Arrow's Theorem, in its social choice function formulation, assumes that all nonempty finite subsets of the universal set of alternatives is potentially a feasible set. We demonstrate that the axioms in Arrow's Theorem, with weak Pareto strengthened to strong Pareto, are consistent if it is assumed that there is a prespecified alternative which is in every feasible set. We further show that if the collection of feasible sets consists of all subsets of alternatives containing a prespecified list of alternatives and (...) if there are at least three additional alternatives not on this list, replacing nondictatorship by anonymity results in an impossibility theorem. (shrink)

The essays in this volume, first published in 1986, examine the philosophical foundations of social choice theory. This field, a modern and sophisticated outgrowth of welfare economics, is best known for a series of impossibility theorems, of which the first and most crucial was proved by Kenneth Arrow in 1950. That has often been taken to show the impossibility of democracy as a procedure for making collective decisions. However, this interpretation is challenged by several of the contributors here. Other central (...) issues discussed in the volume include the possibility of making interpersonal comparisons of utility, the question of whether all preferences are equally to be valued, and the normative individualism underlying the theoretical tradition. Criticisms of social choice theory are advanced and suggestions for alternative approaches are developed. (shrink)

The scholarship of Ulf Hannerz is characterized by its extraordinary breadth and visionary nature. He has contributed to the understanding of urban life and transnational networks, and the role of media, paradoxes of identity and new forms of community, suggesting to see culture in terms of flows rather than as bounded entities. Contributions honor Hannerz' legacy by addressing theoretical, epistemological, ethical and methodological challenges facing anthropological inquiry on topics from cultural diversity policies in Europe to transnational networks in Yemen, and (...) from pottery and literature to multinational corporations. (shrink)

Engaging Anthropology takes an unflinching look at why the discipline has not gained the popularity and respect it deserves in the twenty-first century.While showcasing the intellectual power of discipline, Eriksen takes the anthropological community to task for its unwillingness to engage more proactively with the media in a wide range of current debates, from immigrant issues to biotechnology. Eriksen argues that anthropology needs to rediscover the art of narrative and abandon arid analysis and, more provocatively, anthropologists need to lose their (...) fear of plunging into the vexed issues modern societies present. (shrink)

In recent years, multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) has increasingly been the subject of debate in Norway, and the intensity reached a tentative maximum when Legislation Department delivered the interpretative statement § 2 - Interpretation of the Abortion Act in 2016 in response to the Ministry of Health (2014) requesting the Legislation Department to consider whether the Law on abortion allows for MFPR of healthy fetuses in multiple pregnancies. The Legislation Department concluded that current abortion laws allow MFPR within the framework (...) the law otherwise stipulates. The debate has not subsided, and during autumn 2018, it was further intensified in connection with the Christian Democrat "crossroads" and signals from the Conservatives to consider removing §2.3c and to forbid MFPR. -/- Many of the arguments in the MFPR debate appear seemingly similar to arguments pending in the general abortion debate, and an analysis of what sets MFPR apart from other abortions is wanting. The aim of this article is, therefore, to examine whether there is a moral distinction between abortion and MFPR of healthy fetuses. We will cover the typical arguments of the Norwegian debate, and highlight them with scholarly articles from the literature. The most important arguments against MFPR that we have identified we have dubbed the harm argument, slippery-slope argument, intent argument, grief argument, psychological long-term effects for the woman and sorting argument. We conclude that counter-arguments do not measure up in terms of detecting a morally relevant difference between MFPR of healthy fetuses and abortions. Our conclusion is therefore that—despite what several debaters seem to think—there is no morally relevant difference between the two. Therefore, when we allow abortion, we should also allow MFPR. (shrink)

In recent years, multifetal pregnancy reduction has increasingly been a subject of debate in Norway. The intensity of this debate reached a tentative maximum when the Legislation Department delivered their interpretative statement, Section 2 - Interpretation of the Abortion Act, in 2016 in response to a request from the Ministry of Health that the Legislation Department consider whether the Abortion Act allows for MFPR of healthy fetuses in multiple pregnancies. The Legislation Department concluded that the current abortion legislation [as of (...) 2016] allows for MFPR subject to the constraints that the law otherwise stipulates. The debate has not subsided, and during autumn 2018 it was further intensified in connection with the Norwegian Christian Democratic "crossroads" policy and signals from the Conservatives to consider removing section 2.3c and to forbid MFPR. Many of the arguments in the MFPR debate are seemingly similar to arguments put forward in the general abortion debate, and an analysis to ascertain what distinguishes MFPR from other abortions has yet to be conducted. The aim of this article is, therefore, to examine whether there is a moral distinction between abortion and MFPR of healthy fetuses. We will cover the typical arguments emerging in the debate in Norway and exemplify them with scholarly articles from the literature. We have dubbed the most important arguments against MFPR that we have identified the harm argument, the slippery-slope argument, the intention argument, the grief argument, the long-term psychological effects for the woman argument, and the sorting argument. We conclude that these arguments do not measure up in terms of demonstrating a morally relevant difference between MFPR of healthy fetuses and other abortions. Our conclusion is, therefore — despite what several discussants seem to think — that there is no morally relevant difference between the two. Therefore, on the same conditions as we allow for abortions, we should also allow MFPR. Keywords: abortion, ethics, medical ethics, MFPR, selective MFPR. (shrink)

The essays in this volume consider the question of whether the self is a unity or whether it should be conceived without metaphor as divided - as a 'multiple self'. The issue is a central one for several disciplines. It bears directly on the account of rationality and the explanation of individual decision-making and behaviour. Is the hypothesis of a multiple self required to deal with the problems of self-deception and weakness of will; and can the conceptual tools developed in (...) the study of interpersonal conflict be applied to the analysis of intra-personal struggle? Most of the essays, by a number of leading philosophers, psychologists and economists, appear here for the first time. They bring out the interdisciplinary importance of the question, and will interest readers in all those areas. The volume will also usefully supplement The Foundations of Social Choice Theory, edited by Jon Elster and Aanund Hylland, which appears in the same series and is also concerned with the foundations of rationality. (shrink)

The essays in this volume consider the question of whether the self is a unity or whether it should be conceived without metaphor as divided - as a 'multiple self'. The issue is a central one for several disciplines. It bears directly on the account of rationality and the explanation of individual decision-making and behaviour. Is the hypothesis of a multiple self required to deal with the problems of self-deception and weakness of will; and can the conceptual tools developed in (...) the study of interpersonal conflict be applied to the analysis of intra-personal struggle? Most of the essays, by a number of leading philosophers, psychologists and economists, appear here for the first time. They bring out the interdisciplinary importance of the question, and will interest readers in all those areas. The volume will also usefully supplement The Foundations of Social Choice Theory, edited by Jon Elster and Aanund Hylland, which appears in the same series and is also concerned with the foundations of rationality. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Globalizing Music Education. A Framework by Alexandra Kertz-WelzelGeir JohansenAlexandra Kertz-Welzel, Globalizing Music Education. A Framework (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2018)A recurring challenge for the scholarship of music education is that, in a time of information overflow, we still miss significant knowledge about each other’s work, disseminated across national and cultural borders. However, as such challenges are situated within larger, more general frames of cultural as well as political (...) forces and powers, we need systematic approaches to handling them, based on international and global perspectives.Alexandra Kertz-Welzel’s book Globalizing Music Education constitutes an excellent ground for such work. Her purpose is to provide a conceptual framework, entailing “a theoretical structure of categories and conceptual elements that can facilitate becoming a united and diverse global music education community”1 which is “culturally sensitive.”2 She constructs the framework by introducing its conceptual elements along with unfolding the argument within each chapter. For some readers, it might have been easier to achieve the framework structure if described explicitly, for example in a model. For others, it may be exciting to explore it gradually together with the author as she develops her narrative.Kertz-Welzel intends the book to be a guide “for people’s own scholarly journeys, as well as for the profession.”3 As her point of departure, she takes a [End Page 97] comprehensive perspective, drawing the readers’ attention to how “[g]lobalization and internationalization have shaped our lives in ways that we do not notice anymore.”4 Pointing to a variety of non-musical as well as musical examples and relating her overview to social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s5 eight dimensions of globalization, she demonstrates her comprehensive knowledge of relevant information within other fields along with the ability to utilize it in order to enrich her analyses. This attention to other fields represents a recurring trait within the book, significantly increasing its quality.Modestly and realistically, she states that the book “can only be a first attempt to start a professional discourse about the impact globalization and internationalization have on music education worldwide....”6 Here, one might be confused about whether ‘discourse’ points to ‘discussion’ or discourse theory,7 but the latter perspective is brought in more clearly as she moves along. Secondly, the attention towards ‘impact,’ occurring several times throughout the book, raises a question about the balance between a focus on coping with the consequences of globalization and emphasizing our agency in these matters. Bringing in the latter by statements such as “[w]e are actors, not victims”8 and increasing this balance when discussing policy in Chapter Three, Kertz-Welzel’s argument still reveals a potential for further discussion. Moreover, addressing the challenges of globalization, we need to “help [students] develop different kinds of musicianship connected to their personal music identities,”9 she holds. Again, a potential for further discussion emerges, this time about the weight on the personal and individual over the collective. This issue might be an interesting one to discuss further within a globalized music education community.What is globalizing music education about, then? A condensed version of Kertz-Welzel’s argument might include addressing the challenges we face today by uniting our efforts and using the multi-faceted strengths we have, across the globe, in order to arrive at a united yet diverse and culturally sensitive global music education community.The main body of the book contains three chapters. In Chapter One, Kertz-Welzel distinguishes between internationalization and globalization by connecting ‘international’ with relations between nations and national organizations, while globalization rests within a notion of a worldwide community, representing a new unity based on global visions and interests, constantly transformed and in search of its identity. “This notion of globalizing can concern areas such as music education,”10 she suggests. The chapter addresses the impact globalization and internationalization have on education, music, and language, making those concepts constitute cornerstones of the suggested framework.Addressing education, Kertz-Welzel holds that globalization and internationalization have changed education from being a clearly national endeavor [End Page 98] rooted in distinctive, national values and traditions to becoming a cultural project of the world society... (shrink)

In this era of “globalization”, nation-building has become a relatively neglected topic. In this essay, I use Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s textbook, Globalization, as a framework for exploring nation-building in China. I take his eight-concept chapter outline—disembedding, acceleration, standardization, interconnectedness, movement, mixing, vulnerability, and re-embedding—and apply it to dynamics of nation-building in China. In so doing, I tease out actual and potential relationships among the processes evident in Chinese nation-building and globalization. In addition, I explore some of the relationships, productivities (...) and pitfalls of “globalization” and “nation-building” as concepts. (shrink)

A textbook by Norwegian anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen tells us that Gregory Bateson criticized the use of the term ‘function’ in social anthropology on the following grounds: it has no place outside of mathematics. But consulting the Bateson text referred to, he does not say that in his section on function and even endorses certain uses of the term “function” in anthropology. I look into these and his criticisms of functionalism, responding to the criticisms.