1
Introduction: The Public Life of Friendship
Te claim that friendship has a larger and more public signifcance beyond what it means for individuals is at the heart of this book. For over three centuries, scholars have described friendship as a private and individual relationship. Even the most recent attempts to defne friendship frame it within the individualizing processes of late modernity, stressing its underlying links with individual choice, intimacy and identity. In this context, friendship acquired the label as a fexible relationship most beftting the twenty-frst century (Allan 2008). Because we choose our friends, friendship can look like an easy-ft, designerlabel relationship which can be applied to suit our lifestyle and identikit. From this standpoint, much has been written about friendship’s role in the transformation of intimacy and personal life (Jamieson 1998; Smart 2014), and its part in setting benchmarks for elective forms of solidarity, families of choice and personal community. Tis book argues that the fexibility of friendship, which derives from its voluntary, non-institutional structure, has also equipped it for a public life at work, in neighbourhoods and in activities we have come to defne as civil society.
© Te Author(s) 2019
J. Wilkinson, Te Public Life of Friendship, Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03161-9_1
Friendship, of course, has many meanings, from the detached, stranger-like relationships on Facebook, to one-on-one relationships of personal contact and physical closeness. Tere are also gradations of friendship, from the transient friendships of childhood to friendships that last for life. While recognizing these distinctions, I am discussing the kind of friendship that involves a face-to-face relationship between two adults encompassing elements of privacy and intimacy. Friendship has an intrinsic dyadic structure (Simmel [1906] 1950; Oliker 1989; Blatterer 2014), based on a small group of two which means it can adapt to most social scenarios. Friendship is open and based on choice which means it can develop and be maintained into most situations, including public ones, like work. Unlike other personal relationships, such as married couples, which are institutionally anchored, friendship is under the control of the two individuals involved and depends on their negotiation (Jerrome 1992). Tus, it is not an external set of rules which maintains or constrains a friendship, but the wishes of friends to be together.
In pre-modern societies, there was little distinction between public and private, yet friendships were an important part of public life and community. In the modern era, when sociology developed, friendships became personal relationships, treated as inimical to public life. In late modern societies, friendships have again acquired status and signifcance as public relationships, which are developed and also maintained within public settings—at work, online, in neighbourhoods and within civil society. Sociologists of friendship have long argued that friendships are part of societies (Adams and Allan 1998). Friendships are shaped by the social relations, networks and historical processes in which they are embedded. Tese contextual factors are as important to the development of friendship, and the forms friendships take, as are the individual circumstances of people’s lives and the personal characteristics which attract us to those who become our friends.
One of the main arguments in the book is that friendships create personal spaces within the public realm, especially at work, but also in other public settings, which means that individuals experience parts of their personal lives in public. Te examination of friendship’s public life within this book reveals a potential within friendship to improve the quality of working life for individuals. At a structural level, it may also
be seen that ‘the public life of friendship’ contains the means to resolve new social problems broadly experienced, related to women’s careers, time scarcity, work and family and the balancing of both.
It is true that friendship can also have negative aspects. It can be a difcult relationship with an obvious potential to disrupt one’s public life. How, for example, can we deal with a friendship we no longer want? Breaking up with a friend can be challenging, and this challenge also arises from friendship’s open structure and voluntarism. Moreover, because it involves self-identifcation, it can be detrimental to one’s sense of self when it goes wrong. It can also involve ethical pressures to remain true to one’s friend even when the friendship is making unacceptable demands. Meeting up with friends from one’s past life can also be confronting, especially if those once common interests no longer have any meaning in one’s life (Smart et al. 2012). However, the negative aspects of friendship are not my concern here. Rather, my discussion of friendship is intended to counter those historical accounts and theoretical debates which have kept friendship frmly locked outside public life. (Tis legacy is explored in Chapters 2 and 3 of the book.)
As I discuss it, friendship is a unique relationship that has the potential to solve social and structural problems. It is a relationship which contains the elements or conditions for building a shared life with others, while respecting the integrity of individuals. As such, the book demonstrates that friendship has the potential to address common concerns in a world where individualism abounds, concerns which are related to work as well as community, neighbourhood and the possibility of a civil society. In bringing friendship’s public life into focus, the larger social signifcance of friendship will also become clear.
The Modern Legacy of Public and Private
To the average Generation Y, or virtually anyone born after 1970, the distinction between public and private barely registers in the course of their everyday lives. Yet within the social sciences, our lives are diferentiated into a public world of work, utility, commerce and politics, and a private world of individuality, intimacy, family and friendship (Silver 1990).
Tis has been an enduring legacy of modernity which continues to inform our thinking. It presents challenges when we categorize friendship as a relationship we have at work and in the other parts of life defned as public. Although the primary argument in this book is that friendship has become an important part of our lives in public, such as at work, part of this argument concerns the way this theoretical legacy has explained and framed modern friendship in relation to private and public life.
Te argument in this book is consistent with some contemporary understandings of ‘personal life’: “Personal life is … not private … it is lived out in relation to one’s class position, ethnicity, gender and so on” (Smart 2014). Carol Smart does not deny that living a personal life involves making choices and exercising one’s agency but, she argues, we always do this in relation to others and to the choices they make (Smart 2014: 28). Tus, while having a personal life does invoke an idea of the self (which is consistent with late twentieth-century conceptualizations of personal life) (e.g. Zaretsky 1976), the parts of our lives that we understand to be personal also involve refections of our relations with others. Similarly, Vanessa May (2011) argues that personal life is relational, and states that we do live out parts of our personal lives in public (May 2011: 168). My argument about the signifcance of contemporary work friendships, and the other cases of public friendship I examine, expands on this claim by focussing on friendship itself. Friendship itself, I argue, creates a space within public settings in which to experience our personal lives. Tis happens not just because personal life is relational, although this is certainly relevant, but also because of the nature of friendship itself, which has properties not necessarily shared by all other personal relationships. Moreover, what I try to show throughout my argument is the signifcance of this claim in relation to the theoretical legacy which positions friendship outside the public domain.
Friendship clearly derives much from its status as a personal relationship but, I argue, the classifcation of modern friendship solely as a private relationship aligned with the private sphere, does pose some challenges for analysing friendships in public as well as in private. Such difculties leap into view when faced with a central claim in the book, which is that friendship has a voluntary structure, and that this enables
people to conduct a personal life in public in ways that other relationships cannot. Once we look more closely at the defning properties of friendship, particularly its open structure and its grounding in an individual’s private intentions (Silver 1989; Friedman 1993), what may frst appear to be challenging also turns out to be the reason why friendship is so easily accommodated in the public settings of people’s lives.
Other difculties arise when trying to discuss friendships at work. Tis problem originates in those theoretical accounts of modernity which are part of the legacy of modern social science. Specifcally, this problem relates to how ‘work’ and ‘personal life’ have been defned within classical sociological theories. (Tese issues are examined in detail in Chapter 3 in the book.) Sociologists have defned work against all that has come to be understood as private and personal, so not surprisingly, work has come to be seen as public and impersonal. As I explain in Chapters 2 and 4, the divisions between public and private, and between work and home, were amplifed by a gendered distinction between work and home (Rosaldo 1974; Pateman 1988). Tis represented work as masculine, market-driven and useful on one side of the divide, while on the other, intimacy was seen to be feminine and without social importance or consequence.
As part of this background, it must also be noted that modern sociologists took up the idea of a personal life as a conceptual device for discussing how people in modern societies were dealing with the efects of work-based alienation in modern societies, and with the need to fnd meaning and subjectivity outside of work within people’s personal relationships (Berger 1964; Zaretsky 1976). Te vision of personal life which emerged from these early analyses excluded friendship. Personal life was one of family-centred intimacy and heterosexual coupledom, divorced not only from work and society at large, but also from friendship. Te implication of these arguments was that, although individuals had a personal life, this was something they enjoyed with their family, not their friends, and something they did behind the walls of the home (Allan and Crow 1989). More recent conceptions of intimacy and personal life have acknowledged the limitations of tying personal life frmly to the family (Jamieson 1998). As Carol Smart (2014) explains, contemporary models of personal life need to acknowledge the plurality
of relationship types it encompasses, including diferent family forms, relationships across households and cultures, same-sex intimacies and friendship (Smart 2014: 6).
In several respects, friendship came to have a confusing status in theory, as a personal relationship which was a part of the private sphere yet diferentiated from the family.
Historically, friendship was seen as a kin relationship within extended households, although diferentiated from the biological family ties linked to a domestic household (Tadmor 2001). Within theories of modernization and afective individualism (Stone 1977), however, friendships were cast out of the home. And yet, despite being represented in theory as outside the domestic household in debates about community, the family and the privacy of the household, friendships were simultaneously seen to be destructive of community and threatening to familial privacy (Jamieson 1998; Bittman and Pixley 1997; Allan and Crow 1989). Tese two narratives caught friendship in a tension (Jamieson 1998) which pulled it in opposite directions across private and public spheres. Tus, through its association with intimacy and expressive individualism, depicted theoretically as a personal relationship positioned within private life, friendship became disassociated from community and the domain of public life.
What this has meant in institutional terms is that modern friendship has come to be seen as a private relationship without institutional foundations. For these reasons, modern friendship has acquired a challenging and dubious status in theory and in history: friendship appears to be a personal relationship, and yet institutionally it is excluded from the private sphere of home and family on the one hand, and cut of from the public sphere, on the other. When evaluated against these contrasting narratives, friendship, like the proverbial piggy in the middle, is caught between two separate accounts: one about the decline of community and its disappearance from public life, and the other, about the rise of afective individualism and intimacy centred on the family (Jamieson 1998). Nonetheless, as I argue throughout, the institutional openness and voluntarism of friendship can help to explain why, in contemporary social life, ‘real life’ friendship can slip so easily into public life where its accomplishments are considerable.
Having established how these key sociological debates and historical accounts of modern institutions have positioned modern friendship with respect to the private sphere, the remainder of Chapter 2 is spent examining the theoretical accounts of the public domain and friendship’s position in it. Consideration of various conceptualizations of public, publicness and the public sphere is also given, revealing how particular theorizations of ‘public’ exclude friendship. In this respect, accounts of the public sphere represent public life as a social vacuum, emptied of sociable activity and the friendships which people develop in the course of being citizens. Both communitarian variants of political theory (Sennett [1974] 2002; Rosenblum 2016), and the critical tradition’s notion of a public sphere (Habermas [1964] 1974, 1989), are contentious in this way. Tey are both potentially important avenues of critical inquiry for examining friendship’s contribution to public life, but they rest on contrasts which efectively eliminate friendship from the picture.
Another challenge associated with the legacy of modern sociology emerges in attempts to write about the friends we have at work, a problem I begin to investigate in Chapter 3. Keeping work separate from one’s ‘real life’ friends was once a familiar theme in the social sciences. Sociologist Peter Berger (1964), for example, argued that people do not live where they work and that the things which mattered and made our lives meaningful, things like personal friendships and our concerns with identity, were a private part of our life separate from work. Although Berger was speaking fguratively about the consequences of workplace alienation and the privatization of home and family, his powerful imagery about ‘real life’ being at home with the family drove a wedge between work friends and a personal life. Whereas a friendship was a personal relationship, a work relationship, in theory, depended on one’s working role and the instrumental activities that flled a working life. Classical sociological theorists have helped to compartmentalize our thinking about personal life, constructing a wall of impersonality, role-driven action and instrumentality around work. As argued in Chapter 3, their theoretical legacy implies that personal friendships develop away from the settings of public life, but this does not necessarily correspond to experience. People experience their friendships as
distinctly personal and subjective, yet the settings where friends meet and develop their friendships are often also public ones. Although this may seem unsurprising, theoretical presumptions about what counts as public and private life are unable to account for our real-life experience of friendships. Tis is asking for an exploration of where and how friendship fts within our public lives, and what it is able to achieve in that context.
The Expansion of the Public Realm and Privacy
Te signifcance of friendship in contemporary social life is also linked to what appears to be a dramatic expansion of the public realm. Today much of what we do is dependent on public processes of some sort, which makes the idea of separate public and private spheres unrealistic. Whereas knowing people personally was important to getting things done in pre-modern societies, today both small-scale and large-scale social organizations take place through public interaction and processes. Even the most basic transactions in everyday life, such as paying a phone bill or using one’s phone to get directions, involve a public exchange of personal information. Tis points us back to a claim originally made by Georg Simmel, that modernization expands the public realm, a process involving the spread of the personal information and knowledge we have of other people’s afairs.
Te more public our lives become, the greater the need for privacy. Today many of us spend long hours at work and work places are becoming more public in many ways. Open-plan ofces, hot-desking and centrally located working hubs increase our physical visibility, and there is a constant sense of co-presence with others. Information and communication technology (ICT) contributes to this, increasing transparency through increased access to personal information and the likelihood of that information being shared (Blatterer 2014), along with access to people by day and night. In combination, these trends add to the volume of gratuitous public knowledge we have about each other’s business. As Simmel argued, this creates a pressing need for intimacy and privacy. As the institutional divisions between private and public
spheres continue to erode at the expense of the private, we need to ask how this need can be met.
One of the main arguments I develop in this book is that work friendships potentially help with privacy, by providing a type of refuge at work. With a friend it is possible to retreat from the publicness of work and reinstate one’s sense of autonomy in personal conversation. As classical sociologists explain, intimacy is a means of individualization where people can control how much or how little of themselves they want to reveal. In situations where privacy is at a premium, friendships provide a welcome respite by controlling access to personal information in a situation where people are able to express themselves honestly and in confdence to others. Personal conversation, often about work, is a way of sharing secrets. I argue in Chapter 5 that ‘the secret lives of friends’ is important to work life today. At a time when workplace autonomy seems to be diminishing, friendship can help reinstate the self and limit the negative efects of work-based publicity on our person.
Te idea that intimate friendship can develop in public settings, and especially at work, fnds support in research across several areas. Research on personal communities has questioned the relevance to friendships of the traditional divisions between private and public spheres. Scholars of the late twentieth century defned the idea of a ‘personal life’ as a sphere of intimacy centred on the modern nuclear family within the private realm (Berger 1964; Zaretsky 1976). In this context, personal life was seen to ofer an alternative source of subjectivity and personal fulflment which work could not provide. However, not only was this concept of personal life represented as wholly private, and exclusively familial, but its promises of fulflment and intimacy were tied to heterosexual couples and children within the private household, thereby theoretically excluding all other social groups from the benefts of a personal life. In contrast, personal communities draw more widely on a range of friendships and personal relationships from various public settings. Research on personal communities showed (Wellman 1979; Fischer 1982; Spencer and Pahl 2006) that it was neither place nor an institutional association with a private sphere that determined community or support. Rather, community came from an individual’s personal networks and close attachments, including friendship. Notably, when people talk about their
personal communities in interviews, it is the strength of the attachments that matter. From this insider view, exactly where our friends are situated along a public–private divide is less relevant than how much we like them. At the same time, it is signifcant that special friends come from a range of settings, private settings in some cases, but also from public ones including work, communities and neighbourhood. Te emphasis on friendship and choice within personal communities is shown to provide alternative models of intimacy and community for those who do not identify with the heterosexual familial intimacy which framed late twentieth-century conceptions of personal life.
Te Internet and other forms of ICT have expanded the way we think about intimacy in the public realm, and transformed the way people initiate and maintain personal relationships. Facebook and other social media have helped to eradicate the divisions between ofine and online relationships, leading some researchers to conclude that ‘personal bonds may now originate and develop outside domestic and familial settings’ (Chambers 2013: 40), i.e. outside the former heartland of institutional privacy. Te tendency for people to conduct their personal lives in the public domain fnds support in this research. It is a central claim I develop over several chapters in the book.
Deborah Chambers (2013) argues that ‘the mediated nature of today’s personal relationships’ presses for a reconsideration of debates about intimacy and friendship (Chambers 2013: 40). Although I do not explore online friendships in this book, the research on social media and social ties (Boyd 2007; Chambers 2013) demonstrates more generally the suitability of friendship for conducting aspects of one’s personal life in public. As I argue in this book, the need to reconsider the signifcance of friendship for ‘public life’ today arises from activities and relationships that develop in various public settings, including workmates and colleagues, neighbours and the people we meet when engaged in civic activities.
Research on work has focussed on the blurring of boundaries between public and personal life, suggesting that the private sphere may even be contracting (Pedersen and Lewis 2012: 465). Tere is now a growing body of research which explores the way ICT has transformed work practices and increased the time we spend at work (Bittman et al. 2009; Green 2004). Researchers show how ICT has intensifed work, increasing
employees’ work outputs and pushing work tasks into private time and ‘third spaces’ (Green 2004). In combination with these work-extending technologies, new management techniques have made employees’ work practices more transparent to employers, increasing the potential for monitoring the work we do (Bittman et al. 2009: 675–677).
Such changes in work practices have prompted widespread debate about work-life imbalance (Hochschild 1989) and ‘the time divide’ (Jacobs and Gerson 2004) which, traditionally, has meant less time spent with family within the private domestic sphere. In this context, research in leisure studies (e.g. Lewis 2003) now suggests that it may also be possible to think about personal life in another way. Susan Lewis (2003), for example, says that work and life can no longer be defned as discrete arenas. Arguing that there is spillage from work to personal life and back again, she suggests that ‘work-life’ should be re-labelled as ‘work and personal life’ (Lewis 2003: 345). All this is telling, indicating that there is an opening for rethinking the older boundaries between work and personal life, and that friendship has an important part to play in this process.
One new development which is helping to soften the boundaries between work and personal life is fexible working arrangements (Pedersen and Lewis 2012). Although this has not really encouraged tighter integration of work and life at the family level, there is evidence to suggest it has opened up opportunities to pursue a personal life with a diferent emphasis. Researchers found that the fexibility of work arrangements, designed to improve the work-life imbalance by allowing more time for family, actually made it easier to develop and maintain work friendships (Pedersen and Lewis 2012). Work friends were really important to respondents, suggesting a potential for re-balancing work and personal life coming directly from within the workplace itself.
One question arising from research on work friendships which develop in public settings concerns their level of intimacy (Pedersen and Lewis 2012: 466), and whether they are the same as other personal friendships. Pedersen and Lewis show that friendships can be integrated into public activities such as workplaces, sports or voluntary work (Pedersen and Lewis 2012: 472). Signifcantly, it is suggested that such friendships may be context-dependent or situationally defned, and therefore sufer from a
reduction in intimacy levels (Pedersen and Lewis 2012: 466). However, it is not necessarily the case that a work friendship will be less intimate. In some respects, these arguments feed into a longer-standing debate about the limitations which work, or other necessities, may impose on friendships, potentially transforming them into false friendships (Vernon 2005). In his early research on friendship, Graham Allan (1979) had also distinguished personal friendship from the more context-dependent friendships of the working class, arguing that it was the activity or setting, like darts and public sociability, rather than the person, which was decisive in less intimate context-dependent friendships. More recently, Allan (2008) has suggested that friendships formed at work, and possibly other public contexts, were not necessarily limited in intimacy. Friendship based on personal afection, a pattern he had previously associated with the middle class, was becoming the prototype of friendship in late modern societies. Intimate friendships, he argued, were becoming more fexible, and arguably, more adaptable to diferent settings. Building on this, the argument in this book is that work friendships can sometimes be very personal and intimate, regardless of whether they are maintained at work or in other parts of our personal lives. When viewed from a network perspective, work friends are also shown to contribute to individuals’ close networks and personal communities (Wellman 1979; Spencer and Pahl 2006).
Debates about fexible work suggest that friendship has an important role to play in securing some terrain for a personal life within the workplace itself. Te sense of this claim emerges when framed by debates about work-life imbalance. When it comes to family, spending longer hours at work may still create a vacuum in some parts of people’s personal lives. But this research also shows that the boundaries between work and personal life are not as solid as once described, and in this context, friendship emerges as a relationship well suited to the task.
Women’s Friendship Time at Work
At the same time, the changing social context of work has encouraged the development of intimate friendships at work. Changes in work practices and experience have generated broad concerns about the conditions
of working life and the time pressure associated with this. Such changes have focussed attention on the importance of maintaining personal relationships, prompting widespread debate about the time divide (Jacobs and Gerson 2004), as well as about family time and the need for time to socialize. In this context, working women with children are seen to be doubly disadvantaged, described as having to do ‘a double shift’.
Looking at these issues from the standpoint of women’s friendships ofers an important perspective. A central concern of this book is how women’s work friendships may help manage problems, including time pressure, their leisure defcit and particular experiences of work-life balance. In debates about these issues to date, it seems that the signifcance of friendship has been almost completely overlooked. Tis is because time-use research has historically focussed on gender inequality as it arises in relation to the family, long seen as the nucleus of private life and an arena where unresolved gender inequalities may be addressed. Consequently, although time-use research has helped to position gender inequality frmly within an analysis of working women’s time defcit, and the challenges women face juggling time for work and families, the signifcance of women’s friendships at work in relation to these issues has been neglected. Time-use has also traditionally focussed on a distinction between work and leisure (Gershuny 2005), which, by defnition theoretically excludes the possibility of looking at how women’s time was spent socializing at work.
Arguably, therefore, there is a case for looking at this from the vantage point of friendship. Classical sociological theories of modern social organization left friendship outside the public sphere. However, social changes and research about the transformation of work, together with the growing publicness of our working lives and the steady erosion of free time for family, has made a space for thinking about the signifcance of friendship in public settings like work. From a sociological perspective on friendship, an important question is how aspects of a social structure or a setting may afect friendship or shape patterns of sociability. Sociologists have long argued that friendship is to some extent shaped by the social context, so that aspects of a social structure, such as gendered hierarchies or perceptions of sexual diferences, will afect sociability patterns.
Women’s mass entry into paid work from the late twentieth century has created a unique set of circumstances asking for more current analysis of the social signifcance of women’s work friendships. Although there is already a sociological literature on women’s friendships, this was not developed until the late twentieth century. Tis has meant that the analysis of women’s friendships placed them principally within the private, domestic sphere. It defned women’s friendships as intimate, not necessarily of broader social consequence beyond the private sphere. Although an extensive study of women’s work friendships is beyond the scope of this book, the examples of professional women’s friendships in Chapters 4 and 5 suggest that the public setting of work has become more signifcant for examining the nature of women’s friendships and their social signifcance. Although work time is not the same as free time or leisure, it is the time working women have away from families and children, and in this sense, it is free time for them. Similarly, working together allows sociability and opportunities to develop deeper friendships away from domestic activities. Specifcally, the argument is made in Chapter 5 that women’s shared time at work, or what I call ‘friendship time’, is an important consideration when assessing female patterns of women’s friendships. Feminists have shown that women’s work friendships ‘add value in a variety of ways to women’s working lives’ (McCarthy 2004: 19). Work-based ‘friendship time’ does this for women, providing time away from home for socializing, boosting morale and developing the professional confdence and skills which manage and build women’s careers.
Friendship in Public
In historical and theoretical accounts of friendship (discussed in Chapter 2), and in classical sociological theories of modern organization (Chapter 3), friendship is treated as a relationship which exists outside the public domain, especially that of work. In accounts of pre-modern life (Chapter 2), friendship in the modern, individualized sense did not exist; instead, friends performed useful social activities which today would be seen as both public and private. Subsequently, the meaning
and status of friendship have tended to change depending on its position across the public–private divide. Sociological accounts of modernity have excluded friendship from at least one aspect of the public realm, the impersonal and rational sphere of work, and confned it to the status of a private relationship. Friendship may indeed be a private relationship in terms of its voluntarism (Jamieson 1998). But, I argue, in late modern society it is important to examine where friendship fts into public life, and what social efects this may have.
In the late twentieth century, accounts of women’s patterns of sociability were described and evaluated in relation to a private domestic sphere (Allan 1989; O’Connor 1992). Tis privacy was seen to encourage an intimate friendship pattern (Oliker 1998), yet it was also argued that an exclusively private focus on friendship maintained an imbalance of power between men and women (Chambers 2013; O’Connor 1992; Kaufman 1978). It may therefore be argued that when women’s friendships are centred on work, there is a possibility that these friendships may improve in status in relation to men. Chapter 4 focusses on the situation of women and their friendships, especially in the public sphere of work, in the context of the public–private divide.
Te friendships we develop in public settings have a unique relevance to other contemporary social problems, including those related to privacy. Work in late modern societies is acquiring a new ‘publicness’ in ways that are not merely reducible to the market or to impersonal bureaucracy. Changes in work practices—the spread of new ICT, organizational efciencies, ongoing scrutiny of work processes, open-plan ofces and ‘hot desking’—have increased people’s awareness of their visibility and accessibility at work. In this context of increased ‘publicness’, work friendships promise to provide the sociability, intimacy and the privacy sometimes lacking in the modern work environment. Chapter 5 focusses on the part that intimate work friendships play in providing workers, especially working women, with a special kind of privacy and a ‘refuge from the glare of public life’ at work.
A key theme pursued throughout this book is that friendship has a public life. In late modernity, the context for examining patterns of friendship and their signifcance has changed. Social transformations at work, changing gender relations and growing public recognition of
sexual diferences have increased friendship’s visibility and importance at work. Neighbouring ofers another context for exploring friendship’s changing status in public settings, and its signifcance within personal communities. Whereas friendship was once viewed as inimical to neighbour relations, a threat to privacy—and even potentially destructive of community—in the twenty-frst century, there is often little diference between neighbours and friendships, and within personal communities, friends and neighbours are often fused together. As friendship has become more central to the way we see personal relationships from the late twentieth century (Allan 2008) conceptions of neighbours and community have also changed. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the book examine the changing status of friendship in neighbouring and community. Friendship has had a changing and sometimes difcult relationship with community and neighbourhood. Indeed, until friendship became a topic of sociological interest in the late twentieth century (Allan 1979), the signifcance of friendship in relation to community in British research was largely ignored. Te discovery by American urban sociologists that friendships and personal attachments were primary sources of personal community (e.g. Wellman 1979; Fischer 1982), rather than the neighbourhood or location, positioned friendship centrally in debates about changing experiences of community and the signifcance of personal community.
In traditional models of neighbouring (Chapter 7), the yardstick for evaluating community was found in strong collective ties such as class, shared values, and what has since come to be known as ‘communities of fate’ (Beck-Gernsheim 1999). Neighbouring was tied to the fortunes of working-class communities, and within some orthodox interpretations of community, friendship did not receive sympathetic treatment. Personal friendship was either invisible or dwarfed by collective representations of community, and arguably in some contexts, may even have been perceived as a threat to community (Lockwood 1966). With some notable exceptions (Allan 1979), when friendship was mentioned, it was tied to ideas of male mateship (e.g. Oxley 1974), and this ignored the value of the friendships women developed in neighbourhood settings. But historically, female networks have built important bridges between private and public activities. Other authors have recognized
this, giving accounts of neighbouring that ‘write women’s activities’ back into neighbouring and community arguments. In these accounts women’s friendship in neighbourhood networks is viewed sympathetically, as a personal element in the interweaving of neighbourhood and community ties (Bell and Ribbens 1994; Wallman 1984; Ryan 1979; Hansen 1997).
Within community debates, theories of neighbouring were infuenced by arguments for and against privatization. In these debates, a concern with the stability of home and family was refected in accounts that screened out the possibility of admitting friends into one’s personal life. Te purpose of Chapters 6 and 7 is to bring friendship into focus by discussing its status in neighbouring in relation to debates about privacy and community. What this discussion shows is that when neighbouring is pulled across the twin peaks of public and private life, friendship can disappear into the gulf.
Recent research on neighbours, discussed in Chapter 8, suggests that the older, more static models of neighbouring are starting to change. Not only are networkers making all neighbours their friends (Widdicombe 2016), but in chosen communities, neighbourhoods are constructed by choice and friendship-driven migration. Some scholars describe these trends as expressions of individualization, concerned that these new neighbouring trends will destroy community by exposing it to the vicissitudes of choice. However, from another perspective on personal communities, these same personal attachments and friendships emerge as the framework for community in a diferent guise, rather than as the source of its extinction.
From here, we need to ask whether the friendships we form in any of these public settings can help us realize more common goals and aspirations. Te issue of whether the resources of a personal community may be used for collective purposes is a complex one. Put a diferent way, we could also ask whether personal friendship may help to create the conditions of a shared life, and even a public one. As examined in Chapter 9, communitarian advocates tend to answer this question in the negative, arguing that collective goals are not well served by individualistic or personal aspirations, and that the integrity of both private and public spheres needs protecting. But I argue that harnessing personal
motivations to public ends need not represent the disaster to civil life that some scholars (such as Richard Sennett and Nancy Rosenblum) would have us believe. Adherence to the division between private and public only confuses the role of friendship in public life today.
In Chapter 9 I discuss examples of how personal friendships and public forms of civic engagement can overlap. A signifcant point of comparison between friendship and volunteering, for example, is that both are anchored in voluntarism. People don’t have to volunteer, they choose it, just as friends choose to spend time together. At the same time, this is not just a matter of personal preference. Tose friendships examined in Chapter 9, especially those among migrants, demonstrate the potential within personal friendships for resolving problems of common concern and contributing to structural social change. Tus, in the same way that intimate work friendships can help resolve general issues facing working women as well as improve individual women’s work experience, the friendships of migrants also resolve problems of general concern. Te friendships migrants forge in the public setting of civil society are voluntary and intimate with a potential for afrming self-identity. Tey are also part of a personal and professional network helping to integrate them into society and achieve social recognition.
References
Adams, R., and Allan, G. (1998). Placing Friendship in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allan, G. (1979). A Sociology of Friendship and Kinship. London: Allen and Unwin.
Allan, G. (1989). Friendship: Developing a Sociological Perspective. Boulder and San Francisco: Westview Press.
Allan, G. (2008). Flexibility, Friendship and Family. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 1–16.
Allan, G., and Crow, G. (Eds.) (1989). Home and Family: Creating the Domestic Sphere. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1999). On the Way to a Post-Familial Family: From a Community of Need to Elective Afnities. Teory, Culture & Society, 15(3–4), 53–70.
Bell, L., and Ribbens, J. (1994). Isolated Housewives and Complex Maternal Worlds—Te Signifcance of Social Contacts Between Women and Young Children in Industrial Societies. Te Sociological Review, 42(4), 227–262.
Berger, P. (1964). Te Human Shape of Work: Studies in the Sociology of Occupations. South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions.
Bittman, M., and Pixley, J. (1997). Te Double Life of the Family: Myth, Hope & Experience. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Bittman, M., Brown, J., and Wajcman, J. (2009). Te Mobile Phone, Perpetual Contact and Time Pressure. Work, Employment and Society, 23(4), 673–691.
Blatterer, H. (2014). Everyday Friendships: Intimacy as Freedom in a Complex World. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: Te Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning—Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chambers, D. (2013). Social Media and Personal Relationships: Online Intimacies and Networked Friendship. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fischer, C.S. (1982). What Do We Mean by ‘Friend’? An Inductive Study. Social Networks, 3(4), 287–306.
Friedman, M. (1993). What Are Friends for? Feminist Perspectives on Personal Relationships and Moral Teory. New York: Cornell Press.
Gershuny, J. (2005). Busyness as the Badge of Honor for the New Superordinate Working Class. Social Research, 72(2), 287–314.
Green, F. (2004). Why Has Work Efort Become More Intense? Industrial Relations, 43(4), 709–741.
Habermas, J. ([1964] 1974). Te Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. New German Critique, 3, 49–55.
Habermas, J. (1989). Te Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (T. Burger with assistance by F. Lawrence Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Te MIT Press.
Hansen, K. (1997). Rediscovering the Social: Visiting Practices in Antebellum New England and the Limits of the Public/Private Dichotomy. In J. Weintraub and K. Kumar (Eds.), Public and Private in Tought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy (pp. 268–302). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hochschild, A.R. (1989). Te Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. London: Piatkus.
Jacobs, J.A., and Gerson, K. (2004). Te Time Divide: Work, Family, and Gender Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity.
Jerrome, D. (1992). Good Company: An Anthropological Study of Old People in Groups. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kaufman, D.R. (1978). Associational Ties in Academe: Some Male and Female Diferences. Sex Roles, 4(1), 9–21.
Lewis, S. (2003). Te Integration of Paid Work and the Rest of Life: Is PostIndustrial Work the New Leisure? Leisure Studies, 22(4), 343–355.
Lockwood, D. (1966). Sources of Variation in Working Class Images of Society. Te Sociological Review, 14(3), 249–267.
May, V. (2011). Why a Sociology of Personal Life? In May, V. (Ed.) Sociology of Personal Life (pp. 168–172) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McCarthy, H. (2004). Girlfriends in High Places: How Women’s Networks Are Changing the Workplace. London: Demos.
O’Connor, P. (1992). Relationships Between Women. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Oliker, S. (1989). Best Friends and Marriage Exchange Among Women. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.
Oliker, S. (1998). Te Modernization of Friendship: Individualism, Intimacy and Gender in the Nineteenth Century. In R. Adams and G. Allan (Eds.), Placing Friendship in Context (pp. 18–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxley, H.G. (1974). Mateship in Local Organisation: A Study of Egalitarianism Stratifcation, Leadership and Amenities Projects in a Semi-industrial Community of Inland New South Wales. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Pateman, C. (1988). Te Sexual Contract. Cambridge: Polity (Basil Blackwell).
Pedersen, V.B., and Lewis, S. (2012). Flexible Working Time Arrangements, Blurred Work-Life Boundaries and Friendship. Work Employment & Society, 26(3), 264–280.
Rosaldo, M.Z. (1974). Woman Culture and Society: A Teoretical Overview. In M.Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (Eds.), Woman, Culture and Society (pp. 17–42). California: Stanford University Press.
Rosenblum, N.L. (2016). Good Neighbors: Te Democracy of Everyday Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ryan, M. (1979). Te Power of Women’s Networks: A Case Study of Female Moral Reform in Antebellum America. Feminist Studies, 5(1), 66–85.
Sennett, R. ([1974] 2002). Te Fall of Public Man. New York: Knopf.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Periodicals (arrangement), 14-15; (binders), 37; (check book), 47; (files), 37; (racks), 14-17; (receipt book), 47; (stock book), 46.
Precept form, 48
Press marks, 9-10.
Presses for books, 2-6.
Print boxes, 37.
Proposition book, 43.
Racks (periodicals), 14-17; (hats, &c.), 20.
Readers’ handbooks, 51.
Reading slopes, 14.
Reading stands (newspapers), 17
Receipts for fines, 49.
Recipes for paste, stain-removal, &c., 51
Records of library work, 42.
Reference library (application forms), 50; (charging), 33.
Remington typewriter, 36
Renewal forms for books, 51.
Requisition forms (staff), 48.
Revolving book-cases, 9
Revolving catalogue holder, 35.
Robertson’s indicator, 30
Rotherham P. L. note-book, 24.
Routine (invoice) book, 44.
Royal College of Surgeons, London, 33.
Rubber stamp ink (Stephens’), 40
Rubber stamps, 24.
Rubber stamps for books, 40.
Rule-labels, 49
Rules and regulations, 48.
St. Martin’s Public Library, 15
Screw newspaper holder, 18.
Seals for Library Boards, 40.
Shannon files, 37.
Shelf-edging, 10; (fittings), 7; (numbers), 9; (registers), 46
Shelves, 5.
Show cases, 20.
Stains, to remove, 52.
Stamps for books, 40; (dating), 40; (issues), 21
Stationery, 48-51.
Stationery cupboards, 12
Steps for libraries, 41.
Stickphast paste, 52.
Stitching machines, 38.
Stock book, 44.
Stone’s card catalogue cabinet, 34
Store presses, 12.
Studs for shelves, 8
Suggestion book, 43.
Superintendents’ desks, 12.
Tables, 12-14
Tablets for directing to libraries, 42.
Technical appliances, 20.
Thanks circulars, 43, 48
Ticket-books, 24.
Tickets for borrowers, 49
Time (assistants’) book, 48.
Tonks’ shelf fitting, 7.
Tray book-cases, 6.
Trucks for books, 42.
Trypograph copying machine, 37
Typewriters, 35-36.
Umbrella stands, 19.
Voucher forms, 49.
Wake and Dean’s book-holder, 40.
Walker’s book-rack, 39
Waterston’s borrowers’ note-book, 24.
Wire-fronted book-cases, 10.
Wire-stitching machines, 38.
Wolverhampton Public Library, 15.
Work book, 48
Yost typewriter, 36.
Zaehnsdorf’s paste, 52.
ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS.
WAKE & DEAN,
School, Church, & Library Furniture Manufacturers.
111 LONDON ROAD, LONDON, S.E.
GOLD MEDAL, LONDON, 1885 SILVER MEDAL, ANTWERP, 1885
Manufacturers to Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and War Office
LONDON SCHOOL BOARD, AND OTHER SCHOOL BOARDS THROUGHOUT ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND WALES
MANUFACTURERS OF AND ESTIMATES GIVEN FOR Book-Shelves and Book-Cases, Reading Tables, Counters, Seats and Chairs, Newspaper Stands, Screens, Librarians’ Tables, Periodical Racks, And every description of Fittings for Public & other Libraries.
PLEASE APPLY FOR LIST OF NEW CARD CATALOGUE CABINET
T L F W D :—
ST. MARTIN-IN-THE-FIELDS LIBRARY, Trafalgar Square.
CHRISTCHURCH
CAMBERWELL
CAMBERWELL
HAMMERSMITH
” Blackfriars.
” Peckham.
” Dulwich.
” Hammersmith.
PETERBOROUGH ”
BERMONDSEY ” Bermondsey.
CHISWICK ” Acton Green.
GOLDSMITHS’ ” New Cross.
DURNING (Lambeth) ” Kennington.
STOKE NEWINGTON ” Stoke Newington.
WATFORD ” Watford.
KENDAL ” AND MANY OTHERS.
Also all the Book-cases and Cupboards in the offices of the London School Board, and 300 Museums to the different Schools. Catalogues and Special Designs on Application.
ARCHITECTS’ DESIGNS CAREFULLY EXECUTED.
Sole Manufacturers of Mason’s Improved Book-holder
WAKE & DEAN, Public Library Fitters,
111 LONDON ROAD, LONDON, S.E. S F , BATH STREET.
***
END OF THE
PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HANDBOOK OF LIBRARY APPLIANCES
***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGESExcept for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
