Suchergebnisse

The ecological underpinnings of our world are at risk. Despite efforts by governments and the international community to set in place some protection for the global environment, industrialisation, economic development, and modern corporate-driven consumerist lifestyles are all contributing to the pollution that is driving climate change. According to the 2007 Assessment Report carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), since the start of industrialisation in the eighteenth century, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane) have markedly increased, primarily as a result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in agriculture and other land-uses. Closer to home, human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have increased globally by 70 percent between 1970 and 2004, with carbon dioxide levels increasing by 80 percent within this same period (IPCC 2007). The panel's report further details that 'atmospheric concentrations of C[O.sub.2] [carbon dioxide] and C[H.sub.4] [methane] in 2005 exceed by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years' (IPCC 2007, p. 37; cf. Global Carbon Project 2010). Indeed, while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution was 280 parts per million (ppm), in 2008 it measured 385 ppm, with an annual increase of nearly 2 ppm; furthermore, since the year 2000 carbon dioxide emissions have been growing at four times the pace of the rate of the 1990s (Global Carbon Project 2010).

This interdisciplinary book investigates emerging ideas regarding human-animal interaction and cohabitation in Australia in the twenty-first century. Advocates, activist groups, mainstream media and more are considered in this study, which aims to imagine better models for human-animal communal living in Australia.

Digital culture, activism, and social movements in Australia -- Political blogging: can public deliberation realize activist aims? -- Animals Australia, multi-platform campaigning and the mobilisation of affect -- Social networking and activist action in the digital age -- Getup! and participatory activism -- Crowdfunding initiatives for social movements -- Future possibilities

Eine detaillierte Untersuchung individueller Erfahrung ist im derzeitigen intellektuellen Klima qualitativer Forschung zurückgetreten gegenüber dem Ansinnen, Erfahrung auf einer kollektiven bzw. verallgemeinerbaren Ebene zu verstehen. Wenn das Ziel von Erkenntnis allerdings auf allgemeine Charakteristika beschränkt wird, geht das, was individuell einzigartig ist, in diesen Aggregationen verloren. Wir vertreten demgegenüber die Ansicht, dass derartige Restriktionen nicht ausreichen, um schlüssig zu einer Theorie (zur Erforschung) menschlicher Erfahrung zu kommen, die hinreichend anspruchsvoll für eine qualitative Forschungspraxis wäre. Deshalb schlagen wir eine strikt idiografische Annäherung und die Wiederentdeckung des Individuums und dessen Inklusion vor, d.h. die Zuwendung qualitativer Forschungspraxis zu den Charakteristiken eines Phänomens, wie sie von einer einzelnen Person erlebt werden. Hierzu sind hermeneutische und phänomenologische Ansätze unverzichtbar, und im Besonderen halten wir die zentralen Überlegungen KELLYs und seine Theorie der persönlichen Konstrukte für einen fruchtbaren Ausgangspunkt, um einen solchen Perspektivwechsel in der qualitativen Forschung voranzutreiben.

In responding to the events of 11 September 2001—the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington—George W. Bush announced to the world that democracy itself was under attack, and that such an attack1 represented a threat to democracy. Such an interpretation of these events, along with portraying Western democracy as a victim in need of protection and as 'good'—and establishing thereby the moral high ground—also represented one of the main discourses in which the Tampa refugees were discussed in Australia, and has continued to be a prominent discourse in public discussion within Australia about the War on Terror, the Bali Bombings and both refugees and detention centres. Drawing on a detailed analysis of letters to the editor published in The Australian in the aftermath of 9/11, this paper seeks to show not only that discussion of the events of 2001 and 2002 has tended to coalesce around two apparently irreconcilable discourses2—that of the aforementioned desire to protect democracy or 'our way of life' versus that expressive of a kind of 'globalized humanitarianism'—but that these discourses are indeed not so much irreconcilable but share a common ground along with common stakes and ends. ; C1

Crowdfunding has become a billion dollar business for the digital platforms that enable it. Although crowdfunding has been used for over a decade to fund a variety of artistic or entrepreneurial individual and collective projects, more recently there has been an uptake by individuals and groups wishing to effect social change. Indeed, there have been arguments that crowdfunding's capacity to tap into personal networks and 'like-minded' people – via social media networks, email and the internet – is reformatting funding for social change. Insofar as crowdfunding means that there are no gatekeepers such as government or corporate policy-makers able to direct or constrain public vision of the good, supporters argue that crowdfunding democratises the achievement of social change. Others exclaim that crowdfunding is just another neoliberal manoeuvre to ensure that the individual user pays for services – in this case, public goods – that should be, and would previously have been, funded by the state. What interests us in this article is crowdfunding's potential for reformatting and rethinking ways to raise funds to effect social change by activists.

Legal protection of animal welfare in Australia is problematic with livestock (defined here as all animals farmed for use and profit, including poultry and aquatic animals) being effectively excluded from the majority of animal protection statutes. Such legal exclusions, joined with the inherent challenges of legal reform in this field – significant issues to do with standing, costs bearing and jurisdiction – have increased the difficulties of successful litigation. Despite explicit recognition of the necessity for reform in Australian animal law – in 2008 the Australian Law Reform Commission journal, Reform, took as its subject the 'next great social justice movement' of animal welfare and animal rights – a number of legal strategies for reform have been summed up by the Principal Solicitor for the Pro Bono Animal Law Service (PALS), the national legal referral service for animal law operating between 2009 and 2013, as having been exhausted. Specifically, the challenges of standing and costs bearing have meant that many meritorious animal welfare matters have not been able to be pursued within the legal domain. Alternative strategies for the achievement of legal reform in this field are thus required, and at this point in the history of the Australian animal welfare movement, one significant strategy is arguably emerging: that of strategically using social media to develop public interest in these issues and to focus this interest into effective pressure in the political, social and industry domains. This paper thus carries out an analysis of this development and focusing of pressure by animal welfare organisations through their use of social media, specifically considering a) the social media strategies utilised by such peak animal welfare bodies as Animals Australia and Voiceless, and b) the recently released Animal Effect smartphone app. More generally, this is a paper outlining and analysing the architecture of social media and public pressure being conjoined in the service of the livestock law reform movement. This paper is part of a larger project in which we record and analyse how animal welfare issues are conceived, articulated and argued within the public domain.