University of Michigan Press Blog

'Windward Shore' author Jerry Dennis on Minnesota Public Radio

Acclaimed Great Lakes author Jerry Dennis recently appeared on Minnesota Public Radio to discuss his new book, The Windward Shore: A Winter on the Great Lakes (University of Michigan Press, 2011) and his abiding interest in the region. Joined by fellow nature writer Darby Nelson, Dennis spoke on his appreciation for Thoreau, the roots of his own writing, the improbable hoax of whales in Lake Michigan, and more.

"I have always been fascinated with the contradictions in human nature when it comes to nature," Dennis said on the Midday program. "As I've spent twenty-some years studying the Great Lakes and writing about them, I've seen them as a very good example of that. This is a place we love, yet we dump our sewage overflow into it. Our industrial waste for many, many years was dumped into them. We still dump billions of gallons of agricultural waste--inadvertantly in most cases, but it still ends up there. Every time we have a major thunderstorm, huge amounts of water flood our sewage treatment plants, millions and sometimes billions of gallons of untreated sewage go into our lakes. I wanted to understand this better, as well, and thought, what is our relationship with nature and why is it so central to our existence and our experience as human beings? And why are we short sighted? Why do we not take a more active role in protecting these places that we claim to love?"

Listen to the entire broadcast online at Minnesota Public Radio. Jerry Dennis's The Windward Shore is available now.

Q&A with Ruth A. Miller, author of 'Seven Stories of Threatening Speech'

In her new book Seven Stories of Threatening Speech: Women's Suffrage Meets Machine Code, Professor Ruth A. Miller examines the functions and implications of speech divorced from any human speaker, as well as from any ideological content it might contain.

University of Michigan Press: First, Ruth, what does it mean for speech to be “threatening,” aside from a specific verbal threat against another person?

There are three ways to approach this question.  The first is to think about what sort of speech, historically, has been criminalized or denied protection.  Even in the United States, where free speech is often characterized as the fundamental right, a person can be convicted of treason solely because of speech.  In other national and transnational contexts, hate speech is similarly illegal.  Both of these are instances of speech itself, regardless of context, speaker, or audience, defined as a materially criminal act against a particular legal or political order. 

A second, and related, way to approach this question is from the direction of classical discourse analysis.  Here, speech is threatening if it contributes to a discursive field in which a particular, and particularly oppressive, mode of embodied subjectivity becomes the norm.  Hate speech, then, becomes threatening not because it undermines a legal ideal—say, political equality—but because it produces or re-produces violent modes of existence.

Both of these interpretations of threatening speech recognize the material or physical quality of language.  Each assumes speech to be an act in and of itself.  Each also limits speech to the human sphere, and thereby misses an aspect of threatening speech that Seven Stories tries to highlight.  Namely, a third way to describe speech, or speech acts, as dangerous is to discuss the work of language not on political or biological bodies (or political or biological bodies alone) but on systems and environments.  Indeed, one of the running themes of the book is that as much as historical writing on or about threatening speech may have been concerned with sovereignty or subjectivity, it has been equally concerned with systems and environments.  We just have to expand our definition of “materiality” to recognize this interest.

Q&A with Ole Bjerg, author of 'Poker: The Parody of Capitalism'

The popularity of poker is on the rise not just in the United States but throughout the world. A number of guides and strategies have been published to help players navigate the complexities of the game, but there are few studies of how poker functions as a game and its meaning both to players and the broader culture. Ole Bjerg's new book, Poker: The Parody of Capitalism represents an intriguing new scholarly perspective on poker, capitlalism, and the surprising ways one relates to the other. Bjerg is a sociologist and associate professor at the Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy at Copenhagen Business School, and we spoke with him briefly about Poker, available now from the University of Michigan Press

University of Michigan Press: To begin with, I’m hoping you can talk a little about how poker functions as a “parody” of capitalism. Briefly, what do you mean by this?

Ole Bjerg: The notion of parody is a concept that I have found in Baudrillard. The idea is that games in general and poker in particular seem to simulate features of the ordinary or "serious" non-game world. I demonstrate that the way money circulates in No-Limit Texas Hold'Em, which is currently the most popular form of poker, is comparable to the way that money circulates in contemporary financial capitalism. However, the difference between capitalism and poker is that the former comes with a whole ideological system of explanation and justification while the latter makes no attempt to justify itself. Poker does not pretend to be fair, efficient, or productive. It just is. This means that the parody shows us the mechanisms of the system but without the ideological superstructure.

Your book considers poker as an expression of culture, along the lines of art and literature. What does poker tell us about the people who play it and the cultures to which they belong?

My research has shown that different people have very different reasons for playing poker. This is one of the faschinating features of the game.

It enables people to play with very different emotional investments.

Some play just for amusement. Some play because the dream of being professionals. Some are professionals. Some play because they are compulsive gamblers. And even the ones that are compulsive gamblers have different attachments to the game. However, if there is one thing that all players have in common, I think it is the sensation that there is something in poker which transcends the ordinary life outside of poker.

People who do not play poker themselves often tend to think that poker players play to win money. This is much too simple. People play poker to play poker. One of my favorite quotes from the reservoir of poker folklore is by Nick "the Greek" Dandalos: "The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing." I think that sums up beautifully what poker is about.

Continuing the analogy, can there be a “great work” of poker, which I would think would amount to an extraordinarily well-played hand?

Yes, certainly. "Great works of poker" come into being precisely at those moments when the game seems to transcend life itself. Poker provides the player with the opportunity to test and display character.

Great works of poker come into being when the player has the courage and wit to become one with the game in a way that makes it seem as if the game itself is on his side. Similar moments may happen in music when the musician becomes one with the music.

New York Times calls Karlawish's historical novel "marvelous"

The New York Times reviewed Dr. Jason Karlawish's historical novel Open Wound: The Tragic Obsession of Dr. William Beaumont, praising its precise treatment of the doctor/patient relationship--in particular, the unique doctor/patient relationship that existed between frontier physicial Dr. William Beaumont and gut-shot trapper Alexis St. Martin in the early 19th century.

Setting the unusual circumstances of Beaumont's care in the context of more familiar terms--and suggesting that, despite radical advancements in the fields of medicine, some things never change--the Times said:

The relationship between doctor and patient is hard enough to parse when both are in the same room. When one opts out, it becomes even harder. And of the gallons of ink spilled over the centuries in attempts at clarification, few efforts in recent memory lay out the frustrations and confusions and crystalline moments of grace better than Dr. Jason Karlawish’s marvelous new book “Open Wound[.]”

Karlawish also dicussed his book on the Times' Science Times podcast -- listen here in your browser or click here to download in iTunes. His segment begins at 9:34.

In 1822, St. Martin came under Beaumont's care when an accidental gunshot left St. Martin with a hole in his abdomen. Though St. Martin recovered, the wound never fully healed, giving Beaumont the (ethically dubious) opportunity to observe the human digestive system at work. St. Martin, unsurprisingly, was not always entirely pleased with this arrangement.

Karlawish's Open Wound, bringing the conflicts, responsibilities, and interdependencies between Beaumont and St. Martin to life, is available now from the University of Michigan Press.

Tamara Piety Discusses Implications of First Amendment on Pharmaceutical "Speech"

Tamara Piety, author of the forthcoming University of Michigan Press title Brandishing the First Amendment: Commercial Expression in America, recently spoke with the Pharmalot blog on the implications of expanding First Amendment protections to corporate marketing speech, specifically as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry. At the heart of the discussion is a Supreme Court decision striking down a Vermont law that restricted data mining--in this case, records of which doctors prescribe which medicines--for marketing purposes.

Piety explained that "the data mining and pharmaceutical companies argued that Vermont’s singling out of marketing for different treatment than say, research or law enforcement was discriminatory," a tactic that serves to "leverage the language of civil rights and political speech to suggest that somehow the regulation of marketing is discriminatory." She went on to say that, even in the doctrines establishing protections for commercial speech in the mid-1970s, marketing speech was considered under a different set of standards due to the inherent financial incentive in such speech. While these standards are nominally in effect today, this and other recent court decisions have gone a long way toward eroding the boundaries that separate marketing from other speech under the First Amendment.

"For most of our history, we have thought it appropriate to regulate marketing and to treat commercial speech differently than expressive or political speech," Piety said. "This ruling suggests it’s not appropriate to make that distinction."

Brandishing the First Amendment will be published in February 2012.

"When Protest Makes Policy" Author Speaks with Time Magazine on Occupy Wall Street

As Occupy Wall Street nears the end of its second month and the future of encampments across the country becomes an increasingly pressing question, Time magazine spoke with When Protest Makes Policy author S. Laurel Weldon for her perspective on what has become an international movement. In the article, Weldon suggested that the two most likely outcomes for any large protest movement are victory or a gradual fading.

“Protests are successful when they generate attention or influence the political agenda,” Weldon says as the movement has already spread across over 70 U.S. cities. “Occupy Wall Street protesters want attention to an issue, not policy. Their power lies in their ability to talk about a solution, forcing elected officials, political candidates and business leaders to respond to the protesters.”

When Protest Makes Policy was released in February 2011, before the events of Occupy Wall Street and during the early days of the Arab Spring. Yet the massive protest movements all over the world this year have made her book especially timely, with its stufy of role and efficacy of social protest groups for disadvantaged groups.

UM Press author declared not guilty of trespass charges from 2010 event

University of Michigan Press author and activist/performance artist Reverend Billy Talen was found not guilty of Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree on Thursday, October 20th.

Talen and The Stop Shopping Choir, directed by Savitri D, entered the lobby of the UBS Bank in midtown Manhattan on Black Friday 2010 dressed as angels. Savitri D, Bill Talen and editor Alisa Solomon are the authors of The Reverend Billy Project: From Rehearsal Hall to Super Mall with the Church of Life After Shopping.

Shortly after singing songs that highlighted the bank’s corrupt financial interest in coal extraction organizations using mountaintop removal, Talen was arrested, charged, and faced up to three months in jail.

UM Press author Diana Beresford-Kroeger chosen as a 2011 'Utne Reader' Visionary

Utne Reader has selected University of Michigan Press author Diana Beresford-Kroeger for its annual list of "visionaries."

"Each year Utne Reader' puts forward its selection of world visionaries—people who don’t just concoct great ideas but also act on them," judges wrote.

Diana Beresford-Kroeger, author of Arboretum Borealis and Arboretum America, is one of those visionaries for 2011, the magazine said. In an article highlighting her passion for nature, Beresford-Kroeger's dedication and heart exudes as she declares her plans to further improve the earth one tree at a time.

Read more at: "Diana Beresford-Kroeger: Tree Walker."

Q&A with Ole R. Holsti, author of American Public Opinion on the Iraq War

Last week, President Obama announced that nearly all American troops would return from Iraq before the end of 2011; if this withdrawal takes place as planned, it would effectively end a war that has sharply divided public opinion since 2003. American Public Opinion on the Iraq War, then, is especially timely, giving context to the public relations campaigns and partisan conflicts that helped shape how America viewed the conflict. The author, Ole R. Holsti, is George V. Allen Professor of Political Science (Emeritus) at Duke University. He is a recipient of the International Society of Political Psychology's Nevitt Sanford Award for distinguished professional contributions to political psychology as well as distinguished lifetime achievement awards from the ISPP and the American Political Science Association. His previous titles with University of Michigan Press are To See Ourselves as Others See Us: How Publics Abroad View the United States after 9/11 (2008) and Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (revised edition, 2004).

American Public Opinion on the Iraq War is available now

The University of Michigan Press: After your introduction, you begin the book with an overview of America's history with Iraq. You paint a thorough picture in the book itself, but, more briefly, how did the unique dynamic between the two countries develop?

Ole R. Holsti: Viscount Palmerston, a 19^th century British Prime Minister, once declared, “We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies.”  The dynamics of relations between Washington and Baghdad provide ample support for that dictum: lack of diplomatic relations, a quasi-alliance, and two wars.

More specifically, Iraq broke relations with the U.S. following the Yom Kippur War and Washington listed Iraq as supporter of terrorism.  After Iraq’s invasion of Iran--by now a fundamentalist Islamic regime--the Reagan administration took a number of steps to restore relations with Baghdad.  By removing Iraq from the terrorist list, it permitted the sale of “dual use” equipment to that country, including chemicals that were used in warfare against Iran and Iraq’s own Kurdish population.  Combined with the military intelligence provided to Baghdad, Iraq was able to avoid defeat by its larger and more populous neighbor.

In 1990 the Saddam Hussein regime invaded Kuwait, perhaps assuming that the U.S. would turn a blind eye to the aggression.  In fact the George H.W. Bush administration demanded an immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces and, when Iraq failed to do so, it took the issue to the U.N. Security Council.  Supported by a series of S.C. resolutions, the U.S. led an impressive coalition of 34 countries, including many Islamic regimes, that invaded Iraq and forced the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.  Not wanting to control Iraq, President Bush ordered the invading forces to stop short of Baghdad.  Saddam Hussein later recognized Kuwait’s independence, but Iraq fell short of complying with demands that inspectors be allowed to determine if it was in compliance with postwar prohibitions against weapons of mass destruction.

When the George W. Bush administration came to office in 2001, it was committed to dealing with Iraq and what it assumed was Iraq’s possession of WMDs.  The September 11 terrorist attacks, which most top administration officials assumed were linked to Baghdad, put Iraq at the top of the Washington’s foreign policy agenda.  An invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. Special Forces expelled the Taliban regime from Kabul and were shortly thereafter withdrawn to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.

U.S. forces, aided by those from the UK, invaded Iraq in 2003.  The stated rationale was to remove a regime that possessed WMDs and had links to the al Qaeda terrorists who had conducted the 9/11 attacks.  Two expert teams of American inspectors who had been allowed into Iraq had been unable to find any WMDs, but President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed that the invasion would nevertheless take place.

The invading forces captured Baghdad in less that three weeks, but the following years saw a near civil-war in Iraq that resulted in almost 4,500 U.S. military deaths.  At the end of 2008 the outgoing Bush administration signed an agreement with Iraq’s al-Maliki regime, subsequently approved by the Obama administration, that would result in the withdrawal of American forces by the end of 2011.  A plan to leave a small contingent of U.S. forces in Iraq past 2011 is, at this writing, very much in doubt as the al-Maliki government has stated that those forces would not be granted immunity.

Sleeping Bear Dunes named America's 'most beautiful place;' UM Press author responds

George Weeks is author of Sleeping Bear: Yesterday and Today. He writes:

A national Web site survey by ABC-TV’s Good Morning America show recently declared Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore the “Most Beautiful Place in America.” Its nearly 100,000 votes edged out Cape Cod in Massachusetts and other places in California, Colorado, Arizona and elsewhere.

The story was later picked up by the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News. National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said, “It’s great that a park… a little off the beaten track in northern Michigan, is being recognized for its exceptional beauty.”

Beyond the sweeping views of the dunes and Lake Michigan, much of the exceptional beauty of today stems from cultural attractions of yesterday. They include towering lighthouses, the Sleeping Bear Point Coast Guard Station Maritime Museum, designated shipwreck sites of Sleeping Bear and the Manitou Passage from the early Great Lakes maritime era, and the Glen Haven Historic Village that is on the National Register of Historic Places as a turn-of-the century company lumbering town by being perhaps the best preserved example of a frontier wooding station and steamboat stop on the Great Lakes—certainly on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan.

In his preface to my book Sleeping Bear: Yesterday and Today, 1989-93 National Park Service Director James Ridenour said, “Sleeping Bear Dunes is truly one of the jewels of the National Park System.”

It’s a jewel for the natural beauty of today and for the attractions of yesterday.