Are Debates about “Morality Policy” Really about Morality? Framing Opposition to Gay and Lesbian Rights

A growing number of studies identify “morality policy” as a distinct category of public policy and have tested several related hypotheses. This article reexamines morality policy as a conceptual category and an empirical phenomenon. As others have pointed out, we should distinguish morality policy from other policies by how political actors frame issues rather than by its substantive content. In the first part of the article, I argue that we should view morality “policy” as one of two broad strategies for framing issues, rather than try to fit it into existing policy typologies. Next, I move beyond viewing morality policy as a single, broad category by identifying several distinct subtypes of morality frames. In the second part of the article, I challenge a basic assumption of the morality policy paradigm—that advocates frame morality policy issues by engaging in moralistic discourse that reflects their basic beliefs and values. Gay rights issues are a strong test of this claim because the literature cites them as typical examples of morality policy, and gay rights opponents would seem especially likely to engage in “morality talk” in framing these issues. Very few studies of morality policy actually observe framing behavior and what it reveals about the political strategy of each side. Congressional and state‐level data reveal that opponents usually do not frame gay rights issues in terms of the morality of homosexuality or religious injunctions against it, even in most states where we would expect to find it. Instead, they emphasize frames that focus on alleged negative social consequences from gay rights and procedural arguments about who should make policy and how it should be made. Although many opponents of gay rights disapprove of homosexuality on moral and religious grounds, their framing behavior reflects more complex strategic considerations. I speculate that opponents deemphasize morality talk because it is politically disadvantageous compared with other kinds of frames, and because of greater acceptance of gays in society. In reducing gay rights debates to moral and religious judgments, the morality policy perspective obscures the complexity of advocates' framing strategies and ignores many of their most important arguments.     

A “Caesarian,”“Augustan,” or “Justinian” Worldview of Theoretical and Quantitative Geography?

An evolving world view of theoretical and quantitative geography is presented using an analogy from the development of the ancient Roman and Byzantine Empires between Julius Caesar in the first century BC to Justinian in the sixth century AD. This is used to set the discussion platform for a series of papers presented by participants from the early days of quantitative revolution in geography and its transformation into a robust and relevant spatial science. Current theoretical and quantitative geography needs to be, first, active in developing new ideas and applications, second, to continue to transform its methodology to be more societally relevant and scientifically robust and, third, to actively engage cultural critiques of these processes.     

“Wachstum” oder “Revolution”? Ernst Cassirer und die Wissenschaftsgeschichte

“Growth” or “Revolution”? Ernst Cassirer and History of Science. Ernst Cassirer's contributions to history of science have been long time neglected. The aim of this paper is to show the historical and philosophical framework of Cassirer's engagement in this field, starting from his seminal work about the problem of knowledge in science and philosophy of the modern age. Moreover the author suggests that Cassirer's late studies about Galilei and the origins of mathematical science are of some interest in order to comprehend both his commitment to contemporary history of science (from Burtt to Koyré) and his intellectual heritage for our agendas in a post‐Kuhnian era.     

WHITHER “WHAT IF” HISTORY?

Richard Evans's new book, Altered Pasts, offers a perceptive but flawed critique of the field of counterfactual history. The author provides a useful historical survey of the field's recent rise to prominence and intelligently analyzes its respective strengths and weaknesses. His overall assessment of the field is quite skeptical, however. Evans cites many reasons for his skepticism, but his overall critique can be summarized in three words: plausibility, politicization, and popularity. Evans faults works of counterfactual history for their frequently implausible narratives, their promotion of political agendas, and their distressing degree of popularity. In advancing his critique, Evans makes many valid observations that call attention to important deficiencies in the field. But his view is a partial one that neglects countervailing evidence and never penetrates to the heart of why the field has left the margins for the mainstream. Evans's study provides a useful introduction to an understudied topic, but further research—ideally of a less partisan nature—is required for us to better understand counterfactual history's increasing appeal.     

Terror or Terrorism? The “Islamic State” Between State and Nonstate Violence

As a non‐state actor that claims its own territory, the “Islamic State” utilizes a spectrum of very different kinds of coercion and violence. Considering the group's aspirations to govern the territories controlled by it, any clear distinction between uses of force and coercion that states typically claim as their legitimate right, and implement terrorist non‐state violence, tends to blur right before our analytically‐focused eyes. This contribution discusses how the group challenges the distinction between “terror from above” and “terrorism from below” as well as the meaning of the dual character of Daesh's belief system between the ideological and the religious for Daesh's repertoire of violence.     

The Epistemological Challenge of Higher Education Student Volunteering: “Reproductive” or “Deconstructive” Volunteering?

Abstract: This paper addresses student volunteering as an important socio‐cultural trend which is generally taken for granted and un‐interrogated. We explore tensions inherent in the practice and articulation of higher education student volunteering, via biographical narratives of contrasting student volunteers and employ Rose's (1993, Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge, University of Minnesota Press) theory of “paradoxical space” to unpick and understand these narratives, as this has proven a generative approach to re‐conceptualising students’ engagement with universities and communities. Building on this theoretical approach, we propose a new conceptual framework to analyse students’ learning and understanding of social justice through volunteering. This framework contrasts reproductive altruism, or volunteering which reproduces social inequalities, with a deconstructive form that provides students with resources to recognise and challenge power relations and inequality in society.     

Permission to Stay in “Enemy” Territory?

Muslim scholars writing about the legal situation of Muslims living under non‐Muslim rule during the seventh/thirteenth and eighth/fourteenth centuries were primarily concerned with whether Muslims should be allowed to live under non‐Muslim rule or whether they should emigrate (or go on hijra) from it. Two ?anbalī legists, Ibn Qudāma (d. 620/1223) and Ibn Mufli? (d. 763/1362), both of whom lived and wrote in Damascus (Ayyūbid and Mamlūk, respectively), address this issue in their legal works (fiqh). Their scholarship, when compared with that of the ?anbalī scholar Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), is instructive, particularly when one considers differences between these scholars’ experiences of non‐Muslim rule. A guiding question is how experience may shape (or fail to shape) a jurist's position on hijra, since the events of the time (the Crusades and, later, the Mongol invasions) forced Muslims living under non‐Muslim control to decide whether they must leave such lands. Loyalty to one's school (taqlīd) appears to have influenced the jurists most in their thinking, but experience shaped how they justified their positions on whether a Muslim must emigrate from lands under non‐Muslim control.     

When Do We “Just Say No”? Policy Termination Decisions in Local Hospital Services

This paper develops a two‐stage decision‐making model of the public policy termination process, which integrates political and economic influences on local decision makers. We empirically explore the model using data on the provision of local public hospitals in California over 1981–95. The results provide support for the model as we find that triggering events as well as characteristics of the local decision‐making context affect the termination decision. For the case of public hospitals, we find that lower state and local revenue growth rates increase the likelihood of termination, while decision makers in communities with a larger local health budget, more unionized public employees, and a larger private hospital sector are less likely to terminate local public hospitals. The implications for public policy and for our understanding of the termination process are discussed.     

“Where Can a Gypsy Stop?” Rethinking Mobility in Scotland

Abstract: This article examines mobile practices of Scottish Gypsy/Travellers and analyses how their mobility affects their socio‐spatial access to participation within Scottish society. It explores how different representations of mobility set up boundaries and limitations on travel, unravels everyday practices of mobility by Gypsy Travellers and discusses their embeddedness within Scottish society and culture. The discussion draws on empirical research results to assess attempts to accommodate mobile practices of Travellers within existing structures of political and economic organisation. It exposes dominant “punctual” understanding of movement, which lacks information about what happens during the move and overlooks important elements of ambulant lifestyles. Findings from this study suggest that formalised definitions of travel privilege specific forms of mobility to the neglect of the others and serve to perpetuate the marginalised identities of itinerant people. The paper concludes with theoretically informed observations about the new ways of re‐connecting policies tackling disadvantage with mobility.