Literatura académica sobre el tema "Chris Vokes"

Inspireret af Chris Rumfords teori om grænsearbejde fokuserer artiklen på måden, hvorpå den dansk-tyske grænse praktiseres og derigennem udleves af grænsependlere, der bor og arbejder på forskellige sider af den. I vores etnografiske studier har det vist sig, at måden, grænsependlere praktiserer og lever med grænser i deres hverdag på, udtrykker en mangfoldighed af grænser, der er i konstant dialog i pendlernes hverdagsliv. Særligt betydningen af mobilitet og det at være mobil, og af bevægelse mere generelt, er et væsentligt fundament for at udleve grænsen, men også nationale forskelle og identitetsdannelse og ikke mindst sproglig praksis danner grundlag for særlige måder at udleve grænser på. Det er vores indtryk at grænser og deres konsekvenser først forstås i lyset af den praksis, i hvilken de virkeliggøres, og at denne praksis aldrig er entydigt geopolitisk determineret, men nærmere åbner op for en konstant forhandling af, hvad grænser er.

In this paper, I develop a philosophical clarification of the statement “faith in the resurrection of Christ saves men from sin”, using some of the main arguments and hypotheses of my recent book, The Ways of Salvation (Les Voies du salut, Paris, 2010). I begin with some remarks on the theme of salvation in contemporary language and philosophy. I then sketch a conceptual analysis of the concept of salvation, first in its general sense, then in its specifically Christian one. Finally, I offer a hypothesis on the modus operandi of salvation, or at least of one aspect of salvation as understood by Christianity.

The long debate that preceded Mary’s inclusion in Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium (lg) was won by a margin of only forty votes (1,114 in favour, 1074 against). The aim of such a decision was to put Mariological piety in its proper context. But such a compromise did not come without tensions: One such tension was the subtle clash of the ‘Church as Mother’ metaphor with the Church as the ‘People of God’. Where the faithful are called to share in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly role of Christ as the People of God (lg Ch.2), a call to take active adult Church membership, the Mother Church metaphor encourages a dependent infant membership. This article investigates the use of the maternal ecclesial metaphor in lg and puts forward an Augustinian-Ambrosian sense of Mother Church that can support an ecclesiology which not only upholds Mary as ecclesia-type but also the Church as a People called to become like Mother Church themselves.

В статье рассматривается деяние Второго Ватиканского собора на предмет обсуждения и принятия марилогических вопросов. До открытия собора часть епископата призывала совсем не затрагивать мариологических вопросов, другие ожидали нового мариологического догмата, а третьи призывали вынести соборное определение о посреднической роли Матери Божией в деле спасения. В исследовании представлены противоположные точки зрения на принятие определений о Матери Божией (в качестве отдельного независимого документа или же в составе учения о Церкви). После полемики и нескольких голосований в конечном итоге 21 ноября 1964 года было торжественно провозглашено «Догматическое постановление о Церкви» (“Lumen Gentium” (лат.) - «Свет народам»), в восьмой главе которого излагается соборное учение о Марии. В этой главе собор подтвердил принятые ранее мариологические догматы (о непорочном зачатии и телесном вознесении Девы Марии), а также признал Матерь Иисуса Христа образом и началом Церкви. В настоящее время соборное постановление «Свет народам» стало полноправным документом Католической Церкви. Оно является официальным выражением католической веры в лице её епископов, богословов и простых верующих. Можно сказать, что Второй Ватиканский собор привёл к сдвигу в мариологических исследованиях от своей изначально обособленной в богословии позиции к более плотной связанности со Христом и Церковью. This article examines the work of the Second Vatican Council with regard to the discussion and reception of mariological questions. Prior to the opening of the Council, some of the episcopate called for no Mariological issues at all, others expected a new Mariological dogma, and still others called for a conciliar definition concerning the intermediary role of the Mother of God in salvation. The study presents proponents of opposing views on the adoption of definitions on the Mother of God (as a separate independent document or as part of the doctrine of the Church). After controversy and several votes, the doctrinal statement on the Church was finally solemnly proclaimed on November 21, 1964 (Lumen Gentium, Latin for Light to the Nations), chapter eight of which sets out the council's teaching on Mary. In this chapter, the Council reaffirmed the earlier Mariological dogmas (about the Immaculate Conception and the bodily ascension of the Virgin Mary) and recognized the Mother of Jesus Christ as the image and origin of the Church. Nowadays, the council resolution "Light to the Nations" has become a full-fledged document of the Catholic Church. It is the official expression of the Catholic faith represented by its bishops, theologians and ordinary faithful. The Second Vatican Council can be said to have led to a shift in Mariological studies from its originally separate position in theology to a tighter connection with Christ and the Church.

Resumo: O presente artigo que tem por título “A fé como meio crítico para o pensamento político”, busca analisar como o a fé pode ser aliada na busca de uma formação do pensar político, procurando meios para que os que a ação política seja cada mais inserida na vida das pessoas, de modo especial as pessoas que demonstram ter fé. Essa atitude deve ser demonstrada em ações práticas que contemple a necessidade dos que se encontram a margem da sociedade. Tendo essa disposição, do orar com a ação (oração), pode-se de fato achar meios pelos quais se possa agir de maneira prática, realizando a atitude de também participar ativamente da vida política da comunidade em que se está inserido, pois a participação das pessoas que manifestam sua fé inseridas na política, deve ser uma práxis cotidiana dos que buscam a justiça, na sociedade, tendo como plano motivador a justiça de Deus que age na história humana, manifestando-se de modo pleno na pessoa de Jesus Cristo. O agir em prol da comunidade é uma das características que faz com que as pessoas de fé. Dentro dessa ótica se tem alguns exemplos que demonstram bem essa relação da fé num viés reflexivo político como as CEBs e mais recentemente no Magistério do Papa Francisco, que iluminam a ação política das pessoas que demonstram sua fé, na ação política no âmbito social. Palavras-chave: Fé. Política. Justiça. Participação. Comunidade.Abstract: The present article has the title “faith as a means of critical thinking the political” seeks to analyze how the faith can be allied in the pursuit of a training of the thinking of the political, looking for ways to that that political action is more and more embedded in the life of the people, especially the people who have faith. This attitude must be demonstrated in practical action that addresses the need of those who find themselves the margin of society. With this arrangement, the praying with the action (prayer), you can in fact find the means by which one can act in a practical way, holding the attitude to participate actively in the political life of the community in which it is inserted, because the participation of the people who express their faith inserted in the policy, it must be a practice of daily life of those who strive for justice in society, having as background motivating the righteousness of God who acts in human history, manifesting himself fully in the person of Jesus Christ. he act for the sake of the community is one of the features that makes the people of faith. Within this optic, if you have some examples that demonstrate this relationship of faith in a bias reflective political as the CEBs and, more recently, in the Magisterium of Pope Francis, which illuminate the political action of the people who demonstrate their faith in political action in a social context. Keywords: Faith. Policy. Justice. Participation. Community. REFERÊNCIAS ALVES, Antônio Aparecido. Fé e compromisso cristão na América Latina (De Medellín a Aparecida). In PINHEIRO, José Ernanne; ALVES, Antônio Aparecido (orgs.). Os cristãos leigos no mundo da política a luz do Vaticano II. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2013. ANDRADE, Durval Ângelo. Conselhos de cidadania: exercício da democracia. In LESBAUPIN, Ivo; PINHEIRO (orgs.), José Ernanne. Democracia, Igreja e Cidadania – desafios atuais. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2010. p. 101-120. (Coleção cidadania). BETTO, Frei. O que é Comunidade Eclesial de Base. Artigo, 34p. Disponível em <http://www.dhnet.org.br/direitos/militantes/freibetto/livro_betto_o_q ue_e_cebs.pdf> acesso em 27 jan. 2018. BÍBLIA de Jerusalém. Nova edição revista e atualizada. 3ª impressão. São Paulo: Paulus, 2004. BÍBLIA Tradução Ecumênica – TEB. São Paulo: Loyola, 1994. CALDAS, Ricardo Wahrendorff. Políticas públicas – conceitos e práticas. Artigo, 48p. Belo Horizonte: SEBRAE/MG, 2008. Disponível em: <http://www.mp.ce.gov.br/nespeciais/promulher/manuais/MANUAL %20DE%20POLITICAS%20P%C3%9ABLICAS.pdf > acesso em 27 jan. 2018. FRANCICO, Papa. Carta Encíclica Laudato Si’ – sobre o cuidado da casa comum. Artigo, 192p. Disponível em: <http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/docume nts/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_po.pdf> acesso em 27 jan. 2018. ___________. Exortação Apostólica Evangelii Gaudium. Artigo, 224p. Disponível em: <https://m.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/ documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangeliigaudium_po.pdf > acesso em 13 nov. 2017.GUERRA, et al. Brasil 2016: recessão e golpe. Disponível em: < https://fpabramo.org.br/publicacoes/wpcontent/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/Recessao-Golpe-web.pdf > acesso em 27 jan. 2018. JÚNIOR, Francisco de Aquino. Teologia e Política. Artigo, 27p. Revista de estudos da Religião – REVER, São Paulo: PUCSP, 2008. p.92118. Disponível em: <http://www.pucsp.br/rever/rv1_2008/t_aquino.pdf> acesso em 13 nov 2017. _________. Fé – política: uma abordagem teológica. Artigo, 19p. Dossiê: Cristianismo e política. V. 7 n. 15, Belo Horizonte, 2009. P. 13-31. Disponível em: <webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7da072sqLR0J:https: //dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3655102.pdf+&cd=1&hl=ptBR&ct=clnk&gl=br> acesso em 13 nov. 2017. LEBAUSPIN, Ivo. Democracia: do esvaziamento à reinvenção. In LESBAUPIN, Ivo; PINHEIRO, José Ernanne. (orgs.) Democracia, Igreja e Cidadania – desafios atuais. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2010. p. 13-39. (Coleção cidadania). MARTELLI, Stefano. A Religião na sociedade pós-moderna: entre a secularização e a dessecularização [trad.Euclides Martins Balancin]. São Paulo: Paulinas, 1995. SANTOS, Irinéia Maria Franco dos. Luta e perspectivas da Teologia da Libertação: O caso da comunidade São João Batista, Vila rica, são Paulo: 1980-2000. Artigo 229p. Dissertação (Mestrado em História) Universidade de São Paulo – USP, São Paulo, 2006. Disponível em: <http://www.teses.usp.br/index.php?option=com_jumi&fileid=11&Ite mid=76&lang=ptbr&filtro=Teologia%20da%20Liberta%C3%A7%C3%A3o > acesso em 27 jan. 2017. SARAVIA, Enrique. Política pública: dos clássicos às modernas abordagens. In SARAVIA, Enrique; FERRAREZI, Elizabete. Políticas Públicas. Brasília: ENAP, 2006. Coletânea – vol. 1. Artigo, 125p. Disponível em: <http://www.enap.gov.br/documents/586010/601525/160425_coletane a_pp_v1.pdf/ee7a8ffe-d904-441f-a897-c4a2252a2f23> aceso em 27 jan. 2018.SIMON, Pedro. Fé e política. Brasília: Senado Federal, 2009. 126p. TELLES, Sarah Silva. A categoria pobre: o que tem a dizer a sociologia? In OLIVEIRA, Pedro A. Ribeiro de (org.). Opção pelos pobres no século XXI. São Paulo, Paulinas, 2011. (Coleção cidadania). p.29-57. VASCONCELOS, Francisco Antônio de. Religião e política em Habemas: fé e pós-secularização. Artigo, 18p. Kalagatos, Revista de Filosofia, Fortaleza, CE, v. 12, n.23, Inverno 2015. p. 225-242. Disponível em: <http://kalagatos.com.br/index.php/kalagatos/article/view/53> acesso em 13 nov. 2015. WEBER, Max. Ciência e Política – duas vocações. 11ª edição, São Paulo: Cultrix, 2009.

The release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and his subsequent training of thousands of Climate Presenters marks a critical transition point in communication around climate change. An analysis of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth presentation and of the guidelines we were taught as Presenters in The Climate Project, show they reflect the marketing principles that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report Weathercocks and Signposts (Crompton) argues cannot achieve the systemic and transformational changes required to address global warming. This paper will consider the ultimate effectiveness of social marketing approaches to Climate change communication and the Al Gore Climate Project in the light of the WWF critique. Both the film and the various slideshow presentations of An Inconvenient Truth conclude with a series of suggestions about how to “how to start” changing “the way you live.” The audience is urged to: Reduce your own emissions Switch to green power Offset the rest Spread the word The focus on changing individual consumption in An Inconvenient Truth is also reflected in the climate campaign page Get Involved on the website of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)—the Australian partner in Al Gore’s The Climate Project (TCP). Al Gore’s Climate Project, with over 3,000 Climate Presenters worldwide, could be seen as a giant experimental test of the merits of marketing approaches to social change as compared to the recommendations in the WWF critique authored by Crompton. In Orion magazine, Derrick Jensen has described this emphasis on “personal consumption” instead of “organized political resistance” as “a campaign of systematic misdirection.” Jensen points out that “even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent.” The latest scientific reports show we are on the edge of a tipping point into catastrophic climate change—runaway warming which would render the planet uninhabitable for most life forms, including humans (Hansen et al 13). To reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change to a still worrying 13% we need significant action between now and 2012, and carbon dioxide levels will need to be stabilised at between 350 and 375 parts per million by 2050 (Elzen and Meinshausen 17). Because Americans and Australians are taking far more than our share of the global atmospheric commons, we need to reduce our emissions to less than 90% below 1990 levels by 2050 as our share of the global emission reduction targets (Elzen and Meinshausen 24; Garnaut 283). In other words, if one takes the science seriously there is a huge shortfall between the reductions which can be achieved by individual changes to consumption and the scale of reductions that are required to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change to a half-way tolerable level. The actions being promoted as solutions are nowhere near “inconvenient” enough to solve the problem. Like Crompton and Jensen I was inclined to take the gap between goal and means as overwhelming evidence for the inadequacy of marketing approaches emphasising changes to individual consumption choices. Like them I was concerned that the emphasis on consumption in marketing approaches may even reinforce the consumerism and materialism that drives the growth in emissions. Whilst being generally critical of marketing approaches, Crompton says he accepts the importance marketers place on tailoring the message to fit the motivations of the target audience (25). However, while Crompton describes Rose and Dade’s “Values Modes analysis” as “a sophisticated technique for audience segmentation” (21), he rejects the campaign strategies designed around the target audiences they identify (23). Market segmentation provides communications practitioners with the “extensive knowledge of whom you are trying to reach and what moves them” which is one of the “three must haves” of a successful communication campaign (Fenton 3). Rose and Dade’s segmentation analysis categorises people based on the motivational hierarchy in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. They identify three population groupings—the Settlers, driven by security; the Prospectors, esteem driven; and the Pioneers, who are motivated by intrinsic values (1). As with Maslow’s hierarchy these “Values Modes” are developmentally dynamic. The satisfaction of more basic needs, like physical safety and economic security, support a developmental pathway to the next level. Just as the satisfaction of the need for social acceptance and status free the individual to become motivated by self-actualisation, universal and compassionate ethics, and transcendence. Because individuals move in and out of Values Modes, depending on the degree to which economic, social and political conditions facilitate the satisfaction of their needs, the percentage of the population in each group varies across time and location (Rose and Dade 1). In 2007 the UK population was 20% Settlers, 40% Prospectors, and 40% Pioneers (Rose and Dade 1), but the distribution in other countries would need to be determined empirically. Rose et al provide a strategic rationale for a marketing based climate campaign targeted at changing the behaviours of Prospectors, rather than appealing to Pioneers. While the Pioneers are 40% of the population, they don’t like being “marketed at,” they seek out information for themselves and make up their own minds, and “will often have already considered your ideas and decided what to do” (6). They are also well catered for by environmental groups’ existing ethical and issues based campaigns (3). Prospectors, on the other hand, are the 40% of the population which are the “least reached” by existing ethical or issues oriented environmental campaigning; are the most enthusiastic (or “voracious”) consumers, so their choices will sway business; and they tend to be swinging voters, so if their opinions change it will sway politicians (4). Rose et al (13) found that in order to appeal to Prospectors a climate change communications campaign should: Refer to local, visible, negative changes involving loss or damage [In the UK] show the significance of UK emissions and those of normal people (i.e. like them) Use interest in homes and gardens Deploy the nag factor of their children Create offers which are above all easy, cost-effective, instant and painless Prospectors don’t like, and will be put off by campaigns that (Rose et al 13): Talk about the implications: too remote and they are not very bothered Use messengers (voices) which lack authority or could be challenged Criticise behaviours (e.g. wrong type of car, ‘wasting’ energy in your home) Ask them to give things up Ask them to be the first to change (amongst their peers) Invoke critical judgement by others Crompton recommends an environmental campaign that attempts to persuade Prospectors that they are wrong in thinking material consumption and “ostentatious displays of wealth” contribute to their happiness. Prospectors see precisely these sorts of comments by Concerned Ethicals as a judgemental criticism of their love of things, and a denial of their need for the acceptance and approval of others. Maslow’s developmental model, as well as the Value Modes research, would suggest that Crompton’s proposal is the exact opposite of what is required to move Prospectors into the Pioneer value mode. It is by accepting the values people have, and allowing them to meet the needs that drive them, that they can move on to more intrinsically motivated action. Crompton would appear to fall into the common “NGO or public sector campaign […] trap” of devising a campaign based on what will appeal to the 10% of the population that are Concerned Ethicals, but in the process “particularly annoy or intimidate” the strategically significant 40% of the population that are Prospectors (Rose et al 8). Crompton ignores the evidence from marketing campaign research that campaigns can’t directly change people’s basic motivations, while they can change people’s behaviours if they target their existing motivations. Contrary to Crompton’s claim that promoting green consumption will reinforce consumerism and materialism (16), Rose and Dade base their campaign strategy on the results of research into cognitive dissonance, which show that if you can get someone to act a certain way, they will alter their beliefs and preferences, as well as their self concept, to fit with their actions. Crompton confuses a tactic in a larger game, with the end goal of the game. “The trick is to get them to do the behaviour, not to develop the opinion” (Rose, “VBCOP” 2). Prospectors are persuaded to adopt a behaviour if they see it as “in,” and as what everyone else like them is doing. They are more easily persuaded to buy a product than adopt some other sort of behavioural change. The next part of an environmental marketing strategy like this is to label, praise and reward the behaviour (Futerra 11). Rose suggests that Prospectors can be engaged politically if governments are called on to recognise and reward the behaviour “say by giving them a tax break or paying them for their rooftop energy contribution” (“VBCOP” 3). Once governments have given such rewards, both Settlers and Propectors will fight to keep them, where they are normally disinclined to fight political battles. Once Prospectors identify themselves as, for example, in favour of renewable energy, politicians can be persuaded they need to act to get and keep votes, and business can be persuaded to change in order to continue to attract buyers for their products. In order to achieve the scale of emission reductions required individuals need to change their consumption patterns; politicians need to change the regulatory and planning context in which both individual and corporate decisions are made; and the economic system needs to be transformed so it internalises environmental costs and operates within environmental limits. Social marketing analyses have identified changing Prospectors buying habits as the wedge, or leverage point that can lead to such a cascading set of social, political and economic changes. Just as changing Prospector product choices can be exploited as a key leverage point, Al Gore identified getting United States commitment to emission reduction as a key leverage point towards achieving global commitments to binding reduction targets. Because the United States had the highest national greenhouse emissions, and was one of the two industrialised countries who had failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol, changing behaviour and belief in the United States was strategically critical to achieving global action on emissions reduction. Al Gore initially attempted to get the United States to sign the Kyoto Protocol and commit to emission reduction by working directly at the political level, without building the popular support for action that would encourage other politicians to support his proposals. In the movie, Al Gore talks about the defeat of his initial efforts to get the United States to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and of his recognition of the need to gain wider public support before political action would be taken. He talks about the unsuitability of the mass news media as a vehicle for achieving social and political change on climate emissions. The priority given to conflict as a news value means journalists focus on the personalities involved in disputes about climate change rather than provide an analysis of the issue. When climate experts explain the consensus position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they are “balanced” with opposing statements from the handful of (commonly fossil fuel industry funded) climate deniers. Because climate emissions are part of a complex process of slow change occurring over long time lines they do not fit easily into standard news values like timeliness, novelty and proximity (Harrison). When Al Gore realised he wouldn’t be able to gain the wider public support he needed through the mass news media he began a quest to spread his message “meeting by meeting,” “person by person.” Al Gore turned his slide show into a movie in order to deliver the message to more people than he could reach face to face, and then trained Presenters to reach even more people. When the movie won an Oscar for Best Documentary it turned Al Gore into something of a celebrity. Al Gore’s celebrity status rubs off on Climate Presenters through their association with him, giving them access to community and business groups across the world. When a celebrity recommends or displays a behaviour, Prospectors are more likely to see it as the in thing and thus more willing to do the recommended action. The movie created an opportunity for Al Gore to be a more persuasive messenger than he had been as a politician. Al Gore began The Climate Project to increase the impact of the movie and spread the message further than he could take it by himself. The multiplication of modes of communicating the message fits with Fenton Communications’ “Rule of Three.” In Now Hear This they say the target audience “should read about us in the paper, see us on TV, hear about us from a neighbour and a friend […] have their kid mention us […] and so on” (17). The Presenter training emphasises the “direct communication, especially face to face” recommended by Rose (“To do” 174). During the Presenter training Al Gore warned of the danger of being too negative as it risked moving people “from denial to despair without stopping to act,” and of the need to present the story in such a way as to create hope. This is backed up by the communications marketing literature, which warns that “negative messages may actually induce despair and actually [sic] paralysis while the positive focus can inspire” (Boykoff 172). While it employs dramatic visual images and animations, the movie tends to downplay the potential severity of the consequences of runaway global warming, and presents these in a way that gives the impression of a contracted time frame for the consequences of warming in order to activate motivation based on near term implications. The movie responds to Prospectors’ disinterest in distant implication of climate change by emphasising near-term threats, such as the rising monetary cost of damages, as well as threats to life and property from disease, drought, fire, flood, storm, and rising sea levels. After training an initial round of American Presenters, Al Gore identified training Australian Presenters as the next strategic priority. While Australia’s collective emissions are small, our per capita emissions are higher than those of Americans, and as the only other industrialised nation that had not signed, it was believed our becoming a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol would increase the pressure on the United States to sign. The ACF provided Australian Presenters with additional slides containing vivid images of Australian impacts, and Presenters were encouraged to find their own examples to illustrate impacts relevant to specific local audiences. The importance of identifying local impacts to persuade and move their audiences is impressed upon Presenters during the training. Regular slide updates reinforce this priority. While authors like Crompton and Jensen note the emphasis on changes in consumption as suggested solutions to climate change, other elements of the presentation are just as important in appealing to Prospectors. Prospectors want to belong and gain status by doing whatever is highly regarded by others. The presentation has numerous slides emphasising who else has made commitments to Kyoto and emission reduction. The American presentation includes lists of other countries, and towns and states in the United States that had signed up to Kyoto. The Australian presentation includes graphics emphasising the overwhelming number of Australians who support action. Prospectors don’t like being asked to give things up, and the presentation insists on the high cost of failing to act, compared to the small cost of acting now. Doing something to stop climate change is presented as easy and achievable. Contrary to Crompton’s claim that promoting green consumption would not build the widespread awareness and support for the more far-reaching government action that is required to achieve systemic change (9), the results of recent opinion research show that upwards of 80% of Americans support effective and wide-ranging action to reduce emissions and develop new renewable energy technologies (Climate Checklist). Whereas it would not have been surprising if the financial crisis had dimmed the degree of enthusiasm for action to reduce greenhouse emissions, the high support for action on climate change in their polling continues to encourage the Australian government to use it as a wedge issue against the opposition. Without high levels of public support, there would be little or no chance that politicians would be willing to vote for measures that will reduce emissions. That the push for change in individual consumption choices was only ever one tactic in a wider campaign is also demonstrated by the other projects instigated by Al Gore and his team. Projects like RepoWEr America and WE can solve the climate crisis leverage the interest developed by the Climate Project to increase public pressure on politicians to support regulatory change. The RepoWEr America and WE can solve the climate crisis sites target individuals as citizens and make it easy for them to participate in the political process. Forms help them sign petitions, write letters and meet with their elected officials, write for newspapers and call in to talkback radio, and organise local community meetings or events. Al Gore’s own web site adds a link to the Live Earth company to add to these arsenals. Live Earth “creates innovative, engaging events and media that challenge global leaders, local communities and every individual to actively participate in solving our planet's urgent environmental crises.” These sites provide the infrastructure to make it easy for individuals to move into action in the political domain. But they do it in ways that will appeal to Prospectors. They involve fun, their actions are celebrated, prizes are offered, the number of people involved is emphasised so they feel part of the “happening” thing. RepoWEr America and WE can solve the climate crisis help Prospectors to engage in political action in order to achieve regulatory change. Finally, or first, Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management Company, operating since 2004, is oriented towards systemic transformation in the economic system, so that economic drivers are aligned with sustainability imperatives. Al Gore and his partner David Blood reject Gross Domestic Product—the current measure of economic growth, and a major driver of unsustainable economic activity—as “dangerously imprecise in its ability to account for natural and human resources” and challenge business to accept the “need to internalize externalities” in order to create a sustainable economy. In their Thematic Research Highlights, Al Gore’s Generation company critiques the “Hedonic Treadmill”—which puts “material gains ahead of personal happiness” (32), and challenges “governments, companies, and individuals [...] to broaden their scope of responsibility to match their sphere of influence” (13). While the Climate Project would appear to ignore the inadequacy of individual consumption change as a means of emission reduction, the information and analysis targeted at business by Generation demonstrates this has not been ignored in the overall strategy to achieve systemic change. Al Gore suggests that material consumption should no longer be the measure of economic welfare, an argument he backs with an analysis showing business that long term wealth creation depends on accepting environmental and social sustainability as priorities. While An Inconvenient Truth promotes consumption change as the (inadequate) solution to Global Warming, this is just one strategically chosen tactic in a much larger and coordinated campaign to achieve systemic change through regulatory change and transformation of the economic system. References Australian Conservation Foundation. “Get Involved.” 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.acfonline.org >. Path: Campaigns; Climate Project; Get Involved. Al Gore. AlGore.com. 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.algore.com/ >. An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Paramount Classics and Participant Productions, 2006. Boykoff, Maxwell T. “Book Review on: Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Eds. Susanne C. Moser and Lisa Dilling.” International Journal of Sustainability Communication 3 (2008): 171-175. 24 Aug. 2009 < http://www.ccp-online.org/docs/artikel/03/3_11_IJSC_Book_Review_Boykoff.pdf >. Climate Checklist: Recent Opinion Research Findings and Messaging Tips. 2007 Sightline Institute. 27 Aug. 2009. < http://www.sightline.org/research/sust_toolkit/communications-strategy/flashcard2-climate-research-compendium/ >. Crompton, Tom. Weathercocks and Signposts. World Wildlife Fund. April 2008. 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/weathercocks_report2.pdf >. Den Elzen, Michel, and Malte Meinshausen. “Meeting the EU 2°C Climate Target: Global and Regional Emission Implications”. Report 728001031/2005. 18 May 2005. 24 Aug. 2009 < http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/728001031.pdf >. Fenton Communications. Now Hear This: The 9 Laws of Successful Advocacy Communications. Fenton Communications. 2009. 24 Aug. 2009. < http://www.fenton.com/FENTON_IndustryGuide_NowHearThis.pdf >. Futerra Sustainability Communications. New Rules: New Game. 24 Aug. 2009 < http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf >. Garnaut, Ross. “Targets and Trajectories.” The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report. 2008. 277–298. 24 Aug. 2009 < http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter12.pdf >. Generation Investment Management. Thematic Research Highlights. May 2007. 28 Aug. 2009 < http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-generation-thematic-research-v13.pdf >. Generation Investment Management LLP 2004-09. < http://www.generationim.com/ >. Gore, Al and David Blood. “We Need Sustainable Capitalism: Nature Does Not Do Bailouts.” Generation Investment Management LLP. 5 Nov. 2008. 28 Aug. 2009 < http://www.generationim.com/sustainability/advocacy/sustainable-capitalism.html >. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer and James C. Zachos. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2 (2008): 217-231. 24 Aug. 2009 < http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf >. Harrison, Karey. “Ontological Commitments and Bias in Environmental Reporting.” Environment and Society Conference. Sunshine Coast, Australia, 1999. Jackson, Tim. Prosperity without Growth? The Transition to a Sustainable Economy. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Sustainable Development Commission. 30 March 2009. 5 Oct. 2009 < http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/prosperity_without_growth_report.pdf >. Jensen, Derrick. “Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does not Equal Political Change?” Orion July/Aug. 2009. 5 Aug. 2009 < http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/ >. Live Earth. Live Earth 2009. 28 Aug. 2009 < http://liveearth.org/en >. RepoWEr America. The Alliance for Climate Protection. 2009. 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.repoweramerica.org >. Rose, Chris, and Pat Dade. Using Values Modes. campaignstrategy.org 2007 < http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/usingvaluemodes.pdf >. Rose, Chris, Les Higgins and Pat Dadeii. “Who Gives a Stuff about Climate Change and Who's Taking Action—Part of the Nationally Representative British Values Survey.” 2008. 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.campaignstrategy.org/whogivesastuff.pdf >. Rose, Chris, Pat Dade, and John Scott. Research into Motivating Prospectors, Settlers and Pioneers to Change Behaviours That Affect Climate Emissions. campaignstrategy.org 2007. 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/behaviourchange_climate.pdf >. Rose, Chris. “To Do and Not to Do.” How to Win Campaigns: 100 Steps to Success. London: Earthscan Publications, 2005. Rose, Chris. “VBCOP—A Unifying Campaign Strategy Model”. Campaignstrategy.org March 2009. 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/VBCOP_unifying_strategy_model.pdf >. The Climate Project. 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.theclimateproject.org/ >. Turner, Graham. “A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with 30 Years of Reality.” Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion. CSIRO Working Paper Series. Canberra: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. June 2008. 5 Oct. 2009 < http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf >. WE Can Solve the Climate Crisis. 2008-09. The Alliance for Climate Protection. 27 Aug. 2009 < http://www.wecansolveit.org >.

Becher, Matthias / Stephan Conermann / Linda Dohmen (Hrsg.), Macht und Herrschaft transkulturell. Vormoderne Konfigurationen und Perspektiven der Forschung (Macht und Herrschaft, 1), Göttingen 2018, V&amp;R unipress / Bonn University Press, 349 S., € 50,00. (Matthias Maser, Erlangen) Riello, Giorgio / Ulinka Rublack (Hrsg.), The Right to Dress. Sumptuary Laws in a Global Perspective, c. 1200 – 1800, Cambridge [u. a.] 2019, Cambridge University Press, XVII u. 505 S. / Abb., £ 95,00. (Kim Siebenhüner, Jena) Briggs, Chris / Jaco Zuijderduijn (Hrsg.), Land and Credit. Mortgages in the Medieval and Early Modern European Countryside (Palgrave Studies in the History of Finance), Cham 2018, Palgrave Macmillan, 339 S. / graph. Darst., € 149,79. (Anke Sczesny, Augsburg) Rogger, Philippe / Regula Schmid (Hrsg.), Miliz oder Söldner? Wehrpflicht und Solddienst in Stadt, Republik und Fürstenstaat 13.–18. Jahrhundert (Krieg in der Geschichte, 111), Paderborn 2019, Schöningh, XI u. 282 S. / Abb., € 64,00. (Tim Nyenhuis, Düsseldorf) Seggern, Harm von (Hrsg.), Residenzstädte im Alten Reich (1300 – 1800). Ein Handbuch, Abteilung I: Analytisches Verzeichnis der Residenzstädte, Teil 1: Nordosten (Residenzenforschung. Neue Folge: Stadt und Hof, I.1), Ostfildern 2018, Thorbecke, XVII u. 687 S., € 85,00. (Martin Fimpel, Wolfenbüttel) Walsh, Michael J. K. (Hrsg.), Famagusta Maritima. Mariners, Merchants, Pilgrims and Mercenaries (Brill’s Studies in Maritime History, 7), Leiden / Boston 2019, Brill, XX u. 300 S. / Abb., € 116,00. (Jann M. Witt, Laboe) Hodgson, Natasha R. / Katherine J. Lewis / Matthew M. Mesley (Hrsg.), Crusading and Masculinities (Crusades – Subsidia, 13), London / New York 2019, Routledge, XII u. 365 S., £ 110,00. (Melanie Panse-Buchwalter, Kassel) Pálosfalvi, Tamás, From Nicopolis to Mohács. A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389 – 1526 (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage, 63), Leiden / Boston 2018, Brill, XIV u. 504 S. / Abb., € 135,00. (Sándor Papp, Szeged) Rubin, Miri, Cities of Strangers. Making Lives in Medieval Europe (The Wiles Lectures), Cambridge [u. a.] 2020, Cambridge University Press, XV u. 189 S. / Abb., £ 18,99. (Uwe Israel, Dresden) Hummer, Hans, Visions of Kinship in Medieval Europe (Oxford Studies in Medieval European History), Oxford / New York 2018, Oxford University Press, 380 S., £ 65,00. (Wolfgang P. Müller, New York) Kuehn, Thomas, Family and Gender in Renaissance Italy 1300 – 1600, Cambridge / New York 2017, Cambridge University Press, XV u. 387 S., £ 24,99. (Inken Schmidt-Voges, Marburg) Houlbrooke, Ralph, Love and Dishonour in Elizabethan England. Two Families and a Failed Marriage, Woodbridge 2018, The Boydell Press, XX u. 272 S., £ 50,00. (Inken Schmidt-Voges, Marburg) Müller, Miriam, Childhood, Orphans and Underage Heirs in Medieval Rural England. Growing up in the Village (Palgrave Studies in the History of Childhood), Cham 2019, Palgrave Macmillan, XII u. 213 S. / Abb., € 74,89. (Carola Föller, Erlangen) Parsons, Ben, Punishment and Medieval Education, Cambridge 2018, D. S. Brewer, VII u. 252 S. / Abb., £ 60,00. (Benjamin Müsegades, Heidelberg) Boer, Jan-Hendryk de / Marian Füssel / Maximilian Schuh (Hrsg.), Universitäre Gelehrtenkultur vom 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Ein interdisziplinäres Quellen- und Methodenhandbuch, Stuttgart 2018, Steiner, 589 S. / Abb., € 78,00. (Caspar Hirschi, St. Gallen) Jones, Robert W. / Peter Coss (Hrsg.), A Companion to Chivalry, Woodbridge / Rochester 2019, The Boydell Press, IX u. 338 S. / Abb., £ 60,00. (Stefan G. Holz, Heidelberg / Stuttgart) Schreier, Gero, Ritterhelden. Rittertum, Autonomie und Fürstendienst in niederadligen Lebenszeugnissen des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts (Mittelalter-Forschungen, 58), Ostfildern 2019, Thorbecke, 393 S., € 52,00. (Gerhard Fouquet, Kiel) Sabaté, Flocel (Hrsg.), The Crown of Aragon. A Singular Mediterranean Empire (Brill’s Companions to European History, 12), Leiden / Boston 2017, Brill, XIII u. 364 S., € 223,00. (Nikolas Jaspert, Heidelberg) Jostkleigrewe, Georg, Monarchischer Staat und „Société politique“. Politische Interaktion und staatliche Verdichtung im spätmittelalterlichen Frankreich (Mittelalter-Forschungen, 56), Ostfildern 2018, Thorbecke, 493 S. / Abb., € 58,00. (Gisela Naegle, Gießen / Paris) Flemmig, Stephan, Die Bettelorden im hochmittelalterlichen Böhmen und Mähren (1226 – 1346) (Jenaer mediävistische Vorträge, 7), Stuttgart 2018, Steiner, 126 S., € 29,00. (Jörg Seiler, Erfurt) Bendheim, Amelie / Heinz Sieburg (Hrsg.), Prag in der Zeit der Luxemburger Dynastie. Literatur, Religion und Herrschaftskulturen zwischen Bereicherung und Behauptung (Interkulturalität, 17), Bielefeld 2019, transcript, 197 S. / Abb., € 34,99. (Julia Burkhardt, München) The Countryside of Hospitaller Rhodes 1306 – 1423. Original Texts and English Summaries, hrsg. v. Anthony Luttrell / Gregory O’Malley (The Military Religious Orders: History, Sources, and Memory), London / New York 2019, Routledge, IX u. 323 S., £ 105,00. (Alexander Beihammer, Notre Dame) Neugebauer-Wölk, Monika, Kosmologische Religiosität am Ursprung der Neuzeit. 1400 – 1450, Paderborn 2019, Schöningh, 838 S., € 168,00. (Heribert Müller, Köln) Välimäki, Reima, Heresy in Late Medieval Germany. The Inquisitor Petrus Zwicker and the Waldensians (Heresy and Inquisition in the Middle Ages, 6), Woodbridge / Rochester 2019, York Medieval Press, XV u. 335 S. / Abb., £ 75,00. (Thomas Scharff, Braunschweig) Machilek, Franz, Jan Hus (um 1372 – 1415). Prediger, Theologe, Reformator (Katholisches Leben und Kirchenreform im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, 78/79), Münster 2019, Aschendorff, 271 S., € 29,90. (Klara Hübner, Brno) Kopietz, Matthias, Ordnung, Land und Leute. Politische Versammlungen im wettinischen Herrschaftsbereich 1438 – 1547 (Studien und Schriften zur Geschichte der Sächsischen Landtage, 6), Ostfildern 2019, Thorbecke, 472 S. / graph. Darst., € 60,00. (Stephan Flemmig, Jena / Leipzig) Erdélyi, Gabriella, Negotiating Violence. Papal Pardons and Everyday Life in East Central Europe (1450 – 1550) (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, 213), Leiden / Boston 2018, Brill, X u. 247 S. / Abb., € 129,00. (Gerd Schwerhoff, Dresden) Proske, Veronika, Der Romzug Kaiser Sigismunds (1431 – 1433). Politische Kommunikation, Herrschaftsrepräsentation und -rezeption (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters, 44), Wien / Köln / Weimar 2018, Böhlau, VIII u. 447 S. / Abb., € 50,00. (Karel Hruza, Wien) Leukel, Patrick, „all welt wil auf sein wider Burgundi“. Das Reichsheer im Neusser Krieg 1474/75 (Krieg in der Geschichte, 110), Paderborn 2019, Schöningh, XI u. 594 S. / graph. Darst., € 148,00. (Steffen Krieb, Mainz) Zwart, Pim de / Jan Luiten van Zanden, The Origins of Globalization. World Trade in the Making of the Global Economy, 1500 – 1800 (New Approaches to Economic and Social History), Cambridge [u. a.] 2018, Cambridge University Press, XVI u. 338 S. / Abb., £ 20,99. (Angelika Epple, Bielefeld) Veluwenkamp, Jan. W. / Werner Scheltjens (Hrsg.), Early Modern Shipping and Trade. Novel Approaches Using Sound Toll Registers Online (Brill’s Studies in Maritime History, 5), Leiden / Boston 2018, Brill, XII u. 243 S. / Abb., € 110,00. (Patrick Schmidt, Rostock) Pettigrew, William A. / David Veevers (Hrsg.), The Corporation as a Protagonist in Global History, c. 1550 – 1750 (Global Economic History Series, 16), Leiden / Boston 2019, Brill, X u. 332 S., € 130,00. (Yair Mintzker, Princeton) Biedermann, Zoltán / Anne Gerritsen / Giorgio Riello (Hrsg.), Global Gifts. The Material Culture of Diplomacy in Early Modern Eurasia (Studies in Comparative World History), Cambridge [u. a.] 2018, Cambridge University Press, XVI u. 301 S. / Abb., £ 75,00. (Jan Hennings, Uppsala / Wien) Ginzberg, Eitan, The Destruction of the Indigenous Peoples of Hispano America. A Genocidal Encounter, Brighton / Chicago / Toronto 2019 [zuerst 2018], Sussex Academic Press, XV u. 372 S. / Abb., £ 40,00. (Silke Hensel, Münster) Saladin, Irina, Karten und Mission. Die jesuitische Konstruktion des Amazonasraums im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Historische Wissensforschung, 12), Tübingen 2020, Mohr Siebeck, XX u. 390 S. / Abb., € 69,00. (Christoph Nebgen, Saarbrücken) Verschleppt, verkauft, versklavt. Deutschsprachige Sklavenberichte aus Nordafrika (1550 – 1800). Edition und Kommentar, hrsg. v. Mario Klarer, Wien / Köln / Weimar 2019, Böhlau, 249 S. / Abb., € 40,00. (Stefan Hanß, Manchester) Alfani, Guido / Matteo Di Tullio, The Lion’s Share. Inequality and the Rise of the Fiscal State in Preindustrial Europe (Cambridge Studies in Economic History), Cambridge [u. a.] 2019, Cambridge University Press, XII u. 232 S., £ 31,99. (Peer Vries, Amsterdam) Corens, Liesbeth / Kate Peters / Alexandra Walsham (Hrsg.), Archives and Information in the Early Modern World (Proceedings of the British Academy, 212), Oxford 2018, Oxford University Press, XVIII u. 326 S. / Abb., £ 70,00. (Maria Weber, München) Eickmeyer, Jost / Markus Friedrich / Volker Bauer (Hrsg.), Genealogical Knowledge in the Making. Tools, Practices, and Evidence in Early Modern Europe (Cultures and Practices of Knowledge in History / Wissenskulturen und ihre Praktiken, 1), Berlin / Boston 2019, de Gruyter Oldenbourg, X u. 349 S. / Abb., € 79,95. (Lennart Pieper, Münster) Sittig, Claudius / Christian Wieland (Hrsg.), Die „Kunst des Adels“ in der Frühen Neuzeit (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen, 144), Wiesbaden 2018, Harrassowitz in Kommission, 364 S. / Abb., € 82,00. (Jens Niebaum, Münster) Wall, Heinrich de (Hrsg.), Recht, Obrigkeit und Religion in der Frühen Neuzeit (Historische Forschungen, 118), Berlin 2019, Duncker &amp; Humblot, 205 S., € 89,90. (Cornel Zwierlein, Berlin) Rahn, Thomas / Hole Rößler (Hrsg.), Medienphantasie und Medienreflexion in der Frühen Neuzeit. Festschrift für Jörg Jochen Berns (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen, 157), Wiesbaden 2018, Harrassowitz in Kommission, 419 S. / Abb., € 82,00. (Andreas Würgler, Genf) Berns, Jörg J. / Thomas Rahn (Hrsg.), Projektierte Himmel (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen, 154), Wiesbaden 2019, Harrassowitz in Kommission, 421 S. / Abb., € 86,00. (Claire Gantet, Fribourg / Freiburg) Brock, Michelle D. / Richard Raiswell / David R. Winter (Hrsg.), Knowing Demons, Knowing Spirits in the Early Modern Period (Palgrave Historical Studies in Witchcraft and Magic), Cham 2018, Palgrave Macmillan, XV u. 317 S. / Abb., € 96,29. (Rainer Walz, Bochum) Kaplan, Yosef (Hrsg.), Religious Changes and Cultural Transformations in the Early Modern Western Sephardic Communities (Studies in Jewish History and Culture, 54), Leiden / Boston 2019, Brill, XXXVIII u. 616 S. / Abb., € 160,00. (Jorun Poettering, Hamburg) Gebke, Julia, (Fremd)‌Körper. Die Stigmatisierung der Neuchristen im Spanien der Frühen Neuzeit, Wien / Köln / Weimar 2020, Böhlau, 343 S., € 45,00. (Joël Graf, Bern) May, Anne Ch., Schwörtage in der Frühen Neuzeit. Ursprünge, Erscheinungsformen und Interpretationen eines Rituals, Ostfildern 2019, Thorbecke, 286 S. / Abb., € 39,00. (Gabriele Haug-Moritz, Graz) Godsey, William D. / Veronika Hyden-Hanscho (Hrsg.), Das Haus Arenberg und die Habsburgermonarchie. Eine transterritoriale Adelsfamilie zwischen Fürstendienst und Eigenständigkeit (16.–20. Jahrhundert), Regensburg 2019, Schnell &amp; Steiner, 496 S. / Abb., € 69,00. (Arndt Schreiber, Freiburg i. Br.) Hübner, Jonas, Gemein und ungleich. Ländliches Gemeingut und ständische Gesellschaft in einem frühneuzeitlichen Markenverband – Die Essener Mark bei Osnabrück (Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Niedersachsen und Bremen, 307), Göttingen 2020, Wallstein, 402 S. / Abb., € 34,00. (Gerd van den Heuvel, Hannover) Lück, Heiner, Alma Leucorea. Eine Geschichte der Universität Wittenberg 1502 bis 1817, Halle a. d. S. 2020, Universitätsverlag Halle-Wittenberg, 368 S. / Abb., € 175,00. (Manfred Rudersdorf, Leipzig) Saak, Eric Leland, Luther and the Reformation of the Later Middle Ages, Cambridge [u. a.] 2017, Cambridge University Press, XII u. 399 S., £ 90,00. (Benedikt Brunner, Mainz) Selderhuis, Herman J. / J. Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay (Hrsg.), Luther and Calvinism. Image and Reception of Martin Luther in the History and Theology of Calvinism (Refo500 Academic Studies, 42), Göttingen / Bristol 2017, Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 547 S. / Abb., € 130,00. (Benedikt Brunner, Mainz) Schilling, Heinz, Karl V. Der Kaiser, dem die Welt zerbrach, München 2020, Beck, 457 S. / Abb., € 29,95. (Martina Fuchs, Wien) Jostmann, Christian, Magellan oder Die erste Umsegelung der Erde, München 2019, Beck, 336 S. / Abb., € 24,95. (Jann M. Witt, Laboe) Lang, Heinrich, Wirtschaften als kulturelle Praxis. Die Florentiner Salviati und die Augsburger Welser auf den Märkten in Lyon (1507 – 1559) (Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Beihefte, 248), Stuttgart 2020, Steiner, 724 S. / graph. Darst., € 99,00. (Oswald Bauer, Kastelruth) Schmidt, Maike, Jagd und Herrschaft. Praxis, Akteure und Repräsentationen der höfischen „vénerie“ unter Franz I. von Frankreich (1515 – 1547), Trier 2019, Verlag für Geschichte und Kultur, 415 S. / Abb., € 29,90. (Nadir Weber, Berlin) Richter, Angie-Sophia, Das Testament der Apollonia von Wiedebach. Stiftungswesen und Armenfürsorge in Leipzig am Vorabend der Reformation (1526 – 1539) (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Stadt Leipzig, 18), Leipzig 2019, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 313 S. / Abb., € 34,00. (Martin Dinges, Stuttgart) Faber, Martin, Sarmatismus. Die politische Ideologie des polnischen Adels im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Deutsches Historisches Institut Warschau. Quellen und Studien, 35), Wiesbaden 2018, Harrassowitz, 525 S., € 88,00. (Damien Tricoire, Trier) Woodcock, Matthew / Cian O’Mahony (Hrsg.), Early Modern Military Identities, 1560 – 1639. Reality and Representation, Woodbridge / Rochester 2019, D. S. Brewer, VI u. 316 S., £ 60,00. (Florian Schönfuß, Oxford) Henry Pier’s Continental Travels, 1595 – 1598, hrsg. v. Brian Mac Cuarta SJ (Camden Fifth Series, 54), Cambridge [u. a.] 2018, Cambridge University Press, XIII u. 238 S. / Karten, £ 44,99. (Michael Maurer, Jena) Scheck, Friedemann, Interessen und Konflikte. Eine Untersuchung zur politischen Praxis im frühneuzeitlichen Württemberg am Beispiel von Herzog Friedrichs Weberwerk (1598 – 1608). (Schriften zur südwestdeutschen Landeskunde, 81) Ostfildern 2020, Thorbecke, XI u. 292 S. / Abb., € 39,00. (Hermann Ehmer, Stuttgart) Scheffknecht, Wolfgang, Kleinterritorium und Heiliges Römisches Reich. Der „Embsische Estat“ und der Schwäbische Reichskreis im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Forschungen zur Geschichte Vorarlbergs. Neue Folge, 13), Konstanz 2018, UVK, 542 S. / Abb., € 59,00. (Jonas Stephan, Bad Sassendorf) Stoldt, Peter H., Diplomatie vor Krieg. Braunschweig-Lüneburg und Schweden im 17. Jahrhundert (Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Niedersachsen und Bremen, 303), Göttingen 2020, Wallstein, 488 S. / Abb., € 39,90. (Malte de Vries, Göttingen) Bräuer, Helmut, „… angst vnd noth ist vnser täglich brott …“. Sozial- und mentalitätsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen in Chemnitz während der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig 2019, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 236 S. / Abb., € 29,00. (Ansgar Schanbacher, Göttingen) Brüser, Joachim, Reichsständische Libertät zwischen kaiserlichem Absolutismus und französischer Hegemonie. Der Rheinbund von 1658, Münster 2020, Aschendorff, XI u. 448 S. / Abb., € 62,00. (Wolfgang Burgdorf, München) Albrecht-Birkner, Veronika / Alexander Schunka (Hrsg.), Pietismus in Thüringen – Pietismus aus Thüringen. Religiöse Reform im Mitteldeutschland des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Gothaer Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit, 13), Stuttgart 2018, Steiner, 327 S., € 55,00. (Thomas Grunewald, Halle a. d. S.) James, Leonie, The Household Accounts of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1635 – 1642 (Church of England Record Society, 24), Woodbridge / Rochester 2019, The Boydell Press, XLIII u. 277 S., £ 70,00. (Georg Eckert, Wuppertal / Potsdam) Southcombe, George, The Culture of Dissent in Restoration England. „The Wonders of the Lord“ (Royal Historical Society Studies in History. New Series), Woodbridge / Rochester 2019, The Royal History Society / The Boydell Press, XII u. 197 S., £ 50,00. (Georg Eckert, Wuppertal / Potsdam) McTague, John, Things That Didn’t Happen. Writing, Politics and the Counterhistorical, 1678 – 1743 (Studies in the Eighteenth Century), Woodbridge 2019, The Boydell Press, XI u. 282 S. / Abb., £ 60,00. (Georg Eckert, Wuppertal / Potsdam) McCormack, Matthew, Citizenship and Gender in Britain, 1688 – 1928, London / New York 2019, Routledge, 194 S. / Abb., € 120,00. (Saskia Lettmaier, Kiel) Paul, Tawny, The Poverty of Disaster. Debt and Insecurity in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History), Cambridge [u. a.] 2019, Cambridge University Press, XIII u. 285 S. / Abb., £ 75,00. (Martin Dinges, Stuttgart) Fürstabt Celestino Sfondrati von St. Gallen 1696 als Kardinal in Rom, hrsg. v. Peter Erhart, bearb. v. Helena Müller / Christoph Uiting / Federica G. Giordani / Giuanna Beeli / Birgit Heinzle (Itinera Monastica, 2), Wien / Köln / Weimar 2019, Böhlau, 724 S. / Abb., € 75,00. (Volker Reinhardt, Fribourg) Zumhof, Tim, Die Erziehung und Bildung der Schauspieler. Disziplinierung und Moralisierung zwischen 1690 und 1830, Wien / Köln / Weimar 2018, Böhlau, 586 S. / Abb., € 80,00. (Wolf-Dieter Ernst, Bayreuth) Gelléri, Gábor, Lessons of Travel in Eighteenth-Century France. From Grand Tour to School Trips (Studies in the Eighteenth Century), Woodbridge, The Boydell Press 2020, VIII u. 235 S., £ 75,00. (Michael Maurer, Jena) Beckus, Thomas / Thomas Grunewald / Michael Rocher (Hrsg.), Niederadel im mitteldeutschen Raum (um 1700 – 1806) (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte Sachsen-Anhalts, 17), Halle a. d. S. 2019, Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 235 S. / Abb., € 40,00. (Axel Flügel, Bielefeld) Seitschek, Stefan, Die Tagebücher Kaiser Karls VI. Zwischen Arbeitseifer und Melancholie, Horn 2018, Berger, 524 S. / Abb., € 29,90. (Tobias Schenk, Wien) Köntgen, Sonja, Gräfin Gessler vor Gericht. Eine mikrohistorische Studie über Gewalt, Geschlecht und Gutsherrschaft im Königreich Preußen 1750 (Veröffentlichungen aus den Archiven Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Forschungen 14), Berlin 2019, Duncker &amp; Humblot, VIII u. 291 S., € 89,90. (Nicolas Rügge, Hannover) Polli-Schönborn, Marco, Kooperation, Konfrontation, Disruption. Frühneuzeitliche Herrschaft in der alten Eidgenossenschaft vor und während des Leventiner Protestes von 1754/55, Basel 2020, Schwabe, 405 S. / Abb., € 58,00. (Beat Kümin, Warwick) Kubiska-Scharl, Irene / Michael Pölzl, Das Ringen um Reformen. Der Wiener Hof und sein Personal im Wandel (1766 – 1792) (Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs, 60), Wien 2018, StudienVerlag, 756 S. / graph. Darst., € 49,20. (Simon Karstens, Trier) Kittelmann, Jana / Anne Purschwitz (Hrsg.), Aufklärungsforschung digital. Konzepte, Methoden, Perspektiven (IZEA. Kleine Schriften, 10/2019), Halle a. d. S. 2019, Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 116 S. / Abb., € 10,00. (Simon Karstens, Trier) Willkommen, Alexandra, Alternative Lebensformen. Unehelichkeit und Ehescheidung am Beispiel von Goethes Weimar (Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Thüringen. Kleine Reihe, 57), Wien / Köln / Weimar 2019, Böhlau, 437 S. / graph. Darst., € 55,00. (Laila Scheuch, Bonn) Reuter, Simon, Revolution und Reaktion im Reich. Die Intervention im Hochstift Lüttich 1789 – 1791 (Verhandeln, Verfahren, Entscheiden, 5), Münster 2019, Aschendorff, VIII u. 444 S., € 62,00. (Horst Carl, Gießen) Eichmann, Flavio, Krieg und Revolution in der Karibik. Die kleinen Antillen, 1789 – 1815 (Pariser Historische Studien, 112), Berlin / Boston 2019, de Gruyter Oldenbourg, 553 S., € 54,95. (Damien Tricoire, Trier)

Cute pictures of animals feature as an inoffensive and adorable background to the contemporary online experience with cute content regularly shared on social media platforms. Indeed the demand for cuteness is so strong in the current cultural milieu that some animals become recognisable animal celebrities in the process (Hepola). However, despite the existence of this professionalisation in some sections of the cute economy, amateurs produce the majority of cute content that circulates online. This is largely because one of the central contributors to this steady stream of cute animal pictures is the subforum Aww, hosted on the online community Reddit. Aww is wholly dedicated to pictures of cute things and allows users to directly submit cute content directly to the site. Aww is one of the default subforums that new Reddit users are automatically subscribed to and is immensely popular, featuring over 4.2 million dedicated subscribers as well as untold casual visits. The section is self-described as: “Things that make you go AWW! -- like puppies, and bunnies, and so on...Feel free to post pictures, videos and stories of cute things” ("The cutest things on the internet!"). Users upload cute animal photos that they have taken and wait for the Reddit community to vote on their favourite pictures. The voting mechanism helps users to acknowledge their favourite posts, with the most popular featured on the front page of Aww (for a detailed critique of this process see van der Nagel 2013). The user-generated model of the site means that instead of visitors being confronted with a formally curated selection of cute animal photos, Aww offers a constantly changing mixture of amateur, semi-pro and professional content. Aww - and Reddit more generally - stand as an emblematic example of participatory culture (Jenkins 2006), with users playing an active role in the production and curation of online content. However, given the commercial nature of many user-generated content sites, this amateur media activity is becoming increasingly subject to intellectual property claims and conflicts (see Burgess; Kennedy). Across the internet there are growing tensions between website operators and amateur producers. As Jenny Kennedy (132) notes, while these platforms promote a public rhetoric of “sharing”, these corporate narratives “downplay their economic power” and imply “that they do not control the practices contained within their sites”. Subsequently, the expectations of users regarding how content is managed and organised can differ substantially from the corporate goals of social media companies. This paper contributes to the growing body of literature interested in the politics of amateur media production (see Hunter and Lastowka; Benkler; Burgess; Kennedy) by exploring the emergence of attribution norms and informal enforcement measures in and around the Aww online community. In contrast to professional content creators, amateurs often have fewer resources on hand to protect their copyrighted work and are also challenged by a pervasive online rhetoric that suggests that popular content essentially “belongs to the Internet” (Douglas). A number of communities on Reddit have questioned the company’s handling of amateur content with users suggesting that Reddit actively seeks to de-contextualise original content and not attribute original creators. By examining how amateur creators and online communities regulate content online, I interrogate the power relations that exist between social media platforms and users and explore how the corporate rhetoric of participatory culture interacts with the legal framework of copyright law. This article also contributes to existing legal scholarship on communities of practice and norms-based intellectual property systems. This literature has explored how social norms effectively regulate the protection of, among other things, recipes (Fauchart and Von Hippel), fashion design (Raustiala and Sprigman) and stand-up comedy routines (Oliar and Sprigman), in situations where copyright law does not function as an effective regulatory mechanism. Often these norms are in line with copyright law protections, but in other cases they diverge from these legal principles. In this paper I suggest that particular sections of Reddit function in a similar way, with their own set of self-governing norms, and that these norms largely align with the philosophical aims of copyright law. The paper begins by outlining a series of recent debates that have occurred between amateur media creators and Reddit, before exploring how norms are regulated on Reddit subforums Aww and Karma Court. I then offer some brief conclusions on the value of paying attention to how social norms structure forms of “sharing” (see Kennedy) and provide a useful way for amateur media producers to protect their content without going through formal legal processes. Introducing Reddit and the Confused Politics of Amateur Content Reddit is a social news site, a vibrant community and one of the most popular websites online. It stands as the most visible iteration of a long-standing tradition of user-generated and managed news, one that goes back to websites like Slashdot, which operated in the mid to late-90s. Founded in 2005 Reddit was launched after only one funding round of venture capital, receiving $100k in seed funding from Y Combinatory (Miller). Despite some early rivalry between Reddit and competitor site Digg, Reddit had enough potential to be purchased by Condé Nast for an estimated $20 million (Carr). Reddit’s audience numbers have grown exponentially in the last few years, with the site currently receiving over 5 billion page views and 114 million unique visitors per month (“About Reddit”). It has also changed focus significantly in the last few years with the site now “as much about posting interesting or funny pictures as it is about news” (Sepponen). Reddit hosts a number of individual subforums (called subreddits), which focus on a particular topic and function essentially like online bulletin boards. The front-page of Reddit showcases the most popular content from across the whole website, and user-generated content features heavily here. Amateur media cannot spread without the structural support of social media platforms, but this support is qualified in particular ways. Reddit stands as a paradigmatic case. Users on Reddit are “incentivized to submit direct links to images, because viewers can get to them more easily” (Douglas) and the website encourages amateur creators to use a preferred content server – Imgur – to host images. The Imgur service provides a direct public link to an image – even bypassing the Reddit discussion page – and with its free hosting and limited ads it has become a popular service and is used by most Reddit users (Slater-Robins). For the majority of Reddit users this is an unproblematic partnership. Imgur is free, effective and fast. However, a vocal minority of Reddit users and amateur creators claim that the partnership between Reddit and Imgur has created the equivalent of an online ghetto (Douglas).As Nick Douglas explains, when using services like Imgur there is no requirement to either provide an external link to a creators website or to attribute the creator, limiting the ability for an amateur creator to gain exposure. It also bypasses existing revenue streams that may have been set up by creators, including ad-supported websites or online stores offering merchandise. As a result creators have little opportunity to benefit either economically or reputationally from this system. This occurs to such an extent that “there are actually warnings against submitting your own [original] work” to particular subforums on Reddit (Douglas). For example, some forum moderators require submissions to either “link directly to a specific image file or to a website with minimal ads” (“Reddit Pics”). It is in this context, that the posting of original content without attribution is not actively policed. There are a number of complaints circulating within the Reddit community about these practices (see “Ok, look people. I know you heart Imgur, but webcomics? Just link to the freaking site”; “The problem with reddit”). Many creators have directly protested against this aspect of Reddit’s structural organisation. Blogger Benjamin Grelle (a.k.a The Frogman) and writer Chris Menning are two notable examples. Grelle’s protest was witty and dramatic. He wrote a blog post featuring a picture of an email he sent to Imgur offering the company a choice: send him a huge novelty check for $10,000 or alternatively, add a proper attribution system that allows artists, photographers and content creators to properly credit their work. Grelle estimates that his work generated around $20,000 in ad revenue for Imgur; however the structure of Reddit and Imgur meant he earned little income from the “viral” success of his content. Grelle claimed he was happy for his work to be shared, but attribution meant that it was more likely a fan would follow the link to his website and provide him with some financial recompense for his work. Unsurprisingly, Grelle didn’t receive a paycheck and so in response has developed a unique way to gain exposure. He has started to insert himself into his work, “[s]o when you see a stolen Frogman piece, you still see Ben Grelle’s face” (Douglas). Chris Menning posted a blog about being banned from Reddit, hoping to bring to light some of the inequalities that persist around Reddit’s current structure. He began by noting that he had received a significant amount of traffic from them in the past. He had responded in kind by looking to create original content for particular subforums, knowing what a particular community would enjoy. However, his habit of providing the link to his own website along with the content he posted saw him get labelled as a spammer and banned by administrators. Menning chose not to fight the ban:It seems that the only way I could avoid [getting banned] is if I were to relinquish any rights to my original content and post it exclusively to Imgur. In effect, reddit punishes the creation of original content, and rewards content theft (Menning). Instead he decided to quit Reddit, claiming that Reddit’s approach would carry long-term consequences as the platform provided little incentive for creators to produce wholly original content. It is worth noting that neither Menning nor Grelle turned to legal avenues in order to gain financial restitution. Considering the nature of the practices they were complaining about, compensation in the form of an injunction or damages would have certainly been possible. In Benjamin’s case, a user had combined a number of his copyrighted works into one image and posted the image to Imgur without attribution --this infringed Grelle’s copyright in his work as well as his moral right to be attributed as the creator of the work. However, the public comments of both creators suggest that despite the possibility of legal success, their issue was not so much to do with their individual cases but rather the broader structural issues at play within Reddit. While they might gain individually from a successful legal challenge, over the long term Reddit would continue to be a fraught place for amateur and semi-professional content creators. Certain parts of the Reddit community appear to be sympathetic to these issues, and the complaints of dissenting users like Menning and Grelle have received active support from some users and moderators on the site. This has led to changes in the way content is being posted and managed on Aww, and has also driven the emergence of a satirical user-run court entitled Karma Court. In these spaces moderators and members establish community norms, regularly police the correct attribution of works and challenge the de-contextualisation of content overtly encouraged by Reddit, Imgur and other subforums. In the following section I will examine both Aww and Karma Court in order to explore how these norms are established and negotiated by both moderators and users alike. reddit.com/r/aww: The Online Hub of Cute Animal Pictures As we have seen, the design of Reddit and Imgur creates a number of problems for amateur creators who wish to protect their intellectual property. To address these shortcomings, the Aww community has created its own informal regulatory systems. Volunteer moderators play a crucial role: they establish informal codes of conduct for the Aww community and enforce various rules about how the site should be used. One of these rules relates to attribution. Users are asked to to “post original content whenever possible or attribute original content creators” ("The cutest things on the internet!"). Due to the volunteer nature of the work and the size of the Aww sub-reddit, moderator enforcement is haphazard. Consequently, responsibility falls on the wider user community to self-police. Despite its informal nature, this process manages to facilitate a fairly consistent standard of attribution. In this way it functions as an informal method of intellectual property protection. It is worth noting however that this commitment to original content is not solely due to the moral character of Aww users. A significant motivation is the distribution of karma points amongst Reddit users. Karma, which represents your good standing within the Reddit community, can be earned through user likes and votes – these push the most popular content to the front page of each subforum. Thus karma stands as a numerical representation of a user’s value to Reddit. This ostensibly democratic system has the paradoxical effect of fuelling intellectual property violations on the site. Users often repost other users’ jpegs, animated gifs, and other content, in order to reap the social and cultural capital that comes with posting a popular picture. In some cases they claim authorship of the content; in other cases they simply re-post content that they feel “belongs to the internet” (Douglas). Some content is so popular or pervasive online (this content that is often described as “viral”) that users feel there is little reason or need to attribute content. This helps to explain the persistence of ownership and attribution conflicts on Reddit. In the eyes of some users and moderators the management of these rights and the correct distribution of karma are seen to be vital to the long-term functioning of site. The karma system offers a numerical representation of each contributor’s value. Re-posting already successful content and claiming it as your own challenges the proper functioning of the karma system and potentially ‘inhibits the innovative potential of contributions (Richterich). On Aww the re-posting of original content is viewed as a taboo act that breaches these norms. The poster is seen to have engaged in deceptive conduct in order to gain karma for their user profile. In addition there is a strong ethic that runs through these comment threads that the original creator deserves attribution. There is a presumption that this attribution is vital in order to increasing the possible marketability of the posted content and to recognise and courage creators within the community. This sort of community-driven regulation contrasts with the aforementioned site design of Reddit and Imgur, which frustrates effective authorship attribution practices. Aww users, in contrast, have shown a willingness to defend what they see as the intellectual property rights of content creators.A series of recent examples outline how this process works in practice. User “moonlikeme123” posted a picture of a cat with its hands on the steering wheel of a car. The picture was entitled “we don’t need to ask for directions, Helen”. During the same day, three separate users had identified the picture as a repost, with one noting that the same picture was already on the front page of Aww. “moonlikeme123” received no karma points for the picture. In a second example, the user “nibblur” posted a photo of a kitten “hunting” a toy mouse. Within a day, one enterprising user had identified the original photographer – “torode”, an amateur photographer – and linked to his Reddit profile (see fig. 2) ("ferocious cat hunting its prey: aww."). One further example: on 15 July 2013 “Cuzacelmare” posted a picture of two dogs comforting each other – an image which had originally been posted by “lauface”. Again, users were quick to point out the lack of attribution and the attempt to claim someone else’s content as their own (“Comforting her sister during a storm: aww). It is worth noting that some Reddit users consider attributing content to be entirely without benefit. Some deride karma as “meaningless” and suggest that as a significant amount of content online is regularly reposted elsewhere, there is little harm done in re-posting what is essentially amateur content destined to be lost in the bowels of the internet. For example, the comments that follow Cuzacelmare’s reflect an ambivalence about reposting, suggesting that users weigh up the benefits of exposure gained by the re-posting against the lack of attribution granted and the increasingly decontextualized nature of the photo itself:Why does everyone get so bitchy about reposts. Not everyone is on ALL the time or has been on Rreddit since it was created. I mean if you've seen it already ignore it. It's just picture you aren't forced to click the link. [sic] (“Comforting her sister during a storm: aww”)We're arguing semantics, but any content that gets attention can benefit the creator, whether it's reddit or Youtube (“Comforting her sister during a storm: aww”) Such discussions are common on comment threads following re-posts by other users. They underline the conflicted status of this ephemeral media and the underlying frictions that are part of these processes. These discussions underline the fact that on Reddit the “sharing” (Kennedy) and “spreading” (Jenkins et al.) of content is not seen as an unquestioned positive but rather as a contestable structural feature that needs to be constantly negotiated and discussed. These informal methods of identification, post-hoc attribution and criticism in comment threads have been the long-standing method used to redress questions of attribution and ownership of content on Reddit. However in recent times, Reddit users have turned to satirical methods of formal adjudication for particularly egregious cases. A sub-reddit, Karma Court, now functions as an informal tribunal in which punishment is meted out for “the abuse of karma and general contemptible actions heretofore identified as wrongdoing” (“Constitution and F.A.Q of the Karma Court”). Due to its double function as both an adjudicator and satire of users overly-invested in online debates, there is no limit to the possible “crimes” a user may be charged with. The following charges are only presented as guidelines and speak to common negative experiences on online: (1). Douchebaggery - When one is being a douche.(2). Defamation - Tarnishing another redditor's [user’s] username.(3). Public Indecency - When a user flexes his or her 'e-peen' with the intent to shame other users.(4). OhShit.exe - Intentional reposting that results in reddit Gold.(5). GrandTheft.jpg - Reposting while claiming credit for the post.(6). Obstruction of Justice - Impeding or interfering with an investigation, such as submitting false screenshots, deleting evidence, or providing false evidence to the court.(7). Other - Literally anything else you want. We like creative names for charges.(“Constitution and F.A.Q of the Karma Court”) In Karma Court, legal representation can be sourced from a list of attorneys and judges, populated by users who volunteer to help adjudicate the case. They are required to have been a Reddit member for over six months. The only punishment is a public shaming. Interestingly Karma Court has developed a fair reposting clause that attempts to manage the complex debates around reposting and attribution. Under the non-binding satirical clause, users are able to repost content if it has not featured on the front page of a sub-reddit for seven or more days, if the re-poster acknowledges in the title or description that they are re-posting or if the original poster has less than 30,000 link karma (which means that the original poster has not substantially contributed to the Reddit community). If a re-poster does not adhere by these rules and claims a re-post as their own original content (or “OC”), they can be charged with “grandtheft.jpg” and brought to trial by another Reddit user. As one of the most popular subforums, a number of cases have emerged from Aww. The aforementioned re-poster “Cuzacelmare” (“I am bringing /U/ Cuzacelmare to trial …”) was “charged” through this process and served with a summons after denying “cute and innocent animals of that subreddit of their much deserved karma”. Similar cases to do with re-posting without attribution on Aww involve “FreshCorio” (“Reddit vs. U/FreshCorio …”) and “ninjacollin” (“People of Reddit vs. /U/ ninjacollin”) who were also brought to karma court. In each case prosecutors were adamant that false authorship claims needed to be punished. With these mock trials run by volunteers it takes time for arguments to be heard and judgment to occur; however “ninjacollin” expedited the legal process by offering a full confession. As a new user, “ninjacollin” was reprimanded severely for his actions and the users on Karma Court underlined the consequences of not identifying original content creators when re-posting content. Ownership and Attribution: Amateur Media, Distribution and Law The practices outlined above offer a number of alternate ways to think about amateur media and how it is distributed. An increasingly complex picture of content attribution and circulation emerges once we take into account the structural operation of Reddit, the intellectual property norms of users, and the various formal and informal systems of regulation that are appearing on the site. Such practices require users to negotiate complex questions of ownership between each other and in relation to corporate bodies. These negotiations often lead to informal agreements around a set of norms to regulate the spread of content within a particular community, suggesting that the lack of a formal legal process in these debates does not mean that there is an absence of regulation. As noted throughout this paper, the spread of online content often involves progressive de-contextualisation. Website design features often support this process in the hopes of encouraging content to spread in a fashion amenable to their corporate goals. Considering this tendency for content to be decontextualized online, the presence of attribution norms on subforums like Aww is significant. Instead of remixing, spreading and re-purposing content indiscriminately, users retain a concept of ownership and attribution that tracks closely to the basic principles of copyright law. Rather than users radically redefining concepts of attribution and ownership, as prefigured in some of the more utopian accounts of participatory media, the dominant norms of the Reddit community extend a discourse of copyright and ownership. As well as providing a greater level of detail to contemporary debates around amateur media and its viral or spreadable nature (Burgess; Jenkins; Jenkins et al), this analysis offers some lessons for copyright law. The emergence of norms in particular Reddit subforums which govern the use of copyrighted content and the use of a mock court structure suggests that online communities have the capacity to engage in forms of redress for amateur creators. These organic forms of copyright management operate adjacent to formal legal structures of copyright law. However, they are more accessible and practical for amateur creators, who do not always have the money to hire lawyers, especially when the market value of their content might be negligible. The informal regulatory systems outlined above may not operate perfectly but they reveal communities who are willing to engage foundational conversations around the importance of attribution and ownership. Following the existing literature (Fauchart and Von Hippel; Raustiala and Sprigman; Schultz; Oliar and Sprigman), I suggest that these online social norms provide a useful form of alternative protection for amateur creators. Acknowledgements Thanks to Ramon Lobato and Emily van der Nagel for comments and productive discussions around these issues. I am also grateful to the two anonymous peer reviewers for their assistance in developing this argument. References “About Reddit.” Reddit, 2014. 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://www.reddit.com/about/›. Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Burgess, Jean. “YouTube and the Formalisation of Amateur Media.” Amateur Media: Social, Cultural and Legal Perspectives. In Dan Hunter, Ramon Lobato, Megan Richardson, and Julian Thomas, eds. Oxford: Routledge, 2012. Carr, Nicholas. “Left Alone by Its Owner, Reddit Soars.” The New York Times: Business, 2 Sep. 2012. “Comforting Her Sister during a Storm: aww.” reddit: the front page of the internet, 15 July 2013. “Constitution and F.A.Q of the Karma Court.” reddit: the front page of the internet, 2014. Douglas, Nick. “Everything on the Internet Gets Stolen: Here’s How You Should Feel about That.” Slacktory, 8 Sep. 2009. Fauchart, Emmanual, and Eric von Hippel. “Norms-Based Intellectual Property Systems: The Case of French Chefs.” Organization Science 19.2 (2008): 187 - 201 "Ferocious Cat Hunting Its Prey: aww." reddit: the front page of the internet, 4 April 2013. 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://www.rreddit.com/r/aww/comments/1bobcp/ferocious_cat_hunting_its_prey/›. Hepola, Sarah. “The Internet is Made of Kittens.” Salon.com, 11 Feb. 2009. 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://www.salon.com/2009/02/10/cat_internet/›. Hunter, Dan, and Greg Lastowka. “Amateur-to-Amateur.” William & Mary Law Review 46 (2004): 951 - 1030. “I Am Bringing /U/ Cuzacelmare to Trial on the Basis of Being One of the Biggest _______ I’ve Ever Seen, by Reposting Cute Animal Pictures to /R/Awww. Feels.Jpg.” reddit: the front page of the internet, 21 March 2013. Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2013. Menning, Chris. "So I Got Banned from Reddit" Modern Primate, 23 Aug. 2012. Miller, Keery. “How Y Combinator Helped Shape Reddit.” Bloomberg Businessweek, 26 Sep. 2007. 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-09-26/how-y-combinator-helped-shape-redditbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice›. “Ok, Look People. I Know You Heart Imgur, But Webcomics? Just Link to the Freaking Site.” reddit: the front page of the internet, 22 Aug. 2011. Oliar, Dotan, and Christopher Sprigman. “There’s No Free Laugh (Anymore): The Emergence of Intellectual Property Norms and the Transformation of Stand-Up Comedy.” Virginia Law Review 94.8 (2009): 1787 – 1867. “People of reddit vs. /U/Ninjacollin for Grandtheft.jpg.” reddit: the front page of the internet, 30 Jan. 2013. Raustiala, Kal, and Christopher Sprigman. “The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design”. Virginia Law Review 92.8 (2006): 1687-1777. “Reddit v. U/FreshCorio. User Uploads Popular Repost Picture of R/AWW and Claims It Is His Sister’s Cat. Falsely Claims It Is His Cakeday for Good Measure.” reddit: the front page of the internet, 12 Apr. 2013. 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://www.reddit.com/r/KarmaCourt/comments/1c7vxz/reddit_vs_ufreshcorio_user_uploads_popular_repost/›. “Reddit Pics.” reddit: the front page of the internet, 2014. 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/›. Richterich, Annika. “’Karma, Precious Karma!’ Karmawhoring on Reddit and the Front Page’s Econometrisation.” Journal of Peer Production 4 (2014). 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-4-value-and-currency/peer-reviewed-articles/karma-precious-karma/›. Schultz, Mark. “Fear and Norms and Rock & Roll: What Jambands Can Teach Us about Persuading People to Obey Copyright Law.” Berkley Technology Law Journal 21.2 (2006): 651 – 728. Sepponen, Bemmu. “Why Redditors Gave Imgur a Chance.” Social Media Today, 20 July 2011. Slater-Robins, Max. “From Rags to Riches: The Story of Imgur.” Neowin, 21 Apr. 2013. "The Cutest Things on the Internet!" reddit: the front page of the internet, n.d. “The Problem with reddit.” reddit: the front page of the internet, 23 Aug. 2012. 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://www.rreddit.com/r/technology/comments/ypbe2/the_problem_with_rreddit/›. Van der Nagel, Emily. “Faceless Bodies: Negotiating Technological and Cultural Codes on reddit gonewild.” Scan: Journal of Media Arts Culture 10.2 (2013). "We Don’t Need to Ask for Directions, Helen: aww." reddit: the front page of the internet, 30 June 2013. 29 Apr. 2014 ‹http://www.rreddit.com/r/aww/comments/1heut6/we_dont_need_to_ask_for_directions_helen/›.

The academic journal is obsolete. In a world where there are more titles than ever, this is a comment on their form – especially the print journal – rather than their quantity. Now that you can get everything online, it doesn’t really matter what journal a paper appears in; certainly it doesn’t matter what’s in the same issue. The experience of a journal is rapidly obsolescing, for both editors and readers. I’m obviously not the first person to notice this (see, for instance, "Scholarly Communication"; "Transforming Scholarly Communication"; Houghton; Policy Perspectives; Teute), but I do have a personal stake in the process. For if the journal is obsolete then it follows that the editor is obsolete, and I am the editor of the International Journal of Cultural Studies. I founded the IJCS and have been sole editor ever since. Next year will see the fiftieth issue. So far, I have been responsible for over 280 published articles – over 2.25 million words of other people’s scholarship … and counting. We won’t say anything about the words that did not get published, except that the IJCS rejection rate is currently 87 per cent. Perhaps the first point that needs to be made, then, is that obsolescence does not imply lack of success. By any standard the IJCS is a successful journal, and getting more so. It has recently been assessed as a top-rating A* journal in the Australian Research Council’s journal rankings for ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia), the newly activated research assessment exercise. (In case you’re wondering, M/C Journal is rated B.) The ARC says of the ranking exercise: ‘The lists are a result of consultations with the sector and rigorous review by leading researchers and the ARC.’ The ARC definition of an A* journal is given as: Typically an A* journal would be one of the best in its field or subfield in which to publish and would typically cover the entire field/ subfield. Virtually all papers they publish will be of very high quality. These are journals where most of the work is important (it will really shape the field) and where researchers boast about getting accepted.Acceptance rates would typically be low and the editorial board would be dominated by field leaders, including many from top institutions. (Appendix I, p. 21; and see p. 4.)Talking of boasting, I love to prate about the excellent people we’ve published in the IJCS. We have introduced new talent to the field, and we have published new work by some of its pioneers – including Richard Hoggart and Stuart Hall. We’ve also published – among many others – Sara Ahmed, Mohammad Amouzadeh, Tony Bennett, Goran Bolin, Charlotte Brunsdon, William Boddy, Nico Carpentier, Stephen Coleman, Nick Couldry, Sean Cubitt, Michael Curtin, Daniel Dayan, Ben Dibley, Stephanie Hemelryk Donald, John Frow, Elfriede Fursich, Christine Geraghty, Mark Gibson, Paul Gilroy, Faye Ginsberg, Jonathan Gray, Lawrence Grossberg, Judith Halberstam, Hanno Hardt, Gay Hawkins, Joke Hermes, Su Holmes, Desmond Hui, Fred Inglis, Henry Jenkins, Deborah Jermyn, Ariel Heryanto, Elihu Katz, Senator Rod Kemp (Australian government minister), Youna Kim, Agnes Ku, Richard E. Lee, Jeff Lewis, David Lodge (the novelist), Knut Lundby, Eric Ma, Anna McCarthy, Divya McMillin, Antonio Menendez-Alarcon, Toby Miller, Joe Moran, Chris Norris, John Quiggin, Chris Rojek, Jane Roscoe, Jeffrey Sconce, Lynn Spigel, John Storey, Su Tong, the late Sako Takeshi, Sue Turnbull, Graeme Turner, William Uricchio, José van Dijck, Georgette Wang, Jing Wang, Elizabeth Wilson, Janice Winship, Handel Wright, Wu Jing, Wu Qidi (Chinese Vice-Minister of Education), Emilie Yueh-Yu Yeh, Robert Young and Zhao Bin. As this partial list makes clear, as well as publishing the top ‘hegemons’ we also publish work pointing in new directions, including papers from neighbouring disciplines such as anthropology, area studies, economics, education, feminism, history, literary studies, philosophy, political science, and sociology. We have sought to represent neglected regions, especially Chinese cultural studies, which has grown strongly during the past decade. And for quite a few up-and-coming scholars we’ve been the proud host of their first international publication. The IJCS was first published in 1998, already well into the internet era, but it was print-only at that time. Since then, all content, from volume 1:1 onwards, has been digitised and is available online (although vol 1:2 is unaccountably missing). The publishers, Sage Publications Ltd, London, have steadily added online functionality, so that now libraries can get the journal in various packages, including offering this title among many others in online-only bundles, and individuals can purchase single articles online. Thus, in addition to institutional and individual subscriptions, which remain the core business of the journal, income is derived by the publisher from multi-site licensing, incremental consortial sales income, single- and back-issue sales (print), pay-per-view, and deep back file sales (electronic). So what’s obsolete about it? In that boasting paragraph of mine (above), about what wonderful authors we’ve published, lies one of the seeds of obsolescence. For now that it is available online, ‘users’ (no longer ‘readers’!) can search for what they want and ignore the journal as such altogether. This is presumably how most active researchers experience any journal – they are looking for articles (or less: quotations; data; references) relevant to a given topic, literature review, thesis etc. They encounter a journal online through its ‘content’ rather than its ‘form.’ The latter is irrelevant to them, and may as well not exist. The Cover Some losses are associated with this change. First is the loss of the front cover. Now you, dear reader, scrolling through this article online, might well complain, why all the fuss about covers? Internet-generation journals don’t have covers, so all of the work that goes into them to establish the brand, the identity and even the ‘affect’ of a journal is now, well, obsolete. So let me just remind you of what’s at stake. Editors, designers and publishers all take a good deal of trouble over covers, since they are the point of intersection of editorial, design and marketing priorities. Thus, the IJCS cover contains the only ‘content’ of the journal for which we pay a fee to designers and photographers (usually the publisher pays, but in one case I did). Like any other cover, ours has three main elements: title, colour and image. Thought goes into every detail. Title I won’t say anything about the journal’s title as such, except that it was the result of protracted discussions (I suggested Terra Nullius at one point, but Sage weren’t having any of that). The present concern is with how a title looks on a cover. Our title-typeface is Frutiger. Originally designed by Adrian Frutiger for Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, it is suitably international, being used for the corporate identity of the UK National Health Service, Telefónica O2, the Royal Navy, the London School of Economics , the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Conservative Party of Canada, Banco Bradesco of Brazil, the Finnish Defence Forces and on road signs in Switzerland (Wikipedia, "Frutiger"). Frutiger is legible, informal, and reads well in small copy. Sage’s designer and I corresponded on which of the words in our cumbersome name were most important, agreeing that ‘international’ combined with ‘cultural’ is the USP (Unique Selling Point) of the journal, so they should be picked out (in bold small-caps) from the rest of the title, which the designer presented in a variety of Frutiger fonts (regular, italic, and reversed – white on black), presumably to signify the dynamism and diversity of our content. The word ‘studies’ appears on a lozenge-shaped cartouche that is also used as a design element throughout the journal, for bullet points, titles and keywords. Colour We used to change this every two years, but since volume 7 it has stabilised with the distinctive Pantone 247, ‘new fuchsia.’ This colour arose from my own environment at QUT, where it was chosen (by me) for the new Creative Industries Faculty’s academic gowns and hoods, and thence as a detailing colour for the otherwise monochrome Creative Industries Precinct buildings. There’s a lot of it around my office, including on the wall and the furniture. New Fuchsia is – we are frequently told – a somewhat ‘girly’ colour, especially when contrasted with the Business Faculty’s blue or Law’s silver; its similarity to the Girlfriend/Dolly palette does introduce a mild ‘politics of prestige’ element, since it is determinedly pop culture, feminised, and non-canonical. Image Right at the start, the IJCS set out to signal its difference from other journals. At that time, all Sage journals had calligraphic colours – but I was insistent that we needed a photograph (I have ‘form’ in this respect: in 1985 I changed the cover of the Australian Journal of Cultural Studies from a line drawing (albeit by Sydney Nolan) to a photograph; and I co-designed the photo-cover of Cultural Studies in 1987). For IJCS I knew which photo I wanted, and Sage went along with the choice. I explained it in the launch issue’s editorial (Hartley, "Editorial"). That original picture, a goanna on a cattle grid in the outback, by Australian photographer Grant Hobson, lasted ten years. Since volume 11 – in time for our second decade – the goanna has been replaced with a picture by Italian-based photographer Patrick Nicholas, called ‘Reality’ (Hartley, "Cover Narrative"). We have also used two other photos as cover images, once each. They are: Daniel Meadows’s 1974 ‘Karen & Barbara’ (Hartley, "Who"); and a 1962 portrait of Richard Hoggart from the National Portrait Gallery in London (Owen & Hartley 2007). The choice of picture has involved intense – sometimes very tense – negotiations with Sage. Most recently, they were adamant the Daniel Meadows picture, which I wanted to use as the long-term replacement of the goanna, was too ‘English’ and they would not accept it. We exchanged rather sharp words before compromising. There’s no need to rehearse the dispute here; the point is that both sides, publisher and editor, felt that vital interests were at stake in the choice of a cover-image. Was it too obscure; too Australian; too English; too provocative (the current cover features, albeit in the deep background, a TV screen-shot of a topless Italian game-show contestant)? Running Order Beyond the cover, the next obsolete feature of a journal is the running order of articles. Obviously what goes in the journal is contingent upon what has been submitted and what is ready at a given time, so this is a creative role within a very limited context, which is what makes it pleasurable. Out of a limited number of available papers, a choice must be made about which one goes first, what order the other papers should follow, and which ones must be held over to the next issue. The first priority is to choose the lead article: like the ‘first face’ in a fashion show (if you don’t know what I mean by that, see FTV.com. It sets the look, the tone, and the standard for the issue. I always choose articles I like for this slot. It sends a message to the field – look at this! Next comes the running order. We have about six articles per issue. It is important to maintain the IJCS’s international mix, so I check for the country of origin, or failing that (since so many articles come from Anglosphere countries like the USA, UK and Australia), the location of the analysis. Attention also has to be paid to the gender balance among authors, and to the mix of senior and emergent scholars. Sometimes a weak article needs to be ‘hammocked’ between two good ones (these are relative terms – everything published in the IJCS is of a high scholarly standard). And we need to think about disciplinary mix, so as not to let the journal stray too far towards one particular methodological domain. Running order is thus a statement about the field – the disciplinary domain – rather than about an individual paper. It is a proposition about how different voices connect together in some sort of disciplinary syntax. One might even claim that the combination of cover and running order is a last vestige of collegiate collectivism in an era of competitive academic individualism. Now all that matters is the individual paper and author; the ‘currency’ is tenure, promotion and research metrics, not relations among peers. The running order is obsolete. Special Issues An extreme version of running order is the special issue. The IJCS has regularly published these; they are devoted to field-shaping initiatives, as follows: Title Editor(s) Issue Date Radiocracy: Radio, Development and Democracy Amanda Hopkinson, Jo Tacchi 3.2 2000 Television and Cultural Studies Graeme Turner 4.4 2001 Cultural Studies and Education Karl Maton, Handel Wright 5.4 2002 Re-Imagining Communities Sara Ahmed, Anne-Marie Fortier 6.3 2003 The New Economy, Creativity and Consumption John Hartley 7.1 2004 Creative Industries and Innovation in China Michael Keane, John Hartley 9.3 2006 The Uses of Richard Hoggart Sue Owen, John Hartley 10.1 2007 A Cultural History of Celebrity Liz Barry 11.3 2008 Caribbean Media Worlds Anna Pertierra, Heather Horst 12.2 2009 Co-Creative Labour Mark Deuze, John Banks 12.5 2009 It’s obvious that special issues have a place in disciplinary innovation – they can draw attention in a timely manner to new problems, neglected regions, or innovative approaches, and thus they advance the field. They are indispensible. But because of online publication, readers are not held to the ‘project’ of a special issue and can pick and choose whatever they want. And because of the peculiarities of research assessment exercises, editing special issues doesn’t count as research output. The incentive to do them is to that extent reduced, and some universities are quite heavy-handed about letting academics ‘waste’ time on activities that don’t produce ‘metrics.’ The special issue is therefore threatened with obsolescence too. Refereeing In many top-rating journals, the human side of refereeing is becoming obsolete. Increasingly this labour-intensive chore is automated and the labour is technologically outsourced from editors and publishers to authors and referees. You have to log on to some website and follow prompts in order to contribute both papers and the assessment of papers; interactions with editors are minimal. At the IJCS the process is still handled by humans – namely, journal administrator Tina Horton and me. We spend a lot of time checking how papers are faring, from trying to find the right referees through to getting the comments and then the author’s revisions completed in time for a paper to be scheduled into an issue. The volume of email correspondence is considerable. We get to know authors and referees. So we maintain a sense of an interactive and conversational community, albeit by correspondence rather than face to face. Doubtless, sooner or later, there will be a depersonalised Text Management System. But in the meantime we cling to the romantic notion that we are involved in refereeing for the sake of the field, for raising the standard of scholarship, for building a globally dispersed virtual college of cultural studies, and for giving everyone – from unfavoured countries and neglected regions to famous professors in old-money universities – the same chance to get their research published. In fact, these are largely delusional ideals, for as everyone knows, refereeing is part of the political economy of publicly-funded research. It’s about academic credentials, tenure and promotion for the individual, and about measurable research metrics for the academic organisation or funding agency (Hartley, "Death"). The IJCS has no choice but to participate: we do what is required to qualify as a ‘double-blind refereed journal’ because that is the only way to maintain repute, and thence the flow of submissions, not to mention subscriptions, without which there would be no journal. As with journals themselves, which proliferate even as the print form becomes obsolete, so refereeing is burgeoning as a practice. It’s almost an industry, even though the currency is not money but time: part gift-economy; part attention-economy; partly the payment of dues to the suzerain funding agencies. But refereeing is becoming obsolete in the sense of gathering an ‘imagined community’ of people one might expect to know personally around a particular enterprise. The process of dispersal and anonymisation of the field is exacerbated by blind refereeing, which we do because we must. This is suited to a scientific domain of objective knowledge, but everyone knows it’s not quite like that in the ‘new humanities’. The agency and identity of the researcher is often a salient fact in the research. The embedded positionality of the author, their reflexiveness about their own context and room-for-manoeuvre, and the radical contextuality of knowledge itself – these are all more or less axiomatic in cultural studies, but they’re not easily served by ‘double-blind’ refereeing. When refereeing is depersonalised to the extent that is now rife (especially in journals owned by international commercial publishers), it is hard to maintain a sense of contextualised productivity in the knowledge domain, much less a ‘common cause’ to which both author and referee wish to contribute. Even though refereeing can still be seen as altruistic, it is in the service of something much more general (‘scholarship’) and much more particular (‘my career’) than the kind of reviewing that wants to share and improve a particular intellectual enterprise. It is this mid-range altruism – something that might once have been identified as a politics of knowledge – that’s becoming obsolete, along with the printed journals that were the banner and rallying point for the cause. If I were to start a new journal (such as cultural-science.org), I would prefer ‘open refereeing’: uploading papers on an open site, subjecting them to peer-review and criticism, and archiving revised versions once they have received enough votes and comments. In other words I’d like to see refereeing shifted from the ‘supply’ or production side of a journal to the ‘demand’ or readership side. But of course, ‘demand’ for ‘blind’ refereeing doesn’t come from readers; it comes from the funding agencies. The Reading Experience Finally, the experience of reading a journal is obsolete. Two aspects of this seem worthy of note. First, reading is ‘out of time’ – it no longer needs to conform to the rhythms of scholarly publication, which are in any case speeding up. Scholarship is no longer seasonal, as it has been since the Middle Ages (with university terms organised around agricultural and ecclesiastical rhythms). Once you have a paper’s DOI number, you can read it any time, 24/7. It is no longer necessary even to wait for publication. With some journals in our field (e.g. Journalism Studies), assuming your Library subscribes, you can access papers as soon as they’re uploaded on the journal’s website, before the published edition is printed. Soon this will be the norm, just as it is for the top science journals, where timely publication, and thereby the ability to claim first discovery, is the basis of intellectual property rights. The IJCS doesn’t (yet) offer this service, but its frequency is speeding up. It was launched in 1998 with three issues a year. It went quarterly in 2001 and remained a quarterly for eight years. It has recently increased to six issues a year. That too causes changes in the reading experience. The excited ripping open of the package is less of a thrill the more often it arrives. Indeed, how many subscribers will admit that sometimes they don’t even open the envelope? Second, reading is ‘out of place’ – you never have to see the journal in which a paper appears, so you can avoid contact with anything that you haven’t already decided to read. This is more significant than might first appear, because it is affecting journalism in general, not just academic journals. As we move from the broadcast to the broadband era, communicative usage is shifting too, from ‘mass’ communication to customisation. This is a mixed blessing. One of the pleasures of old-style newspapers and the TV news was that you’d come across stories you did not expect to find. Indeed, an important attribute of the industrial form of journalism is its success in getting whole populations to read or watch stories about things they aren’t interested in, or things like wars and crises that they’d rather not know about at all. That historic textual achievement is in jeopardy in the broadband era, because ‘the public’ no longer needs to gather around any particular masthead or bulletin to get their news. With Web 2.0 affordances, you can exercise much more choice over what you attend to. This is great from the point of view of maximising individual choice, but sub-optimal in relation to what I’ve called ‘population-gathering’, especially the gathering of communities of interest around ‘tales of the unexpected’ – novelty or anomalies. Obsolete: Collegiality, Trust and Innovation? The individuation of reading choices may stimulate prejudice, because prejudice (literally, ‘pre-judging’) is built in when you decide only to access news feeds about familiar topics, stories or people in which you’re already interested. That sort of thing may encourage narrow-mindedness. It is certainly an impediment to chance discovery, unplanned juxtaposition, unstructured curiosity and thence, perhaps, to innovation itself. This is a worry for citizenship in general, but it is also an issue for academic ‘knowledge professionals,’ in our ever-narrower disciplinary silos. An in-close specialist focus on one’s own area of expertise need no longer be troubled by the concerns of the person in the next office, never mind the next department. Now, we don’t even have to meet on the page. One of the advantages of whole journals, then, is that each issue encourages ‘macro’ as well as ‘micro’ perspectives, and opens reading up to surprises. This willingness to ‘take things on trust’ describes a ‘we’ community – a community of trust. Trust too is obsolete in these days of performance evaluation. We’re assessed by an anonymous system that’s managed by people we’ll never meet. If the ‘population-gathering’ aspects of print journals are indeed obsolete, this may reduce collegiate trust and fellow-feeling, increase individualist competitiveness, and inhibit innovation. In the face of that prospect, I’m going to keep on thinking about covers, running orders, referees and reading until the role of editor is obsolete too. ReferencesHartley, John. "'Cover Narrative': From Nightmare to Reality." International Journal of Cultural Studies 11.2 (2005): 131-137. ———. "Death of the Book?" Symposium of the National Scholarly Communication Forum & Australian Academy of the Humanities, Sydney Maritime Museum, 2005. 26 Apr. 2009 ‹http://www.humanities.org.au/Resources/Downloads/NSCF/RoundTables1-17/PDF/Hartley.pdf›. ———. "Editorial: With Goanna." International Journal of Cultural Studies 1.1 (1998): 5-10. ———. "'Who Are You Going to Believe – Me or Your Own Eyes?' New Decade; New Directions." International Journal of Cultural Studies 11.1 (2008): 5-14. Houghton, John. "Economics of Scholarly Communication: A Discussion Paper." Center for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, 2000. 26 Apr. 2009 ‹http://www.caul.edu.au/cisc/EconomicsScholarlyCommunication.pdf›. Owen, Sue, and John Hartley, eds. The Uses of Richard Hoggart. International Journal of Cultural Studies (special issue), 10.1 (2007). Policy Perspectives: To Publish and Perish. (Special issue cosponsored by the Association of Research Libraries, Association of American Universities and the Pew Higher Education Roundtable) 7.4 (1998). 26 Apr. 2009 ‹http://www.arl.org/scomm/pew/pewrept.html›. "Scholarly Communication: Crisis and Revolution." University of California Berkeley Library. N.d. 26 Apr. 2009 ‹http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Collections/crisis.html›. Teute, F. J. "To Publish or Perish: Who Are the Dinosaurs in Scholarly Publishing?" Journal of Scholarly Publishing 32.2 (2001). 26 Apr. 2009 ‹http://www.utpjournals.com/product/jsp/322/perish5.html›."Transforming Scholarly Communication." University of Houston Library. 2005. 26 Apr. 2009 ‹http://info.lib.uh.edu/scomm/transforming.htm›.

Studies on Canadian Army military intelligence remain sparse in Canadian military historiography. This study is unique in that it focuses on the development, doctrine, and influence of intelligence within the I Canadian Corps throughout the Liri Valley battles during the Italian Campaign. It will be argued that I Canadian Corps intelligence achieved notable overall success in helping to break the Hitler Line by providing comprehensive and relatively up-to-date information on enemy dispositions and strengths which helped commanders and staff planners properly prepare for the operation. This success was attributable to three main factors: excellent intelligence personnel selection and training; the successful mentorship of I Canadian Corps intelligence by Eighth Army's intelligence cadre; and the overall effectiveness of 1st Canadian Infantry Division's intelligence organization which had been in the Mediterranean theatre since July 1943. Notwithstanding these successes, a number of faults within the Canadian Corps intelligence system must also be explained, including the poor performance of 5th Canadian Armoured Division's intelligence organization during the pursuit up the Liri–Sacco Valleys, and the mediocre execution of Corps counter-battery and counter-mortar operations. This study will demonstrate how an effective intelligence organization must augment existing army doctrine and how it can mitigate, though not completely eliminate, battlefield uncertainty. Further, it will also demonstrate that a comprehensive lessons-learned process must be undertaken to continually refine existing intelligence doctrine and procedures, with frequent training programs inculcating personnel in this doctrine. Taken as a whole, this study is unique as it is one of only several studies devoted solely to developing a greater understanding of a little-understood, and often forgotten, staff function within the Canadian Army during the Second World War.

The Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination was supposed to be the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton. She was the most well-known candidate; had the most support from the party establishment, and had, by far, the most financial resources. Two big names (Al Gore and John Kerry) considered running, but decided they had no hope of defeating the Clinton machine. That left an unlikely assortment of lesser-knowns: a U.S. Representative from Ohio (Dennis Kucinich), the Governor of New Mexico (Bill Richardson), and several U.S. Senators: Joe Biden (Delaware), John Edwards (North Carolina), Chris Dodd (Connecticut), Mike Gravel (Alaska), and Barack Obama (Illinois). The nomination went off script. Obama was a first-term senator, a black man with an unhelpful name, but he excited voters. He raised enough money to be competitive in the Iowa caucuses and he persuaded Oprah Winfrey to campaign for him. Obama defeated Clinton by eight percentage points in Iowa and the race was on. Obama won the Democratic nomination and, then, the presidential election against Republican John McCain because the Obama campaign had a lot more going for it than Obama’s eloquence and charisma: Big Data. The Obama campaign tried to put every potential voter into its data base, along with hundreds of tidbits of personal information: age, gender, marital status, race, religion, address, occupation, income, car registrations, home value, donation history, magazine subscriptions, leisure activities, Facebook friends, and anything else they could find that seemed relevant. Some data were collected from public data bases, some from e-mail exchanges or campaign workers knocking on front doors. Some data were purchased from private data vendors. Layered on top were weekly telephone surveys of thousands of potential voters which not only gathered personal data, but also attempted to gauge each person’s likelihood of voting—and voting for Obama. These voter likelihoods were correlated statistically with personal characteristics and extrapolated to other potential voters based on their personal characteristics. The campaign’s computer software predicted how likely each person its data base was to vote and the probability that the vote would be for Obama. This data-driven model allowed the campaign to microtarget individuals through e-mails, snail mail, personal visits, and television ads asking for donations and votes.