- Table View
- List View
Debating Surrogacy (Debating Ethics)
by Anca Gheaus Christine StraehleSurrogacy is the commissioning of a woman to gestate and give birth to a child for another would-be parent. The practice raises several ethical questions, such as the commodification of the surrogate and of the baby, and the exploitation of the surrogate, issues which have been extensively debated. This book offers a fresh take on surrogacy, by concentrating on questions which bear on its justifiability: Is providing gestational services a permissible way of employing a woman's body? Indeed, is it a legitimate form of work? Are the children born out of surrogacy in any way wronged by surrogacy agreements? In the first part of the book, Christine Straehle proposes an account of surrogacy work as legitimate work for women, as a way to realize certain goals in women's lives through the fruit of their labour. She defends a right to become a surrogate as necessary to protect women's autonomy. Anca Gheaus criticises surrogacy by arguing that it always wrongs children--whether or not it also harms them--by disrespecting them; therefore, gestational services are impermissible. In the second part, Straehle responds to Gheaus, questioning that children are wronged by the practice of surrogacy. Instead, she defends an intentional model of parental rights, which indicates that having a child through surrogacy should count as a ground to assign parental rights. In her response, Gheaus objects that Straehle's view fails to properly account for the interests of either surrogates or children. However, she accepts that women may gestate without the intention to have custody over the newborn, and is therefore open to some kind of post-surrogacy practice that would radically depart, in the allocation of legal parenthood, from any historical or currently proposed form of surrogacy.
Debating Surrogacy (Debating Ethics)
by Anca Gheaus Christine StraehleSurrogacy is the commissioning of a woman to gestate and give birth to a child for another would-be parent. The practice raises several ethical questions, such as the commodification of the surrogate and of the baby, and the exploitation of the surrogate, issues which have been extensively debated. This book offers a fresh take on surrogacy, by concentrating on questions which bear on its justifiability: Is providing gestational services a permissible way of employing a woman's body? Indeed, is it a legitimate form of work? Are the children born out of surrogacy in any way wronged by surrogacy agreements? In the first part of the book, Christine Straehle proposes an account of surrogacy work as legitimate work for women, as a way to realize certain goals in women's lives through the fruit of their labour. She defends a right to become a surrogate as necessary to protect women's autonomy. Anca Gheaus criticises surrogacy by arguing that it always wrongs children--whether or not it also harms them--by disrespecting them; therefore, gestational services are impermissible. In the second part, Straehle responds to Gheaus, questioning that children are wronged by the practice of surrogacy. Instead, she defends an intentional model of parental rights, which indicates that having a child through surrogacy should count as a ground to assign parental rights. In her response, Gheaus objects that Straehle's view fails to properly account for the interests of either surrogates or children. However, she accepts that women may gestate without the intention to have custody over the newborn, and is therefore open to some kind of post-surrogacy practice that would radically depart, in the allocation of legal parenthood, from any historical or currently proposed form of surrogacy.
Debating Targeted Killing: Counter-Terrorism or Extrajudicial Execution? (Debating Ethics)
by Tamar Meisels Jeremy WaldronKnown terrorists are often targeted for death by the governments of Israel and the United States. Several thousand have been killed by drones or by operatives on the ground in the last twenty years. Is this form of killing justified, when hundreds or thousands of lives are possibly at risk at the hands of a known terrorist? Is there anything about it that should disturb us? Ethically-sound and practical answers to these questions are more difficult to come by than it might seem. Renowned political theorists Jeremy Waldron and Tamar Meisels here defend two competing positions on the legitimacy of targeted killing as used in counterterrorism strategy in this riveting and essential for-and-against book. The volume begins with a joint introduction, briefly setting out the terms of discussion, and presenting a short historical overview of the practice: what targeted killing is, and how it has been used in which conflicts and by whom. It then hones in on killings themselves and the element of targeting. The authors tackle difficult and infinitely complex subjects, for example the similarities and differences between targeted killing of terrorists and ordinary killings in combat, and they ask whether targeted killing can be regarded as a law enforcement strategy, or as a hybrid between combat and law enforcement. They compare the practice of targeted killing with assassination and the use of death squads. And they consider the likelihood that targeted killing has been or will be abused against insurgents, criminals, or political opponents. Meisels analyzes the assassination by Israeli operatives of nuclear scientists working for regimes hostile to Israel. Meisels and Waldron carefully consider whether this sort of killing can ever be justified in terms of the danger it, in theory, averts. The conclusions drawn are at once as surprising as they are insightful, cautioning us against a world in which targeted killing is the norm as it proliferates rapidly. This is essential reading not only for students of political and war theory and military personnel, but for anyone interested in or concerned by the future of targeted killing.
DEBATING TARGETED KILLING DEBETH C: Counter-Terrorism or Extrajudicial Execution? (Debating Ethics)
by Jeremy Waldron Tamar MeiselsKnown terrorists are often targeted for death by the governments of Israel and the United States. Several thousand have been killed by drones or by operatives on the ground in the last twenty years. Is this form of killing justified, when hundreds or thousands of lives are possibly at risk at the hands of a known terrorist? Is there anything about it that should disturb us? Ethically-sound and practical answers to these questions are more difficult to come by than it might seem. Renowned political theorists Jeremy Waldron and Tamar Meisels here defend two competing positions on the legitimacy of targeted killing as used in counterterrorism strategy in this riveting and essential for-and-against book. The volume begins with a joint introduction, briefly setting out the terms of discussion, and presenting a short historical overview of the practice: what targeted killing is, and how it has been used in which conflicts and by whom. It then hones in on killings themselves and the element of targeting. The authors tackle difficult and infinitely complex subjects, for example the similarities and differences between targeted killing of terrorists and ordinary killings in combat, and they ask whether targeted killing can be regarded as a law enforcement strategy, or as a hybrid between combat and law enforcement. They compare the practice of targeted killing with assassination and the use of death squads. And they consider the likelihood that targeted killing has been or will be abused against insurgents, criminals, or political opponents. Meisels analyzes the assassination by Israeli operatives of nuclear scientists working for regimes hostile to Israel. Meisels and Waldron carefully consider whether this sort of killing can ever be justified in terms of the danger it, in theory, averts. The conclusions drawn are at once as surprising as they are insightful, cautioning us against a world in which targeted killing is the norm as it proliferates rapidly. This is essential reading not only for students of political and war theory and military personnel, but for anyone interested in or concerned by the future of targeted killing.
Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case
by Hugo Adam Bedau Paul G. CassellWhen news breaks that a convicted murderer, released from prison, has killed again, or that an innocent person has escaped the death chamber in light of new DNA evidence, arguments about capital punishment inevitably heat up. Few controversies continue to stir as much emotion as this one, and public confusion is often the result. This volume brings together seven experts--judges, lawyers, prosecutors, and philosophers--to debate the death penalty in a spirit of open inquiry and civil discussion. Here, as the contributors present their reasons for or against capital punishment, the multiple facets of the issue are revealed in clear and thought-provoking detail. Is the death penalty a viable deterrent to future crimes? Does the imposition of lesser penalties, such as life imprisonment, truly serve justice in cases of the worst offences? Does the legal system discriminate against poor or minority defendants? Is the possibility of executing innocent persons sufficient grounds for abolition? In confronting such questions and making their arguments, the contributors marshal an impressive array of evidence, both statistical and from their own experiences working on death penalty cases. The book also includes the text of Governor George Ryan's March 2002 speech in which he explained why he had commuted the sentences of all prisoners on Illinois's death row. By representing the viewpoints of experts who face the vexing questions about capital punishment on a daily basis, Debating the Death Penalty makes a vital contribution to a more nuanced understanding of the moral and legal problems underlying this controversy.
Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case
When news breaks that a convicted murderer, released from prison, has killed again, or that an innocent person has escaped the death chamber in light of new DNA evidence, arguments about capital punishment inevitably heat up. Few controversies continue to stir as much emotion as this one, and public confusion is often the result. This volume brings together seven experts--judges, lawyers, prosecutors, and philosophers--to debate the death penalty in a spirit of open inquiry and civil discussion. Here, as the contributors present their reasons for or against capital punishment, the multiple facets of the issue are revealed in clear and thought-provoking detail. Is the death penalty a viable deterrent to future crimes? Does the imposition of lesser penalties, such as life imprisonment, truly serve justice in cases of the worst offences? Does the legal system discriminate against poor or minority defendants? Is the possibility of executing innocent persons sufficient grounds for abolition? In confronting such questions and making their arguments, the contributors marshal an impressive array of evidence, both statistical and from their own experiences working on death penalty cases. The book also includes the text of Governor George Ryan's March 2002 speech in which he explained why he had commuted the sentences of all prisoners on Illinois's death row. By representing the viewpoints of experts who face the vexing questions about capital punishment on a daily basis, Debating the Death Penalty makes a vital contribution to a more nuanced understanding of the moral and legal problems underlying this controversy.
Debating the End of Yugoslavia (Southeast European Studies)
by Florian Bieber Armina GalijašCountries rarely disappear off the map. In the 20th century, only a few countries shared this fate with Yugoslavia. The dissolution of Yugoslavia led to the largest war in Europe since 1945, massive human rights violations and over 100,000 victims. Debating the End of Yugoslavia is less an attempt to re-write the dissolution of Yugoslavia, or to provide a different narrative, than to take stock and reflect on the scholarship to date. New sources and data offer fresh avenues of research avoiding the passion of the moment that often characterized research published during the wars and provide contemporary perspectives on the dissolution. The book outlines the state of the debate rather than focusing on controversies alone and maps how different scholarly communities have reflected on the dissolution of the country, what arguments remain open in scholarly discourse and highlights new, innovative paths to study the period.
Debating the End of Yugoslavia (Southeast European Studies)
by Florian Bieber Armina GalijašCountries rarely disappear off the map. In the 20th century, only a few countries shared this fate with Yugoslavia. The dissolution of Yugoslavia led to the largest war in Europe since 1945, massive human rights violations and over 100,000 victims. Debating the End of Yugoslavia is less an attempt to re-write the dissolution of Yugoslavia, or to provide a different narrative, than to take stock and reflect on the scholarship to date. New sources and data offer fresh avenues of research avoiding the passion of the moment that often characterized research published during the wars and provide contemporary perspectives on the dissolution. The book outlines the state of the debate rather than focusing on controversies alone and maps how different scholarly communities have reflected on the dissolution of the country, what arguments remain open in scholarly discourse and highlights new, innovative paths to study the period.
Debating the Ethics of Immigration: Is There a Right to Exclude? (Debating Ethics)
by Christopher Heath Wellman Phillip ColeDo states have the right to prevent potential immigrants from crossing their borders, or should people have the freedom to migrate and settle wherever they wish? Christopher Heath Wellman and Phillip Cole develop and defend opposing answers to this timely and important question. Appealing to the right to freedom of association, Wellman contends that legitimate states have broad discretion to exclude potential immigrants, even those who desperately seek to enter. Against this, Cole argues that the commitment to the moral equality of all human beings - which legitimate states can be expected to hold - means national borders must be open: equal respect requires equal access, both to territory and membership; and that the idea of open borders is less radical than it seems when we consider how many territorial and community boundaries have this open nature. In addition to engaging with each other's arguments, Wellman and Cole address a range of central questions and prominent positions on this topic. The authors therefore provide a critical overview of the major contributions to the ethics of migration, as well as developing original, provocative positions of their own.
Debating the Future of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’: The Evolution of a Moral Norm
by Pinar Gözen ErcanThis study examines the relevance of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in responding to humanitarian challenges across the world. In proposing a number of revisionist alternatives, Ercan proposes a way forward for R2P, particularly regarding its Second and Third Pillars. Despite the debate shifting from a right to intervene towards a responsibility to protect, the conceptual and systemic limitations imposed on R2P via its institutionalisation have hampered its ability to consolidate change. In light of this, Ercan argues that R2P cannot make a positive contribution towards changing the international system without first being equipped with new powers.
Debating the Socialist Legacy and Capitalist Globalization in China (China in Transformation)
by Xueping Zhong Ban WangThe first English collection of translated essays, by Chinese literary scholars, writers, and critics, this volume focuses on the legacy of socialist culture and post-socialist phenomena within the context of capitalist globalization. By rethinking socialism, literature, and culture in relation to the intellectual and cultural trends since the start of the reform and by debating the rise of the 'new left' culture, this book seeks to offer critical voices while evoking the themes of the socialist past to bear on the 21st-century Chinese intellectual and cultural scenes.
Debating the War in Ukraine: Counterfactual Histories and Future Possibilities
by Tuomas Forsberg Heikki PatomäkiDebating the War in Ukraine discusses whether the war in Ukraine could have been avoided, and, if so, how? In this dialogical book, the authors discuss nodal points of history in terms of counterfactuals and contrastive explanations, concluding by considering future possibilities. They start in the 1990s where several causal elements of the war originate involving Russia’s economic developments and Europe’s security arrangements. Moving on to the next decade, they focus on the Iraq war, colour revolutions, and NATO’s 2008 announcement that Ukraine and Georgia will become members. Finally, they explore the past decade including the Ukrainian crisis of 2013–2014, the occupation of Crimea, and the consecutive war in East Ukraine. The current war can also be seen as a continuum of that war. The authors agree that NATO’s 2008 announcement on Ukraine’s and Georgia’s NATO membership was an unnecessary provocation, and that the implementation of the Minsk agreement could have prevented the current war, but otherwise their analysis of counterfactual possibilities differs, especially when it comes to the action-possibilities of the West (including diverse actors). These differences are not just dependent on different readings of relevant evidence but, importantly, stem from dissimilar contrast spaces and divergent theoretical understandings of the nature of states and mechanisms of international relations and political economy. This short, highly accessible book will be of great interest to all those studying and working in international relations and its various subfields such as peace and conflict studies and security studies, as well as all those wishing to understand more about the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Debating the War in Ukraine: Counterfactual Histories and Future Possibilities
by Tuomas Forsberg Heikki PatomäkiDebating the War in Ukraine discusses whether the war in Ukraine could have been avoided, and, if so, how? In this dialogical book, the authors discuss nodal points of history in terms of counterfactuals and contrastive explanations, concluding by considering future possibilities. They start in the 1990s where several causal elements of the war originate involving Russia’s economic developments and Europe’s security arrangements. Moving on to the next decade, they focus on the Iraq war, colour revolutions, and NATO’s 2008 announcement that Ukraine and Georgia will become members. Finally, they explore the past decade including the Ukrainian crisis of 2013–2014, the occupation of Crimea, and the consecutive war in East Ukraine. The current war can also be seen as a continuum of that war. The authors agree that NATO’s 2008 announcement on Ukraine’s and Georgia’s NATO membership was an unnecessary provocation, and that the implementation of the Minsk agreement could have prevented the current war, but otherwise their analysis of counterfactual possibilities differs, especially when it comes to the action-possibilities of the West (including diverse actors). These differences are not just dependent on different readings of relevant evidence but, importantly, stem from dissimilar contrast spaces and divergent theoretical understandings of the nature of states and mechanisms of international relations and political economy. This short, highly accessible book will be of great interest to all those studying and working in international relations and its various subfields such as peace and conflict studies and security studies, as well as all those wishing to understand more about the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Debating the War of Ideas
by J. Gallagher E. PattersonThe War of Ideas is about the fundamental principles of human society. It is a global war: the foes have resorted to arms to protect and promote their worldview. This book brings together some of the most important voices from different partisan, theoretical and religious perspectives to argue and forecast the next phase in the War of Ideas.
Debating Transformations of National Citizenship (IMISCOE Research Series)
by Rainer BauböckThis open access book discusses how national citizenship is being transformed by economic, social and political change. It focuses on the emergence of global markets where citizenship is for sale and on how new reproduction technologies impact citizenship by descent. It also discusses the return of banishment through denationalisation of terrorist suspects, and the impact of digital technologies, such as blockchain, on the future of democratic citizenship. The book provides a wide range of views on these issues from legal scholars, political scientists, and political practitioners. It is structured as a series of four conversations in which authors respond to each other. This exchange of arguments provides unique depth to current debates about the future of citizenship.
Debating Tudor policy in sixteenth-century Ireland: Reform' treatises and political discourse (Studies In Early Modern Irish History Ser.)
by David HeffernanThis book provides the first systematic analysis of the whole range of treatises written on the ‘reform’ of Ireland in Tudor times. By assessing approximately six-hundred extant treatises it demonstrates how the Tudors viewed Ireland and how they arrived at the policies which they chose to implement there during the sixteenth century.
Debating Tudor policy in sixteenth-century Ireland: Reform' treatises and political discourse (Studies In Early Modern Irish History Ser.)
by David HeffernanIreland was conquered and gradually colonized by the Tudors during the sixteenth century. This much is clear but whether or not this was the actual goal of English policy in Ireland at that time has long been debated by historians. Debating Tudor policy in sixteenth-century Ireland examines a set of sources which provide a unique insight into English rule in Tudor Ireland. These are policy papers or treatises written at the time on how to ‘reform’ Ireland and bring it under greater crown control. The study constitutes the first systematic study of the approximately six-hundred such treatises to have survived. In doing so it sheds light on how the Tudors arrived at the policies they decided to implement in Ireland and examines how English officials and other parties within Ireland viewed the Irish and the country at that time.
Debating U.S.-Cuban Relations: How Should We Now Play Ball?
by Jorge I. Dominguez Rafael M. Hernández Lorena G. BarberiaThe boundary between Cuba and the United States has become more and more porous, as have those with Latin America and the Caribbean. Never in the past half-century has Cuba’s leadership or its social and political fabric been so exposed to the influence of the outside world. In this book, an all-star cast of experts critically address the recent past and present in U.S.-Cuban relations in their full complexity and subtlety to develop a perspective on the evolution of the conflict and an inventory of forms of cooperation. This much needed approach provides a way to answer the questions "what has been . . .?" and "what is . . .?" while also thinking seriously about "what if . . .?" To illustrate the most significant areas of U.S.-Cuban relations in the contemporary era, this newly updated edition of Debating U.S.-Cuban Relations adds six more themes to the study of this complex relation: political, security, economic, and cultural/academic issues; the triangular relations of the United States, Cuba, and Europe; and the politics of Cuban migration/emigration. Each topic is represented by perspectives from both Cuban and non-Cuban scholars, leading to a resource rich in insight and a model of transnational dialogue. The future course of U.S.-Cuban relations will likely be more complex than in the past, not only because of the matrix of factors involved but also because of the number of actors. Such a multiplicity of domestic, regional, and global factors is unique; it includes the rise to power of new administrations in both countries since 2008. Raúl Castro became president of Cuba in February 2008 and Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the United States in January 2009. And it will feature the inauguration of a new president of the United States in January 2017 and a new president of Cuba, likely in February 2018.
Debating U.S.-Cuban Relations: How Should We Now Play Ball?
by Jorge I. Dominguez Rafael M. Hernández Lorena G. BarberiaThe boundary between Cuba and the United States has become more and more porous, as have those with Latin America and the Caribbean. Never in the past half-century has Cuba’s leadership or its social and political fabric been so exposed to the influence of the outside world. In this book, an all-star cast of experts critically address the recent past and present in U.S.-Cuban relations in their full complexity and subtlety to develop a perspective on the evolution of the conflict and an inventory of forms of cooperation. This much needed approach provides a way to answer the questions "what has been . . .?" and "what is . . .?" while also thinking seriously about "what if . . .?" To illustrate the most significant areas of U.S.-Cuban relations in the contemporary era, this newly updated edition of Debating U.S.-Cuban Relations adds six more themes to the study of this complex relation: political, security, economic, and cultural/academic issues; the triangular relations of the United States, Cuba, and Europe; and the politics of Cuban migration/emigration. Each topic is represented by perspectives from both Cuban and non-Cuban scholars, leading to a resource rich in insight and a model of transnational dialogue. The future course of U.S.-Cuban relations will likely be more complex than in the past, not only because of the matrix of factors involved but also because of the number of actors. Such a multiplicity of domestic, regional, and global factors is unique; it includes the rise to power of new administrations in both countries since 2008. Raúl Castro became president of Cuba in February 2008 and Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the United States in January 2009. And it will feature the inauguration of a new president of the United States in January 2017 and a new president of Cuba, likely in February 2018.
Debating War: Why Arguments Opposing American Wars and Interventions Fail
by David J. LorenzoWhat arguments have critics of American wars and interventions put forward, and what arguments do they currently employ? Thomas Jefferson, Henry Thoreau, John Calhoun, the Anti-Imperialist League, Herbert Hoover, Charles Lindbergh, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ron Paul (among others) have criticized proposals to intervene in other countries, enter wars, acquire foreign territory, and engage in a forward defense posture. Despite cogent objections, they have also generally lost the argument. Why do they lose? This book provides answers to these questions through a survey of oppositional arguments over time, augmented by the views of contemporary critics, including those of Ron Paul, Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky. Author David J. Lorenzo demonstrates how and why a significant number of arguments are dismissed as irrelevant, unpatriotic, overly pessimistic, or radically out of the mainstream. Other lines of reasoning might provide a compelling critique of wars and interventions from a wide variety of perspectives – and still lose. Evaluating oppositional arguments in detail allows the reader to understand problems likely to be faced in the context of policy discussions, to grasp important political differences and the potential for alliances among critics, and ultimately to influence decision-making and America’s place in the international power structure.
Debating War: Why Arguments Opposing American Wars and Interventions Fail
by David J. LorenzoWhat arguments have critics of American wars and interventions put forward, and what arguments do they currently employ? Thomas Jefferson, Henry Thoreau, John Calhoun, the Anti-Imperialist League, Herbert Hoover, Charles Lindbergh, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ron Paul (among others) have criticized proposals to intervene in other countries, enter wars, acquire foreign territory, and engage in a forward defense posture. Despite cogent objections, they have also generally lost the argument. Why do they lose? This book provides answers to these questions through a survey of oppositional arguments over time, augmented by the views of contemporary critics, including those of Ron Paul, Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky. Author David J. Lorenzo demonstrates how and why a significant number of arguments are dismissed as irrelevant, unpatriotic, overly pessimistic, or radically out of the mainstream. Other lines of reasoning might provide a compelling critique of wars and interventions from a wide variety of perspectives – and still lose. Evaluating oppositional arguments in detail allows the reader to understand problems likely to be faced in the context of policy discussions, to grasp important political differences and the potential for alliances among critics, and ultimately to influence decision-making and America’s place in the international power structure.
Debating Women, Politics, and Power in Early Modern Europe
by S. JansenThe sixteenth century was an age of politically powerful women. Queens, acting in their own right, and female regents, acting on behalf of their male relatives, governed much of Western Europe. Yet even as women ruled - and ruled effectively - their right to do so was hotly contested. Men s voices have long dominated this debate, but the recovery of texts by women now allows their voices, long silenced, to be heard once again. Debating Women, Politics, and Power in Early Modern Europe is a study of texts and textual production in the construction of gender, society, and politics in the early modern period. Jansen explores the "gynecocracy" debate and the larger humanist response to the challenge posed by female sovereignty.
Debating Women's Citizenship in India, 1930-1960
by Annie DevenishDebating Women's Citizenship, 1930-1960 is about the coming of independence in India, and what this meant for a generation of Indian feminists and nationalists whose careers straddle this transition from the 1930s to the 1960s. It views how this generation responded to the new spaces created for the making the Indian woman as citizen, and the closing-off of others. To explore this question, the book focuses on a cohort of nationalists and feminists who were leading members the All India Women's Conference (AIWC) and the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW). It documents and analyzes the voices of this cohort in some of the key debates around nation building in Nehruvian India, and traces the range of activities and struggles engaged in by these organisations and individuals as expressions of citizenship in practice.Drawing on the richness and depth of life histories through autobiography and oral interviews, together with archival research, this book excavates “the mental products of these women's lives, their ideas, their writings and their discourse”, to develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the feminist political personas of this generation, and how these personas negotiated the political and social terrains of their time. The result is to produce a new picture of this era, one in which there was far more activity and engagement with the state and with civil society on the part of this generation than previously acknowledged.
Debating Women's Citizenship in India, 1930–1960
by Annie DevenishDebating Women's Citizenship, 1930-1960 is about the agency of Indian feminists and nationalists whose careers straddle the transition of colonial India to an independent India. It addresses some of the critical aspects of the encounter, engagement and dialogue between the Indian state and its women citizens, in particular, how this generation conceptualised the relationship between citizenship, equality and gender justice, and the various spheres in which the meaning and application of this citizenship was both broadened and narrowed, renegotiated and pursued. The book focuses on a cohort of nationalists and feminists who were leading members of the All India Women's Conference (AIWC) and the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW). Drawing on the richness and depth of life histories through autobiography and oral interviews, together with archival research, this book excavates the mental products of these women's lives, their ideas, their writings and their discourse, to develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the feminist political personas of this generation, and how these personas negotiated the political and social terrains of their time. The book attempts to produce a new picture of this era, one in which there was far more activity and engagement with the state and with civil society on the part of this generation than previously acknowledged.
Debating Worlds: Contested Narratives of Global Modernity and World Order
by Daniel Deudney G. John Ikenberry Karoline Postel-VinayBy the last decade of the twentieth century, the great questions of modernity seemed to be answered. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and global communism, the liberal democratic capitalist project seemed to be the only one left standing, and in the 1990s the "liberal ideal" spread worldwide. Today, of course, this universalistic narrative rings hollow. The global distribution of power has shifted and the preeminence of the West is receding as new directions for world order emerge. China is rapidly ascending as a peer competitor of the United States, bringing with it a powerful new global narrative of grievance and revision. Political Islam also burst onto the global scene as a multifaceted transnational movement reshaping regional political order and geopolitical alignments. With the rapid advance of climate change, there have arisen new narratives of global endangerment and dystopia. Far from converging, fragmentation and contestation increasingly dominate debates over world order. In Debating Worlds, Daniel Deudney, G. John Ikenberry, and Karoline Postel-Vinay have gathered a group of eminent scholars in the field to analyze the various ways in which the West's dominant narrative has waned and a new plurality of narratives has emerged. Each of these narratives combines stories of the past with understandings of the present and attractive visions of the future. Collectively, the contributors map out these narratives, focusing primarily on their key features, origins, and implications for world order. The narratives prominent on the world stage are a volatile mix of components, but they also differ in scope--some are regional and civilizational without global aspirations, while others cast themselves as globally expansive and universally ambitious. Covering the most influential narratives currently shaping world politics, Debating Worlds is an essential volume for all scholars of international relations.