Search results

Over two decades ago, anthropologist Gayle Rubin began a now-classic article with a deceptively simple declaration: "The time has come to think about sex" (1984). Although Rubin was not the first thinker to place sex at the center of her work, her systematic sketch of Western sexual ideology made it possible to think about the political ramifications of sex in new and productive ways by disentangling the physical acts of sex from gender and sexuality (i.e., how we understand, interpret, and ascribe meaning to those acts). Among her many useful insights was the recognition that sex and sexuality are part of a hierarchical value system that serves as the basis for other forms of social, economic, and political power. Sex is the starting point of all human life and, consequently, sexuality subtends all other institutions from marriage to families, communities, states, and international organizations. What Foucault (1978) called biopower—the regulation of bodies, including sex—has continued to change and expand, giving rise to new forms of biopolitics—the regulation of populations and sexuality. Such regulations include moral policing and criminal sanctions, biomedical intervention, family and immigration laws, and a host of other tools that have tended to establish heterosexuality as the only normal and sanctioned sexual behavior. Regulating sex, and particularly reproduction, is an essential objective of the state because, ultimately, sex and reproduction are key to how the state regulates the fundamental element of its own composition: citizenship.

Physics and politics; an application of the principles of natural science to political society, by Walter Bagehot -- History of the science of politics, by Frederick Pollock. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Craig Johnson is an Associate Professor in Political Science. His research lies in the field of international development, focusing primarily on the ways in which global demand for land, resources and energy is affecting patterns of poverty, climate vulnerability and environmental sustainability in the Global South. Between 2009 and 2013, he led an international team of researchers looking at the socio-economic and environmental implications of urban land acquisition in India, Bangladesh and Viet Nam. He is now taking forward new work on the global race for alternative energy sources, particularly in the oil and gas sector. Finally, he is editing a book that will be published with Routledge in 2015 about the ways in which cities around the world are now responding to the global climate challenge. For more information about Craig Johnson's research, please go to his website at https://www.uoguelph.ca/polisci/craig-johnson David MacDonald is a Professor in Political Science. His research connects Canada and New Zealand. Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand are located on opposite sides of the world, yet both countries are grappling with how to forge better relationships between settlers, indigenous peoples, and ethnic communities. How a country is imagined and represented can make a difference. Canada's bilingualism and multiculturalism both symbolically alienate First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples, whose unique historical and legal status is often ignored. In New Zealand, the dominant narrative is biculturalism – a partnership between indigenous Maori and Paheka (European settlers). Ethnic communities do not easily fit into this image of the nation. His research examines the ways in which imagining community affect how these three groups form alliances or compete with one another for recognition and resources. For more information about David MacDonald's research, please go to his website at https://www.uoguelph.ca/polisci/david-macdonald ; Craig Johnson is examining how the global race for land and energy is affecting poverty, sustainability and climatic vulnerability in the Global South. David MacDonald is improving relations between Aboriginal peoples and ethnically diverse Canadians by drawing lessons from biculturalism in New Zealand.

I want to dissent initially from the rather constricting frame of reference that Schubert has established in his paper. He has every right in the world to set rhetorical snares, but I have no intention of walking into them. If I may summarize, Schubert asserts that he is a spokesman for a radical new direction in the study of public law, claiming that the old ways are moribund. He further urges that we should look with envy at the creative function of the social psychologists who supplied the Supreme Court with the banners it carried in Brown v. Board of Education while we were bumbling around with historical and philosophical trivia. He concludes that instead of wasting our time with talmudic disputations on whether the Supreme Court reached the "right" or the "wrong" decisions in specific cases, we should settle down to build a firm "scientific" foundation for our discipline.Not the least amusing aspect of this indictment is that I find myself billed as the defender of the ancien régime, as the de Maistre of public law. Therefore, for the benetfit of the young and impressionistic, let me break loose from Schubert's rhetorical trap: I too think that much of the research done in public law—and, for that matter, in political science generally—has been trivial.

A symposium comment reflecting on the debate between political scientists & political theorists. The debate is analogous to an older one between political scientists & economists. If economists now actively engage in government policy planning & formation, might political knowledge yet have a vital public role to play, eg, in countering popular indifference & fostering incentive not just to vote, but to vote judiciously? Yet prescriptions for political scientists would be counterproductive. Upholding pluralism in the field itself seems a reasonable goal. 10 References. K. Coddon

From the Rice Thresher Archive, a collection of newspaper articles published in the student newspaper for Rice University. Genre: News

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to Oren, Ozminkowski, and Strake's
comments on my recent article on myths about the physical sciences. All of them in my
judgment either misperceive parts of my original argument or raise concerns that allow me to
extend that argument. To the degree that others share their views, this essay may address
widespread differences of opinion or misperceptions about these matters.