Whether called pressure groups, NGOs, social movement organisations or organised civil society, the value of ‘groups’ to the policy process, to economic growth, to governance, to political representation and to democracy has always been contested. However, there seems to be a contemporary resurgence in this debate, largely centred on their democratising potential: can groups effectively link citizens to political institutions and policy processes? Are groups an antidote to emerging democratic deficits? Or do they themselves face challenges in demonstrating their legitimacy and representativeness? This book debates the democratic potential and practice of groups, focusing on the vibrancy of internal democracies, and modes of accountability with those who join such groups and to the constituencies they advocate for. It draws on literatures covering national, European and global levels, and presents empirical material from the UK and Australia.
This book poses the question as to whether, over the last thirty years, there have been signs of ‘progress’ or ‘progressiveness’ in the representation of ‘marginalised’ or subaltern identity categories within television drama in Britain and the US. In doing so, it interrogates some of the key assumptions concerning the relationship between aesthetics and the politics of identity that have influenced and informed television drama criticism during this period. The book functions as a textbook because it provides students with a pathway through complex, wide-reaching and highly influential interdisciplinary terrain. Yet its re-evaluation of some of the key concepts that dominated academic thought in the twentieth century also make it of interest to scholars and specialists. Chapters examine ideas around politics and aesthetics emerging from Marxist-socialism and postmodernism, feminism and postmodern feminism, anti-racism and postcolonialism, queer theory and theories of globalisation, so as to evaluate their impact on television criticism and on television as an institution. These discussions are consolidated through case studies that offer analyses of a range of television drama texts including Big Women, Ally McBeal, Supply and Demand, The Bill, Second Generation, Star Trek (Enterprise), Queer as Folk, Metrosexuality and The Murder of Stephen Lawrence.
M410 HARRIS TEXT.qxd
Page 169 Phil's G4 Phil's G4:Users:phil:Public
Conclusion: beyond (simple)
representation? Metrosexuality and
The Murder of Stephen Lawrence
The context of Russell T. Davis’s remark, ‘No good drama ever
comes out of representation’, cited at the end of Chapter 5, suggests
that he is referring to simple, positive representation but also to the
notion of ‘representation’ in terms of attempting to speak for, to and
about a specific group as a whole.
In this conclusion, I want to use this comment as a starting point
this type of arrangement between groups and members. It follows that where many groups are found to ‘fail’ to embody this set of arrangements, the democratic basis for engaging groups more closely with governing processes is thrown into doubt.
In this chapter it is argued that the representation account does not serve us well in terms of setting the metrics with which one may go on to interpret empirical evidence of group democratic practice. Several objections are set out. It is maintained here that the expectations set by this frame are
Representation is a powerful force in world politics. As the production of meaning developed through language, symbols or signs, it is a significant factor in how we both construct reality and enact our performance of it. Representation conveys a particular understanding of the world around us, which is temporally situated and informed by events over time. Representation exposes power relationships and asymmetries that exist within practices of identity politics, precisely because representation is a form of abstraction and interpretation. 1
This book addresses a critical issue in global politics: how recognition and misrecognition fuel conflict or initiate reconciliation. The main objective of this book is to demonstrate how representations of one state by another influence foreign policymaking behaviour. The key argument is that representations are important because they shape both the identity of a state and how it is recognised by others. States respond to representations of themselves that do not fit with how they wish to be recognised. The book provides a thorough conceptual engagement with the issues at stake and a detailed empirical investigation of the fraught bilateral relations between the United States and Iran, which is perhaps one of the most significant flashpoints in global politics today. Despite Iran and the US finally reaching an agreement on the nuclear issue that allows Iran limited nuclear technological capacity in exchange for the lifting of certain sanctions, the US withdrew from the deal in May 2018. However, questions remain about how best to explain the initial success of this deal considering the decades of animosity between Iran and the US, which have previously scuppered any attempts on both sides to reach an amicable agreement. Increasing concerns about declining Iran–US relations under the Trump administration suggest even more so the power of recognition and misrecognition in world politics. Scholars and strategists alike have struggled to answer the question of how this deal was made possible, which this book addresses.
Patient autonomy did not just concern more say for individuals. Collective
representation of the interests of patient-consumers as a whole was an
important issue during the late 1960s and early 1970s. At this time, the
notion that the patient-consumer should be represented within health
services gathered political and practical impetus. A critical development
was the creation of the CHCs. Formed as part of the reorganisation of
the NHS in 1973, 207 CHCs were established in England and Wales, with
similar bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland
foreign policy decisions, the struggle for recognition can be seen to inform the motives behind its pursuit of nuclear power despite opposition. The struggle for recognition therefore unfolds not in a materialist sense of physical power but in an ideational one that underlies the desire to have moral authority over our own representation, to be recognised in a way that effectively demands respect from others. 2
These representations therefore continue to contribute to forms of misunderstanding or misrecognition that permeate any
Diasporic subjectivities and ‘race relations’ dramas (Supply and Demand, The Bill, Second Generation)
, in these terms, British crime drama
had become any more (or less) progressive, since earlier in the
decade Jim Pines asked whether it could be defined as ‘inherently
racist’ (Pines, 1995). Pines pursues this question in relation to form
but also to genre, authorship and representation. In the first part of
this chapter I want to contextualise Pines’ concerns in relation to
thinking within anti-racist and postcolonial theory, with particular
reference to the rejection of realism in favour of a ‘diaspora aesthetic’. Returning to Pines’ argument and the crime genre
Romantic attractions and queer dilemmas (Queer as Folk)
M410 HARRIS TEXT.qxd
Page 138 Phil's G4 Phil's G4:Users:phil:Public
Only human nature after all?
Romantic attractions and queer
dilemmas (Queer as Folk)
As I noted in the introduction, in 1998 Michael Jackson, the controller of Channel 4, used Queer as Folk (1998) to imply a narrative of progress in that channel’s representation of ‘minority
groups’. A similar narrative of progress, specifically in relation to
gay and lesbian subjects, is also suggested by the article which
appears on the pages of the BBC website devoted to Tipping the