Liberal neutrality is the idea that laws should not be based on religious or philosophical doctrines that not everyone accepts. The idea is closely related to the "liberal principle of legitimacy", which holds that laws are legitimate only if they are acceptable to people who are subject to them. In this thesis, I examine if the idea of neutrality meets liberalism's own requirements of legitimacy. To do so, I ask what arguments can be given to persuade evangelical Christians--a sizable minority of the U.S. population who are opposed to neutral policies on abortion, school prayer, etc.--to accept neutrality. First, I examine Ackerman and Rawls's "consensus-finding" argument, which claims generally that most comprehensive conceptions of the good are compatible with neutrality. Second, I examine Larmore, Dworkin, and Kymlicka's "consensus-building" arguments, which try to locate particular principles which non-neutralists (perfectionists) are likely to accept, and the acceptance of which is said to guarantee the acceptance of neutrality as well. I find both arguments unsatisfactory; neither is acceptable to a person who subscribes to the evangelical view of God and human nature. Third, I consider Rawls's proposal to exclude evangelicals and the like, based on the test of reasonableness which he believes is "freestanding". However, I find his test of reasonableness dependent on particular understandings of the terms "free and equal citizens", "common human reason", and "fair terms of cooperation". The test of reasonableness, I suggest, is not freestanding, and it is thus circular to use it as a criterion of exclusion. I conclude, therefore, that liberal neutrality fails to satisfy the liberal principle of legitimacy. / Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2007-09-22 16:42:44.821

Thesis (M.A.)--Scarman Centre for the Study of Public Order, University of Leicester in association with School of Professional and Continuing Education, University of Hong Kong, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 90-95) Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 241-246).

Quelles sont les modalités de conquête ou reconquête de la parole dans les situations cliniques de mutisme ? Le mutisme opère une mise en attente des processus de symbolisation. Cette mise en attente suppose cependant un travail de symbolisation souterrain, inconscient, dont le retour à la parole n’est que la partie émergée. Des exemples cliniques nous permettront de préciser deux chemins de symbolisation hors parole à travers :- Un usage particulier de la trace et de l’écriture à partir du cas clinique d’un enfant qui écrit avant de parler.- L’identification au muet sous la forme d’identification à l’inanimé et à l’animal, elle n’est pas seulement ce qui fait taire mais aussi ce qui permet de préserver les possibilités d’identification, de rejouer la rencontre au miroir.Nous serons amenés à nous interroger sur la perte de légitimité des mots qui conduit parfois au mutisme. / What are the modalities of conquest or reconquest of the word in the clinical situations of mutism ? Mutism operates a stop of the processes of symbolization. This put on hold supposes, however, an underground, unconscious work of symbolization, the return to the word is only the emerged part of it. Clinical examples will allow us to specify two ways of symbolization except word through: - a particular use of the trace and the writing from the clinical case of a child who writes before speaking. - The identification to the mute under the form of identification to inanimate and to animal. Identification to the mute is not only what silences but also what makes it possible to replay the meeting in the mirror. We will be brought to wonder about the loss of legitimacy of the words which sometimes leads to mutism

At the turn of the twentieth century, the imperial regimes of Russia and China underwent periods of political and constitutional reform unprecedented in the long histories of both states. This paper explores the conceptualization of Weberian legitimacy as it applies to these turn-of-the-century trends of political reform in Russia and China. I argue that both external and internal challenges to the legitimacy of the traditional power structures in each state gave rise to and, in effect, necessitated these reforms. Moreover, I contend that the failure of these political reforms to establish meaningful norms of representative government in Russia and China further exacerbated the challenges to the legitimacy faced by each state and subsequently fomented the revolutions that ultimately brought these periods of constitutional reform to an end. In a brief epilogue, the paper examines the possible parallels between these periods at the turn of the twentieth century and contemporary power structures and challenges to legitimacy in these states. / Master of Arts

Att leva upp till intressenters krav och förväntningar anses nödvändigt för att organisationer ska kunna bedriva sin verksamhet. Det tillstånd som råder när företagets värdesystem är i linje med samhällets kallas legitimitet och processen som leder till att en organisation bedöms som legitim kallas legitimering. Förväntningar och krav från intressenter förändras ständigt och under de senaste åren har intressenters ökade förståelse för bland annat miljöproblem, lett till en större medvetenhet om arbetet inom hållbar utveckling. Detta har bidragit till en press på organisationer och företag vad gäller deras ansvar och skyldigheter att rapportera kring deras påverkan på dessa områden. Pressen har resulterat i att de flesta större företag producerar årliga hållbarhetsrapporter och då det saknas lagar och regler för hur dessa rapporter ska se ut använder sig företag av frivilliga principer och riktlinjer vid framtagandet av rapporten.Syftet med studien är att öka förståelsen för hur legitimitetsteorin kan förklara motiven till att upprätta en hållbarhetsrapport, samt fördjupa diskussionen kring hur innehållet i rapporten används som ett legitimeringsverktyg. Forskningsfrågan som besvaras är hur legitimitets-teorin kan förklara en hållbarhetsrapports motiv och innehåll och för att uppfylla syftet har en kvalitativ studie genomförts och ett hermeneutiskt perspektiv har tillämpats. I studien genomfördes sju stycken semistrukturerade intervjuer. Urvalet begränsades till fyra hållbarhetschefer och tre hållbarhetskonsulter. Empirin bygger dels på information som intervjuerna genererat, och dels på information hämtad från organisationen GRI.Under studien framkom flera motiv till en hållbarhetsrapports upprättande, och flera faktorer som påverkar en hållbarhetsrapports innehåll identifierades. Det faktum att intressenterna har fått en större påverkan över innehållet var tydligt, vilket flera forskare skulle beskriva som en mognad i rapporteringsprocessen. Detta betyder dock inte att det är en problembefriad process, utan svårigheten i att inkludera och prioritera ”rätt” information verkar kvarstå enligt flera av våra respondenter. Vidare visade resultatet på att innehållet speglas av en önskan om att organisationen ska fortsätta att vara legitim, och att rapporten även används som ett verktyg för att reparera skadad legitimitet. Ett primärt fokus på att rapportera om det som är av störst väsentlighet innebär enligt några respondenter en större valfrihet över vad som ska rapporteras. Andra respondenter menar att företag nu inte kan undvika att vara transparenta om känslig information. Legitimitetsteorin kan även förklara valet att utelämna känslig information, då det vid ett offentliggörande finns en risk att legitimiteten kan hotas. Det finns med andra ord ett dilemma som innebär att företag måste vara transparanta för att ha möjlighet att erhålla eller bibehålla legitimitet, samtidigt som transparensen i sig kan leda till en legitimitetskris. / The ability to live up to stakeholders’ requirements and expectations is considered a necessity for organizations in order to manage their business. The condition that exists when the company's value system is in line with the society’s value system is called legitimacy, and the process leading to an organization being deemed as legitimate is called legitimation. Expectations and demands of stakeholders are constantly changing, and stakeholders' increased understanding of e.g. environmental problems has led to a greater awareness of sustainable development in organizations. This has contributed to a pressure on organizations and companies regarding their responsibilities and obligations to report on their impact in these areas. The pressure has resulted in annual sustainability reports from companies of a greater size. In the absence of laws and regulations for how these reports should be prepared, companies use voluntary principles and guidelines when developing the report.The purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of how legitimacy theory can explain the motives for establishing a sustainability report, and to deepen the discussion of how the content of the report is being used as a legitimization tool. The research question to be answered is how legitimacy theory can explain a sustainability report's incentives and content and to fulfill the purpose of the study, a qualitative method was carried out and a hermeneutic perspective was applied. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted and four sustainability managers and three sustainability consultants took part. The empirical data were based on the information generated from the interviews and on the information obtained from the GRI-organization.The study revealed numerous reasons for a sustainability report's existence, and several factors affecting the sustainability report's contents were identified. The fact that stakeholders have a major influence over the content was clear, and several scientists would describe this as a maturity in the reporting process. However, this does not mean that this is a process without difficulties or problems, and troubles to select and prioritize the 'right' information remain. Furthermore, the results showed that the content is mirrored by a desire for the organization to continue to be legitimate, and that the report is also being used as a tool to repair damaged legitimacy. A primary focus on reporting on what is of greatest materiality means according to some respondents a greater choice of what to report. Other respondents believe that this will force companies to be transparent of sensitive information. Legitimacy theory provides an explanation for the choice to exclude sensitive information, since publication of negative information can endanger the perception of the company and the legitimacy can be threatened. In other words, there is a dilemma which means that companies[III]must be transparent in order to obtain or maintain legitimacy, while transparency in itself can lead to a crisis of legitimacy.This thesis is written in Swedish.

Sustainability reports should provide a balanced picture of a company’s sustainability aspects, but because of its voluntary nature, overly positive aspects are often presented (Holder-Webb et al., 2009; Lougee & Wallace, 2008). Though, negative disclosure may also be released as it could improve transparency, enhance trust, and decrease the risk of green or whitewashing tendencies (Hahn & Lüfs, 2014, Hahn & Reimsbach, 2013). However, when disclosing negative information, it is important for companies to legitimize the negative aspects, as the negative information could otherwise harm the company. As a result of this, different legitimacy strategies are used by companies when disclosing negative information (Hahn et al., 2021). Based on this, this thesis explores and analyses strategies for disclosing negative sustainability information. In particular, the study examines companies within the fast fashion industry, a heavily debated sector in regard to sustainability, which indicates that the companies within the business should try to legitimize themselves.    To fulfil the purpose of this study the choice was made to conduct a content analysis and semi-structured interviews, where four fast fashion companies’ (H&M, SHEIN, Boohoo and American Eagle) sustainability reports were analysed to identify negative sustainability disclosure and assess how the companies’ tried to legitimize these negative aspects. Later, the disclosure strategies’ impacts on stakeholders were examined through 10 semi-structured interviews with concerned stakeholders. The results show that the companies subject to research did use the strategies corrective action, marginalization, abstraction, and preventive action to legitimize negative sustainability issues. The strategies were often not effective in enhancing legitimacy mainly because of too vague measures, but also because of the disbelief from stakeholders regarding the industry’s will and ability to change. However, the findings also indicated that the negative disclosure could enhance a bit of legitimacy as it signalled transparency and accountability, which is preferred compared to denial or compliance.    The study’s implications are important for scholars and practitioners. The theoretical contributions were added to the research field of negative disclosure and legitimacy strategies, and the implications are important for managers working within the fast fashion industry as well. This is because the results of this study will develop their knowledge of how certain negative disclosures strategies can play a both positive and negative role in enhancing the legitimacy towards stakeholders.

Scholars, journalists, and politicians speak frequently about the legitimacy of political institutions; yet there is little known about the precise elements that comprise the concept of legitimacy. I draw from a broad literature across the social sciences to present a coherent, multi-dimensional theory of legitimacy. I advance also a theory of presidential legitimacy rhetoric, arguing that presidents will use legitimacy rhetoric most when prompted by crisis conditions or in precedential contexts which mandate the use of language on institutions' legitimacy. Using text analysis on presidential speeches from 1961-2022, I demonstrate that presidents have indeed used legitimacy rhetoric more frequently during periods of crisis. I find subsequently, with original survey experiment data, that presidential legitimacy rhetoric has a significant impact on public attitudes, though not in the direction of the president's remarks. This dissertation therefore contributes to extant literature on presidential leadership by producing original evidence that presidents are largely defensive and limited actors in the U.S. political system, frequently turning to legitimacy rhetoric to exploit existing political conditions yet nevertheless typically unable to shift public opinion to fit their own views.

The traditional monopoly of politics and international relations on theorizing power, authority and legitimacy has eroded in the late modern era. The complexity of these domains has been compounded in a strongly interconnected, post-Westphalian world, where sovereignty and statehood are increasingly negotiated, where centres of power and authority have shifted and where new configurations of governance have come to the fore. The conventional conceptual toolbox of inter-national relations has been slow to adapt, and so the need to embrace insights from other disciplines never greater. The study of legitimacy in particular has been hamstrung by conventional drawings of both sovereignty and authority. Public authority, in the Weberian idealist sense, is the legitimated exercise of power. The study of power has broadened considerably in this timeframe; legitimacy, or rather the practice of legitimation, must mirror power's analytical expansion. Even where the need to broaden our conceptualization of legitimation has been conceded, its empirical content has remained woefully thin. The question of how political actors legitimate their authority to act thus remains under-theorized and under-researched. This thesis contributes to contemporary debates regarding power, legitimation and authority in two key respects. The first is in theorizing legitimation as practice: the everyday 'socially meaningful patterns of action' (Adler & Pouliot 2011, p3) that render power authoritative. This practice-based approach, benefitting in particular from the legacies of Foucault and Bourdieu, moves firmly away from accounts of legitimacy as 'inputs' and 'outputs' towards a more processual account. The second is in locating these everyday practices beyond formalized institutions, undertaken by a range of actors in a range of forums. The increasingly blurred 'non-state' operates in the margins between global and local; national/international; public/private and indeed state/non-state, whilst nonetheless sustaining a claim to publicness. These 'twilight' institutions (Lund 2006a) include the non-government organizations in Tanzania on which this thesis is focussed. It draws on extensive critical ethnography in locating everyday governmental and non-governmental legitimation practice, whilst linking the local to the global. This is not solely about facilitating the travel of international relations to its hitherto geographical and theoretical margins, but to return with rigour to the centrality of legitimation as experienced in 'most of the world' (Chatterjee 2004). It asks, in short, how NGOs, as non-state actors, legitimate their authority to act in the everyday, within today's interconnected world.

This thesis aims to facilitate an understanding of some of the critical debates in public relations theory and practice. It joins others in contributing to a shift from a functional systems-based public relations paradigm to one where public relations is transparently seen as playing a role in shaping democracy in a global society. The research analyses NATO's communication operations in the Kosovo Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, examining the case from a number of different perspectives. The thesis contributes to the body of knowledge of public relations practices and how, in this case, they were used to inform and persuade publics of the moral cause of a bombing mission to achieve specific strategic organisational and communication goals. Further, it contextualises the case of NATO as an organisation facing a crisis in legitimacy following the end of the Cold War. It demonstrates how the Kosovo Campaign provided a vehicle to transform NATO's identity while retaining military capabilities, to make the organisation relevant to the global demands of the 21st century. In this way, NATO could claim a unique self and maintain its credibility and relevance. The thesis argues that NATO's public relations campaign was successful in maintaining both credibility and popular support for a 78-day bombing campaign within the 19 nations of the Alliance. The campaign allowed NATO to claim that it was the only organisation that could provide ii security and stability, as well as be the main bulwark of the defence of Western values in a rapidly globalising and changing world. Moreover, by framing the Kosovo air campaign as a humanitarian intervention, NATO was not only able to legitimise its actions but transform its military might with an acceptable human face in order to achieve its broader ideological goals in Europe. This thesis demonstrates how military interventions on behalf of powerful interests can be legitimised if the appropriate public relations framework is used and acceptable communication strategies employed. It suggests how citizens of democratic countries can be led to support decision-makers who present themselves as acting altruistically even when their actions may be self-interested.