Backlash: Contemporary Obstructions to Social Justice

Dear Colleagues,

Over the last decade, an era of progressive social change and renewed hope for oppressed and marginalized peoples around the world was ushered in by the election of US President Barack Obama, and, more recently, revitalized by the pronouncements of Pope Francis. Social justice reforms from the Affordable Care Act in the US to the global proliferation of marriage equality, as well as emerging justice movements from “Black Lives Matter” to more robust global climate activism, have produced sharp opposition from conservatives, corporations, and counter-movements, as well as more subtle forms of resistance and tepid support from liberals and progressives. Backlash against social justice policies and movements of the last decade have fomented world-wide. In some cases, this resistance has resulted in more severe forms of oppression and violence against LGBT people, immigrants, racial and religious minorities, the poor, women, people with disabilities, and others.

Which of the progressive changes of the last decade will endure and expand, and in what ways might reactionary forces prevail and reverse social progress? Our social, political, and economic choices over the next decade—from the national level to the United Nations—will define the trajectory of our commitment to social justice, human rights, and the welfare of our planet. This pivotal moment in history provides the impetus for this Special Issue.

Scholars in the social sciences over the last decade have produced a rich literature on developments in social, political, economic, and environmental justice. In many areas, there is a dearth of scholarly attention devoted to the barriers and obstacles created by those who oppose progressive change – the organized efforts to forestall, roll back, or undermine recent social justice reforms and movements (Douglas 2007; Girard 2009; Layzer 2014; Lodhia 2014; Luchenitser 2015; Ludlow 2012; Mackey 2005; Meagher 2013; Minnite 2012; Patler and Gonzalez 2015; Pickett, Tope, and Bellandi 2014; Raymond 2013; Rocha and Matsubayashi 2014; Yazdiaha 2014).

This Special Issue seeks original scholarly contributions that focus on the varieties of contemporary backlash against or resistance to contemporary campaigns, pronouncements, and movements furthering social, political, economic, and/or environmental justice. In what specific forms (partisan political, corporate, religious, media, popular, social movement) does this backlash or opposition manifest? What are the goals, resources, methods, strategies, tactics, and limitations of this backlash? What are the prospects for altering “the arc of justice”?

Manuscripts that would be appropriate for this Special Issue could include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Innovative methods of voter suppression or other obstacles to democratic participation
• Backlash against campaigns for racial justice in the criminal justice system (for example, mass incarceration, felon disenfranchisement, and “Black Lives Matter”)
• Neo-nativist/anti-immigration politics, campaigns, and/or organizations
• Corporate/state opposition or barriers to environmental justice and regulation, including attempts to violate treaties with sovereign indigenous nations
• “Religious liberty” (or other novel) arguments to undermine women’s and transgender health care coverage, marriage equality, and LGBT rights
• Oppression of religious and ethnic minorities (for example, new forms of Anti-Semitism or Islamophobia)
• Attempts to further incapacitate or undermine the power of the Labor Movement (for example, union-busting, weakening worker safety regulations, undercutting wages)

• New threats to entitlement and assistance programs or legal protections for people who are poor and/or elderly, and for people with disabilities

Empirical and applied studies, as well as theoretical contributions, from a wide range of disciplines (including law, sociology, criminology, political science, anthropology, education, public policy, philosophy, economics, history, psychology, social work), as well as cross- and interdisciplinary studies are encouraged. The central organizing theme linking the collected works will be a focus on contemporary forms of opposition or resistance to efforts to advance the civil or human rights of oppressed or marginalized peoples or against movements or campaigns for social and/or environmental justice.

Prof. Christine M. Robinson
Prof. Sue Spivey
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Social Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

References:

• Richard Douglas. “Growthism and the Green Backlash.” Political Quarterly 78 (2007): 547–55.
• April L. Girard. “Backlash or Equality?” Violence Against Women 15 (2009): 5–23.
• Emily E. Holley. “International Anti-LGBT Legislation: How Nationalistic Cultural Warfare Supports Political Motivations.” Law and Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Legal Issues 24 (2015): 179–202.
• Judith A. Layzer. Open for Business: Conservatives' Opposition to Environmental Regulation. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012.
• Sharmila Lodhia. “‘Stop Importing Weapons of Family Destruction!’: Cyberdiscourses, Patriarchal Anxieties, and the Men’s Backlash Movement in India.” Violence Against Women 20(2014): 905–36.
• Alex J. Luchenitser. “A New Era of Inequality? Hobby Lobby and Religious Exemptions from Anti-Discrimination Laws.” Harvard Law & Policy Review 9 (2015): 63–88.
• Eva Mackey. “Universal Rights in Conflict: ‘Backlash’ and ‘Benevolent Resistance’ to Indigenous Land Rights.” Anthropology Today 21 (2005): 14–20.
• Richard Meagher. “Death and Taxes: Issue Framing and Conservative Coalition Maintenance.” Political Science Quarterly 128 (2013): 517–38.
• Lorraine C. Minnite. “New Challenges in the Study of Right-Wing Propaganda: Priming the Populist Backlash to ‘Hope and Change.’” New Political Science 34 (2012): 506–26.
• Caitlin Patler and Roberto G. Gonzales. “Framing Citizenship: Media Coverage of
  Anti-deportation Cases Led by Undocumented Immigrant Youth Organizations.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41 (2015): 1453–74.
• Justin T. Pickett, Daniel Tope, and Rose Bellandi. “ ‘Taking Back Our Country’: Tea Party Membership and Support for Punitive Crime Control Policies.” Sociological Inquiry 84 (2014): 167–90.
• Casey L. Raymond. “A Growing Threat to the ADA: An Empirical Study of Mass Filings, Popular Backlash, and Potential Solutions under Titles II and III.” Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights 18 (2013): 235–64.
• Rene R. Rocha and Tetsuya Matsubayashi. “The Politics of Race and Voter ID Laws in the States: The Return of Jim Crow?” Political Research Quarterly 67 (2014): 666–79.
• Haj Yazdiha. “Law as Movement Strategy: how the Islamophobia Movement Institutionalizes Fear throught Legislation.” Social Movement Studies 13 (2014): 267–84.

• Social justice
• Inequality
• Civil rights violations
• Human rights violations
• Oppression