Bøker i Boston Review / Forum-serien

What might happen if a woman's right to vote is seen as coequal with her right to be elected? Why are other countries so much better than the United States at electing women to office? In her lead essay in this anthology, Jennifer Piscopo argues that women in the United States haven't fought for the right to be elected. A comparative political scientist, she shows that suffrage movements around the world often focused not only on the right to vote, but also the right to stand for office. As a result, when these movements succeeded, they saw the right to be elected as a positive right, enabling nationwide-efforts to both encourage and actively recruit female candidates. In her exploration of positive and negative rights in the United States, Piscopo explores what might happen if a woman's right to vote is seen as coequal with her right to be elected, considering, among other things, how our definitions of representational government could both change and restore public trust in democracy.Other essays in this anthology similarly analyze history for lessons that can be applied to today's political climate. What effects does gender parity in legislatures have both on policies enacted and government performance? How has the complicated relationship between race and gender both informed and prevented progress for both movements? And, most immediately, what will it take for a woman to be elected as president in the United States?

How we can recover from terrible ruptures, the pandemic, toxic politics, racist horrors, class warfare, gendered violence, and ecological brinksmanship.Individually and collectively, we bear deep wounds. Some of these are generations old; all have been worsened by a destructive period of pyrrhic politics that left us ill-equipped to respond to a global health catastrophe. As we struggle to recover our footing and grieve our dead, Boston Review believes that the arts must have a voice in the conversation about how we heal. In this new anthology of poetry, fiction, and essays from renowned writers and newcomers, writers explore whether and how we can repair terrible ruptures, life-threatening illnesses and the pandemic, toxic politics, racist horrors, class warfare, gendered violence, and ecological brinksmanship. ContributorsAriella Aisha Azoulay, Kemi Alabi, Donia Elizabeth Allen, Don Mee Choi, Adebe DeRango-Adem, Emma Dries, Farah Jasmine Griffin, Randall Horton, Savonna Johnson, Kim Hyesoon, Maya Marshall, Colleen Murphy, Simone Person, aureleo sans, Bishakh Som, Olúfmi O. Táíwò, Meredith Talusan, Brian Teare, Yiru Zhang

How can the speculative imagination help us build a better world?At a world-historical moment of global upheaval, speculative writing is enjoying a renaissance. This collection of poetry, stories, and essays engages speculation as both a ubiquitous feature of financial capitalism and a radical tool of collective imagination. By rejecting dominant ideas about what is possible, speculation empowers us to plot new paths to a more just world.Creative works range over violence and healing, memory and erasure, and alternative worlds, while essays span the meaning of land and community in the African diaspora, Octavia Butler’s speculative fiction, and the ethics of the far future. Taken together, these works suggest that speculation is ultimately about our relationships with each other—as one contributor puts it, "what they have been, what they are, and most important, what they could be."

Some of today’s top legal thinkers consider the ways that legal thinking has bolstered—rather than corrected—injustice.Bringing together some of today’s top legal thinkers, this volume reimagines law in the twenty-first century, zeroing in on the most vibrant debates among legal scholars today. Going beyond constitutional jurisprudence as conventionally understood, contributors show the ways in which legal thinking has bolstered rather than corrected injustice. If conservative approaches have been well served by court-centered change, contributors to Rethinking Law consider how progressive ones might rely on movement-centered, legislative, and institutional change. In other words, they believe that the problems we face today are vastly bigger than can be addressed by litigation. The courts still matter, of course, but they should be less central to questions about social justice. Contributors describe how constitutional law supported a system of economic inequality; how we might rethink the First Amendment in the age of the internet; how deeply racial bias is embedded in our laws; and what kinds of changes are necessary. They ask which is more important: the laws or how they are enforced? Rethinking Law considers these questions with an eye toward a legal system that truly supports a just society. Contributors include Jedediah Purdy, David Grewal, Jamal Greene, Reva Siegel, Jocelyn Simonson, Aziz Rana