On democracy

If one clear argument emerged from my doctoral thesis in political science, it is that there is no agreement as to what democracy is. There are over 40 different varieties of democracy ranging from those in the mainstream with subtle or minute differences to those playing by themselves in the corner. And many of these various types of democracy are very well argued, empirically supported, and highly relevant to certain polities. The irony is that the thing which all of these democratic varieties or the ‘basic democracy’ that all other forms of democracy stem from, is elusive. There is no international agreement in the literature or in political practice as to what ‘basic democracy’ is and that is problematic as many of us use the word ‘democracy’ every day and it is a concept of tremendous importance internationally. I am still uncertain as to why this problem has not been resolved before by far greater minds than my own, and it may have something to do with the recent growth in democratic theory this past decade and the innovative areas of thought my thesis required, but I think I’ve got the answer. By listing each type of democracy and filling the column next to this list with the literature associated with these various styles of democracy, I amassed a large and comprehensive body of textual data. My research intended to find out what these various styles of democracy had in common and to create a taxonomy (like the ‘tree of life’ in biology) of democracy to attempt at showing how various styles of democracy have ‘evolved’ over the past 5000 years.ii I then ran a word frequency analysis program or a piece of software that counts the 100 most commonly used words in the texts. This is where my logic came in as I had to make sense of these words. How did they answer what the most fundamental commonalities are between 40 different styles of democracy? I used a grounded theory analysis which required that I argue my way through these words to form a ‘theory’ or plausible explanation as to why these particular words and not others are the important ones for answering the question. It came down to the argument that all 40 styles of democracy analysed have the following in common 1) A concept of a citizenry. 2) A concept of sovereignty. 3) A concept of equality. 4) A concept of law. 5) A concept of communication. 6) And a concept of selecting officials. Thus, democracy is a defined citizenry with its own concept of sovereignty which it exercises through the institutions which support the citizenry’s understandings of equality, law, communication, and the selection of officials. Once any of these 6 concepts are defined in a particular way it creates a style of democracy. From this, we can also see that there can be more than one style of democracy active in a particular government as a citizenry is composed of many different aggregates with their own understandings of the six concepts.

The effects of L1 orthography on processing an artificial logographic script

To date, studies have focused on the acquisition of alphabetic second languages (L2s) in alphabetic first language (L1) users, demonstrating significant transfer effects. The present study examined the process from a reverse perspective, comparing logographic (Mandarin-Chinese) and alphabetic (English) L1 users in the acquisition of an artificial logographic script, in order to determine whether similar language-specific advantageous transfer effects occurred. English monolinguals, English-French bilinguals and Chinese-English bilinguals learned a small set of symbols in an artificial logographic script and were subsequently tested on their ability to process this script in regard to three main perspectives: L2 reading, L2 working memory (WM), and inner processing strategies. In terms of L2 reading, a lexical decision task on the artificial symbols revealed markedly faster response times in the Chinese-English bilinguals, indicating a logographic transfer effect suggestive of a visual processing advantage. A syntactic decision task evaluated the degree to which the new language was mastered beyond the single word level. No L1-specific transfer effects were found for artificial language strings. In order to investigate visual processing of the artificial logographs further, a series of WM experiments were conducted. Artificial logographs were recalled under concurrent auditory and visuo-spatial suppression conditions to disrupt phonological and visual processing, respectively. No L1-specific transfer effects were found, indicating no visual processing advantage of the Chinese-English bilinguals. However, a bilingual processing advantage was found indicative of a superior ability to control executive functions. In terms of L1 WM, the Chinese-English bilinguals outperformed the alphabetic L1 users when processing L1 words, indicating a language experience-specific advantage. Questionnaire data on the cognitive strategies that were deployed during the acquisition and processing of the artificial logographic script revealed that the Chinese-English bilinguals rated their inner speech as lower than the alphabetic L1 users, suggesting that they were transferring their phonological processing skill set to the acquisition and use of an artificial script. Overall, evidence was found to indicate that language learners transfer specific L1 orthographic processing skills to L2 logographic processing. Additionally, evidence was also found indicating that a bilingual history enhances cognitive performance in L2.

The influence of fatalistic beliefs on risky road use behavior in developing countries

There is little discussion of fatalism in the road safety literature, and limited research. However, fatalism is a potential barrier to participation in health-promoting behaviours, particularly among the populations of developing countries and to some extent in developed countries. Many people still believe in divine discretion and magical powers as causes of road crashes in different parts of the world. Fatalistic beliefs and beliefs in mystical powers and superstition appear to influence perceptions of crash risk and consequently lead people to take risks and neglect safety measures. Fatalistic beliefs may cause individuals to be resigned to risks because they cannot do anything to reduce these risks.