The 2016 European Union referendum campaign has been depicted as a battle between ‘heads’ and ‘hearts’, reason and emotion. Voters’ propensity to trust their feelings over expert knowledge has sparked debate about the future of democratic politics in what is increasingly believed to be an ‘age of emotion’. In this article, we argue that we can learn from the ways that historians have approached the study of emotions and everyday politics to help us make sense of this present moment. Drawing on William Reddy’s concept of ‘emotional regimes’, we analyse the position of emotion in qualitative, ‘everyday narratives’ about the 2016 European Union referendum. Using new evidence from the Mass Observation Archive, we argue that while reason and emotion are inextricable facets of political decision-making, citizens themselves understand the two processes as distinct and competing.
'Progressive patriots' have long argued that Englishness can form the basis of a transformative political project, whether based on an historic tradition of resistance to state power or an open and cosmopolitan identity. However, this article suggests that the politics of Englishness present a number of specific dilemmas for Labour. First the historical narrative of a radical tradition in British history is not straightforwardly English and cannot easily be used to support a competitive politics of nationhood, in the way that disaffected English identifiers might desire. Second, the deliberately alternative nature of this 'radical nostalgic' narrative makes it an unlikely basis for a unifying national story. It is also at odds with Labour's status as a successful party of government, committed to using the power of the British state, rather than opposing it. Finally, while 'everyday Englishness' may well align with core Labour values and be less socially conservative, intolerant or racially exclusive than it is often described, its very nature as an everyday practice, rather than a political identity makes it difficult for Labour to co-opt.
This article argues that, by the 1970s, people in Britain were increasingly insistent about defining and claiming their individual rights, identities and perspectives. Using individual narratives and testimonies, we show that many were expressing desires for greater personal autonomy and self-determination. We suggest that this was an important trend across the post-war decades, and of particular importance to understanding the 1970s. This popular individualism was not the result of Thatcher; if anything, it was a cause of Thatcherism. But this individualism had multiple political and cultural valences; desires for greater individual self-determination, and anger with the 'establishment' for withholding it, did not lead inexorably to Thatcherism. There were, in fact, some sources for, and potential outlets for, popular individualism on the left-outlets that explicitly challenged class, gender and racial inequalities. With this, we suggest the possibility of a new meta-narrative of post-war Britain, cutting across the political narrative that organizes post-war British history into three periods: social democracy, 'crisis' and the triumph of 'neoliberalism'. The 1970s was a key moment in the spread of a popular, aspirational form of individualism in post-war Britain, and this development is critical to our understanding of the history of the post-war years.
IntroductionCannabis is the most widely used regulated substance by youth and adults. Cannabis use has been associated with psychosocial problems, which have been partly ascribed to neurobiological changes. Emerging evidence to date from diffusion-MRI studies shows that cannabis users compared to controls show poorer integrity of white matter fibre tracts, which structurally connect distinct brain regions to facilitate neural communication. However, the most recent evidence from diffusion-MRI studies thus far has yet to be integrated. Therefore, it is unclear if white matter differences in cannabis users are evident consistently in selected locations, in specific diffusion-MRI metrics, and whether these differences in metrics are associated with cannabis exposure levels.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the results from diffusion-MRI imaging studies that compared white matter differences between cannabis users and controls. We also examined the associations between cannabis exposure and other behavioral variables due to changes in white matter. Our review was pre-registered in PROSPERO (ID: 258250; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).ResultsWe identified 30 diffusion-MRI studies including 1,457 cannabis users and 1,441 controls aged 16-to-45 years. All but 6 studies reported group differences in white matter integrity. The most consistent differences between cannabis users and controls were lower fractional anisotropy within the arcuate/superior longitudinal fasciculus (7 studies), and lower fractional anisotropy of the corpus callosum (6 studies) as well as higher mean diffusivity and trace (4 studies). Differences in fractional anisotropy were associated with cannabis use onset (4 studies), especially in the corpus callosum (3 studies).DiscussionThe mechanisms underscoring white matter differences are unclear, and they may include effects of cannabis use onset during youth, neurotoxic effects or neuro adaptations from regular exposure to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which exerts its effects by binding to brain receptors, or a neurobiological vulnerability predating the onset of cannabis use. Future multimodal neuroimaging studies, including recently developed advanced diffusion-MRI metrics, can be used to track cannabis users over time and to define with precision when and which region of the brain the white matter changes commence in youth cannabis users, and whether cessation of use recovers white matter differences.Systematic review registrationwww.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: 258250.
who have not only been particularly encouraging but have also read and commented on sections of the text and provided many helpful suggestions for its improvement. I have also benefited enormously from conversations with
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.