Identity is playing an increasingly important role in Canadian elections whether in terms of parties’ choices as to the candidates they run to represent them, the policy appeals that they or other advocacy organizations make to mobilize voter support or attention, or the manner in which these identities are communicated through social media or more traditional news sources. This workshop, co-sponsored by the Women, Gender and Politics, the Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples and Politics, and the Political Behaviour/Sociology sections of the CPSA, aims to explore these identities and how they are engaged in Canadian elections. It welcomes paper proposals that speak to diverse identities, focus on elections at any order of government, and draw on a variety of methodological approaches. It is particularly interested in those that address:
The best papers from the workshop will be invited to become chapters in an edited volume on identity mobilization in Canadian elections.
From access to abortion to the emergence of reproductive and genetic technologies to the continued regulation of the reproductive autonomy of marginalized populations, new developments in law, policy, and politics are rapidly shifting the ways that reproduction in Canada (and elsewhere) is governed. This workshop, co-sponsored by the Women, Gender, and Politics and the Law and Public Policy sections of the CPSA will bring together scholars who are interested in how law, politics, and public policy shape, constrain, and empower people’s reproductive lives.
We are particularly interested in papers that address:
We are also open to other topics not listed here but broadly related to the governance and regulation of reproduction. Papers from this workshop may be invited to become either chapters in an edited volume or articles in a special edition journal on reproductive politics. Questions about this workshop can be directed to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
In the summer of 1989, Francis Fukuyama in The End of History announced, with a steady glow of optimism, the inevitable triumph of Western Liberal Democracy and the demise of Communism. Three decades later, however, illiberal ideologies have yet to vanish from the political landscape of the Global South. The twenty first century has witnessed communism in China making a great comeback in a more powerful and hybrid form. Fusing capitalism with state interventionism, the Beijing Consensus has become an internationally exportable model of competitive authoritarianism that is now openly opposing Western liberalism on the ideological front. In the international system, authoritarian regimes persist and strategically adapt to the continual challenge of liberal practices and human rights organizations. In domestic society, their longevity hinges upon the infrastructural power of institutionalized and cohesive states that serve to suppress popular demands for democracy, curtail civil society and social movements, and generate civilian compliance.
Notwistanding the growing prevalence and complexity of ideology in the political landscape of authoritarianism, the politics of ideology has remained at the periphery of mainstream political science, only to be studied by small circles of political and critical/postmodern theorists. One reason may be that the scholarship in comparative politics is dominated by the materialist-rationalist paradigm, which focuses on control and capacity of the ruling regime to manage and distribute material resources and rents, and to construct political institutions and coercion. The lack of theoretical and analytical engagement in the subject not only among students of politics but also among scholars across social sciences, as American anthropologist Glifford Geertz pointed out, stems less from “methodological indiscipline” than from the orthdox, evaluative (that is pejorative) definitions of ideology as the “collective false consciousness” masking the “real” conditions of economic production, “causes of intellectual error,” or radical beliefs “deviating from scientific objectivity.”
If the world has really learnt something from the current pandemic, it is the surprising fact that autocracies are neither less vulnerable to nor more effective than democracies in handling human-security crisis, despite their imposition of severe lock-down and mobility restriction measures. If answers to the questions of material and punitive inducements cannot tell us the whole story about why authoritarian regimes continue to endure and bounce back stronger after crisis, then, as political scientist Lisa Wedeen suggests, a political analysis of how regime elites and state bureaucrats control and manipulate the symbolic world, or the systems of signification, may be able to fill out the gap. In recent years, critical theorists have sought to bring ideology and hegemony back to sociology, anthropology, political theory and postcolonial theory. In these disciplines, ideology has been redefined as a system of collectively held normative and contested factual ideas, values, beliefs, or symbols that are mobilized in support for specific patterns of social relationships, institutional arrangements and conducts. While the effects of ideological systems may give the impression of mystification in the public transcript, even the most subordinate group, in James C. Scott’s words, “are able, on the daily basis of their material experience, to penetrate and demystify the prevailing ideology” within the “hidden transcript.”
Now is an opportune time to move beyond the materialist outlook and bring ideology back to the study of politics. This workshop intends to engage participants with two overarching questions: (1) what are the effects and power of ideology in relation to state building, political legitimacy, and contentious politics/social movements in the authoritarian world, and (2) how can existing methodological tools and theoretical frameworks within the discipline be employed alone, or creatively combined with others from different disciplines, to gain an effective understanding of the object of interest? These overarching questions will be examined through three key themes:
Social Movement, Everyday & Contentious Politics
We invite individual papers which address one or more of the above questions, and others related to the theme. We also welcome papers that explore other issues related to ideology more generally. The workshop presents an opportunity for participants to not only engage with the themes above, but also to build a comprehensive and rigorous research agenda aimed at exploring the role of ideology in a systematic manner.
In many ways, Québec politics seems to be at a crossroad and a possible partisan realignment. In 2018, neither the Parti Québécois nor the Liberal Party of Québec formed the government – a first in almost 50 years. Schisms within the independence movement and lack of strategic coordination seem to hurt ‘sovereigntist-left parties’. The PLQ, meanwhile, was relegated to its worst electoral performance since 1976. What account for these changes? How ‘old parties’ (may) adapt to these challenges? Are new social and political issues replacing established ideological dimensions? How comparative research considering other substate nations (e.g., Scotland and Catalonia) or Canadian provinces help us make sense of those transformations?
In the context of the upcoming Quebec provincial election, reuniting scholars interested in Québec politics will provide an enticing opportunity to address those questions and contribute to the dynamism of the field in an election year. The workshop welcomes paper proposals that aim to improve our understanding of Québec politics by addressing issues related to elections, parties, and public opinion. In particular, the following topics would nicely fit within the scope of the workshop:
As for all congress activities, the workshop is bilingual but we would like the restate that participants are welcome to submit proposals in French. Discussants will be bilingual and will be able to read and provide comments for both English and French submissions.
Canadians from working-class backgrounds are often overlooked by politicians, policy makers, and political scientists. Some have questioned whether class is a politically relevant social division in Canada. With shifting electoral alignments, changing labour market patterns, and socioeconomic inequality exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to revisit the political importance of class status. This workshop seeks to place questions of working-class identity and interests within a larger empirical context of class membership and voting behaviour, political parties, and representation. It aims to uncover the ways in which class background remains an important factor in explaining political outcomes and behaviour, sometimes in ways that are not readily apparent.
The workshop will bring together scholarly perspectives focused on working-class politics, and three aspects in particular:
The goal is to use several of the papers from the workshop to develop an edited volume on working class politics in Canada.
|2022 CPSA Deadlines and Important Dates|
|Deadline to submit your proposals||January 31, 2022|
|Submission outcome notification||March 2022|
|CPSA Membership Fees||March 31, 2022|
|Paper for the conference||May 23, 2022|