Nationalism, Ethnicity and Self-Determination: A Paradigm Shift?

An ongoing paradigm shift is giving birth to a more multidimensional understanding of the relationship between nationalism, sovereignty, self determination and democratic governance. A common element across the various versions of the new paradigm is the dispersal of democratic governance across multiple and overlapping jurisdictions. Governmental processes are no longer seen as discrete, centralised and homogenous as in the old nation-state model, but as asymmetrical, multilayered and multicultural, with devolution into multiple jurisdictions. These changes have hardly affected the two main conceptual frameworks that dominate the study of nationalism, Modernism and Ethnosymbolism. As a result, they risk becoming irrelevant to the new forms of national self determination, asymmetrical governance and shared sovereignty. Modernism and Ethnosymbolism insist that nationalism seeks to equate the nation with a sovereign state, while in reality the overwhelming majority of nations are stateless and unable to build nation states, as they often inhabit territories shared with other nations. The paradigm shift occurs precisely with the realisation that nation state sovereignty is no longer a feasible solution to the demands of stateless nations. Ethnosymbolism is in a much better position to adapt to the paradigm shift provided it abandons the claim that the nation state is the best shell for the nation.

Occupation and Breast Cancer: a Canadian Case-Control Study

A local collaborative process was launched in Windsor, Ontario, Canada to explore the role of occupation as a risk factor for cancer. An initial hypothesis-generating study found an increased risk for breast cancer among women aged 55 years or younger who had ever worked in farming. On the basis of this result, a 2-year case–control study was undertaken to evaluate the lifetime occupational histories of women with breast cancer. The results indicate that women with breast cancer were nearly three times more likely to have worked in agriculture when compared to the controls (OR = 2.80 [95% CI, 1.6–4.8]). The risk for those who worked in agriculture and subsequently worked in automotive-related manufacturing was further elevated (OR = 4.0 [95% CI, 1.7–9.9]). The risk for those employed in agriculture and subsequently employed in health care was also elevated (OR = 2.3 [95% CI, 1.1–4.6]). Farming tended to be among the earlier jobs worked, often during adolescence. While this article has limitations including the small sample size and the lack of information regarding specific exposures, it does provide evidence of a possible association between farming and breast cancer. The findings indicate the need for further study to determine which aspects of farming may be of biological importance and to better understand the significance of timing of exposure in terms of cancer risk.