From a list to an ITEME

ITEME: Image Texts from Early Modern England

I had some conversations today that encouraged me to start compiling my notes into a spreadsheet. I also decided to build a form on top in order to ease the strain of entry.

On lists of interesting things

I've been talking to a few people, and it's becoming clear than I need to migrate my lists of interesting things over to a spreadsheet.

Here are some fields that I should include on my spreadsheet:

STC #
Library
Shelfmark
Title
Author
Publisher
Printer
Bookseller
Year
City / Location
Hodnett measurements
L&I comments
Image re-uses
Similar editions
Genre
Tropes / Iconology
Arrangement of images relative to page
Arrangement of images relative to each other
Date I viewed it
Motivation for viewing it
General Notes

A list of interesting things from Luborsky & Ingram pt. 1

As I start, I should note that my general reading procedure is to first read Luborsky & Ingram's description, and in the event that a description sounds provocative, I'll look-up the document on EEBO or the ESTC. I'll subsequently reproduce the reference from Ingram & Luborsky's Guide to Illustrated Books, followed by one or two links, its proximity to me, and a sentence about my interest.
~~~
152     Adrichem, Christiaan van. A briefe description of Hierusalem. Also a mappe. Tr. out of Latin by T. Tymme. 4o. P. Short for T. Wight, 1595. M. ...(lacks map).
ESTC link. At Oxford.
I'm interested in this because of the influence of the map, its revision of "Romish" sites, and the techniques used to key image to text.

185.5     Aesop. [Anr. ed. of STC 185: The morall fabillis of Esope in Scottis meter, be maister R. Henrisone.] 8o. Edinburg, T. T. Bassadyne, 1571. E.
EEBO link. ESTC link. Not at Oxford.
The cover image seems especially complex (relative to STC 187), and I might gather information about the Edinburgh press.

331     Alexander [Farnese], Prince of Parma. The besieging of Berghen vppon Zoom by the prince of Parma in September and October last 1588. s.sh.fol. Middelborough, R. Schilders, [1588?] C. ...
 ESTC link. EEBO link. Not at Oxford.
L&I describe this as having an elaborate method of keying text to image.

398.3     Almanak & prognostication of the yeare of our our Lord Mv. .xlix. s.sh.fol. [1549] NEK(imp.)
ESTC link. Not at Oxford.
Like other almanacks, this depicts the zodiac man, and may possibly be related to Spenser.

406.3     A., J. A perfyte pronostycacion perpetuall. (An almanacke for .xv. yeares.) 8o. (R. wyer.) [1556?] L. Bos.clxviii. ...
ESTC link. EEBO link. At British Library.
This almanack conclutes with serial images from woodcuts.

417     Bourne, William. An almanacke and prognostication for three yeares [1571-73] newlye added vnto rulles of nauigation printed iiij yeres past. 8o. T. Purfoot, (1567.) O5. Bos.clxxvi.
ESTC link. EEBO link. At Oxford.
I'm interested in the combination of volvelles and image-texts, especially in the context of a sailing manual.

432     Cunningham, William. 1558. 2 pts. 8o. J. Daye. ILL. ...
ESTC link. EEBO link. Not at Oxford.
I'm interested in the animation and gestural narrative of the engraved gods.  I'm also interested in the reuses.

Reuses: 14075 , 14075.5 , 14076 , 1407

435.35     Digges, Leonard, the Elder. A prognostication of right good effect, fructfully augmented. 4o. T. Gemini. 1555. HN. Bos.clxvi. ...
ESTC link. EEBO link. At Oxford.
I'm interested in the combination of prognostication, sailing guides, astronomy, and various print instruments.

• Reuses: 6849.8 , 6850.3 , 6850.5 , 6850.6 , 6275 , 6850.7 , 6851 , 6276 , 6851.2 , 5160

A smaller list of interesting things from the Thomason tracts

William Starbuck. "A Spiritual Cordial for my Lord of Canterbury." 669.f.10.15. EEBO link.
Francis Mussell. "The Prisoners Observation by way of Complaint." 669.f.10.17. EEBO link.
Anon. "A Prognostication upon W. Laud." 669.f.10.18. EEBO link.
Anon. "The Scholars Petition for Play-dayes, instead of Holy-dayes." 669.f.10.23. EEBO link.
Peter Stent. "The most Excellent Sir Thomas Fairfax." 669.f.10.25. EEBO link.
T. Forcet. "The Scourge of Civill Warre." 669.f.10.27. EEBO link.
Anon. "Prognostic Merveilleux." 669.f.10.35. EEBO link.
Joseph Ricraft. "A perfect List of the many Victories..." 669.f.10.46. EEBO link.

• ALSO 669.f.10.59. EEBO link.

Anon. "Dictated Thoughts." 669.f.10.48. EEBO link.

• ALSO 669.f.10.68. EEBO link. 
• ALSO 669.f.10.102. EEBO link. 
• ALSO 669.f.10.104. EEBO link.

Anon. "The Mercenary Souldier." 669.f.10.49. EEBO link.
Anon. "The Zealous Souldier." 669.f.10.50. EEBO link.
William Ley. "A Perfect Table of Two hundred ninety nine Victories..." 669.f.10.64. EEBO link.
Francis Leach. "The great Champions of England." 669.f.10.69. EEBO link.
William Ley. "A Perfect Table of Three hundred and four Victories." 669.f.10.72. EEBO link.
Edmund Calamy. "Berachah, or Englands Memento to Thankfulnesse." 669.f.10.74. EEBO link.
Josiah Ricraft. "A Perfect List of all the Victories obtained..." 669.f.10.79. EEBO link.
John Tustin. "Tustins Observations, or Conscience Embleme: The Watch of God, similized by the Wakefull Dog." 669.f.10.80. EEBO link.
Anon. "Englands Monument of Mercies." 669.f.10.85. EEBO link.
William Ley. "Englands sorrow for the losse of their late Generall." 669.f.10.88. EEBO link.

• ALSO: 669.f.10.97. EEBO link.

John Hancock. "A Funerall Monument. " 669.f.10.89. EEBO link. ALSO: John Hammond. "A Funerall Elegie..." 669.f.10.94. EEBO link.
Anon. "The picture of an English Antick, with a Lift of his ridiculous Habits, and apish Gestures." 669.f.10.99. EEBO link
Anon. "Puss my aple." 669.f.10.105. EEBO link.
Matthew Simmons. "Englands Wolfe with Eagles Clawes." 669.f.10.106. EEBO link.
John Lecester. "England's Miraculous Preservation Emblematically Described, Erected." 669.f.10.107. EEBO link.
R.A. "An Embleme of the Times." 669.f.10.110. EEBO link.
R.A. "A Catalogue of the severall Sects and Opinions..." 669.f.10.111. EEBO link.
Thomas Jenner. "Victories Obtained." 669.f.10.112. EEBO link.
J.H. "Reall Persecution, or the Foundation of a general Toleration, Displaied." 669.f.10.114. EEBO link.
Henry Overton. "A Pious and Seasonable Perswasive." 669.f.10.118. EEBO link.

Claude Morlot. "La France a monsieur de Broussel." 669.f.13.34.

• ALSO 669.f.35

Henry Cripps. "A New Elegie." 669.f.13.45.

• ALSO 669.f.13.46

Robert Ibbitson. "The Kings Last farewell to the World." 669.f.13.47.

"Artificiall Fire, or Coale for Rich and Poore."

EEBO link. This broadside describes several methods for replacing "seacole" with bricks of earth, dung, turf, or heath mixed with straw or woodchips and burned alongside coal. This method promises to save families from burning doors, chairs, etc.

What's interesting to me is that the illustration serves as a guide on how to intersperse the bricks in this coal fire. But given that the central illustration appears to have been cut off from another source, I wonder whether these illustrations are original. All the same, the diagrammatic use of illustrations for such a desperate need strikes me emotionally. This nation still had the technology to print broadsides, but not the fuel to survive the winter.

"Militarie Instructions"

EEBO link.

I'm interested in the proliferation of print fields here. First, the title comes from the engraved text attributed to Nathaniell Burt. The copper plate is slightly mis-impressed, because it's about 345-350 degrees askew from the page. Second, there's the image-text that depicts a bizarre combination of volley fire from horseback. Third, there's the main text of the letter, describing how to conduct artillery. Fourth, there's a marginal column on musketeer marching. Fifth, there's a Postscript attributed to a "Hermit at Wapping." Sixth, there's the colophon, "Printed according to Order."

"To the Right Honourable, the Lords and Common Assembled"

EEBO link. This has the same factorum as The Declaration and protestation of the Grand Jurie...

"An Elegie and Epitapth, upon the Right Honourable the Lord Francis Villars"

EEBO link. No mis-impressions here. EEBO scan is sufficient.

"Het Toneel der Engelshe Ellenden"

EEBO link.

Again, this is an amazing copperplate print from a superior printing country, Amsterdam. The scan is surprisingly good, save for two details. First, there is a seal on the letter to the right-hand side. The letter says, "Karel de Tweeede | Koning van Engeland | Schot-land en Yr-land." The seal is impressed with the arms of the Stuart prince of Wales. The other letter is sealed twice, each with what I believe is the same set of arms--however, the quartered sections of lions and fleurs-de-lil appear to be crosses.

Also mysterious: there appear to be translucent leaves on the shield set before Charles II.

"Historische erzälung von geburt"

EEBO link.

This sheet undoubtedly has the coolest illustration of vol. 12 of the Thomason tracts. Here's what's obscure on EEBO.

• The faces of figures B and C are sad, but not wailing with sorrow.
• The names along the bottom are:
  "A. Seine Ko[umlaut]n. May[umlaut] an dem Block. B. Doctor Ju[accent]xon. C. Colonell Tomlinſon. D. Colonell Hacker. E.F. Die 2 Executionnen."
• The imprint (I think) is
  "Franckfurt / ben Sebastian Furcten zu Finden."

The copperplate engraving is faultless, except for a minor fold in the paper along the lower-left corner of the copperplate. This is a top-quality Frankfurt printing.

"Die Martis 25 April, 1648."

EEBO link. This is 669.f.12[14] in the Thomason tracts. I'm only noting it because it's printed by John Wright, the "cheap print specialist" (according to Bellany's article on Buckingham's representation) stationed "at the Kings Head in the Old Bayley" in 1648. He was also involved in "Letter to the Christian Family."

This single-sheet originally caught my attention because of the high and clear quality of both image-texts on this page: the illustrated border and the (factorum?) woodblock capital. The blocks have such fine and dark lines that they resemble copperplates without plate-marks.

In fact, as I trawl through 669.f.12, it becomes apparent that John Wright was no mere "cheap print specialist," but rather the regular printer for John Brown, a clerk of Parliament in 1648.

The Common-Wealth of England, by Thomas Smith

EEBO link.

Milton refers to The Common-Wealth of England in The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. From the Dartmouth reading room:

Sir Thomas Smith also a Protestant and a Statesman, in his Commonwelth of England, putting the question whether it be lawfull to rise against a Tyrant, answers that the vulgar judge of it according to the event, and the lerned according to the purpose of them that do it.

Dartmouth also has this note:

 Sir Thomas Smith. Milton read and transcribed into his Commonplace Book (Complete Prose Works 1.455-56) passages from Sir Thomas Smith's De Republica Anglorum (1583).

 In the 1635 octavo version of Smith (BL shelfmark 8005.a.38.) specifically has this quote early on, between the the recto and verso of B4 (pages 7 and 8):

CHAP. V. of the queſtion of what is right and iuſt

in a Common-wealth 

 SO when the Common-wealth is
euill gouerned by an euill Ruler
and vniust (as in the three laſt named
which be rather a ſickneſſe of the po-
litick body, than perfect and good
Eſtates) if the Lawes bee made, as
moſt like they be alwayes, to main-
taine that Eſtate: the queſtion re-
mayneth, whether the obedience of
them to be iuſt, and the diſobedience
wrong? the profit and conſeruation
of that Eſtate, Right and Iuſtice, or
the diſſolution? and whether a good
and upright man, and louer of his
Country ought to maintaine and o-
bey them, or to ſeek by all meanes to [catchword abo-]
aboliſh them? which great & haugh-
tie courages haue often attempted: as
Dion to riſe vp againſt Dionyſius;
Thraſibius againſt the 30. Tyrants
Brutus and Caſſius againſt Cæſar,
which hath bin cauſe of many com-
motions in Common-wealths: wher-
of the iudgement of the common
people is according to the euent and
ſucceſſe of them which be learned ac-
cording of them to the purpoſe of the doers,
and the eſtate of the time then pre-
ſent. Certain it is, that it is alwayes
a doubtfull and hazardous matter to
meddle with the changing of Lawes
and Gouernment, or to diſobey the
orders of the Rule or Gouernment
which a man doth find alreadie eſta-
bliſhed.

It's interesting that Milton deliberately under-reads his source. He is correct to say that Smith distinguishes the common causes of rebellion, based on events, and the learned causes of rebellion, based on principle, but he leaves out the second learned cause: "the eſtate of the time when preſent." I can't say why Milton would omit this. Maybe Charles' reign could be assumed to be sufficiently tumultuous, or maybe that very assumption would be to contentious for Milton to defend. I think this is an open question.

On to the pretty pictures!

The engraved frontispiece shows a signature by William Marshall, Sculps. I remember him from Heraclitus Dream, Catholick Gamesters, etc. It features two cherubim with horns holding a portrait of Charles, framed by palms. Below are two emblematical women. On the left, a sword-carrying, scale-holding, clasically-dressed woman with the sun in her hair; on the right, a ship-holding, collared but barefoot woman with a moon in her hair. If I had to guess, I'd describe them as Justice and Commerce. Below them is a map of Britain from Cornwall to the lowlands, featuring mountains throughout. Curiously, the map of Britain is aligned with west to the north, so that the Isle of Man takes an oversized and central position. Beside Man is another, longer island of seemingly fictional origin.

Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia

This Rutgers online exhibition suggested to me that the "Salmvrii" Pindar might be a source for Milton. Subsequently, I'm working off of Kelley & Atkins' "Milton and the Harvard Pindar." I suspect that the source for this classicist's blog post on Milton & Pindar (The Intellectual Development of John Milton by Harris Fletcher) is based on research before the Kelley & Atkins research, since the quoted publication of the book precedes the publication of the article by three years.

First, Atkins & Kelley observe flaws with the handwritten notes in the Harvard Pindar, relative to six other books known to be Milton's. Second, they observe that Milton's known notes reflect different content than the Harvard Pindar. Atkins & Kelley argue that Milton's typical notes on Greek poetry were quite different than the references and commentaries in the Harvard Pindar:

In his annotations of Greek poetry, Milton focuses his attention on the text, and his studies rarely pass beyond the translation, scholia, and commentary in the volume before him. Twelve of Milton's thirty-seven Aratus notes, it is true, derive from collations of his Morel edition with the de Grabiano and Stephanus texts, and three others come "ex aliis editionibus," from Stephanus, Thesaurus Grecae Linguae, and perhaps from Grotius, Syntagma Arateorum; but in these fifteen instances, Milton's interest is in text rather than commentary--in finding the best or an equally good alternative reading; and from this purpose he varies only twice: once to quote Ovid's tribute to Aratus, and once to give a parallel from Lucretius. ... In contrast, the Pindar annotator ranges freely beyond his volume. (80)

So what's the point of looking at a book of Pindar with reference to Milton? I can still respond to past scholars, or I can strike out in a new direction. If tradition is correct to associate Milton with the Saumur Pindar, then the evidence therein can provide insight to Milton's reading practices. I don't want to attribute any manuscript annotations to Milton, but I can still refer to the print. That is, the Saumur Pindar contains an elaborate polyglot apparatus of Latin and Greek in three co-ordinated columns. This suggests a practice of reading--though, again, this suggestion is not grounded in manuscript notes or direct reference--that young Milton's annotations appeared in conversation with three other columns of notes.

Suppose that Milton were to annotate the Saumur Pindar as Atkins and Kelley find Milton to've annotated Grotius. In such a case, Milton would collate, suggest alternative translations, and occasionally he would update marginal references. I believe that Milton's readings here reproduce the work of the printing house corrector. And in this sense, this Pindar reproduces the comparative practices of the printing house through to the university student.

And, of course, this edition of Pindar reproduces the Argument, similar to the argument of Paradise Lost that generations of students have used to crib Milton's plot.

"England's use of Antwerp printers 1500-1540"

Avis, Frederick C. England's Use of Antwerp Printers, 1500-1540. Mainz: Gutenberg-Gesselschaft, 1973. Print.

I wonder if book historians (or which book historians) expect the same rigorous material history for societal claims as bibliographical claims. When I say that a book was "small," I might better address book historians by saying that it was a 12o. printed on foolscap, or that it was X mm wide, Y mm long, and Z mm tall. Even those metric measurements are slightly imprecise, because environmental factors and handling can affect book thickness (See Gaskell 79). But when I say that a book was "popular," how might I best address book historians?

Avis uses a few terms that verge on the softer side of book history, but without the same hard standard of definition and description as the rest of his argument. 

First, my training in book history has disabused me of many moral statements, such as when Avis describes the Elizabethan reign, "when religious controversy had reached homocidal proportions" (234). 

Second, I've also been taught not to speak to the aesthetic hierarchy of books and book components. Avis, by contrast, says that "a simple illustration" and "simple cuts" "aided" the interpretation of books like a (1510?) edition of 'Til Eulenspiegel (238). If the iconography controversy of the past 30 years has demonstrated anything, it's that the interpretation of print images is no simple matter. A dissenting scholar might say, by contrast, that the simple text helps clarify the images, or that both text and image obfuscate each other. These are conceivable interpretations, not contradictory of any of Avis' material evidence. 

Third, I've been taught to be very careful in the use and definition of terms that refer to social objects, such as "England" or "popularity." Since social objects illicit the perspectives of many people, there are likely to be many interpretations of the nature of "England." For Avis' part, his title refers to "England" as an agent of use. This word usage implies that England exercises utility: is this true?

Fourth, I've been taught to seek out material descriptions of social objects or properties that approach book history. What is "popularity," "profitability" or "literacy"? The answers are important, because they determine the kinds and ranges of evidence that an author may validly introduce in an argument. Avis seems to use both terms without reference to material descriptions (passim). Popularity implies a populus, such as the population of readers. But readers don't create editions, publishers do. Publishers speculate on new editions, possibly out of a perception of readers' interests. For my part, I don't pretend to have a rock-solid definition of "popularity" or "literacy," but I think these terms evoke more kinds of evidence than Avis presents.

On cycles

Google Trends has a lot of flaws as a scholarly tool, granted. But today I wanted to check whether Marxist terminology--such as "proletariat" or "bourgeois"--has been on the rise.

I quickly noticed a cyclical drop in the usage of "proletariat" on the web. So I cross-checked that search term against the kind of term that students need to use during school, "covalent bond," and the kind of term that's only relevant during the summer, "corn harvest."


I was on a bit of a food kick, so I double-checked these results with "bourgeois," and against the seasonal terms "eggnog recipe" and "corn on the cob."
<sarcasm>Sure enough, it seems that the presence of corn or eggnog stifles the people's revolution</s>

If I had any kind of statistical software, I might be able to check the degree to which "proletariat" and "bourgeois" decouple or decohere from other cyclical search terms.

On rarity

0/5

Rex Sorgatz doesn't like that he can no longer prove his coolness by owning rare objects.

“Rare” is such an quizzical descriptor, a blatant contradiction of the very nature of digital culture. Rarity describes a state of scarcity, and as we enter a proto-post-scarcity economy, digital stuff defies such shortages.

Things are no longer rare; they are either popular or unpopular.

Rarity itself has become very rare.

Is it? Or is this surprising claim only an accident of the multiple senses of "rarity"?

1/5

First, I must vent my spleen: Rex Sorgatz mis-uses numbers for rhetorical effect. The case of the Beatles' "Happy birthday" demonstrates a general error running throughout the piece. Sorgatz complains, "That sonic obscurity has been heard 2.3 million times." His claim is that 2.3 million is a high number. Is it? 2.3 million is a small number in the context of the rest of the Beatles' recording career. 2.3 million is a small number in the context of other Beatles songs on YouTube: one arbitrarily selected upload of Yellow Submarine has over three times as many views. And 2.3 million is a small number in the context of Sorgatz's song choice, "Happy Birthday," which may be the most popularly performed song in English. By contrast, Sorgatz gives no context for the numbers he commonly cites.

My first point is: A number itself is neither high nor low, rare or common. Numbers can lend a false sense of precision to un-contextualized claims that, ultimately, amount to arguments from authority.

2/5

Second, Sorgatz's argument sneakily defines its terms in a very lousy way. His challenge is restricted to digital objects:

Can you think of a media object — anything that can be digitally reproduced — that is rare in our times? 

This challenge leaves out the entire archives of "Rare Books" at my university and everywhere. Of course material objects can still be rare. In fact, the challenge is rigged from the start. It begins with the set of objects that are "digitally reproduced," meaning that there are at least two digital copies. And following from the first complaint, I can define any number as "big" or "small," so I hereby declare two copies (implicit in the definition of "digitally reproduced") to be "not rare." So the challenge amounts to a bare assertion: "Can you think of a X object--anything that does X--that is not X?"

3/5

Third, the entire discussion so far implies that "rare" is a function of "not rare"--in other words, that which is not rare is common, popular, etc.: this may not be so. It may be that rarity is a relation, not a function. Graham Priest explains,

 I speak of the difference between a relation and a function. A relation is something that relates a certain kind of object to some number of others (zero, one, two, etc). A function, on the other hand, is a special kind of relation that links each such object to exactly one thing. Suppose we are talking about people. Mother of and father of are functions, because every person has exactly one (biological) mother and exactly one father. But son of and daughter of are relations, because parents might have any number of sons and daughters. Functions give a unique output; relations can give any number of outputs.

What I'm proposing is that Sorgatz implicitly defines "rare" as a function of "common" or "popular." Ie, All that which is not common is rare, and vice-versa. Evidently, there's a number line posted in Sorgatz's office, and the side closer to 0 is marked "rare" and the side closer to 2.3 million is marked "common." But I propose instead that one object can be rare in relation to other things.

4/5

Fourth, "rare" means "rare" in rhetorical context. "Rare" means different things depending on the speaker, audience, time, place, and purpose. Beatles albums are not rare on the internet, but they are rare in solitary confinement cells. I propose that we consider claims of "rarity" in relation to each component of the rhetorical context. Something may be rare in relation to:

• the speaker
• the audience
• the rhetorical purpose
• the time
• the place

And so on. In the rhetorical relations of rarity, Rex Sorgatz is complaining that the changing times (the age of the internet) have changed the relative quality of rarity. This may be true of certain objects, with certain people, etc., but not others.

5/5

Fifth and finally, Rex Sorgatz underestimates a corollary to the availability of digital media. If you have one available book, you would look at that one book every time you look at any book. That one book would not be rare in the sense that you would encounter it every time. As the number of available media approaches infinity, the proportion constituted by a single source approaches zero.

In the age of customized internet search, Rex Sorgatz must first articulate a search term before he can find any of his supposedly rare objects. He has to know what he wants before he can find it. His desires, his aesthetics pre-determine those things that he can find. You could have searched for any music; why did you search for oenophilic yodel-rap? And now that you have, you can connect with all of the commentors on the yodel-rap video, for whom yodel-rap is not rare. In fact, you are joined by a pre-existing interest that has already been expressed by your search terms.

Early thoughts about Loomio & the college classroom

In the last post of early thoughts about Loomio, I found that there were advantages to the way that Loomio lets groups plan, deliberate, and vote. I also concluded that there were limiting factors on Loomio or consensus-based decision making due to the realities of accountability, access, and bullying.

In this post, I'd like to consider Loomio as it might be implemented in the college classroom. The college classroom seems at first like it could resolve some of the limiting factors surrounding Loomio.

• Accountability: A college classroom typically guarantees accountability through grades (this is a bit discipline-and-punish), but also through the internal motivation of college students. It's an open question whether kids these days are too distracted for internal motivation, or whether kids these days will appreciate their ability to multitask through Loomio.
• Access: Colleges like to show off capital investments, so college classrooms and dorms typically have internet connectivity. Whether or not the students inside those college classrooms possess the self-efficacy to use those connections to engage with Loomio is unresearched.
• Bullying: Time Magazine recently had a cover story about rape on college campuses. That is to say, it's a major, national problem that colleges are hostile to vulnerable populations. So I won't assume that any college is free from a culture of harassment.

Despite these continuing reservations, we could still say, Presuming that colleges clean up their acts, can we implement Loomio in the classroom? The question about implementing Loomio in the classroom is really the same as any other such question: Should we do XYZ in the classroom? In all of these cases, the answer begins with another question: Does XYZ help you meet your learning objectives?

There've been a lot of cool technologies that I've thought about implementing in classes. I abstained in most cases because, for example, I didn't understand what skill my students would develop by using git instead of Carmen. (Apologies to Jentery Sayers, whose git piece I haven't yet read.) Above all, I don't want to be chasing trends or approval like a "cool dad."

In the composition classroom, the learning objectives typically include semi-professionial communication skills. In the survey or Shakespeare classroom, there's no such learning objective. There's no learning objective that necessitates the implementation of Loomio.

Nevertheless, there are many procedural issues that arise in the classroom that typically require an impromptu poll, or a quick discussion. I typically resolve these problems in meatspace, with all of the problems that follow: students who are sick that day miss out on the discussion, students who are in the back of the class miss out on the discussion, students who are shy miss out on the discussion, etc. In these cases of impromptu revisions to the syllabus, I can see how Loomio could be a fairer, more democratic way of reaching decisions. That's not a resounding endorsement, which is unfortunate (for trend-chasers) because Loomio seems like a really well-designed package.

Lastly, there is an easily applied way of resolving this question. In the first week of class, use Loomio itself to propose the question to the class: Should we use Loomio to make decisions about the conduct of the class? If the class accepts the proposal, then it's settled; you've got everyone registered. If the class doesn't accept the proposal, then you may have met your learning objectives anyway.

Early thoughts about Loomio

The tool called Loomio traces its roots to the Occupy movement. I found this striking, because Quinn Norton's Eulogy for Occupy reported how Occupy's decision-making had been captured by violent and abusive people:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

 In a revealing discussion on a well-known bbs , some of the makers of Loomio interweave their own history with the rhetorical concerns of Occupy:

Hey Hugh - I'm one of the folks working on Loomio too.

In some respects, defining "inclusive" is the hardest question in the world. At Occupy we tried to say "we include everyone". It was a traumatic lesson to learn that is actually an impossible aim: when you include anyone, you include people who's behaviour excludes others.

So if you can't include everyone, how do you draw the boundary?

At Occupy the impossibility of that question proved fatal: almost all of the camps that were lucky enough to avoid the violent state suppression of jackbooted thugs eventually succumbed to that paradox.

I believe we can get closer to a solution if we reframe the question though. Instead of saying "let's include everyone", what happens if we say "let's include everyone that is affected by this decision"?

You can add more nuance to that principle and agree that a person's influence over a decision is in proportion to the degree to which it affects them.

If you can agree a set of interaction protocols that are a prerequisite to participation, and some high-level nonspecific aims, then you can actually start making progress.

Once you have that unifying banner agreed, you can keep decisions action-focussed. Personally, collective decision-making is infinitely more appealing to me when it is used to plan action, rather than trying to agree abstract theory!

I appreciate that the maker RichDecibels acknowledges some of the principle paradoxes of inclusion: does inclusion itself include some or all parts of exclusion? Are there mutually exclusive constituencies? The solution of Loomio  is simply: put it to a vote. If you find yourself wrangling mutually exclusive constituencies, then mandate some form of interaction that will force them to express the strength of their preferences.

The makers of Loomio settled on a handful of participation methods: proposal, dialogue, and tetralemmic voting. Yet they probably considered dozens of possible methods for expressing preferences.

• Proposal: Anyone can make a proposal that the rest of the group may ratify. Contrast this approach with the model of petitions.whitehouse.gov, which requires a critical mass to initiate action. Also contrast this direct democracy with a representative model, whereby a delegate, executive, or group can submit proposals to a group for a referendum or plebicite.
• Dialogue: Two modes of dialogue follow two types of groups. Standing public groups have dialogue that's explicitly public; invited private groups have dialogue that's less public. Contrast this approach to moderated forums, private chats, and meatspace meetings (on the less inclusive side of the spectrum) and wikipedia discussions (on the more inclusive side of the spectrum). By splitting dialogue into two tracks, Loomio can avoid the problem of trying to design a single perfect platform for every situation ever.
• Tetralemmic voting: Participants can vote to agree, abstain, disagree, and block. I've likened this to a tetralemma (yes, no, both, neither), but "block" functions more as a distributed veto. This is a powerful idea, because people traditionally express their disapproval with an election through low turnout or non-ballots (ballots left blank, marked as "none of the above," or otherwise non-compliant). I think that "block" is a more reliable indicator of disapproval than a quorum or a non-ballot. Furthermore, I appreciate that Loomio's voting system can support concurrent votes, as a necessary complement to "blocked" proposals.
  Contrast this with "preferential voting" or "approval voting." Both of these systems require completed lists of options, whereas Loomio enables a running vote that can be expanded as proposals rise or fall.

So does Loomio's system avoid the pitfalls of the General Assembly at Occupy? Not really. Quinn's piece identifies the weaknesses of the General Assembly as: insufficient accountability, irreconcilable constituencies, and bullies.

• There's zero accountability built into Loomio. Loomio does not itself control your group. So long as a key player rejects the decision-making process, that player has a unilateral veto over all decisions made on Loomio. And there may be plenty of valid reasons why someone might reject Loomio. Perhaps that person perceives herself on the other side of the racial digital divide, or perceives herself to have low digital literacy.
• As indicated above, a rebellious constituency can completely derail Loomio's implementation. In fact, Loomio seems to begin with the unstated premise that you begin with a fully formed group who buy into the process. That means each person is prepared to formulate the group's problems as a series of proposals, and their own objections as a series of rebuttals. That process requires a high degree of perceived self-efficacy in rhetoric and digital media.
• Bullies can still shut down the process. As we've seen in famous cases of revenge porn doxxing, people can still be bullied online. As Occupy shows, the only real solution is to disengage and cede control to the bullies: they'll eventually exhaust themselves.

I'd like to come back to this and consider the role of Loomio in the university classroom.