Despite the importance of biodiversity, humans value some species more highly than others. Placing different levels of value on species can impact nonhuman animal welfare and conservation. Feelings are central to value recognition. It’s critical to better understand how to foster positive feelings toward different species. The purpose of this study was to test the Transcendent Feelings of Animal Valuation scale and evaluate the influence of a wildlife sanctuary visit on feelings toward moose and coyotes. The scale was piloted with 29 visitors and demonstrated good reliability. It was then administered to 100 visitors. At baseline, participants had a significantly stronger emotional valuation of moose compared to coyote, consistent with negative social constructions of coyotes. Both moose and coyote scores increased significantly from pre- to post-visit, suggesting that exposure to wildlife in a sanctuary setting can increase feelings of valuation toward diverse species. The experience may also influence wildlife stewardship.
No political regime can be entirely immune from authoritarian temptations. This article focuses on the distinctive sources and dynamics that apply to post-revolutionary regimes. To prevail in bringing about radical and irreversible change they will require an effective security apparatus that overcomes the backlash that will arise from the previous order. These security requirements provide the first source of authoritarian temptation, but there are three more. Once the regime is firmly established the new rulers can choose what restraints on their conduct to accept. It is tempting to dispense with healthy channels of feedback. Moreover, even the most successful of revolutionary regimes polarise opinion between the old order and the new. And when material hardships arise loyalty may be rewarded above market rationality. In conjunction these amount to a serious set of authoritarian temptations. But there are also some countervailing considerations. A durably successful radical regime must counterbalance the requirements for unity and discipline against the need for creativity and adaptability. Initial emancipatory ambitions may be updated and renewed in order to inspire future generations and legitimise the revolutionary process. Such regimes can seesaw between authoritarian and empowering tendencies, rather than relying on repression alone to keep them in existence. Their legitimation strategy will contain three main components: i) reaffirming and updating their emancipatory origins; ii) downplaying/excusing any authoritarian “deviations”; iii) projecting future prospects for inclusionary development.
Do local or grassroots level face-to-face self-governing communities have a place in theories of institutional cosmopolitanism? I pose this question in response to Luis use of B. R. Ambedkar’s ideas to defend an instrumentally oriented democratic institutional cosmopolitanism that counters the arrogance objections raised against cosmopolitanism. Cabrera interprets Ambedkar as an exponent of political humility and having an instrumentalist approach to democracy. My response expands on a connection Cabrera briefly discusses – between humility and humiliation – and makes two observations. First, Ambedkar makes a distinction between institutions of democracy and democracy as a form of society. The latter is an end-in-itself synonymous with the practice of political humility. Second, Gandhi’s vision of self-governing village republics, which Ambedkar rejects, with universal franchise and guaranteed representation for marginalized groups that Ambedkar advocated at the national level could have been spaces for practicing political humility locally.
The emergence of left populism, mainly in Southern Europe, in the decade of 2010, questioned the impression that populism in Europe was only right-wing oriented. On the other hand, the expansion of populism as a common denomination favored the perception that all populisms were the same, regardless of ideology: a threat to democracy. It explains why many left parties are reluctant towards being labelled as populist. Besides, left-wing populism connected with the one from Latin America one decade before where the tensions between democratization and authoritarianism have been widely discussed. The European public opinion usually relates the Latin American left populist governments with authoritarianism, associated with the situation in Venezuela first with Hugo Chávez and, especially, now with Nicolás Maduro. For this reason, left populism in Europe was made suspicious of being authoritarian.
This article engages contributions from Cricket Keating, Natasha Behl, Fred Lee and Jaby Mathew, and Brooke Ackerly’s introduction, in a symposium on The Humble Cosmopolitan. It first notes insights taken for the development of a democratic cosmopolitanism oriented to political humility from the work of Indian Dalit-rights champion and constitutional architect B.R. Ambedkar, and from interviews conducted with globally oriented Dalit activists. It then considers Mathew’s concerns about accommodation of the moral importance of local democratic practices, and Keating’s about the book’s emphasis on advancing institutional over attitudinal changes. It addresses issues Behl raises around attention to alternate conceptions of citizenship, e.g., ones which would center Dalit women’s voices; and Lee’s concerns about whether the model can recognize the importance of subaltern nationalisms. Responses focus on ways in which the model seeks to enable individuals to challenge political arrogance from a position of co-equal citizenship in regional and global institutions.
This article focuses on the promise of grounded normative theory in Luis Cabrera’s The Humble Cosmopolitan. The article celebrates Cabrera’s use of grounded normative theory as a way to center the lived experience of politically marginalized groups while also being attentive to the politics of knowledge production. My concern is not with the methodology itself; rather, it is with Cabrera’s partial use of it. I ask, how might the analysis of the book change if the author considered different intellectual histories of citizenship rooted in feminist and critical approaches? How might the theoretical assumptions and justifications of the book change if the author challenged his own assumptions, especially as they relate to the epistemic authority of Dalit women?
This piece introduces a symposium on Luis Cabrera’s The Humble Cosmopolitan (Oxford University Press, 2020), which is a comparative political theory text in three senses. First, it expands conventional conversation partners to include authors who are engaged in constructing their nation out of a colonial context, principally, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is a scholar, politician, Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee for the newly independent India, and Dalit activist (“Dalit” being the self-applied term for those outside of the Hindu caste hierarchy) and Madhavrao Sadashivrao Golwalkar, the historical thought leader of Hindu nationalism. Second, Cabrera reaches across the colonized-colonizer divide, engaging with intra-nation difference, enabling cross-time comparisons, broadening the moral and political meanings of, contributions to, and criticisms of cosmopolitan thinking. Third, using grounded normative theory, it is methodologically comparative, utilizing the author’s own empirical research through over 150 interviews of activists and politicians from both Indian and European cosmopolitan and anti-cosmopolitan struggles.
In this review of Andrew March’s book, The Caliphate of Man, I shall focus on one central concept and one central claim to be found in the book: the concept of Islamic democracy, and the claim that al-Ghannūshī’s vision of popular sovereignty “reflects a genuine intellectual revolution in modern Islamic thought.” I suggest that the concept of Islamic democracy is logically possible only on the assumption of a purely procedural, value-neutral conception of democracy, and that the vision of the umma [the demos, populus] to be found in al-Ghannūshī is not such as to make the notion of popular sovereignty desirable by modern standards. I will suggest further that liberal Islamist thinkers stand to offer a superior view of Islamic democracy, one toward which al-Ghannūshī himself seems to be moving in his post-Revolutionary political practice.