To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Groups who are socially excluded often lack a voice, something that holds for people with mental health conditions, especially if these are serious and enduring or if they are part of a socio-economically deprived group or a group that is marginalised because of their social identity. This chapter examines the involvement of people with mental health conditions in political and civic activities and the extent to which their human and civil rights are violated. Whilst there is a lack of studies examining the involvement of people with mental health conditions in these areas, there is nevertheless good reason to believe that they are excluded in this domain. Taking a global view of people with mental health conditions there are clear examples of violations of human and civil rights across the world’s continents. These violations take many forms and cover the following domains of exclusion: poverty, education, employment, personal, family and social relations, violence and persecution, health and access to essential services. Worldwide, people with mental and psychosocial disabilities face injustice and are not free from cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, and punishment; they also lack the right to participate in the economic, cultural, and social life of their communities.
Modernity started with Darwin and probably reached its philosophical peak with Einstein. The appearance of modernity is associated with the rise of science as a dominant source of philosophical authority, and worldwide recognition of the rights of citizens, particularly women (the vote, birth control, etc.). For the first time, the orientation of philosophy was towards the future rather than the past, and ancient sources of knowledge, authority, and wisdom, were challenged. Some countries (e.g. Turkey under Ataturk) abandoned their past almost overnight. However, this is also the period of time when there were multiple challenges to the modern world view (based on democracy, the rights of citizens, and science). Religious reactionaries explicitly rejected modernity, whether it be in the form of creationist challenges to Darwinism or suppression of the burgeoning rights of women by the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions. Also, democracy as a model for government was challenged by fascism in the middle of the twentieth century, culminating in the mid-century wars of modernity: the Spanish Civil War and World War II. This chapter reviews the example of modern China, where the current government accepts some parts of traditional Western modernity while rejecting others.
This introductory chapter explains how, for African Americans the decade’s political disappointments and its social paradoxes also signaled a necessary transformation in culture. It details how the notion of transition, particularly as it informs understandings of poetry, prose, fiction, film, and music that emerge as important indications of the 1960s zeitgeist, and it offers an account of 1960s writers, musicians, and intellectuals who met this political moment in history with a renewed commitment to art. The period represents the moment when “Black” became a political identity, one in which social justice became inseparable from aesthetic practice. In this context, the rise of Black Power nationalism, which is often read as a radicalized version of self-defense in the face of increasing violence, features as a prominent theme to interrogate 1960s declarations of race, personal and collective empowerment, political action, and aesthetics. At the same time, however, experimentation, now a challenge to convention and a call for new ways of being and thinking, became an often overlooked, yet common artistic practice in which avant-gardes in many forms – “free jazz,” poetry, art collectives, and the novel – exposed the potentials and the contradictions that invite new evaluations and investigations.
This chapter provides an assessment of the shifting terrain of 1960s-era political radicalism through an analysis of Sam Greenlee’s novel The Spook Who Sat by the Door (1969/1973). It argues that the novel employs and challenges recognizable Civil Rights and Black Power discourses of social change to destabilize institutionalized racism and socio-economic discrimination and to begin to imagine untested paths to resistance. The chapter also considers how Greenlee uses espionage to reconfigure familiar political ideals and modes of leadership and to explore how the imagined integration of the CIA becomes a device for critiquing employment discrimination and the state’s half-hearted deployment of affirmative action. It closes by showing how spy training and spycraft offer Greenlee opportunities to rethink the connections among gender, sexuality, and revolution, while additionally illustrating how heterosexual masculinity dominates the space of the revolutionary. Through the frame of espionage, Greenlee reimagines Black identity and activism.
Indigenous people have been subject to racialised legislation and practice across all jurisdictions in Australia. This chapter characterises the fight against these as the Aboriginal civil rights movement. We trace key moments is this history, looking at the connections and movement building undertaken by different Indigenous people and organisations. Starting in 1927 with the founding of Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association (AAPA), the other significant political resistance we look at are - 1938 Day of Mourning, 1956 founding of the Australian-Aboriginal Fellowship (AAF), 1958 the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement (FCAA), the 1965 Freedom Rides, and the 1967 Referendum. We end by turning to the 1970s Black Power movement and the new ways Aboriginal people undertook social change battles.
The term ‘protection’ in Australia is closely associated with the practices and institutions of assimilation imposed upon Indigenous people through much of the twentieth century. These practices and institutions were backed by laws that granted state governments wide-ranging powers of control over Indigenous lives, purportedly for their own good. The multi-generational impacts of assimilative policies continue to resonate for Indigenous communities today. Yet apart from the legal regime of assimilation that defined Indigenous policy through the mid-twentieth century, protection has a longer and more complex history in Australia, as it does globally. This chapter traces Australia’s history of protection, from its nineteenth-century origins as a program designed to build Indigenous people’s status as British subjects, to its twentieth-century expressions as a legally-empowered system of state guardianship. While the history of protection is one of legal authority, it is also a history of Indigenous political action.
Australia is unusual in lacking a formal bill of rights. Nevertheless, rights protections have developed, initially in the context of the emergence of settler colonialism within the British Empire. While Indigenous people were only gradually brought within the status of subjecthood, and have continued to be denied fundamental rights, early settlers including convicts had a well-developed sense of their rights as freeborn Britons. The development of the jury system, self-government and democracy were the context for a rights regime associated with a colonial liberal order in the second half of the nineteenth century. From the late nineteenth century, Australia developed a system of social rights based on the elevated status of the male breadwinner. Through the first half of the twentieth century, the British basis of rights claims remained dominant in Australia, but from the 1940s Australia was gradually drawn within an international human rights order, in a manner that strengthened the ability of marginalised groups to make rights claims through appeals to international standards and covenants. Despite the continued absence of a constitutional or legislative bill of rights, governments and courts have been active in recent decades in developing rights protections across a wide domain.
At the outset, this Chapter will show that officials from the United States resolve the most important insular matters not solely undemocratically but especially taking U.S. interests into account. It will affirm that they may have thus contributed to the territorial socio-economic ails, which have, in turn, fueled the current debt debacle. From this perspective, the United States should strive to democratize the dependency. It may advance such democratization outside rather than inside the Union in light of Congressional or on-site opposition to the latter option.
The cogitation will contemplate and ultimately reject the contention that the ex-isting arrangement violates individual civil rights or that Puerto Rico must become a state in order to vindicate them. It will stress that no such violation transpires since the treatment of Puerto Ricans does not differ from that of their fellow U.S. citizens. Specifically, anyone bearing the citizenship of the United States can exercise all the guaranties in question if she resides on the mainland (or Hawaii) yet not on the island (or any other territory, or abroad).
The discussion will then establish that the extant regime encroaches not upon the islanders’ personal entitlements but instead upon their collective self-determination. Ergo, vindication may consist in permitting the island to rule itself just as much as in admitting it into the federation. From this standpoint, the U.S. political establish-ment could simply amend the 1950 statute presently in force and pursue more suc-cessfully the same goal: namely, granting the dependency “self-governance” as an “as-sociated free state.” Within this wide framework, the association could flexibly develop over time toward either more or less cooperation between the parties.
Chapter 8 provides an introduction to civil rights in contemporary Latin America. It proposes a definition of civil rights that encompasses four classes of rights: equality rights, liberty rights, security rights, and due process rights. Relying on data about these rights, it characterizes the state of civil rights in Latin America as mixed. The politically powerful have had to answer for past abuses of human rights; and many rights of women, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, and LGBTQ+ people have been legally recognized. However, many democracies are corrupt, discriminatory, semi-free, violent, and unjust. This state of affairs is explained in terms of multiple factors. Democracy has served as a stepping stone for some improvement of civil rights, especially when an active civil society has pressed for certain rights. But the impact of democracy is muted because Latin American democracies are not high-quality democracies. Moreover, the judiciary has not been a consistent promoter of civil rights, and the state has also not been capable enough or state agents have not been committed enough to enforce the law uniformly throughout the full territory of a country.
This chapter explores the shifting landscape of American Protestantism and its relationship to American culture from the 1960s to the early twenty-first century, focusing on such major themes as membership decline in mainline denominations, the growth and influence of evangelicalism, the use and impact of television and other forms of mass media, responses to political and social turmoil, debates over marriage and sexuality, and the rise of non-denominational evangelicalism and megachurches.
Since the 1970s, the campaigns of animal protection advocates have been met with increasingly draconian government response, reflected in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s post-9/11 classification of animal rights activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Animal advocates—who have never harmed a human being—have been targeted by expanded federal and state anti-terrorism legislation, disproportionate prison sentences, sweeping new surveillance powers, and experimental prison units, among other attacks. This article explores how, and why, the civil rights and civil liberties community have largely ignored—and in some cases even embraced— the carceral logic of criminalizing animal rights activists as “terrorists.”
While “Africa” historically figured as a fulcrum in African American literature for interrogating Blacks’ sociopolitical status in America, by the 1930s this relation had distinctly sharpened. Black American responses to the Italo–Ethiopian War (1935–36) and to Marcus Garvey’s failed populist “Back to Africa” campaign demonstrate how the 1930s marked a crucible in Black radical thought: civil and economic rights took on a global cast; colonialism and imperialism were read as patterned acts of aggression against Black and brown people; and US segregation emerged as yet another name for and variation on fascism. By the 1930s, Black Leftists almost obsessively attended to the racialized failures and frustrations of this historical moment in an effort to imagine and articulate new, pragmatic, and at times revolutionary strategies for addressing the Negro problem on a domestic and a global scale. The 1930s are bookmarked by attempts to both historicize Blackness and Black achievements on a micro and macro scale and concurrently imagine a way forward toward democracy.
Notwithstanding his reputation in the contemporary United States as a sort of political conservative, Tocqueville in his own lifetime was very much a figure of the centrist-left. In the French politics of his day, Tocqueville was closely associated with various causes of reform, most notably the abolition of slavery. In this chapter, Robert T. Gannett, Jr. reminds us that Tocqueville’s calls for decisive action and concerns with social reform were appreciated by many figures on the political Left in the twentieth century. These Left interpreters of Tocqueville range from postwar intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Albert Salomon to latter-day communitarian thinkers such as Robert Putnam and William Galston to community organizers such as Saul Alinsky and Gene Sharp. Gannett reveals how Tocqueville plays a major role in the writings of Alinsky and Sharp and thus indirectly shaped the theory and practice of community organizing as it has come to be known in the United States and throughout the world.
Democracy in America begins from the central insight that religion precedes politics. This is best seen in the prominent role that Tocqueville accords to America’s Puritan Founders. The Puritans, in his view, contribute much to the spirit of American political culture. On the one hand, they contribute a covenantal theology that focuses on the importance of intermediation among otherwise separate democratic individuals. Yet the Puritans are also responsible for notions of sinfulness and religious “stain” that have the potential to assume illiberal forms. As Joshua Mitchell argues in this chapter, one potentially illiberal danger of Puritanism is the scapegoating of particular groups through the dynamics of identity politics. In Mitchell’s view, we need to reckon with America’s Puritan legacy not only through the lens of John Calvin and the covenantal theory of mediation but also through the prism of Blaise Pascal whose insights into the problems of loneliness, separation, and redemption illuminate contemporary political dilemmas.
This chapter sketches the development of international human rights law. The legal position of individuals was perceived by states as a domestic affair of the sovereign state, which could effectively treat its citizens as it pleased. It was not until after the Second World War that this fundamentally changed and international law began to grant individuals rights to protect them from the state. The chapter further presents the main categories or generations of human rights and discusses their key characteristics. Human rights are generally organized in three categories or generations: (a) civil and political rights; (b) economic, social, and cultural rights; and (c) collective rights. This chapter will subsequently turn to several matters concerning the scope of human rights norms, including their addressees, their territorial scope of application, and the circumstances under which human rights may be restricted by the state. Finally, this chapter will explain how human rights are monitored and enforced under international law.
The idea that friendship and dialogue are the first steps to making a better world has a history. During the first half of the twentieth century, American Protestants powered a national movement for dialogue and cooperation among people of different races. In the 1940s and 1950s, Black leaders in predominantly white ecumenical Protestant institutions created a series of workshops and dialogue guides that popularized the notion that interracial exchange would lead to action. Backed by their institutions’ financial, moral, and organizational resources, they transformed both the interracial movement and dominant understandings of how to change society. Yet, while Black ecumenical leaders insisted that facilitating interracial exchange was just the beginning form of action in ending discrimination, they unintentionally facilitated problematic assumptions about the standalone power of “first steps” in creating a more equitable society.
The threat to democracy in India after the 2019 reelection of Narendra Modi as Prime Minister is unprecedented since the country’s independence. This chapter argues that Modi is not only an undemocratic leader, but that his authoritarian hardline Hindu supremacist methods of rule are also unambiguously anti-Labor. Unions face the monumental challenge of expanding their base to include the informal sector, contract labor, and the soaring ranks of the unemployed in the face of severe political and legal constraints. A deep transformation of union culture, institutional framework, and modes of operation are essential to reclaim democracy in twenty-first century India.
Democracy is under attack through immigration workplace raids. Labor unions have finally come to realize that noncitizen workers – documented and undocumented – are their future. ICE raids have been timed – particularly by the Bush and Trump administrations to thwart organizing efforts. Through a process of demonization and commodification of immigrant workers, the public has been conditioned to ignore the racial implications of ICE raids. But even a cursory examination reveals the racist effects of these enforcement efforts. However, on closer analysis, it reveals how these attacks are an attack on democracy as well. ICE raids are an attack on labor organizing, which in turn represents an assault on the freedom of association, freedom from discrimination, a strong middle class, and democratic acculturation.
Labor unions are important organizations in shaping worker attitudes about their political world. In this chapter, we build and contextualize with recent work by Frymer and Grumbach (2020) that finds that being a union member leads workers to be more tolerant towards racial diversity and more supportive of civil rights policy. Here, we argue that for this dynamic to occur, unions need to be active in promoting greater racial diversity to its members. After examining the historical variation with regards to union advocacy, we focus on the recent era in which unions have increasingly promoted and prioritized civil rights causes, in part because of new leadership and in part because of an increasingly diverse workplace. Unions are critical organizations in the promotion of civil rights and greater racial tolerance in America.
The article challenges the fashionable but finally unsupportable opinion in political and academic circles that there exists no compelling, unitary, universally resonant moral and legal justification of human rights. The argument is intimated by two overlooked passages in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that presuppose the right of self-defense against arbitrary force, understood as both a moral and legal concept, and as relevant both to personal and collective life. It shows how the logic of defensive force underlies the three formative human rights instruments: the UDHR, and the two covenants on political, legal, economic, social, and cultural rights. The underlying claim is that good reasons of a particular kind are required to justify any use of force, a claim that makes perfect sense against the backdrop of the atrocities committed by the German fascists and their allies in the mid-twentieth century. The article also refers to compelling, if preliminary, evidence of the widespread cross-cultural acceptance of the moral and legal right of self-defense, suggesting a basis for the worldwide comprehensibility and appeal of human-rights language.