Marketplace Of Ideas Research Articles

A Reference Work on the Science and Art of Writing a Scientific Paper

A REFERENCE WORK ON THE SCIENCE AND ART OF WRITING A SCIENTIFIC PAPER 1IntroductionMotto:Some think but do not write, write without thinking; many think after they write, few write after they think Theofil SimenschyIn the modern world, marked by hyper-competition, globalization and a great explosion of the means of information and communication among people, dissemination of scientific research findings takes on a particular significance. It is closely connected with the access to information and its speed of propagation, making the current transmission system look strikingly different from the one of the previous century.According to Stiglitz, the marketplace of ideas with all its imperfections does not guarantee, at least in the short term, that the best ideas will prevail (Stiglitz, 2010, p. 426). Identification of the most effective ways and means of making the most of the scientific research results depends not only on the mechanisms for conveying information but also on securing the paternity of problem-solving solutions. Equally important is the way in which the process of communicating the research results is conducted. The holistic approach to communication (Kotler and Keller, 2012, p. 58) interprets this process as the integration of all means and tools whereby the product - in this case, research findings - is brought to the attention of all its potential beneficiaries. In order for the user to get the most of scientific research, its concept, writing and dissemination must be entirely accomplished in a systemic manner. This calls for an interdisciplinary approach in which natural, technical and social sciences work together (Homburg and Krohmer, 2009, p. 195). As the abovementioned process is cybernetically-oriented, the reverse connection between beneficiaries and authors of research is ensured. One more thing needs to be added, namely, the success of communicating the research results also depends on the way in which this communication is accomplished. Socrates said that .those who know what any given thing is can also expound it to others, while those who do not know are misled themselves and mislead others (quoted by Simenschy, 2008, p. 761).Economics - as a subfield of social knowledge - ensures the connection between the nature (the main provider of resources) and satisfaction of human needs, using market as the main agent. Economics stands apart from natural sciences by the multitude of random and undetermined universes (Florescu, 1987, p. 105) in which decisions are taken, making ample room for uncertainty. This, however, should not negatively affect its place in the competition for more scientific knowledge.A certain gap between emerging and developed economies is significantly felt with regard to visibility and dissemination of economic research results. One of the underlying causes of this situation is the modest level of habilitation among those who conduct research on conceiving, writing and publishing scientific papers. The book published by professors Dinu, Savoiu and Dabija comes out to narrow this gap. The synthetic approach to the subject, from the beginning to the end of the process of conceiving, writing and publishing a scientific paper, aims to familiarize the many categories of readers with everything one needs to undertake in order to get the greatest benefit from such a work.The book is intended for a large but well-structured audience made up of undergraduate, master's and PhD students as well as researchers and academics in the field of economics and business administration, in a word, for the entire higher education staff interested in effective dissemination of their research fruitage. Whereas the book is addressed to clearly outlined categories of target audience at the national level, its table of contents and abstract in English, French and German may stir up the interest of scholars and researchers in the field of economics from other Central and Eastern European countries. …

Buying Time: Protecting Free Speech and Functional Democracy by Distinguishing Between Expenditures

Many in campaign finance community suggest there is no room for further debate over constitutionality of statutory limits upon independent and contributions. Pro-reform groups perceive democracy as vulnerable to systemic from plutocratic influences and thus endorse regulatory oversight of campaign spending. Pro-speech groups assert pillar of democracy is participation in of information, and subsequently reject restriction of campaign financing even when advanced in name of anti-corruption. Since Citizens United, latter view has largely carried day in court.But what if pro-reform and pro-speech views are not at odds after all? Since Buckley v. Valeo, reformers have sought to limit contributions or expenditures in name of preventing corruption or political equality. These blunt paradigms have failed. But there is another way forward. For forty years, Congress and Court have unnecessarily examined all of money as an undifferentiated class subject to same restrictions. It is time to abandon this framework and pursue a new approach tailored to a new interest.The Court has long viewed First Amendment as protecting a for clash of different views and conflicting This of (or, marketplace) rests upon two principles: and free trade. The principle recognizes speech, not less, is governing rule of First Amendment. This protects entry into market and ensures a diversity and multiplicity of ideas. The free principle recognizes the ultimate good desired is better reached by trade in ideas and that best test of truth is power of thought to get itself accepted in competition of market. This protects competition within market and ensures best win through competition on merits. But if marketplace of ideas is more than just a catchy slogan, then what does winning provide? What limited resource does market allocate based on this free trade in ideas? The answer is time. a fleeting existence we have but little time to find truth through discourse. When content freely competes in of and wins on its merits, best rise to top, gain greater acceptance, and earn a larger market share of audience time and attention. And just as some contracts in economic enhance competition while others restrain competition, so too do some in ideational enhance competition while others do not. By distinguishing between these expenditures, we can raise unexplored questions and craft a campaign finance system aligns with First Amendment.Part I briefly surveys history of campaign finance debate. After examining problems posed by existing approaches and weaknesses of anticorruption and political equality interests, theory abandons faulty premises underlying those paradigms. Rather than assuming government's interest must cut against speech, theory proposes aligning government's interest with speech. And, rather than assuming all serve First Amendment purposes and asking how much protection should be afforded to these expenditures, theory asks which advance purposes of First Amendment and which undermine purposes of First Amendment.Part II proposes a new approach to reform based on differences between competitive and anticompetitive in ideational marketplace. By revealing Buckley and its progeny to be an inevitable judicial response to a clumsy legislative framework, theory makes room for a more tailored statute rooted in constitutional principles. Here, theory distinguishes between for creation of content (all of which help content enter market and are protected by principle) and for dissemination of content (some of which allow content to compete for market share on merits — and thus are protected by free principle — and some of which bypass competitive process for earning market share — and thus violate free principle).Part III proposes a new government interest: preserving competition in of ideas. By passing legislation curbs anticompetitive restraints upon trade, Congress could protect ideational market's natural role in safeguarding speech and self-rule. And, just as our antitrust laws curb restraints to protect economic competition (without regard to particular or products), so too would a antitrust law curb restraints to protect ideational competition (without regard to particular or ideas). Such a law would not favor particular speakers or equalize any more than antitrust laws favor particular businesses or equalize market share.Part IV discusses elements and application of a legislative proposal, forecasts standard of review to be applied, addresses likely objections to such a scheme, and evaluates various advantages of employing such an approach. In short, this Article sets out a constitutional theory and legal framework for understanding what so many Americans already know: they are not heard in halls of Congress, process has shut them out, and their compelling concerns cannot compete in a system where money matters more than merits.

The academically destructive nature of trigger warnings

Trigger warnings are the latest concession to the notion espoused by some students and progressive professors that learning, particularly in higher education, should be pain-free psychologically. Such a premise is antithetical to the values of academic freedom and the marketplace of ideas and is inconsistent with students’ learning and confronting ideas with which they are unfamiliar and which are outside of their comfort zone. Yielding to demands for trigger warnings when exposing students to ideas, topics and exchanges that may become uncomfortable negates growth for students. In short, acquiescing to the self-serving demands for trigger warnings makes education nothing but the reaffirming of ideas and positions with which students enter the academy. This article may upset undergraduates and progressive faculty and administrators…deal with it.

Right Next Door: Québec and the 2014 Electoral Marketplaces of Ideas in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine

Right Next Door: Québec and the 2014 Electoral Marketplaces of Ideas in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine

Intellectual Freedom and Freedom of Speech: Three Theoretical Perspectives

AbstractFreedom of speech encompasses not only a right to express oneself but also a right to access information. This right is particularly pertinent to libraries, whose mission is often focused on enabling and expanding access to information. Libraries can support this activity with a theoretical background that draws upon the three predominant jurisprudential theories of freedom of speech: the marketplace of ideas, democratic ideals, and individual autonomy. In this article, each of these theories is explained and then applied to the library context, creating a starting place for further investigation and application of these judicial theories to information access.

Propaganda 1776: Secrets, Leaks, and Revolutionary Communications in Early America by Russ Castronovo (review)

Reviewed by: Propaganda 1776: Secrets, Leaks, and Revolutionary Communications in Early America by Russ Castronovo William B. Warner (bio) Keywords Propaganda, Political communication, Discourse, Falsehood Propaganda 1776: Secrets, Leaks, and Revolutionary Communications in Early America. By Russ Castronovo. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pp. 235. Cloth, $25.00.) What would change if we viewed all political communication as propaganda? Would it release us from a normative liberal ideology, which assumes that political discourse should resemble a high-minded debating society, privilege rationality over affect, and trust that truth will prevail in [End Page 175] the marketplace of ideas? Could recognizing the ubiquity of propaganda overcome the commonplace that while our own fighting faiths appear to be grounded in political ideas, those of opponents appear part of a propagandistic effort to deceive, manipulate, and control? Could such a revaluation of propaganda allow new attention to the mechanics of how ideas are actually propagated and spread? This is the wager made by Russ Castronovo in his new book, Propaganda 1776. In this ambitious and lively book, Castronovo revisits episodes in the American Revolution and developments in recent media history (like Wikileaks and the ‘‘meme’’) and propaganda theory (from Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann to Noam Chomsky) so as to develop a more inclusive conception of propaganda. Rather than use propaganda as an epithet to puncture the disinterested aura often attributed to the founders of the republic, as had Charles Beard, Arthur Schlesinger Sr., and other Progressive Era historians, Castronovo defines the reach of propaganda more broadly. While it is still essentially instrumental means of inducing a particular response, propaganda is not by this account under the exclusive control of a few at the top (from the Catholic church of Gregor XV to Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels). Instead propaganda can spread its messages through wider, popular, distributed means consistent with democracy, like the town meetings of Massachusetts (18-20). Propaganda is still anti-rhetorical for the way it influences rather than persuades, favors emotion over intellection, and often features ‘‘the vilification of opponents’’ (22). But Castronovo’s study emphasizes that propaganda is a process of ‘‘propagation’’ that exceeds the content of a message with its ways and means: It is kinetic, mobile, and often quite chaotic. Its effects overwhelm intention. To make his case for this expanded concept of propaganda, and to contest the idealistic pull of the ‘‘nationalist narrative’’ of the Revolution, Castronovo offers a fresh perspective on more or less familiar episodes in revolutionary communication. What comes into view is a not-so-pleasant underbelly of these communications. In 1773, Benjamin Franklin’s leaking of old letters of Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson helped to bring down the Hutchinson administration. (Castronovo compares this episode to the Wikileaks of Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.) Mercy Otis Warren’s scurrilous attack upon Hutchinson in a closet drama titled The Adulateur, published in The Massachusetts Spy of March 26, 1773, features the Governor as ‘‘Rapatio.’’ Castronovo demonstrates, through database word searches, that over the next five years [End Page 176] there is a five-fold increase in the application of the words ‘‘rapacity’’ and ‘‘rapacious’’ to Royal officials in the colonial press (63). This is compellingly interpreted as a Revolutionary era ‘‘meme.’’ Less convincing for this reader is Castronovo’s effort to read the colonial resistance to the Tea Act not in local provincial terms, nor in terms of intra-imperial policy struggles, but in terms of a ‘‘view from below’’ (99) that opens, for the first time, a truly global perspective on the Revolution by framing the common predicament of East India and North America within the Empire, a perspective first developed most explicitly in the writings of Thomas Paine. But rather than seeing the tea resistance as the first glimmerings of the global perspective only actively assumed, in the wake of the Russian Revolution, by the Communist International, I would contextualize resistance to the tea by referring to the global imperial thinking evident in British writers in the wake of the Seven Years’ War such as Thomas Pownall Jr., Edmund Burke, and Benjamin Franklin. One of the most suggestive parts of Castronovo’s book deals with the forged letters...

Brand Luther: 1517, printing, and the making of the Reformation

A revolutionary look at Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the birth of publishing, on the eve of the Reformation's 500th anniversary When Martin Luther posted his theses on the door of the Wittenberg church in 1517, protesting corrupt practices, he was virtually unknown. Within months, his ideas spread across Germany, then all of Europe; within years, their author was not just famous, but infamous, responsible for catalyzing the violent wave of religious reform that would come to be known as the Protestant Reformation and engulfing Europe in decades of bloody war. Luther came of age with the printing press, and the path to glory of neither one was obvious to the casual observer of the time. Printing was, and is, a risky business--the questions were how to know how much to print and how to get there before the competition. Pettegree illustrates Luther's great gifts not simply as a theologian, but as a communicator, indeed, as the world's first mass-media figure, its first brand. He recognized in printing the power of pamphlets, written in the colloquial German of everyday people, to win the battle of ideas. But that wasn't enough--not just words, but the medium itself was the message. Fatefully, Luther had a partner in the form of artist and businessman Lucas Cranach, who together with Wittenberg's printers created the distinctive look of Luther's pamphlets. Together, Luther and Cranach created a product that spread like wildfire--it was both incredibly successful and widely imitated. Soon Germany was overwhelmed by a blizzard of pamphlets, with Wittenberg at its heart; the Reformation itself would blaze on for more than a hundred years. Publishing in advance of the Reformation's 500th anniversary, Brand Luther fuses the history of religion, of printing, and of capitalism--the literal marketplace of ideas--into one enthralling story, revolutionizing our understanding of one of the pivotal figures and eras in human history. From the Hardcover edition.

Reply to the critics on "binge drinking and alcohol prices".

Xuan et al. [1] offer several “interpretive” comments on my systematic review [2] of binge drinking and alcohol prices, including comments concerning selection and interpretation of primary studies, alternative methodologies, and supporting literatures. Prior to addressing these issues, it is important to layout what has transpired in the addiction field as reflected in the editorial policies of the academic journal, Addiction, for which Professor Babor was Associate Editor-in-Chief. This provides context to faulty comments made by Xuan et al. [1]. Starting in 2009 or earlier, Addiction has engaged in a campaign against publication of any academic alcohol research that received industry support or sponsorship [3–6]. As stated by Stenius and Babor ([6], p. 191), “. . . all financial relationships with the alcoholic beverage industry are [best] avoided”. Censorship always begins with appeals to base emotions and feelings, so the campaign is surrounded with emotion-laden words that make for entertaining reading – such as “transparency,” “vested interests,” “gatekeepers,” and of course “biased findings.” Economists generally welcome open debate in the marketplace for ideas regardless of source, including contributions from researchers who rely heavily on “non-profit” financial support. For my own part, I acknowledged support received from the International Center for Alcohol Policies ([2], p. 11). All of my publications supported by ICAP contain the same declaration, and I see no reason to go beyond a simple, direct statement. Other related work that has been dormant for a decade is irrelevant and -- as I work independently as well -- did not result in research publications. That some of my conclusions do not coincide with those of Xuan et al. is to be expected in any area of scientific research. Scientific inquiry should be associated with a diversity of ideas, methods, and results, and not the monolithic approach advocated by Babor and associates.

The Constitutionality of State Law Triggering Political Committee(-Like) Burdens and the Current Circuit Splits

Recognizing that political speech is at the core of what the First Amendment protects, the Supreme Court has applied constitutional scrutiny and established the two-track system under which government may regulate political speech.Under Track 1, government may under some circumstances – and subject to further inquiry – trigger Track 1, political-committee or political-committee-like burdens. While Citizens United v. FEC, inter alia, strikes down a ban on spending for political speech, it does not change the Buckley v. Valeo tests, which address not a speech ban but instead whether government may trigger Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens when speech occurs. Under Track 2, apart from whether government may trigger Track 1, political-committee (-like) burdens, government may – subject to further inquiry – require Track 2, attributions, disclaimers, and non-political-committee reporting for: Independent expenditures properly understood, and Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) electioneering communications.The Supreme Court has allowed government to regulate only these two types of political speech with Track 2 law. If government, working within Track 2, wants to regulate political speech beyond how current case law allows, government must prove the law survives scrutiny.Some law – such as state laws that Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Barland (“Barland-II”), Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson (“MCCL-III”), and New Mexico Youth Organized v. Herrera (“NMYO”) strike down – regulates spending for political speech only by triggering Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens.States are free to make that choice, yet when they do, only Track 1 analysis applies.This article examines when it is constitutional for government – particularly state government – to trigger Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens. The First Amendment limits when government may trigger Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens.Such law often does not discourage the well-heeled few from engaging in political speech triggering Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens, because the well-heeled few can afford to hire professionals to help them comply with such law. When others cannot afford such help, such law often has the effect of shutting them out of – and leaving the well-heeled few with less competition in – the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, the most insidious aspect of such law is the extent to which it protects big players at the expense of little players. Those who advocate or defend such law beyond First Amendment boundaries are in effect protecting the well-heeled few. They are in effect protecting big players at the expense of little players. While big players and little players have the same First Amendment rights, big players have no right – none – to political-speech law protecting them at the expense of little players. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits have addressed state law triggering Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens. No circuit’s holding coincides with any other circuit’s, and the circuit splits on these issues have become ever more complex circuit chasms. The problem is especially acute given the circuit splits over whether Citizens United pages 366-71/914-16 allow state governments to trigger Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens.To borrow a phrase, “Enough is enough.” Constitutional law on political speech can unite people from across the political spectrum. Courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, can solve the problem by holding that – regardless of the scrutiny level and regardless of whether the challenge is to the political-committee(-like) definitions or burdens – government may trigger Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens only for organizations that are “under the control of a candidate” or candidates in their capacities as candidates or for organizations having “the major purpose” under Buckley. And even when government clears the Buckley hurdle, government must still clear the Sampson v. Buescher hurdle: Government may not trigger Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens for organizations having the Buckley major purpose but engaging in only small-scale speech.Meanwhile, under constitutional law, the FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (“WRTL-II”) appeal-to-vote test – once known as “the functional equivalent of express advocacy” – cannot be a form of express advocacy. Furthermore, after Citizens United, the appeal-to-vote test no longer even affects whether government may ban, otherwise limit, or regulate speech. Moreover, under WRTL-II, the appeal-to-vote test is vague as to speech other than FECA electioneering communications. After Citizens United, what remains from WRTL-II regarding the test is the conclusion that the test is unconstitutionally vague, even vis-a-vis FECA electioneering communications.The version of this article in the Regent University Law Review is significantly shorter than the version available here, principally because the law review's convention is to limit the number of string cites and instead cite fewer sources with the signal e.g. For the convenience of readers seeking the additional cites, the longer version remains here.

Postcolonial endgame

This position paper assesses the present-day situation of black and Asian writers against that of earlier generations; the generation of post-war migrants and a second generation born or raised in Britain wrote under the pressures of postcolonial independence struggles and charged race relations in the former mother country. Whereas the writers of these generations could – out of necessity – develop alliances and a clearer sense of their own position as “black” or “Asian” writers in British society, the situation for non-white writers is more complex today in light of new identity choices, new kinds of migration and a fast-changing world. The article asks whether race still trumps ethnicity in the marketplace of ideas; how citizenship interacts with nationality and nationalism; and, if so, in what ways it affects the work of writers.

A House Divided: Coerciveness Within One's Own Tradition.

A House Divided: Coerciveness Within One’s Own Tradition Ashley K. Fernandes I. A Source of Political Difference: The Person My story is about my (unsuccessful) attempt to work for a Catholic university’s department of pediatrics, which hinged on me recanting a publication that supported a particular reading of Catholic clinical ethics. Sounds downright medieval, right? Political or ideological pressure in academic bioethics exists and can come from many sources. In part this is because bioethics is a derivative [End Page 15] discipline. We care about bioethics because we care about the nature of medicine. And medicine can be overtly political, as we have seen in recent pronouncements from professional bodies on subjects ranging from the Affordable Care Act, to conscience protection, to medical marijuana use. But the medical profession has always had a political aspect to it—sometimes for ill (the historical ban on Black physicians in the American Medical Association), and sometimes for good (current advocacy against torture by the same group). That is a right of the profession. Medical ethics, after all, are practiced by persons who use reason, will, and experience to guide them toward a (negotiated) view of the good. The diversity in the formation of our conscience and our view of the good effects our political motivations, which cannot be divorced from how medicine is rightly (ethically) to be practiced. H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr., one of the most provocative voices in bioethics, famously, rigorously, and perpetually challenges us to ask “Whose ethics?!” and suggests that, in a world of “moral strangers,” the best we can hope for is an accommodation of radically differing views of the good. Personalists like me—in which the ultimate measure of society is the transcendent human person—agree with Engelhardt that different notions of the right exist, but, personalists being grounded in natural law, also believe that these disparate notions can be ultimately overcome with reason and experience. As Karol Wojtyla has put it, the human person is intimately tied by her very nature to unchanging truth, a truth that is unchanging, but moves us to change. Thus, despite the sometimes–obvious political bias in academic publishing, most of us still argue and advocate in bioethics not in hopes of mere accommodation, but to persuade. And to do that, the process must at least be fair: the process of academic review and of admission to “open” forums (e.g., teaching institutions and universities) in which ideas are exchanged. In the “marketplace of ideas” there should be no fear, and no coercion. And yet, we all know that there are plenty of both. II. Tension within Tradition But what happens if such coercion occurs within your own religious tradition? Although popularly portrayed as monolithic by the media, the Catholic tradition in bioethics has shown a remarkable degree of diversity—from the late Richard McCormick and Edmund Pellegrino, to Kevin FitzGerald and Daniel Sulmasy. It is an “open secret” that Catholic physicians and bioethicists disagree and can learn from that disagreement. The Catholic Medical Association (representing Catholic physicians) and the Catholic Health Association (representing Catholic hospital administration) have clashed on everything from what is “direct abortion,” to the Affordable Care Act. Full disclosure: I am a member of the Catholic Medical Association and I am a Roman Catholic. I am not ashamed of my Catholicism, and I cannot really deny that I am, as one person who later sought to block my employment put it, “a true believer” in the teachings of the Church. My Catholicism informs and enhances my humanistic pediatric care. A belief in the transcendent motivates me to care for the poor preferentially, as much as it motivates me to see children and their families as vulnerable persons and seek their good. As I write this, I worry openly about this disclosure, since Catholic thought is a pariah in secular academia, and I suspect most readers will have vociferous ideological disagreements with me about many things. But I would hope that such disagreements would not make you less interested in my story; rather, that a firm commitment to fairness would spur you to conduct this thought experiment consisting of two simple questions. First, “What would you have...

Paul MacAvoy and the Marketplace of Ideas

Paul MacAvoy's work focused on economic analysis of regulation, antitrust, and other forms of government intervention that constrain the management and strategies of the American corporation. As a scholar and business school dean, he repeatedly faced the questions of how American industry could be persuaded to fund such research and how, if such funding were forthcoming, its recipients would maintain academic standards of rigor and objectivity. I recount here two episodes from different points in Paul's career that reveal his thinking and action concerning these questions. The first was his founding of the Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science in 1970. The second was Paul's role as the outside academic adviser to the American Enterprise Institute's telecommunications deregulation project, beginning in 1992.

Exhortations to Philosophy: The Protreptics of Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle by James Henderson Collins II

Reviewed by: Exhortations to Philosophy: The Protreptics of Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle by James Henderson Collins II Svetla Slaveva-Griffin James Henderson Collins II. Exhortations to Philosophy: The Protreptics of Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Pp. xiv, 300. $74.00. ISBN 978–0-19–935859–5. This book examines the origin of the genre of philosophical and rhetorical protreptics (“turnings toward”) in the classical period. The topic is timely, despite the latest insurgent scholarly interest in physics as opposed to the traditionally predominant study of ethics. Although the question of recruitment strategies, as used by philosophy and rhetoric, carries in itself deep ethical connotations about the wares the two disciplines have to offer, Collins’ examination is not, nor does it intend to be, a philosophical analysis of their ethical nature. Instead, it falls—and markedly so—in the category of Quellenforschung and the theorization of literary genres such as F. Cairns’ Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh 1972) and M. M. Bakhtin’s Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (Austin 1986). Bringing his predecessors’ course of study up to date, Collins applies to his investigation the trendy repertoire of intellectual culture as “a marketplace of ideas” wherein philosophic discourse becomes “philosophic advertising,” students are “prospective clients” and “consumers,” and philosophers and rhetoricians are “professional intellectuals” and “competitors” with “marketing campaigns” (ix–xiv). While the above branding may seem to some excessive, the book makes an original contribution to the study of the origin of philosophical (and, secondarily, of rhetorical) protreptics in fourth-century Athens. After a hefty introduction (hefty both in length and theoretical content), the book is divided into two parts, featuring the Platonic and the Isocratean sides of exhortative literature (parts 1 and 2, respectively), followed by an epilogue on the stabilization of the genre in Aristotle. For economy of space, I will highlight the main course of the argument in the individual parts, not in the individual chapters. The core argument is presented in the introduction. In it, Collins introduces what he refers to as “my theory of protreptic” (3) or “our more fluid model” (33) as configured against the background of the aforementioned studies and Aristotle’s rhetorical theory. Collins’ theory/model proposes that in the fourth century philosophy and rhetoric compete with each other to attract students as consumers of the different lifestyles they have to offer. While this competition gives the two disciplines an at first unique, and later a characteristic, protreptic bent (33), the protreptic genre itself does not mature in its fully-fledged form until Aristotle. The fluidity of the genre, Collins argues, is based on the interaction between external and internal levels of discourse. With time, this dynamic interaction, the author concludes, defines the form and content of the protreptic genre as found in Aristotle. The two parts of the main body illustrate the above thesis. Part 1 dissects the discursive levels of Plato’s dialogues into the categories of the intra- and extra-diegetic, the metaleptic, and the pro- and apotreptic. Collins correctly understands these levels as mutually embedded in the structure of the individual works, as, for example, in Plato’s Euthydemus. The dialogue aims at attracting and ultimately at converting an external audience to philosophy, in direct competition with the wares of the rhetoric-based model, by narrating its own internal “conversion” story. Part 2 turns to the Isocratean model. In comparison and [End Page 433] in competition with the Platonic model, the rhetorical model is more flexible, according to Collins. It stems from “lived experience” and allows the audience to voice its beliefs—beliefs that are only afterwards corrected by professional teachers. The epilogue examines the stabilization of the genre in Aristotle’s Protrepticus, now lost but indirectly documented through its rich reception. The organization of the work is unbalanced, and the inclusion of Aristotle in its title is an overstatement. The book is about the origin of the protreptic genre in the Platonic dialogue, with Isocrates’ speeches as a corollary, and Aristotle’s contribution as an aftermath. This imbalance, however, works well in proving the main thesis of the book: that, in the fourth century, there is no protreptic...

“Lord Cromer’s Shadow”: Political Anglo-Saxonism and the Egyptian Protectorate as a Model in the American Philippines

This article revisits the nature of American expansionism in the Progressive Era. It contends that the figure of Evelyn Baring, the first Earl of Cromer, and the British “Veiled Protectorate” over Egypt shaped the internal American retention debate regarding the Philippines in terms directly compatible with the political dichotomy between liberal advocacy of “self-government” and conservative calls for “good government” that lay at the heart of British imperial policy. It further argues that prior British imperial experience and political thought were consistently rhetorically privileged by American administrators within the trans-imperial marketplace of ideas surrounding colonial governance. In doing so, it builds on previous transnational and comparative scholarship on U.S. imperialism of this period, typified by the work of Paul A. Kramer and Frank Schumacher. It rejects renewed exceptionalist attempts to artificially isolate American colonial state-building via Jeremi Suri’s “Nation-Building” paradigm and the “American Umpire” concept recently advanced by Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman.

Book Review: An Open Internet for All: Free Speech and Network Neutrality, by Dana D. Bagwell

An Open Internet for All: Free Speech and Network Neutrality. Dana D. Bagwell. El Paso, Texas: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2012. 162 pp. $20 pbk.Net has once again been all over the news in the past year. Between a controversial opinion by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Verizon v. FCC case in 2014 and the equally controversial standards propagated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in March 2015, something or somebody must bring order to the topic and its scholarship.The concept of net neutrality is both simple and extremely complicated. Dana D. Bagwell's book helps put the complex topic into perspective, especially incorporating the Internet into a discussion of free speech principles and the marketplace of ideas. The book does a solid job of tracing the legal and policy aspects of Internet regulation and the public policies behind attempts to control the Internet. The book goes back to the origins of the FCC and its role in developing laws and policies relating to an ever-changing world of communications.The author thoroughly explains such potentially abstract policy topics as dial-up modem regulations, broadband policy, and the difference between information services, telecommunications, and telecommunications services under Titles I and II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These regulatory schemes and controversies and the accompanying legal battles set the foundation for today's net neutrality rules-and the debate surrounding them.The book also painstakingly summarizes reams of FCC policies and federal laws on communications and dozens of court decisions. This is a unique topic that envelops all three branches of government.Bagwell writes,Since network neutrality rules have become the framework by which the FCC will regulate the Internet, it is imperative that the debate move from questioning whether network neutrality is good policy to whether network neutrality is good communication policy. In other words, what values does network neutrality guarantee from the perspective of free speech and expression?The author defers to, if not reveres, the work of several earlier scholars, principally Professor Tim Wu, who is credited with coining the term net neutrality in a 2003 article, and Lawrence Lessig, a prolific legal scholar on intellectual property matters. However, the author is most deferential to Jerome Barron, the eminent First Amendment scholar whose writings are repeatedly cited throughout the book and honored in the book's concluding sentence: that the rules of access discussed throughout the book could finally fulfill Barron's vision of a right of access to the media.As a conduit for content and access to and for media, Bagwell reiterates other scholars' arguments that the Internet is perhaps the most powerful communications tool ever created. …

Regulating the Academic “Marketplace of Ideas”: Commercialization, Export Controls, and Counterintelligence

Two revolutions, not one, are transforming the research enterprise in American academia. One is the commercialization of research. The other is the regulation of research by the national security state that was accelerated by the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and focuses increasingly on the risk of sensitive knowledge leaking to China and other countries of concern. Commercialization temporarily restricts knowledge circulation to secure a patent for personal and institutional gain. Regulation controls the flow of knowledge to select foreign nationals using multiple instruments, including export controls, along with informal surveillance by the FBI. Ironically, the neoliberal urge to roll back the state and commercialize research in a competitive global knowledge economy exposes the American academic research system to the risk of “industrial” espionage and rolls out the regulatory apparatus of the national security state. Alongside offices of technology transfer on campus we now have offices of export control and compliance. Faculty and graduate students have accommodated themselves to this new situation, even while they regret it; many are concerned by the challenge that it poses to academic freedom, intellectual dynamism and political openness.

The Right to Freedom of Expression: The Mother of our Democracy

This paper explores student-teachers' understanding of the right to freedom of expression in education. Analyses of case law and legal principles affirm that the right to freedom of expression is an essential prerequisite to protect and promote democracy. Based on qualitative research, the empirical evidence indicates that although student-teachers are aware of the fact that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and may be limited, they have a superficial knowledge of the application of this right. Student-teachers have a sense of the importance of the right to freedom of expression in a democracy, but they have not yet internalised the mechanism or process of balancing the right in praxis. This does not bode well as the school system will fail to be a market place of ideas. In order to enable learners to reach their full potential as critical thinkers and autonomous citizens in a developing democracy, it is imperative that teachers should understand and master the application of the right to freedom of expression in schools.

Editorial

Editorial

한국 역사상 사상의 자유시장의 유추에 대한 법적 연구 - 고조선에서 정부수립까지

한국 역사상 사상의 자유시장의 유추에 대한 법적 연구 - 고조선에서 정부수립까지

Book Review: The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World

Book Review: The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World