Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1ritical Review 18, Nos. 1-2 (2006). ISSN 0891-3811. www.criticalreview.comJeffrey Friedman, edcritrev@gmail.com, a senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences, Boston University, thanks Stephen Earl Bennett, Philip E. Converse, Samuel DeCanio, Shterna Friedman. Michael Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1Murakami, Samuel Popkin, Kristin Roebuck, and Ilya Somin for comments and criticisms. The usual disclaimer applies, with more than the usual force.httReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
ps://khothuvien.cori!2It is my pleasure to republish in this volume Philip E. Converse’s “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” along with re1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1 observations about the attention, and the neglect, that various aspects of Converse's paper have received. This is not an opportunity I would normally have, since I am not a survey researcher or a political psychologist, and it is primarily among them that Converse's work has made a tremendous diff Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1erence. 1 am a political theorist who stumbled onto “The Nature of Belief Systems” in a statistics-for-philosophers course in political-science graduaReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
te school. Among political theorists, democratic ideals are pretty much taken for granted, but I am convinced that Converse’s work, and that of the ma1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1ut democratic practice.The issues that have been explored by public-opinion and political-psychology research since Converse’s paper appeared are presented by our contributors so as to be accessible to nonspecialists. Thus, rather than attempting more than occasional commentary on their self-explana Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1tory papers, my task is, as I see it, to induce scholars in the other subfields of political science and in related disciplines, as well as educated lReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
aymen, to read them by explicating “The Nature of Belief Systems” itself. Readers seeking an historical overview of the issues at stake should turn to1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1r. James Fishkin, Doris Graber, Russell Hardin, Donald Luskin, Arthur Lupia, and Samuel Popkin argue out some of the normative and3theoretical implications that have been derived from Converse. And Scott Althaus, Samuel DcCanio, Ilya Somin. and Gregory Wawro focus, albeit not exclusively, on how “Co Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1nversean” ideas can be further applied in political research.My own approach will be textual and speculative. 1 will attempt a close enough reading ofReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
"The Nature ol Belief Systems” that one who is unfamiliar with this doc ument might come to see its great interest. But my aim will not be to determi1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1mportant ramifications of Converse’s paper, which have gone undernoticed-perhaps even by him-and 1 will try to state them as provocatively as I can.The other essays span a wide and fascinating gamut of opinion that befits the large questions at stake. Having now placed them in the reader’s hands, my Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1 hope is to encourage the reader to carry forward the debate.1. IMPLICATIONS OF “HIE NATURE OF BELIEF SYSTEMS” FOR NORMATIVE THEORYWeber ([1904] 1949)Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
famously taught that, if it is not to nun into the production of knowledge for its own sake, empirical scholarship is properly guided by the scholars1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1the scholarly literature to which it has led arc exercises in the pointless production of knowledge. 1 here arc countless discussions in this literature about how discouraged we should be by the4research that Converse pioneered, and the discouragement in question regards nothing less than the possib Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1ility and the legitimacy of democratic rule. If the picture painted in “The Nature of Belief Systems” is accurate, there may be no hope that popular gReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
overnment can exist; or that, to the extent that it does, it can produce desirable results.Converse used interview data generated by the University of1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1] 1949) and Joseph A. Schumpeter (1950): that the public is abysmally ignorant of almost everything connected to politics. This conclusion was already apparent in the portrait of The American \bter (1960) that Converse and his Michigan colleagues Angus Campbell, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stoke Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1s had drawn on the basis of SRC data. As Christopher Achen (1975,1218) conceded in the introduction to his critique of Converse:The sophisticated elecReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
torates postulated by some of the more enthusiastic democratic theorists do not exist, even in the best educated modern societies.The public opinion s1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1predominant impression these studies yield is that the average citizen has little understanding of political matters. Voters are said to be little influenced by “ideology," to cast their votes with far more regard to their party identification than to the issues5in ã campaign, and often to be ignora Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1nt of even the names of the candidates for Congress in their district. Needless to say, the impact of these conclusions on democratic theory is enormoReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
usly destructive.Subsequent research, inspired by the work of the Michigan school, has amply borne out its "bleak” findings. Whether the question is w1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1m, most people have no idea how to answer accurately (e.g.. Page and Shapiro 1992, 10-11; Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996; Hochschild 2001, 320; Bishop 2005). Indeed, the last four decades of public-opinion literature might as well be called the “public-ignorance literature.”Most of this scholarship e Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1stablishes that the public lacks the most elementary political information. It is paradoxical, then, that nothing more dramatically brought public ignReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
orance home to public-opinion scholars than Converse’s 1964 paper, which focused on the public’s ignorance of relatively esoteric knowledge: knowledge1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1act that “at the height of the Berlin crisis, 63 percent of the American public did not know that the city was encircled by hostile troops,” and that “70 percent is a good estimate of the proportion of the public that does not know which party controls Congress.” Instead of exploring ignorance of su Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1ch basic information, Converse investigated the public’s ignorance of the liberal or conservative worldviews that surely undergirded the political perReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
ceptions of (most of) his readers, whose knowledge of politics was far more sophisticated than that of the average6voter. Political observers of the s1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1onverse showed that such analysis is wildly unrealistic: far from grasping what is at stake in the debates among liberals and conservatives going on at any given time, most members of the public do not even know what liberalism and conservatism mean.Having been confronted with page after page of pai Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1nstaking statistical analysis to that effect, no reader of “The Nature of Belief Systems” can come away unimpressed by the public’s ignorance of ideolReport of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1
ogy. On the basis of what, then, does the public make its political decisions? Converse (11964) 2006, 38, 16) found that most people vote on the basis1JeffreyFriedmanPUBLIC COMPETENCE IN NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICALTHEORY: NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS OF “THE NATURE OFBELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS”ABSTRACT:Cr Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1g., a prosperous economy); or by means of blind partisan loyalty, unenlightened by knowledge of one's own party's policy positions or of their overarching rationale. Report of the Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings-1Gọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook