Suchergebnisse

Many African American families in the United States deal with chronic adversity marked by systematic oppression. Families are often encouraged to demonstrate perseverance, regardless of the conditions in which they live—essentially, to model resilience. However, temporal positive adaptations displayed by African American families could be fostering greater, more damaging future vulnerabilities. The concept of rethinking resilience implores family scientists and practitioners to think critically about how processes of resilience may be imposing risk on families when they are expected continuously to adapt internally but, externally, their adverse environments remain unchanged. Family scientists and practitioners bear the responsibility of not only encouraging positive adaptations in families but also intentionally working to ameliorate conditions that necessitate resilience through acts of social justice. This article describes the potential harm that resides in shallow promotions of resilience and provides aspiring social justice allies with practical concepts to consider as they rethink resilience.

The titles of these books point both to their common concern and to the difference between them. Still Fighting underscores the extent to which Latin American women (in this case, Nicaraguans) are still struggling, from a disadvantaged position, to achieve recognition of their own personal value and identity, as well as a better social, political, and economic position. Empowering Women underscores, instead, the extent to which women's struggle is about achieving power in the form of legal title to land. The former stresses gender identity while the latter emphasizes personal empowerment. The first accentuates setbacks experienced and the work still to be done; the latter highlights accomplishments while acknowledging that much work remains. Carmen Diana Deere and Magdalena Leon locate their work within gender studies in Chapter 1, stating their orientation toward redistribution rather than recognition (p. 9). Although Katherine Isbester does not refer to gender studies, her work is about the struggle for identity and the role it plays in strengthening a social movement.

The spread of democracy beyond Western Europe to Latin America and the duration of Latin American democracies through one or more elections has revealed a surprising and disturbing trend in Latin America. Many new Latin American electorates have supported rightist and non-democratic candidates who, once elected president, have engaged in auathoritarian behavior, bypassing, corrupting or closing the legislature, undeterminig judicial autonomy, and attempting to extend their terms in office indefinitely. Examples of such presidential behaviour in Latin America include Carlos Menen in Argentina, Alberto Gujimori in Peru, and Arnoldo Aleman in Nicaragua. Within Latin American electorates, it is evident that the rural population is even more likely to support rightist candidates than is the electorate as a whole. Rural rightism is surpring, however, given a largebody of literature from the 1970s and 1980s where peasants and rural dwellers are seen primarily as leftists, such as in Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba and Nicaragua. The presence of rightist rural electoral support in new Latin American democracies leaves a puzzle: are peasants fascists or revolutionaries? To unravel such a puzzle, the essay looks first at four cases of rural support for fascism or authoritarian populism in the early to mid-twentieth century, France, Italy, Germany, and Argentina. It compares factors explaining such rightist rural support with the knowledge we have about rural support for the left in Russia, China, Cuba, and Nicaragua. The essay concludes that two overall sets of factors are at play in explaining rural support and activism of a rightist or leftist nature. These are 1) background factors including the context of economic and social relations and the nature of land tenure and 2) foreground factors including thye nature of political leadership, organizational style and skill and the kind of rhetoric used to attract and motivate rural followers. Based upon these comparisons of rural political activism and scrutiny of the European and Latin American cases, the essay concludes that rural dwellers are neither naturally fascists nor naturalleyrevolutionaries. Rather, their activism and heir electoral support can be moved in either direction depending upon the preexisting social and economic background and upon the skill and style of leaders attempting to win rural support. We need to look carefully at the candidates running for office and at their organizational style and the nature of their rhetoric. Such foreground factors will be more likely to tell us whether or not their electoral support (and their behavior in office, for that matter) willresemble the cases of fascism and rightist authoritarianism of the early and midtwentieth century. ; La expansión de la democracia en América Latina y su extensión en el tiempo ha puesto de manifiesto una tendencia sorprendente y preocupante. Muchos de los nuevos electores latinoamericanos han dado su apoyo a candidatos de derecha y no democráticos que una vez en el poder han atentado de diversas maneras contra la democracia. Dentro del electorado se constata que ese apoyo a las fuerzas antidemocráticas es mayor en la población rural. A la luz de la bibliografía de los años 70 y 80 sobre las revoluciones campesinas de Rusia, China, Cuba o Nicaragua, este derechismo campesino es un rompecabezas: ¿los campesinos son fascistas o revolucionarios? Para descifrar este enigma, el trabajo en primer lugar analiza cuatro casos de apoyo rural al fascismo o al autoritarismo populista en la primera mitad del siglo XX (Francia, Italia, Alemania y Argentina). Compara los factores explicativos que emergen de esa comparación con los resultados obtenidos de la investigación sobre el izquierdismo campesino en China, Rusia, Cuba y Nicaragua. La conclusión del trabajo es que hay dos conjuntos de factores que explican el apoyo de los campesinos a la izquierda o a la derecha. El primer tipo de factores, de transfondo, incluye el contexto económico y las relaciones sociales de propiedad y tenencia de la tierra. El segundo tipo de factores, de primer plano,incluye el tipo de liderazgo, el estilo organizativo y la habilidad política, así como el tipo de retórica que se usa para atraer el voto campesino. La población rural no es por naturaleza ni de derecha ni de izquierda, sino que su apoyo puede llevarse a cualquiera de los dos lados dependiendo del trasfondo económico-social y de la escena política. En América Latina hay que estudiar en detalle los estilos de liderazgo y las retóricas de los candidatos. Estas variables de primera instancia nos van a permitir dictaminar si el apoyo electoral dará lugar a panoramas fascistas o autoritarios como los de la Europa de la primera mitad del siglo XX.

This essay is a theoretical and empirical test of two major theories of peasant political action, James Scott's Moral Economy of the Peasant and Samuel Popkin's The Rational Peasant. The essay draws primarily upon testimony taken from peasant activists involved in a wide range of different forms of political action. The essay goes on to operationalize core elements from each of these two theories and to compare them statistically to determine which is stronger in explaining different types of peasant political action. The qualitative and quantitative findings show that Scott's theory is stronger when explaining choices of extreme action such as rebellion whereas Popkin's theory is primarily important with respect to tactics of collective nonviolence. Both theories and both kinds of motivation are needed to provide an explanation for the full range of possible peasant political actions. The conclusion points toward a need for a more comprehensive and inclusive theory of political motivation incorporating both self-interested and community-oriented types of motivation.