A Systematic Review about the Theories of Max Weber, Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault Based on the Political Practice in China and U.S.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, every thinker's theory on the national political development is topical and pertinent. As time goes by, many scholars have become more and more concerned with the applicability of these ideas to current political situation. This paper will use China and the United States (the U.S.) as examples to analyze the applicability of the theories of Max Weber, Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault. Based on comparing and summarizing the famous works of the three thinkers, relevant academic papers and reports etc., this article makes a detailed analysis of the applicability of the above thinkers' theories and finally draws conclusions. In terms of Weber, he put forward the idea of distinguishing officials and politicians separately, which is applicable in the U.S. but cannot be applied in China. The main reason for this theory is that officials and politicians are two completely separate systems in the U.S., while China thinks officials is politicians. As for Carl Schmitt, he talks about the distinction between friend and enemy in political relations, and points out the inescapable relationship between politics and war, denying the possibility of peace. This theory perfectly conforms to the current political situation of the U.S., but it has some limitations when it is used to analyze the situation in China due to its unique cultural background as well. For Michel Foucault, the difference between him and the above-mentioned two theorists is that his theory more concerns the people and those in power. However, similar to them, Foucault's theory is also very significant and can be substituted into the modern society of China and the U.S. In conclusion, the theories of Weber, Schmitt, and Foucault are more like a cultural hedge between the old and the new, bringing clear attention to the different political systems in the world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".