Public political thought: bridging the sociological–philosophical divide in the study of legitimacy

Abulof, Uriel

doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12192

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…International Relations (IR) scholars have shown how norms, often understood as “standards of behavior,” shape politics while being shaped by identities, cultures, habits, emotions, and “norm entrepreneurs” (Barkin and Cronin, 1994), ascribing a lesser role to moral reasoning and public justification (cf. Abulof, 2016b; Ben-Josef Hirsch, 2014). This is my focus: analyzing discourse to trace and explicate the evolving values that inform political behavior.…”

Section: The Puzzlementioning

confidence: 99%

We the peoples? The strange demise of self-determination

Abulof

2016

European Journal of International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The self-determination of peoples is a fundamental legitimating principle of the international system; it justifies the system’s very existence. Through a vast diachronic corpus and pertinent data sets, this article nevertheless reveals a puzzling decline in the public discourse on, and practice of, self-determination over the last 50 years. I identify and assess four structural explanations for this decline: “lexical change” (replacing self-determination with alternative terms); “silent hegemony” (taking the norm for granted); “reactive rhetoric” (echoing conflicts and new state formation post hoc); and “mission accomplished” (rectifying the incongruence between national boundaries and state borders). Complementing these structural causes with agential reasons, I further suggest that powerful state actors and persuasive academics have sought to “tame” self-determination as both principle and practice, retaining the term but altering its meaning from a source of threat into a resource for containing it. Self-determination, however, has not been eliminated, and taming it may yet prove a pyrrhic victory.

show abstract

Section: The Puzzlementioning

confidence: 99%

We the peoples? The strange demise of self-determination

Abulof

2016

European Journal of International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A political legitimation, then, is an actor's rationalization (or justification or validation or consecration or defense) 2 of a political system in terms of norms, widely held beliefs, and/or values (for summaries see Beetham, 1991; Johnson et al, 2006; Lipset, 1959, pp. 86–7; Weber, 1978, [1924], p. 954; Van Ingelgom, 2014; Walker, 2014; Zelditch, 2001, 2006; Zelditch & Walker, 2003; for morally‐specific legitimation see Abulof, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A theory of “popular political legitimation”: A dual‐process model approach to legitimation and political socialization

Vila‐Henninger

2020

J Theory Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do everyday people-or actors who do not occupy positions of political authority-legitimate political systems? Responding to this question, I use work from sociology, political science, and cognitive science to build a theory of "Popular Political Legitimation" (PPL)-defined as everyday people's legitimation of a political system. To answer how PPL happens, we must To answer how PPL happens, we must answer two sub-questions: 1) What are the processes of socialization through which individuals learn the norms, widely held beliefs, and values that create the perception of consensus about compliance with political power? 2) How do individuals subsequently use these norms, widely held beliefs, and/or values to help reproduce the perception of a consensus about the compliance with said power through legitimation? In this light, then, we see that a model of socialization is central to understanding how PPL happens. Thus, to understand legitimation we must understand how individuals are socialized into norms, widely held beliefs, and values (sub-question 1) and then how said norms, beliefs, and values are used for PPL (sub-question 2). The goal of article is thus to develop a model of PPL that incorporates a model of socialization. This article will formulate a theory for answering the how question of PPL by addressing sub-questions 1 and 2. I develop this model in four steps. First, I review eight literatures from sociology, political science, and political psychology that address political legitimation, justification, and rationalization. The core gap in these overlapping literatures is that they lack a model of socialization that explains legitimation-although many of these literatures include socialization as a motive or factor for legitimation. Next, I review the literature on political socialization from sociology and political science and find that it also does not explain how socialization generates legitimation. Third, I turn to neuroscience and psychology (for reviews see Greene, 2017; Cushman, 2020) to review models of socialization and rationalization. Here, I pay special attention to "dual-process models." Finally, I synthesize these literature reviews to develop a dual-process model that explains the link between political socialization and PPL. In my review, I outline different literatures in order to showcase their nuances. Each literature makes important contributions that distinguish it from other literatures. The review section then celebrates these nuances and particularities as they relate to the concepts of PPL and socialization. The theory building section, then, synthesizes these accounts-thus building theory by highlighting the commonalities of these different literatures in order to create a single narrative about political socialization and PPL. Ultimately, I build a dual-process model that theorizes political socialization and incorporates an account of how Type II processes are used for PPL. It is important to note that dual-process models each have a specific application and thus scope c...

show abstract

“…"The grounds of political legitimacy", Journal of the American Philosophical Association 6 (3), 372-390. 9 U Abulof (2016),. "Public political thought: Bridging the sociological-philosophical divide in the study of legitimacy", The British Journal of Sociology, 67(2), 371-391.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cinematic Self-Criticism as a Method of Justification of Contemporary Politics: The Case of Barbie and Oppenheimer

Vučković

2024

Film and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of mass media in the dissemination of political propaganda has been widely explored; however, this research focuses on more sublime political messages that are conveyed through films, particularly blockbusters that target relatively broad audiences. Since the beginning, Hollywood movies have served as a reflection of viewpoints that have been socially acceptable at a given moment. Nowadays, filmmakers and movie studios often use the method of mild self-deprecation as a way of legitimizing broader political messages. In other words, they criticize themselves to avoid much harsher criticism from the audience. We use the recent examples of Barbie and Oppenheimer to explore the current trend in strategies -such as limited self-awareness and pseudo-self-criticism -that are used to justify far more glaring issues with capitalism and (American) imperialism.

show abstract

Public political thought: bridging the sociological–philosophical divide in the study of legitimacy

Cited by 13 publications

References 96 publications

We the peoples? The strange demise of self-determination

We the peoples? The strange demise of self-determination

A theory of “popular political legitimation”: A dual‐process model approach to legitimation and political socialization

Cinematic Self-Criticism as a Method of Justification of Contemporary Politics: The Case of Barbie and Oppenheimer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About