Document Type
Article
Publication Title
University of Pennsylvania Law Review
Abstract
This paper is based on a talk given at a University of Pennsylvania symposium on Social Movements and Law Reform. In it Professor Ansley takes as a case study the U.S. movement against plant closings. In the seventies, eighties and nineties this movement attempted to respond to the increasing flow of industrial capital from the U.S. to other countries. Like other social movements, it devoted a significant part of its energy to "framing" its issues - articulating and attempting to promote a particular way of looking at the issue of plant closings, de-industrialization, and the new international division of labor.
Drawing in part on her own experiences as a participant/observer in the plant-closing movement, Professor Ansley describes the initial frame developed by plant-closing rhetoricians to situate the movement's issues and justify its demands. That frame valorized the notion of bounded political communities as central to democracy. It called for the creation and defense of polities with jurisdiction strong enough to establish effective boundaries and impose economic ground rules on footloose corporations.
Ansley confesses continued affection for this frame. In fact, one section of the article points to recent disputes initiated under Chapter 11 of NAFTA that confirm the profound importance of bounded polities empowered to set ground rules for economic actors and others.
However, she goes on to tell how troubling it was to many who had been extolling the importance of strong boundaries when the plant-closing movement was confronted with the upsurge of migration into the United States from the third world. In this new context, rhetoric from the plant-closing movement that had seemed progressive in its original context suddenly showed itself to have a dangerously exclusionary side.
Ansley claims that the tension between the need for bounded polities and the need for open borders is a significant paradox. In light of contemporary forms of globalization, bounded communities appear simultaneously to be crucial bulwarks that protect democracy, and racist fortresses that render it impossible. Although she makes no pretense of attempting to resolve this paradox, she urges its importance, especially for lawyers interested in the dynamics of globalization.
First Page
353
Last Page
418
Publication Date
11-2001
Recommended Citation
Frances L Ansley. "Inclusive Boundaries and Other (Im)possible Paths Toward Community Development in a Global World" University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 150 Iss. 1 (2001) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/frances-ansley/23/