The intensity and varied nature of violence in Latin America has confronted social scientists with an urgent object of study. This essay examines how, by studying different processes of violence, social scientists have become embedded in wider networks of expertise spanning across civil society and the state. By participating in these networks, Latin American students of violence have enacted important intellectual and political interventions. I examine how the expert commissions for the study of violence launched by the Colombian state in 1958 and 1987 made landmark contributions to Colombian social sciences and produced representations of the country’s past that amplified calls for the transformation of the political regime as it existed in the 1950s and 1980s. I also analyze how, by putting forth the concept of feminicide to describe the violence faced by women and girls in Mexico, feminist scholars opened the door for holding the state accountable for its inaction against these crimes, paving the way toward reshaping the country’s criminal code and the implementation of social policies that adequately protect women’s lives. Investigating these interventions in the context of wider networks of expertise evidences how the study of violence in Latin America has pushed social scientists out of the ivory tower, moving them to engage other social actors not only as informants but also as partners and allies.
{"title":"Making Sense of Violence in Latin America: Social Scientists and Networks of Expertise in Colombia and Mexico","authors":"Sebastián Rojas Cabal","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.74935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.74935","url":null,"abstract":"The intensity and varied nature of violence in Latin America has confronted social scientists with an urgent object of study. This essay examines how, by studying different processes of violence, social scientists have become embedded in wider networks of expertise spanning across civil society and the state. By participating in these networks, Latin American students of violence have enacted important intellectual and political interventions. I examine how the expert commissions for the study of violence launched by the Colombian state in 1958 and 1987 made landmark contributions to Colombian social sciences and produced representations of the country’s past that amplified calls for the transformation of the political regime as it existed in the 1950s and 1980s. I also analyze how, by putting forth the concept of feminicide to describe the violence faced by women and girls in Mexico, feminist scholars opened the door for holding the state accountable for its inaction against these crimes, paving the way toward reshaping the country’s criminal code and the implementation of social policies that adequately protect women’s lives. Investigating these interventions in the context of wider networks of expertise evidences how the study of violence in Latin America has pushed social scientists out of the ivory tower, moving them to engage other social actors not only as informants but also as partners and allies.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85674175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This commentary is part of Global Perspectives review symposium on democracy.
这篇评论是《全球展望》民主评论研讨会的一部分。
{"title":"Culture and Social Media","authors":"S. Ringen","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.71495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.71495","url":null,"abstract":"This commentary is part of Global Perspectives review symposium on democracy.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80185250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Multilateralism occupies a vast canvas. It means different things to different people. It is studied across many disciplines from political science and international relations to history, sociology, and international law. Its theorists are as diverse as its critics (Alvarez 2000). As the contributions to this special collection reveal, our understanding of multilateralism is constantly evolving with new research, experience, and insights. In this comment, I reflect on international organizations as multilateralism’s laboratories and agents. Multilateralism is a cyclical phenomenon at an international institution (Cohen 2018). My focus, therefore, is on a multilateral institution’s life cycle and some of its legal and policy conundrums. I must caution, however, that I am neither a scholar nor an expert. My perspectives are shaped by my professional experience as an international institution’s staff member and by a personal interest in the history, law, and practice of multilateral organizations.
{"title":"Rethinking Multilateralism: Some Reflections","authors":"V. Raghavan","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.70348","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.70348","url":null,"abstract":"Multilateralism occupies a vast canvas. It means different things to different people. It is studied across many disciplines from political science and international relations to history, sociology, and international law. Its theorists are as diverse as its critics (Alvarez 2000). As the contributions to this special collection reveal, our understanding of multilateralism is constantly evolving with new research, experience, and insights. In this comment, I reflect on international organizations as multilateralism’s laboratories and agents. Multilateralism is a cyclical phenomenon at an international institution (Cohen 2018). My focus, therefore, is on a multilateral institution’s life cycle and some of its legal and policy conundrums. I must caution, however, that I am neither a scholar nor an expert. My perspectives are shaped by my professional experience as an international institution’s staff member and by a personal interest in the history, law, and practice of multilateral organizations.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90774320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is part of Global Perspectives Review Symposium on Democracy.
本文是《全球展望评论民主研讨会》的一部分。
{"title":"Response to the <i>Global Perspectives</i> Reviews of <i>Liberalism and Its Discontents</i>","authors":"Francis Fukuyama","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.89361","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.89361","url":null,"abstract":"This article is part of Global Perspectives Review Symposium on Democracy.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135502965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In response to Blum, this commentary highlights the core problem: the notion of a common good is indispensable on the one hand, yet nebulous, pluralistic, and ideologically biased on the other. We do not know the processes, in retrospect, that guarantee the common good as outcome. All we can posit is that the common good is the mitigation of “common bads” and that its beneficiaries are not just societies enshrined in the confines of the nation-state but other social collectives as well.
{"title":"The Common Good “In Question”? Notes on Christian Blum","authors":"Claus Offe","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.88146","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.88146","url":null,"abstract":"In response to Blum, this commentary highlights the core problem: the notion of a common good is indispensable on the one hand, yet nebulous, pluralistic, and ideologically biased on the other. We do not know the processes, in retrospect, that guarantee the common good as outcome. All we can posit is that the common good is the mitigation of “common bads” and that its beneficiaries are not just societies enshrined in the confines of the nation-state but other social collectives as well.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135009177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Globalization is full of disjunctures and contradictions. Paradoxically, it is, on the one hand, a generalizing process and, on the other hand, associated with encounters and conflicts that accentuate, and even generate, multiplicities of difference. This article tracks developments in a broad set of approaches that have over the last few decades sought to deepen our understanding of these encounters and differences. These approaches can be collated under the notion of “pluriversal theory.” The first broad expression of this theoretical-activist movement, “pluriversal theory 1.0,” includes orientalism studies, southern theory, and the multiple modernities approach. This group of interventions suggests rightly that our gaze needs to shift from a singular Eurocentric viewpoint, but it is unable to account for the epistemological and ontological contestations that both ground the encounters and provide a means of acting otherwise. Pluriversal theory 2.0 moves to decenter both Europe and the global modernization process, while treating the disjunctures of global history as involving epistemological ruptures. Modern forms of knowing are treated as themselves colonizing. The Global South is described as not just a geographical or imperially generated place of difference but as region of diverse “ways of knowing.” Here, the nature of knowledge becomes analytically important, as does using comparative analysis of ways of knowing. This article builds upon the strengths of these earlier contributions to argue for what might be called pluriversal theory 3.0. This entails recognizing that “knowing” is only one of the many categories of being, and that disjunctures of ontological difference—“ways of being” or ontological formations in tension—are central to understanding processes of power and domination in our globalizing world.
{"title":"Rethinking Pluriversal Theory in Globalization Research: Bringing Ontology In","authors":"Paul James, Manfred B. Steger","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.88513","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.88513","url":null,"abstract":"Globalization is full of disjunctures and contradictions. Paradoxically, it is, on the one hand, a generalizing process and, on the other hand, associated with encounters and conflicts that accentuate, and even generate, multiplicities of difference. This article tracks developments in a broad set of approaches that have over the last few decades sought to deepen our understanding of these encounters and differences. These approaches can be collated under the notion of “pluriversal theory.” The first broad expression of this theoretical-activist movement, “pluriversal theory 1.0,” includes orientalism studies, southern theory, and the multiple modernities approach. This group of interventions suggests rightly that our gaze needs to shift from a singular Eurocentric viewpoint, but it is unable to account for the epistemological and ontological contestations that both ground the encounters and provide a means of acting otherwise. Pluriversal theory 2.0 moves to decenter both Europe and the global modernization process, while treating the disjunctures of global history as involving epistemological ruptures. Modern forms of knowing are treated as themselves colonizing. The Global South is described as not just a geographical or imperially generated place of difference but as region of diverse “ways of knowing.” Here, the nature of knowledge becomes analytically important, as does using comparative analysis of ways of knowing. This article builds upon the strengths of these earlier contributions to argue for what might be called pluriversal theory 3.0. This entails recognizing that “knowing” is only one of the many categories of being, and that disjunctures of ontological difference—“ways of being” or ontological formations in tension—are central to understanding processes of power and domination in our globalizing world.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135010104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The reviewed books nicely expose several factors behind democratic “degeneration,” but they do not question the assumption that democracy is a matter for nation-states only. This is problematic because states’ ability to perform their traditional functions has been progressively eroded. The internet revolution, in particular, has accelerated social communication, economic transactions, and the process of unbounding with profound implications for democratic performance. Rather than cultivating nostalgia for the “glorious years” of democracy, we must think hard how to make democracy triumph in the digital era.
{"title":"Democratic Nostalgia","authors":"J. Zielonka","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.70092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.70092","url":null,"abstract":"The reviewed books nicely expose several factors behind democratic “degeneration,” but they do not question the assumption that democracy is a matter for nation-states only. This is problematic because states’ ability to perform their traditional functions has been progressively eroded. The internet revolution, in particular, has accelerated social communication, economic transactions, and the process of unbounding with profound implications for democratic performance. Rather than cultivating nostalgia for the “glorious years” of democracy, we must think hard how to make democracy triumph in the digital era.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74748581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The multilateral system established after World War II is obsolete and insufficient to address current challenges, such as tensions between major powers and within regional blocks, inequalities, climate change, and health issues resulting from a strained power struggle between development pathways, politics, and nature. It is critical that we adapt the current system to new political realities and provide it with the means to respond to contemporary realities while also reestablishing governance arrangements to manage and preserve our global commons. In addition to governmental efforts, the participation of parliaments, local and regional governments, civil society, and the private sector is crucial in achieving a structural transformation of the multilateral system and creating a culture of inclusivity and accountability through greater social participation in decision-making. Implementing the 2030 Agenda, the Our Common Agenda report, and the outcomes of international summits will allow us to craft a new social contract balancing the needs of society, the economy, politics, and the environment.
{"title":"Rethinking Multilateralism and Global Development","authors":"M. Espinosa","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.72682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.72682","url":null,"abstract":"The multilateral system established after World War II is obsolete and insufficient to address current challenges, such as tensions between major powers and within regional blocks, inequalities, climate change, and health issues resulting from a strained power struggle between development pathways, politics, and nature. It is critical that we adapt the current system to new political realities and provide it with the means to respond to contemporary realities while also reestablishing governance arrangements to manage and preserve our global commons. In addition to governmental efforts, the participation of parliaments, local and regional governments, civil society, and the private sector is crucial in achieving a structural transformation of the multilateral system and creating a culture of inclusivity and accountability through greater social participation in decision-making. Implementing the 2030 Agenda, the Our Common Agenda report, and the outcomes of international summits will allow us to craft a new social contract balancing the needs of society, the economy, politics, and the environment.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73093519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the turn of the twenty-first century, an anxious presentism has taken hold of our social and political reality. This condition rejects the lessons of the past, fears the future, and amplifies crises in the present moment, suspending whole societies in uncertainty. These extraordinary times demand innovation of heritage critique, which lacks a core framework for understanding how heritage interacts with the uncertainty of transition. This paper offers an innovative approach to the problem, arguing for transferring the paradigm of contemporary liminality from political anthropology into heritage studies. Contemporary political anthropologists have adapted liminality’s ritual structure to large-scale phenomena like war, revolution, and extreme transition to understand these experiences at the level of the communities living through them. With an epistemology free from the constraints of secular rationalism, contemporary liminality provides a framework for understanding heritage amid transition that sheds new light on core investigations into the politics of memory and identity. It also leads to the concept of a liminal heritage, heritage that takes on characteristics of its liminal context such as ambivalence, ambiguity, imitation, danger, deception, violence, and creativity.
{"title":"Wicked Heritage Problems: Rethinking Critical Heritage Theory with Contemporary Liminality","authors":"Alicia V. Stevens","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.82128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.82128","url":null,"abstract":"Since the turn of the twenty-first century, an anxious presentism has taken hold of our social and political reality. This condition rejects the lessons of the past, fears the future, and amplifies crises in the present moment, suspending whole societies in uncertainty. These extraordinary times demand innovation of heritage critique, which lacks a core framework for understanding how heritage interacts with the uncertainty of transition. This paper offers an innovative approach to the problem, arguing for transferring the paradigm of contemporary liminality from political anthropology into heritage studies. Contemporary political anthropologists have adapted liminality’s ritual structure to large-scale phenomena like war, revolution, and extreme transition to understand these experiences at the level of the communities living through them. With an epistemology free from the constraints of secular rationalism, contemporary liminality provides a framework for understanding heritage amid transition that sheds new light on core investigations into the politics of memory and identity. It also leads to the concept of a liminal heritage, heritage that takes on characteristics of its liminal context such as ambivalence, ambiguity, imitation, danger, deception, violence, and creativity.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85794201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Are we nearing the end of a worldwide era of university expansion and influence – and, if so, why? The two books under consideration suggest very different answers to these questions. David John Frank and John W. Meyer’s The University and the Global Knowledge Society anticipates continued expansion and influence as university enrollments grow throughout the world and as the university’s knowledge practices rationalize ever more remote areas of human cultural life. John Douglass’s Neo-Nationalism and Universities raises the specter instead of a university sector controlled by illiberal politicians who are intent on restricting the freedom of professors and students and on directing university teaching and research in ways that align with their regimes’ interests. In this essay I argue that Frank and Meyer are right, for the most part, about the continuing expansion and influence of universities and that Douglass and his collaborators are right to worry about the future. But neither of the books focuses on one of the major threats to academe: universities may be in nearly as much danger from internal failings and a weakening market position as they are from external political control. Highly selective colleges and research universities remain vital instruments of national economic and social progress but the value added of less selective institutions is becoming questionable to many prospective students, even those who live in countries at the center of the liberal world order.
我们是否正在接近大学扩张和影响的全球时代的终结?如果是，为什么?考虑中的两本书对这些问题给出了截然不同的答案。大卫·约翰·弗兰克和约翰·w·迈耶的《大学与全球知识社会》一书预计，随着世界各地大学招生人数的增长，以及大学的知识实践使人类文化生活中越来越遥远的领域合理化，大学和全球知识社会将继续扩大其影响力。约翰·道格拉斯(John Douglass)的《新民族主义与大学》(new - nationalism and Universities)提出了一个幽灵，而不是一个由狭隘的政客控制的大学部门，这些政客意图限制教授和学生的自由，并以符合其政权利益的方式指导大学的教学和研究。在这篇文章中，我认为弗兰克和迈耶在很大程度上是正确的，关于大学的持续扩张和影响，道格拉斯和他的合作者对未来的担忧是正确的。但这两本书都没有关注学术界面临的主要威胁之一:大学面临的内部失败和市场地位削弱的危险，可能与来自外部政治控制的危险几乎一样大。高选择性的学院和研究型大学仍然是国家经济和社会进步的重要工具，但对许多未来的学生来说，即使是那些生活在自由世界秩序中心国家的学生，选择性较低的机构的附加值也开始受到质疑。
{"title":"Which Way Universities?","authors":"S. Brint","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.56935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.56935","url":null,"abstract":"Are we nearing the end of a worldwide era of university expansion and influence – and, if so, why? The two books under consideration suggest very different answers to these questions. David John Frank and John W. Meyer’s The University and the Global Knowledge Society anticipates continued expansion and influence as university enrollments grow throughout the world and as the university’s knowledge practices rationalize ever more remote areas of human cultural life. John Douglass’s Neo-Nationalism and Universities raises the specter instead of a university sector controlled by illiberal politicians who are intent on restricting the freedom of professors and students and on directing university teaching and research in ways that align with their regimes’ interests. In this essay I argue that Frank and Meyer are right, for the most part, about the continuing expansion and influence of universities and that Douglass and his collaborators are right to worry about the future. But neither of the books focuses on one of the major threats to academe: universities may be in nearly as much danger from internal failings and a weakening market position as they are from external political control. Highly selective colleges and research universities remain vital instruments of national economic and social progress but the value added of less selective institutions is becoming questionable to many prospective students, even those who live in countries at the center of the liberal world order.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"203 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86808962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：