This book shows the impact of twenty-first-century security concerns on the way Russia is ruled. It demonstrates how President Vladimir Putin has wrestled with terrorism, immigration, media freedom, religious pluralism, and economic globalism, and argues that fears of a return to old-style authoritarianism oversimplify the complex context of contemporary Russia. Since the early 1990s, Russia has been repeatedly analysed in terms of whether it is becoming a democracy or not. This book instead focuses on the internal security issues common to many states in the early twenty-first century, and places them in the particular context of Russia, the world's largest country, still dealing with its legacy of communism and authoritarianism. Detailed analysis of the place of security in Russia's political discourse and policy making reveals nuances often missing from overarching assessments of Russia today. To characterise the Putin regime as the ‘KGB-resurgent’ is to miss vital continuities, contexts, and on-going political conflicts that make up the contemporary Russian scene. The book draws together current debates about whether Russia is a ‘normal’ country developing its own democratic and market structures, or a nascent authoritarian regime returning to the past. Drawing on extensive interviews and Russian source material, it argues that the growing security factor in Russia's domestic politics is neither ubiquitous nor unchallenged. It must be understood in the context of Russia's immediate history and the growing domestic security concerns of many states the world over.
longer captured by the model of religious conflict. These examples show that the greatest difficulty is not the
everyday challenges to principles and standards of deliberation, but rather
those conflicts that intersect at various levels, dimensions and domains
in extremely diverse societies. The key to their solution is subjecting the
regime of toleration to the regulative principle of equal standing or nonsubordination in an inclusive community.
The defining historical moment of the liberal regime of toleration is the
emergence of religiouspluralism and the
politicians reckoned that the unhindered spread of information
helped to create political and religious stability. Free speech soon became
part of a series of accepted rights, including religiouspluralism, toleration
INGRAM 9781526147103 PRINT.indd 5
Freedom of speech, 1500–1850
and freedom of conscience. The wider public, eager to participate further
in political life, also embraced the theories being advanced by government,
and soon objected to all forms of censorship. By the middle of the eighteenth
century, almost all English people believed that
This book offers historical reappraisals of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the early modern anglophone world. Prompted by modern debates about whether or not limitations on free expression might be necessary given religious pluralism and concerns about hate speech, it brings together historians, political theorists and literary scholars, and offers a longue durée approach to the topic. It integrates religion into the history of free speech, and rethinks what is sometimes regarded as a coherent tradition of more or less absolutist justifications for free expression. Contributors examine the aims and effectiveness of government policies, the sometimes messy and contingent ways in which freedom of speech became a reality, and a wide range of canonical and non-canonical texts in which contemporaries outlined their ideas and ideals. It is shown that – on this issue at least – the period from 1500 to 1850 is a coherent one, in terms of how successive governments reflected on the possibility of regulation, and in terms of claims that were and were not made for freedom of speech. While not denying that change can be detected across this period, in terms of both ideas and practices, it demonstrates that the issues, arguments and aims involved were more or less distinct from those that characterise modern debates. As a collection it will be of interest to religious and political historians, intellectual historians and literary scholars, and to anyone interested in the history of one of the most important and thorny issues in modern society.
This collection explores how concepts of intellectual or learning disability evolved from a range of influences, gradually developing from earlier and decidedly distinct concepts, including ‘idiocy’ and ‘folly’, which were themselves generated by very specific social and intellectual environments. With essays extending across legal, educational, literary, religious, philosophical, and psychiatric histories, this collection maintains a rigorous distinction between historical and contemporary concepts in demonstrating how intellectual disability and related notions were products of the prevailing social, cultural, and intellectual environments in which they took form, and themselves performed important functions within these environments. Focusing on British and European material from the middle ages to the late nineteenth century, this collection asks ‘How and why did these concepts form?’ ‘How did they connect with one another?’ and ‘What historical circumstances contributed to building these connections?’ While the emphasis is on conceptual history or a history of ideas, these essays also address the consequences of these defining forces for the people who found themselves enclosed by the shifting definitional field.
itself and from part of the English-speaking world (Britain,
Canada and the USA) in this work makes it possible to show that school segregation, justified by communitarian models in the name of religiouspluralism,
has been challenged both within Ireland and internationally, and that these
challenges are not the product of a strict, simplistic opposition between a communitarian, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ inspired model and a republican, French inspired
one.5 It is indeed important to remember on the one hand that the ‘liberal vs
communitarian’ debate is also internal to the
The development of Protestantism in Nantes, 1558–72
Elizabeth C. Tingle
. Church, Constitutional Thought in Sixteenth-Century France. A Study in the Evolution of Ideas
(Cambridge, MA, 1941), pp. 78–9.
84 Matthew 12:25.
85 Du Preau, Harangue, p. iv.
86 Du Val, Mirouer des Calvinistes, p. 29.
87 Letter from Antoine de Crequi to the Cardinal of Lorraine, 27th October 1560, in Joxe, Les
protestants du comté de Nantes, p. 70.
88 Du Val, Mirouer des Calvinistes, p. 9.
89 T. Watson, ‘“When is a Huguenot not a Huguenot”? Lyon 1525–1575’, in K. Cameron,
M. Greengrass and P. Roberts, eds, The Adventure of ReligiousPluralism in Early Modern France
tradition of religiouspluralism, faith tends to soften the edges of the
cleavage between immigrants and native-born Americans. A very high
proportion of US immigrants are co-religionists with native-born
Americans (Catholics, evangelical Protestants, etc.), and since religion
– of whatever form – is important to most Americans, both newcomers
and natives, faith tends to blur or even outweigh the immigrant/
non-immigrant distinction. By contrast, a substantial fraction of UK
immigrants are devout Muslims, whereas the vast majority of white
public worship.9 The Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts (1711, 1714)
tried to undo some of the post-revolutionary settlement. But their repeal
in 1719, along with routine indemnity acts – which softened the Test Act’s
effects on Dissenters – at once confirmed and condoned England’s religiouspluralism.10 It was a modus vivendi which pleased few and which fuelled yet
more vitriolic public debate about the proper relation of Church to state.
Mainstream early eighteenth-century English Protestant thought on the
post-revolutionary religio-political order was
of society in the dawn of the ‘Great Awakening’. By contrast, the
intensity of the debate on enthusiasm suggests that religiouspluralism
remained a highly sensitive issue in the aftermath of the Toleration
Act. We too often assume that toleration appeased tensions between
dissenters and the Church of England and that it put an end, as a
result, to a constructed tradition of religious radicalism. Yet the premise of a denominational divide proves fundamentally flawed in light
of the present case. For it would be simplistic to equate enthusiasm
with dissent, when in