Recent Book: The Underside of Revolution: The Police and the People: French Popular Protest, 1789–1820

1970 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 341-341
Author(s):  
Quaestor
2020 ◽  
pp. 19-62
Author(s):  
Laura Lohman

Focusing on the period 1783–1792, this chapter examines how music was used as a tool of propaganda in the early American republic. Americans used music to craft a central myth of the nation, the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Music was an important tool of propaganda as debates over how to address crucial financial problems impacting individuals, the states, and the federal government culminated in efforts to restructure the government through the Constitution. As advocates of a more powerful federal government repeatedly turned to musical propaganda, songwriters wrote music to contain popular protest, urge ratification, define the relationship between the people and the new federal government, and promote allegiance to the newly structured government during Washington’s first term as president.


1997 ◽  
Vol 30 (119) ◽  
pp. 377-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Garnham

In his recent book dealing with the history of duelling in Ireland, James Kelly comes to the conclusion that eighteenth-century Ireland was essentially ‘a violent society’, peopled at least in part ‘by wilful men who put their individual reputations above their lives, their families, their religion, and the law’. Such comments seem to continue a well-established tradition of interpretation that goes back to the nineteenth century. However, this image of a society in which violence was endemic, and conflict a feature of everyday life, has not gone unquestioned by historians. For example, Thomas Bartlett and Sean Connolly have instead noted the relatively controlled nature of popular protest, the early disappearance of banditry, and the reliance, until the very end of the century, on local enforcement of the law, as possible indications that Ireland may not have been as disorderly a society as has been suggested. These differing interpretations have, in turn, an obvious relevance to the wider debate on how eighteenth-century Ireland should be perceived: as a society irreconcilably and uniquely divided by religious and ethnic conflicts, or as a more or less typical part of the European ancient régime.


2002 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Boskovic

Noções relacionadas ao "self" e à subjectividade inspiram diferentes respostas e diferentes estratégias teóricas para sua compreensão. Em seu livro relativamente recente (Minima Ethnographica, 1999), Michael Jackson postula toda uma nova teoria baseada no aspecto existential e fenomenológico das relações – não apenas entre indivíduos, mas também entre nações, pessoas e vários grupos. O artigo apresenta um sumário e uma análise desta teoria, comparando-a a alguns trabalhos recentes sobre individualidade “transcendente” (Nigel Rapport, Transcendent Individual, 1997), assim como a algumas perspectivas não-tão-recentes, mas ainda extremamente viáveis (Mauss, Lévi-Strauss). O artigo aponta para alguns problemas com a “volta intersubjetiva,” especialmente em que ela requer que se aceite previamente todo o conjunto de premissas filósoficas nas quais ela se baseia. Mas o que acontece quando não se aceita estas premissas? Sugiro que a noção de “subjetividade” poderia ser na verdade mais útil – especialmente se limitada ao real contexto cultural em que é usada. Também sugiro que o que precisamos mais do que nunca na antropologia contemporânea é voltar nossa atenção às pessoas que estudamos e aos modos em que elas mesmas formulam e organizam o mundo em que todos vivemos. Abstract The notions related to the the “self” and subjectivity inspire different responses and different strategies. In his relatively recent book (Minima Ethnographica, 1999) Michael Jackson postulates a whole new theory based on the existential/phenomenological framework of relationships – not only between individuals, but also between nations, peoples and various groups. The article presents a summary and an analysis of this theory, comparing it to some recent works about “transcending” individuality (Nigel Rapport, Transcendent Individual, 1997), as well as to some not-so-recent, but still extremely viable approaches (Mauss, Lévi-Strauss). The article points to some problems with the “intersubjective turn,” especially inasmuch it requires that one accepts (in advance) the whole set of philosophical premises on which it is based. But what happens when one does not accept these premises? I suggest that the notion of “subjectivity” could be actually a more useful one – especially if limited to the actual cultural context where it is used. I also suggest that what we need more than ever in contemporary anthropology is turning our attention to the people we study and the ways in which they themselves formulate and organize the world we all live in.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document