Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In 1985, in the wake of several initiatives inside and outside the United Nations, the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations began preparing a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 2006, the Draft Declaration has been discussed for more than 20 years in different UN working groups; it has attracted more than 2?000 organizations and institutions; and it has brought thousands of people from all parts of the world together at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. Yet, the Draft Declaration project has repeatedly been called a failure. Indigenous Peoples? organizations, support NGOs, States, as well as the academic community have deplored the hitherto meager results of the exercise, if for different reasons. Until recently, only two articles (out of the 20 preambular paragraphs and 47 articles) have been agreed upon for adoption; indigenous organizations voiced frustration over diluted wording of an originally strong draft; and some States seem eager for ?failure? ? which would justify abandoning the drafting process and abolishing the vital forum.My paper, by contrast, argues that the drafting process has led to achievements and advances. It considers the Draft Declaration process as an exemplary site where global pressures, appearing in the formation of transnational networks involved in international standard-setting processes, exert a normative influence on international governance and local politics. I will examine how the transnational network advocating the ?indigenous cause? is constructed for and at the same time shaped by this standard-setting process, and how it relates to and influences global and local discourses.In a first step, I analyze what kind of network emerged during the Draft Declaration process at the UN, explore its structural and functional characteristics, and examine how it spread geographically, as well as across different actor categories. Secondly, I study the international pressures it created ? among others which norms were agreed upon in the network; how ?principled issues? were elaborated and promoted in and beyond the network and how these found their way into related processes of international governance, policies addressing Indigenous Peoples, international and/or national legal decisions, and NGO and activist groups? campaigns and propaganda.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines diffuse, multidirectional processes for the construction of knowledge in treaty making. For example, literature on global governmentality applies governmentality research, which suggests decentralized governmental processes with productive networks of power running through individuals and society. It nevertheless gives an impression of the persistent dichotomy between the ruling and the ruled with the elite producing rationalities, strategies, and technologies of government, which are translated down to the masses at local sites of action. Accordingly, various programs for global governance articulated in international institutions flow down to the ground to govern marginalized populations, such as the poor and the migrated. Although some researchers on global governance claim to offer alternatives to prevailing ‘top-down’ approaches to international law and international relations, what they have done is often to shift attention away from treaty making to describe the non-hierarchical and endogenous ways of producing international norms. They essentially replicate the diffuse but unidirectional governmental processes in governmentality research. This is because both governmentality research and global governance literature tend to attach privileges to cognitive knowledge and professional expertise. Their approaches have a methodological implication of suppressing laypersons’ expressive knowledge and experiential know-how involved in governmental processes.

Drawing on literature on legal consciousness and lay-participation, this paper traces the ways in which nongovernmental agents, including both professionals and laypersons, translate different types of knowledge horizontally among themselves and vertically from above and below with the case study of the drafting of the Disability Rights Convention.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In 1969, draft numbers randomly assigned to birth dates became important in determining which young men would be called up to fight in Vietnam. We exploit this natural experiment to examine how vulnerability to the draft influenced opinions about the Vietnam War, party identification, political ideology, and attitudes toward salient political figures and issues of the day. Data analyzed come from the Jennings-Niemi Panel Study of Political Socialization, which surveyed high school seniors from the Class of 1965 both before and after the national draft lottery was instituted. We demonstrate that males holding low lottery numbers expressed more negative views of the war in Vietnam, more liberal policy views and ideological identifications, more negative evaluations of Republican and conservative elites, and voted much more strongly for McGovern than did those whose high draft numbers protected them from the draft. Drafter number effects typically exceed those found for pre-adult party identification and are not mediated by military service or the acquisition higher education.

Publication Type: Session Paper
Abstract: In developing his "cultural approach to communication," James Carey turned to intellectual history to illustrate what he called "the fundamental divide among communications scholars." He was, in the 1970s, an insurgent, fighting to break the monopoly held by the field’s long-dominant behavioral science approach. What he did was to narrate an alternative history centered on Charles Horton Cooley, John Dewey and the Chicago School of sociology--identified by Carey as a rich tradition of thinking about communication that was, however, swept aside by the emerging "effects" tradition in the late 1930s and quickly obliterated from the field’s memory. Carey had recast that "fundamental divide" in historical terms, with his particular version of the Chicago School asked to stand in for interpretive communication research. Dewey, Cooley and Park furnished Carey with an eminently usable past, displaced and recoverable—"buried treasure," to borrow Kurt Danziger’s term.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: I analyze debates and policies exempting American men with dependents from military conscription during WWI. The paper argues that, 1) The example of dependency deferrals illustrates the weakness in existing conceptions of “citizenship.” Citizenship supposedly connotes a relation between individuals and state, while in fact states interact with individuals by classifying them by their relations of dependency, according to which individuals are taxed, drafted, or receive state supports. Thus, full citizenship is also a representative status, not a strictly individual status. 2) A corollary of Weber’s definition of the state as the monopoly of legitimate violence is that since states gained a monopoly of violence by amassing national armies through conscription systems removing men from dependents, a key feature of the state is the management of dependency. 3) The state manages dependency through the status of citizenship. 4) This is often administered by formulating legislation providing rights to groups of individuals placed in particular axes of dependency. In the US, these constitute a form of group rights based on dependency status. I conclude by suggesting that conceiving of the state as the primary arbiter of social dependencies yields a strongly sociological theory of the modern state, and propose further directions for research.