Conceptual Decolonization of Space: Worldview and Language in Anishinaabe Akiing

This dissertation examines the role of worldview and language in the cultural framework of American Indian people. In it I develop a theory of worldview which can be defined as an interrelated set of logics that orients a culture to space (land), time, the rest of life, and provides a prescription for understanding that life. Considering the strong links between language and worldview, it is methodologically necessary to focus on a particular language and culture to decolonize concepts of and relationships to land. In particular, this dissertation focuses on an Anishinaabe worldview as consisting of four components, which are; (1) an intimate relationship to a localized space; (2) a cyclical understanding of time; (3) living in a web of relatedness with all life, and (4) understanding the world around us in terms of balance. The methodological approach draws from Anishinaabemowin, the traditional Anishinaabe language, as a starting place for negotiating a linguistic-conceptual analysis of these logics to decolonize the understandings of land, time, relatedness and balance. This dissertation helps to demonstrate that the religious language as codified in the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution as religious freedom is unable to carry the meaning of the fundamental relationships to land that are embedded in Anishinaabemowin and culture. I compare the above Anishinaabe worldview to that of the eurowestern culture in America, which is; (1) the domination of space; (2) a linear progression of time; (3) a hierarchical organization of life; and (4) understanding the world as a Manichean battle of good versus evil. This dissertation seeks to decolonize American Indian translational methodologies and undermine the assumptions of eurowestern cultural universality.

The Affective Dimensions of Social Controversy

Social controversy is a sustained, mediated debate between at least two oppositional parties which is more than just a difference of opinion; rather it is a persistent conflict over the political and cultural implications that dominant forms of communicative reasoning, practices, and norms have for a public. Simply put, during social controversies the norms guiding public life can be negotiated, reaffirmed, negated, and/or transformed. This can lead to progressive political, cultural, and/or social change in some instances, while establishing or reifying conservative and even oppressive norms, practices, and laws in others. Building upon Olson and Goodnight's (1994) theoretical and methodological framework of social controversy, this dissertation argues that scholars should analyze the role affect plays in this type of conflict as a means to address the regulation of public conduct as well as public discourse. The rhetorical and argumentative significance of the affective dimensions of social controversy have been conceptualized and analyzed via an examination of emotion-based claims and affective states that have become salient, discernable and/or apprehendable during specific public disagreements. Such a conceptualization demonstrates that critical insights regarding the norms that guide public conduct, the role risk and vulnerability play in the regulation of individuals' public behavior, and the relationship between affect and citizenship can be gained by focusing on a controversy's affective dimensions. To highlight the importance of the study of affect in social controversy as well as better understand the larger critical significance affect theory has for rhetorical and argumentation studies, this dissertation has analyzed the affective dimensions of three conflicts. They are: the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse social controversy, the International Freedom Center social controversy, and the controversy over the 2004 French ban on conspicuous religious attire in public schools. The findings from this dissertation that have specific and general implications for future work in the field of controversy as well as rhetoric and argumentation, respectively.

A Qualitative Study of Potential Suicide Risk Factors Among Soldiers Transitioning From Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom

Using qualitative methods, this study explored potential risk factors for suicide, as defined by Joiner's Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicide (IPTS), in a population of Soldiers returning from deployment in Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). Sixty-eight Soldiers participated in semi-structured interviews during the period of transition from deployment to the garrison environment. These Soldiers were asked about changes in perception of pain, experiences of perceived burdensomeness, and lack of belonging. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed. A phenomenological methodology was employed (Creswell, 2006). In response to questions about perception of pain, Soldiers discussed both positive and negative changes in their experience of physical and emotional pain. When asked about experiences of perceived burdensomeness, Soldiers described changes related to deployment, such as injuries and combat related guilt, as well as changes related to transition from combat, including care seeking, reintegration into family and society, and emotional distancing. Regarding the experience of lack of belonging, Soldiers described difficulties related to the deployment, such as combat injuries, leadership roles, and individual differences, as well as difficulties related to reintegration such as symptoms of emotional numbing and distancing. Findings highlight the potential utility of IPTS in exploring both acute and chronic suicide risk factors associated with deployment and transition, as well as potential treatment strategies that may reduce suicide risk in the population of Soldiers during reintegration.

Everyday Indivisibility: How Exclusive Religious Practices Explain Variation in Subnational Violence Outcomes

This project explores the puzzle of religious violence variation. Religious actors initiate conflict at a higher rate than their secular counterparts, last longer, are more deadly, and are less prone to negotiated termination. Yet the legacy of religious peacemakers on the reduction of violence is undeniable. Under what conditions does religion contribute to escalated violence and under what conditions does it contribute to peace? I argue that more intense everyday practices of group members, or high levels of orthopraxy, create dispositional indivisibilities that make violence a natural alternative to bargaining. Subnational armed groups with members whose practices are exclusive and isolating bind together through ritual practice, limit the acceptable decisions of leaders, and have prolonged timeframes, all of which result in higher levels of intensity, intransigence and resolve during violent conflict. The theory challenges both instrumentalist and constructivist understandings of social identity and violence. To support this argument, I construct an original cross-national data-set that employs ethnographic data on micro-level religious practices for 724 subnational armed groups in both civil wars and terror campaigns. Using this data, I build an explanatory “religious practice index” for each observation and examine its relationship with conflict outcomes. Findings suggest that exclusive practice groups fight significantly longer with more intensity and negotiate less. I also apply the practice model to qualitative cases. Fieldwork in the West Bank and Sierra Leone reveals that groups with more exclusive religious practicing membership are principle contributors to violence, whereas those with inclusive practices can contribute to peace. The project concludes with a discussion about several avenues for future research and identifies the practical policy applications to better identify and combat religious extremism.

Influence of Religious Institutions in the Creation and Implementation of Public Policy: The Case of Roman Catholic Argentina and Secular Uruguay

The strong presence of religious institutions in Latin America, especially the Roman Catholic Church, and their participation in the creation and implementation of public policy within a sovereign state can be counter-productive for the social development and progress of that specific country. Argentina and Uruguay and the social controversy of social issues of abortion and same-sex marriage are used as examples to establish the accuracy of the above statement. Historical, statistical, and legislative information about both topics in both countries show that the political power that the Roman Catholic Church has in the region is more an outdated influence than a reality, and the principle of secularization appears to be the most stabilizing philosophy for modern nations.