To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Where does our modern democracy come from? It is a composite of two very different things: a medieval tradition of political participation, pluralistic but highly elitist; and the notion of individual equality, emerging during the early modern period. These two things first converged in the American and French revolutions – a convergence that was not only unexpected and unplanned but has remained fragile to this day. Democracy's Double Helix does not simply project and trace our modern democracy back into history, assuming that it was bound to come about. It looks instead at the political practices and attitudes prevailing before its emergence. From this perspective, it becomes clear that there was little to predict the coming of democracy. It also becomes clear that the two historical trajectories that formed it obey very different logics and always remain in tension. From this genuinely historical vantage point, we can therefore better understand the nature of our democracy and its current crisis.
This chapter resolves the problem posed in the previous chapter, namely, the Scotist objection to the instrument doctrine. It argues that of five different strategies, only one solves the problem of coherence, and it is a solution found not only in some of Aquinas’s mature statements on instrumental causality but also in the theology of Matthias Joseph Scheeben (1835-1888), who knew the intricate debates about the doctrine after Aquinas’s time and had developed a unique response to the Scotist objection. The chapter defends Scheeben’s view, known as ’extrinsic elevation’, as the way to preserve the coherence of the two claims that God alone is the cause of grace and that Christ’s humanity is an instrumental efficient cause of grace.
This chapter poses the most difficult objection for the instrument doctrine, in particular as Aquinas conceives of it. For Aquinas, a created cause, Christ’s humanity, produces divine effects as an instrumental cause. But the tradition has affirmed that God alone is the cause of grace in the soul, and no created cause can produce grace. John Duns Scotus puts this objection to Aquinas’s account of instrumental causality, and this chapter argues that the criticism appears to succeed. If a created cause participates in the production of grace, as Aquinas argues, then Scotus argues that Aquinas fails to maintain the distinction of natures and powers in Christ basic to Chalcedonian Christology. For Christ’s humanity is taken up into God’s power and brings about the deification of the human person immediately, something only divine power can do. The ground is prepared for a response to this objection in the following chapter.
This chapter is the heart of the book’s analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching on Christ’s humanity as the instrument of the divinity. It explores the various details of Aquinas’s account, outlining it in five synthetic propositions. These propositions, taken together, form the instrument doctrine as St. Thomas conceives of it. Various ambiguities in Aquinas’s account are presented for consideration, and the chapter makes some judgments about how best to understand Aquinas in his mature works. The chapter concludes with a section on the relationship of language to reality in Christology and why reduplicative propositions, used in a standard mode of theological analysis in the thirteenth century, can clarify how to understand the instrument doctrine.
In our increasingly tumultuous world, this book offers insight and inspiration through personal narrative. It collects the accounts of twenty-seven social workers and those in academia based in five continents, surveying a wide range of environments, communities, and systems. Each narrative serves as a testament to the profound intersections of relationships, emotions, and experiences, encapsulating stories of genuine human significance. Advocating for the cultivation of three essential intelligences – social intelligence (SQ), emotional intelligence (EQ), and experiential intelligence (XQ) – the book prompts readers to grasp the nuanced power dynamics inherent in each tale. As a prompt to critical reflection that guides readers towards self-discovery and professional identity, this collection is ideal for graduate students and researchers in social work.
Scripture teaches that God saves humanity through God's own actions and sufferings in Christ, thereby raising a key theological question: How can God use his own human actions and sufferings to bring about those things that he causes through divine power? To answer that question, J. David Moser here explores St. Thomas Aquinas's teaching that Christ's humanity is an instrument of the divinity. Offering an informed account of how Christian salvation happens through the Incarnation of Christ, he also poses a new set of questions about the Incarnation that Aquinas himself did not consider. In response to these questions, and in conversation with a wide range of theologians, including John Duns Scotus and Matthias Joseph Scheeben, Moser argues that the instrument doctrine, an underexplored and underappreciated idea, deepens our understanding of salvation that comes through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. He also defends the instrument doctrine as a dogmatic theological topic worthy of consideration today.
The introductory chapter explains and legitimates the approach of the book: why does it make sense to write the long-term (pre)history of democracy as a history of two distinct phenomena – pluralistic participation and individual equality – and of their convergence? Why can it be argued that this convergence was not unavoidable and is not irreversible?
In this chapter the medieval history of political participation is summarised both in more general terms (such as the emergence of the concept of ‘representation’) and in the form of some of the most important individual examples, from Spain, Sicily and Hungary to Scandinavia and England.
The development of institutionalised political participation is shown for nine of the most important early modern European states – or else those, such as Switzerland, that figure prominently in the history of democracy. The focus is on not only the ‘long’ seventeenth century and the ruptures it created but also the general continuities in essentially all early modern states: they all featured some mode of institutionalised central political participation, but it was always geared towards the participation of the top social elites only.
This chapter asks: how did institutionalised political participation, individual equality and, in particular, their fusion survive into and develop during the nineteenth century, and what can we learn from the historical genesis of democracy as a composite of two different elements, as sketched in this book, for the predicament of democracy today?
The book’s conclusion assesses the extent of legalism in Korea and Japan, including other issue areas. It underscores the importance of studying the role of activists and lawyers in catalyzing sociolegal and institutional change. Legalism may take diverse forms, as demonstrated in the comparisons of Korea and Japan. The tobacco liability cases show that legalism is not emerging everywhere. The cases suggest legalistic governance is more likely when support structures for advocacy and legal mobilization exist, opposition is diffuse or weak, and activists sustain all five mechanisms. The conclusion considers what the expanding role of law and courts means for democracy in both countries. It ends on a cautiously optimistic note: the potential for rights realization and participatory channels has grown, especially in Korea. Although challenges in legal mobilization persist, and reform implementation faces human, resource, and attitudinal barriers, activists and lawyers are creatively engaging with legal frameworks in ways that strengthen legalistic regulatory styles.
Chapter 2 outlines the book’s conceptual and theoretical frameworks. It bridges studies of regulatory styles with scholarship on legal and political opportunity structures to detail indicators of legalistic governance, which serve as a guide for the subsequent paired case studies. It also theorizes five causal mechanisms that elucidate how activism contributes to more legalistic governance. Finally, it discusses, in probabilistic terms, the conditions under which activism is more likely to contribute to legalistic modes of governance.
Worldwide, more than 125 countries have enacted legal provisions against disability-based discrimination; such legislation was also a core demand of Japanese and Korean disability rights activism. Despite the rapid diffusion of non discrimination norms, we know less about why their forms vary and how they have affected rights-claiming options. Through a paired comparison of activism surrounding statutes enacted in Korea and Japan in 2007 and 2013, respectively, Chapter 5 shows how advocacy for such legislation and related litigation transformed governance and created legal opportunities. To a greater extent in Korea than in Japan, people with disabilities gained non discrimination rights, mechanisms for redressing discrimination, support from NGOs and state agencies, and the legal tools with which to solidify and expand anti discrimination protections in court and through statutory revisions.
International law is a system of rules, institutions and practices that govern the relations of States with one another. It is designed to distribute resources and solve problems that States identify as relevant for creating order in the world. In a world without a centralised government States use international law and its institutions to generate solutions for emerging and complex issues and problems, such as climate change and terrorism. The effectiveness of international law is often called into question when it fails to stop certain kinds of activities that appear abhorrent to most people from around the world. However, it also manages to resolve and address issues and challenges that would otherwise get ignored without international cooperation. A lot of international law is designed to meaningfully contribute to establishing order. States also use it to legitimise disruptions to global relations.
The third bridge is explored in chapter five and focuses on the connection between constitutional values and private law. The analysis concentrates on the values of autonomy and human dignity and their interplay with the principle of freedom of contract in English contract law. The discussion also reflects on the link between the UNCRPD, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, and English contract law, and suggests that rather than looking for a seamless bridge that links the UNCRPD directly with English contract law, we should look for steppingstones connecting the UNCRPD, the ECHR, the HRA and domestic private law. This chapter also discusses the values of participation and inclusion, with a focus on the idea of influence vulnerability explored in the previous chapter, and reflects on the need to enhance the influence of persons with disabilities and DDPOs in shaping legislative developments in English law, including consumer contract law.
Democracy requires responsiveness. While empirical responsiveness research tends to focus on opinion polls, there are other ways elites listen to public opinion. Therefore, we need to examine those forms of public opinion that elites see and hear. This is explored through a dataset of letters to Australian Prime Minister John Howard, coded consistent with the Comparative Agendas Project. I find evidence of deliberate, systemic non-responsiveness in the political agenda (measured by the topics of Mr Howard’s speeches) to the volume of letters. Mr Howard knowingly, deliberately ignored this public opinion. There are, however, indications that the topics of the letters are responding to government announcements. The findings highlight the selective nature of elite engagement with public opinion. The study contributes to understanding political agenda-setting, representation and the institutional conditions under which public input is ignored. These results have implications for theories of representation and responsiveness in policymaking.
This chapter explores how international law and its legitimacy could be improved and made more aligned with the demands of justice. It focuses on two types of requirements. First, there are the principles and accompanying procedures on the basis of which actors ask their agency (and their rights) to be recognized by international law and its culture of legitimacy. These principles are consent, justification, accountability, consistency, representation and participation, and non-abuse of power. Second, there are the topics around which this quest for the recognition of agency (and rights) takes place. They are better universality of international law, human rights as a benchmark of the legitimacy of sovereignty, compliance/enforcement/accountability, and human rights supported by public goods. These two kinds of requirements have been at the center of the efforts to make international law more inclusive as well as more legitimate, and they need to be taken more seriously in the future.
Participation is a prevalent topic in many areas, and data-driven projects are no exception. While the term generally has positive connotations, ambiguities in participatory approaches between facilitators and participants are often noted. However, how facilitators can handle these ambiguities has been less studied. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review of participatory data-driven projects. We analyse 27 cases regarding their openness for participation and where participation most often occurs in the data life cycle. From our analysis, we describe three typical project structures of participatory data-driven projects, combining a focus on labour and resource participation and/or rule- and decision-making participation with the general set-up of the project as participatory-informed or participatory-at-core. From these combinations, different ambiguities arise. We discuss mitigations for these ambiguities through project policies and procedures for each type of project. Mitigating and clarifying ambiguities can support a more transparent and problem-oriented application of participatory processes in data-driven projects.
Growing concerns with political polarization have led to a proliferation of research on its consequences. This paper presents results of a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of 25 articles that study the effects of polarization on participation. We categorize studies depending on polarization type (affective or ideological), level (individual or system), and participation type (electoral or non-electoral), to analyze the theoretical arguments proposed by studies in each category. According to a meta-analysis of all 104 coefficients describing the focal effect, individual-level affective and ideological polarization have a positive effect on participation even after publication bias is accounted for. The same analysis finds no evidence of an effect of system-level ideological polarization on election turnout net of publication bias. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges researchers of polarization and participation face, as well as gaps in the extant literature and opportunities for further research on this topic.
This article explores a feminist approach to energy justice. In business and human rights to date, there has been little attention to the gendered dynamics in energy transition, mirroring the lack of attention to the rights of women and girls within broader energy and energy transition discourses. Without this attention, there is a risk that energy transition efforts maintain, increase, or create new gendered inequalities, rather than diminish them. With a focus on the distributional, recognitional and procedural dimensions of energy systems, the concept of energy justice holds much potential for the field of business and human rights. Taking women’s participation in energy transition policy-making in Sub-Saharan Africa as a concrete example, we argue that a feminist approach to energy justice could be one way of operationalizing a more gender-transformative energy transition.