If not a clash, then what? Huntington, Nishida Kitaro and the politics of civilizations

The debate surrounding Samuel Huntington's influential Clashof Civilizations thesis has been focused too narrowly on theaccuracy of his categorization of civilizations. This focushas left the problem of the alleged inter-civilizational orderincompletely theorized. In particular, two theoretical issueshave been overlooked: first, can we really assume that civilizationsare capable of and prone to clashing as if they were statesand, second, surely a theory of global civilizations must besubject to itself, as a product of one such civilization. Thispaper explores the model of the inter-civilizational order theorizedoutside the ‘West’, by Nishida Kitarô in interwarJapan. A comparison with Huntington's vision demonstrates someradical differences in these models and their consequences forthe role of Japan in the so-called ‘new world order’of the 21st century. The conclusion suggests a need to theorizeinter-civilizational relations as seriously as inter-nationalrelations, but on different philosophical foundations, sincethe two describe qualitatively different aspects of coincidentworld orders. In particular, this paper calls attention to thespecial practical importance of non-Western traditions of politicalthought in an inter-civilizational world.     

Book reviews

Transcaucasia: ancient, recent and modern

R.G. Suny, editor. Transcaucasia: Nationalism and Social Change (Essays in the history of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia). University of Michigan in association with the Wilson Center's Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies. Michigan Slavic Publications, East European Series No. 2. 1983.

Aspects of the job situation in Uzbekistan: part two

Nancy Lubin. Labour and Nationality in Central Asia: An Uneasy Compromise. London, Macmillan, in association with St Antony's College, Oxford, 1984, xxi + 305 pp, map, tables, appendices, glossary, index. Foreword by Murray Feshbach. Cloth, £25.00. ISBN 0333 36739 1.     

Devolution Paradox and the US South

There is an inherent trade-off in federalism regarding representation and equity. With the devolution of responsibilities to regional governments offering increased representation, there comes the inequity of services provided by some governments and not others. However, citizens in these federations may want the best of both worlds—desiring regional control but without the regional policy variation. This tension, dubbed ‘the devolution paradox’ in a study of federal countries in Europe, was less apparent in one key group of regions—those with historic ties through language, culture, or experience. This article examines US respondents to identify whether the devolution paradox is evident in this country and looks specifically at the South, a region with long-standing distinctiveness. We find that there is evidence of the devolution paradox among the American public and that the South is indeed different.     

Breaking The Cycle Of Intergenerational Child Maltreatment: A Case For Active Efforts For Dependent Minor Parents And Their Children In State Custody

Dependent minor parents placed in foster care with their children often face significant hurdles. These parents are responsible to make caregiving decisions for their children, while they themselves fall under the caregiving responsibility of the state child welfare system. As such, dependent minor parents live in a “twilight zone” – they hold full parental rights, but limited rights as teenagers. For a number of reasons, the children of minor parents in foster care often come into state custody. When two generations are in foster care at the same time, states must balance the safety and best interests of the children with the rights of minor parents to care for their own children. Currently, the state child welfare system is only required to provide “reasonable efforts” to reunify parents with children when they have been removed from their care for abuse, neglect, or dependency. However, dependent minor parents in state custody often require more supportive services in order to successfully reunify with their children than in a typical child welfare case. This article places the circumstance just described in the context of dependent minor parents’ constitutionally protected rights, and advocates for a higher standard which would require states to provide “active efforts” to protect and preserve these young families.     

Convict Criminology and the Struggle for Inclusion

Convict Criminology (CC) began in the early 1990s as a reaction to the then current state of academic criminology that did not adequately reflect the voices of convicted felons. Since its beginnings, CC has attempted to draw attention to a range of problems created by the criminal justice apparatus and defenders of the status quo. Dr. Joanne Belknap’s 2014 ASC presidential address and subsequent article presented an argument that stressed the importance of activism to be considered as part of criminological research. In the process, she reviewed her career and then criticized the field of Critical Criminology, in particular Convict Criminology. The article, however, ignored the numerous efforts that CC has engaged in to build an inclusive group school, movement, organization and network that includes the diverse voices of Ph.D. educated convicts and excons, and overall reflected a superficial understanding of the history and intent of Convict Criminology. This article attempts to explain the shortcomings of Belknap’s article and clarifies misunderstandings.     

Accommodating Religion and Shifting Burdens

With some qualifications, this article endorses Brian Leiter’s argument that religious accommodation should not shift burdens from believers to non-believers. It argues that religious believers should take responsibility for their beliefs and for meeting the demands of their beliefs. It then examines the implications of that argument for British law on indirect discrimination (disparate impact) as it relates to religion or belief: burden-shifting from believers to employers and providers of goods and services should be deemed acceptable only insofar as the burden incurred by the employer or provider is ‘insignificant’. Legal exemptions should satisfy a similar test. Why should there be religious accommodation at all, even if it entails no significant burden-shifting? The author agrees with Leiter in finding the most plausible answer in the claims of conscience rather than in general theories of equality or features special to religion. Those claims can reasonably be made in respect of liberty of conscience but also when conscience is merely disadvantaged.     

Explaining the failure of the ASEAN economic community: the primacy of domestic political economy

All reliable indicators suggest that ASEAN's (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Economic Community (AEC) will not be successfully established by its 2015 deadline. Why? Against technocratic, realist and constructivist accounts, this article offers an explanation rooted in the political economy of ASEAN's member-states. Economic liberalisation agreements promote the rescaling of economic governance, involving regulatory changes that may radically redistribute power and resources. Consequently, they are heavily contested between coalitions of social and political forces, without outcomes reflecting the outcome of these struggles. The argument is demonstrated by exploring the uneven sectoral liberalisation achieved under the AEC, the constrained integration of ASEAN's energy markets, and the limited deregulation of skilled labour migration.     

Congressional dysfunction: An information processing perspective

The public's approval of Congress is at an all time low. The parties seem to have taken the legislative process hostage for their own electoral gain. Whereas traditional arguments about congressional dysfunction focus on polarized voting coalitions or outputs – particularly legislation – in this article we highlight congressional information processing and how it has changed in this highly partisan era. By coding congressional hearings according to the kind of information on which they focus, we find that members of Congress are receiving one‐sided information to a greater degree and are spending less time learning about potential solutions. We use these results to make numerous recommendations for improving how Congress gathers its information.