Suchergebnisse

When Michael Harrington's The Other America: Poverty in the United States first appeared in bookstores in March 1962, its author had modest hopes for its success, expecting to sell at most a few thousand copies. Instead, the book proved a publishing phenomenon, garnering substantial sales (seventy thousand in several editions within its first year and over a million in paperback since then), wide and respectful critical attention, and a significant influence over the direction of social welfare policy in the United States during the decade that followed. By February 1964, Business Week noted, "The Other America is already regarded as a classic work on poverty." Time magazine later offered even more sweeping praise, listing The Other America in a 1998 article entitled "Required Reading" as one of the twentieth century's ten most influential books, putting it in such distinguished company as Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents and Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. Harrington's own knowledge of poverty was, for the most part, acquired secondhand, as he would recount in two memoirs, Fragments of the Century (1973) and The Long Distance Runner: An Autobiography (1988). Born in 1928 in St. Louis, the only child of loving and moderately prosperous parents of sturdy Irish-Catholic lineage, educated at Holy Cross, Yale Law School, and the University of Chicago, he moved to New York City in 1949 to become a writer. In 1951, he joined Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker movement as a volunteer at its soup kitchen; there he got to know a small subset of the nation's poor, the homeless male alcoholics of New York City's Bowery district. Within a few years he left the Catholic Worker (and the Catholic Church) and joined the Young People's Socialist League, the youth affiliate of the battered remnants of the American Socialist Party, a party then led by Norman Thomas. A tireless organizer, prolific writer, skillful debater, and charismatic orator, Harrington succeeded Thomas as America's best-known socialist in the 1960s, just as Thomas had succeeded Eugene Debs in that role in the 1920s. Socialism was never the road to power in the United States, but socialist leaders like Debs, Thomas, and Harrington were, from time to time, able to play the role of America's social conscience. In the years since Harrington's death from cancer in 1989, at the age of sixty-one, no obvious successor to the post of socialist tribune in the Debs-Thomas-Harrington tradition has emerged. Harrington's most famous appeal to the American conscience, The Other America, was a short work (one hundred and eighty-six pages in the original edition) with a simple thesis: poverty in the affluent society of the United States was both more extensive and more tenacious than most Americans assumed. The extent of poverty could be calculated by counting the number of American households that survived on an annual income of less than $3,000. These figures were readily available in the census data, but until Harrington published The Other America they were rarely considered. Harrington revealed to his readers that an "invisible land" of the poor, over forty million strong, or one in four Americans at the time, fell below the poverty line. For the most part this Other America existed in rural isolation and in crowded slums where middle-class visitors seldom ventured. "That the poor are invisible is one of the most important things about them," Harrington wrote in his introduction in 1962. "They are not simply neglected and forgotten as in the old rhetoric of reform; what is much worse, they are not seen." That was then. Fifty years since the publication of The Other America the poor are still among us -- and in a testament to the lasting significance of Harrington's work, not at all invisible. Whether or not the poor exist is thus no longer a matter of debate; what if anything can be done to improve their condition remains at issue. Adapted from the source document.

"The question at hand seems relatively simple and straightforward: whether and to what extent the protection and promotion of human rights is necessary for efforts to address conflict and build peace. The issue has been much debated over time. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights forcefully associated the protection of human rights with the prevention of violent conflict, stating that 'it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law' (UN 1948, preamble). Yet in 1996, an anonymous author in Human Rights Quarterly accused the international human rights movement of prolonging the war in Bosnia Herzegovina. There, human rights activists had rejected pragmatic deals that could have ended the violence and, from hindsight, were no worse than the eventual agreement in rewarding ethnic cleansing and aggression. In that author's view, it made 'today's living the dead of tomorrow' by pursuing a perfectly just and moral peace that would bring 'justice for yesterday's victims of atrocities' (Anonymous 1996, 259). Since then, the idea that the normative nature of human rights standards may complicate the practical demands of peacemaking has been a recurrent theme in discussions on the relationship between human rights and efforts to address violent conflict. This is especially the case when the latter is conceived of in terms of conflict settlement or resolution. Questions of definitions and objectives are thus key. Also relevant are the time frame, context and level of intervention one focuses on, though few authors on the subject make this explicit. In addition, narrow perceptions and generalizations abound in this debate as people working on human rights, peace and conflict have been grouped into categories of 'human rights activists' and 'conflict resolvers' as if these were homogenous and coherent clusters of actors. In this chapter, the authoress argues that considering human rights and conflict transformation in conjunction deepens one's analysis of what is involved in moving from violence to sustainable peace. It is informed by the idea that the two fill 'gaps' in one another, in that each contributes to a better understanding of the other by highlighting elements that are relatively under-explored in the theory and practice of each separate field. For conflict transformation, which will be the main focus here, the perspective of human rights forces a greater emphasis on structural conditions, especially the role of the state, systems of governance and issues of power in generating, escalating and transforming violent conflict. Considering human rights in relation to conflict transformation, moreover, highlights the need to employ a holistic, multidimensional understanding of human rights that does not reduce them to their legal foundations. This chapter suggests that conflict transformation, because of its explicit grounding in social justice, and hence inherently normative foundation, may provide a more nuanced and fruitful conceptual space for thinking about human rights, conflict and peace than conflict resolution and conflict management. Placing constructive social change at its core, conflict transformation acknowledges the need for addressing power imbalances and recognizes a role for advocacy and the importance of voices that challenge the status quo. Its concern with direct, structural and cultural violence is thus also highly relevant from a rights perspective. In order to place these ideas in context, the chapter will briefly comment on literature that has been published on human rights and approaches for addressing conflict and building peace (section 2). Section 3 proposes a framework for understanding the relationship between human rights and conflict transformation, using the metaphor of an iceberg, with its graphic image of things visible connected to matters unseen. It also introduces four dimensions of human rights that need to be taken into account in processes to build a just and sustainable peace. Section 4 discusses some of the practical implications of adopting a human rights perspective on conflict transformation. Nepal, South Africa, and other countries where the authoress has worked over the past 15 years, are used as illustrative examples throughout sections 3 and 4. Finally, section 5 concludes and points to some areas for further research." (excerpt)

The protests at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle marked a turning point in trade politics. The size and depth of the international coalition that came together to protest the WTO was striking. And then there were the television images and the stunning denouement: Teamsters marching with 'turtles,' tear gas and police charges in the darkness, the collapse of the negotiations. The author of one of the books reviewed here, Jagdish Bhagwati, was in Seattle as an adviser to the WTO's director. While trying to get to the meeting, he found himself 'confronting a tough Chinese Red Guards-style female demonstrator who was blocking my way illegally.' A colleague then 'drew me away from a confrontation that would surely have left me bloodied, saying, `You are the foremost free trader today; we cannot afford to lose you!" Bhagwati's story speaks to several things, including his considerable ego. Most important, though, it captures the embattled state in which mainstream trade economists loyal to free trade doctrines now believe they exist: 'there are not too many out there, fighting the fight for free trade,' Bhagwati worries, 'We need to change that.' Do Irwin and Bhagwati understand that this is what most of the critics believe? I'm afraid not. Both authors characterize the critics as 'anti-globalization.' Although this accurately describes some, it is not true for the majority. Both authors seem to think that the main reason critics are against globalization is that they are anticapitalist and antimarket. Irwin, for example, tells us that for many of these groups, 'Free markets and capitalism are seen as embodying and furthering environmental destruction, male dominance, class oppression, racial intolerance and colonial exploitation.' To characterize most environmental organizations, or most contemporary trade unions, as 'anticapitalist' is absurd, if that means that they are committed to the abolition of capitalism. If the term means that they are critical of the way that capitalism currently operates, the characterization is accurate, but then the authors' summary dismissal of that position becomes puzzling. The critics insist that there are better and worse forms of market economy, that the neoliberal model of regulation toward which we are currently moving (one that expands property rights while ignoring human rights) is worse than feasible alternatives, and therefore, that the current model of global economic regulation can and ought to be changed. Unfortunately, Irwin and Bhagwati, by tilting at anticapitalist windmills, fail to join the real argument. IN THEIR EFFORT to extract free trade from the wider matrix of economic globalization, the authors downplay the degree to which trade deals such as NAFTA and the WTO shape the character of the larger economic system. For example, some of the most novel and important provisions in NAFTA and the WTO--pertaining to investor property rights and the deregulation of financial services--undoubtedly increase international capital mobility. Dani Rodrik has argued that increased international capital mobility could significantly increase the 'price elasticity of the demand for labor.' That is, firms will shift production to other countries in response to smaller and smaller differences in labor costs, other things being equal. This could dampen wage growth not only in the North, but in the South as well. Bhagwati and Irwin both devote considerable effort to exploring how free trade affects wages, yet neither so much as mentions Rodrik's well-known argument. Why not? Free capital mobility is one thing, Bhagwati says, free trade is another. He favors considerably less of the former than we have today, and much more of the latter. But while conceptually distinct, the fact is that both principles are promoted in NAFTA and the WTO. If we want to assess the impacts of these international agreements, we must consider how they affect capital mobility, and how it in turn affects workers, the environment, and so on. Slippage in the way the concept of 'free trade' is employed permits Bhagwati and Irwin to evade this challenge.

The table of contents of the Proceedings is followed by an Introductory Note by John P. Robinson & Kurt Back which states that the 26th AAPOR Conference was held May 19-22, 1971 in Pasadena, Calif. 16 formal sessions & 8 luncheon round-table discussions were held under the general theme 'Public Opinion in a Society under Pressure.' The AAPOR Award for distinguished achievement was presented to Walter Lippmann. A brief history of the Award is given. Richard H. Baxter, A NEW GOAL FOR AAPOR: PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, discusses the relevancy of AAPOR as an org in the context of modern survey res & the increasing depersonalization & massive growth of the res community. The org has made 4 kinds of responses to recent developments of professional growth: (a) high-caliber annual conference programs; (b) the consistently dedicated activity of successive AAPOR Standing Committees on Standards; (c) the encouragement & development of young people having an interest in PO res through the Annual AAPOR Student Competition; (d) the establishment of an ad hoc committee chaired by Barbara Lee-on Soc Concerns. The role of individual AAPOR members as res ombudsmen in their communities is touched upon. The establishment of a professional consultation panel is proposed. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS presents the following: (1) SOCIAL INDICATORS - Chairman: Raymond A. Bauer (Harvard U, Cambridge, Mass); Donald S. Shoup, 'Social Indicators: Some Possible Futures;' & Peter J. Henriot (Seattle U, Washington), 'Social Indicators: Some Practical Politics.' (2) IMPACT OF SOCIAL RESEARCH ON POLICY DECISIONS - Chairman: Hervert I. Abelson; John P. Robinson (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 'The Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior;' Nathan Caplan (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 'The National Commission on Civil Disorders;' Joseph T. Klapper (Columbia Broadcasting System, New York, NY), 'Observations on the Research Situation Faced by Commissions and Similar Bodies;' Sandar J. Ball-Rokeach (U of Western Ontarto,Toronto), 'The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.' (3) CONSUMERISM: DIRECTIONS AND ISSUES, Chairman: Robert Lavidge: Robert J. Lavidge, 'Introductory Remarks;' Raymond A. Bauer (Harvard U, Cambridge, Mass), 'Consumerism in Perspective;' John S. Coulson, 'A Response to Consumerists.' (4) ESTABLISHMENT ELITES IN A TIME OF CHANGE, Chairman: Robert E. Lee: Victor D. Beardsley, 'Local Leadership: Its Characteristics and Structure;' Ruth Clark, 'Top Corporate Leadership in a Time of Change.' (5) TRANSITIONS IN YOUTH CULTURE: A SPECULATIVE FRAMEWORK, Chairman: Luiz Simmons: Luiz Simmons, 'The Real Generation Gap: A Speculation on the Meaning and Implications of Youth Activism;' Elinor Luire (San Francisco Med Center, Calif), 'Son of the Silent Majority: Intergenerational Perceptions of Youthful Dissent;' David Gottlieb (Pennsylvania State U, University Park), 'Vista, Pepsi, and Poverty.' (8) PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH IN A SOCIETY OF CHANGE AND CRISIS: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW, Chairman: Hope Klapper (New York U, NY) & Fred H. Goldner (Queens Coll, City U of New York), 'Public Opinion and Survey Research: A Poor Mix;' Eric Marder, 'The Five Stages of Survey Research.' (7) MOBILIZING PUBLIC OPINION, Chairman: Daniel Yankelovich: a Discussion between Yankelovich, Lowell Beck, & William Ruder. (8) THE SILENT MAJORITY AND SOCIAL ISSUES, Chairman: Mervin D. Field, 'Noisy Pluralism vs the Silent Majority;' William E. Bicker (U of California, Berkeley), 'Welfare-the Transition Issue;' Robert A. Levine, 'The Silent Majority: Neither Simple Nor Simple-Minded.' (9) PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH AND THE MEDIA, Chairman: Herbert E. Krugman: Herbert E. Krugman, 'The Television Generation and the New Research Needs;' Scott Ward (Harvard U, Cambridge, Mass), 'Television Advertising and Children: Two Studies.' (10) PRE-ELECTION SURVEYS: HINDSIGHT AND OUTLOOK, Chairman: Sidney Hollander: Sidney Hollander, 'Implications of the 1970 British Fiasco;' Paul Perry, 'The Turnout Problem in Election Surveys;' Charles Kinsolving, 'Political Polling in a Primary: Sample Attrition and Turnout Prediction;' Lawrence Bown, Charles K. Atkin, Kenneth G. Sheinkopf, & Oguz B. Nayman (U of Wisconsin, Madison & Colorado State U, Fort Collins) 'How Voters React to Electronic Political Advertising: An Investigation of the 1970 Election Campaigns in Wisconsin and Colorado.' (11) HOW CAN THE PUBLIC OPINION PROFESSION AND COMMON CAUSE WORK TOGETHER? Chairman: Barbara Lee: A discussion exploring the role res'ers could play vs soc action org's. (12) THE DRUG SCENE: CURRENT RESEARCH, Chairman : Donald L. Kanter (U of Southern California, Los Angeles): Donald L. Kanter, 'Some Aspects of the Broadcast Anti-Drug Program;' David Checkman, 'A Review of Research on the Causes of Drug Abuse or How Not to Get Turned On;' Lawrence H. Geiger, 'Age, Reported Marijuana Use, and Belief in Some Assumed Negative Effects of the Drug;' Glen D. Mellinger, 'Psychotherapeutic Drug Use Among Adults: A Model for Young Drug Users?' Eric Josephson, Paul Haberman, & Anne Zanes (Columbia U, New York, NY), 'High School Drug Behavior: A Methodological Report.' (13) NEW DIREC- TIONS FOR SURVEY RESEARCH METHODS, Chairman: Ronald Gatty (City U of New York, NY): Ronald Gatty, 'New Directions for Survey Research Methods;' William Belson (London Sch of Econ's, England), 'New Perspectives on Traditional Forms of Survey Research and Analysis;' R. Richard Ritt (Pennsylvania State U, University Park), 'Drawing Actionable Inference from Survey Data.' (14) CHANGING IDEALS, VALUES AND BE- LIEFS, Chairman: Emanuel H. Demby, 'The Shock of Future Shock;' Stephen Pittel, 'The Shock Is Now;' George Harris, 'Psychology Today.' (15) SOCIAL RESEARCH TECHNIQUES IN DEFINING HEALTH PROBLEMS, Chairman: Raymond Fink: Raymond Fink, Sam Shapiro, & Conrad Rosenberg, 'Social Research Techniques in the Study of Poverty and Non-Poverty Groups in Multiphasic Health Testing;' Gerald Sparer & Louise Okada, 'Differential Patterns of Health Service Utilization by Poverty Levels in Eight Urban Neighborhoods;' Jorge Segovia & Jack Elinson (Columbia U, New York, NY) 'What Physicians Think about Physicians in Argentina.' (16) STUDENT AWARD PAPERS, Chairman: Harold H. Kassrjian (U of California, Los Angeles): 1st Prize: Marcus Felson (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 'The Social Basis of Political Protest: The Wallace Vote in Districts Outside the South;' 2nd Prize: Ted Bradshaw (U of California, Berkeley), 'The Robustness of Correlation in Survey Research: A Data Simulation.' (17) LUNCHEON ROUND TABLES, Chairman: William L. Nicholls II (U of California, Berkeley): Gene N. Levine (U of California, Los Angeles), 'Research on Ethnic and Racial Groups;' Karen E. Page (U of California, Davis), 'The Changing Role of Women in Society: Research in Progress and Prospect;' Thomas S. Robertson (U of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), 'Adolescent Consumer Socialization;' Joseph Zelan & Joseph Gusfield (U of California, Berkeley & U of California, San Diego), 'Equality and Authority in Higher Education: The Study of Student Power and Participation; Leo Crespi, 'Public Opinion and the Population Crisis;' Helen M. Crossley, 'Honesty with Respondents and Interviewers;' Matilda B. Paisley & William J. Paisley (Stanford U, Calif), 'Nonexperimental Causal Inference;' Francesco Nicosia (U of California, Berkeley), 'Buying Decision Processes by Consumers and Organizations.' Don Cahalan, ANNUAL ADVI- SORY AAPOR BUSINESS MEETING, concluded the convention. M. Maxfield.