WHAT SOCIAL SCIENTISTS CAN OFFER

 

In the last posting, this blog reviewed the general shortcomings of the social sciences, as an information source.  But it also pointed out that they are better at providing needed information and analysis than most other sources.[1]  To make that report, the blog focused on economics and the work of the Nobel prize winners, Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo.[2]  This posting wants to focus on how the social sciences, as exemplified by economics, can be more amenable to federalist governance and politics – as promoted in this blog.

          To do that, this posting will share with readers two quotes from these economists’ book, Good Economics for Hard Times.  The first quote is:

 

It is important that this project [to establish a dialogue with the general public that] we be guided by an expansive notion of what human beings want and what constitutes the good life.  Economists have a tendency to adopt a notion of well-being that is often too narrow, some version of income or material consumption.  And yet, all of us need much more than that to have a fulfilling life:  the respect of the community, the comforts of family and friends, dignity, lightness, pleasure.  The focus on income alone is not just a convenient shortcut.  It is distorting lens that often has led the smartest economists down the wrong path, policy makers to the wrong decisions, and all too many of us to wrong obsessions.[3]

 

Here, this blogger thinks, is a call for a more communal, as opposed to individualistic, mindset when considering what economists and social scientists in general should focus upon.  Of course, the more individual view – the one that prevails today – simply reflects the dominance of the natural rights view. 

This blog has dedicated a great deal of space to describe and explain this view, but in a few words, it promotes the claim that individuals have the right to do as they please as long as they do not prohibit others from the same rights.  One can readily see that with this basic belief, resulting study in economics will emphasize income, wealth, and securing material assets.  That is, what most economists highlight in their approach to the study of economics – as the quote indicates – and counters what Banerjee and Duflo are suggesting.

          This blog has also promoted a federalist view – the liberated federalism construct – and has argued that it should replace the natural rights view in guiding the development of civics curriculum in American schools.  In a few words, that would be a curriculum that establishes the fact that the nation’s governance is based on a compact – a sacred agreement that brings together its citizenry under the relationship of a partnership.  A meaningful step in that direction would be to adopt what these economists suggest for their discipline and, by implication, for all of the social sciences.

          And the other quote gives readers more substance to what Banerjee and Duflo suggest:

 

A better conversation must start by acknowledging the deep human desire for dignity and human contact, and to treat it not as a distraction, but as a better way to understand each other, and set ourselves free from what appear to be intractable oppositions.  Restoring human dignity to its central place … set off a profound rethinking of economic priorities and the ways in which societies care for their members, particularly when they are in need.[4]

 

Equally, if all the social sciences took this recommendation to heart, they would be a great deal more useful in reestablishing a federalist nation in thought, feeling, and action.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Should One Listen to Social Scientists?”, Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, December 5, 2023, accessed December 8, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/.  Use the archives link.

[2] Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times (New York, NY:  Public Affairs, 2019).

[3] Ibid., 8.

[4] Ibid., 8.

SHOULD ONE LISTEN TO SOCIAL SCIENTISTS?

 

From this blog’s February 19, 2021, posting, the following is offered:

 

The very first sentence of a book by the Nobel Prize winners Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo about economic challenges is “We live in an age of growing polarization.”[1]  Early in their book they cite the following: 

·       81% of Americans who identify with one of the major parties has a negative opinion of the other party;

·       61% of Democrats classify Republicans as being racists, sexists, or bigots; 55% of Republicans dismiss Democrats as spiteful; and

·       Roughly one of every three Americans expresses disappointment if a close family member were to marry someone of the opposing political party.[2]

Other works cited in this blog support this overall descriptive conclusion by providing further relevant statistics.[3]

 

With that backdrop, the citizenry, according to press reports, has been feeding on misinformation from social media.  The claim here is that if one strives for a future that incorporates a federalist general view of governance and politics – one in which citizens view fellow citizens as partners in the nation’s federated union – this general state of the citizenry is not helpful.

More specifically, this blog promotes this federalist view and for that view to be viable, people need to agree, to a significant degree, on what is objective truth.  And for that to take hold, there must be sources of information generally accepted as reliable.  Since the years of the Enlightenment, Western civilization has looked to science as an important source of such truth. 

Here, this posting visits the science of economics and “asks” a pair of honored economists, the above cited Banerjee and Duflo, as to the standing economists enjoy – or suffer through – as being truth sources among the American people.  In doing so, this posting provides an interview format in which this blogger will offer questions he believes the Nobel Prize winners answer in their book, Good Economics for Hard Times. 

Of course, this is an imagined interview in which this blogger selects passages from the book to answer the questions he is posing.

 

Question:  Much has been said about the current political environment and most of it has not been positive.  How would you describe the times?

Answer:  “We seem to be back in the Dickensian world of Hard Times, with the haves facing off against the increasingly alienated have-nots, with no resolution in sight.”[4]

Question:  And in terms of governments – particularly the US government – what has been the response of such a “world”?

Answer:  “[N]ations are doing very little to solve the most pressing challenges of our time; they continue to feed the anger and the distrust that polarize us, which makes us even more incapable of talking, thinking together, doing something about them.  It often feels like a vicious cycle.”[5]

Question:  What has been the response of economists to these conditions?

Answer:  “Economists have a lot to say about these big issues.  … What the most recent research has to say, it turns out, is often surprising, especially to those used to the pat answers coming out of TV ‘economists’ and high school textbooks.  It [the research] can shed new light on those debates.”[6]

Question:  You two have been quoted as to the degree in which Americans do not trust what economists have to say.  Can you elaborate?

Answer:  “[Regarding how respondents answered our questions they] tended to be more pessimistic than the economists … Our respondents were also more likely to think the rise of robots and AI would lead to widespread unemployment, and much less likely to think they would create extra wealth to compensate those who lost out. … [But] the key finding is that, overall, the average academic economist thinks very differently from the average American.  Across all twenty questions [we used], there is a gaping chasm of 35 percentage points between how many economists agree with a particular statement and how many average Americans do.”[7]

Question:  Generally, how has this chasm between economists and the American public affected your view of the well-being of the American nation?

Answer:  “From this, it seems a large part of the general public has entirely stopped listening to economists about economics. …

The … goal [of our effort] is to share some of [economists’] expertise and reopen a dialogue about the most urgent and divisive topics of our times.

            For that, we need to understand what undermines trust in economists.”[8]

Question:  How, generally, do economists share your concerns?

Answer:  “The Economist magazine once computed just how far the IMF’s [International Monetary Fund’s] forecasts were off on average over the period 2000-2014.  For two years from the time of prediction (say, the growth rate in 2014 predicted in 2012), the average forecast error was 2.8 percentage points.  That’s somewhat better than if they had chosen a random number between … 2 percent and 10 percent every year, but about as bad as just assuming a constant growth rate of 4 percent.  We suspect these kinds of things contribute substantially to the general skepticism of economics.

            Another big factor that contributes to the trust gap is that academic economists hardly ever take time to explain the often complex reasoning behind their more nuanced conclusions. …  Today’s media culture does not naturally allow a space for subtle or long-winded explanations.”[9]

 

Let this blogger retake the helm.  What seems to be at the heart of this state is the nature of the social sciences, not just economics. 

For one thing, as J. Robert Rossman and Mathew D. Duerden point out, each person is unique, and if a science sets out to explain why humans behave the way they do, the number of factors are basically overwhelming.[10]  Even at the group level of analysis, too many things – mostly unpredicted – come into play.

          Comparing economists to physicists and engineers, Banerjee and Duflo state, “Economists are more like plumbers; we solve problems with a combination of intuition grounded in science, some guesswork aided by experience, and a bunch of pure trial and error.”[11]  And they add, they, economists, get things wrong regularly.

          So, where does all this lack of certitude leave civics teachers or those counting on the social sciences to provide truth?  It leaves them, according to these economists, with a reality similar to how medicine leaves people; that is with good guesses based on factual claims that solicit enough faith to justify courses of action.

And that surely outperforms mere ungrounded intuition, random guesswork, or other forms of prognostication.  The next posting will add to this review of economic “truth” and how it can be better directed toward the needs of a federated citizenry.  With that, one would benefit by relying on social science findings, at least as one compares them to other sources of information.

---

[1] Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times (New York, NY:  Public Affairs, 2019), 1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert Gutierrez, “Who to Trust,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, accessed December 2, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_02_14_archive.html.

[4] Banerjee and Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times, 2.

[5] Ibid., 2-3.

[6] Ibid., 3.

[7] Ibid., 4.

[8] Ibid., 4-5.

[9] Ibid., 6.

[10] J. Robert Rossman and Mathew D. Duerden, Designing Experiences (New York, NY:  Columbia University Press, 2019).

[11] Banerjee and Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times, 7.

NATURE’S WORK

 

The last posting of this blog left the reader with the concern about how the natural development of the mind affects young people.  It did this after introducing the field of study that looks at adolescence from the physical side of brain development.  The posting relied, along with this one, on an article by Sarah-Jayne Blakemore.[1] 

She writes:  “Given the fact that we know that social brain regions continue to develop, both in terms of structure and function, during adolescence, we were interested in how social cognitive behavior changes in adolescence.”[2]  The first revelations found the consequence of this development was with young people. 

That is, when confronted with difficult problems or tasks, adolescents were disposed to seek the help of others – not a trait observed in younger children.  This finding was contrary to what had been taken to be the case.  The belief was that children sought help.  Such a finding, to the contrary, motivated study into related concerns such as risk taking and how peers influence young people in their decision-making.

          Another area of interest is how genetic makeups influence brain development during those teen years.  This research stretches into maladies such as schizophrenia mentioned in the last posting.  Also, studies of excessive paranoia have been conducted.  In those efforts, such imaging tools as fMRIs have been useful.  More specifically, ways to measure blood flow have been relied upon because the telling fact is that neurons, to be active, need more energy and that is provided by blood.  Or stated succinctly, when commenting on brain activity, what one is talking about is blood flowing to and in the brain.

          Blakemore writes:

 

I think the area of adolescent brain development is one of the areas in cognitive neuroscience where actually brain imaging has completely revolutionized what we know. … We just didn’t know until 10 or 15 [today 20 or 25] years ago that the brain undergoes such dramatic development and even reorganization during the period of adolescence starting at puberty and continuing right throughout adolescence. … [I]t has revolutionized how we understand teenagers.[3]

 

And one very far-reaching finding is that no evidence – contrary to previous common belief – exists that the brain is fixed in a person’s early childhood.  This was considered doctrine, but due to imaging studies, it is now considered totally wrong.  Today, it is believed that significant change takes place throughout adolescent years and continues into a person’s 20s and 30s. 

And this change doesn’t end there.  The brain’s plasticity – that’s its baseline state of the brain – continues to change.  And as such, that fact affects intervention and educational efforts directed to help teenagers.  But there is one challenging fact related to this promising development.

Unfortunately, such analysis calls for the use of scanning techniques and they are expensive and long-lasting protocols.  These treatments, to be effective, are large-scale studies that one can consider to be longitudinal in that they last a number of years.  Blakemore suggests not longitudinal studies but cross-sectional ones in which comparisons among different teenagers, situated with different adults, can be conducted.

Blakemore opines:

 

It would be ideal if you could scan a very large number of teenagers every couple of years as they go into adulthood.  The icing on the cake would be to scan a sufficient number of individuals so that you track people who, for example, develop schizophrenia, and go back and look at their brain imaging data from when they were a teenager, and look at how it differs from teenagers who don’t develop schizophrenia. … [They] really need to be doing it [i.e., this type of analysis] for 20 years.[4]

 

And with that bit of insight, Blakemore ends with a hopeful observation.  This type of research is new – as of the publishing of her article ten years ago – and promises to provide meaningful insights into various fields of behavior and development, such as psychiatric disorder and psychological disorder, where the lack of knowledge is significant.

---

[1] Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, “The Adolescent Brain” in Thinking:  The New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction, edited by John Brockman (New York, NY:  Harper Perennial, 2013), 115-131.

[2] Ibid., 121.

[3] Ibid., 128.

[4] Ibid., 130-131.

THE NATURE SIDE

 

This blogger has given immaturity quite a bit of emphasis in this blog and in his book, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics.[1]  His approach has primarily been from a social perspective – the nurturing part.  But there is another approach, the physical perspective – the nature part.  Ten years ago, an edited book of readings, Thinking, was published – a set of articles edited by John Brockman.  One of the articles, “The Adolescent Brain,” was written by Sarah-Jayne Blakemore with assistance from Simon Baron-Cohen.[2]  A review of its offering would be helpful to the efforts of this blog.

          That is to share with readers an approach to civics education and any information, findings, data, theorizing, or even arguments that shed light on how adolescents think is useful in applying or criticizing what this blog promotes.  This citied article adds to the sources this blog has cited in the past.  It focuses on the physical side of the analysis of why young people relate to the social aspects of civics as they actually or might be able to do. 

This would be particularly important if one were to adopt a liberated federalist view – what this blog promotes – in guiding the content and instructional processes a teacher employs in teaching civic lessons.  The reason is that liberated federalism is highly dependent on having students consider and even participate in “citizenry” activities that address the challenges the polity is facing – for example, poverty, racism, from a safe position, crime, and other challenges.

In a summary statement within the article, Blakemore states:

 

There’s something special about the period of adolescence, where adolescents are driven towards peers and away from their parents.  They’re driven to develop a sense of self and self-identity, and especially a sense of who they are, how they’re seen by other people, in particular their peers.  It’s time where there’s probably an increased drive to take risks, so from the evolutionary point of view to sort of move away from the relative security of your family and your parents, and take risks by discovering things for yourself in the outside world.[3]

 

A recurring challenge that is very entailed with this emerging independence is one’s political standing not only in terms of the formal government, but of the various social arrangements one encounters in the real world, as varied as it is. 

There’s the workplace, and the various service rendering locations – medical, educational, religious, etc. – and other social arrangements.  In each, a politics is practiced as one vies with and against others for resources or other wanted objects or considerations.  Politics enters any social interaction where limited desired goods and serves are distributed, and who gets them is a political decision.

The famous definition of politics is offered by Harold Lasswell:  Who gets what, when, and how. [4]  Upon reflection, as one realizes that that is what politics is, one is assisted by recognizing that it is ubiquitous.  And further, if adolescence is what the above quote says it is, then young people are constantly being exposed to new political situations which can be a constant flow of opportunities or frustrations or, more likely, a good dose of both.

In an introduction to the article, Baron-Cohen writes that from studies such as MRIs, certain findings can be stated.  For example,

 

Given that the sex steroid hormones are produced in higher quantities during this period, her [Blakemore’s] research opens up interesting questions about whether the changes in the brain are driven by the endocrine system, or by changing social experience, or an interaction of these factors.[5]

 

          And is this period important in other ways?  Blakemore cites two other issues.  One, most adult disorders or mental problems begin during a young person’s teenage years.  A prime example is the onset of schizophrenia; it is during those years when the voices in the mind begin to be “heard” by victims of that malady.  Two, after accidents, probably a by-product of risk-taking, suicide is the leading cause of death among adolescents.  Again, risk taking is a factor but probably the more pronounced reason is socially based.

          In young people’s need to separate from their parents to a certain degree, their friends and other acquaintances take on more important roles.  Consequently, being accepted by these other young people becomes very important.  “Adolescents are driven toward impressing their peers, trying to seek approval of their peers, and becoming more and more independent from their parents.”[6]  In sum, they are motivated to heighten their self-consciousness and in a time of social media, one can readily see how contemporary times have become so challenging.

          In these related studies, a good deal of these social insights is being derived not from social study, per se, but through the findings researchers are achieving from image technologies.  Various findings have been secured, such as changes to the human cortex.  Described as “more protracted development” in regard to gray matter and white matter formation – their volumes – new insights have been found.

          The article goes on to describe some of the development the brain goes through that continue into adulthood.  Such processes as synaptic pruning are described and explained as to their importance.  Part of that review introduces such chemical substances, such as myelin, and how they function in those processes.  How much of this information that civics teachers need to know and understand is questionable, but for those who want to get into it, the article offers a good introduction.

          Getting this posting back to what is more useful for the typical teacher, this quote is offered:  “Given the fact that we know that social brain regions continue to develop, both in terms of structure and function, during adolescence, we were interested in how social cognitive behavior changes adolescence.”[7]  The next posting will delve into those social consequences in more detail.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics:  Obstacles in Achieving a Federated Nation (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas Civics Books, 2022).  See chapter 2, “The Maturation Challenge.”  Book available through Amazon and other booksellers.

[2] Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, “The Adolescent Brain” in Thinking:  The New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction, edited by John Brockman (New York, NY:  Harper Perennial, 2013), 115-131.

[3] Ibid., 124.

[4] “Politics:  Who Gets What, When, How” Work by Lasswell,” Britannica (n.d.), accessed November 26, 2023, URL:  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Politics-Who-Gets-What-When-How.

[5] Blakemore, “The Adolescent Brain” in Thinking, 115.

[6] Ibid., 116.

[7] Ibid., 121.

CURRENT STATE

 

For over nearly two years, this blog has presented a dialectic argument which ended with a promotion of a mental construct to guide the teaching of civics in American classrooms.  That mental construct is what this blogger calls liberated federalism, a version of federalism.  In turn, federalism offers a view of governance and politics which many scholars have adopted as a theoretical base for their work.  In a few words, the construct promotes a citizenry that is federated.  That is to say that among the citizens, there is a sense of partnership.

          As such, they are highly encouraged to be participants in the formulation of policy that the government issues, and that they support a polity with certain qualities of governance which include an abiding concern for the common good – the hallmark of a commonwealth.  Those postings that have been issued over the last months have described and explained this view extensively.  Many of them have depended on numerous citations, probably a good number from the late twentieth century. 

This posting relies on a contemporary journalist, David Brooks, and his recently published book, How to Know a Person[1] – a book this blogger wholeheartedly recommends.  This posting will ask questions of the author and supply Brooks’ “answers” by quoting his book.  Readers will hopefully see the relevance and support of Brooks’ work to the basic ideas of liberated federalism.

 

Question:  Mr. Books, how do you see the state of the US today?

Answer:  “We live in an environment in which political animosities, technological dehumanization, and social breakdown foster distrust.  We’re living in the middle of some sort of vast emotional, relational, and spiritual crisis.

… Depression rates have been surging since the beginning of the twenty-first century.”[2]

Question:  Can you be more specific?

Answer:  “More to the point, 36 percent of Americans reported that they felt lonely frequently or almost all of the time, including 61 percent of young adults and 51 percent of young mothers.  People [are] spending much more time alone.

The thing we seem to suck at most is relationships.”[3]

Question:  Assuming you are correct, what are the major consequences for Americans of your overall view?

Answer:  “The effects of this are ruinous and self-reinforcing.  Social disconnection warps the mind.  When people feel unseen, they tend to shut down socially.  People who are lonely and unseen become suspicious.  They start to take offense where none is intended.  They become afraid of the very thing they need most, which is intimate contact with other humans.  They are buffered by waves of self-loathing and self-doubt.  After all, it feels shameful to realize that you are apparently unworthy of other people’s attention.”[4]

Question:  Have people in the US reacted to the state you describe?

Answer:  “[P]eople want to find ways to heal.

            … Sadness, lack of recognition, and loneliness turn into bitterness.  When people believe that their identity is unrecognized, it feels like injustice – because it is. [They] often lash out, seek ways to humiliate those who they feel have humiliated them.

            … In 2021, hate-crime reports surged to their highest levels in twelve years.  In 2000, roughly two-thirds of Americans gave to charity; by 2021, fewer than half did.

            … The social breakdown manifest as a crisis of distrust. … High-trust societies have what Francis Fukuyama calls ‘spontaneous sociability,’ meaning that people are quick to get together and work together.  Low-trust societies do not have this.  Low-trust societies fall apart.”[5]

Question:  What is it about the American nation that has wrought these conditions?

Answer:  “In our society, we confer huge amounts of recognition on those with beauty, wealth, or prestigious educational affiliations, and millions feel invisible, unrecognized, and left out.”[6] 

Question:  Are there political implications deriving from these conditions?

Answer:  “The crisis in our personal lives eventually shows up in our politics.  According to research by Ryan Streeter of the American Enterprise they [these disaffected people] are active in politics.  For people who feel disrespected and unseen, politics is a seductive form of social therapy.  Politics seem to offer a comprehensible moral landscape.  We, the children of light, are facing off against them, the children of darkness.  Politics seems to offer a sense of belonging.  I am on the barricades with other members of my tribe.  Politics seems to offer an arena of moral action.  You just have to be liberal or conservative, you just have to feel properly enraged at the people you find contemptible.

            … Healthy societies produce the politics of distribution.  How should the resources of the society be allocated?  Unhappy societies produce the politics of recognition.  Political movements these days are fueled largely by resentment, by a person’s or group’s feelings that society does not respect or recognize them.  The goal of political and media personalities is to produce episodes in which their side is emotionally validated and the other side is emotionally shamed. … [A person so moved] is trying to affirm his identity, to gain status and visibility, to find a way to admire himself.

[But such an attempt] doesn’t actually give [that person] community and connection.  People join partisan tribes, but they are not in fact meeting together, serving one another, befriending one another. … [That sort of politics is] marked by a sadistic striving for domination.  You may try to escape a world in the pulverizing destructiveness of the culture wars.”[7]

Question:  So, what can we expect the future to be given what you describe?

Answer:  Ultimately, the sadness and dehumanization pervading society leads to violence … These young men often have no social skills.  Why doesn’t anybody like me?  As one research put it, they are not loners; they are failed joiners. …  [G]uns can provide a narcotic sense of power.”[8]

Question:  Why is that so?

Answer:  Why[?]  … We can all point to some contributing factors:  social media, widening inequality, declining participation in community life, declining church attendance, rising populism and bigotry, vicious demagoguery from our media and political elites.

… I see as a deeper cause of our social and relational crisis.  Our problem, I believe, is fundamentally moral.  As a society, we have failed to teach the skills and cultivate the inclination to treat each other with kindness, generosity, and respect.

 … ‘[M]oral formation’ … is really about three simple, practical things.  [They are] restrain their selfishness [,] … helping people find a purpose [in their lives], teaching the basic social and emotional skills so you can be kind and considerate to the people around you.”[9]

Question:  Have American schools contributed to these developments?

Answer:  “Over the centuries, our schools reflected the failings of our society – the racism, the sexism, and all the rest.  But over those centuries, for all their many failings, schools really did focus on moral formation.  They thought it was their primary job to turn out people of character, people would be honest, gentle, and respectful toward those around them.  But starting just after World War II, the focus on moral formation gradually fell away. … [As] Edward McCellan argues … ‘Educators who had once prided themselves on their ability to reshape character now paid more attention to the STAT scores of their students, and middle-class parents scrambled to find schools that would give their children the best chances to qualify for elite colleges and universities.’”[10]

Question:  And how about parents and the rest of the culture; do you share your blame with them?

Answer:  “Parents started practicing ‘acceptance parenting.’  They were less inclined to mold their children’s moral lives, and more likely to just cheer them on for their academic and athletic achievements.

            … American culture became demoralized. … In 2018, the Pew Research Center asked Americans what gives them meaning in life.  Only 7 percent said helping other people.  Only 11 percent said that learning was a source of meaning in their life.

            In short, several generations, including my own, were not taught the skills they would need in order to see, understand, and respect other people in all their depth and dignity.  The breakdown in basic moral skills produced disconnection, alienation, and a culture in which cruelty was permitted. … We need to rediscover ways to teach moral and social skills.”

 

And this blogger would add that a liberated federalism guided civics education curriculum, broadly implemented, would be the way to start what Brooks so aptly argues the nation should be about doing.

---

[1] David Brooks, How to Know a Person:  The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen (New York, NY:  Penguin Random House, 2023).

[2] Ibid., 97.  The answers of this “interview” are directly quoted from Brooks’ cited book.

[3] Ibid., 98-99.

[4] Ibid., 99.

[5] Ibid., 99-100.

[6] Ibid., 100-101.

[7] Ibid., 101-102.  Emphasis in the original.

[8] Ibid., 102-103.  Emphasis in the original.

[9] Ibid., 103.

[10] Ibid., 103-104.