Search results

This chapter reviews the factors determining the characteristics of the tourism sector of Turkmenistan. Particular attention is given to the adoption of Islam resulting from Arabic, Seljuk, and Sufic cultural influences. The resulting distinctive form of Islam, incorporating pre-Islamic traditions and beliefs together with the persistence of tribalism, Soviet and post-Soviet governance, and the sociopolitical and economic characteristics of contemporary Turkmen society are considered in order to underpin an analysis of its underdeveloped and little-known tourism industry. An outline of the results of a small-scale preliminary case study of tourists in one of Turkmenistan's World Heritage Sites is presented as an illustration of current tourism activity and the future opportunities in its development.

Samirah Al-Saleh <sameeraalsaleh@hotmail.com> is a lecturer in geography and tourism at King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. She is also a doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Sunderland, United Kingdom. She has participated in numerous tourism conferences in Saudi Arabia and abroad. She has contributed to the journal, Al Aqiq, in a recent special edition on the topic of domestic tourism in Saudi Arabia.

Arthur Schlessinger (1983) suggested that the contradictions and paradoxes of American foreign policy reflected contradictions and paradoxes in the underlying character of the people. We would go further to suggest that the early years of colonial life, much like the early years of a person's life, had major consequences ever since. The intersection of Puritanism, available land, and eventually the rise of a commercial culture would forge a unique trajectory of what would be called “American Exceptionalism”, reflecting an “American character”, which itself is subject to three paradoxes or polarities, individualism vs. community, toughness vs. compassion, and moralism vs. pragmatism. The effect of this legacy and the dialectical aspect of American character were first evident when Winthrop proclaimed the city on the hill as the new Jerusalem. The legacy of that vision is taking place today in Iraq.

In 1967, Robert N. Bellah famously argued that there existed an “American Civil Religion,” which was distinct from churchly religion and captured the “transcendental” dimension of the American project. In this chapter, I revisit the civil religion concept and reconstruct it along more Weberian lines. Specifically, I argue that the civil religion tradition is one of three competing traditions for thinking about the proper relationship between religion and politics in America; the other two are religious nationalism and liberal secularism. Whereas liberal secularism envisions a complete separation of the religious and political value spheres, and religious nationalism longs for their (re)unification, civil religion aims for a mediating position of partial separation and productive tension. Following Bellah, I argue that the two central strands of the civil religion tradition have been covenant theology and civic republicanism. The body of the chapter sketches out the development of the tradition across a series of national foundings and refoundings, focusing on the writings of leading civil theologians from John Winthrop and John Adams through Abraham Lincoln and John Dewey to Martin King and Barack Obama. The conclusion advances a normative argument for American civil religion – and against liberal secularism and religious nationalism. I contend that liberalism is highly inclusive but insufficiently solidaristic; that religious nationalism is highly solidaristic but insufficiently inclusive; and that only civil religion strikes a proper balance between individual autonomy and the common good.

Philip S. Gorski's “Barack Obama and Civil Religion” offers a number of important contributions to the study of American culture generally, and American Civil Religion (ACR) more specifically. Gorski's appreciation of the deep diversity in contemporary American society is a welcome development in ACR analysis. I ask whether the term “civil religion” remains most adequate for describing the sort of cultural phenomenon that Gorski, following Bellah, attempts to capture, and offer some methodological and interpretive comments on the promise and challenge of studying ACR in the twenty-first century United States. I close with some more particular remarks on Barack Obama and the contours of ACR as sketched by Gorski.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

This chapter will explore the links between coercive control and ‘rough sex’. The chapter will highlight how easily sexual behaviour within a coercively controlling relationship can be presented as consensual. The chapter will explain how coercive control is typically about compelling a partner to comply with traditional gender norms and this makes consent within such a relationship particularly difficult to assess. However, it will be argued that there should be a strong legal presumption that if a relationship is marked by coercive control that sexual behaviour within it is non-consensual. The chapter will also explore in what circumstances rough sex should be regarded as lawful.

The enshrinement of R v Brown within section 71 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was celebrated by campaign group ‘We Can’t Consent To This’ (WCCTT) as a means of combating the rough sex defence, and as a victory for women. Yet the practical limitations of this codification suggests that there is more to this claimed victory. In this chapter I suggest that the symbolic effect of the codification of Brown underpinned WCCTT’s celebration, as for the first time the legal treatment of sadomasochistic sex (‘SM sex’) became interwoven with, and inflected by, legislation seeking to target abuse. This approach, influenced by the traditions of radical feminism, represents a departure from a liberal legal method and, I argue, forecloses productive legal reform. In affirming the contemporary relevance of Brown, a case infamously mired in homophobia, the legal harm of SM sex is both improperly considered and improperly addressed. Further, by stitching together Brown and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the law fails to articulate what distinguishes SM sexual practice and abuse. This analysis does not prevent my agreeing that SM sex poses significant challenges to the operation of justice. To conclude, I propose that an approach which seeks to bolster the competence of the court via education, and that distinguishes breathplay from the otherwise monolithic treatment of SM sex (building on section 70 Domestic Abuse Act 2021) will generate better outcomes for both sexual diversity and those who experience gender-based violence.