Search results

The violation of religious freedoms is a social justice issue because the loss of the ability to practice one’s faith is jeopardized. Culturally, one’s religious practices can be an extension of their ingroup identity. If one’s faith practices is an extension of their ingroup identity, respectfully, then just as one has the right to dress according to their cultural customs or linguistically share their native language, then too they have a right to practice their religion and or spiritual beliefs. If there is no harm that comes to others, the argument of injustice cannot stand.

There is no exaggeration in the claim that abstract-deductive political economy in pre-Tractarian Oxford was driven by Richard Whately and hence centred at Oriel College. At this time Oriel was defined by a group of intellectuals now commonly referred to as the Oriel Noetics, of whom Whately was one, and the nature of Oxford political economy in the opening decades of the nineteenth century (including William F. Lloyd's contribution to it) cannot be understood outside the context of the intellectual tradition established by the Oriel Noetics. The Noetics were unconventional reformist clerics (one could not use the slippery mid-Victorian word ‘liberal’, as they were predominantly conservative Whigs or reform-minded Tories of the Pitt mould, in which order and tradition were maintained through moderate, but not radical, change); admired rational thought and absent-mindedly tested social conventions with their speech; were unafraid to question religious shibboleths if they deemed them bereft of scriptural foundation (such as Sabbatarianism); deployed logical processes to bolster their religious beliefs, which they held in an unsentimental fashion, and thereby to some extent practised that most contradictory of creeds, a logical faith; and, most importantly for this chapter, constructed a Christian Political Economy by dichotomising knowledge into a theological domain, in which they inferred from scriptural evidence that individuals should pursue the ends of attaining specific virtues (not utility!), and a scientific domain, in which they deduced scientific laws that would enable individuals to achieve the ends of attaining these virtues. They looked upon the rising Romantic Movement in general and the spiritualist yearnings of the Oxford Tractarians in particular with simple incomprehension, if not disgust. They deplored with equal measure the Evangelicals' enthusiasms, willing incogitency and lack of institutional anchor, yet sought to establish a broader national church that included dissenters (but not Catholics). They were most prominent in the 1810s and 1820s before colliding violently in the 1830s with, and being sidelined by, the Tractarians, many of whom they had, ironically enough, mentored and promoted.²

This performative chapter offers three movements that celebrate aspects of Norman Denzin's prolific and influential career: an ode to an aging cowboy that signal's Denzin's work on the West and Native Americans, a corresponding piece that signals Denzin's commitments to performance studies and autoethnography, and a litany of his scholarship as a bibliography of worship with his commitment to critical and creative forms of writing.

The aim of this chapter is to argue that charisma is a collective representation, and that charismatic authority is a social status that derives more from the “recognition” of the followers than from the “magnetism” of the leaders. I contend further that a close reading of Max Weber shows that he, too, saw charisma in this light.

I develop my argument by a close reading of many of the most relevant texts on the subject. This includes not only the renowned texts on this subject by Max Weber, but also many books and articles that interpret or criticize Weber’s views.

I pay exceptionally close attention to key arguments and texts, several of which have been overlooked in the past.

Writers for whom charisma is personal magnetism tend to assume that charismatic rule is natural and that the full realization of democratic norms is unlikely. Authority, in this view, emanates from rulers unbound by popular constraint. I argue that, in fact, authority draws both its mandate and its energy from the public, and that rulers depend on the loyalty of their subjects, which is never assured. So charismatic claimants are dependent on popular choice, not vice versa.

I advocate a “culturalist” interpretation of Weber, which runs counter to the dominant “personalist” account. Conventional interpreters, under the sway of theology or mass psychology, misread Weber as a romantic, for whom charisma is primal and undemocratic rule is destiny. This essay offers a counter-reading.

Our Dublin correspondent telegraphed last night:

This chapter explores whether, and how, video reflections used across three contexts in teacher education (video case-study reflections, self-reflections, and Collaborative Peer Video Analysis reflections) result in teachers’ greater depth and breadth of reflective ideas about literacy assessment practices as compared to their reflections in just one context.

This qualitative case study of 18 teachers tracks their reflective content over time, and uses emergent coding and constant comparative methods to identify patterns in the breadth and depth of teachers’ reflections across three contexts: video case studies, self-reflections, and Collaborative Peer Video Analysis.

Teachers demonstrate greater depth and breadth of reflection across the three contexts, as compared to any one context. Three patterns were identified that describe how teachers develop depth of reflection across these contexts: identifying problems, shifting learning, and transferring learning to novel contexts. Two patterns were identified that describe how breadth of reflection occurred across these contexts: broad array of ideas for a specific topic and a broad range of topics.

Teacher educators can use a three-pronged approach to video reflection to promote depth and breadth of teachers’ reflections. Opportunities should also be provided across time, and prompts should be provided for guiding reflection to support breadth and depth of teachers’ analyses.

This chapter serves to synthesize existing literature centered on inservice teacher video-facilitated reflection on literacy pedagogy.

The inservice teacher literature review is focused on: (1) video analysis frameworks and scaffolds used to facilitate inservice teachers’ video reflection; (2) reflection and video discussions; and (3) the use of video for inservice teacher change and development.

From this review we learn that there is a dearth of video reflection research with inservice teachers on literacy pedagogy. Within the field of literacy, we know far less about how, when, and why to use video with inservice teachers than preservice teachers.

The review of literature does not incorporate inservice teacher video reflection in disciplines such as science and mathematics. Expanding this review to all disciplines would present a more comprehensive picture of video reflection with inservice teachers.

The chapter highlights the potential value of using video in inservice professional development and points to the specific needs for studies to identify the most effective uses of video specific to inservice professionals.

This chapter provides significant research-based information for designing and implementing future studies and professional development focused on video reflection with inservice teachers.

Microfoundations of institutions are central to constructing place – the interplay of location, meaning, and material form. Since only a few institutional studies bring materiality to the fore to examine the processes of place-making, how material forms interact with people to institutionalize or de-institutionalize the meaning of place remains a black box. Through an inductive and historical study of Boston’s North End neighborhood, the authors show how material practices shaped place-making and institutionalized, or de-institutionalized, the meaning of the North End. When material practices symbolically encoded meanings of diverse audiences into the church, it created resonance and enabled the building’s meanings to withstand environmental change and become institutionalized as part of the North End’s meaning as a place. In contrast, when the material practices restricted meaning to a specific audience, it limited resonance when the environment changed, was more likely to be demolished and, thus, erased rather than institutionalized into the meaning of the North End as a place.

State-oriented models of collective action are too narrow to encompass expressive movements that challenge religious authority structures. These limitations are evident as I explore the tactics of the Plowshares movement. Inspired by the Catholic Left, Plowshares activists have distinguished themselves from other peace groups by their controversial methods of nonviolent sabotage. I argue that the tactical choices of this movement defy state-centered theories that assume political instrumentality, tactical neutrality, and rational calculation of costs and benefits. The Plowshares case reveals that expressive groups and religious movements may not select their methods solely on the basis of efficacy. Rather, tactical choice and innovation are influenced by the opponent’s source of power as well as activists’ beliefs, values, and moral commitments. I also call for greater attention to the effects of tactics on the movement itself, moving beyond an exclusive focus on outcomes. Particularly when controversial methods of action are employed, tactical consequences may include ideological refinement and unanticipated cultural developments that can pose further challenges.

Given the multiplying and intensifying global systemic crises (ecological, financial, etc.), the question of revolution resurfaces. The paper addresses a crucial dimension of this question: the issue of revolutionary leadership. Two exemplary leaders are analysed: Jesus of Nazareth and Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara. The key purpose of the analysis is to show how these ‘pure-hearted’ leaders were ‘paradoxically’ willing to employ ‘dirty hands’, which in this context denotes revolutionary violence. Consequently, while peaceful approaches to structural transformation are obviously preferable, revolutionary violence should remain an ethical option.

Key findings advanced by the article include: (i) confirmation of the reasonableness of remaining actively open to the option of an ethical revolutionary violence; (ii) recognition that revolutionary love involves a dimension of hate; and (iii) confirmation that Jesus was a political revolutionary.

The paper is innovative and valuable in several respects: (i) it dares to broach the question of revolution; (ii) it shows how ‘the ethical’ may be inclusive of ethical violence; (iii) it challenges mainstream perceptions of Jesus as strictly a religious/apolitical figure, recalling and foregrounding his radical political dimension.