Literatura académica sobre el tema "Western Liberal Institute"

A central thesis of this paper is that the philosophical contradictions of liberal ideologies predispose states to institute unjust gender systems. I argue that postcolonial Caribbean states have inherited a complexity of social relations and structures from the Enlightenment discourses of Liberalism, yet they seem unaware that the discourses which created colonialism and Western expansion were themselves part of the Enlightenment project of modernity. In this paper I apply this theoretical framework to a historical analysis of gender systems in the twentieth-century Caribbean. The paper examines three distinct periods: 1900–37, 1937–50s and 1950s-90s, the transition from colonial to postcolonial modernizing societies, and attempts to generate a gendered analytical model which can be widely applied both within and outside of the region.

Diane F. Halpern is the Past-President of the American Psychological Association (APA) and Director of the Berger Institute for Work, Family, and Children and Professor of Psychology at Claremont McKenna College. Her earlier appointments include professor of psychology, Chair and Dean of Undergraduate Studies at California State University, San Bernardino. Her teaching, service to psychology, and research have been recognized with many awards, including the 2002 Outstanding Teaching Award from the Western Psychological Association, Wang Family Excellence Award, American Psychological Foundation Award for Distinguished Teaching, Distinguished Career Contributions to Education and Training, G. Stanley Hall Lecture, and the Outstanding Professor Award from California State University-Statewide. Maureen McCarthy is the Director of Precollege and Undergraduate Programs for the APA. She provides leadership and management oversight of programs and initiatives to enhance the teaching and learning of psychology in high schools, community colleges, and undergraduate programs; coordinates programs with initiatives of national organizations, projects, and agencies that share the mission of enhancing teaching and faculty development; and initiates research pertaining to needs, achievements, and characteristics of undergraduate psychology. Effective spring 2005, she became a faculty member at Kennesaw State University, where she teaches experimental psychology and research methods.

The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) held its secondannual conference at Georgetown University on April 7, 2001. Students,diplomats, liberal professionals, investors, activists and academicians wereamong the guests at the conference cosponsored by GeorgetownUniversity's Center for Muslim Christian Understanding (CMCU), theInternational Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the Institute of GlobalCultural Studies.The conference theme, "Islam, Democracy and the Secularist State in thePost Modem Era" echoed in the presentations of Muslim scholars in thefollowing five panels: Islam and Democracy, The Secular State, Elementsof Democracy with Respect to Islam, Postmdernity, and Democracy inPractice and Islam in Context. A total of twenty presentations were madeby the panelists in these five sections.Since the CSID is a research organization with a membership ofacademics, entrepreneurs, Muslim intellectuals, liberal professionals andactivists committed to promoting democracy in the Muslim world, itsannual conferences and monthly publication "The Muslim Democrat" serveas a forum through which the relationship between Islam and democracy isdefined and democratic elements inherent in Islam are identified. As athink-tank dedicated to defining the historical and philosophical basis ofdemocracy and its compatibility with the elements of Islam, CSID'spresentations underscored justice, equality and tolerance as democraticconcepts intrinsic to Islamic principles.By outlining the historical development of secularism and its role inMuslim societies, the panelists did not only encourage Muslim activists toinstitutionalize democratic practices, but they also addressed Muslimscholars and activists from both the western and the Muslim worlds whoare convinced that Islam is incompatible with democracy. By presentingthe causes of problems inherent in secular trends in Muslim countries likeYemen, Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia, and identifying the shortcomingsin their democratization process, CSID's presentations simultaneouslysought to convince both Islamists and secularists that democratic ideals andIslamic principles were compatible.Since a distinction must be made between the separation of church andstate and the separation of religion from politics in order to advance the ...

Intellectual potential of modern society is determined by application of new types of thinking, by development of new kinds of activities and new technologies. One of the results of implementation/exploitation of this potential is establishment of Culture, Social Communications and Information Technologies Institute at Baikal State University. The possibility of bringing together humanitarian and mathematical education within one university section is substantiated in this article. Examples are given how efficient mathematical methods can be used for some liberal arts studies. Implementation potential of mathematical methods in Mass Media in the light of modern trends of technology development is considered. It is shown by the example of major players of the Western Online Media market that Big Data technologies can not only significantly improve the accuracy of audience measurement but also influence the editorial policy of Media. The results of mathematical studies in the field of Mass Media at Baikal University are described.

A life of service to others ended on March 26, 2009, when professor emeritus George A. Warp of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs of the University of Minnesota passed away at age 95. George was born on June 12, 1913, in Northfield, Ohio, and graduated from Bedford High School in Ohio. Prior to being associated with the University of Minnesota for the past 60 years, he graduated from Oberlin College, Case Western University, and Columbia University, earning degrees in political science, public administration, international administration, as well as law. George served briefly as a political science faculty member at the University of Minnesota, where he met and married his late wife, Lois, in 1940 before entering the U.S. Navy following the entry of the United States into World War II. His service in the Pacific theater led to his postwar appointment as a civilian advisor under General MacArthur in Japan from 1946–1948. Upon completion of that assignment, George returned to the University of Minnesota in 1948 as a professor of political science and served first as associate director and then director of the graduate program in public administration in the department's Public Administration Center until 1965 when the center became a self-standing unit of the College of Liberal Arts. He remained director through 1968 when the center was succeeded by the School of Public Affairs and recreated as the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs in 1978 as a collegiate unit named as a memorial honoring the late vice president and Minnesota's senator. George served as a professor and chair of graduate admissions until his retirement in 1982.

The legal and human rights of a LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) person has increased in countries around the world in recent years. For example, the UK Parliament passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, which allowed same-sex marriage in England and Wales, in 2013 and it came into force the following year. There has also been a relaxation in the requirements for sex change. In the wake of such changes, international comparative studies and research has gained traction, with many academics establishing projects that seek to look at the differences in policies and rights for LGBT persons in different countries. However, much of the existing research is focused on Western legal policy and is generally centred on Europe and the US. Of course, this only accounts for a small proportion of the people in the world and so while such research is welcomed, knowledge gaps clearly still exist and more needs to be done to fill them. Associate Professor Hiroyuki Taniguchi, based at the Kanazawa University Institute of Liberal Arts and Science is working on a comparative study of LGBT legal policies in the countries of East Asia. He hopes to form an international comparative research centre that will help people access the information they need to understand their rights.

Elisabeth Özdalga's book is an important introduction to one of the issues that has been front-page news in Turkey since the 1980s. The most visible and controversial sign of the increasing participation in public discourse of Islamic revivalists has been the marked increase in numbers of women in urban spaces and institutions who wear the particular form of dress called tessetür, a public symbol of a personal commitment to a certain form of Islamic values. Özdalga's focus is timely and of interest to both a Turkish audience and a Western one, although it speaks mainly to the latter. The banning of the Islamist Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) from Turkish politics since the publication of the book, as well as the internationally noted furor surrounding the election to, and subsequent dismissal of, a headscarf-wearing woman in Parliament, show that what the author calls Turkey's “large-scale attempt to integrate Islam within the institutions of a modern, liberal democratic polity” (p. viii) continues to be a vitally important and controversial subject. Her book attends both to the symbolic power and legal status of women's clothing in public debate and to women's actual participation in the re-formations of public and private definitions of citizenship.

The article reveals the international cooperation of Taras Shevchenko Kyiv State University with scientific and educational institutions of Western countries in 1944–1975. It was noted that at the end of the Second World War (1944–1945), Kyiv University couldn’t establish ties with educational and scientific institutions of Western countries due to the reconstruction of the city and the university itself. During the period of post-war reconstruction (1946–1950), the Soviet-Western confrontation was added to the mentioned problems, which then turned into the Cold War. However, the liberal social and political changes in the USSR associated with de-Stalinization (1953–1956) and the Khrushchev «Thaw» (1956–1964) had a positive impact on the international activities of the Soviet higher school and KSU named T. G. Shevchenko. It is indicated that since the mid-1950s, delegations and individual scientists from France, Austria, Belgium, and Sweden began to visit Kyiv University. Since the second half of the 1950s, teachers and scientists from Finland and Great Britain, as well as Communist Party leaders, and representatives of student and trade union organizations from Western countries visited Kyiv University to give lectures and deliver scientific reports. However, in 1959–1960, plans for the teaching work of Taras Shevchenko Kyiv State University ​in the Great Britain universities remained unrealized. Nevertheless, since then, teachers and scientists of Kyiv University have actively participated in international scientific events held in Western countries (Madrid, Paris, London, Vienna, and Stockholm). Some teachers completed internships at universities in Italy, France, and Great Britain. Students also did internships in these countries. Mostly, these were senior-year students of the Faculty of Philology who were studying foreign languages. It is noted that the scientific works and teachers of Taras Shevchenko Kyiv State University were published abroad. Among them were Professor Mytropolskyi Yu. (in Great Britain and Sweden), Professor Vsekhsvyatskyi S. (in Great Britain and Belgium), Professor Bileckyi A. (in Greece), Professor Marynych O. (in Great Britain and Sweden) works. Scientists of Kyiv University worked with colleagues from universities and scientific institutions of the West on common scientific themes. The international book exchange of Kyiv State University, as of July 1, 1965, was held with such universities as the Taylor Institute at the University of Oxford, the University of Oslo, the Mathematical Institute at the University of Bonn, Liège (Belgium), Besanson and Cannes (France) universities, and also by the academies of sciences of Denmark and Ireland. The emergence of an international détente in the relations between the West and the USSR at the end of the 1960s had a positive effect on the ties of Taras Shevchenko Kyiv State University with the countries of the West. The number of their youth at Kyiv University continued to grow. Thus, if in 1969 one representative of a Belgian and a Frenchman studied at the university, then as of January 1, 1975, 60 students from the «capitalist countries» studied at the university. In turn, the cooperation of Taras Shevchenko Kyiv State University with educational and scientific institutions of Western countries in 1975–1991 remains understudied. However, this is the subject of the next scientific research.

After the collapse of the bipolar world, the neoliberal mainstream emerged in the global hierarchy of social sciences, built on three axiomatic pillars: Western domination, capitalism (free market) and liberalism (the value of individual autonomy). Nowadays, one can more and more often witness criticism and disintegration of the mainstream, which claimed the universality of descriptions and legitimation of modern societies that have reached the end of history in the form of open-access liberal market democracies. The purpose of the article is to find out how transformations of the prevailing political and economic orders, configurations of the subjects of geopolitical dominance and their legitimate metaphors determine the direction of changes in the social sciences mainstream. The hypothesis of the research is that the prevailing principles of stratification and distribution of public resources will be less and less valuable and institutionally related to capitalism, market and democracy, since an appeal to the latter does not lead to an increase in the available opportunities for the majority of the population in practice. The global change in social ontology, the structure of economic reproduction and legitimate foundations of the political order bring about a drop in the credibility and relevance of mainstream concepts focused on the axiomatics of market values and liberal rhetoric. Intellectual attempts to restore the relevance of the neoliberal mainstream through the construction of local utopias (flat world, creative class, knowledge economy, etc.), the introduction of complementary concepts of civil repair (J. Alexander), sociocultural trauma (P. Shtompka), unworthy government (bad governance), dependence on previous development (path dependence) or gauge (N. Rozov) do not save from growing conceptual stretch. Formation of a society without tangible economic growth and a declining need for mass labor leads to the inevitable transformation of the mainstream. Alternative and peripheral theories that describe the contours of a global future mainly in non-market, non-capitalist and, possibly, non-liberal categories are becoming more influential. These are concepts that fix new formats for the distribution of public resources, less and less connected with the market, democracy and hegemony of the West, but increasingly – with rental mechanisms, distributive political regulation and differentiated value of different social groups for the national state. Acknowledgements. The article has been supported by a grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Expert Institute of Social Research (“опн”). Project no. 20-011-31025 “Alternatives to Political Mainstream amidst the Crisis of the Global World Order”.

This article explores the sources of legitimacy of private property in the means of production in Ukraine. The conceptualization of legitimacy of private property was made by analyzing theoretical approaches to the study of the foundations of private property relations in Western countries. The application of these approaches tests economic utilitarian, psychological, and sociocultural explanations of legitimacy of large and small private enterprises and private land in the process of activation of post-communist transition of Ukrainian society. The basic hypothesis was that the process of legitimation of private property in the means of production proceeds by uniting utilitarian and psychological adaptation with sociocultural agreement of ideological attitudes. This hypothesis was verified with the help of created legitimacy indices by comparison of linear regressions and data of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of Ukraine for 2013 and 2017. The results indicate that the hypothesis has been held true only concerning legitimacy of small private enterprises. They have acquired a moderate extent of legitimacy owing to the fact that besides the factors of adaptation, social recognition has increased at the expense of people who support the multiparty system and the liberal and mixed methods of regulation of the economy. In contrast, the existence of large private enterprises and private land has not acquired the corresponding sociocultural foundation.

This book recovers the history of the most influential forum of American liberal internationalism in the immediate aftermath of the First World War: The Williamstown Institute of Politics. Established in 1921 by Harry A. Garfield, the president of Williams College, the Institute was dedicated to promoting an informed perspective on world politics even as the United States, still gathering itself after World War I, retreated from the Wilsonian vision of active involvement in European political affairs. Located on the Williams campus in the Berkshire Mountains of Western Massachusetts, the Institute's annual summer session of lectures and roundtables attracted scholars, diplomats, and peace activists from around the world. Newspapers and press services reported the proceedings and controversies of the Institute to an American public divided over fundamental questions about US involvement in the world. In an era where the institutions of liberal internationalism were just taking shape, Garfield's institutional model was rapidly emulated by colleges and universities across the US. The book tracks the career of the Institute, tracing its roots back to the tragedy of the First World War and Garfield's disappointment in America's failure to join the League of Nations. It also shows the Progressive Era origins of the Institute and the importance of the political and intellectual relationship formed between Garfield and Wilson at Princeton University in the early 1900s. The book restores the Institute to its rightful status in the intellectual history of US foreign relations and shows it to be a formative institution as the country transitioned from domestic isolation to global engagement.

Few non-Western countries have reached the general prosperity of Western Europe and North America in the past two centuries. The core–periphery structure of the world economy, created in the early decades of the Industrial Revolution, has proved robust, even after seven decades of self-conscious ‘development’ following the Second World War. Just about all the countries in the periphery in 1960 remain in the periphery today. The clearest ‘escapees’ are in capitalist Northeast Asia. This chapter argues that the East Asian ‘developmental states’ were crucial for their rapid ascent up the world hierarchies of income and production capability. Today, capital is no longer scarce and flourishing democracies are in place, but their erstwhile developmental states have not given up a central ‘developmental mindset’. Rather than becoming approximations to neo-liberal states, they have moved from developmental states 1.0 to 2.0. Other countries can learn from their experience of how to institute developmental states 2.0.

These are times which may not yet try our souls, but surely they tempt our spirits. It was but a few years ago that the current drug czar, then chairman of the federal agency dispensing opportunity to humanists, initiated a public campaign to reestablish as the basis of humanistic study a five, or maybe a two-and-a-half foot shelf of great books. These would, presumably, teach us, or at least the youth consigned to us, the central virtues: to quote William Bennett, “not to betray your friends, your God or your country.” Across Washington, the National Institute of Education issued a report suggesting that American higher education suffered from a deep head cold that, were it not properly treated, could easily develop into pneumonia. The treatment, among other things, was an expansion of the liberal arts, and perhaps a return to old-fashioned general education and distribution requirements. Dutifully pursuing the theme, reports of prestigious private organizations like the Association of American Colleges sounded the trumpet of reform. And then, as if in answer to these calls, President Reagan appointed a humanist, an academic, the very initiator of this campaign to revive the humanities and the study of Western civilization as Secretary of Education. And not, as it became apparent, to preside over the dismemberment of that federal department, but to reestablish in education traditional American virtues. It seemed like a humanist's dream, this federally-sanctioned campaign to restore the importance of our disciplines, to “place at the heart of the college curriculum” the “study of the humanities and Western civilization,” and a colleague in high place to put money behind the mouth. And besides, for many of us the very notion of reviving general education requirements, and especially the study of Western civilization, is itself appealing, regardless of money or power. So perhaps it would seem best not to look a gift horse too closely in the mouth, even if the emerging winds bring more than a whiff of sectarian values.