How do foreign policy beliefs affect German parliamentarians’ (MPs) support for European integration? Despite important advances, the literature has overlooked the effect of foreign policy beliefs on national representatives’ attitudes toward integration. This study provides a systematic investigation of the role foreign policy beliefs play in shaping German MPs’ support for European integration. I argue that given the complex and contentious character of European integration politics MPs derive heuristic cues from their foreign policy beliefs to form opinions on the desirability of integration. Using data from an original survey conducted with members of the seventeenth German Bundestag, I show that a belief in multilateralism increases support for European integration while isolationist and hawkish foreign policy orientations decrease support. These results indicate that support for European integration is not merely determined by party ideology, electoral pressure or economic considerations, but also has a psychological foundation shaped by politicians’ core beliefs about how the world of international politics operates.
Climate action is conventionally framed in terms of overcoming epistemic and practical disagreement. An alternative view is to treat people’s understandings of climate change as fundamentally pluralistic and to conceive of climate action accordingly. This paper explores this latter perspective through a framework of philosophical psychology, in particular Bernard Williams’s distinction between internal and external reasons. This illuminates why the IPCC’s framework of ‘Reasons for Concern’ has an inefficacious relationship to people’s concerns and, hence, why additional reason giving is required. Accordingly, this paper recommends a model of truthful persuasion, which acknowledges the plurality of people’s motivations and sincerely strives to connect the facts of climate change to people’s subjective motivational sets.
The Political Psychology of Israeli Prime Ministers: When Hard-Liners Opt for Peace by Yael S. Aronoff Joel Migdal
Paths to Middle-Class Mobility among Second-Generation Moroccan Immigrant Women in Israel by Beverly Mizrachi Shani Bar-On
Conscientious Objectors in Israel: Citizenship, Sacrifice, Trials of Fealty by Erica Weiss Ruth Linn and Renana Gal
Mo(ve)ments of Resistance: Politics, Economy and Society in Israel/Palestine 1931–2013 by Lev Luis Grinberg As'ad Ghanem
Arabs and Israelis: Conflict and Peacemaking in the Middle East by Abdel Monem Said Aly, Shai Feldman, and Khalil Shikaki Paul L. Scham
The Challenge of Ethnic Democracy: The State and Minority Groups in Israel, Poland and Northern Ireland by Yoav Peled Ian S. Lustick
Israeli Feminist Scholarship: Gender, Zionism, and Difference by Esther Fuchs (ed.) Pnina Peri
We live in a secular age. Or so we are told. In fact, the real worlds of society, politics and social and political thought tell a very different story. Church attendance in many parts of the western world may be on the wane, but this is balanced by huge increases in church attendance in other parts of the world as well as the global rise of new, more ‘attractive’ forms of religious worship. In politics, the secular project has had, at best, patchy success. The formal separation of church and state is an outstanding achievement, but it is not always as clear-cut as may be desirable. This is exemplified by the extent to which religion forms the basis of most recent political conflicts. The events of 11 September 2001 and its aftermath in Iraq and elsewhere is only one example of this phenomenon; it is also an example of the extent to which religion and other aspects of politics and political psychology are interwoven. This fact is identified within the longstanding, if under-represented, position in social and political theory that points to the religious origins of modern political thought and agency. In a recent edition of Theoria, issue 106 (April 2005), Avishai Margalit and S. N. Eisenstadt provided compelling arguments in defense of this position.