The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Introduction: reframing political thought
Abstract
As we enter the twenty-first century, many of the conventional ways of analysing politics and power seem obsolescent. They were forged in the period when the boundaries of the nation state seemed to set the natural frame for political systems, and when geo-politics seemed inevitably to be conducted in terms of alliances and conflicts amongst national states. They took their model of political power from an idea of the state formed in nineteenth-century philosophical and constitutional discourse. This imagined a centralized body within any nation, a collective actor with a monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a demarcated territory. This apparent monopoly of force was presumed to underpin the unique capacity of the state to make general and binding laws and rules across its territory. It also seemed to imply that all other legitimate authority was implicitly or explicitly authorized by the power of the state. Such styles of thinking about political power also embodied particular ideas about the human beings who were the subjects of power. These were structured by the image of the individualized, autonomous and self-possessed political subject of right, will and agency. Political conceptions of human collectivities also tended to see them as singularities with identities which provided the basis for political interests and political actions: classes, races, orders, interest groups. Within such styles of thought, freedom was defined in essentially negative terms.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Contemporary healthcare discourses are inculcated with neo-liberal ideas around individual responsibility, 'activation' and consensual subjection to governmental programmes (Lupton, 1999;Rose, 1999;Tutton and Prainsack, 2011).”
From The Cultivation of Digital Health Citizenship (2021) · cites this paper as Rose, 1999
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast
Coleman, G. (2004) · Anthropological Quarterly · doi:10.1353/anq.2004.0035 · Cited by 212
The Cultivation of Digital Health Citizenship
Petrakaki, D., Hilberg, E., & Waring, J. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113675 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Venue
- Powers of Freedom
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1999-05-13
- Pages
- 1-14
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Introduction: reframing political thought. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511488856.001
- The paper
- Introduction: reframing political thought. (1999). Powers of Freedom. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511488856.001