Commitment, Conduct, Decision
The notion of commitment is inseparable from the founding ideology of democracy. To grasp this, it is necessary how Habermas explains the basic idea of democracy is the free participation of all citizens in public affairs. This principle is a legitimate control of political authority to the individual which was back in the eighteenth century with the creation of a public space. Also the commitment defines itself initially as citizen participation in the conduct of public affairs.
It is primarily a political standard. In a broader sense, commitment involves taking responsibility, a choice that can be applied to several areas. Commitment is indeed a pledge, to be bound by a contract, a promise, an obligation to an idea, a person or a value. The commitment then implies an anchorage in the irreversible and responsibility in the sense that it forced to assume a choice which one claims responsibility. The commitment can be understood in the sense of conduct or act of decision. Conduct if it refers to a way of life in and through which the individual is involved in the course of the world. Decision to act if it means an act by which the individual binds to the future with procedures, expectations, hopes to accomplish.
[...] The commitment is indeed first presented under a normative aspect. A. The imperative of active citizen 1. Founding Principles The idea that citizens have a right to examine the conduct of public affairs back to the origins of democracy, that is to say, the Athenian democracy. The basis of the system is indeed popular sovereignty represented at the Ecclesia, the main body of the plan. These principles are reused in the eighteenth century. Again democracy is defined by people's participation in public affairs. [...]
[...] Commitment: Why are we committed? Introduction The notion of commitment is inseparable from the founding ideology of democracy. To grasp this, it is necessary how Habermas explains the basic idea of democracy is the free participation of all citizens in public affairs. This principle is a legitimate control of political authority to the individual which was back in the eighteenth century with the creation of a public space. Also the commitment defines itself initially as citizen participation in the conduct of public affairs. [...]
[...] To do the tools of this reflection on the commitment will be those of political sociology and political philosophy. Our journey will look at first considered the validity of the application as a result of logical interest, psychological or identity before seeing if it is not primarily the result of a dynamics linked to a human process individual. I. From the imperative of active citizen, the individual computer, commitment reflects structural constraints Political sociology has tried to explain different models or patterns of individual or collective political behavior. [...]
[...] The commitment is a result of the developments, changes and outlook of an individual. To understand the logic governing an individual commitment, it is necessary to take into account the personal motives of action always linked to the context in which they are set. The commitment is thus always linked to a personal experience set in a given social space. To understand the logic of such engagement should take into account the role of biographical accidents, institutionalized changes of an individual. [...]
[...] The commitment, in the name of a dynamic values? The limits of psychological and utilitarian explanations of commitment leads us to reconsider the commitment as a human process that has its own logic that is to say, that does not always reflect the sructurelles constraints or utility computing. The latest political sociology explains the commitment by a process of analysis that takes into account a dual temporal and dynamic dimension. A. For a processual analysis of commitment 1. The procedural theories of commitment These theories exclude any structural analysis of the commitment. [...]
using our reader.