Stanford University Press Blog

Searching for Social Change

Decades after the truth and reconciliation process, South Africans are still seeking justice.

by RITA KESSELRING

Elsie Gishi, a claimant in the apartheid litigation who provided testimony to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Photo by Rita Kesselring.

 

Twenty years ago the first public hearing of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa was heard and tomorrow marks eighteen years since the handing over of that commission’s findings to President Nelson Mandela. The Truth Commission, which has since been replicated in dozens of other countries, was an integral component of South Africa’s post-apartheid transition to what many hoped would be a more open, freer society. Now, two decades after its founding, a whole generation of young people has grown up in South Africa since this first hearing, and the commission has become a part of the new nation’s founding myth but South African officials rarely stop to ponder its success and limitations. If apartheid is mentioned in speeches today, it merely serves to provide reasons for problems the government has not been able to solve. Preoccupied with the present, with party-political scheming, elections, and scandals like the one surrounding renovations to President Zuma’s private home (financed with taxpayer money), the African National Congress—a former liberation movement and now the incumbent ruling party at the national level—is slowly losing its grip on its electorate.

The apartheid past lingers on in today’s South Africa.

While the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was intended to be a powerful tool for restorative justice, the apartheid past lingers on in today’s South Africa. The notion of “the past in the present” suddenly pops up everywhere—a fairly new, but pervasive, feature in public discourse. The recent rise of South African students—from privileged universities like the University of Cape Town to the underfunded University of Limpopo in Polokwane—exemplifies this new cry for justice. Increases in tuition fees sparked student protests across the country last year (inspiring the hashtag, #FeesMustFall); but the protests, still ongoing, are equally directed against the non-transformation of the entire education system, the bias in the curricula, and the financial exclusion of the majority of the so-called “formally disadvantaged” groups. Students have not protested so loudly and decidedly since the 1976 Soweto uprising. Indeed, this and other apartheid-era protests against minority rule are today drawn on as models for current protests.

 

No retreat. No surrender. We are coming for free, decolonized, quality education. #FeesMustFall pic.twitter.com/6tD4Vd9L8G

— Wits SRC (@WitsSRC) September 21, 2016

History’s Economic Underpinning

Jewish economic history—too long stigmatized—opens up surprising insights into the past, and the present too.

by ADAM TELLER

Gold medal coins with the bust of Bogusław Radziwiłł.

When I began the research that would eventually lead to the publication of Money, Power, and Influence in Eighteenth-Century Lithuania—a study of the Jews’ economic past in eastern Europe—I felt as if I was swimming against the tide in the study of Jewish history. The field I was working in, Jewish economic history, had been in the doldrums since the mid-twentieth century. The use of economic motifs in the vicious anti-Semitic propaganda that led up to the Holocaust had made it a topic that many felt too hot to handle. Moreover, the rise in popularity of first social and then cultural history had opened new vistas in understanding the complexities of Jewish non-Jewish interaction in the Diaspora that seemed to render insignificant issues of the Jews’ economic life.

I was convinced that this was not the case. I believed (and still do) that the study of Jewish economic life is a key field through which to examine the relations which developed between Jews and surrounding societies. This is because an integral aspect of most economic activity is that it engages the individual in a broad network of relationships and interests. The line stretching from owner of the means of production to producer, and from there to distributor (and those servicing the market), and thence to consumer, is often a very long one. It crosses and re-crosses seemingly impenetrable social barriers of class, ethnicity, religion, and gender (not to mention physical segregation where that exists), connecting those it touches in the most natural way. The study of Jewish economic history is therefore a means of understanding one of the most important mechanisms of social integration that functioned wherever Jews lived—even in societies where their integration was frowned upon.

The study of Jewish economic life is a key field through which to examine the relations which developed between Jews and surrounding societies.

The Libertarian Alternative

This unconventional election year underscores the merit of the third-party option.

by NIKOLAI G. WENZEL

A "Don't Tread On Me" flag at a rally in 2010. Photo by Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr.

 

With the advent of two unpopular front-runners and the rise of third-party candidate Gary Johnson, libertarianism has factored more prominently in this presidential election than in any other cycle in recent memory. Given the nature of voters’ pronounced concerns over the economy and the credibility and efficiency of the federal government, this is not surprising. Libertarianism is not just an alternative to two unpalatable mainstream parties. Instead of tinkering with details, libertarianism squarely addresses the shortcomings of politics as usual, while also offering an opportunity to reflect on first principles and the proper role of government.

Indeed, libertarianism is not (just) about being left alone, and in the context of the 2016 election cycle it is not (just) an alternative to a tired insider or an erratic outsider.

Indeed, libertarianism is not (just) about being left alone, and in the context of the 2016 election cycle it is not (just) an alternative to a tired insider or an erratic outsider. Rather, libertarianism offers a principled approach to political life. At its core lies the “non-aggression principle,” which rejects the initiation of force against others. Based on this principle, government is limited to the protection of individual rights, and leaves the rest to markets and civil society. If the government attempts to do anything beyond protecting rights, it will—by definition—violate the rights of some to benefit others.

The Trouble with Trumpism

Liberals and libertarians cannot meaningfully counter Trump—but conservatism can.

by NATHAN W. SCHLUETER

Donald Trump speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. Photo by Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr.

The conservative movement, which is constituted by a dynamic tension between libertarians, traditionalist conservatives and neoconservatives, now faces the real threat of dissolution. Surprisingly, the cause of this threat does not come from within the movement, but from without. It is the result of an idiosyncratic version of populism called “Trumpism.” A toxic mix of reality show romanticism, resentment, cynicism and paranoia, Trumpism has deeply divided the conservative movement along a fault line that cuts across all three of its traditional divisions. Yet as George Nash points out in a recent issue of the New Criterion, “Trumpist Populism is defiantly challenging the fundamental tenets and perspectives of every component of the post-1945 conservative coalition.” Whether one’s primary concern is free trade, traditional marriage and the family, the protection of unborn children, or a robust foreign policy, one will not find much to cheer about in Trumpism. What is a conservative to do?

American conservatism is not identical to Republican Party politics, and it is in deep conflict with Trumpism.

It is important to understand that American conservatism is not synonymous with the conservative political movement. American conservatism is a public philosophy, a form of classical liberalism rooted in the principles of the American founding. Conservatives believe that those principles, furnished by the careful equilibrium of liberty, reason, and tradition, provide for human flourishing better than any competing public philosophy. American conservatism, therefore, is not identical to Republican Party politics, and it is in deep conflict with Trumpism.

Gender’s Postural Paradigm

On the sexual politics behind the upright man and his counterpoint: the inclining woman.

by ADRIANA CAVARERO

The Virgin and the Child with Saint Anne. Painted by Leonardo da Vinci (1503-19). Public domain.

Sexual and emotional inclination toward a person—for brevity’s sake, we’ll call it eros—stirs serious apprehension, above all among philosophers. They perceive it as a threat to the subject’s equilibrium—a deep quiver, a slippery slope. What they fear most of all are inclinations that are too impetuous and difficult to master. In the turbulent realm of eros, these include the inclination that turns to lust and other pleasures of the flesh—prominent among which is the alleged propensity of specifically female nature to lasciviousness.

In traditional ethics, this argument is often developed with particular passion, but it also appears in authors who would seem to be more open-minded. In the mid-nineteenth century, for example, the influential philosopher Pierre Proudhon, known for his innovative and revolutionary ideas, wrote some passages on this theme that are worthy of mention. In La pornacratie, ou les femmes dans les temps modernes he writes,

To speak of sexual relations, it is a law of nature in all animals that the female, incited by the instinct to have children, searches for a male in all manner of ways. Woman cannot escape this law. She is naturally more inclined to lasciviousness than man, first because her self is more fragile, such that liberty and intelligence struggle in her with less force against her animalistic inclinations, and secondly because love is the great, if not only, occupation of her life.

Despite his misogyny, or perhaps precisely because his prejudice does not spare even maternity, Proudhon’s words are ultimately thought-provoking. Following a widely accepted theory, Proudhon argues that love, with its pathologies and excesses, is essentially rooted in natural and animal phenomena related to sexual inclination, understood not as an orientation for a particular sex but as the instinct to have sex. He also suggests that, in women as in females of other species, this instinct is subordinated to the instinct for procreation. From this perspective, erotic and maternal inclinations spring from a core that is as imperious and indomitable as nature itself.

Speaking of the Devil

From his rebellious debut to modern day, the devil has always been a political figure.

by ADAM KOTSKO

A depiction of Satan being cast out of heaven, based on John Milton's Paradise Lost, engraved by Paul Gustave Doré, 1866. Public domain.

In the most recent presidential debate, Trump was unusually literal in demonizing his opponent, at one point calling Clinton “the devil.” While such rhetoric is foreign to presidential debates, it is commonplace in many conservative Christian communities, where liberal political leaders are often suspected of being the Antichrist. And while their readings of biblical prophecy are questionable at best, my research on the devil has convinced me that they are not completely on the wrong track: The devil has always been right at home in the political world.

The devil has always been right at home in the political world.

The title of my book, The Prince of This World, refers to an epithet that Jesus twice uses to describe the devil in the Gospel of John. It jumped out at me as a possible title because my project was to demonstrate that the devil was not solely a theological symbol, but also a political one. Though he is undoubtedly a rebellious prince, insubordinate to his rightful ruler, God, nonetheless he remains a prince.

It would be easy to dismiss this as mere imagery, but to do so would be to misunderstand the devil’s place within the worldview represented by the New Testament writings. The devil is of course not simply identical with human rulers, but he does engage in a rule that is not merely metaphorical or symbolic. In the world of the Gospels, he asserts control over individual human beings. As with most rulers, this control is mostly mediated through subordinates (demons), but on important occasions it can be more hands-on. For instance, in two of the Gospels (Luke and John) he personally possesses Judas Iscariot and incites him to betray Jesus.

A Lesson in Libel Law

Why Trump’s threat to sue the New York Times for libel will not succeed.

by SAMANTHA BARBAS

The New York Times building. Photo by Jason Kuffer. CC BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr.

Last Thursday, following publication of a New York Times story describing Donald Trump’s unwanted sexual touching of two women, Trump and his lawyers threatened to sue the Times for libel. In a letter to Trump’s attorney, the Times defended the story as “newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern” and told Trump that if he did not agree, it would be happy to meet him in court.

Legal experts agree that there is no merit to Trump’s threatened lawsuit. Trump could never win a libel suit against the Times. He would lose not only because he would have a difficult time proving that the allegations were false, but also because he has no chance of showing “actual malice”—that the Times published the statements with “reckless disregard” of the truth. To show reckless disregard, Trump would have to prove that the Times knew or had strong reason to believe the story was false and published it anyway.

 

The NYT's lawyer responded to a request from Donald Trump's lawyer to retract an article https://t.co/HJQTV3Bo4x pic.twitter.com/9KkJ6Vxauk

— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 13, 2016

 

5 Books in Honor of Foucault

Tomorrow is Foucault’s 90th birthday—mark the occasion by brushing up on his legacy.

 

Nearly three decades after his death Michel Foucault remains one of the most discussed thinkers in academia. Across the humanities and social sciences his work continues to be among the most cited, a distinction proportionate to the number of scholarly hats Foucault wore in life—including that of the philosopher, the historian, the social theorist, the philologist, and the literary critic. At the dawn of the millennium Le Monde declared his book, The Order of Things to be among its 100 Books of the Century—and more recently still, Buzzfeed listed Discipline and Punish as one of 15 College Books That Will Actually Change Your Life. His corpus, chiefly concerned with the inner workings of modern conceptions of power, knowledge, and subjectivity, continues to open minds and spur debate.

In honor of his 90^th birthday we’ve curated a list of books which, running a gamut of disciplines, tussle with Foucault’s legacy. The titles below critically investigate Foucault’s notions of religion, politics, and social life, engaging some of his signature concepts and his key influences and interlocutors along the way.

 

1

State Phobia and Civil Society »
The Political Legacy of Michel Foucault

by MITCHELL DEAN and KASPAR VILLADSEN

RECOMMENDED READING FOR:
Political theorists and academic heretics

Drawing on a series of Foucault’s lectures, Mitchell Dean and Kaspar Villadsen explore a crucial question of contemporary political theory: how should we deal with state power? Common to Foucault’s various followers is an aversion to conventional forms of political organization—sympathies purportedly aligned with Foucault’s own antistatism. Yet, in pointing to the ambiguities of Foucault’s writings on the subject, State Phobia and Civil Society argues against the prevailing academic fashion that pits itself against the state. In so doing they aim to close the gap between the reductively radical “Saint Foucault” of grad school lore and the actual, political Foucault, restoring to him the nuance and complexity that his thought warrants.

ALSO SEE: Mitchell Dean’s piece, Rebel, Rebel?, comparing the legacies of Michel Foucault and David Bowie.

“I can only describe State Phobia in terms usually reserved for bestsellers: un-put-downable, a cause of sleepless nights.”

—Slavoj Žižek, University of Ljubljana