Search results

The purpose of the study is to assess the role of political power and politics in selecting, creating and preserving Liberation Movement archives in South Africa.

A review of literature focusing on liberations archives was carried out.

Politics and the associated power play an essential role in the selection, creation and preservation of liberation movement archives. The study found out that the African National Congress (ANC) selected the University of Fort Hare as the center to preserve liberation movements repatriated from all over the world to South Africa. The National Archives of South Africa did not play a role in the preservation of liberation movement archives. The study also noted that there existed an ineffective collaboration between the ANC and the National Archives of South Africa regarding the preservation of liberation movements archives.

The study focused on the liberation movement archives created by the ANC of South Africa only.

The establishment of liberation archives may promote social cohesion.

The liberation movement archives are a part of the history of South Africa and present perspectives on the history of the liberation of South Africa. This study, which builds on the post-colonial scholarship on liberation movement archives, discussed the significance of liberation archives.

Critical social analysis seeks, amongst other things, to delineate and foster more emancipatory types of discipline and practice. In so doing, it appropriately turns to and can come to be informed and influenced by a broad range of subject areas and empirical focuses, including some that substantially parallel its own emancipatory project. The concern of this article is to explore the case of liberation theology as a social discipline and practice, including as a practice attending to the spiritual and theological. The article's intervention is consistent with the inspirational and insightful character of the theological and reflection upon religious beliefs and values. The concern is to reflect upon the possibilities and potentialities of analysis for accounting. The article explores the sense in which a review of liberation theology can provide critical researchers concerned to locate and promote a more emancipatory accounting with new insights and inspiration.

The purpose of this paper is to present Latin American liberation theology, a contextual theology, as a radical perspective to inform and critique accounting and issues of accountability.

The notion of sacred and secular is explored as a dualism that limits theological insights at the socio‐political level. By rejecting dualism, liberation theology presents an alternative ontological stance.

Studies in critical accounting have focussed on the repressive nature of accounting. This paper provides critical accounting with a theological insight that has the potential to inform an emancipatory or enabling accounting project.

Enabling accounting has been studied from the perspective of gender, class, ethnicity and environment. Adopting liberation theology as a critical perspective provides a means of critiquing extant accounting practice from the episteme of the economically marginalised and a Christian mandate for who to enable and why

Latin American liberation theology has become one of the more dynamic and controversial intellectual forces of contemporary Latin American politics. Although identified with a minority left‐wing perspective, liberation theology constitutes an important component within the larger context of progressive change in the political orientation of the Church in recent years. The chief inspiration for liberation theology stems from the Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin in 1968. The central theme of the Medellin conference was that Latin America lives beneath a tragic sign of under‐development: hunger, misery, illness, infant mortality, inequalities of income; tension between classes and outbreaks of violence; the lack of participation of people in decisions affecting the common good; an external position of neo‐colonial dependency. The privileged classes, it alleges, are insensitive to the miseries of the marginal sectors and frequently resort to force to repress opposition with “anti‐communism” or “keeping order” as the justification for their actions.

During the four years of preliminary meetings that led to the 1977 Protocols Additional I and II governing internal armed conflict, the prohibitions against superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering – two concepts that gird the regulation and moderation of war and limit the use of certain means and methods of warfare – were invoked as a means of calling into account the actions of imperial states. These meetings took place in the context of the conflicts in Southeast Asia, following the wars of decolonization and national liberation in the 1950s and 1960s. The participants in these meetings were freedom fighters and liberation movements who used this forum, which was open to them for the first time, to push for a wider understanding of the concepts of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. Their intention was to hold imperialism and imperial states accountable for suffering and injury beyond that of physical death or wounding and to recognize the violence of colonization and the social and cultural devastation it brought. These interventions were a critical attempt to broaden and deepen the meaning of the laws of war, to make them responsive to more than established sovereign state violence, and to ensure that they reflected the experience of colonization/decolonization. This episode matters because the prohibitions against unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury are two elements that detail the general prohibition first codified in 1907 Hague Convention IV, Article 22, namely that the “the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.” However, the history and formulation of these two concepts has yet to be fully explored, the meaning of each is debated, and taken together the two are among “the most unclear and controversial rules of warfare.”

This paper aims to articulate the need of new approaches for what has been regarded as a critical position within management studies. Particularly it aims to explore the gap among critical management studies in considering the colonial position of Latin America within traditional (international) management influences. It seeks to raise the liberation concept and genealogically explore in order to state a geopolitical critical enunciation for Latin America within international management.

The paper uses the theoretical frame of Laclau and Mouffe's Discourse Theory methodologically articulated by Glynos and Howarth to explore the antagonisms built around the liberation concept, as well as its radical possibilities in a current context in Latin America.

The paper proposes a new articulation of the liberation concept as a resistance response facing a new form of oppression within current Latin American affairs; or in other words a new form of colonization: the colonization through managerial discourses.

The paper's contribution lies in an original consideration of an (im)possible critical standpoint to international management from the Latin American radical tradition. Also the paper joins the novel endeavors to mobilize Discourse Theory within the boundaries of management research.

This paper explores the relationship between social movement protest, economic sabotage, state capitalism, the “Green Scare,” and public forms of political repression. Through a quantitative analysis of direct action activism highlighting the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, the discourse surrounding mechanisms of social change and their impact on state power and capitalist accumulation will be examined. The analyses examines the earth and animal liberation movements, utilizing a Marxist-anarchist lens to illustrate how these non-state actors provide powerful critiques of capital and the state. Specifically, the discussion examines how state-sanctioned violence against these movements represents a return to Foucauldian Monarchical power. A quantitative-qualitative history will be used to argue that the movements’ actions fail to qualify as “terrorism,” and to examine the performance of power between the radical left and the state. State repression demonstrates not only the capitalist allegiances between government and industry, but also a sense of capital’s desperation hoping to counter a movement that has produced demonstrable victories by the means of bankrupting and isolating corporations. The government is taking such unconstitutional measures as a “talk back” between the revolutionary potential of these movements’ ideology as well as the challenge they present to state capitalism.

This paper aims to assess the role of archives in documenting African National Congress Women’s League (ANCWL) records on the liberation struggle of South Africa from 1960 to 1990 with a view to recommending the best method of collection and preservation of archival materials.

Qualitative data were collected through interviews with purposively selected employees of the African National Congress (ANC), the Nelson Mandela Foundation centre of memory, the national heritage and cultural studies at the University of Fort Hare, the National Archives of South Africa and provincial archives of South Africa. Interview data were augmented through content analysis of ANC documents such as policies, websites and annual reports.

The study found a gap of documentation of the role of archives in documenting ANCWL’s contribution to the liberation of South Africa. The National Archives of South Africa did not play a meaningful role to document the history of African National Women’s League in the liberation struggle of South Africa. There was also a lack of coordination of community archives that keep ANCWL archives materials. There is a need to embark on oral history and bilateral relations with overseas archival institutions to repatriate ANCWL archives to South Africa. Furthermore, contemporary history records about the ANCWL records need to be listed, arranged and described and made available to the public.

The research is limited to the role played by the National Archives of South Africa and community archives such as the ANC archives, the Mayibuye Centre archives based at the University of Western Cape in documenting ANC and ANCWL and contemporary issues that impact the development of ANCWL records created from 1960 to 1990.

The findings are expected to be instrumental to document the history of women’s struggle for democracy in South Africa. The ANCWL collection may contribute to social cohesion to enable society to understand the role of ANCWL during the struggle for democracy in South Africa. While the literature on women’s archives is limited, there is still much research that needs to be conducted. Increasing the body of research will strengthen understanding of the role of the National Archives of South Africa and community archives on documenting women’s liberation struggle in South Africa.

The document of women’s history would enrich the archival collection. This means that records with historical, cultural and social significance will be permanently preserved by archives.

The research appears to be the first of its kind to assess the documentation on the role of archives on documenting ANCWL. The archival heritage of women’s struggle for democracy forms part of the national archival heritage of South Africa as they bridge the gap of undocumented history of South Africa.

In considering the historic writings of Marx, the article seeks to show that as religion has become institutionalised in the form of the Catholic Church it becomes simply another component of the edifice of the superstructure. This position is challenged chiefly through the emergence of the Liberation Churches. The roots, institutionalisation, and establishment of the present‐day church are described. The role of the Liberation Churches in serving those suffering oppression is also discussed in comparison with Marxist thought, and in some areas the two views are seen to be irreconcilable.