Millenarianism

Millenarianism 

From the Latin millenaries and meaning “one who believes in the coming of the (Christian) millennium” the word millenarian dates back to the 1550’s.  Its root word ‘mille’ means one thousand and is in reference to the thousand year reign of Christ on Earth after the ultimate conflict between good and evil at Armageddon as written in Revelation to John.  The belief of the coming of a ‘new world’ is shared by many including Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.  Millenarianism is now more broadly defined as a cross-cultural ideology, wherein expectation of the impending and final confrontation will result in believers exulting in a perfected temporal world rather than in the afterlife.  Most see radical upheaval and revolt against sociopolitical authority as a means to achieve Heaven upon Earth.

Historical Significance

Millenarianism was the most accepted eschatological (the area of theology that pertains to death, judgement, and the final fate of the soul and humanity) thinking in the mid-1600’s in England.  Debate and dialogue around millenarian views continued well into the 18^th century with its spread to Continental Europe and North America.  At this same time philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment were looking towards science and reason and away from autocratic politic policies and religious doctrine as the ideals for an improved and progressive society.  This questioning of traditional values and beliefs was an impetus for political revolution and disorder. Historians have applied the theological principles of millenarianism to support revolutionary principles.  The incitement of chaotic upheaval could thus be validated by divine mandate and situated within an apocalyptic timeline.  Millenarian and apocalyptic concepts are seen to be synonymous with revolution.  Contemporary scholars, acknowledging the connection historians have identified between millenarianism and democratic thought, look to millenarian principles in their attempt to better understand the ensuing social tensions that result when oppressed peoples, in their attempt to defend and regenerate their social identity, raise opposition, at times violent, towards their oppressors.  Millenarianism based research has two separate lines of thinking.  The first centres on millenarianism as a socially effective process while the second maintains it is a social pathology with central themes of dissident movements effecting social change through violence or war.

Key Historical Proponents

In the New Testament of the Bible, the Book of Revelations (Apocalypse of John) 20:1-10 tells of the first resurrection of the blessed who will reign with Christ for a thousand year and the Judgement of Satan.  This is the original source on which millenarian scholars base their philosophies.  In 1627 Johann Heinrich Aslted (1588-1638) published Diatribe de mille annos in Germany.  In England, that same year, Joseph Mede (1586-1638) completed his book Clavis Apocalyptica.  While Aslted went on to become one of the most prominent encyclopedists it was Mede’s thoughts on millenarianism that became most influential.  His philosophies were supported by enlightened thinkers such as John Milton (1608-1674), Henry More (1614-1687), and Isaac Newton (1642-1726).  Mede’s writings, premised on apocalyptic themes in the Bible, founded the original ideas as to the manifestation of millenarianism in English apocalyptic thinking.  English philosopher David Hartley (1705-1757), an admirer of Newton and Locke, in particular Locke’s theory on the association of ideas, published Observations on Man, His Frame, His Duties, and His Expectations in 1749.  Based on the theory of proto-psychology, Hartley explored the idea that the brain and the soul are one and the same and he believed that the final destiny of the immortal soul was directly connected with the nature of the brain.  Both Mede and Hartley, in the true spirit of Enlightenment thinking, explored millenarianism beyond its theological limitations.  Pankaj Mishra explores millenarianism in his book Age of Anger.  He notes the concept of Heaven on Earth was created by the philosophers of the Enlightenment.  The French Revolution has often being studied in terms of a Second Coming and Mishra looks to Saint-Just (1767-1794), a zealous French Revolutionary, who passionately believed ‘“the idea of happiness was new to Europe”’ and Tocqueville (1805-1859) who compared it to “Islam in that it ‘flooded the earth with it soldiers, apostles, and martyrs’” as examples (Mishra 156).   In true Mishra style he lists Herzen, Voltaire and Marx, Russian revolutionaries Belinsky and Bakunin, Chernyshevsky, Dobroliubov and Stalin, Italian revolutionaries Mazzini and Papini, and Islamist ideologues Al-e-Ahmad, Shariati, and Qutb, and India’s Savarkar as proponents of millenarian philosophies.  Moving beyond the French Revolution many conflicts and ideologies have been researched within the apocalyptic timeline: Marxism, the Russian Revolution (1917), Islamic radicalism, Hindu nationalism, the Iranian revolution (1978-1979), the demolition of the Babri Masjid (1992), the Branch Davidian tragedy in Waco, Texas (1993), the Oklahoma City bombing (1995), among others.

Claire Kirkby

 

Bibliography

Barr, Kara. “‘An Indissoluble Union’: Mechanism, Mortalism, and Millenarianism in the Eschatology of David Hartley’s Observations on Man.” History of Religions, vol. 55, no. 3, Feb. 2016, pp. 239-268. EBSCOhost, libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLAn3848246&site=ehost-live&scope=site.  Accessed 8-15 October 2017.

Cole, Juan. “Iranian Millenarianism and Democratic Thought in the 19th Century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, 1992, pp. 1–26. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/163759.  Accessed 8-15 October 2017.

Jue, Jeffrey. “Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586-1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism”  International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol. 194, 2006, pp. 1-7 and 19-33. Springer and Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4293-0_4.  Accessed 8-15 October 2017.

Lee, Martha, and Herbert Simms. “American Millenarianism and Violence: Origins and Expression.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 1, no. 2, 2007, pp. 107–127. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41887580.  Accessed 8-15 October 2017.

Mishra, Pankaj.  The Age of Anger: A History of the Present.  New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.  2017.  Print.

Absurdism

Absurdism

Absurdism is a school of thought in philosophy and literature, prominent in the twentieth century.  The contemporary understanding of Absurdism has its roots with Kierkegaard in the nineteenth century, as well as with the Dada movement in the 1920’s, which began in Switzerland as a reaction to the horrors of The Great War.  French novelist Albert Camus has spilled the most ink on the subject.  Broadly, Absurdism is the view that people seek meaning in their life, while the universe seems unlikely to provide it.  The disharmony between these two features is the source of absurdity. Absurdism is seen as an emotional state as well as an intellectual position.  (Camus)  Conrad saw it as “the frightful gulf that separates man from his surroundings, man from man, the disparity between the human ideal and its surroundings.” (Gillon 3)

Absurdism plays and important role in the progress of human thought, and can be linked to other important intellectual movements.  Existence has been puzzling people as far back as Dante and the Stoics, (Wegener 150) and there have been countless events that call into question the harmonious relationship between humans and the universe.  These events range from the world wars, to the loss of a family dog.  Over time, as the idea of God lost currency as a source of meaning for people’s lives, Absurdism gains currency as an explanation for the human condition.  Since Nietzsche’s famous declaration of God’s death at the end of the nineteenth century, the modern world has struggled to maintain its clear vision of progress and unity.  Modernity claims to move humankind forward with a unified purpose, but Absurdism points out that there might not be any inherent meaning to existence.  This seems to be the starting point for the postmodern movement that has accompanied us to the twenty-first century.  The history of Absurdism can be seen in the social and political issues of today.  Absurdism makes it difficult to form a consensus on the state of affairs around us, and the news media is facing challenges in this regard.  There is a large flow of mis- and disinformation by virtue of Absurdism’s claim that truth might be relative.  This skepticism has also influenced a contemporary body of art that disavows meaning, instead opting to disavow meaning and live in the unknown.  Examples include the viral video “going to the store” and the comedic work of Reggie Watts.

There are many important figures that participated in Absurdism, including Soren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Franz Kafka, Joseph Conrad, and Albert Camus.  Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher who lived from 1813 to 1855. His response to the absurd was to take a leap of faith and place meaning in God. (Camus 40) Dostoyevsky was a Russian novelist who lived from 1821 to 1881.  He saw the world as fundamentally irrational, and his works live in this absurd space.  Kafka lived in Czechoslovakia and Austria from 1883 to 1924.  His characters are described as responding to absurdity with ridiculousness, like someone who laughs at policemen while hitting them. (Gillon 3)  Joseph Conrad, 1857 to 1924, is famous for his book Heart of Darkness, which contrasts the absurdity of England to that of the Congo.  His hero’s journey up the Congo river is an allegory for a personal journey into the absurdity of existence.  The film Apocalypse Now, which explores the absurdity of the Viet Nam War, is loosely based on Conrad’s book.  Camus’ work The Myth of Sisyphus is the most commonly cited work in Absurdism.  Aside from an argument against suicide, it is a project to explain the best response to absurdity.  The central image is of Sisyphus being condemned to push a boulder up a mountain for eternity, but that he is happy to do so.

Stephen Good

 

Bibliography

Gillon, Adam. The Absurd and ‘Les Valeurs Ideales’ in Condrad, Kafka and Camus.” The Polish Review, vol. 6, no. 3, 1961, pp. 3–10. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25776355

Wegener, Adolph H. “The Absurd in Modern Literature.” Books Abroad, vol. 41, no. 2, 1967, pp. 150–156. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40121546.

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Vintage Books, 1955.

Secularism

Identification

Secularism is the belief that religion should not influence decisions made by the government or anything else that may effect the public life. It is an advocation of separating the church and the state. It is regarded as a method for modernization. Many key historical figures such as Voltaire, Diderot, Locke and Paine supported the idea. The term first surfaced in 1851 and was first used by George Jacob Holyoake. Secularism was supported by the intellectuals who realized that it aligned with their philosophy of self-improvement.

Historical Significance

Today, most countries in the world are secular, a lot of them don’t even have a state religion. Secularism has led to modernization by allowing radical thoughts and reforms to be discussed more freely. Secularism was a significant source of newly emerging creed of scientific naturalism in the mid- nineteenth century. It also led to liberalism and progressiveness. This led to modernization of several countries, which led to industrial revolution and increased the scientific, social and economic progress exponentially. Secularism was promoted by nationalist states, organized religion was undermined in many nationalistic states, such as France, Germany and Turkey. Secularism was also promoted in socialist and communist states, where people were mostly Atheists.

Key Historical Proponents

French Revolution had several effects on the relationship between the state and the church. A new religion was being developed by the revolutionaries, where the people worship a creator, but there was no head of an organized religion. Later on French secularism was called Laicite.

Another example of secularism is Turkey. The republic was founded in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, where it adopted a secular policy similar to France. The republic cracked down on all religious affairs harshly, and brought them all under state control. Just like France, all government employees must not wear religious symbols or articles. But, today those laws are changing.

Another example of secularism is the United States of America, but their secular policies are different from the European model. There are amendments which prohibits the congressional government from interfering with the free exercise of religion and establishment of religion. It is regarded in higher regard compared to the European model, because it creates a co-operative environment between the government and other religions.

Jaan Parekh

 

Bibliography

Bonham, John M. Secularism, Its Progress and Its Morals. New York; London, 1894.

RECTENWALD, MICHAEL. “Secularism and the cultures of nineteenth-century scientific naturalism. ” British Journal for the History of Science , Vol. 46 Issue 2, Jun2013 , Jun2013 . Historical Abstracts, 10.1017/S0007087412000738.

Tombuş, H. Ertuğ . “(Post-)Kemalist Secularism in Turkey. ” Journal of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies , Aygenç, Berfu , Vol. 19 Issue 1 , Feb2017 , p70-85 . Historical Abstracts, 10.1080/19448953.2016.1201995

Anti-Semitism

The term anti-Semitism can be described as the jealousy, anger or outright hatred towards people of the Jewish faith. It was first used in 1881 by German radical and founder of the Anti-Semitic league, Wilhelm Marr (Poliakov, 15). However, the hatred of those who follow the Jewish faith has a much longer history. It saw its beginnings under emperor Constantine who ruled as the last emperor before the fall of the Roman Empire (Reich). Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, attacked the Jewish people for their faith, a trend that has continued into modern day.

Anti-Semitism has defined and continues to define, much of our modern history. Having been present since Rome it has proven extremely useful throughout history to those who wish to attack or scapegoat a group for contemporary problems. Plagues or diseases in Medieval Europe were blamed on Jewish communities that were lived nearby owing to their practice of usury, or money lending, which was a sin under the Christian doctrine. In the Early Modern empire of Venice Jewish communities were sequestered to their quarter of the city which often faced attacks by other, Catholic, citizens when the cities economy came under duress. The entire Second World War can be seen as a global assault on the Jewish faith with the Holocaust, but also with the xenophobic beliefs that Jewish people’s faced when being refused entry to countries such as France or Canada. And of course, in our modern day, the Jewish faith faces scrutiny in America, with recent events in Charlottesville.

The most infamous example of Anti-Semitism was the Holocaust. Germany was in a terrible position following their defeat in the First World War and the stock market collapse during the Great Depression. In response to the widespread despair, radical movements came to the forefront, the one in question here is the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or the Nazi Party (Griech-Polelle, 72). This party was under the leadership of one of the most influential and infamous leaders of all history, Adolf Hitler. Hitler used the Jew archetype as the cause of all Germany’s problems. Using the concept of the “other” Jewish people were described as “dirty, foreign, corrupt, corrupting, and never to be trusted” (Griech-Polelle, 2). Through this language, the Nazi party began the systematic killing of Jewish communities across the globe using death camps, such as Auschwitz (Grief-Polelle, 228). During the Second World War from 1939 to 1945, the Nazi Party killed roughly 6 million Jewish people because of Anti-Semitic beliefs. Here the value of Anti-Semitism is demonstrated through its use in scapegoating the Jewish peoples. The loss was terrible and has been difficult to reconcile. A monument has since been erected in Germany as a reminder and an apology for the hurt caused to the Jewish people.

These hateful values have seen a recent resurgence in our modern times during a Unite the Right rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia. During the rally white supremacists waving the Nazi flag marched and chanted hate speech across a campus. One line that was repeated was “Jews will not replace us.” While the rally has faced widespread denunciation it demonstrates that Anti-Semitic beliefs are still present today, and continue to affect how people interact with those of the Jewish faith.

Graeme Moore

 

Bibliography

Bartlett, Kenneth R. A Short History Of The Italian Renaissance. North York, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2013.

Griech-Polelle, Beth A. Anti-Semitism And The Holocaust. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017.

Jews in England: Statute of Jewry (1275) and Petition of the “Commonality” of the Jews, English Historical Documents, vol. 3: 1189-1327, ed. Harry Rothwell (London and New York: Routledge, 1975), pp. 411-413.

Poliakov, Léon. The History Of Anti-Semitism. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

Reich, Nathan. “Anti-Semitism.” The Journal of Educational Sociology 18, no. 5 (1945): 294-302. doi:10.2307/2262720.

Sotomayor, Marianna. “Violence At Charlottesville Rally Prompts State Of Emergency”. NBC News, 2017. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/torch-wielding-white-supremacists-march-university-virginia-n792021.

Populism

Identification

First, it is important to note according to David Marquand, that Popularity and Populism are not the same. Populism has been a topic of debate for over 40 Years. Bonikowski outlines three assumptions he claims are most often found in academic research: “(1)populism is an ideology deeply held by political actors, much like liberalism or conservatism; (2) populism is inherently tied to right-wing politics, and (3) populism is a new feature of political culture.

However Bonikowski himself believed that populism is used by both left and right wings extremes and ultimately used to “challenge the status quo”.

Populism is perhaps no more than an ideology of “insurgent politicians”, and also a “worldview of the voters who support them.” Bonikoswi’s article addresses a critic made by Obama on whether media portrayals of Trump are in fact populist or rather something else, like opportunism. This outlines a greater discussion on whether populism has been used too loosely, and whether or not the concept overall is vague.

Historical Significance

In Jan-Werner Muller’s book What is Populism? a central theme rests in anti-totalitarian democratic thought. Muller outlines an account of Western Europe post Second World War. He points to a vulnerability towards populist temptation: This [populist leader] “rises up claiming that the system is rigged against the common man that only he/she can represent the economic social and political desires of the real people.” Ultimately, this populist notion can (in Muller’s

words) both “create crises” and allow for the resources and mechanisms for self correction”. Populism speaks to the desperation of individual members of society for a voice, for change, and ultimately for an advocate who will take up their plight. Populism for Muller does not signify “a political system so rigged that it must be overhauled. Rather it points to the failures of representative democracy, which for him nonetheless remains the vest form of government the has on offer.”

Key Historical Proponents

We can trace Populist movement all the way back to Robespierre and the Jacobins during the final stages of the French Revolution. They were in fact inspired by Rousseau himself, and the Jacobins led the first organized “Terror” in history. Robespierre said “The people is sublime, but individuals are weak.” Further on in the 19th century a group of famers formed a populist movement, the People’s Party, ultimately designed to bring reformation the current system at that time in order to have cheaper transportation and lessen credit. They were a voice for the people. Marquand says that “almost without exception populists promise national regeneration in place of decline,, decay and the vacillations and tergiversation’s of a corrupt establishment and the enervated elites that belong to it.” For example, Trump and his grand claim to “make America great again.”

Rebekah McNeilly

 

Bibliography

Three Lessons of Contemporary Populism in Europe and the United States, Bart Bonikowski

What is Populism?, Jan-werner Muller

The People is Sublime, David Marquand

The Logic of Populism, Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins Dissent, Volume 64, Number 2, Spring 2017, pp. 186-189

Tribalism

Tribalism is a state that humans often take on where they become grouped together with similar ideas or goals. Tribalism is also known as group loyalty because people will seek out other people they have something in common with and become increasingly loyal to that because of the commonality of the group. Tribalism usually refers to something shared by birth such as culture, race, country, or religion. Tribalism also is used when talking about conformity in popular culture and social groups.

The most common type of tribalism is that of western religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. People gather around their commonly belief in a God and will often fiercely, even violently, defend the integrity of their beliefs. These “tribes” most frequently have conflict between each other, usually to establish the dominance of their values. The Crusades that took place in the Eastern Mediterranean between 1095 and 1410 were based on the Christian’s desire to take the Holy Land from the Islamic rule. Pope Urban II and the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, used the tribalism of Christianity to rally armies from across Europe for the first crusade. These tribal leaders used god, the different army’s shared thing, as motivation to march on the Holy Land and fight the occupants. Over the next four centuries hundreds of thousands were killed over multiple crusades to Jerusalem, all to defend their religions under the veil of tribalism. Even up to recent times and into the present day, countries use religion to justify large scale conflicts. The modern conflicts between Israel and Pakistan, which has roots over three thousand years old, stems from a struggle between Judaism and Islam in the Middle East. But tribalism isn’t just an older world idea, there are many examples of tribalism in our world today.

A more modern sense of tribalism comes from loyalty to social groups and different things in popular culture. People commonly group around music, clothing styles and many other shared interests. People also tend to group together because of shared politics, social status, or fraternity developed through a shared place or institution. These more modern examples of tribalism aren’t developed from a belief or faith that is shared among a large group of people like the older religious tribes are; these develop more often through taste and life experience. Tribalism is very evident in universities. Groups of students who have the same, or very similar goals, become tightly bonded by sharing those experiences. Tribalism today is less about conflict or trying to establish dominance. Modern tribalism is more of a state of being where we seek out others with similarities to ourselves for comfort and for validation.

Tribalism manifests itself in many different forms. Whether it comes from something a group of people share by nature of birth, like nationality or religion, or something that develops throughout life by experience. Being together in a group is the most natural state of being for humans because of the sense of strength in numbers and the comfort that it provides.

Duncan Simmons

Socialism

In 19^th century Europe, collaboration between two German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels presented “The Communist Manifesto”, the most relevant theory in modern socialism. French writer Henri Saint Simon rooted the framework for modern socialism but The Communist Manifesto was the first time that Socialism was introduced to the masses. Socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates for the means of production to be owned by a single state system. Socialism has been open to many different interpretations and therefore different branches of socialism exist, but each branch has a common emphasis of cooperation, social solidarity and equality.

The starting point for Socialism was a critique of capitalism. In this contemporary moment, capitalist governments often adopt certain socialist ideas in policies concerning human rights, citizenship and education. On the other hand post communist countries are electing extreme right wing nationalist parties to run their government, as a result socialist ideologies often experience a mainstream revival when a country is on the brink of potentially electing a right wing leader.  When the Bolsheviks came into power, the new Soviet state established full citizenship for women and put laws in place that accommodated their rights and made them more equal. These new laws caused some tension but they were quite progressive and far ahead of any capitalist society at the time.  Today, intersectional feminism has been rooted in socialist mindsets.

After the Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin led the Bolshevik Party to power. Lenin was a communist revolutionary and politician, who upon his return to Russia from exile, showed much enthusiasm for the eventual spread of socialism and called for an international revolution after Russia’s successful overthrow of the Tsar Empire. Fidel Castro, a communist revolutionary overthrew the Cuban government in 1959 resulting in Cuba becoming closely aligned with the Soviet Union. Castro’s leadership was the first to focus on improving the state’s extensive poverty. Castro was a controversial leader, eventually strengthening his grip on every aspect of Cubans’ lives.

Julia Karpuik

 

Bibliography

Newman, Michael. Socialism: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005.

Lerner, Warren. A history of socialism and communism in modern times: theorists, activists, and humanists. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994.

Willink, H. G. “SOCIALISM.” Charity Organisation Review 5, no. 53 (1889): 197-206. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44241481.

Pluralism

Identification

Pluralism cannot be defined as a singular entity – it exists in multiple fields and forms. Kateb identifies four central kinds of pluralism in Flathman’s Pluralism: “the inner plurality of every individual human being; the pluralism of diverse individuals in a given society; social or cultural pluralism…and global pluralism” (12). Though, as he addresses in his work, Kateb has omitted religious pluralism. We understand that pluralism, in its most general sense, is essentially a coexistence of more than one entity, whether these entities are political doctrines, ethical codes, cultural practices, or conflicting ideologies. Robert Talisse, in Value Pluralism and Liberal Politics, asserts that pluralism is “used to characterize the attitude of open-mindedness and the willingness to non-repressively tolerate…the diversity of worthwhile pursuits to which humans may devote themselves” (88). Talisse illustrates here the relationship between pluralism and peaceful coexistence within diverse societies. However, and in keeping with the theme of this course, the focus will be on political pluralism. In The Idea of Political Pluralism, Galston defines political pluralism as “an understanding of social life that comprises multiple sources of authority—individuals, parents, civil associations, faith based institutions, and the state, among others—no one of which is dominant in all” (96). By defining political pluralism as a social “understanding” rather than a decisive political system, Galston implies that it does not, or should not, exist on its own in terms of political governance, he simply identifies it in his work as an aspect of politics which is necessary to a more harmonious society, one in which no source of authority dominates the other to potentially cause conflict. In terms of a ‘when’, political pluralism can be traced back as having began in 19^th century Europe, “as a reaction to the growing tendency to see state institutions as plenipotentiary” (Galston 101), indeed in reaction to the growing consciousness of state autocracy.

Historical significance

Galston offers his view on the importance of pluralism to contemporary politics, referring to state control, he poses that the state “…may not seek to force their citizens into one-size-fits-all patterns of desirable human lives. Any public policy that relies on, promotes, or commands a single conception of human good…as equally valid for all individuals is…illegitimate” (Galston 96). Galston highlights the necessity of pluralism in politics to the human experience, that a political system must be pluralistic in order to be inclusive, and to match the diversities inherent in societies. He later makes the assertion that political pluralism exists as “an alternative to all forms of civic totalism”, presenting it as our most viable option to avoid a tyrannical state. Galston continues, “…pluralism rejects the instrumental/teleological argument that individuals, families, and associations are adequately understood as ‘for the sake of’ some political purpose” (106), here illustrating pluralism’s promotion of individual liberties. Pluralism’s promotion of a liberal, inclusive society that rejects totalitarianism has been extremely influential to contemporary society as revolts continue to erupt around the world in the face of tyranny (e.g. the 2011 Arab Spring, the Palestinian intifada, political activism in the West). Pluralism, as a philosophy in reaction to plenipotentiary government, illuminates an emergence of opposition amongst many towards this lack of democracy, and a movement towards democratic liberalism as a possible solution. Galston roots this growing awareness of plenipotentiary government in Western history, “This tendency took various practical forms in different countries: French anticlerical republicanism, British parliamentary supremacy, the drive for national unification in Germany and Italy against subordinate political and social powers” (Galston 101).

Key historical proponents

Though preceding the movement for political pluralism by roughly two centuries, Hobbes (1588-1679) famously defended autocratic government, while contradicting the fundamentals of pluralism. He believed, referring to autocratic government, that “any less robust form of politics would in practice countenance divided sovereignty…an open invitation to civic conflict and war” (Galston 101). Supporters of Hobbes’ political views fervently opposed the liberal pluralists of the 19^th century. Galston also identifies Rousseau as having views that conflict with the later emerging pluralism, Rousseau believed that, “Loyalties divided between the republic and other ties…are bound to dilute civic spirit. And the liberal appeal to private life as against public life will only legitimize selfishness at the expense of the spirit of contribution and sacrifice without which the polity cannot endure.” Rousseau attacks the still relevant idea of liberal individualism, instead advocating a complete loyalty to the state. In doing so, Rousseau provided the framework for an argument used by many anti-pluralists in the 19^th century, as well as in the modern day. A prominent anti-pluralist influenced by Rousseau is Emile Combes (1902-1905), Galston explains, “Emile Combes, a turn-of-the-century premier in the French Third Republic, declared that “there are, there can be no rights except the right of the State, and there [is], and there can be no other authority than the authority of the Republic”” (Galston 102). Combes clearly advocates complete state control, an ideal that is inconsistent with pluralism’s focus on individual liberties.

As for supporters of pluralism, these included “Berlin and his many contemporary disciples, including William Galston, George Crowder, John Kekes, and John Gray” (Talisse 88), as advocates of value pluralism – a pluralism which rejects the idea of living life “based on a singular ordering of values” (Galston 96). Berlin acknowledges criticisms of pluralism that dismiss it for allowing the existence of contradicting ideals, Berlin asserts that conflicting values were a necessary consequence of pluralism, “According to Berlin we must trade off between equality and liberty, not because we do not command the resources to realize them both, but because it is in the nature of the values themselves to collide” (Talisse 89).

Fatima Al Setri

 

Bibliography

Kateb, George. “Flathman’s Pluralism.” The Good Society Vol. 15, No. 3 (2006): 11-14. Print.

Talisse, Robert B. “Value Pluralism and Liberal Politics.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Vol. 14 No. 1 (2011): 87-100. Print.

Galston, William A. “The Idea of Political Pluralism.” Nomos Vol. 49 (2009): 95-124. Print.

Colonialism

Identification:

Colonialism is generally referred to the domination of people and places. Europeans were the most common cultures to embrace colonialism, resulting in an arms race to colonize as many areas of the world as possible. It involved the mass migration of European settlers to all areas of the world. Major areas colonized during the colonial era include; North America, Latin America, Australia, Africa, New Zealand, and parts of Asia. The colonial era is seem as an era of power and violence. Colonized areas would be subject to assimilation and extermination of its native people. Although similar to Imperialism, colonialism include the mass migration of permanent settlers to colonized areas.

Historical Significance:

It is because of Colonialism that our society is the way it is today, despite its rather violent history. The importance of colonialism lie in both its benefits and its negative consequences, both of which were present during the colonial era and present day. During the colonial era, the spread of the “modern” way of life was helpful to those from Europe, but not those indigenous to the colonized areas. Colonies in places like North America provided Europeans with a new but familiar way of life, keeping their old laws and traditions in place while being able to escape the pressure of government control. For indigenous people however, mass genocide, slavery, and assimilation were all side effects of the colonial era. New independent nations such as the USA, Canada, Mexico, and numerous African countries were formed as a result of post-colonialism. Some of these countries would eventually surpass their colonizers in terms of wealth. The spread of language is also apparent (many African colonies speak French as a result of their French colonizers). Many colonies relied on their colonisers for trade, resources, and political/economic management, and as a result, are now impoverished and unable to keep up with the rapidly modernizing world.

Key Historical Proponents:

In terms of who played the key roles of the colonial era, European countries including mainly Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal were the main colonizers. In terms of the most important people, the credits goes towards the many people in the colonies who were against colonialism and against their former countries. Events such as the independence of the United States are of a direct result of conflict between the colonizers and their colonies. Important historical figures such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson played key arts in the United States’ separation. The process of colonialism was made solely to benefit the original countries, whether this was by mercantilism or symbolic power. In terms of how much these countries cared for the wellbeing of the colonies, its understandable laughable. One of the most important, although general, historical actors of the colonial era is the aboriginal peoples. Colonialism by definition is a product of domination, which was evident by the mass genocide of aboriginals not only in North America, but in Latin America, Australia, and New Zealand. The after math has left modern aboriginals in a very poor state. The event of colonialism had taken most of their land, polluted their home, and decreased health and life expectancy (due to disease brought over from European settlers).

Nicholas Verspaget

 

Sources: 

Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 1, Colonialism and Decolonization (Jan., 1969), Rupert Emerson

INEQUALITY / THEORY 1 POST-COLONIALISM, RACISM AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE, Paragraph, Vol. 16, No. 1 (MARCH 1993), Patrick Williams

Current Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Feb., 1972), Ronald J. Horvath

The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Spring, 2003), Julie Cassidy

Feminism

Identification

First wave feminism, occurring between the 1830’s to the early 1900’s, was primarily concerned with women’s suffrage whereas second wave feminism, occurring between the early 1960’s to the late 1980’s, sought to broaden the debate to issues such as “sexuality, family, the workplace, [and] reproductive rights” (Second-Wave). In America, “the abortion reform movement, begun in the 1930’s, [and] gathered momentum in the 1960’s” (Segers, Byrnes 3) at the beginning of the second wave of feminism. Second wave feminism, specifically women’s reproductive rights, focuses on the lack of control women have over their bodies and how that control “is an essential part of being an individual with needs and rights” (Petchesky 4). As stated by Petchesky in Abortion and Woman’s Choice, “a person, to be a person, must have control over himself or herself, in body as well as mind” (Petchesky 3). This movement was originally led by “physicians who feared prosecution for performing illegal therapeutic abortions, [as well as] public health officials […], social workers […] and police officials” (Segers, Brynes 3).

Historical Significance

Second wave feminism, specifically the right to have an abortion within America, is significant because no government should have the ability to force a woman to have a child against her will; women deserve the right to decide what happens with their bodies without the fear of risking their lives to exercise that right. Moreover, women are not truly free until they have full control over their bodies. Second wave feminism has led to abortions being legal in every state, with there being a total of 788 abortion clinics across America as of 2014 (Gould). Second wave feminism can help illuminate the ways in which people sought to oppress women in the past by restricting their reproductive rights and the negative consequences that result from not having access to safe abortions such as severe injuries or in more extreme cases, death. More specifically, the arguments made against having access to abortions provide insight into the commonly held belief of that time period that women were no more than just a vessel to carry another human life (Stetson 252).

Key Historical Proponents

In the Roe v. Wade case in 1973, the Supreme Court “ruled that the right of privacy, grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty, ‘is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy’” (Segers, Byrnes 5). The Webster v. Reproductive Health Services case in 1989 “sent a clear signal to state governments that the Court was willing to consider abortion restrictions that did not, strictly speaking, adhere to the government judicial precedent” (Segers, Byrnes 7). Specifically, states could now restrict the accessibility of abortions at twenty weeks instead of the twenty-eight weeks originally established in Roe (Segers, Byrnes 7). The Planned Parenthood v. Casey case in 1992, allowed states to impose [even] more conditions on the availability of abortions, particularly after the first trimester” (Segers, Byrnes 10). Despite the advances made through second wave feminism, a woman’s right to have an abortion is still constantly under attack today by pro-life supporters. During Donald Trump’s “first day in the Oval Office, he signed a ban on federal money going to international groups that perform or provide information on abortions” (Trump’s). Furthermore, Trump formally backed a House bill earlier this month “that would ban abortions after 20 weeks,” (Hellmann) in an attempt to “secure critical pro-life protections” (Hellmann).

Natalie Schalo

 

Bibliography

Gould, Rebecca Harrington and Skye. “The number of abortion clinics in the US has plunged in the last decade – here’s how many are in each state.” Business Insider, 10 Feb. 2017. 13 Oct. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/how-many-abortion-clinics-are-

in-america-each-state-2017-2.

Hellmann, Jessie. “Trump administration backs 20-Week abortion ban.” The Hill, 2 Oct. 2017, 13 Oct. 2017, thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353533-trump-administration

-backs-20-week-abortion-ban.

Petchesky, Rosalind P. Abortion and Woman’s Choice. 1984.

“Second-Wave feminism.” Wikipedia, 13 Oct. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism.

Segers, Mary C., and Timothy A. Byrnes. Abortion politics in American states. Sharpe, 1995.

Stetson, Dorothy M. Abortion, Politics, Women’s Movements, and the Democratic State. 2001.

“Trump’s order on abortion policy: What does it mean?” BBC News, 24 Jan. 2017, 13 Oct. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729364.

Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism was a term which did not see much use until 1933, which was the year the use of the term spiked according to Google Ngram. The word ‘Totalitarianism’ hit its peak in 1943, and slowly began to decline from there, aside from seeing a slight increase in use from the years 1990-1995. The term ‘totalitarian’ followed the same pattern of use, rapidly increasing from 1933-1943, and declining from there, even following the rise from 1990-1995. However, the use of the word totalitarian was much more common than the use of the term ‘totalitarianism’. This pattern was due to the fact that totalitarianism did not see a rise to fame until a communist administration was installed in Russia. Soon after totalitarian regimes were also installed in Italy, and Germany. Though these regimes fell after the second World War, Russia remained under totalitarian rule for years come. China also fell under totalitarian rule after joining the Soviet Union, and revolution in Cuba led to a totalitarian regime being installed there. The term totalitarianism can be applied to systems of government which are controlled by a single dictator, or political party, with absolute power. Totalitarianism also requires complete compliance to the state. Normally totalitarian regimes also require all land and production to be owned by the state. Currently there are remaining totalitarian regimes in the world, despite the democratic countries’ efforts to rid the world stage of such systems of government. The People’s Republic Of Korea (North Korea) is still under a totalitarian regime, behind the rule of Kim Jong Un. Cuba, is also under a totalitarian regime to this day. In the past, leaders of Totalitarian states have been known to rule with brutal systems, asserting their absolute power. In the past, Totalitarianism has seen cruel leaders such as, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. One of the most notable Totalitarian regimes, was the one installed in the world superpower the Soviet Union, behind the rule of Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, and Mikhail Gorbachev. It was the ongoing battle against this form of government by the democratic world, paired with post-war tensions between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A that fueled the cold war. The origins of Totalitarianism came from the initial idea of a utopian society thought up by Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto. However, in practice, totalitarianism did not provide a utopian society, but in fact the opposite. Totalitarian regimes ran into many problems in the past. As said by the British politician Lord Acton, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, and most dictators at the helm of their regimes were quickly corrupted, and resorted to brutal and unspeakable means to asserting their power over their respective countries. The death toll of innocent people due to the practice of totalitarianism numbers in the hundreds of millions. The worst of these regimes, was the communist system of government led by Mao Zedong in China, from 1943-1976. This administration claimed the lives of 45-75 million people. Totalitarianism has proved inferior to Democracy in history. This is due to the practice of totalitarian regimes resulting in corrupted dictators having seized control of the government, and inflicting inhuman conditions of the people of the country. Democratic countries fighting to abolish totalitarianism results in totalitarian administrations falling and being replaced by a more democratic system of government.

Gary Ghag

Despotism

Despotism is a state of government where a ruler has absolute power. In modern usage despot and despotism is almost always pejorative. The word comes, originally, from the Greek despotes literally meaning ‘master of the house’ and usually translated as ‘lord’ or ‘owner’ (Douglas n.d.). In the Byzantine Empire Despot was an official court title bestowed on the heir apparent. Several other minor kingdoms throughout the middle ages imitated the Byzantines by having despots of their own (Billarsky 2011, 277)

When despot entered the Enlightened European’s vernacular during the 18^th century, it did so as a more general term for a king, monarch, emperor or other dictator, with no pre-existing ideological baggage (Bonney 2003).

In the mid 18^th century, ‘despotism’, as derived from the older ‘despot’ came in to use for the first time as a term to describe ideologies where the ruler of a nation should possess unlimited and unchecked power. Many enlightenment Philosophes discussed despotism. Voltaire believed that a single well-educated ruler, unburdened by debate or scrutiny, was the ideal form of government, and praised Catherine the Great as an example of this ‘Enlightened despotism’ (Mishra 2017, 98. Lentin 1971). Voltaire believed that democracy did not offer protection against the idiocy of the masses, and that an absolute sovereign who acted in the best interests of his subjects was the most effective way to govern (Shank 2015). Joseph De Maistre also believed that a single enlightened despot was the most effective kind of leadership, although he disagreed with Voltaire on almost everything else (Mishra 2017). Others such as Montesquieu (Bok 2014) and Rousseau were much more critical of despotism and despots, just as most modern thought is (Burney 1993).

During it’s Enlightenment heyday, despotism was a mostly neutral term, as wider democratic attitudes spread across the world, despot increasingly became a negative descriptor. This was especially true of the fiercely democratic United States. North American newspapers used the term as a clear pejorative as early as the 1850s (n.a. 1856).

Statistically, the use of the word despotism peaked around the end of the 18^th century, in line with the French revolution, and the broader political climate it inspired. In the wake of the incredible violence of the French Revolution, the great political thinkers of the day often had to align themselves against either the tyranny of the few that had led to the revolution, or the tyranny of the masses that had led from it. Today the western world has made its choice and despot has become a charge to level at some distant autocrat, but that was not always the case.

Grace Michael

 

Further Reading:

• Bonney, Richard. 2003. “Reconsidering Absolutism in Early Modern Europe: The development of an Idea” Ajia-Taiheiyou Ronso 13, 91-135. Historical Abstracts.

• Burney, John. 1993 “History, Despotism, Public Opinion and the Continuity of the Radical Attack on Monarchy in The French Revolution, 1782-1789” History of European Ideas 17:2/3 245-263

• Dominguez, Juan Pablo. 2017. “A State Within the State: The Inquisition in Enlightenment Thought” History of European Ideas 43:4 376-288  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2016.120360

• Lentin, A. E. 1971 “Catherine the Great and Enlightened Despotism” History Today 170-1771 Historical Abstracts

Additional Works Cited:

• Billarsky, Ivan. 2011. Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninkijke Brill NV.
• Bok, Hilary. 2014 “Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/montesquieu/
• Google Books. 2013. Google Ngram Viewer: “despotism, despot” Last Modified 2017. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=despotism%2C+despot&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdespotism%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdespotism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDespotism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cdespot%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdespot%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDespot%3B%2Cc0

• Harper, Douglas. n.d. “Despot” Online Etymology Dictionary http://www.etymonline.com/word/despot

• Mishra, Pankaj. 2017 Age of Anger. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

• Shank, J.B. 2015 “Voltaire”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/voltaire/

• n.a. 1856 “Another Great Republican Meeting in the Tabernacle.: FREEDOM AND FREMONT. How the Despotism of the Day has Grown. Speeches of Senator Wilson, Lieut, Gov. Raymond. and Hon. B. G. Noble.” New York Daily Times, Sept. 18^th, 1856.