Search results

The broad aim of this paper is to look at the relationship between terrain and conflict. Using the opportunity and willingness framework, it argues that there are some long established physical factors, which have been related to the terrain of conflict, but that there are also some equally long established factors that are nonphysical. This latter group includes the notion of a “mountain people,” which is described as being fierce, uncivilized, and resistant to authority. Such arguments may have some foundation, but they are also based on a strong history of determinism and indeed scientific racism. The paper also looks at the “what is a mountain?” debate and argues that this question is entirely misleading for conflict analysis. It is hoped that conflict researchers will be careful whenever they encounter the word “mountain.”

Burden transport is a ubiquitous primate behavior. Modern humans, however, take this primate tendency and extend it to a behavioral repertoire that influences many of our daily activities and almost certainly helped shape our physical and behavioral form. I examine the transportation of food in the context of central place foraging, from the perspective of maximizing energy acquisition. A detailed model of the energetic cost of burden transport is presented and its sensitivity to the variables of body mass, burden mass, terrain, incline and velocity discussed.

The paper argues that the form, structure and ideologies of elites are embedded in particular forms of capitalism. Whilst elites in these different societies are engaged in a common task of ensuring that their position is sustained and protected in the light of economic and political uncertainties, the way in which they are able to do this is shaped by the particular forms of legitimation, coordination and cohesion that are embedded in particular institutional trajectories, path dependencies and complementarities. However, the paper emphasizes that these institutional structures are dependent on particular international economic orders and when these change either over the short or the long term, elites often find themselves struggling to maintain their position without significant changes. The paper examines firstly how the long-term change from Keynesianism to neo-liberalism in the international economic order led to changes in the terrain on which elites in different countries formed and exercised power and secondly how the immediate and drastic short-term changes in the global economy arising from the financial crisis has impacted on elites.

This chapter focuses on the Maoist insurgency in the 75 districts of Nepal and tries to analyze the insurgency in a comparative perspective. We compare the 75 districts with the aim to address the following questions: Why does an insurgency emerge in certain areas? How is it linked to economic, social, or political factors? Why does an insurgency show a robust presence in some districts but fail to do likewise in others? We attempt to answer these questions by conducting multivariate regressions using longitudinal data to test our primary hypothesis that the onset of an insurgency and the continuation are functions of the same factors. We examine insurgency within one country, Nepal, and test our model in Nepal's 75 districts, in a single country context, using available data on the 10-year-long insurgency. We break down the Nepalese insurgency into two parts: the onset and the continuation. Our findings indicate that regions predominantly polarized by caste are more prone to the onset of insurgency than any other factor. Higher literacy rate, a proxy for government efficacy, renders insurgency less feasible, and difficult terrain has no impact whatsoever. However, after the onset, many of the explanatory variables are no longer significant for the continuation of the insurgency and grievances alone tend to be meaningless.

Richard Ericson’s work taught us much about how institutional narratives reflect and promote social control. He demonstrated how institutional logics delineated the origin, nature, communicative forms and formats, and consequences of bureaucratic reasoning on a range of significant sociological topics, particularly power and social control. His contributions also illuminated how social institutions differ in social power, as well as the dominance of certain communication formats that, on the one hand, bind institutions to contemporary mass media forms that reached divergent audiences, while one the other hand, show that there is an institutional order and hierarchy that shape social policies and practices. This chapter examines some aspects of the organizational narrative about “terrorism” and highlights the reemergence of the “National Security University,” or a generic composite of direct relationships between the national security agencies and university administrations, academic programs, research support and agendas, as well as special academic lectures, colloquia, etc. Specifically, I wish to raise some issues surrounding the more recent pursuit of academic advice and legitimacy following the 9/11 “terror” attacks on the United States. Supported by the rhetoric of a never ending battle against terrorism, government and military “knowledge brokers” invited – and paid – academics to join in the fight, and they accepted it overwhelmingly.

Each of the four objectives can be applied within the military training environment. Military training often requires that soldiers achieve specific levels of performance or proficiency in each phase of training. For example, training courses impose entrance and graduation criteria, and awards are given for excellence in military performance. Frequently, training devices, training media, and training evaluators or observers also directly support the need to diagnose performance strengths and weaknesses. Training measures may be used as indices of performance, and to indicate the need for additional or remedial training.

The varying traditions, goals, paradigms, and discourses associated with English language arts (ELA) underscore the degree to which there is not one school subject English, but many “Englishes.” In a neoliberal context, where movements like standardization and accountability stake claims about what ELA should be and do in the world, teachers, especially beginning teachers, can struggle to navigate the tensions engendered by these many and contradictory “Englishes.” This chapter attends to this struggle and delineates a process by which English Educators might illustrate the field’s vast and ever-changing terrain and support beginning teachers as they locate themselves in ELA. In delineating this process, we argue that in order to see and navigate the field in a neoliberal era, ELA teachers should treat the field as a discursive construction, constantly re-constructed by the dynamic play of social, political, and economic discourses. We argue that in treating the field as a discursive construction and exploring and locating themselves within the terrain, ELA teachers, rather than feeling powerless in the face of neoliberal forces, can leverage these different discursive forces, and gain footing in their classrooms, schools, and extracurricular communities to navigate the coexistence of many “Englishes” and argue for their pedagogical choices.