Peer Reviewed Papers/Publications by Bryan Wall
Given this kind of attitude towards the non-religious, I believe it is a fitting time to examine ... more Given this kind of attitude towards the non-religious, I believe it is a fitting time to examine how they view themselves as moral actors, where they think morality comes from, and everything in-between. The non-religious are obviously moral beings, it goes without saying for most of us, but nonetheless, we need to look at how they define themselves in relation to the rest of the world and how they look at morality in general. Over the coming paragraphs and chapters, I will be attempting to fuse together the work of Jurgen Habermas, Lawrence Kohlberg, and a tad of Michel Foucault, in order to illuminate the morality of the nonreligious. Habermas would have us believe that we are in the Postmetaphysical age but we need to see if this is truly the case, and if the need for an institution which sees itself as bulwark of morality is truly gone, or if it still exists in various forms.
Conference Presentations by Bryan Wall
In November of last year, the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, was quoted as saying “we gove... more In November of last year, the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, was quoted as saying “we govern for the reasonable people”. This quote was in the context of an explosion of protests around the country in relation to the then soon to be introduced water charges. With Noonan and his colleagues in government having formulated the water charges, his statement has two obvious and logical conclusions attached to it. Firstly, only those who support the government and its policies are defined as “reasonable”. Secondly, the so-called “unreasonable” are seen as posing a threat to Irish democracy and governance. We can surmise, then, that a crisis of sorts has emerged; a “crisis of Irish democracy”, which itself is twofold.
Firstly, large-scale activism on the part of citizens is not taken for granted within the current framework of most western liberal democracies. Ireland is no different in this regard. This activism and the associated protests can cause a “crisis of democracy”, at least as it was defined by certain scholars in relation to the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s in Europe and the United States. More simply, the passive consent of the citizenry is no longer assured for the government, hence a “crisis”.
Secondly, the recent events also engender a re-examination of what democracy is in practice, along with a similar re-examination of the role of citizens in a democracy. That is, there is a question of whether our modern forms of democracy, especially in Ireland, need re-democratising or, simply, democratising. This second aspect of the “crisis of democracy” is a very real crisis. Although water charges are perhaps a small issue in the wider ocean of bigger issues, its associated protests and subsequent reactions from the elite speak to the wider paradoxes and problems in western democracies.
This paper proposes to examine all of this in detail.
"Concepts of citizenship have been formulated and thought about for centuries, from Plato and Ari... more "Concepts of citizenship have been formulated and thought about for centuries, from Plato and Aristotle to more recent accounts by the likes of Jürgen Habermas and Michael Ignatieff. All of them rely on a particular and divisive view of human nature. The division generalises between those who think that people can lead themselves and those who think that people need to be led by others. But such a division relies on both a misreading of human nature and the classical literature of citizenship and democratic theory.
I intend to chart the development of the definition of citizenship and how the theory of citizenship differs from the actuality of citizenship. Part of this process will involve examining and clarifying the various misreadings of citizenship, which continue to this day. Once this is accomplished, it is then possible to look at how the theory of citizenship acts as a “conceptual cover” for the practice of citizenship. States use this “conceptual cover” to discriminate against some of their citizenry. That is, they undermine or completely negate the citizenship rights of some of their citizens, whilst at the same time claiming to respect equally the rights of all citizens under their jurisdiction. How they utilise this cover will be examined in detail within the context of a new theory of citizenship."
"The status of the citizen in the modern nation-state is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, i... more "The status of the citizen in the modern nation-state is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, individualism is encouraged. Freedom to choose how to lead one’s life is seen as the core aspect of the Western, liberal state. On the other hand, this individualism is strictly bound within specific limits, beyond which the individual is seen as a deviant. Acting in tandem, masses of individuals can cause a perceived crisis in the system. This was in the case in the 1960s and 1970s when the civil rights and political movements in the United States and Europe were seen as causing a “crisis of democracy”, the crisis being that the traditional system of control and authority had broken down, thus putting pressure on an ostensibly democratic system.
Today this crisis, perceived as such by elites, persists. Now we are seeing the rise of right-wing movements who in some cases are being elected to positions of power by the electorate. The latter is therefore seen as irrational. The crises, however, have the same cause: A top-down approach to democracy.
To that end, this paper proposes to examine both crises; their causes, and the reaction of elites. It also examines what it means to be a citizen and looks more deeply into the foundational rights of citizenship. By going beyond the generally accepted, but somewhat shallow, rubrics of civil, political, and social rights, we can see how easily citizenship and citizenship rights can be corrupted by states and elites. That is, we must consider citizenship as consisting of a spectrum of interlocking and interlinked rights. By conceptualising it thusly, one can demonstrate how easy it is for states to control and/or repress citizens in various ways whilst seemingly giving them full citizenship and its concomitant rights."
"My paper examines the early history of Zionist thought and practice. To that end, it looks at th... more "My paper examines the early history of Zionist thought and practice. To that end, it looks at the role of Theodor Herzl, someone widely considered the founding father of Zionism, in formulating and reifying Zionist thought into a functioning political movement.
I discuss the important historical steps in Herzl’s work and the eventual popularisation of the then nascent movement for a Jewish homland. The latter was mainly a result of Herzl’s pamphlet, The Jewish State, published in 1896, which for the first time brought the idea of a Jewish homeland into the consciousness of the wider public.
This publication will also be scrutinised given its historical importance, and it will be placed within its proper historical context; one of colonialism and Orientalism. By extension, we can then see that from its inception, the Zionist Movement, despite its apparent humanitarian motives, was a deeply flawed enterprise that was reliant on colonialist and Orientalist thought."
Other Papers/Publications by Bryan Wall
Irish Left Review, May 10, 2015
Irish Left Review, Apr 10, 2015
Irish Left Review, Nov 19, 2014
Irish Left Review, Mar 25, 2014
Irish Left Review, Feb 24, 2014
Irish Left Review, Feb 12, 2014
Irish Left Review, Feb 3, 2014
Irish Left Review , Oct 1, 2013
Irish Left Review, Mar 15, 2013
Uploads
Peer Reviewed Papers/Publications by Bryan Wall
Conference Presentations by Bryan Wall
Firstly, large-scale activism on the part of citizens is not taken for granted within the current framework of most western liberal democracies. Ireland is no different in this regard. This activism and the associated protests can cause a “crisis of democracy”, at least as it was defined by certain scholars in relation to the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s in Europe and the United States. More simply, the passive consent of the citizenry is no longer assured for the government, hence a “crisis”.
Secondly, the recent events also engender a re-examination of what democracy is in practice, along with a similar re-examination of the role of citizens in a democracy. That is, there is a question of whether our modern forms of democracy, especially in Ireland, need re-democratising or, simply, democratising. This second aspect of the “crisis of democracy” is a very real crisis. Although water charges are perhaps a small issue in the wider ocean of bigger issues, its associated protests and subsequent reactions from the elite speak to the wider paradoxes and problems in western democracies.
This paper proposes to examine all of this in detail.
I intend to chart the development of the definition of citizenship and how the theory of citizenship differs from the actuality of citizenship. Part of this process will involve examining and clarifying the various misreadings of citizenship, which continue to this day. Once this is accomplished, it is then possible to look at how the theory of citizenship acts as a “conceptual cover” for the practice of citizenship. States use this “conceptual cover” to discriminate against some of their citizenry. That is, they undermine or completely negate the citizenship rights of some of their citizens, whilst at the same time claiming to respect equally the rights of all citizens under their jurisdiction. How they utilise this cover will be examined in detail within the context of a new theory of citizenship."
Today this crisis, perceived as such by elites, persists. Now we are seeing the rise of right-wing movements who in some cases are being elected to positions of power by the electorate. The latter is therefore seen as irrational. The crises, however, have the same cause: A top-down approach to democracy.
To that end, this paper proposes to examine both crises; their causes, and the reaction of elites. It also examines what it means to be a citizen and looks more deeply into the foundational rights of citizenship. By going beyond the generally accepted, but somewhat shallow, rubrics of civil, political, and social rights, we can see how easily citizenship and citizenship rights can be corrupted by states and elites. That is, we must consider citizenship as consisting of a spectrum of interlocking and interlinked rights. By conceptualising it thusly, one can demonstrate how easy it is for states to control and/or repress citizens in various ways whilst seemingly giving them full citizenship and its concomitant rights."
I discuss the important historical steps in Herzl’s work and the eventual popularisation of the then nascent movement for a Jewish homland. The latter was mainly a result of Herzl’s pamphlet, The Jewish State, published in 1896, which for the first time brought the idea of a Jewish homeland into the consciousness of the wider public.
This publication will also be scrutinised given its historical importance, and it will be placed within its proper historical context; one of colonialism and Orientalism. By extension, we can then see that from its inception, the Zionist Movement, despite its apparent humanitarian motives, was a deeply flawed enterprise that was reliant on colonialist and Orientalist thought."
Other Papers/Publications by Bryan Wall
Firstly, large-scale activism on the part of citizens is not taken for granted within the current framework of most western liberal democracies. Ireland is no different in this regard. This activism and the associated protests can cause a “crisis of democracy”, at least as it was defined by certain scholars in relation to the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s in Europe and the United States. More simply, the passive consent of the citizenry is no longer assured for the government, hence a “crisis”.
Secondly, the recent events also engender a re-examination of what democracy is in practice, along with a similar re-examination of the role of citizens in a democracy. That is, there is a question of whether our modern forms of democracy, especially in Ireland, need re-democratising or, simply, democratising. This second aspect of the “crisis of democracy” is a very real crisis. Although water charges are perhaps a small issue in the wider ocean of bigger issues, its associated protests and subsequent reactions from the elite speak to the wider paradoxes and problems in western democracies.
This paper proposes to examine all of this in detail.
I intend to chart the development of the definition of citizenship and how the theory of citizenship differs from the actuality of citizenship. Part of this process will involve examining and clarifying the various misreadings of citizenship, which continue to this day. Once this is accomplished, it is then possible to look at how the theory of citizenship acts as a “conceptual cover” for the practice of citizenship. States use this “conceptual cover” to discriminate against some of their citizenry. That is, they undermine or completely negate the citizenship rights of some of their citizens, whilst at the same time claiming to respect equally the rights of all citizens under their jurisdiction. How they utilise this cover will be examined in detail within the context of a new theory of citizenship."
Today this crisis, perceived as such by elites, persists. Now we are seeing the rise of right-wing movements who in some cases are being elected to positions of power by the electorate. The latter is therefore seen as irrational. The crises, however, have the same cause: A top-down approach to democracy.
To that end, this paper proposes to examine both crises; their causes, and the reaction of elites. It also examines what it means to be a citizen and looks more deeply into the foundational rights of citizenship. By going beyond the generally accepted, but somewhat shallow, rubrics of civil, political, and social rights, we can see how easily citizenship and citizenship rights can be corrupted by states and elites. That is, we must consider citizenship as consisting of a spectrum of interlocking and interlinked rights. By conceptualising it thusly, one can demonstrate how easy it is for states to control and/or repress citizens in various ways whilst seemingly giving them full citizenship and its concomitant rights."
I discuss the important historical steps in Herzl’s work and the eventual popularisation of the then nascent movement for a Jewish homland. The latter was mainly a result of Herzl’s pamphlet, The Jewish State, published in 1896, which for the first time brought the idea of a Jewish homeland into the consciousness of the wider public.
This publication will also be scrutinised given its historical importance, and it will be placed within its proper historical context; one of colonialism and Orientalism. By extension, we can then see that from its inception, the Zionist Movement, despite its apparent humanitarian motives, was a deeply flawed enterprise that was reliant on colonialist and Orientalist thought."