In the past year, Chile has experienced the largest civil uprising since the Pinochet dictatorship ending in 1990. This study was conducted in order to better understand the deep-seated motivations behind the mass protests. Due to the relatively recent nature of these demonstrations, little research has yet to be published. Scholarly literature indicates that Pinochet’s neoliberal policies—especially within the education, housing, and social security sectors—have prevented real progressive change and are structured to mainly benefit the business elites. Even 30 years after Pinochet’s authoritarian regime, left-leaning administrations attempted to improve the economic and social situations of the lower classes but could not due to the structural inequalities at the base of the Chilean economy and society. Foundationally, Pinochet’s neoliberal legacy has yet to be completely dismantled which is also echoed throughout the interview data.

Interviews were analyzed using content analysis in order to complement the literature and provide for new explanations. These interviews were collected through online news and firsthand reports of actual protesters and academics reflecting on the protests. Interviews from Chileans provide a window into the perspective of protesters in their own words. After coding the transcriptions of the first-hand reports, the primary findings of these sources show anger about human rights violations during the protests, frustration with the neoliberal economic structure, and current disconnection between the government and the people. This study found that Pinochet’s economic legacies implemented through his authoritarian dictatorship can help explain the 2019 civil uprising.

European societies have experienced recent surges in immigration, particularly in the form of refugees and asylum-seekers, in the years following the Arab Spring. At the same time, we can observe a substantial implementation of austerity policies in the European Union following the European Debt Crisis since the end of 2009. In this study, I investigate the correlation between attitudes towards austerity policies and attitudes towards immigration. I hypothesize that individuals who report being disinterested regarding austerity policy will be more positive towards future immigration from outside of the EU while those who report being concerned with austerity policies will be more adverse towards such future immigration. To explain cross-country differences, I use group threat theory, which explains that, larger inflows of immigration combined with challenging economic conditions impose a perceived threat on the host society, resulting in more negative attitudes towards immigration. I plan to analyze data from the Eurobarometer 82.3 (Standard Eurobarometer) social survey (2014) to study the results of my hypotheses within a cross-section of time. My findings largely confirm my hypotheses, though the individual-level results draw a weak correlation between austerity, nationalism, and attitudes towards immigration.

The concept of recognition developed through the 20th century as a form of political legitimation has served a central if problematic role in understanding international politics. On the one hand, recognition aims toward establishing essential collective identities that must be conceived as relatively stable in order to then gain respect, receive political protection, and occupy both physical and discursive space. On the other hand, recognition tacitly accepts a social constructivist view of the subject who can only become whole unto itself – and in turn exercise positive liberty, freedom, or agency – through the implied assent or explicit consent of another. There is an inherent tension between these two understandings of recognition. The attempt to reconcile this tension often manifests itself in forms of symbolic and systemic violence that can turn to corporeal harm. In order to enter into the concept, history, politics and performativity of recognition, I focus on what is often viewed as an exceptionally complex and uniquely controversial case: the Israel-Palestine conflict. Undergoing a discourse analysis of three epistemic communities (i.e., the State/diplomatic network, the Academic/intellectual network, the Military-Security network) and their unique modes of veridiction, I show how each works to construct the notion of ethno-nationalism as a necessary political logic that holds the promise of everything put in its right place: Us here, Them there. All three epistemic communities are read as knowledge/power networks that have substantial effect on political subjects and subjectivities. Influenced by the philosophy of Hegel and Levinas, and supported by the works of Michel Foucault, Wendy Brown, Alphonso Lingis, Jacques Derrida, Patchen Markell, and others, I show the ways in which our current politics of recognition is best read as violence. By tracing three discursive networks of knowledge/power implicated in our modern politics of recognition, I demonstrate forms of symbolic violence waged against the entire complex of the Israel-Palestine conflict in ways that preclude a just resolution based on mutual empathy, acknowledgment, and (re)cogntion.