DOCSLIB.ORG

LIBERTY for INDIVIDUALITY Claire Louise Morgan, Doctor Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LIBERTY for INDIVIDUALITY Claire Louise Morgan, Doctor Of ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: LIBERTY FOR INDIVIDUALITY Claire Louise Morgan, Doctor of Philosophy, 2004 Dissertation directed by: Professor Stephen L. Elkin, Government & Politics Over the last couple of decades libertarianism has gained a lot of attention and garnered much public support. The movement stands at a critical juncture with a great opportunity before it. It has the option of continuing as it is—as a marginal critique of other mainstream political ideas and institutions, or it can present an alternative, viable individual ideal, together with a positive political and social vision (a new constitutional order or a “good society.”) Assuming such a transformation is appealing to its members, how might a new vision look? This thesis offers one possible vision, and it does so by criticizes existing libertarian visions for their narrow focus on economics and law. David Boaz and Charles Murray have done much to broaden libertarian ideas, but they still fall short of the potential that exists at the heart of libertarianism. Instead, this thesis proposes a richer ideal, one of romantic libertarianism—or individuality--that includes a significant role for culture and self-cultivation. Drawing on the work of Humboldt, J.S. Mill, and the Emersonians, it argues for the self-cultivation of the individual in his most individual—unique—form. The ideal for the libertarian self is supported by a regime theory, sketching out a possible libertarian society that might help to foster such an ideal. This includes a political structure, a legal structure, and a vibrant civil society. For any proposal to be genuinely attractive to libertarians it must be practically possible. The conclusion considers the organization of the current libertarian movement and speculates on reasons why these kinds of ideas have been neglected thus far. Finally, it questions whether such ideas are likely to be adopted in future, given current institutional arrangements and political strategies. LIBERTY FOR INDIVIDUALITY By Claire Louise Morgan Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2004 Advisory Committee: Professor Stephen L. Elkin, Chair Professor Herman Belz Professor William A. Galston Professor Mark A. Graber Professor Ronald J. Terchek © Copyright by Claire Louise Morgan 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people have helped me with this project. I would like to thank my supervisor, Stephen L. Elkin, and the rest of my committee. In particular, I am extremely grateful for Ron Terchek’s help, both for his encouragement and extensive comments on the text. In addition, I should like to thank my boss at the Liberty Fund, Douglas den Uyl, for my gainful employment, for his patience, support and encouragement, and for his critical comments on the text. In addition, several other people have encouraged and badgered me over the years that it has taken to complete this project. These include my friends, Matt Thomas, Loren Lomasky, Will Ruger, Hans Eicholz, and Jennifer Thompson, and I am very grateful to them. Lynn Shiver at the Liberty Fund has helped me on numerous occasions with various word processing difficulties, and I would like to thank her. Finally, I am especially grateful to my parents for their patience and encouragement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Libertarian Political Theory and Varieties of Libertarianism 15 Chapter 2: The Libertarian Self 34 Chapter 3: Politics and Citizenship in a Libertarian Regime 92 Chapter 4: Libertarian Legal Theory and Institutions 134 Chapter 5: Libertarian Communities and Civil Society 167 Conclusion 193 Bibliography 211 iii INTRODUCTION "The future is unknowable but not unimaginable" Ludwig Lachmann1 Why Libertarianism? Fifteen years ago it would have been difficult to imagine a mainstream press publishing not one, but two books on the subject of libertarianism.2 Even after the publication of Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974 libertarians were largely regarded as purveyors of a strange peripheral jeremiad.3 Yet over the past decade or so libertarianism has gained much ground. Indeed, while not (yet?) mainstream,4 it is now possible to discuss libertarianism seriously within both the academic and public policy 1Ludwig M. Lachmann, "From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society." Journal of Economic Literature, (March 1976), 55. 2 David Boaz, Libertarianism, and David Boaz (Ed.), The Libertarian Reader, (New York: Free Press, 1997). 3 In a survey of think-tanks published in 1992, The Economist gave the Cato Institute a full five marks (out of a possible five) for "kookiness," with other scores of 4, 1, 3, and 2 respectively for how far they were considered to be clever, connected, canny, and cushy. "The Good Think-Tank Guide, The Joys of Detached Involvement" The Economist, December 21, 1991-January 3, 1992, 53. 4 Whether it is, in fact, possible or desirable for libertarianism (as an ideology and a political and social movement) to become mainstream is an interesting question in itself—for instance, in relation to the structural constraints of the American regime (including its political, legal and economic institutions of check and balances,) the vagaries of politics (which tend to favor compromise, particularly between the two major political parties that dominate the political landscape,) the psychological attitude of those who support libertarianism (who frequently like to characterize themselves as purists and "revolutionaries," and who would not, therefore, consider themselves as participants in any sort of formal governing structure,) and, as Robert Michels famously noted in Political Parties (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1949), the tendencies of democratic political organizations to become oligarchies—the so called “iron law of oligarchy,” thereby giving up it’s own commitment to democratic principles. More recently James Buchanan and other public choice economists have made similar arguments in connection with the potential for the individuals who fight on behalf of freedom outside the state to become self-interested rent seekers once they enter the realm of political power. In short, the question of the extent to which libertarianism may permit itself and its practitioners to go mainstream (or indeed, may be able to go mainstream)--and therefore become part of the system it was established to fight--is an extremely important one, and it will be addressed throughout this thesis. 1 worlds. At a minimum, libertarianism as it currently exists has come to be treated as a significant and useful critique. For instance, as mentioned above, within analytic political philosophy Nozick's response to Rawl's Theory of Justice has come to receive respect. Further, libertarianism and communitarianism are currently invoked as alternatives to, or at least important critiques of, the prevailing liberal-democratic consensus among those who discuss and implement public policy. In terms of recent visibility, there is evidence that libertarian proposals are receiving discussion and support in some policy areas, including tax policy (the flat tax), term limits, social security reform, and school vouchers. Moreover, some commentators believe that underlying political and economic trends indicate a tendency toward less government, suggesting an opportunity in the long term for libertarianism to gain increasing influence.5 Supporters of libertarianism have a chance to gain further power and influence if only they can appeal to a larger audience to gain additional support from the public at large. But this will require a different approach to the issues libertarians typically address from the one they have taken heretofore. Indeed, it may require tackling a different set of issues altogether. The question now is, is libertarianism capable of providing something more than a critique? In theory, is there such a thing as a libertarian vision of a good society, and if so, what is it, or what might it be? In practice, if we venture beyond the critique, to what extent 5 See, for instance, E.J. Dionne, Why Americans Hate Politics, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), chapter 10, and, more recently, “Lexington: The Charge of the Think-tanks,” The Economist, (February 15, 2003), 33. David Boaz, “The Coming Libertarian Age,” Chapter 1, 1-26 in Libertarianism, A Primer (New York: Free Press, 1997). 2 are libertarianism's substantive policies likely to be adopted as viable public policy and social practice,6 and beyond that, as a personal ethical code for living? Indeed, one question that needs to be considered at the outset is does libertarianism require a sort of freedom that "goes all the way down," or only robust political freedom? How much may be said about individual lives beyond the state, and remain consistent with libertarianism? Many of its supporters claim that libertarianism is only a political theory and therefore has nothing to say about morality and other aspects of life in the voluntary sphere. According to this view there is no such thing as a libertarian good society.7 However, the same supporters are all too 6 I introduce the terms, "public policy," and "social practice" here since they connote different but related ideas. "Public policy," as I understand it, refers to a set of actions instituted and financed by the state (or, more properly, the taxpayer). Social practice is a vaguer term that is intended to refer to collective action that occurs within society, but does not involve the state. (Except in so far as the state has secured the political and legal conditions within which people act collectively.) I.e. it refers to collective actions carried out by civil associations rather than public (state) entities. Both concepts will be important to highlight the variations of theory and practice within the libertarian movement, which is itself a coalition of purists, pragmatists, economists, philosophers, and policy analysts, etc. Theoretically, libertarian public policy is to some degree incoherent, if the point of libertarianism is to minimize the role of the state.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Durham Research Online
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 24 April 2017 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Dimova-Cookson, Maria (2013) 'Defending Isaiah Berlin's distinctions between negative and positive freedoms.', in Isaiah Berlin and the politics of freedom : 'Two concepts of liberty' 50 years later. New York: Routledge, pp. 73-86. Routledge innovations in political theory. (48). Further information on publisher's website: https://www.routledge.com/9780415656795/ Publisher's copyright statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge in Isaiah Berlin and the politics of freedom: 'Two concepts of liberty' 50 years later on 20/12/2012, available online: https://www.routledge.com/9780415656795/ Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Defending Isaiah Berlin’s Distinctions between Negative and Positive Freedoms1 Maria Dimova-Cookson Published in Bruce Baum and Robert Nichols, eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Mill's "Very Simple Principle": Liberty, Utilitarianism And
    MILL'S "VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE": LIBERTY, UTILITARIANISM AND SOCIALISM MICHAEL GRENFELL submitted for degree of Ph.D. London School of Economics and Political Science UMI Number: U048607 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U048607 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I H^S £ S F 6SI6 ABSTRACT OF THESIS MILL'S "VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE'*: LIBERTY. UTILITARIANISM AND SOCIALISM 1 The thesis aims to examine the political consequences of applying J.S. Mill's "very simple principle" of liberty in practice: whether the result would be free-market liberalism or socialism, and to what extent a society governed in accordance with the principle would be free. 2 Contrary to Mill's claims for the principle, it fails to provide a clear or coherent answer to this "practical question". This is largely because of three essential ambiguities in Mill's formulation of the principle, examined in turn in the three chapters of the thesis. 3 First, Mill is ambivalent about whether liberty is to be promoted for its intrinsic value, or because it is instrumental to the achievement of other objectives, principally the utilitarian objective of "general welfare".
    [Show full text]
  • WPSA 2017 Unstable Equilibrium
    Unstable Equilibrium: Positive and Negative Liberty for Isaiah Berlin Kathleen Cole, Ph.D. Metropolitan State University Paper for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association April 15, 2017 This paper is a working draft. Please do not circulate. In his landmark essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” Isaiah Berlin identifies two distinct conceptions of liberty that have emerged from various philosophical traditions: negative and positive liberty. For Berlin, theorists of negative and positive liberty differ with respect to the divergent questions they ask when determining conditions of freedom or unfreedom. Negative liberty theorists are centrally concerned with the question, “[What is the] minimum area of personal freedom which must on no account be violated”?1 From this perspective, “I am normally said to be free to the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with my activity. Political liberty in this sense if simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others.”2 In contrast, positive liberty theorists determine conditions of freedom or unfreedom by asking, “By whom am I ruled?”3 From this perspective, to be free is to be one’s own master, to make autonomous choices about the purpose and practices of one’s life, and to bear the responsibility for those choices.4 Berlin’s essay has been widely praised for clarifying important distinctions between conflicting meanings of the term liberty.5 The essay has become one of Berlin’s most widely read and influential publications. Often, the essay is interpreted as an endorsement of negative liberty and a rejection of positive conceptions of liberty.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Philosophy of the Humanities
    History and Philosophy of the Humanities History and Philosophy of the Humanities An introduction Michiel Leezenberg and Gerard de Vries Translation by Michiel Leezenberg Amsterdam University Press Original publication: Michiel Leezenberg & Gerard de Vries, Wetenschapsfilosofie voor geesteswetenschappen, derde editie, Amsterdam University Press, 2017 © M. Leezenberg & G. de Vries / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2017 Translated by Michiel Leezenberg Cover illustration: Johannes Vermeer, De astronoom (1668) Musee du Louvre, R.F. 1983-28 Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6372 493 7 e-isbn 978 90 4855 168 2 (pdf) doi 10.5117/9789463724937 nur 730 © Michiel Leezenberg & Gerard de Vries / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2019 Translation © M. Leezenberg All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher. Table of Contents Preface 11 1 Introduction 15 1.1 The Tasks of the Philosophy of the Humanities 15 1.2 Knowledge and Truth 19 1.3 Interpretation and Perspective 23
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Margins: the Family and Social Discipline in Canada, 1700
    http://www.ucalgary.ca/hic • ISSN 1492-7810 2008/09 • Vol. 8, No. 1 Richard Franklin Sigurdson, Jacob Burckhardt’s Social and Political Thought. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Pp. xii + 272. CDN$58.00 (cloth). ISBN: 0-8020-4780-7. Reviewed by Mark G. Spencer, Brock University In this fine volume on the Swiss born thinker Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897), Richard Sigurdson sets out with two goals. First, he aims to “make a modest contribution to the larger project of intellectual history, especially to the study of the history of social and political ideas of the tumultuous nineteenth century.” In that endeavour he aims not to “advocate Burckhardt’s political point of view” but “to explicate his political views, which have been previously under-appreciated, and to give his ideas the kind of careful consideration that might spur on others to engage in further examination and critical analysis.” Second, Sigurdson hopes “to help introduce Burckhardt to a larger English-speaking academic audience” (ix). While Burckhardt is most often remembered today — when he is remembered at all — for his contributions to historiography especially as author of The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860), Sigurdson aims to cast light on Burckhardt’s social and political ideas, noting however that “we must make use of his entire corpus if we are to appreciate the breadth and depth of his socio-political thought” (6). Giving attention to Burckhardt’s published works, public lectures, and private correspondence, Sigurdson presents his thoroughly-researched findings in a gracefully-written book divided into two parts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strongmen Strike Back Robert Kagan
    POLICY BRIEF The strongmen strike back Robert Kagan Authoritarianism has returned as an ideological and strategic force. And it returns at just the moment when the liberal world is suffering a major crisis of confidence. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Today, authoritarianism has emerged as the Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting greatest challenge facing the liberal democratic the liberal democratic world these days, the one world—a profound ideological, as well as strategic, for which we are least prepared is the ideological challenge. Or, more accurately, it has reemerged, and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism. We for authoritarianism has always posed the most are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a potent and enduring challenge to liberalism, since distinct worldview that offers a real alternative the birth of the liberal idea itself. Authoritarianism to liberalism. Communism was an ideology—and has now returned as a geopolitical force, with strong some thought fascism was, as well—that offered a nations such as China and Russia championing comprehensive understanding of human nature, anti-liberalism as an alternative to a teetering politics, economics and governance to shape the liberal hegemony. It has returned as an ideological behavior and thought of all members of a society in force, offering the age-old critique of liberalism, every aspect of their lives. and just at the moment when the liberal world is suffering its greatest crisis of confidence since We believed that “traditional” autocratic the 1930s. It has returned armed with new and governments were devoid of grand theories about hitherto unimaginable tools of social control and society and, for the most part, left their people disruption that are shoring up authoritarian rule at alone.
    [Show full text]
  • The Total Liberation Action Research Team: Re-Membering
    THE TOTAL LIBERATION ACTION RESEARCH TEAM: RE-MEMBERING PRACTICES OF HOLISTIC, CREATIVE, AND COMPASSIONATE JUSTICE By Mara June Pfeffer A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Sustainable Communities Northern Arizona University May 2014 Approved: Janine Schipper, Ph.D., Chair Sean Parson, Ph. D. Kim Curtis, Ph.D. ABSTRACT THE TOTAL LIBERATION ACTION RESEARCH TEAM: RE-MEMBERING PRACTICES OF HOLISTIC, CREATIVE, AND COMPASSIONATE JUSTICE MARA JUNE PFEFFER In this thesis, I argue that industrial society must radically re-evaluate and re- member its relationships with the more than human world if it wishes to pursue justice and sustainability, pursuits which are crucial to the continued existence of life on earth. I argue that those involved in justice and sustainability movements must recognize the critical intersections of animal liberation with justice for the earth and humans; and that those involved in movements for animals must find ways to practice groundless solidarity with all those resisting corporatism, patriarchy, racism, colonialism, sexism, classism, ablism, transphobia, homophobia, and ecocide. I argue that we must start here and now by coming together to form our own communities; cultivating spaces to ask critical questions; and practicing more creative, compassionate, and holistic activisms that call for the liberation of earth and all animals—both humans and other than. By cofounding and participating in the development of a Total Liberation Action Research Team at Northern Arizona University, I present evidence that the frameworks of total liberation and artistic resistance offer alternatives to dominant, mechanistic, dismembering, single- issue, one-size-fits-all organizing models and inspire more holistic, creative, and compassionate activisms that are necessary to cultivating truly just communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Concepts of Liberty
    “No chains around my feet, but I’m not free.” – Bob Marley (Concrete Jungle) Two Concepts of Liberty 1. Positive vs Negative Liberty: Isaiah Berlin’s highly influential article brought to light the nature of the disagreement about political freedom. Largely until his time, the default assumption was that ‘liberty’ referred to what Berlin calls ‘negative liberty’. Negative Liberty: Roughly, freedom FROM. One is free in this sense to the extent that their actions are not hindered or prevented by outside interferers. Jefferson & Madison: This is, for instance, how the founding fathers understood liberty. Consider our constitutionally recognized rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion (in James Madison’s Bill of Rights), and rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence). Example: Freedom of Speech: Having this right means that the government will not interfere with your speech (e.g., they will not pass laws forbidding you from saying whatever you want, and they will pass laws forbidding others from coercively preventing you from saying whatever you want, etc.). The same can be said for all of the others I listed. (For instance, as one more example, the government will allow you to pursue happiness, and they will not interfere with you or try to prevent you from doing so.) But, negative liberty of, say freedom of speech, doesn’t do me any good if I lack the ability to speak. For instance, imagine that I was raised by wolves and I don’t know how to speak any human languages, or read, or write, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Identity Downloaded from by Guest on 26 September 2021
    Kwame Anthony Appiah The politics of identity Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/135/4/15/1829194/daed.2006.135.4.15.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 I am never quite sure what people mean nothing to do with the government.’ when they talk about ‘identity politics.’ You might wonder how someone who Usually, though, they bring it up to com- said that could think that civil marriage plain about someone else. One’s own should not be open to gays. Isn’t that political preoccupations are just, well, straight identity politics? politics. Identity politics is what other In short, I think that what Sir John people do. Harrington so sagely said of treason Here’s one example: When someone is largely true of identity politics: it in France suggested gay marriage was never seems to prosper only because it a good idea, many French people com- has largely won the political stage. plained that this was just another in- But I think there is a way of explain- stance of American-style identity poli- ing why identity matters. ‘Identity’ tics. (In France, as you know, ‘Ameri- may not be the best word for bringing can-style’ is en effet a synonym for ‘bad.’) together the roles gender, class, race, ‘Why should les gays insist on special nationality, and so on play in our lives, treatment?’ So the French legislature but it is the one we use. One problem created the Pacte Civil de Solidarité with ‘identity’: it can suggest that ev- (pacs), whose point is exactly that mar- eryone of a certain identity is in some riage is open to any two citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Agrarian Anarchism and Authoritarian Populism: Towards a More (State-)Critical ‘Critical Agrarian Studies’
    The Journal of Peasant Studies ISSN: 0306-6150 (Print) 1743-9361 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjps20 Agrarian anarchism and authoritarian populism: towards a more (state-)critical ‘critical agrarian studies’ Antonio Roman-Alcalá To cite this article: Antonio Roman-Alcalá (2020): Agrarian anarchism and authoritarian populism: towards a more (state-)critical ‘critical agrarian studies’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2020.1755840 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1755840 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 20 May 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3209 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fjps20 THE JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1755840 FORUM ON AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM AND THE RURAL WORLD Agrarian anarchism and authoritarian populism: towards a more (state-)critical ‘critical agrarian studies’* Antonio Roman-Alcalá International Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Netherlands ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This paper applies an anarchist lens to agrarian politics, seeking to Anarchism; authoritarian expand and enhance inquiry in critical agrarian studies. populism; critical agrarian Anarchism’s relevance to agrarian processes is found in three studies; state theory; social general areas: (1) explicitly anarchist movements, both historical movements; populism; United States of America; and contemporary; (2) theories that emerge from and shape these moral economy movements; and (3) implicit anarchism found in values, ethics, everyday practices, and in forms of social organization – or ‘anarchistic’ elements of human social life.
    [Show full text]
  • East Asian Democratization and Value Change
    Noises and A Comparative Survey of DEMOCRACY, GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT Working Paper Series: No. 11 Noises and Interruptions – The Road to Democracy Wai-man Lam Hsin-Chi Kuan Chinese University of Hong Kong Issued by Asian Barometer Project Office National Taiwan University and Academia Sinica 2003 Taipei 1 Asian Barometer A Comparative Survey of Democracy, Governance and Development Working Paper Series The Asian Barometer (ABS) is an applied research program on public opinion on political values, democracy, and governance around the region. The regional network encompasses research teams from twelve East Asian political systems (Japan, Mongolia, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore, and Indonesia), and five South Asian countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal). Together, this regional survey network covers virtually all major political systems in the region, systems that have experienced different trajectories of regime evolution and are currently at different stages of political transition. The ABS Working Paper Series is intended to make research result within the ABS network available to the academic community and other interested readers in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions for revision before final publication. Scholars in the ABS network also devote their work to the Series with the hope that a timely dissemination of the findings of their surveys to the general public as well as the policy makers would help illuminate the public discourse on democratic reform and good governance. The topics covered in the Series range from country-specific assessment of values change and democratic development, region-wide comparative analysis of citizen participation, popular orientation toward democracy and evaluation of quality of governance, and discussion of survey methodology and data analysis strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt and the Modern German University Tensions
    3 The discovery of Humboldt There were nineteen universities in the German Empire when it was proclaimed in 1871. During the almost fifty years that followed, up until the outbreak of the First World War, the number of students quadrupled. During the same period several institutes of technol- ogy and schools of economics were founded, but only three new universities: Strasbourg in 1872, Münster in 1902, and Frankfurt am Main in 1914. Higher education was, strictly speaking, a matter for the individual constituent states; but the university as an institution was seen as a national undertaking and was the subject of a vivid debate in the pan-German public sphere. Within the borders of the Empire the academic norms were similar, and both students and professors moved easily between universities. All this contributed to a sense of the university as a coherent national system.1 Prussia, which held half of the students and eleven universities, dominated the united Germany. An exceptionally important figure in this context was Friedrich Althoff. Originally a lawyer, he served between 1882 and 1907 with great power and determination in the Prussian Ministry of Education. During this quarter of a century, the system that would later come to be known as ‘System Althoff’ prevailed. With forceful, unorthodox methods, Althoff intervened in 1 Konrad H. Jarausch, ‘Universität und Hochschule’, in Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte: 1870–1918: Von der Reichsgründung bis zum Ende des Ersten Weltkriegs, ed. by Christa Berg (Munich, 1991); Anderson, ‘European Universities’. As is often the case when university history is investigated more closely, the establishment of a university is a complicated matter; thus the university in Strasbourg had already been founded in 1631, but after the Franco–Prussian War it was re-established in 1872 as ‘Reichs-Universität Straßburg’, and five years later it became one of the universities named ‘Kaiser- Wilhelms-Universität’.
    [Show full text]