Monthly Archives: August 2015

Farewell, Tisch College

Posted on by
Reply

This will be my last post as an employee of Tisch College. I still have another week of work, but as I wind down, I am starting my blogging vacation early. I won’t post again until September 8 – at which point I will be a full time PhD student at Northeastern.

It’s hard saying goodbye to a place where you’ve worked for almost eight years. I’ve seen so many others come and go, yet it seems odd to now be the one leaving. And, all loving hyperbole aside, I know they will get on with out me.

The work continues.

I am thrilled to be starting this new journey, and thrilled to be learning new ways to contribute to the work. The work of civic renewal, of improving our communities, of working together and collaboratively building the infrastructure to have everyone’s voice equally at the table.

It is important work, and the work continues.

I was more cynical eight years ago. I was skeptical of the value most people – including myself – could bring to the hard work of confronting society’s most pressing challenges. I couldn’t equally value every person’s voice and agency when I couldn’t even value my own.

Since I started at Tisch College, I have bought a house, finished a master’s degree, gotten married, seen a niece be born and watched my father die.

I have learned so much.

I have had the privilege of working with some of the smartest people I have ever met, learning not only from their work, but from their thoughtfulness in approaching the work.

I have had lunch with Elinor Ostrom, and attended lectures by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, John Gaventa, Robert Sampson, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Chris Matthews, Christiane Amanpour, and even – if you’re into that kind of thing – Antonin Scalia.

I’ve helped make some those events happen.

I have met and learned from the amazing scholars and practioners in the civic studies community – some of the most dedicated, passionate, and intelligent people I’ve ever had the pleasure to know.

I bring that community with me, even now as I enter my next adventure. My role may change, but the work –

The work continues.

Here’s to the next chapter.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Marveling at Human Potential, Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

One of the remarkable things rarely considered among average museum-goers is the somewhat unbelievable fact that nations in the Western world have gone to places like Egypt and taken out of sacred and historical landmarks beautiful cultural treasures. It is true that archaeologists get permits. It is true that the explorer who found Tutankhamun’s tomb spent the better part of a decade looking. It is true that he secured and invested somewhat incredible financial resources to have upwards of 100 people helping him to dig and to search for years. There was enormous work that went into finding Tut’s tomb. Nevertheless, I can’t help but appreciate the point of view which says that relevant artifacts belong to the people and region from which they came.

Reproduction statue from an exhibit on the tomb of Tutankhamun.

Of course, I also appreciate the view which says that the labor one puts into a work makes it partly yours. Tut’s tomb may have remained lost to this day without the investment of time and money that helped find it. The issue would be less troubling for me if Egypt were not a quite poor country, compared with the U.K., and had the U.K. not had troubling colonialist practices of domination and exploitation.

I am not experienced nor a scholar on the subject of works of art or national treasures like the ones I’m referring to. I am studying issues of culture, however, and the ways in which they enable or undermine the pursuit of justice. I have yet to explore the connection between my work and the excavation and relocation of artifacts like those from Tut’s tomb. I will simply have to leave for my own part further work to do in thinking about international relations and the idea of past harms from colonialism.

I do not know what all the permits that the relevant archaeologists obtained legally allowed them to do. My sense is that what they did might have been legal, but if you consider the influence of colonialism on the politics of the day, it is reasonable to wonder whether in fact the relevant laws were reasonable or legitimate. As MLK said, an unjust law is no law.

Another statue reproduction from Tut's tomb.Thinking through such matters nevertheless is accompanied for me by a fascination about the past and the substance of the find from Ancient Egypt. I suppose that what makes me marvel this time around, beyond the incredible historical artifacts, is the extent to which people felt comfortable, whether it was technically legal or not, excavating precious treasures from a country and culture and then exporting them to places like the U.K., Germany, France, and the United States, among other places.

Again, I’ve not studied these matters, but am thinking aloud, or at least via a quick blogpost. What does it mean to respect a culture? What does justice require in such cases? What resolution can we hope for when it comes to serious conflicts about historical treasures, heritage, and the ownership of cultural artifacts. Laws are sometimes unjust, so even good faith efforts to get permission can be of limited help. At the same time, some people did invest huge sums of money and enormous amounts of time to locate such treasures in Egypt, long before there was air conditioning (which to me sounds simply unbearable).

I don’t know what more to say about it, other than that we need to respect a) Egypt, b) its culture, and c) the people who dedicated their lives to finding amazing historical and artistic treasures. All deserve some degree of consideration. If any friends care to enlighten me about present practices, laws, or conflicts on such subjects, I’d be quite interested. Share this to social media and comment on these ideas, if you like, or reach out to me directly.

Links, Aggregated

Posted on by
Reply
  1. Happiness studies say parenthood is bad for you. Probably this tells us more about happiness studies than happiness.
  2. Lisa Feldman Barrett: What Emotions Are (and Aren’t)
  3. Five Philosophy Books for Children
  4. Emily Oster: Everybody Calm Down about Breastfeeding (But see also)
  5. “Knowing whom to ask and also how to ask is also often more valuable than a detailed knowledge of a cuisine per se.”
  6. Peter Levine stands with Ukraine: “The reason that liberals are influential in Ukraine and vanishingly marginal in Russia is not that Ukrainians are superior to Russians. No people is superior, and in any case, the differences in their current situations can probably be traced to local and recent contingencies, such as the greater efficiency of the Russian security and media agencies and the flood of petrodollars that fund them. But the fact remains that Ukrainians who are cosmopolitan, liberal, and republican hold considerable power in their country, and there is nothing similar right now in Russia.”

Ode To Wren

Posted on by
Reply

Due to construction on campus, I and many of my colleagues have been working out of a dorm for the summer. As tomorrow is our last day in beautiful Wren Hall, it seemed only fitting that I share a few words of love for this building which has become my work home.

O, Wren Hall –

Shall I compare thee to a dormitory?Thou aren’t more lovely, tho more temperate.
Thy vistic views, trees with vodka bottle perch’d –
Thy distinctive smell and enchanting stains
Will stay fore’er in my heart – ’til I depart.
Colleagues gathered together as friends,
Lounging on couches before the day ends.
Intriguing signs made the grey walls more fun –
I’m in despair that our time here is done!

Thank you for having us, Wren Hall!

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

The Impending Liberation of “Happy Birthday”

Posted on by
Reply

If the culture industries wonder why people have so little respect for copyright law these days, they need look no further than the Warner Music Group’s claimed copyright of the song “Happy Birthday.”  It’s a grotesque mockery of the avowed principles of copyright law and a scam on the public that has persisted for decades.  But with a revenue stream of $5,000 a day, or $2 million a year, Warner Music is not about to stop charging people for the right to perform “its” song.

Thanks to a courageous filmmaker, however, this travesty may soon come to an end.  Jennifer Nelson had been making a documentary about the “Happy Birthday” song when Warner said it would cost her $1,500 to use it in her film.  Nelson filed a lawsuit two years ago, a remarkable challenge in itself to the usual legal bullying by copyright owners. After all, who has the money or stomach to battle large corporations with well-paid lawyers or to lobby Members of Congress whose minds have already been made up by campaign contributions from music, film and publishing companies? Most TV shows simply forbid their hosts and performers from singing "Happy Birthday," and various restaurants have come up with their own alternative songs, lest they incur licensing fees.

It now appears that Nelson’s legal team has uncovered hard evidence that the copyright to "Happy Birthday" has been invalid for years.  In a storage facility used by the University of Pittsburgh, lawyers found a 1922 songbook that contained the lyrics of “Happy Birthday” in a song entitled “Good Morning and Birthday Song.” This is significant because there was no copyright notice on the song in the book – a requirement for copyright protection under the law at the time – and anything published before 1923 has entered the public domain and is free for anyone to use.

read more

It’s a Great Time to Join NCDD

Posted on by
Reply

The NCDD Board of Directors is reaching out to the NCDD community with the following message…

There is so much to talk about in America – gun violence, racism, healthcare, climate change, same sex marriage, voting rights, the shrinking middle class, presidential campaigns. Now more than ever, Americans need to be able to talk and act together to solve our most pressing problems.

NCDD plays a unique and important role in supporting and accelerating the work of practitioners and the public in building democratic capacity. Our strength and ongoing success depends on the active involvement and support of our members. We hope you will take a moment today to join NCDD, and if already a member, increase your show of support by becoming a dues-paying member.

GroupWithBubbles-600px

Here’s a taste of the meaningful work NCDD is currently doing:

  • Convening meetings across the country bringing together NCDD members with staff members of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service
  • Hosting regular “Confab Calls” and “Tech Tuesdays” to help NCDD members stay current with the latest innovations in our rapidly growing field
  • Curating our field’s most important news and resources on our rich website
  • Developing an innovative leadership program in partnership with Penn State that matches students with deliberative democracy organizations for valuable fellowships

By becoming an NCDD Member, you’re not only expressing your support for the value NCDD offers you, but for our collective work in fostering a living, thriving democracy. Everyone who joins is entitled to the benefits of membership, and those who pay dues are eligible for additional benefits.

Here are some actions you can take:

  • If you’re not already a member, please join!
  • If your membership dues have lapsed, please renew and get your dues up-to-date. Check on our Member Map & Directory to see the status of your membership.
  • If you previously joined as a non-dues member, consider upgrading to Supporting Member status for $75.
  • If you’d like to increase your support, please become a Sustaining Member for $150.
  • If you’d like to make a donation to NCDD, you can do that too (we are a 501c3 after all!).

In these challenging, exciting and unpredictable times, we are more committed than ever to help increase the practice of democratic skills that will benefit us all. We need each one of you to help make that possible. Please take a few moments today to add your support.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

The NCDD Board of Directors

Barbara Simonetti, Chair
Marla Crockett, Immediate Past Chair
John Backman, Treasurer
Diane Miller, Secretary
Martin Carcasson
Susan Stuart Clark

High Modernism and Network Science

Posted on by
Reply

It seems appropriate, somehow, that I’m reading James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State before beginning my Ph.D. studies.

Scott warns against the dangers of a state which undertakes “utopian social engineering.” He sees a recipe for disaster comprised of four elements. The first seems innocuous: “the administrative ordering of society…by themselves, they are the unremarkable tools of modern statecraft.”

But those unremarkable tools, combined with an authoritarian state and a prostrate civil society, can lead to disaster.

The final element Scott warns of, the one that seems most relevant as I begin my studies, is a high modernist ideology. As Scott explains, high modernism is:

…a faith that borrowed, as it were, the legitimacy if science and technology. It was accordingly, uncritical, unskeptical, and thus unscientifically optimistic about the possibilities for the comprehensive planning of human settlement and production.

High modernism is a faith that goes far beyond supporting the scientific process. It is the unwavering belief that humans have the capacity to design utopia.

 

Of course, not just any humans have this capacity, high modernists would have us believe. It is only those who are properly educated, trained, and credentialed. In this technocratic utopia, experts need no local knowledge. Everything can be standardized to translate from one community to the next.

“‘Fiasco’ is too lighthearted a word for the disasters” caused by high modernism, Scott argues. “The Great Leap Forward in China, collectivization in Russia, and compulsory villagization in Tanzania, Mozambique, and Ethiopia are among the great human tragedies of the twentieth century, in terms of both lives lost and lives irretrievably disrupted.”

The high modernism which rocked the last century may be behind us. The world is to complex, too interwoven to believe in simple, standard, solutions.

Yet even as we accept the complexity of the world, we find ways to unravel it. I’m thrilled to be studying networks, an approach which allows for examining and understanding the complex systems which surround us.

So it is with the warning of Scott ringing in my head that I recently read these words about how a network understanding of biology could influence and improve medical practice:

If you suffered from manic depression in recent years, your first visit to the doctor probably started with an hour-long discussion to carefully examine your thoughts and feelings…Twenty years from now things could look quite different. Facing the same doctor, you will have a five minute discussion, just as you do in cases of simple influenza. An assistant will take a few drops of blood and you will walk home empty-handed. In the evening you will pick up the medicine from the nearest pharmacy. The next day you will wake up fresh and happy, as you did before the symptoms appeared. Both the manic and the depressive you will have been washed away.

That doesn’t sound like utopia to me. In fact, it sounds vaguely horrifying.

While there are no doubt many people with serious mental illnesses who would benefit from such an effective treatment, I’d hope it would take more than a five minute conversation before any major personality traits are simply “washed away.”

Furthermore, with such technology at our disposal, we’d be faced with serious dilemmas about what traits to live with and which to wash away. How much depression should a person accept before they undergo such drastic treatment? How soon before authoritarian states started to remove traits of outspokenness and disobedience?

None of this is to say that we should not pursue the science. It is important, fascinating work that is helping to make a little more sense of this mysterious world.

But embracing the science doesn’t mean embracing high modernism – indeed, as Scott argues, that is something we should be very wary of.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail