In Conversation: An OUP Podcast

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world? In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions.Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017).Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article)

This book poses the question: How relevant is the concept of war today? Professor Andrew Clapham of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva examines how notions about war continue to influence how we conceive rights and obligations in national and international law. It considers the role international law plays in limiting what is forbidden and what is legitimated in times of war or armed conflict. The book highlights how, even though war has been outlawed and should be finished as an institutions, sates nevertheless continue to claim that they can wage necessary wars of self-defence, engage in lawful killings in war, imprison law-of-war detainees, and attack objects that are said to be part of a war-sustaining economy. Professor Clapham argues that, while there is general agreement that war has been abolished as a legal institution for settling disputes, the time has come to admit that the belligerent rights that once accompanied states at war are no longer available. In other words, simply claiming to be in a war or an armed conflict does not grant anyone a licence to kill people, destroy things, and acquire other people’s property or territory.In this podcast, we begin by exploring Professor Clapham’s motivation for writing the book and the central arguments challenging traditional ideas of war, law, and state power. We discuss how historical, and outdated, ideas of ‘prize’ or war booty continue to influence modern conflict, and explore how rhetorical usages of the words ‘war’ and ‘armed conflict’ exert a particular influence on populations and even on the soldiers themselves. Professor Clapham argues that human rights law should play a bigger role in limiting actions of states in armed conflict, and looks to the future legal challenges posed by cyber warfare, drones and AI / autonomous weapons. We also touch on accountability for war crimes and other international crimes, both at the level of international state responsibility as seen at the International Court of Justice, and at the individual criminal liability as seen in the International Criminal Court. We end with an intriguing insight into how Professor Clapham is looking to further develop his thinking for his next book.This book is available OPEN ACCESS here.Alex Batesmith is an Associate Professor in Legal Professions in the School of Law at the University of Leeds, and a former barrister and UN war crimes prosecutor, with teaching and research interests in international criminal law, cause lawyering and the legal profession, and law and emotion.His University of Leeds profile page can be found here: Bluesky: @batesmith.bsky.socialLinkedIn

The Language of Climate Politics (Oxford UP, 2024) offers readers new ways to talk about the climate crisis that will help get fossil fuels out of our economy and save our planet. It's an analysis of the current discourse of American climate politics, but also a critical history of the terms that most directly influence the way not just conservatives but centrists on both sides of the political divide think and talk about climate change. In showing how those terms lead to mistaken beliefs about climate change and its solutions, the book equips readers with a new vocabulary that will enable them to neutralize climate propaganda and fight more effectively for a livable future.

The Enlightenment's Most Dangerous Woman: Émilie du Châtelet and the Making of Modern Philosophy (Oxford UP, 2024) introduces the work and legacy of philosopher Émilie Du Châtelet. As the Enlightenment gained momentum throughout Europe, Châtelet broke through the many barriers facing women at the time and published a major philosophical treatise in French. Due to her proclamation that a true philosopher must remain an independent thinker rather than a disciple of some supposedly great man like Isaac Newton or René Descartes, Châtelet posed a threat to an emerging consensus in the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment's Most Dangerous Woman highlights the exclusion of women from colleges and academies in Europe and the fear of rupturing the gender-based order.Andrew Janiak is Professor of Philosophy and Bass Fellow at Duke University.Caleb Zakarin is editor at the New Books Network.

Microchips in our vaccines, stolen elections, climate change denial--in the face of a bewildering range of misbeliefs that stem from mistrust of informational sources, exposure to misinformation and disinformation, and partisan polarization, it's easy to dismiss those who disagree with us as "delusional", "psychotic", or merely "ignorant". But what if none of these judgments are supported by how we really come to believe things, and the truth is that we are all prone to false beliefs? What can we do to protect ourselves in this post-truth world?In False: How Mistrust, Disinformation, and Motivated Reasoning Make Us Believe Things That Aren't True (Oxford UP, 2025), psychiatrist and clinical professor Joe Pierre invites readers to journey with him through the normal quirks of brain functioning--such as "heuristics", cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and bullshit receptivity--that create the cognitive vulnerabilities to false belief innate within us all. With a cross-disciplinary approach, False illuminates the psychology of false belief that lies at the root of contemporary media mistrust, science denialism, and political polarization, and highlights that contrary to popular opinion, deficits of intelligence and mental health are usually not to blame.With a refreshingly unbiased lens, Pierre suggests an antidote to false beliefs and makes the case for softening our convictions, viewing our ideological opponents with compassion, and mending the rifts in our relationships as individuals and societies alike.Joe Pierre MD is a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.Caleb Zakarin is editor at the New Books Network.

Our ability to find meaning in things is one of the most important aspects of human life. But it is also one of the most mysterious. Where does meaning come from? What sorts of things have meaning? And how do we grasp the meaning others want to convey? This Very Short Introduction is shaped by exploring possible answers to these questions.Human societies have one particularly important device for expressing and sharing meaning: language. Since our words are paradigm examples of things which have meaning, in Meaning (Oxford University Press, 2024), Emma Borg and Sarah Fisher use meaning in language as a case study for exploring meaning more generally. They focus on three possible sources for word meaning: things in the world, things in the mind, and social practices, exploring the key approaches thinkers have put forward in each of these arenas. Finally, they end by looking at some concrete applications of the ideas and approaches introduced in the book.Emma Borg is Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy, London. Sarah A. Fisher is a Lecturer at Cardiff University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network

In Postcolonial Bollywood and Muslim Identity: Production, Representation, and Reception (Oxford UP, 2024), Nadira Khatun explores the contentious Muslim identity in contemporary India as reflected in recent Bollywood films. She argues that the approach towards Muslim identity in Bollywood films are influenced by the changing political landscape from Nehruvian India to the rise of BJP, which views Hindus and Muslims as separate religious communities instead of recognizing the syncretic culture manifesting in Hindu-Muslim unity. By analyzing the representation of Muslims in various films like Roja, Fanna, Mission Kashmir, Black Friday, New York, A Wednesday, Sarfarosh, she shows that the militant portrayal of Muslims is good for commercial success as opposed to a secular image. Overall, the study problematizes Muslim identity formation in Bollywood against the backdrop of nationalism and communalism in India.Author: Dr. Nadira Khatun, Associate Professor of Communications, Xavier University, IndiaHost: Dr. Nilanjana Paul, Associate Professor of History, Department of History, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. She is the author of Bengal Muslims and Colonial Education, 1854-1947: A Study of Curriculum, Educational Institutions and Communal Politics, Routledge, 2022.

The years leading up to the independence and accompanying partition of India mark a tumultuous period in the history of Bengal. Representing both a major front in the Indian struggle against colonial rule, as well as a crucial Allied outpost in the British/American war against Japan, Bengal stood at the crossroads of complex and contentious structural forces - both domestic and international - which, taken together, defined an era of political uncertainty, social turmoil, and collective violence. While for the British the overarching priority was to save the empire from imminent collapse at any cost, for the majority of the Indian population the 1940s were years of acute scarcity, violent dislocation and enduring calamity. In particular there are three major crises that shaped the social, economic and political context of pre-partition Bengal: the Second World War, the Bengal famine of 1943, and the Calcutta riots of 1946. Hungry Bengal: War, Famine and the End of Empire (Oxford UP, 2015) examines these intricately interconnected events, foregrounding the political economy of war and famine in order to analyze the complex nexus of hunger, war and civil violence in colonial Bengal at the twilight of British rule.NBN Host: Sohini Majumdar teaches history at University of San Francisco and Santa Clara University.

George M. Cohan was one of those rare Broadway figures who was a composer, lyricist, playwright, performer, director, theater owner, and star actor. He could, quite literally, do it all. In his day, he was famous as the "Yankee Doodle Boy" from his hit song and as the "Man Who Owned Broadway" from his musical of the same name. Cohan's songs and shows captured the spirit of an era when staggering social change gave new urgency to efforts to define Americanism. Elizabeth Craft’s Yankee Doodle Dandy: George M. Cohan and the Broadway Stage (Oxford University Press, 2024) is not a conventional biography. Each chapter explores a different aspect of his life and career including Cohan’s approach to American nationalism, Irish American identity, celebrity, and the entertainment business along with defining what made Cohan’s shows unique. Craft finds songs and shows that serve as exemplars for each theme she highlights. The book ends with an examination of the 1942 biopic on Cohan and his enduring legacy. Yankee Doodle Dandy offers not only a fuller understanding of Cohan’s shows and career, but also new perspectives on fundamental debates about American identity and the performing arts in the early twentieth-century United States.

Constitutional Ratification Without Reason (Oxford UP, 2022) focuses on constitutional ratification, the procedure in which a draft constitution is submitted by its creators to the people or their representatives in an up or down vote determining implementation. Ratification is increasingly common and routinely recommended by experts. Nonetheless, it is neither neutral nor inevitable. Constitutions can be made without it and when it is used it has significant effects. This raises the central question of the book: should ratification be recommended? Put another way: is there a reason for treating the procedure as a default for the constitution-making process? Surprisingly, these questions are rarely asked. The procedure’s worth is assumed, not demonstrated, while ratification is generally overlooked in the literature. In fact, this is the first sustained study of ratification. To address these oversights, this book defines ratification and its types, explains for the first time the procedure’s effects, conceptual origins, and history, and then concentrates on finding reasons for its use. Specifically, it builds up and analyzes the three most likely normative justifications. These urge the implementation of ratification because the procedure: enables the constituent power to make its constitution; fosters representation during constitution-making; or helps create a legitimate constitution. Ultimately, these justifications are found wanting, leading to the conclusion that ratification lacks a convincing, context-independent justification. Thus, experts should not recommend ratification as a matter of course, practitioners should not reach for it uncritically, and—more generally—one should avoid the blanket application of concepts from democratic theory to extraordinary contexts such as constitution-making.Jeffrey Lenowitz is the Meyer and W. Walter Jaffe Associate Professor of Politics at Brandeis University, focusing on political theory. His research explores the the procedures uses to create new constitutions; constituent power and constitutional theory; the concept of legitimacy in the social sciences; voting ethics; and other aspects of democratic theory and institutional design. Vatsal Naresh is a Lecturer in Social Studies at Harvard University. His recent publications include co-edited volumes on Negotiating Democracy and Religious Pluralism (OUP 2021) and Constituent Assemblies (CUP 2018).