Whose World Is It, Anyway?

Book reviewed in this article:
Jessica C. E. Gienow–Hecht, Transmission Impossible: American Journalism as Cultural Diplomacy inPostwar Germany, 1945–1955     

Whose Wealth Is It Anyway? Mozambique's Outstanding Economic Growth with Worsening Rural Poverty

Despite rapid economic growth and massive inflows of aid, rural poverty in Mozambique is worsening. Agricultural production and productivity have not increased in the last decade. Use of chemical fertilizers and other modern technology is at a low level and decreasing. The present development model emphasizes that the role of government and donors is to provide human capital and infrastructure, while the private sector is responsible for economic development and ending poverty. The most recent national surveys confirm what is being seen elsewhere in Africa — that this non‐interventionist strategy does not raise agricultural productivity or reduce poverty. While 80 per cent of Mozambique's population is engaged in agriculture, this sector contributes only 20 per cent of GDP. This suggests that investments in agriculture are likely to generate pro‐poor growth, both to rural and urban dwellers. This policy failure is increasingly recognized, but donors and government have invested too much political capital in the current policy to change easily.     

Whose Theology? Which Theology?

Abstract

This is a response to Gareth Jones's critique of Changing Worlds, arguing that while this critique largely misunderstands the approach taken in the book, it does raise important questions about the prospect of war in the modern world. Crucial differences are identified in the use of theological rhetoric as a means of resolving differences about the legitimacy of war in the modern world.     

Whose Ethics? Which Cultural Contract? Imagining Arrernte Traditions Today

The paper uses an account of ‘tradition’ by the philosopher, Alisdair MacIntyre, to argue for the view that local Aboriginal culture that has been through extensive change is nonetheless still specifying for the Aboriginal people involved. Therefore these local traditions must be taken into account in discussions about ‘contracts’ or ‘policies’ concerning Aboriginal people today. An example is drawn from the Lutheran tradition of Western Arrernte people in Central Australia.     

THE 2011 ANTIPODE AAG LECTURE Whose Responsibility Is It? Obligation,Citizenship and Social Welfare

Abstract: This article explores the ways that responsibility for social welfare and wellbeing is framed by service providers, activists and the state in two moments of welfare restructuring in the United States. Many service providers and activists rework notions of obligation and responsibility to challenge the state to meet its obligations to its citizens. They enact an oppositional politics of obligation and care that is rooted in normative values rooted in family and faith. The article concludes with a consideration of the potential for an oppositional politics of obligation.     

Whose Autopoiesis?

Book reviewed in this article:
Die Lineatur Der Geschichte , by Kurt Röttgers     

Whose Burden?

Book reviewed in this article:
Allan Megill, Karl Marx: The Burden of Reason (Why Marx Rejected Politics and The Market)     

Is Geography (Still) a Science?

Geographic science remains contested. The practice of geographic science has long been criticized on both methodological and institutional grounds, often justifiably. Even more serious is the continuing assault on the very idea of science as the objective discovery of and search for explanation in the university, including human behaviour in space and place. This essay argues that a scientific epistemology is incompatible with a relativistic one.     

Who's indigenous? Whose archaeology?

Abstract

The International Labour Organisation, the United Nations and various indigenous Organisations have raised and/or objected to diverse criteria through which indigenous groups have been defined and the rights that should be accorded to them. This paper discusses the implications of these issues in relation to archaeological research and heritage management and uses this to position the other papers in this volume. Specific themes that are addressed include: the impact of colonialism and nation-forming on indigenous groups; the continuing influence of 19th and early 20th century social evolutionary concepts on the representation of indigenous groups and the role of archival material from this period today; the contrasting processes of cultural continuity and assimilation within ‘dominant’ societies in which indigenous communities have participated, and the effects that this has had on more recent claims over land rights; the cultural differences that surround the concepts of individual and community ownership, particularly in relation to copyright; the role of academia, museums and the media in the representation of indigenous people in the past and the present.     

Is Small Beautiful? Microhistory and the History of Everyday Life

Books reviewed in this article:
The History of Everyday Life. Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life Edited by Alf Lüdtke, translated by William Templer
Jeux d'Échelles. La micro-analyse àl'expérience Edited by Jacques Revel     

Art History?

This article is presented in two parts. In part I, I call into question the viability of a currently received opinion about the foundations of the subject called “Art History,” primarily by challenging assumptions that are implicit in conventional uses of the terms “art” and “work of art.” It is widely supposed that works of art are items of a kind, that this kind is the bearer of the name “art,” and that it has a history. In part II, I propose to correct this error by using the word “art” in a presently unconventional—although not unprecedented—way. The proposal relies upon a concept of cultural evolution running intellectually parallel to a Darwinian account of genetic evolution. The thesis has strong metaphysically realist implications, relating cultural evolution to what can be said and done and can properly be seen to have a history only in a universe to which real regularities are attributed. The recommended use of the term “art” is secured upon an estimate of the role of memetic innovation as radically pervasive, embracing all thought and action. “Art,” understood in the suggested way, becomes the name of a category, which has no history as kinds have histories.