Now with its 23rd Volume already published, Studies in Social and Political Thought is a student run journal based in the University of Sussex’s Centre for Social and Political Thought. The journal has a dual purpose: first, fostering developments in the inter-disciplinary areas of social and political thought and, second, serving as a publishing platform for junior academics.
Past issues have featured articles by well-respected figures such as William Outhwaite and Stefan Muller-Doohm as well as the first publications of a number of promising junior academics. Although student run, we try to ensure highest standards and best quality publishing. We have attracted a prestigious panel of leading scholars in social and political thought for our international advisory board, including: Martin Jay of UC Berkeley, Robert Pippin of the University of Chicago, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak of Columbia University, Seyla Banhabib of Yale University, Simon Jarvis of the University of Cambridge, William Outhwaite of the University of Newcastle, Homi Bhabha of Harvard University, Adriana Cavarero of the University of Verona, Alessandro Ferrara of the University of Rome, Axel Honneth of the University of Frankfurt and Fredric Jameson of Duke University.
Having focused on selected papers of the Studies in Social and Political Thought Conference of 2013 on the subject ‘Debt and Obligation’ , we are looking forward to submissions for the upcoming 24th issue of the journal. The field and variety of topics should be within the inter-disciplinary areas of social and political thought.
For more information please visit our website: https://ssptjournal.wordpress.com/
Deadline for submissions is the 31st of December 2014.
Submissions need to be send to: email@example.com
I wrote this a little while ago, on attitudes towards GM technology, and how conventional opposition is more usually based on sensationalist ideology rather than engagement with the difficult complexities involved. Some time after Greenpeace signed their name to an open letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, arguing against having an EC chief scientific advisor. Rather than have the selection process open to scrutiny (so that those with corporate affiliations – and therefore conflicts of interest – would find it harder to be appointed) and have their advice publically published (for similar reasons) the letter – signed by 9 organisations (including, for some reason, the “Cancer Prevention and Education Society”) – argued against the very position of a scientific advisor. Their sop to the necessity of evidence-led, scientific advice was that advice could come from “a variety of independent, multi-disciplinary sources….” In short: lobbying. I’m perhaps being cynical, but it’s the multinational corporations who really have the power when it comes to lobbying, not groups like Greenpeace, since they have more money to throw at the issue (and a charity should really spend its money on the cause it was founded to deal with, not meetings with bureaucrats).
Originally posted on Unfortunate Conflict of Evidence:
Perhaps I’ve just misunderstood Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: the point I took away has always been that it is essentially Victor’s own fault that his creation becomes monstrous. His disgust, rejection and eventual fear initially creates and then subsequently sustains the creature’s sense of alienation, which in turn creates its hostile reaction both to him and to the world in general. Surely it’s therefore slightly odd, and yet rather apposite, that genetically modified organisms are so often referred to as “Frankenstein foods”. The phrase is thrown around a lot, and is clearly chosen because it sounds scary and creates the appropriate rhetorical effect that the speaker wishes to evoke.
But it is appropriate because the instinctive and emotive reaction by some to the prospect of genetically modified food and organisms is inherently counterproductive and only invites problems later on. Many people seem to loathe the idea of GMOs and resist them at every turn…
View original 1,449 more words