Values,Acts, and Actors Distinguishing Generic and Discriminatory Intolerance

Where tolerance is defined as a person's willingness to put up with political expression that the person finds objectionable, we see three prerequisites for tolerance. The person must support the general right of political expression, the general right of people to engage in the particular acts under consideration, and finally the right of members of even objectionable groups to engage in those specific acts. Many past studies of tolerance proceed directly from the first of these prerequisites to the third, and, in doing so, fail to distinguish between general attitudes regarding particular acts of expression (i.e., does the survey respondent support the right of people in general to hold public rallies) and attitudes regarding particular groups engaged in those same acts (i.e., does the respondent support the right of Communists or militia groups to hold public rallies). The consequence is ambiguity in interpretation of the meaning and etiology of tolerance, and in cross-national comparison. We demonstrate our concerns using data from a split-ballot survey conducted in Romania. Results reveal that accurate interpretation of Romanians' tolerance of the right of ethnic Hungarians to engage in various acts of political expression requires attention to respondents' general attitudes regarding those same acts.     

Rereading the Public: Isolationism and Internationalism Revisited

This is the first installment in what we hope will be a recurring series of Forums in ISP. In each segment we intend to provide an outlet for peer-reviewed dialogue and debate on important topics in the field and to allow our readers to discuss material previously printed in the pages of ISP. Below are two comments on "Challenging U.S. Policymakers' Image of an Isolationist Public" by Steven Kull and Clay Ramsay published in ISP 1:1. Both comments raise a number of important issues pertaining to the relationship of public opinion and foreign policy, and also address more general questions of domestic impact on foreign policy outputs and several significant methodological questions about approaches to polling. The Forum begins first with comments by Richard Clark and Kenneth Dautrich, is followed by comments from Shoon Murray, and concludes with a response from Kull and Ramsay.     

Scales of Political Action in the Anthropocene: Gaia,Networks, and Cities as Frontiers of Doing Earthly Politics

The purpose of this article is to propose a new theorisation of “scale” in doing earthly politics (i.e. who is acting, who should be responsible for addressing planetary environmental degradation). I connect the politics of scale in global urban politics with the scale question in environmental politics. While the existing paradigm on “politics of scale” have made an excellent contribution on performative aspects of scale, they have failed to respond to the affirmative movements in which scholars and policy makers attempt to theorise scales as ranges in which political action can be mobilised. On the other hand, the new “down-to-earth” affirmative ecopolitics movement often fails to move beyond the romanticisation of the local, which is easily subject to criticisms, such as “local trap” where the small is not always intrinsically “good”. As an alternative, I theorise “scales of political action” that can be simultaneously both materially situated (local) and ubiquitous (global), mainly using Gaian ecology and complex theory. Finally, as a concrete example of “scales of political action”, I propose cities as frontiers of doing earthly politics, focusing on the characteristics of urban conditions that match our new theorisation of scale.     

Physiologic Responses to Racial Rejection Images Among Young Adults from African-American Backgrounds

Physiologic reactivity to racially rejecting images was assessed in 35 young adults (10 males, 25 female) from African-American backgrounds using the startle probe paradigm. In a laboratory setting, participants viewed 16 images depicting racial rejection, racial acceptance, nonracial negative, and nonracial positive themes. While viewing these images, startling bursts of noise were presented and the magnitude of the eyeblink responses were measured. Results supported an attentional mechanism which suggests that, while viewing both racially rejecting and nonracial positive images, individuals may be so absorbed in processing the images that they appear less distracted by the startling noise. However, these patterns were only found for participants low in racial regard. Young adults who felt positively about their racial background did not exhibit differential processing of startle stimuli as a function of slide themes. Race-rejection sensitivity did not moderate startle reactivity. Developmental implications, particularly in light of coping with racial discrimination, are discussed.

Innovation and Alliances

Explanations for national success in science and technology typically focus on domestic institutions and policies. However, that line of research has yet to identify any particular set of institutions or policies that explain variation in national innovation rates across cases or over time. This article offers new evidence that the problem with domestic institutions approaches stems from their failure to consider international security factors. Specifically, this article finds a positive effect for U.S. security alliances on innovation. This finding is robust across different specifications and periods of analysis. While countries that ally militarily with the United States are found to realize benefits in economy‐wide, indigenous innovation, such an effect is not observed in military technologies. This suggests that alliances may substitute for being on the frontier in military technologies. Therefore, this article contributes not just to debates over S&T competitiveness, but also to alliance formation.