Group items tagged

"Radical Democracy" addresses the loss of faith in conventional party politics, and argues for new ways of thinking about diversity, liberty, and civic responsibility. Long debated in political circles, "radical democracy" as discussed here becomes interdisciplinary. The cultural and social theorists in "Radical Democracy" broaden the discussion beyond the conventional and conservative rhetoric by investigating the applicability of radical democracy in the United States. Issues debated include whether democracy is primarily a form of decision making or an instrument of popular empowerment; whether democracy constitutes an abstract ideal or an achievable goal; and how "radical" a democracy is preferable in a nation like the US. The contributors are some of the most exciting and well-known voices in social and cultural theory today--a diverse group of intellectuals, grassroots activists, and academics involved in identity-based movements. Not surprisingly, they often disagree. What they share is the belief in political possibility and the perception that change is attainable.

On the 'Nobel Prize in Economics' and the monopoly of neoclassical theory at university departments of economics February 12, 2010pesodLeave a commentGo to comments from Peter Söderbaum,  peter.soderbaum@mdh.se Early in October 2009 a journalist from a French business journal, Challenge, called me to discuss the so called Nobel Prize in Economics. He referred to a translated version of my critical article in Dagens Nyheter from 2004. I hope that the result from the interview was meaningful but at the same time I felt that I need to consider once more where I stand in relation to these issues. In what follows, there is a 'socially constructed' interview with myself in both roles; the person asking questions and the one responding. I hope this will clarify my position. At the final stage of writing these pages I heard of the new winners of the Economics Prize, Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson. A short comment on this is made as a postscript. Is economics a science as you understand it? I have nothing against thinking of economics as a science. Economics is one of the social sciences, such as political science, sociology, psychology, management science. There are also important relationships to the humanities, such as a possible focus on individuals as actors and their subjectivity. I am skeptical to the attempt to emphasize similarities between economics on the one hand and physics, chemistry, medicine on the other. The latter disciplines are too limited to positivism as a theory of science (standing outside, watching ecosystems and nature, looking for regularities in a value neutral way, making experiments etc.) You are skeptical to, if not against a Nobel Prize in economics; why is this so?For me, it is the combination of two states of affairs or facts that make me question the economics prize in its present form:  There is a dominance and monopoly for one kind of economics, 'neoclassical economics' at university departments of economics in