Migration to and from Ireland is often the subject of definitive claims. During the 1980s, migration from Ireland was most commonly described as a brain drain. Despite the constant flows and counterflows, academic studies tend to focus on just one direction of movement, reflecting dominant concerns at particular points in time. The 1950s and the 1980s are characterized as decades of emigration, the Celtic Tiger era as a period of immigration, and the current recession is manifest as a return to mass emigration. This book addresses the three key themes from a variety of spatial, temporal and theoretical perspectives. The theme of networks is addressed. Transnational loyalist networks acted both to facilitate the speaking tours of loyalist speakers and to re-translate the political meanings and messages being communicated by the speakers. The Irish Catholic Church and specifically its re-working of its traditional pastoral, lobbying and development role within Irish emigrant communities, is discussed. By highlighting three key areas such as motives, institutions and strategies, and support infrastructures, the book suggests that the Irish experience offers a nuanced understanding of the different forms of networks that exist between a state and its diaspora, and shows the importance of working to support the self-organization of the diaspora. Perceptions of belonging both pre- and postmigration encouraged ethnographic research in six Direct Provision asylum accommodation centres across Ireland. Finally, the book provides insights into the intersections between 'migrancy' and other social categories including gender, nationality and class/position in the labour hierarchy.
In studio publicity, trade papers, reviews, articles, and educational materials,
Joseph L. Mankiewiczs Julius Caesar (1953) was described and accepted as a faithful
and mostly pleasing adaptation of Shakespearean drama to the Hollywood screen. As
Variety accurately predicted, it achieved four Oscar nominations, one award for art
direction and set decoration, high grosses, a hit soundtrack album, and several
subsequent revivals. With the content more or less given, contemporary discussion
focussed closely on how the verbal had been visualised, on how theatre had been
turned into cinema – in short, on the film‘s style. It is with contemporary and
subsequent readings of the film‘s style that this article is concerned, where,
following David Bordwell, style is taken to mean ‘a films systematic and significant
use of techniques of the medium’. But whereas Bordwell analyses film style directly
in terms of an aesthetic history he considers to be distinct from the history of the
film industry, its technology, or a films relation to society, I explore
interpretations of one film‘s style that are heavily invested with socio-political
meaning. If, in Bordwell‘s organic metaphor, style is the flesh of film, these
readings of style explicitly dress that flesh in socio-political clothing. This
analysis of Julius Caesar, then, is not another contribution to debates about
adaptation, theatre on film, or Shakespeare on screen, but about the politics of film
, asabiyyah activates asabiyyah, and hatred animates hatred’.11
The events of early 2011 that eviscerated regime–society relations across the Middle
East were a widespread rejection of the political, economic, social and legal status quo,
pushing people into localised forms of asabiyyah and challenging the relationship
between ordnung and ortung in the process. Having had politicalmeaning stripped
from their lives and the regulation of this limited form of existence embedded within
the fabric of the state, protests were an expression of agency in the face of seemingly
From pathos to bathos in early English tragedy; or, the comedy of terrors
This chapter examines some applications of classicism in both form and content. This discussion focuses on the production of political meanings. It studies the extension of French neo-classical influence to the Elizabethan theatre in its most popular and public form, and tries to declassicise French drama itself. This chapter also studies the characters of Caesar and Brutus, the former becoming the epitome of greatness fatally tainted by ambition, and focuses on adaptations of classical machinery.
A much-needed monograph of one of the most unpopular and criticised thinkers in the history of political thought, Cuttica’s study provides an illuminating and innovative picture of Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653) and patriarchalism. Appealing to a broad audience in the humanities, this thoroughly researched work will make an essential reading for all those interested in early modern politics and ideas. This book explores Filmer’s patriarchalist theories in connection with seventeenth-century English and European political cultures. The nine chapters address a series of important questions regarding his oeuvre that have been hitherto ignored or, at best, left unanswered. Making use of unexplored primary material and adopting an innovative contextual reading of both Patriarcha’s composition (1620s-30s) and its publication (1680), this monograph has three main strengths. Firstly, it brings new light to Patriarcha’s ideas by unveiling ignored aspects of the context in which Filmer wrote; of its language, aims and targets; of its cultural and political meanings. Secondly, the book offers a novel reading of the patriarchalist discourse and its place in early modern political culture in England and Europe. In particular, Patriarcha serves as a prism through which to see the enduring importance of the languages of patriarchalism and patriotism during the Stuart era in England. Thirdly, it gives a timely and unique explanation of why Filmer’s doctrines were amply adopted as well as strongly contested in the 1680s.
‘Die Politik’, Bismarck is reputed to have said, ‘ist die Lehre von Möglichen’. Translated as ‘politics is the art of the possible’, this phrase captures neatly the pragmatism that has been at the heart of modern British approaches to the art of government. It is not as though ideology has not, occasionally, loomed large in political debate. Conviction certainly has a respectable pedigree in explaining the attachments, destinies and ultimate fate of some politicians. But success in British politics has come most readily to those who have been flexible, responsive to the shifting mood of the electorate of the day, able to anticipate how social and economic changes may reconstitute the terms of debate, and how through their own words and writings they themselves may help to constitute political meaning. This volume explores some of the major transitions, opportunities and false dawns of modern British political history. Chronologically its span runs from the first general election to be conducted under the terms of the Third Reform Act, with an extensive (if still incomplete) adult male electorate, through to the 1997 referenda in favour of devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales. This was the period in which British politicians most obviously addressed a mass, British-wide electorate, seeking national approval for policies and programmes to be enacted on a UK-wide basis. In covering this period and this theme the volume as a whole engages with the scholarly legacy of Duncan Tanner.
This chapter is concerned with the diction and choice of word in the poem. It focuses on questions which relate to the rhetorical character of Elizabethan thinking and the styles Spenser deploys and the choices he makes in the construction of his poem. The first half of the chapter considers questions surrounding how Spenser used language – was he diffuse or condensed; to what extent is his lexis formulaic? – through the debate around his use of archaic diction. The second half of the chapter considers the episode of Artegall’s encounter with the egalitarian Giant in V.ii in terms of the ways in which Spenser’s choices of epithet position the protagonists and the reader in relation to the episode’s complex political meanings.
Coinciding locales of refuge among Sahrawi refugees in North
This chapter is an ethnography study of the Sahrawi people living in refugee
camps in the Algerian desert. It examines the mutual perceptions and social
interactions between the Sahrawi people and the humanitarians visiting them.
The chapter highlights the intricate interplay of legal, spatial and
political meanings variably attached to categories such as ‘nomads’,
‘refugees’, ‘citizens’ and ‘statehood’ in such perceptions and interactions.
In the process, it unsettles dominant assumptions about what and who is
‘local’ and what and who is ‘global’. The chapter also problematises
assumptions about the relative distribution of vulnerability and agentic
power in the encounters in the Algerian desert between Sahrawi refugees and
humanitarian actors mainly coming from the Global North. The latter are
those in need of orientation and reassurance as they negotiate the difficult
geopolitical terrain of the Algerian desert. Further, the chapter identifies
and studies the tension in meanings and perceptions that marks the
interactions between the Sahrawi people and the humanitarian actors visiting
them: the former greet the humanitarians in their camps putting forward an
image of the camps as sociospatial formations of statehood-in-waiting, while
the latter experience the camps as (supposedly temporary) spaces of refuge
in need of humanitarian aid.
This book explores contemporary urban experiences connected to practices of sharing and collaboration. Part of a growing discussion on the cultural meaning and the politics of urban commons, it uses examples from Europe and Latin America to support the view that a world of mutual support and urban solidarity is emerging today in, against, and beyond existing societies of inequality. In such a world, people experience the potentialities of emancipation activated by concrete forms of space commoning. By focusing on concrete collective experiences of urban space appropriation and participatory design experiments this book traces differing, but potentially compatible, trajectories through which common space (or space-as-commons) becomes an important factor in social change. In the everydayness of self-organized neighborhoods, in the struggles for justice in occupied public spaces, in the emergence of “territories in resistance,” and in dissident artistic practices of collaborative creation, collective inventiveness produces fragments of an emancipated society.
In the everydayness of self-organized neighborhoods, in the
struggles for justice in occupied public spaces, in the emergence
of “territories in resistance” (Zibechi 2012), and in dissident artistic practices of collaborative creation, collective inventiveness
produces fragments of a better future.
Entering the discussion on the politicalmeaning of struggles to
preserve and expand “the commons” (De Angelis 2007 and 2017,
Hardt and Negri 2009, Harvey 2012, De Angelis and Stavrides
2010, Stavrides 2016) in a world of enclosures and exploitation