The title of this chapter points to the frequent use of the word ‘we’ in Brexit discourse before and after the referendum. The pronoun ‘we’ in Brexitspeak almost always serves the exclusion of other nations or those in the domestic arena perceived as enemies of ‘the people’. Three different cases of the uses of ‘we’ are examined, each of which in their different ways shows how ‘we’ expressed an exclusionary notion of national identity. One of these cases shows how Brexitspeak persisted in the years after the referendum, and included the long-standing idea, at all levels of society, that ‘we’ speak only English. The second case is the 2013 speech by the then prime minister David Cameron, who favoured remaining in the EU. That speech, which announced the referendum, was apparently intended to placate the Eurosceptics and neutralise UKIP’s attractiveness. The speech repeatedly used ‘we’, embedded in an exceptionalist narrative of British greatness. Cameron’s speech failed in its aims and in fact boosted national-populist discourse. It was in tune with Farage’s own speeches of the same year, which is the third case of Brexiter ‘we’ examined in this chapter.

In this chapter, we discuss the relationship of individual personal thriving to fairness and worthiness by exploring the concept of epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice refers to the rejection of people’s capacity as knowers, such that these individuals are treated as being less knowledgeable and less believable than other people, frequently on the basis of their social identities. In the first half of the chapter, we will explain how epistemic injustices take place and how they interrupt human thriving. In the second half of the chapter, we will profile the ways that psychologists and others can work to prevent epistemic injustice.

I offer an overview and analysis of charitable giving in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia, and explore its linkages to politics. I study giving at home and abroad, by governments, non-governmental organizations, ruling elites, and private actors, and doctrinally connected giving. I examine how these entities give, to whom they give and why they give as they do. I highlight several key findings: First, in three of the four countries, the most active and best endowed foundations have been created by (members of) ruling families or prominent politico-religious associations; second, private giving tends to concentrate on family, tribe, ethnic community; third, religious precepts are routinely modified to appease a particular social category; fourth, with few exceptions, migrant workers are excluded from access to charity. These findings suggest that charitable giving, while intrinsic to the practice of Islam, may be instrumentalized to advance secular interests: 1) gather information about society, 2) assert relationships of authority and control, 3) shore up allegiance (to a ruler and/or an ideology), 4) consolidate a definition of community.

This chapter seeks keywords and concepts that will enable us to grasp the contradictory and conflictive globality of the current moment and sharpen our analysis of equally contradictory and conflictive global pasts. In a plea to move beyond equating the global with openness, connection, and integration, I address the role of closure, boundaries, and limits in global history in a wider sense. For this purpose, I explore in an experimental and deliberately open-ended fashion how thinking about global spherescan be utilised fruitfully for the current practice of history writing. The first part explores the radically inclusive yet claustrophobic vision of the globe as a closed sphere from which there is no escape. Building on earlier closed-world and one-world discourses, this thinking gained prominence after the Second World War in the face of the threat of nuclear destruction and environmental degradation. I then move to think about the globe as composed of many bounded spheres – geopolitical but also social. Here, I take central examples from the realm of communication and language and discusses the public sphere as an exclusionary rather than inclusionary figure of thought.

Chapter 1 lays out the book’s argument about the rise and sources of welfare nationalism. It explains the significance of the study in focusing on migration issues that are major sources of contemporary political and humanitarian crises and shows ‘how we got here’ – how these crises have built since the 1990s in Europe and Russia. The chapter explains the book’s key concepts: welfare nationalism, exclusion and inclusion, and populism, and sets the study within the literature on international migration and welfare. It focuses on the key role of ethnicity and the importance of political elites and mass media in influencing responses to migration and identifies contrasting cycles: Exclusionary migrations involve a “vicious cycle” of hostile public opinion toward more-or-less ethnically distant migrants that is reinforced and exploited by politicians for enhanced influence, amplified by mass media, and produces policies of exclusion. By contrast, inclusionary migrations involve a “virtuous cycle” of relatively receptive public opinion toward ethnically close migrants, high-level political support, elites’ management of nationals’ grievances, and positive treatment in mass media, producing policies of inclusion. The conclusion provides an overview of the book’s structure and a summary of each chapter.

Democracy is about collective self-rule under conditions that afford everyone political standing and consideration in matters of common concern. But in today’s globalized world, democratic states must respond to a growing number of demands for inclusion from beyond their borders, on issues ranging from migration, to trade, to human rights and the environment. Under these conditions, there is an urgent need for a principled means of determining who is entitled to inclusion, and on what basis. Defenders of the All-Affected Principle claim that inclusions should track the impacts that decisions can have on people’s lives. Defenders of the All-Subjected Principle adopt a similar strategy but use a narrower threshold for inclusion. My argument is that neither principle entirely satisfies. The problem is that both principles are too backwards looking. I offer an alternative formula for democratic inclusion that captures the underlying wrong to which complaints about undemocratic exclusion are seeking to draw our attention. One complaint is about domination: being exposed to the arbitrary and one-sided power of others. Another complaint is about usurpation: having your judgement displaced, without your consent. Using these two complaints as a guide does a much better job explaining when inclusion is justified and the appropriate institutional response.

The aim of this volume is not to provide or test a single theory of informal global governance but rather to provide a set of analyses that speak to a common set of theoretical, empirical, and methodological questions. More broadly, the aim is to advance the emerging research agenda on informality in world politics. We conclude the volume by highlighting four productive avenues for future research on informality, based on the insights of the empirical chapters.

This epilogue explores the multifaceted experiences of migration and mobility among college students of immigrant origin, revealing their intricate journeys through higher education systems. The authors note the various ways this volume documents the processes by which students from immigrant backgrounds navigate oppressive and exclusionary spaces, seeking avenues of belonging and success on their campuses. Closing on a note of audacious hope, the epilogue presents the narratives of two focal participants, Cecilia and Manuela, interviewed as part of a larger study of the effects of membership in a student-led mutual support network among aspiring teachers of color in a historically white institution. These student leaders articulated themes of belonging and exclusion, the necessity of building community, the centrality of their personal and professional identities as women of color, and the importance of creating and maintaining sources of emotional support and encouragement. Through their narratives, we see ways their community-building efforts serve as a form of resistance so that they can thrive in places that were never designed for them.

The Introduction sets the context for the book and outlines the importance of its focus on sustainable development in international law. It offers background details and speaks to the inspiration for this book. These motivations derive from my professional experiences and research on international and environmental law in Africa and elsewhere. These experiences shaped my reflections on the history, the present state, and the future of the legal dimensions of the concept of sustainable development within international law.

Radicalization is most often seen as a gradual process that may or may not lead to radical or extreme behaviors such as terrorism. Theories on the radicalization process often highlight the potential role of social exclusion in the propensity for radicalization. We here present some of the major radicalization theories and discuss exclusion as a common denominator that could trigger a radicalization process. We then describe the research on personality and individual differences in relation to radicalization briefly, before discussing individual differences that are connected to exclusion in more depth. We go through the available empirical evidence supporting the notion that some individual level differences, such as rejection sensitivity, could moderate the effect of exclusion on radicalization. We further discuss other potential individual differences that relate to exclusion such as need to belong and entitlement.

White extremism has been a rising trend in North American and European countries over the past two decades. Despite the systemically engrained privileged status of people who identify as white in US society, one of the causes of white extremism is a perceived threat of being sidelined/disadvantaged by individuals with non-white identities. For example, the mainstreaming of the great replacement theory among right-wing media outlets and politicians demonstrates this perception. We examine this perception, and white extremism rhetoric and radicalization broadly, within the context of social exclusion at both the individual and systemic levels. We further embed this analysis within theories and research focused on concepts of “the self,” social identity, and related psychological needs usually impacted by social exclusion. We recommend researchers and practitioners interested in extremism and radicalization to intentionally consider self-related theories and constructs going forward.

Extremism of all types arises from a motivational imbalance wherein one need outweighs all other needs. When such a process occurs, more means to achieving the focal goal, including those considered extreme, become available to the individual. Presently, we focus on the need for significance, an existential social need. When the quest for significance is dominant, an individual may be willing to make extreme sacrifices in order to achieve their goal. The quest for significance can be activated through many different means, one of which is the loss of significance through exclusion. When one perceives that they have been excluded, their motivation to regain respect is activated. When this motivation to restore significance comes to suppress one’s other needs, the individual becomes willing to engage in activities they may have previously considered socially unacceptable, including joining extreme groups and participating in violence, in order to fulfill their quest for significance.

Societies have constant competition between progressive forces that would reduce group-based inequality and regressive forces that would maintain it. As groups vie for superiority or equality, people on all sides can feel that their group is not being accorded as much status as it deserves, the feeling of status indignity. Further, political contests can lead people on all sides to feel excluded. We show that status indignity and exclusion are connected and can lead to radicalization. In reviewing research on social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and collective narcissism, we identify evidence that regressive radicalization is more likely than progressive radicalization due to the psychological assumptions of people who favor regressive versus progressive movements.

Can the experience of being ostracized – ignored and excluded – lead to people being more open to extremism? In this chapter we review the theoretical basis and experimental evidence for such a connection. According to the temporal need-threat model (Williams, 2009), ostracism is a painful experience that threatens fundamental social needs. Extreme groups have the potential to be powerful sources of inclusion and could therefore address these needs, thereby making them especially attractive to recent targets of ostracism. We also identify a set of factors that is theoretically likely to affect this link and review evidence for the opposite causal path: People are especially likely to ostracize others who belong to extreme groups. Together, this suggests a possible negative cycle in which ostracism may push people toward extreme groups, on which they become more reliant as social contacts outside the group further ostracize them.

The introduction begins with the crisis of republicanism in France today. It asks what republicanism is for the French and why exclusion lies at the center of its crisis. It then presents the characteristics of French republicanism (in particular, its universalism and its emancipatory dimension), its place in the broader republican tradition, and in the neo-republican revival. Finally, it introduces the theoretical paradoxes that led republicans to justify exclusionary practices despite their endorsement of emancipation.

This chapter investigates the precarious arrangements embedded in the systems and processes of migration management across three different country contexts: the UK, Germany, and Australia. The country comparison shows how precarious workplace/worker and societal arrangements have been woven into the systems of migration management (Paret and Gleeson ; Vosko ). The examination employs an historical methodology to show how approaches to migration management create a racialised precarity in the destination country generally; and more specifically in the destination country labour market where different groups of migrant workers are channelled into and toil in the least favourable areas of the labour market. Accordingly, we shed light on the rules underscoring and the implications of the process of migrant worker acceptance, settlement, and integration in a new land and labour market.