Series Editor's Preface. Introduction by John Breuilly. Acknowledgements. 1. Definitions. State and nation. The nation. 2. Culture in Agrarian Society. Power and culture in the agro-literature society. The varieties of agrarian rulers. 3. Industrial Society. The society of perpetual growth. Social genetics. The age of universal high culture. 4. The Transition to an Age of Nationalism. A note on the weakness of nationalism. Wild and garden culture. 5. What is a Nation. The course of true nationalism never did run smooth. 6. Social Entropy and Equality in Industrial Society. Obstacles to entropy. Fissures and barriers. A diversity of focus. 7. A Typology of Nationalisms. The varieties of nationalist experience. Diaspora nationalism. 8. The Future of Nationalism. Industrial culture - one or many?. 9. Nationalism and Ideology. Who is for Nuremberg?. One nation, one state. 10. Conclusion. What is not being said. Summary. Select bibliography. Bilbliography of Ernest Gellner's writing: Ian Jarvie. Index

Nations and Nationalism

Preface Introduction: Traditions of Nationhood in France and Germany I. The Institution of Citizenship 1. Citizenship as Social Closure 2. The French Revolution and the Invention of National Citizenship 3. State, State-System, and Citizenship in Germany II. Defining The Citizenry: The Bounds of Belonging 4. Citizenship and Naturalization in France and Germany 5. Migrants into Citizens: The Crystallization of Jus Soli in Late-Nineteenth-Century France 6. The Citizenry as Community of Descent: The Nationalization of Citizenship in Wilhelmine Germany 7. \"Etre Francais, Cela se Merite\": Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in France in the 1980s 8. Continuities in the German Politics of Citizenship Conclusion Notes Bibliography Index

Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany.

1.. HARD CASES 5. Legal Rights A. Legislation . . . We might therefore do well to consider how a philosophical judge might develop, in appropriate cases, theories of what legislative purpose and legal principles require. We shall find that he would construct these theories in the same manner as a philosophical referee would construct the character of a game. I have invented, for this purpose, a lawyer of superhuman skill, learning, patience and acumen, whom I shall call Hercules. I suppose that Hercules is a judge in some representative American jurisdiction. I assume that he accepts the main uncontroversial constitutive and regulative rules of the law in his jurisdiction. He accepts, that is, that statutes have the general power to create and extinguish legal rights, and that judges have the general duty to follow earlier decisions of their court or higher courts whose rationale, as l

Taking Rights Seriously

Since its inception, the concept of `intersectionality' — the interaction of multiple identities and experiences of exclusion and subordination — has been heralded as one of the most important cont...

Intersectionality as buzzword A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful

A sweeping examination of the core issues of sexual politics, bell hook's new book Feminist Theory: from margin to center argues that the contemporary feminist movement must establish a new direction for the 1980s. Continuing the debates surrounding her controversial first book, Ain't I A Woman, bell hooks suggests that feminists have not succeeded in creating a mass movem A sweeping examination of the core issues of sexual politics, bell hook's new book Feminist Theory: from margin to center argues that the contemporary feminist movement must establish a new direction for the 1980s. Continuing the debates surrounding her controversial first book, Ain't I A Woman, bell hooks suggests that feminists have not succeeded in creating a mass movement against sexist oppression because the very foundation of women's liberation has, until now, not accounted for the complexity and diversity of female experience.

/pdf/feminist-theory-from-margin-to-center-2g1w0whgub.pdf

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center

This article focuses on gendered discourses in integration policy and the problems immigrants pose in the reproduction of inequalities in a number of European countries. There has been little consideration of how gender categories operate in relation to broader political discourses around the construction of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and the constitution of national social and political communities and identities. Yet gender issues have become significant in the backlash against multiculturalism and gender and sexual relations have moved to the centre of debates about the necessity to enforce integration, if not assimilation. The first section outlines recent developments in the immigration-integration nexus in different European states. The second section draws out some of the reasons for the focus on family migration and spouses who are seen as the main importers of the ‘backward’ practices and with ‘doubtful’ parenting practices for future generations of citizens. The third section tackles the shift of current debates about integration of migrant women from the periphery, where they were largely invisible or mere appendages of men, to the centre, where they have acquired in the process a heightened, though not necessarily positive, visibility. Too often, representations of migrant women are based on a homogenised image of uneducated and backward migrants as victims of patriarchal cultures, legitimizing in this way the use of immigration controls to reduce the numbers entering and to tackle broader social issues, as has clearly been the case with forced marriages. Furthermore, the more discourses focus on Muslim women and Islam as inimical to European societies, the more the debate becomes culturalised and marginalises the socio-economic dimension of integration and the structural inequalities migrants face. Thus pre-entry tests may have less to do with integration than with a desire to reduce the flow of marriage migrants or to raise their human capital.

Gendered Perspectives on Integration Discourses and Measures

Within a short period of time, the Netherlands transformed itself from a relatively tolerant country to a nation that called for cultural assimilation, tough measures and neo-patriotism. The discursive genre of `new realism' played a crucial role in this retreat from multiculturalism, and that had a dual effect for immigrant women. Whereas formerly they were virtually ignored by both the integration and the emancipation policy, since the triumph of new realism they are in the centre of both policy lines and there is now more policy attention for their needs and interests. Yet in the public debate the culture card is drawn frequently and immigrant women are portrayed as either victims or accomplices of their oppressive cultures. Policy makers and practitioners in the field, however, succeeded in avoiding cultural stereotyping by developing cultural-sensitive measures, while naming them in culture-blind terms.

/pdf/in-the-spotlight-a-blessing-and-a-curse-for-immigrant-women-6iyhegg1wx.pdf

In the spotlight: A blessing and a curse for immigrant women in the Netherlands

/pdf/the-rights-of-women-and-the-crisis-of-multiculturalism-guest-10mam5t5o3.pdf

The rights of women and the crisis of multiculturalism (Guest editorial)

Over the past decade Muslim women's veiling 1 practices have come under the gaze of government's all over Europe. It has been vehemently contested by some governments and passionately defended by veil wearing women and their supporters. Intriguingly European governments have viewed the veil from very different poli- tical vantage points thus resulting in different institutional approaches, constraints, and regulations. European countries have attached different meanings to the veil, and while some countries might have similar views of its meaning, this has not necessarily translated into homogenous policy measures. Countries such as France and Turkey have issued a ban on the wearing of the veil in public institutions, Austria has no prohibitive regulations and only little public debate, and in the United Kingdom the decision rests with heads of schools to decide whether the veil 2 can be worn. So, what is the meaning behind veiling in Europe? And why does it tantalize and cause such controversy over issues about: Winter 2008

Introduction: The Veil: Debating Citizenship, Gender and Religious Diversity

Before the murder of Pim Fortuyn shocked the country, it was widely believed
that the Dutch cherished no nationalistic sentiments outside politically innocent happenings like football matches, skating championships and Queen’s
Day. Only a couple of years and two political murders later, a majority of the
population had rejected the European Constitution, intellectuals emphasized
the need for a Dutch Leitkultur, while the value of cultural diversity and the
loyalty of the Muslim population to Dutch society were widely questioned.
On 6 May 2002, ten days before the national elections, with pollsters pre-dicting that the Lijst Pim Fortuyn (LPF) could well become the largest party in
the country, Fortuyn was shot dead by a radical environmentalist. In the weeks
following his death many mourners indicated how ‘Pim’ had ‘said what we
were not allowed to say’, i.e. that they feared how foreigners ‘invaded’ the
country. On election day, the governing ‘purple’ coalition of Social Democrats,
Conservative Liberals and Social Liberals suﬀered great losses, and the Lijst
Pim Fortuyn, suddenly the second largest political party, was to become part of
the next cabinet, headed by the Christian Democrat Jan Peter Balkenende.
This political landslide, signifying the beginning of a serious backlashagainst multiculturalism in the Netherlands, did not appear out of the blue.
Fortuyn’s popularity can be understood in terms of the growing appeal of a
particular genre of discourse that has become increasingly dominant in Dutch
public discourse, the genre of new realism. Fortuyn, we will argue, did not so
much break with previous approaches to multicultural society as radicalize a
genre of discourse that, at the time of his arrival on the political scene, had
already gained considerable respectability.
In this chapter we will trace the gradual rise and eventual victory of newrealism through an analysis of a series of public debates, starting with the
‘national minorities debate’ initiated by Frits Bolkestein in 1991 and ending
with the controversies raised by the extreme-right politicians Rita Verdonk
and Geert Wilders in 2008. These signiﬁcant moments of public debate will
be linked with ﬁve stages in which Dutch policies regarding immigrants
embraced respectively a model of assimilation (1950s-82), pillarization
(1982-94), multiculturalism (1994-2002), new realism (2002-6) and civic
integration (since 2007).

Sawitri Saharso

Papers

Gendered Perspectives on Integration Discourses and Measures

In the spotlight: A blessing and a curse for immigrant women in the Netherlands

The rights of women and the crisis of multiculturalism (Guest editorial)

Introduction: The Veil: Debating Citizenship, Gender and Religious Diversity

From toleration to repression: The Dutch backlash against multiculturalism