| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
112367
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Earlier discussions of care have both insisted on its importance to political life and decried the unequal burden borne by women in care work. Yet they have failed to demonstrate why for reasons above and beyond the instrumental ends it serves. We ought to make the cultivation of an ongoing practice of caregiving a political priority. This article redefines and reframes care as a thoroughly critical and deeply embodied practice that is central to the flourishing of human beings. By way of Aristotle, I situate philia and embodied practices of care at the center of the shaping of the citizen and demonstrate a deeper significance of relations of care to our political life. When this is done alongside attention to habituation to right action and thinking, we can see more clearly how a particular kind of embodied politics can activate and sustain an ethic that cultivates citizens' capacities and desires to care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134779
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the ethics of peacebuilding. It argues that the perspectives of two moral theories currently dominate peacebuilding discourse: duty-based and consequentialist thinking. While these moral theory perspectives possess merits there are also important limits, which are particularly important for peacebuilding. The article argues that if peacebuilding is genuinely to contribute to collective flourishing then we need to recognize and act upon a more holistic ethics of peacebuilding practice. Considerations drawn from ethics of care and virtue ethics are therefore proposed to expand considerations of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘right’ within peacebuilding interventions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
134992
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is a widespread sense amongst theorists of genocide and other violent atrocities that ideology matters. But in spite of this agreement all is not well with actual efforts to theorise ideology's role. Theoretical and empirical coverage has been uneven, and there has been little if any effort to incorporate theories and research from the actual specialist field of contemporary ideology studies. As a result, overarching theoretical accounts of the role ideology plays in violent atrocities remain limited and problematic. This article aims to encourage theorists to think about ideology in a more systematic and productive fashion by analysing four questions: (a) what do we mean by ideology?; (b) who, in cases of atrocity, might be relevantly affected by ideology?; (c) how do these people come to be influenced by atrocity-justifying ideologies?; and (d) how might ideology encourage these people to commit, or permit, mass violence? In discussing these four questions, I aim to clear up a number of misconceptions or vagaries that frequent current analyses of ideology in works on atrocity and political violence. I ultimately offer a suggestive account of six recurring “justificatory mechanisms” which collectively describe some of the common features of ideology's role across cases of mass atrocity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
001863
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Edinburgh, The University Press, 1999.
|
| Description |
xx,208p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780748612444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 042851 | 179.9/NEW 042851 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|