Articles de revues sur le sujet « Strauss, Leo, – Political and social views »

An analysis of Leo Strauss's difficult and relatively neglected criticism of Max Weber in Natural Right and History reveals the fundamental difficulties that political science, and social science more generally, must overcome in order to be a genuine science. In Strauss's view, the inadequacy of the fact-value distinction, which is now widely acknowledged, compels a re-examination of Weber's denial of the possibility of valid knowledge of values. Strauss identifies the serious ground of this denial as Weber's insight that modern philosophy or science cannot refute religion. Believing that philosophy or science cannot ultimately give an account of itself that meets the challenge of religion, Weber maintained a “tragic” view of the human situation. Strauss also expresses profound doubt about the possibility of philosophy or science, but ultimately he suggests that a certain kind of study of the history of political philosophy might resolve the conflict between philosophy and divine revelation, and, therewith, the “value problem.”

The article examines the methodological and interpretive aspects of the historical significance of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” in the context of the development of the theory of absolutism. The author states that the analysis of “The Prince” at the methodological level should be carried out taking into account the complex political reality in Italy in the early modern period under the conditions of the political dependence of Italian rulers on foreign (European) states after 1494. When substantiating the key historical circumstances that determine the relationship between “The Prince” and the realities of the studied era, the concept of “hegemony” from the political theory of Antonio Gramsci, the assessments of the Swiss cultural historian Jacob Burkhardt, the philosopher and historian Benedetto Croce, and the British historian Nicholas Henschell are used. It is indicated that the critical view of the German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss deserves special attention. From the point of view of author, it is possible to assert that an appendix of general methodological principles of estimations Strauss of Маchiavelli’s is to productive in wide sense of development of social and political idea of early Moderne time. Criticism of Strauss of relatively key aspects of approach of Machiavell’s is not able to replace the fact of faithful estimation Strauss of essence of looks of флорентинского thinker. Machiavelli really accomplishes a break with classic tradition of political idea, in the light of what even the later interpretations of “Sovereign”, created already after Leo Strauss, are not able to shake loyalty of his estimations. So, interpretation of Quentin Skinner’s, one of founders of Cambridge “school of concepts”, is based on aspiration to step back from «textualization» interpretation of «The Prince» pushing off from the presence of “republican ideal”. The position of Quentin Skinner, wired for sound to them on the pages of his works, is not capable in turn, in our view, to undermine the basic moments of approach of Leo Strauss.

ABSTRACT: This study explores the philosophical and theoretical bases underlying U.S. tax and social policy for over 25 years in order to develop a comprehensive framework from which to evaluate the intended and actual effects on wealth distribution and social policy overall. The framework provides a basis for understanding the overarching social agenda of neoconservative leadership as it advocates what has become known as Starve the Beast (STB). The STB strategy focuses on altering taxation structures in order to facilitate desired reallocations in government budgets to effect change in social policy. This study explores the roots of STB beginning with the political philosophy of Leo Strauss, followed by the adaptation of Strauss's philosophy by Irving Kristol (the godfather of neoconservatism) in establishing the basic tenets of neoconservative political theory, and the marriage of neoconservatism with supply-side economics to increase popular support. Through this anthropological study, 11 propositions evolve during the development of a comprehensive view of a complex social policy underlying STB strategies designed to promote wealth retention, less progressive tax rate structures, less spending on social programs, and greater national focus on defense, security, and patriotism. The resulting framework has implications for future tax policy research, as well as enhancing our understanding of the influence of the neoconservative movement on the greater accounting environment.

Leo Strauss was one of the few political philosophers of the twentieth century to study the relation between faith and political philosophy. Yet Strauss's notoriously esoteric style has led scholars to wildly diverse interpretations of his views: his defenders believe that Strauss supports biblical religion as an instrument of truth and morality, while his critics contend that he opposes biblical religion for its biases while appreciating its political usefulness. I shall argue that Strauss is deeply opposed to the doctrines and political usage of biblical religion. For biblical doctrines clash with his theory of natural right, the latter being the basis of political stability, according to Strauss.

Leo Strauss, Max Weber, And The Scientific Study Of Politics, Nasser Behnegar, Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 2003, pp, xiii, 221.Any serious student of Leo Strauss will be familiar with the fact that Strauss was a serious critic of modern political science. Strauss contended throughout his career that the modern social sciences are one of the driving forces currently driving modern liberalism into a state of crisis. In Leo Strauss, Max Weber and The Scientific Study of Politics, Nasser Behnegar encapsulates Strauss' critique of the modern social sciences in an accessible and easy to read text.

The German Jewish historian of political philosophy Leo Strauss is best known for mature works in which he proposed the existence of an esoteric tradition in political philosophy, attacked the liberal tradition of political thought, and defended a classical approach to natural right against its modern counterparts. This essay demonstrates that in his youth, beginning during a scholarly apprenticeship at the Berlin Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, Strauss championed “medievals” (rather than ancients) against “moderns,” and did so through a sparring match with his postdoctoral supervisor Julius Guttmann, whom he cast in the role of representative “modern.” While for Guttmann the stakes were scholarly, for Strauss they were political. Strauss's Weimar Jewish “medievalism” was a deliberate rejection of the tradition of modern Jewish thought Strauss associated with Guttmann's teacher Hermann Cohen, whom Strauss accused of neglecting the political distinctiveness of Jewish thought. While the conflict between Strauss and Guttmann has been neglected in much of the literature on Strauss, it served as the crucible in which many of his mature views, including his famous exoteric (sometimes called “esoteric”) writing thesis, began to take shape.

The two manuscripts published here for the first time were written by Leo Strauss: the first in 1956 and the second between 1957 and 1962. The first, entitled “Lecture in Milwaukee: Michigan Midwest Political Science,” was written for the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Midwest Conference of Political Scientists on May 4, 1956, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The second is an unpublished passage of “An Epilogue” Strauss wrote for Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, published in 1962. Together these pieces improve our understanding of both the context in which Strauss developed his critique of the new political science and the audience to whom that critique was addressed. These two texts are of “biographical” interest. They are biographical in the sense that they clarify Strauss's thought and its evolution. The “Lecture in Milwaukee” clarifies the context in which Strauss's critique of modern political science was born: confrontation with the political scientists of the 1950s, here represented by Glendon Schubert who is not mentioned in Strauss's published writings. Without this lecture one might overlook the reference to “extrasensory perception” in the ironical discussion of “our man in Missouri” in “Epilogue.” The critique of Arthur Bentley, Bernard Berelson, Harold Laswell, and Herbert Simon by Strauss's students also takes on new meaning if read in the light of this lecture's references and Schubert's published article. Aside from Strauss's view of academia in the 1950s, his references in the lecture to the British Labour Party's policy toward Nazi Germany, to postwar American disarmament, and to prison reform and immigration policy in the United States provide rare and thus important information about Strauss's political views and judgment.

The article discusses the problem of Leo Strauss’ influence on the political culture of the United States and analyzes the current historiographic situation pertaining to the problem. The authors demonstrate that both in the USA and in modern Russia the question of the degree and nature of L. Strauss’s influence on the neocons remains open. Meanwhile, it is obvious that Strauss had a significant impact on the formation of neoconservative ideology, which is manifested in the similarity of the basic ideas of the philosopher and his disciples. The formation of the philosopher’s views took place during the crisis of the Weimar Republic and the Nazis’ rise to power in Germany, which postulated Strauss’ idea about the need for strong democracy and its ability to defend itself against tyranny. The concept of strong democracy that can withstand totalitarianism and authoritarianism is one of the key ideas of neo-conservatism. The similarity of Strauss’ philosophical views to those of the neoconservatives is seen in criticism of the liberal world order and moral foundations of the West, which gave rise to relativism and nihilism. The conformity of neoconservative worldview, including and its variants, such as straussianism, to the ideas of Strauss is manifested in advocating the interests of Israel, which the founders of neo-conservatism view as an outpost of the Western world.

My interest here is in the way Leo Strauss (1899–1973) and his followers, the Straussians, have dealt with race and rights, race and slavery in the history of the United States. I want, first, to assess Leo Strauss's rather ambivalent attitude toward America and explore the various ways that his followers have in turn analyzed the Lockean underpinnings of the American “regime,” sometimes in contradistinction to Strauss's views on the topic. With that established, I turn to the account, particularly that offered by Harry Jaffa, of how slavery and race comported—or did not—with the Straussian account of the political foundations of the new nation and how latter-day followers of Strauss have dealt with the persisting topic of race and racism in America. Overall, I want to make two large points. First, the Straussian commitment to superhistorical standards provides the Straussians with a moral perspective on slavery, race, and racism. Second, though race and slavery have been less than central among the concerns of most followers of Strauss, the contributions of Jaffa and others have significantly shaped the present American conservative position on race, including the idea of color-blindness.

The two papers published here for the first time were written by Leo Strauss (1899–1973) in or around 1945, when he was teaching at the New School for Social Research in New York City. One of Strauss's colleagues at the New School was Kurt Riezler (1882–1955). Riezler had earned a PhD in classics, but had an even more distinguished career as a practical politician; he had been a high-ranking cabinet member in both Imperial and Weimar Germany and a drafter of the Weimar constitution. He had wide-ranging scholarly interests, having written books on the theoretical foundations of politics, art, ancient philosophy, and the fundamental structure of social life. Because they shared an interest in the foundations of social science, he and Strauss co-taught a couple of courses in the mid-1940s (on Aristotle's De anima and Descartes's Passions of the Soul [along with Solomon Asch], and on Plato's Theaetetus [along with Alexandre Koyré]). Strauss indicated the enduring respect he had for Riezler in a eulogy he wrote for him in 1955 and republished as the concluding essay in What Is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies in 1959.

This paper analyzes Tocqueville’s Democracy in America in a new light. When viewed through Leo Strauss’ conception of the theologico-political problem, a novel reading of Tocqueville is presented. This interpretation argues that one of Democracy’s major themes concerns reason versus revelation. Within such a reading, it contends that Tocqueville’s seminal contribution to the history of political philosophy contained within it his reluctant announcement that religion may not be able to cure the social ills liberal democracy brings with it. Mainly, this is because Tocqueville fears democracy will contribute to the decline of religion itself. Tocqueville subtlety reveals his concerns over religion’s possible inadequacy, offers explanations thereof, and postulates another concept as a mitigating tool that has similar moderating effects on democratic defects: self-interest well understood.

Palestra proferida pelo Prof. Leo Strauss no General Seminar of the Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science of the New School for Social Research in New York em fevereiro de 1941 editado pelos professores David Janssens (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) e Daniel Tanguay (University of Ottawa) e publicado na revista Interpretation A Journal of Political Philosophy Spring 1999 Volume 26 Number 3.

AbstractThrough a comparison of Leo Strauss's and Raymond Aron's interpretations of Thucydides's history, this paper sheds light on the relationship between political history and political philosophy. In continuing the dialogue between the two thinkers, I demonstrate that in spite of their opposed views on modern historical consciousness, they converge in a defense of the object and method of classical political history. However, there is a deeper disagreement regarding the relationship between philosophy and politics. While Strauss makes the case for the compatibility of classical political history and classical political philosophy on the grounds that Thucydides is a “philosophic historian,” Aron argues that it is precisely because Thucydides is not a philosopher that he succeeds in understanding an essential feature of political things, namely, contingency in history.

AbstractWriting in 1935 as "Hugo Fiala," Karl Löwith not only connected Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt to an apparently contentless "decisionism" but drew attention to the fact that his correspondent Leo Strauss (1899–1973) had attacked Schmitt—like Heidegger an open Nazi since 1933—from the Right in 1932. In opposition to the views of Peter Eli Gordon, Heidegger's bellicose stance at the Davos Hochschule of 1929 is presented as "political" in Schmitt's sense of the term while Strauss's embrace of Heidegger, never regretted, showed that he ceased to be Nietzsche's "Good European" in his thirtieth year. A more significant "change of orientation" is revealed in Strauss's 1932 version of the "second cave," a pseudo-Platonic image of Verjudung. Revelation had disrupted a nihilistic "natural ignorance" that could only be reversed by an elite's secret decision for a self-contradictory content: only an atheistic religion provides a post-liberal solution to "the theological-political problem."

AbstractThe traditional interpretation of Plato's Republic in the English-speaking world, expressed most sharply by Sir Karl Popper, was that it represented a serious proposal for political rule. However, Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom have argued that Plato's real concern was to protect the position of philosophy within the city. Influenced by Simone Weil, this article argues that even Strauss and Bloom do not express the extent of Plato's rejection of the political life. By examining Plato's handling of such themes as gold and nakedness, the article concludes that Plato's central concern in the Republic was to explore how a soul could strive for the Good, given that the human condition inescapably required social life.

This article examines the impact of Freud on conservative liberal intellectuals in America particularly during the Cold War. It argues that, compared with studies of the ‘radical’ or left-wing assimilations of psychoanalysis, the Freud of the political Right has been relatively neglected. It concentrates on three figures in particular – Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Leo Strauss, all of whom were a major influence on the formation of American neoconservatism, and ultimately on the Bush administration at the time of the War on Terror. The article also examines the role of Lionel Trilling in mediating Freudian ideas to Kristol and Podhoretz, who were disaffected with the progressive aspects of liberalism, and shifted their allegiance to the Right by the 1980s. Freud's work, especially Civilization and its Discontents, functions as an ideological landmark at the borderline of their reflections on religion, morality, the failures of democracy and the foundations of social order.

According to Samuel Huntington, conservatism is the opposite of radicalism. In this article, I try to review this claim by analysing three main (neo)conservative thinkers: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol. I show that not only (neo)conservatism is infected by its opposite, in becoming the more or less radical adversary of radicalism, but it is the awareness of the radicality of the formation of social and political order itself – the consciousness of the very roots or foundations of order. In this respect, (neo)conservatism and what is commonly called radicalism, are both the anti-modern companions of modernity. In the vocabulary of Avishai Margalit, (neo)conservatism and radicalism both stick to a ‘religious’ self-understanding of politics, in contrast to a modern, secularized, and pragmatic ‘economic’ self-understanding of politics.

In his seminal work of 1939 about the idea of progress, published and awarded in the University of Coimbra intellectual milieu, the young Vasco Magalhães-Vilhena wrote what is probably the first major philosophical essay in the Portuguese language, deeply connected with a Marxist world vision. The essay is a well-established academic master-piece, where the philosophical esotericism, underlined by Leo Strauss, is intensively at work, disguising, with some areas of deliberately ambiguity, almost completely the traces of Marx and his larger constellation involving authors like Engels and Feuerbach. What is entirely visible to the attentive reader is the subtle mind of the writer, and his capacity to address important topics of social and political philosophy, like those linked to the dialectical understanding of contemporary capitalism and its intrinsic contradictions, both as an economic model and a civilization paradigm.

The title of this essay is rather ambitious and the space available is hardly sufficient to examine two words of almost limitless expanse—“human rights”—whether standing alone or in tandem. This requires that I begin with (and remained disciplined by) what a teacher of mine, Leo Strauss, called “low facts.” My low facts are these: We call ourselves humans because we have certain characteristics that define our nature. We are social and political animals, as Aristotle noted, and possess attributes not shared by other animals. The ancients noted this, of course, when they defined our principal behavioral and cognitive distinction from the rest of the natural world as the faculty of speech. The Greek word for this, logos, means much more than speech, as it connotes word and reason and, in the more common understanding, talking and writing, praising and criticizing, persuading and reading. While other animals communicate by making sounds of attraction or warning, leaving smells, and so on, none read newspapers, make speeches, publish their memoirs, or write poetry.

This article begins with a remark by Jean-Pierre Vernant in his inaugural lecture at the Collège de France about the inadequacy of Max Weber's historical sociology for the study of ancient religions. Despite posing shared research questions and often reaching similar conclusions, Vernant, one of the most influential twentieth-century ancient historians, neither engaged nor acknowledged Weber and thereby secured his absence in the field of ancient religions generally. Vernant's narrative of the historical emergence of Greek rationality is at direct odds with Weber's views on the matter inSociology of Religionand elsewhere, and I argue that, beyond methodological concerns, Vernant's fundamentally Durkheimian position inherits early twentieth-century polemics between French and German sociologists. Vernant's relationships with Marcel Mauss, Ignace Meyerson, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, and his participation in the French Resistance, moreover, reaffirmed his Durkheimian views about society and committed him to a long tradition of anti-German scholarship. I conclude with a brief coda on the historiographical implications of these observations for the study of religion and its relation to social life.

The collapse of the Soviet bloc and the demise of grand secular emancipatory ideologies led to a growth of interest in the topics concerning religion and secularization. One of the vivid manifestations of this interest is a significant resurgence of research interest in political theology during the last three decades. The paper is intended to deal not so much with political theology in the narrow sense of the term, usually associated with the names of Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss or Walter Benjamin as to explore some cases in the history of thought revealing the political power of religion. The first case deals with Michel Foucault’s experience of Iranian Revolution. It argues that his exploration of the so-called “political spirituality”, a vague and widely criticized notion, discloses the problematics of political theology not as a historical inheritance or a marginal intellectual activity but as a living constituent reality pointing towards the limits of Western political mind. The second case is devoted to a widely known study of religion within post-secular societies done by a renowned German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. It claims that his idea of “postmetaphysical thinking” boasting to have done away with the “old prejudices” of classical metaphysics and theology does not suffice to ensure the peaceful coexistence of various religious as well as secular worldviews within the Western public sphere. Postmetaphysical treatment of politico-theological problems as irrelevant leads to their reappearance under the new guises: this is what happened to the “problem of evil” that plays a crucial role in the drawing up of the most part of modern political distinctions. “Evil” is dealt with in the third case, as a subject of political theories of radical democracy. Some proponents of radical democracy such as Paolo Virno, Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt consider that part of political theology to be very important for their own projects of “non-sovereign” political institutions that will arise when the current crisis of modern political rationality is over. The paper comes to a conclusion with the idea that political theology should be considered not only as a radical opposite to a political philosophy or secular reason in general but also as an ever-present possibility that comes to reactivation in the moments of crisis.

In the presented article, the author defends the idea that the argumentation system of Quentin Skinner (Quentin Robert Duthie Skinner), Maurizio Viroli (Maurizio Viroli) regarding the methodological foundations of the origin of the political theory of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Sovereign cannot cast doubt on the approach of the German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss (Leo Strauss). The same emphasis is proposed to be used for the most part in the final value judgments regarding the meaning of the “Sovereign” within the framework of the problems of “state interest” (raison d’état) and the theory of absolutism. In addition, the strengths and weaknesses of the concept of the British historian Nicholas Henshall are comprehensively considered. It is argued, with the involvement of a wide background of historiographical assessments and methodological remarks, the productivity in the general historical context of a comparative analysis of the positions of Machiavelli and Guicciardini in the framework of the analysis of the theory of absolutism. The further development of the theory of absolutism, presented within the framework of social and political thought by the works of, first of all, Thomas Hobbes allows us to see a direct relationship with Machiavellianism as a phenomenon. The analysis of the positions of the representatives of British historiography on the studied issue shows the characteristic features of their evaluations of the interesting author of the issue. Thus, Nicholas Henschel in the work “The Myth of Absolutism” bypasses the analysis of “The Prince”, which would add an additional possibility in substantiating the insufficient character of the theory of absolute power. However, it seems to us that Henschel was perfectly aware in his work that it is difficult to blame the author of “The Sovereign” for the lack of justification of the goal in the expressed theory of absolute power. Turning to the comparative analysis of the positions of political thinkers of the Italian Renaissance is of significant interest for modern Ukrainian society in a practical sense. The Italian political crisis of the specified period was reflected in the persistent search by the best minds of the Renaissance era for ways out of it, a thorough understanding of the historical and political reality that surrounded Italians. The result was the emergence of impressive theoretical generalizations of key aspects of historical development. The author comes to the conclusion that without Machiavelli, the ideology of absolutism, which was further developed in the works of the same Thomas Hobbes, could not have received its inherent conceptual outlines. In order to accomplish this, Machiavelli had to make a break with the classical tradition of political philosophy, just as the formation of a centralized state required the concentration of political power in the hands of the monarch, that is, a break with the feudal tradition of political thinking in general.

The broad theme of “nature and politics” has been ubiquitous at least since Aristotle's Politics, the fourth century BCE text often considered the founding work of political science. Long before “political science” took the distinct disciplinary and institutional forms with which we are familiar, the effort to understand the sources and the range of political experience was typically linked to reflection on nature—the nature of politics, the nature of human beings, the nature of existence, and the nature of “nature” itself. In contemporary, post-World War II political science in the United States, much of this reflection about nature has until recently been linked to the work of Leo Strauss and his followers, who saw themselves as heirs to a philosophical discourse at odds with modern social science. At the same time, serious consideration of nature as a theme of political science never disappeared and in recent decades has dramatically expanded. (And of course interpretations of the science of nature, i.e., “science,” have been at the center of political science, especially since the advent of behavioralism.) One source of this expansion of interest in nature has no doubt been the growing politicization of “the environment” and heightened attention to the natural world as both the setting in which human interaction takes place and the object of extraordinary human transformation and degradation. Another source has been the politicization of identities—race, gender, sexuality—that had long been considered natural and whose contestation raised anew questions about “human nature” and its limits, variations, and transformations. A third source has clearly been the technological and theoretical development of “the natural sciences” themselves, and the growth of new discourses—evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics, neuroscience—that raise new questions about the complex relationships between the non-human dimensions of nature—physics, chemistry, biology and especially neurobiology—and human individuals and the social worlds that human individuals inhabit.

Purpose —This paper aims at exploring politics of contemporary knowledge cultures and possible directions for responding to the postdigital challenge. Design/Approach/Methods —This paper researches history and present of several prominent strands and readings of the knowledge economy. Following Caruso's work (2016), it examines more closely the differences between the managerial paradigm and the cognitive capitalism paradigm. Recognizing the postdigital nature of contemporary knowledge cultures, it points towards a postdigital merger between the managerial paradigm and the cognitive capitalism paradigm. Findings —The paper identifies individual and social tensions between industrial and post-industrial modes of production and rapidly changing dynamic of social development. It examines the relationships between knowledge cultures and digital technologies. Based on recent insights by the father of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee and his non-determinist views to digital technologies, it identifies knowledge cultures as sites of political struggle against various (material and non-material, technological and non-technological) closures over access to information and knowledge. Finally, it briefly outlines possible directions for responding to the postdigital challenge of knowledge cultures. Originality/Value —The paper provides an original contribution to theory of knowledge cultures and its relationships to the postdigital condition.

The article tells about ideological premises and circumstances of appearance of the famous article The Meaning of War by Wl. Solovyev published in 1895. It states, that this article which was later included into the Wl. Solovyev’s trea­tise The Justification of Good as a special chapter, reflected not only the devel­oping conflict of the thinker with religious and ethical views of Leo Tolstoy but also the increasing alienation of Wl. Solovyev from his liberal circle. It points out the reasons by which the Wl. Solovyev’s justification of war was not adopted by Russian liberals who didn’t want to come into polemics with Tolstoy’s ideas which were popular in the populist camp. The article pays special attention to the significance of the phenomenon of intellectual class and to the factor of increas­ing of its role in society for the proper understanding of the rise of pacifism in Russian society in the 1890-s. It brings out a close connection between the so­cio-political views of Wl. Solovyev in 1890-s and the views of his father, the prominent Russian historian Sergey Solovyev, and in particular, his conception of war between the West and the East as the leitmotif of the world history. It puts forward the thesis that the main task of Wl. Solovyev as a social philosopher and public figure was the rebirth of the complex of ideas which was symptomatic for the 1840-s in Russia. That complex included a statesmanship tinged with roman­ticism, belief in the positive role of Russian empire in the history and the percep­tion of Russia as a keeper of European unity.

This article presents the first historiographical attempt to examine and analyze systematically all the newspaper and journal responses to the first edition of the basic treatise on the moral philosophy by Vl. Soloviev – The Justification of Good (1897). The first part of the article examines the positive reviews of the book that were submitted or published by the closest friends of the philosopher, supposedly, at his personal request. The analysis of the responses allows us to conclude that The Justification of Good was generally received by the Russian readership unfavorably. The reason for this was a problem of assigning the philosopher to one or another camp of Russian thought. Vl. Soloviev’s moral metaphysics and especially his socio-political views did not satisfy either liberals or conservatives, much less representatives of the radical left movements in social thought. The article notes that among the closest friends of Vl. Soloviev who gave a positive review of this treatise only E.L. Radlov was ready to accept the philosophical conception contained in The Justification of Good and support Soloviev in his polemic with the ethical views of Leo Tolstoy. Additionally, an examination of the positive reviews of The Justification of the Good is also important, because their authors as Soloviev’s friends could interpret some of the most difficult theses of the book based on the explanation given by the philosopher himself. It is possible to suppose that in preparing to publish his new philosophical work Vl. Soloviev expected that the first sympathetic reviews would contribute to a correct perception of his moral philosophy in Russian society.

The dominant research strands into social interaction in culturally diverse workplaces have focused on issues of organizational efficiency and discrimination, and they have treated cultural identity as static, monolithic, and universally shared. This study aims to problematize this view. It is argued that our understanding of cultural workplace diversity could be extended through the integration of interpretive and critical interpersonal communication theorizing on cultural identity as dynamic and processual, constructed between and among people in everyday workplace interactions and in relation to larger social, political, and historical forces. This argument is illustrated by an analysis of in-depth interviews with 10 female Russian immigrants in Finland who performed interactionintense knowledge work. The women talked about their everyday workplace interactions and how they thought Russian identity mattered in them. These data were analyzed with the inductive method of interpretive description designed to provide a systematic description of the phenomenon delineating its characteristic themes and accounting for individual variations within it. The analysis led to the identification of four communication sites for distinct formations of Russian identity: expressing professionalism, managing initial encounters, facing stigma, and facilitating intercultural learning. The findings offer novel insights into social interaction in culturally diverse workplaces with implications for both employee well-being and organizational processes.

WTO jurisprudence and governance will not be explicit subjects of discussion or negotiation at the Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting, with the partial exception of dispute settlement review. Nonetheless, governance questions are at the heart of debates about the WTO’s legitimacy and deserve serious consideration. With this mind, a checklist and a series of questions are provided that are deemed to be relevant to the immediate future of the WTO and the ultimate fate of the Doha Round negotiations. Several issues are raised, as follows. The architecture of the WTO as represented in the “Single Undertaking” requires all WTO Members to adhere to the WTO Agreement even when doing so may not always be in a country’s interest. Decision-making in the WTO is based on consensus, and there may be a need for the design of more effective procedures and for better representation of the different views of Members. The accountability of the WTO as an institution may be at issue insofar as it relates to the roles of different members and the relationships with civil society. There is a clear need for technical assistance, policy development, and policy surveillance to make the WTO a more open, transparent, efficient, equitable, and socially responsible institution. Robert Howse is Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. His research and teaching interests are focused on international economic law (trade, investment and finance) and legal and political philosophy (theorizing law and governance beyond the state, and especially the thought of Alexandre Kojeve and Leo Strauss). His recent books include The Regulation of International Trade, Third Edition, co-authored with Michael J. Trebilcock, to be released this month in the US; The Federal Vision, co-edited with Kalypso Nicolaidis (2001); and Alexandre Kojeve Outline of a Phenomenology of Right (2000), co-translator with Bryan Frost and principal author of the interpretative commentary. Howse has also authored or co-authored opinion essays in general interest publications such as The Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Policy Review, and Legal Affairs. He is series editor of the Oxford Commentaries on WTO Law and serves on the editorial advisory board of the European Journal of International Law. He has also been a reporter on WTO law for the American Law Institute. For part of the fall 2005 semester, Howse has been a visiting instructor at the University of Paris I (Pantheon-Sorbonne).

AbstractThe attitude of the Church towards the authoritarian and totalitarian state was originally determined by the fact of existence of the Ecclesiastical State. Its downfall contributed to the change in the optics of the papist policy. Leo XIII initiated open realistic policy. He declared the Church’s readiness to co-exist (co-operate) with any form of government or social system which would not disturb the essential ecclesiastical tasks. The opinion which won was that the objectives to be attained by the Church were beyond systems and politics. This approach allowed to develop a concept, that evangelization activity should be pursued in any socio-political reality, with adapted methods. Acceptance was granted to those state systems which declared that they would defend of the Church’s position, as evidenced by establishment of political relationships between the Holy See and III Reich, fascist Italy, Spain of gen. Franco. On the other hand, the communist (totalitarian) countries were accused of rejecting “the moral norms of co-existence defined by the Church”. One can state that the Vatican offered support to those governments or totalitarian and authoritarian states whose internal and foreign policy agreed with the interests of the Church.During the pontificate of John XXIII, the Church started to express not only willingness to co-operate with each form of government, but also the need to have respect for other philosophies of life, including the leftist ones. As regards economic and political questions, the communist doctrine was not deprecated, unless in its extreme version. However, the doctrinal principles of materialism and programmatic atheism were consistently condemned and negated. Also, the Vatican decided to enter into dialogue with the extreme Left. Certainly, the papacy realised that the communist doctrine and totalitarian state in their very essence were enemies of the Church and religion. True evolution in the attitude towards different forms of governments and states was triggered by the II Vatican Oecumenical Council. While political struggle and discussion were avoided, disputes pertaining to philosophical views on life were undertaken. Agreement of any form was refused when atheism was “administratively succoured”.During the pontificate of Paul VI specific guidelines, principles and rules of procedure were introduced to regulate co-operation with totalitarian communist states. In order to ensure functioning of the Church in totalitarian systems, the Vatican resigned from any polemics as related to capitalism and communism. In turn, the Church demanded from totalitarian regimes to cease imposing the totalitarian world-view on the society. And thus, the Church’s fight for the Christian outlook on life was not given up.Depending on internal and external socio-political situation, and also on the form of the State and government concerned, the Church defined different conditions indispensable to be satisfied for its successful functioning. The evangelization mission was given superiority.

The article examines the development of the image of Turkey in the Russian press in 1914-1918. Perceiving the Ottoman Empire as a minor power with a weak army, Russian newspapers and magazines took into account the great strategic and political significance of the new Russian-Turkish war in solving Russia’s “historical tasks” in the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Periodicals of different orientations assessed the significance of the new Russian-Turkish war in different ways. For the conservative press, this was primarily the return of the “cross to St. Sophia”, the return of the Orthodox tsar to Constantinople. The liberal press paid more attention to the economic opportunities from the capture of the Straits. However, for both of them, the victory in the war was perceived as a natural result of the Russian-Turkish confrontation and symbolized the final “expulsion” of Turkey from Europe. In a broader sense, this meant the expulsion of Aziatchina [Asianism] from the “civilization” area. This reasoning was facilitated by major victories on the Caucasian Front (as opposed to the main front in Europe) and regular reports from official sources (Petrograd Telegraph Agency, General Staff) about the socio-economic and political crisis in the Ottoman Empire. The condescending attitude, the underestimation of the combat capability of the Turkish army and Turkey’s resistance to a protracted war prevailed. In many ways, therefore, the Caucasian Front remained secondary, although victory in this theater made it possible to open the Straits and receive large consignments of weapons and ammunition from the Western allies. In 1917, the “dream of Tsargrad,” tacitly proclaimed as the main goal of Russia in the world war, became one of the key factors in the political crisis. In the socialist press, Constantinople and the Straits became the personification of Russian imperialism and the cause of the deaths of millions of soldiers, the impoverishment of the people, and the depletion of the economy. Against this background, the image of Turkey underwent tangible changes. The conservative press developed the image of Turkey as an “Eastern despotism,” a historically doomed autocracy. In fact, it became a new ideological frame for the old military goals of Russia in the world war. The social democratic press turned more to the suffering of ordinary Turks, who were forced to shed blood for goals they did not know. The commonality of the fate of the Turkish and Russian peoples in their long and difficult struggle with the autocracy for the establishment of democracy was emphasized. The economic and political crisis in Russia actually led the second point of view to victory, which influenced the general course of the Russian Revolution. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Among the characteristic features of Russian philosophy, there is its openness and connections with other realms of public consciousness. In the Middle Ages Orthodox religion (i.e. theology as theoretical part of it) was trying to take over the main functions of Russian philosophy. Philosophy was not just under the aegis of religion, as it was in Western Europe and Byzantium, but in its depths. Active philosophical life manifested itself under non-philosophical covers. Russian literature also is involved in philosophy. A plenty of a philosophical writers could doubtlessly be called great. They are: Nikolai Gogol, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, etc. The things that each of them has brought into philosophy are very different in size and direction. As a result of the openness of Russian philosophy appears a unique ideological element which borders on natural science. This element was philosophical on its nature, but it had a strong and sound ties with natural science. No less important for Russian philosophy its connection with historical science. Philosophical ideas and categories are involved in the study of historical events and processes. Historical science, enriched with philosophy, does not remain extraneous to it. Philosophical historians also influenced different sections of philosophy: philosophy of history, social and political philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophical anthropology… Russian philosophy penetrated into other spheres – music, painting, etc., where it was represented by quite significant figures, in particular – Alexander Scriabin, Nikolay Roerich. The philosophical views of Scriabin and Roerich were not limited to the framework of their theoretical, philosophical constructions. Artistic intuition embodied these constructions in the creation of art. Nowadays contacts of Russian philosophy in its various manifestations with other areas of intelligence also do not lose their attractiveness.

The lack of consensus in society on the most important problems of history negatively affects the formation of the collective memory of the younger generation. The socialization of millennials (in the terms of N. Howe and W. Strauss) has specific features that become the main tool for the formation of a new collective identity. In the postmodern era, society faces a number of risks and needs recommendations to mitigate them. The purpose of this article is to reveal the features of the collective memory of student youth on the example of the perception of the events of the Great Patriotic War (WWII) in the conditions of a super-tolerant postmodern society. The following concepts were chosen as the methodological basis of the research: social construction (P. Berger, T. Luckmann), the concept of collective memory (M. Halbwachs, P. Nora, A. Assmann), as well as the post-structuralist direction of postmodernism (Z. Bauman, J. Baudrillard). The empirical base of the study was formed by the results of a large-scale research project of the Russian Society of Sociologists “Russian Students on the Great Patriotic War”, which has a fifteen-year history. Processing the data obtained has required using the software product Vortex 10. To study the peculiarities of young people’s perception of the events of the war years, the authors have chosen problematic issues, actualized by modern socio-political processes. The results have revealed the prerequisites for the alienation of generations (lack of discussion of events with relatives), as well as some inconsistencies in the perceptions of young people about the role of the countries participating in the Second World War to the real historical reality. The novelty of the results was predetermined by the identification of features in the views of civilian and military youth concerning controversial issues of history, explained by differences in the educational environment. In addition, the differences in ideas about patriotism in the two youth groups are shown and attributive markers of the concept of “patriotism” are proposed. The results obtained may be of interest to researchers studying youth problems.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to apply Connolly’s (2003) concept of agonistic respect to develop a typology of agonistic/antagonistic discourses on Twitter. To develop the typology, this study examines 2,236 Tweets containing the hashtag #guncontrol and uses NodeXL (Smith et al., 2010) to create a network map from which the 75 most influential accounts are derived. Using constant-comparative analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), the authors identify seven categories of discourse style based on Connoly’s (2001) notion of ressentiment and “good faith presentations” of opposing arguments: furtive/secretive, cravenly opportunistic, willfully ignorant, irrational sentimental, misunderstanding/misguided, contingently wrong and reciprocal inquiry. The typology provides a useful and unique way to operationalize agonistic democratic theory and serves as the possible basis for training a machine learning classifier to detect antagonistic discourses on social media platforms. Design/methodology/approach To determine the level of agonism on Twitter, the authors examine tweets that employed the hashtag #guncontrol on March 12, 2018, one month after the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14. The authors used the NodeXL excel add-on to collect and map 2,236 tweets. Using grounded theory/constant-comparative analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), the authors develop a typology of seven types of discourses ordered from most antagonistic to most agonistic using Connolly’s (1993) concept of agonistic respect. Findings After examining the top 75 most shared tweets and using constant-comparative analysis to look for patterns of similarity and dissimilarity, the authors identified seven different ways in which individuals present their opponents’ value positions on Twitter on the issue of gun control. The authors were guided by agonistic theory in the authors’ inquiry. The authors looked at how Twitter users expressed their opponent’s faith/value positions, how pluralistic the discourse space was in the comment threads and how much the “talk” was likely to elicit ressentiment from adversaries. Research limitations/implications Because the authors intended to engage in theory building, the authors limited the analysis to a selected number of tweets on one particularly salient topic, on one day. The intent of this was to allow for a close reading of the tweets in that specific network for the purposes of creating a useful typology that can be applied to a broader range of cases/issues/platforms. Practical implications The authors hope that typology could serve as a potential starting point for Twitter to think about how it could design its algorithms toward agonistic talk. The typology could be used as a classification scheme to differentiate agonistic from antagonistic threads. An algorithm could be trained to spot threads overwhelmingly populated by antagonistic discourse and instructed to insert posts from other threads that represent agonistic responses like “contingently wrong” or “reciprocal inquiry.” While generous presentations or deeper, more nuanced presentations of the opponent’s value position are not a panacea, they could serve to change the orientation by which users engage with policy issues. Social implications Social media platforms like Twitter have up to now been left alone to make markets and establish profitability off of public sphere conversations. The result has been a lack of attention to how discourse on these platforms affects users mental well-being, community health and democratic viability. Recently, Twitter’s CEO has indicated a need to rethink the ways in which it promotes “healthy discourse.” The utilitarian presumption that, left to our own devices, we will trial and error our way to the collective good does not account for the importance of others in refining one’s preferences, arguments and world views. Without an “other” to vet ideas and lead us toward becoming wiser, we are left with a Wyly antagonism that moves discourse further and further away from agonistic respect and toward antagonistic virtual struggle. Platforms that allow antagonistic talk that breeds ressentiment run the risk of irrevocably damaging democracy through poisoning its public sphere. Originality/value This paper is unique in providing a typology/framework for thinking about the types of “political talk” that exists on Twitter. By using agonistic political theory as a framework, the authors are able to establish some guiding principles for “good political talk” that acknowledges the incommensurability of value positions on issues like gun control. The typology’s emphasis on agonistic respect, ressentiment and generosity in the presentation of alternative value positions provides a starting point from which to map and catalog discourse on Twitter more generally and offers a normative model for changing algorithmic design.

The article discusses the method of situation analysis of international relations, developed in the 1960s in the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations by Academician Evgeniy Primakov. It has incorporated many elements of existing problem-solving methods such as “brain storm”, “Delphi”, and others. Its key innovation is understanding the international political situations under analysis as integral dynamic subsystems of international system. It proceeds in three stages: first, building a scenario of a situation development; second, getting a large number of expert assessments representing various fields of social sciences; third, producing a final document with critical summary of the assessments. Primakov encouraged organizers of situation analysis to have experts focused on the issues of practical importance, and then prepare the results of the situation analysis in a concise, understandable form to make them useful in the decisionmaking process. He viewed the method as an effective means of communicating expert knowledge to decision makers. The article reviews the method as it has been practiced in the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations. It gives the intellectual roots of its development, which include “grounded theory” by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss; systems theory by Talcott Parsons and a variant of its application to international relations by Thierry de Montbrial. The more direct roots of the method are various problem-solving techniques practiced in world’s leading international relations think-tanks such as RAND Corporation. The article also overviews the major principles of situation analysis: 1) participants must have high level of expertise; 2) situational analysis is multidisciplinary; 3) situational analysis allows focusing on key aspects of a problem when there is no clear, unambiguous understanding of it and when the views of experts vary widely; 4) to obtain significant analytical results, it is necessary to move above the situation under analysis in search of wider generalizations; 5) situational analysis is opposite to propaganda, it must be averted to conformism and partisanship; 6) situation analysis should be aimed at realizing national interests; 7) situation analysis is directed towards future. In addition to the general principles of situation analysis, the article gives two specific examples of its application. The first example is the phenomenon of the extreme-right political movements in the European Union. In this case the situation analysis gives a balanced assessment of what is happening in Russia’s neighbourhood. The second is Russia’s adoption of trade restrictive measures in response to the "sanctions" from Western countries because of the Ukrainian crisis. The situation analysis shows contradictory effects of the sanctions for the Russian economic development. These cases are small but important illustrations of global changes in both the internal life of sovereign states and the relations between them. The post-bipolar world obviously goes through a transformation, which many assess in terms of a multipolar or polycentric world order. The configuration of future polycentricity is not defined in advance and will depend on decisions of leading global players. Situation analysis can contribute to understanding and forecasting them.

The main interlacustrine kingdoms have been presented, on the evidence of their royal genealogies recalling up to thirty reigns, as stretching back to a ‘Chwezi’ period some five centuries ago. This view was promoted especially in the Kitara zone, comprising Bunyoro and regions to its south and, as a close linguistic grouping, extending to Nkore, Karagwe and Buhaya. Rwanda to the south-west and Buganda to the east, though each rather distinct, share some of the same cultural and traditional features. In the central Kitara zone it has been further argued that the ‘Chwezi’ period is represented by various impressive archaeological sites – hilltop shrines, notably at Mubende, with special and archaic objects; complex earthwork enclosures at Bigo and elsewhere; and the concentrated settlement nearby at Ntusi. Certain of these have been claimed as Chwezi royal capitals of ancient Kitara, and specific features have been compared with royal abodes of recent centuries. Such literal interpretation, let alone royalist manipulation, of oral traditions is now considered too simplistic; not only are the Chwezi generally regarded as gods or mythical heroes, but also the role of archaeology is now seen as something more positive than the mere verification of verbal evidence.Renewed archaeological research indicates that Ntusi was occupied from about the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries a.d. and that the earthworks, including Bigo, and the settlement on Mubende hill fall into the latter half of that span. This cultural grouping thrived on a combination of cattle-keeping and grain cultivation, as is especially clear at Ntusi on fertile ground in the midst of the Bwera grasslands. It may have been the growing strains of a delicately balanced economy as competition increased for cattle and the pastures which led to its eventual breakdown. During the last half-millennium Bwera has been a peripheral and lightly populated district between Bunyoro, Nkore and Buganda. It is difficult to imagine these later kingdoms developing directly out of a supposed ‘Chwezi’ one based at Ntusi and the Bigo constructions.Two periods of marked change are discernible therefore, one around the middle of this millennium, the other at its beginning. That earlier, mid-Iron Age, revolution witnessed the introduction of cattle on a large scale and the first intensive exploitation of the interlacustrine grasslands. Cattle becoming then an economic asset, it may be inferred that ownership of stock and defence of the pastures became sources of prestige and patronage, with obvious social, political and military implications. This situation opened opportunities for other specializations, including the production of salt for distant distribution. Traditions concerning gods and heroes, and the continuing popular chwezi cults, illustrate the changes and may also echo the cultural and economic importance of iron and its working among agricultural populations from before the pastoral revolution.

The Routledge Handbook of language and culture represents a comprehensive study on the inextricable relationship between language and culture. It is structured into seven parts and 33 chapters. Part 1, Overview and historical background, by Farzad Sharifian, starts with an outline of the book and a synopsis of research on language and culture. The second chapter, John Leavitt’s Linguistic relativity: precursors and transformations discusses further the historical development of the concept of linguistic relativity, identifying different schools’ of thought views on the relation between language and culture. He also tries to demystify some misrepresentations held towards Boas, Sapir, and Whorf’ theories (pp. 24-26). Chapter 3, Ethnosyntax, by Anna Gladkova provides an overview of research on ethnosyntax, starting from the theoretical basis laid by Sapir and Whorf and investigates the differences between a narrow sense of ethnosyntax, which focuses on cultural meanings of various grammatical structures and a broader sense, which emphasises the pragmatic and cultural norms’ impact on the choice of grammatical structures. John Leavitt presents in the fourth chapter, titled Ethnosemantics, a historical account of research on meaning across cultures, introducing three traditions, i.e. ‘classical’ ethnosemantics (also referred to as ethnoscience or cognitive anthropology), Boasian cultural semantics (linguistically inspired anthropology) and Neohumboldtian comparative semantics (word-field theory, or content-oriented Linguistics). In Chapter 5, Goddard underlines the fact that ethnopragmatics investigates emic (or culture-internal) approaches to the use of different speech practices across various world languages, which accounts for the fact that there exists a connection between the cultural values or norms and the speech practices peculiar to a speech community. One of the key objectives of ethnopragmatics is to investigate ‘cultural key words’, i.e. words that encapsulate culturally construed concepts. The concept of ‘linguaculture’ (or languaculture) is tackled in Risager’s Chapter 6, Linguaculture: the language–culture nexus in transnational perspective. The author makes reference to American scholars that first introduced this notion, Paul Friedrich, who looks at language and culture as a single domain in which verbal aspects of culture are mingled with semantic meanings, and Michael Agar, for whom culture resides in language while language is loaded with culture. Risager himself brought forth a new global and transnational perspective on the concept of linguaculture, i.e. the use of language (linguistic practice) is seen as flows in people’s social networks and speech communities. These flows enhance as people migrate or learn new languages, in permanent dynamics. Lidia Tanaka’s Chapter 7, Language, gender, and culture deals with research on language, gender, and culture. According to her, the language-gender relationship has been studied by researchers from various fields, including psychology, linguistics, and anthropology, who mainly consider gender as a construct that preserves inequalities in society, with the help of language, too. Tanaka lists diachronically different approaches to language and gender, focusing on three specific ones: gender stereotyped linguistic resources, semantically, pragmatically or lexically designated language features (including register) and gender-based spoken discourse strategies (talking-time imbalances or interruptions). In Chapter 8, Language, culture, and context, Istvan Kecskes delves into the relationship between language, culture, and context from a socio-cognitive perspective. The author considers culture to be a set of shared knowledge structures that encapsulate the values, norms, and customs that the members of a society have in common. According to him, both language and context are rooted in culture and carriers of it, though reflecting culture in a different way. Language encodes past experience with different contexts, whereas context reflects present experience. The author also provides relevant examples of formulaic language that demonstrate the functioning of both types of context, within the larger interplay between language, culture, and context. Sara Miller’s Chapter 9, Language, culture, and politeness reviews traditional approaches to politeness research, with particular attention given to ‘discursive approach’ to politeness. Much along the lines of the previous chapter, Miller stresses the role of context in judgements of (im)polite language, maintaining that individuals represent active agents who challenge and negotiate cultural as well as linguistic norms in actual communicative contexts. Chapter 10, Language, culture, and interaction, by Peter Eglin focuses on language, culture and interaction from the perspective of the correspondence theory of meaning. According to him, abstracting language and culture from their current uses, as if they were not interdependent would not lead to an understanding of words’ true meaning. David Kronenfeld introduces in Chapter 11, Culture and kinship language, a review of research on culture and kinship language, starting with linguistic anthropology. He explains two formal analytic definitional systems of kinship terms: the semantic (distinctions between kin categories, i.e. father vs mother) and pragmatic (interrelations between referents of kin terms, i.e. ‘nephew’ = ‘child of a sibling’). Chapter 12, Cultural semiotics, by Peeter Torop deals with the field of ‘semiotics of culture’, which may refer either to methodological instrument, to a whole array of methods or to a sub-discipline of general semiotics. In this last respect, it investigates cultures as a form of human symbolic activity, as well as a system of cultural languages (i.e. sign systems). Language, as “the preserver of the culture’s collective experience and the reflector of its creativity” represents an essential component of cultural semiotics, being a major sign system. Nigel Armstrong, in Chapter 13, Culture and translation, tackles the interrelation between language, culture, and translation, with an emphasis on the complexities entailed by translation of culturally laden aspects. In his opinion, culture has a double-sided dimension: the anthropological sense (referring to practices and traditions which characterise a community) and a narrower sense, related to artistic endeavours. However, both sides of culture permeate language at all levels. Chapter 14, Language, culture, and identity, by Sandra Schecter tackles several approaches to research on language, culture, and identity: social anthropological (the limits at play in the social construction of differences between various groups of people), sociocultural (the interplay between an individual’s various identities, which can be both externally and internally construed, in sociocultural contexts), participatory-relational (the manner in which individuals create their social–linguistic identities). Patrick McConvell, in Chapter 15, Language and culture history: the contribution of linguistic prehistory reviews research in this field where historical linguistic evidence is exploited in the reconstruction and understanding of prehistoric cultures. He makes an account of research in linguistic prehistory, with a focus on proto- and early Indo-European cultures, on several North American language families, on Africa, Australian, and Austronesian Aboriginal languages. McConvell also underlines the importance of interdisciplinary research in this area, which greatly benefits from studies in other disciplines, such as archaeology, palaeobiology, or biological genetics. Part four starts with Ning Yu’s Chapter 16, Embodiment, culture, and language, which gives an account of theory and research on the interplay between language, culture, and body, as seen from the standpoint of Cultural Linguistics. Yu presents a survey of embodiment (in embodied cognition research) from a multidisciplinary perspective, starting with the rather universalistic Conceptual Metaphor Theory. On the other hand, Cultural Linguistics has concentrated on the role played by culture in shaping embodied language, as various cultures conceptualise body and bodily experience in different ways. Chapter 17, Culture and language processing, by Crystal Robinson and Jeanette Altarriba deals with research in the field of how culture influence language processing, in particular in the case of bilingualism and emotion, alongside language and memory. Clearly, the linguistic and cultural character of each individual’s background has to be considered as a variable in research on cognition and cognitive processing. Frank Polzenhagen and Xiaoyan Xia, in Chapter 18, Language, culture, and prototypicality bring forth a survey of prototypicality across different disciplines, including cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology. According to them, linguistic prototypes play a critical part in social (re-)cognition, as they are socially diagnostic and function as linguistic identity markers. Moreover, individuals may develop ‘culturally blended concepts’ as a result of exposure to several systems of conceptual categorisation, especially in the case of L2 learning (language-contact or culture-contact situations). In Chapter 19, Colour language, thought, and culture, Don Dedrick investigates the issue of the colour words in different languages and how these influence cognition, a question that has been addressed by researchers from various disciplines, such as anthropology, linguistics, cognitive psychology, or neuroscience. He cannot but observe the constant debate in this respect, and he argues that it is indeed difficult to reach consensus, as colour language occasionally reveals effects of language on thought and, at other times, it is impervious to such effects. Chapter 20, Language, culture, and spatial cognition, by Penelope Brown concentrates on conceptualisations of space, providing a framework for thinking about and referring to objects and events, along with more abstract notions such as time, number, or kinship. She lists three frames of reference used by languages in order to refer to spatial relations, i.e. a) an ‘absolute’ coordinate system, like north, south, east, west; b) a ‘relative’ coordinate system envisaged from the body’s standpoint; and c) an intrinsic, object-centred coordinate system. Chris Sinha and Enrique Bernárdez focus on, in Chapter 21, Space, time, and space–time: metaphors, maps, and fusions, research on linguistic and cultural concepts of time and space, starting with the seminal Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), which they denounce for failing to situate space–time mapping within the broader patterns of culture and world perspective. Sinha and Bernárdez further argue that although it is possible in all cultures for individuals to experience and discuss about events in terms of their duration and succession, the specific words and concepts they use to refer to temporal landmarks temporal and duration are most of the time language and culture specific. Chapter 22, Culture and language development, by Laura Sterponi and Paul Lai provides an account of research on the interplay between culture and language acquisition. They refer to two widely accepted perspectives in this respect: a developmental mechanism inherent in human beings and a set of particular social contexts in which children are ‘initiated’ into the cultural meaning systems. Both perspectives define culture as “both related to the psychological make-up of the individual and to the socio-historical contexts in which s/he is born and develops”. Anna Wierzbicka presents, in Chapter 23, Language and cultural scripts discusses representations of cultural norms which are encoded in language. She contends that the system of meaning interpretation developed by herself and her colleagues, i.e. Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), may easily be used to capture and convey cultural scripts. Through NSM cross-cultural experiences can be captured in a thorough manner by using a reduced number of conceptual primes which seem to exist in all languages. Chapter 24, Culture and emotional language, by Jean-Marc Dewaele brings forth the issue of the relationship between language, culture, and emotion, which has been researched by cultural and cognitive psychologists and applied linguists alike, although with some differences in focus. He considers that within this context, it is important to see differences between emotion contexts in bilinguals, since these may lead to different perceptions of the self. He infers that generally, culture revolves around the experience and communication of emotions, conveyed through linguistic expression. The fifth part starts with Chapter 25, Language and culture in sociolinguistics, by Meredith Marra, who underlines that culture is a central concept in Interactional Sociolinguistics, where language is considered as social interaction. In linguistic interaction, culture, and especially cultural differences are deemed as a cause of potential miscommunication. Mara also remarks that the paradigm change in sociolinguistics, from Interactional Sociolinguistics to social constructionism reshaped ‘culture’ into a more dynamic as well as less rigid concept. Claudia Strauss’ Chapter 26, Language and culture in cognitive anthropology deals with the relationship between human society and human thought/thinking. The author contends that cognitive anthropologists may be subdivided into two groups, i.e. ones that are concerned with the process of thinking (cognition-in-practice scholars), and the others focusing on the product of thinking or thoughts (concerned with shared cultural understandings). She goes on to explore how different approaches to cognitive anthropology have counted on units of language, i.e. lexical items and their meanings, along with larger chunks of discourse, as information, which may represent learned cultural schemata. Part VI starts with Chapter 27, Language and culture in second language learning, by Claire Kramsch, in which she makes a survey of the definition of ‘culture’ in foreign language learning and its evolution from a component of literature and the arts to a more comprehensive purport, that of culturally appropriate use of language, along with an appropriate use of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic norms. According to her, in the postmodern era, communication is not only mere transmission of information, it represents construal and positioning of the self and of self-identity. Chapter 28, Writing across cultures: ‘culture’ in second language writing studies, by Dwight Atkinson focuses on the usefulness of culture in second-language writing (SLW). He reviews several approaches to the issue: contrastive rhetoric (dealing with the impact of first-language patterns of text organisation on writers in a second language), or even alternate notions, like‘ cosmopolitanism’, ‘critical multiculturalism’, and hybridity, as of late native culture is becoming irrelevant or at best far less significant. Ian Malcolm tackles, in Chapter 29, Language and culture in second dialect learning, the issue of ‘standard’ Englishes (e.g., Standard American English, Standard Australian English) versus minority ‘non-standard’ speakers of English. He deplores the fact that in US specialist literature, speaking the ‘non-standard’ variety of English was associated with cognitive, cultural, and linguistic insufficiency. He further refers to other specialists who have demonstrated that ‘non-standard’ varieties can be just as systematic and highly structured as the standard variety. Chapter 30, Language and culture in intercultural communication, by Hans-Georg Wolf gives an account of research in intercultural education, focusing on several paradigms, i.e. the dominant one, investigating successful functioning in intercultural encounters, the minor one, exploring intercultural understanding and the ‘deconstructionist, and or postmodernist’. He further examines different interpretations of the concepts associated with intercultural communication, including the functionalist school, the intercultural understanding approach and a third one, the most removed from culture, focusing on socio-political inequalities, fluidity, situationality, and negotiability. Andy Kirkpatrick’s Chapter 31, World Englishes and local cultures gives a synopsis of research paradigm from applied linguistics which investigates the development of Englishes around the world, through processes like indigenisation or nativisation of the language. Kirkpatrick discusses the ways in which new Englishes accommodate the culture of the very speech community which develops them, e.g. adopting lexical items to express to express culture-specific concepts. Speakers of new varieties could use pragmatic norms rooted in cultural values and norms of the specific new speech community which have not previously been associated with English. Moreover, they can use these new Englishes to write local literatures, often exploiting culturally preferred rhetorical norms. Part seven starts with Chapter 32, Cultural Linguistics, by Farzad Sharifian gives an account of the recent multidisciplinary research field of Cultural Linguistics, which explores the relationship between language and cultural cognition, particularly in the case of cultural conceptualisations. Sharifian also brings forth illustrations of how cultural conceptualisations may be linguistically encoded. The last chapter, A future agenda for research on language and culture, by Roslyn Frank provides an appraisal of Cultural Linguistics as a prospective path for research in the field of language and culture. She states that ‘Cultural Linguistics could potentially create a paradigm that “successfully melds together complementary approaches, e.g., viewing language as ‘a complex adaptive system’ and bringing to bear upon it concepts drawn from cognitive science such as ‘distributed cognition’ and ‘multi-agent dynamic systems theory’.” She further asserts that Cultural Linguistics has the potential to function as “a bridge that brings together researchers from a variety of fields, allowing them to focus on problems of mutual concern from a new perspective” and most likely unveil new issues (as well as solutions) which have not been evident so far. In conclusion, the Handbook will most certainly serve as clear and coherent guidelines for scholarly thinking and further research on language and culture, and also open up new investigative vistas in each of the areas tackled.

The article deals with the influence of Plato and Aristotle on the philosophical work and thought of Leo Strauss. Significant issues are approached, which are directly related to the Platonic and Aristotelian views of politics, always in connection with the direct crisis of nihilism brought about by the age of modernity. The interpretations given should be taken as a result of Strauss's own research into the history of philosophy in an attempt to deal with political problems philosophically. Given that Strauss's approach to Platonic and Aristotelian texts is unorthodox, the philosopher attempts to address complex political issues through the scope of their reinterpretation in a selectively synthetic way.

The article presents a historical-philosophical study of the book The City and Man published in 1964 by the political philosopher Leo Strauss. Using a large amount of material, the author attempts to assess the place the book holds in Strauss’ legacy. Additionally, the author presents his own interpretation. Highlighting that The City and Man is mostly concerned as a marginal work in comparison to other of Strauss’ papers, he gives and analyzes a number of political interpretations of the book. Not being content with any of them, he presupposes that The City and Man should be considered in the context of classical political philosophy research undertaken by Leo Strauss. Analyzing each of the three chapters of the book dedicated to Aristotle’s’ Politics, Plato’s Republic and Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, the author concludes that all three texts are interconnected through the figure of one man. This man is Socrates, who discovered sanity and reason as the basis of political philosophy. Each of these works has sanity and reason at their roots, which is a foundation for the revival of political philosophy. By comparing virtue and city (polis) as terms of classical political rationalism, we could shed light on the actual problem of the relationship between ethics and law.

The conservative Jewish, German and American philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973) proposes an interpretation of the causes of the crisis of modernity and argues that the only way in which we can reestablish social stability is to go back to classical political philosophy by Plato and Aristotle. In the following, I will introduce thought of Leo Strauss in order to show how we here can find a well-qualified concept of political conservativism. It is however clear, that this intellectual aristocratism is different from dominant conservative at the political right that also can be accused of having reduced politics to economics and utility maximization where focus is on promotion of personal privileges and interests rather than a concern for the common good in a strong political community.

PurposeThis paper investigates how outcomes-based performance management (PM) regimes operate in the partnerships known as social impact bonds (SIBs), which bring together partners from the public, private and third sectors. The findings are analysed in the light of the different cultural world views of the partners.Design/methodology/approachPublished evaluations of 25 UK SIBs were analysed by a qualitative multiple case study approach. This study of secondary sources permitted the analysis of a wide range of SIB partnerships from near contemporary accounts.FindingsOutcomes frameworks led to rigorous PM regimes that brought the cultural differences between partners into focus. While partnerships benefitted from the variety of viewpoints and expertise, the differences in outlook simultaneously led to strains and tensions. In order to mitigate such tensions, some stakeholders conformed to the outlooks of others.Practical implicationsThe need to achieve a predefined set of payable outcomes embeds a “linear” view of intervention and effect on the SIB partners and a performance regime in which some partners dominate. In designing accountability systems for partnerships such as SIBs, commissioners should consider how the performance regime will affect the interests of all stakeholders.Originality/valueThis study adds to the cultural theory literature which has rarely considered three-way partnerships embodying hierarchical, individualist and egalitarian world views and how performance regimes operate in such partnerships. Three-way partnerships are thought to be rare and short-lived, but this empirical study shows that they can be successful albeit over a predefined lifespan.

In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the pigs infamously changed the law to read: “some animals are more equal than others” (108). From Charlotte’s Web to Babe, there are a plethora of contemporary cultural references, as well as expressions of their intelligence and worth, which would seem to support the pigs’ cause. However, simultaneously, the term “pig” is also synonymous with negative attributes—greed, dirtiness, disarray, brutality and chauvinism. Pigs are also used to name those out of favour, including police officers, the obese, capitalists and male chauvinists. Yet, the animal’s name is also used to express the most extraordinary and unlikely events as in “pigs might fly”. On the one hand, pigs are praised and represented as intelligent and useful, but then they are derided as unclean and slovenly. We are similarly paradoxical in our relationship with then, ranging from using them as a food source to keeping them as pets, and from seeing them as a valuable farm animal/resource or dangerous feral pest depending on which side of the farm gate they are on. Pigs also give a voice to many aspects of popular culture and feature in novels, fairytales, cartoons, comics and movies. As food, pigs are both for feasts and forbidden, their meat the site of both desire and disgust. They are smoked, roasted, fried, stewed and braised, and farmed in the worst of industrial food producing factories. They are also leading the charge in an eating revolution which is calling for heritage, free-range, organic and cruelty-free farming. Snuck into dishes during the Inquisition to expose false conversos, pigs are today seen by some as unclean, inedible and/or fattening and, yet, they provide the symbolic heart of tip-to-tail eating and some of the most expensive and desired of foodie products: heritage Spanish hams, for instance. In an age where to be slender is the goal of many, pigs have been bred and farmed to provide pork which is ever leaner, and yet, their fat—at its most unctuous and melting—is providing a space where the most celebrated of chefs revel. When more and more people are disconnected from what they eat, snout-to-tail eaters are dining on recognisable pigs’ ears, pig’s head filled pies and braised trotters. For many, pigs are the other white meat.Those of us who grew up with television muppet, Miss Piggy, are familiar with the mixed feelings that pigs can evoke. As the contributions to this issue attest, the idea of “pig” can evoke a similarly wide range of responses from scholars working in a variety of disciplines. While as editors we approached the idea of “pig” from an interdisciplinary food studies approach, the symbolic, and even iconic, significance of the pig is a central concern of all of the papers. As Claude Lévi-Strauss put it so elegantly “food has to be good to think as well as to eat” (1963: 128). A number of the authors in this issue have responded with a regional or country-specific focus, and include perspectives from, or about, places and cultures as diverse as Ireland, Tonga, New Zealand, the Soviet Union, the USA and China. “The Pig in Irish Cuisine and Culture”, the title and subject of Máirtín Mac Con Iomaire’s historical analysis, opens with the fact that more pork is eaten per capita than any other meat in Ireland but pigs themselves are almost invisible. Various themes confirm the importance of pigs in Irish culture—literature, folklore, the domestication of the animal and their value in household economics, their role in feasts and how they are raised, killed, prepared and consumed. How the history of the pig in Ireland complements that of the potato—the food item more widely recognised as a major contributor to Irish cuisine—is also included, as are an indication of the new interpretations of Irish pork and bacon dishes by contemporary chefs. In Tonga, conversely, pigs are killed to mark a special event, and are not eaten as everyday food by most people, although they are very significant in Tongan life and culture precisely because of this ceremonial importance. In “Pu‘aka Tonga,” ex-resident of Tonga Mandy Treagus, explains that this is one of the few things about the Tongan diet that has not changed since Cook visited the area and named it the “Friendly Islands”. Treagus also critiques the ways in which the Tongan diet has changed, and how food in Tonga is a neo-colonial issue with pervasive and, sometimes, negative ramifications for Tongans.Jeremy Fisher’s memoir “Tusk” similarly weaves personal and cultural history together, this time in New Zealand. “Tusk” orients the life story of the narrator’s father around the watershed moment he experienced when he killed a boar at 16. The tusks he took from the killing were mounted on gold and accompanied him throughout his life, as well as acting as a reminder to others of his act. The tusks thus function as a physical reminder of the night he spent out in the bush and killed the boar, but also a remembrance of both change and continuity over time. Jenny Smith moves us spatially, and temporally, to the Soviet Union in her “Tushonka: Cultivating Soviet Postwar Taste”. During the Second World War, the USA sent meat, cheese and butter overseas to help feed the Red Army. However, after receiving several shipments of SPAM, a more familiar canned pork product, Russian tushonka, was requested. Smith uses the example of tuskonka to trace how this pig-based product not only kept soldiers alive during the war, but how later the requirements for its manufacture re-prioritised muscle over fat and influenced pig breeding programs. Smith asserts that this had a significant influence on faming and food processing in the Soviet Union, as well as the relationship between the pig and the consumer.Pigs are at the centre of debates that have arisen from the growth of a number of social movements that are becoming increasingly mainstream, reminding us that they are also alive, and beings in their own right. These movements include environmentalism, vegetarianism and other alternative food movements advocating ethical eating. Thus, in his analysis of alien creatures with pig and human features in the science fiction series Dr Who, “Those Pig-Men Things”, Brett Mills explores our reactions to these characters and their fates. Discussing why pig-human representations are capable of being both “shocking and horrific”, but also of arousing our empathy, Mills’s analysis suggests the possibility of more complex notions of human/non-human interaction. It also assists in working towards, as he states, “helpfully destabilis[ing our] simplistic ideas of the superiority of the human race.” The deepest form of human-animal interaction underlies Peta S. Cook and Nicholas Osbaldiston’s “Pigs Hearts and Human Bodies: A Cultural Approach to Xenotransplantation”. Cook and Osbaldiston discuss how our categorisation of animals as a lower species has enabled their exploitation, arguing how, in the contemporary West, we largely attribute “a sacred high value to human bodies, and a low, profane quality to animal bodies.” The authors provide a compelling account of the social and cultural ramifications of the use of pigs in xenotransplantation (animal-to-human transplantation), a process in which the current “choice” animal source is pigs. The line dividing human and animal can at other times be a tenuous one, demonstrated by the anxiety generated over eating practices exposed in fears of eating “like a pig”. In her article, “Sugar Pigs: Children’s Consumption of Confectionery”, Toni Risson explains how rules about eating and concealing food in the mouth remind us that eating is an animal act that instruction is required to modify and control. Children’s lolly-eating rituals—sharing half-eaten food, monitoring the progress of its consumption and change, and using fingers to inspect this change or pull stuck lollies off teeth—can evoke disgust in adults, but can also create friendship networks, intimacy and a sense of belonging for children as they transgress the rules of civilised eating. As Risson puts it, as “the antithesis of civilisation, the pig is the means by which we understand ourselves as civilised beings, but the child with a lolly is an ever-present reminder that we may be animals after all”.Feminism can be added to this list of social movements, with Arhlene Ann Flowers drawing attention to the power of language in her article “Swine Semantics in U.S. Politics: Who Put Lipstick on the Pig?”. Flowers chronicles the linguistic battle between the presidential candidates in the US 2008 campaign over the colloquialism “lipstick on a pig”, used in a speech by then Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Flowers traces the history of this phrase, as well as the use of other porcine terms in political language including “pork barrelling” and “male chauvinist pig.”In her article about New York’s first gastrobpub, The Spotted Pig, one of the co-editors of this issue, Donna Lee Brien, has constructed a brief restaurant biography for the eatery famous for founding chef April Bloomfield’s nose-to-tail, locally sourced pork dishes. In this, Brien reflects upon the pig’s place in contemporary dining, whether as “raw foodstuff, fashionable comestible, brand, symbol or marketing tool.” In Lillian Ng’s novel, Swallowing Clouds, references to pigs are similarly closely related to food, but in her article, Spanish author Catalina Ribas Segura argues these references to flesh and meat evoke the concepts of freedom, transgression and desire. In “Pigs and Desire in Lillian Ng´s Swallowing Clouds”, Segura focuses on pork and the pig and what these reveal about the two main characters’ relationship. One of these, Zhu Zhiyee, is a butcher, which means that pigs and pork are recurrent topics throughout the novel, but other porcine expressions appear throughout. Pig-related terminology in the novel provides a means for Segura to consider the relationship between food and sex, and sex and literature, and includes a discussion about the connotations of pigs in Chinese culture, where pork is used in a variety of dishes. Lee McGowan’s “Piggery and Predictability: An Exploration of the Hog in Football’s Limelight” focuses in more closely on one of the uses to which we have put pigs, discussing how far “the beautiful game” of football (soccer) has come from the days when an inflated pigs bladder was used as the ball.Reversing this focus from use back to how we, as humans, relate to animals, can show that how we conceive of pigs in our human history reveals our own prejudices. It is known that pigs and humans have interacted for some 10,000 years. The history of that interaction and their own adaptability mean that pigs have a broad range of possible relationships with humans, wider and more complex than either that of many other species or our contemporary treatment of them would attest. The other co-editor of this issue, Adele Wessell, takes a historical perspective to restore pigs to the centre of the narrative in “Making a Pig of the Humanities.” Drawing on a growing body of work on nonhuman animals, Wessell is interested in what a history of pigs and our relationship with them reveals about humans more generally. She argues that all the significant themes in modern history—production, religion, the body, science, power, the national state, colonialism, gender, consumption, migration, memory—can be understood through a history of our relationships with pigs. Jim Hearn is a chef, a researcher and writer. Hearn’s article “Percy” is the story of a pig who, as the only pig in the farmyard, longs to “escape the burden of allegory”. All Percy wanted was to belong, but his pig-ness caused offence to all the other animals in the farm. Percy’s story is about belonging and identity, body-image and representation, told from a pig’s point of view. Percy is burdened with the layers of meaning that have built up around pigs and longs to escape, and this fable provides a fitting ending to this issue.Together, we hope the articles in this collection indicate the wide significance and large number of meanings of “pig” that are possible for different cultures and across historical periods, and the place that pigs inhabit in our national, popular and food cultures. They reveal how pigs are used and misused, as well as how they are understood and misunderstood. These interesting and diverse articles also show how pigs are both material and allegorical; how they are paradoxical in how they are revered, avoided and derided; and, commonly, how they are eaten. ReferencesOrwell, George. Animal Farm. Fairfield, IA: 1st World Library—Library Society, 2004.Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Totemism. Boston, Beacon Press, 1963.