Civil Politics in the Animal Rights Conflict: God Terms versus Casuistry in Cambridge, Massachusetts
Identifieur interne : 005630 ( Istex/Curation ); précédent : 005629; suivant : 005631Civil Politics in the Animal Rights Conflict: God Terms versus Casuistry in Cambridge, Massachusetts
Auteurs : Scott Sanders [États-Unis] ; James M. JasperSource :
- Science, technology, & human values [ 0162-2439 ] ; 1994-04.
Descripteurs français
- Wicri :
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abstract principles, Agha, Animal abuse, Animal activists, Animal advocates, Animal commission, Animal experimentation, Animal experiments, Animal protection, Animal research, Animal rights, Animal rights crusade, Behavioral research, Biomedical research, Blue ribbon committee, California press, Cambridge, Cambridge animal commission, Cambridge chronicle, Cambridge city clerk, Cambridge city council, Cambridge city council order, Cambridge committee, Cambridge laboratories, Cambridge politicians, Casuistic approach, Ccrr, Ccrr files, City board, City council, Civility, Community standards, Disruptive tactics, Dorothy nelkin, Draize test, Everett mendelsohn, Financial support, Free press, Higher education, Human subjects, Ideological posturing, Ideological systems, Investigative reports, Jasper, John moses, Joint recommendations, Laboratory animals, Mdash, Moral reasoning, Mutual suspicion, National commission, National institutes, National organization, Nelkin, November, Nuclear energy, Nuclear politics, Ordinance, Original proposal, Other councilors, Other hand, Personal interview, Princeton university press, Private firms, Procedural issues, Protest groups, Protracted conflict, Public debate, Public debates, Public hearings, Referendum, Research community, Research institutions, Researcher, Responsible research, Review board, Scientific research, September, Specific cases, Stuart wiles, Symbolic victories, Symbolic victory, Technical nature, Telephone interview, Vellucci, Veto power, York university.
- Teeft :
- Abstract principles, Agha, Animal abuse, Animal activists, Animal advocates, Animal commission, Animal experimentation, Animal experiments, Animal protection, Animal research, Animal rights, Animal rights crusade, Behavioral research, Biomedical research, Blue ribbon committee, California press, Cambridge, Cambridge animal commission, Cambridge chronicle, Cambridge city clerk, Cambridge city council, Cambridge city council order, Cambridge committee, Cambridge laboratories, Cambridge politicians, Casuistic approach, Ccrr, Ccrr files, City board, City council, Civility, Community standards, Disruptive tactics, Dorothy nelkin, Draize test, Everett mendelsohn, Financial support, Free press, Higher education, Human subjects, Ideological posturing, Ideological systems, Investigative reports, Jasper, John moses, Joint recommendations, Laboratory animals, Mdash, Moral reasoning, Mutual suspicion, National commission, National institutes, National organization, Nelkin, November, Nuclear energy, Nuclear politics, Ordinance, Original proposal, Other councilors, Other hand, Personal interview, Princeton university press, Private firms, Procedural issues, Protest groups, Protracted conflict, Public debate, Public debates, Public hearings, Referendum, Research community, Research institutions, Researcher, Responsible research, Review board, Scientific research, September, Specific cases, Stuart wiles, Symbolic victories, Symbolic victory, Technical nature, Telephone interview, Vellucci, Veto power, York university.
Abstract
Many public debates become polarized, degenerating into a pattern of mutual suspicion and name-calling that preclude communication or compromise. The debate over animal research has typically followed this path. To understand how polarization might be avoided, we examine the factors that helped prevent it in one local controversy: Cambridge, Massachusetts in the late 1980s. These factors include the personal style of the leader of the main animal protection group, the financing for the group, the group's ability to win a symbolic victory in the form of a relatively toothless city ordinance, and, especially, the relative avoidance by both sides of rigid ideological posturing in favor of "casuistic" argumentation about specific cases and policies.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/016224399401900203
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :005630
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:AD2C5FBDF5BED48BDEE8BFF6AA2E97C89047C9ECCuration
No country items
James M. Jasper<affiliation><mods:affiliation>New York University</mods:affiliation>
<wicri:noCountry code="no comma">New York University</wicri:noCountry>
</affiliation>
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Civil Politics in the Animal Rights Conflict: God Terms versus Casuistry in Cambridge, Massachusetts</title>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Sanders, Scott" sort="Sanders, Scott" uniqKey="Sanders S" first="Scott" last="Sanders">Scott Sanders</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="4"><mods:affiliation>Harvard University</mods:affiliation>
<country>États-Unis</country>
<placeName><settlement type="city">Cambridge (Massachusetts)</settlement>
<region type="state">Massachusetts</region>
</placeName>
<orgName type="university">Université Harvard</orgName>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Jasper, James M" sort="Jasper, James M" uniqKey="Jasper J" first="James M." last="Jasper">James M. Jasper</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>New York University</mods:affiliation>
<wicri:noCountry code="no comma">New York University</wicri:noCountry>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:AD2C5FBDF5BED48BDEE8BFF6AA2E97C89047C9EC</idno>
<date when="1994" year="1994">1994</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1177/016224399401900203</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/AD2C5FBDF5BED48BDEE8BFF6AA2E97C89047C9EC/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005630</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005630</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">005630</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Civil Politics in the Animal Rights Conflict: God Terms versus Casuistry in Cambridge, Massachusetts</title>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Sanders, Scott" sort="Sanders, Scott" uniqKey="Sanders S" first="Scott" last="Sanders">Scott Sanders</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="4"><mods:affiliation>Harvard University</mods:affiliation>
<country>États-Unis</country>
<placeName><settlement type="city">Cambridge (Massachusetts)</settlement>
<region type="state">Massachusetts</region>
</placeName>
<orgName type="university">Université Harvard</orgName>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Jasper, James M" sort="Jasper, James M" uniqKey="Jasper J" first="James M." last="Jasper">James M. Jasper</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>New York University</mods:affiliation>
<wicri:noCountry code="no comma">New York University</wicri:noCountry>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j">Science, technology, & human values</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0162-2439</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1552-8251</idno>
<imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="1994-04">1994-04</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">19</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="169">169</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="188">188</biblScope>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0162-2439</idno>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0162-2439</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abstract principles</term>
<term>Agha</term>
<term>Animal abuse</term>
<term>Animal activists</term>
<term>Animal advocates</term>
<term>Animal commission</term>
<term>Animal experimentation</term>
<term>Animal experiments</term>
<term>Animal protection</term>
<term>Animal research</term>
<term>Animal rights</term>
<term>Animal rights crusade</term>
<term>Behavioral research</term>
<term>Biomedical research</term>
<term>Blue ribbon committee</term>
<term>California press</term>
<term>Cambridge</term>
<term>Cambridge animal commission</term>
<term>Cambridge chronicle</term>
<term>Cambridge city clerk</term>
<term>Cambridge city council</term>
<term>Cambridge city council order</term>
<term>Cambridge committee</term>
<term>Cambridge laboratories</term>
<term>Cambridge politicians</term>
<term>Casuistic approach</term>
<term>Ccrr</term>
<term>Ccrr files</term>
<term>City board</term>
<term>City council</term>
<term>Civility</term>
<term>Community standards</term>
<term>Disruptive tactics</term>
<term>Dorothy nelkin</term>
<term>Draize test</term>
<term>Everett mendelsohn</term>
<term>Financial support</term>
<term>Free press</term>
<term>Higher education</term>
<term>Human subjects</term>
<term>Ideological posturing</term>
<term>Ideological systems</term>
<term>Investigative reports</term>
<term>Jasper</term>
<term>John moses</term>
<term>Joint recommendations</term>
<term>Laboratory animals</term>
<term>Mdash</term>
<term>Moral reasoning</term>
<term>Mutual suspicion</term>
<term>National commission</term>
<term>National institutes</term>
<term>National organization</term>
<term>Nelkin</term>
<term>November</term>
<term>Nuclear energy</term>
<term>Nuclear politics</term>
<term>Ordinance</term>
<term>Original proposal</term>
<term>Other councilors</term>
<term>Other hand</term>
<term>Personal interview</term>
<term>Princeton university press</term>
<term>Private firms</term>
<term>Procedural issues</term>
<term>Protest groups</term>
<term>Protracted conflict</term>
<term>Public debate</term>
<term>Public debates</term>
<term>Public hearings</term>
<term>Referendum</term>
<term>Research community</term>
<term>Research institutions</term>
<term>Researcher</term>
<term>Responsible research</term>
<term>Review board</term>
<term>Scientific research</term>
<term>September</term>
<term>Specific cases</term>
<term>Stuart wiles</term>
<term>Symbolic victories</term>
<term>Symbolic victory</term>
<term>Technical nature</term>
<term>Telephone interview</term>
<term>Vellucci</term>
<term>Veto power</term>
<term>York university</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abstract principles</term>
<term>Agha</term>
<term>Animal abuse</term>
<term>Animal activists</term>
<term>Animal advocates</term>
<term>Animal commission</term>
<term>Animal experimentation</term>
<term>Animal experiments</term>
<term>Animal protection</term>
<term>Animal research</term>
<term>Animal rights</term>
<term>Animal rights crusade</term>
<term>Behavioral research</term>
<term>Biomedical research</term>
<term>Blue ribbon committee</term>
<term>California press</term>
<term>Cambridge</term>
<term>Cambridge animal commission</term>
<term>Cambridge chronicle</term>
<term>Cambridge city clerk</term>
<term>Cambridge city council</term>
<term>Cambridge city council order</term>
<term>Cambridge committee</term>
<term>Cambridge laboratories</term>
<term>Cambridge politicians</term>
<term>Casuistic approach</term>
<term>Ccrr</term>
<term>Ccrr files</term>
<term>City board</term>
<term>City council</term>
<term>Civility</term>
<term>Community standards</term>
<term>Disruptive tactics</term>
<term>Dorothy nelkin</term>
<term>Draize test</term>
<term>Everett mendelsohn</term>
<term>Financial support</term>
<term>Free press</term>
<term>Higher education</term>
<term>Human subjects</term>
<term>Ideological posturing</term>
<term>Ideological systems</term>
<term>Investigative reports</term>
<term>Jasper</term>
<term>John moses</term>
<term>Joint recommendations</term>
<term>Laboratory animals</term>
<term>Mdash</term>
<term>Moral reasoning</term>
<term>Mutual suspicion</term>
<term>National commission</term>
<term>National institutes</term>
<term>National organization</term>
<term>Nelkin</term>
<term>November</term>
<term>Nuclear energy</term>
<term>Nuclear politics</term>
<term>Ordinance</term>
<term>Original proposal</term>
<term>Other councilors</term>
<term>Other hand</term>
<term>Personal interview</term>
<term>Princeton university press</term>
<term>Private firms</term>
<term>Procedural issues</term>
<term>Protest groups</term>
<term>Protracted conflict</term>
<term>Public debate</term>
<term>Public debates</term>
<term>Public hearings</term>
<term>Referendum</term>
<term>Research community</term>
<term>Research institutions</term>
<term>Researcher</term>
<term>Responsible research</term>
<term>Review board</term>
<term>Scientific research</term>
<term>September</term>
<term>Specific cases</term>
<term>Stuart wiles</term>
<term>Symbolic victories</term>
<term>Symbolic victory</term>
<term>Technical nature</term>
<term>Telephone interview</term>
<term>Vellucci</term>
<term>Veto power</term>
<term>York university</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Wicri" type="topic" xml:lang="fr"><term>Expérimentation animale</term>
<term>Enseignement supérieur</term>
<term>énergie nucléaire</term>
<term>Ordonnance</term>
<term>Référendum</term>
<term>Recherche scientifique</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Many public debates become polarized, degenerating into a pattern of mutual suspicion and name-calling that preclude communication or compromise. The debate over animal research has typically followed this path. To understand how polarization might be avoided, we examine the factors that helped prevent it in one local controversy: Cambridge, Massachusetts in the late 1980s. These factors include the personal style of the leader of the main animal protection group, the financing for the group, the group's ability to win a symbolic victory in the form of a relatively toothless city ordinance, and, especially, the relative avoidance by both sides of rigid ideological posturing in favor of "casuistic" argumentation about specific cases and policies.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Curation
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005630 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Curation/biblio.hfd -nk 005630 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Wicri/Santé |area= EdenteV2 |flux= Istex |étape= Curation |type= RBID |clé= ISTEX:AD2C5FBDF5BED48BDEE8BFF6AA2E97C89047C9EC |texte= Civil Politics in the Animal Rights Conflict: God Terms versus Casuistry in Cambridge, Massachusetts }}
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. | ![]() |