Beach Haven

His name is Clayton. He sells flowers on the sidewalk next to Union Station in Washington DC. He and I have been chit-chatting for nearly five years. I'm not special in this way. Clayton talks to many people. He knows many of us by name. He is a consummate salesman. Never pushy, his approach has gotten me to pickup up flowers for my wife randomly for a long time. I'd say he's in his mid-seventies.

He tells interesting stories. He also has a street-vendor call that reminds me of similar folks I first encountered in Spain many years ago. I added a quick recording of it below. 

Clayton is at his business regardless of the weather. When it's rainy he also sells umbrellas. Sometimes he adds socks, or gloves, or scarfs, or some other seasonal wares. About two years ago Clayton was not at his usual station. This went on for about two weeks. Another person filled in for him a couple of those days, but his cart generally sat empty. When he came back he shared with me that he had a heart attack. They put a stint in his heart and he was doing better. 

My wife sometimes makes a to do about me bringing home some flowers for her on occasion. I think Clayton is selling a little bit of joy. I enjoy chatting with him. He enjoys chatting with everybody and selling me a few flowers. Michelle enjoys me bringing them home to her. I enjoy seeing the happiness it brings her. So Clayton doesn't just make somebody happy. He makes everybody happy. Seems like it's worth the $5.

​For those of you who have some interest in history, I recently read an article about an early (mid-1800s) mechanical computer. It was envisioned by a fellow named Charles Babbage and was not based on binary, but rather decimal numbers. The first version, the Difference Engine, he was able to build in part and demonstrate. The later version was called the Analytical Engine. It could add, subtract, multiply, and divide. There are a bunch of YouTube videos on the ideas he had and one version of the machine that has been built, but the actual device was not constructed until about 130 years after he invented it. Some of his base ideas inspired later approaches into modern computers.
​

Over the week of July 4th last year Michelle and I visited our son Matthew in Italy. One of the cities we visited was Trieste. It is very close to Croatia. The area around Trieste is very beautiful. The water in the Adriatic Sea is crystal clear and a deep azure in color. 

This week I was thinking of our trip with Matthew. Each day we would venture out to visit a different city. A few days we hit more than one. We were on the go constantly with the help of our local tour guide, our son. It was lots of fun. We saw all sorts of castles, cathedrals, museums, cobble stone streets, and ocean views. That part of the trip was memorable, and we have the pictures, and the sore feet to remember it by. We did have three specific experiences that I think were the best. They involved getting to visit with some locals.

While in Padua, one of Matt’s friends who lives there joined us for a nice evening meal and stroll. Her name is Eleonora Russo, and she is working on a degree in education in Padua. It was refreshing to hang out with two young people and take in their enthusiasm for Italy and life.

Later in the week we had dinner in the home of another of Matt’s friends and her parents. Her name is Valentina Mazzoni, and she just completed a degree in education. I’m trying to remember the names of her parents. I think it was Eduardo and Anna. You can see how old I’m getting, in particular when it comes to remembering names. The dinner they treated us to in their home was terrific! When we got there it was raining like crazy. By the time we left the rain had passed and the evening was cool.

The other main interaction we had with locals was Sunday morning. Matt was nice enough to take us to the little branch of our church that was closest to his home. It is in the city of Treviso. He had planned on us touring the city anyway with its old walls and interesting streets. The town itself has multiple streams running through it that are channeled through some of the most picturesque scenes. In some places we saw actively used water wheels.

On the Sunday we visited there were about a dozen people in Sacrament. Three of the dozen were us. It was fast and testimony Sunday. I remember how those go in a small branch. After most had shared a few thoughts it looked like the Branch President would conclude the meeting early. So I brought Matthew to the front with me. The sister missionaries offered to translate, but I asked Matt to.

What I shared with them, and what I want to share with you, was my experience in small branches. My first church experience was in a small branch in Sunbury, PA. It was about a 45 minute drive from where we lived in Berwick, PA. Not long after we joined the church a new branch was formed in Berwick. We were about four families and a few single adults. I also attended several small branches as I served my mission in Spain. For example in Algeciras we met in a three bedroom apartment rented by the church. Our children also remember the seven years we lived in Leadville, CO where at times our family made up about 1/3 of the active branch members. Our youngest, Jacob and Emily, were born there.

Today we attend a ward of about 150 to 200 active members. What each of these congregations has in common, as I mentioned that day in Treviso, are humble people, doing their best to serve God and their neighbors. I could feel the same Spirit in that little branch in Italy as I have felt in the larger metropolitan wards we have attended in Salt Lake City, UT, San Diego, CA, Lincoln, NE, Atlanta, GA, and now near Washington DC. The number of members in a unit does not change the amount of the blessings that come from the presence of the Holy Ghost.

One note, I learned later that one of the sisters (not a missionary sister) was from Spain. I wish I’d have known that before we left so I could have chatted with her. One of the sister missionaries serving there came from Australia and the other from Virginia. She lives near Lynchburg, and was close to finishing her mission. I'm sure she has finished by now. Whether one serves in a large or small ward, or a tiny branch of the church, we are about the Lord’s errand. 
​

Bruno Latour and other proponents of Actor Network Theory (ANT) focus on interactions between and among actors (people) and actants (things) in a network intended to build knowledge. Emerging nodes and clusters, where interactivity is greatest, define where knowledge is extended. Thoughts of social context and varying goals in ANT are not considered important, or useful, in extending knowledge. Unfortunately, when difference is not examined some potential influences are missed, and knowledge is not extended everywhere, or as far as, it could.

In her article, Modernity's Misleading Dream: Latour, Sandra Harding points to a defined need within ANT to externalize social thought. She indicates that Latour does acknowledge a need to link the philosophies of science with political science to succeed with his three-step process translating power to the lab. This is true because political power is a source of influence that can help in growing the influence of the ‘important’ actors in the network, meaning scientists. Making the border between the laboratory and the world permeable enough to be able to extend the lab and incorporate the field-site is a critical step that requires some translation of political power.

Latour’s need for unity in purpose, a common world, blinds him to differences according to Harding. This matters in part because when there is a multiplicity of interests and beliefs, those interests spawn more criteria to help define success. Narrowing criteria may allow the definer of the criteria, the scientist, to claim success, while many others may see failure. This tension between definitions of success and failure risks future political support, or power, and ultimately weakens the scientific community, or at least the specific lab involved.

Barbara Allen’s example of the Holy Cross neighborhood in New Orleans post Hurricane Katrina is a stark example. She examines rebuilding efforts in her study Neighborhood as 'Green Laboratory'. The interests of organizations of the green industry translated their goals onto residents who out of desperation, or perhaps through manipulation, were willing to shift their goals of rebuilding their homes and community into the language of environmental goals. In mapping Latour’s ANT model onto the circumstances of the Holy Cross rebuild, Allen shows how the goal of rebuilding homes using green technology, though laudable, only represented half of the goals of the local residents.

Because success was defined in terms of homes built in the new way using green technology, community plans did not include economic infrastructure. This may, at least in part, explain why many homes continue vacant and not repaired. Other symptoms such as the reemergence of drug dealing, a lack of jobs, and no grocery stores in the district point to unintended consequences resultant from the narrowing of project goals too far. Turning a blind eye to some important social factors that were a part of the original community context helped to a certain point such as securing funds, materials and expertise, but an opportunity was lost to more significantly impact the community in positive way. In fact, some residents could argue they are worse off than before the project in that they now have a group of homes rather than a community like had existed before the hurricane.

The ability of scientists, or any other group, to define desired outcomes from purely science-related  or technology-related goals can make the group successful in its defined criteria. Unfortunately, like the generals who win battles and lose wars, by ignoring success criteria of other groups involved in a given project, science may miss as much knowledge as it gains. Worse, it may come to conclusions that are at least partially incorrect. 

Throughout Pierre Bourdieu’s writing in Science of Science and Reflexivity he relates his ideas to a number of works by previous scholars. His major criticism of most is their focus on the microcosm as model for global themes. He argues that individuals and institutions within a field are shaped by the context of the field and the interaction between fields. He does nod to some of the other authors as well when their work relates to the idea of fields, though perhaps using different language then Bourdieu does.

Scientific capital for Bourdieu is symbolic capital such as scientific authority. Such capital leads to power within a given scientific field. Symbolic capital comes through both cognitive and communicative relations, generally within the field. It results from recognition by competitors who are referred to as agents. As competing agents attempt to discredit (like Karl Popper speaks to) and fail to, or find more evidence to support competing ideas, they in turn reference the work adding capital. Such capital only comes within the framework created within a field by the agents in that field who hold scientific authority (power).

Like Robert Merton and Margaret Rossiter, he supports the idea that the more power/capital one has, the more one tends to gain. His perspective differs slightly in that having power (scientific authority) gives the scientist more control over economic, social and cultural resources allowing them to shape the rules of success within a given field. This also differs from Marx who links power purely to physical or economic capital. Similar to Rossiter’s ‘Matilda’ when some scientists find themselves with less capital they are more inclined to appeal to outside sources of capital, meaning from another field (political, economic, etc.). Bourdieu refers to this as Zhandovism.

Like Bruno Latour, Bourdieu sees advancement (personal and of scientific knowledge) as a function of struggle. He sees the pattern of hybridization concepts expressed by Ben-David linked to the shifts in borders between fields. As rules or positioning changes within a field, the border between fields shifts as well. Players in the field (scientists) may ultimately shift fields if they see opportunity for more power in a related field rather than stay in their own. This effect also results from Zhandovism mentioned earlier.

As the younger scientists look to advance in their field Bourdieu discusses two strategies each may choose to adopt. They may opt a succession strategy of gaining scientific capital by following the rules created by those in power within the field. They might be subversive by seeking to break the structure and create a new hierarchy. In either case it is the struggle itself (constantly challenging the existing hierarchy) that advances the individual, and also scientific knowledge.

Bourdieu refers to structure within the field as creating a space of possibilities. By this he means there are differing ways to do science. The structure within the field which creates the space will be different from field to field, and is influenced by both individuals and institutions. Tension denotes difference within the field, and pressure is difference between fields. This is not unlike Latour’s concepts of competition over cooperation. Science, Technology and Society (STS) scholars, according to Bourdieu, should be less interested in the science of scientists, and more interested in the science of scientific knowledge. Noting this approach he argues that statics and dynamics are inseparable.

I know there is a posted headline version of this story on the BHP page, but I wanted to make some additional comment here.

After attending Mom's funeral, we returned to Utah a few weeks later. This time there were two reasons for our visit. The first and most important was to attend the wedding of our oldest son, Nathan, to Vicky Summerville. They were sealed in the Ogden, Utah temple. The weekend included all sorts of family activities. After the wedding, the happy couple took advantage of the week of Nate’s college spring break for their honeymoon to Portland, Oregon. We are so pleased to see them both happy, and to see them start their life together under the strength of eternal covenants.
 
The other reason for the trip was to help finalize the closing of my mother’s home after her passing. There were some larger items that needed to come back to Virginia with us. My wife, Michelle, took a friend from our church with her, and the two of them drove to Utah pulling a near-empty trailer. I flew out for the wedding. After all the wedding festivities, Michelle and I drove the car and full trailer back to Virginia. There are still a few items awaiting us in Utah to haul back, but they will wait where they are until summer time when we will go back out due to the impending birth of our ninth grandchild, John Coates.
 
In clearing out all my mother’s things there was one in particular that had some real monetary value. It was one of those high-end motorized wheelchairs. When we looked online it seemed to be worth several thousand dollars. We posted it online for sale and waited to see what would happen.

What actually happened? In a word, nothing. Despite the need and the value it was clear the two were not matching up. It became obvious that those who could afford to buy one likely already had, and were not in the market for another. Those who needed but could not afford it, continued to make do with whatever arrangement they already had. Basically, we had nobody interested in buying it.

So my sister, Lisa, asked around. The last few years of her life, my mother lived in a neighborhood where many other older folks lived. After asking around, Lisa was able to get a referral of a Vietnam veteran in the neighborhood, Leon Snow, that could really use the chair, but had no way to pay for it. We decided to donate the chair to him. Mom would have liked that. As it turns out, the fellow is a member of my other sister Crystal's church, and is good friends with Jerry, my brother-in-law.
 
It makes me think about how although life can be unfair at times, and it’s not intended to be, that there are little things here and there we can do to help in very specific positive ways. Although Christ taught to the multitudes, his miracles were almost always in service of the one.

As we see all the need around us, or have needs in our own lives, it can be easy to feel overwhelmed and discouraged. I see it every day on the street as I walk from Union Station in Washington DC, to my office only a few blocks away. Good news! We don’t have to help everyone we see with everything they need. We do what we can and have faith that God can have others help where we can’t. We also need faith enough to know that some won’t be helped in this life to the level that we (or they) believe they ‘ought to be’. We act in the present, as ineffective as our efforts may seem. We make a difference where we can. We do our best to try to keep an eternal view that this life is not meant to be fair. It’s meant to give us opportunity to learn and to help.
 
I know these ideas can sometimes sound like platitudes. I have seen firsthand when people have used the idea that they can’t do enough so they won’t do anything. They don’t even know what they are giving up when they focus on themselves, or only on the here-and-now. So with that here are a few phrases that have come to be my personal guiding thoughts:
 
“Wisdom through knowledge, integrity and service.”
A family motto we developed with our children when they were still young.
 
“I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded”
1 Ne. 3:7
 
“My Father worketh hitherto, and I work”
John 5:17
 
“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity”
1 Cor. 13:13