๐ฅ๐ผ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ต๐น spent most of his career thinking about ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐. He distinguished between the ideal (democracy) and the real (polyarchy). He also had a lot to say about the value of democracy. ๐งต
1/5 Ideal Democracy I. Dahl starts by arguing that the distinctive ideal of democracy is the strong principle of intrinsic equality, that all adults are the best judges of their interests.
Then he elaborated five โcriteriaโ for a democratic process: ๐
2/5 Ideal Democracy II. Dahl defines these five criteria as follows:๐
3/5 Actual Democracy. Although Dahl holds that ideal democracy is unattainable, an approximation he calls polyarchy is attainable.
For Dahl, a polyarchy necessarily requires the presence of โseven institutionsโ: ๐
4/5 The Value of Democracy. Finally, Dahl articulates what he sees as 10 reasons why democracy and polyarchy are valuable and should be defended.๐
5/5 Comment: Dahlโs work is an indispensable point of reference in discussions about democracy. He links ideals to a realistically attainable arrangement of institutions. His discussion of the values of democracy could be seen as something idealistic & deserves critical scrutiny
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
๐ฅ๐ผ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ต๐น pasรณ la mayor parte de su carrera pensando en la ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ. Distinguiรณ entre lo ideal (democracia) y lo real (poliarquรญa). Tambiรฉn tuvo mucho que decir sobre el valor de la democracia. ๐งต
1/5 Democracia ideal I. Dahl comienza argumentando que el ideal distintivo de la democracia es el fuerte principio de igualdad intrรญnseca, la idea que todos los adultos son los mejores jueces de sus intereses.
Luego elabora โโcinco โcriteriosโ para un proceso democrรกtico. ๐
2/5 Democracia ideal II. Dahl define estos โโcinco โcriteriosโ de la siguiente manera:๐
๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐๐ฒ๐ปโs main contribution to the discussion of ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ was his articulation and justification of a concept of democracy. I focus on that aspect of his work. ๐งต
๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐. Kelsen provides some ideas that help to focus the discussion by (1) pinpointing the core value that guides democracy (political freedom), and (2) saying what democracy is not (a matter of outcomes or of the state).๐
๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐. Building on his general ideas, Kelsen specifies the properties of democracy in some detail. Many are by now conventional, some (the last two) are not.๐
La principal contribuciรณn de ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐๐ฒ๐ป a la discusiรณn de la ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ fue su articulaciรณn y justificaciรณn de un concepto de democracia. Me concentro en ese aspecto de su trabajo. ๐งต
๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ฒ๐. Kelsen proporciona algunas ideas que ayudan a centrar la discusiรณn al (1) seรฑalar el valor central que guรญa a la democracia (libertad polรญtica) y (2) decir lo que no es la democracia (una cuestiรณn de resultados o del Estado).๐
๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐น๐ฎ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ. Sobre la base de sus ideas generales, Kelsen especifica las propiedades de la democracia con cierto detalle. Muchas ya son convencionales, algunas (las dos รบltimas) no lo son.๐
Kuhnโs idea of a paradigm is flawed: paradigms are not incommensurable, mature sciences do not have only 1 paradigm,& paradigms do not have their own standards of assessment. In contrast, the narrower idea of metatheory, abstract&general ideas used in theory-building, is useful๐งต
1/18 Problem I. Much of what is presented as theory is no more than stand-alone hypotheses or lists of variables, ie, ideas that are not actually theories.
2/18 Problem I. This way of thinking about โtheoryโ leads to a big problem: the chaotic proliferation of stand-alone hypotheses. And, as a quick look at journals shows, the increased focus on hypothesis testing does not provide a solution to this problem.
Talk of ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฎ๐น ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐บ๐ is common in the social sciences. But what are social mechanisms? We have 2 basic views: 1) mechanisms are intervening variables & 2) mechanisms necessarily involve actors & actions. Only the latter have a distinct epistemological value๐งต
1/15 The Intuition. Independent (explanatory) variables identify ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต factors have an effect on a dependent variable.
Mechanisms account for ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ such factors produce an effect.
So, we should open the black box between IV and DV & posit the mechanism that connects them.
2/15 Mechanisms in the Natural Sciences. Here's an example from physics
Boyle's (black box) law: Pressure is inversely proportional to volume of the gas at constant temperature
Mechanism: The kinetic theory of gases explains how pressure is created by the collision of particles
๐ค๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ & ๐ค๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐. The world is made up of things that have properties (qualities) to different degrees (quantities). Yet many scholars mistakenly assume that all differences (& changes) can be represented along a continuum. This assumption should be questioned.๐งต
๐ญ/๐ฒ ๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ค๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐.A trend in the social sciences is to focus on quantitative differences.& this is very valuable. All properties (beyond existence) are possessed by things to different degrees. We need to theorize&test hypotheses about such differences
๐ฎ/๐ฒ ๐๐ด๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ค๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐. But a common position in the sciences goes further and denies or plays down qualitative differences. This position is called gradualism (Leibniz, Darwin, Nisbet), synechism (Charles Peirce), degreeism (G. Sartori), as well as continuism.