Description: The Puritan Ideology of Mobility: Corporatism, the Politics of Place, and the Founding of New England Towns before 1650 examines the ideology that English Puritans developed to justify migration: their migration from England to New England, migrations from one town to another within New England, and, often, their repatriation to the mother country. Guided by the Protestant scholasticism of Cambridge University, Puritan leaders accepted the ancient corporatist image of society as a living, organic body politic, a model which they applied to nations, colonies, business corporations like the Massachusetts Bay Company, and towns. But if a town, a colony, or a nation were a living body, how could Puritans justify withdrawing from one body to form a new social body, as they so often did? Drawing on the prevailing humoral theory of health, Puritans leaders believed that if a social body became “distempered” because of insufficient resources or political or religious disagreements, it might become necessary to bring about a new body politic in order to restore balance and harmony to the existing one. This theory gave rise to a robust “politics of place” in colonial New England, where one’s choice of residence could make a strong political statement. In order to facilitate the founding of new town bodies, colonial elites were endowed with unique privileges of mobility. But these entrepreneurs also needed ordinary inhabitants to make a successful migration, so that the various “members” of the new social body all benefited from the opportunities conferred through the privilege of migration. The body of a new town was articulated through the social ritual of land distribution, carried out in proportion to rank according to Aristotelian “distributive justice.” The book will trace this process at work in the founding of Ipswich and its satellite towns in Massachusetts.


Abstract: sraeli settler colonialism, in time, became highly linked to the idea of a state, culminating in an institution that defends the past, present, and future practises maintaining the relations between the “native” and “settlers”. Settler colonial ideas and practises sustaining binary opposition between the “native” and the “settler” are reproduced not only by Israeli state broadcasters, but also by settler colonial social media. This article proposes media analysis that goes beyond the usual national and conflict narrative and links “settler colonial common sense” with social media impacts and state ideas/sovereign ideas of property that strive to eliminate native people or transfer them outside Israel’s perceived land ownership and sovereignty. This article also shows how Israeli settler colonial politics and narratives are supported by other settler colonial states (especially the United States). New media and settler common sense cannot be disassociated from the Israeli state and global politics, even though some settlers may have their own strategies regarding the relations with native Palestinians. The State of Israel, through massive surveillance technologies and support from other states that view militarisation and population management as crucial to maintaining its power, holds a great deal of influence over how it frames the “conflict” with Palestinians. We witness how both state violence and institutionalised Jewish privilege are recreated on the ground and globally through the new media. This issue is analysed through the “Roots” (a grassroots movement for understanding among Israelis and Palestinians) case study.




Abstract: My very first encounter with the term “settler colonialism”—a particular form of colonization in which colonizers violently expropriate land that is indigenous to other nations in an attempt to permanently displace and replace Indigenous populations—was in my junior year at Toronto’s York University in my first-ever Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) course. It was an upper-division elective called “Anti-racist Feminism,” taught by Enakshi Dua who proposed to our tiny class of three that people of color, despite their marginal status in Canada and the U.S., were also settlers. It was a jolting provocation, one that challenged me to consider not only how the violence experienced by Native peoples was different to that experienced by me and my community, but also how I / we were benefiting from anti-Indigenous violence. “People-of-color-as-settlers” pushed me to think more deeply about the limitations of belonging, inclusion, and representation in a nation-state steeped in colonial, racist, heteropatriarchal violence. And it shed new light on the complexities of working in coalition with Indigenous peoples, particularly as I’d already been challenged by Native peers to rethink my assumptions and limited understanding of Indigenous sovereignty politics. 1 “Anti-racist Feminism” was an eye-opening course, one that also introduced me to a version of WGS that was inherently invested in addressing questions of race and colonization that transformed my perspective on what social change might look and feel like.