Search

This paper traces out the connections between political theory and political commentary through an analysis of the relationship between the editorial stance of Dissent magazine and the academic work of its staff, in particular that of Irving Howe and Michael Walzer. It argues that central to the political thought of the Dissent circle was a rejection of the ideological puritanism of the magazine's critics, targets, and interlocutors, both academic and public intellectual. Dissent's major theoretical contribution was to try to work out a space for a policy-oriented platform that draws upon the best that competing political ideologies have to offer while transcending them. Thus, Howe and Michael Harrington sought a socialism that drew upon valuable liberal insights and socialized them, while Walzer looked for a permanent uneasy co-existence between liberalism, social democracy, and communitarianism. I situate Walzer's famous article "The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism" as an intellectual descendant of Howe's Socialism and America, seeking to extend that work, which offered articles of conciliation between liberalism and socialism, to incorporate communitarianism too. In staking out this position, the Dissent circle made valuable contributions to the practice of both activist politics and political theory throughout the period between the magazine's establishment in 1953 and the present day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature on diversionary force misunderstands the Simmel-Coser in-group-out-group hypothesis. By in-group cohesion resulting from external challenge Coser means not rallying but integrated mobilization to repel the challenge. In contrast to much rallying research, this study conceives of rallying as non-instrumental displays of patriotism. It proposes that, though CoserÂ’s in-group-out-group hypothesis does not emphasize rallying, its functionalist logic provides an explanatory insight on rallying: Rallying may serve mobilization functions; rallying is most likely when the mobilization functions that rallying can perform are not otherwise satisfied. This reveals that researchers are premature in dismissing patriotism as an explanation of rallying on the basis of a non-significant monotonic association between challenge intensity and rallying. The study develops further hypotheses on the conditions under which rallying may serve mobilization and leader opportunities to mobilize the public through patriotic appeals. The in-group-out-group logic is only a partial explanation of rallying. The study develops further hypotheses, which attribute rallying effects to particular properties of external acts and situations, democratic regimes, individuals, nations, and to possible particularities of the United States. It then considers implications of the in-group-out-group logic and the studyÂ’s hypotheses on rallying for diversionary aggression. This final section also elucidates another misapprehension concerning Coser. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]