Lubavitchers as Citizens: A Paradox of Liberal Democracy, by Jan Feldman
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.212 pp. $32.50. Political scientists and political theorists have not been very kind to Lubavitchers. The main complaint against the Lubavitchers is, simply, that they are not very good citizens. The critics argue that the Lubavitchers do not think for themselves enough but simply blindly follow what their rebbe says, are not interested in the common good but use politics solely as way to advance their own interests, shelter their children from different ways of life, generally live an insular life that ensures that their children will have little choice about how to live their own lives, and live in a traditional and patriarchal system that discriminates against women. Moreover, these critics argue that the obvious corollary to the Lubavitcher attachment to faith is a dangerous denigration of reason. Jan Feldman sets out to defend the Lubavitchers against these charges, though she wants to do more than that: she wants to explain the Lubavitch worldview and their relationship with the outside world. She has interviewed many Lubavitchers and lived with them, giving her an excellent understanding of their way of life. The first chapter shows how the Lubavitchers ill-fit in the reigning theories of democratic citizenship: the theories of liberals, civic republicans, feminists, and even communitarians all have trouble with Lubavitchers. Before Feldman responds to these complaints, she presents three chapters to explain Chassidim in general and Lubavitchers in particular. Chapter 2 gives a brief overview of the origins of Chassidim, their history, and their current structure, while chapters three and four explain the relationship between the Lubavitchers and American and Canadian politics (these chapters focus mostly on the Lubavitch community in New York and Montreal, since they are the largest in each country). The remaining five chapters (capped by a very short conclusion) defend the Lubavitchers from their critics, and argue that liberal democratic theory ought to make space for the Lubavitchers and not treat them as an embarrassment or as a hostile enemy. Feldman argues that Lubavitchers do use reason, are quite reflective, and consciously choose to live their lives. Lubavitchers are also loyal citizens, who are quite thankful to be able to live in the U.S. or Canada. Lubavitch women are not hapless and hopeless victims of a patriarchal culture, but choose to live full lives, where they are treated respectfully, receive a good education, and are able to create their own world with other women. Lubavitchers are not classical liberal citizens: they are not radical skeptics or radical individualists. They are not relativists, like many liberal citizens are. Rather, their faith gives them certain values that help structure their world. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle