Steven A. Peterson (September 10, 1947–December 10, 2021)

Loss of a Team Leading Pioneer in Politics and Public Policy: A Memoriam to Steven A. Peterson (September 10, 1947–December 10, 2021) by William H. Dutton

Steven A. Peterson died suddenly at home on December 10, 2021 at the age of 74. Steve Peterson and I were both born in 1947 and over half a century ago, in 1969, both of us entered graduate school in the department of political science at the University of Buffalo (then SUNY-Buffalo). For decades he has been my old graduate school colleague, but also a wonderful friend, and a seriously influential academic across a variety of fields in political science and policy studies.

In 1969, Steve graduated magna cum laude from Bradley University, a top ranked private university in Illinois, before moving on to graduate studies in political science at the University of Buffalo. He went from graduate school to Alfred University in 1973, where he rose through the ranks of promotion from Assistant to full Professor and for a time chaired the social sciences division of the university.

In 1997, after two decades of a successful career, Steve left Alfred University to accept a position of Professor of Politics and Public Affairs and Director of the School of Public Affairs at Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg, Penn’s ‘Capital College’. With over thirty faculty from multiple disciplines and located close to the capital of Pennsylvania, and not far from Washington DC, Penn State Harrisburg is an attractive location for teaching students for careers in public policy and administration at local and federal levels. Professor Peterson served as director for nearly two decades, until 2015, which is an impressive term for such a demanding role, returning to his professorial role. He retired a few years ago retaining his link to the university as an emeritus professor.

Steve Peterson at Penn State Harrisburg

While a graduate student, Steve began collaborating with Professor Al Somit on studies of biopolitics, a field for which he and Al Somit were arguably among the founding pioneers. Among their many publications in this area, their book, Darwinism, Domiance, and Democracy (1997) is an example of being ahead of the field. They were asking why democracies often seem to fare less well than autocracies, a question now being asked around the world. They found novel answers in the evolution of human nature, such as in possibly creating an affinity for hierarchy. This biopolitics thesis challenged most theorizing that relied more exclusively on cultural and institutional factors.

Biopolitics also provided Steve with a perspective on political behavior – another focus of his research – in ways that challenged and supplemented more conventional interpretations, such as those based on theories of political socialization and partisan identification. His 2012 book, entitled Political Behavior: Patterns in Everyday Life, continues to be well cited.

Another area of focus as a graduate student, was on state politics. Professor Peterson continued to research American political institutions, particularly at the state and local level, throughout his career. He not only taught courses in this area, but published innovative perspectives on public policy, such as a book with others entitled The World of the Policy Analyst, which went to three editions.

More generally, as an academic, Steve Peterson accumulated a remarkable track record of book and journal publications in his areas of research. I started counting his publications, and then moved to counting the pages of his list of publications. His stature in the field is also reflected in the colleagues he worked with, such as Albert Somit, who was not only a noted political philosopher, but also rose to become President of Southern Illinois University. He was one of Steve’s mentors and one of Steve’s fellow pioneers of bio-political studies. Other figures in political science who worked with Steve included Glendon Schubert, Robert Heineman, James Schubert, and Stephen Wasby. He also collaborated with colleagues in criminal justice (Shaun Gabbidon, Barbara Sims, and William Hall), Psychology (Robert Lawson), and Public Administration (Denise Thompson, Amy Brofcak, and Thomas Conlin).

With his move to Penn State Harrisburg, his work had to shift from research and teaching to more administrative and leadership roles within the School of Politics and Public Affairs. Nevertheless, Steve remained an active, innovative, and productive scholar and continued to teach one course per year because he wanted to stay connected to the students at his school and loved to teach. Reflecting on his leadership role at Penn State Harrisburg, the former Chancellor, Madlyn Hanes, captured it well, writing:

“Steve’s legacy, in addition to his outstanding scholarly accomplishments, most certainly include his contributions to academic leadership. Steve was a kind and thoughtful leader— patient and empathetic. He was especially considerate of colleagues beginning their academic careers as professors. Steve helped facilitate their upward trajectory, guiding them with care, and providing constructive feedback and mentorship to further their professional development. He set high standards for students and helped them successfully navigate higher education’s challenging learning environment. Steve was particularly proud of the quality of the programs offered by the School of Public Affairs — the School he led for nearly 20 years. He was moreover an engaging and insightful colleague, working collaboratively to advance the mission and vision of Penn State Harrisburg, the Capital College. Steve will be remembered fondly for all these attributes and achievements; but for those who knew him best, he will be remembered always as a good friend who was greatly admired.”

Madlyn Hanes, Senior Vice President for Commonwealth Campuses and Executive Chancellor Emerita at Penn State University, and former Chancellor of Penn State Harrisburg

Steve Peterson viewed himself as a generalist, such as by having taught forty-five different courses through his career. He is very broad and multidisciplinary also in the reach of his publications. He enjoyed focusing on the synthesis of work in a subject area, consciously seeking to avoid becoming siloed in a particular academic specialization. However, he became one of the most widely cited pioneers in biology and the social sciences, a field which has grown dramatically in recent years, such as in areas around the rise of neurosciences. Steve was there when the field was in a very nascent stage and helped shape its development.

While modest almost to a fault, Steve was a truly innovative, convivial, thoughtful, respected, and esteemed political scientist who could work across multiple disciplines, such as the life sciences. His edited book with Somit, entitled Biopolicy: The Life Sciences and Public Policy (Emerald 2012), is an example of his reach. In addition to books and published journal articles, Steve did it all. He always presented his work at conferences. He was a strong citizen within his profession and universities, but also in his community.

Steve’s colleague, Omit Ansary, found his death to be a tragic loss for the School, saying that Steve was:

“… a true gentleman, a role model for his students, faculty and … administrators (like myself). He was a stellar and renown scholar, a superb human being, with a huge heart full of love and care for everyone, a humble individual, exceptionally calm under any situation, who treated everyone around him with the highest respect and professionalism, a person with high integrity, and a great friend and wonderful colleague that we will all deeply miss.” 

Omid Ansary, Ph.D., Sr. Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor of Electrical Engineering, Penn State Harrisburg

In his profession, his universities, and communities – Steve created and led teams. I can remember Steve organising, coaching, and leading an intramural touch football team as a graduate student. I only mention this because you can see this initiative throughout his career. Steve was a founding member of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. He was recognized as a hero in his community by being named an ‘Olympic Torch Bearer’ in 1996. He was an assistant scout leader. He coached little league. It is part of his ‘team-DNA’ to serve as a director of his school for nearly two decades.  

While students in Buffalo, Steve and I would go together every year to Chicago for the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Most recently, from 2014-18, I directed a center at Michigan State University. Before I returned to my home in Oxford in July 2018, Steve and I met back in Chicago on a day trip. I came from East Lansing, and Steve from his home in Hummelstown, Pennsylvania.

During our conversation in Chicago, I convinced him that he should be sharing more of this thinking online, such as on social media. He had a lot to say about any topic, and he took me up on this and started posting on Twitter and created a blog on WordPress. He had posted online less than an hour before he passed away.

It was a sentimental journey and the last time we were together. I am so glad we found the time to meet when we could. Many of his colleagues have told me what I already knew: Steve was not just a strong academic. He was also a very kind, sociable, and trusted friend to those fortunate enough to have known Professor Peterson.

Steve Peterson and Bill Dutton in Chicago, July 2018

A family obituary for Steven A. Peterson is available online here:

https://www.hooverfuneralhome.com/obituaries/Steven-Ames-Peterson?obId=23418367

Hobbesian World of TV News in Britain

The Hobbesian World of Broadcast TV News in Britain

As an American, I often find broadcast TV news in Britain to be completely out of character with my expectations. For example, as I would expect, BBC World Service is almost always polite, civilized, correct, and informative, while also entertaining. In contrast, all too often, BBC One TV news broadcasts fall into shockingly nasty, brutish, self-righteous, and mean-spirited coverage.  

The most recent example is coverage this week of the so-called ‘partygate’ scandal in which the PM is accused of knowing about and permitting a party at Number 10 Downing Street during last year’s Christmas season, that breached his own lockdown restrictions. It resurfaced when a video was leaked of his former press secretary being amused, laughing, last year while rehearsing how to answer questions about these accusations. The point is one of hypocrisy, fair enough, but the coverage this past week has been extraordinary.

2 minutes hate from Orwell’s 1984

Each BBC anchor and presenter took turns attacking the PM and the former press secretary, even after she resigned. And most journalists interviewed aggrieved members of the public who were enraged by the banter or the breach of the rules. (Apparently, if a member of the government risks their health and safety in violating rules, then we all should be able to put our lives at risk.) And if someone laughs at a rehearsal, there are no other explanations for it – not stress, struggling for words, or other human reasons for banter – than being disrespectable of those in the public who have suffered from COVID. No one in the broadcast studio seemed to miss an opportunity to kick the victims while they were down. I was reminded of mob and vigilante behaviour, where everyone must demonstrate anger for others to witness their virtue.

A saw a post by a professor who said no one will trust the government in the wake of this scandal. That is the conventional story. Perhaps it is a minority opinion, but I wonder if anyone will respect the press after this disproportionate trashing of public officials.

Why were they treated in such a nasty and self-righteous way? Maybe it was personal. Many of the press elite know the people in this saga, so maybe they just have grudges or personal animosities to vent. Is it what broadcasters must do to please and gain an audience?  Maybe it is a model of accepted professional practice in a rather unrestrained Hobbesian world of UK TV broadcasting.

From my perspective as a viewer, the degree that the TV anchors and journalists worked to build up anger towards the culprits of this scandal reminded me of Orwell’s two minutes hate in 1984. Extreme, yes, I accept that, Orwell did work at the BBC during the war, and I find it fascinating that he captured this cathartic behavior. It is not a world away from what I saw the anchors and journalists orchestrating on BBC One.

The COVID 19 pandemic has been a worldwide catastrophe and people are angry about how their normal lives have been undermined by this epidemic. Given this inevitable frustration, I would think all of us – particularly journalists and TV anchors – would be wise not to provoke and anger others. Spending a huge proportion of time whipping up anger over a petty scandal while neglecting major developments in Afghanistan, Ukraine, China, and other news hot spots around the world just seems nuts and potentially dangerous.

Public-Private Tensions in the UK

UK Business and Government Tensions: Towards a More Functional Relationship

The handwringing over sleaze accusations and the fuss over Peppa Pig referenced as an example of a major business success are just two recent manifestations to what I’ve sensed to be a long-term, awkward, and dysfunctional relationship between business and government in the UK. The public and private sectors do not seem capable of developing a productive relationship, even though a good relationship seems obviously valuable for advancing the national economy and its social benefits.  

You can dismiss my views since I am an academic and an American, and the US certainly has its examples of dysfunctional relations between public and private sectors, such as during the Trump administration. But as an American academic who has spent many years in the UK, the cultural differences seem remarkable.

Peppa Pig

Comparatively speaking, the UK has a more skeptical if not anti-business culture in relation to the US. For example, in the US, business leaders are often very promising candidates for office. They are viewed as people who have done real work, had to hire and fire people, get things done, and who are capable of ‘running government more like a business’, meaning more efficiently.  In the UK, business is more often viewed as relatively wasteful, inefficient, more expensive, and even a corrupting influence on government.

Many of the best graduates from US educational institutions go into high paying jobs in business and industry. Many of the best graduates from the top UK educational institutions go into one or another area of public service, such as a career politician. I’m not sure if the UK even has a degree equivalent in stature to the Harvard MBA, for example.

Maybe I am wrong, but if this is a generally valid comparison, at least something should be done by business schools in the UK, even if no one else takes responsibility for mending this relationship. Productive and positive relations between the public and private sectors must be of benefit to all. In the past, this might have been a role played to some degree by the gentlemen’s or private members’ clubs in London, but something more needs to be done.

Might this problem be a great theme for a seminar series, if not a research project or research program at a major business school? Perhaps some joint programme supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research (ESRC) council could fund illuminating research in this area. If this is being done or has already been done, then it is under-achieving and needs to be ratcheted up or revisited. If not, I think it would be a valuable contribution.  

COP26 Signals Progress on Climate Policy and Practice

Disparaging press preceded and followed the 26th UN Climate Change Conference, the Glasgow COP26 summit, focused on implementation of the 2015 Paris climate accord. News outlets forecasted an unsuccessful summit and then told us it did not achieve all its aims. However, denigrating the progress made at COP26 was wrong and foolish. Despite the forecasts of failure, much more was achieved than the forecast by the critics, despite the dire press narratives.

Arthur Asa Berger self-caricature

A deal versus no deal was reached, provided a stronger basis for further negotiation, available here: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_L16_adv.pdf

The 1.5C aim of the Paris accord still lives as a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent by 2030. 

It signalled the beginning of the end of coal power.

Coal has been dramatically showcased as a [maybe the] primary mandate for further action. Global public awareness on the centrality of coal to emissions has been made clear.  Despite the negotiated wording of “phase down” rather than “phase out”, I agree with the UK PM Johnson’s view that it marked the “beginning of the end of coal”. As he put it, this was a “decisive shift … Glasgow has sounded the death knell for coal power”. And as the US Climate envoy John Kerry said: “You have to phase down coal before you can end coal.” 

It put China, India, and the USA in the spotlight for further negotiations. India and China for insisting on compromising on coal power, and the USA for being among the three largest contributors to greenhouse gases. 

Other areas of progress included steps to address deforestation, methane, fossil fuels, financing, and zero-emission vehicles. 

The world should congratulate the UK cabinet minister Alok Sharmon, president of the summit, for orchestrating a summit based on multilateralism that brought real progress to negotiations among sovereign nations over halting global warming. That is a major move in the right direction. 

#COP26 #TogetherForOurPlanet

Private Emails Are Not (Yet) a Thought Crime

Private Emails? A Personal Perspective on Politicizing Norms of Communication

In Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith opens himself up to accusations of thought crimes for walking onto a street with a shop where he could buy pen and paper. In 2021, politicians and even the UK’s Information Commissioner wonder if ministers are guilty of some criminal offense for using private email.[1] The ICO, charged with protecting our privacy, does not want to lose data critical to her surveillance of public officials! All in the name of ‘transparency’. 

Increasingly, accusations seem to fly around such issues as the security of public officials using personal email. While security, legal, and privacy issues are embedded in these criticisms of the practices of others, my concern is over the degree they lack common sense, any historical perspective, and politicize what is fundamentally a cultural difference that has risen over the decades across different kinds of Internet users. Moreover, technical advances are diminishing the distinctions being drawn. Let me explain on the basis of my experiences. 

Winston Smith, 1984

I began using email around 1974, when I had to call colleagues to tell them to look for an email sent from me. Otherwise, they would not check their inbox. Those were early days, when academics in universities could get an email address from their university if they were at one of the institutions that were early nodes on the ARPANET. 

At that time, in the early 1970s, I wrote most of my correspondence by hand, and it was typed up by a pool of typists. I would revise a draft and someone in the pool would revise it for me to mail or fax. A carbon copy of all my letters was (I discovered) put in a chronological file of all correspondence going out of our academic research unit and studiously read by one of our managers. He knew what was going on across the organization by reading all of our outgoing correspondence. This was part of a culture of administrative control, which I accepted, but did not like and was surprised to discover. That said, I was an employee of an organization and in that role, it is arguable that I did not have a true right to privacy within the organization. 

Presumably, even in those early days, an archive of all incoming and outgoing emails existed in the university so our manager might have had even better intelligence about our work, but most administrators were not email users. If a malicious user sent hate mail, for example, I would imagine it could be found in the archive, but then again, it is likely to have been sent under another user’s name. (Yes, it was a problem in very early days of email.)

By the early 1980s, one amusing (to me) concern in business and industry around email was its use for social purposes. Before email, most electronic communication was costly for organizations. The telegraph created a mindset in government and industry of every letter and word costing money, so electronic communication, reinforced by fax machines, was that it was considered costly compared to regular, physical mail – later called ‘snail mail’. 

So when employees in organizations began using email, managers were concerned about the cost and the potential waste of money if used for social purposes. Academics used university email for anything – teaching, research, or personal reasons – and lived in sort of a free culture, meaning free of control as well as cost. But this was not the case in business and government where the legacy of telegrams, faxes, and costly phone calls created a sense of email being expensive. 

One of my students in the early 1980s studied an aerospace company in Los Angeles and found the managers very concerned over the employees using email for personal or social purposes. Rather than counting the letters, they would embellish their business correspondence with a joke or questions or pleasantries about the family, etc. Even then, we defended the social uses of email at work as it would undoubtedly help executives and other employees to adopt this new communication system. Moreover, communication in the workplace has always been a blend of social and business uses, such as over the proverbial watercooler. Nevertheless, an administrative control structure still pervaded the use of communication at work. 

It was only when private email services arose, such as through CompuServe, from 1978, and one of the first commercial email services, MCI Mail, which was founded in 1989, that this mindset began to change. Google Mail, was launched in its Beta version from 2002, about the time MCI Mail folded. Private email services like Google Mail made it possible to escape this administrative control structure and the control culture of communication in organizations. 

In my own case, having changed universities many times, one of the only steady email addresses I have maintained has been my gmail account, established with the Beta version. I’ve never sensed it being any less secure than my university accounts, and I don’t have the feeling that an administrator is looking over my shoulder. It is free of charge and free of administrative surveillance. I give my data. My main concern is not burdening colleagues with unnecessary or too frivolous email messages. The last thing I want to do is audit myself to determine if my message to a particular person about a particular topic requires me to use my personal email or one of my academic email accounts. 

Moreover, today, more individuals are moving to private conferencing (e.g., Zoom, Teams, Skype) and private messaging services (e.g., WhatsApp, WeChat, Telegram, Signal, Slack, or others) rather than email for interpersonal communication. If you are in government or business or academia, you want your colleagues to be exploring and innovating and using those information and communication services that support their work. Don’t dictate what those are. Let them decide in the spirit of bottom-up innovation within your organization. But this is exactly the worry of the ICO and politicians who fear they will not have access to every word written by a public servant. 

But will private services undermine security? Increasingly, public organizations from universities to governments are moving more of their services, such as email, to the cloud. That is, they are not running their own home-grown institutional services, but outsourcing to private cloud service providers, which offer pretty good security protection. This is how private gmail is provided as well. So, no, it will not undermine security.

To me, those who discuss email use from such an administrative control perspective are simply administrative control types – in a prerogative sense of that term. I for one do not want to be told what email account or what information or communication services to use for each and every purpose. I am not at the extreme of the ‘free software’ movement of Richard Stallman, but sufficiently supportive of civil liberties that I find these almost Orwellian efforts to police our communication to be a huge mistake.    

Some politicians and administrators live in a control culture rather than a free digital culture. However, interpersonal communication is good to support, particularly in these times of incivility and toxic politics. Let’s encourage it and not politicize email or the use of private messaging on any account. 

Reference

Richard M. Stallman (2002, 2015), Free Software, Free Society, Third Edition. Boston, MA: Free Software Foundation. 


[1] https://news.yahoo.com/information-watchdog-launches-investigation-health-194714162.html

The Democratic Value of the Filibuster

The Democratic Value of the Filibuster

The filibuster was not invented to serve some lasting and critical role in democratic governance, but unintentionally, it does perform that function.  The filibuster is a structure – one rule of the game in American politics – that plays a powerful role in supporting more stable democracy. And it is particularly critical in times of deep polarization in politics. 

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) on Capitol Hill on June 8. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

Critics of the filibuster tend to take one of two overly simplistic positions on this device. 

One is that the mechanism of the filibuster is simply antithetical to majority rule by allowing a minority of Senators to delay and thereby often block bills in the US Senate despite a majority in support. This position ignores key realities of democratic political processes, such as the importance of intense minorities, the pluralist nature of democracy. 

Democratic systems are rightly respectful of intense minority opinion, such as the respect normally accorded to protests that gain strong support, but by no means a majority. It is likely that, overtime, intense minorities have fought for the status quo, and thereby have a conservative bias. However, there have been intense minorities for change in many cases, from anti-war protestors to climate change advocates. Democracies ignore intense minorities at their peril. 

More generally, in a pluralist democracy, like that of the US and many other liberal democratic nations, policy is shaped by specialized sets of individuals who care about and have expertise in particular issues, what has been called a polyarchy (Dahl 1971). Those who govern education are different from those who govern defense or healthcare. You want this kind of pluralistic, polyarchical form of governance to insure a division of labor that supports greater competence and focus. Even when legislative or parliamentary bodies meet, each member does not understand every issue – they could not even read every bill that comes before them. They rely on committees, specialized experts and policy makers, and then take cues from their partisans on the committee reporting the bill. They take cues as a necessary short cut (Stimson 1975). So, minorities are making policy that is endorsed or rejected by majority voting.

In short, majority rule is an oversimplification of the democratic process even in leading liberal democratic nations. 

Secondly, critics of the filibuster ignore the central importance of democratic stability, perhaps the most important issue, by focusing on the issue of the day. 

In the aftermath of the second world war, a seminal study of the cultures of democracies (the US, UK, Germany, Mexico, and Italy) identified the US as being relatively more stable due to its ‘civic culture’ (Almond and Verba 1963).[1] In contrast, in the period prior to the second world war, Germany had democratic regimes that were notoriously unstable. Stability in the US was attributed to a political culture that supported consensus, enabled diversity of opinion and moderated change. Arguably, the US has lost its civic culture as its politics is typified more by polarization, tribalism, and distrust – none of which are compatible with consensus and moderation. 

However, the filibuster can incentivize moderation and compromise to find a consensus that goes beyond the tyranny of majority rule. It is true that the use of a filibuster has caused many politicians to dig in their heels even further and say the fight has only begun, but a small but growing number of promising politicians have seen the value of the filibuster in supporting compromises that promote greater stability in policy and in democratic structures. 

Most recently, US Senator Kyrsten Sinema helped lead a bipartisan compromise that resulted [if enacted] in support for a $1trillion package of measures to upgrade declining infrastructures across the nation. She herself expressed support for the filibuster before her election and before this bill in a wonderful opinion piece in The Washington Post, which countered conventional wisdom to argue that ‘we have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster’, arguing that it ‘compels moderation’ and counters ‘instability, partisanship, and tribalism that continue to infect our politics’.[2]

This rising star of the US Senate also warned against changing democratic rules of the game based on the policy issues of the day. As a Democrat in the senate, she reminded her colleagues that the filibuster was used by them in defeating some major Republican efforts, when Republicans were in the majority. Her opinion piece is must-reading for those who oppose the filibuster, but have an open mind in considering a serious issue for the future of American politics. 

References

Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. (1963), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Dahl, Robert A. (1971), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Stimson, James A. (1975), ‘Five Propositions About Congressional Decision-Making: An Examination of Behavioral Inferences from Computer Simulation’, Political Methodology 2 (4): 415–36.


[1] Some critics of the time argued that Almond and Verba were simply describing American politics and ascribing the attribute of stability to it, rather than having a clear causal argument. But even if only descriptive of the era, that kind of civic culture is arguably absent in most cases of American politics today. 

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/21/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-for-the-people-act/

A Mob, Protestors, or a Mob of Protestors at Capitol Hill?

A Mob, Protestors, or a Mob of Protestors at Capitol Hill?

In media coverage and interviews immediately following the 6 January 2021 protests on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, most media pundits, including the BBC, and politicians referred to the Trump supporters who surrounded or breached the building as a ‘mob’. The Guardian as a ‘pro-Trump mob’. That is a reasonably accurate choice of terminology in that the OED defines a mob as ‘a large disorderly crowd of people’, which clearly applies to this case. 

Crowd on Capitol Hill on 6 January 2021

However, in a strikingly analogous event, when protestors breached the Hong Kong Parliament in 2019, they were more consistently referred to as protestors, or pro-democracy protestors. For example, the BBC noted that: “Protesters have been removed from Hong Kong’s parliament after an hours-long siege.”[1] The same coverage referred to those occupying the parliament as demonstrators. (I doubt this was true in the case of coverage in the Chinese media, but I have not confirmed this.) 

Likewise, the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, saw a great deal of protest-related violence which also interrupted US democratic election processes. For example, one BBC account 50 years after the event referred to protestors, anti-war protestors, Vietnam War protestors, or demonstrators.[2] In this case, as all of my contemporaries will remember from watching these protests, that the protestors were not characterized as a mob. I searched online for “mob” in the context of the Chicago convention and nearly all the results noted that the text was missing the word ‘mob’, referring instead to ‘protestors’ or ‘Vietnam War protestors.’  

Clearly, there is a more or less intentional politics of language at play here, where a mob is far less legitimate than protestors. Maybe a mob is less purposeful, or more chaotic? Another OED accepted definition of mob is ‘the common people, the rabble’. Perhaps this is what is being implied about Trump protestors. 

To be fair, if one wished to be fair, it might be better to avoid either term by referring to ‘a mob of protestors.’ That might fit all of these situations and be more acceptable to all of the actors involved. What term would you suggest?

I have not done a comprehensive or systematic comparison of all media coverage of these and other similar events. It is too tangential to my work. That said, it seems blindingly obvious that we all indirectly legitimize or de-legitimize people and political actions by our choice of terms. It might be better to describe a mob of protestors in more neutral terms and then describe what they did – their actions. It may be a cliché, but let their actions speak for themselves without being prejudiced by framing them in a glorified or tainted way through a politically charged label, unless that is exactly what you wish to do. The contemporary term of this communicative act might be virtue signaling – making sure readers or listeners know that you are on the morally correct side? 

As I write, I fully realize I will be judged as morally incorrect by many for asking for more neutrality. I was on the ‘peace patrol’ during Vietnam War (the American War) protests at SUNY Buffalo, and that put me in a similar position – that time between protestors and the police, but a riskier position. In a way, I want to plea for a peace patrol now as well. As President-elect Joe Biden said, he wants to “be President for all Americans.”[3]These protests have created a pretty angry place from which to move ahead on that mission.

Protestor Sitting at Speaker’s Desk, fastcoastnews.com

Afterword

The day after I posted this blog, the Financial Times (8 January 2021: 1) quoted several politicians and others using even more dramatic and more exaggerated characterizations of the mob of protesters, such as domestic terrorists. Joe Biden was quoted as saying: “Don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists.” I understand that the President-elect and other politicians have been shocked and frightened if not panicked by what happened on the 6th, but there should be some – surely in academia – who can step back and look analytically and empirically at the complex interaction of multiple choices by multiple actors that led to this debacle. The presence of persons preaching insurrection does not make everyone present an insurrectionist. 

Capitol Hill on 6 January was a disaster. There is a real need to dig into the details of this disaster to ensure that it is not over-simplified to fit political narratives. It was what I would call a ‘democratic disaster’ and like all disasters I’ve studied, they are the result of multiple problems. Rather than being resolved by one simple explanation, they are most often the result of multiple actors making multiple mistakes that interact in ways that lead to an unanticipated disaster. 

I guess a problem is that politicians and the media are pressed to jump to conclusions too quickly. Not to do so risks being labelled as weak or indecisive or on the wrong side. We need individuals or teams that have the resources to dig into the specifics, however complex or simple, and avoid drawing ill-informed lessons that could undermine freedom of expression and assembly, including lawful protests, that are central to the dynamics of democratic politics.

References

William H. Dutton, Donald MacKenzie, Stuart Shapiro and Malcolm Peltu (1995), ‘Computer Power and Human Limits: Learning from IT and Telecommunications Disasters’. PICT Policy Research Paper No. 33 (Uxbridge: Programme on Information and Communication Technologies, Economic and Social Research Council. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3103433

Notes


[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-china-48821664

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45226132

[3] https://www.axios.com/biden-president-for-all-americans-0486555e-ff3f-40aa-8332-53fc4a72b0ae.html


					

Understanding Conflicts in Ukraine

I recommend a 2015 – but still quite relevant – book on the international political situation in Ukraine by Menon and Rumer.* The authors provide a very accessible background on the history of Ukraine, and the evolution of contemporary relationships both within the country and internationally, with Russia, the US, and Germany, France, the UK and the EU. They help clarify a number of over-simplified views, such as any sharp East-West divide within the nation. They describe the recent crisis with Russia, in relation to Crimea and the Luhansk-Donetsk region in Eastern Ukraine, concluding that all of the supporters of Ukraine, such as the US and EU, see their own self-interest at stake in how this evolves, but not strongly enough to intervene or take a more active role, ‘leaving Ukraine to tackle its challenges largely on its own’ (p. 155). And that is where things stand today.

Ethnic majorities throughout Ukraine via Menon and Rumer, 2015

If you would like to better understand the political dynamics of this conflict in Ukraine, I recommend Menon and Rumer’s book. In hindsight, they were exactly right in their view of the prospects, and remain on target.

*Rajan Menon and Eugene Rumer, Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Thanks to SUNY Buffalo (UB)

I began graduate studies in the Department of Political Science at the University of Buffalo in 1969 when UB was called the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY-Buffalo). I had graduated from the University of Missouri at Columbia, where I was inspired by a comparative researcher, Professor David M. Wood, to pursue graduate study in political science. The COVID-19 pandemic and the turmoil it has caused reminded me of when I was at UB amid all the disruptions and student strikes on campus during the Vietnam (American) War. Dramatically different periods and problems, but somehow reminiscent.

My cohort arrived at the interim Ridge Lea Campus – a complex of single-story buildings in Amherst. At one point, I remember some were literally buried completely under heavy snow, causing the cancelling of some exams. While I never experienced the new Amherst campus, I had the benefit of fabulous faculty in the process of building a new department. 

Professor Lester Milbrath, and his ladder of political participation and his turn to environmental research; philosopher of science Professor Paul Diesing with his focus on what scientists actually do; and urban politics Professor Donald Rosenthal, who introduced me to Banfield and Wilson and case studies of Chicago politics, have all passed away. However, they and other faculty, such as James Stimson, who left UB and is now the Raymond Dawson Distinguished Bicentennial Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, were such models of intellect, rigor and integrity that they continue to represent the department for me. And Professor Rudolf Wildenmann, even as a Visiting Professor in the Department from the University of Mannheim, were critical to my work. I almost joined him at Mannheim in 1973. 

Of course, I also continue to value my fellow students. Coming from the Midwest, my first days of graduate studies were intimidating, but students quickly formed a supportive community. I have fond memories of meeting other students, such as Debbie Dunkle and Steve Peterson, who’ve become lifelong friends. We would meet for coffee and breakfast almost every morning in the Ridge Lea cafeteria. One highlight of our conversations was the frequent occasion when any of the grad students received a rejection letter. They would read it out loud for the group to compare and critique. Whenever a student is worried about a job, I tell them about our stacks of rejections, which I continue to find amusing. 

At UB, I focused on urban and comparative politics but also on methods and quantitative data analyses, toting boxes of punch cards around and spending so much time at the central computing center submitting jobs on the big mainframe. SPSS was only being launched while I was a graduate student. I recall colleagues distrusting such software packages as they were too far removed from our own programming. I am sure that my affinity for data analysis created the opportunities I had to work with faculty – so central to my training – but also was key to my move into the study of the political aspects of computing. 

My focus today is on Internet studies, most often from a political perspective. The field did not exist when I was in graduate school. In fact, I worked only about one year in a department of political science in my first job at the University of South Florida. Nevertheless, the ideas, theories and methods that I was introduced to at UB have remained central aspects of my work to this day. At every stage of my career, I felt UB had prepared me as well as any of my colleagues for the challenges of research and teaching. I thank the department for whatever success I’ve enjoyed in my career. 

William H. Dutton, Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California and Oxford University

Seth Wenig/AP

Professor Claude Welch

Ridge Lea Campus of My Days

One of the University of Buffalo’s (UB) most outstanding professors, Claude Welch, began his career at UB in 1964 – before my arrival when UB became SUNY-Buffalo – and only recently retired as SUNY Distinguished Service Professor. Professor Welch has been putting together a history of UB’s Department of Political Science and reaching out to former graduate students for their own memories of their days at UB. I never had a class with Claude, but regret missing that opportunity. He has chaired or been a member of an amazing number of dissertation committees, and is one of the few professors I know of who has had a video produced to recognise him as a gifted teacher, entitled ‘Calling it a Career‘.

My thanks to Claude Welch for putting together his history of the department and reaching out to former students like myself. It made me realise how seldom I stop to recognise those who tried to teach me what political scientists do. But I’ve always appreciated their contributions to my education.

To Be Virtual or Not to Be: That is Not the Question

Today’s newspapers have wonderfully conflicting stories. One story is about Ministers of Parliament (MPs) in the UK being angry over their ‘virtual parliament’ coming to an end.* The other story is the opposite, about the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, facing criticism from his Cabinet because they are continuing to meet via online video conferencing rather than getting together for face-to-face cabinet meetings.** These are fascinating debates to follow, especially in the added context of US debates over the US Supreme Court, and Congress, particularly some committees, meeting online and in hybrid forms. They are complex, multi-layered debates that will have consequences not only for judicial and legislative processes but also their outcomes. And we all have opinions about it. 

Photo from FT article by George Parker

Before mentioning the role of the coronavirus pandemic, I would like to make one simple point. It is generally supported from decades of research on electronic meetings focused on the costs and benefits of meeting via such options as text-only online, voice-only (phone calls or conferencing), video conferencing, or face-to-face. Obviously, if an information task involves only the transfer of information, then simply using text-based online media, like an email, is the most efficient approach and may have no consequence on the outcome. However, if the task involves negotiation, bargaining, or other interpersonal judgements, then it would be better to use media with more ‘social presence’.*** Face-to-face, in-person meetings have the highest level of social presence, other things equal, followed by video conferencing, followed by only text-based telecommunications. Arguably, any transfer of information is in some part a negotiation, such as ‘please listen’, and some in person meetings, such as a teacher speaking in a large lecture hall can have little social presence. That said, some information tasks are relatively more focused on negotiation, such as arriving at a group decision or judgement. If you are simply giving or receiving information, it is more efficient to use online media. If negotiating or making a judgement, particularly as a group, it is better to meet face to face. 

However, this last call depends on your status in the group. If you are the leader or most influential in the group, it is better (for you) to meet face-to-face, as this will enable you to best assert your authority. If you are less influential in the group meeting, it might well be better for you to meet online, as text- or voice-only such as a phone call can have a leveling effect, making it more difficult for those at a higher status to dominate the discussion. The choice of medium is complicated as it could have redistributive versus pareto-optimal implications. Whatever you decide, some might be better off and others worse off. 

With these issues in mind, the best resolution I’ve found came out of a study of that organizations that concluded it was geography that still mattered the most.**** It was most efficient to be where you need to be for face-to-face communication. For example, back office operations at a bank do not need to be in a central city because it is only important to enable those in the back office to communicate well with one another. They can be located outside of a high-rent district in the city to a more remote back office. In contrast, the top management of a bank would need to have good communication with executives at different businesses, law firms, accounting firms, and so forth, creating an argument for them to be located in the city – where face to face communication will be enabled with other executives. You should try to locate where you most need to have face-to-face communication and rely more on online media for remote communication for less critical information and communication tasks. 

Therefore, the key question is not whether to use online or face-to-face communication, but where you should be in order to facilitate face-to-face communication with the most critical people you are meeting with. Here is where the problems arise for politicians, legislators, and (possibly) judges. Should they be closer to their constituents, their colleagues, the leaders of their party, the defendant, the media, or their staff. 

The coronavirus pandemic simplified this calculus, as they were required to stay at home and use online media. As the lock downs ease, the experience with working online might lead some to wish to remain online, but the interests of most politicians, including parliamentarians and members of congress will be to be many places at once in order to work with many different kinds of actors critical to their role in politics and government. In this situation, online media will help people to be where they most need to be at any given time to meet face-to-face with the most critical groups. 

Sounds simple, but it is not. Ideally, this understanding should lead legislatures and parliaments and executives to enable their colleagues to have options. Tell them: “Be where you should to have the most important conversations you can have today – to be present in the most critical meetings.” Use online media to follow, contribute to, and otherwise participate in activities that are less critical. You might well need to be left alone to write, of example. In some respects, these issues might lie in part behind moves to ‘hybrid’ virtual legislatures, and ‘hybrid’ online teaching options, so that some activities can be moved online, and some remain face-to-face. But choices need to be more fine-grained and flexible than most hybrid models appear to be. 

I’ve glossed over many issues but hope to have moved some people away from wondering which is better: virtual or real face-to-face communication. That is not the right question. 

References

*Sebastian Payne, (2020), ‘Anger among MPs over end of ‘virtual parliament’’, Financial Times, Wednesday 3 June: 2. 

**George Parker, (2020), ‘Unrest as Johnson’s ‘Potemkin cabinet no longer takes decisions’’, Financial Times, 3 June: 

*** Social presence, and its relationship to different communication media, emerged from some terrific experiments conducted and reported by Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976), The Social Psychology of Telecommunications (London: John Wiley and Sons). 

****Goddard, J., and Richardson, R., (1996), ‘Why Geography Will Still Matter: What Jobs Go Where?’, pp. 197-214 in Dutton, W. H. (ed.), Information and Communication Technologies – Visions and Realities. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).