Showing posts sorted by date for query COLONIALISM. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query COLONIALISM. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, October 06, 2026

How Can We Build a World Post Capitalism?

In Capitalism: A Global History (Penguin 2025), Seven Beckert’s original approach to understanding capitalism helps us to see possibilities for challenging it in the present precarious time we are living in.


A woman holds a banner ‘Capitalism Is the Crisis’ during Climate Strike protest organized by Fridays for Future movement also known as Youth Strike for Climate in Krakow, Poland on September 24, 2021.
(Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Cynthia Kaufman
Oct 05, 2026
Common Dreams


The billionaires are putting our world at risk through support for unregulated AI, funding the fossil fuel industry, and undermining democracy. They are using their unprecedented levels of power to lead us toward multiple pathways of total human annihilation.

Now is a good time to reflect on ways to challenge capitalism, a driving force behind the madness we face. And yet, on one side we have many people who are hesitant to name capitalism as a force behind destruction we face. On the other side, many of those few who do name capitalism use outdated and unhelpful frameworks for understanding how to challenge capitalism.

Sven Beckert’s Capitalism: A Global History (Penguin 2025) is a book worth reading if you are interested in building a world past capitalism. Beckert’s original approach to understanding capitalism helps us to see possibilities for challenging it in the present precarious time we are living in.

Its approach to understanding capitalism as a process pushed by capitalists, developing their power, and colonizing the matrix of our social world, explains capitalism in ways that point to more productive approaches to anti-capitalism.

Beckert’s book has received awards and is being read widely. Yet much of the attention has been negative. Writing in The New Yorker, Gideon Lewis-Kraus faulted the book for having such a diffuse idea of capitalism that it becomes “an inescapable vibe—responsible for everything, everywhere, all at once.” In his review in The Nation Corey Robin criticized it for offering a fuzzy and imprecise understanding of capitalism, which then makes the book unhelpful for shaping our anti-capitalist thinking.

These criticisms miss the political power and potential of this unorthodox approach to understanding capitalism. Beckert’s book takes capitalism to its origins and puts it into a global framework. It focuses on the agency of capitalists as a group of people who over time bring capitalism as a global system into being. Beckert’s analysis helps us update our understanding of capitalism in ways that make pathways to challenging it clear and actionable. Many anti-capitalist thinkers are stuck in a stale 19th century understanding of what we are up against. Those approaches make our search for solutions narrow and not actionable in the present.

There are three dead ends to anti-capitalist thought that Becker’s approach avoids. One is that capitalism began in Britain with the industrial revolution. That idea encourages anti-capitalist thinkers to focus on class as something separate from race and patriarchy. A second is that the main victims of capitalism are the industrial working class, that idea leads us to focus on the industrial working class as the most important carriers of movements to challenge capitalism. The third mistaken approach is that the only way to get rid of capitalism is through overthrowing the system in a dramatic revolution. That leads anti-capitalist organizers to focus on getting others to see how bad capitalism is but does not encourage them to build power to challenge it in the present. Each of these tendencies has its own way of being unhelpful for building anti-capitalist politics. Beckert’s approach to capitalism helps us find pathways beyond all of them.

Rather than staring his analysis of capitalism at the transition from feudalism to capitalism, as most anti-capitalist thinkers do, Beckert’s story begins in 1150 in Aden, in what is now Yemen. He argues that at that time, largely in the Muslim world, there emerged a global trade in luxury goods. It impacted very few people’s lives, and there were no societies based on it. This was a period of the emergence of capitalists—a very small subset of the population who traded goods for the sole purpose of generating wealth.

Many societies have engaged in trade to obtain goods that they could not produce themselves. What distinguishes capitalists from other traders is that they engage in trade for profits alone. The goal of any given transaction is money itself rather than something that money could buy.

Capital itself is money, or resources, invested for the sole purpose of generating more money. Early capitalists originally worked within the political realities they found around them. Over time these merchants worked to create political systems that would enable them to generate more wealth. These early capitalists often engaged in work to get governments to create conditions that were favorable to them. Think of Columbus and his relationship with Queen Isabella.

When these disparate acts of capitalists began to be elevated to the society-wide phenomenon we now call capitalism, was when they were able to control a land base and extract wealth, not just from trading, but from producing as well. Over time these merchants came to control more land and resources. Forced labor in the form of slavery was central to the early days of capitalism. So was colonialism: the forcible taking of land on which to engage in profit-seeking actions.

As more and more resources are controlled by capitalist processes, and as capitalists became more politically powerful, a large part of human society came to be dominated by these logics. Eventually, resistance to slavery made that form of exploitation less desirable to the elites. Employers were able to hire people into wage labor as the enclosure of commons threw them off the land they had previously used to sustain themselves. Colonialism was beaten back by people fighting for control over the political systems that dominated the places they lived. In many places colonialism was replaced by neocolonialism, where local people controlled the political system but continued to run the economy in the interest of faraway elites.

Beckert’s analysis broadens our frame in ways that allow us to avoid the pitfalls of an anti-capitalism that focuses only on the class-based harms of capitalism. If you accept the older framework, which focuses on capitalism as mostly about the exploitation of the industrial working class in Europe, then its relationships to slavery and colonialism are hard to understand. Much anti-capitalist thinking sees capitalism as a step forward from slavery and colonialism, rather than as their cause.

With regard to patriarchy, much anti-capitalist thinking focuses on the experiences of wage laborers rather than on the impacts of capitalist processes on the broader matrix of society that it transforms and destroys. This can lead to an anti-capitalist politics that defines the victims of capitalism so narrowly that racism and patriarchy are outside the frame of analysis. That makes building broad coalitions for anti-capitalist politics harder to achieve.

Moving on to the second dead end of much anti-capitalist thinking, if you see capitalism as fundamentally about the exploitation of labor, then you will not see the wide variety of ways that capitalism destroys the social fabric in which it operates. By prioritizing production and distribution that are done in markets for profits, capitalist ways of operating marginalize and deny resources to the caregiving matrix of our lives.

Caregiving labor, which has been disproportionately done by women, becomes socially invisible and undervalued. It is especially not valued in the discipline of Economics, which is largely the study of the profit-making sector. That narrow focus ignores the wide variety of ways that many people’s lives are made miserable by not having access to the resources they need to live well. It also ignores the many non-capitalist aspects of our economies that continue to thrive, even as the capitalist sector has increasingly large impacts on our shared social world.

By focusing on the capitalist class, as a group of people who are ready to subordinate our world to profit seeking, and by showing that members of that class act in a variety of ways in relationship to government, and the rest of society, in order to make the world over to enable their profit seeking, Beckert opens up our perception to the wide range of ways that capitalism causes destruction. He therefore opens us to a wide range of ways to fight against it.

Beckert’s approach is aligned with the work of Karl Polanyi. In The Great Transformation, his pathbreaking book from 1944, Polanyi argued that, in previous times, markets were subordinated to other social logics, and so their negative impacts were limited. What distinguishes capitalism is that the logic of markets comes to dominate, and their centrality undermines other ways societies have been structured to ensure that people’s needs are met. Markets come to have lives of their own, and the needs of markets come to dominate over the needs of people or the rest of nature.

Beckert updates Polanyi’s analysis by adding more detail, and also by naming more clearly than Polanyi does the forms of agency behind these destructive practices. This approach allows us to understand capitalism less as a total system and more as a set of destructive practices driven by those addicted to the profit motive. This approach helps us imagine a variety of ways to challenge capitalism.

We need to break the spell of pro-capitalist thinkers’ claim that human economies are best served when markets are allowed to decide what is produced, how it is produced, and who gets the things produced. We need to figure out how best to ensure that we are making the things we need, in ways that are sustainable, and distributed in ways that ensure that everyone’s needs are met.

We need to fight against the powers of the owners of capital by breaking our dependencies on capitalism for our survival. Fighting against the exploitation we experience in wage labor is a part of that. But gathering social resources for the caregiving aspects of our lives, developing public goods, and preventing the environmental damage caused by corporations pursuing profit at any cost, are also crucial aspects of challenging capitalism.

Finally, Beckert’s approach allows us to avoid the third and most destructive element of standard anti-capitalist thinking: the belief that we need to wait for a revolution. If you think of capitalism as a focused system that came into being all at once with one major transformation, it is easy then to imagine the way to get rid of it is through overthrowing that system with one large blow. That way of thinking about how to get rid of capitalism doesn’t position us well to understand the work we need to be doing right now to build power to stop the forces of social destruction while building the better world we are looking for, now.

Rather than waiting for a revolution to overthrow capitalism, anti-capitalists need to build power to fight against the variety of ways that the capitalist class is destroying our world. One way to think of this is with the idea of revolutionary reforms, the steps we take to make our world better, as we fight against the forms of destruction caused by capitalism and against the power of the capitalist class to destroy our social fabric.

Both Beckert, and Polanyi before him, owe a great deal to the work of Karl Marx. Marx’s criticism of capitalism remains an invaluable starting point for anti-capitalist thinking. But Marx’s narrow focus on the exploitation of labor as the single most important form of destruction caused by capitalism has led generations of anti-capitalist activists to hope the industrial working class would lead us away from capitalism. Those hopes have been repeatedly disappointed.

Marx faulted colonialism and slavery for the ways they were part of the destruction caused by capitalism, but many of his followers see those processes as side issues to the problem of capitalism. And so many anti-capitalists insist on a class-first analysis, which undermines their ability to work well in broad coalitions.

On the question of revolution or reform, Marx actually said very little. And much of what he said was contradictory. In places, he argued that the path away from capitalism was through building political power via elections. At other times, he claimed that all of that was a distraction from a revolution that would overturn all social relations in a short dramatic period. Many followers of Marx assume, incorrectly, that he only supported the second strategy,

Much of the criticism of Beckert’s book from the left has rested on the ways his understanding deviates from a telling of the history that leads to the core set of beliefs that have kept anti-capitalist thinking from being politically productive. Beckert’s Capitalism: A Global History doesn’t address these questions of political strategy. But its approach to understanding capitalism as a process pushed by capitalists, developing their power, and colonizing the matrix of our social world, explains capitalism in ways that point to more productive approaches to anti-capitalism. If we want to bring anti-capitalist analysis into the broad liberatory social movements that are animating our time, we need to base our anti-capitalism on an updated understanding of what we are up against. Beckert’s book offers a starting point for that understanding.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.



Cynthia Kaufman

Cynthia Kaufman is a writer and educator. She is the author of six books on social change: Solidarity Economics: Building Sustainable Social Relations (Routledge 2026),Consumerism, Sustainability, and Happiness: How to Build a World Where Everyone Has Enough (Routledge 2023), The Sea is Rising and So Are We: A Climate Justice Handbook (PM Press 2021), Challenging Power: Democracy and Accountability in a Fractured World (Bloomsbury 2020), Getting Past Capitalism: History, Vision, Hope (Lexington Books 2012), and Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change (2nd Edition PM Press 2016). Visit her website.
Full Bio >

Saturday, October 03, 2026

Farmers unite worldwide against what they call ‘chemical colonisation’

Farmers and activists around the world are mobilising on Saturday for an international day of action against pesticides – denouncing products sold by major agrochemical companies that they say are damaging their health and destroying their livelihoods.



Issued on: 02/10/2026 - RFI

"No more cancer. Stop fumigating us," reads the banner of Exaltacion Salud protesters in Argentina demonstrating against the use of pesticdes. © Cortesía Virginia Roldán

By:  Zeenat Hansrod

“Pesticides are manufactured in France and exported to the Global South by companies who know full well that these pesticides contain molecules banned here," said Fleur Breteau, founder of Cancer Colère, one of four French organisations behind Saturday’s campaign.

"They are making money in breach of French regulations and in defiance of human rights laws.”

Farmers and organisations from countries including Pakistan and Argentina have joined the mobilisation, sharing what Breteau describes as the same anger over “chemical colonisation”.

“We, farmers, need to unite because of chemical colonialism by these very powerful agrochemical firms. As a Western person, as a French person, it is a big no because they are making money while breaching French laws,” said Breteau, who is battling breast cancer for a second time.




Illegal spraying of pesticides in Parada La Lata (Exaltación de la Cruz) in 2020, less than 1 km from a house and a rural school. © RFI/Agustín Brun


Health concerns in Argentina

In Argentina, Agustín Brun, an activist with Exaltacion Salud, a group fighting the use of chemical pesticides, also supports the campaign. He lives in Exaltacion de la Cruz in Buenos Aires province, a town closely surrounded by fields heavily sprayed with pesticides.

“The European Union and China, big buyers of our grains, export pesticides – some of which are banned in their own countries – while importing commodities at a cheaper price without having to face the socio-environmental costs and health issues of pesticide contamination at home,” Brun told RFI.

“In other words, those countries are outsourcing their problems.”

Developed countries “extract” products from Argentina that mostly benefit large pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies such as Bayer-Monsanto and Syngenta, Brun said.

“In my town we have found several agrochemicals molecules, including atrazine, in the soil, water and human blood samples. There is a high rate of cancer and other chronic diseases, higher in Exaltación de la Cruz than in nearby cities,” he said.

A landmark study by researchers at the National University of Rosario Faculty of Medical Sciences found that young people living in agricultural villages exposed to pesticide fumigation were 2.5 times more likely to develop and die from cancer than those living in areas unexposed to agrochemicals.

“We can feel it in our own bodies, you know?” Brun said. “Several members of our groups died of cancer.”


We need to unite to fight against chemical colonialism. As a Western person, we say that we refuse that firms produce forbidden pesticides in our country and send them to the global south. It's a big no. It's against the French laws.
01:00
Fleur Breteau from Cancer Colère association in FranceZeenat Hansrod

Scientific evidence has linked atrazine exposure to cancer. Scientists have described atrazine as an endocrine disruptor and said it can have neurotoxic, teratogenic and genotoxic effects, as well as harming the liver and kidneys.

Atrazine was first developed by agrochemical company Syngenta, Brun said. Syngenta is one of four global giants in the seed and pesticide sector, alongside BASF, Bayer and Corteva, and is also one of Argentina’s biggest pesticide suppliers.

Atrazine has been banned in 60 countries, including across the European Union.

In 2019, a small aircraft illegally sprayed pesticides over a school near Brun’s town.

“The children and school staff were poisoned and suffered health damage,” Brun said. “A ban against aerial spraying of pesticides was then introduced throughout our municipality, not the province, but we’ve been campaigning for such a ban since 2012.”
Global mobilisation

Exaltacion Salud is among the organisations taking part in Saturday’s global protest. Actions are also planned in countries including Costa Rica, Pakistan, the United States, Belgium and Indonesia, as well as Hawaii.

“We’ve realised that anger is healthy,” Breteau told RFI. “And it’s led us to come together and unite our forces. There are millions of us and we’re right to be angry. When we bring all this helplessness and distress together, we can become very powerful. And this is what we will demonstrate on Saturday 3 October.”

France’s emergency agriculture bill passed, amid divisions over pesticides

In France, protesters will march outside one of Syngenta’s pesticide manufacturing plants in Saint-Pierre-la-Garenne, about 100 kilometres north-west of Paris, with several actions also planned in a neighbouring field.

Farmers, cancer patients, people affected by pesticide contamination, health workers, cancer researchers and lawyers are expected to join the demonstration.

“Four giants of pesticide and seed manufacturing industry, BASF, Bayer, Corteva and Syngenta, have formed a sort of oligopoly where they wield immense power worldwide,” Breteau said. “They are patenting living organisms and are making farmers dependent on their pesticides, seeds and technology to grow food.”

Syngenta was acquired in 2017 by Chinese state-owned ChemChina, itself a subsidiary of Sinochem Holdings.

“A seed from Syngenta won’t grow if you simply put it in the ground on its own, it needs pesticides to thrive,” Breteau said. “It’s as if you were putting pesticides in a child’s feeding bottle and saying, ‘It will make them grow faster’. It’s madness.”
Syngenta's response

Syngenta told RFI that farmers must be able to rely on a range of solutions and technologies to address the interconnected challenges of agricultural production, climate change and food security.

It said it strives to develop innovative solutions for all farmers and farming models.

“We fully respect the right to assemble and protest,” a Syngenta spokesperson said. “However, organising a protest at the Saint-Pierre-la-Garenne site seems ill-founded given the reality of its current operations: 70 percent of the site’s current output is suitable for use in organic farming.”

In Kenya, Susan Owiti of the Kenyan Peasants League told RFI that most pesticides used in the country are banned in the United Kingdom. She also described their sale in poorer countries as a form of chemical colonisation.

“Whoever feeds you, controls you,” she said. “Food sovereignty is about taking control and ownership. Control over what you are growing. So, by dumping their banned products onto us, the Global South, they want to take control of our food systems.”

The Kenyan Peasants League, a social organisation representing around 5,000 peasant farmers transitioning to agroecology, is taking part in the 3 October mobilisation on social media. It plans a “Twitter storm” and Facebook posts to raise awareness about pesticides and showcase the experiences of its farmers.

Owiti, a small farmer and activist from Migori in western Kenya, said she has farmed all her life.

“Agroecology farming has been a family tradition for as long as I can remember,” she said. “It means that we work closely with nature. I use my own seeds, make my own manure and develop my own pesticides based on knowledge passed on from my grand-mother and our elders.”

“We do not rely on agrochemical companies.”

In Kenya where the majority of farmers are women, they regularly help each other when there is a lot of work. Here in Apuoyo village, female farmers are weeding a maize and beans field, September 2025. © RFI/Kenyan Peasants League

Pesticides sold by major agrochemical companies, some of which may contain banned molecules, are degrading soil, affecting the health of farmers and their families and trapping them in debt, Owiti said.

“Because they need the pesticides for the seeds purchased from these companies, the farmers find themselves borrowing money from banks to pay loans to pesticide companies,” she said.

Owiti said she had seen many women – who make up most farmers in Kenya – suffering from skin and pulmonary diseases because they do not use protective equipment when handling pesticides.

“The government needs to implement the Agroecological strategic plan launched by the ministry of Agriculture in 2024,” she said.

The National Agroecology Strategy for Food System Transformation covers the period from 2024 to 2033.

Sharing the ancestral knowledge of older farmers is another way to “fight the big companies”, Owiti said.

“The older farmers, they are like libraries holding years and years of research,” she said.

She said passing this knowledge between generations and on to younger farmers would help preserve it and allow them to move away from agribusiness practices.

Why France's agriculture law may not help the farmers it claims to defend
Political battle

Breteau also accuses lawmakers of being influenced by major agrochemical companies.

“Today the red line has been crossed and ethics trampled over,” she said. “Lawmakers, mostly from the centre to the far-right, are casting doubts over the scientific evidence between some pesticides and the diseases they cause.

“Laws are being passed that reintroduce pesticides which were previously banned due to their toxicity to human health.”

Breteau became known in July 2025 when she shouted from the public gallery of the French parliament: “You are in league with cancer and we will make sure everyone knows it.”

French MPs were debating the Duplomb Bill, which included lifting restrictions on the use of pesticides, including acetamiprid.

“There’s a political ploy to force even more pesticides upon us, not to make the life easier for farmers or food sovereignty, it is simply matter of profit,” Breteau said.

“Pesticides are designed to boost production and increase yields at the expense of our health, biodiversity, clean water whilst using as few workers as possible.”

The European Parliament will examine the Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus in October. It aims to streamline food and feed legislation, while its proposal for “efficient renewal procedures for pesticides” has come under criticism.

“It will authorise more than 90 percent of the pesticides currently in circulation, even if scientific studies show they are toxic,” Breteau said.

“In other words, once voted we won’t be able to take them off the market, despite their proven toxicity. So, this is very serious because it creates an unrestricted European market for these pesticide manufacturers.

“Any Member of the European Parliament who vote for this Omnibus law, we’ll regard them as criminals.

“How are we all supposed to get better in a world that poisons us a little more every day?”

Tuesday, September 29, 2026

 

Sage launches Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal




SAGE






Sage announces the launch of Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, a new peer-reviewed, open access journal examining how disinformation is produced, circulated, and understood across societies and cultures.

Launching in January 2027 and now accepting submissions, the journal welcomes contributions exploring disinformation in contexts including politics and elections, war and conflict, science, health, climate change, and the environment. Alongside theoretical, empirical, and methodological research, Disinformation will feature an Interventions and Commentary section, creating a forum for timely dialogue between researchers and practitioners working to understand and address disinformation.

An editorial collective will lead the journal, with a different member serving as managing editor each year. Together, the collective brings global expertise spanning digital media, communication, climate communication, political communication, rhetoric, and disinformation studies.

“We’re excited to launch Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal at a moment when disinformation is more rife than ever, and when the term itself is hotly contested,” said the Editors. “The journal will be a forum both for studying how disinformation spreads, and for critically interrogating what gets labelled as disinformation, and why.”

"Disinformation is a pressing challenge for societies around the world, and understanding it requires perspectives from across disciplines and cultures," said Rachel Hunter, Vice President, Journals Editorial at Sage. "The launch of Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal is timely as the need for rigorous research and debate in this area is more important than ever. Through international and interdisciplinary collaboration, this journal will help deepen understanding of disinformation, its impact and how societies respond to it."

The journal encourages international perspectives and contributions by researchers from the Global South. Its editorial collective comprises Niki Cheong, King's College London, UK; Gabi Mocatta, University of Tasmania, Australia; Raquel Recuero, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil; Felipe Bonow Soares, University of the Arts London, UK; and Robert Topinka, Birkbeck, University of London, UK.

Disinformation will be published through Sage Community Open Access, an initiative that enables selected journals to publish with no fees for authors and no barriers for readers - one of several flexible publishing options Sage offers to support sustainable and accessible research.

More information about Disinformation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, including submission guidelines, is available on the journal page.

###

Sage is a global academic publisher of books, journals, and library resources with a growing range of technologies to enable discovery, access, and engagement. Believing that research and education are critical in shaping society, 24-year-old Sara Miller McCune founded Sage in 1965. Today, we are controlled by a group of trustees charged with maintaining our independence and mission indefinitely.  

Our guaranteed independence means we’re free to: 

  • Do more – supporting an equitable academic future, furthering disciplines that drive social change, and helping social and behavioral science make an impact 
  • Work together – building lasting relationships, championing diverse perspectives, and co-creating resources to transform teaching and learning 
  • Think long-term – experimenting, taking risks, and investing in new ideas.


DFG to fund nine new research units





Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft





The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) is establishing nine new Research Units. This was decided by the DFG Joint Committee on the recommendation of the Senate. The new Research Units will receive total funding of approximately €40 million, including a 22-percent programme allowance for indirect project costs. In addition to these nine newly created Research Units, the decision was made to extend six Research Units and one Centre for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences for an additional funding period. One of the newly approved Research Units is being funded jointly with the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) under the D-A-CH cooperation. 

 

Research Units enable researchers to pursue current and pressing issues in their areas of research and take innovative directions in their work. They are funded for up to eight years. In total, the DFG is currently funding 191 Research Units, seven Clinical Research Units and 15 Centres for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences. Clinical Research Units are also characterised by the close connection between research and clinical work, while Centres for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences are specifically tailored to forms of work in the humanities and social sciences.

 

The new research networks in detail
(in alphabetical order of the spokespersons’ higher education institutions)

Swamps, peatlands and marshes: wetlands were long regarded as sinister, difficult-to-control spaces that needed to be cultivated. Today, we know that these boundary and transition zones perform vital functions: wetlands sequester carbon dioxide and protect coastlines, as well as filtering and purifying water. Working within the environmental humanities, the Research Unit Thinking with wetlands. Histories from the quaking zone 1630-1997 takes a fresh look at the ambivalent experiences and often contested visions and terminology that have shaped the relationship between people and wetlands. Its overall aim is to shed light on how people in Central and Western Europe lived and thought with swamps, regarded them as a source of philosophical inspiration – and began campaigning for their protection at an early stage. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Simone Müller, University of Augsburg)

 

The Research Unit examines Media Practices of Contradicting in Networked Publics as a relational, dynamic form of communication in which people who have previously been disadvantaged socially, economically or culturally raise their voices in a democratic context against a form of dominance they perceive to be hegemonic. In addition to discursive practices of dissent in which media convey particular content, the unit will focus on the digital conditions that have significantly changed such practices, including social media, for example. It will also examine in greater detail material and creative practices in which media themselves – as organisations, infrastructures and technologies – become the object of dissent. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Margreth Lünenborg, FU Berlin)

 

Information is transmitted through the nervous system in different ways. In addition to conventional, highly targeted communication between nerve cells at synapses, messenger substances can also exert effects beyond the boundaries of individual synapses. Recent research is revealing in ever greater detail the diversity and dynamic nature of the interplay between these different signalling pathways. This is the focus of the Research Unit Inside and outside the synapse: Challenging dogmas of synaptic signalling and neuromodulation. It seeks to develop a deeper understanding of neuronal communication pathways and determine how adaptable they are. The unit will investigate how nervous tissue filters and translates information and converts it into activity. The aim is to review established ideas about synaptic transmission and broaden our understanding of information processing in the brain. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Christian Henneberger, University of Bonn)

 

The German Climate Change Act has set the ambitious goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to such an extent that Germany will be completely climate-neutral by 2045. Achieving this requires a clear, legally binding roadmap setting out the fundamental changes that must be made to the economy and society. At the same time, the question of how legislation can bring about this transformation is itself changing the legal system. This is the central premise of the Research Unit Transformative climate law: space – time – society. It will examine the economic, environmental and social changes involved in the transition to climate neutrality in the dimensions that are crucial to this process, thereby identifying the new framework required for effective, future-oriented and therefore sustainable climate law. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Claudio Franzius, University of Bremen)

 

Humans are the only known species to process food using heat. Heat-treated foods are easier to digest, but they also cause metabolic and physiological changes, for example due to altered lipid compounds in dietary fats. To date, little is known about the bioactivity of these compounds. The Research Unit Heat-treated dietary lipids (HTDL): chemistry, physiology, evolutionary impact will investigate whether HTDL leads to changes in lipidomes – the complete set of lipids – and in the membrane and biophysical properties of cells, neurometabolic processes, metabolic signalling pathways and reproductive processes, and whether these changes can alter the evolution of organisms that consume HTDL. The Research Unit is funded under the D-A-CH cooperation with the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Klaus Reinhardt, Dresden University of Technology)

 

In component design, iron-based shape-memory alloys offer potential new applications compared with established materials such as nickel-titanium alloys. To date, however, the various shape-memory effects have largely been considered and used separately. There is also no suitable alloy design that would allow such combined effects to be used systematically in applications. The Research Unit Combined effects in Fe-based shape memory alloys – Model-driven alloy design taking into account process-microstructure-property relationships aims to investigate these combined effects in depth, use model-driven alloy design to develop high-performance iron-based shape-memory alloys in a targeted manner, and gain a fundamental understanding of the relevant mechanisms. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr.-Ing. Thomas Niendorf, University of Kassel)

 

The Research Unit Beyond Crazy: Integrating Benefits into the Analysis of Conspiracy Beliefs asks what potential functions and benefits conspiracy beliefs may offer their adherents from the perspectives of communication, psychology and society. By investigating this systematically, the unit aims to gain a better understanding of the popularity and appeal of conspiracy theories. In doing so, it goes beyond previous research, which has focused almost exclusively on their negative consequences. This different perspective is to contribute to a more nuanced theoretical understanding of conspiracy beliefs and advance the methodological development of the field. The focus is on interdisciplinary approaches drawn from psychology and communication studies. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Roland Imhoff, University of Mainz)

 

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is an autoimmune skin disease that manifests in various forms and can sometimes cause severe scarring. The permanent, visible skin damage and hair loss often associated with CLE can severely affect the day-to-day quality of life of those concerned. Despite its clinical relevance, no therapies have been approved for CLE other than treatment with glucocorticosteroids – commonly known as cortisone. At the same time, understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms remains incomplete at best, and the observable subtypes have not been adequately defined. The Research Unit Decipher the immunopathology of cutaneous lupus aims to address these issues and lay the foundations for new therapeutic approaches in the future. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Claudia Günther, University of Tübingen)

 

A problematic term coined during Donald Trump’s first presidency, “alternative facts” pose a serious threat to contemporary societies. The phenomenon itself is much older, however, and can be traced far back into the past. The Research Unit ‘Alternative Facts’ in the Sixteenth Century places the phenomenon in its historical context by focusing on the early modern period – an era that had a significant influence on Europe’s understanding of itself – and the transformation of the media that occurred at the time. It defines its key concept as a linguistic practice that challenges accepted standards of knowledge and deliberately seeks to undermine them through competing claims—for example in rhetoric, religion or politics—in order to obstruct dialogue, disrupt discourse, create uncertainty or stage particular narratives. (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Regina Toepfer, University of Würzburg)

 

 

The research networks extended for a second funding period (in alphabetical order of the spokespersons’ higher education institutions and with references to the project descriptions in the DFG’s online database GEPRIS):

 

Research Unit Model-based determination of nonlinear properties of piezoceramics for high-power ultrasound applications II (NEPTUN) (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Andrea Walther, HU Berlin)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/444955436/2

 

Research Unit Bioinspired Oxidation Catalysis with Iron Complexes (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Thorsten Glaser, University of Bielefeld)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/445916766/2

 

Research Unit Functional surfaces through adiabatic high-speed processes: Microstructure, mechanisms and model development – FUNDAM³ENT (Spokesperson: Professor Dr.-Ing. Thomas Lampke, Chemnitz University of Technology)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/460484491/3

 

Research Unit Practices for referring to persons: usage-based approaches to personal, indefinite and demonstrative pronouns (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Wolfgang Imo, University of Hamburg)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/457855466/2

 

Centre for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences Universalism and Particularism in European Contemporary History (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Kiran Patel, LMU Munich)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/449772505/2

 

 

Research Unit iMAGO – Personalized diagnostics for the treatment of obesity (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Martin Klingenspor, TU Munich)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/455422993/2

 

Research Unit Learning to Sense (Spokesperson: Professor Dr. Michael Möller, University of Siegen)

https://gepris.dfg.de/project/459284860/2

 

Further Information

 

Media contact:

DFG Press and Public Relations, Tel. +49 228 885-2109, presse@dfg.de

 

Further information is also available from the network spokespersons.

 

Contact at the DFG Head Office:

Patrizia Micalizzi, Quality and Programme Management, Tel. +49 228 885-2301, patrizia.micalizzi@dfg.de

 

Links to DFG Research Units:

www.dfg.de/for/en

www.dfg.de/kfo/en

www.dfg.de/advanced_studies_centre


Sage becomes new home of Lawrence & Wishart journals



SAGE





Sage will become the new publisher of the Lawrence & Wishart journals portfolio, a collection of longstanding journals that have helped shape debate in politics, culture, education and social change. Following the planned closure of Lawrence & Wishart’s journals publishing arm, Sage has acquired four titles and entered into a publishing agreement for a fifth.

The journals will begin publishing with Sage from 2027, and are now accepting submissions:

  • New Formations has been a pioneer of interdisciplinary research since the 1980s, with a core focus on work which explores the uses of cultural theory for the analysis of political and social issues.

  • Soundings publishes informed writing on contemporary political and cultural debates, broadly based on the traditions of the New Left and Gramscian tradition.

  • Anarchist Studies is an international inter- and multi-disciplinary journal which, for over 20 years, has published research into the history, culture, theory and practice of anarchism.

  • Twentieth Century Communism provides an international forum for the latest research and debate on communism and its political, social, and cultural influence.

  • FORUM: For comprehensive education publishes critical analysis of UK education policy and has provided a platform for debate about comprehensive and state-provided education for more than 60 years. It will publish with Sage under a lease arrangement.

“Lawrence & Wishart is very proud of the small collection of journals we have put together over the years, but we recognise that the time has come for them to move on to a bigger publisher, better able to look after them in the challenging landscape of twenty-first century journals publishing,” said Sally Davidson, L&W Director. “We are very pleased that our journals are now passing into the safe hands of Sage, a publisher which shares our values and concern for ethical scholarship.”

“These journals have made important contributions to scholarship in the social sciences and humanities, publishing research and writing that informs understanding of society and social change,” said Caroline Porter, Vice President of Journals Editorial at Sage. “We look forward to supporting each journal's continued success and connecting their work with readers around the world.”

All five journals’ editorial leadership and aims and scope will remain in place, ensuring continuity for existing communities while creating opportunities for future growth and wider dissemination. More information about the journals and submission guidelines are available on the journals’ webpages.

# # #

About Lawrence & Wishart

Lawrence & Wishart has been publishing critical left texts on politics and culture since 1936. It aims to create a space where people can think together, challenge political ‘common sense’ and explore new possibilities. We’re interested in critiques of capitalism, and alternatives to systems that prioritise profit over people and the planet. Our commissioning seeks to contribute to a critical understanding of the current moment and the forces that have shaped it, through a focus on the intersections of class, race, gender, LGBTQ+ issues, climate justice and colonialism. Through books, journals and events we foster curiosity for, and engagement in, conversations around pluralism and solidarity.

About Sage

Sage is a global academic publisher of books, journals, and library resources with a growing range of technologies to enable discovery, access, and engagement. Believing that research and education are critical in shaping society, 24-year-old Sara Miller McCune founded Sage in 1965. Today, we are controlled by a group of trustees charged with maintaining our independence and mission indefinitely.  

Our guaranteed independence means we’re free to: 

  • Do more – supporting an equitable academic future, furthering disciplines that drive social change, and helping social and behavioral science make an impact 

  • Work together – building lasting relationships, championing diverse perspectives, and co-creating resources to transform teaching and learning 

  • Think long-term – experimenting, taking risks, and investing in new ideas


Saturday, September 26, 2026

Paris congress that helped shape pan-African thought marks 70th anniversary

Tuesday marks the 70th anniversary of the landmark 1956 Congress of Black Writers and Artists, held at the Sorbonne university in Paris and aimed at strengthening the Pan-African movement and giving voices to black writers and intellectuals from across Africa, Europe and the United States.


Issued on: 22/09/2026 - RFI

The poster for the inaugural Congress of Black Writers and Artists, drawn by Picasso.
 © Paris Africa Gallery

The congress took place from 19 to 22 September 1956 – a pivotal time following the Second World War, when the Cold War, colonial rule and segregation were shaping world affairs.

It brought together leading intellectual figures of the time, including Sengalese intellectual and author Cheikh Anta Diop, Senegal's future president Léopold Sédar Senghor, future president of Martinique Aimé Césaire and African-American author Richard Wright – as well as the event's organiser Alioune Diop, Senegalese writer, politician and founder of the literary journal Présence Africaine and the publishing house of the same name.

Diop wanted to hold an event that would draw attention to the long-overlooked contribution to human heritage of Africa and its diaspora communities.

The Paris congress was prepared over 18 months by Diop and the editorial team of Présence Africaine, with its organising committee including major literary figures. Jean-Paul Sartre, author André Gide and ethnologist Marcel Griaule also supported the project, while Picasso, a friend of Diop's, drew the poster for the event.

Over the four days of the congress, the Sorbonne's Descartes lecture hall drew large crowds. Diop had assembled representatives from 25 African and American countries, alongside numerous young African students from mainland France.

The programme listed 42 papers, but only 27 were delivered because the schedule was so full. These covered three broad themes – from an inventory of the riches of African culture to its prospects, and the crisis facing black cultures under racism and colonialism.

Heated debates

In an event that saw intense exchanges between speakers, the audience and critics from all sides, the first major split emerged after Senghor spoke on “the spirit of civilisation or the laws of Black African culture”.

Some listeners backed Senghor’s belief in a unique Negro-African civilisation, while others argued for a more historical understanding of culture, proposing that it be approached as a sum of evolving identities, linked to the diverse circumstances of black communities around the world.

Senghor's essentialist stance – according to which the black identity is fixed and characterised by sensuality and intuition rather than an intellectual or analytical dimension – raised questions over abstract analysis of cultural issues at the expense of the historical dimension of those issues.

Aimé Césaire, Jacques Alexis and Richard Wright pictured outside the conference at the Sorbonne in Paris, 1956. © Wikimedia Commons

A second significant divide in opinion emerged during Césaire’s talk on “culture and colonisation”. Césaire blamed the hardships of African Americans on their political situation, as dominated and colonised people on the same level as Africans or Antilleans.

The American writers in the room strongly rejected that comparison, insisting that black Americans were not colonised. The debate became heated, with the Americans preparing to walk out, as Senghor asked whether segregation in the United States was not a legacy of colonisation and the slave trade.

"It was interesting to see Senghor and Césaire assert loud and clear the unity of the black world, a concept on which there is absolutely no consensus," said Elara Bertho, a literary historian at the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

It took all of Diop’s diplomatic skill to secure a compromise by the end of the meeting, allowing the final resolution to affirm the "solidarity" of the oppressed and the need for dialogue between cultures.

Despite these divisions, for Senegalese novelist and historian Elgas the congress indisputably left its mark. “Between 19 and 22 September 1956, what was being played out above all was the assertion that we are here, that the world can no longer be made without us."

This article has been adapted from the original version in French by Tirthankar Chanda.

Monday, September 21, 2026

Trump and the Falkland Islands: A Message to NATO?

by | Sep 16, 2026 | 

President Donald Trump may have discovered a new opportunity to provoke a NATO ally.  Last year, the White House created a brouhaha with Denmark (and other European countries) by insisting that Copenhagen sell Greenland to the United States.

This time, Washington’s agitation involves a chain of islands off the east coast of Argentina that Great Britain claims and administers.  Those islands, called the Falklands by Britain and most other countries, but claimed and referred to as the Malvinas by Argentina, has been a major source of contention before.  London has had a presence in the Falklands since 1699, fending off rival claims over the decades by other European colonial powers as well as Argentina.

On August 31, 2026, Trump stated that he was reviewing Washington’s official position regarding the islands. Currently, the United States recognizes London’s administration of the territory without taking a stance on the sovereignty dispute itself.  Trump’s comment followed news media reports that U.S. officials wanted to use the threat of a Falklands “policy review” to pressure Britain into increasing its military spending.  Applying pressure on Washington’s closest ally would underscore the growing U.S. insistence that all NATO members take that step.

A shift in U.S. policy on the Falklands might seem to be an obscure topic of little importance.  However, that is not necessarily the case.  The Falklands-Malvinas controversy brings several volatile factors to the forefront.  Issues such as NATO solidarity, the residual effects of European imperialism and colonialism, the legitimate extent of national sovereignty, and the lingering effects of historical grievances all come into play.  Argentina’s president Javier Milei has already seized on Trump’s comment to revive his country’s slumbering territorial claim.

President Trump needs to be very cautious about how he deals with this set of sensitive issues.  A repetition of his clumsy handling of the Greenland controversy could produce far more serious negative consequences in this case.

As recently as the 1980s, the Falklands dispute caused a tragic loss of human life and came close to triggering a major geopolitical headache for the United States. The hoary British-Argentine diplomatic feud abruptly escalated into a full-fledged shooting war on April 2, 1982, when the military junta that governed Argentina at that time ordered an invasion and occupation in the midst of desultory negotiations with London.  British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher then promptly ordered her country’s military forces to dislodge the invaders.

Ronald Reagan’s administration sought to defuse and mediate the growing quarrel. Indeed, Secretary of State Alexander Haig conducted multiple rounds of shuttle diplomacy throughout April, but his efforts were unsuccessful.  The administration’s top policymakers were not entirely united about the position the United States should adopt on the underlying territorial dispute, but there was a pronounced tilt in favor of London.  Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, seemed the most sympathetic to Argentina’s claim. Given her post at the UN, she probably was hearing significant pro-Argentine – or more likely, anti-British – sentiments expressed in the hallways and chambers of that organization.

Haig sought to maintain some balance in U.S. policy, but as one might expect from a staunch Atlanticist and NATO cheerleader, he ultimately opted to support Britain.  Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger didn’t even make a pretense of neutrality.  He strongly backed London from the outset.

Even the more junior foreign and defense policy officials were overwhelmingly in the pro-British camp. They emphasized the importance of continuing NATO solidarity.  Failing to support Britain – the most important European member of the Alliance and Washington’s most crucial ally overall – was anathema to the bulk of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.  That faction quickly outmaneuvered the small contingent of pro-Argentina policymakers.  NATO solidarity would prevail, regardless of the specifics of any territorial dispute.

After an armed conflict lasting until June 14, 1982, Britain’s military forces prevailed in the fight against their Argentine adversaries.  As a bonus for advocates of democracy and human rights, the brutal junta in Buenos Airies fell from power.  However, on May 2, a British submarine sank the Argentine cruiser the General Belgrano, killing 323 crew members.  Given Britain’s extensive overall advantage in military power (including a nuclear arsenal) the sinking seemed gratuitous to critics, especially outside the West, even though the Belgrano was a powerful warship operating under orders to conduct offensive operations.  The Reagan administration’s continuing close association with Britain despite the bloody episode fed new suspicions about the sincerity of Washington’s commitment to human rights.  The overall loss of life in the war was not trivial either.  904 people perished, including 649 Argentine military personnel.  Not surprisingly, the conflict and the resulting stinging defeat remain a very sensitive issue in Argentina today.

Trump’s planned review of U.S. policy regarding the Falklands-Malvinas dispute does not have to produce such ugly consequences.  Moreover, a comprehensive policy review is probably warranted.  The United States should not blindly support the British position in the name of NATO solidarity.  Since both Britain and Argentina are democratic political entities, the complications resulting from one country being an odious dictatorship are no longer relevant, in contrast to the situation in the 1980s.

Still, Washington must be able to make the case that a policy change is based on an honest assessment of the merits of the respective cases.  Just as a decision favoring Britain should not be the product of a misplaced sentiment for NATO solidarity, a decision favoring Argentina should not be the result of a desire by U.S. officials to push Britain and other European members of NATO to boost their military spending or support the U.S. war against Iran.

The Falklands-Malvinas dispute is an opportunity for the Trump administration to exhibit greater balance and maturity with respect to a second-tier, but still important, foreign policy issue.  Doing so could repair some of the needless, self-inflicted damage to Washington’s reputation that occurred in the Greenland episode and on other recent occasions.

Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and the Libertarian Institute. He is also a contributing editor to National Security Journal and The American Conservative. He also served in various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,600 articles on defense, foreign policy and civil liberties issues. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).