Suchergebnisse

The purpose of the article is to identify the features of national and regional party influence, the specifics of political and ideological fragmentation of the regions of Ukraine. This goal can be achieved by solving the following tasks: to analyze the motivation of voters to participate in elections; to study the results obtained by local and national parties; assess changes to the Electoral Code. The hypothesis of the article is that significant changes are planned in the political and party space of Ukraine, namely, some parties that have the status of national, are gradually leaving the political life of the country. They are still claimed by regional parties, which have shown convincing results in the 2020 local elections and have ambitions to become parliamentary parties. Ukrainians were indifferent to this election campaign, which resulted in an extremely low turnout. The reason is that in Ukraine people are less and less involved in elections due to the high level of distrust in politics and state institutions. Unlike people in democracies, they believe that their lives will not change for the better. The article, based on the analysis of the results of the 2020 local elections in Ukraine, concludes that the local political elites have been strengthened, and the role of regional parties claiming to run for parliament in the upcoming (possibly early) parliamentary elections. It is shown that local political parties have shown a high level of electoral support, which is explained by the impact of the decentralization reform in Ukraine on the regional political process. The ruling Servant of the People party lost the phenomenal advantage it had over the parliamentary parties in the parliamentary elections. The reason is that after the presidential and parliamentary elections, there was a disappointment of voters in the "Servant of the People" party. Just over a year has passed since voters were ready to vote for any candidate from this party. At that time, this party was supported by almost all regions of Ukraine. Ukraine's Electoral Code needs to be further improved to make the electoral process even more understandable, transparent and effective. ; Мета статті – виявити особливості національного і регіонального партійного впливу, специфіку політико-ідеологічної фрагментації регіонів України. Цієї мети можна досягти завдяки вирішенню таких завдань: проаналізувати мотивацію виборців до участі у виборах; дослідити результати, отримані місцевими та загальнонаціональними партіями; оцінити зміни Виборчого кодексу. Гіпотезою статті є те, що в політико-партійному просторі України намічаються істотні зміни, а саме деякі партії, що мають статус національних, поступово йдуть із політичного життя країни. На їхні місця претендують поки ще регіональні партії, які показали переконливі результати на місцевих виборах 2020 р. і мають амбіції стати парламентськими партіями. Українці віднеслися до цієї виборчої кампанії байдуже, що виразилося в надзвичайно низькій явці. Причина у тому, що в Україні люди все менше беруть участь у виборах через високий рівень недовіри до політики і державних інститутів. На відміну від жителів демократичних країн, вони вважають, що їхнє життя не зміниться на краще. У статті на основі аналізу результатів місцевих виборів 2020 року в Україні робиться висновок про зміцнення місцевих політичних еліт, підвищення ролі регіональних партій, що претендують на проходження в парламент на майбутніх (можливо, позачергових) парламентських виборах. Показано, що місцеві політичні партії продемонстрували високий рівень електоральної підтримки, що пояснюється впливом реформи децентралізації влади в Україні на регіональний політичний процес. Правляча партія «Слуга народу» втратила ту феноменальну перевагу перед парламентськими партіями, яку мала на парламентських виборах. Причина у тому, що після президентських і парламентських виборів з'явилося розчарування виборців у партії «Слуга народу». Всього трохи більше року минуло з того моменту, як виборці були готові голосувати за будь-якого кандидата від цієї партії. Тоді цю партію підтримали практично всі регіони України. Виборчий кодекс України потребує подальшого вдосконалення, щоб виборчий процес став ще більш зрозумілим, прозорим і ефективним.

Election campaigns occurred during the emergence of modern political parties at the end of the 18th century in the United States of America, or in the first half of the 19th century in Europe. They are defined as organized activities whose main characteristic is mass communication. Campaigns are divided into positive, negative and comparative. Positive campaigns tend to gain the confidence of voters by promoting positive characteristics of a political subject. Negative campaigns gain voters' confidence by attacking a rival party or a candidate, while comparative campaigns strive to gain confidence by comparing parties, candidates and political ideology with the competitive party. Political marketing is mostly used in periods prior to and during elections. Aim of each campaign is to gain political public's support, or in other words, to gain the planned number of votes. There are three goals of each campaign: raising voters' turnout in elections, publicizing qualities of a political subject and raising money, as well as recruiting campaign activists. Political subjects tend to influence voters with their programs, which depends on whether the political campaign will be successful or not. Political marketing in realization of its goals uses numerous techniques and resources. Most common methods that enable propaganda of political marketing are: promotional materials, posters, leaflets, newspapers, newsletters, press advertising, election videos, presentation materials, e-mails, banners, telemarketing. This paper presents the results of a research whose goal was to determine the use of e-marketing tools in electoral campaign by political parties and candidates on the election for Croatian Parliament in 2016. Research was conducted through two parallel courses: an e-mail questionnaire about political parties/participants in elections and a questionnaire/message on Facebook social network to all parties/participants in elections. The main research goal is to determine whether political subjects use e-marketing tools in electoral campaigns. From the scientific point of view, use of e-marketing tools in electoral campaign has not yet been explored. In that sense, this research contributes better understanding of use of e-marketing in political activities. Results can be used to improve e-marketing, as well as a frame for further research and successful political activity. ; Izborne kampanje se javljaju nastajanjem modernih političkih stranaka krajem 18. stoljeća u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, odnosno u prvoj polovici 19. stoljeća u Europi. Definiraju se kao organizirane aktivnosti čije je obilježje masovna komunikacija. Kampanje se mogu dijeliti na pozitivne, negativne i usporedne. Pozitivne kampanje povjerenje birača nastoje ostvariti promicanjem pozitivnih karakteristika političkog subjekta. Negativne kampanje povjerenje birača nastoje ostvariti napadima na suparničku stranku ili kandidata, dok usporedne kampanje pokušavaju dobiti povjerenje birača uspoređivanjem stranke, kandidata i političke ideologije s konkurentnom strankom. Politički marketing se najviše koristi u vremenu prije i za vrijeme izbora. Cilj svake kampanje je pridobiti potporu političke javnosti, odnosno dobiti planirani broj glasova. Postoje tri cilja svake kampanje: povećanje odaziva na izbore, objavljivanje kvaliteta političkog subjekta i prikupljanje novca, te regrutiranje aktivista kampanje. Politički subjekti svojim programom nastoje utjecati na birače, o kojima ovisi hoće li izborna kampanja biti uspješna ili ne. Politički marketing u realizaciji svojih ciljeva koristi brojne tehnike i sredstva. Najčešće metode preko kojih se odvija propaganda političkog marketinga su: promotivni materijali, plakati, letci, novine, newsletteri, oglašavanje u tisku, izborni spotovi, materijali za prezentaciju, e-mailovi, banneri, telemarketing… U ovom su radu prikazani rezultati istraživanja čiji je cilj bio utvrditi korištenje alata e-marketinga u izbornoj kampanji od strane političkih stranaka i kandidata na izborima za Hrvatski sabor 2016. godine. Istraživanje je provedeno kroz dva paralelna pravca: anketni upitnik e-mailom političkim strankama/sudionicima izbora i anketnim pitnikom/porukom na društvenoj mreži Facebook svim kandidatima/sudionicima izbora. Glavni istraživački cilj je utvrditi koriste li politički subjekti alate e-marketinga u izbornoj kampanji. Sa znanstvenog stajališta, korištenje e-marketinga u izbornoj kampanji nije istraženo područje. U tom smislu, ovo istraživanje doprinosi boljem razumijevanju primjene e-marketinga u političkom djelovanju. Rezultati mogu biti korišteni u svrhu unaprjeđenja e-marketinga, ali i poslužiti kao okvir za daljnja istraživanja i uspješno političko djelovanje.

This dissertation is a study of the specialized production of electoral politics. I examine the social origins, career paths and perspectives of the hired professionals who craft the strategies, messages, and images of national-level campaigns. These "politicos" compete for positions within an ever-changing landscape of consulting firms, party committees, and short-lived campaign organizations. They have a profound influence both on the content of American politics and on politicians themselves, yet they have never been studied, other than anecdotally.This is the first comprehensive study of the social structure, dispositions, and strategies of the full array of workers--not only consultants, but also campaign staff and advisors--who produce national-level political campaigns. I find that the structure and culture of professional campaign work magnify existing inequalities in democratic participation, both inside and outside the field of political production. Among political operatives, entry-level jobs on national campaigns are the best and often only viable starting point for a path to higher-level work, but these positions are nearly impossible to access for those without political connections and/or financial resources. This creates a first filter of selection and vector of inequality according to class, ethnicity, gender and age. Next, because any individual's contribution to an electoral outcome is nearly unknowable (as my interviewees attested), an individual rises in this field not because her campaigns win or lose, but by the extent to which candidates and other "politicos" believe she has the skills and the "political instincts" to succeed. Hiring practices are informal and referral-based, which further limits access to these powerful positions for those without the effective capitals or dispositions. As a result, the top levels of the campaign profession have even less ethnic and gender diversity than does Congress. This inequality of access to positions in the space of political production combines with other features of internal electoral organization to produce campaign strategies disliked by both scholars concerned with good democratic practice and potential voters. For example, many of my interviewees talked about the incentives for "cookie-cutter campaigning"--reproducing strategies, tactics, and even slogans across elections. In Chapter 4, I use multiple correspondence analysis to show that the "top" consultants--those who work on the greatest numbers of high-level races and are in a position to hire, judge, mentor and socialize newer campaign professionals--are the most likely to find it acceptable to use misleading tactics or to deliberately decrease turnout, and are the least worried about these tactics' affects on voter cynicism. These kinds of campaign content, along with the sense that politics is "too complicated" or that politicians are not concerned with "regular people," have been shown in other studies to lower political participation. In this dissertation, I bring together Bourdieu's and others' analyses of cultural fields with political science and sociology, approaching the world of electoral politics as a "field of cultural production" rather than only as a site of competition over interests or a simple vehicle for domination. People have practical, tacit relations to political messages and images, just as they do with any other kind of cultural product. These dispositions are formed through family, schooling, and work, and are thus deeply tied to class, gender, race, ethnicity/nationality and other principles of classification and forms of inequality. This is true for the people who produce political content (such as skilled professionals of electoral campaigns) as well as for potential voters. This research, then, focuses on the "supply side" of electoral politics, the intersection between the field of cultural production and the political field which I will call the "field of political production." Examining this field of political production--the trajectories, contests, categorizations, and desires of the producers who design, direct and distribute campaign materials--contributes to understanding how and why campaign specialists make the choices they do.

Dottorato di ricerca in Storia d'Europa: Società, politica e istituzioni(XIX-XX Secolo) ; Una curiosa espressione di Jacques Delors, più volte utilizzata nel corso della sua carriera, definì le istituzioni comunitarie come un "O.P.N.I., oggetto politico non identificato". L'affermazione di Delors appare come un compromesso tra l'interesse a tutela dei diritti degli Stati e la necessità di attribuire al processo di integrazione europea istituzioni stabili e soprattutto autonome. In realtà, i caratteri di profonda instabilità mostrati dal modello di Comunità ne fecero scaturire due orientamenti interpretativi differenti. Il primo considerò il raggiungimento dell'obiettivo prefissato nella realizzazione di una unione politica; come sostiene Riccardo Perissich, "Ai limitati trasferimenti di sovranità già decisi, altri ne sarebbero seguiti, anche se sempre in modo graduale. Coerentemente con questo approccio, le istituzioni avrebbero dovuto evolvere verso un modello classico. La Commissione si sarebbe trasformata in un esecutivo federale; il Consiglio dei ministri in un "Senato degli Stati"; l'Assemblea parlamentare in un vero Parlamento federale"1. Il secondo orientamento si basò sull'idea che il principio di sovranità non potesse essere frammentato e che il conferimento di potere previsto dai Trattati fosse più di carattere tecnico che politico. Questa seconda interpretazione aumentò i dubbi e la diffidenza nei confronti della Commissione e ancor più del Parlamento. C'è da dire inoltre, che gli Stati firmatari dei Trattati si riconobbero più nella prima lettura del modello, con un necessario distinguo per la Francia che, all'epoca dell'entrata in vigore era presieduta dal generale Charles De Gaulle, fortemente contrario, come noto, all'idea di una qualsiasi minima cessione di potere a livello sovranazionale. A seguito della fusione di CECA, CEE ed EURATOM una sola Commissione unificò l'apparato amministrativo mentre al Parlamento europeo venne assegnato unicamente il compito di esercitare il potere in materia di bilancio, oltre ad una funzione meramente consultiva; l'elezione diretta del Parlamento fu contemplata nell'articolo n.138 del Trattato istitutivo della Comunità europea nel quale, oltre ad essere indicato il sistema di elezione dei parlamentari europei delegati come provvisorio, 1R. Perissich, L'Unione Europea una storia non ufficiale, Milano, Longanesi, 2008, p.54. venne previsto che il Parlamento avrebbe elaborato progetti volti alla realizzazione di una procedura di elezione uniforme per tutti gli Stati membri. Di fatto, negli anni che intercorsero tra il 1951 e il 1976, furono presentate numerose proposte orientate all'istituzione della procedura di elezione a suffragio universale diretto che, dopo molte difficoltà, trovarono soltanto nel 1979 la loro attuazione; questo risultato rappresentò l'inizio di una nuova era in cui l'importanza della comunicazione politico-istituzionale giocò un ruolo fondamentale per creare il necessario contatto con i cittadini, in previsione della loro partecipazione al voto europeo. Ricordiamo come nel 1974, al vertice francese presieduto da Valéry Giscard D'Estaing, venne adottata la decisione di istituire il Consiglio europeo e l'elezione diretta del Parlamento. L'evento avrebbe esercitato una notevole influenza nella dinamica istituzionale europea; nonostante il suo assetto di Assemblea diversa da quelle nazionali, il Parlamento europeo direttamente eletto avrebbe preteso un aumento della propria influenza politica così come del proprio peso istituzionale. Attraverso le elezioni, i cittadini europei avrebbero potuto accrescere progressivamente il loro interesse nei confronti dei temi comunitari riuscendo a percepire meglio l'esistenza di un'istituzione fino ad allora poco conosciuta. Su questo aspetto federalisti e "gradualisti" si collocarono su posizioni discordanti, in quanto i primi da sempre consideravano il Parlamento eletto come "Congresso del popolo europeo" e quindi come il potere costituente della futura Federazione europea. Personalità di spicco sui singoli piani nazionali, costantemente impegnate nella causa dell'integrazione europea (solo per citare alcuni nomi si ricordano Altiero Spinelli, Simone Veil, Helmut Kohl, Jacques Chirac), oltre ad esponenti politici ed intellettuali che interpretarono un ruolo di forte influenza all'interno dei loro partiti riguardo alla scelta europeista (per l'Italia ricordiamo Giorgio Amendola, Enrico Berlinguer, Mauro Ferri, Gaetano Arfè), si impegnarono con l'intento di legittimarne il ruolo rispetto alle altre istituzioni, in particolar modo la Commissione. I parlamentari eletti nel primo suffragio universale diretto si trovarono quindi ad affrontare temi che andavano dalla questione dei paesi comunisti ai rapporti con il Terzo mondo, alla progettazione di una televisione europea fino alla necessità di redigere una prima bozza di Costituzione europea. Il ricorso alle candidature di personalità politiche ben note all'opinione pubblica quali Enrico Berlinguer, Simone Veil, Willy Brandt, si pensò potesse offrire un maggiore potenziale all'organizzazione della propaganda. La campagna elettorale del giugno 1979, così come le altre due successive, fu tuttavia caratterizzata, soprattutto in Italia e Francia, da argomenti troppo spesso collegati alla dialettica politica della propria nazione. In ogni caso l'informazione data ai cittadini europei fu in grado di suscitare un inevitabile interessamento ai problemi comunitari, ma soprattutto alla realtà sovranazionale. L'affluenza al voto fu comunque inferiore rispetto alle elezioni nazionali. Nei motivi della scarsa partecipazione al voto, oltre l'assenza di dibattito propriamente europeo vi fu anche il fatto che le strategie dei partiti tesero ad una sorta di strumentalizzazione delle elezioni europee, puntando attraverso le campagne elettorali al perseguimento di obiettivi nazionali. Il primo scrutinio diretto fu in grado comunque di dare una ventata di novità al concetto di democrazia europea. La nuova legittimità consentì al Parlamento di consolidare nel tempo i propri poteri e di interpretare un ruolo all'interno del processo decisionale comunitario che all'epoca poteva dirsi quanto meno "nebuloso". Una volta fissato il periodo di svolgimento delle prime elezioni, le forze politiche nazionali dovettero sostenere una sfida che le avrebbe costrette a rimettersi in gioco, cercando di rinnovare gli argomenti e i temi individuati per le campagne elettorali nazionali. Una maggiore consapevolezza riguardo alla necessità di allargare l'orizzonte, senza trascurare tuttavia il contatto con i propri elettori e cercando le possibili somiglianze con gli altri partiti europei, avrebbe consentito di conciliare la propria ideologia in un contesto più ampio. Occorre tener presente come tra il 1975 e il 1979 si fossero create all'interno dell'Assemblea parlamentare non eletta, formazioni politiche rappresentative di partiti accomunati da un orientamento affine a quello nazionale. La diversità di ideologie, tuttavia rendeva queste coalizioni molto deboli, soprattutto per via della tanto difficile integrazione ostacolata dalla predominanza degli interessi nazionali anteposti a quelli comunitari. La primazia dei partiti nazionali ha sempre costituito un ostacolo all'autonomia di azione dei gruppi e delle federazioni lasciando, fino ad oggi, inattuata la costituzione di veri e propri partiti europei. All'indomani del primo suffragio universale diretto, tuttavia, il nuovo parlamentare europeo avrebbe assunto il ruolo di trait d'union tra il proprio elettorato, il proprio partito, la coalizione europea e il Parlamento stesso. I tratti caratterizzanti il percorso politico-istituzionale del Parlamento europeo sono stati oggetto di approfondimento nello studio dei casi relativi ai tre Paesi considerati rivelando le differenze che, per la natura stessa del ruolo giocato nel contesto sovranazionale, non hanno risparmiato il processo di integrazione e, nel caso specifico, la partecipazione alle elezioni dirette del Parlamento. Accomunando Italia e Francia, paesi fondatori della Comunità europea che si dimostrarono troppo intenti a trattare temi nazionali durante le campagne elettorali, nel Regno Unito l'idea di Europa si coniugò con la costante valutazione di tutti gli elementi che sarebbero risultati convenienti per partecipare, senza che tutto ciò costringesse a modificare o rinunciare a quanto già in possesso, atteggiamento che trovò nella linea di governo di Margaret Thatcher una perfetta interpretazione durata per l'intero decennio esaminato. Se per il primo suffragio universale diretto l'attività maggiore fu quella di approntare nuovi metodi organizzativi per le campagne elettorali, adatti alla ricerca di un consenso più ampio, diretto a legittimare l'istituzione sovranazionale, nella seconda e terza tornata le riflessioni delle forze politiche si resero necessarie per cercare di individuare le cause del progressivo calo partecipativo. I difetti di una comunicazione politica spesso basata su issues nazionali, soprattutto riguardo la Francia, ha di sicuro rappresentato una delle possibili cause, ma l'atteggiamento stesso dei partiti, apparso frequentemente poco incline a credere seriamente nell'importanza delle elezioni, ha lasciato percepire incertezza ai cittadini europei. Per altro verso, anche le campagne elettorali comunitarie, sebbene abbiano investito molte risorse per cercare di catturare il consenso dell'opinione pubblica, hanno mostrato la parziale efficienza dei mezzi messi in atto. Elezioni di second'ordine quindi? E' possibile parlarne ancora in questi termini? Da quanto emerso nel corso della ricerca condotta sul versante storico-politologico, il livello delle elezioni europee non risulta affatto secondario. Il dato partecipativo, anzi è inversamente proporzionale alla quantità di lavoro preparatorio sia dal punto di vista politico che amministravo-istituzionale, ben superiore a qualsiasi suffragio nazionale. Ci si chiede allora perché gli elettori non abbiano risposto con altrettanto entusiasmo. Qui le risposte trovano differenti possibilità da tenere nella giusta considerazione: la poca attenzione ai temi comunitari, la qualità della comunicazione, l'errore di propagandare l'evento troppo a ridosso delle date di svolgimento, l'eccessiva distanza tra istituzioni e cittadini, il livello culturale degli elettori, i giorni della settimana individuati per i suffragi spesso troppo vicini ad elezioni nazionali appena svolte, la classe politica poco convinta. In realtà tutti questi fattori rappresentano concause della scarsa partecipazione. Il cittadino europeo in mezzo a questo guazzabuglio è il personaggio principale di una performance in cui lui stesso determina la riuscita. Nonostante i numeri evidenzino una progressiva flessione nei dieci anni esaminati, i cittadini non sono rimasti indifferenti di fronte alle novità introdotte dal processo di integrazione europea. Spesso, soprattutto durante i sondaggi, accanto ad una percentuale di "indifferenti" o "euroscettici", molti intervistati hanno lamentato la poca autorità del Parlamento europeo nel contesto istituzionale comunitario2 confidando in ulteriori progressi strutturali. Il mancato raggiungimento di questo obiettivo, preannunciato già prima del 1979, insieme alle vicende politiche legate al proprio Paese, ha gradualmente provocato negli elettori reazioni di protesta attraverso il non voto o il voto negativo3, comportamenti capaci di delineare una partecipazione differente rispetto alla decisione di esprimere la propria scelta. Questo tipo di elettore ha mostrato di essere stato raggiunto dall'informazione diffusa durante le campagne elettorali e, sulla base di quanto appreso, ha deciso consapevolmente di non votare o di esercitare un voto diverso annullando o votando scheda bianca; quindi si è recato ai seggi, 2 Si vedano a questo proposito i risultati emersi nella pubblicazione della Commissione delle Comunità europee, Eurobarometro – L'opinione pubblica nella Comunità europea, Vol.1, 32/89, Direzione generale Informazione, comunicazione e cultura, Bruxelles, 1989. 3 Cfr. A. Gianturco Gulisano, La fenomenologia del non voto, in R. De Mucci (a cura di), Election day. Votare tutti e tutto assieme fa bene alla democrazia?, cit. non è rimasto inerte disinteressandosi di quanto stava accadendo. L'auspicio di un consolidamento istituzionale del Parlamento e di una maggiore coesione politica della Comunità europea non ancora raggiunti, anche per responsabilità delle politiche nazionali, ha posto l'elettore in condizione di negare il proprio contributo o protestare verso il mancato conseguimento dei risultati. L'accrescimento della conoscenza e del coinvolgimento, sebbene presenti, non sono andati di pari passo con la partecipazione. Elementi di insoddisfazione hanno caratterizzato il comportamento dell'elettore realmente europeista. I cittadini europei possono in realtà collocarsi in tre macro aree nelle quali si ritrovano gli europeisti, gli euro avversi e gli euroscettici. Se le aspettative degli europeisti sono rimaste deluse, gli euroavversi hanno parzialmente esercitato il diritto di voto alimentando quelle liste comunque presenti nella competizione europea. Gli euroscettici, invece hanno rappresentato il punto nevralgico dell'elettorato. Trovandosi in quella parte di popolazione attenta ad osservare quali e quanti cambiamenti sarebbero avvenuti a partire dal 1979 hanno avuto modo di consolidare la loro posizione continuando a percepire la Comunità ancora lontana e prevalentemente scomoda se non inutile. A differenza dell'europeista deluso che comunque ha continuato a partecipare, magari protestando, e dell'euroavverso che ha espresso il suo disappunto preferendo i partiti antieuropeisti, l'euroscettico ha proseguito nell'osservazione, affiancandosi agli incerti che sono rimasti a casa. A questo punto sono apparse inevitabili ulteriori valutazioni verso quegli elementi che caratterizzano le elezioni in genere. Ciò che attrae il cittadino ai seggi elettorali è prevalentemente il peso che le elezioni possono esercitare sui cambiamenti del governo nel proprio Paese. Il "less at stake" delle elezioni europee ha rappresentato sicuramente uno dei motivi scatenanti i sentimenti appena descritti; lo scenario si profila diverso, In such 'marker-setting' elections, voters have an incentive to behave tactically, but in a sense of the word 'tactical' that is quite different from what we see in National elections, where large parties are advantaged by their size. In a markersetting election the tactical situation is instead characterized by an apparent lack of consequences for the allocation of power, on the one hand, and by the attentiveness of politicians and media, on the other4. La mancanza di conseguenze sul livello nazionale garantita dalle elezioni europee ha "alleggerito" l'elettore della responsabilità di orientare con la propria scelta il corso della politica nazionale. Sebbene nel 1979 vi fu un'attività partitica a livello transnazionale, consentita anche dalla disponibilità di fondi in quel periodo, l'attenzione dell'elettorato fu minima. In termini di risultati transnazionali la percezione fu praticamente irrilevante; circa il cinquanta per cento dei votanti ammise di non aver idea di quali gruppi avessero ottenuto maggiori consensi. Altro aspetto da non sottovalutare si collega allo sproporzionato successo ottenuto dai partiti più piccoli rispetto ai grandi; è in questo caso che si può parlare di voto punitivo nei confronti della politica del governo nazionale. Molte le sfaccettature e tutte fondamentali per riuscire a capire il perché delle differenze comportamentali dell'elettorato, differenze che nei tre Paesi oggetto di studio si sono rivelate estremamente rappresentate. In linea con la tradizione, gli elettori dell'Italia e della Francia hanno mostrato una partecipazione considerevole, evidentemente legata alle vicende che hanno caratterizzato il dibattito politico nazionale negli anni 1979 – 1989. Il voto "pseudo-obbligatorio" dell'Italia ha mantenuto alta la percentuale dei votanti, ma i risultati hanno mostrato orientamenti variabili nelle tre tornate esaminate. Il caso francese ha mostrato una escalation della destra attraverso i consensi ottenuti dal Front National in risposta ad un importante declino del Partito comunista, anche in considerazione di una progressiva dispersione di voti dovuta alla presenza di numerose liste, in particolar modo nel 1989. Il caso anglosassone si colloca in una posizione particolare rispetto agli altri due Paesi, ma sarebbe più giusto dire rispetto a tutti gli altri. A fronte di un orientamento nazionale tendenzialmente contrario alla Comunità europea, fra le ideologie maggiormente rappresentative si è distinto un Partito conservatore desideroso di giocare un ruolo importante nel contesto europeo, consapevole quindi del significato che la competizione europea 4 C. Van der Eijk, M. Franklin, M. Marsh, What voters teach us about Europe-Wide Elections: what Europe-Wide Elections teach us about voters, in "Electoral Studies", vol. 15, n. 2, p. 157. avrebbe potuto assumere per la riuscita dell'intento. L'importanza del suffragio sovranazionale non fu invece immediatamente compresa dai Laburisti, che di fatto ottennero una pesante sconfitta nel corso del primo appuntamento con lo scrutinio europeo, ravvedendosi in seguito e riuscendo a superare i Conservatori anche grazie all'inizio del declino del governo Thatcher. Un elemento che ha accomunato tutti i Paesi della Comunità è stato rappresentato dalla progressiva affermazione dei Verdi. Lo studio effettuato attraverso una costante attenzione al dibattito politico di ciascun Paese, insieme alle strategie attuate dagli attori, consapevoli fin dall'inizio che la sfida europea li avrebbe impegnati non più o meno di quella nazionale, ma sicuramente in modo diverso, ha condotto ad un approfondimento verso il singolo cittadino che assumendo in sé il ruolo di attore principale ne ha determinato gli esiti. Le risultanze dei dati emersi dalle consultazioni avvenute negli anni 1979 – 1989 non possono considerarsi soltanto per il puro dato numerico. La molteplicità dei fattori che hanno influito sulla scelta di votare o meno ha mostrato un elettore che, pur appartenendo a paesi diversi e con differenti livelli culturali, è stato in grado di decidere basandosi su considerazioni affatto superficiali, operando un'attenta scelta dei numerosi elementi che avrebbero potuto favorire il rafforzamento politico-istituzionale europeo: una tacita selezione dell'elettorato, che inevitabilmente ha lasciato fuori tutti coloro che non hanno ritenuto importante impegnarsi per una consultazione ritenuta priva di un qualsiasi tornaconto. Classe politica poco convinta, informazione discutibile, scarsa conoscenza da parte dei cittadini riguardo al ruolo del Parlamento europeo, inefficacia della comunicazione, hanno contribuito a costruire un elettore diverso dal solito, più attento, in possesso di maggiore senso critico nei confronti di uno scenario nuovo e molto più complesso rispetto a quello nazionale5. Dalla pluralità di elementi emersi durante la ricerca attraverso il ricorso all'interdisciplinarietà per cercare di comprenderne maggiormente i significati, sono emersi dettagli che hanno stimolato ad ulteriori approfondimenti. 5 Cfr. Commissione delle Comunità europee, Eurobarometro – L'opinione pubblica e l'Europa, 9/89, Direzione generale Informazione, comunicazione e cultura, Bruxelles, 1989. Successivamente alle considerazioni storico – politiche , ciò che si è voluto sottolineare, attraverso l'analisi sociologica, riguardo alle elezioni europee nel loro complesso e nella loro perpetua considerazione di elezioni secondarie, è che tutti i fattori esaminati ne mostrano un'immagine differente, che non vuole assolutamente porsi in contrasto con l'interpretazione dei dati puri, ma vuole indurre a considerare maggiormente i numerosi fattori, che per la qualità e la quantità riscontrata permettono di ottenere un quadro più completo dei fatti, andando oltre al mero dato partecipativo sul quale, indubbiamente, la differenza con la partecipazione nazionale è di tutta evidenza. L'esame approfondito è apparso ancor più necessario alla luce del tortuoso processo di costruzione europea e del macchinoso assetto istituzionale comunitario, al fine di poter tenere nella giusta considerazione il maggior numero di elementi possibile, non tanto per giustificare i risultati, ma quanto, piuttosto, per riflettere su di essi cercando di distribuire una responsabilità policentrica a partire dalle forze politiche per finire al cittadino stesso. ; Jacques Delors used to talk about European institutions as an O.P.N.I Object Politique Non Identifié. His opinion appears a compromise between his interest to protect National rights and the need to give lasting and autonomous governance to the European integration process. Actually from the European Community model, two different ways of thinking the governance derived both influenced by the instability of the model itself. The first one aimed at a political union; as Riccardo Perissich says: "Ai limitati trasferimenti di sovranità già decisi, altri ne sarebbero seguiti, anche se sempre in modo graduale. Coerentemente con questo approccio, le istituzioni avrebbero dovuto evolvere verso un modello classico. La Commissione si sarebbe trasformata in un esecutivo federale; il Consiglio dei ministri in un "Senato degli Stati"; l'Assemblea parlamentare in un vero Parlamento federale"6. The second one tried not to neglect the sovereignty principle by transferring technical and political power according to the Treaties. This second view increased doubts and mistrust towards the European Parliament and Commission as well. European Member States agreed above all with the first view, except for the France of Charles De Gaulle who was still convinced of his idea of not giving power to supranational level. Following the unification between ECSC, EEC and EAEC there was a single Commission for the whole administrative system while the Parliament had competence on the European budget; direct election to European Parliament was referred to as "temporary" in Article 138 of the European Community Treaty; then the Parliament would plan the way for a single procedure election regarding all Member States. Between 1951 and 1976 there were many proposals to define a direct universal suffrage, but only in 1979 this target was achieved. This result meant a significant change also for the polical and institutional 6R. Perissich, L'Unione Europea una storia non ufficiale, Milano, Longanesi, 2008, p.54. communication that became fundamental to reach citizenship during the election campaign. In 1974, during the French summit chaired by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, were both established the European Council and the direct election of the European Parliament. The European Parliament finally elected by European citizens would require an increase in both political and institutional influence. The direct elections would enhance popular interest in European affairs as well as raise people's awareness of the Parliament itself. This last aspect emphasized the differences between the federalist and the "gradualist" trend. The first one considered the direct elected Parliament as a "Congress of European People", that is to say the constituent power of the future European Federation. Many famous people were constantly engaged in the European integration cause as politicians and intellectuals did by committing themselves to legitimizing the role of the European Parliament in relation to other institutions, particularly the European Commission. Reference can be made to Altiero Spinelli, Enrico Berlinguer, Simone Veil, Helmut Kohl, Jacques Chirac, just to mention some of them. Members of the European Parliament (MEP's) began their job by addressing many issues such as the question of communist nations or planning for a European TV or preparing a draft for the European Constitution. Appointing political celebrities such as Enrico Berlinguer, Simone Veil, Willy Brandt was a way to make the propaganda more effective. The 1979 election campaign as well as the other two following ones was, however, characterized by arguments too often associated with the national political discourse. All the information given to European citizens succeeded in generating interest in supranational reality above all. The turnout was lower than in national elections and the reason has to be found in the behaviour of political parties in discussing mostly national issues aiming at national targets. In spite of this, the first direct election to the European Parliament gave a breath of fresh air to the meaning of European democracy. The newly acquired legitimacy gave the European Parliament the opportunity to consolidate its power by acting a definite role inside the European decisional process that was, at that time, nebulous to say the least. Once the electoral date was scheduled all the national political parties had to face a challenge that forced them to renew their themes and topics previously chosen in national campaign. There was greater awareness of the necessity to broaden the horizon without loosing contact with voters by looking for similarities in other European political parties. This is what would allow single ideologies to merge in a wider context. We must to consider that between 1975 – 1979 inside the European Parliament there were representatives of parties sharing outlooks similar to the national ones, but different ways of thinking made these coalitions too weak, above all because of the predominant national interests. The primacy of national parties has always been an obstacle to the autonomy of groups and federations, neglecting the implementation of European parties. After the first direct European elections the new MEP's were a kind of "trait d'union" with their own electorates, their own party, the European coalition and the Parliament as well. The peculiar features of the political-institutional path of the European Parliament concerning the three countries studied showed differences that have characterized their participation in European elections. While Italy and France, founding members of EC, were too busy to deal with national issues during electoral campaign, the UK was more attentive to evaluate the benefits of participation and Margaret Thatcher, who was Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 was particularly suited for such an attitude. While during the first direct election there was a need to bring some new element in organizing the electoral campaign in order to reach a wider consensus, the following two elections made political forces more reflective about the decline in turnout. Too many national issues made the communication weak, particularly for the French campaign. What citizens perceived was the little confidence of political parties and that was the reason for such a large incertitude among the people. On the other hand, the Community campaign too showed a partial efficiency. So what kind of elections are we talking about? Still "second order" elections? This is not the picture that emerged from my research conducted on the historical and political fields. Participation is inversely proportional to the preparatory work, both from a political point of view and from an administrative-institutional one, which was far superior to any national suffrage. So, why didn't voters participate so enthusiastically? Many answers are possible because many are the causes of such an odd behaviour: little attention to European issues, quality of communication, propaganda too close to the election date, distance between citizens and istitution, the cultural level of voters, election dates too close to those of national elections, lack of confidence of the political class were all contributing factors in low participation. In the middle of this mess the European citizen becomes the protagonist for the success of such a performance. Despite numbers reveal a gradual decline in the ten years examined, European citizens have not remained indifferent to the changes introduced by the European integration process. Many surveys showed that in addition to a percentage of "indifferent" or "eurosceptical" people, there were citizens who asked for a stronger Parliament hoping that this result would be reached sooner or later. The failure to achieve this goal as well as the political events of each nation have gradually caused an outcry against the vote expressed either in nonvoting or in negative-vote; these different behaviours show a different way of participating . The voter who, though informed by the electoral campaign, decided not to vote or to give a different vote by cancelling his vote or returning blank−voting ballot, went nevertheless to the polling station and didn't stay at home ignoring what was happening. The unfullfilled hope for an institutional strengthening of the Parliament and for greater political cohesion of the European Community, due to political responsibilities, didn't allow the voter to contribute or protest against the non-achievement of results. Citizens' increased knowledge and involvement did not keep pace with the participation; some elements of dissatisfaction have characterized the behaviour of the pro-Europe voter. The three main groups in which European voters may be included are pro- Europe, anti-Europe and eurosceptics. Whereas the pro-Europe voters' expectations have been disappointed, the anti-Europe voters have partially exercised the right to vote feeding this kind of lists in the European competition. Eurosceptics, on the other hand were the centerpiece of the electorate. Being careful observers of which and how many changes have occurred since 1979, citizens have been able to consolidate their position by continuing to perceive the Community as still too distant and mostly uncomfortable if not useless. They have continued their observation by standing together with those uncertain people who stayed at home. At this point it appeared inevitable to assess also those elements that characterized the elections in general. What attracts people to the polling station is mainly the weight that elections may have on the governmental changes in their own countries. The "less at stake" of European elections surely showed one of the reasons just described. We are therefore facing a different context, In such 'marker-setting' elections, voters have an incentive to behave tactically, but in a sense of the word 'tactical' that is quite different from what we see in National elections, where large parties are advantaged by their size. In a markersetting election the tactical situation is instead characterized by an apparent lack of consequences for the allocation of power, on the one hand, and by the attentiveness of politicians and media, on the other7. The lack of consequences on the national level where European elections are concerned lightened voters by taking away their responsibility in directing the national political course. Although in 1979 there was a political activity at the transnational level, the electorate's attention was very scarce. The result showed 50% of voters admitting to their disinformation about the groups that achieved greater consensus. 7 C. Van der Eijk, M. Franklin, M. Marsh, What voters teach us about Europe-Wide Elections: what Europe-Wide Elections teach us about voters, in "Electoral Studies", vol. 15, n. 2, p. 157. Another issue is the large success gained by smaller parties; in this case it is possible to talk about a "punishment vote" against the policy of the national government. The three cases studied showed different ways of participating. Italian and French voters showed a considerable participation according to their tradition also because in the 1979 – 1989 period there was an interesting political debate. The Italian "pseudo-compulsory" vote kept the percentage of voters high, but the outcome showed changing directions during the above mentioned period. Looking at the outcomes got by the Front National the French case showed an escalation of the Right next to to a significant decline of the Communist Party. There was also a substantial dispersion of voting because of so many rolls, particularly during the 1989 elections. The British case is a special one for the particular behaviour towards the European integration process. The Conservative Party wanted to play an important role in the European context and for this reason European elections were considered as a way to succeed in it. On the contrary the Labour Party did not immediately understand the importance of such a crucial opportunity; the outcome of the 1979 European elections was disastrous and they met an evident defeat that therefore was useful to understand many things for future elections. All three countries have seen the progressive growth of the Green Party. The present study has paid constant attention to to the political debate in each country, and to the strategies implemented by the actors, who were aware from the beginning that the European challenge would engage them in different ways. It was, moreover, focused on the individual citizen's ability to determine the election outcome. Considering the outcome through the mere numerical data gives a partial view of the whole context. There are so many aspects that influenced the decision to vote or not. There was a selection among voters that showed citizens who desired a more political union operating a political and institutional strengthening in opposition to those who did not want to engage themselves in an election without any gain. An unconvinced political class, questionable information, lack of knowledge among citizens about the role of the European Parliament have built a different voter, a more attentive one, with a greater critical sense towards a newer context different from the national one. The diverse elements which have emerged from this interdiciplinary study have led to further insights. After historical considerations, a sociological analysis has been carried out on European elections as a whole and their "second order" perception. From these considerations a new picture has emerged, which is not in absolute contrast with the interpretation of the raw data. The quality and the quantity of so many factors allow a more complete picture of the facts, going beyond the mere participation on which, undoubtedly, the difference with the national presence is quite evident. Detailed examination appeared necessary in the light of the tortuous European building process, in order to take into account as many elements as possible, not only to justify the results, but rather because, to reflect on them trying to deploy a polycentric responsibility from the political forces to the citizens themselves.

The incentives of politicians to provide broad public goods and reduce poverty vary across countries. Even in democracies, politicians often have incentives to divert resources to political rents and private transfers that benefit a few citizens at the expense of many. These distortions can be traced to imperfections in political markets that are greater in some countries than in others. This article reviews the theory and evidence on the impact on political incentives of incomplete information for voters, the lack of credibility of political promises, and social polarization. The analysis has implications for policy and for reforms to improve public goods provision and reduce poverty.

This paper uses a case study of Costa Rica to identify the reasons why democracy is conducive for development. By the mid-twentieth century, Costa Rica had begun to depart from the all-too-common mixture of political instability and economic stagnation characteristic of much of the developing world. This paper claims that this country has benefited from better-than-average public policies, a conclusion based upon an original assessment of policy effectiveness and a major comparative ranking of state policies. It largely rejects the interpretation that uncommon development performance stems from institutions created during the colonial period and instead emphasizes how unending political stalemates gradually made the struggle for power more democratic. A central conclusion of this paper is that political competition-as well as steady economic growth rates and development, more generally-interact with and reinforce each other so that the exercise of power foments rather than retards economic growth.

This paper aims to discuss how institutional racism plays a part in the continued criminalisation of cannabis in the United Kingdom. I will start with a short history of usage and attitudes toward cannabis in the United Kingdom, mainly England. I will then assess the relationship that the criminal justice system has with cannabis and its users, and delve into how racial bias operates within law enforcement, using stop and search as a point of focus. This paper will explore how these biases lead to a disproportionate application of the law on certain groups of people. It will be argued while using Canada as point of comparison, that cannabis is being used in the United Kingdom as a political tool to favour voters of certain demographics, and that while more research is needed to fully assess the effects of cannabis, the reasoning behind maintaining cannabis' status as a dangerous substance is both absurdly hypocritical and entirely no longer necessary. Medicinal, recreational, and the law The United Kingdom first listed cannabis as a prohibited drug in 1928 by adding it to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 in accordance with the International Opium Convention 1912. For an immeasurable amount of time the cannabis plant has been used recreationally, medicinally, and industrially across the planet, including many former British colonies and overseas territories.[1] The Misuse of Drugs Act currently lists cannabis and cannabis derivatives as Class B controlled drugs.[2] This classification means that it is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom to possess, grow, or supply cannabis to others. Section 6 of the act outlines the cultivation of any species of cannabis plant as a specific offence. Cannabis related offences are punishable through schedule 4 of the act. On indictment production or supplying of cannabis could result in up to fourteen years in prison, whilst possession alone, up to five years in prison, (an unlimited fine, or both). In 2004 cannabis was moved from Class B to Class C, which holds less prison time for possession while retaining the same fourteen years penalty for production and supply.[3] This was done after the Advisory Council claimed that even though cannabis was harmful, it was not as harmful as other Class B drugs; amphetamines, methylamphetamine, barbiturates, and codeine.[4] Another driving point was to take the pressure off arrests for possession of small amounts of cannabis to shift the focus of law enforcement toward other more dangerous drugs and crime.[5] This reclassification only stood for five years as cannabis returned to Class B in 2009 against the advice of the Advisory Council.[6] Currently in the United Kingdom a person can get a warning or Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) for possession of small amounts instead of being arrested.[7] The United Kingdom was once the world's largest exporter of cannabis for medical and scientific use, producing around 95,000 kilograms of cannabis in the year 2016.[8] In 2015, that production was at 41,706 kilograms.[9] For a country so determined to prohibit the use and supply of cannabis within its borders, it is quite ironic that businesses are being licensed for production for export, and that production doubled in that year. Law and Enforcement: stop and search and racial bias Canada, having legalised recreational cannabis in October 2018, will be used as a point of comparison to explore the UK's complex legal and political relationship with cannabis. While recreational cannabis is still considered illegal in most of the world, many countries seem to not strictly enforce their laws. In pre-legalised Canada, cannabis use became increasingly socially acceptable. The enforcement of possession laws became less and less important to society, which was reflected in the prioritisation used by the police.[10] While unregulated sales remained illegal post the legalisation of medical cannabis in 2001, there still existed brick and mortar dispensaries where the public was able to purchase cannabis illegally. For the most part, law enforcement would leave them to their business unless they suspected a connection to gang violence, sale to minors, or other crime. It was common to see them reopen after being raided and shutdown.[11] Law enforcement in the United Kingdom has a lot of say about the way that perpetrators of cannabis-related crimes are dealt with. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in the UK released an official policing guideline for cannabis possession for personal use in 2009 following the substance's return to a Class B status in the UK.[12] This document outlines whether a warning or PND should be issued in place of an arrest and explains the 'escalation policy' used to determine which of the three the perpetrator will receive. To determine the severity of the possession they look at 'aggravating factors' such as whether they were caught in a public place, whether a young person is involved or could be exposed to drug use, and repeat offences.[13] This document states the purpose of these 'aggravating factors' as 'The circumstances of the offence form part of the consideration in determining whether an arrest can be made and justified'.[14] So in theory as per this document an adult over the age of 18 with no prior history caught in possession of cannabis for personal use and not falling under any of the aggravating factors should be let off with a warning (which would not show up on a standard criminal record check) even though it is a Class B illicit drug. There are two important points regarding these guidelines. The first is that even though cannabis at this point had returned to Class B status, it was not being treated the same as other Class B substances – it is now being treated more leniently by law enforcement in comparison to other Class B substances. These more forgiving rules send a message to the public that even though cannabis was moved back to Class B status, it is accepted to be not as 'sinister' as the others. It begs the question of whether moving the drug back to Class B even had any bearing or real practical purpose. Herein lies an interesting unsynchronized relationship between the statute regarding the legality of cannabis and the approaches taken by law enforcement. Law enforcement is seemingly doing a better job than legislature at keeping up with public opinion by relaxing their approaches. Secondly, while they cover England, Wales, and Northern Ireland in a uniform manner, they are just that: guidelines. Each local policing authority has the prerogative of deciding how they may deal with a case of cannabis possession.[15] What is evident is that this prerogative is used, to varying degrees. Some policing authorities, such as Durham, have made public statements in which they have announced they will not be targeting individuals for possession for personal use.[16] An article in the Canterbury Journal interviews a resident that describes the city as 'weed central', indicating the city even has its own cannabis club (the Canterbury Cannabis Collective) that lobbies politicians at Westminster.[17] It would suffice to say that being affiliated with this cannabis club would be enough to fulfil the 'reasonable belief' that law enforcement needs to target someone. They are lobbying openly for the legalisation of cannabis, which indicates that law enforcement is largely just allowing it to happen. So, if the people want recreational cannabis legalised (or are indifferent to it), and law enforcement has begun acknowledging that it is not a priority for them to police, why has Westminster not caught up? Interestingly, in the same article another interviewee who is opposed to legalisation said she thinks, 'it'll increase the number of people smoking it by making it socially acceptable, like areas of Canada where people started smoking it openly and regularly once it had been legalised.'[18] This is statistically not true. According to Statistics Canada, self-reported cannabis use amongst Canadians rose from 14.9% before legalisation to 16.8% after legalisation. However, most of that difference of 1.9% could simply be accounted for by less hesitation to admit usage once it was not a criminal offence since results are self-reported. Additionally, respondents were to only report on whether they used in the three months prior to being surveyed.[19] So this is evidence of some apparent misconceptions about legalisation, and while a lax attitude from law enforcement may make cannabis users in those areas very happy, it is arguable that this prerogative in law enforcement's hands is a detriment to equal treatment of perpetrators of the same crime from different backgrounds. There are many facets to consider when discussing the United Kingdom's relationship to cannabis. For one, it is not a plant native to the country and its use was introduced during the colonial period mostly through the Indian subcontinent.[20] In South Asia, cannabis was widely used medicinally and recreationally and is considered in Hindu Ayurveda to be one of five sacred plants that relieve anxiety.[21] While many may think of cannabis in the context of a relaxed Caribbean stereotype (or even particularly Jamaican), the plant was first introduced to the Caribbean through the movement of Indian indentured workers brought there by the British regime.[22] The origins of this plant are culturally and socially connected to (but not exclusively) two racial groups, people of South Asian and of African descent. Its history plays a part in the way that it is viewed socially. It is no secret that both of these racial groups have faced tribulations at the hands of British colonialism, the legacy of which still lingers. One of these tribulations that has spilt into our modern existence is the entrenched racism that plagues the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom, of which law enforcement plays a huge part. The demonisation of dark skin leads to a disproportionate treatment of people of colour by law enforcement, and a disproportionate number of arrests and convictions. Crimes involving cannabis are one of the ways in which this disproportionality is manifested, but it is in no way the only one. Stop and Search, and the Macpherson Report The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, which in 1999 generated the Macpherson Report, followed the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993.[23] It was an important conversation-starter on the processes used when investigating a racially charged crime, in this case the murder of a black British teenager by a group of white youths. Under 'stop and search' police officers can search you if they have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect you are carrying illegal drugs (or similar), or without reasonable grounds if it was approved by a senior officer.[24] According to the Home Office, as of the 2011 census, persons of black ethnicity comprise about 4% of the population of the UK, yet the Ministry of Justice reports that they are involved in about 20% of all drug stop and searches as well as prosecutions for cannabis.[25] With people of black ethnicity there is also a higher number of prosecutions than there are stop and searches in comparison with people of white ethnicity. The racial element of these statistics is clear. If only 4% of the population is represented by black ethnicity, why are they involved in 20% of the searches? There is no correlation to suggest people of black ethnicity consume more cannabis in the UK. According to statistics on drug misuse available through the UK Government's website, in the 2018/2019 findings of adults aged 16 to 59, 8% of the white respondents versus 6.7% of the 'Black or Black British' respondents reported use of cannabis in the previous year.[26] Stop and search gives individual police officers the power to use their own judgement to decide whether a person may be involved in a crime of some sort without seeing a crime being committed (in this case, in possession or planning to supply illicit drugs). Stop and search methods have been thoroughly scrutinised and continuously reformed as many do believe that they are not effective or an efficient use of law enforcement's time and resources.[27] The idea of law enforcement being able to search anyone they feel necessary could lead to a gross misuse of power. Figure 1[28] Figure 1 illustrates the bias that exists within this system of law enforcement. The dotted flat line represents the likelihood of a person of white ethnicity being stopped within the years 2014-2016. Every non-white group surveyed had a higher probability of being involved in a stop and search. The black community does not consume more cannabis, and therefore should not be any more likely than someone of white ethnicity to be in possession of cannabis. Yet black individuals are still 6.5 times more likely to be stopped. According to the same data bank, people of black ethnicity used all surveyed drugs (powder cocaine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, amphetamines, mephedrone, ketamine and cannabis) less commonly than those of white ethnicity.[29] The obvious link: racial bias. By this logic, police officers are, even unconsciously, under the impression that a black person is more likely to be involved in something illegal. The result of that is that the black population are being disproportionally affected by the law – a gross miscarriage of justice. We as citizens may want to believe that these statistics are an improvement, that the racial bias in the United Kingdom is a work in positive progress. However, 'figures for 1997/98 show that "black people were, on average, five times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people." Black people are also "more likely to be arrested than white or other ethnic groups."'[30] Many of these statistics are also based on self-identified ethnicity, where as to clearly see a bias or prejudice, one must know what others assume that person's ethnicity to be. What they identify themselves as, may be a useful indicator of how others view them, but it does not necessarily facilitate an understanding of the exact impact of racial identity on law enforcement. The Macpherson Report is arguably one of the most important modern documents outlining the racial biases within the UK's criminal justice system. What it found was astonishing evidence exposing racial bias within the response and investigation of the death of Stephen Lawrence. No police officer on the scene performed any form of first aid after finding him, nor did they check his vitals to see if he was still alive.[31] The victim's parents reported being treated unprofessionally with insensitivity and were deprived of information regarding the case which they were entitled to. There was evidence suggesting that the perpetrators were not arrested for the crime, because they were white even though they were suspects with sufficient evidence to procure a warrant. In general, they found that there was a lack of enthusiasm to find the murderers of a black man by white suspects.[32] While murder is beyond the scope of this essay, the findings of this report solidify the notion that in multiple ways people of black ethnicity are victims to the institutional racism present in the criminal justice system. Cannabis and politics The current Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party's political crusade to legalise recreational cannabis use in Canada sat on two very important points: to make it harder for minors to access cannabis, and to tackle gang violence associated with cannabis sales.[33] Legalisation of cannabis was just one of the ways in which Justin Trudeau managed to rally two unlikely voter demographics: people of colour, and young voters between the age of 18-25. This won him two consecutive federal elections, while remaining at the time relatively appealing to the older voters.[34] With the changing demographic in Canada, rallying these voters was, and remains, a key political tool to holding power. He, like his father, former Prime Minister the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau, prized multiculturalism in his political platform – a concept very important to the Canadian identity and society. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act is a law passed in 1985 by the late Trudeau outlining all the ways in which it is expected that multiculturalism is to be upheld by the federal government. This includes, but is not limited to, 'ensur[ing] that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity.'[35] This policy of upholding diversity is part of the Canadian constitution. The closest comparable statute existing in the United Kingdom is the Equality Act 2010. This piece of legislation covers a wider breadth of demographical information that may lead to discrimination, including, but not limited to, race, religion, gender, and age. Section 1 of the Act outlines the duty that public figures such as ministers, courts, police, and councils have toward socio-economic inequalities: An authority to which this section applies must, when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage.[36] What is compelling is that Section 3 states that any breach of section 1 'does not confer a cause of action at private law,'[37] which limits how these public bodies are held accountable for breaching the Act and is realistically mostly just applicable to employers' relations with employees. The purpose of this act reads like a guide on what your legal options are if you feel that you were wrongly discriminated in the workplace by any of the protected demographics. The purpose of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is to focus much more on the acts and efforts that are expected of the Federal Government to uphold the integrity of diversity by recognising differences and adopting practices to accommodate them. This also includes promoting the use of languages other than English and French, the two official languages.[38] The entrenchment of this Act into the Canadian constitution, and the language used within it, shows just how important it is to Canadian society, run by a liberal government, as it holds everyone, including federal bodies, accountable for nurturing diversity in Canada. Whether or not it always plays out that way is beyond the scope of this paper. There is a political connection with the way in which cannabis is 'officially' viewed versus the way that it is socially viewed when comparing Canada and the United Kingdom. Dalhousie University in Halifax published a study suggesting that 68% of Canadians (another 6.9% were indifferent) supported the legalisation of recreational marijuana in September 2017.[39] In a poll by YouGov for the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group in the UK, 48% supported legalisation while only 24% opposed.[40] If that was not enough, a government survey found in 2017/2018 that 30% of adults aged 16 to 64 have tried cannabis at least once.[41] If the majority of the country is supportive or indifferent to the legalisation of recreational cannabis, why are the two governments approaching the idea so differently? This puts into question the strength of democracy in the United Kingdom as well, since the existing legislation does not reflect public opinion. In 2019 three Members of Parliament from three parties visited Canada in order to evaluate the legal cannabis sector first-hand. Not surprisingly, the Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs later declared that they would support a change in 'cannabis legislation in the next five to ten years'. Only the Conservative MP did not show support for cannabis legalisation following the visit.[42] The Conservative Party of the UK has historically maintained that cannabis should remain an illegal substance.[43] There have also been allegations of racism linked to the Conservative Party and its leaders. One such point is the commentary on Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 which, riddled with racist undertones, was aimed against the 1968 Race Relations Bill.[44] This bill made it illegal to refuse employment, public services, or housing to any person based on colour, race, or ethnic origin.[45] More recently, the current Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been quoted numerous times making racist comments. An article for the Guardian mentions that in articles written by Johnson before becoming Prime Minister he has referred to black people as 'piccaninnies with watermelon smiles' as well as claiming that the police were 'cowed' by the Macpherson Report.[46] While these claims were not made while he was in office, they are a glimpse into the rhetoric that has been accepted by the Conservative Party. An NHS study suggested that while around 10% of cannabis users may develop an addiction to cannabis, 32% of tobacco users and 15% of alcohol users will become addicted to tobacco and alcohol, respectively. There is also no recorded case of death caused by cannabis in the United Kingdom.[47] Alcoholchange.org has compiled statistics from the government showing that 24% of adults in England and Scotland regularly drink more than what is considered low-risk[48]; they found that in 2016 there were 9,214 alcohol-related deaths.[49] The Office for National Statistics found that 14.7% of adults over 18 years of age smoked cigarettes in the UK in 2018. In the same year there were 77,800 deaths attributed to smoking tobacco in the UK.[50] So, on the basis of death and addiction, cannabis seems to be relatively low risk compared to two substances that are legal and regulated. Yet, it is health concerns that are repeatedly cited when officials are asked about why there has been no significant movement toward legalisation of cannabis.[51] Conclusion: A long road to legalisation There is a worldwide shift happening in terms of social views of cannabis use. In Canada, while cannabis was still illegal it was clearly not a major concern of law enforcement, and there seems to be a similar attitude in the United Kingdom where other forms of crime take a greater importance. There is a complex web of connection between institutionalised racism, parliament, law enforcement, and politics regarding cannabis. There is a visible lag when it comes to legislation and law enforcement being up to date with social attitudes and there is clearly a disconnect between them. It seems even law enforcement does not stand on the same side of legalisation as current legislation. They seem to be shifting toward polled public attitudes that possession of cannabis and personal recreational use should not be criminalised. Talking about the impact of a law moves far past the wording of the provision or the sentencing for the crime. Law enforcement is a key piece of the system that perpetuates this racial oppression. Even with the public support for cannabis legalisation, changing social attitude, and the prevalence of usage it does not necessarily look like the English Parliament will be pushing any bills forward to make that a reality anytime soon, especially not under a Conservative government. By looking at two multicultural countries we are able to see how political differences impact the legality of cannabis. The uses of cannabis in many other countries are tied to cultural significance as well as social tolerance such as in India, mentioned previously. Cannabis is not the problem; it is the connection to organised crime and violence which can be tackled through government regulation. This has been shown in the data gathered by statistics Canada showing that in every province and territory, legalisation has brought at minimum a 26% decrease in police reported cannabis offences.[52] It is important that we continue to question the legitimacy of the claims the government makes about why they refuse to legalise and regulate cannabis as well as the institutionalised racism involved. There is evidence to suggest that the government has been using cannabis as a proverbial 'garden tool' to weed-out groups that they choose to target, or they believe are less important, and there is plenty of evidence showing that it is the black community that received the short end of that stick. All should be equal before the law, but this is virtually impossible to uphold when the law is represented through people, because people make judgements based on their inherent biases. There is no one statistic, statute, or study that will conclusively prove that politicians through the ages have used cannabis to paint a target on the backs of the black community, but there is evidence of it everywhere. With the information that we do have in consideration, cannabis is no more dangerous to human health than alcohol and tobacco. Continuing to demonise cannabis and insist that it should have no place in the UK's society is hypocritical. Based on the attitudes of the public, as well as law enforcement, its criminal status is also completely unnecessary. There are better things for the justice system to be focusing on, and worse things to be keeping out of society. [1] Mohamed Ben Amar, 'Cannabinoids in Medicine: A Review of Their Therapeutic Potential' (2006) 105 Journal of Ethnopharmacology 1. [2] Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Schedule 2 Part II. [3] ibid Schedule 4. [4] Patrick McCrystal and Kerry Winning, 'Cannabis Reclassification: What is the Message to the Next Generation of Cannabis Users?' (2009) 15 Child Care in Practice 57. [5] 'Cannabis Reclassification' (Press Releases, 28 January 2005) accessed 20 April 2020. [6] McCrystal and Winning (n 4). [7] Simon Byrne, 'ACPO Guidance on Cannabis Possession for Personal Use: Revised Intervention Framework' (Association of Chief Police Officers, 28 January 2009). [8] '420: Seven Charts on How Cannabis Use Has Changed' (BBC News, 20 April 2019) accessed 12 March 2020. [9] 'Comments on the Reported Statistics on Narcotic Drugs' (International Narcotics Control Board, 18 October 2012) accessed 28 April 2020. [10] Marc I D'Eon, 'Police Enforcement of Cannabis Possession Laws in Canada: Changes in Implementation by Street-Level Bureaucrats' (Master's thesis, University of Saskatchewan 2017) accessed 28 April 2020. [11] Zach Dubinsky and Lisa Mayor, 'Who's Really behind Toronto's Chain of Illegal Pot Shops That Won't Quit?' (CBC News, 19 July 2019) accessed 28 April 2020; Robert Benzie, 'Trudeau urges police to "enforce the law" on marijuana' (The Star, 3 December 2016) accessed 4 May 2020. [12] Byrne (n 7). [13] ibid 4. [14] ibid 9. [15] Tom Harper, 'Police "Going Soft" on Cannabis Users' (The Times, 6 April 2019) accessed 2 May 2020. [16] Damian Gayle, 'Durham Police Stop Targeting Pot Smokers and Small-Scale Growers' (The Guardian, 22 July 2015) accessed 25 April 2020. [17] Pub Spy, 'Canterbury is "weed central" so why don't we just legalise it, say potheads' (The Canterbury Journal, 2 March 2018) accessed 28 April 2020. [18] ibid. [19] Michelle Rotermann, 'What has changed since cannabis was legalized?' (Statistics Canada, 19 February 2020) accessed 28 April 2020. [20] Leslie L Iversen, The Science of Marijuana (OUP 2008). [21] Chris Conrad, Hemp for Health: The Medicinal and Nutritional Uses of Cannabis Sativa (Healing Arts Press 1997). [22] Ivelaw Lloyd Griffith, Drugs and Security in the Caribbean: Sovereignty under Siege (Pennyslvania State UP 1997). [23] William MacPherson, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (The Stationery Office 1999). [24] Government Digital Service, 'Police Powers to Stop and Search: Your Rights' (GOV.UK, February 23, 2017) accessed 28 April 2020. [25] Benzie (n 11). [26] 'Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2018 to 2019 Crime Survey for England and Wales' (Home Office, 19 September 2019), 18. Available at . See Figure 3.1 'Proportion of 16 to 59 Year Olds Reporting Use of Illicit Drugs in the Last Year by Personal Characteristics'. [27] 'Stop and Search: How successful is the police tactic?' (BBC News, 4 April 2018) accessed 28 April 2020. [28] Jodie Hargreaves, Chris Linehan, and Chris McKee, 'Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2016' (Home Office, 27 October 2016), 26. [29] 'Stop and Search…' (n 28). [30] MacPherson (n 23). [31] ibid. [32] ibid. [33] Benzie (n 11). [34] 'Youth Voter Turnout in Canada' (Publication No. 2016-104-E, Library of Parliament, Canada, 13 October 2016). Available at . [35] Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1985 s3(1)(e). [36] Equality Act 2010 s1(1). [37] ibid s3. [38] ibid s3(1)(i). [39] Sylvain Charlebois and Simon Somogyi, 'Marijuana-infused food and Canadian consumers' willingness to consider recreational marijuana as a food ingredient' (September 2017) accessed 28 April 2020. [40] Elena Mazneva, 'U.K. Legalizing Cannabis Supported by Near-Majority of Voters' (Bloomberg, 14 July 2019) accessed 28 April 2020. [41] 'Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2017/18 Crime Survey for England and Wales' (Home Office, July 2018). Available at . [42] Emily Ledger, 'Cannabis Policy of the Political Parties – the Conservatives' (The Cannabis Exchange, 30 November 2019) accessed 26 April 2020. [43] ibid. [44] Michael Savage, 'Fifty Years on, what is the legacy of Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech?' (The Guardian, 15 April 2018) accessed 26 April 2020. [45] Race Relations Act 1968. [46] Frances Perraudin, 'New controversial comments uncovered in Historical Boris Johnson articles' (The Guardian, 9 December 2019) accessed 27 April 2020. [47] Maria Correa, 'How Close Is the UK to Legalising Cannabis?' (The Lawyer Portal, 8 January 2019) accessed 26 April 2020. [48] 'Alcohol Statistics' (Alcohol Change UK, 2 March 2020) accessed 27 April 2020. [49] Melissa Bennett, 'Dataset: Alcohol-related deaths in the UK' (ONS, 7 November 2017) accessed 26 April 2020. [50] Danielle Cornish and others, 'Adult smoking habits in the UK: 2018' (ONS, 2 July 2019) accessed 26 April 2020. [51] Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 'Cannabis: Classification and Public Health' (Home Office, April 2008) accessed 27 April 2020. [52] Gregory Moreau, 'Police-reported cannabis offences in Canada, 2018: Before and after legalization' (Statistics Canada, 24 July 2019) accessed 27 April 2020.

Almost two years since his election, as Obama's popularity continues to sink, many are left wondering what went wrong with his presidency. But before that question can be answered, a more careful consideration of the situation he inherited seems in order: two unwinnable wars, the Guantánamo legal limbo, a badly damaged international reputation and an economic crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Great Depression, during which close to ten million jobs were lost. That was the state of the country when he came to power in 2008. In two years Obama has not solved any of these problems completely, but has made headway in many of them. In the context of a slow and jobless economic recovery, and faced with a vociferous opposition which has turned down every chance at bipartisan cooperation, the question should perhaps then be how Obama's level of support among the population remains this high (43%).The President still has the backing of Democratic voters, but has lost the support of Independents. Even those who would never consider abandoning him are suffering from an "enthusiasm gap" that may affect their turnout in the November 2 mid-term elections. With unemployment still hovering around 9.5% and with little prospect of change in the near future, the disillusionment of the electorate is understandable (43% support Obama today, compared with 60% in early 2009). But it is worth pondering how much of this discontent against the party in power is derived from the failure of policy and how much from the divisive political game played by the opposition.In all fairness to Obama, shrill accusations of socialism and big government were raised against him as soon as he came to power and had to immediately address the banking, mortgage and automobile meltdowns. Acerbic Republican opposition to any measure adopted by the Executive since then, has dominated the political discourse and made it almost impossible for the Administration to present evidence that, without its actions, the economic recovery would have taken even longer. It is hard to prove a negative proposition. Republicans have had a receptive audience in the low, mostly white middle class, many of who have taken to the streets under the Tea Party banner, to fight in one voice both against government "take over" of health care and (incongruously) in defense of Medicare (the government-sponsored health program for senior citizens).There is rich irony in hearing the word "socialist" hurled as the ultimate insult to a President who has bailed out the big financial institutions and the two largest automobile industries without nationalizing them, and who has signed a health care reform bill that does not include the controversial public option, which had been the centerpiece of his planned reform but was deemed too liberal by members of his own party. But reason and logic have no role to play in the polarized political atmosphere that we are experiencing today. Emotion and fear are much more productive in the views of the opposition, to help them re-take the House and perhaps even the Senate in this fall election.Timid Democrats in the House and Senate, afraid to lose their newly acquired seats in states and districts that voted for McCain in the 2008 presidential election are also abandoning the president. A posse of four or five of Senate "Blue Dog" Democrats has helped dilute the health care legislation by removing the public option from the bill, and have taken off the table legislation to curb carbon emissions and promote green energy sources. There are different hypotheses of why Obama has been unable to maintain high support rates in spite of having had important legislative victories (TARP, Stimulus spending package, extension of unemployment benefits, health care and financial reform). Former (Clinton's) Labor Secretary Robert Reich and NY Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman argue that Obama's stimulus was ridiculously small, given the state of the economy in January 2009. They blame the President for not using the majorities in the House and Senate to pass bolder legislation. By compromising, Obama disappointed the liberal wing of his party, but more importantly, lost the Independents at the center, who simultaneously believed the Republican rhetoric about "Big government Socialist take over" but resented Obama's bailout of Wall Street. Contrary to the fear-mongering claims of the deficit hawks about the debt, Krugman points out that "far from fleeing US debt, investors are eagerly buying it, driving interest rates to historic lows". Reich insists that Obama missed an opportunity to push the limits of politics, establish a new framework of redistributive policies and regulations, and become a transformative president. Although this view undoubtedly has some merit, it ignores the brutal backlash against government spending that affected every Democrat in the House and Senate and made them fear for their jobs. A larger stimulus would have faced even stronger opposition from among the party's own ranks and seen some defectors. Obama is a pragmatic leader who governs as best he can, given the huge constraints of the current political context.Jay Cost from Real Politics offers a different explanation: Obama's geographic coalition was never broad enough because he failed to win the hearts and minds of middle and rural America. It is from those sectors that Independents have abandoned support for the administration in droves. In other words, Obama's major constituencies were in the major cities on the two seaboards and from the suburbs, and included Blacks, youth and university educated white professionals. Even in those cases in which they voted for Obama, white rural America, and blue collar workers never were quite convinced that he would fight for them, and the Wall Street bailout confirmed their suspicion. Underlying it all, there is, of course, the prevalent racism that permeates most sectors of American society and emerges in the form of distrust toward the Commander in Chief: Obama has to prove his loyalty to the country in ways not demanded from others. He has to pay the price of being the first Black president.A third hypothesis that is circulating among pundits is that Obama's focus on health care was misplaced, that he should have concentrated all his attention on economic recovery and job creation instead. Indeed, it was during the 2009 summer of discontent that the electorate became irreconcilably divided and that Republican-launched corrosive ads dominated the airwaves, and rumors about death panels and "pulling the plug on grandma" pervaded City Hall meetings. A general distrust of the federal government and of all incumbents inside the DC belt, while nothing new among the American electorate, re-emerged with new virulence.It is in this context that the Tea Party movement cut its teeth and started dominating the headlines. Spurred by the GOP with the intention of mobilizing the population around anti-tax, anti-federal government sentiments, the Tea-partiers launched national campaigns against all incumbents, and in the process became a voice for the profound anger, fear and frustration that the poor state of the economy and the sustained unemployment rate has caused in the population. Pleased at the frenzy stirred up by the movement, Republicans have complacently let it lead the way, exercising no restraint on their wildest propositions (see below) and allowing it to do the work for them as the voice of the opposition. This is already having unwanted consequences, as extremist Tea-party –fielded candidates from outside party ranks are challenging party insiders in gubernatorial as well as Congressional primary races.Like the eponymous rebellion that took place in Boston in 1773, the Tea Party's main philosophical thrust is against taxes, centralization of power and government overreach. Unlike it, it is also anti-immigrant. Because of the prevalent uncertainty about the economy, their discourse resonates with the electorate. To fight the federal government initiatives, they are finding their best institutional allies in the State governments, courts and legislatures. Indeed, judging by the poisonous political environment, the polarization of the electorate, and the state-based challenges to the federal government, at times it seems that only a Lincolnian figure can save America from another civil war.The so- called "States Revolution" is visible in many fronts. Five states have passed legislation against parts of the federal health reform law, and around 20 states are challenging its constitutionality through the court system. Several states legislatures are getting ready to pass laws modeled after the anti-immigration law in Arizona, which was deemed unconstitutional by a district court but has broad support in the population. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court, as challenges and counter-challenges continue. Interestingly, Obama is in fact deporting more undocumented workers than any of his predecessors, but his reform proposal would give a pathway to citizenship to these workers if they have a job, register with the US government, and pay a fine and back taxes. Immigration has been a thorny issue, with allies and foes on both sides of the aisle. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who gave amnesty to all illegal immigrants in 1986, and George Bush's proposal in 2006 was very similar to Obama's. This is hardly a philosophical issue on which the two parties diverge; it is just a populist cause that is being used by Republicans to stoke the flames of right-wing populism and racism prevalent in main sectors of the population.The backlash against undocumented workers is of such magnitude that it has come to encompass all immigrants. It has now taken the unlikely form of a movement to abolish or amend the 14th Amendment, a foundational provision dating from 1868 which grants citizenship to all born in the United States. The changing of the birth right rule is "worth considering" according to House Minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) because "it gives an incentive for people to come to the United States illegally to give birth here." This is outrageous pandering by the Republican Party who has always fathomed itself to be the staunchest defender of the Constitution, which they consider a sacred text to be read literally, with minimal interpretation. Such is the spirit of the times. Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain, the two most important and moderate voices on Immigration Reform have changed their positions (Mc Cain because he is facing a tough primary in his state of Arizona, against, who other, but a Tea Party candidate!) and have both agreed that it is worth a debate. This is not only unprincipled on their part, but also terrible long-term politics, since by taking this stance on immigration they are removing the possibility of regaining the support of the largest growing group of voters, namely the Hispanic or Latino population for years to come.Given the strong anti-incumbent and anti-Washington sentiment prevalent in the population, the results of the mid-term election are hard to predict because some Republicans may lose seats, too. However, the current projections of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia give the Republicans a net win of 32 seats in the House, 7 seats in the Senate (they would need 10 to become the majority) and 6-7 governor seats. The coming mid-term election is being compared to the 1994 "revolution" led by Newt Gingrich which gave Republicans a majority in both the House and Senate. Just like Obama, Clinton was an "outsider" who was handed the presidency partly thanks to his charisma, but mainly because people were disappointed at George Bush Senior, and did not re-elect him. Clinton made health care reform the centerpiece of his first term but failed to get it through Congress. He did manage to pass a controversial crime bill that included a ban on assault weapons, which the Right traditionally opposes. He also raised taxes. Republicans attacked him with an abrasive campaign in favor of lower taxes, second amendment rights and smaller government, and won. Two years later, however, with a brighter economic outlook and a pledge to balance the budget, Clinton was re-elected.But the parallel should not be exaggerated since there are many differences as well. First, Obama did pass health care reform, and that should count have some weight among his supporters, hopefully enough weight to bring them to the polls November 2. Second, the Republican Party's image was not as tarnished in 1994 as it is today, mainly because they hadn't had a majority in Congress for a long time. A New York Times/CBS News poll this past February found that 57% of those polled has negative views of the Republicans this time. The anger is aimed at Washington as a whole and this may help Democrats. The main concern of Democrats in the House and Senate today is the demographics of mid-term elections: older (over 60) white voters, who are the core group of the Tea Party movement and the most outspoken against Obama and this Congress, are also the most likely to vote in mid-term elections. And the "enthusiasm gap" on the Left may induce many Obama supporters to stay home. On the other hand, the Democratic Party learned the lesson of 1994 and is better prepared for the fight: they have been raising money from early on, setting up voters' registration campaigns and trying to mobilize the same base that brought Obama to power two years ago. They stress his activist legislative agenda and its accomplishments: financial reform, health care, extension of unemployment benefits, an energy bill that came short of cap and trade but will meet some green energy goals. More importantly, they are framing the election as a choice between going back to the policies that got the country into the Great Recession, or moving forward with the new policies of corporate responsibility, accountability and more federal supervision of financial institutions in order to avoid similar crises.However, what is clear is that the anemic state of the economy and the high and sustained unemployment rate make all other tactics irrelevant. Uncertainty rules supreme in the minds of the electorate and with it, a fear of what the future may bring and a lack of confidence in the federal government. The Republican opposition is united and vociferous and its message simple and clear: no more taxes, no more deficits, no more government intervention, close borders to immigrants and focus on private job creation through tax cuts; what the federal government won't do, states will. The President should probably counterattack in kind and engage in this ideological battle, but he is not temperamentally suited for it. He dislikes ideological arguments because he wants to be the President of all Americans, as he pledged during his campaign. The next big decision Obama needs to make is whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire after Labor Day or to extend them for two or three years. He has announced his intention to maintain them for the middle class but to end them for the wealthiest individuals, those in the highest 2% income bracket. It would bring their income tax up from 35% to 39%, not a dramatic raise but one that will be resisted strongly by the opposition. Although Obama has a good argument to make (that the $700 billion dollars thus raised would help him reduce the deficit dramatically), there is fear in Congress Democrats that a two- week debate about tax cuts will help Republicans. In a perversely cynical way, perhaps a Republican win in the congressional elections may not be a bad thing after all, and may yet help Obama: let the Republicans make his case for him, that he himself is reluctant to make. Let them stand the public scrutiny and let the public judge if they can provide better, more novel solutions to job creation, to Afghanistan, to immigration reform. A weak performance by a Republican-dominated 112th Congress, an economy that is bound to recover as it enters its next cycle, and a Palin-Huckabee ticket may still get Obama re-elected in 2012.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

Striking, overtime bans and refusing to carry out certain tasks[1] are collective forms of actions that can arise from workplace disputes. These industrial actions are of fundamental importance: the temporary halt in work production leverages a demand to enforce workers' rights. Despite this, the UK does not recognise the legal right to withdraw labour. Instead, the UK's "right to strike" is said to depend on a complex statutory scheme[2]. This article will analyse a variety of sources, "statutes such as TULRCA 1992, the common law, Convention rights, and relevant case law[3]", to determine whether the UK's "right to strike" "is a classic instance of a 'legislated' right[4]" or if it is merely a "slogan/legal metaphor[5]". [1] Hugh Collins, Aileen McColgan and Keith D Ewing,Labour Law(2nd edn, Cambridge University press 2019) pg.706. [2] Alan Bogg and Ruth Dukes, 'Statutory Interpretation and The Limits of a Human Rights Approach: Royal Mail Group Ltd V Communication Workers Union' (2020) 49(3) Industrial Law Journal pg.478. [3] Ibid, pg.478. [4] Ibid, pg.478. [5] Metrobus v UNITE [2009] EWCA Civ 829 (Maurice Kay LJ). - 'In truth, the "right to strike" in the UK depends for its realisation on a complex statutory scheme. Even in jurisdictions where the right to strike is specified textually in a constitutional document, such a complex right must be operationalised through labour statutes. It is a classic instance of a "legislated" right. Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act, and the evolving jurisprudence of the ECtHR, UK law may now be described as protecting a right to strike albeit one that is pieced together from a variety of sources: statutes such as TULRCA, the common law, Convention rights, and relevant case law.'[1] Does this statement accurately encapsulate the UK law on the 'right to strike'? How do the different sources of law interact and what factors determine the correct balance to be reached between competing interests in regulating industrial action? Use case law, statute, legal commentary and social science material in your answer and provide illustrations to support your analysis. In line with socialism and Professor Beverly Silver's assertions, capitalism is established upon 'two contradictory tendencies': 'crises of profitability and crises of social legitimacy'.[2] This 'inherent labour-capital'[3] struggle is reflected within the UK's hostile regulation of industrial action. The courts' and legislature's ideological approaches towards the collective right to withdraw labour unanimously and substantially favours economic growth above social welfare.[4] Striking, overtime bans, and refusing to carry out certain tasks are collective forms of actions that can arise from workplace disputes.[5] These disputes typically occur because employers are unwilling to negotiate with employees and workers about their working terms or conditions. Undeniably, the duration – and the aftermath – of the collective action results in financial losses to the business and affect innocent third parties (i.e. the general public).[6] Therefore, in order to appease and 'bring the labour under control', the capital would 'have to make concessions [i.e. comply with the strikers' new terms], which provoke crises of profitability'.[7] However, the loss suffered by a business[8] during and after industrial action is justified on two persuasive grounds. The first ground identified by Gwyneth Pitt is the human right aspect.[9] To restrict the right to strike would be akin to the horrific period of slavery,[10] where man had no power to withdraw his labour. This justification is recognising the inequalities in bargaining power between employer and employee.[11] This inequality has been further escalated by the growth of the modern-day unstable gig economy; one in nine UK workers are in precarious work.[12] This form of work has limited protection and much lower salaries.[13] Hence, a subsequent ground for the justification of withdrawal of labour is the equilibrium argument. The power of the employer and their actions can only be matched and questioned by a 'concerted stoppage of work'.[14] Essentially, the right to strike is more than the withdrawal of labour: it is also the encompassing 'right to free expression, association, assembly and power'.[15] Yet there is 'no positive legal right to strike in the UK'.[16] Instead, 'the "right to strike" in the UK depends for its realisation on a complex statutory scheme'.[17] In contrast to its neighbouring European countries' (Spain and Italy) jurisdictions 'where the right to strike is specified textually in a constitutional document', the UK law 'protects a right to strike … from a variety of sources: statutes such as TULRCA, the common law, Convention rights, and relevant case law'.[18] The accuracy of Bogg and Dukes' encapsulation of the UK law on the 'right to strike' and how the different sources of law interact will be subsequently discussed. Common Law Judiciary While Spain[19] and Italy[20] protect the right to strike by suspending the contract of employment during industrial action, this contract is broken under English law.[21] This is because the English common law does not confer a right to strike,[22] hence 'the rigour of the common law applies in the form of a breach of contract on part of the strikers and economic torts … [for] the organisers and their union'.[23] It is tortious and indefensible[24] to induce an individual to breach their contract of employment.[25] This principle was established in Lumley v Gye,[26] and this liability extends to trade unions in the context of industrial action.[27] Additionally, there are two further economic torts trade unions can be held liable for: liability for conspiracy to injure (Quinn v Leathem)[28] and causing loss by unlawful means. UntilOBG Ltd v Allan, Douglas, and others v Hello! Ltd,[29] the 'tort of procuring a breach of contract had been ["blurred"[30] and] extended [to be a wider] tort of unlawful interference with contractual relations'.[31] These torts were later distinguished and separated in the House of Lord's (HoL) judgment of OBG v Allan. While it is not often, the courts are encouraged to distinguish and introduce new torts. The HoL in OBG v Allan subsequently outlined the distinguishing elements between unlawful means and the tort of procuring a breach of contract. The tort of procuring a breach of contract is an accessory liability. Whilst the tort of unlawful means is a 'primary liability that is not dependent on the third party having committed a wrong against the claimant'.[32] Yet, despite the tort differences, the HoL confirmed that the same act could give rise to liability under both unlawful interference and procuring a breach of contract.[33] This clarification and the development of unlawful interferences as a separate liability has notably accommodated employers in holding trade unions liable for more than one tort. The OBG v Allan judgment is significant for discussing industrial action for two notable reasons. The first is that it confirms the judiciary's 'uncontrolled power'[34] in developing and 'defining torts boundaries on a case-to-case basis.[35] This power is 'ensur[ing] that trade unions cannot provide a lawful excuse or justification for their actions'[36]; trade unions are ultimately 'stood naked and unprotected at the altar of the common law'.[37] The insufficiency of protection for trade unions under the common law exhibits the judiciary's biased and hostile ideology towards industrial action.[38] This subsequently aligns with the following observation: the courts favour economic profits. This is discerned by the extent to which the contemporary judiciary extends protection for commercial bodies.[39] The primary function of English tort law was to protect physical integrity and property rights; tort law was never concerned with the protection of economic interests.[40] Nor had the common law ever been historically exercised to 'legitimately control aspects of the economy'[41] and yet OBG v Allan demonstrates the extent to which this has now changed. The judiciary has extensively and needlessly stretched the common law and its torts[42] to protect 'already powerful organisations'.[43] Hence, from the perspective of trade unions and their members, the common law's (inadequate) protection for the 'right to strike' has been, undeniably, very disappointing. Statutes Legislature One of the major problems facing trade unions was the 'exposure of their funds to legal action by employers'[44]; in 1901, Taff Vale Railway Co successfully sued the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants union for £42,000.[45] This sum is equivalent to £5,196,328.39 today. This verdict, in effect, eliminated 'the strike as a weapon of organized labour'.[46] Naturally, workers turned to political parties for redress. The concern and advocacy for trade union reform accounted for 59% of the winning Liberal party's election manifesto.[47] The Liberal government, led by Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman, provided unions with wide immunity against any tortious liability arising from trade disputes under The Trade Disputes Act (TDA) 1906. Although this Act did not introduce a 'legislated right' for industrial action,[48] this statute effectively recognised the vulnerability of unions under the common law by 'secur[ing] a [statutory] freedom' instead. [49] The TDA is one of the 'mostimportantpieces oflabour legislationever passed by a British Parliament'[50]; it effectively 'kept the courts at a minimum'[51] and neutralised the most obvious adverse effects of the Taff Vale judgment. The 'sympathetic politicians' were 'periodically reconstructing' the role of the 'class-conscious', profit-favouring judiciary.[52] The outcome of the 1906 general election 'served the unions' interests well'[53] and it continued to for 65 years. The 'long enjoyed'[54] immunity of trade unions for liability in tort was reduced to partial immunity under the Thatcher government (1979-90). There is a 'scale of government ideology' which ranges from 'fully participative' to 'fully authoritative',[55] and the Thatcher government was the undoubtable latter. The Conservative ideology and economists, such as FA Hayek, viewed trade unions as an obstacle to economic growth.[56] This perception was heightened by the Winter of Discontent (1978-79): a period characterised by widespread of strikes in response to the Labour government's wage cap (to maintain falling inflation).[57] Subsequently, Thatcher's government further justified the re-introduction of liability for trade unions upon the succeeding Green Papers: the 1981 Trade Union Immunities[58] and the 1989 Trade Unions and their Members.[59] Both papers outlined concerns regarding democracy, rights, and freedom of trade union members; 'too often in recent years it has seemed that employees have been called out on strike by their unions without proper consultation and sometimes against their express wishes'.[60] Accordingly, the Thatcher government introduced legislation that prior Conservative governments were afeard of passing: the Employment Act 1980, Trade Union Act 1984, and Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. These re-introduced vulnerability and high costs for unions. Under the Employment Rights Act 1980, 'trade-dispute' was re-defined, statutory liabilities were introduced and unions were exposed to injunctions and claims for damages. However, upon complying with the stringent balloting requirements (from secret ballot to the requirement for all ballots to be postal) in the 1984 and 1993 Acts, the dispute would be deemed lawful.[61] It is expensive for unions to comply and evidence the fulfilled balloting requirements, but if lawful union members are statutorily protected from unfair dismissals and injunctions.[62] While this is a brief summary of the Acts, these restrictive measures offer an insight into the Thatcher government's success in exercising its agenda of restricting the lawfulness of industrial action by limiting its previously protected scope and purposes. Subsequently, the process of placing further controls on trade unions continued into the 21st century.[63] The 2015 Conservative government introduced the 'draconian'[64] Trade Union Act 2016 (TUA) – the most significant union legislation since the Employment Act 1980. The TUA introduced a minimum threshold of eligible members to vote in the ballot (at least 50% turnout and 50% voting in favour).[65] Moreover, in the instance the members are engaged in 'important public services',[66] 40% of all members entitled to vote must have voted in support of the industrial action. These stringent procedural requirements have to be strictly followed for a strike to be lawful.[67] Oddly, there was no pressing need to introduce these restrictive measures.[68] There were no significant problems in industrial relations at the time (ie, Winter of Discontent) nor any significant 'pressure from business for further laws on strikes',[69] but the Conservative government justified these 2016 measures through the findings of Bruce Carr QC and Ed Holmes.[70] The Government submitted the Carr Review to indicate a consistent pattern of union bullying workers, and yet Carr himself 'did not contend his findings to be a sufficient basis' for influencing the TUA.[71] Instead, the true motivations behind the government's 2016 legislative programme are observed by the 'striking resemblance'[72] to Ed Holmes Modernising Industrial Relations (MIR) paper.[73] The policy paper daringly questioned the necessity of protecting industrial action by reflecting on the development of employment tribunals and discussing the economic consequences of strikes. The same 'free-market economic theory' that underpinned the MIR's recommendations 'drove' the pragmatically restrictive and economically influenced 2016 statute developments.[74] The substance of today's statute in protecting trade unions 'is far removed and much weaker than the position established in 1906'.[75] Since the Henry Campbell-Bannerman leadership, trade union membership has declined by more than half due to the 'three successive Conservative governments [who] have enacted labour legislation opposed by unions'.[76] It appears the deep-rooted ideology of the political party in power influences the legislative steps for protecting trade unions.[77] Therefore, the extent of the Conservative government's 'authoritarian, class-biased and oppressive'[78] industrial action policies will be exemplified and 'more evident than they are today when a Labour government is elected again'.[79] Judiciary While the likes of Maurice Kay LJ and Lord Neuberger MR 'characterised the statutory immunities as limited exceptions to the common law' to justify interpreting the statute provisions 'strictly against the trade union', the court's overall response to industrial action 'has been more mixed'.[80] The court in Merkur Island Shipping v Laughton[81] developed a three-part test to examine the legality of industrial action. This test encapsulates the substantive and procedural requirements for a lawful strike whilst observing the intertwined and 'uneasy' relationship between the common law and statute.[82] If the industrial action is unlawful at common law, the judiciary asks whether there is a 'prime facie statutory immunity' for the commission of torts.[83] This substantive question considers whether the action was 'in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute'[84] before questioning whether the immunity had been procedurally lost by one of the three specified statutory reasons in TULRCA 1992.[85] The union's partial immunity could be lost for minor 'inconsequential breaches of the statutory rules'[86]; there is a series of High Court instances of injunctions being granted to 'ever more powerful and well-resourced employers'[87] owing to invalid strike ballots.[88] The readily available labour injunctions continued to be the "key piece[89]" of suppressing collective action until the minor development in 2011. In RMTv Serco Ltd;ASLEFv London and Birmingham Railway Limited (RMT and ASLEF),[90] the Court of Appeal approved and applied Millett LJ's 1996 observation in London Underground Limited v National Union of Railwaymen, Maritime and Transport Staff:[91] 'the democratic requirement of a secret ballot is not to make life more difficult for trade unions … but for the protection of the Union's own members'.[92] Owing to this proposed democratic aim, the court in RMT and ASLEF confirmed it was 'to interpret the statutory provisions somewhat less stringently'.[93] This interpretation is a stark contrast to Maurice Kay LJ's understanding of parliament's intentions. The court furthered Millett LJ's aim by recommending a neutral, 'without presumptions one way or the other',[94] interpretation of TULRCA. Upon the fact TULRCA is premised on the existing common law framework, the court's 'judicial creativity' could have easily 'outflank[ed] the intentions of Parliament'.[95] Instead of a 'neutral' approach, the courts have the power to mitigate unions disproportionate vulnerability against injunctions, damages, and unfair dismissals by encouraging and favouring social legitimacy. Although, the RMT and ASLEF court 'only indicated a change in emphasis rather than substance'[96] (since unions are still burdened with the challenges of exercising a 'lawful' strike),[97] this judgment enhanced union's ability to resist injunction applications (as observed by Balfour BeattyEngineering Services Limitedv Unitethe Union).[98] The unbiased interpretation encouraged in RMT and ASLEF continues to be the leading approach to interpreting domestic statutes regarding industrial action. ECHR Judiciary Admittedly, the scope of Maurice Kay LJ's strict interpretation was narrowly limited by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).[99] The ECtHR confirmed, in Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v Turkey,[100] that Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights included protection of the right to strike. This Article, and Article 6 of the European Social Charter[101] bestow the right to strike for their member states members and due to the UK Human Rights Act 1998, 'British workers are understood to enjoy a right to strike'.[102] This, unlike the mere domestic statutory immunities, is the only instance of a 'legislated' right to strike in the UK.[103] Under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, 'statutory provisions must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Conventionrights'[104] – 'the opportunity to test this line of argument'[105] in the English courts arose in Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union (Metrobus).[106] The Court of Appeal rejected the Enerji arguments; the Court denied the authority's relevance for the interpretation of UK statutory provisions. This judgment continues to be the leading precedent on the UK's provisions of Article 11,[107] despite the RMT and ASLEF judgment. In RMT and ASLEF, the UK courts acknowledged the 'clearly protected'[108] right to strike under ECHR Article 11. However, the court emphasised the importance of a 'fair balance to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole'.[109] The emphasised interests of the 'community' motivated the court's justification for the ban on secondary action owing to its 'potential to … cause broad disruption within the economy and to affect the delivery of services to the public'.[110] Subsequently, the court confirmed that this ban aligns with Article 11(2) 'on the basis of a wide margin of appreciation accorded to the State'.[111] While the court is correct to recognise their bestowed margin of appreciation, the court rationalised the granting of the injunction, 'which itself cost the union a substantial sum',[112] upon economic factors. This factor is not only 'wholly irrelevant to the specific facts of the application' but it disregarded and postponed 'the exercise of what was acknowledged to be a convention protected right'.[113] The court effectively and 'successfully prevented industrial action on the basis of legal' human rights provisions 'which are intended to benefit workers'.[114] In short, there 'is no point creating rights' or passing human rights legislation if the 'court is not prepared to defend them'.[115] There will continue to be an erosion of human rights protection until there is greater coordination between the domestic courts and the ECtHR. It is credible to conclude that the UK judiciary is more concerned with profitability, self-preservation of UK powers, and 'in appeasing political forces'[116] above the interests of the individuals it and the Convention Rights was established to serve. Legislature The RMT and ASLEF court's 'blessing of a wide margin of appreciation' in the 'encompassment' of Article 11 offered a 'green light for further restrictive legislation on industrial action' by the 'only too happy Government'.[117] Here, Boggs and Ewing detect 'the crude politics of power'.[118] Upon observing the Court of Appeal's reluctance to exercise EU conventions, and the UK courts' developments that continue to be 'very much in line with the political approach of the Conservative government',[119] it materialises that the court and government are not 'looking to open a third (ECtHR) front'.[120] The Government has recently launched an 'independent review' of the Human Rights Act.[121] The review aims to evaluate 'the duty to take into account' ECtHR case law and assess 'whether dialogue between our domestic courts and the ECtHR works effectively and if there is room for improvement'.[122] It is worth highlighting that this 'independent' review will be led by former Court of Appeal Judge, Sir Peter Gross – the same judge who remarked that 'the more that controversial areas are "outsourced" … the greater the challenge for … judicial leadership'.[123] The former judge is a notable advocate for greater domestic judicial leadership.[124] This advocacy hints the likelihood of the review condemning the relevance and precedence of the ECtHR (and Human Rights Act 1998) in 'controversial' matters such as industrial action. This review has the powerful ability to eliminate the only instance of a legislated right to strike in the UK.[125] Ultimately 'The notion of lawful industrial action is restrictive', the procedural requirements are 'onerous' and the consequences of unions liability for unlawful strikes are 'serious'.[126] Nearly two decades after the European Social Charter's review,[127] the UK still does not guarantee the right to strike. The precedent in Metrobus still stands. There continues to be a 'poorly reasoned and barely consistent' series of judgments 'by what looks like a weak, timid'[128] and politically influenced[129] judiciary. The enactment of the 'Human Rights Act and the evolving jurisprudence of the ECtHR'[130] will not prescribe a right to strike in the UK until the Supreme Court or ECtHR rule UK's current provisions as incompatible with Article 11. In truth, 'the right to strike [in the UK] has never been much more than a slogan or a legal metaphor'.[131] This 'slogan' is a regime of immunities that are purposely designed upon an overly complex and expensive statutory system.[132] These immunities are not adequately or proportionately protecting workers, unions, and one in nine vulnerable, precarious workers against the 'pitfalls'[133] of damages, injunctions, and unfair dismissals.[134] This system was successfully underlined with the political agenda of deterring trade disputes; the UK's worker strike total has fallen to its 'lowest level since 1893'.[135] The 'unanimous and hostile'[136] approach of the legislature and the judiciary towards industrial action exhibits the UK's covert 'culture of routinely disregarding'[137] social legitimacy in favour of profits. [1] Alan Bogg and Ruth Dukes, 'Statutory Interpretation and The Limits of a Human Rights Approach: Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union' (2020) 49 ILJ 477, 478. [2] Nicholas Pohl,'Political and Economic Factors Influencing Strike Activity During the Recent Economic Crisis: A Study of The Spanish Case Between 2002 And 2013' (2018) 9 Global Labour Journal 19, 21. [3] ibid, 21. [4] Harry Smith, 'How Far Does UK Labour Law Provide for The Effective Exercise of a Right to Strike?' (2014) 6 The Student Journal of Law accessed 15 December 2020. [5] Hugh Collins, Aileen McColgan and Keith D Ewing,Labour Law(2nd edn, CUP 2019) 706. [6] Gwyneth Pitt,Cases and Materials on Employment Law(1st edn, Pearson Education Limited 2008) 570. [7] Pohl (n 2), 21. [8] Beverly J Silver,Forces of Labor Workers' Movements and Globalization Since 1870(CUP 2003) 17. [9] Pitt (n 6), 570. [10] Manfred Davidmann, 'The Right to Strike' (Solhaam, 1996) accessed 15 December 2020. [11] Adam Smith,An Inquiry into The Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations(Cofide 1776). [12] Bethan Staton, 'The Upstart Unions Taking on The Gig Economy and Outsourcing' (Financial Times, 20 January 2020) accessed 16 December 2020 [13] Employment Rights Act 1996,s212. [14] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULRCA)1992, s246. [15] Brian Smart, 'The Right to Strike and The Right to Work' (1985) 2 Journal of Applied Philosophy 31. [16] 'Industrial Action' (UNISON National) accessed 7 December 2020 [17] Bogg and Dukes (n 1), 478. [18] ibid, 478. [19] Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution and regulated by Royal Decree-Law 17/1977 of 4 March on Labour Relations ('RDLLR') and Article 4.1.e) of the Spanish Workers' Statute. [20] Article 40 of theItalianRepublic Constitution of 1948. [21] Collins, McColgan, and Ewing (n 5), 714. [22] RMT v Serco; ASLEF v London and Birmingham Railway [2011] EWCA Civ 226, [2011] ICR 848 [2]. [23] Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 829, [2010] ICR 173 [118]. [24] South Wales Miners' Federation v Glamorgan Coal Co [1905] AC 239. [25] Collins, McColgan, and Ewing (n 5), 714. [26] (1853) 118 ER 749. [27] Taff Vale Railway Co vAmalgamated Society ofRailwayServants [1901] AC 426. [28] [1901] AC 495. [29] [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1. [30] 'House of Lords Overhaul Economic Torts' (Herbert Smith Freehills, 17 May 2007) accessed 9 December 2020 [31] ibid. [32] OBG v Allan (n 29). [33] ibid, [37]. [34] Hazel Carty, 'The Economic Torts and English Law: An Uncertain Future' (2007) 95 Kentucky LJ 849. [35] Lonrho v Fayed [1990] 2 QB 479, 492-93. [36] Collins, McColgan, and Ewing (n 5), 714. [37] ibid, 714. [38] ibid, 849. [39] ibid, 848. [40] ibid, 847. [41] ibid, 847. [42] Cartey (n 34), 847. [43] ibid, 849. [44] Richard Kidner, 'Lessons in Trade Union Law Reform: The Origins and Passage of The Trade Disputes Act 1906' (2018) 2 Legal Studies 37. [45] Taff Vale (n 27). [46] Merriam-Webster,Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia(Merriam-Webster 2000) 1157. [47] Kidner (n 44), 47. [48] Bogg and Dukes (n 1), 478. [49] RMT and ASLEF (n 22) [2]. [50] Keith Ewing, 'The Right to Strike: From the Trade Disputes Act 1906 To A Trade Union Freedom Bill 2006' (Institute of Employment Rights, March 2013) accessed 11 December 2020. [51] The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 'Trade Disputes Act' (Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 July 1998) accessed 11 December 2020. [52] Ewing (n 50). [53] Encyclopedia Britannica (n 51). [54] FA Hayek, 'Trade Union Immunity Under the Law' The Times (London, 21 July 1977) 15 accessed 11 December 2020 [55] Davidmann (n 10). [56] Hayek (n 54). [57] Alex Kitson, '1978-1979: Winter of Discontent' (Libcom.org, 24 January 2007) accessed 11 December 2020. [58] Cmd, 8128, 1981. [59] Cmd 821, 1989. [60] Trade Union Immunities (n 58), para 247. [61] Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, s238A. [62] TULRCA 1992, ss237-38. [63] Michael Ford and Tonia Novitz, 'Legislating for Control: The Trade Union Act 2016' (2020) 45 ILJ 227. [64] Bart Cammaerts, 'The Efforts to Restrict the Freedom to Strike and To Deny A Right to Strike Should Be Resisted Fiercely' (LSE Blogs, 14 September 2015) accessed 11 December 2020. [65] TUA 2016, s226(2)(a) (ii). [66] ibid, s226(2)(e). [67] ibid, s238A. [68] Ford and Novitz (n 63), 291. [69] ibid, 291. [70] ibid, 291. [71] ibid, 291. [72] ibid, 279. [73] Modernising Industrial Relations n.7. [74] Ford and Novitz (n 63), 279. [75] Ewing (n 50). [76] Brian Towers, 'Running the Gauntlet: British Trade Unions Under Thatcher, 1979-1988' (1989) 42 ILR Rev 163. [77] Gareth Thomas and Ian K Smith,Smith & Thomas' Employment Law(9th edn, OUP 2007), 737. [78] Davidmann (n 10). [79] Bogg and Dukes (n 1), 492. [80] Ruth Dukes, 'The Right to Strike Under UK Law: Not Much More Than A Slogan? NURMT v SERCO, ASLEF v London & Birmingham Railway Ltd' (2011) 40 ILJ 302, 309. [81] [1983] ICR 490. [82] Collins, McColgan, and Ewing (n 5), 847. [83] TULRCA 1992, s219. [84] ibid. [85] ibid, ss222, 224, and 226. [86] Dukes (n 80), 309. [87] Kalina Arabadjieva, 'Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union (CWU): Injunctions Preventing Industrial Action and The Right to Strike' (UK Labour Law, 6 March 2020) accessed 12 December 2020. [88] TULRCA 1992, s226. [89] Arabadjieva (n 87). [90] n 22. [91] [1996] ICR 170. [92] ibid, [180]-[182]. [93] Dukes (n 82), 309. [94] RMT and ASLEF (n 22), [2]. [95] Smith (n 4). [96] Ford and Novitz (n 63), 281. [97] Arabadjieva (n 87). [98] [2012] EWHC 267 (QB). [99] Keith Ewing and Alan Bogg, 'The Implications of The RMT Case' (2014) 40 ILJ 221, 222. [100] [2009] ECHR 2251. [101] 'The right to bargain collectively.' [102] Keith Ewing and John Hendy, 'The Dramatic Implications of Demir and Baykara' (2010) 39 ILJ 2. [103] Bogg and Dukes (n 1), 478. [104] ibid. [105] Dukes (n 82), 303. [106] n 23. [107] Dukes (n 82), 310. [108] Ewing and Bogg (n 99), 221. [109] RMT and ASLEF (n 22), [77]. [110] ibid, [82]. [111] ECHR Art 11 (2). [112] Ewing and Bogg (n 99), 251. [113] ibid, 221. [114] Arabadjieva (n 87). [115] Ewing and Bogg (n 99), 223. [116] ibid, 251. [117] Ford and Novitz (n 63), 282. [118] Ewing and Bogg (n 99), 223. [119] Thomas and Smith (n 77), 737. [120] Ewing and Bogg (n 99), 223. [121] Ministry of Justice, 'Government Launches Independent Review of the Human Rights Act' (Gov.uk, 7 December 2020) accessed 15 December 2020. [122] ibid. [123] Jamie Susskind, 'Jamie Susskind Comments on Sir Peter Gross' Lecture on Judicial Leadership' (Littleton Chambers) accessed 15 December 2020. [124] ibid. [125] ECHR Art 11. [126] Ruth Dukes, The Right to Strike Under UK Law: Something More Than A Slogan? Metrobus v Unite The Union [2009] EWCA Civ 829' (2010) 39 ILJ 1, 7. [127] ESC, Report of the Committee of Experts 2002. [128] Ewing and Bogg (n 99), 251. [129] Thomas and Smith (n 77), 737. [130] Bogg and Dukes (n 1), 478. [131] Metrobus (n 23) (Maurice Kay LJ). [132] Bogg and Dukes (n 1), 478. [133] Dukes (n 125), 9. [134] ibid, 7. [135] Richard Partington, 'UK Worker Strike Total Falls to Lowest Level Since 1893' (The Guardian, 30 May 2018) accessed 15 December 2020 [136] Smith (n 4). [137] ibid.

The Marriott,Slaterville City Oral History Collection was created by the residents of the town to document their history. Each participant was provided with a list of questions asking for; stories about their childhood, schools they attended, stories about their parents and grand,parents, activities they enjoyed, fashions they remember, difficulties or traumas they may have dealt with, and memories of community and church leaders. This endeavor has left behind rich histories, stories and important information regarding the history of the Marriott,Slaterville area. ; 17p.; 29cm.; 2 bound transcripts; 4 file folders. 1 sound disc: digital; 4 3/4 in.; 1 videodisc: digital; 4 3/4 in. ; Abstract: This is an oral history of Orvil Holley. It was conducted March 1, 2007 and concerns his recollections of the history of the Marriott-Slaterville area. OH: Hello. My name is Orvil Holley. I was born in Slaterville, Utah on the 15th of November 1925. I was born in the old Echins home. That home still stands this day. In the spring of 1926 my family moved to the Rhoan Wheeler property, which is still there, and at that time it was across the road from the Slaterville Creamery, which was a cooperative association of dairy farmers in the area. It was active for some twenty years. My father was a dairyman and a farmer raising all kinds of crops such as peas, corn, alfalfa, wheat, barley, oats, beets, and some other crops. My father had married my mother who was a widow and he was a widower. He had a family, and when he married my mother she had three boys and a girl. I am the only child of my father and my mother. My mother was Amelia Echins Alan Holley and my father was Henry Ezra Holley. My father was in his forties when I was born and mother was a few years younger. I remember the early roads. When I was a youngster I particularly remember the grater pulled by what looked like a caterpillar tractor. It came along and grated the roads. Also there were a number of artesian sulfur wells that were drilled in Marriott and Slaterville. These wells were drilled for the purpose of filling up a tanker that was pulled by an old tractor or a team of horses that used to go along and water the roads to keep the dust down a little bit. I don't know if any of those old wells are still in existence or not. I also remember the kids walking to school. At that time the Slaterville School was located on the property where the Slaterville park is now, right where the backstop is in fact. It was really an interesting thing to me because it was the only building that I knew of that had inside plumbing. All of the farm boys enjoyed that particular part of the schoolhouse. There were many great things that happened in that school house. I'll have to tell you one. I think I was in about the fourth grade—maybe it was the third grade. The teacher was a man from North Ogden by the name of Charles Chandler. We only had Charles for one period. That was the last period of the day. Normally, our class was down in the basement, but for this class, the class that Mr. Chandler taught, we would go upstairs. It just so happened that on this particular day three of the boys decided that they would sluff. They were older boys. Their names were Clyde Hunter, Raymond Bowans and Delore Echins. For some reason, they decided that they would get in the closet upstairs and hide in that closet as the classes changed and then they would sneak out of the closets and open a window and go out onto the roof of the restrooms and slide down on the ground and away they would go. Well…it just so happened that Mr. Chandler saw them going into the closet. He called our class to go into that room where the closet was. In those days the children's seats were all on runners. They would put a row of seats and maybe six or seven, maybe eight seats to one runner. So when you move the seats you had to move the runners too. He had us move those seats right over next to the closet. The closet had two doors that opened to the outside towards us. Then Mr. Chandler got his chair and put the back of it up against the door and his feet on these seats that we were sitting in. There was no way that those boys could get out of that room. Well about two-thirds of the way through the class we could hear some rustling going on inside that room. It was a very small room, they were in cramped conditions. Then all of a sudden we could hear what sounded like water—a trickle of water running into a can. But what the person didn't know in the closet was that this was a flower can that had holes in the bottom and pretty soon a little yellow stream came out from underneath the door and into our classroom. You can imagine what the class was like in that particular incident. I thought you might be interested in that. It might be interesting to say a little bit about those old country schools. They weren't very large. The Slaterville School for example had four rooms, two downstairs and two upstairs. But only one of the rooms downstairs was used for teaching. The other room was never fixed up for teaching. It was still dirt, dirt floor—the only things that I can remember that connected that with any of the other rooms were the heating pipes that went through the room. That was a wonderful place for the kids to play in the wintertime. But it was a little dusty and I can remember seeing dust so thick that you couldn't see from one end of the room to the other. Now generally speaking, school went through the eighth grade, but when I started school, school went through the ninth grade. The way it worked is, we had three classes in each room. So in the basement we had the first, second, and third grade all in the same room. Then the two rooms upstairs had third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and on up into eighth or maybe ninth. I don't remember which. Anyway, it was kind of an interesting thing as one teacher handled all three grades. My first grade class—the most it ever had in it was about eight and sometimes it only had five, most of the time it was about six kids in the first grade. And some of those kids are still alive today and still live in Slaterville. In as much as my mother was born in a house that was almost on the borderline between Slaterville and Marriott. She attended the Marriott School for some years. We know that some of the Marriott kids attended the Slaterville School some years. In fact, I remember when I was in school that Marriott—when we were in the sixth grade, Marriott had no sixth graders and we did have Marriott fifth graders over in our school. So it is kind of an interesting setup in these schools. Well let's go back to the very earliest days, before there was a Slaterville, before there was a Marriott. About 1850, there was some movement of people out into this area of the county. At that time there was no Marriott, there was no Slaterville. In fact, one of the things that we are trying to find out at this time is "when did Marriott become Marriott and when did Slaterville become Slaterville?" So far, we can't nail that down. But the first settlers in Slaterville were the Steven Slater family—the Steven Perry family. They settled on the North side of what became known as Mill Creek. Right across from Mill Creek was Marriott. Just when Marriott was settled was, I understand, about the same time. We still have some of the descendants of Steven Perry living in Slaterville today. The man for whom Slaterville is named, Richard Slater, came into Slaterville in 1853. As you can tell he wasn't one of the original settlers so it wasn't named Slaterville because he was an original settler. Tradition has it that was named Slaterville after Richard Slater because he was a member of the Mormon Battalion. I think that was why Slaterville became as it was. The earliest documentation of the name Slaterville comes from the Deseret News and it is at about 1860. It mentions Slaterville as one of the little communities West of Ogden City. Naturally it had to be named Slaterville before that appeared in the Deseret News but just when, we don't know. Irrigation was very important to the people in all of Weber County. If you think of Slaterville, it was a very good place for those early settlers to make their homes because of the water sources. On the South end was the Ogden-Weber River. In the middle was Mill Creek. And on the north end was Four-Mile Creek. They had three water sources going through the community. Now they had to have a way for getting the water from those ditches—those creeks and streams—out to the farms. This is an amazing thing to me. Those old pioneers had some system of knowing where to put those canals and those ditches so they flowed easily with nothing but gravity to pull them along and yet they are still in existence and still being used today. It is magnificent. Now because the water was so important, it was important for those canals and ditches to be clean. That was quite a thing. The presidents of the companies would call to their members and say we are going to clean on such and such a day and we would like you to show up. There would be a huge turnout of men with horses and with cultivators and scrapers and men with shovels and hoes and rakes. They would start—sometimes they would start on each end of the canals and work towards each other. In those days, they cleaned those canals—they were really neat and clean. The ditches were the same way. They were very cooperative one with another even though they may have had some difficulties religiously; they still were together in those community projects. Now I mentioned something about even though citizens in the city or in the town of Slaterville particularly, may not have been together religiously but worked cooperatively on community programs such as cleaning ditches and so forth. I might say, in about 1860 there was a man that came into Slaterville by the name of Joseph Morris. He was very successful in teaching his religious views to particularly the western half of the Slaterville community. So successful was he, that he was invited to leave by the ecclesiastical authorities here in the community. So he left and he took with him almost all the western half of the community, over fifty people were involved. They went to South Weber. I might tell you one little story that comes out of that settlement. When Joseph Morris left Slaterville he went to South Weber. It has always been our belief—in fact, it was so written in a Master's thesis that I did, that this happened to William Jones of Slaterville. But within the last six months we learned that it is not William Jones of Slaterville but William Jones of Marriott that this happened to. We are just learning that the people of Marriott were also involved, more than one, in having people who have succumbed to Mr. Morris's work. They all moved over to South Weber. At the height of the community there is believed to be about seven hundred people in the South Weber area who were connected with the Morrisites. The story goes that Mr. Jones was disappointed with some of the things that Morris was teaching. For example, he was teaching that the advent of the Savior was imminent. He even set the day. When the savior didn't come, Mr. Morris found that he had made a mistake in his calculations and so set another day. He still didn't show up so some of the Morrisites started to get a little bit nervous. Brother Jones from Marriott decided that he would leave and take his wife and away they went. One of the problems that they have is they had to give everything that they owned into the Morrisite Prophet Morris. If anybody wanted to leave they were allowed to leave but they couldn't take anything with them that they had brought such as grain and flour or food stuffs of any sort. That had to stay and that kind of bothered Mr. Jones. One day after he and his wife left he saw a wagon load of wheat coming out of Kingston Fort which was the name of the area where Mr. Morris and his people lived. This wagon load of grain was headed for the grist mill. Mr. Jones knew that he had contributed much more than one load of grain to the Morrisite cause and he didn't have anything to live on so he decided to commandeer this load of grain, which he did. But when the news got back to Mr. Morris, he sent some of his people to regain the grain. He also took into custody Mr. and Mrs. Jones. This caused a lot of trouble. The Jones' relatives went to the legal authorities to try and get them to go and see if they could get the release of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, which they tried to do but were unsuccessful. Finally, it got so bad that they asked the Governor of the state to send the militia to South Weber. The Governor was not in Utah at the time but the person who took his place was in charge and he did call out the militia. They came into South Weber and we can't go into detail on that but just to say that the militia at a certain time open fired and I have held in my hands the cannonball that came down the side of the mountain, bounced along, went through the fence where Mr. and Mrs. Jones had been kept in custody, landed in the lap of Mrs. Jones. That cannonball is still in existence and the descendents of the Jones family still have it. Just a little story to let you know how things went sometimes in those days. Going back a little bit to my early days—needless to say, my mother and father never owned a home of their own until they were both at sixty years. They always rented. They worked hard. Their families that were with them worked hard. We always had good living conditions. I was born in a brick home. When we went to the Wheeler place it was a brick home. When we moved back to the Echins place it was still a brick home. We had a good home. We also came up through the '30's, which was the depression. You could go to town—when I was a boy, about seven or eight years old, once a week we would go to town on a Saturday. I always went with my cousin. Either we rode with his folks or he rode with ours. One of the great things that we lived for all week was to go to Ross & Jacks and eat. You could get burger, spuds for fifteen cents, which was enough to feed a man. Then for ten cents more you could get a pie. So for twenty-five cents you could get a meal. Then we would go to the movies, it was a double-feature for a dime. We were well taken care of as far as that type of thing was concerned. A lot of the boys rode horses in those days. A lot of the boys had some really fine horses. They liked to swim in the river. It was dangerous. My older brother almost drowned in the river but Alvin Cobabe who now owns Powder Mountain and Arthur Slater saved his life. They remember it and he remembers it even better than they do. We used to have what was called ward reunions once every year. Everybody was invited back to that particular ward on a particular date and they had the most fun and the greatest time that you can imagine. Slaterville's reunion was always on the last Thursday of January. Marriott's reunion was in February, I don't remember the date but they still hold their reunion. Marriott still holds their ward reunion. All the other towns around—Farr West, Harrisville, Plain City, Hooper, Taylor, Riverdale—they all have their reunions. It wasn't unusual for our people from the Slaterville area to go to Marriott and Marriott would come to Slaterville, then they would go to Plain City. It was something they looked forward to that they could have a really wonderful time once each month and sometimes more than that because some of the other communities held their reunion the same month. You can't imagine, unless you see it, what the dancing was like. The dances were learned dances—quadrilles—and everybody did the same steps, the same moves on the floor. They had Virginia reels, which sometimes people still have today but those kind of dances, where everyone knows what the dance is and they all dance it. It was just beautiful to see. They would dance their shoes off and just have the greatest time. It was just wonderful folks. Not being familiar with how all the wards handled their reunions, I will just tell you how Slaterville did theirs. Normally it was on the last Thursday of January. The first program started at about eleven o'clock in the morning. It continued for about an hour and a half and then it was time for the dinner. Even though the areas they had to prepare those dinners, you wouldn't expect that they could do the jobs that they did. They had everything. You can't believe it. And what a spread they would put on. And all the wards were the same. They all just went all out. When people were so full that they could hardly walk back up the stairs, they would go back up and there may be another program for thirty minutes while the dinner settled and then they would go to dancing. This is in the afternoon. They would dance until time to go back down for the evening meal. They would go back down and have the evening meal, then they would come back up and they would have another program. These programs folks were great. Those people were talented. They could do anything. They were great actors. They would do—it was just amazing. When that program was over, usually about eight-thirty at night, we pushed the benches back and pile them up on top of each other to make room on the dance floor and then the dance began. It never finished until one or two o'clock in the morning. It was just great. I have been asked to say a little bit about my college years. I have to confess that it took me three years to get through two years of work at Weber College. I only would go two quarters a year and then in the Spring I would have to go home and start to plant and get ready for the next year—the harvest for that year. Then in the Fall I could go back to College and I would go for two quarters, Fall and Winter. While I was at Weber College I became involved with a group of young men who were musicians. I was not a musicians, I had never had a music lesson in my life. The three other fellows were studying music and were fine musicians. Somehow they invited me to join them in a quartet. This quartet lasted for quite a number of years. We sang professionally all over the state of Utah, Idaho, we sang at Sun Valley for the Union Pacific Railroad who owned Sun Valley. In fact, we were invited to go back to Sun Valley and sing for a big convention which hosted President Truman. I wanted to go so bad my teeth hurt but the other fellows said, "No, we have got finals coming up and we are not going to do it." So we didn't get to do that. Following that year, my final year at Weber College, these three wanted to go to the University of Utah to school so we went down there and had a great time. We lived together in an old army barracks. The war was now over, World War II was now over. We practiced our singing every day. We were on the first television station that broadcasts out of Utah, old KDYL. We had a program every week which gave us a little money to spend and we also were hired to sing at big conventions all over the city in Salt Lake that year. The next year our quartet kind of broke up a little bit because I was called on a mission and was gone for two years. When I came back we got together again and even had an agent. I often laugh at the agent's name, his name was Bill Risky. We always used to laugh that it was "Risky business" that we were in. They had graduated college by the time I got home. I went back to the University of Utah but an unusual thing happened. The President of Weber College had been Henry Aldous Dixon. He had been called and given the chance to become President of Utah State. I got a call from President Dixon one afternoon and he said, "I'd like you to come up and take care of the program bureau here at Utah State." I explained to President Dixon that I only needed thirteen hours to graduate from the "U" and I knew that it was required that you have fifteen hours from the institution from which you were to graduate. He said, "I think we can work that out." So I went up to Utah State and headed the program bureau up there and formed a quartet up at Utah State. We traveled all over the country for Utah State, advertising Utah State to the high schools in Idaho and Wyoming, Utah, we even went to California on one big trip. We had a great time, a wonderful experience. So I graduated from Utah State with a Bachelor of Science degree in speech and dramatics. I taught two years in public school and then was hired by the LDS church to teach seminary. It was required that we go down to BYU for a symposium which lasted six, seven, eight weeks every other summer. We decided instead of just going down there let's work on a degree. So many of us worked on a degree down there and I graduated with a Master's degree from BYU in 1966. It has been suggested that I give a little ecclesiastical history of the area. I think that has been well written up as far as the early days of Ogden City and Weber County is concerned. I know that Lorin Farr had a great deal to do with both the ecclesiastical and political history here in the Ogden area. There were some others who were very influential. Before there was any ecclesiastical authority in Slaterville, we were no doubt part of the Northern Stake of Zion at that time—two stakes of Zion, one in the Northern part of Weber County and the other in the Southern part. The first ecclesiastical person to hold an office in Slaterville was a man by the name of Thomas Richardson. He was something like a Branch President. He served faithfully for quite a number of years. One of his counselors was Edwin Smoot. After several years had gone by, Thomas Richardson began not feeling too well and also he was going to receive the call of Patriarch, so it was decided that Slaterville would probably become a ward. During the time that Thomas Richardson was not active as the Branch President, Brother Smoot being next in line did most of the ecclesiastical work in the Slaterville area. We are very grateful to Mr. Smoot for keeping a journal. In it he records the things that he did ecclesiastically—setting people apart, baptizing them, helping people do this and do that. He was very active. But a sad thing occurred when they held a meeting to announce the new Bishop. Brother Smoot thought that it would be him and it turned out to be John A. Allred. Brother Smoot withdrew from the church and took a good number with him. In reading his journal, you read up right to the day when they chose Allred as the Bishop. He recounts his great work in the church. Following the Bishops choosing and ordaining, Brother Smoot never says one more thing about the church except, "I asked them to take my name off the rolls." Kind of a sad day. We have been quite fortunate in this Slaterville area. Towns all around us have seen a great deal of growth. The old farmers have tried to hang on to most of the property that they have had and have tried to farm it. But we have finally seen a change in the last several years. Now within about the last year we have two fairly large developments in the Slaterville-Marriott area. It is sometimes a little difficult for us old timers to realize that other people need homes to live in too. We think we have a beautiful area here. The people have been united in the things that have been going on as far as organizing the present city of Marriott-Slaterville, which is now approximately sixteen years old. It has been amazing how the people have worked together. Before, Marriott and Slaterville didn't always get along the best. I could tell you stories about that. Maybe I will. Today, Marriott and Slaterville have a church where we meet together. We have three wards in that building and we are getting along fine. I am sure it is different than what some of the older folks thought we would be able to do. When Slaterville first decided that they needed a new building—they had no Bishop's office, they had to meet in the coal room, the furnace room of the building, to hold their Bishop meetings. Things were just not good for that particular time. Things were changing in the church. More meetings were being held. Finally, the bishopric of the Slaterville ward decided that they would see what they could do to make the old building suitable for the situation of the day. They got an architect to draw up some plans. When he finished the plans they looked good to the ward leaders and so the ward leaders asked the architect how much this would cost. He said nineteen thousand dollars should do it. So the bishopric scratched their heads and tried to figure out who on earth they could borrow nineteen thousand dollars from to build the building and pay the man back so much a month—if we could find somebody. Finally, one man came up as the one who could loan us nineteen thousand dollars. He was a bachelor, he had never married. He wasn't a member of the church. In fact, he was descendents of people who had joined the Morrisites. His name was Joe Stevens. We made an appointment and met with Joe and visited with him a few minutes. Then the bishop told him why we were there, that we had come to ask him if he would loan us nineteen thousand dollars to remodel the old church. Joe came up out of his chair and he said, "My goodness, I haven't got that kind of money." So we chatted a little bit and the amazing thing was before we left the house he wanted to know if he could be baptized. Shortly after, he was baptized. He died within just very few weeks after we had visited with Joe in his home. But he died a member of the church. Now how did Marriott and Slaterville get together? Well nobody thought they could. Half of Slaterville didn't think they could get along with Marriott and half of Marriott didn't think they could get along with Slaterville. But the two bishoprics got together and they had determined that they would look for a place to build. They picked a place on the old Marriott farm over in Marriott where California Pack had purchased one acre of property from the Marriott family to build a pea viner. The two wards purchased that piece of property from California Pack. Then the two wards were trying to decide how they were going to go about raising money and whatnot to try and move the project along. In the meantime, the committee in Marriott had written a letter to the first presidency, President David O. McKay, explaining that they would prefer to build their own building. Well not long after that letter was received by President McKay, the two bishoprics received word from our Stake President, President Wimmer, that two of the General Authorities, Bishop Vandenburg, the presiding Bishop of the church, and Elder Thomas Monson, a new member of the Quorum of the Twelve, were assigned to come up and meet with us. So the day was set and we met with Brother Vandenburg and Elder Monson in the basement of the old Slaterville church. After the pleasantries were over, Elder Monson looked at Bishop Buck, Bishop of the Marriott Ward, Clarence Buck, and he said, "President McKay has received your letter and read your letter and he has told us that we are not to come here and try to push a building down your throat. If you want to build a building, you are welcome to do so. However, be cautioned, you won't be able to afford the kind of building that you need, and it is our desire that you two wards get together if you possibly can." Then there was some discussion between Bishop Buck and the General Authorities concerning the problem, and with how many people were opposed to it in Marriott. There was sufficient number that it would cause some concern. Bishop Vandenburg, all of a sudden, he lighted up like a light and said, "Well I am from Ogden and I know Marriott. There are some Dutch people in Marriott aren't there? And Bishop Buck said, "Yes, there are." "Well they'll support you won't they?" "Well they are the worst ones in the whole ward." Bishop Vandenburg dropped his head and Elder Monson looked over at me and smiled and then he said, "How do you change a Dutchman's mind, Bishop?" Bishop Vandenburg sat there for a second, looked up and said, "You can't." Anyway, we got together and rode with the General Authorities around to look at different places where we might build and they picked out the spot where the church now stands. We dedicated that building in 1968. So it is almost forty years old. I think we have gotten along as good or better than most of the wards have who just had the wards divided among themselves. It has been really quite a wonderful thing. Now since those two wards went together some sixteen years ago, Marriott and Slaterville, the residents of those two communities, by a huge majority of vote, voted to go together to form a city. The city's name is Marriott-Slaterville. There was some opposition to that. Some people said, "That was too long a name, make it simpler." They pointed out other communities that had done that. But we knew the makeup of Marriott and Slaterville. Slaterville didn't want to lose its identity and Marriott didn't want to lose theirs. So why not Marriott-Slaterville? The wards today are Marriot-Slaterville 1, Marriott-Slaterville 2, and Marriott-Slaterville 3.

Issue 59.2 of the Review for Religious, 2000. ; Celibate .Chastity: A Symposium Religious Life Questions Witnessing Hispanic Catholic Report MARCH APRIL 2000 VOLUME 59 NUMBER 2 Review for Religious helps people respond and be faithful to God's universal call to holiness by making available to them the spiritual legacies tbat flow from the charlsms of Catbollc consecrated life. Review for Religious (ISSN 0034-639X) is published bimonthly at Saint Louis Univers!ty by the Jesuits of the Missouri Province. Editorial Office: 3601 Lindell Boulevard ¯ St. Louis, Missouri 63108-3393. Telephone: 314-977-7363 ¯ Fax: 314-977-7362 E-Mail: foppema@slu.edu Manuscripts, books for review, and correspondence with the editor: Review for Religious ¯ 3601 Lindell Boulevard ¯ St. Louis, MO 63108-3393. Correspondence about the Canonical Counsel department: Elizabeth McDonough OP P.O. Box 29260; "Washington, D.C. 20017. POSTMASTER Send address changes to Review for Religious ° P.O. Box 6070 ¯ Duluth, MN 55806. Periodical postage paid at St. Louis, Missouri, and additional mailing offices. See inside back cover for information on subscription rates. ©2000 Review for Religious Permission is herewith gianted to copy any material (articles, poems, reviews) contained in this issue of Review for Religious for personal or internal use, or for the personal or internal use of specific library, clients within the limits outlined in Sections 107 and/or 108 of the United States Copyright Law. All copies made under this permission must bear notice of the source, date, arid copyright owner on the first page. This permission is NOT extended to copying for commercial distribu-tion, advertising, institutional promotion, or for the creation of new collective works or anthologies. Such permission will only be considered on written application to the Editor, Review for Religious. ~ 0 ]LIVING OUR CATHOLIC LEGACIES Editor Associate Editors Canonical Counsel Editor Editorial Staff Advisory Board David L. Fleming SJ Clare Boehmer ASC Philip C. Fischer SJ Elizabeth McDonough OP Mary Ann Foppe Tracy Gramm Barbara J. Soete SSND James and Joan Felling Kathryn Richards FSP joel Rippinger OSB Bishop Carlos A. Sevilla SJ David Werthmann CSSR Patricia Wittberg SC MARCH APRIL 2000 VOLUME 59 NUMBER 2 con en s 118 131 139 c Oib te chastity: symposium Bowling Alone, Living Alone: Current Social Contexts for Living the Vows Mary Johnson SNDdeN couples the social context of community living with new possibilities for the meaning of the vows, particularly celibate chastity, so as to provide a radical gospel-based witness to countercultural values. Celibate Life Offers Insights Keith Clark OFMCap gives evidence that a celibate life well lived communicates to our culture a powerful message about the nature and meaning of sexuality, the unique nature of Christian marriage, and the motivation for the church's ministry. Discerning Our Celibate Way in Our Culture David L. Fleming SJ spells out some of the implications of discernment--making decisions with a lover's instinct--for living celibate chastity, which is defined as a way of loving. 148 156 What Is Religious Life's Purpose? Justin Taylor SM and Albert Dilanni SM question whether the basic purpose of religious life had been obscured long before Vatican II and still calls for clarity now. Must Hermits Work? Kenneth C. Russell provides insight into the place and value of work in the traditions of eremitical life in the Western church and draws some conclusions for today. Review for Religious 175 Mission: Not Do We Have One But Do I Live One? Rol~ert J. Murray OS~, emphasizes the need to live the valu'es reflected in mission statements for the health of the congregation. 180 188 The Easter Faith of Catherine of Siena Roland Calvert OSFS explains the paradox of Easter faith found not in Catherine's writings but in the activities of her life. Foucauld's Evolving Response tO God's Call Cathy Wright LSJ pictures the unfolding of the vocation of Charles de Foucauld and points to what it says to us about understanding our own vocations. 193 repor U.S. Hispanic Catholics: Trends and Works 1999 Kenneth G. Davis OFMConv, Eduardo C. Fernfindez SJ, and Ver6nica M~ndez RCD present a panoramic of the year's events within the U.S. Hispanic Catholic community. 116 Prisms 209 Canonical Counsel: Location of the Novitiate 214 Book Reviews March-April 2000 116 ~e sometimes put more into preparing for a special event than we put into the actual celebration. We have been preparing during these past years to celebrate the new millennium--our efforts inspired by Pope John Paul II's Tertio Millennio Adveniente. Now that we have entered into the year 2000 we may find ourselves forgetful of the reason for our preparations. The bishops' conferences in many countries have identified various ways that priests, lay people, and religious may enter together into special celebrations that grace our liturgical year. Personally we are faced with the more day-to- day question: What are we doing to celebrate this jubilee year? First we need to recall for ourselves the obvious. What is this jubilee about? The heart of the jubilee year is our cherishing and rejoicing in the fact that the Word was made flesh, God became man, Jesus, Son of God and Son of Mary, was born two thousand years ago. And our world has never been the same. Each of us is called anew to our following of Jesus. How well do we know him? Despite the frequency with which we are exposed to the acronym WWJD, do we feel confident in acting out our response to the question "What would Jesus do?" The very title we proudly bear--Christian--suggests that others can expect to see in us a face of Christ, his action, his love, and his forgiveness. Perhaps, first of all, we need a renewed effort in this jubilee year to foster our friendship with Christ. As we search out the ways helpful to us for growing in our knowledge and love of Jesus (for example, spiritual reading, Bible study, prayer, Eucharist, volunteer service projects), we may find that Jesus' reference to the jubilee text in Isaiah 61 as he proclaims his own mission in Luke 4:18-19 can become our entrance into a way of celebration: Review for Religious The spirit of the Lord is upon me; therefore he has anointed me. He has sent me to bring glad tidings to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and release to prisoners, to announce a year of favor from the Lord. The context for such a mission for Jesus and so for us is "to be anointed," "to be sent." The biblical concept of jubilee involves, above all, a call from God. As we make attempts to find ways that we can celebrate, more than rushing to take on pious devotions or vol-unteer ministries, we need to listen to the call of God in our life. A litde more reflection time--listening time--is a pervading essential of a jubilee year. Jubilee and sabbath are intimately connected since jubilee is God's expansion of the sabbath rest. But rest in relation to God is not defined as inactivity; rather, sabbath centers us on taking time for our relationship with God, for enhancing that relationship. In a jubilee time we respond to God's initiative in our way of cele-brating rather than assume the initiative ourselves. Our behavior, then, would be like Jesus'--who describes himself as sent. For Jesus, the initiative is always God's. Our celebrating jubilee begins with our taking the time to be a listener, our being available to God's initiative, our making the effort to enhance our relationship with God. Just as jubilee is related to sabbath, so jubilee is also related to Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection. Jubilee celebrates a new begin-ning: drawing on new reserves of resources (for those who feel empty and poor), seeking new visions (for those who are blind or in the dark), enjoying new freedom (for those who suffer from feeling lim-ited and bound). The jubilee ideal for the Israelite people was spelled out in such concrete actions as returning land to original settlers, setting free the slave or servant, and letting the land lie fallow. Every action looked to a newness of life, a renewed beginning. Jesus assumed this dimension of the jubilee ideal as his mission and gave it divine meaning in his resurrection. We, the followers of Jesus and the recipients of his Spirit, continue to follow his example as we cel-ebrate jubilee: we listen to God, we follow God's lead, we imitate Jesus, we act like Christians. Maybe a jubilee year !s a time for us to confound G.K. Chesterton's witty and yet poignant judgment: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has not been tried." Our celebration means that we determine to act like Christians, day in day out, all year long. Th~ world around us cer-tainly would be different. We would know a jubilee. David L. Fleming SJ 117 . March-April 2000 MARY JOHNSON Bowling Alone, Living Alone: Current Social Contexts for Living the Vows celibate chastity a symposium The meaning of the vows, sociologically speaking, is drawn from the human context in which they are lived. Sociologically speaking, their significance lies, not in interior inspiration and dedication, but in how they appear different from other ways of life and ways of liv-ing. Religious vows are liv~d in many social contexts. This discussion focuses on two of them, the societal and the communal. For the first, I shall turn to Robert D. Putnam's influential article "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital" (1995). For the second, I shall refer to the provocative talk given by Sister Doris Gottemoeller RSM at the Wernersville symposium in 1998 and later published in Review for Religious (March-April 1999) and to relevant data from my recent study of women's institutes in the United States. Mary Johnson SNDdeN, an associate professor of sociology at Emmanuel College in Boston, participated in the symposium titled "Celibate Chastity: God's Invitation to Love in a Sexually Confused Culture" held 22-24 October 1999 at the Jesuit Center for Spiritual Growth in Wernersville, Pennsylvania. This and the next two articles come from that symposium. In this written version Mary Johnson has refocused her original presentation, developing and broadening the topic in the light of the subse-quent papers and discussions. Her address is Sociology Department; Emmanuel College; 400 The Fenway; Boston, Massachusetts 02115. Review for Religious Bowling Alone Harvard Professo~ Robert Putnam, in "Bowling Alone," draws a riveting picture of the result of the loosening of communal bonds across U.S. society in the last thirty years. A commentary on his research in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Heller, 1996) notes that "scores of iournalists have picked up on the implica-tions." Policy makers and government officials, too, have listened to him. Putnam has twice been invited to the White House for brainstorming sessions on the breakdown of American communi-ties. Currently he is writing a book on the subject, doing cross-national research, and participating in workshops that seek solutions to widespread civic disengagement. Putnam notes that "American social scientists of a neo- Tocquevillean bent have unearthed a wide range of empirical evi-dence that the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions (and not only in America) are indeed powerfully influ-enced by norms and networks of civic engagement." He says that these norms and networks are elements of the "social connected-ness" that constitutes the social scientific concept of "social cap-ital." He defines the concept thus: "Social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit." He continues: "For some reason, life is easier in a commu-nity blessed with a substantial stock of social capital. In the first place, networks of civic engagement foster sturdy norms of gen-eralized reciprocity and encourage the emergence of social trust. Such networks facilitate coordination and communication, amplify reputations, and thus allow dilemmas of collective action to be resolved. When economic and political negotiation is embedded in dense networks of social interaction, incentives for opportunism are reduced. At the same time, networks of civic engagement embody past success at collaboration, which can serve as a cul-tural template for future collaboration. Finally, dense networks of interaction probably broaden the participants' sense of self, devel-oping the T into the 'we.'" Putnam then provides a sweeping overview of the "declined" in social capital in the United States since the 1960s. He begins with politics. Putnam points out that, from the early 1960s to 1990, voter turnout has declined by a quarter in national elec-tions. Since 1973, attendance at town meetings has declined by a third. He states that decline is evident in studies of the numbers March-April 2000 Johnson ¯ Bowling Alone, Living Alone "attending a political rally or speech, serving on a committee of some local organization, and working for a political party." He comments on the loosening of bonds in nuclear and extended families and in neighborhoods. He continues by citing evidence of decline in religious involvement, labor union mem-bership, parent-teacher association involvement, and volunteer-ing in civic, fraternal, and women's organizations like the Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, the Shriners, the Jaycees, and the League of Women Voters. He states that, "after expanding steadily throughout most of [the 20th] century, many major civic organi-zations have experienced a sudden, substantial, and nearly simul-taneous decline in membership over the last decade or two." Putnam concludes this section of his article by referring to the metaphor in his title, which has become a symbol of the dis-integration of communal bonds in the society. He says: "The most whimsical yet discomfiting bit of evidence of social disengage-ment in contemporary America that I have discovered is this: More Americans are bowling today than ever before, but bowling in organized leagues has plummeted in the last decade or so. Between 1980 and 1993 the total number of bowlers in America increased by ten percent, while league bowling decreased by forty percent. The broader social, significance, however, lies in the social inter-action and even occasionally civic conversations over beer and pizza that solo bowlers forg6. Bowling teams illustrate yet another vanishing form of social capital." Putnam gives evidence of some countertrends: the rapid and dramatic rise in membership in certain groups like the Sierra Club, the National Organization for Women, and the American Association of Retired Persons. However, while the political clout of these organizations is considerable, the nature of involvement is vastly different from the organizations discussed previously. Putnam says: "For the vast majority of their members (Sierra, NOW, AARP, and so forth), the only act of membership consists of writing a check for dues or perhaps occasionally reading a newslet-ter. Their ties, in short, are to common symbols, common leaders, and perhaps common ideals, but not to one another. From the point of view of social connectedness, the Environmental Defense Fund and a bowling league are just not in the same category." Putnam identifies two other countertrends: the growth in non-profit organizations, and in support groups. But he argues that these do not fill the role that civic organizations do. He cites soci- Review for Religious ologist Robert Wuthnow's national, study of support groups: "Small groups may not be fostering community as effectively as many of their proponents would like. Some small groups merely provide occasions for individuals to focus on themselves in the presence,of others. The social contract binding members together asserts only the weakest of obligations. Come if you have time. Talk if you feel like it. Respect everyone's opinion. Never criticize. Leave qui-etly if you become dissatisfied. We can imagine that [these small groups] really substitute for families, neigh-borhoods, and broader community attach-ments that may demand lifelong commitments, when, in fact, they do not." Putnam has reflected on causes of and solutions to the breakdown of American communal life. He calls for reinventing community life, but, as an interview arti-cle in the Chronicle of Higher Education says, "the Internet will not do the trick. Nor will nostalgia for a vanishing America. 'Some people have interpreted what I have said as a nostalgic call to return to the 50s. That is not what I say.'" He continues: "It is not just social capital, period. It is social capital that cuts across the existing cleavages in American society. That is, it is not enough that we all start bowling again. There have to be bowling leagues in which people of different races are connecting with one another." He concludes his interview by asserting: "This is the single most important problem facing America. If we can solve this one, if we can get more people engaged in community life in contexts that respect American pluralism, many of our other problems--to begin with, our politics--will be different." Bowling teams illustrate yet another vanishing form of social capital. Beginning the Conversation Putnam's portrait of a society bowling alone has struck a deep chord in the national psyche of Americans. It has caused many to reflect on the fact that our democracy is dependent on a vibrant civic life held together by strong communal bonds. I would argue that Sister Doris Gottemoeller's article "Community Living: Beginning the Conversation" has had a similar effect. Her article has struck a deep chord in the religious psyche of Catholic sis-ters, causing many to ponder what community means to the way March-April 2000 12I Johnson ¯ Bowling Alone, Living Alone of life and mission of apostolic religious in this country. The com-munal bonds that Putnam studies appear weak in a variety of local institutions--family, neighborhood, civic organization, and the like. Both articles point us to a consideration of the quality of communal bonds in local communities of religious. The intent of Sister Doris's article is to "break the silence" about living in community. She believes that "community living may be the 'Achilles' heel' of contemporary apostolic religious life." She says, "Often the mere mention of the topic brings about an awkward silence, embarrassed dismissals, or defensive equivo-cations." She cites a number of reasons for the present silence about the discussion of community life and then raises six questions to begin the conversation: What are we talking about when we talk about community living? What is its theological basis? What can we say about a spirituality for community? What is the role of leadership in creating and sustaining community? What are some special challenges to living community life today? What can we do to renew our community life? I want to focus on the first question here since I believe that it is foundational to .further discussion. Without clear terminology, discussion can lose its way. Sister Doris offers this definition: "Community living is what happens when two or more people relate to one another in a significant, mutually beneficial, and ongoing way." She elaborates on what she means by each of these elements and then concludes that "we are tal~ng about good-faith efforts to live a principal value of religious life. With few excep-tions, it will include a common residence." Building the Structures I begin with Sister Doris's first question bechuse, while much of our rhetbric about ourselves refers to our life in community, I am not convinced that we have a commonly accepted definition. And our inability to arrive at such a definition has implications for ourselves and those who want to join us as sisters. A case in point: A front-page article in the Sunday New York Times (16 January 2000) discusses the efforts of the Sisters of Mercy of New York, New Jersey, and Brooklyn in using modern media tools (a Web site and an advertising campaign) to recruit a new generation of sisters. The article is illustrated with a graphic (recently sent to college campuses in poster form) that includes a catchy picture Revlew for Religious and caption. At the bottom are the words "Sisters of Mercy-- women religious who respond to God's call each day through ser-vice, prayer, and community life." This descriptive is similar to dozens of others used by con-gregations throughout the United States in recruitment efforts. My question now is: What do we mean when we promise new sis-ters community life, and what do they expect to receive when they come? Numbers of women interested in entering, and numbers of newer and not-so-new sisters as well, express a desire to live and pray and share household tasks and support for ministry with sis-ters under the same roof. That is their definition of "community." These women are neither statistically nor substantively insignifi-cant to the present and future of religious life. But it is clear that nowadays the definition of community is often being adapted to mean province life, congregational life, parish life, a circle of inti-mate friends, family members, prayer partners, support and prayer groups within congregations, coworkers, and national and inter-national groups. These broader (or narrower) definitions of com-munity are shared by other numbers of religious. This is a serious issue that has to be addressed. It is one more example of Putnam's finding that communal bonds that have united people to one another on the local level are disintegrating, even while new kinds of linkages are being established. This is not to say that people do not still espouse ideals. But, as Putnam found, they often do so in the abstract or at a distance, through periodic meet-ings, newsletters, or the Internet. But, we have to ask, is this level of engagement adequate to sustain a way of life and mission and to socialize the newer sisters, the majority of whom desire com-munal bonds within communities? This is also not to imply that the relationships with other groups are not important to and essen-tial for life and mission. But, as Putnam said about social con-nectedness, "the Environmental Defense Fund and a bowling league are just not in the same category." Similarly, a group of friends that meets quarterly, a prayer group that meets monthly, and a support group that meets weekly are just not in the same category as a community that lives under the same roof and inter-acts daily. Another question, whether the daily interaction of the community is life-giving, or death-dealing, is an important one, but a different one. Often the two questions are conflated, thus bringing conversation about community to a dead halt. ~larch-April 2000 Johnson * Bowling Alone, Living Alone The work of sharply defining and rebuilding community is essential to the mission and future of apostolic religious life in the United States and other nations where religious life struggles to free itself from the hegemonic hold of middle-class values. This effort is as radical as previous clear and unequivocal claims that the preferential option for the poor means the materially poor. Because many people were willing to work to prevent the word poor from being stretched to meaninglessness and the resultant loss of its prophetic power, we now have a new generation of young Catholics in the United States who claim, in a survey our research team recently conducted, that concern for the poor and the belief that God is present in a special way in the poor are essential dimensions of the Catholic faith (Dinges et al., p. 13). That work, of almost three decades ago, toward a clear and unequivocal def-inition of "the poor" has galvanized energy and commitment to the poor today, especially on the part of the young. In sociology there are dozens of uses for the term community. M1 members of the church, whether single or married, clergy or religious, find themselves embedded in all kinds of groups-fami-lies and parishes and prayer, work, neighborhood, ethnic, national, and international or global groups--which they sometimes describe as their "community." Those social networks will only increase and multiply in the years ahead as technology becomes even more sophisticated. The time seems to be right, especially in the midst of conversations about new forms of religious life, for a case to be made by those who believe that local community life with strong communal bonds is fundamental, not incidental, to apostolic religious life and its mission. This need becomes more acute in light of data given below, data I collected recently in my national study (funded by Lilly Endowment) of women's institutes in the United States. (The .publication of the data from the entire study is forthcoming.) Gathering data from apostolic, monastic, and evangelical orders, the survey was responded to by 70 percent of the women's institutes, institutes that represent 84 percent of the sisters in the United State~. The survey indicates that there are 18,052 com-munities (local houses). The vast majority are apostolic commu-nities. The unit of analysis here is the community, the local house. The table reads as follows: 49 percent of the religious houses in the United States have one sister residing in them, 20 percent of the houses have two sisters, and 9 percent have three sisters; 2 percent Review for Religious of the houses have more than 20 sisters residing in them. Community Size Percentage of houses Number of sisters 49 One 20 Two 9 Three 7 Four 4 Five 6 6-10 2 11-15 1 16-20 2 Over 20 Do these data surprise you? What explains them? How does your congregation compare? What has been lost and gained in this new configuration of houses? Surveying the sisters who entered religious life from 1966 to 1998--the post-Vatican II entrants, not a statistically or substan-tively insignificant generation--I asked the following questions. If you had your preference right now, with whom would you prefer to live? No one 8.8 percent An ecumenical group 0.7 percent An interfaith group 0.4 percent Married couple(s) 0.1 percent Single lay person(s) 0.9 percent Men and women religious 3.8 percent Sisters of my own institute 64.1 percent Children 0.2 percent Teens/young adults 0.1 percent Family members 0.3 percent Intercongregationally - 5.3 percent Combination of my sisters and one of the above 15.2 percent If you bad your preference right now, with how many sisters would you prefer to live? With none 11 percent With one other sister 14 percent With two other sisters 12 percent In a group of 4-7 sisters 45 percent In a group of 8-10 sisters 6 percent In a group of 11-15 sisters 2 percent In a group of 16-20 sisters 4 percent In a group of more than 20 sisters : 6 percent March-April 2000 ~obnson ¯ Bowling Alone, Living Alone Which of these data surprise you? What might explain these data? What further discussions do we need to have in light of these data? How do these issues of community relate to mission? What place does community hold in the life of apostolic congregations? Living in Community In light of Putnam's data, it seems that the creation of com-munal bonds is truly countercultural; that is, it goes against the prevailing value of social disconnectedness and weak, superficial, or nonexistent bonds among people and groups on the local level in the wider society. Countercultural living is one of the hallmarks of religious life. Can these issues be addressed in this light? One challenge to the conversation has to do with the social and communal contexts in which we live. The vows are not only lived within a wider society, marked by looser communal bonds and a religious life characterized by primarily monadic, dyadic, and triadic configurations. The vows are also lived against a hege-monic middle-class culture in which individualism, privatism, and materialism are cornerstones. Another challenge is the personal. Some sisters have had to move into various communal arrangements over the years because of ministry. But sometimes ministry concerns can serve to eclipse .any conversation about community. Some sisters have not been community builders or sustainers in the past. Can these issues be revisited again at this new moment? The challenge is compounded by the fact that many sisters holding key positions in the min-istries of leadership, formation work, vocation work, academia, pastoral work and counseling, national conference work, parish and diocesan work, congregational service, and so forth live alone. Can we be certain to include them in this conversation, even if we have sometimes avoided this issue altogether because they are our friends? Sometimes, when people do live with others, there seems to be a sense that, because of their work, the fewer persons living in the house, the better. Greater numbers of people are seen as deen-ergizing people for mission rather than energizing them. One hears gasps, even groans, when someone says that she lives with several sisters. Memories of the past rise up and seem to choke any attempt to talk about living with more than two other people, an arr.angement that might better accommodate needs of miriistry Review for Religious and hospitality, congregational responsibilities, household tasks, and the maintaining of "breathing room." Can we get to this level in the conversation? The inability to discuss some of these issues is all the more .troubling given the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States continues to grow. It now stands at 62 million people, the largest religious body in the nation, with 20 million of its members in their 20s and 30s. It is paradoxical that, as the church grows, the size of religious houses shrinks. At the same time, vocation and formation personnel continue to plead for more space for possible aspirants and newer sisters. Celibacy in Culture It is against the backdrop of these social and communal con-siderations that I present a brief overview of recent studies in human sexuality. The intended and unintended consequences of uncoupling the vows from community living (a phenomenon now several decades old) need, I' am convinced, to be analyzed regard-ing the mutual relationship each of the three vows has with com-munity. That is, how does celibacy shape community and community shape celibacy? How does poverty shape community and community shape poverty? And so forth. For the purposes of this symposium, we shall focus on celibacy. The studies in human sexuality point to new possibilities for the meaning of this vow: that, together with community, it can provide a radical gospel-based witness to countercultural values. Groups who live this vow well, sharing together the depth of a nongenitally expressed intimacy, give witness to one of the deep-est yearnings of this culture. The celibacy of a group gives proof to the whole society that its yearnings for intimacy can be ful-filled, that it is possible to love deeply and celibately and to do so together, without harsh lonliness. Celibate groups witness to the fact that the journey does not have to be made in isolation, that even this seemingly lonely vow is to be shared. Communities with strong communal bonds and deep celibate love witness also to a love that can cross the seemingly uncrossable social lines of gen-eration, race, and social class, to name just three. It is especially to the young that we must go with this news since they are the objects of so much manipulation about whom to love and how to love. Some of them say that because of this they are afraid to love. We, March-April 2000 127 - Johnson ¯ Bowling Alone, Living Alone whose public identities are so clearly tied to a unique way of liv-ing love, have a corporate responsibility to speak about what we have learned about love to a society paradoxically satiated by sex-ual excess and starved for intimacy. While no studies of human sexuality are perfect because of people's tendencies to overreport or underreport sexual practice, we can glean, from data collected in the following studies, some insights as to how to share the gift that has been given us. The first attempt at a systematic look at issues of human sex-uality was conducted by Alfred Kinsey. Considered a pioneer, Kinsey began his research in the 1930s, and his assertions stood for almost four decades. His work, however, was not without problems. He did not use a sample; he relied upon volunteers to serve as respondents, and so their responses were not representative of the population as a whole. In later years Masters and Johnson, too, used volunteers, involving their work in the same difficulty of being nongeneralizable. Nongeneralizable work can, however, provide important insights on other levels. Sociologist Lillian Rubin, in the United States in the late 1980s, interviewed a thou-sand people between the ages of thirteen and forty-eight about their sexual practices. One significant finding was that sexual activ-ity begins early among today's teens and that teen sexual practices are similar to those of adults. The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) of the 1990s was the first national scientific study of sexual practices. Rather than enlisting volunteers, it used probability sampling to find its respondents. A thumbnail sketch of some of the findings follows. First, there has been and increase in the level of pre-marital sex, especially among women. Over 95 percent of U.S. men and women getting married ~oday have been sexually active before marriage. One in five women have reported being forced to perform sexual acts against their will. The perpetrator was often known by the women; sometimes it was someone they loved, including their own husbands. On the other hand, only 3 percent of men reported that they had forced women to perform sexual acts. The researchers, struck by the gender gap, hypothesized' that the gap was due not only to underreporting by the men but also to their failure to recognize their behavior as coercive. The survey also found that 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This Review for Religious stands in contradiction to the Kinsey report of 1948, wherein 10 percent of the population was estimated to be homosexual. Groups challenged the NHSLS findings, arguing that the percentages are too small. The research team responded by saying that, although larger percentages of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are found in urban areas and in other enclaves in the United States, the survey findings reflect national, not local or regional, reality. The researchers analyzed their data according to religion and level of education. The Catholic data here indicate that the median number of sex partners since age eighteen was three. Thirteen percent of the Catholics had no sex part-ners in the previous year, 72 percent had one sex partner, 13 percent had 2 to 4 sex partners, and 3 percent had 5 or more sex partners. Which of the above findings surprise you? Which do not? How can discus-sions about sexuality improve our rela-tionship with and commitment to all of the people of God? Beyond these questions, it seems to me that further discussion on living the vows in community might be helped by the following questions: ¯ In light of the studies on human sexu-ality, how do we talk about celibacy and how do we support celibacy? ¯ What kind of norms and structures are in place in those communities which exhibit strong communal bonds? ¯ In those communities, how are the following values manifest: personal and communal prayer? celebration and mealtimes? ecological sensi-tivity? hospitality? concern for social justice and the poor? a sim-ple lifestyle? loving support? trust and joy? concern for the ministry and apostolic call of each sister~ fidelity to the call of the wider congregation and to the people of God? ¯ What are the forces, besides ministry or mission, that have pushed some people to live alone or live with their best friend? ¯ How can we resolve issues about community of the past so that we can move toward envision.ing community for the present and future? ¯ How can we unite our efforts to build strong commu-nities and to learn how to live together with the efforts of other groups, especially couples and families, who are also trying to How can discussions about sexuality improve our relationship with and commitment to all of the people of God? 129 March-April 2000 Johnson ¯ Bowling Alone, Living Alone r learn how to live together, to resolve conflicts peacefully, and to enjoy life together? ¯ How can we unite our efforts to balance ministry and community with the efforts of so many in the soci-ety who yearn for a healthier balance of work and family life? These conversations may not be easy becatise they will require crossing a major, though subtle, divide between those who see liv-ing in community as essential and those who see it as incidental. By not engaging in these conversations, however, we uninten-tionally contribute to negative effects on recruitment, retention, and mission. In the midst of wide-ranging and sometimes obfus-cating discussions on new forms of religious life, the voices of those who are committed to the radical gospel-values contained in the vowed apostolic life as it is lived in community have been eerily silent. Perhaps the time has come for many more sisters to break the taboo. References Dinges, William, Dean R. Hoge, Mary Johnson, and Juan L. Gonzalez Jr. "A Faith Loosely Held: The Institutional Allegiance of Young Catholics." Commonweal, 17 July 1998, 13-18. Gotternoeller, Doris, RSM. "Community Living: Beginning the Conversation." Review for Religious 58, no. 2 (March-April 1999): 137-149. Heller, Scott. "Harvard Professor Examines America's Fading Sense of Community." Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 March 1996, A10. Putnam, Robert D. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of Democracy 6, no. 1 (January 1995): 65-78. Many foreign missionaries depend upon people like you who donate subscriptions for them to Review for Religious. To start a subscription for a deserving missionary, please send $24 to: Review for Religious ¯ 3601 Lindell Blvd. ¯ St. Louis, MO 63108 To pay by credit card, phone: 314-977-7363. Review for Religious KEITH CLARK Celibate Life Offers Insights poerhaps the most countercultural statement that will come ut of this conference is its title. This may be the only gath-ering that states boldly that we live in a "sexually confused cul-ture." My experience of the past twenty years suggests that an ever increasing number of people with backgrounds in an ever widen-ing array of disciplines have attempted to pronounce the last word in just about all areas of human sexuality. We sit here and suggest that our culture is sexually confused. Audacious! I have no "last word" to offer on the topic. The most recent word I have spoken to myself is this: I want to write to the Holy Father and ask him to change the discipline of mandatory celibacy as a prerequisite for presbyteral ordination in the Roman Church. My reason is this: The witness of a celibate life well lived is thor-oughly obscured in our society, in our church, by the assumption on the part of most that those who are committed to a celibate life have made the commitment reluctantly in order to achieve the status of ordination. Since ordination does not have that much status in the eyes of most people, there is little impetus to con-sider seriously either a celibate lifestyle or ordination. The thou-sands of women and men religious who are committed to a celibate life are somehow lumped with those who are assumed to be reluc-tant celibates for the sake of some other pursuit. Keith Clark OFMCap presented this paper at a symposium titled "Celibate Chastity: God's Invitation to Love in a Sexually Confused Culture," held in October 1999 at the Jesuit Center for Spiritual Growth in Wernersville, Pennsylvania. His address is St. Lawrence Friary; 301 Church Street; Mount Calvary, Wisconsin 53057. March-April 2000 Clark ¯ Celibate Life Offers Insights I would make my request of the Holy Father not because I think celibacy has no relevance to our culture, but rather so that the celibate life well lived will better communicate to our culture what our culture so desperately needs to understand. A celibate life well lived can communicate to our culture a powerful message about the nature and meaning of human sexu-ality, the unique nature of Christian marriage, and the motivation for the church's ministry. In order to live a celibate life well, a priest or religious must engage in prayer and ministry in a way that fosters that life. These are the points I intend to develop. The Nature and Meaning of Human Sexuality To understand the nature of human sexuality, we have to go beyond exclusive concentration on the study of genetic markers, synapses in the brain, and the other fascinations of scientific explo-ration in order to understand how human beings are moved to come together in a sexual encounter and commitment. My experience suggests that I am sexual on three levels. First, I know myself to be sexual on the biological level. I have a biolog-ical sexual apparatus which works. It is entirely instinctual. And ir works no matter how I understand or misunderstand it. My bio-logical sexual apparatus is clearly designed to bring me together with a female member of my species for the purpose of making other human beings. (See the Nova series program The Miracle of Life.) The impetus I receive from my biological level to come together with another human being is pleasure. Genital sexual activity is pleasurable. I identify this impetus as my biological sex-ual urge. It can be, and is, the subject of scientific inquiry. I know myself to be sexual on the biopsychological level. In most instances, this is experienced as being sexual in an emotional way. It is that amazing level of the human being which allows one's body to affect one's psyche, and one's psyche to affect one's body. The blush in the cheeks in response to embarrassment in one's psyche is possible because of our biopsychological makeup: In terms of my sexuality, the biopsychological level is that in me which allows some things to have sexual significance for me and which, therefore, stir my biological sexual apparatus. This is the seat of romantic interest. This level of sexuality is both instinc-tual and learned. I am born with the capacity to recognize some things as having sexual significance, and I learn some things that Review for Religious have sexual significance for me. I learn these things, not because somebody sits me down and talks to me, but because of the "minute displays of emotion" (Erik Erikson) which I pick up from my sur-roundings. What has sexual significance varies from one culture to another. (See the movie Walkabout.) The impetus I receive from my biopsychological level to come together with other human beings is emotional fascination. Romantic sexual activity is exciting. I iden-tify this impetus as my biopsychological sexual drive. It can be, and is, the subject of scientific inquiry, especially today, since this level includes one's sexual orientation. Most discussions of human sexuality stop after genital sexual urges and romantic sexual drives have been spoken about. These are the levels we humans share with the higher forms of animal life. Whatever else is said about human sexuality is frequently thought to be the in the realm of religionists and ethicists, taking the form of advice and instruction on how to ride the beast which has been described in considering the biological and biopsychological levels. But, even in the higher forms of animal life, there is another level: the level of sexual need. In the animal world, the sexual need is that the species continue. This sexual need instinctually regulates or moderates the activity of the urges and drives. The biological urges and the biopsychological drives of male dogs are activated only when the need of the species can be met, when there is in the vicinity a female dog in heat. It is filling this sexual need that gives meaning to all the sexual activity. At the level of sexual need, we human beings differ from the higher forms of animal life in two ways. First, we are spiritual beings, and our personal needs are not entirely subjugated to the needs of the species. We have also a personal sexual need, that is, our need for intimacy with other human beings. Second, in human beings the sexual need for the species and the personal sexual need for intimacy do not instinctually moderate our sexual urges and drives. Because we are persons (spiritual), we have an intellect and will. We must moderate our sexual urges and drives by insight and freedom, or they will not be moderated. Because the activity of our biological urges and our biopsy-chological drives is not instinctually moderated, human beings can engage in genital and romantic pursuits without any reference to the personal need for intimacy or the need of the species to con-tinue. Thus, people have invented contraception and abortion, which divorce sexual activity from the need of the species, and March-April 2000 Clark ¯ Celibate Life Offers Insights have invented free love and sexual promiscuity as well, which divorce sexual activity from the personal need for intimacy. The gratification of people's sexual urges and drives is accepted as ade-quate meaning for sexuality. "If it feels good, do it." Urges and drives impel people to behave in ways that will fill their sense of need. If the gratification of their sexual urges and drives alone brought sexual fulfillment, ours would be the most sexually fulfilled culture in the world. In fact, human sexual activ-ity can find its meaning only in the filling of the human sexual need for intimacy. Intimacy is the "simultaneous fusing and coun-terpointing of personalities" (Erikson). It is spirit touching spirit. It is allowed to arise in human life through the dynamics of self-awareness, self-disclosure, and listening in prayer. Among the ways those dynamics can be expressed are genital and romantic pur-suits. But, among married, single, and celibate people, intimacy can arise without genital and romantic pursuits. A celibate life well lived reveals this meaning of human sexu-ality. Celibacy is not merely abstinence from genital and romantic pursuits; that by itself will not lead to personal sexual fulfillment in intimacy. A celibate life well lived is the pursuit of intimacy, sex-ual fulfillment, in ways which do not include romantic and geni-tal pursuits. It is a way of loving people, not because I am urged or driven to do so because they have sexual significance to me, but because they are deserving of love whether they appeal to me or not. The celibate man or woman stands as a support to spouses in their pursuit of intimacy, whether at the moment the spouses are romantically driven or genitally urged or not. The celibate woman or man stands as a support to all people in their pursuit of con-nectedness with other human beings for reasons quite distinct from their attractiveness to us. The Unique Nature of Christian Marriage Although a celibate commitment is most often spoken of as a distinct contrast to married life, the two states of life are intimately related within the believing Christian community. The marriage of Christians is different from the way other people marry. Christian marriage is a sacrament because it is a vis-ible sign of what cannot be seen. Christian marriage is not merely a response to the genital and romantic feelings the spouses have for each other. The commitment of spouses to each other is a com- Review for Religious mitment to be there for each other for life, no matter what. It is a sign of how fully Christ has taken us all to himself. A celibate commitment is not a sacrament: it points to some-thing that can be seen, but might not be recognized for what it is. The celibate commitment points to what is unique in the com-mitment of Christian married couples. The committed celibate within the believing community asks all people to recognize the unique basis for Christian marriage. The Motivation of the Church's Ministry in the World A committed celibate life is a lifestyle, not a ministry. That lifestyle, however, points to that which is the basis of all church ministry. The church's ministry is caring for one another within the community and taking care of our world. It is based on the min-istry of Jesus, who said, "I have come, not to be served, but to serve." Church ministry to its members and to the rest of the world is not based on the driven components of human love, nor is it merely philanthropy called for by the needs people have. It is based on Jesus' commandment to love one another as he loved us. Again, the committed celibate life points to something that can be seen (the ministry), but might not be recognized for what it is. There is, accordingly, an argument from "fittingness" to be made for a celibate commitment in the ordained ministers who preside at our Eucharists and who order the church's ministry. A church might well want to select those who will lead and order our ministry from the ranks of those who say by their lifestyle, and not just their words and actions, that ministry is about loving people for reasons other than their attractiveness to us. Prayer and Ministry, the Sources of Strength for Celibate Living The great fear ] hear from young people is that a committed celibate life would be a lonely life, while marriage is a life filled with intimacy. I think that, in general, human lives are neither lonely nor intimate. Life has lonely moments and intimate moments. Married people stand ready to enter fully and vulnera-bly life's intimate moments, and to find God there concretely. Celibate people stand ready to enter fully and vulnerably life's lonely moments, and to find God there concretely. March-April 2000 . !36- ! Clark * Celibate Life Offers Insights Let me share with you my entering a lonely moment and find-ing God concretely. I was sitting in my office in Milwaukee, prepar-ing a continuing-education report for the provincial council. I began to daydream: I was before that council, not to give a report, but to receive a new assignment. I was being congratulated on my performance in the job I was leaving, and then the provincial asked me what job I would like to do next. I said, "I really don't care. But please, gentlemen, give me a job I can do well that will have some significance in your eyes." The daydream faded, and I sat at my desk pondering what I had heard myself say to the provinci.al council. I was not pleased with what I recognized. What I had said seemed rather mean and cheap. I wondered if the approval of others might be what moti-vated much of my behavior, or all of it! I could feel myself blush at this bit of self-awareness. I was surprised at myself, and I was having a difficult time accepting myself as I now knew myself to be. I felt very fragile. But I stayed with this line of thought and emo-tion, and seemed to reach an even greater depth, where I inwardly smiled sheepishly while disclosing to God who and how I was. At that depth I realized that God was not surprised at my motiva-tion. God had known it all along. It was news only to me! And I realized that God was not having a difficult time accepting me. God had for years accepted me as I was. There was a knock at my office door. I said, "Come in." It was Jeannie, supposedly my secretary, but really the one who runs the office. She was incredibly efficient and competent. I looked at her and, for the first time, wondered whether she sometimes felt as fragile as I did. If she did, I was much more open to accept-ing her that way. I was able to connect with her more intimately than I could have before. It was as if, with the mask of my own self-sufficiency stripped away, I could see beyond the efficiency (and self-sufficiency?) of another and get a glimpse of the perhaps fragile human being who lived there. It is not only this kind of self-awareness, self-disclosure, and listening in prayer that can bring a person to a moment of intimacy with God; so can ministry. Committed celibate persons can have as many moments of intimacy in their life as any married or single people can. There remains, however, a crack in the sidewalk that celibate people might trip on. I learned about this while visiting a couple to give them a chance to talk about a Capuchin they knew and loved who Review for Religious had suddenlY left the community with the intention to marry a young woman from town. As we were preparing to have a drink at their kitchen table, Don said, "I think you and my wife ought to go sit on the porch swing and talk for a while." So we did. Mary and I had talked for a short while about Ralph's departure when she said suddenly, "You don't belong to anybody, Keith Clark, and you never should! Ralph used to belong to all of us, but now he belongs to Jennifer." I thought often about Mary's observation, and I realized that the human desire to belong uniquely to another human being is a desire which will not be fulfilled in my life. About me no one will ever say "my husband" or "my father." And even if they say "my priest" or "my Capuchin," it does not ring true. I will never belong uniquely to any human being. And this is a void where I might fall. I need to fill ~hat void by developing my sense of belong-ing uniquely to God. I find I do this most readily in ministry. I learned a lesson from the full-sized red Hawthorne bicycle that my father gave me right after World War II ended. The bicycle was too large for me. My legs were too short for my feet to reach the pedals. My father put wooden blocks on both sides of the pedals, which allowed me to reach them. Even at the young age of six or seven, I knew that to have a new bicycle was very exceptional. The "war effort" had taken most of the steel available in the nation, and production of peacetime products like bicycles was just getting underway. I knew, too, that I was uniquely the object of my father's love. He did not buy other people a bicycle; other fathers in the neigh-borhood were not buying bicycles for their children. This gift from my father was unique. It took a few lessons from my father to get me up and pedal-ing. He would run alongside me, holding on to the back of the bicycle seat until I had gotten up enough speed to keep the bicy-cle from falling over. Eventually I mastered it. The bicycle stood up well to my use and occasional abuse of it. It lasted well into my newspaper-carrier days, when we added a large basket over the front wheel. I have thought of that red bike often. It taught me a lesson about gifts and how they are to be used and enjoyed. If I had let A committed celibate life is a lifestyle, not a ministry. 137 March-April 2000 Clark ¯ Celibate Life Offers Imigbts I used to think that God gave me gifts so I could do things for other people. that bicycle stand on the front porch to be admired but not used, I do not think I would have made my father very happy. If I had waited until I had a paper route before I used it, I think my father would have been disappointed. Even telling him over and over how much I loved the bicycle and how grateful I was would, I am sure, not have been enough to please him. He gave me the bicy-cle to use and to enjoy. It was a long time before I understood that the gifts I receive from God are much like the bicycle I received from my father. I used to think that God gave me gifts so I could do things for other people. I missed the fact that my gifts are unique and that they are a sign of God's unique love for me. For a long time I was afraid to enjoy using them. Now I allow myself to enjoy using my gifts. I can listen to people and can understand a lot of what they tell me. Sometimes I can even say the needed word, the right word, in response to them. It is a gift from God. Sometimes a seminary student coming to me for spiritual direction feels much better after we have talked. When he leaves my office, I realize that I was able to hear and understand him because of the skills and talents God has given me through my life's experiences. I know that no one else could have done for that student exactly what I did. Some people could have done more than I did; oth-ers could have done something different but equally helpful. But no one could have done just what I did. I sit back and enjoy what I have just done. Then I tell God, "Thank you," knowing I am loved uniquely. Culture and Counterculture These things could be more easily understood and more inte-grally and effectively practiced if we lived in a world of real mean-ing. Until such time as our culture moves into that real world, we continue to live our lives of celibate commitment as a "value radi-ation center" (Van Kaam) so that the values of the real world do not become completely obscured by the understandings and practices of the less-than-real world in which we and others unavoidably continue to live. Review for Religious DAVID L. FLEMING Discerning Our Celibate Way in Our Culture In this third presentation of the 1999 Wernersville symposium, want to gather together the themes of the two previous pre-sentations and then point out the work ahead of us. The topic I have been given has three clear parts, from the words contempo-rary culture, celibates, and discern. Our two previous presentations have clarified our understanding of the first two terms, culture and celibates. Let me highlight several points. Mary Johnson SNDdeN has given us a snapshot picture of our culture and its attitude toward chastity. She began by pointing out difficulties in making an assessment. We, along with other peo-ple, may be overly impressed by flurries of sound-bite judgments proffered by the media or by generalizations stated by pulpit ora-tors. "All college-age students do . " "In our country everyone. ¯." Trying to go beyond impressions towards what we call factual information, we find some security in statistics and in popular polls. But, even with a carefully constructed statistical study, there remains the difficulty of overreporting or underreporting, espe-cially if the issue is a delicate one, such as sexuality and sexual behavior. For example, when reporting sexual mores, it seems that men tend to exaggerate their sexual knowledge or activity because of a macho stance, and that women tend to be reticent about sex-ual activity because of fear, shame, or a sense of propriety. Johnson stressed that there have been three significant statis-tical studies Of sexuality and sexual behavior in the United States: David L. Fleming SJ is editor of this journal. March-dlrri12000 . Fleming ¯ Discerning Our Celibate Way the Kinsey studies in the 1950s, a much smaller but somewhat more sophisticated study at the beginning of the 1990s, and the apparently best-balanced report from the mid 1990s. From these reports we learn something about behavior patterns in our times. When certain reported behaviors surprise or shock our own sense of morality and that of our church, we must be careful that our first response is not to deny the evidence. Once we take note of that caution, what might we observe about the value and living of celibate chastity as reported in our contemporary culture? In the current U.S. culture, we have widespread evidence that sexual activity is no longer considered to be restricted to marriage. Because of the easy avail~ibility of contraceptive pills and condoms, sexual activity is no longer tied to the possibility of pregnancy; rather, it is considered just one more among desirable and plea-surable human activities. A more frightening result of this atti-tude equating sexual activity with recreational pleasure is the easy and frequent acceptance of abortion. We are not surprised that in the reporting of behaviors we note a true gender gap. Men readily report that the woman is a consensual partner, whereas women indicate that they feel pres-sured or coerced by the male. Statistics, then, provide evidence of a gender gap, especially in reading the other sex's behavior signals. In our culture there is a great deal of confusion around the terms intimacy and sexuality. Often the two are identified. But sex-uality can be acted out with little sense of intimacy. Intimacy, on the other hand, does not need to be expressed sexually. Young peo-ple, especially, are looking for intimacy and use sexuality as its mistaken route. Studies give evidence of this behavior pattern. What does celibacy or celibate chastity mean to people in our U.S. culture? It is evident that the celibate vocation is not esteemed or looked upon as a kind of ideal. Rather, in our times, it more readily signifies, especially for large numbers of young adults, sexual dysfunction or pedophiliac tendencies or stunted personality growth. We must be aware, then, that our contem-porary culture has little regard for chastity or celibacy. Its sign value has to be significantly rethought and expressed anew in order to be seen and understood for what it is and what we who live it want it to be. In his turn, Keith Clark OFMCap presented a contemporary picture of the meaning and living of chastity and celibacy. Chastity is the pursuit of consistent behaviors--for marriage, one set of Review for Religious behaviors, and for those professing celibate chastity, another set of behaviors. We need to look at the sexual makeup of the animal species, acknowledge the commonalities we have as human beings, and then carefully pay attention to how we humans go beyond the reproductive drive and mating seasons common to the animal species. We realize our human need for insight into sexual behav-ior and for our exercise of freedom in regard to it. Once again we note that there is the human need for intimacy and that this is not identical with genital activity. Clark stated clearly his notion of celibacy. "A celibate life well lived is the pursuit of intimacy, sexual fulfillment, in ways which do not include romantic and genital pur-suits." Celibacy as a Christian vocation means that we pursue a way of loving people, not because we are so urged or driven, but because people are deserv-ing of love. They are children of God. Both presentations stressed the importance of "norms" for appropriate behaviors in living celibate chastity in a community or group lifestyle. Cultures as large as an ethnic group and as small as a particular religious congregation have developed their own parameters for acceptable behaviors in connection with the affectio~is. These cultures get expressed in norms that guide the consistent behavior of group members. Members of a group have a responsibility to observe the norms expected of participants. We who live celibate lives as members of a priestly order or as members of a religious congregation need to have norms that are agreed as guides for the behavior expected of the whole group. After looking at our contemporary culture with the help of Johnson and getting, with Clark's guidance, a sense of a con-temporary expression of lived celibate chastity, we focus now on the word discern, which is meant to be the connective between the two terms. How do we discern the living of celibate chastity in our culture? What is it to discern? I believe that celibacy, properly under-stood, has a necessary connection with the ability to discern. Celibacy or celibate chastity understood in a Christian manner is a way of loving, a way of relating to others. It is not enough to Members of a group have a responsibility to observe the norms expected of participants. March~April 2000 Fleming ¯ Discerning Our Celibate Way say that celibacy means not being married or that to be chaste means just not engaging in or enjoying sexual activity. It is not enough to equate celibacy with a certain ritual purity. To limit our chastity ideal to these kinds of description fixes us in a pagan or pre-Christian understanding. Sad to say, many older explanations about the vow of chastity, and some contemporary ones too, could well have been written by a good pagan. Celibacy cannot be ade-quately defined in terms of what it is not or what it lacks. Celibacy is understood and lived in terms of what it is and does. Celibate chastity describes a way of loving, loving the way that Jesus loved. Because celibacy is a way of loving, there is a true sense that we are always growing in our life of loving celibately. We cannot lose our chastity; we never "had" it so that we could lose it. We are always growing into being a chaste lover, a lover like Christ. We grow in our loving chastely, or we find ourself becoming less of a chaste lover. We make choices of behaviors that enhance our life-direction (which is meant to be a growing more and more to love as Jesus loves), or we find ourself slipping (all too humanly, through selfishness or focus on self) into more and more limited ways of loving. We do not need to be a loving person to make a decision. Individualism rampant in U.S. culture is the seedbed of a lot of decision making. Even in religious life we sometimes hear glowing reports about the new growth in our understanding of the vow of obedience based on human decision making. We say that we have moved from a kind of infantile dependence to a relationship where authority's only role is to support the individual's decision. Yet, if we understood how obedience and chastity are intertwined, and that discernment is not possible where love is not involved, then we might not be so self-satisfied with our own share in the indi-vidualistic decision making often observable in religious life. Evaluated from a religious point of view, personal decision making is not deserving of praise if love of God has had no play in it. Discernment and obedience can be understood and practiced only by one who loves. Perhaps questions about authority/obedience are more about the love quality of religious life than about respon-sible decision making. When people make decisions about sexual activity, they can decide to use this person for their pleasure. They can decide that treating someone in this sex-object way is what pleases them. What they want to do and what feels good decides their choices in this Review for Religious typical American individualistic stance. People live as though they are the center of their world, and this stance acts as the foundation of their choices. In order to discern, however, we need to be a loving person, one who lives in an expansive (always open to other people's inter-ests) world. People who are caught up in an individualistic way of thinking and acting are incapable of making a discernment. Why? Because discernment is a sensitive listening to God speaking to us through interior movements, that is, feelings and inspirations. Discernment is a lover's instinct. Probably most of us have had the expe-rience of this kind of interior commu-nication between ourself and a close friend. No words are spoken, but a lot gets communicated. When persons are dear to us, we know what pleases them and what annoys them. We listen, not to any externally spoken words, but to the person, and we can respond instinctively--if we are people who love. ls this kind of sensitivity, so familiar to us in our human loves, possible between God and ourself?. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it has always been recog-nized that discernment is a gifting of God. St. Paul identifies dis-cernment as a special gift to members of the Christian community through Christ's sending of the Spirit. A number of holy men and women have shared their insights into the gift of discernment, how to pray for it, how to grow as a discerning person, and how to make a decision-making process a true discernment. St. Ignatius Loyola especially is renowned for the practical application of dis-cernment procedures for an understanding of What spirit is mov-ing us and for a method of coming to a decision through such a discernment of spirits. Discernment is about making practical life-dealing decisions not just with prayerful prudence, but with our will attuned to the will of God our Father. We are trying to love the way Jesus loved. Jesus prayed a lot; he prayed in order to deepen his relationship with God and so to express his love. The dialogue of prayer is a dialogue of love. Prayer is not discernment, but without prayer there is no discernment. Why? Because discernment is a grace given to a lover. VCe see it clearly in Jesus. Discernment marks Jesus' choices. In the crisis moment in Gethsemane, Jesus in agony Discernment remains always a gift, a growing in a lover's sensitivity. 143- Marcia-April 2000 Fleming ¯ Discerning Our Celibate Way pours out his prayer and in love can say, "Not my will, but yours be done." One who loves has a sense of, a feel for, what pleases the one who is loved. To be a discerning person means that we must be a free person: free of self-will, free of prejudice, free of being locked into doing what is expected (to be accepted, to save face, and so on). We see this freedom in Jesus. Discernment remains always a gift, a growing in a lover's sensitivity, just as Jesus grew in his sen-sitivity to his Father's will up to the end: "Into your hands, I com-mend my spirit." In other words, we never just "have" discernment, as it were, as our possession. We need always to acknowledge dis-cernment as a dynamic grace or gift. As Jesus' special gifting of the Spirit to us, his followers, discernment is always to be rever-enced, esteemed, and lived in our choices. Discernment affects our living of celibate chastity on three levels: (1) the body or the physical, being at home with our sexual makeup; (2) the soul or the psychological, being at home with our affections; and (3) the spirit or the spiritual, being at home with God. Let me develop each of these levels. 1. As people who are trying to love as Jesus loves, we need to love our own incarnation, that is, we must love our own bodili-ness. Acceptance of our sexuality helps us to be like Jesus. For Jesus was sexual and celibate and a man who loved. Jesus is so much at home with his body that he keeps it with him forever. And that is his promise of resurrection for us. To be at home with our body, then, is a Christian attitude to grow in and to deepen. We make the choice to love the body that God gave us. In our culture we know how much we try to run from or deny the failings connected with bodiliness, for example, the whole process of aging. With a cul-ture that wallows in sexuality, especially its genital aspects, we may think that our countercultural stance should be to run from or deny our own sexuality in order to bd the good celibate. But our Christian viewpoint sees sexuality and the way it shapes our relat-ing and our loving, all our life long, as a gift of God to us. Living in gratitude for God's gift, we find that being at home with our own body is the only way for us to love as Jesus loves. 2. We celibates must also be at home with our affectivity. There is no such thing as loving in the abstract; we love the flesh-and- blood people that come into our lives. To love in general is not to love at all. Yet, when we try to love the people that God brings into our life, we find difficulties with the way they dress, the way they talk, even the way they sexually attract us or not. I have always Review for Religious admired the healthy quality of the bawdiness found in Chaucer or in Shakespeare as representative of the peoples of their times. We--especially people vowed to chastity--need to laugh at our affective responses sometimes so embarrassing to us and so little under our control. We may even be surprised at a sexual response we feel in prayer or even at communion time. This is the moment to recall that we are God's creation, enfleshed, with all its humor, distress, and bedazzlement. We thank him for being the ones in whom he delights. We need to give over anew the whole of our life to God and so not let our discerning focus get distracted on self. Always we as celibates--a unit of body, soul, and spirit--need to own and not to deny our affections. We must be in touch with how affective or not we are naturally, from family upbringing, community customs, and ethnic culture. Whatever the limits of what we have inherited, we--growing by the grace of our celibate calling as sensitive lovers--gradually learn how to make various appropriate adaptations. Does Jesus ever seem frozen in the face of others' affective love, whether expressed by Mary Magdalen or by the beloved disciple? Think of John lean-ing on Jesus' chest at the Last Supper or of Mary Magdalen's fierce bearhug in the resurrection garden scene. Growing always in a lover's sensitivity is especially to be valued by a vowed celibate who desires to relate affectively to all. Married couples teach each other how to make love all their lives long. We as celibates must keep our eyes on Jesus in order to keep growing in our way of loving. Our prayer should lead us deeply into the Gospels so that Jesus keeps teaching us how to love. Our being affective people, or not, affects our ministry. In fact, there is little exaggeration in saying that ministry without. affectivity is useless in terms of evangelization. We may be able to do "good things," but for what.purpose if we do not touch peo-ple with love from a God who is Love? 3. We Catholics are fortunate because we understand that God loves us in affective ways. Our Scriptures, our sacraments, our prayers speak out God's way of loving us in the most tender of human expressions. Even more, God loves us in intimate ways. This good news we bear in our very persons as loving celibates: We as celibates must keep our eyes on Jesus in order to keep growing in our way of loving. March-April 2000 Fleming * Discerning Our Celibate Way God wants to be intimate with us. Our spiritual life is a life of love, intimate love with God. Two examples from Scripture bring this fact home to us. I am indebted to the late Father Carroll Stuhmueller CP for his long-time insistence on the meaning of the Hebrew word rahamin. In the Old Testament, especially in the prophetic writings, God is often described in English translation as merciful, tender-hearted, or compassionate. These words attempt to signify the meaning of rabamin. The Hebrew word seems best understood in this way: the feeling that a mother has for the child in, and of, her womb. God wants us to know that the relationship he has to each of us is like the feeling a mother has for the child of her womb. What is this feeling? Is it pity or mercy? No, it is one of pride and 10ve for the child of the womb. That is how God feels towards us. God loves us and takes pride in us. We cannot deny the intimacy of this Hebrew word. That kind of intimacy God claims towards us. We celibates are meant to find a home in this love. In a more theological way I would like to reflect upon the word covenant. Perhaps we are familiar with the covenants of Middle Eastern people of whom the Israelites were a part. A covenant is an agreement between two parties (usually unequal), and the expectation involves certain ways of acting toward each. Covenant is a central theme of the relationship between God and his chosen people. The biblical covenant that God established was marked according to the Semitic cultural tradition by the ritual of killing an animal and sprinkling its blood upon the altar (rep-resenting God) and upon the Israelite p.eople. The blood was a symbol of life, not death; the sprinkling of blood on the altar and on the people signified the familial union. The action said: We share the same blood. When Jesus on the night before he died wanted to establish a new covenant, he retained the same symbol: blood. But it is his own blood that Jesus gives, his flesh for our food and his blood for our drink. This blood is life-giving and makes us who feed on his Body and his Blood belong to the same bloodline as God. Jesus could not make it any clearer that we truly are brothers and sisters to one another; we share the same blood, Jesus' blood, the blood of the Son of God. We call upon Jesus truly as our brother, and together with him we call God Abba-Father. The reality of this new covenant is an intimacy of unity, Jesus God bringing us into the very life of the Trinity. As celibates, day after day in our Review for Religious Eucharist we come forward with hands stretched our to receive and to be taken in by the most intimate love of God, a God embracing us into the divine life of love. What distinguishes us who are called to a life of celibate chastity? We are called to a special way of loving. When we celi-bates are truly at home with our bodies (with our sexuality), with our affections (with our soul), and with our spirit (God's Spirit, now ours), we are free to be the discerning people who, in a sex-ually confused culture, live God's invitation to celibate chastity peacefully, happily, and apostolically. The Silence That Is Not Silence at All Unobtrusive as dawn, the lake balances perfectly between East and West. An early hiker rounds the corner, headset clamped on. Juncoes tsk tsk and give way. Starlings catcall. Merganser, all white hood, skims a straight arrow line, alights with a velvet swoosh pursues prey through clear water soundless. Lichen stained alders circle the shore, haloed with smudges of alizarin catkins. Aments upon aments. A Lent retreatant, I come for the annual fast from stimulation, rededicate to silence or at least to the diminishment of stimulants. Make way for tumult. Here are the Big Ego geese. Indignant honking, they want to be noticed. Chest beating, a squall of identity. Hannah J. Main-van der Karnp March-April 2000 147 --- JUSTIN TAYLOR AND ALBERT DIIANNI What Is Religious Life's Purpose? For thirty-five years since Vatican Council II, we have constantly ?asked questions about identity: What does it mean to be a religious, a monk, a Dominican, a Jesuit, a Marist? It might then seem superfluous to ask about the purpose of religious life. But it is our conviction that pre-cisely this question must receive a more adequate answer before we can come to proper conclusions about how to structure our religious life and truly renew its spirit. The main goal of religious life is to place God at the center of our lives. That is the meaning of religious consecration, and it is best symbolized in the vow of chastity, in which we make a gift of our very hearts to God. Religious consecration is all about the service and worship of God, about affective and effective love of God for God's sake. Religious life is a way of being with ¯ God that takes the form of a gift and an act of worship. It evokes the image of St. Francis lying prostrate on the ground throughout the night calling out repeatedly, "My God and my all,." In other words, religious life needs to Justin Taylor SM, a Marist priest from New Zealand who resides at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, does teaching and writing on biblical topics and on spirituality. Albert DiIanni SM wrote for us in 1993 and 1996; his address is Marist Vocation Office; 27 Isabella Street; Boston, Massachusetts 02116. Review for Religious be religious, and this means that it must be theocentric. Religion can be about many things, but first and foremost, as Hegel said, "religion is about God." This may seem to go without saying. But we are saying it and stressing it because we all tend to substitute something else for the love of God. Nothing else will do, not even love of neighbor. The question we ask is: Have we not, long before Vatican II and after it as well, tended to substitute--for a focus on the glory and love of God--either a personal ascetical spirituality or a social morality? We grant, of course, that both morality and asceticism find their place in religion, but we maintain, too, that religion cannot be totally or even primarily reduced to them. Could it be that this tendency to substitute something for religion--whether it be self-improvement or the improvement of other individuals, society, and the world--is what underlies the malaise we currently perceive in religious life? We stress that this problem does not arise out of Vatican II. It already existed before Vatican II and may have caused what the council had to say about religious life to be misunderstood. It is a problem that lies deeper than the distinction between traditional-ists and so-called "change-oriented" religious. Both of these groups, as we shall see, may have given way to the very same error. In her recent book The Fire in These Ashes, Joan Chittister insists that the sole purpose of religious life is "only to seek God" (p. 45). She writes: "We have too often been seduced., by other explanations for religious life, all of them valuable and all of them true to a certain degree. We have sought to be 'relevant.' We have set out to be 'incarnational.' . We have given ourselves untiringly to the 'option for the poor.' We have devoted our-selves to 'the transformation of social structures.' We have evan-gelized and renewed and revised and reformed until we dropped from exhaustion. And all of those commitments are good and necessary and worthy of attention. But, through it all, one thing and one thing only can sustain religious life, can nourish reli-gious life, can justify religious life: The religious must be the person who first and foremost, always and forever, in whatever circumstance, seeks God and God alone, seeks God and God alone in all of this confusion, in all of this uncertainty and, what-ever the situation, seeks God--and God alone." She concludes: "Otherwise, religious life is just one more social institution to be succeeded by social institutions after it, rather than centers March-April 2000 149 Taylor and Dilanni ¯ Reli~ous Life's Purpose of contemplation where, we can hope, the mind of God can touch the mind of humanity" (p. 47). "A center of contemplation where the mind of God can touch the mind of humanity"--is this not a beautiful definition of reli-gious life? For Joan Chittister, contemplation of God is the pri-mary center and focus of religious life. But she is not thinking of a selfish, isolated sort of contemplation cut off from society or the world. Rather, for her, contemplation of God has an effect upon the mind of humanity, changes it and urges it to become engaged in the task of approximating the kingdom of God on earth in works of peace and justice, especially in favor of the poor and the marginalized. This call to contemplation, which is now being stressed by many authors, indicates that the crisis of religious life is deeper than people think. It is rooted in a crisis of faith. By this we mean that there has been a change not only in the depth and intensity of our faith, but also in its actual content. And this is hardly new. It has been present in the church for a long time, as attested by Henri Bremond in his Histoire litteraire du sentiment religieux en France, a magisterial eleven-volume study of mysticism in France in the 17th century. Bremond did not write with a view to commenting on religious life in the 20th century, but his volumes are full of relevant insights. Bremond (an ex-Jesuit turned diocesan) keeps coming back to one particular issue: Why, throughout the period of which he writes, was the Jesuit mainstream in France especially, antimystical? Why, with the notable exception of Louis Lallemant and his school, did the Jesuits begin to focus their spirituality more and more away from God and more and more toward the human? In the course of his writing, Bremond suggests some more or less peripheral reasons, but in the end he expresses a suspicion that the Jesuits, even in the 17th century, were intuitively sensing a crisis of faith. They were sniffing the presence of an incipient atheism in their contemporaries and perhaps in their own hearts. They were beginning to fear, at least subconsciously, that the pure love of God as the chief reason for a devout life was not going to motivate people of their time and place much longer. This, suggests Bremond, is the reason why they felt the need to recommend prayer not so much as adoration and thanksgiving before God, but especially as a means of growth in virtue, a means to inoral and ascetical self-improvement, a way to ensure one's personal eternal salvation. Review for Religious It is clear that this crisis of faith is not restricted to the Society of Jesus in the time of which Bremond writes. The same crisis has continued in a perhaps even stronger fashion in the 20th century. Both before and after Vatican II, religious have tended to recom-mend religious life to the world--and perhaps to themselves--in terms of what it could "do for" themselves or for others. Religious life was considered legitimate and desirable because it was useful, however that usefulness might be conceived, whether in terms of a surer way for the individual to attain tleaven or in terms of a service to society. Both of these stances, however, place religion and religious life on a less-than- full theocentric plane. Viewed in this way, the crisis of faith did not begin in the post-Vatican II era. It was in full swing well before the 1960s, but at that time social and ecclesial structures and a gen-eral feeling of success (at something) kept people going. Once those supports were taken away or seri-ously weakened, its real proportions were revealed. It has been said that, before Vatican II, religious used to "skip the world" and focus too heavily on our individual other-worldly salvation. This is a legitimate criticism if properly understood. To the extent that there was overemphasis on our individ-ual otherworldly salvation, religious life was already ¯ anthropocentric or egocentric, and not theocentric. For a program of self-improvement, even in view of obtaining eternal life, is not specifically Christian, but broadly Stoic. The concentration on obtaining eternal life even became obsessive for a number of people, and priests in confessionals encountered peo-ple so absorbed in themselves and their salvation that they became paralyzed by scrupulosity. For this and for other reasons, an under-standable dissatisfaction set in with regard to a form of devout life whose focal point was one's own perfection. Unfortunately, however, the remedy that was often prescribed compounded the ailment. In line with the self-improvement ten-dencies, the constitutions of many religious congregations before Vatican II propounded a twofold goal for religious life: saving one's own soul and saving the souls of others. After Vatican II, the notion of salvation was expanded beyond an eschatological salvation to include also, and at times almost exclusively, the liberation of peo-ples or the social betterment of humankind. Neither of these This call to contemplation indicates that the crisis of religious life is deeper than people think. I51-- March-April 2000 Taylor and Dilanni ¯ Religious Life's Purpose focuses, however, whether on personal improvement and salva-tion or on social liberation, is properly religious in the sense of having to with the worship and love of God. Neither of them makes God the pivotal center of our lives. If this is true, where should we seek the remedy? If there has been a shift in our faith in this century and before, what then should be the content of our faith? We believe that the religious hunger is ultimately the hunger for transcendence or, more con-cretely, the hunger for God. It is a hunger which, in fact, is often felt most keenly by the poor. The world points to something beyond the world: its Author. Our first response to the world must be gratitude toward the author of that world--paying homage to God. Religious are called to be involved totally with God, to be bridges to others to enable them, not to negate this world, but to transcend it and reach God. The world is extremely important-- the Word became incarnate for the sake of the world--but in itself it is still not enough for us, us of the restless heart. In whatever manner we decide to refashion religious life, we must not lose this central insight, which is at the heart of the religious quest. The "kingdom of God" promoted by the Jesus of the synoptic Gospels certainly demands an effort on our part to improve the world, but it also involves a transcending of the world, and this transcen-dence will consist, as always, in union with God. In fact, without such a reference to the Transcendent, it is questionable whether an urgency to improve the world has sufficient meaning. Again, with Joan Chittister, "The religious must be the person who., seeks God, and God alone" and--we could add, with Vita consecrata (§3, §20)--helps other members of the church in their search for God. It is in this latter task of spurring others on to transcendence that some form of identifying religious garb has its importance. St. Thomas Aquinas asks why religious congregations are called "religious." Our reflections thus far have perhaps prepared us to understand and receive his answer: "Religion is the virtue by which we perform the service and worship of God. Hence, reli-gious are so called because they dedicate themselves totally to the service of God, as if offering God a whole-burnt sacrifice" (Summa theologiae, 2a-2ae, q. 186, a. 1). Here Thomas speaks of a "virtue of religion," a kind of habit. This habit of mind, heart, and action has to be part and parcel of every genuine approach to God, for it is basically about awe in the presence of the "tremendous and fas-cinating mystery." "This tremendous lover" is what Francis Review for Religious Thompson called Christ, and the adjective is striking. It refers to a lover who fills us not with fear but with awe. Our response to God is one of wonder, adoration, and gratitude in the face of a Love that bends down to us, a love that is gratuitous and that we did not merit. What makes religious life distinct from other forms of Christian life (granted that there is no complete cut-off, but many a gradation) is that it is a way of life which is organized and centered on the.service and worship and love of God and which would make no sense on any other terms. From a worldly point of view, it might even be called a useless life; it is worthless except to the eyes of faith. We believe, with Vita consecrata, that chastity is at the heart of the matter. Chastity is the baseline of religious consecration, not primarily a way of being freed for ministry, although it is also that. Through it we consecrate to God our hearts and our sexual-ity, our capacity to love and be loved, and our capacity for repro-ducing ourselves and so assuring a sort of afterlife. It is therefore the point at which the service and the love of God meet in the center of the consecrated person. Religion, as a virtue, is not the same as charity, so that serving and worshiping God are not specifically the same as loving God. But the two are very close, and both are needed. Without love, religion quickly becomes fanaticism; without awe before God, love can be too facile and presumptuous. In the golden age of French spirituality in the first half of the 17th century, the great masters differ a little on where they place the emphasis, St. Francis de Sales placing it on love and Pierre de B~rulle on religion. In any case, they agree that religious life is essentially theocentric. St. Thomas's "whole-burnt sacrifice" strikes the note of throwing all of oneself into a life given to God in a fire of generosity. Abandoning calculation and self-service, a person stakes all on the single-hearted quest of God, and God alone. That is a goal in the pursuit of which a life is well lived and the world well lost. The above remarks raise at least two questions about love of God which require some discussion. We are speaking of a "pure love of God." But is it possible to love God selflessly, for God alone, and not for ourselves? Not in the sense that I could leave myself totally out of any act of the will: whatever I will, I will also as my own good. But it is possible in the sense that there can be a degree of selfless love in an act of the will, and that this selfless love can grow in future acts. In praying I make all sorts of different March~April 2000 Taylor and Dilanni ¯ Religtous'ous L~Life's Purpose "acts," including petition for myself and others. But what makes prayer (any prayer) true prayer, and love of God true love, is that overriding everything else is the love of God for God's sake, the willing of God's good, and the ultimate submission of my will to God's. And that is "pure love." Note that this is not something rare and extraordinary. Selfless love is part of every authentic human love. It is part of the Lord's Prayer, where we say: "Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done." In any genuine human love, I will love the beloved without thinking of my own good and even, at times, to my apparent detriment. M1 lovers would deny the name of "love" to a mere desire to get their own satisfaction. In every true love there is selfless devotion toward the beloved, that is, "pure love," some-where. And selfless devotion, it seems, has always been the touch-stone of a religious life properly lived. The second question concerns the relation between the two commandments of love of God and love of neighbor. Above we wrote that not even love of the neighbor can be substituted for love of God. Love of the neighbor does not replace love of God; it does not even, strictly speaking, express love of God. God is to be loved for God's sake. On the other hand, love of the neighbor is the acid test of the genuineness of our love of God. St. John's for-mulation could not be bettered: "Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen cannot love God whom they have not seen" (1 Jn 4:20 NRSV). To remove all excuse for illusion on this topic, the Letter of James (2:15-16 NRSV) affirms th~it a mere sentiment of goodwill is not enough: "If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat your fill,' and yet you do not supply them their bodily needs, what is the good of that?" If love of the neighbor is not a substitute for love of God, the reverse is also true. Loving God does not give us an excuse for not loving our brothers and sisters, really and concretely. Christians are called to live for the glory of God and not pri-marily for their own good, not even for their own salvation here or in eternity. The emphasis has to be on the primacy of the love of God. The truth is, however, that the more genuinely we love God, the deeper and more effective will be our love of neighbor, especially the poor and the unloved. The great lovers of God--that is to say, the saints--have been those who have done. most in the Review for Religious way of love and service of their brothers and sisters. There is no risk that following the call to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind will distract us from serving others or from working for justice in the world. Rather, when we go to God, we find One who loves justice and who is on the side of the poor and the weak. This God demands that we too pursue justice and come to the aid of the needy. In loving God we go outside of ourselves in a radical way. We encounter the transcendent Being who loves the created world and invites us to become active within it. There is no competition between the two commandments of love, but rather reciprocity. If love of the neigh-bor is the acid test of love of God, love of God overflows into love of neigh-bor and makes it truly love. For jus-tice without love may quickly become tyranny, while mere "humanitarian-ism" may become bureaucratic, offi-cious, and quite unloving. On the other hand, love of God makes love of neighbor tenderhearted, generous, and selfless. For, in our living communion with God, we discover that God loves us all and that for this reason we must love others and strive to bring peace and justice into the world. What is.the upshot of all this? What does it mean in practical terms? If all this is true, it may mean that the ongoing renewal of religious life needs to be reviewed. It may mean that we must go back to the drawing board and ask ourselves whether we have made changes on the basis of an inadequate notion of the purpose of religious life. It may mean that, while many good things have occurred in terms of a structural renewal of our lives, the spiri-tual renewal is yet to begin--one that may cause us to take a sec-ond look at those structures. Our structures of prayer, our living of the vows, and our community life must be fashioned so that, primarily, they foster our love for God. To achieve this we must grapple with this question: .Are we perhaps in need of a shift in our faith, one that moves away from the many forms of anthro-pocentrism of the last few centuries, and centers religious life more directly on the pure love of God? Chastity is the point at which the service and the love of God meet in the center of the consecrated person. March-April 2000 KENNETH C. RUSSELL Must Hermits Work? Maust hermits work to earn their living? Must they leave side their regime of silence and prayer to earn money, even though this is a Catch-22 situation, with solitude calling them away from society and work drawing them back into it? By taking a job, manufacturing a product, or providing a service, they trou-ble themselves with any number of people so as to have enough income to get away from people and indulge their own hermit's desire to be alone and untroubled. Are they not then better off depending on some form of fixed income, on the largess of the religious congregations to which they may belong, or on the charity of the faithful? It would seem so. But is this kind of dependence legitimate? What does the his-tory of the eremitical life in the Western church say about this? How do the principal texts on the solitary life deal with the eco-nomic, psychological, and spiritual aspects of work? What features remain constant in the tradition? What shifts take place? In this brief overview, which makes no claim to be complete, we begin with the teachings of the pioneers in the Egyptian desert as these are recorded in the alphabetical collection of Sayings of the Desert Fathers and in John Cassian's Institutions and Conferences. We then turn our attention to a few representative medieval texts, primarily from the 12th century, a period marked by a widespread revival of the eremitical life. Kenneth C. Russell last wrote for us in November-December 1998. His address remains 40 Landry Street, Apt. 1505; Vanier, Ontario; t~6~ K1L 8K4 Canada. Review for Religious The Sayings of the Desert Fathers Although the classical picture of the hermits in the Egyptian desert as hardscrabble peasants used to a tough life has been chal-lenged of late, it seems clear that, whatever the truth about their social status and educational background, they earned their keep by the work of their hands. The Sayings tell us that the solitaries plaited ropes (Sayings 184, 39), made baskets (105, 1) and hired themselves out as laborers to bring in the harvest (82, 47; 191, 2).' At least one monk strung necklaces of small dried peas to pay for his food. We are told that Abba Serinus spent his time harvest-ing, sewing, and weaving (191, 2). The monks worked because they had to. They did not share the conviction of the excessively spiritual groups of the time that considered work to be below the dignity of those called to per-petual prayer. Several stories seem to satirize the "angelic" atti-tude of these Messalians, as they were called. One concerns Abba John the Dwarf, a prominent desert figure, who in his youth announced to his brother his intention of living a carefree life of ceaseless prayer like the angels who do no work. After a week he was back knocking on his brother's door, hungry and begging to be let in. When this brother, in no hurry to admit him, got around to answering the door, he told young John: "You are a man and you must once again work in order to eat" (73, 2). The same point is driven home in the story of a monk who, while visiting a small eremitical community, sees the brothers working hard and cautions their leader, Abba Silvanus, not to seek "the food which perishes" (John 6:27). Silvanus allows him to spend the day reading, but does not summon him to dinner. When the hungry monk asks why he was not called, the elder answers: "Because you are a spiritual man and do not need that kind of food. We, being carnal, want to eat, and that is why we work" (187, 5). In these words of practical economy, it is obvious that work not only feeds the monk but keeps him grounded in the real-ity of the world and human nature. The Egyptian hermits lived apart from society, but they were not disconnected from the larger world. A brother was advised by Abba Poemen to do some manual labor "so as to be able to give alms" (148, 69). This readiness "to work for charity's sake" (87, 4) also set the Egyptian monks apart from the Messalians or Euchites, who regarded themselves as the most fitting recipients of any handouts. March-April 2000, Russell * Must Hermits In one story some Euchite monks answer Abba Lucius's query about what kind of work they do by announcing, rather smugly it seems, that they do not touch manuhl labor, but obey Paul's instruc-tion to pray without ceasing. Lucius asks how perpetual their prayer can really be if they must interrupt it to eat or sleep. For his part he demonstrates that work and prayer are not incompatible and shows how his charity toward the poor fills the gaps in his own prayer schedule. "When I have spent the whole day working and praying, making thirteen pieces of money more or less, I put two pieces of money outside the door and I pay for my food with the rest of the money. He who takes the two pieces of money prays for me when I am eating and when I am sleeping" (102, 1).2 But work that enables a monk to support himself and make a contribution to the well-being of others can also prove a distraction. What is supposed to support the spiritual life can become an end in itself (64, 10). It can assume an importance it does not deserve (44, 1 I). This is surely why Abba Silvanus threatens to leave his little community when his disciples and some other brothers move the fence to enlarge the garden (188, 8). This story also implies that at some point work becomes a guarantee of security, which challenges the hermit's dependence on divine providence. Abba Serinus, who worked at a number of tasks, avoided this trap by insisting that "in all these employments, if the hand of God had not sustained me, I should not have been fed" (191, 2). In the same vein, Silvanus is confident that as long as he does his part God will provide (188, 9). Given the tendency of work to become a goal in itself, it is not surprising that when a monk asks Abba Biare what he must do to be saved, the elder advises him to reduce his appetite, dwell in his cell, and reduce his quota of manual work (37, 1). Any kind of work can upset a hermit's life if it assumes too great a place in it. But certain kinds of work were regarded as essentially distracting. Agriculture per se was considered an exte-riorizing activity that draws a monk's attention away from God. Even the gardening that is mentioned in the Sayings was suspect. It was, at best, on the borderline of the acceptable. When Abba Silvanus had to water the garden his disciple usually cared for, he hid his face lest the sight of the trees should distract him (187, 4). Underlying what we have seen so far concerning the eremit-ical understanding of work is the conviction that a monk should pay his own way and contribute to some extent to the welfare of oth-ers. But neither of these obligations demands that all monks must Review for Relig4ous work. Some monks, surely, had the means to sustain their life with-out daily labor. A number of these could probably count on the support of their relatives and friends. Would this modest support not give them more time to pray and meditate? Is there not a mod-icum of good sense even in the extremist position of the Messalians? Why is work itself so important? We must note, first of all, that living on any form of income other than daily labor is explicitly rejected in the Sayings. A monk who is disturbed by the haggling involved in selling his wares asks one of the senior monks whether he may give up work if he finds another means to survive. The elder replies: "Even if you do have what you need by other means, do not give up your manual work" (168, 1). The monk is instructed, in fact, to work as hard as he can. The "word" given here is exemplified in the story of Abba Achilles, who edifies his visitors when they discover that he has been working and meditating all night. "From yesterday evening till now, I have woven twenty mea-sures, although I do not need it; but it is for fear God should be angry and accuse me, saying, 'Why did you not work when you could have done so?' That is why I give myself to this labor and do as much as I can" (25, 5). The Sayings generally do not emphasize the noneconomic value of manual labor. They do, however, present work as a basic element of a hermit's life. When Abba Poemen holds up one of the elders as an example, he observes that "in Abba Pambo we see three bodily activities: abstinence from food until the evening every day, silence, and much manual work" (158, 150). When Poemen lays out the basics of the eremitical life for an inquirer, he begins by saying that "living in your cell clearly means manual work" (160, 168). We know then that, according to the Sayings, work is an asceti-cal activity linked with meditation which should not be set aside even if other means of support are available. It seems clear, how-ever, that manual labor was so tightly tied to economic survival in the experience of most Egyptian solitaries that they felt no need to reflect in depth on the role it played in their lives. It was simply a fundamental but unobtrusive activity of their uncomplicated regime. To get a deeper insight into the role that work plays in Any kind of work can upset a hermit's life if it assumes too great a place in it. 159 March-April 2000 R~ssell * Must Her~nits Work? the eremitical life, we must turn to the elaborations on life in the desert which John Cassian offers us in his Institutions and Conferences. --- 160 Cassian's Institutions and Conferences The presence of Messalians (Syriac for "those who pray" but do not work) is more strongly felt in John Cassian's writings than in the Sayings. The need for daily work seems, therefore, to be less the plain, indisputable fact of life it is in the Sayings and more a deliberate option. Cassian takes Paul the Apostle as the exemplar of work. If Paul, who had the right to live off his mission, worked, how can monks refrain from doing so? Paul worked, Cassian notes, not for the sake of introducing some healthy variety into his life, but to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow even though he might have lived off his savings or from offerings received from others (Institutions 10.8; p. 270).3 Since Cassian uses Paul's injunction to the Thessalonians to work with their hands and to be at peace (1 Th 4:11), it is clear that he sees manual labor as an antidote to distraction (10.7; p. 269). Work concentrates the mind and shuts out external noise. It lifts the individual above the turmoil of the emotions. This is so important to John Cassian that he connects a story illustrating this point to St. Anthony himself. Anthony, we are told, was challenge'd by a brother who argued that his own life was superior to the discipline of the desert. He lived near his rel-atives, benefited from their support, and so was able to give all his time to prayer and reading. Anthony countered his claim to be free of care by showing that he was, in fact, emotionally tied to the economic ups and downs of his supporters. Anthony goes on to say that "this most lukewarm condition [is] depriving you of the fruit of your own hands and the just reward of your labor" (Conferences 24.11.3; p. 833).4 Once again Paul's example is put forward as the ideal. It is his example, Anthony maintains, which compels monks to work. Indeed, were it not for Paul's example, Anthony argues, he and his fellow monks would take the easy route and live off the alms of their relatives. Anthony goes on to chide the healthy monk for living off alms that should by right go to the weak. He then makes an astounding statement which radically opposes the notion that, while others must work, monks are exempt from labor because Review for Religious they pray. He insists, on the contrary, that everyone else in the world relies on the compassion of others, "with the sole exception of the race of monks which, in accordance with the Apostle' s precept, lives by the daily toil of its hands" (Conf24.12.3; p. 834). Anthony reminds us that, according to tradition, the monk gives alms, he does not receive them. In Anthony's opinion, authentic solitaries do not live off their relatives or near them. On the contrary, they flee society and live outside civilization's jurisdiction in the wastelands beyond the fer-tile Nile valley. This withdrawal not only shelters them from the hubbub of village life, but makes farming--the kind of work with which most Egyptian monks were probably familiar--impractical. Cassian regards farming as an unsuitable activity for a monk for several reasons. First, it draws the mind away from the focus on God which should be the monk's principal concern. Second, the fatigue brought on by hard work in the fields drains away the energy a monk needs for his spiritual pursuits (Conf 24.12.4; p. 835).s The third reason, however, is the most important. Not only is farm labor hard, it is also periodic; as a con-sequence, a monk who does this work is at loose ends for long periods of time. Cassian makes this last point evident in the story of some farming monks who grew restless whenever they visited the hermit colony of Skete. They literally could not sit still. Cassian says that they had not learned how to quiet their inner being because they worked outdoors and their thoughts were scattered everywhere by their bodily activity (Conf24.4; p. 828). For John Cassian, therefore; work is primarily associated with the spiritual goal of the monk. The hermit works because work provides the best conditions for prayer. The monk does certain kinds of work because certain tasks can be done day and night, day in and day out, without undue fatigue and without requiring a great deal of attention. The uncomplicated procedures associated with rope making and the like help him to pray. They keep the monk alert and centered so that he is able to resist both sleep and the listlessness and distractedness typical of acedia (Inst 2.12; p. 210). The example of Abba Paul, who had no economic reason to do handwork, shows just how essential Cassian thought manual labor actually was. Abba Paul's basic needs were met by the garden he Authentic solitaries do not live off their relatives or near them. March-April 2000 R~ssell ¯ M~t Hermits Work? tended and the palm trees near by. It seems, in fact, that his idyl-lic little oasis was so far out in the desert that the hermit had no way of getting his wares to market. Nevertheless, he collected palm branches and set himself a daily quota of weaving. At the end of the year he gathered the baskets he had made into a great pile and burned them. Then he started all over again. Abba Paul did not work to feed himself or to provide for the poor. So what was the point of his manual labor? Cassian says that his example proves that a monk can neither stay put nor achieve perfection without manual labor. Abba Paul worked solely to purify his heart, to keep his thoughts on course, to persevere in his cell, and thus to overcome acedia (Inst 10.24; pp. 274-275). In other words, he worked because it steadied and grounded him. The handwork with which he occupied himself night and day while praying centered him in a way that the gardening he did to support his life could not. Work serves prayer as long as it remains a subordinate ele-ment in the monastic regime. But, once a monk begins to think of himself as a "hard worker," he is in danger of feeding his human ambition by measuring his own worth in terms of the profit he makes or the tasks he performs. The monk, in effect, imports the world's notion of success into the desert. Once work itself becomes the goal, it usurps the priority that belongs properly to prayer. This is vividly illustrated in Cassian's tale of an elder who comes upon one of these superachievers wearing himself out try-ing to break up a stubborn boulder. The exhausted hermit thinks he is doing "good work," but the senior monk sees that a demon is urging him on (Confg.6.1-3; pp. 333-334). The point is clear: work that does not serve prayer can turn even the sorry resources of the desert into vehicles of human ambition. Jerome's Letter to Rusticus Before we leave the earliest teaching on the place of work in the eremitical life, we should take note of the list of possible tasks St. Jerome lays out in his letter to Rusticus,a young man on the brink of a monastic vocation.6 Although he counsels Rusticus not to live with his mother, and does mention at one point that by working he will be able to pay for his food, practical necessity is not the principal reason Jerome gives for working. It is primarily a matter of keeping busy and thereby holding the devil at bay. Review for Religious Some of the jobs which Jerome recommends are the familiar crafts of the Egyptian desert: weaving baskets and tending a small garden plot. To these Jerome adds the cultivation and grafting of fruit trees, beekeeping, the weaving of fishing nets, and, signifi-cantly, bookcopying. The copying of manuscripts was, to a great extent, a physical task like the other jobs mentioned. The parchment had to be pre-pared, inks mixed, pens cut, the pages lined, the text written out, and, finally, the manuscript bound. But there was an intellectual dimension to this activity. Jerome mentions that copying texts feeds the mind. He then goes on to remember his own brief stay in the desert when he fought off temptation by working hard to learn Hebrew. We have here, I think, the seeds of a conception of "work" quite different from that of the tradition of the Egyptian desert. We have moved out of the world of small peasant farmers into the cul- ¯ tivated world of the Roman gentleman. Although, while in the desert, Jerome may have earned his keep by some simple hand-work, it is clear that his real work was studying and writing. The same may be said, to some extent, of Cassian. From this time on we see a certain tension between the idea of work as a physical, money-earning activity and work as an intellectual activity for the betterment of the individual. Should someone who can do the higher work lay it aside to do a less spiritual and less humane task for the sake of earning money? Must a hermit work? Are the eremitical life and work in the sweat and blood, money-earning sense of the word compatible? The old question subtly reemerges between the lines, as it were, when Jerome, a man of scholarly inclination, lists the kinds of work suitable for a solitary. Grimlaic's Rule for Solitaries The 9th-10th-century Regula Solitariorum, by Grimlaic, rep-resents a literary dividing line between the Egyptian tradition's insistence that hermits must work to earn their living and the belief that solitaries have the right to turn to others for support.7 After noting the spiritual value of work as a means to. avoid idleness, Grimlaic summons up the example of St. Paul and the Fathers to insist that solitaries must work to support themselves and to help those in need. Indeed, he says that the greater part of the day should March-April 2000 Russell * Must Hermits Work? A hermit's food, drink, and clothing are paid for either by his personal labor or by the offerings of the faithful. be given to "holy work." He has in mind some task which can be performed mechanically while reading or praying.(Regula 39; 629). Grimlaic retells Cassian's story ofAbba Paul, who lived too far out in the desert to make the manufacture of baskets and ropes practical, but who nevertheless set himself a quota of manual work every day. He also borrows from the same source the story of the superspiritual nonworldng monk who was brought down to earth by Abba Silvanus's failure to call him to dinner (39; 630). He further emphasizes the importance of manual labor by laying out the Benedictine schedule of work and accept-ing the principle that, if poverty demands it, more time should be given to labor (40; 631).8 Obviously, there had always been elderly or infirm hermits who were unable to imitate the example of St. Paul "and the holy fathers" which Grimlaic so strongly emphasizes. Nonetheless, it seems to me significant that Grimlaic should undermine his argument by noting that Augustine maintains that the occasions on which Paul himself depended on alms demon-strate that those who are unable to do manual labor may receive their sustenance from others (39; 630). Grimlaic states this principle and then backs away from its implications. He insists that solitaries should work with their own hands even if they have some other means of support (39; 630). The idea that it might be legitimate for solitaries to rely on oth-ers for their keep recurs, however, immediately after Grimlaic defends the importance of work in passages borrowed ~rom Cassian and Benedict. It is no longer an exception to an almost inviolate rule. He simply states that a hermit's food, drink, and clothing are paid for either by his personal labor or by the offerings of the faith-ful (41; 631). He notes that he has demonstrated that it is legiti-mate for solitaries to live off alms. The argument isbased on more than Christian charity toward the needy. Hermits are compared to the priests and levites of the Old Testament, who received tithes so that they might be free to minister to the Lord without the distraction of earthly preoccu-pations (41; 631-632). The Christian clergy, like the ministers of Review for Religious the Old Testament, have nothing of their own, but merely admin-istrate and distribute what they receive from the people. The assimilation of solitaries to the clergy, which was becom-ing more a reality as monasteries were clericalized, is complete in Grimlaic's quotation from a rule for canons in which monks and hermits are said to rightly receive material support from the church because they have followed the evangelical counsel to renounce wealth (41; 632). Without this support they would have to shift their focus from God to the business of securing the necessities of life. But what of the traditional obligation of hermits to help the poor? The Regula Solitariorum deals with this issue by comparing hermits to the apostles in the Jerusalem church. The apostles them-selves owned nothing, but acted as channels through which each of the faithful received what he or she needed. Solitaries are to have the same detachment toward material things and to see to it that the poor share in the offerings which come their way (41; 632). What has happened to the concept of work in this transition from a reference to the fact that the fathers earned their living by the work of their hands to the declaration that hermits have the right to live off alms? The Regula Solitariorum is not saying that hermits need not work, but rather that they need not earn their living by the work they do. The profitability of work is not the sine qua non of the eremitical life. When the Egyptian abbas talked about work, they were refer-ring to an activity by which they avoided idleness and earned money. In the works which follow the Regula Solitariorum, the financial benefits of work will fade into the background. There will be a strong tendency to value work solely as a means to escape the boredom idleness brings on. A Camaldolese Rule for Hermits The shift in what is meant by "work" is evident in a 12th- 13th-century rule for hermits which plays a part in the history of the Camaldolese.9 It is interesting that, when the customary warn-ing against idleness is given and the hermit is told to combat this by "doing some work," the works suggested are actually spiritual and penitential practices (34; 297). When the rule does refer to manualia exercitia, the emphasis is on when manual labor may not be done (35; 298). March-April 2000 155 Russell ¯ Must Hermits Work? The kinds of work mentioned--gathering wood, gardening, collecting straw--are to be done in groups of three or more (36; 298). What the rule seems to have in mind when it talks of work (the noise of which must not disturb the quiet of the hermitage) is the maintenance necessary to keep the hermit colony functioning. There seems to be no notion of profitability whatsoever. Indeed, the emphasis on the recitation of the Psalter indicates the influence of Cluny (37; 298). Liturgical prayer has become the monk's real work. A hermit is simply too busy and too often weak-ened by fasting to work. During Lent, for example, some work (aliquid; manualia quaedam) is scheduled for only two afternoons a week (35; 298). Guigo I's Carthusian Customary The "customary" (or custom book) of what Would later be called the Grande Chartreuse, written by Guigo I, shows that bookcopying was to the Carthusians what weaving and braiding had been to the Egyptian solitaries, that is, the perfect activity for the hermit's cell. Guigo I notes, therefore, that anyone who is capable is taught to do this work (222)'.~° The production of manuscripts seemed particularly apt to these priest-hermits because it was a way for them to preach the word silently (224). The profit motive is not mentioned, but surely the produc-tion of a commodity that was in demand supplemented the support the inner circle of monks received from the outer ring of conversi, who did the manual labor that today we call blue-collar work. Guigo's complaints about the cost of running the place suggest that the community was on a tight budget (210). However, if there was anything left over after expenses had been met, it was Jaot given to the poor directly but sent to the neighboring village for distribution. In this way the Carthusians made it unprofitable for the poor to trek to their door (210). .I.t/k/ Peter the Venerable's Letter to Gislebertus Not all hermits and recluses shared the Carthusians' deter-mination to keep people at a distance. Some of them surrendered to the inclination to escape the monotony of their life by turning outward. Their effort to lighten the burden of their solitary rou-tine by a bit of pastoral counseling may seem prudent to us, but in Review for Religious fact it made the return to solitude all the harder. It had another damaging consequence: it brought them more money than they needed. The extra, of course, was said to be for the poor, but watching the coins pile up could easily lead to avarice or turn the hermit into a local benefactor. It is not surprising, there.fore, that Peter the Venerable, the great abbot of Cluny, advises Gislebertus, a monk of his who has recently become a recluse, to make sure that there is no extra cash in his cell. He insists that Gislebertus not become a distribution center of offerings to the poor. If someone in authority tells him that he must perform this function, the abbot uses his authority to veto the plan. It makes no sense to Peter that someone who has been freed from the worry of meeting his own needs should be entangled in concerns about the needs of others (35).~ Since we are told that his monastery provided Gislebertus with food, clothing, and his hermitage, it is clear that he did not have to earn his living (35). When Peter, therefore, proposes some sort of manual labor, he is suggesting a means of refreshing the'mind and exercising the body. He is recommending manual labor as a relief from the hard work of reading, prayer, and meditation (38). ¯ For Peter, as for Guigo I, the best work for a hei'mit is book-copying. He too is enthusiastic about its pastoral benefits (39). But, if a hermit cannot do this work because his eyes are bad or because it gives him a headache, or if he simply wants to have something more than just bookcopying to do, Peter recommends that he make coinbs, needle cases, small wine flasks, and the like. He even mentions that, if a swamp is nearby, the recluse may imi-tate the ancient monks and make baskets (39). At this point, it seems to me, the text veers toward the romantic. Work has become a hobby, purely a means of avoiding idleness. The task which Cassian said the Egyptian