Every subject of the Russian Empire had an official, legal place in society marked by his or her social estate, or soslovie. This book looks at the many ways that soslovie affected individual lives, and traces its legislation and administration from the early eighteenth through to the early twentieth century.
Every subject of the Russian Empire had an official, legal place in society marked by his or her social estate, or soslovie. These sosloviia (noble, peasant, merchant, and many others) were usually inherited, and defined the rights, opportunities, and duties of those who possessed them. They were also usually associated with membership in a specific geographically defined society in a particular town or village. Moreover, although laws increasingly insisted that every subject of the empire possess a soslovie "for the common good and their own well-being," they also allowed individuals to change their soslovie by following a particular bureaucratic procedure. The process of changing soslovie brought together three sets of actors: the individuals who wished to change their opportunities or duties, or who at times had change forced upon them; local societies, which wished to control who belonged to them; and the central, imperial state, which wished above all to ensure that every one of its subjects had a place, and therefore a status. This book looks at the many ways that soslovie could affect individual lives and have meaning, then traces the legislation and administration of soslovie from the early eighteenth through to the early twentieth century. This period saw a shift from soslovie as above all a means of extracting duties or taxes, to an understanding of soslovie as instead a means of providing services and ensuring security. The book ends with an examination of the way that a change in soslovie could affect not just an individual's biography, but the future of his or her entire family. The result is a new image of soslovie as both a general and a very specific identity, and as one that had persistent meaning, for the Imperial statue, for local authorities, or for individual subjects, even through 1917.
Drawing upon David Hume's observation that, on the one hand people readily submit to authority, while on the other hand, authority depends on their opinion, Keepers of the Common Good examines the intricate interplay between opinion and submission to authority. The author proposes and develops a novel social understanding of constitutional authority and the place of the people. Analysing selected episodes of rebellion throughout history, the book traces the relationship between the people and the officials who govern. From the peasants of Gagliano who rejected the Italian state as illegitimate, to a wealth of rebellions in English history, the book builds on the social foundation earlier eloquently expressed as 'peoples precede nations'. In developing this idea, the author identifies, first, a lower register of constitutional discourse and ideas that emerge naturally within communities, and then, secondly, an upper register that gives meaning and justification to the prevailing constitutional order. By examining both registers, the book reveals their foundations, upon which an illuminating account of social relations between rulers and the ruled, officials, and the people is constructed. The book then identifies three distinct forms of rule: princely rule, people ruling themselves, and rule by representatives. After evaluating each model's explanatory power in explaining how people experience and influence the constitutional field, a fourth model of rule is proposed: the keeper's model. This model is used to explain the place and practice of the people in modern constitutional systems, broadly considered democratic. Although the book is not a study of democracy, a fresh and realistic understanding emerges from the keeper's model of the place of the people within the constitutional field.
Robert B. Reich makes a powerful case for the expansion of America’s moral imagination. Rooting his argument in common sense and everyday reality, he demonstrates that a common good constitutes the very essence of any society or nation. Societies, he says, undergo virtuous cycles that reinforce the common good as well as vicious cycles that undermine it, one of which America has been experiencing for the past five decades. This process can and must be reversed. But first we need to weigh the moral obligations of citizenship and carefully consider how we relate to honor, shame, patriotism, truth, and the meaning of leadership. Powerful, urgent, and utterly vital, this is a heartfelt missive from one of our foremost political thinkers.
Alex John London defends a conception of the common good that grounds a moral imperative with two requirements. The first is to promote research that enables key social institutions to effectively, efficiently and equitably safeguard the basic interests of individuals. The second is to ensure that research is organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects its various contributors' moral claim to be treated as free and equal. Connecting research to the goals of a just social order grounds a framework for assessing and managing research risk that reconciles these requirements and justifies key oversight practices in non-paternalistic terms. The result is a new understanding of research ethics that resolves coordination problems that threaten these goals and provides credible assurance that the requirements of this imperative are being met.--
This study offers a major reinterpretation of medieval political thought by examining one of its most fundamental ideas. If it was axiomatic that the goal of human society should be the common good, then this notion presented at least two conceptual alternatives. Did it embody the highest moral ideals of happiness and the life of virtue, or did it represent the more pragmatic benefits of peace and material security? Political thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to William of Ockham answered this question in various contexts. In theoretical terms, they were reacting to the rediscovery of Aristotle's Politics and Ethics, an event often seen as pivotal in the history of political thought. On a practical level, they were faced with pressing concerns over the exercise of both temporal and ecclesiastical authority - resistance to royal taxation and opposition to the jurisdiction of the pope. In establishing the connections between these different contexts, The Common Good questions the identification of Aristotle as the primary catalyst for the emergence of 'the individual' and a 'secular' theory of the state. Through a detailed exposition of scholastic political theology, it argues that the roots of any such developments should be traced, instead, to Augustine and the Bible.
"When Jean Tirole won the 2014 Nobel Prize in Economics, he suddenly found himself being stopped in the street by complete strangers and asked to comment on issues of the day, no matter how distant from his own areas of research. His transformation from academic economist to public intellectual prompted him to reflect further on the role economists and their discipline play in society. The result is Economics for the Common Good, a passionate manifesto for a world in which economics, far from being a 'dismal science,' is a positive force for the common good. Economists are rewarded for writing technical papers in scholarly journals, not joining in public debates. But Tirole says we urgently need economists to engage with the many challenges facing society, helping to identify our key objectives and the tools needed to meet them. To show how economics can help us realize the common good, Tirole shares his insights on a broad array of questions affecting our everyday lives and the future of our society, including global warming, unemployment, the post-2008 global financial order, the euro crisis, the digital revolution, innovation, and the proper balance between the free market and regulation. Providing a rich account of how economics can benefit everyone, Economics for the Common Good sets a new agenda for the role of economics in society"--Provided by publisher.
On Mount Desert Island, Maine, winter can mean six months of isolation and tough times, as year-round residents hunker down through the cold season. Larry Stettner and Bill Morrison vowed to change that. In November 2009, the Common Good Soup Kitchen opened its doors to the public, offering free soup as well as live music and a place for locals to gather, interact, and help each other. In its first winter of operation, the Common Good served over 10,000 bowls of soup to the community. Run entirely by donations, grants, and volunteer labor, the café also runs a distribution program to deliver soup to senior residences and others who cannot make it out to the café. In Cooking for the Common Good, Stettner and Morrison argue that we need to radically rethink the concept of the soup kitchen, emphasizing true community building along with incorporating healthy and locally sourced food. The book includes a lively third-person narrative telling the story of how the Common Good Soup Kitchen was created; the authors' unique cooking philosophy; some of their most popular soup and salad recipes; and a full appendix with resources and a sample grant application for others interested in starting their own soup kitchen. "Today access to whole foods, local organic foods, and sustainable fisheries is more important than ever for our well-being. But, because of economic inequities, good whole food is once again hard to get. Organic foods are largely available to the wealthiest and most privileged among us. Let us break down the bastions and make natural, whole food—including organically based soups—for everyone." —from chapter 2, "The Soup Manifesto"
This classic that has been inspiring and challenging readers to a spiritual adventure for over a century now gets an updated look for a new generation.