慈善,政治和文化战争

Debs Grayson
{"title":"慈善,政治和文化战争","authors":"Debs Grayson","doi":"10.3898/soun:81.04.2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Debates about the legitimacy of different kinds of civil society action have increasingly come to be framed in the language of ‘culture wars’, and this is contributing to the closing down of space for civil society in the UK. The focus of the article is on restrictions being experienced by the charity sector, while drawing out the implications for other parts of civil society. A recent example is the National Trust, which in 2020 faced censure for publishing a report on the historical links between its properties and slavery and colonialism. In this case, as in others, although the culture-wars framing was novel, there were continuities with longstanding debates over the legitimate space for civil society action, often discussed in terms of the obligations on charities to avoid being ‘political’. Specific modes of discipline across a range of legal frameworks are described, with a more detailed account of how these dynamics have affected Muslim civil society since the launch of the War on Terror, especially through Prevent. The article contributes to academic and activist debates about the best ways to organise to achieve progressive ends in an increasingly hostile and authoritarian political context.","PeriodicalId":403400,"journal":{"name":"Soundings: a journal of politics and culture","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Charity, politics and the culture wars\",\"authors\":\"Debs Grayson\",\"doi\":\"10.3898/soun:81.04.2022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Debates about the legitimacy of different kinds of civil society action have increasingly come to be framed in the language of ‘culture wars’, and this is contributing to the closing down of space for civil society in the UK. The focus of the article is on restrictions being experienced by the charity sector, while drawing out the implications for other parts of civil society. A recent example is the National Trust, which in 2020 faced censure for publishing a report on the historical links between its properties and slavery and colonialism. In this case, as in others, although the culture-wars framing was novel, there were continuities with longstanding debates over the legitimate space for civil society action, often discussed in terms of the obligations on charities to avoid being ‘political’. Specific modes of discipline across a range of legal frameworks are described, with a more detailed account of how these dynamics have affected Muslim civil society since the launch of the War on Terror, especially through Prevent. The article contributes to academic and activist debates about the best ways to organise to achieve progressive ends in an increasingly hostile and authoritarian political context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":403400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soundings: a journal of politics and culture\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soundings: a journal of politics and culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3898/soun:81.04.2022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soundings: a journal of politics and culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3898/soun:81.04.2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:关于不同类型的公民社会行动的合法性的辩论越来越多地被“文化战争”的语言所框定,这导致了英国公民社会空间的关闭。这篇文章的重点是慈善部门正在经历的限制,同时也引出了对公民社会其他部分的影响。最近的一个例子是国民信托,该机构在2020年因发布了一份关于其财产与奴隶制和殖民主义之间历史联系的报告而受到谴责。在这种情况下,与其他情况一样,虽然文化战争的框架是新颖的,但长期以来关于公民社会行动的合法空间的争论是持续的,通常讨论的是慈善机构避免“政治”的义务。本书描述了一系列法律框架中的特定纪律模式,并更详细地描述了自反恐战争(尤其是通过prevention)以来,这些动态是如何影响穆斯林公民社会的。这篇文章有助于学术界和活动家们就在日益敌对和专制的政治背景下组织起来实现进步目标的最佳方式进行辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Charity, politics and the culture wars
Abstract:Debates about the legitimacy of different kinds of civil society action have increasingly come to be framed in the language of ‘culture wars’, and this is contributing to the closing down of space for civil society in the UK. The focus of the article is on restrictions being experienced by the charity sector, while drawing out the implications for other parts of civil society. A recent example is the National Trust, which in 2020 faced censure for publishing a report on the historical links between its properties and slavery and colonialism. In this case, as in others, although the culture-wars framing was novel, there were continuities with longstanding debates over the legitimate space for civil society action, often discussed in terms of the obligations on charities to avoid being ‘political’. Specific modes of discipline across a range of legal frameworks are described, with a more detailed account of how these dynamics have affected Muslim civil society since the launch of the War on Terror, especially through Prevent. The article contributes to academic and activist debates about the best ways to organise to achieve progressive ends in an increasingly hostile and authoritarian political context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信