bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Alcohol Use Disorder
Authors: Straussner Shulamith Lala Ashenberg , Straussner Sarina Beth , Einstein Stanley (Shlomo)
Published: March 2013

Millions of individuals use alcohol every day; however, not everyone experiences a problem due to such use. It is therefore helpful to conceptualize alcohol use as ranging on a continuum from nonproblematic social use (e.g., a glass of wine with dinner); to alcohol misuse (e.g., a one-time incident of binge drinking); to excessive use or abuse (e.g., frequent use of alcohol that results in a negative impact on the life of the individual and those around him or her, such as recurrent driving under the influence of alcohol); and finally, to physical dependence or addiction to alcohol (e.g., a chronic disorder that may require medical detoxification and/or formal treatment). While not used professionally, the commonly used term alcoholism has been used synonymously with alcohol addiction and refers to the compulsive use of alcoholic beverages. Both terms imply a progressive deterioration of the individual’s social, physical, and mental status combined with the inability to stop using alcohol even when wishing to do so. Although the professional literature on alcohol use problems is extensive and can be found in almost every country in the world, the inconsistent use of terminology is often confusing. There are tremendous overlaps among literature on topics such as alcohol-related problems, risky drinking, hazardous drinking, alcohol abuse and dependence, substance abuse, and alcohol addiction. The confusion has been compounded by the changes in the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2013), which eliminated the previous diagnostic classifications of “alcohol abuse” and “alcohol dependence” and replace them with the overall category of “Alcohol Use Disorders” (AUD), which itself is part of the broader new DSM-5 category of “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.” A fuller discussion of the DSM changes can be seen in S. Lala A. Straussner’s 2013 article “The DSM–5 diagnostic criteria: What’s new?” Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions. Research studies in the United States indicate a general decrease in the proportions of individuals with “pure” alcohol use diagnosis and an increase among those using multiple substances. Consequently, the topic of alcohol-use disorders needs to be considered within the context of the literature on problematic use of a variety of other chemical substances as well as other addictions, such as gambling and smoking. It also needs to take into account co-occurring mental disorders; age, gender, and sexual identity of users; socioeconomic and psychological issues; family dynamics; and ethnocultural factors. Finally, research and treatment focusing on AUD must be viewed within the context of governmental policies, which vary over time and in different locations.
Bereavement Practice
Authors: Sormanti Mary
Published: March 2013

Of life’s many losses, the death of a loved one (i.e., bereavement) is considered one of the most difficult to endure. With estimated global death rates of more than 56 million individuals each year, this generally unwanted experience affects a large segment of the population and begets considerable physical and psychological distress referred to as grief. Grief manifests as emotional, cognitive, spiritual, social, and physical changes whose impact can range from short-lived and relatively mild to long-lasting and profoundly disruptive. While grief precipitated by the death of a loved one can be particularly challenging, it is also experienced with many other losses, including divorce, geographic relocation, and unemployment. Understanding the common features of grief as well as the myriad contextual factors that shape how it is experienced and expressed is essential to effective social work practice. Empirical knowledge regarding grief is growing rapidly and includes analysis and debate about features that differentiate normative adaptive responses from those that may indicate a diagnosable disorder, providing a solid foundation for both novices and seasoned professionals.
Ezekiel
Authors: Lapsley Jacqueline , Marzouk Safwat
Published: March 2013

The book of Ezekiel, with its forty-eight chapters, is the third of the so-called Major Prophets (after Isaiah and Jeremiah). Ezekiel was a priest and a prophet in the years leading up to and following the Babylonian invasion of Judah in the early 6th century bce. The events surrounding the invasion—that is, the subsequent deportation of people to Babylon, and the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem—provoked an unparalleled theological crisis in Israel’s life, the depth of which is everywhere evident in Ezekiel. The temple was widely understood in several of Israel’s dominant religious traditions to be the unique locus of God’s presence, and its destruction was thus tantamount to God’s total abandonment of Israel. For Ezekiel, as a priest, the destruction of the temple seemed to signify both the end of his own identity and, more importantly, the end of Israelites as God’s covenantal people. The prophecies in the book are generally dated to the period 593–571 bce, though they do not follow an entirely clear chronological pattern within the book. Having been deported from Jerusalem with the first wave of exiles in 597, Ezekiel has been in Babylon for several years by 593, when the first text can be dated. And by its own dating, the final vision of a glorious temple in chapters 40–48 dates to about 571. The book appears on the surface to fall neatly into three parts (God’s judgment of Israel, chapters 1–24; God’s judgment of the nations, chapters 25–32; God’s restoration of Israel, chapters 33–48), but within that threefold structure it resists easy organization. The following bibliographic entries are not meant to be comprehensive, but merely illustrative of the resources available.
Paul's Opponents
Authors: Sumney Jerry L.
Published: March 2013

Beginning with some of the earliest, interpreters have sought to identify the teaching of those Paul opposed in his letters. At first, this investigation was done so that the interpreters could identify their own adversaries with those Paul opposes. In the era of critical interpretation, identifying these opponents of Paul has been seen as an important part of specifying the historical setting of the letters and thus as a part of the interpretive context. However, considerable disagreement exists about the identity of these opponents. Some argue that all of Paul’s letters address the same front of opposition, and others argue that multiple kinds of teachers opposed the work of Paul or that he told his congregations to reject. Modern critical study of Paul’s opponents begins with F. C. Baur. His foundational work has shaped the work on this issue since the late nineteenth century. He maintained that all of Paul’s letters are intended to oppose teachers who maintain that Gentile and Jewish church members must be Torah-observant, thus requiring Gentiles to receive circumcision and begin to keep the Sabbath and dietary regulations of Judaism. This single front of opposition was demanded by Baur’s Hegelian understanding of history. Even without that presupposition, some see a single type of opponent in Paul’s letters. While some continue to see those who demand Torah observance for Gentiles (often, and anachronistically, called Judaizers) as the single type of opposition, others see Gnostics as the single source of opposition. Most interpreters, however, find multiple types of ideas or practices that Paul opposes in his different letters. Part of the reason for the continuing disagreement about the identity of Paul’s opponents is that interpreters gave little attention to proper method for identifying them until the latter quarter of the twentieth century. Interpretive differences will continue to produce different hypotheses, but the attention given to method can help explain differences in hypotheses and give ways to move forward toward more agreement. Even the turn in Pauline studies toward more literary investigations has not slowed studies of opponents because they can contribute to our understanding of the Pauline mission and the shape of the earliest church.
Material Culture
Authors: Kieschnick John
Published: March 2013

The study of material culture belongs to a relatively young discipline that examines artifacts as well as ideas about, and practices related to, artifacts, with artifacts defined as material objects created or modified by people. Aspects of research in material culture overlap with art history, archaeology, and anthropology, but studies in material culture approach the subject from a different perspective, focusing on areas not necessarily emphasized in these disciplines. Unlike traditional art history, material culture studies concentrate on the function of objects, devoting little attention to their aesthetic qualities, with more emphasis, for instance, on miracles associated with icons than on the style or iconography of icons; unlike traditional archaeology, material culture studies do not necessarily focus on extant artifacts, giving as much attention to references to objects in texts as to extant objects; and, unlike traditional anthropology, material culture studies often give great emphasis to historical development, often over vast expanses of time. While the field of material culture studies has flourished for decades, religious studies have been slow to recognize the importance of material things. Many areas of religion in which material culture plays a prominent role remain largely unexplored, including the place of objects in ritual, religious emotion, pilgrimage, and doctrine. Readers interested in the material culture of Buddhism will want to consult entries for Buddhist art, archaeology, and anthropology as well; in the entries below, the focus is on areas of material culture not necessarily emphasized in these disciplines as well as on studies within these disciplines that are especially relevant to the study of material culture. The term visual culture overlaps with much of what is considered material culture, but excludes objects associated with other senses, such as taste, smell, and touch, which are covered by the term material culture. The material culture approach is particularly well suited for exploring the qualities of particular classes of objects. What is it about relics as body parts that accounts for their appeal? Why are miracles so often associated with physical representations of holy figures and how do these differ from textual representations? How do clothing and food differ from language as a medium of communication? To highlight this aspect of research in Buddhist material culture, the scholarship listed below is divided according to type of object. At the same time, material culture studies also offer an opportunity to examine attitudes toward the material world as applied to a wide variety of objects normally separated by discipline. The doctrine of merit inspired the creation of a wide variety of different types of objects, and the monastic ideal of renunciation permeates many different areas of Buddhist material culture.
Candrakīrti
Authors: Lang Karen C.
Published: March 2013

Candrakīrti (b. c. 570–d. c. 650) is an important commentator and author whose works influenced the development of Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy in India and in Tibet. He wrote major commentaries on Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikāḥ (Middle way stanzas), Yuktiṣaṣṭikā (Sixty stanzas on logical reasoning), and Śūnyatāsaptati (Seventy stanzas on emptiness) and on Āryadeva’s Catuḥśataka (Four hundred verses). His most important independent work, Madhyamakāvatāra (Introduction to the middle way), and its extensive autocommentary introduce the Madhyamaka school’s ideas on the ten stages of the bodhisattva path, which correlate with ten “perfect virtues” (pāramitā) to be mastered before reaching the goal of buddhahood. Candrakīrti’s works were translated into Tibetan in the 11th century and are preserved in the Tibetan Buddhist canon. According to medieval Tibetan historians’ accounts, Candrakīrti was born in South India, entered a monastery where he studied the works of Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva with students of the two rival interpreters of Madhyamaka thought, Bhāviveka (b. c. 500–d. c. 570) and Buddhapālita (b. c. 470–d. c. 540), and eventually became abbot of Nalanda, the great Buddhist university. In his commentaries, Candrakīrti criticizes the views of Bhāviveka as well as the views of the Buddhist epistemologists and the Vijñānavādins. Jayānanda’s twelfth commentary on the Madhyamakāvatāra indicates revived interest in his work in India, which spread to Tibet through the efforts of Jayānanda, who worked extensively in Tibet, and Patshab Nyima grags, who translated many of Candrakīrti’s works into Tibetan. Candrakīrti’s works remain important not only as sources for the history and development of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist philosophy but also because they still form part of the curriculum of present-day Tibetan Buddhist monasteries.
Dzogchen (rDzogs chen)
Authors: van Schaik Sam
Published: March 2013

Dzogchen is a Tibetan word meaning “great” (rdzogs) “perfection” or “completion” (chen). It refers to a genre of Buddhist texts and associated oral transmissions and meditation practices in Tibet’s Buddhist and Bonpo traditions. In general, Dzogchen texts express the presence of a state of awareness transcending all dualities and conceptual elaborations. Common terms for this kind of awareness are “mind itself” (sems nyid) and “knowing” (rig pa). Dzogchen texts often state that in the presence of this awareness, religious practice oriented toward enlightenment is dualistic and, therefore, not only unnecessary but also obstructive. However, Dzogchen texts and oral transmissions have tended to exist in the context of Tibet’s tantric traditions. Dzogchen is considered one of the three “inner yogas,” which are Mahāyoga, Anuyoga, and Atiyoga. In most contexts, Atiyoga is synonymous with Dzogchen. Of Tibet’s main schools, it is the Nyingma lineages that have produced and transmitted most of the Dzogchen literature, though Dzogchen has also been transmitted in the Kagyü schools and, to a much lesser extent, in the Sakya and Gelug schools as well.
Stūpa Pagoda Caitya
Authors: Pagel Ulrich
Published: March 2013

The stūpa ranks among the most visible and enduring symbols of Buddhism. It first appeared in the shape of a hemispherical earthen mound sometime around 400 to 300 bce. In India, stūpas became a prominent and regular feature of Buddhist monastic complexes soon after that. Already during the 3rd and 2nd centuries bce, we meet with large-scale stūpa constructions at a number of key Buddhist sites, including Bhārhut, Sāñchī, and, perhaps a little later, Amarāvatī. As buddhist monks began to spread the buddha’s teachings to the other countries of Asia from the 2nd century bce onward, stūpas grew into one of the most readily identifiable symbols of their arrival. Even in those areas where Buddhism did not survive (including India), the stūpas were left behind to continue to testify to the (once-) widespread presence of Buddhist communities, including in Afghanistan, central Asia, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Laos, as well as in its variant form as a pagoda in China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. As Buddhism gained acceptance in these countries, it molded its prescriptions governing stūpa construction to accommodate local architectural traditions, discovering new building materials and changing shapes. From early on, stūpa structures were employed for multiple purposes. They served as central places of worship attracting monks and laymen, were adopted as mortuary containers to hold the ashes of local monks, were used to raise funds to improve living conditions in monasteries, became destinations of pilgrimage, and, more recently, have been turned into symbols of national unity, to name only a few. However, most importantly, they served to signal the presence of the buddha, not just in the abstract but also in a very physical living sense, commanding specific rights and privileges through the relics they enshrined. Furthermore, as a carrier of archaeological evidence, the stūpa continues to hold a prominent place in the study of the history of Buddhism, because its structures feature some of the earliest examples of religious architecture, stone sculpture, and inscriptions in South Asia.
Bodhicitta
Authors: Powers John
Published: March 2013

The Sanskrit term bodhicitta (mind of awakening) refers to the state of mind of a bodhisattva, who pursues buddhahood in order to benefit others. There are two primary aspects: (1) a conventional aspect of a bodhisattva who aspires to buddhahood; and (2) an ultimate aspect, which is actualized when the nature of mind of a bodhisattva awakens. The conventional aspect also has two levels: (1) aspirational (praṇidhāna) bodhicitta, in which the bodhisattva takes a vow to attain buddhahood for the benefit of others; and (2) practical bodhicitta, which refers to actual practice on the path. Bodhicitta is the key concept that separates the two main traditions of Indian Buddhism, Mahayana (“Greater Vehicle”) and Hinayana (“Lesser Vehicle”). The latter is a polemical term (rejected by those to whom it is applied) coined by their Mahayana rivals. Mahayanists characterize the Hinayana pursuit of personal liberation as selfish and valorize the universal compassion of bodhisattvas, who are portrayed as mighty heroes who pursue the supreme religious goal because of their universal compassion. Note that, in Tibetan, the term bodhicitta is byang chub kyi sems. In East Asia, the term is written as 菩提心 and pronounced in Mandarin as pútí xīn; in Japanese as bodaishin; in Korean as pori sim; and in Vietnamese as bồ đề tâm.
Incommensurability in Science
Authors: Oberheim Eric , Hoyningen-Huene Paul
Published: March 2013

In 1962 in independent, influential publications, Thomas S. Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend suggested the provocative idea that some scientific theories (concepts, paradigms, worldviews) separated by a scientific revolution are incommensurable. They have “no common measure.” The idea of incommensurability became central to both Kuhn’s historical philosophy and Feyerabend’s philosophical pluralism. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Kuhn 1996, cited in Thomas S. Kuhn on Incommensurability dramatically claims that the history of science reveals proponents of competing paradigms failing to make complete contact with each other’s views, so that they are always talking at least slightly at cross-purposes. Kuhn calls the collective causes of such miscommunication the incommensurability between pre- and postrevolutionary scientific traditions, claiming that the Newtonian paradigm is incommensurable with its Cartesian and Aristotelian predecessors in physics, just as Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier’s paradigm is incommensurable with that of Joseph Priestley’s in chemistry. These competing paradigms lack a common measure, because they use different concepts and methods to address different problems, limiting communication across the revolutionary divide. Incommensurability is also central to the aims and methods of Kuhn’s hermeneutic “new historiography of science,” which attempts to transform our image of science. Instead of the traditional image of continuous progress toward truth, Kuhn argues that scientific development is an evolutionary process away from anomalies. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is unprecedentedly popular across the human and social sciences, widely touted as among the most influential academic books of the 20th century. Feyerabend first used the term “incommensurable” in 1962 to characterize the relationship between the concepts of universal scientific theories interpreted realistically, claiming that they have no common measure. The idea of incommensurability remained central to his pluralistic approach to philosophy from his early work to his infamous Against Method (1975; Feyerabend 2010, cited in Paul Feyerabend on Incommensurability) through to his late, postmodern phase. For example, two main themes of The Tyranny of Science (Feyerabend 2011, cited in Feyerabend, Reality, and Incommensurability) are the disunity of science and the abundance of nature, which are lessons he learned directly through his experience with incommensurability. With incommensurability, Kuhn and Feyerabend appeared to be challenging the idea that science is rational, and they were called the “worst enemies of science” in the journal Nature. By now incommensurability has become a well-worn catchphrase of 20th-century philosophy, used across a range of interrelated disciplines to mean many different things in any number of controversial discussions.
Arguments for the Existence of God
Authors: Oppy Graham
Published: March 2013

Philosophical discussion of arguments for the existence of God appeared to have become extinct during the heyday of logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy. However, since the mid-1960s, there has been a resurgence of interest in these arguments. Much of the discussion has focused on Kant’s “big three” arguments: ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, and teleological arguments. Discussion of ontological arguments has been primarily concerned with (a) Anselm’s ontological argument; (b) modal ontological arguments, particularly as developed by Alvin Plantinga; and (c) higher-order ontological arguments, particularly Gödel’s ontological argument. Each of these kinds of arguments has found supporters, although few regard these as the strongest arguments that can be given for the existence of God. Discussion of cosmological arguments has been focused on (a) kalām cosmological arguments (defended, in particular, by William Lane Craig); (b) cosmological arguments from sufficient reason (defended, in particular, by Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss); and (c) cosmological arguments from contingency (defended, in particular, by Robert Koons and Timothy O’Connor). Discussion of teleological arguments has, in recent times, been partly driven by the emergence of the intelligent design movement in the United States. On the one hand, there has been a huge revival of enthusiasm for Paley’s biological argument for design. On the other hand, there has also been the development of fine-tuning teleological arguments driven primarily by results from very recent cosmological investigation of our universe. Moreover, new kinds of teleological arguments have also emerged—for example, Alvin Plantinga’s arguments for the incompatibility of metaphysical naturalism with evolutionary theory and Michael Rea’s arguments for the incompatibility of the rejection of intelligent design with materialism, realism about material objects, and realism about other minds. Other (“minor”) arguments for the existence of God that have received serious discussion in recent times include moral arguments, arguments from religious experience, arguments from miracles, arguments from consciousness, arguments from reason, and aesthetic arguments. Of course, there is also a host of “lesser” arguments that are mainly viewed as fodder for undergraduate dissection. Further topics that are germane to any discussion of arguments for the existence of God include (a) the appropriate goals at which these arguments should aim and the standards that they should meet, (b) the prospects for “cumulative” arguments (e.g., of the kind developed by Richard Swinburne), and (c) the prospects for prudential arguments that appeal to our desires rather than to our beliefs (e.g., Pascal’s wager).
Philosophy of History
Authors: Little Daniel
Published: March 2013

When philosophers have written about “history,” they have often had different and even incompatible goals in mind. One tradition of philosophers, generally from Continental Europe and originating in the eighteenth century, has wanted to contribute to answers to large questions about the nature of history as it presented itself over time as a compound of individuals, actions, nations, and civilizations: Does history have a direction? Is there a unity to history? Does history have meaning? Is there a plan to history? Do civilizations rise and fall? Is materialism or idealism the better framework for understanding the movement of history? This approach to the study of history is often referred to as “speculative” or “substantive.” A second tradition, related to the first, applies the methods and frameworks of hermeneutics to the understanding of history. Within this approach, the central task of historians is to provide intelligible explications of the actions chosen by historical actors. A third 20th-century tradition is “conceptual and critical history,” largely created by German historian Reinhart Koselleck. This philosophy of history focuses on the historical development of social and political concepts. A fourth tradition, largely Anglo-American and twentieth century in origin, rejects the goal of providing commentary on “history” at all, and focuses instead on historical knowledge and historical explanation. This analytic tradition focuses on epistemology of historical knowledge rather than the metaphysics or large meanings of historical reality.
Scientific Progress
Authors: Niiniluoto Ilkka
Published: March 2013

Science is the systematic pursuit of new knowledge by using critical methods of inquiry. Scientists constitute a community of investigators jointly engaged in research to produce knowledge about nature, humanity, culture, and society. The notion of science may thus refer to a social institution, the researchers, the research process, the methods of inquiry, and scientific knowledge. Developments and changes in all of these aspects of science are studied by the history of science. Sociologists of science are especially interested in the professional status of the scientists and their academic institutions, the internal norms of the scientific community, forms of scientific communication, and the economics and funding systems of scientific research. Multidisciplinary science studies illuminate the interaction between science and society, especially the ways scientific advances have brought about social progress by improved technologies, economic prosperity, quality of life, and justice in society. Science education is concerned with the increased skill and expertise of the scientists. Methodology looks at the development of new methods and tools of research, such as the refinement of scientific instruments, techniques of experimentation, and statistical and computational methods. Philosophy of science analyzes science from a cognitive perspective as an attempt to improve and increase scientific knowledge. In particular, axiological studies discuss the aims of scientific inquiry. Logic and epistemology study the proper ways of scientific thinking, argumentation, and inference. The language of science and its relations to reality, observation, and theory; explanation and prediction; and patterns of scientific change belong to the main themes of general philosophy of science. Philosophical studies may also focus on key issues about special scientific disciplines, such as physics, biology, psychology, and economics. While the notion of scientific progress in the broad sense could cover improvements in all of these aspects of science, it is customary to restrict this title to advances of science in terms of its success in knowledge seeking. In this sense, scientific progress is a fundamental issue that has been actively debated within the philosophy of science since the 1960s. The task of philosophical analysis is to consider alternative answers to the conceptual or normative question: What is meant by improvement or progress in science? The definition of progress leads to the methodological question about indicators of progress: How can we recognize progressive developments in science? With these tools one can then study the factual question: To what extent and in which respects has science been progressive?
Animal Rights
Authors: Rowlands Mark
Published: March 2013

The expression “animal rights” is employed in two different ways: one broad, the other narrow. When employed in the broad sense—animal rights with a small “r”—the claim that animals possess rights is used as a way of asserting that animals have moral standing: that they are morally considerable, the legitimate objects of moral concern. Even moral theories that are officially hostile to the concept of rights can accept that animals have rights in this sense. Thus, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described the idea of rights as “nonsense” but nevertheless argued that animals possess moral standing. And although subsequent utilitarians have generally inherited this antipathy toward the concept of rights, it was utilitarianism that underpinned Peter Singer’s (Singer 1975, cited under Introductory Works, the Basic Argument, and Utilitarianism and Animals) seminal defense of the moral claims of animals. Thus, Singer, certainly in the minds of the general public, is associated with the idea of animal rights even though the moral theory he deploys is officially hostile to the concept of rights. The broad sense of animal rights is, therefore, a very loose sense, and the area of inquiry might instead be labeled “animal ethics.” In a stronger sense—animal rights with a capital “R”—the claim that animals possess rights is restricted to specific moral theories that endorse both the moral claims of animals and the apparatus of moral rights. In particular, the claim is strongly associated with the deontological framework developed by Tom Regan (see Animals and Natural Rights), and also with certain contractualist approaches to understanding the rights of animals (see Contractualism and Animals). This bibliography encompasses animal rights in the broad sense of animal ethics. It focuses on theoretical developments in animal ethics. Tracing the practical implications of each theory or tradition for issues such animal husbandry, experimentation, hunting and other blood sports, zoos, the keeping of pets, and so on has proved to be not only important in its own right but also a significant component in the overall theoretical elaboration of each tradition. Practical work is cited, and practical issues discussed, only to the extent they have impact on the theoretical frameworks.
Walter Hilton
Authors: Sargent Michael G.
Published: March 2013

Walter Hilton was a writer of English and Latin works of spiritual guidance who died as an Augustinian canon (canon regular) at Thurgarton in Nottinghamshire on 24 March 1396. In the 1370s and early 1380s Hilton wrote a series of Latin letters to a variety of recipients who had asked his advice on the contemplative life or on whether they should join religious orders. During the same period, he also wrote an English letter “Of Mixed Life” for a wealthy householder who also felt himself drawn to a life of contemplation, and (probably) the first book of The Scale of Perfection, for a woman who had recently been enclosed as an anchoress. The second book of The Scale was probably written considerably later. Although it addresses itself to the same reader as the first (who, its opening lines relate, had further questions about some of the material covered in Scale I), it is a considerably more sophisticated work theologically and appears to be aimed further beyond its original audience.
Police History
Authors: Neyroud Peter , Vera Antonio
Published: March 2013

“Police history” predates the evolution of the “police” as a permanent occupational group within a bureaucratic institution, providing the primary state response to crime and disorder. That was primarily a development of the 19th century and a reaction to the rapid social change of the industrial revolution and rapid urbanization. Prior to 1800, governments maintained order by a variety of means, local and national. One of the key historical debates concerns the effectiveness of these approaches and the degree of continuity between the premodern and modern police models. Around 1800 a small number of distinctively different types of police institution emerged. The French, under Napoleon, instituted the Gendarmerie, a state military police model. It evolved from the “Marechaussee,” which had had a dual military and civil function since the 16th century. The model was exported across Europe by Napoleon. The British developed two models. The first, set up to answer similar challenges to the Gendarmerie in France, was the Royal Irish Constabulary model. It was close to the state military model, but distinctively styled as part of the civil power of the state and subordinated to the Magistracy. The Irish model was subsequently exported to Britain’s colonies and became the basis of forces such as the Indian Police Service. The Metropolitan Police was consciously created as a local force with a uniform that was deliberately different from the military and a mission that focused on prevention of crime rather than the repression of disorder. This state civilian model became the basis for all UK forces on the mainland and the principal influence on the development of East Coast US policing in the 1840s. As the three models have developed and evolved in different political systems over the years since 1800, they have both diverged and converged in various ways. There has been significant convergence in the basic disciplines of policing. However, the governance of the police, the use of force, and the management of public disorder have, in many cases, remained quite distinct in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. This bibliography has been organized by national histories. This is, in some ways, the easiest way to organize the material, but it also presents some difficulties in showing some of the crosscutting issues and challenges.
Political Thought
Authors: Jurdjevic Mark
Published: March 2013

Early modern European political thought is notable for its considerable variety and complexity. The broad range of arguments and themes developed between c. 1350 and c. 1650 reflect the particularly swift rate of change in Europe’s political, religious, and geographical landscape. In the 14th century, as the monarchies north and west of the Alps began a process of political consolidation that gradually ended feudalism, the city-states of Italy began to develop systematic theories of popular sovereignty and celebrations of active citizenship. The optimism of humanist political thought suffered a major setback during the French invasion of Italy and ensuing Italian wars, a traumatic context that gave rise to the pessimistic realism of Machiavelli and Guicciardini. In the 16th century, humanism’s political assumptions spread north and were further developed by Christian humanists such as Thomas More and Erasmus. Initially an Italian phenomenon, humanism became an important aspect of western European political culture concurrent with the 16th-century Reformation. Political thought of the Reformation era, guided at first by bellicose figures such as Luther, Calvin, and Loyola, initially stressed obedience and uniformity, even as embattled French Calvinists began to develop theories of political resistance and German and Dutch Anabaptists began to champion voluntary religion, pacifism, and the separation of church and state. The apparent intractability of religious conflict led many political thinkers to seek order in a new absolutist vision of a powerful centralized state. In the 17th century and in France, most successfully, self-styled absolutist monarchs made yet more ambitious and unbounded claims to power. Such claims did not go uncontested, however. In England, the apparent encroaching absolutism of the Stuart dynasty led to a twenty-year conflict between royalists and parliamentarians that saw the trial and execution of Charles I and the sudden urgency of arguments by radical political groups such as the Ranters, Levellers, and Fifth Monarchists for community of goods, sexual freedom, and religious toleration. Concurrent and frequently intersecting with these political upheavals was the European discovery of the New World, the enslavement of Central and South America’s indigenous peoples, and the establishment of trading colonies in the Americas, which led to the reinterpretation of ancient theories of slavery and empire and the emergence of international law by thinkers such as Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf.
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
Authors: Dougherty M.V.
Published: March 2013

The Renaissance philosopher Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (b. 1463–d. 1494) is best known today for his Oratio de hominis dignitate, a speech often touted as an emblematic expression of the Renaissance. Originally, however, the Oratio was intended to open a debate in Rome where Pico had hoped to dispute his Conclusiones nongentae, a work of nine hundred theses covering a vast array of philosophical, theological, and esoteric topics that Pico had published in late 1486. A papal prohibition by Innocent VIII, however, canceled the planned disputation, and Pico was excommunicated after he authored in 1487 his Apologia, a sharp defense of thirteen of the nine hundred theses that had been identified as doctrinally problematic by an ecclesiastical commission. Pico was only fully rehabilitated in 1493 by the new pope Alexander VI. Pico’s other extant works testify to his wide-ranging interests and training. In addition to studying ancient and scholastic philosophy, Pico learned Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, and he was one of the first to use Kabbalah to support points of Christian doctrine. He had a life-long interest in reconciling philosophers of the past, arguing that the main oppositions between Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics were simply verbal, and he intended to publish a work titled Concordia Platonis Aristotelisque. He had an early epistolary debate with Ermolao Barbaro on the relationship of philosophy and rhetoric, wrote on metaphysics in De ente et uno, engaged in biblical exegesis in the Heptaplus, and criticized astrology in his longest book, the unfinished Disputationes. Pico enjoyed the protection of Lorenzo de’ Medici and his intellectual contacts included Marsilio Ficino, Angelo Poliziano, and Girolamo Savonarola. Much of Pico’s work was published posthumously in 1496 by his nephew and literary executor, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola. Pico was introduced to an English audience in the early 16th century by Thomas More, who produced an abbreviated English rendering of Gianfrancesco’s biography of his uncle, along with translations of three letters and several short spiritual writings by Pico.
Elites
Authors: Ruggiu François-Joseph
Published: March 2013

“Elites” is a sociological concept born at the beginning of the twentieth century and defined especially by Vilfredo Pareto. The concept has been employed and specified by the most prestigious sociologists, such as Max Weber, Raymond Aron, Robert Dahl, Talcott Parsons, or Charles Wright Mills. It commonly designates the group situated at the top of the social ladder of a society, and who dominates this society in every domain. It may also be used to identify the persons who dominate a social group whatever its place in the social ladder. In this last meaning (often called “pluralist”), it is possible to identify the elite of subaltern groups such as the workers, peasants, or, in the colonial context, natives. “Elites” is particularly in favor with social historians of the early modern period: it allows escaping the debate “order” versus “class”; it avoids being misled by the specificities of different kinds of upper groups (administrative, commercial, religious). It facilitates thinking on the diversity of the dominate groups of the society in economic and social terms as well as in gender terms. Elites is a particularly convenient term for describing the upper classes of the colonial societies during the early modern period. The European hierarchies based on ranks and degrees were often blurred in colonies because upward and downward social mobilities were high, especially at the beginning of the settlements, and because whiteness was often seen as a unifying element, especially in the Caribbean. As in Europe, elites in British, Dutch, French, Portuguese, and Spanish Atlantics exercised their authority on dependents and subalterns through political power, cultural superiority, and wealth. But the specificities of the colonial situation in the Americas and the Caribbean explained the fact that they developed harsher forms of subordinations. Violence and coercion were especially aimed against white indentured servants; Amerindians, even if forms of native nobility were often acknowledged; and African slaves.
Toleration in the Atlantic World
Authors: Haefeli Evan
Published: March 2013

Toleration, also known as religious tolerance, is a topic in transition. Until recently it was restricted largely to leading individuals and their ideas: John Locke, Pierre Bayle, William Penn, Roger Williams, and so forth. However, a growing appreciation of the social and cultural experience and practice of toleration among common people has taken place since the 1990s. This interest has expanded the range of questions, sources, and interests connected to toleration. It has also contributed to the growing realization among scholars that toleration is no longer as simple and straightforward a topic as was once thought. How to define it, for example, is something of a vexing issue that has not yet produced a consensus. Many scholars seek to resolve at least part of the dilemma by defining tolerance and toleration as separate dimensions of coexistence, one involving state power, the other individual attitudes. In the early modern period, the question of tolerance was more about religion than ethnic difference. Consequently, the historical experience of minority religious groups, particularly Protestant dissenters such as Quakers and Baptists, Catholics in Protestant territories, Huguenots, and Jews, are indispensable to the history of toleration. The Atlantic world plays a crucial (if not always appreciated) role in the history of toleration, if only because it produced the United States and its first constitutional amendment forbidding the establishment of a national church. Nonetheless, there is much more, from the less studied and celebrated histories of other colonies in the Caribbean and South America to the question of the relationship between tolerance in the colonies and tolerance in Europe. For example, Roger Williams and William Penn played significant roles in both the European toleration debates and the founding of American colonies. While a need exists for more research on the Atlantic dimensions of toleration (not least on the African side of the story), Atlantic world researchers are beginning to approach the issue in fresh ways more appropriate for the diverse Atlantic experience.
British Army
Authors: Dziennik Matthew P.
Published: March 2013

Despite its seminal importance to the nation’s security in the long 18th century, the British army occupied an ambiguous place in British society. A small professional force composed of long-term volunteers, augmented during wartime by bounty-induced enlistments, foreign servicemen, and forced impressment, the army was the subject of profound resentment which was slow to dissipate even after the first Mutiny Act (1689) and the Statute of Rights (1694) brought the institution more firmly under parliamentary control. The 17th-century fear that a standing army might subvert constitutional liberties survived into the 1730s and suspicions of the arbitrary authority encouraged by military law continued to raise frequent concern among theorists and commentators. Even more enduring was the vilification of the army as an institution that bred drunkenness and criminality. While a stream of victories, culminating in the battle of Waterloo in 1815, improved popular perceptions of the army, it was well into the 20th century before the negative image of the rank and file began to dissolve. As a result, interpretations of the army in the first half of the 20th century swung between two extremes: On the one hand, traditional historiography emphasized the view that the army epitomized the greatest virtues of the British nation. Another approach continued to emphasize variants on the older view that recruits were, to repeat the Duke of Wellington’s 1831 quip, “the mere scum of the earth.” Historians are currently qualifying both extremes. Recent research has shown that the common soldiery came not from the dregs of society but from professions most vulnerable to fluctuations in the market economy, particularly semiskilled artisans. The huge expansion of the peacetime “establishment” from 12,000 men in the first decade of the 18th century to almost 50,000 by 1775 also provides the context for many questions, the extent of the army’s professionalization being key among these. The 18th-century army performed well but a chronic lack of funding, inconsistent training, inadequate pay, and an unqualified officer class undercut effectiveness. The British state was at war for 70 of the 127 years following the Glorious Revolution, a condition that amplified the demands of war on British society and the state’s bureaucratic structures. Future research is likely to focus increasingly on the army’s diversity. The regular army was a heterogeneous institution, both socially and ethnically. It was a polyglot Atlantic, even global, institution, drawing its manpower from all parts of the British Isles, the German states, Africa, Canada, the English-speaking Americas, and India.
Slave Rebellions
Authors: Sidbury James
Published: March 2013

The importance and meaning of slave rebellions for our understanding of slavery has changed. During the first half of the 20th century, when the historiography of United States slavery was dominated by and then emerging from the genteel racism of the U. B. Phillips school, slave rebellions provided evidence to refute claims that Africans and African Americans happily accepted their enslaved status. The historiography of other American plantation regions, especially the Caribbean, was dominated by concerns with colonialism and decolonization, which produced an analogous focus on heroic black resistance as part of a broader struggle for human liberation and progress. Among those writing about the United States, Herbert Aptheker famously catalogued hundreds of episodes of slave unrest in his effort to show that black Americans fought for their freedom just as did other oppressed people (see Aptheker 1983, cited under British North America and the United States). C. L. R. James’s work on the Haitian Revolution (see James 1989, cited under French) also placed black rebellion at the heart of an international struggle for freedom. Historians writing about slave uprisings continued to do so within progressive narratives—sometimes Marxian and sometimes liberal—until the combination of the fall of state socialism and the rise of postmodernism dealt a body blow to confidence in progressive narratives. Historians have not responded by turning away from slave rebellions, but they have begun to write about them differently. In a cultural environment in which no one professes to believe that slaves accepted enslavement, and in which fewer and fewer are confident that history is moving in an identifiable direction, historical analyses of individual slave rebellions fit much less securely into a single pattern. Sometimes historians analyze slave rebellions as evidence of the resilience of the enslaved in the face of their oppression. Others turn to rebellions because they produce unusually rich, if unquestionably problematic, sources with which to explore the often undocumented ideas and aspirations of slaves. Still others see traditions of slave resistance that culminated in uprisings as important evidence of the kinds of persistent pressure from below that postmodernism has—wrongly in their eyes—removed from center stage.