Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: That people are self-interested is one of the fundamental assumptions of economics and, increasingly, political science. Results from economics experiments, however, along with everyday experience, call this assumption into question. In divide-the-dollar ultimatum games, participants regularly turn down offers that they deem insufficient, even though they would objectively be better off if they accepted. Drivers stuck in a traffic jam get angry at the car that cruises illegally by on the shoulder, even though the moving driver’s actions cost those who are stopped nothing. And restaurant patrons will glare at a person talking on a cellphone at a distant table even though they cannot hear the conversation. If the stuck drivers or the irritated diners could inflict some punishment for the transgressions they observe, many would, even at some cost to themselves. Such punishment strategies appear irrational because they make the punisher worse off than doing nothing (or, in the case of the ultimatum game, than accepting the offered split). Nonetheless, we see unrewarded and costly (or potentially costly) punishment strategies at work in economics laboratories and in the real world. Why? We examine existing explanations for costly punishment, from altruistic defense of social mores to “wary cooperation” (Hibbing and Alford 2004) and then use new methods of evolutionary game theory to explain why costly punishment behavior can be rational and when we should expect it to occur.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: It is a commonplace to assert the incompatibilities of various political visions within multicultural debates particularly in the American context. Indeed, the hallmark of our culturally plural milieu and more generally of the ongoing “culture wars” is perhaps the claim that there can be no intermingled space between competing visions even as the investments of any particular vision seem spurred on by those positioned as threatening of its boundaries. From racial identity politics that purportedly seek singular cultural forms of recognition to liberal nationalist claims that such balkanization threatens the collective agency of the nation, from liberal feminist claims that recognition of the rights of other cultures threaten the aims of autonomy for women to liberal equalitarians who argue that any privileging of cultural difference diffuses the proper promise of liberal equality- all seem threatened and wounded by the others, all seem resentful not only of the ascendance of the others but also their possible connections to them. Certainly one common refrain is to advocate a rising above of such resentful attachments, to fashion political promises that can speak to all rather than maintain resentments that inevitably lead to stale promises. I explore this problematic between promising and resentment through the work of Nietzsche and Foucault. In the process, I argue that promising only springs from the working through of resentments, that it is only in working through one’s resentments that conceptions of identity and the visions attached to them can yield promises within a culture of democratic action.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: On March 2, 2004, Georgia citizens cast their votes in an advisory referendum to choose an official flag for their state. The referendum was the culmination of a simmering controversy in Georgia over the prominent inclusion of the Confederate battle banner as part of that state’s flag. This article examines determinants of public opinion about the flag. We find that whites are much more likely than blacks to prefer a flag with the Confederate battle emblem. We also find that racial resentment strongly predicts support for the inclusion of the Confederate emblem. Further, although Southern heritage is often cited as a reason why some prefer the Confederate battle emblem, we find that knowledge of Southern history is negatively correlated with its support. These attitudes have had important consequences; the debate over the Georgia flag cost at least one governor his position and cost the state an estimated $300 million in trade due to boycotts. Therefore, we argue for a view of American politics that reaches beyond contests over the distribution of resources to encompass an intense struggle over the symbols that reflect and shape American identities. We suggest that racial attitudes lie at the heart of this struggle.

Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Abstract: Present world order is in the midst of a major transformation, largely on account of rapidly changing value system across the globe. Trans-formation is seemingly ubiquitous concept. Whilst some view it as a source of aggrandizement, others treat it as a disruptive process.
The world is also gradually witnessing the over expansion of a parochial version of faith and the desperate attempts of promoting it as the only pious one, but history bears testimony to the fact this has happened due to hegemony of the majoritarian identities and resentment of multicul-turalism particularly on account of migration , the problem of refugees and search for survival in the competitive world order. The economic progress on account of rapid development in the ways and means of production have to a great extent reduced the boundaries of the nation-state as basic social grouping , On the other hand this procedure could not provide basic fundamental to the building of individual identities. This has led to emergence of a collective identities and emergence of the idea of new form of nationalism. For example identity is being built on the basis of faith and religion and its complete misuse by powerful syn-dicates for fulfillment of their political and economic interest.
The research paper is an attempt to examine and analyze the concept of globalization , religious pluralism, its challenges such as the threat of trans national terrorism. Besides , the paper attempts to analyze and suggest: (1)how the emergence of globalization has led to the formation of new identities? (2) what kinds of challenges it poses to the modern civil society? (3) to what extent the process of globalization has marred or promoted the possibilities for Human Rights? (5) to answer the ques-tions arising out of social pluralism. (6) to find answer to the main question-why have been people searching for religious and cultural safeguards against the stark realities of hunger, deprivation and pov-erty? (7) How to minimize the risk posed by globalization and make the best use of the opportunities put forward by unfolding process of global-ization.