History Podcasts

What are modern theoretical approaches towards history?

What are modern theoretical approaches towards history?

There were/are different ways to describe history and what the most important forces are behind history.

some say "history is the result of great men", some "history can be only understood under the light of geopolitic interests", some underline the importance of the living circumstances of the common people and their needs, and so on.

What are those approaches, how can one systemize them and what is the modern oppinion on this matter?


Confining your perspective to just one approach is bound to yield highly subjective results. Modern history tries to implement scientific theory into its proceeding:

  1. Gathering evidence, establishing the factual basis, confronting source material (be it written, chemical, archeological… ). Quantify what is quantifiable.
  2. Postulating a falsifiable hypothesis on a narrow question. History is very broad, but one can still narrow down questions (eg.is there a correlation between the fall in mean temperature and the diet of medieval European peasants? How do gold prices and Mansa Musas Hajj relate?).
  3. Single out possible sources of error, find new evidence, analyze single factors, confront with evidence from other fields.
  4. Collect hypotheses to form a theory. Submit for peer review. Publish. Wait to be disproven. Change theory or start again.

In the end, the modern history approach tries to avoid "What if's" and pompous statements like those you mentioned. That is stuff for novelists, philosophers and journalists who process the work provided by historians.

A completely different story, is what a certain historian specializes in. There might be one publishing only about a certain historical person, and another just concerning himself with the geopolitical workings of the Caribbean in the late 1950ies. No one (except school teachers) will tell you though, that by studying the life of William the Conqueror you have understood the entire history of 11th century England, there is just so much the lives of the so called "great persons" don't tell.


Psychoanalytic Theory & Approaches

Psychoanalysis became established in America between World War I and World War II, when Americans traveled to Europe to take advantage of psychoanalytic training opportunities there. The single major therapeutic perspective that was transplanted to the United States was ego psychology, based centrally on Sigmund Freud’s The Ego and the Id (1923) and The Problem of Anxiety (1936), followed by Anna Freud’s Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense (1936) and Heinz Hartmann’s Psychoanalysis and the Problem of Adaptation (1939). This perspective of psychoanalysis was dominant in America for approximately a 50-year span until the 1970s. Meanwhile, in Europe, various theoretical approaches had been developed.

In 1971, Heinz Kohut’s book, The Psychology of the Self, inaugurated a new theoretical perspective in American psychoanalysis. Soon after, Margaret Mahler’s developmental approach was espoused by some, and a growing diversification in therapeutic approaches in the American schools of psychoanalysis began.

Current Psychoanalytic Treatment Approaches

Today, the ego psychology that was dominant in American psychoanalytic thought for so many years has been significantly modified and is also currently strongly influenced by the developing relational point of view. The diverse schools of therapeutic approach currently operative in America include influences from British object relationists, "modern Freudians", the theories of Klein and Bion, self-psychology, the Lacanians, and more. Truly, a kaleidoscope of approaches is now available at psychoanalytic institutions in the United States. Many psychoanalysts believe that the human experience can be best accounted for by an integration of these perspectives.

Whatever theoretical perspective a psychoanalyst employs, the fundamentals of psychoanalysis are always present—an understanding of transference, an interest in the unconscious, and the centrality of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship in the healing process.

Attachment Theory

The term "attachment" is used to describe the affective (feeling-based) bond that develops between an infant and a primary caregiver. The quality of attachment evolves over time as the infant interacts with his caregiver and is determined partly by the caregiver’s state-of-mind toward the infant and his needs.

The father of attachment theory, John Bowlby, M.D., believed that attachment bonds between infants and caregivers have four defining features:

  • Proximity Maintenance: wanting to be physically close to the caregiver
  • Separation Distress: more widely known as "separation anxiety"
  • Safe Haven: retreating to the caregiver when the infant senses danger or feels anxious
  • Secure Base: exploration of the world knowing that the caregiver will protect the infant from danger

The quality of a child’s attachment during the formative years when the brain is developing at exponential rates informs the quality of relationships throughout life. It is important to note that attachment is not a one-way street. As the caregiver affects the child, the child also affects the caregiver. In a psychoanalytic treatment setting, the patient’s journey towards self-discovery can mimic the attachment theory features presented by infants, with the analyst representing the caregiver.

Transference

Transference is a concept that refers to our natural tendency to respond to certain situations in unique, predetermined ways--predetermined by much earlier, formative experiences usually within the context of the primary attachment relationship. These patterns, deeply ingrained, arise sometimes unexpectedly and unhelpfully--in psychoanalysis, we would say that old reactions constitute the core of a person's problem, and that he or she needs to understand them well in order to be able to make more useful choices. Transference is what is transferred to new situations from previous situations.

As a result, a person’s relationship to lovers and friends, as well as any other relationship, including his psychoanalyst, includes elements from his or her earliest relationships. Freud coined the word "transference" to refer to this ubiquitous psychological phenomenon, and it remains one of the most powerful explanatory tools in psychoanalysis today—both in the clinical setting and when psychoanalysts use their theory to explain human behavior.

Transference describes the tendency for a person to base some perceptions and expectations in present day relationships on his or her earlier attachments, especially to parents, siblings, and significant others. Because of transference, we do not see others entirely objectively but rather "transfer" onto them qualities of other important figures from our earlier life. Thus transference leads to distortions in interpersonal relationships, as well as nuances of intensity and fantasy.

The psychoanalytic treatment setting is designed to magnify transference phenomena so that they can be examined and untangled from present day relationships. In a sense, the psychoanalyst and patient create a relationship where all the patient’s transference experiences are brought into the psychoanalytic setting and can be understood. These experiences can range from a fear of abandonment to anger at not being given to fear of being smothered and feelings of

One common type of transference is the idealizing transference. We have the tendency to look towards doctors, priests, rabbis, and politicians in a particular way—we elevate them but expect more of them than mere humans. Psychoanalysts have a theory to explain why we become so enraged when admired figures let us down.

The concept of transference has become as ubiquitous in our culture as it is in our psyches. Often, references to transference phenomenon don’t acknowledge their foundation in psychoanalysis. But this explanatory concept is constantly in use.

For example, in season three of the television series Madmen, one of the female leads is romantically drawn to a significantly older man just after her father dies. She sees him as extraordinarily competent and steady.

Some types of coaching and self-help techniques use transference in a manipulative way, though not necessarily negatively. Instead of self-understanding, which is the goal of psychoanalysis, many short term treatments achieve powerful reactions in clients by making use of the leader as a powerful, charismatic “transference" figure—a guru who readily accepts the elevation transference provides, and uses it to prescribe or influence behavior. Essentially, this person accepts the transference as omnipotent parent and uses this power to tell the client what to do. Often the results obtained are short lived.

Resistance

Along with transference, resistance is one of the two cornerstones of psychoanalysis. As uncomfortable thoughts and feelings begin to get close to the surface--that is, become conscious--a patient will automatically resist the self-exploration that would bring them fully into the open, because of the discomfort associated with these powerful emotional states that are not registered as memories, but experienced as fully contemporary—transferences. The patient is thus experiencing life at too great an intensity because he or she is burdened by transferences or painful emotions derived from another source, and must use various defenses (resistances) to avoid their full emotional intensity.

These resistances can take the form of suddenly changing the topic, falling into silence, or trying to discontinue the treatment altogether. To the analyst, such behaviors would signal the possibility that a patient is unconsciously trying to avoid threatening thoughts and feelings, and the analyst would then encourage the patient to consider what these thoughts and feelings might be and how they continue to exert an important influence on the patient’s psychological life.

As the analysis progresses, patients may begin to feel less threatened and more capable of facing the painful things that first led them to analysis. In other words, they may begin to overcome their resistance.

Psychoanalysts consider resistance to be one of their most powerful tools, as it acts like a metal detector, signaling the presence of buried material.

Trauma

Trauma is a severe shock to the system. Sometimes the system that’s shocked is physical the trauma is a bodily injury. Sometimes the system is psychical the trauma is a deep emotional blow or wound (which itself might be connected to a physical trauma). It’s the aftereffects of the psychical trauma that psychoanalysis can attempt to counteract.

While many emotional wounds take a while to resolve, a psychic trauma may continue to linger. When the stimulus is powerful enough--a death, for instance, or an accident--the psyche isn’t able to respond sufficiently through regular emotional channels such as mourning or anger.

Often this lack of resolution can foster a repetition compulsion--a chronic re-visiting of the trauma through rumination or dreams, or an impulse to place oneself in other traumatic situations. Psychoanalysis can help the victim to develop emotional and behavioral strategies to deal with the trauma.

Fortunately, the need for trauma survivors to have treatment is now well understood in the broader mental health community. Certain medications are helpful in the treatment of trauma, but there should always be a psychological component to the treatment, and it must be understood that treatment can be needed years after the trauma is experienced.

Psychoanalysts did much of the early work in treating trauma, from shell shock of WWI, War Neurosis of WWII, Post Vietnam Syndrome of the Viet Nam war, and now Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Treatment of PTSD still contains elements that harken back to psychoanalysis—trauma patients need a witness to their pain, who helps them, bit by bit, incorporate the traumatic experience with the rest of the story of their lives in some way that can make sense. Facing unbearable feelings with another human being, and supporting and employing the ego-the part of the mind responsible for decision making, understanding cause and effect, and discrimination—all these techniques owe their roots to psychoanalysis.


How Hegel&rsquos Theory of History Works

Hegel&rsquos philosophy of history is most lucidly set out in his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, given at the University of Berlin in 1822, 1828 and 1830. In his introduction to those lectures Hegel said that there is reason in history because &lsquoreason rules the world&rsquo hence world history is the progress of reason.

What does Hegel mean by reason in history? He has in mind a &lsquoteleological&rsquo account &ndash the idea that history conforms to some specific purpose or design (this idea is also called &lsquohistoricism&rsquo). He compares this with the Christian notion of providence. Historical analysis, from the Christian perspective, reveals God&rsquos governance of the world and world history is understood as the execution of His plan. Hegel has a very idiosyncratic idea of God, which he calls Geist &ndash meaning &lsquospirit&rsquo or &lsquomind&rsquo. A philosophical understanding of the progression of world history enables us to know this God, to comprehend the nature and purpose of Geist.

For Hegel, the purpose or goal of history is the progress of the consciousness of freedom. Progress is rational in so far as it corresponds to this development. This rational development is the evolution of Geist attaining consciousness of itself, since the very nature of spirit is freedom. Hegel also refers to Geist as the &lsquoworld spirit&rsquo, the spirit of the world as it unveils itself through human consciousness, as manifested through a society&rsquos culture, particularly its art, religion and philosophy (Hegel calls this triad the expression of the &lsquoabsolute Spirit&rsquo). As Hegel puts it in the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), spirit is the &ldquoethical life of a nation.&rdquo For Hegel, then, there is rational progress in history only in so far as there is progress of the self-consciousness of the spirit of the world through human culture in terms of the consciousness of freedom.

It is crucial however that Hegel does not mean by &lsquofreedom&rsquo merely the unrestricted ability to do whatever we like: in the Philosophy of Right (1820) Hegel calls that type of freedom &lsquonegative freedom&rsquo and says it&rsquos an intellectually immature way to understand freedom. What Hegel means by freedom is instead closer to Immanuel Kant&rsquos idea, in which a free subject is someone who self-consciously makes choices in accordance with universal principles and moral laws, and who does not merely pursue personal desires. Hegel claims that if the individuals of a nation merely pursue their own gratification, this will lead to the eventual collapse of the nation.

The aim of world history is the development of the self-consciousness of spirit, which is the self-consciousness of freedom. The crucial point &ndash and this is the key Hegelian twist &ndash is that the world spirit does not have a conscious aim which it sets out to achieve rather, the aim only becomes known through the spirit achieving its aim. So the purpose of history can only be understood retrospectively. That is to say, to understand historical development, one has to know the result in order to then trace back the factors which led to it. As Hegel explains, historical necessity then emerges through the historical contingency or as we might say, the result then gives its cause the appearance of necessity. For example, let&rsquos say that I catch the 8.30 train to work. Assuming the train is on time (an unrealistic expectation, I know), and given that I do arrive at work on time, then it was necessary that I caught my train but this does not mean that I was always going to catch the train&hellip In the same way, the point is not that for Hegel history is predetermined, but rather that the purpose of history can be realised retrospectively. What&rsquos more, the realisation of this purpose is the purpose of the very process of history!

We can also see from this that Hegel not only intends to explain how the past has influenced the present, but also the influence the present has on our interpretation of the past. Hegel points out that the task of philosophy is not to prophesy or make forecasts. Instead, philosophy always arrives too late. As he famously writes, &ldquothe owl of Minerva flies only at dusk.&rdquo In other words, philosophy (or &lsquowisdom&rsquo, hence his reference to the Roman goddess of wisdom) can only analyse history retrospectively, from the standpoint of the present. So Hegel does not think that his philosophy of history should be imposed on the facts. On the contrary, he stresses that we must examine the facts of history (or indeed the facts of any other matter) as they present themselves, that is, empirically and for their own sake. We can then derive our philosophy (or wisdom) from these facts, without imposing any metaphysical preconceptions on them. This also means that although Hegel sees reason in history, this reason can nonetheless only be completely understood philosophically when the goal of history is complete.

Hegel perceives world history to have developed according to a dialectical process. Hegelian dialectic is often described this way: &ldquoa thesis provokes its opposite idea &ndash its antithesis &ndash and together they give rise to an idea that combines elements of both &ndash their synthesis.&rdquo But Hegel never used that terminology, although it does convey some sense of what he had in mind. Hegel himself called the main feature of the dialectic Aufhebung, a word with meanings including &lsquoto overcome&rsquo or &lsquocancel&rsquo or &lsquopick up or preserve&rsquo. To try to render several of its meanings, as well as the technical connotation Hegel intended, it&rsquos often translated as &lsquosublation&rsquo. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines this as &ldquoto negate or eliminate (something) but preserve as a partial element in a synthesis.&rdquo Any imperfect idea, and in particular, any incomplete concept of freedom, contains within itself its own contradictions, and sublation is the process whereby these contradictions come to be unified in a higher principle. Thus in a Hegelian dialectical process there is a conflict between a concept and its external opposite which develops into an internal contradiction where the concept struggles with itself, and through this struggle the concept is overcome and simultaneously preserved in a unification with its contradiction at a higher level. Then the new concept produced in this way undergoes the same process again, and so on, so history progresses in a sort of spiral.

To understand this, though, it&rsquos best to look at how Hegel discussed actual history.


Psychodynamic Psychology

Psychodynamic theory studies the psychological forces underlying human behavior, feelings, and emotions.

Learning Objectives

Trace the evolution of psychodynamic theory

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • The psychodynamic perspective focuses on the dynamic relations between the conscious and unconscious mind and explores how these psychological forces might relate to early childhood experiences.
  • Psychodynamic psychology originated with Sigmund Freud in the late 19th century. Freud suggested that psychological processes are flows of psychosexual energy (libido) within a complex brain.
  • Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis holds two major assumptions: (1) that much of mental life is unconscious, and (2) that past experiences, especially those from early childhood, shape how a person feels and behaves throughout life.
  • Freud’s structural model of personality divides the personality into three parts: the id, the ego, and the superego. When these parts are in conflict, the imbalance manifests as psychological distress.
  • Freud also proposed the psychosexual theory of development, in which he asserted that children develop through different pleasure-seeking urges focused on different areas of the body, called erogenous zones.
  • Carl Jung expanded upon Freud’s theories, introducing the concepts of the archetype, the collective unconscious, and individuation.
  • Modern psychodynamic theory is an evolving multidisciplinary field that continues to analyze and study human thought processes, response patterns, and influences.

Key Terms

  • psychoanalysis: A family of psychological theories and methods within the field of psychotherapy that work to find connections among patients’ unconscious mental processes.
  • libido: A person’s overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity.
  • Sigmund Freud: (1856–1939) An Austrian neurologist who became known as the founding father of psychoanalysis.

Psychodynamic theory is an approach to psychology that studies the psychological forces underlying human behavior, feelings, and emotions, and how they may relate to early childhood experience. This theory is especially interested in the dynamic relations between conscious and unconscious motivation, and asserts that behavior is the product of underlying conflicts over which people often have little awareness.

Psychodynamic theory was born in 1874 with the works of German scientist Ernst von Brucke, who supposed that all living organisms are energy systems governed by the principle of the conservation of energy. During the same year, medical student Sigmund Freud adopted this new “dynamic” physiology and expanded it to create the original concept of “psychodynamics,” in which he suggested that psychological processes are flows of psychosexual energy (libido) in a complex brain. Freud also coined the term “psychoanalysis.” Later, these theories were developed further by Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Melanie Klein, and others. By the mid-1940s and into the 1950s, the general application of the “psychodynamic theory” had been well established.

Sigmund Freud: Sigmund Freud developed the field of psychoanalytic psychology and the psychosexual theory of human development.

Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory

The Role of the Unconscious

Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis holds two major assumptions: (1) that much of mental life is unconscious (i.e., outside of awareness), and (2) that past experiences, especially in early childhood, shape how a person feels and behaves throughout life. The concept of the unconscious was central: Freud postulated a cycle in which ideas are repressed but continue to operate unconsciously in the mind, and then reappear in consciousness under certain circumstances. Much of Freud’s theory was based on his investigations of patients suffering from ” hysteria ” and neurosis. Hysteria was an ancient diagnosis that was primarily used for women with a wide variety of symptoms, including physical symptoms and emotional disturbances with no apparent physical cause. The history of the term can be traced to ancient Greece, where the idea emerged that a woman’s uterus could float around her body and cause a variety of disturbances. Freud theorized instead that many of his patients’ problems arose from the unconscious mind. In Freud’s view, the unconscious mind was a repository of feelings and urges of which we have no awareness.

The treatment of a patient referred to as Anna O. is regarded as marking the beginning of psychoanalysis. Freud worked together with Austrian physician Josef Breuer to treat Anna O.’s “hysteria,” which Freud implied was a result of the resentment she felt over her father’s real and physical illness that later led to his death. Today many researchers believe that her illness was not psychological, as Freud suggested, but either neurological or organic.

The Id, Ego, and Superego

Freud’s structural model of personality divides the personality into three parts—the id, the ego, and the superego. The id is the unconscious part that is the cauldron of raw drives, such as for sex or aggression. The ego, which has conscious and unconscious elements, is the rational and reasonable part of personality. Its role is to maintain contact with the outside world to keep the individual in touch with society, and to do this it mediates between the conflicting tendencies of the id and the superego. The superego is a person’s conscience, which develops early in life and is learned from parents, teachers, and others. Like the ego, the superego has conscious and unconscious elements. When all three parts of the personality are in dynamic equilibrium, the individual is thought to be mentally healthy. However, if the ego is unable to mediate between the id and the superego, an imbalance is believed to occur in the form of psychological distress.

Freud’s theory of the unconscious: Freud believed that we are only aware of a small amount of our mind’s activity, and that most of it remains hidden from us in our unconscious. The information in our unconscious affects our behavior, although we are unaware of it.

Psychosexual Theory of Development

Freud’s theories also placed a great deal of emphasis on sexual development. Freud believed that each of us must pass through a series of stages during childhood, and that if we lack proper nurturing during a particular stage, we may become stuck or fixated in that stage. Freud’s psychosexual model of development includes five stages: oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital. According to Freud, children’s pleasure-seeking urges are focused on a different area of the body, called an erogenous zone, at each of these five stages. Psychologists today dispute that Freud’s psychosexual stages provide a legitimate explanation for how personality develops, but what we can take away from Freud’s theory is that personality is shaped, in some part, by experiences we have in childhood.

Jungian Psychodynamics

Carl Jung was a Swiss psychotherapist who expanded upon Freud’s theories at the turn of the 20th century. A central concept of Jung’s analytical psychology is individuation: the psychological process of integrating opposites, including the conscious with the unconscious, while still maintaining their relative autonomy. Jung focused less on infantile development and conflict between the id and superego and instead focused more on integration between different parts of the person. Jung created some of the best-known psychological concepts, including the archetype, the collective unconscious, the complex, and synchronicity.

Psychodynamics Today

At present, psychodynamics is an evolving multidisciplinary field that analyzes and studies human thought processes, response patterns, and influences. Research in this field focuses on areas such as:

  • understanding and anticipating the range of conscious and unconscious responses to specific sensory inputs, such as images, colors, textures, sounds, etc.
  • utilizing the communicative nature of movement and primal physiological gestures to affect and study specific mind-body states and
  • examining the capacity of the mind and senses to directly affect physiological response and biological change.

Psychodynamic therapy, in which patients become increasingly aware of dynamic conflicts and tensions that are manifesting as a symptom or challenge in their lives, is an approach to therapy that is still commonly used today.


Modern Management Theory Approaches and Limitations

Different authors define management in their own way. Basically, management is a technique used in every organization or business to run the system of business. Different group of people involve managing the system, creating the system and verifying the working of business.

According to FW Taylor “Management is an art of understanding that you want a specific task and then check , is that task done according to your requirement under reasonable ways and using less expenses”.

Management is a complete setup of organization where you create environment of doing work by using different techniques and methods, by following different rules and regulations, where employees work in different groups with efficiently and effectively. With the passage of time the concept of management is going vast. Organizations become more advance and more technical. Employees working style is going to change. The authority of doing specific tasks is distributed. We can say that Modern Management is adopted instead of basic management criteria. Without better management theories, no any business can run in market. and the demand of time and employees also says that new and unique techniques and methodology are helpful in proving the better setup of business and smooth management requires at every step of business for earn good ratio of profit and make employees sincere with the company and they work with more interest and loyalty.

Modern Management Theory:

The new thought of management theory was introduce in 1950s. Organizations want to adopt new techniques and methods that improve their working efficiency and also give more attention to employees and customers. Modern management theory gives more attention on the satisfaction of employees. According to this theory, employee work not only to earn money, it doesn’t mean that they work free but their main focus is different instead of earning money. They want respect and proper attention between their other employees and want some appreciation towards their working abilities, which increase their working productivity in a positive manner. This methodology encourages employees to work with more loyalty and efficiency and give maximum benefit to organization and improve its profitability. In other words, we can say that modern management theory not only focus on working setup, strategies and techniques but also pay attention on employees satisfaction area to enhance the productivity of organization.

Approaches of Modern Management Theory:

Different types of approaches used in modern management according to different need of organizations, few are given below:

Quantitative Approach:

This approach is mainly focus on managerial decision making. Also known as management science approach. In this approach, all the decisions related to management are considered. Decisions should be according to need and requirement of organization which are created by management. Further three areas in this approach are:Operation research, Operation Management and Management information system. Operation research is work in gathering the all information related to specific tasks. All previous and current data related to all operations in organization is collected. And different techniques are used like query, linear programming etc. Operation Management checks all the production process supervise all the system by suing different methods like statistical quality control, networking etc. Management information system helps to provide computerized information which helps management to make a better decision , all meaning full information helps to improve business process and working techniques. Meanwhile, this approach is focus on informative data and its maximum usage of making better decision.

Systems Approach:

This approach is specifically used to resolve the management problems .this is an integrated approach to find out the solutions of major management issues. This approach is working as all the points or systems are interconnecting with each other, their working depends on each other in a specified regularity to make a single product or achieve a single task. This approach focuses on units and its sub units. It means with great care study the every part of system. Verify the starting and ending of system boundaries. Every system is produce due to some specific reason. To accomplish any task or producing any product, a complete and improved system should be developed. A system is produced with interdependent and interlinked elements and parts to make a complete and single unit. It focus on hierarchy of subsystem which is a major part of every system. In simple words, this approach is helpful to study any system by parts and then improve the quality and efficiency of system. This approach is used in both general and specialized systems. It helps to achieve the objective of organization and also view all organization as an open system to verify each and every portion and part of system.

Contingency or Situational Approach:

This approach is helpful to resolve the problems of organizations with the help of analyzing the environment and conditions. This approach says that one set of rules are not enough to solve every type of problem. Different problems needs different solutions and it’s the responsibility of management to study the problem and then make its solution according to requirement but not according to specified rules. Management face different problems in different situations and need a solution according to demand of problem. This approach is better than system approach. This approach is focus on behavior of one unit in environment and in specific relationship that affect the other sub unit. Managers should use contingency approach because it directly suggesting solutions according to organization designed situation. This approach is focus on practical answers of current organizational problems instead of old rules and standards.

Modern Management Theory Limitations:

Her we are going to discuss some basic limitations of using these approaches:

These may not give maximum attention on human effort who gives their full attention to sort out the problems. In some cases, senior management team has to take quick actions without gathering any detailed information. Decision making is part of management but fully management is not depending on it. It is consider that all the measurements and calculations are done before decision making but in real it cannot be possible. Some tools or models may out date which used in these approaches. Sometimes, with the changes of organization environment, these approaches may not applicable. Some time, we pay less attention on basic management issues while busy in making or adopting new approaches, so this is not a healthy thing for any organization. Normally, theory is based on some one’s analysis or study, so theory is not a solid thing on which large or important decisions are based or changed.

Modern Management Theory Improvements:

Every organization has its own specialty and specifications. Same situations may not occur in every organization. It is the responsibility of managements to focus on all areas of business. All informative data and its usage should do properly. While making strategies or business plans, it should be considering that which area requires more attention. While using these approaches or modern management theories, it is responsibility of executives and management to realize the need of approach and then apply it according to situation. Every business has different way of working, and then their problems must be different from each other. Now it’s the duty of decision makers and team to use that methodology where it suits best. Old ways of management not suitable for current and new environment of organization. We should adopt new strategies and set targets according to current need and also give proper facilities to our employees, so that they happily with organization and work with their full efficiency, and interest and improve the productivity and profitability of business.

Modern Management Theory Example:

Here we discuss the example of a company, who produce computers and laptops in the market and cover a huge market share. The management of this company adopts new techniques and methodology that fulfill the need of customer. Now customer wants a smart computer having all features that is current need of customer. Laptops should be smart in looks and having more advance technologies that fulfill all needs of users. For this company use new working techniques and adopts such methods that develop parts of computers and laptops having high capacity and keeping less space. Company focus on all parts of system and verify which area need more advancement and which need less, also identify and problems faced by employees because they have the knowledge of old method ,so new training courses arranged for them to learn more new technologies and working methods and improve the productivity of company.


What's Intersectionality? Let These Scholars Explain the Theory and Its History

W omen&rsquos History Month has been observed in the United States in March for decades, its date unchanging. But as this month draws to a close, it&rsquos worth noting that the women whose stories comprise that history have changed.

The movement to expand feminism beyond the provincialism of mainstream discourse is now in its sixth decade. One place where that change is clear is at the Feminist Freedom Warriors Project (FFW) at Syracuse University, the brainchild of transnational feminist scholars Linda E. Carty and Chandra Talpade Mohanty. Their 2015 survey of transnational feminism was the foundation for FFW, a first-of-its-kind digital video archive focused on the struggles of women of color of the Global South (Africa, India and Latin America) and North (U.S., Canada, Japan). &ldquoFFW is a project about cross-generation histories of feminist activism,&rdquo its founders, Carty and Mohanty, said in an email, &ldquoaddressing economic, anti-racist, social justice issues across national borders.&rdquo

These scholar-activists crisscrossed state and national borders to engage in &ldquokitchen table conversations&rdquo with 28 distinguished feminists ranging from Beverly Guy-Sheftall to Angela Y. Davis, to bring together the stories of &ldquothese sister-comrades whose ideas, words, actions and visions of&rdquo economic and social justice &ldquocontinue to inspire us to keep on keeping on.&rdquo These women are representative of the trailblazers and torchbearers who challenged the conventional wisdom of mainstream American feminism that came out of the 1960s and &lsquo70s.

Key to that challenge was the idea of intersectionality, a concept that remains confusing to some despite steadily growing awareness of it.

Mainstream 20th century American feminism &mdash led by people like Betty Friedan, a co-founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and bestselling author of The Feminine Mystique, and inspired by the idea that &ldquothe personal is political&rdquo &mdash made people across the country rethink issues like gender diversity in higher education and reproductive rights. But that feminism was also in dire need of diversity, as it was based on the cultural and historical experiences of middle- and upper-class heterosexual white women. Consequently, issues of race, class, sexuality and ableism were ignored. (Also ignored were issues of immigration, which are personal and political to Carty, a Canadian of Caribbean descent, and Mohanty, from India.)

So, during the 1970s, black feminist scholar-activists, a number of whom were also LGBTQ, developed theoretical frameworks to serve as a model for other women of color, to broaden feminism&rsquos definition and scope. Throughout the final decades of the 20th and the first decade of the 21st centuries, women of color published many groundbreaking works that highlighted these dynamics. In doing so, they exposed the interlocking systems that define women&rsquos lives.

The theory of those systems became known as intersectionality, a term popularized by law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw. In her 1991 article &ldquoMapping the Margins,&rdquo she explained how people who are &ldquoboth women and people of color&rdquo are marginalized by &ldquodiscourses that are shaped to respond to one [identity] or the other,&rdquo rather than both.

&ldquoAll of us live complex lives that require a great deal of juggling for survival,&rdquo Carty and Mohanty said in an email. &ldquoWhat that means is that we are actually living at the intersections of overlapping systems of privilege and oppression.&rdquo

To take an example, they explain, think of an LGBT African-American woman and a heterosexual white woman who are both working class. They &ldquodo not experience the same levels of discrimination, even when they are working within the same structures that may locate them as poor,&rdquo Carty and Mohanty explained, because one can experience homophobia and racism at the same time. While the other may experience gender or class discrimination, &ldquoher whiteness will always protect and insulate her from racism.&rdquo

Failing to acknowledge this complexity, scholars of intersectionality argue, is failing to acknowledge reality.

Marie Anna Jaimes Guerrero poignantly highlights the importance of intersectionality or &ldquoindigenisms&rdquo for American Indigenous women in an essay in Mohanty&rsquos book Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures. &ldquoAny feminism that does not address land rights, sovereignty, and the state&rsquos systemic erasure of the cultural practices of native peoples,&rdquo states Guerrero, &ldquois limited in vision and exclusionary in practice.&rdquo

The FFW video archive and its companion book, Feminist Freedom Warriors: Genealogies, Justice, Politics, and Hope, chronicle the decades long scholar-activism for a more expansive and inclusive feminism &mdash and that includes women&rsquos history. &ldquoGenealogies are important,&rdquo say the FFW founders, &ldquobecause we are made by our histories and contexts.&rdquo But they&rsquore also, they say, motivated by providing a service for those feminists of the future.

&ldquoThe core of intersectionality then,&rdquo they say, &ldquois coming to appreciate that all women do not share the same levels of discrimination just because they are women.&rdquo FWW is their &ldquodeep commitment to gender justice in all of its intersectional complexity.&rdquo

The original version of this story included a photo caption that misstated the photographer&rsquos name. It is Kim Powell, not Taveeshi Singh.

Historians’ perspectives on how the past informs the present


'Liberal indoctrination': Donald Trump rails against modern teaching of U.S. history

USA TODAY's augmented reality storytelling takes you inside the San Juan Bautista. The ship carried the first Africans to be enslaved in America. USA TODAY

Corrections and clarifications: The article has been updated to reflect that Wilmington, Del., officials had the Caesar Rodney statue removed.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Thursday accused Democrats and educators of attempting a "liberal indoctrination of America’s youth" through alternative views of the nation's history, while the subjects of those attacks said he is fueling racial divisions in an election year.

"Our mission is to defend the legacy of America’s founding, the virtue of America’s heroes, and the nobility of the American character," Trump said during what aides billed as the first "White House Conference on American History."

While Trump called for "patriotic education" and a "pro-American curriculum" in the nation's schools, opponents cast the president as a struggling re-election candidate who is seeking votes by trying to divide people along racial and cultural lines.

Trump focused his attack on education projects devoted to the nation's history of slavery and racial discrimination, analysts pointed out, targets that have been the focus of ire from many pundits on the right.

"Donald Trump's political career has been defined by stoking racism and hatred," said Josh Schwerin of Priorities USA Action, a political action committee that supports Democratic candidates. "This is all about trying to use racism to incite the fringes of his base who he thinks can help him win an election."

Locked in a tight battle for re-election with Democratic challenger Joe Biden, Trump has frequently criticized the violence that has at times sprung from nationwide demonstrations against police brutality and racial discrimination.

In his education speech, Trump attributed street violence in part to schools, claiming that "the left-wing rioting and mayhem are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools." He also said "the left has launched a vicious and violent assault on law enforcement – the universal symbol of the rule of law in America."

President Donald Trump speaking Thursday at a White House conference on American History. (Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

Speaking in the rotunda of the National Archives, near the original of the U.S. Constitution, Trump protested the pulling down of historic statues – many of which depict slaveholders – and the "desecration" of national memorials.

At one point, Trump invoked the current campaign by talking about how officials in Wilmington, Del., removed a statue of Caesar Rodney, a slaveholder and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Trump attacked Biden, a Wilmington resident, for not speaking out against the dismantling of that statue.

Biden spokesman Andrew Bates said Trump is failing his own test of history in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, an economic crisis, climate change, and "the most compelling call for racial justice in generations."

"He stokes hatred and division rather than bringing this nation together to confront racism," Bates said. "History will not be kind to this president for these failures and more."

Trump noted that Thursday is the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Yet, he said, nowadays "a radical movement is attempting to demolish this treasured and precious inheritance" via distortions of its history.

Instead, he said, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution – and the system of government it created – "set in motion the unstoppable chain of events that abolished slavery, secured civil rights, defeated communism and fascism, and built the most fair, equal and prosperous nation in human history."

Attendees at the first White House Conference on American History loudly applauded Trump's speech, and the meeting appeared to be consist mainly of administration officials and supporters.

Princeton historian Kevin Kruse tweeted: "As near as I can tell, the White House Conference on American History panel was drawn up with no input from professional historical associations, filled mostly with non-historians & culture warriors, and kept so quiet it wasn’t even on the National Archives’ calendar of events."

During his critique, Trump singled out The New York Times' "1619" journalism project and a teaching approach known as Critical Race Theory, both of which emphasize the treatment of people of color.

The "1619 Project" – named for the year in which enslaved people were first brought to North America – was designed "to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative," said The New York Times website.

The term "critical race theory" has many definitions. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes it as "the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of color."

Trump said he would respond by creating a "1776 Commission." Named for the year in which the Declaration of Independence was signed, the commission will work to promote what Trump called "patriotic education."

Critics mocked the idea of "patriotic education" as near totalitarian. Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the former president of Estonia, cited Russia president Vladimir Putin in tweeting: "Putin did the same years ago and now that's what you get in Russia."

Joanne B. Freeman, professor of History and American Studies at Yale University, said Trump wants a whitewash of the American past, but the nation's true history involves "the bad as well as the good."

"The study of history – the sincere, open, and serious study of history in all its complexity – is dangerous and misleading only if you have something to hide," Freeman said. "And it's impossible to understand ourselves as a nation, and to reckon with the roots and implications of our current moment, if we deny the uncomfortable parts of America's past."


Social Action Theory

The social action theory was founded by Max Weber. There are two main types of sociological theories the first is the structural or macro theory while the other is social action, interpretive or micro perspectives. At the two ends of the argument as to which is a better theory are Durkheim, the founding father of functionalism, and Weber, the mastermind behind social action theory.

As the ‘micro’ name suggests, social action perspectives examine smaller groups within society. Unlike structuralism, they are also concerned with the subjective states of individuals. Very much unlike a structuralist perspective, social action theorists see society as a product of human activity.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Structuralism is a top-down, deterministic perspective that examines the way in which society as a whole fits together. Functionalism and Marxism are both structuralist perspectives: as such, they both perceive human activity as the result of social structure.

Giddens “Theory of Structuration” (1979) sees structure and action theories as two sides of the same coin: structures make social action possible, but social action creates the structures. He calls this the ‘duality of structure’. Critics of Giddens, such as Archer (1982) or (1995), argue that he placed far too much emphasis on the individual’s ability to change social structure simply by acting differently.

Interestingly, although Weber believed that sociology was a study of social action, he also advocated the combination structuralist and interpretative approaches in his general approach to research.

Max Weber believed that it was social actions that should be the focus of study in sociology. To Weber, a ‘social action’ was an action carried out by an individual to which an individual attached a meaning.

Therefore, an action that a person does not think about cannot be a social action. Eg. An accidental collision of bicycles is not a social action as they are not a result of any conscious thought process. On the other hand, a wood cutter cutting wood has a motive, an intention behind that action. It is therefore ‘a social action’.

Social action sociologists reject the views of structuralists. However, Weber acknowledges the existence of classes, status groups and parties, but challenges Durkheim’s view that society exists independently of the individuals who make up society. Phenomenology and ethnomethodology deny the existence of any sort of social structure.

Most of the social action and interpretavists perspectives deny the existence of a clear social structure that directs human behaviour. However, those who do believe in a social structure see it as being shaped by individuals.

Weber referred to two types of understanding:


‘Aktuelles verstehen’, which is direct observational understanding.


And ‘erklärendes verstehen’, where the sociologist must try to understand the meaning of an act in terms of the motives that have given rise to it. To achieve this type of understanding you must put yourself in the shoes of the person whose behaviour you are explaining to try and understand their motives.

In social action theory, Weber believes that bureaucratic organisations are the dominant institutions in society. Weber believes that bureaucracies (institutions) consist of individuals carrying out rational social actions designed to achieve the goals of bureaucracies. Weber views the whole development of modern societies in terms of a move towards rational social action. Thus, modern societies are undergoing the process of rationalization.

Weber argues that all human action is directed by meanings. He identified various types of action that are distinguished by the meanings on which they are based:

Affective or emotional action – this stems from an individual’s emotional state at a particular time. Traditional action – this is based on established custom people act in a certain way because of built-in habits: they have always done things that way. Rational action – involves a clear awareness of a goal.

One of the main studies of social interaction within the education system is ‘Learning to Labour – how working class kids get working class jobs’ by Paul Willis.

Willis attempted to discover the meanings the ‘lads’ gave to their actions and to those of others.

Interpretive studies of the family seek to explore its role as one of the key groups within which we share our experience of the social world.

In this way, it is similar to the functionalist view. However social action theorists are concerned with individual roles within the family as opposed to the family’s relationship to wider society.

Using an interpretivist approach, Berger and Kellner (1964) argued that individuals need to make sense of and create order in the world around them in order to avoid anomie. They also argued that in an increasingly impersonal world, the role of the private sphere of marriage and the family is essential for self-realisation of the individual, i.e. making sense of their social world.

The main weakness of the interpretivist approach when researching the family is the tendency to ignore wider social structure. For example, both Marxists and Feminists argue that the way in which roles are constructed in the family is not merely a matter of individual negotiation, but a reflection of how power is distributed in wider society.

The social action perspective is to examine how and why particular individuals and groups are defined as ‘deviant’ where deviance can be defined as “behaviour that does not follow the norms of a particular social group.” Such a definition may impact their future actions within society.

Becker (1963) believed that the way in which he interpreted ‘deviance’ was that an act only becomes deviant when others perceive it as such.

Interpretivists or social action theorists use qualitative research methods to gather an in-depth understanding of human behaviour and the reasons behind such behaviour. The qualitative method investigates the whyand how of decision making, not just what, where, when. Examples: Participant Observation (either overt or covert) and unstructured interviews.

The social action theory gives researchers a better understanding of actions behind human behaviour, be they ‘traditional’, ‘affective’ or ‘rational’.

However, the social action theory tends to ignore wider social structure. There are also notions that research is biased due to the subjectivity of researchers, thus results are, at least partially ‘fictional’ accounts. It would seem that as social action theory is generally subjective, it is not as ‘solid’ as structuralist approaches where research is based on facts.

Courtesy of Lee Bryant, Director of Sixth Form, Anglo-European School, Ingatestone, Essex


5. The Emerging Ideal of a Multiperspectival Democracy: The European Union

The analysis thus far has taken a robust ideal of democracy for granted consisting of self-rule by the public deliberation of free and equal citizens&mdashthe ideal of deliberative democracy that informs both pragmatism and Critical Theory (Bohman 2004). Given the uneven and potentially contradictory consequences of globalization, it seems clear that current democratic institutions themselves cannot be responsive to all the dimensions of domination and subordination that are possible considering the scale and intensity of interconnectedness. What are the alternatives? It is not just a matter of exercising an institutional imagination within broadly understood democratic norms and ideals. Informed by democratic ideals of non-domination, the practical knowledge needed to promote the democratising of uneven and hierarchical social relations requires an empirical analysis of current transformations and its embedded possibilities. The democratic ideal of autonomy leads David Held and others to emphasise the emerging structures of international law that produce a kind of binding power of collective decisions. Others look to ways of reforming the structures of representation of current international institutions (Pogge 1997, Habermas 2001). Still others look to the emergence of various institutions in the European Union (EU) to discuss the trend toward international constitutionalism or supranational deliberation.

According to the sort of plurality of perspectives endorsed by a pragmatist philosophy of social science, a historical account of the emergence of single and multiple institutions would be helpful. In Gerald Ruggie&rsquos masterful analysis of the development of a global order beyond the nation-state, he shows that the modern sovereign state and the social empowerment of citizens emerged within the same epistemic era as the single point perspective in painting, cartography, or optics. &ldquoThe concept of sovereignty then represented merely the doctrinal counterpart of the application of single point perspective to the organization of political space&rdquo (Ruggie, 2000, 186). Unbundling sovereignty would lead to new political possibilities, including the re-articulation of international political space in a new way that cannot be anticipated in dominant theories of international relations. Focusing on the shifts in the authority of states and the development of the European Union, Ruggie sees the &ldquoEU as the first multiperspectival polity to emerge in the modern era&rdquo and thus the emergence of a new political form. The concept of &ldquothe multiperspectival form&rdquo does seem to offer &ldquoa lens through which to view other possible instances of international transformation today&rdquo (Ruggie 2000, 196). Such an account also applies to the theory of practical knowledge that might inform reflection on the possibilities of democracy in an era of uneven globalization.

If the political authority that now promotes globalization is to answer to democratic will formation, the institutions in which such public deliberation takes place must seek to become explicitly multiperspectival in Ruggie&rsquos sense. The positive conditions for such an extension of current political possibilities already exist in the fact of interdependence&mdashthe emergence of greater social interaction among citizens who participate in vibrant interaction across transnational civil society and within emerging global public spheres. In order to develop the framework for such a normative-practical praxeology for emerging multiperspectival institutions, pragmatism and Critical Theory once again suggest themselves: here Dewey&rsquos testable claim that it is the interaction of public and institutions that promotes democracy and democratic inquiry. However important giving greater powers to the European Parliament may be, parliamentary politics at best serves a mediating role among transnational and national institutions and is not the sole means to democratisation (Habermas 2001). Given that such institutions cannot easily be scaled up and retain their full democratic character, it is necessary to look to a different institutional level: to the possibility of new forms of social inquiry that may be developing in the problem-solving mechanisms of the European Union.

5.1 The Multiperspectival Public Sphere: The Critical and Innovative Potential of Transnational Interaction

How might new forms of inquiry emerge that are able to accommodate a greater number of perspectives and also remain democratic? Here we need again to distinguish between first- and second-order forms of deliberation, where the latter develops in order to accommodate an emergent public with new perspectives and interests. Dewey sees the normal, problem-solving functioning of democratic institutions as based on robust interaction between publics and institutions within a set of constrained alternatives. When the institutional alternatives implicitly address a different public than is currently constituted by evolving institutional practice and its consequences, the public may act indirectly and self-referentially by forming a new public with which the institutions must interact. This interaction initiates a process of democratic renewal in which publics organise and are organised by new emerging institutions with a different alternative set of political possibilities. Of course, this is a difficult process: &ldquoto form itself the public has to break existing political forms this is hard to do because these forms are themselves the regular means for instituting political change&rdquo (Dewey 1927b, 255). This sort of innovative process describes the emergence of those transnational publics that are indirectly affected by the new sorts of authoritative institutions brought about by managing &ldquoderegulation&rdquo and globalization. This account of democratic learning and innovation seems not to be limited by the scope of the institutions, even as the potential for domination also increases under current arrangements.

What sort of public sphere could play such a normative role? In differentiated modern societies (that is, societies divided into multiple economic and social spheres such as markets, a state, civil society and so on), one role of the distinctive communication that goes on in the public sphere is to raise topics or express concerns that cut across social spheres: it not only circulates information about the state and the economy, but it also establishes a forum for criticism in which the boundaries of these spheres are crossed, primarily in citizen&rsquos demands for mutual accountability. But the other side of this generalization is a requirement for communication that crosses social domains: such a generalization is necessary precisely because the public sphere has become less socially and culturally homogeneous and more internally differentiated than its early modern form (Habermas 1989). Instead of appealing to an assumed common norm of &ldquopublicity&rdquo or a set of culturally specific practices of communication, a cosmopolitan public sphere is created when at least two culturally rooted public spheres begin to overlap and intersect, as when translations and conferences create a cosmopolitan public sphere in various academic disciplines. Instead of relying on the intrinsic features of the medium to expand communicative interaction, networks that are global in scope become publics only with the development and expansion of transnational civil society. The creation of such a civil society is a slow and difficult process that requires the highly reflexive forms of communication and boundary crossing and accountability typical of developed public spheres. On the basis of their common knowledge of violations of publicity, their members will develop the capacities of public reason to cross and negotiate boundaries and differences between persons, groups, and cultures.

In such boundary-crossing publics, the speed, scale, and intensity of communicative interaction facilitated by networks such as the Internet provides a positive and enabling condition for democratic deliberation and thus creates a potential space for cosmopolitan democracy. Such a development hardly demands that the public sphere be &ldquointegrated with media systems of matching scale that occupy the same social space as that over which economic and political decision will have an impact&rdquo (Garnham 1995, 265). But if the way to do this is through disaggregated networks (such as the Internet) rather than mass media, then we cannot expect that the global public sphere will no longer exhibit features of the form of the national public sphere. Rather, it will be a public of publics, of disaggregated networks embedded in a variety of institutions rather than an assumed unified national public sphere.

The emergence of transnational public spheres is informative for the practical goals of a critical theory of globalization. Once we examine the potential ways in which the Internet can expand the features of communicative interaction, whether or not the Internet is a public sphere is a practical question of possibility rather than a theoretical question about the fact of the matter. It depends not only on which institutions shape its framework but also on how participants contest and change these institutions and on how they interpret the Internet as a public space. It depends on the mediation of agency, not on technology. With the proliferation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other forms of transnational civil society organization, it is plausible to expect that two different and interacting levels of multiperspectival innovation may emerge: first, new institutions such as the European Union that are more adapted to multiple jurisdictions and levels of governance and, second, a vibrant transnational civil society that produces public spheres around various institutions with the goal of making their forms of inquiry more transparent, accessible and open to a greater variety of actors and perspectives. This approach does not limit the sources of the democratic impulse to transnational civil society. Rather, the better alternative is to reject both bottom-up and top-down approaches in favour of vigorous interaction between publics and institutions as the ongoing source of democratization and institutional innovation.

According to a pragmatically inspired democratic experimentalism, attempts at democratisation and reform need not wait for publics to emerge they can be constructed in various practices. Consultative NGOs may generally become too intertwined with institutions and thus do not generatively entrench their own conditions in this way. This practical difficulty is evident in the official civil society organizations of the European Union that fail to promote public deliberation. Without further conceptual and normative clarification, the appeal to various &ldquobottom up&rdquo strategies of democratization remains normatively underdeveloped (Dryzek 1996, Jaggar, 2004). Even when informed by democratic aims, this form of politics cannot capture the complex interrelationships of civil society, the state and the market, especially given the background of inequalities and asymmetries that operate in processes of globalization. Apart from powerful corporate actors in civil society, NGOs from economically advantaged regions possess significant resources to influence and shape the formation of civil society in other contexts. A critical theory of such activity asks about the possibility of a strong connection between their powers in civil society with market forces (Silliman 1998).

Besides the spontaneous emergence of publics out of transnational associations, it is also possible to make use of self-consciously constructed publics of relevant stakeholders to act as &ldquomini-publics&rdquo that are empowered to deliberate and make decisions (Fung 2003). Here we can include a variety of experiments, from participatory budgets to citizen boards and juries that have a variety of decision-making powers. Properly empowered and self-consciously constructed, mini-publics offer a strategy to get beyond the dilemma of insider consultation and outsider contestation that is a structural feature of civil society activity in currently existing international institutions. Since self-consciously created minipublics seek to include all relevant stakeholders, they do not rely on representation as the mode of communicating interests, or even the inclusion of well-organized actors as a way of achieving effective implementation. Instead they open up a directly deliberative process within the institution that includes as many perspectives as possible and can be repeated when necessary. The minipublic is then an institutionally constructed intermediary, although it could act in such a way as to become an agent for the creation of a larger public with normative powers. In this capacity, minipublics may become open and expandable spaces for democratic experimentation. While many are issue or domain specific, such experiments often become models for democratic governance in dispersed and diverse polities. As Cohen and Rogers put it, the more specific and episodic practices aim at mutual benefits through improved coordination, experimental deliberative practices tied to larger political projects may redistribute power and advantage and in this way secure the conditions of democracy more generally (Cohen and Rogers 2003, 251).

The same point could be made about taking existing democratic institutions as the proper model for democratization. To look only at the constraints of size in relation to a particular form of political community begs the question of whether or not there are alternative linkages between democracy and the public sphere that are not simply scaled up. Such linkages might be more decentralized and polycentric than the national community requires. The issue here is the standard of evaluation, not whether some other public sphere or form of community &ldquois totally or completely democratic, but whether it is adequately democratic given the kind of entity we take it to be&rdquo (McCormick 1996, 345). For a nation state to be democratic it requires a certain sort of public sphere sufficient to create a strong public via its connections to parliamentary debate. A transnational and thus polycentric and pluralist community, such as the European Union, requires a different sort of public sphere in order to promote sufficient democratic deliberation. Once a transnational and post-territorial polity rejects the assumption that it must be what Rawls calls &ldquoa single cooperative scheme in perpetuity,&rdquo a more fluid and negotiable order might emerge with plural authority structures along a number of different dimensions rather than a single location for public authority and power. Without a single location of public power, a unified public sphere becomes an impediment to democracy rather than an enabling condition for mass participation in decisions at a single location of authority. The problem for an experimental institutional design of directly deliberative democracy is to create precisely the appropriate feedback relation between disaggregated publics and such a polycentric decision making process. The lesson for a critical theory of globalization is to see the extension of political space and the redistribution of political power not only as a constraint similar to complexity but also as an open field of opportunities for innovative, distributive, and multiperspectival forms of publicity and democracy.

A critical theory of globalization is a practical or praxeologically oriented theory that sees the &ldquofact of globalization&rdquo in relation to the goal of realizing the norms of human emancipation and democracy. The central and still open questions for such a practically oriented social science are the following: what available forms of praxis are able to promote the transformations that could lead to new forms of democracy? What sort of practical knowledge is needed to make this possible and how might this knowledge be stabilised in institutionalised forms of democratic inquiry? What are the possibilities and opportunities for democracy at a higher level of aggregation that globalization makes possible? How might the public sphere be realized at the global level? The argument here suggests that such inquiry and institutions must go beyond single perspective understandings of democracy that dominate national political life as well as the various administrative techne that are common in the international sphere. A critical praxeology of realizing norms in multiperspectival institutions might add that it is also a reflexive question of putting such organization in the larger context of a project of human emancipation. Such an interactive account of publics and institutions gives a plausible practical meaning to the extending of the project of democracy to the global level. It also models in its own form of social science the mode of inquiry that this and other publics may employ in creating and assessing the possibilities for realizing democracy. A critical theory of globalization does not only point out the deficits of current practices, but shows the potential for properly organized publics to create new ones. Since the new practices need not be modeled on the old ones, it is not a theory of democracy as such, but of democratization.


Models of Brief Psychodynamic Therapy

Ten major approaches to short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy are briefly summarized in this section (for more detailed information, see Crits-Christoph and Barber, 1991). These approaches differ depending on the extent to which they use expressive or supportive techniques, focus on acute or chronic problems, have a goal of symptomatic change or personality change, and pay attention to intrapsychic or interpersonal dynamics.

Interpersonal psychotherapy is included because it is one of the important and better researched therapeutic approaches for treating substance abuse disorders. It is considered by some to be a psychodynamic model, but there are conflicting opinions on this. This list is not exhaustive numerous other, perhaps less well known, approaches or modifications of these approaches are not mentioned. Many of these approaches have developed from clinical experience, and some are not well researched, if they are researched at all. Figure 7-2 summarizes the length of treatment, focus, and major techniques of various models of brief psychodynamic therapy.

Table

Figure 7-2: Brief Psychodynamic Therapy.

Mann's Time-Limited Psychotherapy (TLP)

The goal of treatment in TLP is to diminish as much as possible the client's negative self-image through resolution of the central issue (Mann, 1991). Symptoms are reduced or eliminated as a byproduct of the process. TLP works via two main components of the treatment: the therapist's identification of the central issue and the setting of the termination date at the start of treatment. The central issue is always conceptualized in terms of the client's chronic and presently endured pain, resulting from painful life experiences. This pain is a privately held, affective statement about how the client feels about himself. Change comes about through the identification and exploration of the painful feelings about himself and through the feelings of loss surrounding termination. This model has a set treatment length of 12 sessions and promotes working through of termination issues.

Sifneos' Short-Term Anxiety-Provoking Psychotherapy (STAPP)

STAPP is a focal, goal-oriented psychotherapy that is usually practiced in 12 to 15 sessions and sometimes fewer (Nielsen and Barth, 1991). During the first session, the therapist and client agree on a clear psychodynamic focus, rather like a treatment contract. The foci that respond best to STAPP are unresolved Oedipal conflicts, but loss, separation issues, and grief may also be acceptable. Change comes about through the client's learning to resolve an emotional core problem, essentially problemsolving. Resolving the problem promotes a feeling of well-being and a corresponding positive change in attitude.

Davanloo's Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy (ISTDP)

In ISTDP, therapeutic techniques are used to provoke emotional experiences and, through this, to facilitate corrective emotional experiences or the positive reenactments, in therapy, of past conflictual relationships (Laikin et al., 1991). Change comes about by bringing to consciousness these past unresolved conflicts through intense emotional experiences, reexperiencing them in a more cognitive way, and linking them to current symptoms and problematic interpersonal patterns. Extensive use of analysis of the transference relationship also helps to bring the unresolved conflicts to the client's consciousness so that they can then be explored and resolved.