ABSTRACTThis article analyzes the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) humanitarian politics of intervention during its relief operation in the Nigeria–Biafra conflict (1967–1970). The humanitarian response to the conflict was a foundational moment for everyday humanitarianism marking a shift from “traditional” state-oriented humanitarianism to an expansion in scope, actors, and practices operating outside of the formal structures of the state. By examining recently declassified archival records, I trace the ICRC’s shifting categorizations of victims in a changing humanitarian landscape. The article makes two main contributions: First, I demonstrate empirically how the Nigeria–Biafra conflict challenged the ICRC’s definition of humanitarian engagement and understandings of victimhood. Second, I argue that the ICRC had a clearer understanding than usually conveyed of how the Biafran leadership used the language of humanitarianism and victimhood to deploy an international response. Conclusively, I reflect on what the history of the ICRC in Biafra can teach scholars of contemporary humanitarianism.

ABSTRACTIn this article, we explore Norwegian Progress Party politicians’ change of their rhetoric of immigration after the party for the first time became part of a coalition government in 2013. Equal to other right-wing populist parties in Europe, immigration has been the main reason for voters to support the Progress Party. How then does their immigration rhetoric change after entering office? This is important, as an intolerant immigration rhetoric has far-reaching consequences for the political climate in Europe. Right-wing populist parties can achieve much regarding migration policies merely because there is broad consensus on a strict migration policy today. However, to succeed remaining in office, they must remain being acceptable to other parties in the parliament and their coalition partner and therefore they need to moderate the way they go about communicating their message. Too much moderation however might lead to a split within the party, or losing core voters.

ABSTRACTThis article advocates the use of discourse instruction as a means of integrating issues of social justice into the classroom and transcending the debate over politicization in academia. The field of political science is at an uncomfortable juncture; it is faced with an obligation to ourselves and our communities to critically engage and push back against the more toxic components of the political moment, staying relevant and accurate and providing students with the tools they need to process the political world; while, also resisting the dual pressures to either stay apolitical/non-partisan, or to become a current events class, ceding class time to deciphering the day’s political events. We argue that discourse instruction can be used to teach the skills of social justice in political science classrooms. In addition, the infusion of diversity into the classroom through discourse instruction is both a means of enhancing student learning by engaging in high-impact practices of teaching and learning and political activism.

California has accomplished a remarkable shift in its historical development on immigrant rights, from pioneering and championing anti-immigrant legislation from the 1850s through the 1990s, to passing robust pro-immigrant rights policies in the last two decades. In this article, we unpack California’s policies and historical shift on immigrant rights, and develop a typology of regressive, restrictive, and progressive variants of state citizenship. We then advance a theory of how California’s progressive state citizenship crystallized in 2014 by cumulating and gaining sufficient strength in particular elements – of rights, benefits, and membership ties – to constitute a durable and meaningful form of state citizenship. Our work builds on, and speaks to, a fast-growing literature on immigration federalism and a robust literature on semi-citizenship and alternative types of citizenship. Situated in federalism, state citizenship operates in parallel to national citizenship, and in some important ways, exceeds the standards of national citizenship. While many states have passed various policies intended to help undocumented immigrants such as state driver licenses, in-state tuition, financial aid, health insurance for children, our concept and theory of state citizenship formation considers how California’s policies took more than a decade to develop and reach a tipping point, transforming in 2014 from integration policies to a more durable crystallized state citizenship.

Karl Marx famously said, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given ...

This article examines the history of US citizenship and deportation policies that have always been based on race, class status, and gender, as well as the effects of such policies on the making of Mexican illegality. Mexicans have been constructed as unassimilable and a threat to the US national polity. They are also viewed as working class likely to become a public charge. Mexican women have been imagined as extremely fertile and while their production has been desired, their reproduction has been feared. These social, political, and legal constructions resulted in the creation of Mexican illegality despite time of residence in the United States, ties to US citizens, or birthright citizenship. While scholars have documented immigration laws that have expatriated US citizen women (mainly of European racial backgrounds), policies that allowed for the deportation of “public charge” cases, and the racialization of Mexicans, who were once considered legally white for naturalization processes; the three identity-based exclusions have not been examined together to understand Mexican experiences in the United States. This article utilizes a racial, class, and gendered analysis to understand the making of Mexican illegality that began with the 1790 citizenship statue in which the United States Congress limited US citizenship rights to “free ‘white people’ and women’s citizenship was determined by their fathers or husbands.” The making of Mexican illegality continues with today’s immigration restrictions that perceive Mexicans as a threat to: national security, the white racial makeup of the country, and the stability of the economy.

This article offers an interpretation of Sheldon Wolin’s political thought and assesses its ongoing significance in the context of a Donald Trump presidency. Given the inegalitarian aspects of Trump’s efforts to “Make America Great Again,” there may now be a temptation to spurn any political narrative rooted in a sense of loss for American democracy’s Golden Age. However, while Sheldon Wolin is a thinker of the Left, the “archaic” vision of decentralized democracy that he advances in the 1980s also warns against the loss of local memories, cultures, and practices. This perspective validates conservative concerns regarding rapid economic and social shifts and yields distinctive insights into the failings of liberalism. The article traces how Wolin’s archaic vision of democracy first develops out of his postwar critique of liberalism and his engagement with student activism of the 1960s. It then examines the limitations of Wolin’s focus on loss and traces shifts in his thought over time. Ultimately, his work urges the Left to be attentive to local traditions and narratives of loss but also suggests that democracy should be understood as “polymorphous.”

The global value chain (GVC) perspective assumes that business firms’ occupation of high value-added nodes in the global production network can promote their countries’ socio-economic development. However, I argue that society-wide benefits that may follow from firms’ profit-maximizing activities are often ephemeral. Over time the middle class can shrink, and economic inequality can increase even when firms continue to move up to higher value-added niches and garner huge profit. I illustrate this disjunction between business activities and societal development with Apple’s strategies of tax avoidance and reduction from the Obama to the Trump administration. I then draw on the theoretical framework that Giovanni Arrighi sets out in The Long Twentieth Century and ideas from The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus to analyze the Apple case. As my analysis makes clear, the flawed assumption of the GVC perspective reveals its practitioners’ failure to recognize that within global capitalism, permanent and sustained societal affluence is unlikely, and what exists instead is a constant alternation between prosperity and disparity.

Elder Care Journey: A View from the Front Lines by Laura Katz Olson, an imprint of the SUNY series in New Political Science, is a compelling and thought-provoking addition to the growing genre of p...

For months, Donald Trump and his supporters in the Republican Party have played a dangerous game as they have openly fawned, adored, and courted white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Klansmen. As much...