Suchergebnisse

'The discussion on language rights is affected by some confusion on the nature and status of rights. In this paper, a rigorous characterisation of language rights is proposed. It is argued that the general assimilation or equation between language rights and human rights is not only erroneous as far as it is inaccurate, but it leads to a distorted image of the relationship between law and politics. While human rights do limit (at least, ideally) state behaviour, language rights are, more often than not, an issue devolved to the political process. The point being made in this paper is that recognition of language rights (as such or as part of minority rights) is based primarily on contingent historical reasons. Some tentative explanations on the poor status or unequal recognition of language rights in international and domestic law will also be offered throughout the paper.' (author's abstract)

This article is adapted from John Bellamy Foster, "Nature," in Kelly Fritsch, Clare O'Connor, and AK Thompson, ed., Keywords for Radicals: The Contested Vocabulary of Late-Capitalist Struggle (Chico, CA: AK Press, 2016), 279-86, http://akpress.org/keywords-for-radicals.html."Nature," wrote Raymond Williams in Keywords, "is perhaps the most complex word in the language." It is derived from the Latin natura, as exemplified by Lucretius's great didactic poem De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) from the first century BCE. The word "nature" has three primary, interrelated meanings: (1) the intrinsic properties or essence of things or processes; (2) an inherent force that directs or determines the world; and (3) the material world or universe, the object of our sense perceptions—both in its entirety and variously understood as including or excluding God, spirit, mind, human beings, society, history, culture, etc.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Kaum etwas erscheint dem so genannten gesunden Menschenverstand so selbstverständlich wie die Gewissheit, dass es Natürliches gibt einerseits und Künstliches andererseits, dass Technik, dass Zivilisation in irgendeinem spannungsreichen Verhältnis steht zu Natur, zu Wildnis. Den gesunden Menschenverstand irritierender Weise allerdings verläuft die Unterscheidung zwischen 'Natürlichem' und 'Sozialem' in anderen Kulturen durchaus anders als in unserer eigenen, denn Natur ist keine eigenständige, menschenunabhängige Realität, sondern selber eine historisch relative gesellschaftliche Konstruktion. Demgemäß wird im ersten Schritt auf die künstliche Ordnung der Naturvölker hingewiesen und die 'sündige Natur' im Menschen erörtert. Auf dieser Grundlage wird im zweiten Schritt sodann zwischen der 'nützlichen' und der 'schönen' Natur bzw. der 'menschenfreundlichen' Natur unterschieden. (ICG2)