I serve on a planning committee for the annual Holocaust Commemoration in Wichita, where I live and teach. Every year when we convene, we remind ourselves that we need to invite survivors to speak. With survivors aging, the time is quickly approaching when we will no longer be able to hear about their experiences firsthand.

But of course this isn’t quite true. For more than a quarter century, organizations have devoted time, attention and resources to preserving the memories of survivors. In this way, those of us interested in hearing these stories–whether academic researchers or ‘ordinary’ people–can access the power and authenticity of survivor narratives through recorded video testimony.

All of this is a good thing. But as Noah Shenker reminds us, the appearance of authenticity can distract us from the very real impact of the ways interviews are staged. Previous scholarship has alerted us to the need to consider the dynamics between the interviewer and interviewee in. In Reframing Holocaust Testimony (Indiana University Press, 2016), Shenker presents a compelling argument that we need to move beyond this to include the mechanics and institutional dynamics of the interviews as well. The training of interviewers, the kinds of scripts used in conducting them, the ways in which images are created, filed, and distributed and many other factors shape the way in which survivors recall and represent their experiences. Shenker looks specifically at three repositories–the Fortunoff Video Archive, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Shoah Foundation. He demonstrates that each had different goals, emphases and methods of conducting interviews. And, in a close reading of the testimony of several survivors who gave testimony to each of these institutions, he shows how the differences in approaches created a different kind of testimony. It’s a valuable reminder of the need to honor the memories of survivors by asking the questions necessary to truly understand their testimony.

The words “Buddhism” and “enlightenment” are, at least in the West, tightly connected. “Everyone” knows that the goal–or at least one of the goals–of Buddhist practice is “enlightenment.” But what the heck is “enlightenment,” exactly? It’s a tough question, but Dale S. Wright takes it on in his aptly named book What is Buddhist Enlightenment? (Oxford University Press, 2016). Using a kind of Zen approach (my characterization, not his), Wright doesn’t slice and dice the concept in order to come up with some Platonic ideal of “enlightenment.” You won’t find any pithy definition of the idea in the pages of this book. Rather, you’ll discover a wide-ranging exploration of “Buddhist enlightenment”–what it has meant, what it now means, and what it might and even should mean in the future. Buddhists teach that everything is changing all the time, like it or not. So it is, Wright argues, with “Buddhist enlightenment.”

On the podcast this week is Daniel Amsterdam, author of Roaring Metropolis: Businessmen’s Campaign for a Civic Welfare State (Penn Press, 2016). He is assistant professor in the School of History and Sociology at Georgia Institute of Technology. Many have claimed that we are living in a second Gilded Age, marked by the same extreme wealth and high levels of inequality as the early part of the previous century. Amsterdam takes us back to this time period to investigate how the Gilded Age addressed poverty and the role of the business community. Roaring Metropolis describes the rise of urban capitalists at the turn of the last century. Far from anti-government zealots, Amsterdam shows that business leaders pushed for extensive government spending on social programs. They advocated for public schooling, public health, the construction of libraries, museums, parks, and playgrounds. As Amsterdam demonstrates, public spending soared in American cities, especially Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, during the period due in part to businessmen’s political activism.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With the 2016 presidential election in full swing and rhetoric surrounding each candidate becoming more polarized, how does gender impact the way that people behave politically? Monika McDermott in her new book Masculinity, Femininity, and American Political Behavior (Oxford University Press, 2016) seeks to answer this question. In her analysis, McDermott argues that gendered personalities are a powerful determinant of political behavior and involvement. The campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump also provide interesting insights into how the politics of gendered personalities are enacted in the contemporary political climate. Monika McDermott is currently an Associate Professor of Political Science at Fordham University as well as an election polling analyst for CBS News and The New York Times.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James E. Campbell has written Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America (PrincetonUniversity Press, 2016). Campbell is UB Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Buffalo, State University of New York. Are we a polarized nation or polarizing? Are voters moving to the extremes or is this just party elites growing further from each other? Campbell takes on these very timely questions in his book. He argues that polarization is real, but explaining its causes is a little more difficult. In Polarized, Campbell argues that there has been staggered partisan realignment, first by Democrats and later by Republicans. This historical pattern makes it tricky to observe polarization as it has not occurred in a neat and linear fashion.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today is the third of our occasional series on the question of how to respond to mass atrocities. Earlier this summer I talked with Scott Straus and Bridget Conley-Zilkic. Later in September I’ll talk with Carrie Booth Walling.

I’m teaching a class on the Historical Method this semester. As part of this we’ve talked quite a bit about the question of whether historians have ethical imperatives as part of their writing. As you might expect, the students have disagreed, sometimes emotionally, about this issue. Within the field of genocide studies, this question is considerably less contentious. No one expects to be completely neutral in the face of studying mass atrocities. Each of the books in this occasional series on our response to mass atrocities has examined the topic carefully, thoroughly and objectively. Yet, each has an ethical imperative manifested in a tangible urgency that underlays the careful scholarly analysis.

James Waller’s new book Confronting Evil: Engaging Our Responsibility to Prevent Genocide (Oxford University Press, 2016) shares this passion. Building on his earlier work, Waller is most interested in how we should respond to genocide and similar crimes. His answer is aimed at academics, but especially at non-specialists. The result is a superb survey of the existing literature on prevention understood broadly. Read in conjunction with Straus and Conley-Zilkic, it reminds us of the importance of acting before crises strike and of recognizing both the opportunities and the limitations of intervention. It’s a must read for anyone interested in the topic.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Megan Tompkins-Stange is the author of Policy Patrons: Philanthropy, Education Reform, and the Politics of Influence (Harvard Education Press, 2016). She is assistant professor at the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Who hasn’t applied for a foundation grant? But what do they want out of the funding? In Policy Patrons, we learn quite a bit, especially as it relates to influencing the direction of public policy. Tompkins-Stange’s book explores under-studied area of philanthropic foundations. Relying on extensive original interviews, the book shows how foundations, such as the Gates Foundation and Ford Foundation, vary in style and approach to public policy, and how this relates to the on-going reform of public schools in the United States.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A decade and a half of exhausting wars, punishing economic setbacks, and fast-rising rivals has called into question America’s fundamental position and purpose in world politics. Will the US continue to be the only superpower in the international system? Should it continue advancing the world-shaping grand strategy it has followed since the dawn of the Cold War? Or should it “come home” and focus on its internal problems? The recent resurgence of isolationist impulses has made the politics surrounding these questions increasingly bitter.

In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2016), Stephen G. Brooks (Dartmouth College) and William C. Wohlforth (Dartmouth College) take stock of these debates and provide a powerful defense of American globalism. They stress that world politics since end of World War Two has been shaped by two constants: America’s position as the most powerful state, and its strategic choice to be deeply engaged in the world. Ever since, the US has advanced its interests by pursuing three core objectives: reducing threats by managing the security environment in key regions; promoting a liberal economic order to expand global and domestic prosperity; and sustaining the network of global institutions on terms favorable to US interests. While there have been some periodic policy failures, America’s overall record is astounding. But how would America’s interests fare if the United States chose to disengage from the world and reduce its footprint overseas? Their answer is clear: retrenchment would put core US security and economic interests at risk. And because America’s sole superpower status will long endure, the US will not be forced to turn inward. While America should remain globally engaged, it also has to focus primarily on its core interests: reducing great power rivalry and security competition in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East; fostering economic globalization; and supporting a multilateral institutional system that advances US interests. Pursuing objectives beyond this core runs the risk of overextension. A bracing rejoinder to the critics of American globalism, America Abroad is a powerful reminder that a robust American presence is crucial for maintaining world order.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How can we explain the “occlusion of embodied power” and “lack of attention to race, gender, and sexuality” in the discipline of political science, a field “that claims power as a central analytical concept” (17)? In her new book, Embodied Power: Demystifying Disembodied Politics (Routledge, 2016), Mary Hawkesworth (Political Science and Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University) brings intersectionality, feminist theory, and post- and de-colonial theory to bear on the mainstream study of politics. She argues for the need to move away from customary concepts of “power” and “the political” that mask state practices that construct various forms of hierarchy. These concepts and the methodologies and epistemologies they give rise to, she argues, lead the discipline unable to grapple with issues such as the carceral state or the violence of nation-building. At the same they cover over the ways that “racialization and gendering have been constitutive of knowledge production within the discipline” (17). In the interview, Hawkesworth discusses these conceptual practices of power as well as how intersectional attention to embodied power can reclaim the study of politics.

John McMahon is Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Beloit College. He is a former Fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at The Graduate Center, CUNY, which sponsors the podcast.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Forgotten Men and Fallen Women: The Cultural Politics of New Deal Narratives (Cornell University Press, 2015), Holly Allen offers a fascinating analysis of how notions of race, gender, sexuality and citizenship were challenged and defined during the Great Depression and into the war years. By focusing on popular and official narratives, she provides new insights into the questions of masculinity, femininity, gender outsiders, and sexual outcasts, connecting all these categories with federal policies and exploring them in the New Deal context. In this New Books in Gender Study’s podcast we focus exactly on these arguments, discussing further how these analytic categories correlated to each other during the 1930s. Allen argues that cultural representations of gender, sexuality, and race had practical consequences for federal policies, and vice versa. The book is well theoretically informed, based on the variety of sources, but still accessible to read with a lot of examples and compelling stories.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices