The Origins of Organizing 53

community organizing with Arendt whose concept of “the people” (as opposed
to the mob, the mass, or the tribe) converges with the concept of political pop-
ulism developed here.179
By contrast, “antipolitical populism” seeks to simplify rather than com-
plexify the political space. It advocates direct forms of democracy in order
to circumvent the need for deliberative processes and the representation of
multiple interests in the formation of political judgments. The leader rules by
direct consent without the hindrance of democratic checks and balances or
the representation of different interests. In antipolitical populism the throw-
ing off of established authority structures is the prelude to the giving over of
authority to the one and the giving up of responsibility for the many. The goal
of antipolitical populism is personal withdrawal from public life so as to be
free to pursue private self-interests rather than public mutual interests.180 In
antipolitical expressions of populism, personal responsibility is for improve-
ment of the self, one’s immediate family, institution (e.g., a congregation),
or community disconnected from the interdependence of any such project of
improvement with the care of the public institutions, liberties, rule of law,
physical infrastructure, and natural resources that make up the common-
wealth on which all depend.
Alinsky’s approach to community organizing shares a number of elements
with antipolitical populism. These include: the emphasis on strong leaders; the
dichotomization and simpliication of issues; the use and advocacy of direct
forms of rule; a certain romanticization of the wisdom of ordinary people;
the formation of cross-class coalitions; a localism that distrusts universalist
ideologies and the prioritizing of international issues; a distrust of party pol-
itics, elites, and bureaucracy; a suspicion of theory and an envisaging of itself
as pragmatist; the use of affective rituals and symbols to generate a sense of
unity; a demand for loyalty to leader and group; and the mobilization of dis-
sent through the organizing theme of ordinary people/non-elites as both the
subject of grievance and the means of correction.
The key differences between political and antipolitical populism are four-
fold. First, the orientations and sentiments in political populism are put in
the service of forging a political space not limiting, subverting, or closing it
down. Second, political populism invests in long-term organization and edu-
cation (the role of the “lecturer” in the Populist movement and the “orga-
nizer” in community organizing). Third, political populism develops a broad
base of local leaders rather than relying on one charismatic leader and short-
term mobilization of people who are focused not on loyalty to each other
and a common life but on the single leader and the cause or issue.181 Lastly,
while both political and antipolitical populists frame their proposals as moral
imperatives, political populists believe that, in the words of Alinsky, “com-
promise is a key and beautiful word.”182 In short, political populism seeks to
generate a common life as opposed to a politics dominated by the interests
of the one, the few, or the many. Such a common life politics is encapsulated

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:26:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.003
 54 Resurrecting Democracy

in the closing peroration given at an IAF assembly in Baltimore in 1987 by

Reverend Grady Yeargin:

One day it will be said that in the city of Baltimore in the last quarter of the twentieth
century, strange and unusual things began to happen. Well known somebodies with
something from someplace began to meet with little-known nobodies from noplace.
The upper crust began to meet with the middle crust and with those who have no crust
at all. It was a peculiar people. A strange and unusual coalition that negotiated and
fought and worked together.183

Kazin tells a declension narrative about the “conservative capture” of popu-

lism in the U.S. from the 1940s onward. By contrast, the historian Richard
Hofstadter gives an ascension narrative about a move from populism to pro-
gress. The conceptualization of populism suggested here allows for a more
nuanced account.184 Populism in the U.S. contains political and antipolitical
elements and sometimes these elements receive a greater or lesser empha-
sis within particular expressions of populism.185 We can contrast the vari-
ous expressions of primarily antipolitical populism such as Father Coughlin
and the Coughlinites of the late 1930s, McCarthyism, Ross Perot, and most
recently the Tea Party movement with the primarily political populism of the
IAF and other broad-based community organizations such as PICO, Gamaliel,
National People’s Action, the development of “community unionism,” and
the self-described “new populists” such as Harry Boyte, Heather Booth, and,
within the Roman Catholic Church, Monsignor Geno Baroni.186
Alinky’s criticism of state welfare programs, the “apostles of planning,” and
nongovernmental charity illustrate his political populism.187 He saw such endeav-
ors as paternalism and the actions of elites that failed to address the real needs of
people, which served to reinforce existing structures of injustice and undermined
people’s dignity.188 Expressing central themes of populism, Alinsky’s approach
to social, economic, and political injustice aimed to empower those excluded
so that they could take responsibility and act for themselves and thereby forge
a common world with (rather than against) the existing power holders. This is
summarized in the “iron rule” of community organizing: “never do for others
what they can do for themselves” – a maxim that is almost a perfect distilla-
tion of populist political rationality. Nevertheless, the potential for community
organizations to drift from political to antipolitical populism is illustrated by the
history of the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, which by the 1960s had
become vehemently racist and protectionist – a development that deeply grieved
Alinsky. It is its populism that helps explain the constant apprehension and ner-
vous responses that community organizing has provoked among liberals and the
rhetorical basis of its appeal to “conservative” constituencies.
The roots of organizing in American populism are a hindrance when it is
transplanted to other cultural contexts. For example, in the United Kingdom,
the lack of available and identiiable populist idioms has meant that the train-
ing itself has become a kind of induction into a new language rather than an

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:26:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.003
 The Origins of Organizing 55

extension and redirection of an existing, readily available vocabulary.189 The

constant danger in the British context is not that there will be a drift into anti-
political populism, but that community organizing will become reduced to a
technique or method of political mobilization as it struggles to embed itself
in the lived traditions and values of its member institutions, divorced as it is
from any wider cultural-historical frame of reference with which participants
can instinctively identify community organizing.190 Within London Citizens,
this is played out in the tension between using frames of reference steeped in
the discourses of liberalism and human rights and those that draw from reli-
gious and historical narratives and analogies. Such tensions will be explored in
greater detail in Chapters 4 and 5 through an examination of the repertoires
of community organizing.

Threshold
This is not the place to rehearse all the “rules” that Alinsky himself spelled
out in his own writing. However, there are a number of salutary lessons that
the origins of community organizing suggest for its future prospects. For in
the formation of the practice we see displayed a number of temptations that
constantly present themselves to organizing efforts and which have at times
overwhelmed some IAF and other Alinsky-style initiatives.
First, organizing grew out of neighborhood organizing, and Alinsky judged
place so important that he even included it in the name of the organization
he founded: the Industrial Areas Foundation. There is a temptation to ignore
the neighborhood and the city amid the clamor for regionally, nationally, or
globally “effective” action. A consistent critique of all community organizing
efforts is that they operate at the wrong scale to have any effective power: irst
it was said they were too focused on the neighborhood and ignored the city-
wide scale, then it was argued that they ignored the national scale, and now
contemporary critics say organizing efforts lack a suficiently global scale to
be effective. Yet if the people are the program, then one can only really listen
to people and build relationships between them within particular places and
the “natural area” in which they connect. Without suficient attention to place,
organizing ceases to be a relational politics; in fact, it ceases to be politics at
all in the sense that Arendt, Crick, and Wolin deine the term, and becomes
just another form of proceduralism. The challenge for community organizing
now is addressing how to maintain a place-based, relational politics that is at
the same time attentive to the dynamics of globalization. This challenge will be
addressed in Chapters 2 and 3.
Second, if urban ethnography emphasizes the importance of listening to and
observing the people and places to be organized in systematic, in-depth, and
disciplined ways, then the temptation is not to listen and really pay attention,
but to engage instead in a shallow or rushed analysis of the social, political,
and economic context. The mechanics of how to listen, develop an analysis,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:26:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.003
 56 Resurrecting Democracy

and thence forge public action appropriate to the context is examined in

Chapters 4 and 5.
Third, over and above acting according to some predetermined program or
agenda that claims to know better what people really need, there is the tempta-
tion to instrumentalize the people and institutions being organized, rendering
them campaign fodder even while working within their experience. Here the
problem is not giving enough attention to building relationships and honoring
familial, religious, and other social obligations by turning everything into an
opportunity for action. Organizing grew out of traditions such as Judaism, the
labor movement, and Roman Catholicism that built institutions to support
cooperative enterprises, mutual responsibility, and committed, faithful rela-
tionships as exempliied in the family. Nurturing and sustaining these relation-
ships requires virtue and moral vision. However good its intentions, a politics
without such piety is pitiless and impoverished. Conversely, piety without any
politics is pitiful, as it has no means to challenge, protect, and pursue the very
relationships it loves and values most in the face of their erosion and co-option
by the market and the state. Chapters 6 and 7 examine the thesis that organiz-
ing efforts that fail to pay heed to the health of the moral vision, virtue, and
associational life of its people and its organizers will leave untended not only
the basis of its political vision, but also the basis of its ability to make rational
political judgments.
Fourth, in Judaism and the early labor movement there was an emphasis on
self-organization and not turning to the state as either the bearer of a moral
vision or the irst port of call to resolve problems or provide for needs. This was
an insight the labor movement lost as it turned to the state and the national
arena as the proper domain of political action and welfare provision. There is
a constant temptation in organizing to go the same way and render itself unto
Caesar irst rather than encourage its constituent members to take direct respon-
sibility for matters themselves and only turn to the state where it is necessary
and appropriate. The implications of this insight will be explored in Chapter 8.
As should be clear, Alinsky’s approach emerged as primarily an urban prac-
tice of politics. Yet, as the link to Populism suggests, its historical roots lie in
forms of political action irst developed among agrarian radicals of the nine-
teenth century. And early civil rights organizers such as Septima Clark and Ella
Baker developed a parallel approach to Alinsky in the largely rural southern
states. Moreover, those mentored by Alinsky adapted his approach to a vari-
ety of nonurban and non-Western settings. Therefore, community organizing
is not an exclusively urban or Western phenomenon. However, it was within
urban conditions that the kinds of processes to which community organizing
is a response are felt most intensely and displayed most acutely. In Chapters 2
and 3 we turn from Chicago to London to discern how the practice of orga-
nizing that Alinsky crystallized has evolved and been developed to address the
dynamics of globalization as they manifest themselves in a world city.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:26:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.003
 2

Faith and Citizenship in a World City

To see how Alinsky’s legacy traveled and developed historically and

geographically, we move from North America to Europe and, more speciically,
to the context and work of London Citizens. The aim of this chapter and of
Chapter 3 is to immerse the reader in one speciic context – London – and some
of the ways in which organizing was adapted to address the demands of work-
ing in that context. The chapters provide a backdrop and point of reference for
the detailed description and analysis of how to organize, which is set out in
Chapters 4 and 5, and the subsequent examination of the relationship between
faith, citizenship, and the politics of a common life in the rest of the book.
We begin by picking up where we left off in the Introduction: the events
taking place on November 25, 2009. The central igure of the press conference
held at the coffee shop on Brushield Street was Rabbi Natan Asmoucha. Rabbi
Asmoucha’s story is important because within it two worlds collided: the one
represented by those gathered in the coffee shop and the other by those seated
in the plush ofices of Allen & Overy. Rabbi Asmoucha had hosted a gathering
at the Bevis Marks synagogue on July 22, 2009. The Bevis Marks synagogue
is Britain’s oldest synagogue and centrally located in the City of London. This
event marked the beginning of the process that eventually resulted in the pro-
posals that were to be set out at the Barbican assembly. Given the history of the
link between usury and anti-Semitism in Europe, it was felt to be symbolically
crucial by London Citizens not only to involve the Jewish community from
the outset (despite no synagogue formally being a member at this point) but
also to launch any initiative from a synagogue so as to decouple the focus on
usury and responsible lending from any association with anti-Semitism.1 The
initiating event involved Christians, Muslims, and Jews, as well as representa-
tives from other members of London Citizens gathering at Bevis Marks before
marching together the short distance to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).
Once at the bank, they tried to present its chairman with a copy of the Torah,

57
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:27:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.004
 58 Resurrecting Democracy

Figure 2.1. Action outside Royal Bank of Scotland July 22, 2009. Rabbi Asmoucha
stands on the far left.

the Bible, and the Qur’an with passages highlighted in each text that discussed
the evils of usury (Figures 2.1 and 2.2).
RBS was targeted for the action because, as part of its rescue package, the
British government had purchased a majority share in the bank in October
2008 and subsequently increased its holding from 58 percent to 70 percent
in January 2009. While being dependent on public money, RBS was seen to
be charging exorbitant rates of interest on its credit card services. Despite
prior agreement with oficials from the bank that the Bible, Torah, and Qur’an
would simply be handed in at the reception desk, the delegation was refused
entry. This refusal was widely reported and commented on in the mainstream
media with the issue of usury coming up again and again. Subsequent to the
event, Rabbi Asmoucha was forced to resign from his position as rabbi at Bevis
Marks in October 2009.2 The stated reason given for his forcible resignation
was that he had compromised the security of the synagogue. The unstated rea-
son was widely known and much debated within the Jewish community itself.
As the BBC reported, “[A] senior synagogue member said the march had upset
members with links to the inancial services industry.”3
The Barbican event that evening opened with the following scenario to
explain who London Citizens was and what the event was about. After two

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:27:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.004
 Faith and Citizenship in a World City 59

Figure 2.2. Action outside Royal Bank of Scotland July 22, 2009.

female members from the Pentecostal New Testament Church of God sang
“Lean on Me,” followed by a performance by a street-dance troupe called
“Visionz,” Sister Una McLeash, a former head teacher of a Catholic girls’
school in East London and a trustee of London Citizens, introduced the panel
of chairs and sought approval from everyone in the room for the authority of
chairs to govern the assembly.4 This consisted of asking the 2,000 participants
(the total capacity of the Barbican) to say “Aye” and wave their programs
if they agreed. As Sister Una did this, ive religious leaders took to the stage
to sit, positioned like a panel of judges, at the center back of the platform
(Figure 2.3). These leaders came from non-Establishment traditions. They were
the Roman Catholic vicar-general of East London, the head of the Muslim
Council of Britain, the head of the Salvation Army, the senior rabbi of the
Masorti synagogues, and the leading bishop of the New Testament Church of
God (Figure 2.4).5 After Sister Una inished, two young black comedians and
children’s television presenters named Ashley J. and Tee-J bounded to the front
of the stage to provide a prologue to the proceedings.
Tee-J started by asking who was holding the assembly and how the propos-
als being put forward that evening had been developed. The response, which
had been agreed on and edited with other organizers and leaders at a Sunday
evening rehearsal three days previously, was that those gathered were 2,000

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:27:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.004
 60 Resurrecting Democracy

Figure 2.3. Assembly at the Barbican theatre November 25, 2009.

people representing London Citizens – a group comprised of more than 150

institutions, which represented some 50,000 people across London. The insti-
tutions were made up of schools, synagogues, churches, mosques, trade unions,
university departments, and other civil-society institutions spread through-
out London. The key sentiment expressed was that “we are people who take
responsibility for ourselves, for our families and for the communities where we
live. And we expect others to do the same, whether they be our neighbours,
whether they be bankers, or whether they be politicians.”
Tee-J then went on to ask: “So what is London Citizens’ response to the
economic crisis?” It was explained that London Citizens had been working
with low-paid workers from across the capital for about ten years on the issue
of getting them increased wages. From that experience it was decided to spend
time learning what the impact of the recession was on the people in the mem-
ber institutions and the places where they lived and worked.6
Prompted by Tee-J, Ashley responded to the explanation by saying: “Basically
everyone here tonight is coming together and they have put their trust back in
a democracy: getting people to come together and decide what they want to
happen and creating a proposal and putting that towards the people who have
the power to change these things.” As will be seen, the reality of how the pro-
posals came together was a less linear and more multilateral process than the
one depicted at the assembly. However, Ashley’s summation was accurate: the
gathering was testimony to a renewed trust in democracy as a way of gaining
some power to determine what was happening to the inhabitants of London.
The proposals set out at that assembly provide a window to many of the
economic challenges participants in the work of London Citizens face on a
daily basis and the responses seen to be necessary in order to address them

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:27:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.004
 Faith and Citizenship in a World City 61

constructively. The proposals set out at that assembly were also ones they hoped
would make sense to the bankers and politicians they had cajoled and agitated
into attending that evening. The irst proposal was the adoption and promo-
tion of the “Living Wage” as a commitment by all the major political parties
in recognition that indebtedness among working families is often caused by
poor pay. The Living Wage is an hourly payment over and above the statutory
minimum wage; it is paid voluntarily by companies and designed to relect the
real cost of living when housing and transport costs are factored in. The sec-
ond proposal was the curbing of usury through the introduction of a 20 per-
cent cap on interest rates on unsecured personal loans by inancial institutions
(e.g., credit card companies, store cards, doorstep lending agencies). The mea-
sure would bring the United Kingdom in line with Germany, France, Italy, and
Poland, each of which, at that time, had a 20–25 percent cap on the rate of
interest that could be charged on unsecured personal loans. The third proposal
was the expansion of local, mutual lending (e.g., credit unions) through infra-
structural investment by banks and government to increase access to credit
for the inancially excluded. The fourth proposal was the development of a
London Citizens’ inancial literacy project in partnership with the banks for
use in schools and colleges – one in which what it means to be both a respon-
sible borrower and a responsible lender is outlined. London Citizens’ member
schools would pilot this. Last, there was a call on all political parties to com-
mit in their election manifestos to establish a statutory charter of responsible
lending overseen by an established regulatory body. The charter would include
measures such as a requirement for debt management plans, transparency of
charges, and criteria for responsible marketing.
At the heart of the proposals was a call to restore responsibility to both
borrowing and lending and to demand greater accountability from inancial
institutions. Hence the ive proposals: (1) the Living Wage was seen as the best
insurance against the working poor being forced into debt to make ends meet;
(2) the cap on interest rates safeguards against the borrower being caught
in a debt trap; (3) the recapitalization of local, mutual lending ensures that
responsible, community-based forms of credit are available, thus breaking the
monopoly of the banks on the one hand and the power of the loan sharks on
the other; (4) inancial literacy enables people to be more aware of the mecha-
nisms of credit and the consequences of debt and to take responsibility for
managing their money; and (5) a statutory code for fairer lending binds the
inancial services industry to greater accountability and transparency.
That morning, above the street, in the air-conditioned suite at Allen & Overy,
the panel of bankers were asked a question about whether there was a need
for the reintroduction of anti-usury legislation to curb the exorbitant rates of
interest being charged on credit cards and other inancial products. None of the
panelists supported such a measure, and Lord Levene in his response asserted
that usury was a “deliberately pejorative term” meant to imply that those who
worked in the city were “rogues and vagabonds.” A little while later at the

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:27:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.004
 62 Resurrecting Democracy

coffee shop press conference, Rabbi Asmoucha told a Bloomberg journalist:

“Usury is, I think, a proper term to use. Money is a tool to empower people,
to create material prosperity that is for all people, as opposed to impoverishing
people and making them completely dependent.”7
Dependency on the banks and a need to rebalance the relationship between
the power of money and the power of people was the central focus of the
Barbican event on the evening of November 25. However, the concerns of
London Citizens were not ones shared by Lord Levene. In his speech that
morning he expressed how, in his view, the banks should be lauded for their
philanthropy and for the positive impact of capitalism in lifting millions of
people out of poverty (for which he cited the then Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks,
as an authority), and how the emphasis needed to be on reinforcing personal
moral values among those who worked in banks, not on regulation and struc-
tural reform. Yet, Lord Levene did think there was need for greater responsi-
bility, stating:
Now is the time when we need to re-examine the great Victorian philanthropists and
what they can teach us in this so-called post-religious age. They made huge proits but
they considered a lot more than their bottom line. They managed to make money but
stay true to often narrow religious dogmas. Now I would neither expect nor advocate
a return of religion to the work place but what I think what we must learn from the
Victorians is to rediscover a sense of responsibility. A strong ethical sense inspires and
creates a sense of responsibility and the board members of a modern public company,
regardless of their religious or moral beliefs, need to act responsibly to consider the
consequences of the steps they take.8

In his emphasis on responsibility there appears to be a point of connection

with the London Citizens event, which was itself entitled: “Taking responsi-
bility in the economic crisis.” But while the responsibility envisaged by Lord
Levene is corporate, it is also utilitarian, self-referential, unmoored from any
explicit moral tradition, and dislocated from and unaccountable to anyone
or any place beyond those who make up the board of directors. In short, it
encapsulates a vision for self-governance and self-regulation rather than public
and transparent accountability. By contrast, the need to take responsibility spo-
ken of at the London Citizens’ assembly emphasized the mutual responsibility
between banks and ordinary people in a particular place (namely, London) to
ensure both personal responsibility in borrowing and fairness in lending. The
link between the moral vision shaping the proposals, the proposals themselves,
and practices of accountability were explicitly tethered to a “narrow religious
dogma”: a belief that usury (the charging of exorbitant interest) was a sin.
At the Barbican assembly, Nehemiah 5:1–13 was read aloud by Christian,
Jewish, and Islamic leaders as a prelude to the cross-questioning of a senior
representative of the City of London Corporation (Figure 2.4).9
In the Biblical passage, the leader of the people, Nehemiah, gathers an assem-
bly in order to call on the elites of Jerusalem to repent from forcing their poorer
neighbors into debt slavery. The reading dramatized the moral and political

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:27:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.004
 Faith and Citizenship in a World City 63

Figure 2.4. The reading of Nehemiah 5:1–13 at the Barbican assembly November 25
2009.

conlict between the inancial elites and institutions located in the City of London
and their neighbors living in the boroughs around them. To understand the sig-
niicance and historical backdrop to this conlict, we must better understand the
history and nature of the City of London as a place and a polity.

The City of London and the Power of Money

A “unique authority” governs the City of London as a place: the City of
London Corporation.10 The Corporation combines a role as the local munic-
ipal authority of the “Square Mile” with a national and global role as a lob-
byist for “the City,” which, as their website proclaims, is “the world leader in
international inance and business services.”11 The City of London as a place
must be distinguished from the metropolitan area of Greater London, which
has its own mayor and municipal authority – the Greater London Authority
(Figure 2.5). As the City of London website notes of its mayor, “The Lord
Mayor in particular plays an important diplomatic role with his overseas visits
and functions at the historic Guildhall and Mansion House for visiting heads
of State.”12 At a meeting leading up to the November 25 assembly between
leaders and organizers from London Citizens and the then Lord Mayor of
London, Ian Luder, the Lord Mayor declared he spent most of his time meeting
heads of state and representing the interests of the inancial services industry
around the world.13 He was not boasting. In 2010 the Lord Mayor visited

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 15 Nov 2017 at 06:27:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343442.004