34 results
Foreword
-
- By Kate Nash
- Edited by Boel Ulfsdotter, University of Gothenburg, Anna Backman Rogers, University of Gothenburg
-
- Book:
- Female Agency and Documentary Strategies
- Published by:
- Edinburgh University Press
- Published online:
- 28 April 2021
- Print publication:
- 09 January 2018, pp xiii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Contemporary documentary media is an expansive domain. Alongside established forms and platforms we find multifarious practices that intersect in a multitude of ways with the documentary ‘project’ broadly considered. Documentary, as we know, is always evolving and this is very apparent in the work collected here in this second volume of Female Authorship and the Documentary Image. The collection embraces this expansive and evolving domain of documentary practice, interrogating the very idea of authorship and creating a fertile dialogue between emerging and established practices and scholarship.
Organised into four thematic parts, new media and activism, selfhood and subjectivities, identity politics of documentary and the personal is political, the collection brings a fresh perspective to the study of gender and the documentary tradition. These four themes highlight a key achievement of the collection, the links it creates between contemporary documentary practices in all their diversity and the fundamental questions of film, media and documentary scholarship. The editors and contributors challenge the reader to reconsider the idea of authorship from multiple perspectives, reflecting their very different academic orientations. Key themes include: the connection between authorship, place, culture and global politics; the changing nature of collaborative authorship and the need for a more nuanced consideration of context; and the changing nature of self-representation in a digital media culture. What emerges is a picture of the fluidity and richness of female authorship today.
A particularly important strand of inquiry that runs through the collection is the importance of contexts for any attempt to understand female documentary authorship. Contributions draw attention to the intersections between gender and culture, nationality, politics, economics and personal and family histories. Female authorship admits of no ‘one size fits all’ theoretical or conceptual treatment. Importantly, a number of the chapters highlight the limitations of Euro-Western theoretical frameworks, drawing attention to the ways in which documentary makers skilfully negotiate and explore multiple identities and speaking positions in their work.
A particular value of the collection is, as I have already noted, its embrace of emerging platforms and practices that intersect with documentary. There are chapters on blogging, social media activism and forms of digital self-representation. In thinking through these emerging practices the writers move beyond a simplistic celebration of technological advancement to engage deeply with the practices of women who are exploring new potentials for documentary expression.
5 - Humanising capitalism
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 89-114
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself [sic] and of his family [sic], including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control [sic].
(Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)There is a sense in which rapid economic progress is impossible without painful adjustments. Ancient philosophies have to be scrapped; old social institutions have to disintegrate; bonds of caste, creed and race have to burst; and large numbers of persons who cannot keep up with progress have to have their expectations of a comfortable life frustrated. Very few communities are willing to pay the full price of economic progress.
(United Nations, Department of Social and Economic Affairs 1951, quoted in Escobar 1995: 3)The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) clearly lays out the expectations that every individual in the world has, or should have, with regard to their social and economic rights. In addition, most states (with the notable exception of the United States) are signatories to the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which came into force in 1976. According to Article 2 of the ICESCR:
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
The rights recognised in the ICESCR are mostly elaborations of Article 25 of the UDHR quoted at the beginning of this chapter: to food, shelter and social security. International human rights law not only specifies in some detail what individuals are due, it also codifies the expectation that it is the duty of states to co-operate internationally in order to realise rights in practice for everyone.
Frontmatter
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp i-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Notes
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 173-188
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
2 - (A) human rights movement(s) and other organisations
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 19-40
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Open your newspaper – any day of the week – and you will find a report from somewhere in the world of someone being imprisoned, tortured or executed because his [sic] opinions or religion are unacceptable to his government. The newspaper reader feels a sickening sense of impotence. Yet if these feelings of disgust all over the world could be united into common action, something effective could be done.
(Peter Benenson, founder of Amnesty, 1961)If the cultural politics of human rights is to bring about any real change in practices of injustice and suffering, they must be organised. In many respects the ideal form of organisation to achieve the enjoyment of human rights is a global social movement or movements. Social movements are distinctive forms of organisation for social change that are understood to be flexible, popular and innovative, engaging people in their everyday life decisions as well as trying to change elite power structures. Social movements are made up of loosely connected networks of individuals, groups and what are often called non-governmental organisations (NGOs). ‘NGO’ is a useful category insofar as it puts together organisations that are independent of governments and that pursue ‘not-for-profit’ aims. NGOs are a ‘third sector’ in relation to governments and corporations. The category is misleading, however, if it leads us to neglect the enormous differences between organisations that are included within it. In general NGOs have a similar structure to corporations and to political parties: they are bureaucratic and hierarchical, and they employ professionals and experts. They can be very large, like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, called international NGOs (INGOs) because they have branches in more than one state. NGOs can also be very small: some human rights NGOs consist of no more than a couple of people with some form of relevant expertise, a computer and an office. Social movements invariably contain NGOs, but they always also contain grassroots organisations (GROs). In general GROs are different from NGOs in that they are less formally organised, less bureaucratic and they do not employ professionals. GROs can be support and self-help groups, they may involve members of communities who are directly affected by certain issues, and sometimes they include people who have chosen to live and work in solidarity with people suffering ‘human rights wrongs’.
Bibliography
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 193-214
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Preface and acknowledgements
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp ix-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This book has been more challenging to write than I expected. The first big challenge was how to avoid Eurocentrism. By Eurocentrism I mean the assumption that what happens in what I call the ‘Northwest’ – in the European settler states of the United States, Western Europe and Australasia – is the norm, and that other parts of the world will or should follow their example. Eurocentrism is quite evident in some human rights advocacy. However, critics of human rights who see governments and corporations from the Northwest as facilitating or legitimating ‘Western neo-liberal imperialism’ do not necessarily escape it either: when their analyses are limited to discourses that originate and circulate in the United States, for example, they seem to assume that it is only what happens there that is really important. In this book I have tried to develop theory and methodology to understand how contexts, actors and claims for human rights differ around the world as well as what they share in common. The task is complicated because one of the most important contexts for the realisations of respect for human rights is the dominance of the owners of financial and industrial capital, state officials, and also international non-governmental organisations that are based in the Northwest. To get a good understanding of the range of possibilities represented by human rights today we must take seriously both the variety of local constructions of human rights people are creating to deal with specific injustices and also the effects of global geo-politics on what they are able to achieve using a language of human rights.
This brings me to the second challenge of studying human rights. I develop a version of sociology that enables us to study structures as well as meanings; what is ‘social’ as well as what is ‘cultural’ about constructions of human rights. Broadly speaking sociologists and anthropologists have tended to focus on the small-scale and local: on meanings that are created and sustained in communities and movements. Most international relations (IR) scholars and political scientists studying human rights focus instead on large-scale structures, networks and international organisations. In this book I argue that we xmust do both. Studying structures (of capitalism, post-colonialism, gender) and organisations (corporations, non-governmental organisations, inter-governmental organisations, and above all states – which are not all the same) is crucial to understanding both the possibilities and the limitations of human rights today.
8 - What works? Paradoxes in the human rights field
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 156-172
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The cultural politics of human rights is pragmatic: claiming authority to define human rights is intended to make a difference in the world. Although they are idealistic, utopian even, human rights are also supposed to be realisable in practice. As we have seen throughout this book, contemporary human rights are not just claims for freedom from state violence. Today human rights are claimed in an expansive and inclusive set of inter-related demands that include rights to freedom from all kinds of violence: from hunger and homelessness, the destruction of marginalised ways of life, discipline and punishment for being a woman. Transforming structures of geo-politics, of globalising capitalism, of gender and sexuality, and of the legacy of colonialism: these are all potentially radical aims in that they are meant to alter the conditions of our lives and so make a fundamental difference to people who are treated with less than equal respect. But however radical they may be, framing suffering as a ‘human rights wrong’ invariably situates demands as reformist too. Whether they mobilise people at the grassroots or not, claims for human rights address duty-bearers: officials in organisations who may be persuaded to make use of the moral and material resources over which they have influence to support demands for greater justice, less suffering. The pragmatism of the cultural politics of human rights is both radical in its aims to fundamentally transform structures, and reformist in that it tries to achieve these aims through existing organisations.
Given their pragmatic, reformist dimension, we might conclude that the most important question about human rights is: ‘do they work?’ Has the explosion of human rights claims since the end of the Cold War made any difference to human suffering?
Measuring human rights
Perhaps unsurprisingly the most focused and coherent attempt to answer this question comes from analysts of statistical data. Statistical analysis of the effects of international human rights treaties is a growing area now in political science, international relations (IR) and International Legal Studies.1 Statistical analysis of the effects of campaigns is also becoming more important to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and inter-governmental organisations (IGOs), especially when they must justify their activities to donors.
7 - Do migrants have rights?
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 135-155
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
(Article 13, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)The conception of human rights, based upon the assumed existence of a human being as such, broke down at the very moment when those who professed to believe in it were for the first time confronted with people who had indeed lost all other qualities and specific relationships – except they were still human. The world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human.
(Arendt 1979: 299)According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) ‘everyone’ is entitled to life, liberty, political participation, and a degree of economic and social security. ‘No-one’ is to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, tortured or subjected to ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. In principle, universal human rights are ‘de-territorialised’, applicable to everyone, everywhere. In this respect human rights seem to be made for migrants, since most (though not all) can also be said to be de-territorialised insofar as they travel to live outside the states of which they are citizens.
In terms of the situations migrants leave behind them, it is not hard to see the relevance of human rights: people flee their homes because they are afraid of being attacked by armed militias or of being bombed; they are displaced from their homes and livelihoods by development projects or environmental damage; they move to find a better way of life for themselves and their families, trying to escape poverty, ill-health and economic insecurity; and they flee violence that is threatened or that they have suffered at the hands of state agents or from which their state has failed to protect them. Given that people are suffering from poverty, lack of opportunities and violence in some parts of the world, very often their reasons for moving to another country are mixed. In terms of the human rights they may enjoy migrants fall into quite different legal categories. In Europe and North America, authorised migrants are workers who have been recruited for their skills, people who have come legally to join other family members, or who have been granted political asylum as refugees or who are waiting for a decision on their application for asylum.
6 - Women's rights are human rights
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 115-134
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Let us look for more allies. And to look for them, let's look for languages that cannot be rejected.
(Susan Chiarotti, quoted in Keck and Sikkink 1998: 166)Until recently, human rights standards were set and monitored in inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) in ways that confirmed men as having greater value than women. The human rights listed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are supposed to apply to everyone ‘without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status’ (Article 2 UDHR). However, foundational human rights documents, the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are not gender-neutral. They do not apply equally to women and to men. The fact that these documents use the pronoun ‘he’ throughout is not accidental. Rather than listing universal, gender-neutral rights, they list ‘what men fear will happen to them’ (Edwards 2011: 51–64). The UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR practically never mention women explicitly, and they are above all concerned with what happens to people in the public sphere, as a result of activities and policies carried out on behalf of the state. The private domestic sphere of the family, which has at least as much impact on how women are controlled and exploited, is constructed in foundational human rights documents as a place of natural, family relations, somewhere that is itself in need of ‘protection’.
It was not until the 1990s that feminists came to the question, ‘Are women's rights human rights?’. The women's movements of the 1970s and 1980s took little interest in human rights. In the Northwest, radical and socialist-inclined movements were more concerned with raising consciousness and finding new ways to live in egalitarian and liberated ways outside the nuclear family than with changing laws and policies. Women's movements in what was then called the ‘Third World’ also had their own concerns, different in different national and regional contexts. Even when the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was signed and ratified in the 1970s, as a result of the efforts of people involved in the UN Commission on the Status of Women that dates back to 1946, it seemed too limited and bureaucratic to hold much appeal (Reilly 2009).
Contents
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp vii-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Epigraph
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Kate Nash
-
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015
-
- Textbook
- Export citation
-
The language of human rights is the most prominent 'people-centred' language of global justice today. This textbook looks at how human rights are constructed at local, national, international and transnational levels and considers commonalities and differences around the world. Through discussions of key debates in the interdisciplinary study of human rights, the book develops its themes by considering examples of human rights advocacy in international organisations, national states and local grassroots movements. Case studies relating to specific organisations and institutions illustrate how human rights are being used to address structural injustices: imperialist geopolitics, authoritarianism and corruption, inequalities created by 'freeing' markets, dangers faced by transnational migrants as a result of the securitization of borders, and violence against women.
4 - The United Nations: not a world state
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 67-88
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
[R]ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights Preamble)The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
(United Nations Charter Article 2)In principle, we have human rights simply by virtue of being human. We have rights regardless of which state we happen to be born into, what happens to that state, where we go or where we live. In this sense – though it sounds rather grandiose – whether or not a person actually enjoys human rights is the responsibility of the world.
It was in the newly founded UN that human rights were declared to be essential to all human beings. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 affirmed that ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ (Article 1). The declaration is not, strictly speaking, a legal document. It is more in the nature of a promise. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the promise that the atrocities committed by the Nazis – the ‘barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind’ in the words of the preamble to the declaration – would not be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. The preamble goes on to herald ‘the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want … as the highest aspiration of the common people’. No longer should individuals be killed, tortured, maimed, or allowed to suffer hunger and despair simply because they happen to live in an oppressive state, or because their neighbours believe they should not be there. ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status’ (Article 2).
It was in the UN, then, that the contemporary social construction of human rights was inaugurated. And within the UN there are continuing efforts to construct human rights in ways that will make good on the promises of the UDHR and the conventions and treaties that have built on it.
Index
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 215-224
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Further reading
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 189-192
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
3 - States of human rights
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 41-66
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The States Parties to the present Covenant,
Considering that … recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person …
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms …
Agree upon the following articles ….
(Preamble to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights)States are the most important organisations for the enjoyment of human rights. Officials acting in the name of states assemble structures and concentrate resources in ways that make them exceptionally dangerous – well equipped to benefit from torture, rape and murder, and from turning funds that are ostensibly collected for public benefit through taxes and international aid to their own purposes. At the same time states are crucial to the realisation of human rights in practice: they enable officials to exercise authority nationally and internationally that can make a positive impact on how people live within their territories and in other states too. States are at the same time the violators and the guarantors of human rights.
It may seem odd to think of states as the guarantors of human rights. Where states have been considered from a social constructionist perspective in studies of human rights, they tend to be seen as obstacles to the realisation of human rights in practice. State sovereignty, the principle that there should be no outside interference in the affairs of states or in what goes on inside their territories, is seen as a problem for the realisation of human rights: it must be contradicted or transformed so that everyone, no matter where they are born or where they are living, can enjoy rights (see Levy and Sznaider 2006). But states are not just violators of human rights. International law does support state sovereignty (though precisely what this means is now changing, as we shall see in Chapter 4). But international law also makes states responsible for guaranteeing human rights. There is a paradox at the heart of international human rights law that we will be exploring in the following chapters: states are supposed to ensure the human rights of individuals within their territories against their own violations.
1 - The social construction of human rights
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Political Sociology of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 28 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 28 July 2015, pp 1-18
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world.
(Eleanor Roosevelt, United Nations, New York, 1958)The contemporary production of human rights is exuberant … [H]uman rights enunciations proliferate … [N]ot merely do they reach out to ‘discrete’ and ‘insular’ minorities, they also extend to wholly new, hitherto unthought of justice constituencies.
(Baxi 2008: 46–7)In 1972 Amnesty International organised a worldwide campaign to end torture. The organisation published reports on how torture remained a widespread practice in many states, and gathered one million signatures from eighty-five countries on a petition to present at the UN. Politicians, diplomats and military leaders denied that torture was going on in their states. However, the UN Convention Against Torture became international law in 1987, committing states that had signed and ratified it to outlawing torture for ever (Clark 2001; Kelly 2013).
In 2007, after decades of campaigning by grassroots organisations, supported by the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities and a Working Group on Indigenous Populations set up inside the UN, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was finally signed and ratified by most countries in the world (with the notable exceptions of the United States, Canada and Australia). It is unclear as yet what difference international recognition of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will make to people's lives (Morgan 2011). Nevertheless, the transnational grassroots organisation Via Campesina is following the lead of indigenous peoples’ movements in proposing a declaration of the rights of peasants to protect rural ways of life (see pp. 106–10).
In 2003 a campaign was organised by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to put pressure on an Islamic court in Nigeria that was hearing the appeal of a woman named Amina Lawal. She had been convicted for adultery, solely on the word of the alleged father of the child she had conceived, and she faced death by stoning as punishment. Her suffering gained a good deal of media publicity especially in North America and Europe. But a small local organisation called Baobab asked for people outside Nigeria to stop sending protest letters because they misrepresented the facts of the case and angered local politicians, religious leaders and judges. The transnational campaign was undermining Baobab's authority.
12 - The Promise of Pragmatic Sociology, Human Rights, and the State
- from Part VI - Luc Boltanski and Political Sociology
-
- By Kate Nash, Cambridge University Press
- Edited by Simon Susen, Bryan S. Turner
-
- Book:
- The Spirit of Luc Boltanski
- Published by:
- Anthem Press
- Published online:
- 05 December 2014
- Print publication:
- 01 November 2014, pp 351-368
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
As a sociologist working in the emerging area of the sociology of human rights, I find the approach that Luc Boltanski and his various collaborators take to cultural, moral, and political questions inspiring. There is an urgent need to develop theoretical concepts and methodologies to study human rights, which have been growing in importance as a result of the activities of transnational advocacy networks, digital communication, and the codification and enactment of international law since the end of the Cold War (see Nash, 2012). What resources do human rights offer for the critique of injustices? Are human rights contributing to imagining solidarity beyond borders? How do we study what difference human rights make to existing social forms – for good or for ill? Pragmatic sociology, with its emphasis on the importance of principles of justice as intrinsic to social life, is an attractive starting point for exploring such questions. Breaking with perspectives in which social life is seen as structured by violence, self-interest, or habit, which all too easily and automatically position human rights as nothing but neo-liberal imperialist ideology, pragmatic sociology opens up the study of disputes, uncertainty, and socially embedded moral argument in ways that can only be promising. Boltanski's groundbreaking book Distant Suffering (1999 [1993]) is itself a landmark contribution to the field, although it focuses on humanitarianism and responses to suffering, rather than on principles of justice and human rights. It was Distant Suffering that first led me to Boltanski's work (Nash, 2008). Reading further, however, it is striking that Boltanski has written nothing explicitly on human rights, despite the concerns of pragmatic sociology with contemporary questions of justice.
In this chapter, I reflect on the value of Boltanski's work on everyday justice and injustices. I also question his neglect of the study of principles of human rights, arguing that it is not just an empirical lack but that, in addition, it has serious consequences for the development of his theoretical framework.
Table of cases
- Kate Nash, Goldsmiths, University of London
-
- Book:
- The Cultural Politics of Human Rights
- Published online:
- 27 June 2009
- Print publication:
- 26 March 2009, pp xii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation