Recreating Cities as Bodies of Power,Knowledge and Space

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique -     

E-victimization and e-predation theory as the dominant aggressive communication: the case of cyber bullying

ABSTRACT

The paper will focus on the identification of several key criteria in e-discourses via the constitution of e-images of the Anonymous arising from e-medias (Facebook, twitter, Snapchat, WeChat, etc.) with a specific focus on youngsters and their (ab)uses of these communication channels to facilitate digital predation, and so to lead to e-victimization. I will explain the specifics of e-victimization discourse taking into consideration its triadic dimension. I will then be able to conceptualize a dominant e-communication and the e-victimization theory around central ideas of dynamics of violence, gender discrimination and power abuse leading to a semio-sphere with a deep focus on anonymity, exposure, frequency, and insecurity as indicators of collective e-delinquency and proneness to e-victimization.     

The Calculus of Consent: a compass for my professional journey

This paper investigates empirically the influence of government ideology on social policy using German data. Examining the funding and the benefits of social security and public healthcare policy, my results suggest that policies implemented by governments dominated by left- and rightwing parties were similar over the 1951?C2007 period. Leftwing governments, however, spent more in the 1970s and rightwing governments did so after German Reunification in 1990. Since policy convergence encourages new parties to enter the political arena, and party platforms on social policy matters are likely to undergo further changes in light of demographic change, the observed pattern may thus be a transitory phenomenon.     

The Limits of Theoretical Integration

The integration of theoretical knowledge is often seen as the ultimate goal of research activity in the social sciences. In this article I explore limits in the form and degree to which our knowledge can be integrated, as well as limits in the worth and desirability of some kinds of integration. Most of the analysis depends on drawing two kinds of distinctions in theoretical activity—between theoretical and metatheoretical work and among different types of integration in each kind of work. Using primarily examples from theory and research on justice issues, I articulate three different ways in which work at the theoretical level can be integrated. Each type represents a distinct kind of knowledge development, requires different criteria of evaluation, and involves a varying degree of difficulty to achieve. Nevertheless, each of these types of integration is well worth pursuing. Justice research shows evidence of work involving all three types. Using a somewhat broader range of examples, I also distinguish three different ways in which metatheoretical work might be integrated. Again, each type is quite distinct and should be evaluated in different ways. However, each of these types is significantly more difficult to achieve than any of the types of theoretical integration. Moreover, I suggest that the last metatheoretical type—involving the integration of entire strategies, perspectives or schools of thought—is probably not even a desirable goal. As a consequence of these analyses, I recommend (1) that social scientists in general (and justice researchers in particular) focus most of our attention on one or another of the types of theoretical integration, and (2) that we articulate clearly which type of integration we are pursuing and evaluate our success at the effort using only the appropriate criteria. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Social Justice Conference in Bremen, Germany, 10–12 March 2005.

---

Remembering Bill Niskanen: pursuing economics as a public science in the service of liberty

This short essay is a memorial piece about William A. Niskanen (13 March 1933–26 October 2011). The essay starts with his time at the University of Chicago in the mid-1950s, and gives most attention to his contributions to public choice. Especial attention is paid to his Bureaucracy and Representative Government, which opened vast territory for subsequent analytical exploration. A good deal of attention is also paid to his Autocratic, Democratic, and Optimal Government because this work both conveys his interest in comparative constitutional analysis and is useful for illustrating the strengths and weaknesses of his approach to this material.