constitutions   95

« earlier    

The Framers’ Answers to Three Myths About Impeachment | Garry Wills | New York Review of Books
Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who has been overseeing the impeachment hearings, is badly misrepresenting the Constitution when he says that the Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the presidency. It is not. It is by far the superior branch. James Madison made that clear for all time with his lapidary sentence in Federalist No. 51: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Necessarily. Discussion over. Final as that statement is, Madison backed it up with what he assumed elsewhere. For instance, he said that Congress had the power to take any land where it meant to locate the federal government (this was then not yet decided) “by virtue of its general supremacy” (Federalist No. 43).
presidential-power  congress  constitutions 
5 days ago by altoii
How Britons forgot that history can hurt
September 19, 2019 | | Financial Times| by Simon Kuper.

Centuries of stability have created a country careless about risk... the British mainland has meandered along nicely since Newton’s death in 1727: no conquest, dictatorship, revolution, famine or civil war. The sea prevented invasions; coal made Britain the first industrialised power. Few Britons developed strong ideologies that they were motivated to kill for.

How to square this historical stability with the UK’s newfound instability?......What explains Britain’s transformation? I suspect it’s precisely the country’s historical stability that has made many of today’s Britons insouciant about risk. They have forgotten that history can hurt. Other countries remember....their citizens remember how countries can go horribly wrong (see Uganda, the French in Algeria, etc.)......Britain has no comparable traumas. Terrible things do happen there but chiefly to poor people — which is how the country is supposed to work. Even the losses suffered during two world wars have been reconfigured into proud national moments. The widespread American guilt about slavery is almost absent here.

And so, Britain has a uniquely untroubled relationship with its past, and a suspicion of anything new. No wonder the natural ruling party calls itself “Conservative”.

Britain’s ruling classes are especially nostalgic, because they live amid the glorious past: the family’s country home, then ancient public school, Oxbridge and Westminster. They felt Britain was so secure from constitutional outrages that they never bothered to write a constitution.

But it’s wrong to blame British insouciance (embodied by Johnson) on the elite. It extends across all classes. Most Britons have learnt to be politically unserious. Hence their tolerance for toy newspapers they know to be mendacious — Britons’ ironic relationship with their tabloids puzzles many foreigners.

Postwar Britons — the most shielded generation in this shielded country’s history — voted Brexit not out of fanaticism but in a spirit of “Why not?” Many Leave voters argued additionally that “Things can’t get worse”, which any Ugandan could have told them was mistaken. Some Leavers even seemed to crave a bit of history.
'30s  Argentina  Brexit  carelessness  complacency  constitutions  decay  false_sense_of_security  German  history  historical_amnesia  insouciance  ruling_classes  Simon_Kuper  social_classes  United_Kingdom  worrying 
11 weeks ago by jerryking
An equation to ensure America survives the age of AI
April 10, 2019 | Financial Times | Elizabeth Cobbs.

Alexander Hamilton, Horace Mann and Frances Perkins are linked by their emphasis on the importance of human learning.

In more and more industries, the low-skilled suffer declining pay and hours. McKinsey estimates that 60 per cent of occupations are at risk of partial or total automation. Workers spy disaster. Whether the middle class shrinks in the age of artificial intelligence depends less on machine learning than on human learning. Historical precedents help, especially...... the Hamilton-Mann-Perkins equation: innovation plus education, plus a social safety net, equals the sum of prosperity.

(1) Alexander Hamilton.
US founding father Alexander Hamilton was first to understand the relationship between: (a) the US's founding coincided with the industrial revolution and the need to grapple with technological disruption (In 1776, James Watts sold his first steam engine when the ink was still wet on the Declaration of Independence)-- Steam remade the world economically; and (b), America’s decolonisation remade the world politically......Hamilton believed that Fledgling countries needed robust economies. New technologies gave them an edge. Hamilton noted that England owed its progress to the mechanization of textile production.......Thomas Jefferson,on the other hand, argued that the US should remain pastoral: a free, virtuous nation exchanged raw materials for foreign goods. Farmers were “the chosen people”; factories promoted dependence and vice.....Hamilton disagreed. He thought colonies shouldn’t overpay foreigners for things they could produce themselves. Government should incentivise innovation, said his 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures. Otherwise citizens would resist change even when jobs ceased to provide sufficient income, deterred from making a “spontaneous transition to new pursuits”.......the U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to grant patents to anyone with a qualified application. America became a nation of tinkerers...Cyrus McCormick, son of a farmer, patented a mechanical reaper in 1834 that reduced the hands needed in farming. The US soared to become the world’s largest economy by 1890. Hamilton’s constant: nurture innovation.

(2) Horace Mann
America’s success gave rise to the idea that a free country needed free schools. The reformer Horace Mann, who never had more than six weeks of schooling in a year, started the Common School Movement, calling public schools “the greatest discovery made by man”.....Grammar schools spread across the US between the 1830s and 1880s. Reading, writing and arithmetic were the tools for success in industrialising economies. Towns offered children a no-cost education.......Americans achieved the world’s highest per capita income just as they became the world’s best-educated people. Mann’s constant: prioritise education.

(3) Frances Perkins
Jefferson was correct that industrial economies made people more interdependent. By 1920, more Americans lived in towns earning wages than on farms growing their own food. When the Great Depression drove unemployment to 25 per cent, the state took a third role....FDR recruited Frances Perkins, the longest serving labour secretary in US history, to rescue workers. Perkins led campaigns that established a minimum wage and maximum workweek. Most importantly, she chaired the committee that wrote the 1935 Social Security Act, creating a federal pension system and state unemployment insurance. Her achievements did not end the depression, but helped democracy weather it. Perkins’s constant: knit a safety net.

The world has ridden three swells of industrialisation occasioned by the harnessing of steam, electricity and computers. The next wave, brought to us by AI, towers over us. History shows that innovation, education and safety nets point the ship of state into the wave.

Progress is a variable. Hamilton, Mann and Perkins would each urge us to mind the constants in the historical equation.
adaptability  Alexander_Hamilton  artificial_intelligence  automation  constitutions  disruption  downward_mobility  education  FDR  Founding_Fathers  Frances_Perkins  gig_economy  historical_precedents  hollowing_out  Horace_Mann  Industrial_Revolution  innovation  innovation_policies  James_Watts  job_destruction  job_displacement  job_loss  life_long_learning  low-skilled  McKinsey  middle_class  priorities  productivity  public_education  public_schools  safety_nets  slavery  steam_engine  the_Great_Depression  Thomas_Jefferson  tinkerers 
april 2019 by jerryking
Opinion | The Two Codes Your Kids Need to Know
Feb. 12, 2019 | The New York Times | By Thomas L. Friedman, Opinion Columnist.

A few years ago, the leaders of the College Board, the folks who administer the SAT college entrance exam, asked themselves a radical question: Of all the skills and knowledge that we test young people for that we know are correlated with success in college and in life, which is the most important? Their answer: the ability to master “two codes” — computer science and the U.S. Constitution......please show their work: “Why these two codes?”

Answer: if you want to be an empowered citizen in our democracy — able to not only navigate society and its institutions but also to improve and shape them, and not just be shaped by them — you need to know how the code of the U.S. Constitution works. And if you want to be an empowered and adaptive worker or artist or writer or scientist or teacher — and be able to shape the world around you, and not just be shaped by it — you need to know how computers work and how to shape them.....the internet, big data and artificial intelligence now the essential building blocks of almost every industry....mastering the principles and basic coding techniques that drive computers and other devices “will be more prepared for nearly every job,”....“At the same time, the Constitution forms the foundational code that gives shape to America and defines our essential liberties — it is the indispensable guide to our lives as productive citizens.”......“Understanding how government works is the essence of power. To be a strong citizen, you need to know how the structures of our government work and how to operate within them.”
African-Americans  civics  coding  constitutions  education  engaged_citizenry  foundational  high_schools  indispensable  individual_agency  life_skills  op-ed  public_education  questions  SAT  show_your_work  students  Tom_Friedman  women 
february 2019 by jerryking
Dr Fish Philosopher🐟 on Twitter: "1. <Brews some coffee.> <puts on anthropologist hat> <cracks knuckles> So the theft of my wonderful colleague, @kahente's, daughter's name by a non-Indigenous film production raises the issue of how western/euro-americ
[images throughout with screenshots of citations]

"1. <Brews some coffee.> <puts on anthropologist hat> <cracks knuckles>

So the theft of my wonderful colleague, @kahente's, daughter's name by a non-Indigenous film production raises the issue of how western/euro-american folks understand 'culture'+ the erasure of Indigenous laws

2. Western/euro-american folks have employed the notion of 'culture' to describe the 'customs, traditions, languages, social institutions' of The Other for a long while now. Made perhaps famous in anthropology's embrace of this unit of analysis in the last few hundred years.

3. the thing about 'culture' in its emergence as anthro's unit of analysis (vs, say, sociology's also fraught but in different ways study of 'society') is that it was employed through colonial period (+ still) to displace the legal-governance standing of nations of 'The Other'.

4. While Euro nations/the West were deemed to have 'laws', everyone else (the Rest) were deemed to have 'customs'/'traditions'/'culture'. This coincided with vigorous efforts by British/American & other western actors to do everything possible to invalidate the laws of 'The Rest'

5. What happens when 'the Rest' have laws? It means that Euro-American actors ('The West') might actually have reciprocal responsibilities to those nations under emerging international law in colonial period & cannot just steal land and destroy nations without legal consequences.

6.(Interlude --- everything I know about this is from Joanne Barker's fabulous book "Sovereignty Matters" and Sylvia Wynter's crucial, canonical piece "Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation--An Argument").

7. As Barker (2005:4) shows us: law matters because this is medium through which nationhood/statehood were recognized+asserted. Both Treaties and Constitutions were mobilized to assert claims over lands/peoples. Genocide was done 'legally' within precepts of euro/american law

8. What happened when euro-american actors entered into treaties with Indigenous nations/confederacies in NA? Euro-american colonizers quickly realized recognition of the laws of the 'Other' meant their claims to lands were vulnerable to international challenge (Barker 2005)

9. So, euro-american colonizers had two handy little tricks up their sleeve: first, invalidate the humanity of those you colonize (Wynter 2003). Place them firmly in the category of the 'fallen flesh'/sinners/'Other' incapable of rational thought (law) ((Wynter 2003: 281-282)

(sorry, this one is a slow burn because I want to make sure I cite sources fairly and generously and provide ample material for folks to consult and check out)

10. This invalidation is helped by the papal bull of 1493, which establishes the 'Doctrine of Discovery' (aka: Spain and Portugal have the right to claim lands they 'find' in the name of God). This is re-asserted in 19th century USA

11. Second, once you invalidate the humanity of those you colonized, & established that only euro-western/euro-american 'man' can possess rational thought/law, you invalidate the knowledge/being of the other as 'myth/ 'story'/ & 'CULTURE'. Law for the West, Culture for the Rest.

12. This is where the rise of Anthropology is so crucial. It arises at a time when euro-american actors are frantically looking for ways to invalidate the laws, sovereignty, nationhood, self-determination and humanity of everyone they colonized.

13. Just when euro-american actors are looking for ways to legally justify their breaking of treaties they entered into with folks they colonized, anthro trots in with its focus on 'culture'. Culture as embodiment of everything that comprises law without recognizing its authority

14. Once you've established a hierarchy of humanity with white western christian males as the only real '(hu)Man' (see Wynter (2003) and Zakiyyah Iman Jackson (2013)), you can set about bracketing out 'the Rest' from your notion of legal and scientific plurality.

15. All of this is crucial. The western 'modern' framing of White Western Christian Men as the only beings capable of rational thought. The anthro fascination w/ 'cultures' of 'The Rest'. (The west/rest framing I borrow from Colin Scott's "Science for the West/TEK for the Rest")

16. This is of course entangled with capitalist expansion. Who can possess things, people, lands is important to expanding claims to property. The designation of subhumanity/de-authorization of laws of The Other are crucial to the violent capitalist white supremacist project.

17. As Christina Sharpe (2016) teaches us: "the history of capital is inextricable from the history of Atlantic chattel slavery".

18. This all comes to matter, anthropologically, because anthro becomes the 'caretaker' of The Other and their de-authorized legal orders, laws, knowing, being. This is the white possessive, as Aileen Moreton-Robinson ((2015) and Moreton-Robinson (2014: 475)) demonstrates:

19. So, when western actors are shocked to discover that they cannot just take things from other nations/societies/confederacies/legal orders, this is because anthro has faithfully done its job as acting as 'caretaker' for the laws/knowing/being of all those nations dispossessed.

20. Remember that the invention/fetishization of small c plural 'cultures' was crucial to the de-authorization of laws, epistemes, ontologies, being of everyone but White European Christian Rational Man. Anthro is basically an epic legal argument against sovereignty of 'The Rest'

21. And this coincided, not innocently, with assertions of racial hierarchies that deemed certain peoples to possess rational law, science, sovereignty, authority. The possession of law coincides with western beliefs in rationality (Wynter 2003).

22. Anthro has a buddy, and that buddy is biology. Biology, as Wynter (2003) demonstrates, mobilizes in the 19th century to develop the notion of Man(2). Man(2) not only has rationality, but he has evolution on his side, justifying his white possessiveness (Wynter 2003: 314-315)

23. So, as long as The West has Law and the Rest has culture, white western actors will continue to dispossess, appropriate, steal,+violate the legal orders of those peoples they colonize, because they believe they have an ontological right to these things (Moreton-Robinson 2015)

24. And anthropology has a lot of answering to do, still, for its role in de-authorizing the legal orders of those colonized by western imperial actors. It is complicit in the re-framing of legal orders, being, and knowing as 'culture', 'myth', 'tradition', and 'custom'.

25. Finally, for an in-depth examination of the ways anthro works to de-authorize Indigenous law, please buy+read Audra Simpson's _Mohawk Interruptus_, which demonstrates how anthro's focus on 'cultures' is used to dispossess Haudenosaunee in North America

26. Please amend tweet 6 to read: Everything I know about this is from Joanne Barker, Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Audra Simpson+Sylvia Wynter!!! These 4 thinkers should be among the canon of work taught in Anthro theory courses to help displace its pervasive white possessiveness.

27. So, to wrap up this essay -- the incident this week was the theft of a Kanienkeha name. Audra Simpson (2014) here explains how the concept of 'culture' & western property (il)logics are used to deny Indigenous ownership of lands, knowing, being through white possessiveness:

28. Anthro must contend with this reality that Audra Simpson so clearly lays out in her work: it is built entirely on the denial of Indigenous sovereignty. And Anthro relies on racial hierarchies that emerge with assertion of 'rational' western white christian 'Man' (Wynter 2003)

Important addition to this morning's twitter essay! I cited Colin Scott's 'Science for the West, Myth for the Rest?',but David kindly points me towards the crucial work of Stuart Hall here (which I will now go read!!!) "

[unrolled here: ]
zoetodd  2018  anthropology  cul;ture  sociology  socialsciences  colonialism  decolonization  capitalism  indigeneity  indigenous  law  joannebarker  sylviawynter  power  truth  freedom  treaties  constitutions  humanity  humanism  dehumanization  spain  portugal  españa  invalidation  thewest  hierarchy  hierarchies  colinscott  zakiyyahimanjackson  othering  rationality  biology  dispossession  colonization  audrasimpson  myth  myths  tradition  customs  aileenmoreton-robinson  property  possession  possessiveness  sovereignty  race  racism  stuarthall 
december 2018 by robertogreco
Artificial Sovereigns: A Quasi-Constitutional Moment for Tech? - K. Sabeel Rahman
We can identify three distinct species of anti-dominating institutional design to address these different forms of techno-power. First, we might create systems to facilitate voice, participation, and accountability of power. This can be done directly, analogizing to the role of elections and participatory mechanisms in public law. Or it can be achieved indirectly, by expanding regulatory oversight of techno-power, where that oversight is itself an expression of, and responsive to, the democratic public.

Second, we might impose structural limits on the organizations themselves. Thus revived antitrust laws might inhibit the concentration of too much power and control in too few hands, breaking up tech monopolies and data-opolies. We might “firewall” away different functions, preventing them from concentrating in the same parent company and thus mitigating potential conflicts of interest. If Amazon, for example, wants to operate as a platform, it cannot also at the same time produce material for sale on that platform. A variation on organizational structural change might be to tackle the corporate form of tech companies themselves. Through changes to securities laws and corporate governance requirements, we might alter the balance of interests and powers within the firm itself, in ways that might better align the corporate interest with the public interest.

Third, we might create limits on techno-power and domination by altering not just the structure of tech firms, but the structure and dynamics of the larger market systems in which they operate. Antitrust law features here as well: part of what makes antitrust work as a strategy for preventing economic domination is not just its limits to the individual firms’ size and powers, but also the ways in which it fosters a larger system of market competition that checks the power of any one firm. Other forms of regulation also shape market structure: through changes to how code, AI, and algorithms operate, we might create a more transparent, accountable, and self-managing system. A big data tax, for instance, would shift the ways in which tech firms deploy their technologically-mediated forms of power and influence.
tech  platform  antitrust  constitutions  government  governance  power  internet  from instapaper
june 2018 by max_read
Internet Archive Search: creator:"Massachusetts. Constitutional Convention (1917-1919)"
1917-1919 MA constitutional convention debates, bulletins, and journals in multiple volumes.
constitutions  HI  112 
december 2017 by tonahangen
Toward a Marxist Interpretation of the US Constitution
Even before the Constitution was officially adopted, many people, known to history as Anti-Federalists, questioned whether what was good for the property-owning factions that were so well represented in Philadelphia would be as good for those who owned little or nothing. Then as subsequently, the main questions raised dealt with the limitations on suffrage, the inadequate defense of individual rights and freedoms, the acceptance and even strengthening of the institution of slavery, and the many other benefits given to men of property...Taken at face value, the Constitution is an attempt to fix the relations between state and federal governments, and between the three branches — legislative, executive, and judiciary — of the latter. And most accounts of this document have concentrated on the mechanical arrangements that make this balancing act possible...In the process, the Constitution’s basic assumptions and particularly its social and economic purposes have been grossly neglected. It is a little like learning in some detail how a car works before even knowing what kind of machine it is, what it is supposed to do, and why it was constructed in just this way.
con-law  constitutions  marx 
july 2017 by altoii
Constitutional reform pressure group formed; members free to get into active politics
July 5, 2017 | Demerara Waves | Denis Chabrol.
Jainaraine Singh, Marcel Gaskin, Renatta Chuck-a-Sang and Terrence Campbell.

Reform, Inform, Sustain Educate (RISE) Guyana, a newly-formed non-profit organisation, on Wednesday announced that it would be embarking on a countrywide push for reforming Guyana’s constitution over the next two years, and said its members are free to engage in active politics with any party of their choice.
constitutions  Guyana  nonprofit  BHS  alumni  RISE 
july 2017 by jerryking
Balkinization: Constitutional Rot and Constitutional Crisis
As Sandy Levinson and I have explained, there are three types of constitutional crises. In Type One crises, political leaders announce that they will no longer abide by the Constitution or laws (for example, because of emergency), or they openly flout judicial orders directed at them. In Type Two crises, people follow what they believe the Constitution requires, leading to political paralysis or disaster. In Type Three crises, political disagreement about the Constitution becomes so intense that the struggle goes beyond the bounds of ordinary politics. People take to the streets; there are riots; the military is called out to restore order (or suppress dissent); political figures threaten violence or engage in political violence; or parts of the country revolt and/or attempt to secede.
constitutions  con-law  politics  trump-administration 
june 2017 by altoii
The Enlightenment Project
FEB. 28, 2017 | The New York Times| David Brooks.

Enlightenment thought. The Enlightenment included thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant who argued that people should stop deferring blindly to authority for how to live. Instead, they should think things through from the ground up, respect facts and skeptically re-examine their own assumptions and convictions.

Enlightenment thinkers turned their skeptical ideas into skeptical institutions, notably the U.S. Constitution. America’s founders didn’t trust the people or themselves, so they built a system of rules, providing checks and balances to pit interest against interest.

....Today’s anti-Enlightenment movements don’t think truth is to be found through skeptical inquiry and debate. They think wisdom and virtue are found in the instincts of the plain people, deep in the mystical core of the nation’s or race’s group consciousness.

Today’s anti-Enlightenment movements believe less in calm persuasion and evidence-based inquiry than in purity of will. They try to win debates through blunt force and silencing unacceptable speech.

They don’t see history as a gradual march toward cooperation. They see history as cataclysmic cycles — a zero-sum endeavor marked by conflict. Nations trying to screw other nations, races inherently trying to oppress other races.

These movements are hostile to rules-based systems, multilateral organizations, the messy compromises of democratic politics and what Steve Bannon calls the “administrative state.” They prefer the direct rule by one strongman who is the embodiment of the will of the people.

When Trump calls the media the “enemy of the people” he is going after the system of conversation, debate and inquiry that is the foundation for the entire Enlightenment project....
David_Brooks  grand_strategy  history  Yale  John_Locke  Immanuel_Kant  rules-based  Abraham_Lincoln  multilateralism  De_Tocqueville  the_Enlightenment  skepticism  checks_and_balances  Stephen_Bannon  worldviews  zero-sum_games  strongman  constitutions 
march 2017 by jerryking
Liberalism in Latin America
Liberal ideas first became widespread in Latin American due to the influence of the 1812 liberal Cadiz constitution which was in force in the Spanish empire for two years until the reestablishment of absolute rule. The Cadiz constitution was, in turn, heavily influenced by the political ideas of the French Revolution. Ideas such as popular sovereignty, civil equality, individual representation, the conventional nature of political authority, freedom of thought and of the press, and a division of powers that privileges the legislative became central to early Latin American liberalism. The latter was by no means identical to Spanish liberalism or to the political ideas of the French revolution, but these two are its main initial sources. Liberal intellectuals were mainly concerned with the practical tasks of constitutional design and institutional reform. Thus, the liberal movement emerged mainly in political and legal practice, not in theoretical works. Liberal intellectuals expressed and developed their views in the numerous constitutions that they produced, in legal commentary, and in the public debates that took place in pamphlets and newspapers.
Liberalism  Nations  Constitutions  Politics  Latin  America  Spain 
january 2017 by dbourn
The Constitutional Constant by Richard Primus :: SSRN
What is actually constant over time in the American constitutional system is not the content of constitutional law: it is the correspondence between the content of constitutional law and the American people’s (or at least the decision-making class’s) most powerful intuitions about issues of structure and ethos in American government. At any given time, constitutional law reflects those intuitions. That correspondence, which abides as the content of constitutional law changes, is what this short essay calls the constitutional constant. And because American values and American ideas about government change over time, the content of constitutional rules must change in order to preserve what is truly constant in the constitutional system: the correspondence between the content of constitutional law and the deepest values of the American people.
october 2016 by altoii
Shirky: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy
"So, Part One. The best explanation I have found for the ways in which this pattern establishes itself, the group is its own worst enemy, comes from a book by W.R. Bion called "Experiences in Groups," written in the middle of the last century.

Bion was a psychologist who was doing group therapy with groups of neurotics. (Drawing parallels between that and the Internet is left as an exercise for the reader.) The thing that Bion discovered was that the neurotics in his care were, as a group, conspiring to defeat therapy.

There was no overt communication or coordination. But he could see that whenever he would try to do anything that was meant to have an effect, the group would somehow quash it. And he was driving himself crazy, in the colloquial sense of the term, trying to figure out whether or not he should be looking at the situation as: Are these individuals taking action on their own? Or is this a coordinated group?

He could never resolve the question, and so he decided that the unresolvability of the question was the answer. To the question: Do you view groups of people as aggregations of individuals or as a cohesive group, his answer was: "Hopelessly committed to both."

He said that humans are fundamentally individual, and also fundamentally social. Every one of us has a kind of rational decision-making mind where we can assess what's going on and make decisions and act on them. And we are all also able to enter viscerally into emotional bonds with other groups of people that transcend the intellectual aspects of the individual.

In fact, Bion was so convinced that this was the right answer that the image he put on the front cover of his book was a Necker cube, one of those cubes that you can look at and make resolve in one of two ways, but you can never see both views of the cube at the same time. So groups can be analyzed both as collections of individuals and having this kind of emotive group experience.

Now, it's pretty easy to see how groups of people who have formal memberships, groups that have been labeled and named like "I am a member of such-and-such a guild in a massively multi-player online role-playing game," it's easy to see how you would have some kind of group cohesion there. But Bion's thesis is that this effect is much, much deeper, and kicks in much, much sooner than many of us expect. So I want to illustrate this with a story, and to illustrate the illustration, I'll use a story from your life. Because even if I don't know you, I know what I'm about to describe has happened to you.

You are at a party, and you get bored. You say "This isn't doing it for me anymore. I'd rather be someplace else. I'd rather be home asleep. The people I wanted to talk to aren't here." Whatever. The party fails to meet some threshold of interest. And then a really remarkable thing happens: You don't leave. You make a decision "I don't like this." If you were in a bookstore and you said "I'm done," you'd walk out. If you were in a coffee shop and said "This is boring," you'd walk out.

You're sitting at a party, you decide "I don't like this; I don't want to be here." And then you don't leave. That kind of social stickiness is what Bion is talking about.

And then, another really remarkable thing happens. Twenty minutes later, one person stands up and gets their coat, and what happens? Suddenly everyone is getting their coats on, all at the same time. Which means that everyone had decided that the party was not for them, and no one had done anything about it, until finally this triggering event let the air out of the group, and everyone kind of felt okay about leaving.

This effect is so steady it's sometimes called the paradox of groups. It's obvious that there are no groups without members. But what's less obvious is that there are no members without a group. Because what would you be a member of?

So there's this very complicated moment of a group coming together, where enough individuals, for whatever reason, sort of agree that something worthwhile is happening, and the decision they make at that moment is: This is good and must be protected. And at that moment, even if it's subconscious, you start getting group effects. And the effects that we've seen come up over and over and over again in online communities.

Now, Bion decided that what he was watching with the neurotics was the group defending itself against his attempts to make the group do what they said they were supposed to do. The group was convened to get better, this group of people was in therapy to get better. But they were defeating that. And he said, there are some very specific patterns that they're entering into to defeat the ostensible purpose of the group meeting together. And he detailed three patterns.

The first is sex talk, what he called, in his mid-century prose, "A group met for pairing off." And what that means is, the group conceives of its purpose as the hosting of flirtatious or salacious talk or emotions passing between pairs of members.

You go on IRC and you scan the channel list, and you say "Oh, I know what that group is about, because I see the channel label." And you go into the group, you will also almost invariably find that it's about sex talk as well. Not necessarily overt. But that is always in scope in human conversations, according to Bion. That is one basic pattern that groups can always devolve into, away from the sophisticated purpose and towards one of these basic purposes.

The second basic pattern that Bion detailed: The identification and vilification of external enemies. This is a very common pattern. Anyone who was around the Open Source movement in the mid-Nineties could see this all the time. If you cared about Linux on the desktop, there was a big list of jobs to do. But you could always instead get a conversation going about Microsoft and Bill Gates. And people would start bleeding from their ears, they would get so mad.

If you want to make it better, there's a list of things to do. It's Open Source, right? Just fix it. "No, no, Microsoft and Bill Gates grrrrr ...", the froth would start coming out. The external enemy -- nothing causes a group to galvanize like an external enemy.

So even if someone isn't really your enemy, identifying them as an enemy can cause a pleasant sense of group cohesion. And groups often gravitate towards members who are the most paranoid and make them leaders, because those are the people who are best at identifying external enemies.

The third pattern Bion identified: Religious veneration. The nomination and worship of a religious icon or a set of religious tenets. The religious pattern is, essentially, we have nominated something that's beyond critique. You can see this pattern on the Internet any day you like. Go onto a Tolkein newsgroup or discussion forum, and try saying "You know, The Two Towers is a little dull. I mean loooong. We didn't need that much description about the forest, because it's pretty much the same forest all the way."

Try having that discussion. On the door of the group it will say: "This is for discussing the works of Tolkein." Go in and try and have that discussion.

Now, in some places people say "Yes, but it needed to, because it had to convey the sense of lassitude," or whatever. But in most places you'll simply be flamed to high heaven, because you're interfering with the religious text.

So these are human patterns that have shown up on the Internet, not because of the software, but because it's being used by humans. Bion has identified this possibility of groups sandbagging their sophisticated goals with these basic urges. And what he finally came to, in analyzing this tension, is that group structure is necessary. Robert's Rules of Order are necessary. Constitutions are necessary. Norms, rituals, laws, the whole list of ways that we say, out of the universe of possible behaviors, we're going to draw a relatively small circle around the acceptable ones.

He said the group structure is necessary to defend the group from itself. Group structure exists to keep a group on target, on track, on message, on charter, whatever. To keep a group focused on its own sophisticated goals and to keep a group from sliding into these basic patterns. Group structure defends the group from the action of its own members."
clayshirky  2003  groups  communication  culture  norms  groupdynamics  wrbion  rituals  laws  rules  behavior  constitutions  lcproject  openstudioproject  structure  groupstructure  religion  worship  sfsh  ritual 
february 2016 by robertogreco

« earlier    

related tags

'30s  112  1201  17thc  18thc  1930s  1940s  1960s  19thc  2003  2018  20thc  21stc  4th_republic  5th_republic  _featured  abraham_lincoln  absolutism  accountability  adaptability  african-americans  afro-guyanese  aileenmoreton-robinson  al_qaeda  alexander_hamilton  alumni  america  american_civil_liberties_union  american_colonies  ancient_greece  anthropology  antitrust  archives  arendt  argentina  article  artificial_intelligence  audrasimpson  austria  authoritarian  authority  automation  awlaki_anwar_al-  balkans  barzani_massoud  behavior  berlin_isaiah  bhs  bible  biden_joseph_r_jr  big_data  bill_of_rights  bills_of_attainder  biology  blackstone  bolingbroke  book_reviews  books  borders  bosnia  boundaries  brexit  british_empire-constitutional_structure  british_history  british_politics  burke  bush_george_w  cambridge_school  canada  canadian  capitalism  capstone_project  carelessness  carolina  ccg  central_intelligence_agency  change-social  charles_ii  checks-and-balances  checks_and_balances  christ  christianity  citizenship  civic  civic_virtue  civics  civil_liberties  civil_rights_and_liberties  civil_society  classicism  classification_of_information  clayshirky  coding  colinscott  collins_anthony  colonialism  colonization  communication  communism  community  comparative_history  compare  comparisons  complacency  con-law  confederation  conflict  conflict_of_laws  congress  constituencies  constitution  constitutional_law  constitutional_monarchies  constitutional_regime  constitutionalism  constitutionality  consulat  contextualism  control  corruption  coup_d'état  courts  crisis_points  croatia  crown  cul;ture  culture  customs  dark.continent  data  david_brooks  de_tocqueville  decay  decolonization  defense_and_military_forces  dehumanization  delicious-export  democracy  democracy_deficit  democratization  despotism  determination  digital_media  dignity  directoire  dispossession  disruption  divine_right_of_kings  doctrinal_statements  documents  doj  donald_trump  downloaded  downward_mobility  duke_capstone  dworkin  eaglefiler  ec  editorials  education-civic  education  ef-add  egalitarian  egypt  elections-disputed  elections  elites-self-destructive  emergent  engaged_citizenry  english_constitution  epistemology  erdogan_recep_tayyip  españa  etexts  ethnicity  eu  europe  evangelicals  exec_branch  executive-power  executive  failure  false_sense_of_security  favorites  fdr  federalism  finnis  foresight  foundational  founders  founding_fathers  france  frances_perkins  free-thinkers  freedom  freedom_of_religion  french_enlightenment  french_government  french_politics  french_revolution  french_revolutionary_wars  german  germany  gig_economy  global  google  gospel  governance  government-forms  government-roles  government  government_information  governmentality  governments  grand_strategy  gresham's_law  groupdynamics  groups  groupstructure  guyana  hard_work  hart  health  heaven  hell  hi  hierarchies  hierarchy  high_schools  historical_amnesia  historical_precedents  history  hmitwt  hobbes  hollowing_out  homosexuality  horace_mann  house_of_commons  house_of_lords  house_of_representatives  human  human_nature  human_rights  humanism  humanity  hume-historian  hume-politics  hume  hungary  ideas-theories  identity  immanuel_kant  inalienable_rights  inaugurations  incentives  india  indigeneity  indigenous  indispensable  individual_agency  industrial_revolution  ineptitude  innovation  innovation_policies  insouciance  instapaper  institution-building  institutional_change  institutions  integration  intellectual_history  internet  interview  invalidation  iraq_war_(2003-_)  italy  james_ii  james_watts  jesus  joannebarker  job_destruction  job_displacement  job_loss  john_locke  jstor  judaism  judges  judicial_review  judiciary  jurisprudence  justice  justice_department  khan_academy  kindle-available  kingdom_of_god  konrad_yakabuski  kosovo  kurdistan_democratic_party  kurds  land_use_policies  language  latin  law-and-legislation  law  law_and_legislation  laws  lawyers  lcproject  legal  legal_culture  legal_history  legal_realism  legal_system  legal_theory  legal_validity  legislature  legitimacy-international  legitimacy  letters_to_the_editor  lfsb  liberalism  libertarianism  liberty  liberty_fund  life_long_learning  life_skills  limited_government  limited_monarchy  links  living.together  locke  low-skilled  lrb  lvusd  madison  majoritarianism  malebranche  maliki_nuri_kamal_al-  marginality  maritime_history  marx  mckinsey  metaphor  middle_class  middleeast  mill  minorities  minority  minority_rights  monarchical_republic  monarchy  montesquieu  moral_philosophy  mosques  mps  multilateralism  mussolini  myth  myths  napoleon  nara  nation_building  nationalism  nationhood  nations  natural_law  natural_philosophy  natural_rights  nj  nonprofit  normative_theory  normativity  norms  nujhealth  oath  oaths  obama_barack  obligation  office_of_legal_counsel  oligarchy  one-party_state  op-ed  openstudioproject  opposition  orthodox  othering  paper  parable  paradigm  paradoxes  parlement  parliament  parliamentary_supremacy  parties  patents  patriotic_union_of_kurdistan  paul  perverse_incentives  philosophy_of_law  planning  platform  platforms  pnc  policymaking  political_change  political_culture  political_discourse  political_gridlock  political_history  political_nation  political_order  political_participation  political_philosophy  political_science  politics  politics_and_government  pols209  popes  portugal  positivism-legal  possession  possessiveness  post-colonial  posted  power-asymmetric  power-concentration  power  prerogative  presidential-power  primarysources  priorities  productivity  property  property_rights  protestant  public_education  public_opinion  public_policy  public_schools  queen_elizabeth  questions  race  racism  rationality  raz  reference  regionalism  religion  religious  representative_institutions  republic_of_letters  republicanism  republics-ancient_v_modern  research  research_guides  restoration  revenge_effects  reviews  rights-legal  rights  rise  ritual  rituals  roberts_john_g_jr  rogue_actors  roman_republic  romans  rome  royal_society  rule_of_law  rules-based  rules  ruling_classes  safety_nets  sandra_day_o'connor  sat  scripture  search  self-rule  separation-of-powers  september_11_(2001)  serbia  sfsh  shaftesbury_1st_earl  show_your_work  sieyes  simon_kuper  sismondi  skepticism  skinner  slavery  slovenia  social_classes  social_order  social_process  social_theory  socialization  socialsciences  sociology  sociology_of_law  south-africa  sovereignty  spain  spirituality  sschat  ssrn  standardized_testing  statecraft  steam_engine  stephen_bannon  story  strongman  structure  stuarthall  students  supreme_court  sylviawynter  südtirol  tech  terrorism  the_enlightenment  the_great_depression  theologian  theology  thewest  thomas_jefferson  timothy.garton.ash  tinkerers  tirol  tom_friedman  tools  tradition  transition_economies  treasury_department  treaties  trump-administration  trust  truth  turkey  twitter  u.s._supreme_court  uk_government  united-states-constitution  united_kingdom  united_states  united_states_defense_and_military_forces  united_states_international_relations  united_states_politics_and_government  us_constitution  uspolitics  uspto  voting  whigs  whistleblowing  women  world  worldviews  worrying  worship  wrbion  ww1  yale  yugoslavia  zakiyyahimanjackson  zero-sum_games  zoetodd 

Copy this bookmark: