320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (73) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2020 (73) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (38)
- Part of a Book (26)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
- Review (3)
- Other (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (73) (remove)
Keywords
- discourse (2)
- 2 degrees C target (1)
- Active learning (1)
- Adoption (1)
- Antifeminismus (1)
- Arbeitsmarkt (1)
- Argentina (1)
- Ausländerbehörde (1)
- Buenos Aires (1)
- CORONA-Krise (1)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (52)
- Sozialwissenschaften (9)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (9)
- Öffentliches Recht (4)
- Bürgerliches Recht (2)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (1)
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (1)
- Institut für Slavistik (1)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (1)
Reconstructing democracy
(2020)
Across the world, democracies are suffering from a disconnect between the people and political elites. In communities where jobs and industry are scarce, many feel the government is incapable of understanding their needs or addressing their problems. The resulting frustration has fueled the success of destabilizing demagogues. To reverse this pattern and restore responsible government, we need to reinvigorate democracy at the local level. But what does that mean? Drawing on examples of successful community building in cities large and small, from a shrinking village in rural Austria to a neglected section of San Diego, Reconstructing Democracy makes a powerful case for re-engaging citizens. It highlights innovative grassroots projects and shows how local activists can form alliances and discover their own power to solve problems.
Heterogenität
(2020)
‘The Territorialities of U.S. Imperialisms’ sets into relation U.S. imperial and Indigenous conceptions of territoriality as articulated in U.S. legal texts and Indigenous life writing in the 19th century. It analyzes the ways in which U.S. legal texts as “legal fictions” narratively press to affirm the United States’ territorial sovereignty and coherence in spite of its reliance on a variety of imperial practices that flexibly disconnect and (re)connect U.S. sovereignty, jurisdiction and territory.
At the same time, the book acknowledges Indigenous life writing as legal texts in their own right and with full juridical force, which aim to highlight the heterogeneity of U.S. national territory both from their individual perspectives and in conversation with these legal fictions. Through this, the book’s analysis contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the coloniality of U.S. legal fictions, while highlighting territoriality as a key concept in the fashioning of the narrative of U.S. imperialism.
Einführung
(2020)
Henrik Ibsen behandelt in seinem Schauspiel Ein Volksfeind (1882) einen Umweltskandal, was das Stück zeitlos aktuell macht. Heutige Inszenierungen können umstandslos an die hier vorgestellten Umweltprobleme und den Umgang damit in der nach dem Mehrheitsprinzip verfahrenden Demokratie anknüpfen. In dem Beitrag wird zunächst der Begriffsgeschichte von „Volksfeind“ nachgegangen, vom Römischen Reich über die Französische Revolution, die totalitären Diktaturen des 20. Jahrhunderts bis zur heutigen Bundesrepublik und den USA. Im Weiteren werden die im Stück thematisierten Verhältnisse von Mehrheit und Minderheit sowie Macht und Recht im politisch-gesellschaftlichen Gefüge vor dem Hintergrund demokratietheoretischer Überlegungen von Alexis die Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill und Emma Goldman untersucht. Schließlich werden die im Volksfeind aufgeworfenen Fragen nach der Möglichkeit von Bildung und politischer Mündigkeit vor dem Hintergrund heutiger postfaktischer Tendenzen, von Politik mit „alternativen Fakten“, Bullshit und Lügen diskutiert.
Eine relevante und höchst aktuelle Überschneidung fachübergreifender und fachspezifischer sprachlicher Phänomene hat Elisabeth Wehling mit ihrem 2016 erschienenen Buch „Politisches Framing“ einer breiten Öffentlichkeit, die weit über fachwissenschaftliche Kreise hinaus geht, dargelegt. Wehling erläutert darin an zahlreichen Beispielen, dass in politischen Debatten und für ihre Wirkung nicht zuerst die vorgetragenen Fakten entscheidend sind, sondern gedankliche Deutungsrahmen — in den Kognitionswissenschaften Frames genannt — die den Fakten eine Bedeutung verleihen. Informationen werden demnach in Relation zu Erfahrungen und Vorwissen als relevant oder irrelevant eingeordnet sowie durch Frames bewertet und interpretiert. Dadurch beeinflussen Frames — häufig unbewusst — Denken und Handeln. (Wehling, S. 17 ff.) Eine Auseinandersetzung mit den von Wehling dargelegten Erkenntnissen im Rahmen des Politikunterrichts ermöglicht die Entwicklung und Förderung von sprachlicher und fachlicher Kompetenz. Dieser Beitrag fasst die von Wehling dargelegten Erkenntnisse zusammen und erläutert das didaktische Potenzial des Themas Politisches Framing anhand kompetenzbezogener Aufgaben für den Politikunterricht.
Dieser Beitrag reflektiert und ergänzt die aktuelle Diskussion über die Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats zur Weiterentwicklung der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir richten dabei den Blick auf die vom Wissenschaftsrat attestierten Schwachstellen im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden und erläutern ihre Auswirkungen auf Interdisziplinarität, Internationalität und Politikberatung der deutschen Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir argumentieren, unter Verweis auf den Bericht des Wissenschaftsrats, dass eine breitere Methodenausbildung und -kenntnis von großer Bedeutung für interdisziplinäre und internationale Zusammenarbeit, aber auch für die Politikberatung ist. Zukünftige Initiativen innerhalb der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung sollten die Methodenvielfalt des Forschungsbereichs angemessen berücksichtigen und einen besonderen Fokus auf die Ausbildung im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden legen, um das Forschungsfeld in diesem Bereich zu stärken. Unser Beitrag entspringt einer Diskussion innerhalb des Arbeitskreises „Empirische Methoden der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung“ der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Friedens- und Konfliktforschung.
How do active learning environments—by means of simulations—enhance political science students’ learning outcomes regarding different levels of knowledge? This paper examines different UN simulations in political science courses to demonstrate their pedagogical value and provide empirical evidence for their effectiveness regarding three levels of knowledge (factual, procedural and soft skills). Despite comprehensive theoretical claims about the positive effects of active learning environments on learning outcomes, substantial empirical evidence is limited. Here, we focus on simulations to systematically test previous claims and demonstrate their pedagogical value. Model United Nations (MUNs) have been a popular teaching device in political science. To gain comprehensive data about the active learning effects of MUNs, we collect data and evaluate three simulations covering the whole range of simulation characteristics: a short in-class simulation of the UN Security Council, a regional MUN with different committees being simulated, and two delegations to the National Model United Nations, for which the students prepare for 1 year. Comparative results prove that simulations need to address certain characteristics in order to produce extensive learning outcomes. Only comprehensive simulations are able to achieve all envisioned learning outcomes regarding factual and procedural knowledge about the UN and soft skills.
Die Manosphere
(2020)
Die sogenannte Manosphere – eine digitale Gemeinschaft, die sich hauptsächlich durch misogyne und antifeministische Beiträge und Ideologien auszeichnet – ist aufgrund ihrer Verbindung zu verschiedenen Terroranschlägen in der letzten Zeit verstärkt in das Blickfeld der Medien gelangt. Dieser Beitrag untersucht die bislang häufig vernachlässigte Rolle digitaler Räume und Netzwerke im Kontext regressiver, frauenfeindlicher Ideologien und daraus erwachsende gewalttätige antifeministische Handlungsrepertoires aus Perspektive der Bewegungsforschung. Am Beispiel der Manosphere auf der Plattform Reddit zeige ich, wie durch das Zusammenspiel zwischen technologischer Infrastruktur und regressiver Ideologie die Grundlage für die Mobilisierung und Sozialisierung in antifeministische Bewegungskulturen mit gewalttätigen Handlungsrepertoires on- und offline geschaffen wird.
The United Nations (UN) policy agenda on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE) promotes a “holistic” approach to counterterrorism, which includes elements traditionally found in security and development programs. Advocates of the agenda increasingly emphasize the importance of gender mainstreaming for counterterrorism goals. In this article, I scrutinize the merging of the goals of gender equality, security, and development into a global agenda for counterterrorism. A critical feminist discourse-analytical reading of gender representations in P/CVE shows how problematic imageries of women as victims, economic entrepreneurs, and peacemakers from both the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Women, Peace and Security agenda are reproduced in core UN documents advocating for a “holistic” P/CVE approach. By highlighting the tensions that are produced by efforts to merge the different gender discourses across the UN’s security and development institutions, the article underlines the relevance of considering the particular position of P/CVE at the security–development nexus for further gender-sensitive analysis and policies of counterterrorism.
Yiddish culture developed in Argentina within the context of a self-perception that figured Buenos Aires as a marginal and peripheral locale on the global Yiddish map. Against this backdrop, Argentine Yiddish culturalists argued for the strengthening of local Yiddish culture with a goal of elevating Buenos Aires's status within the international hierarchies of Yiddish culture. Buenos Aires indeed emerged in the 1920s as a producer of Yiddish cultural contents, maintained networks of international cultural contacts with other Yiddish centers, financially supported Eastern European Yiddish establishments, and hoped that these contacts would allow for solving Buenos Aires reputation problems. The pre-World War II preoccupation with the status of Buenos Aires as a center of Yiddish culture provided a basis upon which post-Holocaust discourse of Argentine Jewish responsibility for the maintenance of Yiddish culture was constructed.
Introduction
(2020)
Does political repression work and if so, under what conditions? Many contributions to the empirical study of non-democratic rule assume it does. As a consequence, strong convictions on political repression abound, but empirical investigations into the matter remain rare. This introduction sets the agenda for the chapters to come and outlines the answers given to the three motivating questions of this volume. First, what variants of political repression are there, and how do they interact? Second, what impact does the interaction of different forms of political repression have on the problem of authoritarian control? Finally, what difference does the complementary use of violence and restrictions make for the problem of authoritarian power-sharing?
To ensure political survival, autocrats must prevent popular rebellion, and political repression is a means to that end. However, autocrats face threats from both the inside and the outside of the center of power. They must avoid popular rebellion and at the same time share power with strategic actors who enjoy incentive to challenge established power-sharing arrangements whenever repression is ordered. Can autocrats turn repression in a way that allows trading one threat off against the other? This chapter first argues that prior research offers scant insight on that question because it relies on umbrella concepts and questionable measurements of repression. Next, the chapter disaggregates repression into restrictions and violence and reflects on their drawbacks. Citizens adapt to the restriction of political civil liberties, and violence backfires against its originators. Hence, restrictions require enforcement, and violence requires moderation. When interpreted as complements, it becomes clear that restrictions and violence have the potential to compensate for their respective weaknesses. The complementarity between violence and restrictions turns political repression into a valuable addition to the authoritarian toolkit. The chapter concludes with an application of these ideas to the twin problems of authoritarian control and power-sharing.
This chapter operationalizes the three fundamental concepts of this study. It outlines what counts as authoritarian rule, it explains how to recognize dissent in non-democratic contexts, and it debates how to quantify repression in the shadow of the politicized discourse on human rights. First, the chapter opts to classify every political regime as authoritarian that fails to elect its executive or legislature in free and competitive elections. Second, the chapter proposes to see dissent through the lens of campaigns, i.e., series of connected contentious events that involve large-scale collective action and formulate far-reaching political demands. Finally, after some elaboration on the problems involved in measuring political repression reliably and validly, the chapter turns to rescaled versions of the Human Rights Protection Scores 2.04 and the V-Dem 6.2 political civil liberties index as indicators for violence and restrictions. This choice of indicators of repression is, finally, defended against three central objections: the separability of violence from restrictions, the so-called information paradox, and, finally, differences in the timing of violence and restrictions.
Conclusion
(2020)
Does political repression work for authoritarian rule? On the one hand, repression is a hallmark of authoritarian governance. It denotes any action governments take to increase the costs of collective action. Autocrats consciously apply repression to curb popular opposition within their territorial jurisdiction. They repress in order to protect their policies, personnel, or other interests against challenges from below. Repression is, thus, a means to the end of political survival in non-democratic contexts. A useful means lives up to its promises. Does repression do that? This project started on the suspicion that we do not yet know the answer. This concluding chapter recalls the key theoretical ideas developed along the way, highlights the main findings of the book, and concludes with opportunities for future research.
Campaigns against authoritarian rule trigger the problems of authoritarian control and power-sharing. Hence, autocrats cannot ignore campaigns, but can they repress them? This chapter hypothesizes that restrictions and violence do just that—if those forms of political repression complement each other. Each variant of political repression has drawbacks: Restrictions dampen, but they do not eliminate interdependent behavior; violence imposes high individual costs on dissent, but it frequently backfires against its originators. Complementarity asserts that those drawbacks matter less when both variants of repression work in tandem. Statistical analysis of 50 campaigns distributed across 112 authoritarian regimes between 1977 and 2001 yields mixed support for the argument. Based on a binary probit model with sample selection correction, the analysis adds a preemptive and a reactive aspect to political repression. The results imply that complementarity matters as long as repression preempts campaigns, but not when it reacts to them. Moreover, once citizens knock at the palace gates, restrictions turn futile. Finally, violence reduces the outlook for successful resistance against authoritarian rule, but it also backfires at all times—preemptive and reactive. By implication, political repression thwarts successful resistance today, but it breeds more resistance tomorrow.
Does complementarity between restrictions and violence stabilize authoritarian power-sharing in the face of popular rebellion? Scholars widely concur that the central political conflict in authoritarian regimes plays out between people on the inside of the regime. This chapter adds to the debate and studies coup attempts in light of two interconnected hypotheses. First, violence against campaigns destabilizes power-sharing because it exposes a weak leadership. Second, this adverse effect of violence declines as the routine level of restrictions increases, because restrictions act as a sorting mechanism for uncompromising political opposition. Both hypotheses are tested using Bayesian multilevel statistical analysis on a data set of 253 coup attempts in 198 authoritarian regimes between 1949 and 2007. This study design allows separation of repression’s time-dependent effects from its context effects, and it demonstrates the value of Bayesian methods for studying rare political phenomena such as coups d’état. The chapter’s conclusion, however, is straightforward: Once citizens form campaigns, repression can only deteriorate the situation because it opens a frontline right at the center of authoritarian rule.