| 1. |
- Haldén, Peter, 1977-
(författare)
-
Family Power : Kinship, War and Political Order in Eurasia, 500-2018
- 2020. - 1st
-
Bok (refereegranskat)abstract
- This book demonstrates that elite families and political order evolved in symbiosis throughout European, Central Asian and Middle Eastern History. Noble families and royal dynasties were preconditions of stability and legitimacy of political orders. The state did not evolve in opposition to kinship-groups or to kinship-based principles of legitimacy. By re-telling the development of the state this book pinpoints exacly how kinship-based groups can both support and undermine political order. This book analyses Europe, the Middle East, Eurasian Steppe Polities, and the Ottoman Empire from the early Middle Ages to the present. The book pushes against conventional state-formation theory. Interdependence rather than conflict characterized the relation between powerful kinship groups and the political order. Hence, political science and sociology have overemphasised the coercive aspect of the state and the centrality of a monopoly of legitimate violence for the existence of political order. I offer a new understanding of successful political orders by emphasising co-operation with power elites in a common framework. Doing so in turn allows us to understand how to build stable polities today.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Haldén, Peter, 1977-
(författare)
-
Worlds of Uncertainty : war, philosophies and projects for order
- 2023
-
Bok (refereegranskat)abstract
- In recent years we have faced huge uncertainty and unpredictability across the world: Covid-19, political turbulence, climate change and war in Europe, among many other events. Through a historical analysis of worldviews, Peter Haldén provides nuance to the common belief in an uncertain world by showing the predictable nature of modern society and arguing that human beings create predictability through norms, laws, trust and collaboration. Haldén shows that, since the Renaissance, two worldviews define Western civilization: first, that the world is knowable and governed by laws, regularities, mechanisms or plan, hence it is possible to control and the future is possible to foresee; second, that the world is governed by chance, impossible to predict and control and therefore shocks and surprises are inevitable. Worlds of Uncertainty argues that between these two extremes lie positions that recognize the principal unpredictability of the world but seek pragmatic ways of navigating through it. Argues that the co-existence, conflict and co-constitution of two principally contradictory worldviews are what define and shape modern Western cultureAims to decrease the anxiety and uncertainty many people feel about the world and provide a realistic picture of how much they can control and overcome crisesOffers added value to military students, analysts and planners who will become more aware of the activities in which they are engaged and of the limits and possibilities within different ways of thinking
|
|
| 4. |
- Käihkö, Ilmari, et al.
(författare)
-
Full-Spectrum Social Science for a Broader View on Cohesion
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Armed forces and society. - : Sage Publications. - 0095-327X .- 1556-0848. ; 46:3, s. 517-522
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In October 2018, Armed Forces & Society published a special issue dedicated to broadening the perspective on military cohesion from the narrow focus on 20th and 21st Western state militaries and the microlevel. The special issue emphasized the need for a theoretical and methodological broadening of the study of cohesion: In order to understand the majority of armed groups in the world, it is necessary to investigate macro- and mesolevel preconditions of microlevel cohesion. Such preconditions include the existence of states, nations, and modern military organization. These are specific to modern, Western contexts, and rarely feature in historical or non-Western cases. In many cases, investigating these preconditions requires qualitative methods. In a critical response, Siebold contested some of the arguments of the special issue, claiming that our argument was exaggerated and our methodologies inadequate. In this reply, we seek to clarify some of the issues and arguments at stake.
|
|
