TL;DR: In this article, a variety of analytic approaches have been used to address the problems of international cooperation, but the approaches have yielded only fragmentary insights, focusing on the technical aspects of a specific problem, how do they define state interests and develop viable solutions? What factors shape their behavior? Under conditions of uncertainty, what are the origins of international institutions? And how can we best study the processes through which international policy coordination and order emerge?
Abstract: The growing technical uncertainties and complexities of problems of global concern have made international policy coordination not only increasingly necessary but also increasingly difficult. If decision makers are unfamiliar with the technical aspects of a specific problem, how do they define state interests and develop viable solutions? What factors shape their behavior? Under conditions of uncertainty, what are the origins of international institutions? And how can we best study the processes through which international policy coordination and order emerge? While a variety of analytic approaches have been used to address the problems of international cooperation, the approaches have yielded only fragmentary insights. At its core, the study of policy coordination among states involves arguments about determinism versus free will and about the ways in which the international system is maintained and transformed. Among the overlapping topics of debate are whether national behavior is determined or broadly conditioned by system-level factors, unit-level factors, or some complex interplay between the two; whether state policymakers can identify national interests and behave independently of pressures from the social groups they nominally represent; and whether states respond consistently to opportunities to create, defend, or expand their own wealth and power, to enhance collective material benefits, or to promote nonmaterial values.' A related question of
TL;DR: The Critical Race Theory (CRT) movement as discussed by the authors was one of the first movements of critical race theory in the 20th century and has been studied extensively in the last few decades.
Abstract: Acknowledgments Foreword Preface I A. What Is Critical Race Theory? B. Early Origins C. Relationship to Previous Movements D. Principal Figures E. Spin-off Movements F. Basic Tenets of Critical Race Theory G. How Much Racism Is There in the World? H. Organization of This Book II A. Interest Convergence, Material Determinism, and Racial Realism B. Revisionist History C. Critique of Liberalism D. Structural Determinism III A. Opening a Window onto Ignored or Alternative Realities B. Counterstorytelling C. Cure for Silencing D. Storytelling in Court E. Storytelling on the Defensive IV A. Intersectionality B. Essentialism and Antiessentialism C. Nationalism versus Assimilation V A. The Black-White Binary B. Critical White Studies C. Other Developments: Latino and Asian VI VII A. Right-Wing Offensive B. Postracialism and a Politics of Triangulation C. Power D. Identity VIII A. The Future B. A Critical Race Agenda for the New Century C. Likely Responses to the Critical Race Theory Movement Glossary of Terms Index About the Authors
TL;DR: Archer as discussed by the authors identifies three distinctive forms of internal conversation, i.e., internal dialogue, internal conversation is seen as being the missing link between society and the individual, structure and agency.
Abstract: The central problem of social theory is 'structure and agency'. How do the objective features of society influence human agents? Determinism is not the answer, nor is conditioning as currently conceptualised. It accentuates the way structure and culture shape the social context in which individuals operate, but it neglects our personal capacity to define what we care about most and to establish a modus vivendi expressive of our concerns. Through inner dialogue, 'the internal conversation', individuals reflect upon their social situation in the light of current concerns and projects. On the basis of a series of unique, in-depth interviews, Archer identifies three distinctive forms of internal conversation. These govern agents' responses to social conditioning, their individual patterns of social mobility and whether or not they contribute to social stability or change. Thus the internal conversation is seen as being the missing link between society and the individual, structure and agency.
TL;DR: Television: Technology and Cultural Form was first published in 1974, long before the dawn of multi-channel TV, or the reality and celebrity shows that now pack the schedules as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Television: Technology and Cultural Form was first published in 1974, long before the dawn of multi-channel TV, or the reality and celebrity shows that now pack the schedules. Yet Williams' analysis of television's history, its institutions, programmes and practices, and its future prospects, remains remarkably prescient. Williams stresses the importance of technology in shaping the cultural form of television, while always resisting the determinism of McLuhan's dictum that 'the medium is the message'. If the medium really is the message, Williams asks, what is left for us to do or say? Williams argues that, on the contrary, we as viewers have the power to disturb, disrupt and to distract the otherwise cold logic of history and technology - not just because television is part of the fabric of our daily lives, but because new technologies continue to offer opportunities, momentarily outside the sway of transnational corporations or the grasp of media moguls, for new forms of self and political expression.
TL;DR: The principle of alternate possibilities as discussed by the authors states that a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise, and its exact meaning is a subject of controversy, particularly concerning whether someone who accepts it is thereby committed to believing that moral responsibility and determinism are incompatible.
Abstract: A dominant role in nearly all recent inquiries into the free-will problem has been played by a principle which the author shall call ‘the principle of alternate possibilities.’ This principle states that a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. Its exact meaning is a subject of controversy, particularly concerning whether someone who accepts it is thereby committed to believing that moral responsibility and determinism are incompatible. In seeking illustrations of the principle of alternate possibilities, it is most natural to think of situations in which the same circumstances both bring it about that a person does something and make it impossible for him to avoid doing it. The two main concepts employed in the principle of alternate possibilities are ‘morally responsible’ and ‘could have done otherwise.’ To discuss the principle without analyzing either of these concepts may well seem like an attempt at piracy.