Pan-Africanism, Black Nationalism, Ethiopianism and Rastafari : A Historical Perspective -- General Overview of the Organizational Structure of the Rastafari Movement -- The Different Mansions of the Rastafari Movement -- Gender Dynamics Within the Rastafari Movement -- Important Concepts and Symbols for the Rastafari Movement -- The Globalization of the Rastafari Movement -- Out in the Field -- A Comparison between the Rastafari Movement and other Black Theological Movements such as the Nation of Islam and the Black Hebrew Israelites -- Reflections on the Current Status of the Rastafari Movement
Empire of Humanity explores humanitarianism's remarkable growth from its humble origins in the early nineteenth century to its current prominence in global life. In contrast to most contemporary accounts of humanitarianism that concentrate on the last two decades, Michael Barnett ties the past to the present, connecting the antislavery and missionary movements of the nineteenth century to today's peacebuilding missions, the Cold War interventions in places like Biafra and Cambodia to post-Cold War humanitarian operations in regions such as the Great Lakes of Africa and the Balkans; and the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863 to the emergence of the major international humanitarian organizations of the twentieth century. Based on extensive archival work, close encounters with many of today's leading international agencies, and interviews with dozens of aid workers in the field and at headquarters, Empire of Humanity provides a history that is both global and intimate.Avoiding both romanticism and cynicism, Empire of Humanity explores humanitarianism's enduring themes, trends, and, most strikingly, ethical ambiguities. Humanitarianism hopes to change the world, but the world has left its mark on humanitarianism. Humanitarianism has undergone three distinct global ages-imperial, postcolonial, and liberal-each of which has shaped what humanitarianism can do and what it is. The world has produced not one humanitarianism, but instead varieties of humanitarianism. Furthermore, Barnett observes that the world of humanitarianism is divided between an emergency camp that wants to save lives and nothing else and an alchemist camp that wants to remove the causes of suffering. These camps offer different visions of what are the purpose and principles of humanitarianism, and, accordingly respond differently to the same global challenges and humanitarianism emergencies. Humanitarianism has developed a metropolis of global institutions of care, amounting to a global governance of humanity. This humanitarian governance, Barnett observes, is an empire of humanity: it exercises power over the very individuals it hopes to emancipate.Although many use humanitarianism as a symbol of moral progress, Barnett provocatively argues that humanitarianism has undergone its most impressive gains after moments of radical inhumanity, when the "international community" believes that it must atone for its sins and reduce the breach between what we do and who we think we are. Humanitarianism is not only about the needs of its beneficiaries; it also is about the needs of the compassionate.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
Abstract There has been a transformation in the relationship between the corporate and humanitarian worlds over the last two decades, as the humanitarian sector has integrated a corporate mentality that would have once been viewed as downright deplorable by humanitarian actors. The search for a "new business model" is symbolic of the times. After situating the historical moment in terms of the relationship between humanitarianism and neoliberalism, the article examines three defining elements of this model: humanitarian finance; the role of corporations and markets for addressing life-threatening circumstances; and a business-oriented rationalization. These developments can constrain and possibly soil the legitimacy of humanitarianism. They might also alter humanitarianism's practices and distort what humanitarian is. Such concerns raise the sociological question of: what function does humanitarianism play in the world order? Where does humanitarianism's new business model fit?
AbstractMichael Zürn'sTheory of Global Governanceis an original, bold, and compelling argument regarding the causes of change in global governance. A core argument is that legitimation problems trigger changes in global governance. This contribution addresses two core features of the argument. Although I am persuaded that legitimacy matters, there are times when: legitimacy appears to be given too much credit to the relative neglect of other factors; other times when the lack of legitimacy has little discernible impact on the working of global governance; and unanswered questions about how the legitimacy of global governance relates to the legitimacy of the international order of which it is a part. The second feature is what counts as change in global governance. Zürn reduces change to either deepening or decline, overlooking the possible how of global governance. In contrast to Zürn's map of global governance that is dominated by hierarchies in the form of international organizations, an alternative map locates multiple modes of governance: hierarchies, markets, and networks. The kinds of legitimation problems that Zürn identifies, I argue, can help explain some of the movement from hierarchical to other modes of global governance.
AbstractIn her new memoir, The Education of an Idealist, Samantha Power reflects on her eight years in the Obama administration. Although she claims that the experience did little to change her views, there is a considerable disjuncture between her point of view in her award-winning earlier book "A Problem from Hell," in which she criticizes U.S. officials for not doing the right thing, and her point of view in The Education of an Idealist, in which she defends indifference of U.S. officials under somewhat similar circumstances during the Obama years. The author of Problem could not have written Education, and the author of Education could not have written Problem. What does this tell us about the possibility for ethics in foreign policy?
This article uses the concept of international practices to explore the distinctions between human rights and humanitarianism in the contemporary period and, in turn, uses this exploration to comment on the concept of international practices. First section proposes to advance the theoretical and empirical utility of the concept of practices by parsing it into the 'problem' that sets the story in motion, what counts as competent action, background knowledge, and meanings. Second section applies this framework to the relationship between human rights and humanitarianism. Beginning in the 1990s, they began responding to many of the same material realities, which unleashed two, interrelated, processes, but had different ways of understanding competent action, background knowledge, and meanings. They began to revise their practices not only in response to new challenges but also to how the other evolved, generating new distinctions. These points of distinction were structured by different kinds of suffering and informed their contrasting narratives of precarity in the case of humanitarianism, and progress in human rights. The conclusion considers how this discussion of human rights and humanitarianism redirects contemporary research on international practices.
The contributions raise several important issues regarding the norm of gender equality in development organizations, and I want to raise the following points for further consideration. Does it matter if we treat gender equality as a norm or practice? The articles suggest that there is general movement toward the norm, but what it means to do gender equality is quite fractured. Who decides what gender equality means? Why do organizations feel the need to adopt this norm? Organizations have different motives, and these motives are probably important for understanding whether these norms have any impact. Impact refers to effects, and there are various kinds of effects raised by the articles, though focused mainly on the norm's institutionalization rather than its impact.
Actualmente, las ciencias sociales y las humanidades están plagadas de diversos conceptos, locuciones, léxicos, modismos y eslóganes que pretenden reformular la manera en que los académicos reflexionan sobre lo "global" y su relación con lo "local" —ámbito que ha sido igualmente reconceptualizado—. La utilidad de estos conceptos y marcos no reside en su capacidad de representarlo todo para el conjunto de los académicos, sino en que permiten destacar las nuevas estructuras emergentes en la política global, realzar la manera en que dichas estructuras son creadas y en qué sentido son responsables de las nuevas redes de actores, así como subrayar el desarrollo de nuevos discursos y prácticas que rompen y engranan lo local y lo global. Este texto analiza la tendencia en la teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales a conjugar estado, autoridad y territorio. En la medida en que esta unión dificulta la comprensión de la complejidad de las relaciones y de los procesos globales, es necesario prestar atención a las contribuciones recientes que disocian dichos conceptos y que generan nuevas formas de comprender la organización y la práctica de la política global, y analizar especialmente el concepto de autoridad ; The social sciences and the humanities are presently littered with various concepts, phrases, vocabularies, idioms, and slogans that are intended to resituate how scholars think about the "global" and its relationship to a reconceptualized "local". The utility of these concepts and frameworks is to be found not in their ability to be all things to all scholars, but rather in their capacity to highlight newly emergent structures in global politics, how those structures are created by and are responsible for new networks of actors, and the development of new discourses and practices that collapse and telescope the local and the global. This text explores the tendency of International Relations to collapse state, authority and territory. As far as that bundling makes it more difficult to understand complex global relationships and processes, it is necessary to pay attention to the recent contributions that unbundle these concepts generating new insights into the organization and practice of global politics, and specially to analyze the authority concept.
Abstract:Contemporary global governance is organized around an odd pairing: care and control. On the one hand, much of global governance is designed to reduce human suffering and improve human flourishing, with the important caveat that individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. On the other hand, these global practices of care are also entangled with acts of control. Peacebuilding, public health, emergency aid, human rights, and development are expressions of this tension between care and control. There is a concept that captures this tension: paternalism. Drawing on our moral intuitions, I argue that paternalism is the attempt by one actor to substitute his judgment for another actor's on the grounds that such an imposition will improve the welfare of the target actor. After discussing and defending this definition, I note how our unease with paternalism seems to grow as we scale up from the interpersonal to the international, which I argue owes to the evaporation of community and equality. After exploring the implications of this definition and distinguishing it from other forms of intervention, I consider how different elements of paternalism combine to generate different configurations. Specifically, I point to five dimensions that are most relevant for examining the paternalism found in contemporary global and humanitarian governance: the tools used to restrict another actor's liberty (force versus information); the scope of the interference (wide versus narrow); the purpose of the intervention (prevention of harm versus emancipation); the source of the paternalizer's confidence (faith versus evidence); and the mechanisms of accountability (internal versus external). These different elements often correlate historically, suggestive of two ideal types of global paternalism: strong and weak. Contemporary global and humanitarian governance is largely the weak variety: force is severely proscribed, interference is relatively restricted, the paternalizer's confidence has epistemic roots, and accountability to local populations remains a noble but rarely practiced goal. I further speculate that a major reason for this difference is the effects of liberalism and rationalization. I use this taxonomy to suggest how two different global efforts to improve the lives of those peoples living in what were perceived to be unstable and illiberal territories — the civilizing missions of the nineteenth century and the peacebuilding operations of the post-Cold War period — exhibited different kinds of paternalism. I conclude by reflecting on the ethics of international paternalism.
