Stronger Opposition Research Articles

Les trois visages du fanatisme: un essai sur les variétés logiques de la mentalité dictatoriale

A dialogue is a strategic activity characterized by an intentional structure of competition and/or cooperation. The truth of the statements is far from being the most important thing in many dialogical situations. It is a commonplace to stress that many linguistic constructions, even if they provoke agreement or disagreement (and thus argumentation) have nothing to do with truth or falsity. In particular the ≪prescriptive≫ or ≪projective≫ formulas express that an action must be done (by the speaker, his counterpart or a third party) or that it is forbidden. These statements are not upon the world but upon a project of action that cannot in a strict sense be said to be ≪true≫ or ≪false≫. Nevertheless, it appears to be a permanent or at least a recurrent temptation as well as a strategic attitude for a tenant of the ethical naturalism to maintain that some prescriptions are true or false. Fanaticism can be regarded as the assumption that it is true that certain acts of speech are to be morally condemned or forbidden. I consider that every asserted projective statement can be legitimately denied in four different ways: one can reject the normative dimension, the proposed action, the potential actor(s), the time table. Leaving aside the last two, I use a simple formula to describe the first two moves: A weak form of negation is to deny that there is a prescription to do: ¬JP(A) ≡ I do not judge prescribed to do ‘A’. A stronger opposition is to judge that there exists a norm commanding not to do the action: JP(¬ A) ≡ I judge prescribed not to do ‘A’. As every judgement is itself a speech act exposed to denegation, the action ‘A’ (≪neustik≫) can very well be another judgement and, in particular, another prescriptive statement. For example: JP(≪JP(A)≫) ≡ I judge as prescribed that you judge as prescribed that ‘A’. We find here one of the expressions of fanaticism. Following the logical type of judgement exposed to condemnation, — do they belong to the category of prescriptions, evaluations, or observations? — I suggest the following hierarchy: 1a. JP(≪¬ JP(A)≫) 1b. JP(≪JP¬ (A)≫) 2a. JP(≪¬ JE(E)≫) 2b. JP(≪JE¬ (E)≫) 3a. JP(≪¬ JO(O)≫) 3b. JP(≪JO¬ (O)≫) In the most ≪fundamentalist≫ of its forms (3a & 3b), fanaticism invests a lot of energy to sanction a series of norms concerning observations. Note the apparent paradox: If you consider that this paper defends the prescription not to speak like a fanatic, does it illustrate a weak expression of fanaticism? Hint: My answer would be NO.

Skill Shortages in Britain and Germany

British firms attach more weight to “hands on” experience than to formal qualifications. They manage to cope with lower proportions of skilled labour than those required by corresponding German firms, without lowering quality of output, mainly by optimising the allocation of their limited stocks of skill between various tasks. They concentrate on retraining labour which is already skilled, whereas German employers offer more apprentice training and wider retraining opportunities. In response to falling numbers of school‐leavers, British employers use skilled females, whereas German firms are recruiting extra skilled manual labour from East Germany and Romania. As a result of greater certification, German firms have to deal with trade union pressure for linkages between pay and qualifications, even when these are not really required for the job. They also face stronger opposition from trade unions to shift‐work, and enjoy fewer Government training subsidies than British firms. Younger British workers are beginning to acquire qualifications, but it will be many years before Britain′s stock of examined skills approaches that of Germany.

C35. Does stronger opposition make it harder to win?

C35. Does stronger opposition make it harder to win?

Social-Psychological Factors in Public Orientation Toward an Out-Group

An opinion survey, conducted in a large community, is designed to reveal some of the sources of opinions concerning the Soviet Union and the nature of the public's orientation toward that country. Newspapers are found to be the predominant source of opinion. Opinion is less divided with regard to the status of free speech in Russia than on the issue of equality of income; on the latter question social class appears to be an important determinant of opinion. Stronger opposition to information about the Soviet society arises from people with authoritarian personalities.