Suchergebnisse

Emancipatory social & political movements have relied on securing basic human & moral rights. The language of rights has been key in the histories of the labor movement, civil rights, women's rights, & gay rights. Karl Marx is one of the most forceful critics of liberal rights. In States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (1995), Wendy Brown examines the relevance of Marx's early critiques for the analysis of contemporary forms of power. She concludes, with Marx, that "rights emblematize the ghostly sovereignty of the unemancipated individual in modernity." The results of Brown's & Marx's work can be summarized as follows: (1) There exists a paradox of politics & rights; despite the fact that rights are apolitical, their existence depends upon their recognition by the political community. (2) Interests that are protected by basic rights do not have a politically exogenous existence. (3) Rights are hampered by various factors in their ability to achieve their stated aims. Like Marx, Habermas philosophized widely on basic rights. He claimed the system of rights to be universal, arguing that the system of rights should be "developed in a politically autonomous manner." Three paradoxes also exist in the work of Habermas: of politics & rights, of subject formation, & of institutionalization. Alternative frameworks, which do not in any way resolve the paradox, but which do allow the dialectical & positive dimensions of each to emerge, should be examined. Both Brown & Marx are too closely tied to a classical ideology of rights. Further, Brown's interpretation is based on an undialectical view of the abstract & universal character of rights. This leads one to conclude that she views rights as guarantors of prepolitical interests or as means by which the goals of the welfare state can be met. K. A. Larsen

Investigates the ramifications of developing a "third way" for the political Left in Italy, comparing similar movements in other countries to expose some fundamental problems with the new Left agenda. It is argued that the left-wing politics of the past are unsuited to contemporary advanced industrial societies, not least because of different value systems & ideologies & changes in the structure of the world system. Historical turning points in the history of leftist politics are identified to ground the contemporary relationship between social democracy & the Left, focusing on the 19th-century shift from a liberal democratic to a socialist Left, & the 20th-century cleavage between social democrats & communism. A call is made for more balance in modern third way change strategies. K. Hyatt Stewart

GLOBALIZATION PRESENTS LABOR WITH CHALLENGES, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE WORLDWIDE IDEOLOGICAL SUPREMACY OF NEOLIBERALISM. FOLLOWING A RATIONALE OF NEOLIBERALISM'S DEPENDENCE ON STATE INSTITUTIONS, THIS ARTICLE SUGGESTS SOME GENERAL POLITICAL CHALLENGES THAT SHOULD INFORM THESE STRATEGIES. IT THEN DISCUSSES LABOR PRACTICES AT THE NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND GLOBAL LEVELS THAT PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT AT LEAST SOME LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ARE CONFRONTING SOME OR ALL OF THESE CHALLENGES.

Reply to a review symposium (see abstracts of related articles) on Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1995). After acknowledging that the reviewers presented just interpretations of his work, the author's main purpose & the approach taken in his book are briefly summarized, starting from its thesis that the orthodox liberal view creates sharp divisions between immigrants & national minorities in how these ethnocultural groups are generally treated by the liberal democracies in which they live. This approach is defended as a viable option that does not purport to appease everyone, but rather, offers an opportunity to migrate the moral costs of alternative approaches to the ideals of multiculturalism. B. Wolfe

Part of a review symposium (see abstracts of related articles) on a book by Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1995). Kymlicka offers a persuasive liberal defense of group-based rights in his examination of special rights for two kinds of cultural minorities -- nations & ethnic groups -- & in his stance that the liberal state cannot remain culture-neutral. Although he identifies different types of cultural minorities & develops particular requirements about justice for each, Kymlicka focuses on the duality, & stops short of the plurality. It is argued that Kymlicka's categorical divisions between nation & ethnicity hurt the cause of multicultural citizenship, whereas a continuum of differences based on a matter of degree, rather than kind, would better support the moral position. Kymlicka's insistence on a dichotomy between integration & separation needlessly undermines his vision of multicultural citizenship. It is concluded that Kymlicka's troublesome idea of "nation" can be eliminated if it is replaced with the notion of a multicultural continuum. B. Wolfe

THIS ARTICLE EXPLORES HISTORIC ISLAM AND ISLAM AS A SYSTEM OF IDEAS, PRACTICES, AND CULTURAL TRAITS IN RELATION TO GOVERNMENT. IT EXAMINES THE INFLUENCE OF THE WEST ON ISLAM AND OFFERS A ROUGH CLASSIFICATION OF REGIMES. RELIGION AND THE STATE AND THE THINKING OF MUSLIMS OUSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST ARE EACH REVIEWED. THE ARTICLE CONCLUDES THAT AT THE PRESENT DAY, MOST ISLAMIC COUNTRIES ARE DISCOVERING THAT WHILE THEY HAVE GAINED INDEPENDENCE, THEY ENJOY NEITHER JUSTICE NOR FREEDOM. THERE ARE SOME WHO SEE IN DEMOCRACY THE SUREST WAY TO ATTAIN BOTH.

Mainstream international relations/international political economy views the world from the perspective of states & statesmen, & uncritically accepts the articulation of modern states with capitalism. Here, a Gramscian perspective is adopted from which it becomes possible to interpret the resistance of popular movements -- labor unions, environmental & human rights groups, citizen activists, & others -- to the transnational liberal agenda of states & multinational capital. It is argued that proponents & critics of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) emphasized different aspects of liberal common sense & envisioned different possible worlds in presenting their cases to the US public. Although they were unable to block Congressional approval of NAFTA, oppponents did articulate more explicitly a central tension of liberal capitalism, counterposing the common sense value of democracy to liberalism's traditional valorization of private property & envisioning a transnational political project involving participatory linkages among unionists, activists, & citizens across North America. Situating their critique of NAFTA within this tension, they began to make a counterhegemonic project -- organized around the extension & deepening of democracy -- more thinkable. 2 Tables, 96 References. Adapted from the source document.