Challenges of the Cooperative Movement In Addressing Issues of Human Security In the Context of a Neoliberal World: the Case of Argentina

The response of some Argentine workers to the 2001 crisis of neoliberalism gave rise to a movement of worker-recovered enterprises (empresas recuperadas por sus trabajadores or ERTs). The ERTs have emerged as former employees took over the control of generally fraudulently bankrupt factories and enterprises. The analysis of the ERT movement within the neoliberal global capitalist order will draw from William Robinson’s (2004) neo-Gramscian concept of hegemony. The theoretical framework of neo-Gramscian hegemony will be used in exposing the contradictions of capitalism on the global, national, organizational and individual scales and the effects they have on the ERT movement. The ERT movement has demonstrated strong level of resilience, despite the numerous economic, social, political and cultural challenges and limitations it faces as a consequence of the implementation of neoliberalism globally. ERTs have shown that through non-violent protests, democratic principles of management and social inclusion, it is possible to start constructing an alternative social order that is based on the cooperative principles of “honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others” (ICA 2007) as opposed to secrecy, exclusiveness, individualism and self-interestedness. In order to meet this “utopian” vision, it is essential to push the limits of the possible within the current social order and broaden the alliance to include the organized members of the working class, such as the members of trade unions, and the unorganized, such as the unemployed and underemployed. Though marginal in number and size, the members of ERTs have given rise to a model that is worth exploring in other countries and regions burdened by the contradictory workings of capitalism. Today, ERTs serve as living proofs that workers too are capable of successfully running businesses, not capitalists alone.

Eros and Transgression in an Age of Immanence: Georges Bataille’s (Religious) Critique of Kinsey

This paper explores the religious implications of eroticism in Western culture since the Sexual Revolution, a period at once applauded for its open and immanent view of sexuality and denounced for its shamelessness and promiscuity. After discussing the work and effects of Alfred C. Kinsey, the father of the Sexual Revolution, I focus on a critical appraisal of Kinsey written by French theorist Georges Bataille (“Kinsey, the Underworld and Work,” in L’Erotisme, 1957). Bataille situates contemporary Western sexuality within a larger historical movement towards the “desacralization” of all aspects of human life: sex, under the scientific gaze of the Kinsey team, became simply another “object” to be analyzed and classified, and “good” sex defined solely in terms of frequency and explosiveness of orgasm. For many, including Hugh Hefner, this approach to sex occasioned a refreshing awakening from the long dark night of Victorian sexual repression. However, as Bataille’s protégé Foucault has shown, the scientific approach to sexuality often masks a desire to control and delimit sexual behaviour, not “liberate” it. Moreover, Bataille makes the point that the desacralization of sexuality denudes sex of a vital component—eroticism—which is necessary for real pleasure and ecstasy. Beyond the “moral” critiques one often hears leveled against Kinsey and his work, Bataille provides a “religious” critique, one that stands, perhaps surprisingly, on the “near side” of sexuality.

Parameters of Reform and Unification in Modern Japanese Buddhist Thought: Murakami Senshō and Critical Buddhism

Reform is a word that, one might easily say, characterizes more than any other the history and development of Buddhism. Yet, it must also be said that reform movements in East Asian Buddhism have often taken on another goal—harmony or unification; that is, a desire not only to reconstruct a more worthy form of Buddhism, but to simultaneously bring together all existing forms under a single banner, in theory if not in practice. This paper explores some of the tensions between the desire for reform and the quest for harmony in modern Japanese Buddhism thought, by comparing two developments: the late 19th century movement towards ‘New Buddhism’ (shin Bukkyō) as exemplified by Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), and the late 20th century movement known as ‘Critical Buddhism’ (hihan Bukkyō), as found in the works of Matsumoto Shirō 松本史朗 and Hakamaya Noriaki 袴谷憲昭. In all that has been written about Critical Buddhism, in both Japanese and English, very little attention has been paid to the place of the movement within the larger traditions of Japanese Buddhist reform. Here I reconsider Critical Buddhism in relation to the concerns of the previous, much larger trends towards Buddhist reform that emerged almost exactly 100 years previous—the so-called shin Bukkyō or New Buddhism of the late-Meiji era. Shin Bukkyō is a catch-all term that includes the various writings and activities of Inoue Enryō, Shaku Sōen, and Kiyozawa Manshi, as well as the so-called Daijō-hibussetsuron, a broad term used (often critically) to describe Buddhist writers who suggested that Mahāyāna Buddhism is not, in fact, the Buddhism taught by the ‘historical’ Buddha Śākyamuni. Of these, I will make a few general remarks about Daijō-hibusseturon, before turning attention more specifically to the work of Murakami Senshō, in order to flesh out some of the similarities and differences between his attempt to construct a ‘unified Buddhism’ and the work of his late-20th century avatars, the Critical Buddhists. Though a number of their aims and ideas overlap, I argue that there remain fundamental differences with respect to the ultimate purposes of Buddhist reform. This issue hinges on the implications of key terms such as ‘unity’ and ‘harmony’ as well as the way doctrinal history is categorized and understood, but it also relates to issues of ideology and the use and abuse of Buddhist doctrines in 20th-century politics.

The Nightmare of Actual Identity": Franco-Algerian Literature after Liberation"

In this thesis I examine the issues of postcolonial Algerian identity expressed in literature, and the difficulty of defining an Algerian identity independent of French influence. I analyze and contextualize three novels (Le Polygone etoile by Kateb Yacine,L'Amour, la fantasia by Assia Djebar, and Le Village de l'allemand ou le journal des freres Schiller) representative of their respective periods. I explore the evolution of expressions of identity through post-liberation Algeria. The years immediately following decolonization are marked by the effort to return to aprecolonial blank slate, an effort that Yacine cautions against. The 1980s and 1990s are most concerned with re-inserting Algeria into the Western historical discourse, and the most recent literature moves beyond decolonization to discuss the current Islamistchallenge and immigration. Among the pertinent issues are language, oral vs. written traditions, the often blatant absence of Algerians and women from the accounts in the French colonial archives, and, of course, the Self/Other binary. I have found that theserepresentative authors and texts use asynchronic time, fragmented narrative, re-written history, and expressions of violence in an attempt to cope with the colonial period and decolonization. I show that these authors provide a commentary on those who have triedto erase their French side, but with little success. Ultimately, though in different ways, each author writes that Algerians much accept their French past and move beyond it,rather than fighting their collective history.

Does Israel Follow the Law? A Critical Analysis of Israel's Application of the International Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Occupied Territories

Israel's occupation of territories it captured in 1967 has become one of the longest and most controversial occupations of the last fifty years. Eschewing the traditional political analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this paper aims to explore whether Israel has adequately applied international law in the occupied territories, in particular, the law of belligerent occupation. The two actors under assessment are the Israeli government, particularly its military which enforces and maintains the law in the territories, and the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power of review over military actions in the territories. The particular issues of the occupation that are critically analyzed are the general legal framework that Israel established in the territories, Israel's civilian settlement policy in territories, and Israel's construction of a barrier in the West Bank. This paper concludes that Israel has incorrectly applied the legal framework of belligerent occupation by refusing to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention; it has wrongly concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories conform with international law; yet it has rightly concluded that the construction of the barrier in the West Bank is permissible under international law, in contrast to the conclusion of the much publicized International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the 'Wall.' Along with these general assessments, the author will also provide some historical and political insight into why the Israeli government and the Supreme Court may have applied the law in the way that they did.