Allegiance

Despite the growing body of literature on consumer loyalty, little attention has been given to identifying attitudinal variables useful in predicting allegiance to athletic teams.  The changing nature of sport marketing has made it imperative to develop new segmentation variables to augment behavioral information on consumers.  The present study examined the predictive validity of eight attitude properties in explaining allegiance to a professional sports team.  A composite loyalty measure (commitment and behavior) was utilized to segment the sample (N=379) into high, moderate and low loyalty groups.  Multiple discriminant analysis was next employed to assess the relative influence of attitudinal information in explaining group differences.  Results indicated that two attitude properties could be used to segment consumer loyalty with 80% accuracy without prior knowledge of allegiance.  These results provide sport researchers with the ability to diagnose and differentiate among a team's consumer base to understand past, present and future behavior.

In 1917 the Provisional Government of the Russian Empire orders to the soldiers to renew their oath of allegiance, not to the decayed Emperor (Gosudar) but rather to the State (Gosudarstvo). Many soldiers refuse to do so and proclaim: «If there is no more Gosudar, there is no Gosudar- stvo». The elites understand: «If there is no Emperor, there is no State», even though the soldiers are saying «if there is no Master, there is no Master's domain». The immediate reason of this mis- understanding lies in the polisemy of the two Russian concepts, but its temporal structure is prob- lematic. The historical-conceptual analysis discovers a temporal relationship among concepts and states of things (Sachegeschichte) which is not visible from the social history's point of view.

Статья посвящена анализу текстов гражданских и военных присяг и торжественных обещаний, оформлявших отношения власти и политической лояльности на территории, контролировавшейся антибольшевистскими режимами на востоке России в 1918-1919 гг. Видоизменения структуры присяги и используемых в них наборов образов отражали идеологическую и политическую динамику антибольшевистского движения на востоке России. С одной стороны их авторы и разработчики не могли не ориентироваться на прежнюю государственную символическую традицию, с другой – не могли и не хотели всецело следовать ей. Вакантное место адресата клятвы (Всероссийского императора) замещалось колеблющимся образом - народом, народом и государством, государством как отечеством, Родиной. Существенным образом модернизировался язык присяги, хотя в каждом конкретном случае та или иная доля языковых архаизмов сохранялась. Присяги фиксировали такой момент политики колчаковского режима, как департизация армии, признание государственного статуса православной конфессии, недоверие к добровольчеству, даже в случае, когда общественная инициатива соответствовала целям режима. Эти черты текстов присяг порождались общей логикой идеологической эволюции антибольшевистского движения и сами выступали важным инструментом индоктринации его сторонников.

The Article examines the wisdom of loyalty oaths as a legal institution in contemporary liberal democracies. First, using comparative analysis the Article highlights the growing global interest in loyalty oaths. Second, based upon historical evidence the Article explores the functions of loyalty oaths and assesses their role. Third, through using legal analysis the Article challenges the validity of loyalty oaths and identifies three fundamental concerns related to their content and form: the rule of law, freedom of conscience, and equality.
The Article reveals liberal concerns associated with the added value of the duty of "loyalty to the law" (allegiance), as distinct from the duty to "obey the law" (obedience). It presents an ongoing tension between loyalty and liberalism and argues that the more loyalty liberal democracies demand, the less liberal they become. The Article concludes that loyalty oaths yield high costs but have low benefits and suggests that liberal states should abandon them as a legal institution.

This essay focuses on how the religious debates circumscribed the legal relations between sovereign and subject and master and slave. I am particularly interested in how the debates over baptizing slaves connected to larger issues of sovereignty and power and hereditary status. Religious arguments could make the king divine, or the people; they could sanctify oaths of loyalty, or justify breaking them. They could define who was subject and who was slave; who had claims to many rights, or to little but obedience.  Varying principles of sin and obligation led to different constellations of power and inclusion. Debates over the status of subjects and the nature of sovereignty also had implications for slaves, who were sometimes defined as aliens because they could not swear oaths of allegiance. The paper focuses on a proposal in John Locke's 1698 plan for Virginia law reform wherein he suggested that the children of "negroes" should be "baptized, catechized, and bred Christians." It suggests that Locke intended thus to void the hereditary legal status of slavery and enable the children of slave mothers to gain access to the rights of English subjects. The arguments that Locke was contesting were those that held that sin and crimes could be hereditary, per the English law of attainder. The article concludes by suggesting that the American revolution built on a logic of more inclusive citizenship that did not need the religious element necessary to earlier English conceptions of the status of subjects.

The assessment of the individual’s right to request diplomatic protection in English law in the Court of Appeal decisions in Abbasi and Al Rawi, involving detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, focused upon whether the Crown’s refusal to make formal representations to the United States Government for the claimants’ release breached their human rights. This article reassesses the dismissal of these claims in light of the correlation between allegiance and protection underpinning the law of treason, and in particular in light of the extended concept of allegiance recognized by the House of Lords in Joyce v DPP. If the British residents who were detained in Guantánamo Bay owed the same degree of allegiance to the Crown as British nationals, the government should have extended diplomatic protection to both groups on an equal basis.

The problem with the new Broadway musical Allegiance is not just its historical inaccuracies, although it is riddled with them. It’s the fabrication of events that were impossible within the reality of America’s concentration camps. Unexpectedly, the one reality this show gets right is its portrayal of Mike Masaoka and the wartime Japanese American Citizens League — although making him the villain of the piece diverts attention from other, more uncomfortable truths. Part II of a series.