DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Unreason: Essays on Political Disagreement by Aaron James

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Unreason: Essays on Political Disagreement by Aaron James Public Unreason: Essays on Political Disagreement by Aaron James Ancell Department of Philosophy Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Supervisor ___________________________ Allen Buchanan ___________________________ Wayne Norman ___________________________ David Wong Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Duke University 2017 ABSTRACT Public Unreason: Essays on Political Disagreement by Aaron James Ancell Department of Philosophy Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Supervisor ___________________________ Allen Buchanan ___________________________ Wayne Norman ___________________________ David Wong An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Duke University 2017 Copyright by Aaron James Ancell 2017 Abstract Why is political disagreement such a persistent and pervasive feature of contemporary societies? Many political philosophers answer by pointing to moral pluralism and the complexity of relevant non-moral facts. In Chapter 1, I argue that this answer is seriously inadequate. Drawing on work from psychology, political science, and evolutionary anthropology, I argue that an adequate explanation of political disagreement must emphasize two features of human psychology: tribalism and motivated reasoning. It is often assumed that disagreements rooted in bias and irrationality can be ignored or idealized away by philosophers developing ideal theories, that is, theories that aim to sketch the normative outlines of an ideal society. In Chapters 2 and 3, I argue that this assumption is mistaken because even ideal theories are subject to constraints, and idealizing away disagreements rooted in certain kinds of bias and irrationality violates these constraints. In Chapter 4, I turn to the ethics of political compromise, focusing specifically on compromises that involve making serious concessions to injustice. I consider and attempt to reconcile two seemingly inconsistent approaches to evaluating such compromises: one that emphasizes fundamental moral principles versus one that emphasizes pragmatic considerations. iv Dedication In memory of my dad. v Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... x Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Partisan People and Motivated Morals: On the Nature and Causes of Political Disagreement ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Divergent Values .............................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Disagreement About Non-Moral Facts ....................................................................... 14 1.3 The Divergent Judgments Account ............................................................................. 18 1.4 Why does it matter why people disagree? ................................................................. 20 1.5 Features of Political Disagreement .............................................................................. 24 1.5.1 Pervasive ..................................................................................................................... 24 1.5.2 Expansive .................................................................................................................... 25 1.5.3 Persistent ..................................................................................................................... 27 1.5.4 Obstinate ..................................................................................................................... 28 1.5.5 Can the Divergent Judgments Account explain these features? ........................ 29 1.5.6 Antagonistic ............................................................................................................... 30 1.5.7 Clustered ..................................................................................................................... 33 1.5.8 Polarized ..................................................................................................................... 38 1.5.9 Where does this leave the Divergent Judgments Account? ................................ 42 1.6 Political Ignorance .......................................................................................................... 43 1.6.1 Disagreement About Well-Established Facts ........................................................ 44 vi 1.6.2 Do people know what they are disagreeing about? ............................................. 49 1.6.3 The Illusion of Explanatory Depth ......................................................................... 52 1.6.4 Political Ignorance as a Problem for the Divergent Judgments Account .......... 54 1.7 Party Before Policy ......................................................................................................... 55 1.8 Political Tribalism ........................................................................................................... 65 1.8.1 Tribalism and Social Identities ................................................................................ 65 1.8.2 Tribal Politics ............................................................................................................. 69 1.9 Motivated Reasoning ..................................................................................................... 77 1.10 Conclusion: The Tribal Rationalizers Account ......................................................... 85 1.10.1 The Advantages of the Tribal Rationalizers Account ........................................ 86 1.10.2 The Limits of My Arguments ................................................................................ 89 2. Utopianism and Political Irrationality ................................................................................. 91 2.1 The Charge of Utopianism ............................................................................................ 94 2.2 Probability, Possibility, and Hopeless Aspirational Theory .................................... 97 2.3 The Limits of Estlund’s Argument ............................................................................ 102 2.4 Estlund Against Epistocracy ....................................................................................... 105 2.5 Thinking Straight is not like Dancing like a Chicken .............................................. 111 3. The Fact of Unreasonable Pluralism .................................................................................. 117 3.1 The Fact of Reasonable Pluralism .............................................................................. 123 3.2 The Sources of Unreason ............................................................................................. 127 3.2.1 How the Sources of Unreason Make Us Unreasonable ..................................... 128 3.2.2 Two Types of Unreasonableness ........................................................................... 131 vii 3.3 The Limits of Ideal Theory .......................................................................................... 134 3.3.1 Ideal Theory and Unreasonable Pluralism .......................................................... 137 3.3.2 The Constraints of a Realistic Utopia ................................................................... 139 3.3.3 Applying the Constraints ....................................................................................... 142 3.4 Can we Overcome the Sources of Unreason? ........................................................... 143 3.4.1 The Historical Record ............................................................................................. 145 3.4.2 The Pitfalls of Human Reason ............................................................................... 148 3.4.3 Am I an evoconservative? ...................................................................................... 152 3.5. Conclusion and Implications ..................................................................................... 154 3.5.1 Implications for Ideal Theory ................................................................................ 155 3.5.2 The Stability of a Liberal Society ........................................................................... 158 4. Making Dirty Compromises with Clean Hands ............................................................... 163 4.1 What is a dirty compromise? ...................................................................................... 164 4.2 An Example of a Dirty Compromise ......................................................................... 172 4.3 Three Problems for Dirty Compromises ................................................................... 174 4.3.1 Are dirty compromises ever morally acceptable? .............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Has Polling Enhanced Representation? Unearthing Evidence from the Literary Digest Issue Polls
    Studies in American Political Development, 21 (Spring 2007), 16–29. Has Polling Enhanced Representation? Unearthing Evidence from the Literary Digest Issue Polls David Karol, University of California, Berkeley How has representation changed over time in the Institutional reforms are not, however, the only United States? Has responsiveness to public opinion factors that can affect representation; technological waxed or waned among elected officials? What are change can also play a significant role. In fact, some the causes of such trends as we observe? Scholars scholars contend that the rise of scientific surveys have pursued these crucial questions in different since the 1930s has yielded more responsive govern- ways. Some explore earlier eras in search of the “elec- ment. According to this school of thought, polls toral connection”, i.e. the extent to which voters held provide recent cohorts of elected officials more accu- office-holders accountable for their actions and the rate assessments of public opinion than their prede- degree to which electoral concerns motivated poli- cessors enjoyed, which allows them to reflect their ticians’ behavior.1 Others explore the effects of insti- constituents’ views to a greater extent than the tutional changes such as the move to direct election politicians of yesteryear. Yet others doubt whether of senators or the “reapportionment revolution.”2 politicians were truly ignorant of public sentiment before the rise of the poll; nor is there much certainty regarding the level of current politicians’ understand- I thank Larry Bartels, Terri Bimes, Ben Bishin, Ben Fordham, ing of constituent opinion. Some also question John Geer, Brian Glenn, Susan Herbst, Mark Kayser, Brian Lawson, whether ignorance is at the root of elected officials’ Taeku Lee, Eileen McDonagh and Eric Plutzer for comments along frequent divergence from their constituents’ wishes.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Welfare and Partisan Change
    Work Welfare and Partisan Change Katherine J. Cramer Department of Political Science University of Wisconsin – Madison Larry M. Bartels Department of Political Science Vanderbilt University Working Paper 3 -2020 Work, Welfare, and Partisan Change Larry M. Bartels Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University [email protected] Katherine J. Cramer Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison [email protected] We examine Americans’ attitudes toward work and welfare, focusing specifically on the pivotal cohort of people who graduated from high school in 1965. Drawing on semi- structured interviews with some of the participants in the 1965-1997 Political Socialization Panel Study, now in their early seventies, we explore the role of work in shaping people’s identities, the impact of personal experience on their attitudes toward work and welfare, and how they navigate the difficult trade-off between wanting to provide for people’s needs and wanting to encourage self-reliance. Our interviews reinforce evidence from the original surveys suggesting that Republican partisanship has been both a cause and an effect of changing attitudes toward government involvement in ensuring jobs and living standards over the past half- century. The interviews also reveal fervent concerns about immigrants’ and African- Americans’ reliance on welfare, echoing a significant racialization of attitudes toward government provision of jobs and welfare between 1982 and 1997. Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2020. We are grateful to M. Kent Jennings and Laura Stoker for generously facilitating our extension of the Political Socialization Panel Study, and to Rosemary Walsh and participants in the Vanderbilt University RIPS lab for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews 151 Account of Prebisch’S Life and Times
    Book Reviews 151 account of Prebisch’s life and times. Those more the effects of “skill-biased technical change” on interested in the validity of Prebisch’s ideas will the opportunities available to working people. In have to continue to rely on the accumulated, and this view, the ever-greater integration of comput- still growing, more technical literature relating to ers into economic life has meant that markets the North–South divide. increasingly reward those who work effectively Albert Fishlow with computers and related technical equipment, Columbia University while correspondingly placing at a growing dis- advantage those who lack solid computer-related skills. From this view, rising inequality is primar- D Microeconomics ily due to the impact of technological forces as Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of opposed to policy changes. the New Gilded Age. By Larry M. Bartels. New Proponents of this position have marshaled a York: Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton and wide range of supportive evidence (e.g., David H. Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008. Pp. Autor, Lawrence F. Katz, and Alan B. Krueger xiii, 325. $29.95. ISBN 978–0–691–13663–9. 1999). But this view has also been challenged by JEL 2008–0797 an at least equally strong set of counterevidence. For example, John E. DiNardo and Jorn-Steffen Since the mid-1970s, the distributions of Pischke (1997) showed with German data that income and wealth in the United States have the returns for white-collar employees of work- become increasingly unequal, creating what ing with pencils were comparable to those for the Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels working with computers (more generally, see terms “the New Gilded Age,” in the subtitle of also David R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Party Or the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate JEFFREY R
    American Political Science Review (2019) 113, 4, 917–940 doi:10.1017/S0003055419000315 © American Political Science Association 2019 The Party or the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate JEFFREY R. LAX Columbia University JUSTIN H. PHILLIPS Columbia University ADAM ZELIZER The University of Chicago ecent work on US policymaking argues that responsiveness to public opinion is distorted by money, in that the preferences of the rich matter much more than those of lower-income Americans. A second distortion—partisan biases in responsiveness—has been less well studied and is often R fl fl fi ignored or downplayed in the literature on af uent in uence. We are the rst to evaluate, in tandem, these https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000315 . two potential distortions in representation. We do so using 49 Senate roll-call votes from 2001 to 2015. We find that affluent influence is overstated and itself contingent on partisanship—party trumps the purse when senators have to take sides. The poor get what they want more often from Democrats. The rich get what they want more often from Republicans, but only if Republican constituents side with the rich. Thus, partisanship induces, shapes, and constrains affluent influence. INTRODUCTION For example, Enns (2015a, 2015b) notes that low- and middle-income individuals receive a great deal of co- he new stylized fact of American politics is that incidental representation even when politicians respond the wealthy dominate American democracy. A primarily to the affluent, because preferences tend to https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms T growing body of political science research con- differ little by income group.
    [Show full text]
  • STACY-DISSERTATION-2021.Pdf
    WEALTH AND POLITICAL INEQUALITY IN THE U.S. CONGRESS By Darrian Stacy Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Political Science May 31, 2021 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Alan Wiseman, Ph.D. Joshua Clinton, Ph.D. Sharece Thrower, Ph.D. Larry Bartels, Ph.D. Nicholas Carnes, Ph.D. Copyright © 2021 Darrian Stacy All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION To God, who orders my steps. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not be possible without the support and encouragement from several advisors, colleagues, family, and friends before and during my time in graduate school. I sincerely thank you all for providing me with untold riches, and I promise to always pay your kindness forward. First, I would like to thank my mentor, first-year advisor, and dissertation committee co-chair, Alan Wiseman, for his unfailing guidance from the very beginning of my PhD journey. Since my first visit to Vanderbilt, I recognized that Alan would be an effective professional role model. Throughout classes, comprehensive exams, presentations, confer- ences, and the job market, he has always provided me with the best advice and tools to navigate challenges in academia. He is the most conscientious person that I know, and I am inspired to work harder anytime I think about him. I deeply appreciate Alan for all of the time that he has invested in me. I also want to thank my other dissertation co-chair, Joshua Clinton. Of all of my ad- visors, I have learned the most from Josh and the courses he taught.
    [Show full text]
  • American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality
    American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy American Political Science Association © 2004 by the American Political Science Association www.apsanet.org Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy Lawrence Jacobs, Chair Claire Jean Kim University of Minnesota University of California, Irvine Ben Barber Suzanne Mettler University of Maryland Syracuse University Larry Bartels Benjamin Page Princeton University Northwestern University Michael Dawson Dianne Pinderhughes Harvard University University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign Morris Fiorina Kay Lehman Schlozman Stanford University Boston College Jacob Hacker Theda Skocpol Yale University Harvard University Rodney Hero Sidney Verba Notre Dame University Harvard University Hugh Heclo George Mason University Media Contacts: Lawrence R. Jacobs: Phone: (612) 625-3384 Email: [email protected] Theda Skocpol: Phone: (617) 876-8051 Email: [email protected] The Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy was convened by the American Political Science Association with the support of the Russell Sage Foundation. The opinions expressed in the report are solely those of the task force members. No opinions, statements of fact, or conclusions in the report should be attributed to the American Political Science Association or to the Russell Sage Foundation. 1 American Democracy in An Age of Rising Inequality Equal political voice and democratically responsive government are widely cherished American ideals. Indeed, the United States is vigorously promoting democracy abroad. Yet, what is happening to democracy at home? Our country’s ideals of equal citizenship and responsive government may be under growing threat in an era of persistent and rising inequalities. Disparities of income, wealth, and access to opportunity are growing more sharply in the United States than in many other nations, and gaps between races and ethnic groups persist.
    [Show full text]
  • When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others?
    American Political Science Review (2018) 112, 4, 721–741 doi:10.1017/S0003055418000412 © American Political Science Association 2018 When Do the Advantaged See the Disadvantages of Others? A Quasi-Experimental Study of National Service CECILIA HYUNJUNG MO University of California, Berkeley KATHARINE M. CONN Columbia University re there mechanisms by which the advantaged can see the perspectives of the disadvantaged? If ad- vantaged individuals have prolonged engagement with disadvantaged populations and confront https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000412 issues of inequality through national service, do they see the world more through the lens of the . A poor? We explore this question by examining Teach For America (TFA), as TFA is a prominent national service program that integrates top college graduates into low-income communities for two years and employs a selection model that allows for causal inference. A regression discontinuity approach, utilizing an original survey of over 32,000 TFA applicants and TFA’s selection data for the 2007–2015 application cycles,reveals that extended intergroup contact in a service context causes advantaged Americans to adopt beliefs that are closer to those of disadvantaged Americans. These findings have broad implications for our understanding of the impact of intergroup contact on perceptions of social justice and prejudice reduction. https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms he socioeconomically advantaged view the ladder have significantly more political influence than American dream as more attainable than those at the bottom (Bartels 2003, 2008; Carnes 2013; T the disadvantaged, with both race (Kinder and Gilens 2012;Page,Bartels,and Seawright 2013;Putnam Sanders 1996) and class (Newman, Johnston, and Lown 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Judges in Democracies: a Realistic View
    doi: 10.21783/rei.v6i2.508 SUBMETIDO: 08 JUL. 2020 ACEITO: 08 JUL. 2020 THE ROLES OF JUDGES IN DEMOCRACIES: A REALISTIC VIEW BRIAN LEITER 1 ABSTRACT: What are the “obligations” of judges in democracies? An adequate answer requires us to be realistic both about democracies and about law. Realism about democracy demands that we recognize that electoral outcomes are largely, though not entirely, unrelated to concrete policy choices by elected representatives or to the policy preferences of voters, who typically follow their party based on “tribal” loyalties. The latter fact renders irrelevant the classic counter-majoritarian (or counter-democratic) worries about judicial review. Realism about law requires that we recognize that judges, especially on appellate courts, will inevitably have to render moral and political judgments in order to produce authoritative resolutions of disputes, one of the central functions of a legal system in any society. That means it is impossible to discuss the “obligations” of judges without regard to their actual moral and political views, as well as the moral and political ends we believe ought to be achieved. Keywords: Judges; Democracy; Roles. 346 What should the role of a judge be in contemporary democracies? That is our topic, but it has two important component parts that we should examine separately: a judge’s role and democracy. Let us begin with a few introductory words about the former. On one sensible view, succinctly articulated by Leslie Green (2016, 323), judges “settle disputes by applying pre-existing standards.” Pre-existing standards need not be codified, and they need not be legally authoritative, though most will be.
    [Show full text]
  • {PDF} Generation Next
    GENERATION NEXT PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Oli White | 288 pages | 01 Jun 2016 | Hodder & Stoughton General Division | 9781473634381 | English | London, United Kingdom A Portrait of "Generation Next" | Pew Research Center Helping families achieve their reproductive dreams is what drew me into this field. It is the most fulfilling aspect of my career. New York, NY Our Services. Natural IVF Treatment. Embyro Testing. Egg Freezing. Timed Intercourse. Patient Portal. Learning Fertility. Learning About You. Common Fertility Disorders. Send Message. We are presenting our new research at a national meeting. Heart to Heart Care Fertility care is essential. We are here for you. Generation Next Fertility is excited to announce the opening of our new location! Compassion meets Science with our brand new state of the art laboratory. We are redefining women's health with our brand new state of the art laboratory. Market Cap , Beta 5Y Monthly Estimated return represents the projected annual return you might expect after purchasing shares in the company and holding them over the default time horizon of 5 years, based on the EPS growth rate that we have projected. Research that delivers an independent perspective, consistent methodology and actionable insight. Press Releases. Advertise With Us. All rights reserved. Data Disclaimer Help Suggestions. Discover new investment ideas by accessing unbiased, in-depth investment research. Day's Range. Beta 5Y Monthly. The Baby Boom generation, born between and , ranges in age from Finally, those over age 60 born before are called the Seniors. These generational breaks are somewhat arbitrary but are roughly comparable to those used by other scholars and researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Representation of the Poor
    The Political Representation of the Poor by Karen Long Jusko A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) in The University of Michigan 2008 Doctoral Committee: Professor John E. Jackson, Co-Chair Professor Christopher H. Achen, Princeton University, Co-Chair Professor Robert J. Franzese Jr. Professor James M. Lepkowksi Karen Long Jusko c All rights reserved. 2008 For my Mum and Dad, and for Ryan, with love and gratitude. ii Acknowledgements The offices and charges of the society should be apportioned for the good of the society itself, and in such mode that difference in degree or standing should not interfere with unanimity and good-will. It is most important that office bearers be appointed with due prudence and discretion, and each one’s charge carefully mapped out, in order that no members may suffer harm. The common funds must be administered with strict honesty, in such a way that a member may receive assistance in proportion to his necessities. Rerum Novarum (1891) Christopher Achen encouraged me to pursue questions about the common good with rigor and clarity, and it is because of Chris’s early enthusiasm for my research question – how do electoral rules affect the poor? – that I have found my research agenda. I am most grateful for his guidance and support, and hope that my research reflects the best of his mentorship. I would also like to acknowledge a few others who have contributed to this project in important ways. I hope they recognize their contributions in the pages that follow, and that I’ve competently reflected their insights and addressed their questions.
    [Show full text]
  • American Politics Workshop
    Yale American Politics and Public Policy Workshop Wednesdays, 12:00 – 1:15 p.m. ISPS, 77 Prospect Street, Room A002 Spring 2014 JAN 15 Christopher Achen, Professor of Social Sciences & Politics, Princeton University Larry Bartels, Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University “Democracy for Realists” JAN 22 Eleanor Powell, Asst. Professor of Political Science, Yale University “Money in Exile: Corporate Campaign Contributions and Committee Access” JAN 29 Brian Schaffner, Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst “Understanding the Personal Vote Advantage: Evidence from the 2010-12 CCES Panel Study” FEB 5 Canceled due to severe winter weather (Marc Meredith moved to February 19) FEB 12 Chris Mann, Asst. Professor of Political Communication, Louisiana State University "Why, and When, Do Citizens Vote?" FEB 19 Marc Meredith, Asst. Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania "Education, Party Polarization, and the Origins of the Partisan Gender Gap” FEB 26 Greg Duncan, Professor in the School of Education, University of California, Irvine “Increasing Inequality in Parent Incomes and Children’s Schooling” MAR 5 Jonathan Kastellec, Asst. Professor of Politics, Princeton University “Signaling and Counter-Signaling in the Judicial Hierarchy: An Empirical Analysis of En Banc Review” MAR 26 Michael Herron, Professor of Government, Dartmouth College “A Model of Department Grading Practices and Student Choice” APR 9 Monica Prasad, Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University "Is Neoliberalism Over?" APR 23 Jeffrey Segal, Professor of Political Science, Stony Brook University “Motivated Cognition on the Bench: Does Criminal Egregiousness Influence Judges’ Beliefs About Police Wrongdoing?” For more information, contact Pam Greene: [email protected] or 203-432-3052.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE the Representational
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE The Representational Sources of Political Inequality A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Thomas Joseph Hayes June 2012 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Benjamin G. Bishin, Chairperson Dr. John Cioffi Dr. Christopher Dennis Copyright by Thomas Joseph Hayes 2012 The Dissertation of Thomas Joseph Hayes is approved: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been possible without the help and support of colleagues, friends, and family. Most significantly, my work benefited from the guidance of my dissertation advisor Ben Bishin. The idea for this dissertation came about as a result of a project in his seminar in Representation. Ben is a scholar who I hope to emulate as I begin my journey as an academic, not just in terms of research, but also in terms of the pedagogical approach to helping students “think big.” Many other professors at UCR aided the work in this dissertation and I would like to thank Martin Johnson, Kevin Esterling, Feryal Cherif, Antoine Yoshinaka, John Medearis, Augustine Kposowa, and John Cioffi for their helpful comments and suggestions. Bernie Grofman gave insightful feedback to my chapter on representation. Chris Dennis helped spur ideas, gave wonderful feedback, and helped me along the way of writing the dissertation. My fellow graduate students deserve much credit for pushing me along the way. Chris Haynes, Antonio Ugues, Jr., Masahiro Omae, Yun Wang, Mayia Shulga, Byran Martin, Cristina Nicolescu Waggonner, and Tommy Wong gave insightful comments on drafts of chapters and during many presentations of my work.
    [Show full text]