Alireza Koohkan
Abstract
The dynamic and changing politics of the United States have been the focus of political researchers since the beginning of this country. Due to its new construction, the US did not benefit from the requirements of the old countries, hence, the way of its political action was different. Since the U.S. ...
Read More
The dynamic and changing politics of the United States have been the focus of political researchers since the beginning of this country. Due to its new construction, the US did not benefit from the requirements of the old countries, hence, the way of its political action was different. Since the U.S. gained power in the world arena, how government policy is formed in the United States became important for the researchers of international relations. The opinions of prominent scholars show that one of the defensible theories in the political construction of the United States is based on the prominent role of groups in this field. Different groups or more precisely "interest groups" shape and manage all the elements of this policy. These groups are also responsible for the change of the political structure and the direction of internal and external policies. Attributing such importance to interest groups makes it necessary to explain the importance and the function of these groups in policy making in the United States. This issue forms the main structure of this article. Therefore, the main question of this article is why interest groups are important in the political construction of the American government. The current research tries to answer this question based on the opinions of "Arthur Bentley". For this reason, the present article has a theoretical approach and answers a fundamental question in the field of political construction. The correct understanding of the internal dynamism of politics in the United States is based on the correct understanding of this issue, and it is necessary to understand this process in order to change the internal policy of the United States. Bentley's main book called "The Process of Government" was written in the early 20th century. Bentley systematically theorized groups and trends from a political perspective for the first time. Interest groups are deeply rooted in both conflict and compromise over political decisions as well as historical changes in political systems. In order to answer the main question of this article, the materials have been categorized using the qualitative method, comparative research strategy and gathering data from documents and libraries. For this purpose, after a brief explanation about Bentley and his most important book, his views on the importance of interest groups in the political system of the United States are explained. At the end, the criticisms towards this perspective will be explained and the result of this theoretical research will be presented. Research findings show that interest groups act as a link between interests and decision makers. Studies of the policy process show that interest groups often play a central role in setting the government's agenda, options, influencing decisions, and directing the executive branch. In this regard, both the official structures and the informal structures of American politics provide a suitable base for influence groups. One of the features of the American system that increases their influence is the relative weakness of the political parties of the United States, which partly stems from the principle of separation of powers. A second feature of this system that encourages interest groups is the decentralization of political power to states and municipalities, known as a federal system or "federalism." Citizens' associations often begin at local levels in the states and later merge into national organizations. Therefore, decentralization leads to greater diversity and encourages interest groups. As a result, research shows that interest groups, in addition to influencing policy outcomes through direct lobbying, influence political attitudes and behaviors in various ways. Interest groups often respond directly to candidates, policies, or specific initiatives. In other words, while influencing political policies and decisions, interest groups influence the formation of votes and political behaviors of parties and political leaders and react to them.The result of Bentley's theory in foreign policy is interesting. People become politically important only when they are members of a group, and groups become important when they perform activities. But political life is very complicated: There is no man who only is a member of one interest group, and there is no interest group that operates separately from other groups. The alliance between the groups is also very fragile and unstable. No part of the government in the real world of politics is immune from the pressure of different groups and this includes the judicial system and courts. Therefore, according to Bentley, liberal ideas that seek to create departments to pursue public interests and away from the pressure of large and powerful groups are doomed to failure.
Mohammad Taghi Ghezelsofla
Abstract
The emergence of the term of aesthetics in the late eighteenth century was neutral in the sense of pleasure. Since the mid-nineteenth century with Hegel's theory on the “End of Art” and the emergence of ideology and modern art, the relation between elegance and politics has come ...
Read More
The emergence of the term of aesthetics in the late eighteenth century was neutral in the sense of pleasure. Since the mid-nineteenth century with Hegel's theory on the “End of Art” and the emergence of ideology and modern art, the relation between elegance and politics has come to be substantial. This relation also in the first half of the twentieth century in the totalitarian communism and fascist regimes was considerable. In this paper, the fundamental question is how the idea of aesthetic in the politics solidifies the legitimacy and strength of the government.This article tries to review the mechanisms of aesthetics in Fascism that only serves as a control technique by eliminating the solipsism of culture and art theory. In order to ascertain the hypothesis of some elements of fascist aesthetics such as praising the state, aesthetic refinement of violence and technology will be discussed. Research findings show that the objective phenomenon has aided the aesthetic refinement of state power, the strengthening of war and violence, and the support of speed and technology to meet the goals of totality government. In this Paper, we used the theoretical framework of critical aesthetics and the article has been written in descriptive-analytic style.
Ahmad Khaleghi Damghani; Hamid Malekzade
Abstract
For centuries one of the most important issues studied by philosophers and political theorists relating to the concept of state should be investigated in relation with the matter of education and politics. This issue has been, in a way, the first theoretical conjuncture regarding the politics in the ...
Read More
For centuries one of the most important issues studied by philosophers and political theorists relating to the concept of state should be investigated in relation with the matter of education and politics. This issue has been, in a way, the first theoretical conjuncture regarding the politics in the ancient Greek, and studying state and related issued is still of much importance; this is up to the point which every question regarding the quiddity of state, politics, and concepts where these notions necessitate is the question on the qualities related to the education in a political society. In another words, every form of political dominance is directly related to the claims regarding state’s intervention in existing educational procedures in a society. I begin this article by an explanation on the quiddity of politics and also the relationship of politics to each one of us as its main subjects. Accordingly, I will try to explain the way what is known as community beyond the state is formed, as bedrock consisted of, in a way, spontaneous people, and the intervention of politics to orient this spontaneous being togetherness regarding authorities special recalling. At the end of this article, I will explain that why we should consider education as the most justifying factor of different forms of political authority, and a main factor in interventionist claims of the state in public daily life. This article is a discussion on political ontology which investigates the way ontological coordinates of politics take shape. The latter claim should be studied in relation to which relationship the authors of this article make between the meaning and politics. In a more accurate way for us, and regarding Edmund Husserl’s literature, meaning is politics objectivity. A space where everything in it, everything becomes political, is at last the meaning. It’s the very point where the study of power becomes a subordinate study. In order to explain this issue, we have provided a detailed discussion on political ontology of Carl Schmitt, Chantal Mouffe and Jacques Lacan. We hope this study can identify motif (origins) of the concept of the political, and after the conclusion it can show how education, fantasy in Zizek’s reading of Lacan, can provide the bedrock for special horizontal facilities in order to uncover the world, meaning in Husserl’s words, and through which it provides the antagonism (in Schmitt and Mouffe’s words). Through the use of possibility of shaping an inter-subjective and spontaneous understanding through the reductive actions of pure egos to the world (Husserl), we were interested to show that there is a form of being among each-otherness regarding the meaning that the main invigorator of antagonist identities in inter-subjectivity is imaginable without state’s intervention and politics. In this regard we’ve tried to consider the politics an objective issue (in a Hegelian sense) that takes the place of an external intervener confronting the reductive spontaneous-ness of the inter-subjectivity.
