Is there a definition of history separate from the definition of politics?

Is there a definition of history separate from the definition of politics?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I encountered a problem to define something as "history", namely the determination of legal status of Kosovo. The action is so recent, I would say it more belongs to "politics".

For my impression history is something which is no longer discussed by current politics. History always get a new scope, and viewpoints, but in sense of history, not politics.

For example we can consider WW2 as a historical event, since it is ended and interpreted by various historians. On the other hand Kosovo's status is still not clear even if most of the countries recognized it. Same with legal status of Republic of China. Politics would discuss something what is not really closed and still have effect.

  • Is there a clear and professional definition on what is history and what is politics?
  • And maybe relevant extra question: What makes a political event become a historical event?

When we use historical methods and sources we're doing history. When we use influence and governance, we're doing politics. The distinction between history and politics isn't in the event, it is in your relationship to the event and the use to which you're trying to put the event.

If I research the legal status of Kosovo with an intent to determine how a fully independent Kosovo will affect my country, I'm doing politics. If I research the legal status of Kosovo with an intent of understanding the effect of the status of Kosovo on the evolving definition of a nation-state, then I'm probably doing history.

If I research WWII with the intent of understanding how the Clivedon set incorporated fiscal conservatism with secular chauvinism, I'm probably doing history. If on the other hand I research the Clivedon set with the intent of understanding the fundamental hypocrisy of secular chauvinism and fiscal conservatism, and the specific intent of understanding how that hypocrisy can be manipulated, I'm probably doing politics.

Update: An even better example just occurred to me - A close friend of mine is studying the adoption of the US constitution to determine whether secession is legal; if it is legal, then it supports certain conclusions about states rights, and the role of the Federal government. I'm discussing it with him because I'm interested in how the states came together to form a union, and how that concept of union evolved over time. From your perspective, the Constitution is history - a done deal. From his perspective, it is an element in a political discussion. From my perspective it is a fascinating era in history.

Contrary to your assertion, no historical event is ever "ended" - they all have implications for the current day. That's what Santayana means when he says that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

You will not get anywhere by trying to divide events as historical or political. The same thing can be both, and it depends on how you approach it. History is any event that is approached with a historical mindset - using the tools of historical research. A political scientist or political commentator could approach the same events as political events. The distinction is not in the event.

Therefore, I don't think you can set any cutoff point to determine if something is an historical event or not. Even a current event happening live - like, perhaps, Russia annexing the Crimea - is a historical event. Good commentary on it would involve a political commentator to give a political explanation of what is happening, but also a historian to give the historical perspective. Events do not occur in a vacuum, and there's always an historical context.

The same can be applied to any relevant discipline. A movie comes out. Is this a cultural event? An historical event? An entertainment-history event? The answer is, of course, all of the above, depends on how you interpret it.

I think that what you're attempting to find an answer for is the basis of one of the ideas introduced by James Loewen in his book Lies My Teacher Told Me. In it, he distinguishes between what he calls "sasha" history (history which is still remembered by people who are alive toay) and "zamani" history (history which is now, essentially, dead and academic). World War II and the Hiroshima bombing were in the sasha realm as recently as the mid-90s when the Smithsonian Institute wished to put up a rather British style display on the subject (by which I mean even-handed and not flattering to the home country) but was denied in favor of a more Bowdlerized version of the events. Likewise, American slavery is clearly in the zamani zone of history but the legacy of racism and inequality which stem from it is clearly not.

That being said, there is no real dividing line between the two subjects, even though they do cover different things. History gets politicized all the time, but so too does politics learn from and adapt to the lessons of history.

To take the particular case of Kosovo, it's pretty recent history and so very clearly in the sasha range. You don't even have to be all that old to remember the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 90s or for that matter the tribunals which were held in the early 2000s (the first of their kind since the 40s, if memory serves). It is unsurprising that people feel this is politics at this point; a great parallel with some of that situation are the Nuremberg Trials, about which a teleplay was written and shown in the late 1950s in the US but which was very heavily Bowdlerized due to the politics of the time (for example, Westinghouse demanded that the creators excise any reference to "gassing" lest the people of America associate gas ovens with Zyklon-B and Auschwitz). Ironically, this politicization of what is now a purely historical event is itself history. There's some kind of Inception joke here which I am sure could be made by a funnier person.

So long story short, there's not a real dividing line but that doesn't mean a distinction does not exist. 20 years is clearly too soon to separate politics from history. 50 years still seems pretty soon nowadays, depending on the event we're talking about: think of the JFK assassination as an example on one side (an event remembered by schoolchildren, many of whom are only in their 50s and 60s now) and the Bay of Pigs invasion on the other (something which was pretty big news to adults, but that cohort is now in their 70s and 80s and beginning to die off). World War II itself is probably pretty firmly into zamani territory by now, although it's interesting to not (as above) that as recently as 20 years ago it was not. World War I is without question zamani history.

A history of Apartheid in South Africa

Before we can look at the history of the apartheid period it is necessary to understand what apartheid was and how it affected people.

What was apartheid?

Translated from the Afrikaans meaning 'apartness', apartheid was the ideology supported by the National Party (NP) government and was introduced in South Africa in 1948. Apartheid called for the separate development of the different racial groups in South Africa. On paper it appeared to call for equal development and freedom of cultural expression, but the way it was implemented made this impossible. Apartheid made laws forced the different racial groups to live separately and develop separately, and grossly unequally too. It tried to stop all inter-marriage and social integration between racial groups. During apartheid, to have a friendship with someone of a different race generally brought suspicion upon you, or worse. More than this, apartheid was a social system which severely disadvantaged the majority of the population, simply because they did not share the skin colour of the rulers. Many were kept just above destitution because they were 'non-white'.

In basic principles, apartheid did not differ that much from the policy of segregation of the South African governments existing before the Afrikaner Nationalist Party came to power in 1948. The main difference is that apartheid made segregation part of the law. Apartheid cruelly and forcibly separated people, and had a fearsome state apparatus to punish those who disagreed. Another reason why apartheid was seen as much worse than segregation, was that apartheid was introduced in a period when other countries were moving away from racist policies. Before World War Two the Western world was not as critical of racial discrimination, and Africa was colonized in this period. The Second World War highlighted the problems of racism, making the world turn away from such policies and encouraging demands for decolonization. It was during this period that South Africa introduced the more rigid racial policy of apartheid.

People often wonder why such a policy was introduced and why it had so much support. Various reasons can be given for apartheid, although they are all closely linked. The main reasons lie in ideas of racial superiority and fear. Across the world, racism is influenced by the idea that one race must be superior to another. Such ideas are found in all population groups. The other main reason for apartheid was fear, as in South Africa the white people are in the minority, and many were worried they would lose their jobs, culture and language. This is obviously not a justification for apartheid, but explains how people were thinking.

Original architects of Apartheid Image source

Apartheid Laws

Numerous laws were passed in the creation of the apartheid state. Here are a few of the pillars on which it rested:

Population Registration Act, 1950 This Act demanded that people be registered according to their racial group. This meant that the Department of Home affairs would have a record of people according to whether they were white, coloured, black, Indian or Asian. People would then be treated differently according to their population group, and so this law formed the basis of apartheid. It was however not always that easy to decide what racial group a person was part of, and this caused some problems.

Group Areas Act, 1950 This was the act that started physical separation between races, especially in urban areas. The act also called for the removal of some groups of people into areas set aside for their racial group.

Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, 1959 This Act said that different racial groups had to live in different areas. Only a small percentage of South Africa was left for black people (who comprised the vast majority) to form their 'homelands'. This Act also got rid of 'black spots' inside white areas, by moving all black people out of the city. Well known removals were those in District 6, Sophiatown and Lady Selborne. These black people were then placed in townships outside of the town. They could not own property here, only rent it, as the land could only be white owned. This Act caused much hardship and resentment. People lost their homes, were moved off land they had owned for many years and were moved to undeveloped areas far away from their place of work.

Some other important laws were the:

Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949
Immorality Amendment Act, 1950
Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951

Resistance before 1960

Resistance to apartheid came from all circles, and not only, as is often presumed, from those who suffered the negative effects of discrimination. Criticism also came from other countries, and some of these gave support to the South African freedom movements.

Some of the most important organizations involved in the struggle for liberation were the African National Congress (ANC), the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) and the United Democratic Front (UDF). There were also Indian and Coloured organized resistance movements (e.g. the Natal Indian Congress (NIC), the Coloured People's Organisation), white organized groups (e.g. the radical Armed Resistance Movement (ARM), and Black Sash) and church based groups (the Christian Institute). We shall consider the ANC.

The ANC was formed in Bloemfontein in 1912, soon after the Union of South Africa. Originally it was called the South African Native National Congress (SANNC). It was started as a movement for the Black elite, that is those Blacks who were educated. In 1919, the ANC sent a deputation to London to plead for a new deal for South African blacks, but there was no change to their position.

The South African Native National Congress delegation to England, June 1919 Image source

The history of resistance by the ANC goes through three phases. The first was dialogue and petition the second direct opposition and the last the period of exiled armed struggle. In 1949, just after apartheid was introduced, the ANC started on a more militant path, with the Youth League playing a more important role. The ANC introduced their Programme of Action in 1949, supporting strike action, protests and other forms of non-violent resistance. Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu started to play an important role in the ANC in this period. In 1952 the ANC started the Defiance Campaign. This campaign called on people to purposefully break apartheid laws and offer themselves for arrest. It was hoped that the increase in prisoners would cause the system to collapse and get international support for the ANC. Black people got onto 'white buses', used 'white toilets', entered into 'white areas' and refused to use passes. Despite 8 000 people ending up in jail, the ANC caused no threat to the apartheid regime.

The ANC continued along the same path during the rest of the 1950s, until in 1959 some members broke away and formed the PAC. These members wanted to follow a more violent and militant route, and felt that success could not be reached through the ANC's method.

Microsoft Word

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Microsoft Word, word-processor software launched in 1983 by the Microsoft Corporation. Software developers Richard Brodie and Charles Simonyi joined the Microsoft team in 1981, and in 1983 they released Multi-Tool Word for computers that ran a version of the UNIX operating system (OS). Later that year, the program was rewritten to run on personal computers (PCs), such as the IBM PC, under Microsoft’s version of DOS (disk operating system), or MS-DOS, and was renamed Microsoft Word. The product was in direct competition with WordPerfect and WordStar, both of which were introduced for PCs in 1982.

When was Microsoft Word first launched?

Microsoft Word was launched in 1983 by the Microsoft Corporation.

Who invented Microsoft Word?

Software developers Richard Brodie and Charles Simonyi released the Multi-Tool Word for the UNIX operating system in 1983. Later that year, the program was rewritten to run on personal computers under MS-DOS and was renamed Microsoft Word.

When was Microsoft Word released for Windows OS?

Microsoft released the first version of Word for Windows in 1989.

When did Microsoft release Macintosh Word?

In 1985 Microsoft released Macintosh Word 1.0. Its early Macintosh versions were adapted directly from Microsoft Word for DOS.

Like WordStar, Word was WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), meaning that formatting tags were hidden and whatever a document looked like on a user’s computer screen was how it would look when printed—or at least semi-WYSIWYG, as screen fonts were not of the same quality as printer fonts. Microsoft’s program was the first to make extensive use of the computer mouse, to display styles on-screen (italic, bold, and underlined text), and to feature style sheets and multiple windows (i.e., separate work spaces for editing multiple documents). Version 2.0, released in 1985, included spell-check and word-count options subsequent versions included significant upgrades and improvements. In 1989 Microsoft released the first version of Word for the Windows OS, two years ahead of WordPerfect for Windows.

To effectively compete with WordPerfect, Microsoft Word needed a standard interface across multiple platforms. In 1985 Microsoft released Macintosh Word 1.0, and its early Macintosh versions were adapted directly from Microsoft Word for DOS. To combat the ensuing glitches and incompatibility concerns, Microsoft began to develop original code for the Word for Macintosh software in the 1990s. In 2003 both the Windows and Macintosh versions were renamed Microsoft Office Word to align with the Microsoft Office suite, which is built around Word, Excel (a spreadsheet program), and PowerPoint (a visual presentation program).

Throughout the 1980s WordPerfect ranked as the most popular word-processing software on PCs, but since the 1990s Microsoft Word has become the leading word processor for both Windows and Macintosh users.


separate, part, divide, sever, sunder, divorce mean to become or cause to become disunited or disjointed. separate may imply any of several causes such as dispersion, removal of one from others, or presence of an intervening thing. separated her personal life from her career part implies the separating of things or persons in close union or association. vowed never to part divide implies separating into pieces or sections by cutting or breaking. civil war divided the nation sever implies violence especially in the removal of a part or member. a severed limb sunder suggests violent rending or wrenching apart. a city sundered by racial conflict divorce implies separating two things that commonly interact and belong together. cannot divorce scientific research from moral responsibility

distinct, separate, discrete mean not being each and every one the same. distinct indicates that something is distinguished by the mind or eye as being apart or different from others. two distinct versions separate often stresses lack of connection or a difference in identity between two things. separate rooms discrete strongly emphasizes individuality and lack of connection. broke the job down into discrete stages


Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Freemasonry, the teachings and practices of the secret fraternal (men-only) order of Free and Accepted Masons, the largest worldwide secret society. Spread by the advance of the British Empire, Freemasonry remains most popular in the British Isles and in other countries originally within the empire. Estimates of the worldwide membership of Freemasonry in the early 21st century ranged from about two million to more than six million.

What are the origins of Freemasonry?

The origins of Freemasonry are not known definitively. National organized Freemasonry began in 1717 with the founding of the Grand Lodge—an association of Masonic lodges—in England. However, Freemason societies have existed for much longer. The most popular theory is that Freemasonry emerged out of the stonemasonry guilds of the Middle Ages. Working stonemasons had lodges where they discussed their trade, but, with the decline of cathedral building, some lodges began to accept honorary members. Some of these operative lodges thus became “speculative” lodges, giving rise to symbolic Freemasonry. In the 17th and 18th centuries these lodges adopted the trappings of ancient religious orders and chivalric brotherhoods. Freemasons themselves, over the centuries, have developed a mythologized history for their society, tracing their lineage back to King Solomon.

What do Freemasons believe?

Freemasonry has always been religious in character, though it subscribes to no particular orthodoxy. To become a Freemason, the applicant has to be an adult male and must believe in the existence of a supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. The teachings of Freemasonry enjoin morality, charity, and obedience to the law of the land. It is not, however, a Christian institution, though it is often taken to be such. In fact, Freemasonry has received considerable opposition from organized religion, the Roman Catholic Church in particular. In practice, some lodges have been accused of religious prejudices, specifically against Jews and Catholics. They have also been accused of anticlericalism in Latin American countries. In Anglo-American countries the membership consists of mostly white Protestants some lodges have been accused of prejudice against nonwhites.

Does Freemasonry still exist today?

Freemasonry remains most popular in the British Isles and countries that were originally within the British Empire. Estimates of the worldwide membership of Freemasonry in the early 21st century ranged from about two million to more than six million. Affirmation of a belief in a higher being is still a requirement to join Masonic lodges, though they are largely secular institutions that serve social networking purposes and often serve as charitable donors. They have been met with criticism over the years for being elitist men’s clubs. Today there are separate Freemason lodges in Britain for women as well as for men. Additionally, there are a number of groups—prevalent especially in the United States—that have no official standing in Freemasonry but draw their membership from the higher degrees of Freemason society. There are also special orders for boys and girls. English Freemasons are forbidden to affiliate with these quasi-Masonic societies.

Freemasonry evolved from the guilds of stonemasons and cathedral builders of the Middle Ages. With the decline of cathedral building, some lodges of operative (working) masons began to accept honorary members to bolster their declining membership. From a few of these lodges developed modern symbolic or speculative Freemasonry, which particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries adopted the rites and trappings of ancient religious orders and of chivalric brotherhoods. In 1717 the first Grand Lodge, an association of lodges, was founded in England.

Freemasonry has, almost from its inception, encountered considerable opposition from organized religion, especially from the Roman Catholic Church, and from various states. Freemasonry is not a Christian institution, though it has often been mistaken for such. Freemasonry contains many of the elements of a religion its teachings enjoin morality, charity, and obedience to the law of the land. In most traditions, the applicant for admission is required to be an adult male, and all applicants must also believe in the existence of a Supreme Being and in the immortality of the soul. In practice, some lodges have been charged with prejudice against Jews, Catholics, and nonwhites. Generally, Freemasonry in Latin countries has attracted those who question religious dogma or who oppose the clergy (see anticlericalism), whereas in the Anglo-Saxon countries the membership is drawn largely from among white Protestants. The modern French tradition, founded in the 19th century and known as Co-Freemasonry or Le Droit Humain, admits both women and men.

In most lodges in most countries, Freemasons are divided into three major degrees—entered apprentice, fellow of the craft, and master mason. In many lodges there are numerous degrees—sometimes as many as a thousand—superimposed on the three major divisions these organizational features are not uniform from country to country.

In addition to the main bodies of Freemasonry derived from the British tradition, there are also a number of appendant groups that are primarily social or recreational in character, having no official standing in Freemasonry but drawing their membership from the higher degrees of the society. They are especially prevalent in the United States. Among those known for their charitable work are the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (the “Shriners”). In Britain and certain other countries there are separate lodges restricted to women. In addition, female relatives of master masons may join the Order of the Eastern Star, which is open to both women and men boys may join the Order of DeMolay or the Order of the Builders and girls may join the Order of Job’s Daughters or the Order of the Rainbow. English Masons are forbidden to affiliate with any of the recreational organizations or quasi-Masonic societies, on pain of suspension.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica This article was most recently revised and updated by Brian Duignan, Senior Editor.

Editor's Picks

Tell Jesse Owens he should've "stuck to sports" when his four gold medals and record-setting performance in the 1936 Berlin Olympics directly flew in the face of Adolf Hitler's plan to use the Games as a showcase for supposed Aryan superiority.

Tell it to Babe Didrikson Zaharias, a multisport Olympian who, in 1938, became the first woman to play in a men's PGA tournament and often dealt with misogynistic criticism of femininity versus her athleticism. So much so that, when she took up golf, the then-Olympic gold medalist changed her wardrobe and wore lipstick to fit the expectation of how a woman should look. "I know I'm not pretty, but I try to be graceful," she said at the time.

Tell that to Jackie Robinson or Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or to Billie Jean King or Venus Williams, who, in different eras, fought for the same level of pay equality for men and women.

Tell that to black players, Irish players, Italian players, female players, all of whom have fought over decades and centuries for the right to merely exist as athletes, to contribute highly sought-after skills that have long transcended artificial barriers.

Irish athletes made it on the baseball field and in the boxing ring in the 19th century, when stores hung "no Irish need apply" signs and newspapers portrayed Irish immigrants as terrorists.

Female students parlayed Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting discrimination at educational institutions, into a silver medal in women's basketball at the 1976 Olympics. Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state and a black woman, was barred from membership at Augusta National Golf Club because of her gender until four-and-a-half years ago. She joined in 2012, when the club began admitting women.

The historical assimilation of immigrants, the "mainstreaming" of black talent, the elevation of women outside of "female" roles, the value of unions, the questioning of government subsidies for corporations in the form of bond abatements for stadiums or league-wide tax breaks -- these are all ways sports have never just been about sports, ways in which some of us haven't been able to just "stick to sports." These are all ways sports, and sports coverage, can help us understand our world just a little bit better, as long as we continue to elevate those voices that aren't always heard.

When you really think about it, the division between sports and politics has long been eroded. The separation is what takes effort to uphold -- and it's mostly done by people whose right to exist in this space isn't questioned.

Some of us have been outsiders for a while, constantly proving that we belong in the sports world. "How did you get to be a sports fan?" is a question I'm asked more often than not. My answer is usually very simple: "I was a New Yorker growing up two subway stops away from Yankee Stadium in the '90s. How could I not be a sports fan?" Many of us have loved sports even when the feeling wasn't mutual. Even when the communities surrounding these beautiful games were decidedly exclusionary, even when they told us we didn't belong.

Condoleezza Rice was admitted to Augusta National Golf Club in 2012. Photo by David Cannon/Getty Images

It often feels like my status as a sports fan is questioned as a coded way to question my status as an American. I'm aware of those implications now more than ever, when our divisions based on race, gender, class, education, religion, geography, have been manipulated into an ever-narrowing definition of what it means to be an American, to be a patriot. I have to ask whether a white man who grew up in the suburbs would be asked how he "got to be a sports fan."

But the ability of sports to unite along political lines, racial lines, gender lines, religious lines, class lines -- that has always been there. We were all Yankees after 9/11, and we were all #BostonStrong after the marathon bombing. Years earlier, across an ocean, South Africa won the 1995 Rugby World Cup behind Nelson Mandela's pleas for national unity and reconciliation after decades of apartheid.

Sports' potential to unite has always been there, and so has the ability to recognize when all of these seemingly disparate worlds intersect.

Watching sports with no eye toward the political, or the racial, or the gendered, or what have you, is a privilege many of us have never been afforded, simply because we were perceived as outsiders to mainstream institutions. And it's not limited to sports. It's no more possible for a survivor of sexual assault to unemotionally watch her team bring on a player accused of rape than it is for a descendant of Irish immigrants to unemotionally read "Angela's Ashes." Nor should it be: Recognizing the importance of sports beyond simple escapism serves to elevate this thing that we love and feel, at times beyond the point of rationality.

The plain fact is that many people are now coming around to the realization that sports can't just be taken at face value. And that's OK. Sports can be a barometer for the movements we must make through difficult times -- through social tensions, through existential crises. Sports don't just exist for sports' sake -- sports can be art. You can always find great sports stories that speak to who we were at any point in history.

Hemingway, Kerouac, Thompson -- some of our greatest essayists were also our greatest sportswriters. Some of our most important social commentary has come in the form of sportswriting. I would never place myself in the company of those writers, but my conception of myself as a sports fan has always come alongside my conception of myself as a New Yorker, as a woman, as a person of color and as an American.

It's difficult for me to separate those sides of myself. And it seems to become increasingly difficult for many other sportswriters to separate their sports sides from their human sides, to separate their journalism from their morality. Sure, this paradigm shift seems sudden as both journalists and human beings, it seems impossible not to question attacks on freedom of the press, not to wonder what an immigration ban means for Mo Farah, not to throw Tom Brady into every conversation possible.

But that's what has always made sports compelling -- as art, as spectacle and, yes, as politics. Sports can reflect the best, and at times the worst, of our collective humanity, and it allows us to experience both ends of that spectrum while studying the fine line that separates the two.


Origins Edit

As a social political science, contemporary political science started to take shape in the latter half of the 19th century. At that time it began to separate itself from political philosophy, which traces its roots back to the works of Aristotle and Plato, which were written nearly 2,500 years ago. The term "political science" was not always distinguished from political philosophy, and the modern discipline has a clear set of antecedents including also moral philosophy, political economy, political theology, history, and other fields concerned with normative determinations of what ought to be and with deducing the characteristics and functions of the ideal state.

The advent of political science as a university discipline was marked by the creation of university departments and chairs with the title of political science arising in the late 19th century. In fact, the designation "political scientist" is typically for those with a doctorate in the field, but can also apply to those with a master's in the subject. [4] Integrating political studies of the past into a unified discipline is ongoing, and the history of political science has provided a rich field for the growth of both normative and positive political science, with each part of the discipline sharing some historical predecessors. The American Political Science Association and the American Political Science Review were founded in 1903 and 1906, respectively, in an effort to distinguish the study of politics from economics and other social phenomena.

Behavioural revolution and new institutionalism Edit

In the 1950s and the 1960s, a behavioural revolution stressing the systematic and rigorously scientific study of individual and group behaviour swept the discipline. A focus on studying political behaviour, rather than institutions or interpretation of legal texts, characterized early behavioural political science, including work by Robert Dahl, Philip Converse, and in the collaboration between sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld and public opinion scholar Bernard Berelson.

The late 1960s and early 1970s witnessed a takeoff in the use of deductive, game-theoretic formal modelling techniques aimed at generating a more analytical corpus of knowledge in the discipline. This period saw a surge of research that borrowed theory and methods from economics to study political institutions, such as the United States Congress, as well as political behaviour, such as voting. William H. Riker and his colleagues and students at the University of Rochester were the main proponents of this shift.

Despite considerable research progress in the discipline based on all the kinds of scholarship discussed above, it has been observed that progress toward systematic theory has been modest and uneven. [5]

Recent developments Edit

In 2000, the Perestroika Movement in political science was introduced as a reaction against what supporters of the movement called the mathematicization of political science. Those who identified with the movement argued for a plurality of methodologies and approaches in political science and for more relevance of the discipline to those outside of it. [6]

Some evolutionary psychology theories argue that humans have evolved a highly developed set of psychological mechanisms for dealing with politics. However, these mechanisms evolved for dealing with the small group politics that characterized the ancestral environment and not the much larger political structures in today's world. This is argued to explain many important features and systematic cognitive biases of current politics. [7]

Political science is a social study concerning the allocation and transfer of power in decision making, the roles and systems of governance including governments and international organizations, political behaviour, and public policies. It measures the success of governance and specific policies by examining many factors, including stability, justice, material wealth, peace, and public health. Some political scientists seek to advance positive theses (which attempt to describe how things are, as opposed to how they should be) by analysing politics others advance normative theses, such as by making specific policy recommendations. The study of politics and policies can be closely connected—for example, in comparative analyses of which types of political institutions tend to produce certain types of policies. [8]

Political scientists may provide the frameworks from which journalists, special interest groups, politicians, and the electorate analyse issues. According to Chaturvedy,

Political scientists may serve as advisers to specific politicians, or even run for office as politicians themselves. Political scientists can be found working in governments, in political parties or as civil servants. They may be involved with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or political movements. In a variety of capacities, people educated and trained in political science can add value and expertise to corporations. Private enterprises such as think tanks, research institutes, polling and public relations firms often employ political scientists. [9]

Country-specific studies Edit

Political scientists may study political phenomena within one specific country for example, they may study just the politics of the United States [10] or just the politics of China. [11]

In the case of the United States, political scientists known as "Americanists" look at a variety of data, including constitutional development, elections, public opinion, and public policy, such as Social Security reform, foreign policy, US Congressional committees, and the US Supreme Court. Political scientists will often focus on the politics of their own country for example, a political scientist from Indonesia may become an expert in the politics of Indonesia. [12]

Anticipating crises Edit

The theory of political transitions, [13] and the methods of analyzing and anticipating [14] crises, [15] form an important part of political science. Several general indicators of crises and methods were proposed for anticipating critical transitions. [16] Among them, one statistical indicator of crisis, a simultaneous increase of variance and correlations in large groups, was proposed for crisis anticipation and may be successfully used in various areas. [17] Its applicability for early diagnosis of political crises was demonstrated by the analysis of the prolonged stress period preceding the 2014 Ukrainian economic and political crisis. There was a simultaneous increase in the total correlation between the 19 major public fears in the Ukrainian society (by about 64%) and in their statistical dispersion (by 29%) during the pre-crisis years. [18] A feature shared by certain major revolutions is that they were not predicted. The theory of apparent inevitability of crises and revolutions was also developed. [19]

The study of major crises, both political crises and external crises that can affect politics, is not limited to attempts to predict regime transitions or major changes in political institutions. Political scientists also study how governments handle unexpected disasters, and how voters in democracies react to their governments' preparations for and responses to crises. [20]

Cognate fields Edit

Most political scientists work broadly in one or more of the following five areas:

Program evaluation is a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using information to answer questions about projects, policies and programs, [21] particularly about their effectiveness and efficiency. In both the public and private sectors, stakeholders often want to know whether the programs they are funding, implementing, voting for, receiving, or objecting to are producing the intended effect. While program evaluation first focuses on this definition, important considerations often include how much the program costs per participant, how the program could be improved, whether the program is worthwhile, whether there are better alternatives, whether there are unintended outcomes, and whether the program goals are appropriate and useful. [22]

Policy analysis is a technique used in public administration to enable civil servants, activists, and others to examine and evaluate the available options to implement the goals of laws and elected officials.

Some political science departments also classify methodology as well as scholarship on the domestic politics of a particular country as distinct fields. In the United States, American politics is often treated as a separate subfield.

In contrast to this traditional classification, some academic departments organize scholarship into thematic categories, including political philosophy, political behaviour (including public opinion, collective action, and identity), and political institutions (including legislatures and international organizations). Political science conferences and journals often emphasize scholarship in more specific categories. The American Political Science Association, for example, has 42 organized sections that address various methods and topics of political inquiry. [23]

Political science is methodologically diverse political scientists approach the study of politics from a host of different ontological orientations and with a variety of different tools. Because political science is essentially a study of human behaviour, in all aspects of politics, observations in controlled environments are often challenging to reproduce or duplicate, though experimental methods are increasingly common (see experimental political science). [24] Citing this difficulty, former American Political Science Association President Lawrence Lowell once said "We are limited by the impossibility of experiment. Politics is an observational, not an experimental science." [14] Because of this, political scientists have historically observed political elites, institutions, and individual or group behaviour in order to identify patterns, draw generalizations, and build theories of politics.

Like all social sciences, political science faces the difficulty of observing human actors that can only be partially observed and who have the capacity for making conscious choices, unlike other subjects such as non-human organisms in biology or inanimate objects as in physics. Despite the complexities, contemporary political science has progressed by adopting a variety of methods and theoretical approaches to understanding politics, and methodological pluralism is a defining feature of contemporary political science.

Empirical political science methods include the use of field experiments, [25] surveys and survey experiments, [26] case studies, [27] process tracing, [28] [29] historical and institutional analysis, [30] ethnography, [31] participant observation, [32] and interview research. [33]

Political scientists also use and develop theoretical tools like game theory and agent-based models to study a host of political systems and situations. [34]

Political theorists approach theories of political phenomena with a similar diversity of positions and tools, including feminist political theory, historical analysis associated with the Cambridge school, and Straussian approaches.

Political science may overlap with topics of study that are the traditional focuses of other social sciences—for example, when sociological norms or psychological biases are connected to political phenomena. In these cases, political science may either inherit their methods of study or develop a contrasting approach. [35] For example, Lisa Wedeen has argued that political science's approach to the idea of culture, originating with Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba and exemplified by authors like Samuel P. Huntington, could benefit from aligning more closely with the study of culture in anthropology. [35] In turn, methodologies that are developed within political science may influence how researchers in other fields, like public health, conceive of and approach political processes and policies. [36]

Political science, possibly like the social sciences as a whole, "as a discipline lives on the fault line between the 'two cultures' in the academy, the sciences and the humanities." [37] Thus, in some American colleges where there is no separate school or college of arts and sciences per se, political science may be a separate department housed as part of a division or school of humanities or liberal arts. [38] Whereas classical political philosophy is primarily defined by a concern for Hellenic and Enlightenment thought, political scientists are also marked by a great concern for "modernity" and the contemporary nation state, along with the study of classical thought, and as such share more terminology with sociologists (e.g., structure and agency).

Most United States colleges and universities offer BA programs in political science. MA or MAT and PhD or EdD programs are common at larger universities. The term political science is more popular in North America than elsewhere other institutions, especially those outside the United States, see political science as part of a broader discipline of political studies, politics, or government. While political science implies use of the scientific method, political studies implies a broader approach, although the naming of degree courses does not necessarily reflect their content. [ citation needed ] Separate programs (often professional degrees) in international relations and public policy are not uncommon at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Master's-level programs in public administration are professional degrees covering public policy along with other applied subjects they are often seen as more linked to politics than any other discipline, which may be reflected by being housed in that department. [39]

The national honour society for college and university students of government and politics in the United States is Pi Sigma Alpha.


Sinopharm is behind two of the efforts, partnering with the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products and the Beijing Institute of Biological Products on separate candidates.

Many websites introduced two separate versions of content served to users depending on the device they’re using.

The stock has endured three separate declines of 30% or more since then including a 53% crash immediately after going public.

The main caveat is that games available through these services must have their own listings in the App Store and be available as a separate download.

Though not a streaming gaming service, GameClub is a subscription-based service for classic games where each game has its own separate listing.

Andrew and Fergie separate d in 1992 after six years of marriage and formally divorced in 1996.

But the film lags during long stretches—particularly in the middle, when Franco and Rogen are separate d from one-another.

Counter-protestors marched to confront the pro-police contingent, separate d by barricades and uniformed officers.

The church would “keep people separate d from their families,” Fenner says, while “being dealt with for sexual sins.”

A much larger number are immediately separate d from their infants, who are typically placed in some form of out-of-home care.

On the upper part of the stem the whorls are very close together, but they are more widely separate d at the lower portion.

And with some expressions of mutual good-will and interest, master and man separate d.

The intricacies and abrupt turns in the road separate d him from his immediate followers.

But all these fiscal operations should be, for our present purposes, separate d from monetary operations.

After the abdication of the emperor, he broke up all connection with the Bonaparte family, and separate d from his wife.

Secularism and secularization are closely related, but they do not offer the same answer to the question of the role of religion in society. Secularism argues for a sphere of knowledge, values, and action that is independent of religious authority, but it does not automatically exclude religion from having authority when it comes to political and social matters. Secularization, in contrast, is a process which does involve such exclusion.

Secularism and secularization are positive goods which must be defended as foundations of liberal democracy because they enhance the broad distribution of power and oppose the concentration of power in the hands of a few. This is why they are opposed by authoritarian religious institutions and authoritarian religious leaders.


If so, it’s because Facebook identified you as someone who has the potential to lead the group, as you don’t have a history of violations.

“Encores” is a weekly online series highlighting past performances from the historic Folger stage, recalling the rich history of public programming at the Folger.

Five of California’s 10 largest fires in modern history are all burning at once.

So Brazil has an unfortunate history of sensitive data finding its way onto the internet.

Three of the largest fires in history burned simultaneously in a ring around the San Francisco Bay Area.

As an example of good science-and-society policymaking, the history of fluoride may be more of a cautionary tale.

Certain features of its history suggest why this may be the case.

The well, ghost or no ghost, is certainly a piece of history with a bold presence.

“Lockheed Martin has a long history of misrepresenting facts,” Wheeler added.

Although Huckabee's condescending tone - like that of an elementary school history teacher - makes it difficult to take seriously.

The well-worn aphorism of the Frenchman, “ History repeats itself,” was about to assert itself.

Had not this Indian plant been discovered, the whole history of some portions of America would have been far different.

Be Bry in his History of Brazil describes its use and also some interesting particulars concerning the plant.

I cannot see in science, nor in experience, nor in history any signs of such a God, nor of such intervention.

History gives them scant notice, and the Federal government has failed to reward them as they deserve.

Watch the video: ΓΙΑΝΝΗΣ ΠΛΟYΤΑΡΧΟΣ - ΣΕ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΑΩ. OFFICIAL Audio Release HD (May 2022).