Latest Articles

This article is an attempt to study the legitimization of the Moroccan political system by constitutional jurisprudence, considered as a concrete process within the science of constitutional law, and a social field that has witnessed struggles over epistemic authority. The structure and dynamism of this scientific field, and the appropriate political context, led to its transition from profane thought to traditionalism in the wake of the conservative revolution spearheaded by moroccan young researchers. This revolution, which constituted the kingdom of the constitutionalists, will shift from a counter field to a hegemonic one. This enabled the pioneers of traditionalism to participate in the process of legitimizing the political system in Morocco, through the production of constitutional documents broadcast and infused in symbolic violence through the constitutional lesson that will turn them, with the backing of the constitutional document and academic mentoring, into a scientific habitus.

This paper examines the rise of modern social sciences that deal with sports phenomena. It begins with the first formula that paved the way for sports science to become an independent scientific field. This is found in European intellectual discourse in the first half of the twentieth century, which linked sport to what was then known as the "crisis of European values." It then deals with the endeavours of the social sciences to make sport a research and knowledge topic, which was devoted to and institutionalised in the 1960s. It investigates the first theoretical paradigms in the field, the first designed by Norbert Elias, and deals with the position of sport in the development of modern European societies. The other, designed by Pierre Bourdieu, is based on viewing sport as an independent social field. Finally, the paper looks at the interest in cultural studies in sports in the late seventies of the twentieth century, which saw it as a field revealing the distinctions on which Western societies are built.

Milestones in Democratic Transition in the Arab World

In an effort to understand the characteristics of "virtual communities" and specifically "information societies," this study attempts to test the argument that virtual communities, with their networked structure, pose a challenge (or represent an alternative) to traditional hierarchical structures, due to the former's ability to self-organize, and settle their internal disputes without the need for authoritative intervention. The study uses the case study approach, applied to 3 Wikipedia's edit wars. The chosen cases are related to a number of Middle East informational crises. The study concludes that mechanisms of virtual societies (e.g. self-organization) can work efficiently in cases of limited disputes, but in cases of sharp disagreements, traditional (hierarchical) mechanisms that include authoritative intervention and exercising some form of power, in a "top-down" approach, remain essential for conflict resolution. This implies that the factor of "authority" remains significant even in the context of virtual communities.

​This paper examines the state of Political Science in Egypt, suggesting that the Egyptian school of Political Science is facing a crisis and analyses the reasons why. It particularly focuses on the experience of the Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Economics, Cairo University, as the first specialized school for Political Science in Egypt, in view of the increasing roles played by its graduates in the public sphere. The study focuses on three key dimensions: the perceptions of this scholarly community regarding the role entrusted to political science in Egyptian society and politics, the changes in academic curricula, and the ideological and political contexts influencing teaching and research in political science in Egypt. The study concludes that the crisis of political science in Egypt is twofold: the crisis within the field in general and specific issues within the Egyptian context itself.

The Arab Opinion Index data provides a look at a number of important issues, including assessments of foreign policy. Every year, the Index asks respondents across the Arab world their opinions on regional and world powers as well as specific foreign policy developments. Aggregate opinions may provide a general assessment of where the Arab world stands, but to understand fully the divisions and polarization that exists in the region today, it is important to look at country differences. In this paper, we will review Arab public opinion towards Iran, and whether there are sub-regional variations in assessment towards Iranian foreign policy. In this way, we can gauge whether polarization on the Iranian issue exists, and where it is most prevalent.

Hardly a day passes without seeing or hearing the terms 'extremism' or 'extremists.' Used today to describe political views and attitudes, or methods in political action, the terms today are linked to particular images, and hold specific implications charged with prejudice, half-truths, and presumption. This paper asks: Is the term extremism useful to understand the ideas, views, or practices of those who are labeled as such? Are there common traits among those labeled as extremist that renders this label a useful concept in the classification of the ideas of political groups and their objectives and methods? Or, is 'extremist' simply an expression of a negative attitude agreed to by those with a specific view with the aim of ostracizing specific groups? It then poses an even larger and more critical question: How do groups of people reach the point of burning bridges with existing reality in order to carry out a fight using violent methods? The paper argues that analyzing ideology per se to reach an answer to this question is futile, be this ideology nationalistic, religious, classist, or otherwise.

This article addresses an epistemological question related to the methodological impasse in political science through a reading of selected conceptual orientations in Gregory Bateson's thought. It advances the hypothesis that methodological difficulty does not primarily stem from analytical tools as such, but rather from the underlying frameworks through which political action is understood. Drawing on an analytical-interpretive approach, the article examines concepts such as "dysfunction as a patterned regularity", the "double bind", and "second-order learning", with the aim of questioning linear modes of explanation in political analysis and approaching politics as a network of interrelated relations and paradoxical repetitions. The discussion also engages, comparatively, with selected contributions by Niklas Luhmann, Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, in order to highlight shifts in the production of meaning in analyses of power and to delineate the limits of dominant approaches. The article concludes that a Batesonian perspective offers epistemological possibilities for understanding political complexity by foregrounding context, relational dynamics, and patterned dysfunction, beyond models based on linear causality and predictive techniques.