Search results

This essay addresses the interplay between structure and agency, oppression and resistance, as pertains to the Refugee and Forced Migration subject, and the particular opportunity revealed through artistic form. First, a critique of the structures and predominant discourse surrounding the subject presents the ramifications and constraints inherent in traditional modes, which objectify, simplify, and oppress. Into this context enters the unique intervention and alternative presented by the Bildungsroman, that is, the “novel education” provided by this literary form, which grants agency to the Refugee and Forced Migration subject in the re-construction of his or her own coming-of-age through narrative. Through the delineation of this process in the critical reading of three such novels, a dynamic view of subject-formation and non-canonical experience challenges the norm – indeed, as this essay argues, discourse becomes the means through which the Refugee and Forced Migration subject (re)-constitutes him- or her-self, in a narrative space for releasing, expressing, and connecting what has otherwise been repressed, denied, or disconnected through exile and displacement. To conclude, this project’s efforts for further examination and appreciation of such works may be seen to open the field for more shared insights and co-mingled understandings of identity, belonging, and communication.

This chapter examines changes in the kinds of American legal issues that have attracted international attention since the end of the Cold War and looks at the extent to which they have resulted in higher levels or new forms of foreign participation and interest in Supreme Court cases. Suggesting that these changes may have an impact, at least indirectly, on the Court in ways not adequately explored in the existing literature, it considers their possible effects on its decisions and the way that the justices consider their role within increasingly globalized legal networks.

Within the field of international relations, global environmental governance is frequently discussed in terms of “international regimes,” defined as “social institutions that consist of agreed upon principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures, and programs that govern the interaction of actors in specific issue areas” (Young, 1997, pp. 5–6). Viewed from the regime theory perspective, nation-states are seen as territorially bounded entities with a monopoly on the use of (economic or military) force (Agnew, 1999). As a result, they are assumed to have primary authority in matters of global environmental governance. It is nation-states that engage in the negotiation of international treaties (in which the elements of a regime may be formalized), which are then taken home to be either implemented or ignored as the nation-state sees fit. Given that political power is defined by state boundaries within the regime approach, the internal politics of nation-states is considered to be of relatively little import in much of the literature. Aside from some interest in the concept of sovereignty (Litfin, 1998), the notion of transgovernmental coalitions (Risse-Kappen, 1995; Slaughter, 1997), and two-level games (Putnam, 1988), in the main the state remains conceived as a homogenous and unitary actor, a “fixed territorial entity…operating much the same over time and irrespective of its place within the geopolitical order” (Agnew & Corbridge, 1995, p. 78). While a recent focus on knowledge and the role of nonstate actors in international regimes has led to a revision of the nature of interests, politics, and influence, the state remains defined in terms of national government, albeit with potential internal conflicts and the roles of domestic actors noted. Implicitly, regime theory assumes that subnational governments act under the (sole) influence and direction of national government. Critically, the potential role of subnational government is either ignored or subsumed within the nation-state.

In this paper, we present and apply a new framework – the Poles of Production for Producers/Poles of Production for Users (PFP/PFU) model – to empirically study how one particular group of academic scientists has responded to neoliberal changes in science policy and funding in Canada. The data we use are from a qualitative case study of 20 basic health scientists affiliated with a research-intensive university in a large Canadian city. We use the PFP/PFU model to explore the symbolic strategies (the vision of scientific quality) and practical strategies (the acquisition of funding and production of knowledge outputs) scientists adopt to maintain or advance their own position of power in the scientific field. We also compare similarities and differences among scientists trained before and after the rise of neoliberal policy. The PFP/PFU model allows us to see how these individual strategies cumulatively contribute to the construction of dominant and alternate modes of knowledge production. We argue that the alignments and misalignments between quality vision and practice that scientists in this study experienced reflect the symbolic struggles that are occurring among scientists, and between the scientific and political field, over two competing logics and reward systems (PFP/PFU).

From an interdisciplinary position, I discuss the historical and epistemological roots of the objectification and commodification of nature, which emerged from the hegemony of instrumental rationality. This rationality—synthetically, a technological, political, social, ethical, and esthetical universe of thought and action—has created both wealth and environmental destruction due to the progressive domination of nature through science and technology. The objectification of nature and nonhuman animals is associated with the legacy of René Descartes based on some excerpts of his famous Discourse on the Method in which the idea of animals as machines established a powerful and pervasive metaphor that remains today. Speciesism, which involves forms of discrimination practiced by humans against other animal species, also dominates Western perspectives. However, studies reveal that nonhuman animal sentience and conscience is a scientific fact. While there is no ethical or scientific ground to support speciesism, the colossal number of animals commodified in a myriad of contexts, especially in animal agriculture, proves that our society is very far from overcoming this issue. A possible path to change is education. Nevertheless, profound transformations are mandatory as formal education—even “environmental education”—carries in its philosophical foundations the Cartesian, instrumental paradigm that favors the objectification and commodification of nature. I present how the concept of instrumental rationality, especially as proposed by Herbert Marcuse, establishes as a unifying and solid ground to address the roots of the objectification and commodification of nature (including nonhuman animals), as well as to confront the epistemological bedrock of our speciesist nonenvironmental, traditional education.

Field theory is one of the most visible approaches in the new political sociology of science, and Fligstein & McAdam’s (F&M) Theory of Fields is the most visible recent attempt to further it. This paper evaluates F&M’s theory of field transformation by comparing it with Berman’s (2012a) field-based explanation of the changes in the field of US academic science. While F&M’s general framework is quite useful, their explanation, which focuses on struggles between incumbents and challengers over whose conception of the field should dominate, does not map neatly onto the changes in academic science, which saw no such field-level struggles. This suggests that tools are also needed for explaining new settlements that do not result from intentional efforts to establish them. In particular, the case of US academic science shows that local innovations with practices based on alternative conceptions of the field can lead to field-level change. Attention to the interaction between local practice innovations and larger environments provides insights into how change ripples across fields, as well as the ongoing contention and dynamism within even relatively stable fields.

As the world struggled to come to grips with the Covid-19 pandemic, over twenty scholars, practitioners, and global leaders wrote brief essays for this curated chapter on the role of global leadership in this extreme example of a global crisis. Their thoughts span helpful theoretical breakthroughs to essential, pragmatic adaptations by companies.