Globalization, Citizenship, and Rights to the City: Towards a Sociology of Euro-AsianContinental Integration.
Iwanaga Shinji, Professor of Sociology and Urban Studies,
Department of Sociology,
Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo

Keywords: hexis (ἕξις), habitus, civil society, citizenship, globally integrated regions,moral question, the urban, rights to the city, multiple modernities, continental
integrationδόξειε δ᾽ ἂν παντὸς εἶναι προαγαγεῖν καὶ διαρθρῶσαι τὰ καλῶς ἔχοντα τῇ περιγραφῇ, καὶ ὁχρόνος τῶν τοιούτων εὑρετὴς ἢ συνεργὸς ἀγαθὸς εἶναι.
(If a work has been well laid down in outline, to carry it on and complete it in detail may
be supposed to be within the capacity of anybody; and in this working out of details Timeseems to be a good inventor or at all events coadjutor.)
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1098a

The Contemporary Global Context
Throughout the 1980s, and especially from the mid-1980s, Japanese society has
been globalized to a much greater extent than previously. However, it has faced evengreater challenges following the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of the European
Union during the 1990s and the first decade of this century.
In the 1980s, issues of internationalization and local communities were being
discussed. Subsequently, globalization issues and the impacts of globalization on local
communities and regions became focal topics that continue to be discussed at the
beginning of the 21st century.
This raises the question of how new relationships, spanning the individual, family,
neighborhood, local community, local government, national regions, national government(nation-state), globally integrated regions, and the literally global market, are emerging.
In other words, our inquiry focuses on new forms relating to the historical differentiation1

between the societal community and the polity, and to issues of scale that pertain to the
newly globalized civil society.
From a juridical-sociological perspective, we could treat issues of citizenship as being
linked to fluid, multi-scalar but contradictory “spatial practices of appearance.” (Arendt1958). From the turn of the century, the national habitus conceived as a spiritual hexis(κατὰ τὴν ἕξιν) (1), the national hexis conceived as a physical habitus (habendi )(2), and thescale of operation of civil society have evidenced rapid change.
Rescaling Modes of Regulation, Changing Regimes of Accumulation,
and Economic Society
The nation-state entails three components: civil, political, and social rights. Marshall(1992) has argued that these three components have historically displayed no
evolutionary order. We can, therefore, assume that the same situation prevails at the
local, regional, national, and global scales in relation to civil society. What is evident isthat the nation-state, conceived as a “Bürgerliche Gesellscaft” (a societal community)
comprising an economic and civil society is in a state of crisis pertaining to its existence
as a socially integrated national community with international associations.
Evidently, the rescaling of national modes of regulation (the glocalizing ensembles
of institutionalized national compromises) and the changing national-local regimes ofaccumulation scale, namely globalization as extending the economic society as well as
the readjusting mode of regulations in the global, global-regional, national, nationalregional, local-urban, and individual (as the front and back regions and theregionalization of personal action that A. Giddens (2013) has pointed out). On the one
hand, the concept of globally integrated regions is emerging as a reality. Examples ofscaling up include the European Union (EU), Central European Free Trade Agreement(CEFTA), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Free Trade Area of theAmericas (FTAA), Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Mercado Comúndel Sur (MERCOSUR), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Asia-Europe
Meeting (ASEM), Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and TransPacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP). On the other hand, theintegrity of a number of nation-states is collapsing as they are being divided up or scaleddown. Examples include the partitioning of civil society in places like Yugoslavia, East
Timor, and the Soviet Union, which are now being historically re-divided, while otherareas such as Catalonia (Catalunya), Basque (Euskal Herria), Scotland, Flanders(Vlaanderen), Uyghur (新彊), Tibet (西藏), Hong Kong (香港), and the new regime of
Taiwan (台湾) are on the rise.
2

The Euro-Asian Continent Conceived as a Globally Integrated Region and as Localities
The age of national sovereignty, entailing a perception of the nation-state as a social

telos has ended. This is apparent not only in Europe, but also in Asia and in other regions.
Nevertheless, the previously established nation-states remain active in all areas of theworld.
In the age of globalized (and in some cases glocalized) integration (3) in East Asia,
including Japan, the concept of a globalized region has been emerging in conjunction
with an expanding ASEAN global market. China, Japan, and India, which are extensive
economic spheres coexisting within the same region, are being influenced by theextended global market of ASEAN (evidenced by ASEAN+3 (Japan, China, and South
Korea), +6 (Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand), ASEM, andRCEP). At the same time, they are contending against the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP), which is another concept of a globally integrated market that is being imposed by
the US and its economic power. Evidently, with the transformation and dismantling of
established international relations of existing nation-states, what we are witnessing is a
new form of global order entailing globally integrated regions and localities, some ofwhich are aimed at rescaling (in some cases involving extension and in others division)and historically new forms of economic and civil society.
Along with the changing contours of the economy and the societal community, we arealso witnessing a new “habitus” and “hexis” of the societal community and civil society,enabling us to communicate with each other within a given economy and society (4). In
our search for new, common spatial practices and their associated geographical territory,
we will focus on the Euro-Asian Continental Community (ASEAN → ASEAN＋3 →RCEP → ASEM).
Issues within Ukraine are emerging as a result of the eastward extension ofEuropean integration against the re-division of the territory of the former Soviet Union.
Simultaneously, ASEAN’s market integration is advancing westward, which should
result in the inclusion of India and Turkey.
In addition, China has been proposing a “new silk road” route ( 一 帯 一 路 ),encompassing the Euro-Asian continent (5). Taking place on top of the Japanese economic
society, China and the United States are locked in a global competition to acquire newmarkets: China through the RCEP vs. the United States through the TPP, wherein the
RCEP could create an economic society as well as a civil society in relation to the EU,
but the TPP just an economic society in the Pacific region.
A Moral Question as a Scale Question
3

The two directions of eastward-extension of European integration (the EU) andwestward advancement of ASEAN are indicative of an issue relating to social integration
at a continental level. This seems to be associated with historical conditions entailingthe exchange of ideas, information, attitudes, and opinions among urban citizens. In
other words, it suggests that a moral question is simultaneously a scale question.
Common issues include how wages are to be paid, rules and norms of capital
investments, ways of thinking about abuse of children and animals, environmental
protection—including the issue of how to evaluate the nuclear disasters of Chernobyl in
Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan—and other matters. In other words, they relate tocommon goods of the soul as “Good” and, indeed, to the “Continental Supreme Good”(kalon <καλόν> as the “beautiful” and the “morally right”) (6) that should be sharedwithin and for the continent that we inhabit. This includes compromises in relation toreligious conflicts and the initiation of a global conversation, between Muslims,
Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus at a continental level.
We must discuss issues of language, food and water, the urban milieu, tolerance
towards different cultural practices, decision-making, and the environment. Moreover,
we need to share to a greater extent than we do now across our continent, from end toend, to create an expansive civil society, in which Indian-British, Chinese-Spanish,
Vietnamese-German, Russian-Ukrainian, and French-Japanese individuals would beethnically and racially equal, fellow citizens in their given societal communities. This
also entails the sharing of moral problems, thereby instilling a “common moral nobility
or virtue ethics” into the concept of the market associated with a continental economic
society. (7)In the next section, I will address another issue of scale, notably, what Brenner(2000) refers to as the “Urban Question as a Scale Question.”
Rights to the City and the Glocalizing Civil Society
Globally, people are still moving to the cities with the aim of experiencing modern
urban living, especially in BRICS countries and in developing countries. Even indeveloped countries such as Japan, despite the fact that most national cities areshrinking in size, many individuals still dream of having a house within a central
metropolitan area. For instance, in Japan, people demand the right to live in core
national and global cities like Tokyo, Sendai, Sapporo, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka, where
they believe they can easily find jobs and enjoy a “non-degraded” niveau.
I will refer to this demand as “rights to the city.” (8) These rights have been demandedby citizens all over the world, for example, in New York, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam,
4

Beijing, Shanghai, Moscow, Kiev (Kyiv), New Delhi, Tokyo, San Francisco, Chicago, andTaipei.(9) The more developed a society is, the greater the demand for “the urban” andurban citizenship within popular movements. This is a new phenomenon stemming fromuneven development within regions and localities, urban–rural hierarchy, in a glocalized
world. As Parsons (1971) noted, a nationalized economic society and a modern civilsociety could be conceived as a societal community. Specifically, this refers to thehistorical emergence of a new nation within the United States through a “Democratic
Revolution” as a result of social differentiation processes between a societal community
and a new polity. We are once again witnessing the same process at the beginning of the
21st century, whereby the nations are re-divided, re-integrated, and re-established at
different scales and speeds, and along different dimensions. Thus, some societies would
only be economic societies, while others would be civil societies and even politicalcommunities.
This has in fact been happening, globally, including in Japan, for over two decades.
The rise of Fukuoka and Sendai, the extension of the Osaka region (関西広域連合) andthe new and highly concentrated Tokyo metropolitan region (東京一極集中) should beunderstood in the above context of glocalization. In the future, these popular demands
will ultimately result in national regions being re-divided and reconstructed at glocalized
scales in contrast to existing national establishments (道州制). Moreover, extended social
norms (a globally extended public sphere) at the continental level will preside overnational norms. These are matters that we will need to deal with in the near future.
Discussion and Conclusions
As Wiewiorka, a French sociologist, has stated,(10) the social conflict that we arewitnessing could entail a new phenomenon that indicates the beginning of a shift insocio-political bargaining between the two or more conflicting nation-states. In light ofthe bargaining associated with TPP and RCEP, we must consider this issue to be without
a near end in a global context for bringing about our future, extended, created, andtherefore re-imagined, civil society at the scale of the Euro-Asian continent.
On the road towards this integration, we would need to reconsider the idea of auniversalistic national modernity that the EU has been advancing for the Eastern world
since the 1950s. Alternatively, the concept of “multiple modernities” can be applied,which, as Y. Singh notes, encompasses the old Indian civilization. A. K. Giri has notedthat Indian modernities have emerged out of the processes of criticism, creativity, andstruggles through history, as in the revolt of Buddha, the rise of Upanishadic spirituality,
Bhakti movements in medieval India, movement for a new renaissance in the 19th
5

century, and the multi-dimensional anti-colonial and post-colonial struggles for freedom.
(11)

Through the generation of some conflict and minor antagonisms in relation to the
diplomacy between existing nation-states, we can conceivably progress towards
continental integration of Euro-Asia on a millennium time scale. Currently, however, weare just beginning to construct roads, railways, and bridges, along with new social
networks and relations at glocalized scales.
We are also just beginning to consider and figure out issues arising at glocalized
scales. However, this beginning lays the hard groundwork paving the way for future
understanding. Of course, studies and assessments of the future consequences ofglobalization, that is, glocalization, in the Euro-Asian continent are ongoing, and thejury is still out.
.

Notes
*The author would like to thank Takahashi Harutaka, Professor of Economics, Department of
Economics, Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo, for his interest in a good relationship between a
globalized market and moral issues. Our debates inspired me to consider questions of morality on thecontinental scale.

1. The hexis is a spiritual and physical disposition or state that is spatially structured
between human action and society. It is also the behavioral properties and sociopsychological environment that integrate linguistic activity (lexis <λέξις>) andsocio-political performance (praxis <πρᾶξις>). Iwanaga, S. (2013), p. 16. It is the
beginning and medium wherein the sense is constructed and maintained between
the human action and its object. The common human activity is, by definition, thespatial manifestation of the common hexis in action.
2. The habitus is a key sociological concept in Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology (Bourdieu,1979). However here, the point of definition is in the “means” of habitus and hexis,
in-between two concepts. It embodies interactive and possessive movements andprocesses between the human action as an origin of generation and as its object inthe society. Moreover, the soul is the origin (ἀρχή) of living things and of generation.
3. M. Purcell (2008) has pointed out that many in the literature use the term
6

“glocalization” rather than globalization, in order to more accurately describe bothsupra-national and sub-national rescaling process, and that the current era has
been characterized by a strategic erosion of the national-scale hegemony. He calls it
the “Globalization as Selective Glocalization.” Ibid., p. 9.
4. As noted by Habermas (1962), this is also the public sphere in which citizens
exchange ideas, information, attitudes, and opinions.
5. Ukrainian issues culturally and linguistically express the re-integration of Slavic
culture to a Latin–Roman one. In fact, Latin–Roman culture itself is based on thatof Ancient and Classical Greece, and what we will deal with as a core issue in thearticle (i.e. as a dynamis <δύναμις>) is a new continental basis in culture as morethan just classical Greek culture. The breaking news (on April 8, 2016) that Greece
has formally signed an agreement to sell a 67% stake in the port of Pireus toChinese shipping company China Cosco Holding Co. (Stamouli, N. ,2016), indicatesthe problem not only of the military and economic relationship between the twocontinents but also of a historically new cultural integration. The port of Pireus isin a way a symbolically important place for the European Integration as well as thecity of Brussel.
At the same time, we should realize that on the continent we use the same word,“maidan”, to refer both to the square in Kyiv, Ukraine, and to the public space in
New Delhi, India. These two places have not been completely distanced culturally
from each other, and this is even less true now, in the age of a multimedia anddigital society.
6. See Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (1094b). In fact, the importance of kalon in thiscontinental context slightly exceeds that entailed in its classical Greek meaning.

τῶν ἕξεων δὲ τὰς ἐπαινετὰς ἀρετὰς., 1103a. (…praiseworthy dispositions we term
virtue.), trans. by H. Rackham (1975), p. 69. This issue of social value, which is also
one of the points forming the basis of European Integration, has come up in the faceof the current issues going on between Japanese in India and Indians in Tokyo. See
also Note 11.
To create the music of and for the continent might aid to some degree, as such
music would be capable of producing a common quality of human character anddisposition.
7. L. Bruni and R. Sugden (2013) notes that, on the supposition that the telos of themarket is mutual benefit, market virtue in the sense of virtue ethics is an acquired
character trait with two properties: (1) possession of the trait makes an individual
better able to play a part in the creation of mutual benefit through market
7transactions; and (2) the trait expresses intentional orientation towards andrespect for mutual benefit (pp. 153–160). If we add historical and geographicalconditions to their arguments, the problem of a market virtue that they propose
easily becomes a moral and virtue ethics questions, as a scale question.
8. Lefebvre originally used this term in a single and absolute sense that indicated theright to the city, or urban citizenship, as something ideal for the future of urban
networks and of the polity. More recently this term has been re-evaluated by anumber of scholars, including Harvey (2003), Mitchell (2003), Marcuse (2009),
Castaneda (2012) and Miraftab (2012) (see the edited volume by Smith andMcquarrie (2012)). However, here, I use this term in the plural (rights to the city) tosignify much more concrete and plural rights for surviving city life.
9. For instance, in urban China, the demand has been typically reinforced by the

hukou system（戶籍・戶口制度）.
10. Wiewiorka made this point during his seminar on “sociologie du conflit,” held in
2001–2002 at l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris.
11. Giri (2012) describes in detail that taking inspiration from Bhakti movements, Kabir,
Nanak, Mira Bai, Sri Aurobindo, and Gandhi, we can realize that the significance ofIndian modernities lies in bringing to the fore strivings for multi-dimensional selfdevelopment. However, at the same time, Giri has criticized Habermas’ concept of
the public sphere and civil society and even the new version of the concept, multiple
modernities, by S. N. Eisenstadt (pp. 227–228). Referring to the concept put forth by
Eisenstadt (2000), Singh has noted that the traditional resilience of Indian culture
would continue to persist with new adaptive responses to the modernization processof contemporary Indian society (2012, p. 165).
In the east part of Tokyo, Nishikasai (西葛西), on the one hand, about 2000 Indians
inhabit and work as informational technology technicians and advisors. On the other
hand, many Japanese firms have now invested in India for production of industrial
products. This juxtaposition demands readjustment of the conflicting social values
between Japan and India, a multi-layered and multi-valued civil society, as a
Creative Public Sphere, not only for India and Japan but also for the continent, over
the traditional concepts of public sphere and civil society by Habermas (1962),
according to Giri.

References8

Alagappa, M. (2004). Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: Expanding andContracting Democratic Space. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. New York: Vero.
Aglietta, M. (1976). Régulation et Crises du Capitalisme: L’Expérience des Etats Unis.
Calmann Lévy.
Aristotle. (1975). The Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle. (1990). Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu P. (1979). La Distinction. Paris: Édition de Minuit．
Brenda, S. A. Y., Charney, M. W. and T. C. Kiong. [Eds.] (2003). ApproachingTransnationalisms: Studies on Transnational Societies, Multicultural Contacts,
and Imaginings of Home. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brenner, N. (2000). “The Urban Question as a Scale Question: Reflections on Henri
Lefebvre, Urban Theory and the Politics of Scale.” International Journal of Urban

and Regional Research, 24(2).
Brenner, N. (2005). New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the rescaling ofStatehood. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bruni, L. and R. Sugden. (2013). “Reclaiming Virtue Ethics for Economics.” Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 27(4).
DeFilippis, J. (2004). Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global

Capital. New York: Routledge.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). “Multiple Modernities.” Daedalus, 129. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Fan, C. C. (2008). China on the Move: Migration, the State, and the Household. New
York: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (2013). Sociology. 7th Edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giri, A. K. (2012). “Rethinking Civil Society and the Public Sphere: Pathways of IndianModernities in Global Conversations.” Polish Sociological Review, 2 (178). Warsaw:
Polish Sociological Association.
Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer

Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Harvey, D. (2003). “The Right to the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research, 27(4).
Harvey, D., with C. Potter. (2009). “The Right to the Just City.” In P. M. Smith, J.
9Connolly, J. Novy, I. Olivo, C. Potter and J. Steil. Searching for the Just City.
London: Routledge.
Holston, J. (Ed.) (1999). Cities and Citizenship. London: Duke University Press.
Isin, E. F. (Ed.) (2000). Democracy, Citizenship and the Global City. London: Routledge.
Isin, E. F. (Ed.) (2008). Recasting the Social in Citizenship. Toronto: University ofTronto Press.
Iwanaga, S. (1997). “Tokio come una città globale: oltre lo stato-nazione.” Journal of

Osaka Sangyo University: Social Sciences, 106. Osaka: Society of Osaka Sangyo
University.
Iwanaga, S. (1999). “Die Vergesellschaftung und das Verhalten or on the Aristotle’s
Theory of ‘ἕξις’. ” The Meiji Gakuin Sociology and Social Welfare Review, 107.
Tokyo: Meiji Gakuin University.
Iwanaga, S. (2013). Globalization, Citizenship and the City: Towards a Sociology ofHexis (second edition). Yokohama: Shumpu-sha.
Iwanaga, S. (2014). “The Right to the City and the Future of Urban Society: Towards a
Sociology of Euro-Asian Continental Integration.” The Bulletin of the Institute ofSociology and Social Work, 44. Tokyo: Meiji Gakuin University.
Iwanaga, S. (2015). “On the Vote for the Independence of Region in Catalonia: From my
Fieldnotes in Summer, 2014.” Kiko, 48. Tokyo: The Association of Shirokane Kiko
Kai.
Joppke, C. (1999). Immigration and the Nation-State: The United States, Germany,and Great Britain. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, C. K. (2007). Against the Law: Labor Protests in China’s Rustbelt and Sunbelt.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). “The Right to the City.” In E. Kofman and E.Lebas (Eds. And
Trans.), Writings on Cities. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.
Lefebvre, H. (2003[1970]). The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of
Minneapolis Press.
Leshem, D. (2016). “What Did the Ancient Greeks Mean by Oikonomia ?”Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 30(1).
Lipietz, A. (1977/1983). Le Capital et son espace. Paris: Maspero/La Découverte.
Lipietz, A. (1990). “L’Approache de la régulation et la crise capitaliste dans les années
90: propositions alternatives.” In Conférence Annuelle de Théorie de l’Economie

Politique, Kanagawa,13-14 Octobre.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of10Notre Dame Press.
Marcuse, P. (2009). “ Beyond the Just City to the Right to the City.” In P. Marcuse (Ed.)

Searching for the Just City: Debates in Urban Theory and Practice. London/New
York: Routledge.
Marshall, T.H. and T. Bottomore. (1992). Citizenship and Social Class. London : Pluto
Press.
Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Nagaoka, K. (2016). “How Will Justice Be Related to Fraternity and Equality ? :Thinking about Aristotle’s Koinonia and Polis.” The Bulletin of Sociology, 39.
Tokyo: Meiji Gakuin University.
O’Brien, Kevin J. and L. Lianjiang. (2008). Rightful Resistance in Rural China.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parsons, T. (1965). “Full Citizenship for the Negro American: A Sociological Problem.”Daedalus, 94. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Parsons, T. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for

Alternative Urban Futures. New York: Routledge.
Sayad, A. (2004). La double: Des illusions de l’ émigré aux souffrances de l’immigré.
Paris : Éditions de Seuil.
Shaw, T. M., Grant, J. A. and S. Cornelissen. (2011). The Ashgate Research Companion

to Regionalisms. Burlington, USA: Ashgate.
Singh, K. S. (1992). People of India: An Introduction. Calcutta: Anthropological Surveyof India.
Singh, Y. (1993). Social Change in India: Crisis and Resilience. New Delhi: Har-Anand
Publications.
Singh, Y. (2000). Culture Change in India: Identity and Globalization. Jaipur: Rawat
Publications.
Singh, Y. (2012). “Modernization and its Contradictions: Contemporary Social Change
in India.” Polish Sociological Review, 2 (178). Warsaw: Polish Sociological
Association.
Smith, M.P. and L. E. Guarnizo. (2009). “Global Mobilitiy, Shifting Borders and Urban
Citizenship.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100(5).
Smith, M. P. and M. Mcquarrie. [Eds.] (2012) Remaking Urban Citizenship:

Organizations, Institutions, and the Right to the City, Comparative Urban andCommunity Research, Vol. 10. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction
11

Publishers.
Solinger, D. J. (1999). Contesting Citizenship in Urban China: Peasant Migrants, theState, and the Logic of the Market. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Soysal, Y.N. (1994). Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in

Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stamouli, N. (2016). “Greece Signed Deal to Sell Stake in Port of Pireus to China’s
Cosco: Second Major Privatization since Late Last Year.” The Wall Street Journal.
April 8, 11:46 a.m. ET.
Xuefei, R. (2011). Building Globalization: Transnational Architecture Production in

Urban China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

12