Victories from Insurgency: Re‐Negotiating Housing,Community Control,and Citizenship at the Margins

This article considers how insurgent campaigns for housing the poor in New York City and Chicago succeeded in engaging the local state, non‐profits and financial institutions in the creation of community land trusts. These campaigns had long arcs in which victories and losses built from each other, neither as permanent as they initially seemed. The campaigns moved iteratively between spaces of “invited citizenship” (courtrooms, planning committees) and “invented” spaces of collective action (property takeovers). They found their greatest success when, exploiting state incapacity to defend abandoned property, they elicited a degree of complicity from local governments in their takeovers of housing and land. The article thus contests dichotomised accounts of social movements that oppose losses to victories, cooptation to resistance, and movements to institutions. Instead, we call for situated and dynamic accounts of insurgent practice, capable of theorising the long, messy, co‐constituted evolution of political contexts and popular struggle.     

Social Constructions,Anticipatory Feedback Strategies,and Deceptive Public Policy

Elected leaders adopt “anticipatory feedback strategies” in designing public policies that generate support and forestall opposition. This contention is at the core of a social construction theory of feedback. Officials anticipate approval when policies allocate benefits to powerful groups socially constructed as deserving and allocate costs or punishment to groups viewed as undeserving, particularly if these groups lack political power. Designs for powerful groups that are widely viewed as unworthy provide mainly benefits in ways that are hidden from the general public who would not approve. For politically weak groups regarded as deserving, legislators generally design policies that provide promises, but not much in terms of material benefits. Often, deception will be used to protect or enhance this particular allocation pattern, including the reinforcement, perpetuation, or change in the social constructions along with the stereotypes, labels, stigma, and accompanying narratives. Using data from legislation introduced by the 2016 Arizona Legislature, we find that most policy is directed toward providing benefits to positively viewed target populations, as expected by the theory, and legislators employ deceptive feedback strategies that protect themselves. Feedback from the general public, which otherwise might be expected, may be precluded by the deceptive strategies being used.     

Bridewealth,dowry, property,and economics

Jack Goody and S. J. Tambiah. Bridewealth and Dowry. Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 7. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1973. ix + 169 pp. Tables, figures, notes, and bibliography. $11.50.     

Polygamy and Legislation in Contemporary Iran: An Analysis of the Public Legal Discourse

The purpose of this article is to analyze the interaction between different interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence in Iran and state law. It focuses on the public legal discourse about the new Family Draft Law in 2007–08, especially Article 23 regulating polygamous marriages and removing necessity for the first wife's permission. The participants in this public legal debate, which took place on the internet and in the media, were civil society organizations, especially women's organizations, the Shiite clergy, and state representatives. The article argues that even in a non-democratic, theocratic state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, public discourse promoted by the named actors can challenge and influence state legislation. The removal of Article 23 from the Draft confirms this argument, but in the law of 2013 the requirement for the first wife's permission is not found. By looking at the arguments brought forward in the public discourse, the article demonstrates that the arguments are mainly “Islamic,” and none refers to international human rights, as this seems to be a kind of taboo in the political discourse.