Latin Americanism was a topic of intense intellectual scrutiny and political and social activism at the turn of the twentieth century. The rise of the United States as a global power triggered a wide range of debates on the idea present and future of Latin America as an integrated historical and cultural entity. By exploring the work of José Martí and José E. Rodó, who imagined Latin Americanism within the limits of the pedagogical sphere, as well as contributions of Manuel Ugarte and the leaders of the Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA), who attempted to transform it into a militant movement connected to politics on the streets, this chapter shows both the possibilities and limitations of a university-based reformist project in constant search of expanding its social bases and institutional support. Issues of gender bias, language dominance, and ethnic hierarchies are at the center of this discussion about the challenges that Latin Americanism has faced over time.

Notwithstanding his reputation in the contemporary United States as a sort of political conservative, Tocqueville in his own lifetime was very much a figure of the centrist-left. In the French politics of his day, Tocqueville was closely associated with various causes of reform, most notably the abolition of slavery. In this chapter, Robert T. Gannett, Jr. reminds us that Tocqueville’s calls for decisive action and concerns with social reform were appreciated by many figures on the political Left in the twentieth century. These Left interpreters of Tocqueville range from postwar intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Albert Salomon to latter-day communitarian thinkers such as Robert Putnam and William Galston to community organizers such as Saul Alinsky and Gene Sharp. Gannett reveals how Tocqueville plays a major role in the writings of Alinsky and Sharp and thus indirectly shaped the theory and practice of community organizing as it has come to be known in the United States and throughout the world.

This chapter elevates and explores factors that have played a role in the advancement of human rights. The term “psychosocial” is used to mean the reciprocal and iterative relationship between psychological processes and social movements. We illustrate how psychosocial gains can create sociocultural climates and sociopolitical changes conducive to the instantiation of human rights. We begin by identifying some of the psychosocial dynamics that were in play when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted. Subsequently, we focus on psychosocial gains and the advancement of human rights in three case studies involving people with disabilities, women, and people who are most adversely affected by climate change. The centrality of psychosocial processes in the run-up to declarations of human rights is emphasized. While declarations are highly visible outcomes, our research suggests that declarations are often preceded by a diffuse pattern of smaller psychosocial and sociopolitical gains. Given the centrality of psychosocial processes, we discuss emerging roles for psychologists as emancipatory practitioners who accompany marginalized people and assist in cultivating “new power” relationships that establish and promote a digital presence for movements aimed at the advancement of human rights.

Activists have long turned to courts to influence policy. Much of the literature analyzing the experience of activists using courts has focused on judicial outcomes, yet accomplishments beyond successful judgments can be of equal importance as they also effect social change. In particular, engaging in litigation can have a demonstrable impact on the social movements themselves – building and strengthening movements, and providing spaces for manoeuvring. This chapter examines the impact of litigation on the development of the Right to Food Campaign in India, one of India's largest contemporary social movements. Using qualitative data from in-depth interviews with activists and lawyers and a comparative analysis with an earlier case, this chapter analyzes the factors and conditions under which courts can be catalysts for social mobilization, including the existence of opportunities for reform, pre-existing rights consciousness and organizational resources available for mobilization.

By the 1990s, India’s appellate courts had become closely involved in the regulation of street vending in several metropolitan cities. However, despite the frequent use of legal mechanisms by street vendor collectives, there has been little progress towards “formalization” of the street vending economy. To understand the limited impacts of legal intervention, it is necessary to examine the timing and the circumstances under which street vendor collectives first turned to judicial forums for protecting their livelihoods. Based on a historical examination of street vendor politics in Bombay and Madras, I show that legal mobilization in both instances was a response to serious threats faced by the political regimes that had previously shielded street vendors from dispossession and exploitation, rather than being a direct result of new legal opportunities (such as the emergence of public interest litigation). Since organized street vendors had a strong preference for maintaining the status quo, litigation was used as an effective method for buying time in the face of a hostile or uncertain political environment, even when the ultimate verdict was not likely to favor street vendors.