Cipher challenge #3 from Joshua Holden: Binary ciphers

The Mathematics of Secrets by Joshua Holden takes readers on a tour of the mathematics behind cryptography. Most books about cryptography are organized historically, or around how codes and ciphers have been used in government and military intelligence or bank transactions. Holden instead focuses on how mathematical principles underpin the ways that different codes and ciphers operate. Discussing the majority of ancient and modern ciphers currently known, The Mathematics of Secrets sheds light on both code making and code breaking. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be running a series of cipher challenges from Joshua Holden. The last post was on subliminal channels. Today’s is on binary ciphers:

Binary numerals, as most people know, represent numbers using only the digits 0 and 1.  They are very common in modern ciphers due to their use in computers, and they frequently represent letters of the alphabet.  A numeral like 10010 could represent the (1 · 24 + 0 · 23 + 0 · 22 + 1 · 2 + 0)th = 18th letter of the alphabet, or r.  So the entire alphabet would be:

 plaintext:   a     b     c     d     e     f     g     h     i     j
ciphertext: 00001 00010 00011 00100 00101 00110 00111 01000 01001 01010

 plaintext:   k     l     m     n     o     p     q     r     s     t
ciphertext: 01011 01100 01101 01110 01111 10000 10001 10010 10011 10100

 plaintext:   u     v     w     x     y     z
ciphertext: 10101 10110 10111 11000 11001 11010

The first use of a binary numeral system in cryptography, however, was well before the advent of digital computers. Sir Francis Bacon alluded to this cipher in 1605 in his work Of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, Divine and Humane and published it in 1623 in the enlarged Latin version De Augmentis Scientarum. In this system not only the meaning but the very existence of the message is hidden in an innocuous “covertext.” We will give a modern English example.

Suppose we want to encrypt the word “not” into the covertext “I wrote Shakespeare.” First convert the plaintext into binary numerals:

   plaintext:   n      o     t
  ciphertext: 01110  01111 10100

Then stick the digits together into a string:


Now we need what Bacon called a “biformed alphabet,” that is, one where each letter can have a “0-form” and a “1-form.”We will use roman letters for our 0-form and italic for our 1-form. Then for each letter of the covertext, if the corresponding digit in the ciphertext is 0, use the 0-form, and if the digit is 1 use the 1-form:

    0 11100 111110100xx
    I wrote Shakespeare.

Any leftover letters can be ignored, and we leave in spaces and punctuation to make the covertext look more realistic. Of course, it still looks odd with two different typefaces—Bacon’s examples were more subtle, although it’s a tricky business to get two alphabets that are similar enough to fool the casual observer but distinct enough to allow for accurate decryption.

Ciphers with binary numerals were reinvented many years later for use with the telegraph and then the printing telegraph, or teletypewriter. The first of these were technically not cryptographic since they were intended for convenience rather than secrecy. We could call them nonsecret ciphers, although for historical reasons they are usually called codes or sometimes encodings. The most well-known nonsecret encoding is probably the Morse code used for telegraphs and early radio, although Morse code does not use binary numerals. In 1833, Gauss, whom we met in Chapter 1, and the physicist Wilhelm Weber invented probably the first telegraph code, using essentially the same system of 5 binary digits as Bacon. Jean-Maurice-Émile Baudot used the same idea for his Baudot code when he invented his teletypewriter system in 1874. And the Baudot code is the one that Gilbert S. Vernam had in front of him in 1917 when his team at AT&T was asked to investigate the security of teletypewriter communications.

Vernam realized that he could take the string of binary digits produced by the Baudot code and encrypt it by combining each digit from the plaintext with a corresponding digit from the key according to the rules:

0 ⊕ 0 = 0
0 ⊕ 1 = 1
1 ⊕ 0 = 1
1 ⊕ 1 = 0

For example, the digits 10010, which ordinarily represent 18, and the digits 01110, which ordinarily represent 14, would be combined to get:

1 0 0 1 0
0 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 0 0

This gives 11100, which ordinarily represents 28—not the usual sum of 18 and 14.

Some of the systems that AT&T was using were equipped to automatically send messages using a paper tape, which could be punched with holes in 5 columns—a hole indicated a 1 in the Baudot code and no hole indicated a 0. Vernam configured the teletypewriter to combine each digit represented by the plaintext tape to the corresponding digit from a second tape punched with key characters. The resulting ciphertext is sent over the telegraph lines as usual.

At the other end, Bob feeds an identical copy of the tape through the same circuitry. Notice that doing the same operation twice gives you back the original value for each rule:

(0 ⊕ 0) ⊕ 0 = 0 ⊕ 0 = 0
(0 ⊕ 1) ⊕ 1 = 1 ⊕ 1 = 0
(1 ⊕ 0) ⊕ 0 = 1 ⊕ 0 = 1
(1 ⊕ 1) ⊕ 1 = 0 ⊕ 1 = 1

Thus the same operation at Bob’s end cancels out the key, and the teletypewriter can print the plaintext. Vernam’s invention and its further developments became extremely important in modern ciphers such as the ones in Sections 4.3 and 5.2 of The Mathematics of Secrets.

But let’s finish this post by going back to Bacon’s cipher.  I’ve changed it up a little — the covertext below is made up of two different kinds of words, not two different kinds of letters.  Can you figure out the two different kinds and decipher the hidden message?

It’s very important always to understand that students and examiners of cryptography are often confused in considering our Francis Bacon and another Bacon: esteemed Roger. It is easy to address even issues as evidently confusing as one of this nature. It becomes clear when you observe they lived different eras.

Answer to Cipher Challenge #2: Subliminal Channels

Given the hints, a good first assumption is that the ciphertext numbers have to be combined in such a way as to get rid of all of the fractions and give a whole number between 1 and 52.  If you look carefully, you’ll see that 1/5 is always paired with 3/5, 2/5 with 1/5, 3/5 with 4/5, and 4/5 with 2/5.  In each case, twice the first one plus the second one gives you a whole number:

2 × (1/5) + 3/5 = 5/5 = 1
2 × (2/5) + 1/5 = 5/5 = 1
2 × (3/5) + 4/5 = 10/5 = 2
2 × (4/5) + 2/5 = 10/5 = 2

Also, twice the second one minus the first one gives you a whole number:

2 × (3/5) – 1/5 = 5/5 = 1
2 × (1/5) – 2/5 = 0/5 = 0
2 × (4/5) – 3/5 = 5/5 = 1
2 × (2/5) – 4/5 = 0/5 = 0


to the ciphertext gives the first plaintext:

39 31 45 45 27 33 31 40 47 39 28 31 44 41
 m  e  s  s  a  g  e  n  u  m  b  e  r  o
40 31 35 45 46 34 31 39 31 30 35 47 39
 n  e  i  s  t  h  e  m  e  d  i  u  m

And applying

to the ciphertext gives the second plaintext:

20  8  5 19  5  3 15 14  4 16 12  1  9 14 
 t  h  e  s  e  c  o  n  d  p  l  a  i  n
20  5 24 20  9 19  1 20 12  1 18  7  5
 t  e  x  t  i  s  a  t  l  a  r  g  e

To deduce the encryption process, we have to solve our two equations for C1 and C2.  Subtracting the second equation from twice the first gives:


Adding the first equation to twice the second gives:


Joshua Holden is professor of mathematics at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.

Joel Mokyr: How the modern economy was born

MokyrBefore 1800, the majority of people lived on the verge of subsistence. In A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy, esteemed historian Joel Mokyr explains why in the industrialized world such a standard of living has grown increasingly uncommon. Mokyr offers a groundbreaking view on a culture of growth specific to early modern Europe, showing how the European Enlightenment laid the foundations for the scientific advances and pioneering inventions that would instigate explosive technological and economic development. Recently, Mokyr took some time to answer questions about the book.

How would you sum up the book’s main points?

JM: Before 1800 the overwhelming majority of humankind was poor; today in the industrialized world, almost nobody lives at the verge of subsistence, and a majority of people in the world enjoy living standards that would have been unimaginable a few centuries ago. My book asks how and why that happened. The question of the Great Enlightenment is central to economic history; a Nobel prize winning economist, Robert Lucas, once wrote that once we start thinking about it, it is hard to think of anything else.

Do we know how and where this started? 

JM: Yes, it started in Western Europe (primarily in Britain) in the last third of the eighteenth century through a set of technological innovations we now call the Industrial Revolution. From there it spread to the four corners of the world, although the success rate varied from place to place, and often the new techniques had to be adapted to local circumstances.

How is this book different from other work looking at this event? 

JM: The literature looking at the question of why this happened has advanced three types of explanations: geographical (looking at resources and natural endowments), political-institutional (focusing on the State and economic policies), or purely economic, through prices and incomes. My book examines culture: what did people believe, value, and how did they learn to understand natural phenomena and regularities they could harness to their material improvement.

Whose culture mattered most here? 

JM: Good question! Technological progress and the growth of modern science were driven first and foremost by a small educated elite of literate people who had been trained in medicine, mathematics and what they called “natural philosophy.” The culture of the large majority of people, who were as yet uneducated and mostly illiterate, mattered less in the early stages, but became increasingly important at a later stage when mass education became the norm.

So what was it about these intellectuals that mattered most? 

JM: In my earlier work, especially my The Enlightened Economy (2009), I pointed to what I called “the Industrial Enlightenment” as the central change that prepared the ground for modern economic growth. In the new book, I explain the origins of the Industrial Enlightenment. At some point, say around 1700, the consensus of intellectuals in Europe had become that material progress (what we were later to call “economic growth”) was not only desirable but possible, and that increasing what they called “useful knowledge” (science and technology) was the way to bring it about. These intellectuals then carried out that program through continuous advances in science that eventually found a myriad of economic applications.

How and why did this change happen? 

JM: That is the main question this book is focusing on and tries to answer. It describes and analyzes the cultural changes in the decades between Columbus and Newton, during what is sometimes known as “early modern Europe.” It was an age of tremendous cultural changes, above all of course the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution. Equally important was the emergence of what is known as “the Baconian Program,” in which Francis Bacon and his followers formulated the principles of what later became the Industrial Enlightenment. The success of these thinkers to persuade others of the validity of their notions of progress and the importance of a research agenda that reflected real economic needs is at the heart of the story of how the Industrial Enlightenment emerged.

So why did this take place in this period and in Europe, and not somewhere else? 

JM: Europe in this age enjoyed an unusual structure that allowed new and fresh ideas to flourish as never before. On the one hand, it was politically and religiously fragmented into units that fiercely competed with one another. This created a competitive market both for and among intellectuals that stimulated intellectual innovation. It was a market for ideas that worked well and in it the Baconian Program was an idea that succeeded, in part because it was attractive to many actors, but also because it was marketed effectively by cultural entrepreneurs. At the same time, political fragmentation coexisted with a unified and transnational institution (known at the time as the Republic of Letters) that connected European intellectuals through networks of correspondence and publications and created a pan-European competitive market in which new ideas circulated all over the Continent. In this sense, early modern Europe had the “best of all possible worlds” in having all the advantages of diversity and fragmentation and yet have a unified intellectual community.

Of all the new ideas, which ones were the most important? 

JM: Many new ideas played a role in the intellectual transformations that eventually led to the waves of technological progress we associate with modern growth. One of the most important was the decline in the blind veneration of ancient learning that was the hallmark of many other cultures. Shaking off the paralyzing grip of past learning is one of the central developments that counted in the cultural evolution in this period. The “classical canon” of Ptolemy and Aristotle was overthrown by rebels such as Copernicus and Galileo, and over time the intellectuals of this age became more assertive in their belief that they could outdo classical learning and that many of the conventional beliefs that had ruled the world of intellectuals in astronomy, medicine, and other fields were demonstrably wrong. Evidence and logic replaced ancient authority.

Was the success of the new ideas a foregone conclusion? 

JM: Not at all: there was fierce resistance to intellectual innovation by a variety of conservative powers, both religious and political. Many of the most original and creative people were persecuted. But in the end resistance failed, in large part because both people and books — and hence ideas — could move around in Europe and move to more liberal areas where their reception was more welcomed.

Could an Industrial Enlightenment not have happened elsewhere, for example in China? 

JM: The book deals at length with the intellectual development of China. In many ways, China’s economy in 1500 was as advanced and sophisticated as Europe. But in China the kind of competitive pluralism and diversity that were the hallmark of Europe were absent, and even though we see attempts to introduce more progressive thinking in China, it never succeeded to overthrow the conservative vested interests that controlled the world of intellectuals, above all the Mandarine bureaucracy. Instead of explosive growth as in Europe, Chinese science and technology stagnated.

Does the book have any implications for our own time? 

JM: By focusing on the social and economic mechanisms that stimulated and encouraged technological innovation in the past, my book points to the kind of factors that will ensure future technological creativity. First and foremost, innovation requires the correct incentives. Intellectuals on the whole do not require vast riches, but they will struggle for some measure of economic security and the opportunity to do their research in an environment of intellectual freedom in which successful innovation is respected and rewarded. Second, the freedom to innovate thrives in environments that are internationally competitive: just as much of innovation in earlier times emerged from the rivalry between England, France, Spain and the United Provinces, in the modern era the global competition between the United States, the EU, China, and so on will ensure continuous innovation. International competition and mobility ensure the intellectual freedom needed to propose new ideas. Finally, global institutions that share and distribute knowledge, as well as coordinate and govern intellectual communities of scientists and innovators across national boundaries and cultural divides, are critical for continued technological progress.

Joel Mokyr  is the Robert H. Strotz Professor of Arts and Sciences and professor of economics and history at Northwestern University, and Sackler Professor at the Eitan Berglas School of Economics at the University of Tel Aviv, Israel. He is the recipient of of the Heineken Prize for History and the International Balzan Prize for Economic History. Mokyr’s other works include The Enlightened Economy and the Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge of Economy. His most recent book is a Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy.

Katharine Dow: Can surrogacy ever escape the taint of global exploitation?

making the good life jacket dowSurrogate motherhood has a bad rep, as a murky business far removed from everyday experience – especially when it comes to prospective parents from the West procuring the gestational services of less privileged women in the global South. So while middle-class 30- and 40-somethings swap IVF anecdotes over the dinner table, and their younger female colleagues are encouraged by ‘hip’ employers to freeze their eggs as an insurance policy against both time and nature, surrogacy continues to induce a great deal of moral handwringing.

The Kim Cotton case in 1985 was the first attempt to arrange a commercial surrogacy agreement in the United Kingdom. It set the tone for what was to come. Cotton was paid £6,500 to have a baby for an anonymous Swedish couple, and her story provoked sensational press-fuelled panic. British legislators, too, saw surrogacy as likely to lead to exploitation, with poorer women coerced into acting as surrogates out of financial need, and with intended parents taken advantage of by unscrupulous surrogacy brokers. Their action was swift: within just months of the Cotton story breaking, a law was passed banning for-profit surrogacy in the UK.

With the growth of an international surrogacy industry over the past two decades, worries over surrogacy’s fundamentally exploitative character have only intensified. Worst-case scenarios such as the Baby Gammy case in 2014, involving an Australian couple and a Thai surrogate, suggest that surrogacy frequently is exploitative. But that’s less because paying someone to carry and bear a child on your behalf is inherently usurious than because the transaction takes place in a deeply unequal world. The Baby Gammy case was complicated by other unsavoury factors, since the child, born with Down’s Syndrome, seemed to be rejected by his intended parents because of his condition. Then it turned out that the intended father had a previous conviction for child sex offences, which rather overshadowed the potential exploitation experienced by Gammy’s surrogate – and now de facto – mother.

I am not arguing for a laissez-faire approach to regulating surrogacy, but for thinking more deeply about how surrogacy reflects the context in which it takes place.

We need to step back and think critically about what makes people so driven to have a biogenetically related child that they are prepared to procure the intimate bodily capacity of another, typically less privileged, person to achieve that. We should also listen to surrogates, and try to understand why they might judge surrogacy as their best option. Intended parents are not always uncaring nabobs, and surrogate mothers are not just naïve victims; but while the power dynamic between them is decidedly skewed, each is subject to particular cultural expectations, moral obligations and familial pressures.

As for the larger context, we increasingly outsource even the most intimate tasks to those whose labour is cheap, readily available and less regulated. If we think of surrogacy as a form of work, it doesn’t look that different from many other jobs in our increasingly casualised and precarious global economic context, like selling bodily substances and services for clinical trials, biomedical research or product testing, or working as domestic staff and carers.

And surrogacy is on the rise. Both in the UK and in the United States, where some states allow commercial surrogacy and command the highest fees in the world, increasing numbers of would-be parents are turning to the international surrogacy industry: 95 per cent of the 2,000 surrogate births to UK intended parents each year occur overseas. With the age at which women have their first child increasing, more women are finding it difficult to conceive; and there’s now greater access to fertility treatments for single-sex couples and single people. In addition, surrogacy has become the option of choice for gay couples, transgender people, and single men wanting a biogenetically related child.

For me, as someone who has studied surrogacy, the practice is problematic because it reveals some of our most taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of family. It also tells us much about work, gender, and how the two are connected. This is why it is so challenging.

At a time when parent-child relationships often appear to be one of the few remaining havens in an increasingly heartless world, surrogacy suggests that there might not be a straightforward relationship between women’s reproductive biology, their capacity to produce children, and their desire to nurture. The usual debates that focus simply on whether or not surrogacy is exploitative sidestep some of these uncomfortable truths, and make it difficult to ask more complicated questions about the practice.

There is a parallel here with abortion debates. Trying to define and defend the sanctity of life is important, but this also obscures highly problematic issues, such as the gendered expectation that women should look after children; the fact that women typically bear responsibility for contraception (and the disproportionate consequences of not using it); the prevalence of non-consensual sex; and the pressure on women to produce children to meet familial obligations.

Surrogacy is a technology. And like any other technology we should not attribute to it magical properties that conceal its anthropogenic – that is, human-made – character. It’s all too easy to blame surrogacy or the specific individuals who participate in it rather than to ask why surrogacy might make sense as a way of having children at all. We should give credit to intended parents and surrogate mothers for having thought deeply about their decisions, and we should not hold them individually responsible for surrogacy’s ills.Aeon counter – do not remove

Katharine Dow is a research associate in the Reproductive Sociology Research Group at the University of Cambridge. She is the author of Making a Good Life.

Want to join the discussion or follow us on Aeon? Head over to our partnership page.

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.
Aeon counter – do not remove

Digital Keyword: Culture

digital keywords peters jacketThis post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

Culture is a keyword among keywords for Raymond Williams, who contributed to the founding of cultural studies in the 1960s and 1970s. It is among the most common ways to talk about how we talk. In the essay below, one of Williams’ most careful readers, Ted Striphas, offers a sensitive update to Williams and a wide-ranging intellectual history, describing how culture has coevolved with the digital turn since the end of World War II. No longer an antithesis to technology, culture has recently interpenetrated with the computational (e.g., digital humanities, culturomics, and big-data-driven cultural studies).

In fascinating conversation with Fred Turner’s prototype and Limor Shifman’s meme, in what sense do aspects of modern-day digital culture challenge and confirm Striphas’ observation about the dynamism and adaptability of culture—or, in Williams’ famous phrase, “one of two or three most complicated words in the English language?”

Ted Striphas: Culture


This comment may have been adapted from the introduction to Benjamin Peters’ Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. 25% discount code in 2016: P06197

Digital Keyword: “Algorithm”

digital keywords peters jacketThis post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

Tarleton Gillespie demystifies the many uses of the recent keyword algorithm, on loan from Arabic. It is at once a trick of the trade for software programmers, a synecdoche standing in for entire informational systems and their stakeholders in popular discourse, a talisman used by those stakeholders for evoking cultural authority and avoiding blame (e.g., to blame “Facebook’s algorithm” can implicitly shift responsibility away from the company that designed it), and shorthand for the broader sociocultural shift toward, as Gillespie argues, “the insertion of procedure into human knowledge and social experience.”

In rich conversation with Ted Striphas’ essay on culture and Stephanie Ricker Schulte’s essay on personalization, Gillespie clarifies and multiplies the ways the current media environment extends a larger bureaucratic revolution central to modernity.

Tarleton Gillespie: Algorithm


This comment may have been adapted from the introduction to Benjamin Peters’ Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. 25% discount code in 2016: P06197

Digital Keyword: “Participation”

digital keywords peters jacketThis post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

Christopher Kelty’s broad-minded and brilliant essay on participation is a welcomed participant in the Digital Keywords volume. It both intellectually broadens as well as analytically tightens the contemporary understanding of that classic concept and near constant discussion of it online. Marshaling together insights ranging from Parmenides to Polanyi, Kelty offers insights such as how participation proves a boundary function, excluding at the same time it constitutes community, democracy, and sharing, three towering keywords covered elsewhere in the volume by Rosemary Avance, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, and Nicholas A. John.

If, as Kelty clarifies, to participate is to belong but not always voluntarily, what does it mean to participate in public life?

Christopher Kelty: Participation


This comment may have been adapted from the introduction to Benjamin Peters’ Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. 25% discount code in 2016: P06197

Digital Keyword: “Hacker”

This post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

digital keywords peters jacketGabriella Coleman critiques the stereotype of a hacker as a white male libertarian. In its place, and through a rich history of its varied sources and expressions, she uncovers an underlying hacker commitment to what she calls “craft autonomy,” or the freedom to do technical work that motivates contemporary classes of computing experts. In this, Coleman’s essay engages in productive conversation with Christina Dunbar-Hester’s equally superb essay on geeks, Adam Fish’s mirror, and John Durham Peters’ cloud in the computer classes.

Hackers, among other actors in the technical classes, are not as we may have thought.

Gabriella Coleman: Hacker

This comment may have been adapted from the introduction to Benjamin Peters’ Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. 25% discount code in 2016: P06197

Announcing Digital Keywords (at a discount) and a Call for More Keywords at #dkw

This post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

I’m thrilled to announce the official publication, by Princeton University Press, of Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture — on the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Raymond Williams’ classic Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.

Princeton University Press is offering a discount of 25% on the book to all Culture Digitally readers. Enter the discount code P06197 at any time, until December 31, 2016.

Check out the table of contents, featuring 25 essays from a great group of scholars, or join the Twitter-verse fun at #dkw:

Also, consider indulging in three minutes with the editor Benjamin Peters (me).

The book offers an immensely teachable collection of 25 short essays from leading scholars, set to change the conversation about our contemporary information society and culture. It also represents a conversation begun two years ago with the readers of Culture Digitally and continued thanks to the support of Fred Appel at Princeton University Press. I would like to continue that conversation today.

The volume covers just 25 terms that the contributors felt were important to contemporary scholarly thinking around the information age. So many more terms warrant similar attention. What are some of the other words you think are key to understanding the modern world and its media, and why? Help out now by tweeting your own keyword of interest with the hashtag #dkw.

(If you do not tweet, your welcome to submit your keywords suggestions into this Google form. If you’d like others to be able to follow up with you, please add your name and institutional affiliation; please do not include bot-readable email addresses, since the file will be public.)

Next week, a list of candidate digital keywords will be drawn from the #dkw Twitter hashtag and the Google form, and then posted to Culture Digitally as a public reference and basis for future work. This open resource will also feature a list of the keywords we arrived at well as more than 200 candidate keywords we listed in the Digital Keywords appendix. The resource is intended as a first step toward building a rolling Rolodex of keywords and their scholars and students. The hope is that this exercise will stimulate future Digital Keywords volumes, teaching, and conversations.

Please come join the conversation in print and online, stay tuned as sample keyword essays follow this month, and enjoy!

From “Brexit” to “dumpster fire”: Benjamin Peters on why digital keywords matter

petersIn the digital age, words are increasingly important, with some taking on entirely different meanings in the digital world. Benjamin Peters’ new book, Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society & Culture  presents modern humans as linguistic creatures whose cultural, economic, political, and social relations are inseparable from these “keywords”. Recently, Peters took the time to answer some questions about the book:

Why digital keywords? Why now?

BP: “Brexit” and “Trumpmemtum.”

What are these but marked keywords that—together with, say, the trendy new phrase “dumpster fire”—trigger anxieties very much alive today? What work do such words do?

40 years ago, in 1976, the Welsh literary critic Raymond Williams published his classic Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, establishing a critical and ongoing project for taking seriously the work of over 100 words in postindustrial Britain. This book, taking Williams as its (all too) timely inspiration, seeks to refresh the keywords project for English-language information societies and cultures worldwide.

This book seeks to change the conversation about the digital revolution of language at hand. The real world may not be made out of language but our access to it surely is. Modern humans are linguistic creatures: our cultural, economic, political, social, and other relations cannot be separated from the work our words do. And as everyone who has ever put pencil to paper knows, our words do not always oblige. This is especially true in the age of search. Digital keywords are both indispensable and tricky. They are ferociously important and often bite back.

Digital Keywords also seeks to offer a teachably different approach to “digital keywords” than currently championed, as a simple Google search will reveal, by the meddling reach of search engine optimizers (SEO). No older than the OJ Simpson trial and valued at no less than $65 billion (about the economy of Nebraska), the SEO industry is arguably the dominant approach to taking keywords seriously online at the moment: and yet reason strains at the massive capital flows that, say, the term “insurance” alone commands. SEO, with its shady markets of pay-per-click advertising and results manipulation, cannot be the best approach to working with digital keywords.

How else might we begin (again)?

I’m hooked. So which keywords does the book take up? And what makes those words key?

BP: Let me answer that in reverse. As editor I figured I had a choice: I could either start by choosing the words I thought were key for the information age and then find people to write about them, or I could invite the best contributors to the project and then let them choose their keywords. As it happens, this volume does both. On the one hand, the appendix lists well over 200 candidate keywords—from access to zoom—and we’ll be soliciting other keywords to that growing list on the scholarly blog Culture Digitally this July.

On the other hand, the 25 words featured in this book are “key” simply because the scholars that populate this book demonstrate that they are. That may sound tautological, but I actually uphold it as the high standard in keyword scholarship: a word is key because it does meaningful social work in our lives. It is the task of each essay to prove such work. The reader too is invited to take up Williams’ search for themselves and to test these essays accordingly: do they convince that these terms, once understood, are somehow tectonic to the modern information society and culture—and why or why not? Which words would you add—and why?

Fair enough. Can you give us a sample of what the authors claim about their keywords?

BP: Sure thing. The freely available extended introduction critically frames the project as a first step toward a grammar for understanding terministic technologies; it also summarizes each essay and draws critical connections between them, so I won’t do any of that here. Since the book itself is organized alphabetically by keyword, I’ll list the essays alphabetically by author last name. Rosemary Avance critically reclaims community online and off, Saugata Bhaduri risks the collective action baked into gaming, Sandra Braman tackles Williams’ keyword flow in information systems, Gabriella Coleman decrypts hackers and their crafts, Jeffrey Drouin takes on document surrogates in copy cultures, Christina Dunbar-Hester critically appraises the gender in computing geeks, Adam Fish reflects on what mirror is doing in data mirroring, Hope Forsyth grounds the online forum in ancient Rome, Bernard Geoghegan telegraphs back the origins of modern information, Tarleton Gillespie demystifies the omnipresent algorithm, Katherine D. Harris unpacks the digital archive, Nicholas A. John rethinks sharing cultures online, Christopher Kelty unearths root causes and consequences of participation, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen separates democracy from digital technologies, John Durham Peters seeds an outpouring of the cloud in cloud computing, Steven Schrag reworks memory and its mental and mechanical discontents, Stephanie Ricker Schulte repossesses personalization, Limor Shifman reanimates the meme online, Julia Sonnevend theorizes events beyond media, Jonathan Sterne and I, separately, deconstruct the analog and digital binary, Thomas Streeter pluralizes the internet, Ted Striphas rereads culture alongside technology after Williams, Fred Turner goes Puritan on the Silicon Valley prototype, and Guobin Yang launches the book with the de-radicalizing of activism online.

Who is the audience for this book? Who are you writing for?

BP: Students, scholars, and general interest readers interested in the weighty role of language in the age of search in particular and the current information age in general. Ideally, each essay will prove plain and short enough (average length 3000 words) to sustain the attention of the distracted undergraduate, substantial enough to enrich the graduate students, and pointed enough to provoke constructive criticism from the most experienced scholar. Of course this ideal will not hold uniformly across this or any other volume, but perhaps this group of contributors delivers on the whole, I must say, and that is enough for this editor.

I’m also excited to note that later this year Princeton University Press also plans to release for free download my teaching notes for this book. These notes aim to offer in an easily editable format enough material to teach the book as the main course text for a semester-long undergraduate or graduate course in media and communication studies. We hope this will benefit courses worldwide. Meanwhile, the scholarly blog Culture Digitally maintains, with Princeton University Press’ generous support, the early drafts of fair share of the published essays here.

Benjamin Peters is assistant professor of communication at the University of Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is also affiliated faculty at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.




Ken Reed on the Princeton Legacy Library

The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since our founding in 1905. Using the latest print-on-demand technology, we have been making this important scholarly heritage available for a new generation of readers. The effort has been particularly relevant in developing nations, where access was not previously available. Over 2,300 titles are currently back in print and over 27,000 have been sold, with the top selling titles hailing from a wide range of disciplines. And now, all the existing Princeton Legacy Library titles have been released in hardcover format as well.

Today PUP sat down for a Q&A with our Digital Production Manager, Ken Reed, who has been overseeing the monumental effort to reconnect readers to this treasure trove of scholarship.

What is the Princeton Legacy Library (PLL) project? How was it conceived?

For years, the press had been interested in bringing out-of-print titles back into print. After much discussion among our senior management, the project received approval and the Press moved ahead with a massive digitization project. The project had two primary goals: bringing as many out-of-print titles back into print as possible, and a much more ambitious goal to create digital assets for all our publications, no matter the status.

To that end, nearly 3,000 titles will end up in the Princeton Legacy Library project. So far we have brought nearly 2,400 titles back into print, both as paper and now as hard case. We are also creating web PDFs for each title for library aggregators.

The titles in the project range from 1915–1999—nearly 100 years of the Press’s scholarship is represented in this series.

Can you explain some of the production details for the PLL titles? How did PUP go about digitizing the books and bringing them back into print?

All of the titles were scanned at a high quality, but our goal was to preserve the text as is. So, we haven’t made any revisions to the original content. Every title has been reviewed for quality prior to publication—a very time consuming process, indeed.

Since in most cases we did not have access to the original covers in print-ready format, we decided early on to have a series design cover created. This was done by the distinguished graphic design firm, Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv.

Our partnership with Ingram was crucial in bringing these titles back into print. We have set up these titles at Ingram through their print-on-demand (POD) technology. Additionally, the covers were auto-generated from our metadata by Ingram, except in some cases where we had to manually adjust them.

Of course, the book interiors and covers were only part of the process. Reviewing and updating the metadata was a key task that had to be undertaken.

Can you explain the metadata process in more detail?

Since we have titles going back to 1915, we had to ensure that we had all the necessary metadata. This includes confirming the bibliographic information—title, subtitle, author—as well as subject codes for the book industry and our web site.

Perhaps more importantly, we had to ensure that we had book descriptions for all of these titles. We digitized seasonal catalogs going back to the 1960s from our own records, and the archives at the Princeton University Library had seasonal catalogs going back to 1914. The Library digitized these catalogs for us, and have been very supportive of the project overall. In fact, from time to time we need to re-scan pages from book interiors, and we often use Library books for this purpose.

Finally, we reviewed all the titles for rights information before publication. Since we were dealing with titles that have been out-of-print for years, in many cases rights have reverted to the authors.

Browse the Princeton Legacy Library here.

The Digital Einstein Papers: An Open Access Story

EinsteinA year ago in December, Princeton University Press rolled out an unprecedented open access initiative: the ongoing publication of Einstein’s massive written legacy comprising more than 30,000 unique documents. The Digital Einstein Papers, one of the most ambitious publishing projects ever undertaken, launched to widespread fanfare from the scientific, publishing, and tech communities, with enthusiastic coverage from The New York Times, (which hailed the papers as “the Dead Sea Scrolls of Physics”), to Inside Higher Ed, The Guardian, and far beyond. You can watch Diana Buchwald, editor of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, launch The Digital Einstein here.

A year out, what has the success looked like in terms of traffic? Ken Reed, Digital Production Manager at Princeton University Press takes us behind the scenes:

The Digital Einstein Papers site launched on 5 December 2014, and in the past year has had over 340,000 sessions, with over 3.2 million pageviews.

Site traffic has been worldwide, with the top five countries in order being the United States, Germany, India, Canada, and Brazil. The site is mobile optimized, especially for the iOS, which accounts for 50% of mobile traffic to the site. This is vital for global users, since by some accounts the mobile share of web traffic is now at 33% globally.

The Papers features advanced search technology and allows users to easily navigate between the original languages in which the texts were written and their English translation, as well as extensive supplementary material. But the Press is always looking to make technological improvements. In the past year, Princeton University Press has worked closely with the developer, Tizra, to monitor traffic and continually tweak display issues, especially around mobile devices. We have recently added a news tab, and the future will hold more enhancements to the site, including added functionality for the search results, and the addition of a chronological sort.

At present, the site presents 13 volumes published by the editors of the Einstein Papers Project, with a 14th slated to go online in 2016. Here is just a sampling of the included documents:

“My Projects for the Future” — In this high school French essay, a seventeen-year-old Einstein describes his future plans, writing that “young people especially like to contemplate bold projects.”

Einstein’s first job offer — Einstein graduated from university in 1900, but had great difficulty finding academic employment. He received this notice of his appointment as a technical clerk at the Swiss Patent Office in June 1902 and would later describe his time there as happy and productive.

“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” — Einstein’s 1905 paper on the special theory of relativity is a landmark in the development of modern physics.

Keep an eye on this exciting open access project as it evolves in 2016 and beyond. Explore for yourself here.

Celebrate National Grammar Day with Frank Cioffi’s One Day in the Life of the English Language

Grammar: It’s the difference between knowing your stuff and knowing you’re stuff. Some even say it saves lives (see below). If you haven’t noticed, today is National Grammar Day (March 4), so here at Princeton University Press we are celebrating good grammar, proper punctuation, and clear communication with Frank L. Cioffi’s anti-textbook handbook, One Day in the Life of the English Language: A Microcosmic Usage Handbook.

Cioffi’s chatty and charming reference doesn’t just lay out the “rules,” but also makes a convincing case for why good grammar and usage matter. Cioffi argues that Standard Written English (also known as “formal English”) is vital for success in professions where exactness and clarity carry great importance, and he also proposes that correct English can foster a more honest, ethical, and functional culture of communication.

The book draws on some three hundred real-world sentences printed in eleven newspapers and six weekly magazines and published on a single, typical day (December 29, 2008). Cioffi emphasizes that English usage is continually evolving and he debunks some of the most popular grammar “rules.” Is it acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition? It is. Can you start a sentence with a conjunction? You can. Is it “correct” to use split infinitives. Sure.

What do you think? Does “formal” English still matter in the post-Twitter world?


Check out the introduction and let us know.

We’ve also been tweeting out #NationalGrammarDay #protips from the book today.

Happy National Grammar Day!

Photo via Brett Jordan / Flickr