Search

Imagine if computer hackers, the daredevils of the networked world, suddenly became principled political activists; if they had a mission besides breaking and entering; if they had more to prove than that they are smarter than whoever designed your computer system, if their targets were selected as part of well organized, thoroughly researched, international human rights campaigns. (Naomi Klein, 1998)Whether we know these people personally or not, Anonymous has proven we don't give a fuck about borders. We don't care for your petty racial prejudices, your sexism, your religious ideology, any of it. We are all one. ONE. Singular. Divided by no mother fucker. One solid force standing as a beacon of light, a pillar of hope, in this bleak dark world. These people are our brothers. Our sisters. Our friends. One love. We stand, because the rest can't walk yet. We speak, because they have not found their voices. Our voice resonates around the globe. One voice screaming PEACE! COMPASSION! JUSTICE! And if you fuck with us, with ANY of us, for all downtrodden people are our brethren: Expect us! Expect us like a mother fucking storm. Expect us like a force of nature. Bad Rum Pete (post in Million Mask March Facebook page 2013)And He (Jesus) asked him (the man), "What is thy name?" And he answered, saying, "My name is Legion: for we are many." (Gospel of Mark 5:9)INTRODUCTIONThere were about fifty of us gathered in front of the Ontario Legislative building in Queens Park Toronto. Most of us were wearing masks. I was quite disappointed in the low turnout but was giving a speech in which I said just the opposite. I said that the small numbers of us there did not matter because we were merely one part of something much bigger, something global. This was true. The Million Mask March had simultaneous events in approximately four hundred and fifty cities around the world. Most of them, however, were small like this Toronto one. But while the London Ontario event was small, the one in London England was not. Thousands of people there blocked Westminster bridge and shot off fireworks in front of Buckingham Palace. The Washington DC event also had many thousand people present. The events, large or small, all had one thing in common besides the ubiquitous Guy Fawkes masks that have come to symbolize Anonymous; they were largely ignored by the mainstream media.The Million Mask March RL ("real life") event in Manila was relatively small as well. But their online component gathered much more media attention (the Million Mask March was accompanied by a variety of online operations and attacks around the world) because Anonomous Philippines took down thirty of their government's websites.Before my speech in Toronto, a middle aged Chinese woman led us in a few minutes of silent prayer and meditation to find our inner peace and project these good vibrations out to the troubled globe ... or something like that. A young masked man warned us of the dangers of "chem trails" and fluoride in the water. After my speech expressing a sense of optimism and solidarity that I was having trouble feeling, a young woman, not wearing the usual Anon mask but instead wearing some kind of cat costume with flowers and horns on her head, explained to us her personal journey to empowerment, becoming "her own superhero", as symbolized by the costume she was wearing.Later that same day I spoke at a different sort of event organized by the Public Interest Research Group at my university. I was among a panel speaking about political manifestos and I was supposed to speak to the Anonymous one. I stated that Anonymous does not have a manifesto; instead it has memes and masks. One could equally say with truth, that it has hundreds of manifestos about every issue conceivable and conflicting positions on many of them.Many people present at the earlier event at Queens Park had maintained their online connections through their phones; and thus we quickly learned the breaking mainstream news that our clown Mayor of Toronto had admitted to smoking crack cocaine and drunk driving. …

Now in its second edition, this comprehensive textbook offers an exceptionally accessible yet in-depth introduction to the philosophy of social science. Students with no previous knowledge will find themselves taken on an engaging philosophical journey: the book’s unique dialogue format anticipates their most frequently asked questions and provides clear explanations of specialised terminology and essential contextualisation of contemporary debates. Encompassing both traditional and contemporary perspectives, the book explores the questions and debates raised by all the major theoretical positions in the philosophy of social science, including positivism, empiricism, rationalism, hermeneutics, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and critical realism. The first edition of this book had a Eurocentric bias, as does virtually all other textbooks covering this subject matter. This has been corrected in the second edition and includes a new chapter on the contributions of Islam to philosophy, natural science social science including sociology. The second edition also has a newly written chapter on pragmaticism and neo-pragmaticism, as well as strengthened coverage of hermeneutics, postmodernism and critical realism. The book‘s rich pedagogic support includes: point-by-point summaries introducing the scope of every chapter; discussion questions; further reading lists; and a glossary of key terminology. This excellent textbook is designed to provide every student with a clear understanding of important and complex issues. It is essential reading for all students of philosophy of social science, whether at undergraduate or Masters level and regardless of their disciplinary background.

This article theorizes the inseparable relationship of power and knowledge. It argues that there is a transhistorical constant in the production and dissemination of knowledge: a dialectical contradiction within its institutional heart. The production, dissemination and, importantly, the consolidation of knowledge, is bound up with the obfuscation of this and restriction or prevention of knowledge dissemination. These latter processes are part of the concept I call structural mystification. The article explains and theoretically justifies this concept and details the manner of its working, using the example of educational systems.

PurposeThis paper aims to provide case studies of staff development programs at two university libraries: those of Montana State University in the USA and Victoria University Library in Victoria, Australia.Design/methodology/approachThe paper examines how these differently sized institutions are using distinct approaches to grapple with the challenges of staff development in difficult economic and technological times. By providing examples of two very different environments and timelines, this paper provides ideas for a broad spectrum of library types and sizes at all points on the development continuum.FindingsDespite differences, what emerges is that many concepts and principles span disparate library situations and are applicable to almost any staff development plan. These include the importance of establishing staff development methodologies, identifying competencies, linking with workforce planning, dealing with legacy issues, prioritizing communication and staff involvement, identifying needs and priorities, embedding accountability and consistently monitoring and evaluating to establish and maintain a successful program.Originality/valueThis paper will be valuable to large university libraries with mature staff development plans who wish to rethink basic principles or consider altering their established approach. It will also be valuable to smaller university libraries who are just beginning to chart staff development programs and who want to start off on the right track.

The problem of justifying induction has vexed philosophers for centuries. It has been entangled with issues concerning logic and probability and the philosophy of science. This article proposes a new approach to untangling these issues and resolving the overall problem. This new approach is by way of the perspective of realist ontology. Induction should not be seen as a debased form of logic and the search for inflexible rules for justifying particular sorts of inductive inference should be abandoned. Rather, induction can be justified pragmatically as a general practice because reality possesses ordered patterns. Induction, being dependent on repetition, can sometimes identify aspects of those patterns simply because the instances of repetition really do occur. Thus, confidence in conclusions based on inductive inferences is not properly to be derived from unchanging logical rules governing when and where inductive inferences may be successfully applied, but from the involvement of such inference...

This paper revisits the controversy surrounding Bhaskar's ‘spiritualisation’ of critical realism (CR), formally introduced with the publication of From East to West. It describes the principal divisions amongst realists with respect to the five moments of CR theoretical development signified by Bhaskar in terms of his own publications. The article critiques some of his later arguments, such as that for reincarnation; but it also locates and identifies a much earlier error as being consistent with, and fundamental to, the later ideas that so many realists had problems with. The principal error is to be found in the concept of ontological truth.

(2003). Critical Realist Strengths and Weaknesses. Journal of Critical Realism: Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 161-165.

Jeffrey Alexander argues that despite Bourdieu’s considerable achievements ultimately his work is reductionist and determinist. He further argues that though Bourdieu is a middle range theorist he is implicitly realist in his meta-theoretical assumptions. This article accepts these conclusions but argues that Bourdieu’s meta-theoretical realism is a virtue rather than a vice and that the manner in which he is a reductionist and determinist necessitate a re-thinking of what is meant by these notions. Alexander uses Bourdieu’s concept of habitus to demon-strate a fundamental contradiction in Bourdieu’s theorising. According to him habitus presents us with the oxymoron of unconscious strategisation. This article uses a discussion of habitus in order to demonstrate that in its relationship with the concept of field it instead produces a practical resolution of long standing theoretical problems concerning structural determination and human agency. It is also argued that these problems are resolved at the meta-theoretical level in the form of critical realist ontology and that it is Alexander’s misunderstandings on this level which cause him to fail to appreciate the significance of Bourdieu’s achievements.

L'A. s'interesse ici a quelques implications theoriques concernant les relations entre langage, realite et signification sur le champ de la fiction et de la critique litteraire.

This article uses aspects of poker (no prior knowledge of the game is required) as a heuristic example to facilitate arguments to the following conclusions. Micro social structures have a sui generis aspect to them. Social structures are simultaneously a set of relations between positions and interactional relations between people. Micro structures have some of the features usually only associated with macro structures but nonetheless there are qualitative differences in kind between macro and micro structures. The article thus retains the insights associated with both interactionist and structuralist positions with respect to sociology's long history of debate about structure and agency. But it also shows both poles of debate to be significantly mistaken. Resume Cet article emploie des aspects de "poker" [un jeu des cartes] (aucune connaissance anterieure du jeu nest exigee) comme exemple heuristique pour faciliter des arguments aux conclusions suivantes. Les structures sociales micro ont un aspect sui generis a elles. Les structures sociales sont simultaniment un ensemble de relations entre les positions etles relations interactionnelles entre les personnes. Les structures micro ont certains des dispositifs habitue1lement seulementlies a de macro structures mais neanmoins il y a des differences qualitatives en nature entre tie macro et micro structures. L'article maintient ainsi les perspicacites liees aux positions d'interactionist et de structuralist en ce qui concerne l'histoire de la sociologie longtemps tie la discussion au sujet de la structure et de l'agence. Mais il montre egalement les deux poteaux de la discussion a confondre sensiblement. Introduction The intention of this article is to provide a new lens through which to focus attention upon the long standing debates and theoretical issues concerning the relationship between human agency and sui generis social structure. We shall examine the emergence of a particular kind of micro social structure found in a particular example of social interactive phenomena: games of poker. Two things must be made clear from the start. First, no knowledge of the game of poker will be required to understand the sociological points made in this article. Good players will find the descriptions of the game's features, examples of strategy etc. relatively unremarkable and incontrovertible. Those who have never played should also find nothing difficult to grasp about such features of the game as are analysed here. On the other hand, those who do play often yet are not very good at it (which is to say most players) may import some of their poker confusion and misconceptions into the interpretation of the article. This is perhap s unavoidable but if the points concerning structure and agency are missed, such readers might at least find some suggestive ideas for improving their play. The second thing which must be made clear is that though poker is a game and lam using it to make some sociological points, I am not a "game theorist." I have serious reservations about such theory in all its formulations and applications. Nor do I wish to make the claim that the game of poker is in every sense analogous to the "game of life." Poker as I shall be using it here is not intended as either metaphor or model. The aspect of poker which I shall analyse here as a type of sui generis social structure is very definitely not analogous to social structure in general. It is not intended as a metaphor at all. Rather it is an example of a form of social structure. But it is a form, not the form. One of the crucial points which I wish to make is that there are social structures and social structures. The example of poker is ideally suited to demonstrate features of social reality focussed upon by interactionist perspectives. It involves rules, explicit and implicit interpretation (including the body language of unconscious clues), calculation and deception, "impression management," (variably) stable patterns of play, the accessibility and inaccessibility of knowledge, memory and many other subtle features of interaction. …