The theoretical category of militant democracy in Karl Loevenstein’s meaning is described well in world scholarly literature. Notwithstanding, there is no comprehensive typology of militant democracy which would allow for identifying and diversifying various political regimes which meet the distinctive features of the Weberian ideal type of militant democracy. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is to formulate a typology of militant democracies which would be a useful analytical tool for studying diverse political regimes. Importantly, this paper contributes to the field by proposing the framework of the theory, i.e., militant democracies’ trajectory of continuance which consists of the types of militant democracies and the relationships between them. It is significant to assume that the subjects of militant democracy use offensive and defensive strategies which are characterised by the following degrees of intensity: low, moderate, and high. Hence, nine types of these strategies’ configurations are determined. They generate nine types of militant democracies. Moreover, there are nine factorial relationships between them, which are useful for assessing whether and how empirical exemplifications of political regimes change. This proposal of the typology of militant democracies is highly applicable to empirical studies and worth developing in a theoretical way on the basis of new criteria such as the potential of regime regeneration.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe famously argued that monarchy is superior to democracy insofar as property rights protection is concerned. The present paper calls this claim into question, with much of the heavy lifting being done by methodological ponderings. More specifically, it is demonstrated that instead of a priori, praxeological truths, Hoppe’s monarchy theory offers an ideal type of the politician bestowed with an inheritable title to the throne. Against this background, the ideal type in question is shown to be faulty in that it treats monarchs as capitalist landowners of sorts, thereby overlooking strictly political incentives they face, which can predictably push them in directions inimical to free markets.
The characteristic feature of empirical qualitative research in social sciences, including pedagogy, are their theoretical aspirations. Building a typology is said to be one way of creating a theory. In the subject literature there is a differentiation between ideal and real (empirical) types. The author, discussing both types, emphasises that this division is contractual. It results from paying more attention to one of the type components: either a theoretical or an empirical one. As a matter of fact, these both components coexist. The relation of theory with empiricism is a sign of modern scientific disciplines. The aim is to evaluate those theories in the light of empirical data, to which a meaning is given. Maintaining the opposition of an ideal type versus an empirical type does not seem to be advantageous, as it blocks out the “common” component of those two types and the accepted order weakens the need of intellectual work. The author signals M. Weber’s concept of ideal type, as well as A. Schütz’ concept, which assumes that scientific typologies are secondary to the typologies of everyday life. She also discusses the creation of typology by the means of grouping the objects’ features and the typology functions in the documentary method, based on sociology of K. Mannheim’s knowledge.
PL
Cechą współczesnych empirycznych badań jakościowych w naukach społecznych, w tym w pedagogice, są ich aspiracje teoretyczne. Za jeden ze sposobów tworzenia teorii uznaje się budowanie typologii. W literaturze przedmiotu „obowiązuje” rozróżnienie na typy idealne i typy realne (empiryczne). Autorka omawiając specyfikę obu typów, zwraca uwagę, iż podział ten jest umowny. Wynika z większej wagi nadawanej jednemu z komponentów typu: komponentowi teoretycznemu lub empirycznemu. W rzeczywistości oba komponenty współwystępują. Związek teorii z empirią jest znakiem nowoczesnych dyscyplin naukowych. Chodzi o to, by ich teorie można było oceniać w świetle danych empirycznych, i o to, by danym empirycznym nadać sens. Utrzymywanie opozycji typ idealny – typ empiryczny nie wydaje się korzystne, przysłania bowiem wspólny „komponent” obu typów, a zaakceptowany porządek osłabia potrzebę pracy myślowej. Autorka sygnalizuje koncepcję typu idealnego M. Webera, koncepcję A. Schütza przyjmującego, że typiki naukowe są wtórne wobec typik codzienności, omawia tworzenie typologii poprzez grupowanie cech przedmiotów, a także funkcje typologii w metodzie dokumentarnej, opierającej się na socjologii wiedzy K. Mannheima.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.