Enjoyment Of Freedoms Research Articles

Mastering Emotions: Feelings, Power, and Slavery in the United States by Erin Austin Dwyer

Reviewed by: Mastering Emotions: Feelings, Power, and Slavery in the United States by Erin Austin Dwyer Lindsay A. Silver Mastering Emotions: Feelings, Power, and Slavery in the United States. By Erin Austin Dwyer. America in the Nineteenth Century. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021. Pp. x, 284. $39.95, ISBN 978-0-8122-5339-9.) In Mastering Emotions: Feelings, Power, and Slavery in the United States, Erin Austin Dwyer insightfully demonstrates how emotions shaped, maintained, and challenged the institution of slavery by examining the power dynamics of real and performative feelings between people who were enslaved and slave owners. At the same time, Dwyer emphasizes the prominence of emotions in proslavery defenses and abolitionist critiques, further underscoring the centrality of sentiments to many of the arguments seeking to uphold or destroy slavery in antebellum America. As a book about the power of emotions and feelings, Mastering Emotions primarily focuses on relationships between enslaved people and slaveholders. Dwyer draws on a wide variety of sources while making particular use of first-person accounts. These sources, which include slave narratives alongside the journals and diaries of white southerners who owned enslaved people, enable Dwyer to expose and explore the feelings and emotions that established, maintained, and even challenged the power dynamics within slavery. Dwyer’s work is deeply rooted in an extensive historiography of American slavery that acknowledges the prevalence of such sentiments among enslaved Blacks and slaveholding whites. What stands out about Mastering Emotions is that Dwyer is the first to seriously and methodically analyze the significance of feelings and emotions to the institution of slavery. Dwyer accomplishes this goal by applying the framework established by scholars of the history of emotions to the history of American slavery. As a result, the reader revisits many familiar scenes and stories from nineteenth-century narratives of enslaved people and slaveholders, but with a new understanding of how power dynamics operated between them, due to Dwyer’s emphasis on the importance of emotions in these relationships. Mastering Emotions covers considerable ground, examining a number of emotions from multiple angles and perspectives. Dwyer successfully demonstrates how the roles of enslaved persons and slave owners were culturally constructed, learned, reinforced, and challenged through emotions both real and performative. Included in the wide range of emotions Dwyer examines are trust, happiness, fear, and the enjoyment of freedom. In her discussion of fear and punishment, the author highlights how scholars have traditionally focused on physical punishment inflicted on enslaved people and have ignored or downplayed the role of emotional or affective discipline. By shifting the focus away from physical punishment and examining the role of emotions, Dwyer successfully demonstrates a greater understanding of “the lived experience of slavery and . . . the critical place of emotional mastery in discipline” (p. 139). Additionally, Dwyer exposes the contradictions in proslavery literature that argued that enslaved people did not have the capacity to feel emotions as strongly as white people, even as emotional punishments designed to break up enslaved families became a common form of control—one that enslaved people often felt was much more painful than physical violence. [End Page 142] In order to fully demonstrate the significance, power, and legacy of the emotional politics of slavery, Dwyer concludes with a brief but important overview of how emotions have shaped Black and white race relations in America since emancipation. In doing so, Dwyer outlines how different emotions, particularly fear, have tragically impacted the joys of freedom for Black Americans from the Jim Crow era to the present. Importantly, Dwyer’s conclusion makes a strong case for further academic and cultural work to better understand the power dynamics of emotions within race relations since the abolition of slavery more than 150 years ago. Lindsay A. Silver Texas A&M University–San Antonio Copyright © 2023 The Southern Historical Association

Cultivating Freedom in South Korea: Media Discourse on Chayu during the Early Park Chung-hee Period

This article analyzes the notion of freedom under Park Chung-hee's regime by examining media representations of freedom in South Korean newspapers during the early period of Park's regime from 1964 to 1970. The analysis of the media discourse of freedom brings to light the complex mechanisms of Park's dictatorship and South Koreans' participation in mobilization projects under Park's regime. I argue that the notion of freedom played an essential role in the way in which Park's regime produced and mobilized dutiful, productive citizens. By appropriating conflicting media representations of freedom, Park's regime defined South Korea's own ideal of freedom within the contexts of Cold War South Korea in the 1960s. Whilst Park's regime assured South Korea's enjoyment of freedom in contrast to communist countries, Park's regime convinced South Koreans that freedom in South Korea cannot be same as in other western countries. Specifically, in the name of South Korea's urgent missions of economic development and national security against communism, Park's regime claimed South Koreans should practice freedom in a responsible, restricted manner. Hence, this article highlights that Park's regime utilized the notion of freedom in a way to turn South Koreans into citizens who believed themselves to be free, yet who acted responsibly to serve national interests against communism. By illuminating the notion of freedom under Park's regime, this article discusses both the conditional, limited nature of mass participation under Park's regime and how the regime used the complex, specific conditions of Cold War South Korea to create mass participation.

Legal Reform in Uzbekistan: Prospects for Freedom of Religion or Belief and Covenantal Pluralism

This article examines religious legislation reform in Uzbekistan since 2017, when President Shavkat Mirziyoyev took power after the death of his predecessor Islam Karimov. The article evaluates to what extent the reforms that the Uzbek government has been trying to implement in recent years are advancing religious freedom in Uzbekistan, and to what extent they are helpful in developing covenantal pluralism. The article argues that Uzbekistan has made some progress in furthering freedom of religion or belief for all, thereby improving prospects for covenantal pluralism. However, there are still serious obstacles preventing believers, and especially religious minorities, from full enjoyment of freedom of religion and liberty of conscience.

Role and presence women education in development of digitalization of economy in Urban sector in India

At present, most ‘ICTs in health ’interventions, especially in the area of m-health, are being led by a variety of actors under a host of public-private and public sector-civil society partnerships, resulting in co-ordination, standardization and interoperability challenges for the scaling up of such pilots. Women constitute almost half of the population of the world. Education for women is the best way to improve the health, nutrition and economic status of a household that constitute a micro unit of a nation economy. There can be no Internet exceptionalism to the right to free speech, the right to information and the right to assembly and association. Legal interventions that aim at addressing women's rights online must begin from the premise that the Internet is instrumental in the enjoyment of freedoms, rather than locate themselves in a framework of protectionalism. Women have traditionally been excluded from the external information sphere, both deliberately and because of factors working to their disadvantage such as lack of freedom of movement or low levels of education. IT opens up a direct window for women to the outside world. Information flows to them without any distortion and censoring.

How Should We Think About the Election of 1800?

How Should Think About the Election of 1800? Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vols. 33-38. Edited by Barbara B. Oberg, James P. McClure, Elaine Weber Pascu, Martha J. King, Tom Downey, Amy Speckart, Linda Monacao, and John E. Little. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007-2011. Vol. 33/Cloth, 800 pp.; Vol. 34/Cloth, 816 pp.; Vol. 35/Cloth, 878 pp.; Vol. 36/Cloth, 824 pp.; Vol. 37/Cloth, 844 pp.; Vol. 38/Cloth, 826 pp.)On March 15, 1801, eleven days after delivering his inaugural address, President Jefferson received a letter from a group of Irish immigrants, The Aliens of Beaver County Pennsylvania. It contains choice language, yet of a sort cautions today's discerning reader about any tendency to take at face value the celebratory outpourings followed Jefferson's election and the triumph of the Democratic-Republican Party. Aliens exulted over Jefferson's victory, confident who cherished liberty shared their sincere joy and real pleasure. With his assumption of office, they trusted the odious Alien Act would be repealed. Irish-born deeply regretted their disenfranchisement, noting inslavers prevented us by their alien Bills from being instrumental to your advancement. Alien and Sedition Acts had sought to silence their voices, and any movement away from liberty was movement toward slavery. If the Federalists had acted to enslave, Jefferson would soon become the great emancipator. letter did not stop there. Aliens were amazed former Revolutionary republicans could conduct themselves as the Federalists had. Strange, they wrote, that the Boaster of liberty thus wishes to inslave others.Thomas Jefferson was a complex person, and of course two centuries' worth of historical process intrude between our reading of line and his. But did line give him at least a moment's pause? Not likely. can presume the Aliens were not seeking to provide a subtext. boasters and enslavers were Federalists, for they alone had passed laws viz, the Alien and Sedition Bills, Laws never sanctioned by the people at large. And though the despised laws were primarily aimed at people like themselves, all the union severely feels the weight of them. Of course, they acknowledged, Jefferson was the last person who had to be told about the terrible danger and harm. We almost deem it needless to insinuate to your Excellency, the Aliens assured the president, how slavery breaks the spirit of patriotism.The Aliens had sailed from their native lands and Braved the boisterous ocean. . . . sought an Assylum on these happy shores from tyranny and oppression. Their hopes could only be realized once they had been delivered from modem American Federal Despots. source of deliverance was obvious to them: We look to thee not only as a citizen of the Patriotic state of Virginia, but as a citizen of the World, whose philanthropic Bosom generously Glows with the ardent desire to promote the happiness of Men. How far did philanthropic impulse carry? writers of the letter hope[d] to see the fulfillment of our reasonable wishes in the enjoyment of freedom and abolition of slavery, the Recovery of patriotism, and liberty: the downfall of delusion, fanatickism, Ambition, and falsehood; engines too long, too powerfully, And too successfully employed, in the subjugation of Man. letter ended with ecstatic optimism could only have grown out of former desperation. Those who had sought to enslave were defeated, their purposes having proved abortive; Truth and reason now assume their Place. . . . Liberty and tme Republickanism universally triumphs. future the Aliens beheld was one when peace and liberty shall universally prevail from East to West, from Pole to Pole . . . and an end put to arbitrary despotism and slavery forever.1Jefferson answered this letter some weeks later, having returned to Monticello in the interim. …

Three Views concerning Human Freedom

Ultimately, the only good reason for restricting the freedom of responsible adults is to protect other people's freedom, to increase the overall enjoyment of freedom.

Three Views concerning Human Freedom

Ultimately, the only good reason for restricting the freedom of responsible adults is to protect other people's freedom, to increase the overall enjoyment of freedom.