Postmodern politics and the battle for the future

Abstract

The postmodern turn which has so marked social and cultural theory also involves conflicts between modern and postmodern politics. In this study, we articulate the differences between modern and postmodern politics and argue against one‐sided positions which dogmatically reject one tradition or the other in favor of partisanship for either the modern or the postmodern. Arguing for a politics of alliance and solidarity, we claim that this project is best served by drawing on the most progressive elements of both the modern and postmodern traditions. Developing a new politics involves overcoming the limitations of certain versions of modern politics and postmodern identity politics in order to develop a politics of alliance and solidarity equal to the challenges of the coming millennium.     

Toward Rational Criminal HIV Exposure Laws

This article examines criminal HIV exposure statues that address undisclosed exposure through consensual sexual activity. Twenty-seven U.S. states have adopted some form of HIV exposure statute. Thirteen of these statutes specifically address exposure through sexual activity, while another eleven statutes could be applied to exposure through sexual activity, while another eleven statutes could be applied to exposure through consensual sexual interactions. Although the penalties for breach of these laws are often severe, the risk of actual harm posed by the many of the behaviors prescribed is minimal and in some cases virtually nonexistent. After an overview of the various types of U.S. criminal HIV exposure statutes and discussion of the risk of HIV transmission through the various sexual activities addressed in the laws, the authors highlight the tenuous relationship between proscribed activities and actual risk of virus transmission. The authors address this limitation in the law by offering a framework for the evaluation and construction of HIV exposure statutes that considers not only the intent of the HIV-positive actor but also the risk that his or her conduct poses to others.     

Should Egalitarians be Perfectionists?

Political philosophers often worry about the potentially elitist implications of perfectionism as the basis of distributive justice. Richard Arneson challenges this familiar connection between perfectionism and elitism by developing an egalitarian theory of distributive justice with distinctively perfectionist grounds. In this article, I argue that Arneson's theory is implausible, because an egalitarian political morality renders perfectionism either irrelevant or arbitrary.     

Setting Agendas and Designing Alternatives: Policymaking and the Strategic Role of Meetings1

This paper investigates the role of strategic forums—such as special commissions, task forces, roundtables, working groups, summits—in the policy process. Reviewing prominent theories about policymaking, the author suggests ways in which strategic forums might fit within these frameworks as an analytically distinct policy lever. The paper examines existing literature on such forums, and identifies characteristics of “meetings that matter”—those gatherings that appear to have achieved some policy traction in a given domain. Finally, the paper investigates a particular field, cultural policy, to evaluate the extent to which meetings are serving policy purposes. The author concludes that meetings can serve an important role in the policy process by framing public problems and highlighting policy alternatives; creating and sustaining policy communities; fostering policy transfer and knowledge uptake; and developing networks among policy entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, with regard to cultural policy, the author argues that, compared to other policy domains, strategic policy-focused convenings are not a regular part of the arts and culture landscape and remain underused policy tools.