In 1960–62, a large number of white autochthonous parents in Southall became very concerned that the sudden influx of largely non-Anglophone Indian immigrant children in local schools would hold back their children’s education. It was primarily to placate such fears that ‘dispersal’ (or ‘bussing’) was introduced in areas such as Southall and Bradford, as well as to promote the integration of mostly Asian children. It consisted in sending busloads of immigrant children to predominantly white suburban schools, in an effort to ‘spread the burden’. This form of social engineering went on until the early 1980s. This book, by mobilising local and national archival material as well as interviews with formerly bussed pupils in the 1960s and 1970s, reveals the extent to which dispersal was a flawed policy, mostly because thousands of Asian pupils were faced with racist bullying on the playgrounds of Ealing, Bradford, etc. It also investigates the debate around dispersal and the integration of immigrant children, e.g. by analysing the way some Local Education Authorities (Birmingham, London) refused to introduce bussing. It studies the various forms that dispersal took in the dozen or so LEAs where it operated. Finally, it studies local mobilisations against dispersal by ethnic associations and individuals. It provides an analysis of debates around ‘ghetto schools’, ‘integration’, ‘separation’, ‘segregation’ where quite often the US serves as a cognitive map to make sense of the English situation.
Anthropology after Gluckman places the intimate circle around Max Gluckman, his Manchester School, in the vanguard of modern social anthropology. The book discloses the School’s intense, argument-rich collaborations, developing beyond an original focus in south and central Africa. Where outsiders have seen dominating leadership by Gluckman, a common stock of problems, and much about conflict, Richard Werbner highlights how insiders were drawn to explore many new frontiers in fieldwork and in-depth, reflexive ethnography, because they themselves, in class and gender, ethnicity and national origins, were remarkably inclusive. Characteristically different anthropologists, their careers met the challenges of being a public intellectual, an international celebrity, an institutional good citizen, a social and political activist, an advocate of legal justice. Their living legacies are shown, for the first time, through interlinked social biography and intellectual history to reach broadly across politics, law, ritual, semiotics, development studies, comparative urbanism, social network analysis and mathematical sociology. Innovation – in research methods and techniques, in documenting people’s changing praxis and social relations, in comparative analysis and a destabilizing strategy of re-analysis within ethnography – became the School’s hallmark. Much of this exploration confronted troubling times in Africa, colonial and postcolonial, which put the anthropologists and their anthropological knowledge at risk. The resurgence of debate about decolonization makes the accounts of fierce, End of Empire argument and recent postcolonial anthropology all the more topical. The lessons, even in activism, for social scientists, teachers as well as graduate and undergraduate students are compelling for our own troubled times.
English radicalism has been a deep-rooted but minority tradition in the political culture since at least the seventeenth century. The central aim of this book is to examine, in historical and political context, a range of key events and individuals that exemplify English radicalism in the twentieth century. This analysis is preceded by defining precisely what has constituted this tradition; and by the main outline of the development of the tradition from the Civil War to the end of the nineteenth century. Three of the main currents of English radicalism in the twentieth century have been the labour movement, the women’s movement and the peace movement. These are discussed in some detail, as a framework for the detailed consideration of ten key representative figures of the tradition in the twentieth century: Bertrand Russell, Sylvia Pankhurst, Ellen Wilkinson, George Orwell, E.P. Thompson, Michael Foot, Joan Maynard, Stuart Hall, Tony Benn and Nicolas Walter. The question of ‘agency’ – of how to bring about radical change in a predominantly conservative society and culture – has been a fundamental issue for English radicals. It is argued that, in the twentieth century, many of the important achievements in progressive politics have taken place in and through extra-parliamentary movements, as well as through formal political parties and organisations – the Labour Party and other socialist organisations – and on occasion, through libertarian and anarchist politics. The final chapter considers the continuing relevance of this political tradition in the early twenty-first century, and reviews its challenges and prospects.
This chapter investigates the reception of narratives about the rise of a multipolar order in Japan, a state once touted as a potential pole of power in a post-Cold War multipolar order in its own right. Instead, the chapter argues that the central framing of debates over multipolarity today in Tokyo is one of fear – fear of the end of unipolarity and the rise of multipolarity signalling an end to the assured peacefulness and prosperity of Northeast Asia, Japan’s immediate neighbourhood. It argues that there is a complex and important interaction between the explanatory and normative sides of the Japanese discourse on multipolarity. How the global distribution of power does and should manifest itself in polarity terms is often difficult to disentangle. Significantly, the chapter highlights the larger debates about order – in particular a specific conception of a liberal rules-based order – that Japanese decision-makers and analysts bring to bear on debates about a future multipolar distribution of power. This implies that the unipolar, US-led order is itself defined by a liberal outlook that needs to be preserved as the global order becomes increasingly multipolar. This chapter highlights the difficulties for Tokyo in holding on to this narrative through the Trump administration’s decidedly illiberal path in its foreign policy and its aftermath.
potential and the limits of the EU’s ability
to be a provider of soft security for the EE states. The final section
before the conclusion examines new threats to EU unity, and thus to its
capacity to be a soft security provider, posed by the efforts of
external powers like Russia, China, and the United States to divide and
weaken the EU, and by the growth of illiberal nationalism within the EU
by and large unchallenged, even in the case of the ideologically
self-proclaimed “illiberal democracy” constructed by
Orbán in Hungary, there might be reasons to expect that structures that
support liberal order in East-Central Europe have a
staying power that goes beyond vagaries of electoral politics and theatrics
projected by loud nationalist populist leaders who seem to not really offer
possible to “better listen to the man in the street.” As a rule, this means introducing new methods of direct democracy, in particular initiatives and referendums, considered to be adequate instruments for bringing politicians “closer to the people.”
An American scholar called these forms of direct democracy, not without reason, “the right of the people to make fools of themselves.” 8 We have seen how these new tools, meant to enhance and improve our democracies, have been hijacked by populist demagogues and agitators to promote their own illiberal agendas. In some
This chapter is structured as follows. The second section will define and contextualise liberal internationalist principles. The third section will then turn to liberal internationalists’ constructions of an image of Germany as an inherently illiberal state during the First World War. They proceeded in a remarkably similar, tripartite manner and almost always began with postulating a causal connection between German philosophy and the unfolding of German militarism, which was then furthered by the illustration of the illiberal nature of the German state and finalised
authoritarian, illiberal government structure with power transferred to the executive is incompatible with Western ideals of democracy and the rule of law. Erdoğan’s post-coup purges also threaten to weaken Turkey’s military and thus the security of NATO. Many officers assigned to NATO were recalled and presumably many who returned to Turkey have ended up in jail, including as much as a third of Turkey’s officer corps. Some officers on NATO duty sought asylum in NATO countries to escape that fate.
In the foreseeable future, it would be nearly impossible to resume EU
not an unalloyed good: it is part of Irish women's illiberal legal inheritance’.
The fear around the female body, its legislation and regulation by patriarchal moral codes, are not easily consigned to the past. As Eilís Ward demonstrates in ‘Who is protecting whom and what? The Irish state and the death of women who sell sex: a historical and contemporary analysis’, the Irish state's passing of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act (2017) attempts to ‘disappear’ the embodied prostitute (without stopping the act of prostitution), thus ‘removing