Jewish women in Glasgow c1880-1950: gender ethnicity and the immigrant experience

This study makes a contribution to the gender history of modern Scotland and addresses issues of ethnic diversity in the Scottish past. By examining the experiences of women in immigrant Jewish families and including gender analysis, it also forms an addition to British/Jewish history. The development of a Jewish community is examined in chronological format beginning with the arrival of immigrants from Eastern Europe and ending with aspects of Jewish acculturation. The thesis has three main aims: firstly it seeks to place women at the centre of the immigrant narrative; secondly it aims to explore the materiality of women’s lives as lived in the working class Jewish community of the Gorbals, and thirdly, it endeavours to analyse aspects of Jewish suburban life in Glasgow that were shaped and expressed through changes in gender relations. There is also a thematic element to the analysis that includes the following topics: Jewish settlement in Glasgow; ways of making a living; domesticity; upward mobility; women’s communal involvement, and lastly, the way that memories of Jewish life in Glasgow have been represented in different texts. The thesis makes use of multiple types of source material, including personal testimony, to argue that the identity of Glaswegian Jewry was shaped by the operation of gender as well as ethnicity and class; and in combination, these defined the social organisation of Glasgow Jewry. This approach demonstrates the intersection of culture with more customary social and economic aspects of the migration process and reveals the central roles played by women immigrants

Dr Barnardo's Homes (Dr Barnardo's/Barnardo's Scotland) 1930s-1990s: Report for the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

No abstract available

Executive Summary: Quarrier's, Aberlour and Barnardo's Reports: Report for the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

No abstract available

Dr Barnardo's Homes (Dr Barnardo's/Barnardo's Scotland) 1930s-1990s: Report for the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

No abstract available

Dworkin\u27s Perfectionism

In this essay, we shall interpret Dworkin\u27s constitutional theory in light of three varieties of perfectionism: (1) the idea that government should undertake a formative project of inculcating civic virtues and encouraging responsibility in the exercise of rights; (2) the idea that we should interpret the American Constitution so as to make it the best it can be; and (3) the idea that we should defend a Constitution-perfecting theory that would secure not only procedural liberties essential for democratic self-government but also substantive liberties essential for personal self-government. We shall identify three gaps left by Dworkin\u27s work and sketch how we have sought to fill those gaps in the spirit of his work through developing a mild form of constitutional perfectionis

Respecting Freedom and Cultivating Virtues in Justifying Constitutional Rights

What’s new in the long-standing debate between civic republicans and liberals about how best to understand and justify rights? This article picks up the thread with political philosopher Michael Sandel’s recent, internationally-renowned book, Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? The article evaluates the sharp contrasts his book draws between justice as cultivating virtues and justice as respecting freedom, using his example of contemporary arguments for and against opening up civil marriage to same-sex couples. Sandel contends that “liberal neutrality” and a public square denuded of religious arguments and convictions are impossible on this issue. Drawing on Aristotle, he contends that it is necessary to engage in substantive moral argument about marriage as a social institution, the virtues it honors and rewards, and whether gay and lesbian unions are worthy of the honor and recognition that, in our society, state-sanctioned marriage confers. Arguments rooted in freedom to choose one’s marital partner or in the right to equal access to marriage will not suffice. In this article, we offer a close reading of the Massachusetts marriage opinion, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003), and the California marriage opinion, In re Marriage Cases (2008), to support our argument that Sandel draws too stark a dichotomy between virtue-based and freedom-based arguments about justice (and, in turn, between civic republicanism and liberalism), and that both strands feature in these opinions. Arguments about why marriage matters as a social institution fruitfully complement arguments about why marriage matters from an individual rights perspective, although the latter properly constrain certain appeals to religious arguments about civil marriage. We conclude with a brief consideration of how these arguments play out in the recent federal district court opinion, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which held Proposition 8 (amending the California constitution to bar same-sex marriage) unconstitutional

Some Questions for Civil Society-Revivalists

This Article raises some questions for proponents of reviving civil society as a cure for many of our nation\u27s political, civic, and moral ills (whom McClain and Fleming designate as civil society-revivalists ). How does civil society serve as seedbeds of virtue and foster self-government? Have liberal conceptions of the person corroded civil society and undermined self-government? Does the revivalists\u27 focus on the family focus on the right problems? Have gains in equality and liberty caused the decline of civil society? Should we revive civil society or a civil society? Would a revitalized civil society support democratic self-government or supplant it? McClain and Fleming largely agree with the revivalists that it would be a good thing to revive civil society, but they raise doubts about whether its revival can reasonably be expected to accomplish what its proponents hope for it, e.g., moral renewal, civic renewal, and strengthening the bonds of citizenship. They suggest that civil society is at least as important for securing what we call deliberative autonomy -enabling people to decide how to live their own lives-as for promoting deliberative democracy -preparing them for participation in democratic life. Working within the tradition of political liberalism, and guided by key feminist and civic republican commitments, McClain and Fleming also sketch their own views concerning the proper roles and regulation of civil society in our morally pluralistic constitutional democracy

Ordered Liberty: A Response to Three Views

Response by the authors of Ordered liberty: rights, responsibilities, and virtues, James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, to three reviews of their book by Abner Greene, Ken Kersch, and Toni Massaro. The three reviews and the response all appear in Constitutional Commentary 28.3