“Use words. Not your body”: The hunger that has no name

This essay examines the competing readings of food refusal that emerged from a student hunger strike held at Columbia University in fall 2007. The invisibility of the act of food refusal forces hunger strikers to adopt performance strategies that make their (non)action visible as protest. To make the politics of their food refusal legible, advocates for the hunger strike promoted their actions as part of a 40 year tradition of student protest. However, that same invisibility allowed the protest's detractors to deride the hunger strikers as anorexic. At the center of the protest and the commentary about it was a wasting female body that confused for spectators the line between the political and the pathological. Attention to this body raises questions of how community is created and disciplined through performative acts, how easily female protest is evacuated of political meaning and the uneasy role of whiteness in popular attention to anorexia.     

Individual and Contextual Factors Associated with Patterns of Aggression and Peer Victimization During Middle School

Peer victimization is a common problem among adolescents that has been linked to a variety of adjustment problems. Youth involved in peer victimization represent a heterogeneous group who may differ not only in their levels of victimization and perpetration, but also in the factors that influence their behavior. The current study used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify subgroups of aggressive and victimized youth, and to examine social-cognitive and environmental factors that differ across these subgroups. Participants were a predominantly African-American (i.e., 68 %) sample of 502 sixth, seventh, and eighth graders (45 % male, Mean age = 12.6 years) attending three urban public middle schools, who completed self-report measures of aggression, victimization, and associated individual and contextual factors. LCA identified four classes of adolescents representing non-victimized aggressors, aggressive-victims, predominantly victimized youth, and well-adjusted youth. Class differences were found on measures of beliefs supporting fighting, beliefs against fighting, perceived effectiveness of inept nonviolent responses to conflict, behavioral intentions to engage in aggressive and nonviolent behavior, self-efficacy for nonviolent behavior, and peer and parental support for aggression and nonviolence. For example, within the two classes of victimized youth, aggressive-victims reported greater intentions to engage in physical aggression and inept nonviolent behavior, and were more likely to agree with beliefs supporting the use of instrumental and reactive aggression, and beliefs that fighting is sometimes necessary compared to predominantly victimized youth. These findings emphasize the importance of developing preventive interventions that target the specific needs of distinct subgroups of adolescents.     

The role of collective mobilization in the divergent performance of the rural economies of China and India (1950–2005)

ABSTRACT

This paper argues that the divergent performance of the rural economies of China and India after 1950 was a product of the different capabilities of the Chinese and Indian governments to mobilize the labor force and financial resources of the rural population. By mobilizing unpaid labor and the financial resources of the villagers through mediation by the collectives (before 1984) and local administrations (from 1984 to the abolition of agricultural taxation and compulsory rural labor mobilization in 2006), the Chinese state developed rural infrastructure and the quality of the labor force at a pace and geographical scope that was far beyond its limited fiscal capacity. Efforts by the Indian state to establish rural organizations with similar mobilization capabilities failed due to the effective opposition of well-entrenched political and economic interests in the countryside. Unable to mobilize the labor and financial resources of the villagers, the Indian government relied primarily on its limited fiscal resources, which produced a much slower development of physical infrastructure and labor force quality. These are the primary reasons why China’s rural economy developed much more rapidly than India’s, which contributed significantly to the divergence of their national economies in the post-1950 era.