جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « کثرت گرایی » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

The economics of crime is one of the interdisciplinary topics that entered economics after the 1970s with the efforts of Gray-Becker, and this science is trying to analyze the economic aspects of crime. The occurrence of crime as an undesirable social phenomenon has several economic and social causes, and due to the importance of the issue of crime, in different countries, in recent years, extensive studies have been conducted to identify and explain the causes of its occurrence. Identifying and explaining the causes of crime makes we reach the goal of prevention; because the costs of crime, especially the costs of punishment, including imprisonment, impose a heavy burden on the executive body. By identifying and preventing these factors, these costs can be reduced and spent on other priorities. In this article, the dimensions of the economy of crime in the analysis of the pluralism of punishment and its individualization have been investigated with a descriptive and analytical method.

To challenge the promises in the discourses, a critical group called postmodernism is mentioned. With an epistemological approach, this practice distanced itself from modernity and presented a new worldview for mankind. Therefore, dealing with this school is not because of the introduction of a new plan, but against any centralism, value hierarchy and dualistic logic of identity. This article seeks to review the theory of postmodernism, especially from the point of view of socialists, and evaluate its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and the most important criticisms made on it through the review and review of studies. The method of conducting this research is descriptive-analytical, and the method of collecting information is in the form of a library, with special emphasis on books and first-hand written sources, articles published in reputable publications, and new researches. The results of this research show that the socialists are against some issues such as; Prioritizing society's issues, atomizing people, opposing relativism, and being subjective have fundamental disagreements with postmodernist ideas

The main purpose of this article is to explain the place of freedom in the political philosophy of Isaiah Berlin. The main question of the article is what is the place of freedom in the political philosophy of Isaiah Berlin? In response to this hypothesis, it has been suggested that in Isaiah Berlin's political philosophy, freedom is the most important component in countering tyranny. The results of the present article show that due to the existence of tyranny in different societies, especially in the third world, different masses must use different tools to achieve freedom in order to eliminate tyranny. In fact, from Berlin's point of view, freedom is the main obstacle to tyranny. The type of research method in this article is fundamental in terms of purpose and analytical in nature and based on library studies.

The history of International Relations (IR) as a discipline has been characterized by periods of more or less —but never absolute—theoretical agreement or rather “theoretical tranquility” and the periods characterized by theoretical debates representing deep gaps within the discipline. Yet what we can see in all these periods is the continuation of the plurality of theories. Even when there was no debate, consensus was not attained nor could significant theories of the time be ignored. At present, the discipline is still theoretically plural and the theories differ in meta-theoretical terms leading to various explanations and conceptualizations of the international. There are now at least eight or nine major theoretical approaches including realism, liberalism, the English school, Marxism, critical theory, feminism, postmodernism, constructivism, and sometimes, green theory within the discipline. All of these have internal divisions; hence even categorizing them in one single approach may become problematic. The question here is how this theoretical plurality can become a strong point for the discipline. According to Ree (2014), there have been five strategies in dealing with plurality in the discipline: zero-sum approach with an emphasis on the correctness of one’s approach and absolute denial of others —practically not fully followed by IR scholars, inviting all to compromise while insisting on the correctness of one’s approach, representing one’s approach as a middle-ground and, hence, more correct, “regrounding” the discipline through developing a framework for maintaining plurality, and finally celebrating plurality.
Here on the basis of the fourth, and specifically the fifth strategy, I show how plurality is inevitable and it can even be considered to be an important value. First of all, none of the existing IR theories can fully respond to —even fundamental—questions in the discipline as even their most insistent proponents admit that their theories are not flawless or complete. Thus, no single approach can be seen as privileged. Secondly, none of the theoretical approaches is dominant in the field. Many studies in recent decades have demonstrated this. My main argument here is that the plurality of theories is a fact, and that from various points of view it can be seen as favorable —or at least harmless— as far as individual scholars’ concerns, accumulation of knowledge, and policy/objective needs are concerned. Individual scholars normally see their own theoretical stance persuasive. They may have a major claim about the explanation of an important dimension of international life or see their work as complementary to the existing literature but rarely anyone claims that his/her theoretical stance explains everything in international relations. Scientific modesty is an agreed upon value in IR.
Positivists see the value of plurality within the limits of “scientific standards” that should be applicable to all. Yet, as scientific/naturalist approach is not recognized as the only or even the privileged one, it may easily lead to unjustified de-legitimization and marginalization of certain theoretical endeavors. Furthermore, as far as substantive aspects of theorization are concerned, considering complexity of international life and the fact that causal relations are not necessarily uni-directional, under-determination and over-determination are pervasive. Even positivists do not deny that reaching a single paradigm is impossible. At the same time, the way out of this dilemma is certainly not a model in which all identifiable variables are included, as such a schema cannot go beyond an analytical model which is neither parsimonious nor falsifiable and may lack consistency. As far as post-positivists and interpretivists are concerned, plurality is itself a justified value. 
One of the reasons of skepticism about theoretical plurality is practical and policy concerns. If knowledge is to be a useful instrument and be applicable in decision making, it should be “problem solving”. Yet it is most often theoretically inspired research that can be helpful in practice or policy, and one may easily show that studies based on specific theories including explanatory and constitutive one —and even most radical approaches such as post-structuralism— can shed some light on certain aspects of international life, and thus help decision-makers understand it better. Of course, as far as critical approaches are concerned, their applicability is not necessarily for states —especially great and dominant powers— but the forces that seek radical changes. Thus, dependent upon type of theory and the questions asked, theories and theory-based studies can serve various international actors in practice.
This article sees theoretical plurality as plurality of lenses or spotlights that concentrate on specific dimensions of international life and argues for a dialogical approach in which this plurality is recognized at both theoretical and meta-theoretical levels, it is valued as an expression of various experiences of the world and the knowledge produced on the basis of that reflects those experiences, and “truth” —even if partial— is seen as being attainable through dialogue. Such an approach to plurality can, on the one hand, justify plurality without relativism or exclusion of any particular theory and, on the other hand, can pave the way for the inclusion of non-Western theories in the discipline.

Throughout history, human beings have been confronted with various divine and non-divine religions, and today, due to the wide range of connections, this diversity of religions has received more attention. There are different approaches to the plurality of religions, one of which is pluralism. The present study examines and critiques religious pluralism from the perspective of Mohammad Shahrour; Religious pluralism means that the great religions of the world constitute changing perceptions and reactions of the divine truth. By referring to Shahrour's writings, his views and arguments in the discussion of religious pluralism are explained and evaluated on the basis of Islamic doctrinal principles. Their sentence is quoting verses from the Quran. Shahrour considers Islam as an innate religion and considers all human beings (including the followers of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and others) as Muslims. He introduces the pillars for Islam, adherence to which leads to entering the circle of Islam and enjoying Islamic rights; however, by contemplating the verses of the Qur'an and referring to their interpretation, his misunderstanding of the verses is clarified and the invalidity of his view is proved.

One of the most influential indicators in policy making in the northwestern region is to estimate the status of the interaction of sovereignty with the ethnic groups in the region. This interaction crystallizes in the form of ethnic politics. Ethnic policies can affect the various dimensions of security-especially its social dimension-dealing with identity issues. Therefore, the researchers' concern was placed on a scholarly study of the ethnic of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the northwestern region. In this research, the researchers are seeking to answer the question of what has been the ethnic policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the North West region during the last decade? The research hypothesis is also stated that: "Ethnic policies adopted in the northwest region of unity have been multiplied. To answer the research question and its hypotheses, a questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was provided by experts using library resources and case-based methodology. The statistical population of this study was 200 of the officials and experts of security and politics based in the northwest region. Using Cochran formula, 131 of them were selected as the sample size. Finally, after collecting and analyzing information, it became clear that the policy adopted in the northwest region of the of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the people of Kurdish politics was unity in plurality with a tendency towards pluralism

Strategy and structure-solving discourse in the realm of modern Islamic discourse is an alternative for revolutionary and conservative consolidation. It is an approach that removes the monopoly of the Islamic hidden capacities by moving towards pragmatic strategies and defines the religious epistemology and ontology by the conceptual interaction with external developments. Production of concepts and meaning system in modern Islamic discourse is influenced by the requirements and the situations of time and place. So, explanation of the idea of convergence in modern discourse is based on reason and it is considered historical. The idea of convergence by reducing militancy and embrace pluralism in modern Islamic discourse in discussion with pod discourse internal and external Meta-discourse are emphasized. Convergence as a modern Islamic discourse inter textual discussion with other discourses in common human geography Biological Muslim community with sustainable security and transcendental reflection with instability mentality leads to a result- oriented model and is constitutive of the religious life style.

Unity and plurality have always been rendered as important issues in the history of political ideology, tendency to either one can affect all political fields. In the course of history, various viewpoints have been presented on confrontation between the two key issues. The status of Islamic politics in post-Revolution Iran and its impact on intellectual and political developments in the contemporary world, motivated the author of these lines to study this issue and its consequences in the hope of creating an appropriate theoretical guideline for the progress of the political act. To realize this goal, there should be first found appropriate answers to the quality of relations between monism and pluralism. Islamic politics has placed emphasis on dual necessity of unity and plurality in political life based on certain fundamentals. On this basis, considering unity as a quiddity and plurality as a natural phenomenon, we must present strategies for realization of unity and plurality in the political community. Applying this strategy will pave the way for preparation of required conditions for realization of moderate monism and pluralism, i.e. unity in plurality. Belief in monotheism, belief in the Guardianship of the Islamic jurist, and rights-centrism are among the approaches that can ultimately realize the expected unity in political society. The methodology in this paper is based on an analytical-descriptive and analytical-interpretive method.

The main aim of this article is to investigate about the Iranian liberal political current of the Islamic Republic era. Thus the main question raised here is whether the interpretation of democracy by this current can be presented as a schematic pattern or not. By applying the theoretical-methodological pattern of current-discourse, the pluralist democracy pattern was theorized from the action and theory of the current; a pattern that has been also the main notion of democracy among liberals in the era. Pluralist democracy is a kind of democracy that its pluralism has theorized transition from ideological dogmatism, from monologue speech, from obliged human era, from grand narratives and ontology, towards free experience of issues such as belief and the changing character of contemporary society. In this pattern, religion enjoying all its plurality juxtaposes other epistemic sources and loses its reference authority because it is exposed to different readings. Democracy is regarded as a meta-religious issue because it is the most humane and human right-oriented form of government, thus it is considered as equivalent to religion or even preferred to religious arguments. The study of action and theory of this political current indicated that among liberal forces of the Islamic Republic era, democracy has a prominent position, it has been theorized, and it is articulated in contrast with the new political order due to its secular ramifications.

A number of Western theorists in the field of social sciences frequently asked from other scholars to open their eyes to this fact that the withdrawal of religion from the public sphere is not possible. On the contrary religious groups and their issues are playing an important role in the public sphere. Post-secularism refers to the fact that what has been considered the marginalization and the overthrow of religion from the public sphere has changed dramatically. Post-secular accounts try to minimize the assumption of a normative priority of the secular over the religious, and advocate a process of mutual understanding, with a reciprocally acknowledged epistemic parity as the possible outcome of the process. This paper attempts to investigate the relationship between religion and politics in the post-secular society. It indicates that as the post-secular era is the product of post-modernism, modern or pre-modern theory cannot analyze the relationship between religion and politics and we need a new theory.

Power, its distribution, and the quality of government relation with citizens and groups and the amount of their influence on the political decision-making processes are of the most fundamental questions encountering politics researchers. The aim of pluralism in status of a theoretical approach toward politics is specification and measurement of these issues; therefore, it defines politics as the arena of competition for different groups who have access to different sources; as a result, no single group can dominate others completely, and political decisions were seen as the outcomes of balance among forces and an open process. After specifying this approach in association with the democratic thought and the comparison of previous and recent conclusions of it, this article reviews its concrete implications in political order so as to assess the accuracy of its analyses in practice; therefore, in answering to this question that do the available political reality assert the theoretical hypotheses of the pluralist approach, it takes an intermediate status (depending on the kind of conclusion from pluralism).

After the collapse of the left extreme ideological camp (communism) in leadership with soviet union in 90’s; That must be consider along the collapse of the right extreme ideological camp (fascism) in the mid of twentieth century; the middle right ideological camp (liberalism) in leadership of industrial world countries, to celebrate this victory along with globalization age. In the meantime, political – Economic theories of this camp with individualism theory wanted to gather other moderate ideologies around centers of global free market, minimal state, fundamental freedoms and human rights. This article with emphasizing on individualism, want to create an neutral image from this theory in three dimensions of materialistic, psychological and social basis of individualism. Then wanted to have a critical rethinking to all individualistic views such as individual benefits and welfare state together with all it’s taking sides related to freedom, democracy, pluralism, nationalism, feminism and ideology.