Suchergebnisse

The frequency and severity of disasters caused by natural hazards and extreme weather is increasing across Canada. Each year, more communities face devastation, disruption, and the difficult task of rebuilding. However, the process by which communities pick up the pieces – disaster recovery – is currently failing to deliver more resilient communities. In Canada, disaster recovery prioritizes the rapid return to pre-disaster conditions without consideration for the changing risk environment and the ways in which recovery can enable communities to better prepare for the future. Our commitment to this failing system has long-term consequences. With the cost of disasters dramatically increasing, how we rebuild communities contributes to their vulnerability or resilience in the future. Because of the static nature of physical structures, with building and infrastructure lifespans of more than fifty years, recovery locks in the risk profile of a community's built environment for generations. This project examines the barriers and opportunities for municipalities, the level of government closest to the individuals and businesses devastated by disaster, to integrate systematic disaster risk reduction into recovery and thereby rebuild more resilient communities. Using systems thinking informed by foresight and human-centered design research methods, this study aims to identify the constraints and leverage points for changing our approach to recovery in Canada so it prioritizes resilience to future risks instead of recreating the past. Resilient Recovery: A systems analysis begins by describing disaster trends in Canada and the factors increasing disaster risk, then traces of evolution of the disaster recovery system and analyzes the dynamics at play in the current system. It explores emerging forces of change and the implications these emergent issues may have for recovery, then concludes with an analysis of the system's leverage points, considerations for how foresight could enhance the process, and a proposed pathway ...

Discourses of recovery and resilience have risen to positions of dominance in the mental health field. Models of recovery and resilience enjoy purchase, in both policy and practice, across a range of settings from self-described psychiatric survivors through to mental health charities through to statutory mental health service providers. Despite this ubiquity, there is confusion about what recovery means. In this article we problematize notions of recovery and resilience, and consider what, if anything, should be recovered from these concepts. We focus on three key issues, i) individualization, ii) the persistence of a deficit model, and iii) collective approaches to recovery. Through documentary analysis we consider these issues across third sector organizations, and public and mental health policy. Firstly, definitional debates about recovery reflect wider ideological debates about the nature of mental health. The vagueness of these concepts and implicit assumptions inherent in dominant recovery and resilience discourses render them problematic because they individualize what are social problems. Secondly, these discourses, despite being seen as inherently liberatory are conceptually dependent on a notion of deficit in that talk of "positives" and "strengths" requires the existence of "negatives" and "weaknesses" for these concepts to make sense. We argue that this does little to substantially transform dominant understandings of psychological distress. Thirdly, these issues combine to impact upon the progressive potential of recovery. It comes to be seen as an individualistic experiential narrative accompaniment to medical understandings where the structural causes of distress are obscured. This in turn impacts upon the potential for recovery to be used to explore more collective, political aspects of emotional distress. Drawing on the work of Fraser, we use this critique to characterize "recovery" as a "struggle for recognition," founded on a model of identity politics which displaces and marginalizes the need for social, political and economic redistribution to address many of the underlying causes of emotional distress. We conclude by stating that it is only when the collective, structural experiences of inequality and injustice are explicitly linked to processes of emotional distress that recovery will be possible.

Discourses of recovery and resilience have risen to positions of dominance in the mental health field. Models of recovery and resilience enjoy purchase, in both policy and practice, across a range of settings from self-described psychiatric survivors through to mental health charities through to statutory mental health service providers. Despite this ubiquity, there is confusion about what recovery means. In this article we problematize notions of recovery and resilience, and consider what, if anything, should be recovered from these concepts. We focus on three key issues, i) individualization, ii) the persistence of a deficit model, and iii) collective approaches to recovery. Through documentary analysis we consider these issues across third sector organizations, and public and mental health policy. Firstly, definitional debates about recovery reflect wider ideological debates about the nature of mental health. The vagueness of these concepts and implicit assumptions inherent in dominant recovery and resilience discourses render them problematic because they individualize what are social problems. Secondly, these discourses, despite being seen as inherently liberatory are conceptually dependent on a notion of deficit in that talk of "positives" and "strengths" requires the existence of "negatives" and "weaknesses" for these concepts to make sense. We argue that this does little to substantially transform dominant understandings of psychological distress. Thirdly, these issues combine to impact upon the progressive potential of recovery. It comes to be seen as an individualistic experiential narrative accompaniment to medical understandings where the structural causes of distress are obscured. This in turn impacts upon the potential for recovery to be used to explore more collective, political aspects of emotional distress. Drawing on the work of Fraser, we use this critique to characterize "recovery" as a "struggle for recognition," founded on a model of identity politics which displaces and marginalizes the need for social, political and economic redistribution to address many of the underlying causes of emotional distress. We conclude by stating that it is only when the collective, structural experiences of inequality and injustice are explicitly linked to processes of emotional distress that recovery will be possible.

By the late 1920s, the belief that US men were being exploited by the so-called gold diggers seeking advantageous divorces was widespread. Organizations like the Alimony Payers' Protective Association and the Alimony Reform League were created to combat the perceived problem of gold digging ex-wives. Several states considered legislation to restrict alimony payments. Yet, the overall instances of alimony were relatively rare. This article explains the rise of anti-alimony sentiment during the late 1920s through an examination of the gold digger trope. Anti-alimony agitation represented a response to the changes in women's roles and sexual norms in the 1920s.

In this compelling blend of East and West, which has sold fifty-three thousand copies, Mel Ash shows how Zen mind and practice connect to the heart of recovery. Courageously drawing from his lifetime of experience as an abused child, alcoholic, Zen student, and dharma teacher, Ash presents a practical synthesis of Alcoholics Anonymous's Twelve Steps and Zen's Eightfold Path. You don't have to be Buddhist to appreciate the healing power of The Zen of Recovery. The book makes Zen available to all seeking to improve the quality of their spiritual and everyday lives. It also includes practical ins

Includes index. ; "Published November, 1933. Reprinted . January, February, 1934." ; An estimate of the situation -- This secondary post-war depression -- Debts and prices -- The crisis in banking -- What government can do -- Agricultural relief -- The Industrial Recovery Act -- The financing of recovery -- Inflation -- Orthodox versus managed recovery -- Foreign trade -- Requisites for recovery. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the definition of the procedural legal status of the plaintiff and the defendant in cases of recovery of alimony for the maintenance of the child. Taking into account the analysis of the norms of the national legislation, the main doctrinal approaches and law enforcement practice, the legal status of the child in the civil process was established and analyzed in cases involving the recovery of alimony for the child's maintenance. Particular attention is paid in the article to changes in the norms of family legislation that dealt with cases of child support, in particular those provisions of family law that establish that child support received for the maintenance of the child is the property of the child. During the examination of the procedural legal status of the plaintiff and the respondent in cases involving the recovery of maintenance for the maintenance of the child in civil proceedings, it is established that the plaintiff in the child recovery case for the maintenance of the child is the minor child himself, since he has the right to maintenance, and every child has the right to a standard of living sufficient for its physical, intellectual, moral, cultural, spiritual and social development. Due to the fact that the child is a minor, his rights and interests in accordance with the rules of civil procedural law are protected by legal representatives or relevant bodies that have the right to apply to the court in the interests of other persons. The respondent is a person who, in accordance with the law, must fulfill the obligation to pay alimony forcibly. ; Статья посвящена комплексному исследованию определению процессуального правового статуса истца и ответчика по делам о взыскании алиментов на содержание ребенка. С учетом анализа норм национального законодательства, основных доктринальных подходов определены и аргументировано, что правовой статус истца занимает сам ребенок, ответчиком является лицо, которое должно выполнять обязанность по уплате алиментов на ребенка при рассмотрении данной категории дел в гражданском судопроизводстве. ; Стаття присвячена комплексному дослідженню щодо визначення процесуального правового статусу позивача та відповідача у справах про стягнення аліментів на утримання дитини. З урахуванням аналізу норм національного законодавства, основних доктринальних підходів визначено та аргументовано, що правовий статус позивача займає сама дитина, відповідачем є особа, яка повинена виконувати обов'язок щодо сплати аліментів на дитину при розгляді даної категорії справ у цивільному судочинстві.

Publisher URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/soundings.101.1.0006?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ; In this article, I contend that Hannah Arendt's understanding of the political as the space of appearance of many, unique and distinct individuals, is particularly instructive for our time. Her work urges us to recover the political as the space where many interact in words and deeds, bringing visibility and reality to such plurality. This is in contrast to a traditional view of the political, seen as irrational and doomed if left to itself. According to this view, the political realm needs a rule and an order imposed from the outside, preferably a rational ideal, for it to be good. The mastery of the political requires that the many be subjugated, with plurality disappearing, and power conceived as a relationship of domination. Arendt teaches instead that power lies in the coming together of people, something which is feared by the status quo, for it subverts the given, and introduces something new into the world. By creating spaces where people interact in words and deeds, acknowledging and sharing their differences, politics comes alive and the new is possible. Although the new is often perceived as threatening, it is the only way towards a world less defined by domination and more a place for recognition and participation of all.