Congratulations Martin Ruhs, Winner of the 2014 Best Book Award for the Migration and Citizenship Section of the American Political Science Association

Martin RuhsThe Migration and Citizenship Section of the American Political Science Association has named Martin Ruhs’s The Price of Rights: Regulating International Labor Migration  the winner of the 2014 Best Book Award in the Migration and Citizenship category. The judging committee lauded Ruhs for his “innovative, rigorous, and very comprehensive treatment of the subject of international labor migration” saying additionally that his “command of knowledge and research skills demonstrates the best practices of scholarship.”

Martin Ruhs is an Associate Professor of Political Economy at the Oxford University Department for Continuing Education and a Senior Researcher at COMPAS. He is also an Associate Member of the Department of Economics, the Department of Social Policy and Intervention and the Blavatnik School of Government. Ruhs’s research focuses on the economics and politics of international labor migration within an internationally comparative framework, which he draws on to comment on migration issues in the media and to provide policy analysis and advice for various national governments and institutions.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Martin Ruhs is the author of:

The Price of Rights The Price of Rights: Regulating International Labor Migration by Martin Ruhs
Hardcover | 2013 | $35.00 / £24.95 | ISBN: 9780691132914
272 pp. | 6 x 9 | 13 line illus. 16 tables. |eBook | ISBN: 9781400848607 | Reviews Table of Contents Chapter 1[PDF]

Video Lectures – A Mathematics Course for Political and Social Research

Author David A. Siegel recently released a series of video lectures to accompany the textbook A Mathematics Course for Political and Social Research, co-authored with Will H. Moore. This video course is available for free via YouTube.

First watch this introduction:

Then delve into the various lecture playlists, starting with Lecture 1, which covers preliminaries and algebra review:

In case you are looking for a video on a specific topic, these are the subjects covered in the book. The lectures follow the same order.

 

bookjacket A Mathematics Course for Political and Social ResearchWill H. Moore & David A. Siegel

Ian Goldin explains “The Butterfly Defect”

Ian Goldin is director of the Oxford Martin School and professor of globalization and development at the University of Oxford. He has served as vice president of the World Bank and an advisor to President Nelson Mandela. His many books include Divided Nations, Globalization for Development, and Exceptional People (Princeton). His most recent book is The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do about It, co-authored with Mike Mariathasan, which you can sample for free here [PDF].

 

bookjacket The Butterfly Defect
How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do about It
Ian Goldin & Mike Mariathasan

Princeton at Hay Festival


Hay on Monday evening
Blackburn at Hay
Simon Blackburn talks to Rosie Boycott
Mitton at Hay
Jacqueline Mitton broadens our knowledge of the solar system
Bethencourt at Hay
Francisco Bethencourt discusses “Racisms”

Last week was an important week in the British literary calendar–the week of Hay Festival! Set in beautiful Hay-on-Wye on the Welsh Borders, and running since 1988, the festival attracts thousands of book and culture enthusiasts from around the world every year. This year’s line-up was as strong as ever: with names such as Toni Morrison, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, Mervin King, Jeremy Paxman, Simon Schama, Sebastian Faulks, William Dalrymple, Benedict Cumberbatch, Bear Grylls, Max Hastings, Rob Brydon, Bill Bailey and Dame Judi Dench (to name but a few to catch my eye in the jam-packed programme), 2014′s Festival could not fail to enthrall and delight anyone who walked its muddy paths.

And of course, Princeton University Press authors have been gracing the Hay stages this year, with a variety of wonderful events. From Diane Coyle, explaining GDP to us in plain English (and lo0king very stylish in her Hay wellies) to Michael Wood (translator of Dictionary of Untranslatables) discussing words that defy easy–or any–translation from one language and culture to another, to Ian Goldin’s talk about globalization and risk (The Butterfly Defect), last weekend got off to a great start.

Then, earlier in the week, Jacqueline Mitton (author of From Dust to Life) took a gripped audience on a journey through the history of our solar system in her “John Maddox Lecture”.  On Tuesday, Rosie Boycott spoke to Simon Blackburn about his book Mirror, Mirror–a fascinating conversation which covered everything from psychopathic tendencies displayed in senior management to whether Facebook is really that damaging to the young. Francisco Bethencourt, meanwhile, managed to squeeze a history of racisms into an hour and gave us lots to ponder.

If all this leaves you wishing you’d been there, there is still more to envy! Later in the week, Roger Scruton, Will Gompertz and others discussed the value of a Fine Art degree – does contemporary art celebrate concept without skill? On a parallel stage, renowned historian Averil Cameron (author of Byzantine Matters) convinced us that an understanding of the Byzantine era is just as important as studying, say, Rome or Greece. Finally, Michael Scott (author of Delphi), whom it is almost impossible to miss on the BBC these days, delivered a talk about Delphi: A History of the Center of the Ancient World on Friday.

Whether you swoon for science are potty for poetry, whether you want to dance the night away in a frenzy of jazz or are hoping to meet your favourite on-screen star, Hay Festival offers something new and exciting every year.

Quick Questions for Karen Alter

K_AlterKaren Alter is a Professor of Political Science and Law at Northwestern University, and continues her research in international courts as co-director of the institutionalization research cluster at the iCourts Center of Excellence, Copenhagen University Faculty of Law, and through ongoing collaborative research on international courts in Latin America and Africa. Her work focuses largely on “the interaction between international organizations and domestic policies” and “how different domains of domestic and international politics are transformed through the creation of international courts.”

She is the author of The European Court’s Political Power, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law, and the co-editor of the Oxford Handbook on International Adjudication as well as the co-author of International Legal Transplants: the Law and Politics of the Andean Tribunal of Justice. Her most recent book is The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights which Robert O. Keohane hails as “the most sophisticated account of how ‘new style’ international courts alter politics by reducing the monopoly power of governments to determine what the law requires.” He also says, “If you can read only one book on how international courts affect the politics of international law, this is the one to read.” High praise indeed!

Now, on to the questions!

PUP: What do you think is the book’s most important contribution?

Karen Alter: The most straightforward contribution of The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights is to make the alphabet soup of international courts more intelligible. There are so many questions about international courts we could not really ask because every international court was seen as sui generes. If my book helps scholars pose important questions based on the larger landscape of international courts, they are more likely to study international courts and investigate important questions. Then they can write about how Alter got x, y and z completely wrong.

The larger contribution is to create more realistic expectations for international courts.  We all know that the power of judges is limited. “International judges have the power issue binding rulings in the cases that are adjudicated.” (p.32) That is it! Elaborating further, I explain that judges name violations of the law, and perhaps specify remedies.  The real question is: How and when does the power to speak the law become politically meaningful?


The main contribution then is to generate an adaptable framework.


My more realistic approach to international law helps us get beyond utopian expectations and straw men. I understand that given what is going on in Ukraine, Syria, and in of US foreign policy, it is hard not to conclude that international law is irrelevant. But we don’t look at the many unresolved murders, the frequency of speeding, and use of illegal drugs and conclude that the American legal system must be irrelevant. Salient failures do not mean that legal systems never succeed or that law is irrelevant.

What is my non-utopian perspective? My answer is in the book’s preface: “If it seems like I find much success in international legal institutions, it is probably because my expectations are so low. International law is primarily words on paper imbued with legal authority. In the Bible, David always wins. In the real world, the odds remain in Goliath’s favor. But increasingly international law–words on paper imbued with legal authority–provides a legal and political resource that makes a difference.  The ability of international courts to speak law to power and thereby influence governments to alter their behavior is in my mind somewhat akin to David’s miracle victory over Goliath.”

The main contribution then is to generate an adaptable framework–­ the altered politics framework–to investigate when international law and international courts are relevant and influential. The book applies this framework across a range of institutions and cases, providing many examples of international judges throwing stones yet nonetheless influencing Goliaths to revisit decisions, change tax policies, compensate plaintiffs, revise constitutions, and create new institutional checks and balances.

Describe your writing process. How long did it take you to finish your book? Where do you write?
My husband says that I have been working on this book for 14 years. His quip is misleading, but also somewhat true.


My husband says that I have been working on this book for 14 years…misleading, but also somewhat true.


My writing process is to have many projects ongoing and at different stages. When I get really frustrated fumbling with new ideas and projects in the very early stages, I can spend a day putting the finishing touches on something that actually reads well.

For this project, my approach was to write articles exploring pieces of the puzzle. Some articles pushed an idea to its limit, to see, for example, how far I could sustain the notion that international courts are trustees and independent of powerful governments. Other articles looked in historical and empirical depth at a single institution, going into far more detail than I do in the book. You can see this approach on my webpage where I divide my research agenda into the study of comparative international courts, examining the Andean Tribunal of Justice as a supranational legal transplant, investigating the European Court’s Political Power, researching Africa’s international courts, and studying international regime complexity.

I also seek help by co-authoring. Larry Helfer was my partner in figuring out where the Andean Tribunal is influential, and why it remains irrelevant for many legal issues that should, in theory, fall under its legal purview. Sophie Meunier and I brought scholars together to collectively investigate how it matters that international institutions have overlapping membership and jurisdiction.

The many articles on comparative international courts read at times like whirling dervishes. The articles threw so many ideas and acronyms at the reader, they really asked too much of the reader. Writing the book was then a relief.  I had the space to work out the pieces at play, to develop and layer on empirics and ideas.

For this book I also had two book workshops—one in the US and another in Europe. These workshops, and Princeton’s peer review, really helped me to hone the book.

So yes, it took 14 years of stumbling around to write this book. But they were also very productive years.

What was the biggest challenge involved with bringing this book to life?
This was the most difficult and complex project I have ever done. I often give the analogy of Greg Louganis, an amazing American Olympic diver who won medals at two Olympics, on both the springboard and platform. In high school I was an extremely middling diver. The experience taught me that there are hundreds of skills and nuances one must master. Yet Greg Louganis makes diving look easy. He lands a dive with almost no splash.

Writing like Greg Louganis dives is my goal, and it takes a huge amount of practice and experimentation.

If I did my job well, my readers will not even realize how many ideas, terms and presentational devices I invented to simplify a bewildering complexity.

I invented the categories of ‘old style’ and ‘new style’ courts to explain why today’s international courts are so different than their predecessors. I created tables and organizing heuristics to convey the idea of proliferation, replication, similarity and divergence with relatively few details. I worked with categories lawyers use, differentiating each of the four judicial roles in the simplest possible way.

I then found 18 case studies to investigate each role in greater depth. The case studies involve different issues, different courts and different countries.

Finally I had to make the many pieces fit together in a way that the reader could follower.


I knew I was succeeding when the noise went away, and when my terminology became infectious.


Along the way, there was much distracting noise. I had to simplify without setting off lawyers’ alarms. I had to create concepts, categories, images and terms that captured the many variables political scientists care about. It took much iteration to rebuff early rejections of the notion that one can meaningfully differentiate constitutional review, dispute settlement, administrative review and enforcement roles. I was pushed into giving my name to my central argument- international courts altering politics.  This name came because my helpful critics rejected everything else I suggested!

24 courts + 4 judicial roles + 18 case studies across three vastly different issue areas: economic disputes, human rights and mass atrocities.

I knew I was succeeding when the noise went away, and when my terminology became infectious, shaping the conversation to focus on the important issues at stake.

What was the most influential book you’ve read?
I don’t know if this is the most influential book I’ve read, but I was inspired by Morton Horowitz’s book The Transformation of American Law (1870-1960). I read his book in graduate school, and it wowed me. I can still remember the core of his argument, which is remarkable considering how bad my memory is.

This feels really grandiose to say, but The Transformation of American Law inspired me to write a book that I hope will stand the test of time, inspire others, and be remembered.  Whether I achieve these objective is for others to decide. I sometimes wonder whether contemporary political science is conducive to memorable books. But the question I’m answering is what influenced me, and how I was influenced.

A funny thing about Horowitz’s book is that some of my colleagues at Northwestern Law School think of it as a Marxist book. It never occurred to me to see Horowitz’s book as Marxist. The Transformation of American Law fit into a tradition of political economy. It is much like two other books I still remember: Alexander Gerschenkron’s  Economic Backwardness in Comparative Perspective and Theda Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions. These books, in my mind, use similar approaches to studying history and institutional development.  Perhaps this list, however, makes me a Marxist. Or, perhaps anyone who studies power in history, and political economy, is Marxist.  Or perhaps constructivism is the new Marxism.

Do you have advice for other authors?
Ask important questions.

Dream big.

Get in over your head and find your way out.


Don’t spend too much time alone in your head. Go out and talk to people!


Give yourself time to let ideas ripen.

But don’t spend too much time alone in your head. Go out and talk to people!

‘Data’ often is not what it seems.  Test your ideas and inferences by presenting your work, and by learning how the stakeholders understand their world.

PUP: What is your next project?
I have a lot of discrete projects that will keep me busy for the next five to seven years. This suits me fine because I have a daughter in high school, and a son in middle school.  I can’t undertake a huge consuming project until they are through high school. In the short term, expect more articles, symposia, and a book or two on international courts.

But I am starting to read for what will be my next big project.  I want to study capitalism and the rule of law in China.

I see China as trying to develop a rule of law absent human rights and constitutional checks on political authority. Is this even possible? If China can pull it off, I expect that authoritarian leaders around the world will emulate China’s approach to the rule of law. China’s rule of law model will then rival with the Euro-American model.

Maybe my interest in this topic goes back to Morton Horowitz.  Horowitz argued that the task of building the railroads in America fundamentally shaped the development of American law.  I want to understand how China’s embrace of capitalism in combination with the Communist Party’s disdain for constitutional democracy is shaping China’s development of the rule of law.

This project follows my own advice to ‘get in over your head and find your way out.’  I don’t speak Chinese, and I don’t yet know much about China. But I have started reading about capitalism and the rule of law, and about China. In five years time, I can start traveling to China to meet with law school deans, law faculty, government officials, judges and law firms. I can also begin to co-author with China specialists.

Alongside this new interest, my investment in researching and writing about Africa’s international courts is long term. I really enjoy working with Larry Helfer.  If I have my way, there will always be a project we are working on together.

But also, in both China and Africa I can study the rule of law as it develops from dysfunction to whatever it becomes. Triangulating the contrast between a developing rule of law and the established American and European rule of law systems keeps me thinking and learning.  I want to always be challenged to think in new ways.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Karen is the author of:

The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights
Karen J. AlterHardcover | 2014 | $24.95 / £16.95 | ISBN: 9780691143774
296 pp. | 4 1/2 x 7 1/2 | 1 table.
eBook | ISBN: 9781400850051ReviewsTable of ContentsPreface[PDF]Chapter 1[PDF]Karen J. Alter’s Home Page

Untranslatable Tuesdays – Politics

politics-final

To mark the publication of Dictionary of Untranslatables: A Philosophical Lexicon, we are delighted to share a series of playful graphics by our design team which illustrate some of the most interesting terms from the Dictionary. For week seven in the “Untranslatable Tuesdays” series we present politics, policy (excerpted from the full entry by Philippe Raynaud):

In French, the noun politique refers to two orders of reality that English designates as two different words, “policy,” and “politics.” In one sense, which is that of policy, we speak in French of la politique to designate “an individual’s, a group’s, or a government’s conception, program or action, or the action itself” (Aron, Democracy and Totalitarianism): it is in this sense that we speak of politiques of health or education or of Richelieu’s or Bismarck’s politiques in foreign affairs. In another sense, which translates as the English word “politics,” la politiques designates everything that concerns public debate, competition for access to power, and thus the “domain in which various politiques [in the sense of “policy”] compete or oppose each other” (ibid.). This slight difference between French and English does not generally post insurmountable problems, because the context usually suffices to indicate which meaning of politique should be understood, but in certain cases it is nonetheless difficult to render in French all the nuances conveyed by the English term, or, on the contrary, to avoid contamination between the two notions that English distinguishes so clearly. On the basis of an examination of the uses of the two words in political literature in English, we will hypothesize that their respective semantic fields are not unrelated to the way in which scholarly theories (and academic institutions) conceive what French call la politique.

 

 

The Conflict to Come [Video]

This video was recorded at the How the Light Gets In Festival. Panelists Stephen D. King, Rana Mitter, Joseph Nye discuss the future of conflict with moderator Isabel Hilton.

From the How the Light Gets In Festival web site:

The great 20th-century conflicts were between western powers, and now we see wars between West and East or the West and Islam. But is the future of conflict radically different? Will the great battle of the 21st century be between China and India, with the West watching from the sidelines?

For more of Joseph Nye’s thoughts on leadership, both in times of conflict and otherwise, please check out his book Presidential Leadership and the Creation of the American Era.

Quick Questions for Rahul Sagar, author of Secrets and Leaks

rahul sagarRahul Sagar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics at Princeton University. His primary research interests are in the field of political theory. He has written about a range of topics in ancient and modern political theory including executive power, moderation, tyranny, and political realism. We published his first book Secrets and Leaks: The Dilemma of State Secrecy last year. Reviewing the book in the New York Review of Books, David Cole said “Rahul Sagar’s Secrets and Leaks sheds important light on the question. In carefully argued and lucid prose, Sagar, a professor of politics at Princeton, argues that secrets are inevitable, as are leaks–and that leaks have an important if precarious part in checking secrecy abuse.”

Now, on to the questions!

Why did you write Secrets and Leaks?

I had an epiphany when I was writing my undergraduate dissertation at Oxford. The question I was examining at the time was whether India’s decision to test nuclear weapons was justified. As part of my field work I went to the Ministry of External Affairs to interview a senior bureaucrat. The bureaucrat held up a file—bound by a red band—and said to me, “everything you need to know is in here, but I can’t share it with you.” I came away from the meeting thinking to myself, if I can’t see what’s in that file, then no one else can, so how then does one conduct oversight? I ended up writing the dissertation on the conundrum that secrecy posed for democracy; I concluded that there was, in effect, no way for outsiders to know if India was justified in developing nuclear weapons. Shortly afterwards, I arrived at Harvard to do my PhD. I started three days before 9/11. Within weeks the Bush Administration’s ‘War on Terror’ was underway, and I realized there would be continuing interest in the topic, and that, curiously, very little had been written on it. And off I went, spurred on in particular by the fact that leaks played such an important role is revealing the contours of this secretive war.


If I can’t see what’s in that file then no one else can, so how then does one conduct oversight?


What is the book’s most important contribution?

I think its most important contribution is to draw attention to the limits of democracy. It is widely believed that the “problem” that secrecy poses—that secrecy may be used to cover up wrongdoing—can be “solved” through careful institutional design. Appoint a suitable committee or court to oversee the President, the argument goes, and you will lessen the risk of abuse. But this way of thinking does not make much sense—for what is to stop the members of this committee or court from disclosing information or keeping it secret as and when suits their interests?

The same conundrum appears when we rely on the press to oversee the President. The defenders of the First Amendment assume that the press will always act in the public interest. But reporters, editors, and publishers have interests of their own. Since they are able to keep their dealings with their sources confidential, how do we know that they are publishing classified information for the right reasons, i.e. not to bolster their sales?

What these conundrums reveal, I think, is that discretion is inevitable. Here we have reached the limits of what law and institutions can do. This in turn means that state secrets will be kept or disclosed for the right reasons only if ‘the Establishment’ is populated by men and women who are decent.

What was the most interesting thing you learned from writing Secrets and Leaks?

I learned about the value of time. In particular I learned how important it is to reflect on a question for a very long time. I rewrote the manuscript not once or twice, but three times. All said and done I spent nearly five years on the book. In part this was because I spent a lot of energy trying to make the text accessible. The more important reason for the prolonged writing period is that my views evolved—I became increasingly skeptical of those who depict state secrecy as evil and the press as the ‘champions’ of American democracy. In retrospect I am very glad I allowed my views to evolve. There was a great deal of hysteria about an ‘imperial Presidency’ in the wake of 9/11 and time gave me the chance to see this reaction as short sighted and self serving. It allowed me to write a book that I am truly satisfied with, and that I feel no need to revisit or revise for the foreseeable future.

Who do you see as the audience for this book?


I hope the book is read by government officials, both those who wish to keep secrets and those who wish to disclose them.


I wrote the book with a broad audience in mind. Obviously I wanted to make a theoretical contribution. I hope political theorists and students of American politics see the book as an exemplar of realist political theory—that is, theorizing that is attentive to the constraints that politics poses on democratic theory. But I never wanted to write a book solely for my discipline or indeed for scholars alone. I hope the book is read by government officials, both those who wish to keep secrets and those who wish to disclose them. I hope it tempers the actions of both sides. Above all I hope it is read by lawyers and journalists—the most powerful people in America! If a judge or two or a retired Vice-President happens to read it, I certainly won’t complain.

What are some of the books that have greatly influenced you?

Machiavelli’s Prince and Discourses, followed closely by Aristotle’s Politics, Montesquieu’s Persian Letters, Publius’ Federalist Papers, and Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. What these books have in common is that they are concerned with what I consider the most important question in political life, namely, what is the best possible regime that we can have.

What are you reading right now?

This week I’m reading Angus Deaton’s The Great Escape. I’ve assigned it for a class on politics and public policy where we are examining what can be done to help peoples that trapped in failed or failing states. The Great Escape provides a valuable counterpoint to scholars that call for military intervention and/or international aid. It identifies the smaller, concrete steps that can be taken to help peoples escape the impoverished circumstances that foster oppressive regimes.

What is your next project?

Thus far I have been interested in executive power in modern democracies. In particular I have studied what makes democratic leaders act responsibly even when their actions cannot be overseen by others. My next book project examines executive power in regimes that are not fully liberal or democratic. The great bulk of political regimes in the world fall into this category, yet contemporary scholars hardly study these regimes. My book project, tentatively titled Have You Been to Kazanistan?: The Case for Decent Regimes, evaluates what I term ‘decent regimes’—i.e. regimes that may not be fully liberal or democratic but do much to enhance the living standards of their citizens. What should we make of such regimes, I ask? Given that the Arab Spring has shown—once again—that it is difficult to “export” liberal democracy, I ask whether it would be more reasonable to coax regimes to be ‘decent’ than to goad their populaces to rebel—a policy that has led to the spread of ‘illiberal democracies’.

 


Jacqueline Bhaba on Child Migration and Human Rights in a Global Age [VIDEO]

Why have our governments and societies been unable to effectively address the human rights and legal problems around the growing number of children who cross borders alone every year? How do we (and how should we) apply laws and policies designed for adult migrants to children and adolescents?

Distinguished human rights and legal scholar Jacqueline Bhabha has been studying complex ethical and legal questions such as these around immigration and children’s rights for over a decade and the results of her research may surprise you. Faculti Media recently posted this video of Bhabha discussing her work and her new book Child Migration and Human Rights in a Global Age:

Princeton authors speaking at Oxford Literary Festival 2014

We are delighted that the following Princeton authors will be speaking at the Oxford Literary Festival in Oxford, UK, in the last week of March. Details of all events can be found at the links below:images5L8V7T97

Jacqueline and Simon Mitton, husband and wife popular astronomy writers and authors of From Dust to Life: The Origin and Evolution of Our Solar System and Heart of Darkness: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Invisible Universe respectively, will be speaking  on Monday 24 March at 4:00pm  http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Monday-24/in-search-of-our-cosmic-origins-from-the-big-bang-to-a-habitable-planet

David Edmonds, author of Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us  about Right and Wrong will be speaking on Monday 24 March at 6:00pm http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Monday-24/morality-puzzles-would-you-kill-the-fat-man

Robert Bartlett, author of Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation will be speaking on Tuesday 25 March at 2:00pm http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Tuesday-25/why-can-the-dead-do-such-great-things

Michael Scott, author of Delphi: A History of the Center of the Ancient World will be speaking on Wednesday 26 March at 10:00am http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Wednesday-26/delphi-a-history-of-the-centre-of-the-ancient-world

Simon Blackburn, author of Mirror, Mirror: The Uses and Abuses of Self-Love will be speaking on Wednesday 26 March at 4:00pm http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Wednesday-26/mirror-mirror-the-uses-and-abuses-of-self-love

Roger Scruton author of the forthcoming The Soul of the World will be speaking Thursday 27 March 12:00pm http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Thursday-27/the-soul-of-the-world

Alexander McCall Smith, author of What W. H. Auden Can Do for You will be speaking about how this poet has enriched his life and can enrich yours too on Friday 28 March at 12:00pm http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Friday-28/what-w-h-auden-can-do-for-youMcCallSmith_Auden

Averil Cameron, author of Byzantine Matters will be speaking on Friday 28 March at 2:00pm  http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Friday-28/byzantine-matters

Edmund Fawcett, author of Liberalism: The Life of an Idea will be speaking on Saturday 29 March at 10:00am http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Saturday-29/liberalism-the-life-of-an-idea

In addition, Ian Goldin will be giving the inaugural “Princeton Lecture” at The Oxford Literary Festival, on the themes within his forthcoming book, The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do about It on Thursday 27 March at 6:00pm  http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Thursday-27/the-princeton-lecture-the-butterfly-defect-how-globalisation-creates-system

 

Jenny White talks at the House of Commons (video now available)

On 4th February, Jenny White gave a talk in the British House of Commons as part of the Westminster debates held and organized by the Centre for Turkish Studies. The audience was a mix of politicians, scholars, students, and other interested people. The talk was moderated by Dr. Pelin Kadercan, of Reading University. A video of the event is now available to view here.White - Turkey Studies

In her recent book Muslim Nationalism and the New Turks, Jenny White argues that the polarization in Turkey isn’t due to an Islamist/secularist split as it is often portrayed, but rather is a result of the rapid transformation of society and consequent insecurity and search for new identities and meanings, particularly among the younger generations, regardless of whether they are secular or pious. The danger to Turkey comes not from Islam, which for many has become a lifestyle and object of choice, rather than an ideology, but from 20th-century habits of political autocracy that mirror familiar patriarchal authoritarian relations in the family that promise protection and stability.

In her talk at the House of Commons, Professor White brought these ideas up to the present, suggesting that the discourse that posits a father state protecting his citizen children from outsiders  aiming (with the help of traitorous insiders) to destroy the integrity and honor of the nation reappeared in the rhetoric and actions of both the prime minister and protesters during the Gezi protests of summer 2013 and in the Turkish government’s response to corruption allegations and other recent events. She explained why this discourse still works to mobilize major elements of the population, while other parts of the population now categorically reject these affiliations and patterns of political and personal relations. Turkey is at a tipping point between these forces.

This spring sees the publication of the paperback of this important book.  Muslim Nationalism and the New Turks will be reissued with a new afterword  in which White analyzes the latest political developments, particularly the mass protests surrounding Gezi Park, their impact on Turkish political culture, and what they mean for the future.

Image credit: Centre for Turkey Studies

 

Edmund Fawcett discusses Liberalism: The Life of an Idea [VIDEO]

Love it or hate it, liberalism is here to stay–and it has a long and fascinating history. Edmund Fawcett explains more about his forthcoming book Liberalism: The Life of an Idea in this wonderful video interview with Natalia Nash. How do we define liberalism? Edmund Fawcett explores the underlying ideas that guide the liberal story here:

Learn more about Edmund Fawcett and Liberalism at the Princeton University Press site.