British Labour and the challenge of Israel-Palestine

Review of: Paul Kelemen The British Left and Zionism: History of a Divorce, Manchester University Press: Manchester, 2012; 225 pp: 978071908813

A brief history of rank and file movements

Contemporary Marxists justify their continuing advocacy of independent rank and file movements in trade unions by over-optimistic readings of history. The past, it is commonly concluded, reveals a prefigurative model which suitably finessed can serve as the basis for future endeavour. Historical excavation raises doubts about this approach and discloses that the concept of a revolutionary rank and file movement, and how it should operate in practice, are problematic. The rationale for these movements rests on the unverified assertion of a fundamental structural antagonism between the trade union bureaucracy and an artificially homogenized membership. There were significant differences between the philosophy, politics and organisation of the Shop Stewards’ Movement of the Great War, the National Minority Movement of the 1920s and subsequent rank and file initiatives from the 1930s to the 1970s. Taken together, they do not constitute a unified composite, still less a blueprint for any future movement. Each was flawed, particularly by adaptation to trade unionism and Russian policy. All were less successful than is sometimes assumed. Members’ dissatisfaction and periodic rebellion were recurring features of British trade unionism. However, support for rank and file movements was sporadic, uneven and temporary. Sustained organisation was typically motivated, moulded and controlled by the Communist Party. Its hegemony was far from benign and remained at some distance from Marxist ideas of revolutionary practice. The lessons are often negative. Any future project will require rupture with the past rather than its renewal

The hippopotamus and the giraffe: Bolshevism, Stalinism, and American and British Communism in the 1920s

The work of Bryan D. Palmer, one of North America’s leading historians, has influenced the fields of labour history, social history, discourse analysis, communist history, and Canadian history, as well as the theoretical frameworks surrounding them. Palmer’s work reveals a life dedicated to dissent and the difficult task of imagining alternatives by understanding the past in all of its contradictions, victories, and failures. Dissenting Traditions gathers Palmer’s contemporaries, students, and sometimes critics to examine and expand on the topics and themes that have defined Palmer’s career, from labour history to Marxism and communist politics. Paying attention to Palmer’s participation in key debates, contributors demonstrate that class analysis, labour history, building institutions, and engaging the public are vital for social change. In this moment of increasing precarity and growing class inequality, Palmer’s politically engaged scholarship offers a useful roadmap for scholars and activists alike and underlines the importance of working-class history.illustrato

Invited review: Adrenocortical function in avian and non-avian reptiles: Insights from dispersed adrenocortical cells.

Herein we review our work involving dispersed adrenocortical cells from several lizard species: the Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), Yarrow\u27s Spiny Lizard (Sceloporus jarrovii), Striped Plateau Lizard (Sceloporus virgatus) and the Yucatán Banded Gecko (Coleonyx elegans). Early work demonstrated changes in steroidogenic function of adrenocortical cells derived from adult S. undulatus associated with seasonal interactions with sex. However, new information suggests that both sexes operate within the same steroidogenic budget over season. The observed sex effect was further explored in orchiectomized and ovariectomized lizards, some supported with exogenous testosterone. Overall, a suppressive effect of testosterone was evident, especially in cells from C. elegans. Life stage added to this complex picture of adrenal steroidogenic function. This was evident when sexually mature and immature Sceloporus lizards were subjected to a nutritional stressor, cricket restriction/deprivation. There were divergent patterns of corticosterone, aldosterone, and progesterone responses and associated sensitivities of each to corticotropin (ACTH). Finally, we provide strong evidence that there are multiple, labile subpopulations of adrenocortical cells. We conclude that the rapid (days) remodeling of adrenocortical steroidogenic function through fluctuating cell subpopulations drives the circulating corticosteroid profile of Sceloporus lizard species. Interestingly, progesterone and aldosterone may be more important with corticosterone serving as essential supportive background. In the wild, the flux in adrenocortical cell subpopulations may be adversely susceptible to climate-change related disruptions in food sources and to xenobiotic/endocrine-disrupting chemicals. We urge further studies using native lizard species as bioindicators of local pollutants and as models to examine the broader eco-exposome

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

Two fundamentally different perspectives on knowledge diffusion dominate debates about academic disciplines. On the one hand, critics of disciplinary research and education have argued that disciplines are isolated silos, within which specialists pursue inward-looking and increasingly narrow research agendas. On the other hand, critics of the silo argument have demonstrated that researchers constantly import and export ideas across disciplinary boundaries. These perspectives have different implications for how knowledge diffuses, how intellectuals gain and lose status within their disciplines, and how intellectual reputations evolve within and across disciplines. We argue that highly general claims about the nature of disciplinary boundaries are counterproductive, and that research on the nature of specific disciplinary boundaries is more useful. To that end, this paper uses a novel publication and citation network dataset and statistical models of citation networks to test hypotheses about the boundaries between philosophy of science and 11 disciplinary clusters. Specifically, we test hypotheses about whether engaging with and being cited by scientific communities outside philosophy of science has an impact on one’s position within philosophy of science. Our results suggest that philosophers of science produce interdisciplinary scholarship, but they tend not to cite work by other philosophers when it is published in journals outside of their discipline. Furthermore, net of other factors, receiving citations from other disciplines has no meaningful impact—positive or negative—on citations within philosophy of science. We conclude by considering this evidence for simultaneous interdisciplinarity and insularity in terms of scientific trading theory and other work on disciplinary boundaries and communication