| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
186803
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The purpose of this article is to explore what explains radicalization of migrant communities and their families in their home country. Contemporary scholarship on radicalization has identified a broad range of explanatory variables, such as poverty, discrimination and/or lack of social mobility, that have the capacity to push individuals toward violence and radical beliefs. Yet, there is still a significant gap in current literature over the question why entire ethnic or national migrant groups are more represented in radical groups than others despite similar experiences. Using the case of Tajik migrants in Russia this article posits that the legacy of collective grievances and cyclical, systemic injustices, rather than a specific or personal experience of discrimination or mistreatment, are more accurate in explaining radicalization. The article pays specific attention to the role of religious or social remittances and, given a shared set of experiences, the susceptibility of the migrant's own family in the home country to the same radical ideology—despite their never leaving their country's borders. The findings suggest that the home country context, the collective account of society, is a more substantial predictor of radicalization than reception alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
150796
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
DelhI, Kalpaz Publications, 2012.
|
| Description |
304p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9788178359236
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 058937 | 382.0954/JAI 058937 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
177963
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The reform era has been associated with the waning authority of the Chinese Communist Party in urban society. While existing studies have investigated the Party’s self-reinvention through the incorporation into its ranks of professional groups and the new socioeconomic elite, much less attention has been given to how the Party has rebuilt its presence in neighborhoods among urban residents and migrant communities. Drawing on a case study in Kunming, this article argues that the Party has sought to deepen its territorial reach and regain political relevance by emphasizing welfare provision and service delivery at the grassroots. The rise of service-centered Party-building has seen increased co-optation of previously independent social organizations as “partners” and “collaborators” in service provision. Enrolling NGOs enables the Party to both revamp its image as a paternalistic redistributor and regain its ability to mobilize the masses through appropriating the vocabulary of participation and volunteerism that social organizations espouse. If in co-opting the professional and business elite the Party has successfully fused Party authority with market power, at the urban grassroots it has appropriated social forces to reestablish its presence and bolster its legitimacy, with important implications for the autonomy and professionalism of NGOs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
111859
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Through the prism of current state discourses in Ireland on engagement with the Irish diaspora, this article examines the empirical merit of the related concepts of 'diaspora' and 'transnationalism'. Drawing on recent research on how Irish identity is articulated and negotiated by Irish people in England, this study suggests a worked distinction between the concepts of 'diaspora' and 'transnationalism'. Two separate discourses of authenticity are compared and contrasted: they rest on a conceptualisation of Irish identity as transnational and diasporic, respectively. I argue that knowledge of contemporary Ireland is constructed as sufficiently important that claims on diasporic Irishness are constrained by the discourse of authentic Irishness as transnational. I discuss how this affects the identity claims of second-generation Irish people, the relationship between conceptualisations of Irishness as diasporic within Ireland and 'lived' diasporic Irish identities, and implications for state discourses of diaspora engagement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|