Search the archive.

The same applies to academic research and those who engage in its discursive construction. As a venue for human communication, all educational research is interpretive. Researchers endeavor to convey the meaning they make of surveys, interviews, and bodies of research literature. They also engage in conflicts over interpretation through their studies of social and education phenomena, conflicts that drive subsequent research paradigms along with the politics of research funding and publishing. Tensions over the racial meaning of things are ever-present in the production of educational research, which takes place in academic institutions that are organizationally divided not just along racial identity lines but moreover into ideological camps that wage interpretive battles over race.

For those in the educational research community, none of this is breaking news. Rather, it is the stuff of normal, everyday talk in the hallways and offices of the academy. Thus, it is quite perplexing that educational researchers, who are clearly self-aware that they are immersed in daily struggles over racial interpretation, do not place central importance on hermeneutics, which is the study of the theories and methodologies of interpretation ( Morrow & Brown, 1994 ), in debates about research methodology. Broadly, hermeneutical scholars seek to reveal the presuppositions that guide interpretive processes ( Gallagher, 1992 ). Importantly, the field of hermeneutics, particularly in more critical approaches, instructs us that interpreters are typically not conscious of their hermeneutical presuppositions ( Habermas, 1989 ), meaning that many tend to see interpretation as little more than “common sense” or “differences of opinion.” Why is the avoidance of hermeneutics so pervasive, even among those who might benefit from a critical study of it, such as those doing work in critical studies of race? What are the consequences of avoiding the study of hermeneutics in educational research, particularly as it relates to racial power? Who benefits from the avoidance of a critical approach to the interpretation of race in a white supremacist social system? Is this part of a white supremacist academic desire to constrain racial interpretations for fear that a focus on a critical version of a racial hermeneutics might let the proverbial “cat out of the bag” in the production of educational research?

In fact, the notion of American globality I have begun discussing here already exceeds negri and Hardt’s formulation to the extent that it is a global racial formation, and more pointedly a global mobilization of a white supremacist social formation (read: a united States of America formed by the social-economic geographies of racial chattel slavery and their recodification through the post-13th Amendment innovation of other technologies of criminalization and imprisonment). The US prison regime’s production of human immobilization and death composes some of the fundamental modalities of American national coherence. It inscribes two forms of domination that tend to slip from the attention of political theorists, including Negri and Hardt: first, the prison regime strategically institutionalizes the biopolitical structures of white racial/nationalist ascendancy—it quite concretely provides a definition for white American personhood, citizenship, freedom, and racialized patriotism. Second, the prison regime reflects the moral, spiritual, and cultural inscription of Manifest Destiny (and its descendant material cultural and state-building articulations of racist and white supremacist conquest, genocide, and population control) across different historical moments. to invoke and critically rearticulate negri and Hardt’s formulation, the focal question becomes: How does the right of the uS-as-global police to kill, detain, obliterate become voiced, juridically coded, and culturally recoded? the structure of presumption—and therefore relative political silence—enmeshing the prison’s centrality to the logic of American globality is precisely evidence of the fundamental power of the uS prison regime within the larger schema of American hegemony. In this sense the uS prison regime is ultimately really not an “institution.” rather it is a formulation of world order (hence, a dynamic and perpetual labor of institutionalization rather than a definitive modernist institution) in which massively scaled, endlessly strategized technologies of human immobilization address (while never fully resolving) the socio-political crises of globalization. The US prison regime defines a global logic of social organization that constitutes, mobilizes, and prototypes across various localities. What would it mean, then, to consider state-crafted, white supremacist modalities of imprisonment as the perpetual end rather than the self-contained means of American globality? I am suggesting a conception of the prison regime that focuses on what cultural and political theorist Allen Feldman calls a “formation of violence,” which anchors the contemporary articulation of white supremacy as a global technology of coercion and hegemony. Feldman writes, the growing autonomy of violence as a self-legitimating sphere of social discourse and transaction points to the inability of any sphere of social practice to totalize society. Violence itself both reflects and accelerates the experience of society as an incomplete project, as something to be made. As a formation of violence that self-perpetuates a peculiar social project through the discursive structures of warfare, the US prison regime composes an acute formation of racial and white supremacist violence, and thus houses the capacity for mobilization of an epochal (and peculiar) white supremacist global logic. This contention should not be confused with the sometimes parochial (if not politically chauvinistic) proposition that American state and state-sanctioned regimes of bodily violence and human immobilization are somehow self-contained “domestic” productions that are exceptional to the united States of America, and that other “global” sites simply “import,” imitate, or reenact these institutionalizations of power. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite: the US prison regime exceeds as it enmeshes the ensemble of social relations that cohere uS civil society, and is fundamental to the geographic transformations, institutional vicissitudes, and militarized/economic mobilizations of “globalization” generally. to assert this, however, is to also argue that the constituting violence of the US prison regime has remained somewhat undertheorized and objectified in the overlapping realms of public discourse, activist mobilization, and (grassroots as well as professional) scholarly praxis. Here I am arguing that it is not possible to conceptualize and critically address the emergence and global proliferation of the (uS/global) prison industrial complex outside a fundamental understanding of what are literally its technical and technological premises: namely, its complex organization and creative production of racist and white supremacist bodily violence. It is only in this context, I would say, that we can examine the problem of how “the Prison” is a modality (and not just a reified product or outcome) of American statecraft in the current political moment. It is only a theoretical foregrounding of the white supremacist state and social formation of the united States that will allow us to understand the uS prison regime as an American globality that materializes as it prototypes state violence and for that matter, “state power” itself through a specific institutional site.

The humanist paradigm originates in the illustrious knowledge tradition of the European Renaissance and Enlightenment (see Crosson, 2021). By emphasizing human agency over divine authority, asserting the triumphant power of objective and instrumental human reason over natural conditions and superstitions, and marking the rational capacity of the human species as exceptional and superior over all other forms of life, key thinkers of the Enlightenment positioned human reason, potentiality, and achievement at the very center of scientific enterprise, social purpose, and global progress. At the same time, the first declarations of the “Rights of Man” asserted the existence of essential properties and rightful protections unique to human beings as a consequence of their special capacity for rational development. Protective rights against others became perceived as necessary because the philosophers of the Enlightenment also posited a basic competitive human drive, which not only naturalized the rational desire for individual accumulation of property and the nascent capitalist system as the fullest expression of this desire, but also explained the constant progress of civilization through the competitive advance of technologies and other products of human cleverness. Yet, this intellectually and culturally explosive time of the European Enlightenment was also a period of imperial expansion and, in this context, grand claims regarding universal human reason, and the equal “Rights of Man” quickly became scaled down as already-evident gender and race hierarchies within humanity became further entrenched through colonization and associated practices of slavery (see Crosson, 2021). The ostensibly universal character of “human” reason was realigned more particularly as a superior quality claimed by the hetero-patriarchal white subject of the imperial enterprise, whose defining European cultural achievements likewise were assumed as the aspirational markers of any civilization worthy of the name. Indeed, as Edward Said (1978, 1993) famously explained in his seminal analysis of colonial comportment in Orientalism, and subsequently in Culture and Imperialism, European colonial society was able to construct itself as scientific, progressive, and culturally advanced only through an interested contrast against non-Western peoples, who were portrayed at best as superstitious and socially inferior, having inscrutable motives and questionable ethics; or at worst backward, immoral, unproductive, and barely human at all. In this way, by asserting the rational superiority of some divisions of humanity over others, Western humanism came to act as a perverse justification for colonialism. Colonial humanism is, then, closely intertwined with racism (see Bernasconi, 2001). Alexander Weheliye explains: “If racialization is understood not as a biological or cultural descriptor but as a conglomerate of socio-political relations that discipline humanity into full humans, not-quite-humans, and nonhumans, then blackness designates a changing system of unequal power structures that apportion and delimit which humans can lay claim to full human status and which humans cannot” (2014, 3). The “scientific evidence” for claims about natural European human superiority was supposedly found in the physical differences observable between Indigenous Australian, Native American, African, Asian, and European bodies, and especially by the measurement of crania and their surface characteristics, which were taken to indicate relative differences in natural intelligence (Fforde, 2004). For many, in accordance with Christian orthodoxy, the aim was to collect evidence for underlying principles of unity that showed human difference was the result of environmentally influenced divergence from a single primordial stock. On this view, the various human “races” were all participants in a universal humanity, and colonization was justified on “humanitarian” grounds that aimed to elevate “primitive” peoples to a more advanced (European) standard of human achievement and civilization. However, by the end of the eighteenth century, coinciding with the height of global slave trade, a view prevailed that racial differences were so great as to indicate separate species of human, springing not from a single source but from plural origins. The polygenic insistence on human incommensurability supported claims about the “natural propensity” of the different races to different kinds of activity; thus, European anatomists claimed the typically larger body mass and phrenology of the “inferior black races” made them “naturally suited to slavery” (Fforde, 2004, 20). Produced in the modern era through scientific debates concerning the origin and nature of human diversity, the “racialised assemblages” that discipline humanity into “full humans, not-quite-humans and nonhumans” (Weheliye, 2014, 3 and above) not only influenced the course of imperial government in Africa and Asia and operations of slavery out of these locales, but also the development of British policy for the “just” treatment and “protection” of Indigenous peoples during the settler-colonization of Australia, Aotearoa-New Zealand, Canada, and the Americas. In the most extreme cases – for example, in Canadian British Columbia and across much of Australia – colonial invasion and settlement proceeded on the basis of the imperial “doctrine of discovery” and the associated fantasy that the newly “discovered” lands were Terra Nullius: empty lands without peoples and devoid of preexisting sovereign entitlements, making them freely available for appropriation (see Reynolds, 1996). In fact, the colonial explorers were well aware of the presence of the Indigenous inhabitants of these so-called empty lands. Maintaining the fiction of Terra Nullius therefore at times required the actual elimination of the First Peoples, which indeed is evidenced by the series of genocidal massacres that mark the settler-colonial project. Or, at the very least, colonialism demanded the dehumanization and degradation of Aboriginal people and cultures, the denial of Indigenous systems of law and governance, and the forced dispersal of Indigenous polities so as to assert their inferior, nonsovereign status and provide support for the colonial claim that Indigenous polities effectively counted for nothing and could be disregarded. The imposition of settler-colonial sovereignty could then be justified as a “humanitarian” obligation, which Rudyard Kipling referred to in 1898 as the “White Man’s Burden” to raise nonsovereign “primitive” societies to a higher state of civilization through Christian morality and Western science. This racist imperial agenda, and its attendant Eurocentric notions of progress and civilization, was typically manifest in settler-colonial societies through phased policies of segregation and assimilation. Often informed by Social Darwinism, settler-colonial nations including Australia and Canada initially viewed “backward” Indigenous populations as vulnerable and likely to “die out naturally” and be replaced by a “fitter species” of human. Accordingly, colonial policies of “protection” established mission reserves where Aboriginal communities could be charitably housed, clothed, and educated in “civilised” ways, so as to “smooth the dying pillow” (see Eshet, 2015; Chesterman & Galligan, 1997). Conveniently for settler-colonials, the dispersal and resettlement of Indigenous collectives in mission reserves at the same time vacated land that was traditionally Aboriginal-owned and occupied, which then became more freely available for colonial appropriation (see Reynolds, 1996). When this colonial phase of land acquisition had been largely accomplished, and it became apparent that Indigenous peoples would not simply “die out,” colonial policy changed focus from segregation to assimilation. Especially in light of a burgeoning “half-caste” population, the revised aim of government was to incorporate new generations of Indigenous individuals into white society where (it was claimed) they could eventually be rid of the perceived taint of their Aboriginality, become useful as a labor force, and become absorbed into the nascent colony. Formal policy regimes of child removal or “uplifting” existed across settler-colonial states including Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa-New Zealand. These persisted formally in some places until the 1990s and continue informally today, as is evidenced by the disproportionate numbers of Indigenous children taken into care. For instance, in 2007 there were 9054 Indigenous children identified as wards of the State in Australia. By 2016, this figure had increased to 16816 and continues to climb (see Behrendt, 2017). Under such policies, Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families, communities, and traditional lands, stripped of their Aboriginal identities, and placed in institutions as wards of the State or rehomed (often as domestic servants) in white households (Haebich, 2000; Eshet, 2015). Frequently indentured and unwaged, these “Stolen Generations” of Aboriginal and Maori children formed a compelled workforce supporting the development of the settler-colony, and many suffered terrible abuse at the hands of their so-called “protectors” (HREOC, 1997; Eshet, 2015). Typically, such children never found their way back to their birth families, and many are only now linking up with the cultures and communities they had lost. This, then, is one of the darkest aspects of the imperial humanist legacy that settler-colonial nations are still struggling to reckon with.

For Black artists, negotiating fair and equitable contracts with record labels and other industry players is crucial to achieving success and financial stability in the music industry. The music industry has a history of exploiting Black artists and perpetuating economic disparities through unfair contract terms and unequal bargaining power. As such, Black artists must clearly understand the key contract considerations they should be aware of when negotiating with industry players. This section will discuss some suggested contract considerations for Black artists, including definitions, transparency, plain English contract drafting, morals clauses, non-disclosure agreements, and inclusion riders. By understanding these considerations and advocating for their rights, Black artists can work toward building more equitable and sustainable careers in the music industry.

A. USE OF UNIFORM DEFINITIONS

visual artists pour their heart and soul into their creations, and it’s only fair that they’re afforded legal protections for their works. This is where the Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”) comes into play. If you’re an artist looking to safeguard your artistic legacy, this guide is for you. In this blog post, we’ll break down VARA, demystify its complexities, and show you how to use it to your advantage while optimizing for search engines along the way.

Understanding VARA: What Is It?

WASHINGTON — In a crucial win for the First Amendment right to protest, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ruled in favor of DeRay Mckesson, a prominent civil rights activist and Black Lives Matter movement organizer. The court held that a protest leader cannot be held legally responsible for injuries inflicted by another person’s violent act at the protest, when it is undisputed that the leader didn’t intend for that violence to occur. Though the Fifth Circuit had appeared to accept that theory in an earlier decision in this case, the district court held that, in light of more recent Supreme Court caselaw, negligence can never suffice to hold a person exercising their First Amendment freedoms at a protest liable; intent is required.

“The goal of this lawsuit was to prevent people from showing up at a protest out of the fear that they might be held responsible if anything happens, which makes this decision a win not only for me, but for all protest leaders and organizers across the country who are going to continue to show up and speak out. It’s heartening to know that the Constitution still protects our right to protest,” said Mckesson. “This has been a grueling eight-year process, and now that it is behind me, I can continue to channel all of my energy into the day-to-day work of envisioning a world beyond policing.”

Charles City County unveiled a historical marker dedicated to Black Political activism and the historic rights movement during an Oct. 15 ceremony.

The movement was spearhead by four individuals in Charles City County, NAACP leader Richard Bowman, James Bradby, Iona W. Adkins, and Edward T. Banks.

This spring, HBO’s television series Game of Thrones concluded after eight seasons. Throughout its tenure, the show was incredibly popular while also earning the dubious distinction of the most pirated television program. The severity of piracy is duly illustrated by the show’s season four finale, which, within 12 hours of its original broadcast in June 2014, was illegally downloaded 1.5 million times, amounting to 2 petabytes transferred in just half a day. While an upsurge in piracy around the time of the original broadcast may be natural, a steady level of interest for pirated copies of older episodes has continued unabated, well after the episodes became available at retailers online. Despite ongoing issues with illegal downloads — there were 1 billion of the show’s seventh season — HBO seems to have no real plans to counter the illegal streaming services and lets off perpetrators with only a slap on the wrist.

This inaction on HBO’s part may have some economic merit: Our research shows that a moderate level of piracy — not too much, not too little — can actually benefit the manufacturer, the retailer, and consumers, all at the same time.

My thesis has a strong form and a weak one. The strong form, again, is that moral theory does not provide a solid basis for moral judgments. The weak form is that even if moral theory can provide a solid basis for some moral judgments, it should not be used as a basis for legal judgments. Moral theory is not something that judges are, or can be, made comfortable with or good at, it is socially divisive, and it does not mesh with the actual issues in cases. I shall focus on the strong form of the thesis in Part I of the Lectures. The distinct arguments for the weak form will emerge in Part II, which is much shorter, not only because it builds on Part I, but also because, independently of the arguments in Part I, the case for the weak form is stronger. The argument in Part I is complex and to some extent counterintuitive. It requires careful groundwork, which is the task of this and the next two sections. "Morality," as I shall use the word, is the set of duties to others (not necessarily just other people) that are designed to check our merely self-interested, emotional, or sentimental reactions to serious questions of human conduct. It is about what we owe, rather than what we are owed, except insofar as a sense of entitlement (to happiness, selffulfillment, an interesting life, the opportunity to exercise our talents, or the opportunity to realize ourselves) might generate a duty on the part of others to help us get what we are entitled to. I do not question the existence or genuineness of morality - I do not argue that it is just a cynical cover for the operation of self-interest - although I do argue that it has less effect on behavior than many moralists believe. Nor do I disparage morality as a subject of inquiry or question the practicability or importance of normative reasoning. If "moral theory" is used in its broadest possible sense, as a synonym for normative reasoning, you will find no criticism of moral theory as such in these Lectures. As for the frequent use of the word "moral" as an impressive synonym for "political,"' my only criticism is that labeling political arguments "moral" invites confusion. My concern is with the type of moral theory that I call "academic moralism," the type found in the writings of present-day academic philosophers such as Elizabeth Anderson, Sissela Bok, Ronald Dworkin, David Gauthier, Alan Gewirth, Frances Kamm, Thomas Nagel, Martha Nussbaum, John Rawls, Joseph Raz, and Judith Jarvis Thomson. This is a diverse list, but there is at least a family resemblance among the persons listed; and the family is what I am calling academic moralism. Some of those listed are considered primarily legal philosophers (for example, Dworkin and Raz) or political philosophers (for example, Rawls) rather than moral philosophers. But they all want the law to follow the teachings of moral theory, though not always at a close distance. 2 I present a series of reasons for doubting that academic moralism will help people who are seeking answers to moral questions, though as I have not read, let alone studied, every important work in the domain of academic moralism, I may have overlooked works that might still my doubts. Because Dworkin stands squarely at the intersection of the two bodies of literature that I discuss, academic moral theory and moralistic legal theory, I pay particular attention to his views. I confess to a visceral dislike (no doubt reciprocated) of academic moralism. A lot of it strikes me as prissy, hermetic, censorious, naive, sanctimonious, self-congratulatory, too far Left or too far Right, and despite its frequent political extremism, rather insipid. But these vices in the bosom of the virtuous are perhaps not very serious. Moreover, they may reflect nothing deeper than the fact that, as in many other academic fields today, too many people, driven by the imperative "Publish or perish," are writing on moral theory. The best of the literature is free from these vices, and I want to focus on the best. I also want to be constructive. In Part II, I try to show that normative reasoning in law can be freed from dependence on the sort of moral theory that academic moralists propagate. Very briefly, my reasons for doubting the fruitfulness of academic moralism, even in settings remote from law, are as follows. First, morality is local. There are no interesting moral universals. There are tautological ones, such as "Murder is wrong," where "murder" means "wrongful killing," and there are a few rudimentary principles of social cooperation - such as "Don't lie all the time" or "Don't break promises without any reason" or "Don't kill your relatives or neighbors indiscriminately" - that may be common to all human societies.3 If one wants to call these rudimentary principles the universal moral law, fine; but as a practical matter, no moral code can be criticized by appealing to norms that are valid across cultures, norms to which the code of a particular culture is a better or a worse approximation. Those norms, the rudimentary principles of social cooperation that I have mentioned, are too abstract to serve as standards for moral judgment. Any meaningful moral realism is therefore out, and moral relativism (or rather a form of moral relativism, an important qualification to which I'll return shortly) is in. Relativism suggests an adaptationist conception of morality, in which morality is judged - nonmorally, in the way that a hammer might be judged well or poorly adapted to its function of hammering nails - by its contribution to the survival, or other goals, of a society. My analysis also suggests that no useful meaning can be given to the expression "moral progress" and that no such progress can be demonstrated. Second, many so-called moral phenomena can be explained without reference to moral categories. This point reinforces my thesis that the content of moral codes is local by showing that most moral principles that claim universality are better understood as mere workaday social norms in fancy dress. It also implies that the domain of moral theory is smaller than academic moralists believe. This is not to deny the existence of universal moral sentiments, such as guilt and indignation and certain forms of disgust 4 (as distinct from altruism, which is not primarily a moral sentiment). But these moral sentiments are objectneutral, and hence not really moral. "Moralistic" would be a better word for them. They are instruments rather than ends. Third, academic moralism cannot succeed in its aim of improving human behavior, for a number of reasons: i. Knowing the moral thing to do does not furnish a motivation for doing it; the motivation has to come from outside morality. 2. The analytical tools employed in academic moralism - whether moral casuistry, or reasoning from the canonical texts of moral philosophy, or reflective equilibrium - are too feeble to override either narrow self-interest or moral intuitions. As a result, academic moralism is helpless when moral intuitions clash or self-interest opposes them, and otiose when there is no such conflict. So "right answers" moral realism is hopeless, just like the metaphysical kind. And academic moralists have neither the rhetorical resources nor the detailed knowledge of social reality that might enable them to persuade without good methods of inquiry and analysis. 3. There is so much disagreement among academic moralists that the reader can easily find a persuasive rationalization for his preferred course of conduct, whatever it is. 4. The character of a modern academic career in philosophy is not conducive to moral innovation or insight. 5. Exposure to moral philosophy may actually lead people to behave less morally by making them more adept at rationalization. There is empirical evidence that moral reflection undermines the capacity for effective moral action. Fourth, it would be a disaster if moral theorists succeeded in their implied aim of imposing a uniform morality on society. Of course, these theorists, in our society anyway, do not agree on what that morality should be. But every moral theory takes for granted that a uniform morality is desirable, while what a society like ours needs is moral variety. In fact, we need some immoralists, or at least amoralists. It may be asked how, if academic moralism is ineffectual in changing people's behavior, moral change comes about. My answer emphasizes the role not only of material conditions, but also of moral entrepreneurs, and shows why the modern university professor is not well situated to play the role of moral entrepreneur. As for why there is moral debate if it is as inconclusive as I believe, the answer is that the fruitful moral debates take place outside the precincts of academic moralism. So why hasn't academic moralism withered and died? I suggest that it survives because of the religious needs of people who are attracted to a career in moral philosophy and the rhetorical needs of people who want courts to play an aggressive role in the formation of social policy.

If moral rights are Rights of Impression Management, some form of the right of integrity is essential to their function. One cannot manage the social self without regulating, to some extent, its use, modification, etc. At the same time, however, the empirical view of the social self is one that changes based on audience interpretation, something that the author cannot totally control.

How much control depends, as it does in all other moral rights, on the strength of the underlying justification of the Investment Theory. On the one hand, then, the right of integrity must persist in some form—in a form that enables the author to manage the presentation of her externalized self. On the other hand, this is unlikely to be anything as strong as it is in France, where the right allows the author to object to “any alteration or modification, no matter what its importance.”166 If a modification has no importance to the maintenance of the social self—but instead relates only to some idiosyncratic tendency of the author—then moral rights seem unlikely to protect it. This conclusion is reinforced by the view of the externalized self as empirical and negotiated rather than fixed and dictated. Based on the foregoing, conceiving of moral rights as Rights of Impression Management suggests the integrity right may be important, but it is unlikely to include rights to prevent violations as such. This means moral rights likely will not include the rights to prevent distortions as such, mutilation as such, modifications as such, impairments as such, and uses that violate any of the aforementioned rights (AR1a, AR2a, AR3a, AR4a, AR5a). The remaining two types of integrity rights protect the author’s honor and reputation (ARnb) and intellectual and personal interest (ARnc). Turning our attention to honor and reputation (ARnb): for the moment, let us set aside the differences between “distortion,” “mutilation,” “modification,” and “impairment,” and focus instead on only the idea of prejudice to honor or reputation. Would moral rights as Rights of Impression Management endorse this standard of harm? Does honor or reputation accurately capture the harm against which Rights of Impression Management attempt to protect?

Generally, the attribution right includes the right to prevent the affixation of a non-author’s name to a work (AR2). It is not clear, however, whether the right on my account also includes any of the other rights mentioned above (AR3-6).150

Orthodox moral rights scholars tend to think that the right of attribution does not entail the right to prevent the author’s name from being affixed to another’s work (AR5) or being identified as the author of such a work (AR6d), though some French courts have decided otherwise. 151 The rationale, like that for moral rights generally, is that central feature that deserves protection—the connection between the author and the work— does not exist. In other words, the right not to be known as the author of another’s work—either by the affixation of the author’s name or otherwise—cannot be based on the connection between the work and the wrongly-named-author because no connection exists. (The actual author, of course, still has a claim for a violation of her attribution right.) Similar reasoning applies to the rights of anonymity and pseudonymity (AR3-4 and AR6a-b, d): the author’s connection to the work gives them a right to insist on attribution and authorship, but not to insist on hiding that connection. These rights as applied to authorship (AR6) are not particularly clear. Adeney has remarked that, at least in France, the right to “respect for . . . [the author’s] authorship”152 refers to (1) the author’s right to have his titles, academic qualifications etc[.] mentioned in association with the work, and (2) the author’s right to be known as author rather than as some other participant in the work’s production, and as the sole author rather than co-author (if this is the case).153

examining moral rights in the united states,” U.S. Copyright Office, April, Available Online at https://www.copyright.gov/policy/moralrights/full-report.pdf, Accessed 07-13-2024) JM

Other Forms of Private Ordering

I believe that we will increasingly understand good and evil, right and wrong, in scientific terms, because moral concerns translate into facts about how our thoughts and behaviors affect the well-being of conscious creatures like ourselves. If there are facts to be known about the well-being of such creatures—and there are—then there must be right and wrong answers to moral questions. Students of philosophy will notice that this commits me to some form of moral realism (viz. moral claims can really be true or false) and some form of consequentialism (viz. the rightness of an act depends on how it impacts the well-being of conscious creatures). While moral realism and consequentialism have both come under pressure in philosophical circles, they have the virtue of corresponding to many of our intuitions about how the world works. Here is my (consequentialist) starting point: all questions of value (right and wrong, good and evil, etc.) depend upon the possibility of experiencing such value. Without potential consequences at the level of experience—happiness, suffering, joy, despair, etc. —all talk of value is empty. Therefore, to say that an act is morally necessary, or evil, or blameless, is to make (tacit) claims about its consequences in the lives of conscious creatures (whether actual or potential).I am unaware of any interesting exception to this rule. Needless to say, if one is worried about pleasing God or His angels, this assumes that such invisible entities are conscious (in some sense) and cognizant of human behavior. It also generally assumes that it is possible to suffer their wrath or enjoy their approval, either in this world or the world to come. Even within religion, therefore, consequences and conscious states remain the foundation of all values. 

This piece examines the contours of tomorrow’s security environment. It briefly examines current conflict data and then generates insights on how changes in today’s environment could alter trends in future conflicts. It concludes with a summative forecast on the frequency and character of interstate and intrastate conflict as well as a set of judgments for the national security and policy community. This assessment examines the period between 2016 and 2035. The basic research issue which frames this effort involves defining trend data in interstate and intrastate conflicts and exploring how the contexts that influence trends of the last two decades might evolve. Despite commentary from numerous authors, according to at least three published institutional reports, current conflict levels are increasing, not decreasing. Moreover, battle-related deaths and other human costs of conflict are sharply up, not declining. Trends from the last 20 years appear to be in transition, which suggests that the cycles of history are once again in motion. Present near-term trends of increased frequency and ferocity of conflict could be reversed (if history is a guide), but one must explain the logic that will take events in a positive direction. In light of this information, the intelligence and analytical communities must develop an awareness of the geopolitical context that could evolve from a plausible evaluation of drivers in the near future and the potentially grave consequences that may emerge. Contrary to assumptions about linearity in past patterns, trends are not immutable, and they do not proceed in only one direction. Neither perpetual global peace nor persistent conflicts are preordained. Trends are the consequence of a dialectic between several variables; the most important of which have been either overlooked or ignored. Given the wide disparity of conclusions from divergent schools of thought, how should one evaluate the possibilities of an unknowable future? Few predicted the emergence of the Islamic State five years ago, and only one strategist, Colin Gray, foresaw Russia’s aggression into Ukraine. The national security policy community is best served by historically grounded and realistic forecasts instead of illusions that war will go away. In that vein, the following study examines the present and strives to explore the future to 2035. To examine the future, this paper identifies the trends or drivers that might cause crises and create demands for our Nation’s Armed Forces. Most scholars normally expect multiple drivers to cause war and are leery of mono-causality. Therefore, this article examines a total of seven possible drivers to assess possible changes over the forecast period and how they could impact the frequency or casualty levels in either interstate (between states) or intrastate wars (civil, ethnic and societal conflicts): - Geopolitical Competition - U.S. Engagement and Capacity Levels - Alliance Cohesion and Capacity - Peacekeeping Support - Democratic Governance - Resource Competition - Technological Diffusion The assessment section of this research project reviews these seven factors. The analysis shows that there are several reasons to think that both interstate and intrastate wars are more likely to occur and with greater consequences than many scholars had recently projected. The number of conflicts is again on the rise as both states and violent actors contend for influence and seek to establish their position. Contrary to optimistic depictions of the present international system, there are powers seeking to alter or undermine the existing order. Furthermore, the alliance system and military power that supported both strategic and conventional deterrence is weakening; there is no consensus supported by the authoritarian leaders in Beijing or Moscow about international norms; and competitors are certainly vying for influence in Asia, the Persian Gulf, and along Europe’s frontiers. History does not move continuously in one direction, and forecasts must examine history to identify key drivers and the conditions which influence the onset of wars. When this project was initiated, the study team hypothesized about the potential for increases in conflict. As this project concluded, the hypothesis was no longer a question but an operative fact. As the data shows, more violence is already occurring. Based on the analysis, the following forecast judgments were developed for consideration by the U.S. security policy community: Policy makers should be leery of prognostications about war going away. U.S. security requirements are not and should not be analytically tied to short-term trends like the ongoing number of conflicts. Interstate conflict is assessed as increasing in probability after an era in which it was very rare. While the likelihood of interstate war is rising, states will also find means short of war to compete for advantage that still produce adverse security implications for the United States. Non-state actors will exploit a broader set of military capabilities and are likely to exploit means that will produce higher degrees of violence and lethality. While interstate conflict may be infrequent, the proliferation of precision weapons and low-cost, smart munitions is likely to pose higher risks and greater casualties to U.S. forces.

Our argument is that simply identifying inappropriate methods as the key source of the problem in forecasting conflict may give us the wrong diagnosis and lead us down less productive avenues. A more fundamental problem is models that provide a poor basis for forecasting by disregarding the motives for conflict to arise, or by only considering motives in a relatively superficial manner. Models that have been proposed for research on the democratic peace, notably the work of Russett & Oneal (2001), are primarily intended to examine whether certain characteristics of liberal institutions, such as democracy and trade, make conflict on average less likely relative to baseline risks of conflict. Although these approaches may be appropriate for testing the original propositions of interest, they essentially ignore the contentious issues that might cause states to resort to violence and instead treat these contentious issues as exogenous features, typically hidden inside a so-called ‘black box’ of the baseline risk of conflict. Our own initial foray into out-of-sample prediction for a state-level model indicates that spatial information about other conflict events can help to improve forecasts (see Ward & Gleditsch, 2002). Although this allows predictions of conflict to be conditional on other observed events rather than treating each conflict as an independent observation, the approach still ignores the issues over which such conflicts may have arisen initially.

What turn-of-the-millennium science is telling us is that human moral judgment is not a pristine rational enterprise, that our moral judgments are driven by a hodgepodge of emotional dispositions, which themselves were shaped by a hodgepodge of evolutionary forces, both biological and cultural. Because of this, it is exceedingly unlikely that there is any rationally coherent normative moral theory that can accommodate our moral intuitions. Moreover, anyone who claims to have such a theory, or even part of one, almost certainly doesn't. Instead, what that person probably has is a moral rationalization.¶ It seems then, that we have somehow crossed the infamous "is"-"ought" divide. How did this happen? Didn't Hume (Hume, 1978) and Moore (Moore, 1966) warn us against trying to derive an "ought" from and "is?" How did we go from descriptive scientific theories concerning moral psychology to skepticism about a whole class of normative moral theories? The answer is that we did not, as Hume and Moore anticipated, attempt to derive an "ought" from and "is." That is, our method has been inductive rather than deductive. We have inferred on the basis of the available evidence that the phenomenon of rationalist deontological philosophy is best explained as a rationalization of evolved emotional intuition (Harman, 1977).¶ Missing the Deontological Point I suspect that rationalist deontologists will remain unmoved by the arguments presented here. Instead, I suspect, they will insist that I have simply misunderstood whatKant and like-minded deontologists are all about. Deontology, they will say, isn't about this intuition or that intuition. It's not defined by its normative differences with consequentialism. Rather, deontology is about taking humanity seriously. Above all else, it's about respect for persons. It's about treating others as fellow rational creatures rather than as mere objects, about acting for reasons rational beings can share. And so on (Korsgaard, 1996a; Korsgaard, 1996b).This is, no doubt, how many deontologists see deontology. But this insider's view, as I've suggested, may be misleading. The problem, more specifically, is that it defines deontology in terms of values that are not distinctively deontological, though they may appear to be from the inside. Consider the following analogy with religion. When one asks a religious person to explain the essence of his religion, one often gets an answer like this: "It's about love, really. It's about looking out for other people, looking beyond oneself. It's about community, being part of something larger than oneself." This sort of answer accurately captures the phenomenology of many people's religion, but it's nevertheless inadequate for distinguishing religion from other things. This is because many, if not most, non-religious people aspire to love deeply, look out for other people, avoid self-absorption, have a sense of a community, and be connected to things larger than themselves. In other words, secular humanists and atheists can assent to most of what many religious people think religion is all about. From a secular humanist's point of view, in contrast, what's distinctive about religion is its commitment to the existence of supernatural entities as well as formal religious institutions and doctrines. And they're right. These things really do distinguish religious from non-religious practices, though they may appear to be secondary to many people operating from within a religious point of view. In the same way, I believe that most of the standard deontological/Kantian self-characterizatons fail to distinguish deontology from other approaches to ethics. (See also Kagan (Kagan, 1997, pp. 70-78.) on the difficulty of defining deontology.) It seems to me that consequentialists, as much as anyone else, have respect for persons, are against treating people as mere objects, wish to act for reasons that rational creatures can share, etc. A consequentialist respects other persons, and refrains from treating them as mere objects, by counting every person's well-being in the decision-making process. Likewise, a consequentialist attempts to act according to reasons that rational creatures can share by acting according to principles that give equal weight to everyone's interests, i.e. that are impartial. This is not to say that consequentialists and deontologists don't differ. They do. It's just that the real differences may not be what deontologists often take them to be. What, then, distinguishes deontology from other kinds of moral thought? A good strategy for answering this question is to start with concrete disagreements between deontologists and others (such as consequentialists) and then work backward in search of deeper principles. This is what I've attempted to do with the trolley and footbridge cases, and other instances in which deontologists and consequentialists disagree. If you ask a deontologically-minded person why it's wrong to push someone in front of speeding trolley in order to save five others, you will getcharacteristically deontological answers. Some will be tautological: "Because it's murder!"Others will be more sophisticated: "The ends don't justify the means." "You have to respect people's rights." But, as we know, these answers don't really explain anything, because if you give the same people (on different occasions) the trolley case or the loop case (See above), they'll make the opposite judgment, even though their initial explanation concerning the footbridge case applies equally well to one or both of these cases. Talk about rights, respect for persons, and reasons we can share are natural attempts to explain, in "cognitive" terms, what we feel when we find ourselves having emotionally driven intuitions that are odds with the cold calculus of consequentialism. Although these explanations are inevitably incomplete, there seems to be "something deeply right" about them because they give voice to powerful moral emotions. But, as with many religious people's accounts of what's essential to religion, they don't really explain what's distinctive about the philosophy in question.

Perry wishes more people were familiar with the concept of “expected value.” That is a statistical way of understanding events of very large magnitude that have a low probability. The large magnitude event could be something good, like winning a lottery ticket. Or it could be something bad, like a nuclear bomb exploding. Because the odds of winning the lottery are so low, the rational thing is to save your money and not buy the ticket. As for a nuclear explosion, by Perry’s lights, the consequences are so grave that the rational thing would be for people in the United States and everywhere to be in a state of peak alarm about their vulnerability, and for political debate to be dominated by discussion of how to reduce the risk. And just how high is the risk? The answer of course is ultimately unknowable. Perry’s point, though, is that it’s a hell of a lot higher than you think. Perry invites his listeners to consider all the various scenarios that might lead to a nuclear event. “Mathematically speaking, you add those all together in one year it is still just a possibility, not a probability,” he reckons. “But then you go out ten, twenty years and each time this possibility repeats itself, and then it starts to become a probability. How much time we have to get those possibility numbers lower, I don’t know. But sooner or later the odds are going to get us, I am afraid.” *** Almost uniquely among living Americans, Bill Perry has actually faced down the prospect of nuclear war before—twice. In the fall of 1962, Bill Perry was 35, father of five young children, living in the Bay Area and serving as director of Sylvania’s Electronic Defense Laboratories—driving his station wagon to recitals in between studying missile trajectories and the radius of nuclear detonations. Where he resided was not then called Silicon Valley, but the exuberance and spirit of creative possibility we now associate with the region was already evident. The giants then were Bill Hewlett and David Packard, men Perry deeply admired and wished to emulate in his own business career. The innovation engine at that time, however, was not consumer technology; it was the government’s appetite for advantage in a mortal struggle against a powerful Soviet foe. Perry was known as a star in the highly complex field of weapons surveillance and interpretation. So it was not a surprise, one bright October day, for Perry to get a call from Albert “Bud” Wheelon, a friend at the Central Intelligence Agency. Wheelon said he wanted Perry in Washington for a consultation. Perry said he’d juggle his schedule and be there the next week. “No,” Wheelon responded. “I need to see you right away.” Perry caught the red-eye from San Francisco, and went straight to the CIA, where he was handed photographs whose meaning was instantly clear to him. They were of Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba. For the next couple weeks, Perry would stay up past midnight each evening poring over the latest reconnaissance photos and help write the analysis that senior officials would present the next morning to President Kennedy. Perry experienced the crisis partly as ordinary citizen, hearing Kennedy on television draw an unambiguous line against Soviet missiles in this hemisphere and promising that any attack would be met with “a full retaliatory response.” But he possessed context, about the capabilities of weapons and the daily state of play in the crisis, that gave him a vantage point superior to that of all but perhaps a few dozen people. “I was part of a small team—six or eight people,” he recounted of those days 54 years earlier. “Half of them technical experts, half of them intelligence analysts, or photo interpreters. It was a minor role but I was seeing all the information coming in. I thought every day when I went back to the hotel it was the last day of my life because I knew exactly what nuclear weapons could do. I knew it was not just a lot of people getting killed. It was the end of civilization and I thought it was about to happen.” It was years later that Perry, like other more senior participants in the crisis, learned how right that appraisal was. Nuclear bombs weren’t only heading toward Cuba on Soviet ships, as Kennedy believed and announced to Americans at the time. Some of them were already there, and local commanders had been given authority to use them if Americans launched a preemptive raid on Cuba, as Kennedy was being urged, goaded even, by Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay and other military commanders. At the same time, Soviet submarines were armed and one commander had been on the verge of launching them until other officers on the vessel talked him out of it. Either event would have in turn sent U.S. missiles flying. The Cuban Missile Crisis recounting is one of the dramatic peaks in “My Journey on the Nuclear Brink,” the memoir Perry published last fall. It is a book laced with other close calls—like November 9, 1979, when Perry was awakened in the middle of the night by a watch officer at the North American Aerospace and Defense Command (NORAD) reporting that his computers showed 200 Soviet missiles in flight toward the United States. For a frozen moment, Perry thought: This is it—This is how it ends. The watch officer soon set him at ease. It was a computer error, and he was calling to see whether Perry, the technology expert, had any explanation. It took a couple days to discover the low-tech answer: Someone had carelessly left a crisis-simulation training tape in the computer. All was well. But what if this blunder had happened in the middle of a real crisis, with leaders in Washington and Moscow already on high alert? The inescapable conclusion was the same as it was in 1962: The world skirting nuclear Armageddon as much by good luck as by skilled crisis management. Perry is part of a distinct cohort in American history, one that didn’t come home with the large-living ethos of the World War II generation, but took responsibility for cleaning up the world that the war bequeathed. He was a 14-year-old in Butler, Pennsylvania when he heard the news of the Pearl Harbor attack in a friend’s living room, and had the disappointed realization that the war might be over by the time he was old enough to fight in it. That turned out to be true—he was just shy of 18 at war’s end—a fact that places Perry in what demographers have called the “Silent Generation,” too young for one war but already middle-aged by the time college campuses erupted over Vietnam. Like many in his generation, Perry was not so much silent as deeply dutiful, with an understated style that served as a genial, dry-witted exterior to a life in which success was defined by how faithfully one met his responsibilities. Perry said he became aware, first gradually and over time profoundly, of the surreal contradictions of his professional life. His work—first at Sylvania and then at ESL, a highly successful defense contracting firm he co-founded in 1963—was relentlessly logical, analyzing Soviet threats and intentions and coming up with rational responses to deter them. But each rational move was part of a supremely irrational dynamic—“mutually assured destruction”—that placed the threat of massive casualties at the heart of America’s basic strategic thinking. It was the kind of framework in which policymakers could accept that a mere 25 million people dead was good news. Also the kind that in one year alone led the United States to produce 8,000 nuclear bombs. By the end, the Cold War left the planet with about 70,000 bombs (a total that is now down to about 15,500). “I think probably everybody who was involved in nuclear weapons in those days would see the two sides of it,” Perry recalls, “the logic of deterrence and the madness of deterrence, and there was no mistake, I think, that the acronym was MAD.” *** Perry has been at the forefront of a movement that he considers the sane and only alternative, and he has joined forces with other leading Cold Warriors who in another era would likely have derided their vision as naïve. In January 2007, he was a co-author of a remarkable commentary that ran on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. It was signed also by two former secretaries of state, George Schulz and Henry Kissinger and by Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee—all leading military hawks and foreign policy realists who came together to argue for something radical: that the goal of U.S. policy should be not merely the reduction and control of atomic arms, it should be the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons. This sounded like gauzy utopianism, especially bizarre coming from supremely pragmatic men. But Perry and the others always made clear they were describing a long-term ideal, one that would only be achieved through a series of more incremental steps. The vision was stirring enough that it was endorsed by President Obama in his opening weeks in office, in a March 2009 address in Prague. In retrospect, Obama’s speech may have been the high point for the vision of abolition. “A huge amount of progress was made,” recalled Shultz, now 93. “Now it is going in the other direction.” “We have less danger of an all-out war with Russia,” in Nunn’s view. “But we have more danger of some type of accident, miscalculation, cyber interference, a terrorist group getting a nuclear weapon. It requires a lot more attention than world leaders are giving it.” Perry’s goal now is much more defensive than it was just a few years ago—halting what has become inexorable momentum toward reviving Cold War assumptions about the central role of nukes in national security. More recently he’s added yet another recruit to his cause: California Governor Jerry Brown. Brown, now 78, met Perry a year ago, after deciding that he wanted to devote his remaining time in public service mainly to what he sees as civilization’s two existential issues, climate change and nuclear weapons. Brown said he became fixated on spreading Perry’s message after reading his memoir: He recently gave a copy to President Obama and is trying to bend the ear of others with influence in Washington. If Bill Perry has a gift for understatement, Brown has a gift for the theatrical. In an interview at the governor’s mansion in Sacramento, he wonders why everyone is not paying attention to his new friend and his warnings for mankind. “He is at the brink! At the brink! Not WAS at the brink—IS at the brink,” Brown exclaimed. “But no one else is.” A California governor can have more influence, at least indirectly, than one might think, due to the state’s outsized role in policy debates and the fact that the University of California’s Board of Regents helps manage some of the nation’s top weapons laboratories, which study and design nuclear weapons. Brown, who was a vocal critic in the 1980s of what he called America's "nuclear addiction," reviewed Perry's recent memoir in the New York Review of Books, and said he is determined to help his new friend spread his message. “Everybody is, 'we are not at the brink,' and we have this guy Perry who says we are. It is the thesis that is being ignored." Even if more influential people wake up to Perry’s message—a nuclear event is more likely and will be more terrible than you realize—a hard questions remains: Now what? This is where Perry’s pragmatism comes back into play. The smartest move, he thinks, is to eliminate the riskiest part of the system. If we can’t eliminate all nukes, Perry argues, we could at least eliminate one leg of the so-called nuclear triad, intercontinental ballistic missiles. These are especially prone to an accidental nuclear war, if they are launched by accident or due to miscalculation by a leader operating with only minutes to spare. Nuclear weapons carried by submarines beneath the sea or aboard bomber planes, he argues, are logically more than enough to deter Russia. The problem, he knows, is that logic is not necessarily the prevailing force in political debates. Psychology is, and this seems to be dictating not merely that we deter a Russian military force that is modernizing its weapons but that we have a force that is self-evidently superior to them. It is an argument that strikes Perry as drearily familiar to the old days. Which leads him the conclusion that the only long-term way out is to persuade a younger generation to make a different choice. His granddaughter, Lisa Perry, is precisely in the cohort he needs to reach. At first she had some uncomfortable news for her grandfather: Not many in her generation thought much about the issue. “The more I learned from him about nuclear weapons the more concerned I was that my generation had this massive and dangerous blind spot in our understanding of the world,” she said in an interview. “Nuclear weapons are the biggest public health issue I can think of.” But she has not lost hope that their efforts can make a difference, and today she has put her graduate studies in public health on hold to work full time for the Perry Project as its social media and web manager. “It can be easy to get discouraged about being able to do anything to change our course,” she said. “But the good news is that nuclear weapons are actually something that we as humans can control...but first we need to start the conversation.” It was with her help that Perry went on Reddit to field questions ranging from how his PhD in mathematics prepared him to what young people need to understand. “As a 90s baby I never lived in the Cold War era,” wrote one participant, with the Reddit username BobinForApples. “What is one thing today's generations will never understand about life during the Cold War?” Perry’s answered, as SecDef19: “Because you were born in the 1990s, you did not experience the daily terror of ‘duck and cover’ drills as my children did. Therefore the appropriate fear of nuclear weapons is not part of your heritage, but the danger is just as real now as it was then. It will be up to your generation to develop the policies to deal with the deadly nuclear legacy that is still very much with us.” For the former defense secretary, the task now is to finally—belatedly—prove Einstein wrong. The physicist said in 1946: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” In Perry’s view the only way to avoid it is by directly contemplating catastrophe—and doing so face to face with the world’s largest nuclear power, Russia, as he recently did in a forum in Luxembourg with several like-minded Russians he says are brave enough to speak out about nuclear dangers in the era of Putin. “We could solve it,” he said. “When you’re a prophet of doom, what keeps you going is not just prophesizing doom but saying there are things we do to avoid that doom. That’s where the optimism is.”

There is, in this, a danger. When one conceptualizes white supremacy at the level of ontology, there is little room for one’s imagination to soar and one’s sense of agency is inescapably constrained. The meaning of action is tied fundamentally to what we imagine is possible for us. “The missing thing,” Coates writes, “was related to the plunder of our bodies, the fact that any claim to ourselves, to the hands that secured us, the spine that braced us, and the head that directed us, was contestable.” The body is one of the unifying themes of the book. It resonates well with our American ears because the hallmark of freedom is sovereign control over our bodies. This was the site on which slavery did its most destructive work: controlling the body to enslave the soul. We see the reconstitution of this logic in our present moment—the policing and imprisoning of black men and women. The reality of this colonizes not only the past and the present, but also the future. There can be no affirmative politics when race functions primarily as a wounded attachment—when our bodies are the visible reminders that we live at the arbitrary whim of another. But what of those young men and women in the streets of Ferguson, Chicago, New York, and Charleston—how ought we to read their efforts? We come to understand Coates’s answer to this question in one of the pivotal and tragic moments of the book—the murder of a college friend, Prince Jones, at the hands of the police. As Coates says: “This entire episode took me from fear to a rage that burned in me then, animates me now, and will likely leave me on fire for the rest of my days.” With his soul on fire, all his senses are directed to the pain white supremacy produces, the wounds it creates. This murder should not be read as a function of the actions of a police officer or even the logic of policing blacks in the United States. His account of this strikes a darker chord. What he tells us about the meaning of the death of Prince Jones, what we ought to understand, reveals the operating logic of the “universe”: She [referring to his mother] knew that the galaxy itself could kill me, that all of me could be shattered and all of her legacy spilled upon the curb like bum wine. And no one would be brought to account for this destruction, because my death would not be the fault of any human but the fault of some unfortunate but immutable fact of ‘race,’ imposed upon an innocent country by the inscrutable judgment of invisible gods. The earthquake cannot be subpoenaed. The typhoon will not bend under indictment. They sent the killer of Prince Jones back to his work, because he was not a killer at all. He was a force of nature, the helpless agent of our world’s physical laws. But if we are all just helpless agents of physical laws, the question might emerge again: What does one do? Coates recommends interrogation and struggle. His love for books and his journey to Howard University, “Mecca,” as he calls it, serve as sites where he can question the world around him. But interrogation and struggle to what end? His answer is contained in his incessant preoccupation with natural disasters. We might say, at one time we thought the Gods were angry with us or that they were moving furniture around, thus causing earthquakes. Now we know earthquakes are the result of tectonic shifts. Okay, what do we do with that knowledge? Coates seems to say: Construct an early warning system—don’t misspend your energy trying to stop the earthquake itself. There is a lesson in this: “Perhaps one person can make a change, but not the kind of change that would raise your body to equality with your countrymen…And still you are called to struggle, not because it assures you victory, but because it assures you an honorable and sane life.” One’s response can be honorable because it emerges from a clear-sightedness that leaves one standing upright in the face of the truth of the matter—namely, that your white counterparts will never join you in raising your body to equality. “It is truly horrible,” Coates writes in one of the most disturbing sentences of the book, “to understand yourself as the essential below of your country.” Coates’s sentences are often pitched as frank speech; it is what it is. This produces a kind of sanity, he suggests, releasing one from a preoccupation with the world being other than what it is. Herein lies the danger: Forget telling his son it will be okay. Coates cannot even muster a tentative response to his son; he cannot tell him that it may be okay. “The struggle is really all I have for you,” he tells his son, “because it is the only portion of this world under your control.” What a strange form of control. Black folks may control their place in the battle, but never with the possibility that they, and in turn the country to which they belong, may win. Releasing the book at this moment—given all that is going on with black lives under public assault and black youth in particular attempting to imagine the world anew—seems the oddest thing to do. For all of the channeling of James Baldwin, Coates seems to have forgotten that black folks “can’t afford despair.” As Baldwin went on to say: “I can’t tell my nephew, my niece; you can’t tell the children there is no hope.” The reason why you can’t say this is not because you are living in a dream or selling a fantasy, but because there can be no certain knowledge of the future. Humility, borne out of our lack of knowledge of the future, justifies hope. Much has been made of the comparison between Baldwin and Coates, owing largely to how the book is structured and because of Toni Morrison’s endorsement. But what this connection means seems to escape many commentators. In his 1955 non-fiction book titled Notes of a Native Son, Baldwin reflects on the wounds white supremacy left on his father: “I had discovered the weight of white people in the world. I saw that this had been for my ancestors and now would be for me an awful thing to live with and that the bitterness which had helped to kill my father could also kill me.” Similar to Coates, Baldwin was wounded and so was Baldwin’s father. Yet Baldwin knew all too well that the wounded attachment if held on to would destroy not the plunderers of black life, but the ones who were plundered. “Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated and this was an immutable law.” Baldwin’s father, as he understood him, was destroyed by hatred. Coates is less like Baldwin in this respect and, perhaps, more like Baldwin’s father. “I am wounded,” says Coates. “I am marked by old codes, which shielded me in one world and then chained me in the next.” The chains reach out to imprison not only his son, but you and I as well. There is a profound sense of disappointment here. Disappointment because given the power of the book, Coates seems unable to linger in the conditions that have given life to the Ta-Neisha Coates that now occupies the public stage. Coates’s own engagement with the world—his very agency—has received social support. Throughout the book he often comments on the rich diversity of black beauty and on the power of love. His father, William Paul Coates, is the founder of Black Classic Press—a press with the explicit focus of revealing the richness of black life. His mother, Cheryl Waters, helped to financially support the family and provided young Coates with direction. And yet he seems to stand at a distance from the condition of possibility suggested by just those examples. One ought not to read these moments above as expressive of the very “Dream” he means to reject. Rather, the point is that black life is at once informed by, but not reducible to, the pain exacted on our bodies by this country. This eludes Coates. The wound is so intense he cannot direct his senses beyond the pain.

To say that we have something (only insofar as we relinquish it) is to say that we come from somewhere (only insofar as we leave that place behind). Genesis is dispersion; somewhere is everywhere and nowhere as the radical dislocation we enact, where we stay and keep on going, before the beginning, before every beginning, and all belonging, in undercommon variance, in arrivance and propulsion, in the flexed load of an evangelical bridge, passed on this surrepetitious vamp, here. If you need some, come on, get some. We come from nothing, which is something misunderstood. It’s not that blackness is not statelessness; it’s just that statelessness is an open set of social lives whose animaterialized exhaustion remains as irreducible chance. Statelessness is our terribly beautiful open secret, the unnatural habitat, and habitus of analytic engines with synthetic capacities. Preservation is conditional branching, undone computation (tuned, forked, tongued), improvisation and, what it forges, digital speculation beyond the analogical or representational or calculative reserve. Critique – for example, the deciphering of the fundamental discursive structures that (de)form Western civilization – is part of its repertoire but it must always be kept in mind that cryptanalytic assertion has a cryptographic condition of possibility. Robinson’s movement within and elucidation of the open secret has been a kind of open secret all its own. For a long time, before its republication in 2000, Black Marxism circulated underground, as a recurrent seismic event on the edge or over the edge of the university, for those of us who valorized being on or over that edge even if we had been relegated to it. There, at least, we could get together and talk about the bomb that had gone off in our heads. Otherwise we carried around its out, dispersive potenza as contraband, buried under the goods that legitimate parties to exchange can value, until we could get it to the black market, where (the) license has no weight, and hand it around out of a suitcase or over a kitchen table or from behind a makeshift counter. Like Pryor (1994) said: ‘I got some shit, too . . . you respect my shit and I’ll respect yours’. Maybe there is some shit in the back of our cars that we don’t even know about. Certainly, this smuggled cargo would be cause for optimism, even against the grain of our constant, clear-eyed vigilance, even against the general interdiction – the intellectual state of emergency – enforced when we emphysemically authorize ourselves to speak of the spirit of the age. That spirit marks the scene in which the etiolation of black studies in the name of critique is carried out by way of our serial flirtation with forgetting our own animation, the collective being that is more precisely understood as being-in-collection insofar as the latter term denotes a debt that is not only incalculable but also subprime. Therefore, by way of the brilliant black light in Frank B. Wilderson’s Afro-pessimistic sound – which materializes, in an investigation of black being, the most rigorous instance of this fatal but necessary proximity to oblivion – I’d like to consider what it is (again and again) to lose a home. This is Wilderson (2007): Slavery is the great leveler of the black subject’s positionality. The black American subject does not generate historical categories of entitlement, sovereignty, and immigration for the record. We are ‘off the map’ with respect to the cartography that charts civil society’s semiotics; we have a past but not a heritage. To the data-generating demands of the Historical Axis, we present a virtual blank, much like that which the Khosian presented to the Anthropological Axis. This places us in a structurally impossible position, one that is outside the articulations of hegemony. However, it also places hegemony in a structurally impossible position because – and this is key – our presence works back on the grammar of hegemony and threatens it with incoherence. If every subject – even the most massacred among them, Indians – is required to have analogs within the nation’s structuring narrative, and the experience of one subject on whom the nation’s order of wealth was built is without analog, then that subject’s presence destabilizes all other analogs (p. 31). Fanon writes, ‘Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder’. If we take him at his word, then we must accept that no other body functions in the Imaginary, the Symbolic, or the Real so completely as a repository of complete disorder as the black body. Blackness is the site of absolute dereliction at the level of the Real, for in its magenitizing of bullets the black body functions as the map of gratuitous violence through which civil society is possible – namely, those bodies for which violence is, or can be, contingent. Blackness is the site of absolute dereliction at the level of the Symbolic, for blackness in America generates no categories for the chromosome of history and no data for the categories of immigration or sovereignty. It is an experience without analog – a past without a heritage. Blackness is the site of absolute dereliction at the level of the Imaginary, for ‘whoever says “rape” says Black’ (Fanon), whoever says ‘prison’ says black (Sexton), and whoever says ‘AIDS’ says black – the negro is a ‘phobogenic object’ (Wilderson, 2007, pp. 31–32). In the United States, whoever says ‘subprime debtor’ says black as well, a fact that leads, without too much turning, to the question of what a program of complete disorder would be. In any case, it is difficult to see how, in the impossibility that marks its ‘positionality’, the negation that is always already negated would carry out such a program. In conversation with the equally brilliant Saidiya Hartman, Wilderson takes care to point out that ‘obviously I’m not saying that in this space of negation, which is blackness, there is no life. We have tremendous life. But this life is not analogous to those touchstones of cohesion that hold civil society together’ (Hartman and Wilderson 2003, p. 187). What remains is some exploration of the nature of this antianalog, which is more accurately characterized as an ante-analog, an anticipatory project of celebration that pessimism must always disavow. Of course, celebration of what exceeds any analogy with the antisocial hostilities that comprise civil society is, by definition, antithetical to any agenda seeking integration in a civil society that, in any case, will have never survived such integration. On the other hand, precisely in the ongoing, undercommon instantiation of an already given, already integrated totality, celebration is an antiontological claim, an anteontological affiliation, a social and historical paraontology theorized in performance; it gives criticism breath while also being that to which criticism aspires. If ‘the tremendous life’ we have is nothing other than intermittent respite in what Hartman accurately calls the ravages and brutality of the last centuries, then feeling good about ourselves might very well be obscene. But what if there is something other than the phantasmatic object-home of inclusionist desire – which is rightly seen by Hartman simply to be the extension of those ravages and that brutality – to which we can appeal, to which we have always been appealing, in flight or, deeper still, in movement? Again, the question concerns the open secret, the kinetic refuge, of the ones who consent not to be a single being. The corollary question is how to see it and how to enjoy it. This is a question concerning resistance, which is not only prior to power but also, like power, is everywhere – as the mutual constitution of a double ubiquity that places the question of hegemony somewhere beside the point. The dark, mobile materiality of this ruptural, execonomic generality is a violence in the archive that only shows up by way of violence to the archive. Because I don’t want to kill anybody, because I want us to enjoy ourselves past the point of excess, I am violent in the archive. Because I am a thing seeing things, I am violence in the archive.

The first thing to bear in mind you may wonder why in the beginning of the talk I talked about philosophical anthropology. And many people when they are trying to talk about social change they never think about what a human being is and this is something Fanon pays attention to. Many people want to have closed conceptions of human beings because then human beings can be predicable. In fact, in fanons writing he gave an example. One of the problems is that when he would walk in reason seems to walk out. One problem we have to bear in mind when we try to look at the question of human beings in terms of rigid closed systems is that we often are trying to get as a model of how we work as theorists on issues of social change that are actually based on what we can call law like generalizations. Now what is a law like generalization? It is when you make sure that whatever you say has no contradiction down the line. So if you are to say this much [gestures with hand] the next stage must be consistent with that, and the next stage until you are maximally consistent. Do you get that? But here is the problem – and I can just put it in a nut shell- nobody, nobody in this room would like to date, be married to, or be a best friend with a maximally consistent person. You know what that is. Its hell. And this tells you something, because if somebody where maximally consistent, you know what you would say that person is not reasonable. And we have a person here who does work on Hegel that can point out this insight, that a human being has the ability to evaluate rationality. Now why is that important? Because you see the mistake many of us make is many of us want to push the human being into that maximized law like generalization model. So when we think about our philosophical anthropology, some people, our question about intersectionality for instance, what some people don’t understand is nowhere is there ever a human being who is one identity. People talk about race – do you ever really see a race walking? You see a racialized man or woman, or transman or transwoman. Do you ever see a class walking? Class is embodied in flesh and blood people. And we can go on and on. So if we enrich our philosophical anthropology we begin to notice certain other things. And one of the other things we begin to realize is that we commit a serious problem when we do political work. And the problem is this. The question about Wilderson for instance. There is this discussion going on (and allot of people build it out of my earlier books). I have a category I call, as a metaphor, an antiblack world. You notice an indefinite article – an anti-black world. The reason I say that is because the world is different from an anti-black world. The project of racism is to create a world that would be completely anti-black or anti-woman. Although that is a project, it is not a fait accompli. People don’t seem to understand how recent this phenomenon we are talking about is. A lot of people talk about race they don’t even know the history of how race is connected into theonaturalism. How, for instance, Andalucia and the pushing out of the Moors. The history of how race connected to Christianity was formed. A lot of people don’t understand – from the standpoint of a species whose history is 220,000 years old, what the hell is 500 years? But the one thing that we don’t understand to is we create a false model for how we study those last 500 years. We study the 500 years as if the people who have been dominated have not been fighting and resisting. Had they not been fighting and resisting we wouldn’t be here. And then we come into this next point because you see the problem in the formulation of pessimism and optimism is they are both based on forecasted knowledge, a prior knowledge. But human beings don’t have prior knowledge. And in fact – what in the world are we if we need to have guarantees for us to act. You know what you call such people? Cowards. The fact of the matter is our ancestors – let’s start with enslaved ancestors. The enslaved ancestors who were burning down those plantations, who were finding clever ways to poison their masters, who were organizing meetings for rebellions, none of them had any clue what the future would be 100 years later. Some had good reason to believe that it may take 1000 years. But you know why they fought? Because they knew it wasn’t for them. One of the problems we have in the way we think about political issues is we commit what Fanon and others in the existential tradition would call a form of political immaturity. Political immaturity is saying it is not worth it unless I, me, individually get the payoff. When you are thinking what it is to relate to other generations – remember Fanon said the problem with people in the transition, the pseudo postcolonial bourgeois – is that they miss the point, you fight for liberation for other generations. And that is why Fanon said other generations they must have their mission. But you see some people fought and said no I want my piece of the pie. And that means the biggest enemy becomes the other generations. And that is why the postcolonial pseudo-bourgeoisie they are not a bourgeoisie proper because they do not link to the infrastructural development of the future, it is about themselves. And that’s why, for instance, as they live higher up the hog, as they get their mediating, service oriented, racial mediated wealth, the rest of the populations are in misery. The very fact that in many African countries there are people whose futures have been mortgaged, the fact that in this country the very example of mortgaging the future of all of you is there. What happens to people when they have no future? It now collapses the concept of maturation and places people into perpetual childhood. So one of the political things – and this is where a psychiatrist philosopher is crucial – is to ask ourselves what does it mean to take on adult responsibility. And that means to understand that in all political action it’s not about you. It is what you are doing for a world you may not even be able to understand. Now that becomes tricky, because how do we know this? People have done it before. There were people, for instance, who fought anti-colonial struggles, there are people (and now I am not talking about like thirty or forty years ago, I am talking about the people from day one 17th 18th century all the way through) and we have no idea what we are doing for the 22nd century. And this is where developing political insight comes in. Because we commit the error of forgetting the systems we are talking about are human systems. They are not systems in the way we talk about the laws of physics. A human system can only exist by human actions maintaining them. Which means every human system is incomplete. Every human being is by definition incomplete. Which means you can go this way or you can go another way. The system isn’t actually closed. How do we know it? The reason we are seeing all of this brutality in the world today is because the systems are breaking down. If the systems were working they wouldn’t have to worry. You know how have an effective system? You make people mentally be their own prisoners. IF the system were really working, you wouldn’t have to have the police because you all would do it for them. It’s the very fact that the system is breaking down that we are seeing heightened brutality. The problem with heightened brutality is that it is not sustainable. There are studies, for instance, if you look at a paper called Mr. Y, done by the military advisors in this country. They argue that using military force to maintain the United States is not sustainable. They argue what is sustainable is for a nation to learn to be good citizens in the world. Which means it has to build up its infrastructure, education, human relations, it has to deal with the ecology, the environment, all of those things. And this is what many people are learning all over the world. And so one of the things we have to bear in mind then is this: when we begin to engage in these struggles we have to understand how we have to think differently. If we look at neoconservativism, they want to take us back to the 17th century, Hobbseianism, its all about order, control. That is what you are seeing in the streets right now, here in this country, and Latin America, and some parts of Europe. And then you have neoliberalism. Neoliberalism wants to have free markets and at the same time it wants to create a unique form of vulnerability which it places through 19th century thought which is that you are supposed to look at yourself as an individual. Neoliberals say that they don’t believe in group rights, only individual rights. Now you know what an individual is when you are dealing with a government or society. An individual is simply a vulnerable being. So in effect, that conception of rights is to ensure you have a population that’s completely vulnerable to the domination of the system. Now the problem is, many people when they respond to neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism, attack it through being anti-globalism. Because we’ve got neo-conservative globalism and neo-liberal globalism. So what they do is abrogate, they give up the concrete levels in which people can build alternative ways of imagining a global future. Now, here’s the thing. On neo-liberalism, the idea is to make you forget the 20th century. Why? The 20th century was the age of revolution. They want you to think 19th, 18th, and 17th century. And then they tell you every revolutionary effort in the 20th century failed and this is where Fanon is interesting. Because you see, he brings an insight that you need to understand the concept of failure differently. And I’ll give an example. A lot of things that I’ve worked with, in groups that I’ve worked with, communities where we work together, every time we have a project, we always had people and somebody who says “don’t do that.” And you’ll say “why?” And they’ll say “we tried.” You see where I’m getting at? If I couldn’t do it, nobody could do it. But what they don’t understand is that their failure already started setting the conditions for a new kind of relation. When I was president of the Caribbean Philosophical Association I went and lectured in nearly every country in which there were slaves, to deal, in 2008, with the end of the British Atlantic slave trade. If you hear the popular histories, you’ll hear that “slave revolts failed.” The crappy history you have is that one day a group of people in England, in France, in Denmark said “you know, slavery is a really bad thing, let us get rid of it.” Now that is not the actual history, everywhere I went and looked at the archives and local history, every single instance, there was a slave revolt. Every single one --- the Sharpe Rebellion in Jamaica is what led to the question of getting rid of the Atlantic Slave Trade. If you look at Denmark, if you look among the Dutch, the Dutch, had a much larger slave trade, the British were pirates, they took it over. And when you go look at history, and I’ll give you an example, a lot of y’all don’t know that Denmark had a big, had a whole colonial structure. And if you go to Copenhagen, you’ll see a statute of a man, I forget his name, a governor, and it says “freed the slaves.” Okay? Now, you go to St. Martin you’ll get the real story, here is the story. It always boggles my mind how slavery functions, they had the fort, and they had enslaved people bring the supplies and everything into the fort. It also boggles my mind that slave masters had slaves cook for them, but anyways, the people would come in and deliver supplies and one morning the governor woke up and outside the entire fort, it was surrounded by black enslaved people wearing white. You better watch out when you see some Africans wearing white. They have machetes, pitchforks and they just looked at the fort. The governor looked out and said “disband,” and they just stood there. And then he said, he ordered to aim the guns to them, “disband or we’ll shoot.” And the people stood, and then he ordered “fire.” And none of the guns worked, because every day they came in they replaced gunpowder with sand. And then you know what he said? “Well now you’re all free.” The thing about Danes is that they were all Lutherans, their law was the governor’s law, and if he says you’re free, you’re free. And now, those islands were not of use to the Danes and there was a period of equality, rights, and they sold the islets to the United States that implemented segregation and all kinds of other things, but the point is different. The point is you have one history where it says he freed the slaves, and then the actual history where the slaves freed themselves. Nowhere in history, this is the Fanonian point, nowhere in history, any kind of domination, not just enslaved communities, we’re talking about structural violence of many kinds, and people talk about, for instance: Who created the women’s movement? The answer is women, and men, but mostly women, who cared about their liberation. We are able to look at the world different because women fought. It’s not that they sat down and said “treat me better.” They got up and went out in the streets. Every instance of anyone doing political activism really works. The error people make is that they think just because in the past, there were, so called “overcome” rebellions, they don’t realize that rebellions change the conditions. And thus there is no such thing, this is why I brought in the Fanon example, he didn’t fight with the presumption he would win, he fought because he had to. And why did he have to? It wasn’t in the sense of self-defense, he had to precisely because he knew it was the right thing to do. Real political work is about doing what is necessary when an understanding because it should be done and it’s not about you. If we come to the concrete levels, you need to argue, look closely at what you’re doing, if it’s going to be action beyond you, you know what you call that? If it’s only about you, it’s not only narcissism and selfishness, and even hate, but if it’s about those that transcend you, if you are not the reason, but because it’s right and for subsequent generations, what do you call if when you really do something for others? The word, and it connects to the revolutionary force that you see in the entirety of the black radical tradition, is a word that may sound corny, but it’s true, the word is love. There’s a difference in political work connected to love because its purpose is to make grow, and to make happen that which is absent. Love and power, in that sense, works.