Search

Steiner's principal objection to our paper is that deliberators in a committee are permitted to speak strategically whereas deliberative theory requires ‘that actors do not lie but are truthful and authentic in their statements’. In this response we observe that such a prescription is relevant only to the extent that individuals might be expected to behave otherwise. Our paper explores conditions under which deliberators' strategic (descriptive) incentives are aligned with the (prescriptive) advice to tell the truth.European Political Science (2008) 7, 191–193. doi:10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210187 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The task of the social workers, particularly in institutions, is in the need of finding new ways of research. The problem is not so much in the everyday issues to manage social alterity (people insane or not adapted, people with behavioural problems, in the need of protection for situations of social risk or in the case of this paper, boarding schools and other institutions for children). On the contrary, the problem is to understand what happens "inside" these institutions, that seems to be to be irrational and alienating form the perspective of labour. These institutions have their own dynamics, and these cannot be only seen as situations of labour conflict (from outside) and difference of competencies (from inside). We propose a methodology towards labour desalination that understands the social practice of experts (in education, psychology or social attention) as politics and with creative resources (metaphoric translations) that help to disassemble the expertise practices of an absorbent reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that metropolitan political theories and institutions grounded in popular sovereignty help to produce decolonization. Radical distinctions between metropolis and dependency only arise when communities, and not rulers, are the theoretical source of political authority. Metropoles organized around popular sovereignty tend to legitimate peripheral claims to autonomy, and to construct political institutions (most importantly colonial legislatures) that voice such claims. An analysis of Western empires shows that, where political models were based on popular sovereignty (Great Britain, the United States, and France), decolonization resulted from internal tensions between theory and practice. Where empire was organized around dynastic principles (Spain and Portugal), empires dissolved as a result of external pressures. Dominant global models have additional effects, blurring differences between empires when popular sovereignty is widely accepted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]