Human(e) rights and the cosmopolitan imagination: questions of human dignity and cultural identity

Here I seek to explore the cosmopolitan foundations of the idea of human rights. The argument begins by considering the popularity of the idea of human rights in a globalized and fast-moving commodified and digital culture. At this point I consider whether the idea of human rights might be considered to be a modern utopia similar to the role that art and nature played in the Romantic movements of the 19th century. Further, I defend human rights against those who simply see it as a form of neoliberalism or as largely ineffective against the power of the state. At this point I investigate some of the Durkheimian work within cultural sociology that has sought to investigate human rights as a form of moral community. The main problem with this view is that it has little to say about human freedom. However, viewed through a cultural lens, the global spread of human rights is connected to the idea of human dignity. While there is never likely to be a global consensus on this term, it does retain an important philosophical anchoring in Kantian ideas. More recently this debate has been revived by the critical reception of the work of Agamben and his idea of ‘bare life’. If human rights can indeed be connected to the struggle for a dignified and meaningful life, then the idea of ‘bare life’ remains an important conceptual advance. However, by considering the work and legacy of Du Bois, Gilroy and others, we can also see how the term dignity might take on other meanings in different settings. Finally, I argue that the idea of dignity and human rights could yet provide an important focus for resistance against the imperatives of capital and state in these neoliberal times

A sociological dilemma: race, segregation, and US sociology

US sociology has been historically segregated in that, at least until the 1960s, there were two distinct institutionally organized traditions of sociological thought – one black and one white. For the most part, however, dominant historiographies have been silent on that segregation and, at best, reproduce it when addressing the US sociological tradition. This is evident in the rarity with which scholars such as WEB Du Bois, E Franklin Frazier, Oliver Cromwell Cox, or other ‘African American Pioneers of Sociology’, as Saint-Arnaud calls them, are presented as core sociological voices within histories of the discipline. This article addresses the absence of African American sociologists from the US sociological canon and, further, discusses the implications of this absence for our understanding of core sociological concepts. With regard to the latter, the article focuses in particular on the debates around equality and emancipation and discusses the ways in which our understanding of these concepts could be extended by taking into account the work of African American sociologists and their different interpretations of core themes

Characterising citizenship: race, criminalisation and the extension of internal borders

Citizenship in the UK has in recent times been explicitly framed as a privilege not a right, granted selectively and withdrawn from some. There are several criteria that assist the government in distinguishing those deserving of British citizenship from those undeserving, one of the key ones being ‘character’. The ‘bad character’ criterion can apply for multiple reasons from inconsistencies in immigration paperwork to direct or indirect political associations with a range of disavowed political groups. Although not new, ‘bad character’ has become a principle reason for citizenship refusals in recent years, though has received little academic scrutiny. By bringing together quantitative and qualitative data on citizenship refusals, the article maps the scale of this measure, outlining what it means and to whom it applies. It argues that the ‘bad character’ criterion operates as a racialised exclusionary mechanism that constitutes a new set of amorphous restrictions upon the lives of non-white denizens

Conviviality and Parallax in David Olusoga’s Black and British: A Forgotten History

Through examining the BBC television series, Black and British: A Forgotten History, written and presented by the historian David Olusoga, and in extending Paul Gilroy’s assertion that the everyday, banality of living with difference is now an ordinary part of British life, this article considers how Olusoga’s historicization of the black British experience reflects a convivial rendering of UK multiculture. In particular, when used alongside Žižek’s notion of parallax, it is argued that understandings of convivial culture can be supported by a historical importance that deliberately ‘shocks’ and, subsequently dislodges, popular interpretations of the UK’s ‘white past’. Notably, it is parallax which puts antagonism, strangeness and ambivalence at the heart of contemporary depictions of convivial Britain, with the UK’s cultural differences located in the ‘gaps’ and tensions which characterize both its past and present. These differences should not be feared but, as a characteristic part of our convivial culture, should be supplemented with historical analyses that highlight but, also, undermine, the significance of cultural differences in the present. Consequently, it is suggested that if the spontaneity of conviviality is to encourage openness, then, understandings of multiculturalism need to go beyond reification in order to challenge our understandings of the past. Here, examples of ‘alterity’ are neither ‘new’ nor ‘contemporary’ but, instead, constitute a fundamental part of the nation’s history: of the ‘gap’ made visible in transiting past and present

A People’s History of Leisure Studies : Old Knowledge, New Knowledge and The Philadelphia Negro as a Foundational Text

There is a great realization that a professor teaching an introductory or philosophical foundations course in the field of leisure studies comes to, if that professor may not be from the dominant culture of most Western societies. This realization is as stark as their numerical presence in their respective departments. Why are the philosophical foundations of the field devoid of the experiences, voices, and perspectives populations of color, or even more broadly, the populations of the global majority? And, why is there an absence of historical discussions on the field’s role in perpetrating or condoning activities that hindered or constrained populations of color full access, enjoyment, and articulation of leisure? As we move forward in the field more globally, thinking and discussing the new and progressive ways that we can conceive the sociology of leisure, it is imperative that we rethink our philosophical foundations in reconciliation of the potential harm it may have caused (and may continue to harm) and the actual good it can invoke in assisting the myriad of scholars who are pushing more progressive efforts for a critical leisure paradigm (Spracklen, Lashua, Sharpe and Swain, 2017). The objectives of this manuscript are: 1) to briefly categorize the research in the field on Race and ethnicity; 2) to outline the key canonical texts of the field; 3) to consider and reconceptualize a racially and ethnically inclusive foundation for the field utilizing The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study as an example; and, 4) to identify some of the specific areas that this change and inclusion would impact or realign the field’s history

Unsettling planning theory

Recent political developments in many parts of the world seem likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the planetary-scale challenges of social polarization, inequality and environmental change societies face. In this unconventional multi-authored essay, we therefore seek to explore some of the ways in which planning theory might respond to the deeply unsettling times we live in. Taking the multiple, suggestive possibilities of the theme of unsettlement as a starting point, we aim to create space for reflection and debate about the state of the discipline and practice of planning theory, questioning what it means to produce knowledge capable of acting on the world today. Drawing on exchanges at a workshop attended by a group of emerging scholars in Portland, Oregon in late 2016, the essay begins with an introduction section exploring the contemporary resonances of ‘unsettling’ in, of and for planning theory. This is followed by four, individually authored responses which each connect the idea of unsettlement to key challenges and possible future directions. We end by calling for a reflective practice of theorizing that accepts unsettlement but seeks to act knowingly and compassionately on the uneven terrain that it creates

Deep Theorizing in International Relations

This paper starts from the observation that, at a time when the popularity of grand theory is in decline among IR scholars, they do not agree on what they mean by theory. In fact, the celebration of theoretical pluralism is accompanied by the relative absence of a serious conversation about what ‘theory’ is, could, or should be. Taking the view that we need such a conversation, this puts forward the notion of ‘deep theorizing’. Countering both the shallow theorizing of modern scholarship that conflates theory with scientific method, and the postmodern view that abstract narratives must be deconstructed and rejected, it offers a reading of the parameters along which substantial theorizing proceeds. Specifically, it suggests that ‘deep theorizing’ is the conceptual effort of explaining (inter)action by developing a reading of drives/basic motivations and the ontology of its carrier through an account of the human condition, that is, a particular account of how the subject (the political actor) is positioned in social space and time. The paper illustrates the plausibility of this meta-theoretical angle in a discussion of realist, liberal and postcolonial schools of thought