In this critique of rational choice theory, Emily Hauptmann explores the idea central to the theory, namely, that democracy can best be explained in terms of an economic conception of choice. Her argument turns on the claims that the choices we face as citizens are not reducible to the choices we face as consumers and that democracy cannot be reduced to a series of choices, economic or otherwise.
Foundations in the United States have long exerted considerable power over education and scholarly production. Although today’s titans of philanthropy proclaim more loudly their desire to transform schools and universities than did some of their predecessors, philanthropic programs designed to reshape educational institutions are at least a century old. In Foundations and American Political Science, Emily Hauptmann focuses on the postwar Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller programs that reshaped political science. She shows how significant changes in the methods and research interests of postwar political scientists began as responses to the priorities set by their philanthropic patrons. Informed by years of research in foundation and university archives, Foundations and American Political Science follows the course of several streams of private philanthropic money as they wended their way through public universities and political science departments in the postwar period. The programs launched by the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller philanthropies as well as their reception at the universities of California and Michigan steered political scientists towards particular problems and particular ways of studying them. The rise of statistical analyses of survey data, the decline of public administration, and persistent conflicts over the discipline’s purpose and the best methods for understanding politics, Hauptmann argues, all had their roots in the ways that postwar universities responded to foundations’ programs. Additionally, the new emphasis universities placed on sponsored research sparked sharp disputes among political scientists over what should count as legitimate knowledge about politics and what the ultimate purpose of the discipline should be.
In English translation. Three plays representative of an important period in twentieth-century drama! A good part of modern drama owes its techniques and its intense awareness of social and psychological problems to the German playwright who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1912. Hauptmanns achievements had great influence on many outstanding writers, among them Eugene ONeill, who felt a special indebtedness to the European master. These three plays are superb examples of Hauptmanns wide range and offer students an opportunity to become acquainted with the work of a supremely accomplished writer. The Weavers, perhaps his most famous play, reveals the bitter lives of the wretched handweavers of the 1840s and their abortive rebellion. Hannele centers on an abused, motherless child, abandoned to a poorhouse, who creates her own fantasy world of dreams and legends. The Beaver Coat is a delightful satire about a washerwoman who quickly learns that she cannot advance very far through honest labor alone, and proceeds accordingly.
Foundations in the United States have long exerted considerable power over education and scholarly production. Although today’s titans of philanthropy proclaim more loudly their desire to transform schools and universities than did some of their predecessors, philanthropic programs designed to reshape educational institutions are at least a century old. In Foundations and American Political Science, Emily Hauptmann focuses on the postwar Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller programs that reshaped political science. She shows how significant changes in the methods and research interests of postwar political scientists began as responses to the priorities set by their philanthropic patrons. Informed by years of research in foundation and university archives, Foundations and American Political Science follows the course of several streams of private philanthropic money as they wended their way through public universities and political science departments in the postwar period. The programs launched by the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller philanthropies as well as their reception at the universities of California and Michigan steered political scientists towards particular problems and particular ways of studying them. The rise of statistical analyses of survey data, the decline of public administration, and persistent conflicts over the discipline’s purpose and the best methods for understanding politics, Hauptmann argues, all had their roots in the ways that postwar universities responded to foundations’ programs. Additionally, the new emphasis universities placed on sponsored research sparked sharp disputes among political scientists over what should count as legitimate knowledge about politics and what the ultimate purpose of the discipline should be.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.