Mid-November Links

November 11, 2023

The Novem­ber Quak­ers Today pod­cast dropped this week, ask­ing How do you process mem­o­ries, expe­ri­ences and feel­ings? It includes inter­views with Rashid Dar­d­en and Vic­ki Winslow and looks at the Quak­er influ­ences of Vir­ginia Woolf.

This web­page will dutchi­fy any location’s Google Street View, slim­ming lanes and adding green­ery and bike paths. Yes, this every­where please. Via Kot­tke.

When testimonies come drifting in

March 16, 2019

Steven Davi­son asked what the tes­ti­mo­ny of com­mu­ni­ty even meant or whether it was spelt out any­where. No one could answer but no ine want­ed to omit it.

I sus­pect a process may be at work sim­i­lar to the one that has made “that of God in every­one” the puta­tive foun­da­tion of all our tes­ti­monies: an unself­con­scious thought-drift in a cul­ture increas­ing­ly impa­tient with intellectual/theological rig­or, or even atten­tion of any seri­ous kind, not to men­tion care for the tes­ti­mo­ny of integri­ty. These ideas arise some­how, some­where, and then get picked up and dis­sem­i­nat­ed because they sound nice, they meet some need, and they don’t demand much. They appar­ent­ly don’t require dis­cern­ment, anyway. 

The “Tes­ti­mo­ny of Community”

A small break

December 13, 2018

My apolo­gies for the radio silence on this so-called dai­ly site. A fam­i­ly vaca­tion took my atten­tion away from most things Quak­er and get­ting caught up on back work is keep­ing it away a few days. I should be up to speed by the weekend.

Dur­ing that time the domain reg­is­tra­tion for Quak­erQuak­er turned due. I must have missed the del­uge of email that its domain reg­is­trar usu­al­ly sends. I’ve paid the domain bill for anoth­er two years and it should be back up for everyone.

Origins of the Check-In (Quakers)

October 31, 2018

Over on Medi­um, con­sul­tant Jim Ral­ley looks to Quak­ers for the ori­gins of the facil­i­ta­tor’s check-in:

The ‘check-in’ is a fun­da­men­tal ele­ment in the reper­toire of a facil­i­ta­tor. There’s no bet­ter way to start a ses­sion and get every­one present, and there’s no faster way to dis­cov­er what’s going on under the sur­face of a group. It’s such a sim­ple an effec­tive process tool that I fig­ured it must have a rich and well-documented his­to­ry. But it’s proved quite tricky to research, part­ly because its name is shared with the hotel and air­line indus­tries, but part­ly also, I sus­pect, because of its simplicity.

Where to start? With such a basic human process, the line through his­to­ry will sure­ly be tan­gled and con­fused. But, for the sake of start­ing some­where, I’ll start with the Quakers. 

I’ve left a com­ment on the post with miss­ing links. I’ll leave a ver­sion of it here. Reg­u­lar read­ers will pre­dict that I’ll start with Rachel Davis DuBois, the New Jersey-born Friend who put togeth­er racial rec­on­cil­i­a­tion groups in the mid-20th cen­tu­ry. She lat­er turned some of the process into “Dia­logue Groups” in the mid-1960s and trav­eled the U.S. teach­ing them; these evolved into mod­ern Quak­er wor­ship shar­ing and clear­ness com­mit­tees.

Those late-60s process­es were picked up by the younger Friends, who (no sur­prise) were also into anti­war activism and com­mu­ni­tar­i­an pol­i­tics. They were cod­i­fied and sec­u­lar­ized by the Move­ment for a New Soci­ety, which start­ed in Philadel­phia in the ear­ly 70s but had com­mu­ni­ties all over the West­ern world. Much of their work was focused on train­ing peo­ple in their style of group process and a lot of our facil­i­ta­tor tools these days are dis­sem­i­nat­ed MNS tools. Many MNS’ers were involved with Quak­ers and many more fil­tered back into the Reli­gious Soci­ety of Friends in lat­er years.

A lot of this rel­a­tive­ly recent his­to­ry has been for­got­ten. Many Quak­ers will tell you these things all date from the very start of the Friends move­ment. There’s def­i­nite­ly through-lines and echos and inspi­ra­tions through our his­to­ry but I’d love to see us appre­ci­ate Rachel Davis DuBois and the peo­ple who made some very use­ful adap­ta­tions that have helped Quak­ers con­tin­ue to evolve and (almost) thrive.

Facebook superposters and the loss of our own narrative

August 26, 2018

In the NYTimes, a fas­ci­nat­ing piece on fil­ter bub­bles and the abil­i­ty of Face­book “super­posters” to dom­i­nate feeds, dis­tort real­i­ty, and pro­mote para­noia and violence.

Super­posters tend to be “more opin­ion­at­ed, more extreme, more engaged, more every­thing,” said Andrew Guess, a Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty social sci­en­tist. When more casu­al users open Face­book, often what they see is a world shaped by super­posters like Mr. Wasser­man. Their exag­ger­at­ed world­views play well on the algo­rithm, allow­ing them to col­lec­tive­ly — and often unknow­ing­ly — dom­i­nate news­feeds. “That’s some­thing spe­cial about Face­book,” Dr. Paluck said. “If you end up get­ting a lot of time on the feed, you are influ­en­tial. It’s a dif­fer­ence with real life.”

A great many general-interest Face­book groups that I see are dom­i­nat­ed by troll­ish peo­ple whose vis­i­bil­i­ty relies on how provoca­tive they can get with­out being banned. This is true in many Quaker-focused groups. Face­book pri­or­i­tizes engage­ment and noth­ing seems to get our fin­gers mad­ly tap­ping more than provo­ca­tion by some­one half-informed.

For­mal mem­ber­ship in a Quak­er meet­ing is a con­sid­ered process; for many Quak­er groups, pub­lic min­istry is also a delib­er­at­ed process, with clear­ness com­mit­tees, anchor com­mit­tees, etc. On Face­book, mem­ber­ship con­sists of click­ing a like but­ton; pub­lic min­istry, aka vis­i­bil­i­ty, is a mat­ter of hav­ing a lot of time to post com­ments. Pub­lic groups with min­i­mal mod­er­a­tion which run on Face­book’s engagement-inducing algo­rithms are the pub­lic face of Friends these days, far more vis­i­ble than any pub­li­ca­tion or rec­og­nized Quak­er body’s Face­book pres­ence. I writ­ten before of my long-term wor­ry that with the rise of social media gate­keep­ing sites, we’re not the ones writ­ing our sto­ry anymore.

I don’t have any answers. But the NYTimes piece helped give me some use­ful ways of think­ing about these phenomena.

YouTube star Jessica Kellgren-Fozard on her Quakerism

July 20, 2018

Jes­si­ca Kellgren-Fozard is a dis­abled TV pre­sen­ter with 266,000+ fol­low­ers on YouTube. She’s also a life­long Friend from the UK. She’s just released a video in which she talks about her under­stand­ing of Quak­erism. It’s pret­ty good. She occa­sion­al­ly implies that some specif­i­cal­ly British pro­ce­dur­al process is intrin­sic to all Quak­ers but oth­er than that it all rings true, cer­tain­ly to her expe­ri­ence as a UK Friend.

I must admit that the world of YouTube stars is for­eign to me. This is essen­tial­ly a web­cam vlog post but the light­ing and hair and cos­tum­ing is metic­u­lous. Her notes include affil­i­ate links for the dress she’s wear­ing ($89 and yes, they ship inter­na­tion­al­ly), a 8 1/2 minute video tuto­r­i­al about curl­ing you hair in her vin­tage style (it has over 33,000 views). If you fol­low her on Insta­gram and Twit­ter you’ll soon have enough details on  lip­stick and shoe choic­es to be able to ful­ly cos­play her.

But don’t laugh too much, because in between the self pre­sen­ta­tion tips, Kellgren-Fozard tack­les real­ly hard sub­jects – grow­ing up gay in school, liv­ing with dis­abil­i­ties – in ways that are approach­able and inti­mate, fun­ny and instruc­tive. And with a quar­ter mil­lion YouTube fol­low­ers, she’s reach­ing peo­ple with a mes­sage of kind­ness and inclu­sion and under­stand­ing that feels pret­ty Quak­er­ly to me. Mar­garet Fell liked her­self a red dress some­times and it’s easy to argue George Fox would be a YouTu­ber today.

Bonus:  Jes­si­ca Kellgren-Fozard will host a live Q&A chat on her Quak­erism this com­ing Mon­day. If I’m cal­cu­lat­ing my time­zones cor­rect­ly, it’ll be noon here on the U.S. East Coast. I plan to tune in.

Syncretism and dilution

June 11, 2018

Bri­an Dray­ton looks at the effects of syn­cretism, dilu­tion, and cul­tur­al appro­pri­a­tion on the Quak­er movement.

At first blush, such a process might be cel­e­brat­ed as a process of enrich­ment: Quak­erism ver­sion 1 turns into Quak­erism v2, now new and bet­ter because it has bells or out­ward sacra­ments or what-have-you. But note that this kind of change is not just a mat­ter of sim­ple addi­tion, because ele­ments drawn from var­i­ous oth­er tra­di­tions are them­selves embed­ded deeply in some cul­ture, and so they are clothed round with mean­ings and nuances that are implic­it­ly adopt­ed along with the idea or prac­tice that has been explic­it­ly imported.

Love, judg­ment, and the “inner crit­ic”, pt. 2b: Syn­cretism, dilu­tion, and the draw­backs of cul­tur­al appropriation

The Rise of Liberal Quakerism

May 23, 2018

Steven Davi­son is nerd­ing deep into Quak­er his­to­ry, specif­i­cal­ly the process in which younger mem­bers of Britain Year­ly Meet­ing start­ed for­mu­lat­ing a new kind of Quak­erism. Here’s his explana­to­ry intro­duc­tion and here is part 2:

Mean­while, mem­ber­ship dropped pre­cip­i­tous­ly, as meet­ings applied dis­ci­pline increas­ing­ly rig­or­ous­ly for walk­ing dis­or­der­ly in all man­ner of ways. In 1859, a prize of one hun­dred pounds was offered by an anony­mous British Friend for the essay that best explained this decline and that offered the most promis­ing solutions

The process was any­thing but overnight. As I under­stand the his­to­ry it would be anoth­er half cen­tu­ry from the prize to a yearly-meeting-wide shift. I don’t think many Friends in Eng­land appre­ci­ate just how Evan­gel­i­cal their year­ly meet­ing has become in these years; their refusal to rec­og­nize Amer­i­can Hick­sites led to the lat­ter’s shun­ning from the world Quak­er fam­i­ly and meant mod­ernist Quak­er respons­es would evolve on large­ly sep­a­rate paths.

I won­der if British Friend William Pol­lard will make an appear­ance in Steven’s posts. I’ve been fas­ci­nat­ed how Philadel­phia Hick­sites took to him despite the for­mal insti­tu­tion­al bar­ri­ers. [Update: Steven just dropped part three and there’s Pol­lard!]

The Rise of Lib­er­al Quak­erism — Part 2