Suchergebnisse

The concept of power remains elusive despite the recent and prolific outpourings of case studies on community power. Its elusiveness is dramatically demonstrated by the regularity of disagreement as to the locus of community power between the sociologists and the political scientists. Sociologically oriented researchers have consistently found that power is highly centralized, while scholars trained in political science have just as regularly concluded that in "their" communities power is widely diffused. Presumably, this explains why the latter group styles itself "pluralist," its counterpart "elitist."There seems no room for doubt that the sharply divergent findings of the two groups are the product, not of sheer coincidence, but of fundamental differences in both their underlying assumptions and research methodology. The political scientists have contended that these differences in findings can be explained by the faulty approach and presuppositions of the sociologists. We contend in this paper that the pluralists themselves have not grasped the whole truth of the matter; that while their criticisms of the elitists are sound, they, like the elitists, utilize an approach and assumptions which predetermine their conclusions. Our argument is cast within the frame of our central thesis: that there are two faces of power, neither of which the sociologists see and only one of which the political scientists see.

Anthony Lester on blasphemy Fiction from Libya

AbstractWe characterize negative awards. Their pervasiveness in various domains as well as the objectives of their designers and promoters are documented. We discuss the outcomes generated by negative awards and provide some rationales explaining why individuals and organizations may be interested in getting them. Several issues deserve further exploration.

Throughout time the face of power has constituted a favourite target of demon¬strations of dissent and social revolt. The face of the King, the Emperor, the President, the Sultan as objects of scorn and ridicule. This article investigates this particular form of physiognomic humiliation as an activist strategy, as a modifica¬tion of the image of power that attempts to establish a rupture in the prevailing social order and thus open up a new field of political potential.

Throughout time the face of power has constituted a favourite target of demon¬strations of dissent and social revolt. The face of the King, the Emperor, the President, the Sultan as objects of scorn and ridicule. This article investigates this particular form of physiognomic humiliation as an activist strategy, as a modifica¬tion of the image of power that attempts to establish a rupture in the prevailing social order and thus open up a new field of political potential.

Positive power (induction), as an ability to initiate activity, and negative power (resis tance), as an ability to stop some activity, are treated in this paper as two closely related poles of the same power cycle. The paper further demonstrates how existing theoretical treatments of power phenomena have been reduced to an analysis of positive power and have consequently been unable to treat the contradictory interdependency of positive and negative power. Leadership as a power-implementing practice cannot avoid resistance. However, suc cessful leadership can provoke greater induction than resistance. Attempts to avoid resistance completely would provoke secondary effects which would lead towards the deterioration of powerless as well as powerful entities. Authority is treated in this paper as a specific state of equilibrium between conditionally tolerated positive power and conditionally tolerated negative power. Authority can, therefore, be treated as a unity of contradictions.