The Oxford Comma

There is a topic which has caused generations of debate. Lines have been drawn. Enemies have been made.

I refer, of course, to the Oxford comma. Should it, or should it not, be a thing?

For those who don’t bask in the depths of English grammar debates, let me explain. The Oxford English Dictionary, a worthy source of knowledge on this subject, defines the Oxford comma as:
a comma immediately preceding the conjunction in a list of items.

“I bought apples, pears, and grapes” employs the Oxford comma while “I bought apples, pears and grapes” does not.

You can see why there are such heated debates about this.

The Oxford comma , so named due to “the preferred use of such a comma to avoid ambiguity in the house style of Oxford University Press,” is also known by the more prosaic name of the “serial comma.”

I have no evidence to verify this, but I believe that what one calls the comma gives insight into a person’s position on the matter. Those who are pro-comma prefer the more erudite “Oxford comma” while those who are anti-comma prefer the uninspiring “serial comma.”

Why do you need another comma? They ask. You already have so many, you don’t need a serial comma as well!

These people are wrong.

As I may have given away from my own references to the “Oxford comma,” I am firmly in the pro-Oxford comma camp.

It is clear that a comma is better there.

Not only because there’s no end to the silly and clever memes you can create mocking the absence of an Oxford comma, but because – more proudly – a sentence just feels more complete, more balanced, and more aesthetic with the comma there. It just feels right.

But, of course, this is what makes language so wonderful. Language is alive, and that life can be seen in all the little debates and inconsistencies of our grammar.

It’s like cheering for your favorite sports team: we can fight about it, mock each other, and talk all sorts of trash, but at the end of the day we can still be friends.

…Wait, we can still be friends, right?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Food as a Way to Help Refugees and Build Social Solidarity

Can food be used as a way to bring strangers together, if only for a meal or two, and create the beginnings of a new type of community? Penny Travlou, a cultural geographer and ethnographer at the University of Edinburgh, decided to find out. In an interview posted on “Social Innovation Europe,” an EU website, she talks about her experience in co-organizing “pop-up dinners” that bring together immigrants with local Greeks in Athens. The idea is to use meal preparation and eating together as a way to break down cultural barriers and support migrant integration in Greece. 

Travlou’s specialty as a researcher is the collaborative practices of digital artists and practitioners. But recently she has been fascinated with “nomadic co-living communities, hackers and refugees.”  Syrian refugees of course face some very different challenges than hackers, makers and other nomads of digital culture. Yet they both are living a kind of “nomadic transient citizenship” that Travlou believes is changing Europe.  One might say that ad hoc cooperation based on mutual need, empathy and shared circumstances is a big aspect of modern life. 

In developing the idea of pop up dinners for refugees and local Greeks, Travlou had been inspired by Jeff Andreoni of the unMonastery, who had been organizing dinners in Athens for locals and immigrants.  Working with a professional cook, an Eritrean refugee named Senait, Andreoni and Travlou held a dinner for 100 people at a house in Athens.  As Travlou explained:

That made us think that such small-scale events can be a great way to give job opportunities to newcomers -- i.e., immigrants and refugees -- and get them feel part of the Greek society and culture. From that event onwards, we got collaborated with and participated in other immigrant collective pop-up events. In the summer, we set up the African Collective Kitchen “OneLoveKitchen” with a group of cooks from Senegal, The Gambia, Sudan, Nigeria, Eritrea and Ethiopia. We collaborated with the African United Women Organisation and Nosotros: the free social centre.

All our events have been self-organised without any formal funding. We have organised small pop-up dinners in houses and roof terraces, have served food in a solidarity economy festival and have catered for two conferences. Since September when a great influx of Syrian refugees has been arriving in Athens, some of us have also been involved in daily collective kitchens preparing food for a housing squat for refugees and other similar initiatives.

Travlou and Andreoni are now setting up a new project, Options Foodlab, which is a professional kitchen and co-working space for food training.  Travlou said that food is a great way to bring people together: 

What I always say when people ask me why I got involved in such a project is to think of where the words ‘company’ and ‘companion’ come from. They both derive from the Latin word ‘companio’ which means one who eats bread [pane] with you. Thus, food making and sharing is a social act and a means of exhibiting respect for an existing or future relationship of reciprocity. Food making is about hospitality and connectivity. There is not a better way to bring people together: you don’t need linguistic cues to connect with others. With this perspective, we can think food as an object of exchange, a gift that can be shared and exchanged.

An inspiring project!  You can read the full interview with Travlou here.

read more

New IDS Journal – 9 Papers in Open Government

2016-01-14 16.51.09_resized

The new IDS Bulletin is out. Edited by Rosemary McGee and Duncan Edwards, this is the first open access version of the well-known journal by the Institute of Development Studies. It brings eight new studies looking at a variety of open government issues, ranging from uptake in digital platforms to government responsiveness in civic tech initiatives. Below is a brief presentation of this issue:

Open government and open data are new areas of research, advocacy and activism that have entered the governance field alongside the more established areas of transparency and accountability. In this IDS Bulletin, articles review recent scholarship to pinpoint contributions to more open, transparent, accountable and responsive governance via improved practice, projects and programmes in the context of the ideas, relationships, processes, behaviours, policy frameworks and aid funding practices of the last five years. They also discuss questions and weaknesses that limit the effectiveness and impact of this work, offer a series of definitions to help overcome conceptual ambiguities, and identify hype and euphemism. The contributions – by researchers and practitioners – approach contemporary challenges of achieving transparency, accountability and openness from a wide range of subject positions and professional and disciplinary angles. Together these articles give a sense of what has changed in this fast-moving field, and what has not – this IDS Bulletin is an invitation to all stakeholders to take stock and reflect.

The ambiguity around the ‘open’ in governance today might be helpful in that its very breadth brings in actors who would otherwise be unlikely adherents. But if the fuzzier idea of ‘open government’ or the allure of ‘open data’ displace the task of clear transparency, hard accountability and fairer distribution of power as what this is all about, then what started as an inspired movement of governance visionaries may end up merely putting a more open face on an unjust and unaccountable status quo.

Among others, the journal presents an abridged version of a paper by Jonathan Fox and myself on digital technologies and government responsiveness (for full version download here).

Below is a list of all the papers:

Rosie McGee, Duncan Edwards
Tiago Peixoto, Jonathan Fox
Katharina Welle, Jennifer Williams, Joseph Pearce
Miguel Loureiro, Aalia Cassim, Terence Darko, Lucas Katera, Nyambura Salome
Elizabeth Mills
Laura Neuman
David Calleb Otieno, Nathaniel Kabala, Patta Scott-Villiers, Gacheke Gachihi, Diana Muthoni Ndung’u
Christopher Wilson, Indra de Lanerolle
Emiliano Treré

 

Private and Public Voting

So here’s a fun thing. At the Iowa Caucuses next week, following the discussion and speeches for candidates, some voters will cast a secret ballot while others will vote publically.

In a caucus setting, with its ideals of community and dialogue, a public vote doesn’t seem too jarring. Yet – it is a little strange. Voting, in this country, is almost synonymous with a private act.

So why the divide in private and public voting at the caucus?

Well, first of all – regardless of how you feel about the ideological differences of the parties – they are in fact different organizations. Each party has their own infrastructure, history, and traditions.

We often forget this as we consider them two halves of the same whole – but the simple truth is that at Republicans have a private caucus ballot while Democrats do not because the parties evolved separately and have different bureaucratic structures.

Interestingly, most voting in the U.S. used to be done publicly – and out loud. Amidst what I can only imagine was great fanfare amongst the old boys’ network, voters would cast their vote by publicly announcing their candidate preference.

Your neighbors knew who you were for and you knew who your neighbors were for. Party pride ran high.

Of course, corruption was also rampant, as – pre-prohibition – voters were often rewarded with alcohol.

The so-called “Australian ballot” – a secret ballot printed at the public’s expense – didn’t become popular until the late 1800s. It was first, adopted, of course, in Massachusetts.

The secret ballot didn’t become universal in the U.S. states until 1892. …and prohibitions against paying people for votes weren’t instituted until 1925.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

The Value of Work — Reflections on Building an Interracial Political Coalition

Last Sunday, January 17, in a sermon, "Prophecy and Politics," for Martin Luther King Day at Prospect Park United Methodist Church about my experiences as a young man in the civil rights movement, I addressed prejudices against working class whites.

My experiences in the civil rights movement made me conscious of such prejudices, especially among progressive professionals.

Martin Luther King, for whom I worked as a young man in the movement, was also aware of them -- and also deeply political in the older sense of politics, engaging the interests and perspectives of one's opponents. This led to understanding white prison guards whom many liberals saw simply as racist. As he put it in the "Drum Major Instinct" in 1968,

"When we were in jail in Birmingham the other day, the white wardens [came to] the cell to talk about the race problem. And when those brothers told me what they were earning, I said, 'Now, you know what? You ought to be marching with us. You're just as poor as Negroes! The same forces that oppress Negroes oppress poor white people.'"

Politics like King's were at the heart of the grassroots "organizing" parts of the movement. When King assigned me to do community organizing among poor whites, I took these lessons about politics from King and others into the white mill village of East Durham.

Certainly I saw racial prejudice, which I also knew from my extended working class southern family. I also saw people like Basie Hicks, the community leader in East Durham who battled racial prejudice her whole life. She chased away the Klu Klux Klan when they came after me.

I also saw capacity for generosity. After people experienced collective power, when we were able to get action from the city on dirt streets, the neighborhood made connections with the black community across the tracks. I realized that narrow prejudices among poor whites often are rooted in powerlessness.

Perhaps most important, I saw the dignity and value of hard work, and also the invisibility and even contempt liberal professionals had for such work.

This was a community of mill workers and hair dressers, secretaries and police. People's identities drew from their sense that they made contribution to their families and also to their communities and the society. We got a glimpse of such grit and spirit on 9-11, when police and firefighters rushed into the collapsing buildings.

But more generally, blue collar work is devalued, and along with it blue collar workers. This was true in my experiences in organizing. Teachers across the street from Edgemont, the mill community, were very condescending toward "mill kids." At Duke, when I described the people in East Durham, faculty would ask, "Why in the world are you working with racist rednecks?"

Work, itself, especially manual work, has become even more an object of prejudice today. In Getting the Left Right, the political scientist Thomas Spragens shows how respect for work and working people among progressives in America has declined since the 1930s, replaced with pity for the poor. In a similar vein, Mike Rose in The Mind at Work shows the hidden intelligence and creativity at play in many different kinds of blue collar labor, from waitresses and hairdressers to plumbers and welders. He also shows the invisibility and devaluation of such labor across the popular culture.

Such devaluation has large cultural, psychological and political effects. Barbara Ehrenreich observes in the Nation that while blacks face harsh discrimination, they sometimes fare better in the popular culture:

"At least in the entertainment world, working-class whites are now regularly portrayed as moronic, while blacks are often hyper-articulate, street-smart, and sometimes as wealthy as Kanye West."

Last year Anne Case and Angus Deaton won the Nobel Prize in economics through research that discovered working class white men 45- to 54-years old are the only group in America with declining life spans.

Declining respect as well as stagnating wages and loss of many blue collar jobs are the discontents which demagogues play upon with their divide and conquer strategies. Timothy Egan in his New York Times column, "Giving Obama His Due," last Saturday showed how liberals contribute through their stereotypes. He describes supporters of Trump as "xenophobers, defeatists and alarmists, the Eeyore Party with a Snarl." Not a hint of the idea that they may have legitimate grievances.

Though they may be objects of solicitude from professionals and in the mass culture, blacks, as well as working class whites, experience such devaluation.

There may well be grounds here for a new interracial political coalition that reaffirms the dignity and the value of work and working people.