Suchergebnisse

Martha C. Nussbaums 1986 erschienenes Werk The Fragility of Goodness, das sie selbst retrospektiv als "a book about disaster" bezeichnet, bildet den Ausgangspunkt der Überlegungen, wie in Zeiten einer globalen Seuche über unsere anthropologischen Grundlagen (auch in der feministischen Theorie) neu nachgedacht werden muss. Fragilität strukturiert nicht nur die Verletzlichkeit der Verletzlichen; das Leben aller ist stets durch den Verlust des Guten durch Krankheit, Tod oder schlechte Politik gefährdet. Eine Philosophie des guten Lebens als Vierklang von Vulnerabilität, Sozialität, Fragilität und Materialität ist radikal, da sie dem neuzeitlichen Machbarkeitswahn des Guten - sei es in gegenwärtigen Diskursen oder klassischen Zukunftsvisionen - widerspricht. Wie verwundbar das menschliche Leben ist, illustriert eindrucksvoll das "Wuhan-Tagebuch" Fang Fangs, das die chinesische Schriftstellerin während des Lockdowns von Januar bis März 2020 (zunächst als Blog) geschrieben hat. Fang Fangs und Nussbaums Arbeiten helfen, den geschichtlichen Einschnitt - "Corona-Krise" genannt - zu verstehen, der zugleich die letzte Chance für die unumgängliche Transformation der gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnisse darstellt - genannt "Klimakrise".

In this article three different responses are taken as the starting point how different types of disruption could be dealt with. These responses -repair, bounce back and grow stronger- are combined with three disruptions (sea level rise, storm surge and heavy rainfall), and then tested in three case studies. The result of the investigation is that anti-fragility (grow stronger) is a preferential approach to create delta landscapes that become stronger under influence of a disruption. Anti-fragility is for this research subdivided in three main characteristics, abundance of networks, adaptivity and counterintuitivity, which are used to analyse the three case study propositions. The type of response, type of disruption, characteristic of anti-fragility and the qualities of the case study area itself determine the design proposition and the outcome. In all cases this approach has led to a stronger and safer landscape. The concept of anti-fragility impacts on the period before a disruption, during and also after the disruptive impact. This gives it a better point of departure in dealing with uncertain or unprecedented hazards and disruptions.

This publication provides an overview of the key issues, challenges and opportunities for ensuring more systematic consideration of gender issues in statebuilding in fragile and conflict-affected countries. It makes the case for gender-sensitive statebuilding based on the inherent value of gender equality as well as its contribution to better development outcomes and the achievement of peacebuilding and statebuilding goals. The brief also spells out some of the contextual challenges and operational constraints that stifle progress in this area. Based on a series of empirical examples of donor

ABSTRACTObjectiveWe propose and develop novel survey questions and quantitative summary indices of White fragility.MethodsThe data come from the 2018 Survey of White Fragility, a longitudinal convenience sample of 279 non‐Hispanic white undergraduate students aged 18 and over taking courses at two large public universities in the southeastern and southwestern United States.ResultsFactor analyses revealed two latent factors. The first factor—Remorse Fragility—was defined by feeling sad, guilty, and, to a lesser extent, angry in the context of discussions related to racism, race‐based discrimination, and white privilege. The second factor—Depletion Fragility—was defined by feeling drained, exhausted, unsafe, and, to a lesser extent, attacked and confused in the same contexts. Additional analyses supported the reliability and validity of our indices.ConclusionMore research is needed to establish measures of White Fragility to inform interventions that support critical discussions of whiteness and the racist structures of society.

While progress in developing countries as a whole, in terms of growth, poverty reduction, and several MDGs, has been quite good in recent years, fragile states lag behind in levels of MDG achievement. To understand the link between fragility and MDG progress, and also to identify the most effective policy interventions to achieve the MDGs, it is essential that fragile states are appropriately defined and classified. While the amount of literature on how to engage with fragile states is rapidly accumulating, only very limited analysis exists that investigates to what extent the levels and trends in the MDGs differ significantly between different definitions of fragile and non-fragile states. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usefulness of the fragile state concept in tracking the levels and progress of the MDGs. In doing so, this paper applies several definitions of fragility in order to study the MDG progress between 1990 and 2006. It compares aver-age performance in levels and trends of MDG progress between fragile and non-fragile countries and also compares within-group heterogeneity. The paper shows that fragile countries are, indeed, performing worse in terms of MDG levels. In terms of MDG progress, progress is not necessarily slower in fragile states. Only a rather small number of countries suffering from compound disadvantages are doing significantly worse in terms of MDG progress. Lastly, the heterogeneity of MDG performance among fragile states is so large that it is not very useful to treat them as a group; the problems they face, as well as the solutions required, differ greatly and have to be developed and treated sui generis.

While it is widely presumed that development progress in so-called fragile states is lagging behind, only very limited empirical analysis exists that investigates to what extent the levels and trends in the MDGs differ significantly between fragile and other developing countries, and between different de-finitions of fragile states. The purpose of this paper is to analyze levels and progress of the MDGs between 1990 and 2008 of fragile and non-fragile developing countries. It shows that fragile countries are, indeed, performing worse in terms of MDG levels. In terms of MDG progress, progress is, on average, not slower in fragile states using most definitions of fragility. Lastly, the heterogeneity of MDG performance among fragile states is so large that it is not very useful to treat them as a group; the problems they face, as well as the solutions required, differ greatly and have to be developed and treated sui generis.