- 12 DISCRIMINATION AND THE LIBERAL SOCIAL ORDER -- Keeping an orderly house -- Masquerades of class action -- CONCLUSION: THE ROLE FOR SOCIAL THEORY -- Theory as exhortation -- Taking the pressure off -- REFERENCES -- INDEX

Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterised by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralising and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how these impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science. ; Trento LawTech Research Paper nr. 27

Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterized by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralizing and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how this impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science.

Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterized by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralizing and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how this impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science.

Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterized by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralizing and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how this impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science.

Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterised by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralising and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how these impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science.

Reflecting the relation between the "open society" (K. Popper) and education, in this paper the author claims that openness of a society correlates positively with the domination of "acquired" social position over "ascribed" social positions and with education as the main channel of vertical social mobility. Pointing out that no society has reached the ideal of equal start chances for everybody, i.e. that social competition can be described in the best was as a "competition of the unequal", the author claims that good education is a strategic goal of every "good society" (J. K. Galbraith), which means that investments in education is the best proof that in a society long-term goals are more important that short-term ones. Education does not have exclusively economic meaning, but a political and social role as well. As a barrier to extremism, good education makes democracy possible, even inevitable. Furthermore, education makes views of the people wider, helping them to enjoy its social-cultural heritage and values, both inside a society and on a global world level. In spite of its individual and social importance, it can be said that education today does not have an adequate state support for its development. This policy is not a correct one, because education and open society, if they are not synonyms, surely are closely and deeply linked and mutually dependent: there is no real education without open society, and there is no really open society without good education.

George Soros -- universally known for his philanthropy, progressive politics, and investment success--has been under sustained attack from the far right, nationalists, and anti-Semites in the United States and around the world because of his commitment to open society and liberal democracy. In this brilliant and spirited book, Soros brings together a vital collection of his writings, some never previously published. They deal with a wide range of important and timely topics: the dangers that the instruments of control produced by artificial intelligence and machine learning pose to open societies; what Soros calls his "political philanthropy"; his founding of the Central European University, one of the world's foremost defender of academic freedom; his philosophy; his boom/bust theory of financial markets and its policy implications; and what he calls the tragedy of the European Union. Soros's forceful affirmation of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, social justice, and social responsibility as a universal idea is a clarion call-to-arms for the ideals of open society.

Whitney Young was a man who transcended the boundaries of race, nationality, and ideology. He was fond of saying that there are no moderates in the civil rights move ment, that all are militants in the fight for justice. But his measure of militancy was not rhetoric but results; not prom ises but performance. He was probably the most influential private citizen in the field of human resources in the past century. He had a dream, a faith in the fundamental decency of people, a belief that people would act justly, if not out of altruism then out of self-interest. He tried to show this society that it was in its own self-interest to bring about equal life results for black people. His "domestic Marshall Plan" called for establishment of national priorities that would bring these results. His ultimate goal was an open society. The immediate task facing black people is to forge a unified program behind which all spectrums of black opinion may unite. A second key task facing black people is to construct meaningful coalitions with those elements of white society that can help us to bring about change. The role of govern ment in this key decade will be to provide the leadership and the programmatic restructuring of the torn social fabric of the nation.