“Meditation is Good for Nothing:” Leisure as a Democratic Practice

Does meditation bring political benefits in the sense of strengthening citizenship or democracy? Taking the Zen phrase “meditation doesn’t work—it’s good for nothing” as my point of departure, and reading Aristotle’s discussion of leisure in relation to citizenship, I argue that meditation can foster significant dimensions of democratic citizenship. This argument focuses particularly on the avowedly anti-instrumental aspect of mindfulness meditation. The connection between meditation and leisure demands a shift in our understanding of leisure, away from relaxation available to the privileged few and toward practices that are open-ended, non-instrumental, and, like democracy and citizenship, due to all. Finally, meditation offers an example of how to appropriate and inhabit excess in ways that support egalitarian citizenship. Meditation needs to be of “no benefit” in order to foster citizenship in these ways.     

The relationship between crime and private security at US shopping centers

This paper uses self-report data from the 1993 National Shopping Center Security Survey to examine the growing problem of crime at shopping centers located in the United States. Security managers from 369 shopping centers provided data on crime incidents, private security measures, and numerous shopping center demographic measures. Data are analyzed via LISREL using bivariate regression modeling. Results show that there is no direct relationship between the private security measures at the shopping center and the occurrence of property, violent, or public order crimes on the premises. Instead, private security presence is shaped by the size of the shopping center. Direct effects were also found between the incidence of crime on the premises and the size of the shopping center and the presence of various “problematic” persons (i.e., gangs and loitering groups of youth). Possible implications for shopping center security are considered.     

现代公共行政的伦理意蕴——基于“新公共服务”范式的分析

本文分析了新公共服务理论因其超越了传统公共行政的效率中心论和新公共管理的市场化和企业化模式等工具性价值的内在矛盾和缺陷,突显了民主、公民权和公共利益等目的性价值在现代公共行政的中心地位,由此使其在人性、公共道德责任、公共道德目的、公共道德准则、公共美德等方面发挥积极作用,产生重大影响,具有重要的伦理价值,为现代公共行政的合法性奠定新的公共道德基础。     

Integrating citizen deliberation into climate governance: Lessons on robust design from six climate assemblies

Recent years have seen a “wave” of national climate assemblies, which bring together randomly-selected citizens to deliberate and make recommendations on aspects of the climate crisis. Assessments of the legitimacy of these interventions and their capacity to improve climate governance have focused on their internal design characteristics, but the fundamental question of how they are integrated into complex constellations of political and policy institutions is underexplored. This article constructs a framework for understanding their integrative design characteristics, drawing on recent work on “robust governance.” The framework is used to explore the connection of six national-level climate assemblies with political institutions, public debate, and civil society. Our findings highlight significant variety in the integrative design of these climate assemblies. This variety challenges the view of assemblies as a standardized object with predictable effects on legitimacy and governance capacity, while also refining deliberative systems theory's highly abstracted conceptions of integration and impact.     

“Fair and Balanced?” Justice Issues on Political Talk Shows

Like their news program predecessors, many political talk shows focus a considerable amount of their coverage on justice issues. Although numerous past studies have examined justice issue presentation in news programs, infotainment, and crime drama, to date only one forthcoming study has examined crime and justice coverage on political talk shows. Political talk shows often present issues in a debate format, as well as emphasize the balanced nature of the content in advertising, with one program even using the slogan “fair and balanced.” Building upon the format of previous media studies, we analyzed a composite month of videotaped footage of three popular political talk shows appearing on cable networks: CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Mathews, and The O’Reilly Factor from the Fox News Channel. Using content analysis techniques, this study examines balance in the form and content of these programs in terms of presentation of justice issues, political party identification of hosts and guests and realistic presentations of race and gender in the context of crime and justice. Results indicate that these programs tend to adopt an advocacy tone rather than an objectivist one. Furthermore, we demonstrate that racial and gender portrayals of crime and justice on these shows are significantly distorted from reality, with a priority afforded to white female victims of violent crime and minority male offenders.