Cicero’s vision for the Republic was not simply the maintenance of the status quo. Nor was it a straightforward desire to revitalise what many, such as Sallust, term the ‘moral degradation’ of the republican system. Cicero envisioned a Rome ruled by a selfless nobility of successful individuals determining the fate of the nation via consensus in the Senate. Cicero’s country and equestrian background resulted in a broader outlook, not marred by self-interest to the same extent as the patricians' of Rome.
Cicero aspired to a republican system dominated by a ruling aristocratic class of men, “who so conducted themselves as to win for their policy the approval of all good men”. Further, he sought a concordia ordinum, an alliance between the senators and the equites. This ‘harmony between the social classes’, “which he later developed into a consensus omnium bonorum to include tota Italia (all citizens of Italy), demonstrated Cicero’s foresight as a statesman. He understood that fundamental change to the organization and the distribution of power within the Republic was required to secure its future. However, Cicero was also far too idealistic, believing that ‘the best men’ would institute large-scale reforms which were contrary to their interests as the ruling oligarchy. Cicero's guiding principle throughout his political career was:
That “some sort of free-state” is the necessary condition of a noble and honourable existence; and that it is the worst calamity for a people to permanently renounce this ideal and to substitute for it the slave’s ideal of a good master.
(this quote comes from James Leigh Strachan-Davidson - 1894 - Rome only the section "some sort of free state" is cicero. the rest is Strachan-Davidson.)p. 427)
Links with the equestrian class, combined with his status as a novus homo meant that Cicero was isolated from the optimates. Thus, it is not surprising that Cicero envisioned a “selfless nobility of successful individuals” instead of the current system dominated by patricians. The fact remains that those who sat in the Senate had appropriated huge profits by exploiting the provinces. Repeatedly, the oligarchy had proved to be short-sighted, reactionary and “operating with restricted and outmoded institutions that could no longer cope with the vast territories containing multifarious populations that was Rome at this point of its history” The repeated failings of the oligarchy were not only due to the leading patricians like, Crassus and Hortensius, but also to the influx of conservative equites into the Senate’s ranks.
The combination of the Roman governing system, presently used by the oligarchy to selfishly maximize economic exploitation, and the introduction of the business minded equites, only resulted in an increase of the plundering of resources within the Empire. The large-scale extortion destabilized the political system further, which was continuously under pressure by both foreign wars and from the populares. Moreover, this period of Roman history was marked by constant in-fighting between the senators and the equites over political power and control of the courts. The problem arose because Sulla originally enfranchised the equites, but then, these privileges were soon removed after he stepped down from office. Cicero, as an eques, naturally backed their claims to participate in the legal process; moreover the constant conflict was incompatible with his vision of a concordia ordinum. Furthermore, the conflict between the two classes showed no signs of a feasible solution in the short term. The ruling class for over a century had showed nothing of ‘selfless service’ to the Republic and through their actions only undermined its stability, contributing to the creation of a society ripe for revolution.
The establishment of individual power bases both within Rome and in the provinces undermined Cicero’s guiding principle of a free state, and thus the Roman Republic itself. This factionalised the Senate into cliques, which constantly engaged each other for political advantage. These cliques were the optimates, led by such figures as Cato, and in later years Pompey, and the populares, lead by such men as Julius Caesar and Crassus. It is important to note that the although the optimates were generally republicans there were instances of leaders of the optimates with distinctly dictatorial ways. Caesar, Crassus and Pompey were at one time the head of the First Triumvirate which directly conflicted with the republican model as it did not comply with the system of holding a consulship for one year only. Cicero’s vision for the Republic could not succeed if the populares maintained their position of power. Cicero did not envisage wide spread reform, but a return to the “golden age” of the Republic. Despite Cicero’s attempts to court Pompey over to the republican side, he failed to secure either Pompey’s genuine support or peace for Rome.
After the civil war, Cicero recognised that the end of the Republic was almost certain. He stated that “the Republic, the Senate, the law courts are mere ciphers and that not one of us has any constitutional position at all.” The civil war had destroyed the Republic. It wreaked destruction and decimated resources throughout the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar’s victory had been absolute. Caesar’s assassination failed to reinstate the Republic, despite further attacks on the Romans’ freedom by “Caesar’s own henchman, Mark Antony.” Furthermore, his death only highlighted the stability of ‘one man rule’ by the ensuing chaos and further civil wars that broke out with Caesar’s murderers, Brutus and Cassius, and finally between his own supporters, Mark Antony and Octavian.
Cicero remained the ”Republic's last true friend” as he spoke out for his own ideals and that of the libertas (freedom) the Romans had enjoyed for centuries. Cicero’s vision had some fundamental flaws. It harked back to a ‘golden age’ that may never have existed. Cicero's idea of the concordia ordinum was too idealistic. Thirdly, he and all his contemporaries were unable to realise that Rome had grown far too large to be governed by institutions that were originally created for governing a small town. Furthermore, the Republic had reached such a state of disrepair that regardless of Cicero’s talents and passion, Rome lacked “persons loyal to [the Republic] to trust with armies.” Cicero lacked the political power, nor had he any military skill or resources, to command true power to enforce his ideal. To enforce republican values and institutions were also ipso facto contrary to republican values. He also failed to a certain extent to recognize the real power structures that operated in Rome, as anybody does who is enmeshed in the politics of his own time.
Works
Cicero was declared a “righteous pagan” by the early Catholic Church, and therefore many of his works were deemed worthy of preservation. Saint Augustine and others quoted liberally from his works “On The Republic” and “On The Laws,” and it is due to this that we are able to recreate much of the work from the surviving fragments. Cicero also articulated an early, abstract conceptualisation of rights, based on ancient law and custom.
Friday, January 18, 2008
cicere-theory of nature law and natural equality
Classical natural law teaching recognized rights only as they were concomitants of one's position in society. Thus, one's rights and responsibilities were seen in terms of the duties one owed to others through society and the rights of one's class. These duties and responsibilities were dictated by natural law. Natural law or justice was defined "as the habit of giving to everyone what is due to him according to nature."
1. Leo Strauss recognizes three different ways in which natural right
2. was understood by classical thinkers. We have dealt with two: Socratic-Platonic and Aristotelian.
3. The third is Thomistic. We shall examine that in subsequent parts. In this part we shall examine Cicero's and the Stoics' distinctive contribution to the notion of natural law or natural right. Strauss takes the position that Cicero and the Stoics represent a return to the Socratic-Platonic. Strauss notes that this is due to the close relationship between "stoicism and cynicism, and cynicism was originated by a Socratic.
4. Cynicism taught that the "wise man should be completely self-sufficing.... Everything except for moral character is a matter of indifference. [Thus], [t]he protest of the Cynic against social convention was a doctrine of the return to nature in the most nihilist sense of the term. The chief practical importance of the Cynic School lay in the fact that it was a matrix from which Stoicism emerged.
5. Cynicism emphasized the necessity of the cultivation of moral character, but everything beside this, family, property, citizenship, learning, marriage, and other expressions of society, was indifferent. All who cultivated moral character and wisdom were "citizens of the world," but this was as a result of the positive spin placed on it by the later development of Stoicism. The Stoics, and Cicero in particular, developed natural law more completely than either Plato or Aristotle. They did so, moreover, in a different time than Plato and Aristotle. They did so at a time when the city-state was on the wane. What was needed was a concept of natural law that was "suprasocietal" or even "supranational." Stoicism, in distinction from Cynicism, developed within the bosom of the City of Rome, which became the Roman Empire. Universal natural law became identified with Roman law.
Russell Kirk explains the Ciceronian concept of natural law:
[H]uman laws are only copies of eternal laws. Those eternal laws are peculiar to man, for only man, on earth, is a rational being. The test of validity for the state's laws is their conformity to reason.... Learned men know that "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite. This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law. And so they believe that Law is intelligence, whose natural function it is to command right conduct and forbid wrongdoing. They think that this quality has derived its name in Greek from the idea of granting to every man his own and in our language I believe it has been named from the idea of choosing. For as they have attributed the idea of fairness to the word law, so we have given it that of selection, though both ideas properly belong to Law. Now if this is correct, as I think it to be in general, then the origin of Justice is to be found in Law; for Law is a natural force; it is the mind and reason of the intelligent man, the standard by which Justice and Injustice are measured." Law, then, at base is a knowledge of the ethical norms for the human being.
6. Thus, natural law forms the basis in creation for our intuitions of right and wrong, and is the context for our ability to reason. Additionally, according to Cicero, the ability to discern the natural law is not limited to one nation: True law is right reason in agreement with Nature...it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting... we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.
7. Kirk points out that the natural law, conceived as a natural moral order rather than a natural physical order, was the "moral imagination," enabling man, through the exercise of reason, to apply other laws humanely.
8. The natural law is to be distinguished from that found in individual nations and cities: For Justice is one; it binds all human society and is based on one law, which is right reason applied to command and prohibition.... But if the principles of Justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultery and forgery of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace.... But in fact we can perceive the difference between good laws and bad by referring them to no other standard than Nature; indeed, it is not merely Justice and Injustice which are distinguished by Nature, but also and without exception things which are honourable and dishonourable.
9. The teaching on natural law found in Cicero provides us with an insight into the view of liberty or individual rights held by the Stoics. Since natural law governs all, all the positions of men are derived from it. The one who rebel against its dispositions "suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.
10. As a result, The Roman People as a corporate body and the individual citizen possessed Liberty, freedom from involuntary servitude and freedom to exercise specific rights and to assume specific duties. Under this ideal of Liberty the Roman People, as a corporate entity, was its own master, free from internal domination by a monarch or by a political faction and free from subjection to any foreign power; the Roman People was thus free to exercise its sovereignty, free to determine its destiny, free to follow those laws and customs which represented the Roman way of life. As an individual, the Roman was free from the impositions of slavery; as a citizen he was free from arbitrary exactions of fellow citizens, including magistrates. He was free to enjoy a variety of rights: free to elect his own occupation, free to marry the woman of his choice, free to own slaves and to dominate his wife and children. As a citizen, he was free to participate in the assembly, free to vote, free to hold public office, free to serve in the a rmy.
11. The freedom that the Romans enjoyed was freedom to be judged equally under the Law. Thus, the Law that dominated Roman society was the matrix within which any freedoms were enjoyed. Thus, J. Rufus Fears writes: For the Roman of the republican epoch, Liberty was entirely consistent with the dictates of the Law and custom of the commonwealth of the Roman People. The necessary prerequisite of Liberty was the renouncement of self-willed actions. Consequently, genuine Liberty could be enjoyed only under the Law. The freedoms, personal and private, which constituted Libertas, were conceived of as the rights not of the isolated individual but of the citizen within the organized community of the Roman state. The state, the laws, and the customs and traditions of the Roman People were central to the realization of Liberty.
12. Therefore, under Roman Law "it is only in duty that the individual acquires his substantive freedom.... In short, the Liberty of the individual received its deepest meaning only within the larger context of the community as a whole.
13. Roman Liberty, especially after the end of the republic, was thus an elaborate myth constructed "to justify and to rationalize the institutions and policies of a commonwealth based fully upon a concept of collective political authority."14 Fears points out that "with Hegel the Roman could have agreed that it is only in duty that the individual acquires his substantive freedom.
15. All of this is in keeping with Rushdoony's evaluation that for all of Cicero's, the Stoics', and the Romans' speaking of the universality of natural law, natural law for the Romans was "the central and most sacred community," Rome.
16. Thus, "man's basic problem was not sin, but lack of political order.
17. However, the order in the world was derivative of the natural order of reason and law which was superior to God and man. As Cicero states, "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature.... This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law.... Law is intelligence.... The origin of Justice is to be found in Law, for Law is natural force.
18. Thus, "this order, which is basic to both divine society and human society, makes them one world.
19. That being the case, there is no preservation of individual rights against the order imposed by nature, worked out in history through the state.
20. As we have seen, then, freedom is defined as those who live according to the "right" as it is defined by natural law. In the order prescribed by natural law in the Roman system, there is no true freedom and therefore no rights of individuals in terms of a demand that natural law or the state must respect.
Conclusion
Rushdoony remarks that "Cicero's state was as all-absorbing and total as Caesar's; the difference rested in the source of power. For Cicero, it was reason, and for Caesar, the army and raw power."21 The freedom of man for Cicero and the Romans consisted of freedom internal to man. The outward man, and his actions, were severely curtailed by the requirement of total allegiance to the state. Natural law was the source of the unlimited power of the state, and indeed, became identical to it for the purpose of ruling. Thus, for Cicero, natural good must be diluted by merely conventional right, resulting in the identification of the state with that which is "political good."22 At this point natural law fails to act as a "brake" on the latitude afforded the government. Its latitude thus failing to be limited, Cicero's Republic is as all-encompassing as Caesar's dictatorship.
1. Leo Strauss recognizes three different ways in which natural right
2. was understood by classical thinkers. We have dealt with two: Socratic-Platonic and Aristotelian.
3. The third is Thomistic. We shall examine that in subsequent parts. In this part we shall examine Cicero's and the Stoics' distinctive contribution to the notion of natural law or natural right. Strauss takes the position that Cicero and the Stoics represent a return to the Socratic-Platonic. Strauss notes that this is due to the close relationship between "stoicism and cynicism, and cynicism was originated by a Socratic.
4. Cynicism taught that the "wise man should be completely self-sufficing.... Everything except for moral character is a matter of indifference. [Thus], [t]he protest of the Cynic against social convention was a doctrine of the return to nature in the most nihilist sense of the term. The chief practical importance of the Cynic School lay in the fact that it was a matrix from which Stoicism emerged.
5. Cynicism emphasized the necessity of the cultivation of moral character, but everything beside this, family, property, citizenship, learning, marriage, and other expressions of society, was indifferent. All who cultivated moral character and wisdom were "citizens of the world," but this was as a result of the positive spin placed on it by the later development of Stoicism. The Stoics, and Cicero in particular, developed natural law more completely than either Plato or Aristotle. They did so, moreover, in a different time than Plato and Aristotle. They did so at a time when the city-state was on the wane. What was needed was a concept of natural law that was "suprasocietal" or even "supranational." Stoicism, in distinction from Cynicism, developed within the bosom of the City of Rome, which became the Roman Empire. Universal natural law became identified with Roman law.
Russell Kirk explains the Ciceronian concept of natural law:
[H]uman laws are only copies of eternal laws. Those eternal laws are peculiar to man, for only man, on earth, is a rational being. The test of validity for the state's laws is their conformity to reason.... Learned men know that "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite. This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law. And so they believe that Law is intelligence, whose natural function it is to command right conduct and forbid wrongdoing. They think that this quality has derived its name in Greek from the idea of granting to every man his own and in our language I believe it has been named from the idea of choosing. For as they have attributed the idea of fairness to the word law, so we have given it that of selection, though both ideas properly belong to Law. Now if this is correct, as I think it to be in general, then the origin of Justice is to be found in Law; for Law is a natural force; it is the mind and reason of the intelligent man, the standard by which Justice and Injustice are measured." Law, then, at base is a knowledge of the ethical norms for the human being.
6. Thus, natural law forms the basis in creation for our intuitions of right and wrong, and is the context for our ability to reason. Additionally, according to Cicero, the ability to discern the natural law is not limited to one nation: True law is right reason in agreement with Nature...it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting... we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.
7. Kirk points out that the natural law, conceived as a natural moral order rather than a natural physical order, was the "moral imagination," enabling man, through the exercise of reason, to apply other laws humanely.
8. The natural law is to be distinguished from that found in individual nations and cities: For Justice is one; it binds all human society and is based on one law, which is right reason applied to command and prohibition.... But if the principles of Justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultery and forgery of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace.... But in fact we can perceive the difference between good laws and bad by referring them to no other standard than Nature; indeed, it is not merely Justice and Injustice which are distinguished by Nature, but also and without exception things which are honourable and dishonourable.
9. The teaching on natural law found in Cicero provides us with an insight into the view of liberty or individual rights held by the Stoics. Since natural law governs all, all the positions of men are derived from it. The one who rebel against its dispositions "suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment.
10. As a result, The Roman People as a corporate body and the individual citizen possessed Liberty, freedom from involuntary servitude and freedom to exercise specific rights and to assume specific duties. Under this ideal of Liberty the Roman People, as a corporate entity, was its own master, free from internal domination by a monarch or by a political faction and free from subjection to any foreign power; the Roman People was thus free to exercise its sovereignty, free to determine its destiny, free to follow those laws and customs which represented the Roman way of life. As an individual, the Roman was free from the impositions of slavery; as a citizen he was free from arbitrary exactions of fellow citizens, including magistrates. He was free to enjoy a variety of rights: free to elect his own occupation, free to marry the woman of his choice, free to own slaves and to dominate his wife and children. As a citizen, he was free to participate in the assembly, free to vote, free to hold public office, free to serve in the a rmy.
11. The freedom that the Romans enjoyed was freedom to be judged equally under the Law. Thus, the Law that dominated Roman society was the matrix within which any freedoms were enjoyed. Thus, J. Rufus Fears writes: For the Roman of the republican epoch, Liberty was entirely consistent with the dictates of the Law and custom of the commonwealth of the Roman People. The necessary prerequisite of Liberty was the renouncement of self-willed actions. Consequently, genuine Liberty could be enjoyed only under the Law. The freedoms, personal and private, which constituted Libertas, were conceived of as the rights not of the isolated individual but of the citizen within the organized community of the Roman state. The state, the laws, and the customs and traditions of the Roman People were central to the realization of Liberty.
12. Therefore, under Roman Law "it is only in duty that the individual acquires his substantive freedom.... In short, the Liberty of the individual received its deepest meaning only within the larger context of the community as a whole.
13. Roman Liberty, especially after the end of the republic, was thus an elaborate myth constructed "to justify and to rationalize the institutions and policies of a commonwealth based fully upon a concept of collective political authority."14 Fears points out that "with Hegel the Roman could have agreed that it is only in duty that the individual acquires his substantive freedom.
15. All of this is in keeping with Rushdoony's evaluation that for all of Cicero's, the Stoics', and the Romans' speaking of the universality of natural law, natural law for the Romans was "the central and most sacred community," Rome.
16. Thus, "man's basic problem was not sin, but lack of political order.
17. However, the order in the world was derivative of the natural order of reason and law which was superior to God and man. As Cicero states, "Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature.... This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law.... Law is intelligence.... The origin of Justice is to be found in Law, for Law is natural force.
18. Thus, "this order, which is basic to both divine society and human society, makes them one world.
19. That being the case, there is no preservation of individual rights against the order imposed by nature, worked out in history through the state.
20. As we have seen, then, freedom is defined as those who live according to the "right" as it is defined by natural law. In the order prescribed by natural law in the Roman system, there is no true freedom and therefore no rights of individuals in terms of a demand that natural law or the state must respect.
Conclusion
Rushdoony remarks that "Cicero's state was as all-absorbing and total as Caesar's; the difference rested in the source of power. For Cicero, it was reason, and for Caesar, the army and raw power."21 The freedom of man for Cicero and the Romans consisted of freedom internal to man. The outward man, and his actions, were severely curtailed by the requirement of total allegiance to the state. Natural law was the source of the unlimited power of the state, and indeed, became identical to it for the purpose of ruling. Thus, for Cicero, natural good must be diluted by merely conventional right, resulting in the identification of the state with that which is "political good."22 At this point natural law fails to act as a "brake" on the latitude afforded the government. Its latitude thus failing to be limited, Cicero's Republic is as all-encompassing as Caesar's dictatorship.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The Basics of Chemical and Biological Weapons
Like a nuclear bomb, a chemical or biological weapon is a weapon of mass destruction. An effective attack using a chemical or biological agent can easily kill thousands of people.
Chemical Weapons
A chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical to kill people. The first chemical weapon used effectively in battle was chlorine gas, which burns and destroys lung tissue. Chlorine is not an exotic chemical. Most municipal water systems use it today to kill bacteria. It is easy to manufacture from common table salt. In World War I, the German army released tons of the gas to create a cloud that the wind carried toward the enemy.
Modern chemical weapons tend to focus on agents with much greater killing power, meaning that it takes a lot less of the chemical to kill the same number of people. Many of them use the sorts of chemicals found in insecticides. When you spray your lawn or garden with a chemical to control aphids, you are, in essence, waging a chemical war on aphids.
Many of us tend to imagine a chemical weapon as a bomb or missile that releases highly toxic chemicals over a city. (For example, the movie "The Rock" featured a scenario in which terrorists tried to launch a missile loaded with the chemical VX, a nerve toxin.) But in 1995, the group Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas, a nerve gas, in the Tokyo subway. Thousands were wounded and 12 people were killed. No giant bombs or missiles were involved -- the terrorists used small exploding cannisters to release the gas in the subway.
Biological Weapons
A biological weapon uses a bacteria or virus, or in some cases toxins that come directly from bacteria, to kill people. If you were to dump a load of manure or human waste into a town's well, that would be a simple form or biological warfare -- human and animal manure contain bacteria that are deadly in a variety of ways. In the 19th century, American Indians were infected with smallpox through donated blankets.
A modern biological weapon would use a strain of bacteria or a virus that would kill thousands of people. Tom Clancy has explored the idea of biological terrorism in two books: "Executive Orders" and "Rainbow Six." In both books, the source of infection is the Ebola virus. In these plot lines, the infection is spread through small aerosol cans (like those used by insecticide products to create "bug bombs") released at conventions, or through misting systems used to cool sports venues.
Chemical Weapons
A chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical to kill people. The first chemical weapon used effectively in battle was chlorine gas, which burns and destroys lung tissue. Chlorine is not an exotic chemical. Most municipal water systems use it today to kill bacteria. It is easy to manufacture from common table salt. In World War I, the German army released tons of the gas to create a cloud that the wind carried toward the enemy.
Modern chemical weapons tend to focus on agents with much greater killing power, meaning that it takes a lot less of the chemical to kill the same number of people. Many of them use the sorts of chemicals found in insecticides. When you spray your lawn or garden with a chemical to control aphids, you are, in essence, waging a chemical war on aphids.
Many of us tend to imagine a chemical weapon as a bomb or missile that releases highly toxic chemicals over a city. (For example, the movie "The Rock" featured a scenario in which terrorists tried to launch a missile loaded with the chemical VX, a nerve toxin.) But in 1995, the group Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas, a nerve gas, in the Tokyo subway. Thousands were wounded and 12 people were killed. No giant bombs or missiles were involved -- the terrorists used small exploding cannisters to release the gas in the subway.
Biological Weapons
A biological weapon uses a bacteria or virus, or in some cases toxins that come directly from bacteria, to kill people. If you were to dump a load of manure or human waste into a town's well, that would be a simple form or biological warfare -- human and animal manure contain bacteria that are deadly in a variety of ways. In the 19th century, American Indians were infected with smallpox through donated blankets.
A modern biological weapon would use a strain of bacteria or a virus that would kill thousands of people. Tom Clancy has explored the idea of biological terrorism in two books: "Executive Orders" and "Rainbow Six." In both books, the source of infection is the Ebola virus. In these plot lines, the infection is spread through small aerosol cans (like those used by insecticide products to create "bug bombs") released at conventions, or through misting systems used to cool sports venues.
Constructivism
is a perspective in philosophy that views all of our knowledge as "constructed", under the assumption that it does not necessarily reflect any external "transcendent" realities; it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience.
Constructivism criticizes essentialism, whether it is in the form of medieval realism, classical rationalism, or empiricism.[citation needed] Constructionism and constructivism are often used interchangeably. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed (Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of social determinism).
• Greek philosophers as Heraclitus (Everything flows, nothing stands still), Protagoras saying « Man is the measure of all things », Aristotle.
• After the Renaissance and the enlightenment, with the phenomenology and the event, Kant gives a decisive contradiction to Cartesians’ epistemology that has grown since Descartes despite Giambattista Vico calls in “La scienza nuova” (the new science) in 1708 reminding that “the norm of the truth is to have made it”.
Constructivist trends
Cultural constructivism
Cultural constructivism asserts that knowledge and reality are a product of their cultural context, meaning that two independent cultures will likely form different observational methodologies. For instance, Western cultures generally rely on objects for scientific descriptions; by contrast, Native American culture relies on events for descriptions. These are two distinct ways of constructing reality based on external artifacts.
Radical constructivism
Ernst von Glasersfeld is a prominent proponent of radical constructivism, which claims that knowledge is the self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. That is, the process of constructing knowledge regulates itself, and since knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data, it is impossible to know the extent to which knowledge reflects an ontological reality.
Critical constructivism
A series of articles published in the journal Critical Inquiry (1991) served as a manifesto for the movement of critical constructivism in various disciplines, including the natural sciences. Not only truth and reality, but also "evidence", "document", "experience", "fact", "proof", and other central categories of empirical research (in physics, biology, statistics, history, law, etc.) reveal their contingent character as a social and ideological construction. Thus, a “realist” or “rationalist” interpretation is subjected to criticism.
While recognizing the constructedness of reality, many representatives of this critical paradigm deny philosophy the task of the creative construction of reality. They eagerly criticize realistic judgments, but they do not move beyond analytic procedures based on subtle tautologies. They thus remain in the critical paradigm and consider it to be a standard of scientific philosophy per se.
Constructivism criticizes essentialism, whether it is in the form of medieval realism, classical rationalism, or empiricism.[citation needed] Constructionism and constructivism are often used interchangeably. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed (Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of social determinism).
• Greek philosophers as Heraclitus (Everything flows, nothing stands still), Protagoras saying « Man is the measure of all things », Aristotle.
• After the Renaissance and the enlightenment, with the phenomenology and the event, Kant gives a decisive contradiction to Cartesians’ epistemology that has grown since Descartes despite Giambattista Vico calls in “La scienza nuova” (the new science) in 1708 reminding that “the norm of the truth is to have made it”.
Constructivist trends
Cultural constructivism
Cultural constructivism asserts that knowledge and reality are a product of their cultural context, meaning that two independent cultures will likely form different observational methodologies. For instance, Western cultures generally rely on objects for scientific descriptions; by contrast, Native American culture relies on events for descriptions. These are two distinct ways of constructing reality based on external artifacts.
Radical constructivism
Ernst von Glasersfeld is a prominent proponent of radical constructivism, which claims that knowledge is the self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. That is, the process of constructing knowledge regulates itself, and since knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data, it is impossible to know the extent to which knowledge reflects an ontological reality.
Critical constructivism
A series of articles published in the journal Critical Inquiry (1991) served as a manifesto for the movement of critical constructivism in various disciplines, including the natural sciences. Not only truth and reality, but also "evidence", "document", "experience", "fact", "proof", and other central categories of empirical research (in physics, biology, statistics, history, law, etc.) reveal their contingent character as a social and ideological construction. Thus, a “realist” or “rationalist” interpretation is subjected to criticism.
While recognizing the constructedness of reality, many representatives of this critical paradigm deny philosophy the task of the creative construction of reality. They eagerly criticize realistic judgments, but they do not move beyond analytic procedures based on subtle tautologies. They thus remain in the critical paradigm and consider it to be a standard of scientific philosophy per se.
Feminism theory in international relations
is a broad term given to works of those scholars who have sought to bring a concern with gender into the academic study of international politics.
In terms of international relations (IR) theory it is important to understand that feminism is derived from the school of thought known as reflectionism. One of the most influential works in feminist IR is Cynthia Enloe's Bananas, Beaches and Bases (Pandora Press 1990). This text sought to chart the many different roles that women play in international politics - as plantation sector workers, diplomatic wives, sex workers on military bases etc. The important point of this work was to emphasize how when we look at international politics from the perspective of women we are forced to reconsider what we think international politics is 'all about'. However, it would be a mistake to think that feminist IR was solely a matter of identifying how many groups of women are positioned in the international political system. From its inception, feminist IR has always shown a strong concern with thinking about men and, in particular, masculinities. Indeed, many IR feminists argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature. For example, in her article "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" Signs (1988), Carol Cohn identified how a highly masculinised culture within the defense establishment contributed to the divorcing of war from human emotion.
What is evident, therefore, is that a feminist IR involves looking at how international politics effects and is affected by both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within the discipline of IR (e.g. war, security, etc.) are themselves throughly gendered. It should also be noted that feminist IR has not only concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security - feminist IR scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking at how gender shapes the current global political economy. In this sense, there is no clear cut division between feminists working in IR and those working in the area of International Political Economy (IPE).
Feminist IR emerged largely from the late 1980s onwards. The end of the Cold War and the re-evaluation of traditional IR theory during the 1990s opened up a space for gendering International Relations. Because feminist IR is linked broadly to the critical project in IR, by and large most feminist scholarship has sought to problematise the politics of knowledge construction within the discipline - often by adopting methodologies of deconstructivism associated with postmodernism/poststructuralism. It should be noted however, that the growing influence of feminist and women-centric approaches within the international policy communities (for example at the World Bank and the United Nations) is more reflective of the liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for women
Criticisms
By focusing on 'traditional' women’s roles (as victims or being used by men), feminist IR may exclude those women participating as diplomats or soldiers as well as ignoring men's issue such as why it is generally men are forced to fight in wars. Furthermore, as with criticisms with feminism in general, feminism almost always treats women as the subject of analysis at the exclusion of men—whether as agents or victims. In defence, some feminisms do consider men—though it still often makes the assumption that due to patriarchy, a certain, rational man is privileged. This may result in a confirmation bias.
In terms of international relations (IR) theory it is important to understand that feminism is derived from the school of thought known as reflectionism. One of the most influential works in feminist IR is Cynthia Enloe's Bananas, Beaches and Bases (Pandora Press 1990). This text sought to chart the many different roles that women play in international politics - as plantation sector workers, diplomatic wives, sex workers on military bases etc. The important point of this work was to emphasize how when we look at international politics from the perspective of women we are forced to reconsider what we think international politics is 'all about'. However, it would be a mistake to think that feminist IR was solely a matter of identifying how many groups of women are positioned in the international political system. From its inception, feminist IR has always shown a strong concern with thinking about men and, in particular, masculinities. Indeed, many IR feminists argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature. For example, in her article "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" Signs (1988), Carol Cohn identified how a highly masculinised culture within the defense establishment contributed to the divorcing of war from human emotion.
What is evident, therefore, is that a feminist IR involves looking at how international politics effects and is affected by both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within the discipline of IR (e.g. war, security, etc.) are themselves throughly gendered. It should also be noted that feminist IR has not only concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security - feminist IR scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking at how gender shapes the current global political economy. In this sense, there is no clear cut division between feminists working in IR and those working in the area of International Political Economy (IPE).
Feminist IR emerged largely from the late 1980s onwards. The end of the Cold War and the re-evaluation of traditional IR theory during the 1990s opened up a space for gendering International Relations. Because feminist IR is linked broadly to the critical project in IR, by and large most feminist scholarship has sought to problematise the politics of knowledge construction within the discipline - often by adopting methodologies of deconstructivism associated with postmodernism/poststructuralism. It should be noted however, that the growing influence of feminist and women-centric approaches within the international policy communities (for example at the World Bank and the United Nations) is more reflective of the liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for women
Criticisms
By focusing on 'traditional' women’s roles (as victims or being used by men), feminist IR may exclude those women participating as diplomats or soldiers as well as ignoring men's issue such as why it is generally men are forced to fight in wars. Furthermore, as with criticisms with feminism in general, feminism almost always treats women as the subject of analysis at the exclusion of men—whether as agents or victims. In defence, some feminisms do consider men—though it still often makes the assumption that due to patriarchy, a certain, rational man is privileged. This may result in a confirmation bias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
