AKTUÁLNE VEREJNÉ VEDECKÉ PÔSOBENIE

Výskumy

Reconception of Classical Theory of Legitimation of Political Authority

Organizer, head and main researcher: Mgr. Martin KVAK

Annotation:

In his work "Three types of legitimate governance" M. Weber states that "there are three types of social structures of executive personnel and the way of administration, on which it is possible to base faith in legitimate authority" (M. Weber (transl. Hans Gerth, 1958, in Berkley Publications: Society and Institutions, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1 – 11. ). M. Weber names each of the authorities constituted in this way followingly: (1.) legal authority, (2.) traditional authority and (3.) charismatic authority. He postulates that each of these respective structures can exist independently in both space (according to M. Weber, elements of all of the structures can exist in a certain social group at the same time) and in time (he identifies the elements of the structures of the executive staff and the way of administration with a certain historical epoch/societal development of humanity, and thus as existing in an evolutionary relation to each other and with a hierarchical status).

The researcher believes that this approach is inadequate for a conduction of a more exact and complete analysis and evaluation of political process of legitimation. He believes it to be so because (as he tries to explain in his argumentation) legitimizing factors (and the setting of indicators when observing legitimation processes) must not be (except intentionally, if one wants to purposefully create a limited evaluative model) limited in time and space (when observing and examining political subjects during evaluation of their legitimizing potential and claims): M. Weber has claimed that the three forms of legitimation are (from a temporal point of view) in an evolutionary relationship with each other and that (from a spatial point of view) they can exist separately and always in a prescribed hierarchical order of dominance.

In the researcher´s argumentation, it is claimed that if there are such space-time limitations, it is not possible to exactly analyze, measure and evaluate legitimazing factors in the legitimation process (which, as the researcher believes, should be also the case in the opposite way of political empowerment: the political authorization (a top-down model)). Therefore, the researcher holds the opinion that the three types of legitimation can exist simultaneously in all the social structures of political reality and across time, and that it is not effective to observe them with discrimination in regards of spatial and temporal boundaries of existence, as it is always the strength of legitimation which we should measure.

Objectives:

- Main objective: Generalize and restandardize the theoretical model of classical theory of (spectral) legitimation of political authority.

- Component objectives:

Adjustment of an existing theoretical model of (spectral) political legitimation (of Maximilian K. E. Weber) by delimitation and precisation of the spatial and temporal dimensioning of the spectrums of observation and measurement of political legitimacy in order to enable a more composed data extraction and evaluation.
Adjustment of an existing metric system for the theory for the possibility of a more precise calculation of political legitimacy.

Duration: 12.2023 - lasts

Collaborators:

consultants: doc. Ivan KUSÝ, prof. Jaroslav ŠÁLKA, doc. Peter ONDRIA, dr. Zuzana KULAŠÍKOVÁ, prof. Peter KULAŠÍK

Conception of The General Theory of Fascism

Organizer, head and main researcher: Mgr. Martin KVAK

Annotation:

Currently, the main bulk of theories on fascism operate with an approach that is strongly accenting historical perspective for the purposes of identification of this political regime. It is so in comparing or tying (especially) current manifestations of certain political interests, movements, or groups to selected past forms of specific political regimes. Moreover (and what the researcher believes has insufficiency in scientific approach), these theories operate conditionally with the elements of other types of political regimes (e. g.: tyranny, dictatorship) and exclusively in their extreme forms of execution in order to establish a theoretical definition of a fascist political regime.

The researcher believes that such a type of discriminatory, eclectic and combinatory approach, as described above, cannot serve as a way to constitute a general theory (which is - from this point of view - not a problem if such a concept is not used as a general one, but only to describe as a subtype of the regime in question), in which a general model should be applicable on any form of governance and it is only its extensity and intesity that is to be measured in order to determine the values of quality of the regime in which the governance operates. Furthermore, if it is to be a general theory, there should not be any spatial and temporal limitations imposed in order for a theory to be applicable generally across both space and time. However, the researcher proposes and advocates that it is only subtypes of the political regime in question that are to be conceptually confined by particular spatial and temporal limits depending on what conditions of functioning of the regime an observer wishes to consider in their focus on evaluation of the poitical system under observation. For instance: As there are different types of democracies (a democracy, in its general model of governance, has its baseline qualification criteria which are common and universal for all democracies, and to which other properties can be adjected in case we are to recognize and understand its forms of presence and position in different political settings of various societal environments, depending on what factors of its functioning we wish to take into consideration in order to evaluate the functioning of a political regime of its situation or its functioning within that political regime) so there should be different types of fascism (and in a much wider array as currently established due to application of a non-general and non-systemic scientific approach).

Objectives:

- Main objective: Generalize and standardize the theoretical model of the political regime of fascism.

- Component objectives:

Redefinition of research object through recomposition of conceptual data items/components (contants and variables)
Introduction of an intra-conceptual system of categorization for the possibility conceptual modalities (to enable an open and universal typologization of this political regime).
Creation of a metric system that will meet the demands of the theory for the purpose of achievement of possibility of an exact practical quantification of extracted data and of possibility of subsequent qualification of an observed part of political reality.

Duration: 12.2023 - lasts

Collaborators:

consultants: doc. Ivan KUSÝ, prof. Jarosla ŠÁLKA, doc. Peter ONDRIA, prof. Peter KULAŠÍK

Conception of The General Theory of Communism

Organizer, head and main researcher: Mgr. Martin KVAK

Annotation:

The researcher believes that currently the term "communism" (in case it is to denote a political (and in an extent administrative) regime) does not nominally reflect the reality it mean to (appropriately) semantically represent. The researcher has reached this point of assumption after realizing the fact that the current definition of the theory of communism operates with not only variables but also constants in its conceptual settings of data items upon which the communist model of political regime is (both in theory and in practice) constructed. This makes this theoretical model partially fixated in form through which it intends to represent the selected part of political reality, which - the researcher believes - in case of a general theory should not be so but (in a consequence) should allow subsystemic modulations based upon a general idea(s).

With this in mind (especially due to operating with fixed categories), the researcher postulates that the current (general) concept (and theory) of communism can not therefore operate as a general theory o the matter, but just as a fractional theoretical model corresponding to only a one (conceptually limited) part of what is should encapsulate according to the core principles of the theory (if it is meant to be general). Because of the aforementioned assumptions, the researcher also believes that this is what makes the current (general) theory on communism a dogmatic view and not a pure systemic theory (- the researcher considers the current generalization in (terminological denotion and conceptual definiton) the theory of communism to be incomplete and therefore inadequate, which (he believes) can be misleading for the purposes of a more complete theoretical scientific exploration, conceptualization and categorization of political reality in concern).

In a philosophical excourse regarding the problem of his judgemental position on the current concept of communism as being a dogma, the researcher explains that what bears him an evidence about this quality (of being a dogmatic theory) is that the current theory of communism (assumingly intentionally) is constructed to possess a capacity to serve as an evaluative model to rate or judge societal performance in its own system of ideas/normative system or while being positioned in comparison to the other concepts which also possess such capacity (and are used to rate or judge societal performance in their system of ideas/normative system). Considering this, the researcher asserts that (in his understanding) evaluations of reality are able to be performed only in case if a specific theoretical model of societal systematization operates with categories, which data values can vary in quality, as this variation enables setting of their ideal value (which is mostly identified as a goal), in relation to which a comparation of a selected level of quality of the encapsulated reality can be carried out.

Through these processes and with all this in mind, the researcher is trying to undergo a generalization of the concept, from which (if ahieved) the researcher expects it would be possible to expand the scope of research of communism and it should enable to effectively cover and compare not only modern and postmodern (or hypermodern) forms of social (class) struggles, but to extend its reach further across both space and time.

Objectives:

- Main objective: Generalize and standardize the theoretical model of the political regime of communism.

- Component objectives:

Redefinition of research object through recomposition of conceptual data items/components (constants and variables).
Introduction of an intra-conceptual system of categorization for the possibility of conceptual modalities (to enable an open and universal typologization of this political regime).
Creation of a metric system that will meet the demands of the theory for the purpose of achievement of possibility of an exact practical quantification of extracted data and of possibility of subsequent qualification of an observed part of political reality.

Duration: 12.2023 - lasts

Collaborators:

consultants: doc. Ivan KUSÝ, prof. Jaroslav ŠÁLKA, doc. Peter ONDRIA, dr. Zuzana KULAŠÍKOVÁ, prof. Peter KULAŠÍK

Pracovné skupiny a organizácie

Committee on Neomedievalism and Neofeudalism as NWO

Foundation of the working group: founding members (2023)

Position in the working group: chairman/director

Type of working group: conceptual, monitoring, evaluatory, consultative

Level of operation of the working group: global

IPSA Research Committee on Concepts and Methods

Foundation of the working group: International Political Science Association's Executive Committee (1976)

Position in the working group: member

Type of working group: research