Archives mensuelles : mai 2019

Colloques/Conférences

Colloque : Les peuples autochtones : quels droits ? quelle protection ? (24-25 mai, Aix-Marseille Université)

Laisser un commentaire

Colloque

Les peuples autochtones : quels droits ? quelle protection ?

Du vendredi 24 mai 2019 au samedi 25 mai 2019

Présentation

Un colloque sur un sujet très actuel mais qui n’attire malheureusement pas assez l’attention. Cet évènement a pour but de sensibiliser à la cause de la protection et de la reconnaissance pleines et entières des peuples autochtones et de leur patrimoine.

Nous mettons un point d’honneur sur la recherche d’intervenants de qualité et concernés par ces problématiques : ONG en contact direct avec les peuples, représentants d’autochtones, juristes, chercheurs spécialistes, etc.

Des temps d’échange seront organisés entre le public et les intervenants.

Se tiendra également une exposition de grands photographes professionnels dans le Hall principal de la Faculté de droit d’Aix-en-Provence, du lundi 20 mai au samedi 25 mai 2019.

Programme

Vendredi 24 mai 2019

13h30 : Accueil des participants et allocution de bienvenue

14h00 : Conférence introductive

Peuples autochtones et environnement : Écocide, biopiraterie, appropriation des expressions culturelles – Exemple du peuple Kanak en Nouvelle- Calédonie 
Mme. Subama Mapou, porte-parole IKAPALA et Comité Rhéébù Nùù

Reconnaissance et statut juridique des peuples autochtones 
Mr. Daniel Arboleda, doctorant AMU

15h30 : Pause

Table ronde n°1 – Droit à la terre

15h45 : Le droit de propriété des peuples autochtones 
Pr. Aurélie Laurent, université du Mans

Les menaces aux territoires – l’affaire Montagne d’Or 
Mme. Marine Calmet, représentante ONG Nature Rights

17h20 : Exposition et buffet

Discussions informelles entre les différents intervenants et le public autour d’un buffet et d’œuvres photographiques professionnelles

19h30 : Clôture

Samedi 25 mai 2019

9h00 : Accueil des participants / petit-déjeuner

Table ronde n°2 – l’importance des cultures autochtones

09h15 : Opportunités et contraintes du patrimoine culturel immatériel pour les cultures autochtones 
Pr. Laurent  Sébastien Fournier, Université AMU

La notion de “génocide culturel” – Le cas des residential schools au Canada 
Mme. Lorraine Dumont, doctorante AMU

10h45 : Pause

Table ronde n°3 – Les actions menées en faveur des peuples autochtones

11h00 : Les actions pour la préservation de la Culture – ACCB Bordeaux et les arrivants de Nouvelle- Calédonie 
Mme. Rachelle Hnawia, représentante Association ACCB

Protection des expressions culturelles, symboles et artisanat traditionnel 
Mme. Marine Calmet, représentante ONG Nature Rights

12h30 : Clôture et restauration

Accès gratuit, tout public

Faculté de droit et science politique
Amphithéâtre Favoreu
3 Avenue Robert Schuman
13100 Aix-en-Provence

Source : https://univ-droit.fr/actualites-de-la-recherche/manifestations/31603-les-peuples-autochtones-quels-droits-quelle-protection

Livres

LIVRE : Les reliques en action – Variations juridiques sur la force agissante des choses sacrées

Laisser un commentaire

Sous la direction de Xavier Perrot (Presses Universitaires de Limoges, 2019)

Le présent ouvrage fait suite à un colloque qui s’est tenu à la Faculté de Droit et des Sciences Économiques de Limoges en 2016, année des 72e Ostensions septennales limousines et marchoises. Ces célébrations furent l’occasion pour juristes et historiens de réinterroger, différemment peut-être, la notion de relique à l’aune de ce corps-objet qui, faisant image, fait agir et réagir au sein de l’espace sacré d’hier, mais aussi civique d’aujourd’hui.

Dix contributions consacrées essentiellement aux reliques chrétiennes se distribuent ainsi dans ce volume, autour de la triade Réagir, Vénérer, Douter, trois verbes d’action qui lèvent un coin du voile sur le mystère de la sainteté, les émotions face au sacré et les enjeux juridiques contemporains. Objets de vénération, parfois de détestation, objets patrimoniaux et également objets de droit, les reliques sont bien dans la cité – en action – ce qui en fait des objets bons à penser pour les sciences sociales.

Sommaire :

– Avant-propos, Xavier Perrot

Vénérer

– L’agilité triomphante des saints : le « corps animé » de Catherine de Bologne (Stéphane Boiron)

– Le manuscrit de la lettre florentine des Pandectes : une relique civique (Valérie Hayaert)

– Réflexions sur l’inscription des Ostensions septennales limousines par l’UNESCO sur la Liste représentative du patrimoine culturel immatériel de l’humanité (Virginie Saint-James)

Réagir

– Reliques et puissance sacrale paroissiale – Limoges XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles (Pascal Texier)

– Une « dévotion indiscrète » Privation de reliques et émotion populaire au début du XVIIIe siècle. Le cas de saint Julien d’Alexandrie (Albrecht Burkardt)

– Le dernier voyage de saint Jean de Rila La translation des reliques dans le contexte du début de la domination ottomane (Ivan Biliarsky)

– Les reliques et les Protestants (Dominique Gaurier)

Douter

– Définir la relique : entre authenticité et identité (Laura Viaut)

– Statut du cadavre et reliques humaines (Anne-Blandine Caire)

– Les Ostensions limousines devant le Conseil d’état (Jean Morange)

Collection CIAJ
Année de publication 2019
Langue Français
ISBN10 2-84-287-736-1
ISBN13 9782842877361
Format Livre broché
Pages 216
Discipline Droits, Sciences éco, gestion

SITE DE l’EDITEUR : ICI

Postes

Contrat doctoral : Les usages du droit en régime autoritaire – Mondes arabe et musulman

Laisser un commentaire

Informations générales

Référence : UMR5115-BAUDUP-001
Lieu de travail : PESSAC
Date de publication : jeudi 9 mai 2019
Nom du responsable scientifique : Baudouin Dupret
Type de contrat : CDD Doctorant/Contrat doctoral
Durée du contrat : 36 mois
Date de début de la thèse : 1 octobre 2019
Quotité de travail : Temps complet
Rémunération : 2 135,00 € brut mensuel

Description du sujet de thèse

L’étude des recompositions de l’Etat en contexte plus ou moins autoritaire ne peut faire l’économie du rôle que les gouvernants entendent faire jouer au droit et aux institutions de la justice. Il est en effet marquant de constater à quel point les gouvernants se sentent contraints et justifiés, dans ces régimes, à saisir les institutions du droit pour mener leur politique. La théorie positiviste marque une distinction nette entre le droit et la morale, considérant qu’une règle n’a pas besoin d’être morale pour être juridique et, partant, que l’Etat de droit (rule of law) peut être réduit au gouvernement par le droit (rule by law). Cela suppose en général deux choses: d’une part, que les gouvernants mettent en place un arsenal législatif susceptible de fonder cette conception autoritaire de la gouvernance; d’autre part, qu’ils réduisent au maximum la part interprétative du travail des juges, qu’ils cantonnent à leur rôle de “bouche de la loi”. Cette formule de gouvernement par le droit ne doit pas être confondue avec cette autre formule qui consiste en la violation par un Etat et ses institutions des règles juridiques de façade qu’il n’édicte qu’à des fins d’affichage et de consommation internationale. En contexte autoritaire, on peut observer des usages du droit correspondant à l’une ou l’autre de ces formules ou à une combinaison des deux. Entre usage restrictif et usage cosmétique du droit, il existe un continuum de situations où le droit est instrumentalisé à diverses fins. Dans tous les cas de figure, l’on constate le recours au droit comme outil de l’autoritarisme. En parallèle, on observe que la construction autoritaire de l’Etat n’est jamais parfaite et que les acteurs et usagers des institutions concernées investissent les interstices laissés vacants par les gouvernants et cherchent à exploiter les marges qui leur sont offertes. C’est à l’étude de ces usages du droit, à l’exploration de ces cas de figure et à leur documentation empirique que la thèse devra s’atteler.

Contexte de travail

Pôle de recherche et d’enseignement pluridisciplinaire d’envergure reconnu internationalement, Les Afriques dans le monde est rattaché au CNRS et à Sciences Po Bordeaux. Il regroupe des politistes, anthropologues, économistes, géographes, historiens et littéraires. LAM est associé à l’Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, à l’Université Bordeaux Montaigne et à l’Université de Bordeaux. Son périmètre de recherche englobe l’ensemble du continent africain, la Caraïbe, les sociétés issues de la traite et les diasporas noires.

Informations complémentaires

Le/la candidate sera titulaire d’un master. Il/elle devra nécessairement avoir une bonne formation juridique, mais aussi dans les sciences sociales s’intéressant au droit. Il/elle maîtrisera le français et l’anglais, ainsi que la langue et le système juridique du pays sur lequel il/elle mènera sa recherche. Il/elle mènera des travaux ethnographiques et documentaires, entre l’observation du fonctionnement des institutions juridiques et judiciaires, d’une part, et l’analyse des textes jurisprudentiels et des dossiers des cas étudiés, de l’autre. La thèse supposera de longs séjours de terrain. En-dehors de ces séjours, le/la candidate devra participer activemnt aux activités du laboratoire LAM et de l’école doctorale SP2.

Consulter cette offre : ici

Livres

Book Review: An Anthropology of Marxism by Cedric J. Robinson

Laisser un commentaire
In An Anthropology of Marxism, reissued posthumously, Cedric J. Robinson provides a novel lens for deconstructing the work of Karl Marx by challenging Marx’s assertion that capitalism is an essential precondition for socialism. Robinson’s account holds great potential as a tool of political praxis, writes Eric Loefflad, and its critique of Marxism offers a new dimension of Marxist strategy for today’s world. An Anthropology of Marxism. Cedric J. Robinson. Pluto Press. 2019. 
In the decade following the 2008 financial crisis, global inequality is rising, climate disaster is impending and far-right authoritarianism is enjoying one political victory after another. As existing institutional logics fail to explain, let alone rectify, these situations, it is unsurprising that Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism, long marginalised after the fall of the Soviet Union, is experiencing a resurgence. However, this renewed Marxist interest is accompanied by claims that Marxism is prone to rigidity/exclusionism in its theory of universal emancipation. Diverse in its manifestations, this line of critique has portrayed the Marxist tradition as flawed in its primary location of transformative agency in a predominantly white male industrial working class whose exploitation is facilitated by their status as formally equal agents. What is lost in this account is capitalism’s reliance on inequality-based structures that include: the uncompensated labour of women in the domestic sphere, racialised colonial dispossession and the coerced extraction of value from slaves, serfs and peasants.

Against this backdrop, Cedric J. Robinson’s An Anthropology of Marxism (hereinafter ‘Anthropology’) provides a novel lens for deconstructing the work of Marx and the critiques lodged against it. Reissued from its original 2001 edition with a foreword from HLT Quan and a preface by Avery Gordon, the central argument of the now deceased Robinson is that Marx was incorrect in his assertion that capitalism is an essential precondition for socialism. Here he frames Marx’s theoretical synthesis of German philosophy, English political economy and the French revolutionary legacy as failing to interrogate its own cultural and intellectual presumptions. Rather, by rejecting pre-Enlightenment emancipatory endeavours as inconsequential instances of ‘primitive socialism’, Marx embraced the very conceits of bourgeois ideology he purported to critique. From this premise, Robinson offers an alternative genealogy of socialism by turning to eleventh-, twelfth- and thirteenth-century Europe. According to this narrative, peasant uprisings against the power of merchants, feudal lords and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church were driven by interpretations of Christianity that, in varying form, called for radical distributional and gender equality. This foundational eruption of socialism prompted the existing order to suppress these efforts through a reconfiguration of previously pluralistic Christian doctrines that labelled these popular movements as ‘heretical’. Yet, despite this concerted suppression, a formative socialism lived on through religious orders such as the Franciscans, and later the Jesuits, who attained influence as dispute resolvers and charity-providers throughout Europe and later its overseas colonies.

From here, Robinson shows how the legacies of formative socialism shaped the thought of both Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel, yet were excluded from Marx’s depiction of these theorists. Following this, Anthropology turns to Marx’s usage of Aristotle. Here Robinson claims that Aristotle’s conception of a political society of formally equal citizens, and its erasure of women and slaves, is reproduced in Marx’s conception of proletariat agency and its emphasis on formal equality as constitutive of capitalist social relations. For Robinson, this exclusion of medieval socialist formulations that centred the plight of formally unequal subjects was symptomatic of Marx’s investment in bourgeois Enlightenment conceptions of linear progress through rationality. Thus, under Marx’s influence:the originated discourse in Western socialism became subjugated knowledges. In their place socialism acquired an alternative and secularized natural history, one drawn from the discursive practices of scientific discourse and bourgeois hagiography (111).In evaluating Robinson’s argument, we must understand the intervention he was making in the context of Anthropology’s original 2001 publication. As Quan notes in the foreword, Robinson can be read as a response to the anti-socialist ethos of the post-Cold War era that purported to discard Marxism into the world-historic repository of failed ideas. Thus, in continuing the socialist project by unmooring it from its Marxist baggage, Robinson’s claim was ‘an unwavering act of faith in the ability and role of ordinary women and men to make their society anew’ (p. ix, notes omitted). While this may clarify Robinson’s purpose, it raises the question of how his analysis should be treated in our current moment in which Marxist critique has regained its relevance.That said, one means of engaging Robinson’s Anthropology is to understand it through the same modes of Marxist analysis it critiques. WhileAnthropology decries dialectical materialism as bourgeois intellectual arrogance that deprived socialism of its original promise, ironically Anthropology can be interpreted as presenting an extraordinarily innovative dialectic in its own right.  Here, if socialism, i.e. spiritual anti-hierarchical medieval communalism, was a ‘thesis’ that found its ‘antithesis’ in the individualistic rationality of the bourgeois Enlightenment, then Marxism can be understood as a ‘synthesis’ of the socialist ethic with Enlightenment analytical methods.This interpretation is supported by William Robert’s recent contextualisation of Capital within the workers’ movement of Marx’s time, which shows how Marx’s theory stemmed from claims that labour’s political goals required a sufficiently radical understanding of its distinct arena of struggle. If the medievally-rooted socialist ethic informed this backdrop of labour activism, then, far from ‘intellectual conceit’, Marx’s mastery over bourgeois theory for the purpose of levying an all-pervasive critique acted to prevent workers’ assertions from being co-opted by ultimately futile capitalist offerings of reform. While this view preserves Robinson’s premise that the existence of socialism is not contingent on the emergence of capitalism, it does add the caveat that perhaps socialism, at least in Marx’s context, required Marxism to resist capitalism.Nothing about this interpretation should detract from Robinson’s overarching point that we must decentre the agency of Marx’s privileged white male industrial working class when theorising anti-capitalist resistance. Although the Marxist tradition is certainly not without chauvinism in this regard, it has also been remarkably adaptive to self-critique. A key illustration of this is Onur Ince’s demonstration of how capitalist domination is a globally interconnected force, but its exploitation is experienced (and resisted) in different ways across varying temporal and spatial contexts that include wage labour, involuntary servitude and colonial dispossession. In taking this multi-layered perspective to the next level, Anthropology shows how postcolonial/decolonial critiques of Marxist orthodoxies regarding the non-European world also apply to Europe itself.Beyond its analytical value, Robinson’s account holds great potential as a tool of political praxis.  For what Anthropology confronts is the question of how exactly are we to make sense of the cultural and political significance of Europe’s medieval period in our current global moment? Especially in Europe and settler offshoots, this historical period is susceptible to being problematically invoked by both the liberal centre and the far right. For liberal centrists, this era can be characterised as an alleged ‘dark age’ of ignorant barbarism, and the fact that it was transcended justifies the narrative of linear progress. For the far right, this era acts as an alleged ‘golden age’ of pure white Christian identity that justifies the resurrection of violent, and potentially genocidal, fascism. Both of these narratives mischaracterise the material dynamics of the current global crisis and, in varying capacities, both are rooted in the belief in Western superiority over all other peoples. Through Robinson’s account, we are provided with a third option for understanding the contemporary meaning of Europe’s middle ages: a legacy of ordinary people struggling for emancipation against unjust material conditions. Thus, paradoxically, Anthropology’s relentless critique of Marxism offers great potential in forging an entirely new dimension of Marxist strategy in the actually-existing world.

Eric Loefflad is a PhD candidate in Law at the University of Kent, Canterbury. His current research focuses on the intertwined material histories of law, empire and the emergence of modern political consciousness.

Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics. 
Livres

bOOK REVIEW : Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction. Jim Reynolds. UBC Press. 2018.

Laisser un commentaire
Book Review: Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction by Jim Reynolds

Posted: 14 May 2019 06:13 AM PDTIn Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction, Jim Reynolds offers an excellent new encapsulation of Canadian Aboriginal law, discussing 163 cases stretching from 1823 up until the present day and covering topics including sovereignty, Aboriginal title and treaties. Reynolds draws on his wealth of experience to provide a compendious summary of the development of Aboriginal law in Canada, writes Sarah Pike. Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction. Jim Reynolds. UBC Press. 2018.

‘Thoughtful and well-written (though brief!) analysis…’. This was part of the feedback I received in law school in 1993 on my Aboriginal Law paper about ‘Aboriginal title’, an Indigenous interest in land recognised by the common law. It occurs to me now, after practising Aboriginal law for much of the last 25 years and recently reading Jim Reynolds’s excellent new encapsulation of Canadian Aboriginal law, Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction, that my haste may not have been the only contributor to my brevity. In my defence – I now realise – there simply was a dearth of judicial decisions on my topic. Aboriginal Peoples makes clear from its very first page – a helpful one-page list of leading cases in Canadian Aboriginal law, stretching from 1823 (an American case) to 2016 – that there has been an explosion of Canadian judicial decisions concerning Aboriginal peoples and interests since the 1990s.
Of the 36 cases Reynolds lists on this opening page – his book discusses 163 overall – only ten had been decided when I was in law school. With respect to Aboriginal title, the subject matter of my paper, there were only two. The first was St. Catherine’s Milling (1888), decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England sitting in appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (as it did then) but not involving any Indigenous parties. The second was Calder (1973), the first case brought by Indigenous plaintiffs for a declaration of Aboriginal title. The Supreme Court of Canada decided the case in 1973 but not on the merits, as the majority of the court held that the plaintiffs had not obtained the Crown’s consent to sue it – a fiat – as was required at the time. Reynolds discusses these two cases in several places in his book, most notably in a section entitled ‘History of the Law of Aboriginal Title’ (94-102).
Reynolds obtained his undergraduate law degree in 1967 and his PhD in law in 1970, both from the London School of Economics; he then taught at LSE for several years and qualified as a barrister in England, before becoming a barrister and solicitor in British Columbia in 1980. Over the last 40 years, he has had a front-row (and occasionally a driver’s) seat to many of the developments in Canadian Aboriginal law. Reynolds has now bestowed on us the benefit of his experience, teaching ability, concise writing and learned synthesis of how we got to where we are today in Canada with respect to the subject matters of his title: Aboriginal Peoples and the Law.
Aboriginal Peoples, as the publisher blurb explains, is aimed at ‘students taking both introductory and specialist courses in Aboriginal law, Indigenous studies, or the social sciences; lawyers with an interest in Aboriginal law; and journalists, government officials, business people, and other members of the public who want a better understanding of where the law stands today and where it should go in the future’. As a lawyer with several decades behind me, I learned something on nearly every page. Most importantly, I appreciated Reynolds’s explanation of the context in which the law has been made through judges’ decisions and also of the relationships between the history and the present and between various sub-fields of Aboriginal law. But I also used this book as my course textbook when I recently taught a law school Aboriginal Law course. My students, I believe, found Aboriginal Peoples a straightforward and easily-comprehensible explanation of the law that enabled them to get up to speed quickly and to begin to analyse current legal issues.
Each of the book’s eight chapters averages just under 30 pages and is well-written in plain English. Reynolds assumes the reader’s intelligence, but not that she is coming to the book with years of experience in Aboriginal law: indeed, his first chapter is entitled ‘What is Aboriginal Law?’. Reynolds includes an important second chapter on the ‘Historical Background’ to Aboriginal law in Canada, a topic indispensable to a proper understanding of Aboriginal law. Reynolds then adds a third foundational chapter, ‘Sovereignty and Aboriginal-Crown Relations’, again providing the reader with this essential overarching perspective.
The heart of Aboriginal Peoples – at least, perhaps, from a law student’s or lawyer’s perspective – is its middle chapters about ‘Aboriginal Rights and Title’, ‘Treaties’ and ‘Consultation, Accommodation, and Consent’. Here, Reynolds discusses the historical development of the caselaw on each broad legal topic, bringing the reader right up to the most recently-decided cases (as of mid-2018). He synthesises both judicial decisions and scholarship, enabling the reader to see the fabric that the law has woven, rather than only the threads making up that fabric.
Reynolds’s penultimate chapter addresses two vast topics:  ‘Indigenous and International Law’.  Indigenous law, in particular, is a rapidly-developing field as Indigenous peoples recover and develop their own laws and legal systems, many of which settler societies and legal systems around the world almost eradicated. Those who are interested in this field – in which there has been a bounty of Canadian legal academic writing in the last decade or more – might be disappointed that Reynolds does not provide more in this chapter. Some might also argue with his assertion that Indigenous laws ‘do not form part of the Canadian law except to the extent that they have been incorporated into Canadian common law’ (175). Yet Reynolds was relying on a judge’s decision in drawing that conclusion, and those who wish to read more about this topic – or any other that Reynolds so ably canvasses – can investigate further by following the plethora of footnotes accompanying each chapter.
In his final chapter, ‘A Just Society?’, Reynolds – appropriately – provides more questions than answers about the future of Aboriginal law in Canada, including ‘probably the most important question for non-Aboriginal people in areas such as British Columbia’ – Reynolds’s home and mine – ‘where treaties have not been signed and Aboriginal title still exists’. This question is: ‘what does Aboriginal title mean for private property rights?’ (200). Indeed, this aspect of Aboriginal title is now a topic for law school papers, and Reynolds’s book is an excellent place to start in understanding this still-unresolved conflict between two legal interests that both appear to ‘confer exclusive use and possession’ of land (201). Aboriginal Peoplesbrings the reader up-to-date with respect to the current caselaw on Aboriginal title, explaining the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Delgamuukw (1997), then Marshall; Bernard (2005) and, finally, Tsilhqot’in (2014) (see especially Chapter Four), thereby helping him to more fully understand the intricacies of the remaining questions.
Reynolds concludes Aboriginal Peoples with a section entitled ‘Evaluation of Existing Law’, writing in the first person, as he does on occasion through the book. In my experience, one of the difficulties in analysing Aboriginal law – whether a court decision or academic commentary – is perceiving the writer’s perspective, and I appreciated knowing when Reynolds was attempting to objectively explain the law and when he was commenting on it. His approach, I believe, contributes to the reader’s comprehension of the extent to which individual perspective affects Aboriginal law in Canada; indeed, this matter of ‘who is doing the writing?’ is itself one of the final topics Reynolds addresses. He provides his opinion that some of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Aboriginal law favour ‘liberal discourses of rights’, which include ‘an approach to equality that ignores, among other things, disparities in resources, political and social power, and social inequality generally’ (212-13). If a mark of a great book is that it makes one want to read further in the topic, then Reynolds has done a fine job. As is evident from this brief example, the questions and issues that Reynolds raises in his final pages are ones that not only law students and lawyers must consider, but also all citizens of Canada and many other settler nations as well.
That Reynolds provides us with his perspective occasionally in Aboriginal Peoples gives us a chance to reflect on how lucky we are as readers to be able to receive this, in addition to his compendious summary of the development of Aboriginal law in Canada. Were I to go back in my time machine to 1993 to discuss my paper with my law professor, I would keep Aboriginal Peoples and The Law: A Critical Introduction in my back pocket to help me better understand where we were in 1993, where we would be in 2018 and where we might very well end up in the years to come.

Sarah Pike is a lawyer in Vancouver, where she has worked since being called to the Bar of British Columbia in 1995. She has worked in a big firm, a small firm and government.  She has also been a graduate student in law and taught at a law school. Sarah is now a freelance lawyer practising Aboriginal and constitutional law through her own law firm, SPIKE Law.
Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics. 
Billets

PARUTION:

Laisser un commentaire

A. Kamugisha, Beyond Coloniality. Citizenship and Freedom in the Caribbean Intellectual Tradition, Indiana University Press, 2019, 320.p

Against the lethargy and despair of the contemporary Anglophone Caribbean experience, Aaron Kamugisha gives a powerful argument for advancing Caribbean radical thought as an answer to the conundrums of the present. Beyond Coloniality is an extended meditation on Caribbean thought and freedom at the beginning of the 21st century and a profound rejection of the postindependence social and political organization of the Anglophone Caribbean and its contentment with neocolonial arrangements of power. Kamugisha provides a dazzling reading of two towering figures of the Caribbean intellectual tradition, C. L. R. James and Sylvia Wynter, and their quest for human freedom beyond coloniality. Ultimately, he urges the Caribbean to recall and reconsider the radicalism of its most distinguished 20th-century thinkers in order to imagine a future beyond neocolonialism.

Acknowledgements
Chapter 1: Beyond Caribbean Coloniality

PART 1: THE COLONIALITY OF THE PRESENT

Chapter 2: The Coloniality of Citizenship in the Contemporary Anglophone Caribbean
Chapter 3: Creole Nationalism and Racism in the Caribbean

PART II: THE CARIBBEAN BEYOND

Chapter 4: A Jamesian Poeisis? C.L.R. James’s New Society and Caribbean Freedom
Chapter 5: The Caribbean Beyond: Sylvia Wynter’s Black Experience of New World Coloniality and the Human after Western Man

Conclusion: A Caribbean Sympathy
Bibliography
Index