<i>Citizens United</i>, citizens divided:

Greenhouse, Carol J.

doi:10.1111/amet.12708

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, Dobbs shows (not for the first time) how the abortion debate has been coded for and by debates over states’ rights and the limits of federal power. The key terms of the conservative position in the abortion debate are broadly expedient in the context of other campaigns to commensurate public and private interests that have come before the court (Greenhouse, 2018, 556).…”

Section: Challenges From Dobbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

After Dobbs: Reflections on political and legal anthropology

Greenhouse

2023

PoLAR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization declares its ruling to be an optimum result of separating law from politics. "After Dobbs" examines that claim's provocations for anthropologists interested in the ethnography of politics and law. I begin with the court's paradoxical rendering of United States democracy-an algorithm of electoral power that is eliciting unanticipated forms of agency extending well beyond partisan party politics. As such, those new forms are especially instructive, and in their pursuit, I consider them in a broader context. The next part of the discussion turns to recent work by ethnographers in situations in which people identify their own experience as political in new ways or for the first time. Finally, reflecting on that body of ethnographic work in relation to Dobbs and its after-effects, I identify through-lines connecting law(s) and politics in practice (as well as in ethnographic practice): indeterminacies of scale, the dynamic instability of juridification and the creative openness of political agency. These points also serve as prompts to rethink the conditions of law's availability to ethnography.

show abstract

Section: Challenges From Dobbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

After Dobbs: Reflections on political and legal anthropology

Greenhouse

2023

PoLAR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meanwhile, in the judicial branch, the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission solidified the precedent for corporate personhood, effectively establishing money as free speech (cf. Klumpp et al, 2016;Greenhouse, 2018). Thereafter, corporations could openly spend unlimited amounts in advertising and donations for political campaigns, which begs the question of who elected officials ultimately represent (Chomsky, 2017).…”

Section: United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pandemic as a Rupture that Follows Rules: Comparing Governance Responses in India, USA, Sweden and Norway

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How a country responds to a rupture such as the COVID-19 pandemic can be revelatory of its governance. Governance entails not only the exercise but also the constitution of authority. The pandemic response thus presents a real-world disruption to verify or problematize some truisms about national governance and produce novel comparisons and insights. We present a comparative analysis across four established democratic nation-states. First, we identify concerns of relevance for national pandemic responses and map them to state characteristics. Next, we conduct thematic analyses of recent ruptures in India, the United States, Sweden and Norway, to form a baseline of truisms about governance responses to frontier moments such as this pandemic, and hypothesize their relative propensities across the concerns. We then compile comparative data on emergent pandemic responses during the first 90 days of respective, temporally proximate outbreaks. This combination enables us to link response characteristics to national propensities across the relevant concerns. We identify similarities and differences between what the pandemic responses reveal and the truisms of scholarship about the four countries state characteristics. We argue that ruptures in democratic governance contexts embody temporally discontiguous and country-specific patterns. They are conjunctures of particular possibilities for bounded reconfiguration. Such reconfiguration can intensify or shift the course of what the state is becoming. We argue that in our cases it accelerates shifts to authoritarianism (India and the United States), raises stark questions of national identity (Norway and Sweden) and underscores tensions between the reemergence of welfare states and the global project of neoliberalism. By revealing what sort of rules show resurgence across ruptures, our comparative analysis deepens a timely understanding of punctuated politics of reconfiguration of authority.

show abstract

“…For instance, the Yonggom communities and activists, whose lawsuits against BHP Billiton (in response to ecological destruction caused by tailings from the company's Ok Tedi gold and copper mine) Stuart Kirsch (2006Kirsch ( , 2014b follows, open up a question with broad relevance for the study of today's corporations: what happens when the transnational legal understandings of corporate personhood that inform mining companies-with all of their assumptions about limited liability and institutional coherence, not to mention their embeddedness in peculiar Western notions of the legal subject-encounter long-running Melanesian (or, indeed, any number of) notions of the person as "partible," "dividual," or otherwise embedded in relationships of exchange that make them responsible for the constitution of others? What, that is, happens when different notions of personhood tangle on the terrain of the "legal fiction" that corporations are persons (see also Bashkow 2014;Golub 2014;Kirsch 2014a)?…”

Section: S O C I a L I S T F I R M S A N D / A S C O R P O R At I O N Smentioning

confidence: 99%