Diaspora

Diaspora (pronounced dahy-as-per-uh or dee-as-per-uh)

(1) The scattering of the Jews among the Gentiles living beyond Palestine after the sixth century BC Babylonian captivity and the later Roman conquests of Palestine (the historic origin; usually capitalized).

(2) The body of Jews living in countries outside Israel.

(3) In the New Testament, the those Christians living outside Palestine

(4) Any group which involuntarily has been dispersed outside its traditional homeland.

(5) Any group migration or from a country or region.

(6) Any religious group living as a minority among people of the prevailing religion (not a definition accepted by all).

(7) By extension, the spread or dissemination of something originally confined to a local, homogeneous group (language, cuisine, an economic system et al).

(8) A collective of niche social media communities, run under the auspices of diasporafoundation.org.

1690-1700: From the Ancient Greek διασπορά (diasporá) (scattering; dispersion), from διασπείρω (diaspeírō) (I spread about; I scatter), derived from διά (diá) (between, through, across) + σπείρω (speírō) (I sow), the modern construct being diaspeirein (dia + speirein) (to scatter about, disperse) and διασπορά (diaspora) was thus understood as “a scattering".  Diaspora & diasporite are nouns, diasporan & diasporal are nouns & adjectives, diasporic is an adjective; the noun plural is diasporae, diasporai or diasporas.

The word diaspora must be lexicographically sexy because it has over many years attracted much interest from historians and etymologists, the conclusion of many that there may be “missing links” (ie, lost texts), this accounting for the murkiness of the transition from the verb of Antiquity to the idea of “diaspora” as it came to be understood.  There is confusion over the exact process of derivation from these old verbs to the contemporary concept(s) and although the Athenian historian and general Thucydides (circa 460–circa 400 BC) was for a long time cited as the first to use the word, this later was found to be a medieval misunderstanding (something not unusual) of his use of the verb σπείρω (speíro) (to sow).  The Greek word does appear in the Septuagint (the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew):

ἔσῃ ἐν διασπορᾷ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς βασιλείαις τῆς γῆς, esē en diaspora en pasais tais basileiais tēs gēs ("thou shalt be a dispersion in all kingdoms of the earth"). (Deuteronomy 28:25).  The word in the Hebrew was galuth (exile) although the translation in the King James edition of the Bible (KJV 1611) read: “The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth”.

οἰκοδομῶν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ὁ Kύριος καὶ τὰς διασπορὰς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπισυνάξει, oikodomōn Ierousalēm ho Kyrios kai tas diasporas tou Israēl episynaxē ("The Lord doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel"). (Psalms 147.2)

When the Bible was translated into Greek, the word was used of (1) the Kingdom of Samaria, exiled from Israel by the Assyrians between 740-722 BC, (2) Jews, Benjaminites and Levites exiled from the Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians (587 BC) and (3) Jews exiled by the empire from Roman Judea (72 AD).  From that use can be traced the development of the word to its modern form when it can be used not only of populations of one land living in another but linguistic novelties such the “diasporic capitalism” which found it’s natural home under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and “diasporic cuisine” (such as the ubiquitous sushi which has colonized takeaway outlets east & west).  In the English-speaking world, the convention is that when capitalized, Diaspora refers specifically to the Jews (no longer does there seem to be a faction which insists it can be only of the event in 72 AD) while the word is un-capitalized for all other purposes.  Even then, controversy remains.  Because of the origins in which exile and expulsion were central to the experience, it is by some held that properly to be thought a diasporic, one must have been forced from one’s homeland but that seems now a minority position, someone in self-imposed exile, an economic migrant or a “mail order” bride all able to be included.  The foreign element does though remain essential; a refugee can be part of a diaspora whereas an IDP (internally displaced person) cannot, even if geographically, religiously or ethnically segregated, if in their homeland, they remain (an unfortunate) part of that community.  The first known instance of “diaspora” in an English text is thought to appear in 1594 in John Stockwood's (circa 1545-1610) translation of Commentarius in XII prophetas minores (Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets (1594)) by French theologian. Lambert Daneau Lambert Daneau (circa 1530-1595): “This scattering abrode of the Iewes, as it were an heauenly sowing, fell out after their returne from the captiuitie of Babylon. Wherevpon both Acts. 2. and also 1. Pet. 1. and 1. Iam. ver. 1. [sic] they are called Diaspora, that is, a scattering or sowing abrode.”  The word was used in 1825 in reference to Moravian protestants and in 1869 in reference to the dispersion of the Jews although in English, the word earlier used to convey the concept was the late fourteenth century Latinate dispersion.

Google Ngram for diaspora.  Google’s Ngrams are not wholly reliable as a record in the trend-line of a word’s use because (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI might improve).  Despite that, the trend of disapora’s increasing use in the post-war years seems solid.  In the nineteenth and into the twentieth century the word was used in theological and academic writing and there doesn’t appear to have been a great volume of argument about whether it exclusively should be of Jews and nor was that aspect of the history controversial in the post-war years when use of the word spiked, a product presumably of (1) the vast increase in migration from European nations, both within the area and to countries beyond and (2) the rapid expansion of the university sector in the West, a new cohort of academics suddenly available (and anxious) to study these populations and the effects, both on their homelands and the places in which they became resident.

The classical etymology and the idea of something leaving its original site and travelling to other places meant “diaspora” appealed to scientists coining technical terms.   In geology, the noun diaspore describes a natural hydrate of aluminium (also as diasporite, tanatarite, empholite or kayserite) which in addition to its other properties is famed for its stalactites and in crystal form, it exists as a gemstone.  Diaspore is a major component in the ore bauxite which is smelted into aluminium and the name was chosen to suggest “scatter”, an allusion to its decrepitation when heated.  In petrology (the study of certain rocks and their transformative processes), the related noun diasporite refers to the metamorphic rock containing diaspore.  In botany, diaspore is used to refer to seeds and fruit which operate in unison as a dispersal unit.

A very modern diasporic: Living in the United Arab Emirates, island designer Lindsay Lohan (pictured here in an empire line dress), is part of the western diaspora in Dubai.

A diasporite is a member of a diaspora (although the adjective diasporic has been used as a (non-standard) noun, the usual plural in English being diasporas, the alternatives diasporae & diasporai.  It’s certainly a loaded word, something perhaps based in the idea of exile in some form, a particular form of migration, displacement, scattering, exodus or dispersal although one also associated with the “escape” of the refugee.  In use, the connotation seems to be different from “expatriate” (often clipped to “expat”), another example of someone living in a foreign land and it’s hard to escape the impression the modern “diaspora” has become a Western construct and one which applies (almost) exclusively to religious, cultural or ethnic minorities and although diasporites increasingly are where they are by choice rather than an act of expulsion, the distinction remains and sometimes there are ethnic-specific adaptations such as Afrodiaspora (those of African extraction (and not necessarily birth)) living in other places.

Although the irregular immigration northward from South & Central America is trending up, the Indian diaspora remains the largest. 

By implication too, a disapora, sharing a common origin, culture or ethnicity tends to be thought a group which maintains a strong connection to the “homeland”, its culture and heritage. They may engage in cultural, social, or economic activities that tie them back to their original community.  By contrast, an expat seems almost always to be white and in some well-paid job, there perhaps for the long-term but probably still temporarily; the British lawyers and accountants in Hong Kong before the handover (1997) were “expats” whereas the workers from the Philippines employed as domestic help were a “diaspora”.  It’s a distinction which would have seemed both understandable and unremarkable under the Raj and it's hard to see its origin as based in anything but racialism.

Racialism

Racialism (pronounced rey-shuh-liz-uhm)

(1) The belief that humans can be categorized as belonging to distinct races, each race being characterized by fixed and heritable traits (obsolete).

(2) In technical use, any system of categorization which uses race (however defined); in technical use, what used to be called scientific racialism (and later race realism) is still practiced but the term is no longer applied except as a critique.

1882: The construct was racial + -ism (the adjective racial dating from 1862).  Race (in this context) was from the French racisme, dating from 1902, from the mid sixteenth century Middle French race from the early fourteenth century Italian razza of uncertain origin.  The word gained the various senses of (1) a group of sentient beings, particularly people, distinguished by common ancestry, heritage or physical characteristics (most notably skin color or tone), (2) an identifiably distinct group of people distinguished from others on some basis (which could be cultural or religious).  Noted first in 1928, use of the word racism became common by the mid-1930s and was widely applied to the legal and social systems in some countries by at least 1940.  The –ial suffix from the Middle English, from the Old French, from the Latin -ālis (the third-declension two-termination suffix (neuter -āle) used to form adjectives of relationship from nouns or numerals) and was used to form adjectives from nouns.  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  Racialism & racialist are nouns & adjectives and racialistic is an adjective; the noun plural is racialisms.  Racism & racist are nouns and adjectives; the noun plural is racisms.

The word was coined in 1882, based on the existing use of "race" as a synonym of "nation, tribe, ethnic group"; the later senses emerged from circa 1890 from the use of "race" for racial categories.  The use in 1882 was essentially neutral and descriptive and referred to “tribalism” but in less than a decade it assumed the meaning “political system advocating superiority and exclusive rights based on race” but that would come later to be replaced by the more overt “racism” & “racist”.  The later attempt to repurpose the word for (allegedly) scientific purpose with a meaning closer to the 1882 original (including as race-realism) was unsuccessful.  In the West, expressions of racism became first unfashionable in polite society and later unacceptable.  This change in attitude unfolded over decades in the twentieth century and progress was socially and geographically varied, the clustering of populations by class, education and ethnic diversity (the formalization as DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) came early in the 2000s) probably the most significant factors accounting for the difference.  Racism does seem to be endemic in the human condition and while it can be suppressed by collective social disapprobation or rendered unlawful, apparently everywhere when people with recognizably different features or characteristics (in appearance, linguistically, culturally etc) degrees of conflict ensue.  This can be something so low-level it’s usually imperceptible such as the interactions between the Italian, French, German & Romansh speakers in Switzerland or more violent, as recent events in Sudan and Tunisia demonstrate.  It’s not going to go away and the management of it varies from place to place between the multi-cultural policies in the West and the “ethnic cleansing” (something of a euphemism in that it included mass-murder) associated with the wars in the Balkans in the early 1990s.  The most obvious modern manifestation of racialism is “racial profiling” which ranges from filtering processes which exclude certain applicants from the employment selection process to police selecting for “stop & search” only those perceived to be of a certain ethnicity to persons of middle-eastern appearance receiving heightened levels of attention from airport security staff.

Winsor Newton Black Indian Ink.

Racialism and racism are not unrelated concepts, but have different meanings and implications.  Racialism is practiced as a spectrum and explores the existence of differences between racial groups (as defined) and this can be in genetics, specific capabilities, traits, or characteristics.  It can be merely descriptive (even down to the cellular level) bit inevitably comes often to be used to suggest there might be races which are superior or inferior to others based on these differences.  Racism however, takes a belief system (usually of racial superiority) and imposes systemic oppression, discrimination, prejudice, and unequal treatment of individuals or groups based on their race, ethnicity, or nationality.  The most obvious examples involve the exercise of power and privilege by one racial group over others, leading to social, economic, and political disparities.  So seriously corrosive has race come to be seen in the West that some guides now recommend race never be mentioned by white people although there is a convention words & phrases using proscribed terms can be used the those in the group referenced, hence the ongoing popularity of the infamous N-words among the African American community.  That doesn’t however mean it’s now permissible for white people to use the phrase “white trash”, even as a self-descriptor because of its origins which essentially equated whites of the lowest socio-economic status with that of blacks although it does continue to be used both as a term of disparagement and one of group identity.  Helpfully, the guides suggest “Chinese whispers” should become “telephone whispers” and “Indian Ink” is best called “carbon-based ink” although under the original name it remains widely available.  In cricket, the “chinaman” delivery is no longer mention and if one is sent down, it’s correct to call it “left-arm unorthodox spin” or “left-arm wrist spin”, both of which are by comparison a bit of a mouthful but the sport seems to cope with the fielding position known as “deep backward square leg” so most should adapt.  The “French cut” seems to have survived.

Racialism can however still, with caution, be used.  Geneticists for example have determined the only “pure” human beings left are the black Africans while the rest of the planet’s population is a result of human Neanderthal interbreeding and that’s an example of racialism (the once current terms “race realism” and “scientific racism” have long been proscribed because they became tainted by a number of pseudo-sciences which (unsurprisingly) all supported notions of white superiority).  Also racialist is another discovery from the DNA labs: a genetic mutation found in Africans, the possession of which offers some degree of protection from malaria and that would have been a product of natural selection among those who live in places where the disease was endemic.

Faction

Faction (pronounced fak-shun)

(1) A group or clique forming a minority within a larger body, especially a dissentious group within a political party, government or organization.  The terms “splinter group”, “breakaway”, “reform group”, “ginger group” et al are sometimes used as factional descriptors depending on the circumstances but the more familiar (and sometimes formally institutionalized) are forms like “right”, “left”, “wet”, “dry” “moderate”, “conservative” et al.

(2) Internal organizational strife and intrigue; discord or dissension (applied mostly to political parties but used also to describe the internal workings of many institutions).

(3) As a portmanteau word, the construct being fact + (fict)on), in literature, film etc, a form of writing which blends fact and fiction (though distinct from the literary form “magic realism); in journalism, elements of faction are seen in variations of the technique sometimes called “new” or “gonzo” journalism.  In reportage, it should not be confused with “making stuff up” and it’s distinct from the “alternative facts” model associated with some staff employed in the Trump White House.

1500-1510: From the fourteenth century Middle French faction, from the Latin factionem (nominative factiō) (a group of people acting together, a political grouping (literally “a making or doing”)), a noun of process from the perfect passive participle factus, from faciō (do, make), from facere (to make, to do), from the primitive Indo-European root dhe- (to set; put; to place or adjust).  The adjective factious (given to faction, turbulently partisan, dissentious) dates from the 1530s and was from either the French factieux or the Latin factiosus (partisan, seditious, inclined to form parties) again from factionem; the related forms were the noun factiousness and the adverb factiously.  In ancient Rome, the factions were the four teams which contested the chariot racing events in the circus, the members distinguished by the colors used for their clothing and to adorn their horses and equipment.  Because politics and the sport soon intertwined the meaning of faction shifted to include “an oligarchy, usurping faction, party seeking by irregular means to bring about a change in government”.  Even after the fall of Rome, the traditional Roman factions remained prominent in the Byzantine Empire and chariot racing went into decline only after the factions fought during the Nika riots in 532 which saw some thirty-thousand dead and half of Constantinople razed.  Faction, factioneer, factionist & factionalism are nouns, factionalize is a verb, factional & factionless are adjectives, factionally is an adverb, factionary is a noun & adjective, factionate is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is factions.

The use of the word to describe the literary device which blends facts with fiction faction is said to date from the late 1960s although some sources suggest it had earlier been used in discussions held in conferences and meetings but the most usual descriptor of such works was the earlier “non-fiction novel” which by the mid century (especially in the US) had become a popular (and in literary circles a fashionable) form although, as such, it was not originally directly related to post-modernism.  Critics trace the origins of the form to the years immediately after World War I (1914-1918) and distinguish the works produced then from earlier texts where there was some use of dubious material presented as “fact” in that in the twentieth century the author’s made their intent deliberate.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) was well acquainted with the earthly lusts and frailties of men and in Coriolanus (1605-1608) act 5, scene 2, at the Volscian camp when Menenius is halted by sentries who refuse to allow him to see their generals he knew what to say though it did him little good.

First sentry: Faith, sir, if you had told as many lies in his behalf as you have uttered words in your own, you should not pass here; no, though it were as virtuous to lie as to live chastely. Therefore, go back.

Menenius: Prithee, fellow, remember my name is Menenius, always factionary on the party of your general.

Second sentry: Howsoever you have been his liar, as you say you have, I am one that, telling true under him, must say, you cannot pass.  Therefore, go back.

Menenius: Hath he dined, canst thou tell? for I would not speak with him till after dinner.

The Baader-Meinhof faction

Founded in 1970, the Rote Armee Fraktion (Red Army Faction (RAF)) was a left-wing, armed militant revolutionary group based in the Federal Republic of Germany (The FRG or West Germany (1949-1990)) which, for almost thirty years, undertook assassinations, kidnappings, robberies and bombings and although actually less active than some other terrorist cells, the RAF was better known and most influential in the early-mid 1970s.  The RAF was dissolved in 1998 although, in the nature of such things, some members continued to use their skills in criminal ventures including drug-trafficing as a form of revenue generation.  The RAF always used the word Fraktion, translated into English as faction.  The linguistic implications never pleased RAF members who thought themselves the embedded, military wing of the wider communist workers' movement, not a faction or splinter-group.  In this context the German doesn’t lend well to translation but closest single-word reflecting the RAF’s view is probably “section” or “squad”.  German journalist Stefan Aust (b 1946) also avoided the word, choosing Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (the  Baader-Meinhof Complex) as the title of his 2008 book because it better described how the organization operated.

Andreas Baader & Ulrike Meinhof

In the era they were active, a common descriptor in the English-speaking word was the Baader-Meinhof Group or Gang, named after two of its members Andreas Baader (1943–1977) and Ulrike Meinhof (1934-1976) and the media’s choice of “gang” or “group” may have reflected the desire of governments for the RAF to be depicted more as violent criminals and less as revolutionaries.  The popular press however certainly preferred Baader-Meinhof to RAF because of the drama of the story, Meinhof having been part of the gang which freed Baader from prison.  Both later killed themselves and, although they were never the star-cross'd lovers some journalists liked to suggest, it added to the romance and the Baader-Meinhof name survived their deaths and although the media, politicians and security agencies adopted the eponymous title, it was never used by the RAF.  In the tradition of Marxist collectives, the members regarded the RAF as a co-founded group of many members and not one either defined by or identified with two figureheads, apart from which, the dominant female of the group was actually Gudrun Ensslin (1940-1977).

Factionalism

Factionalism is probably inherent to the nature of organizations and it really needs only for a structure to have two members for a faction to form.  Factions can be based on ideology, geography, theology, personalities (and factions have been formed purely as vehicles of hatred for another) or just about basis and the names they adopt can be designed to denigrate (redneck faction), operate euphemistically (centre-left (just right wingers who didn’t want to admit it)) or indicate a place on the spectrum (left vs right, liberal vs conservative et al).  They can also be modified by those wishing to demonize (lunar-right, hard-right, religious right etc).  The labelling can also be linguistically productive  In the UK during the 1980s, “the wets” was an epithet applied within the Conservative Party to those who opposed the government’s hard line policies, on the model of the slang “a bit wet” to describe those though effete or lacking resolve.  The wets responded by labelling their detractors “the dries” to which they responded with “warm and dry”, words with positive associations in a cold and damp country.  The names constantly evolve because fissiparousness is in the nature of organizations.

Of human nature

Cady's Map by Janis Ian.

The human race does seem inherently fissiparousness and wherever cultures have formed, history suggests divisions will form and folk will tend to coalesce (or be allocated or otherwise forced) into factions.  Usually, this is attributed to some defined or discernible difference (ethnicity, skin color, language, tribal affiliation, religion et al) but even among homogeneous groups, it's rare to identify one without sub-groups.  It does seem human nature and has long since become institutionalized and labelling theory practitioners can probably now build minor academic careers just by tracking the segregation as it evolves (boomers, gen-X, millennials etc).  The faction names of the cliques at North Shore High School (Mean Girls, Paramount Pictures 2004)) were Actual Human Beings, Anti-Plastics, The Art Freaks, Asexual Band Geeks, Asian Nerds, Burnouts, Cheerleaders, Cool Asians, Desperate Wannabes, Freshmen, Girls Who Eat Their Feelings, J.V. Cheerleaders, J.V. Jocks, Junior Plastics, Preps, ROTC Guys, Sexually Active Band Geeks, The Plastics, Unfriendly Black Hotties, Unnamed Girls Who Don't Eat Anything, and Varsity Jocks.  Given the way sensitivities have evolved, it’s predictable some of those names wouldn’t today be used; the factions' membership rosters would be much the same but some terms are now proscribed in this context, the threshold test for racism now its mere mention, racialism banished to places like epidemiological research papers tracking the distribution of morbidity. 

The factions of the Anglican Church

Fissiparousness is much associated with the modern Church of England, factions of which some time ago mostly abandoned any interest in God or the message of Christ for the more important matters of championing or decrying gay clergy, getting women into or keeping them out of the priesthood, and talking to or ignoring Rome.  Among those resistant to anything beyond the medieval, there's even an institutional forum, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) which holds meetings at which there is much intrigue and plotting; it's sort of an anti-Lambeth Conference though the cucumber sandwiches are said to be much the same.  Under the stresses inherent in the late twentieth-century, fissiparousness saw the Anglicans coalesce into three factions, the low & lazy, the broad & hazy and the high & crazy.

Overlaps in the Anglican Church factions

The Low & Lazy

Like the high churchers, the low lot still believe in God but, their time not absorbed plotting and scheming or running campaigns to stamp out gay clergy and opposing the ordination of women, they actually have time to pray, which they do, often.  The evangelical types come from among the low and don’t approve of fancy rituals, Romish ways or anything smelling of popery.  Instead, they like services where there’s clapping, dancing and what sounds like country & western music with sermons telling them it’s Godly to buy things like big TVs and surf-skis.

The Broad & Hazy

The broad church is more a club than a church, something like the Tory Party at prayer.  The parishioners will choose the church they (occasionally) attend on the same basis as their golf club, driving miles if need be to find a congregation acceptably free of racial and cultural DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion).  They’re interested not at all in theology or anything too abstract so sermons need to be brief and sufficiently vague to please the bourgeoisie.  The broad church stands for most things in general and nothing in particular; finding most disputes in Anglicanism baffling, they just can't see what all the fuss is about.

The High & Crazy

The high church has clergy who love dressing up like the Spice Girls, burning incense and chanting the medieval liturgy in Latin.  They disapprove of about everything that’s happened since the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer and believe there’d be less sin were there still burnings at the stake.  Most high church clergy wish Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) still sat on the throne of Saint Peter and some act as though he does.

Fissiparous

Fissiparous (pronounced fi-sip-er-uhs)

(1) In biology, reproducing or propagating by fission; propagated by spontaneous fission or self-division (that form of asexual generation in which the parent divides; each part becoming a new individual).

(2) Having a tendency to divide into groups or factions; factious, tending to break into pieces

1825-1835: An adaptation of the New Latin fissiparus, the construct being fissi, from fissus (split, cleft) + parous, from pariō (I bring forth) by mistaken analogy with vīviparus.  Vīviparus was a 1640s adoption from the Late Latin viviparus (bringing forth alive), the construct being vivus (alive, living), from the primitive Indo-European root gwei- (to live) + parire (bring forth, bear) from the primitive Indo-European root pere- (to produce, bring forth).  Outside of physics and biology, fissiparous is rare, the preferred synonyms in general use being  divisive, fractious, fragmenting & unstable; when used it’s often as the collocation "fissiparous tendencies".  Fissiparous & fissipalmate are adjectives, fissiparousness, fissiparity & fissiparism are nouns and fissiparously is an adverb; the most common noun plural is fissiparism.

Outside of the technical use (mostly in physics and biology), fissiparous is used in political science or the study or organizational behavior when discussing the institutions which either inherently posses or are prone to developing factions.  While it’s true that not very helpful in that any institution with more than one member could presumably be vulnerable, the view is that the institutions most at risk are those where ideological differences exist either in objective or the means by which it may be achieved.  However, even if no disputes of this kind may exist, of achieving fissiparousness may manifest simply because of a pursuit for organizational power or authority.  The risk to therefore thought to be greatest in the institutions which (1) exist to pursue some ideological purpose, the parameters of which are variable and (2) the rewards of power are greatest.  That’s why fissiparousness is often displayed in political parties and religions.

Fissiparousness is much associated with the modern Church of England, factions of which some time ago mostly abandoned any interest in God or the message of Christ for the more important matters of championing or decrying gay clergy, getting women into or keeping them out of the priesthood, and talking to or ignoring Rome.  Among those resistant to anything beyond the medieval, there's even an institutional forum, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) which holds meetings at which there is much intrigue and plotting; it's sort of an anti-Lambeth Conference though the cucumber sandwiches are said to be much the same.  Under the stresses inherent in the late twentieth-century, fissiparousness saw the Anglicans coalesce into three factions, the low & lazy, the broad & hazy and the high & crazy.

The Low & Lazy

Like the high churchers, the low lot still believe in God but, their time not absorbed plotting and scheming or running campaigns to stamp out gay clergy and opposing the ordination of women, they actually have time to pray, which they do, often.  The evangelical types come from among the low and don’t approve of fancy rituals, Romish ways or anything smelling of popery.  Instead, they like services where there’s clapping, dancing and what sounds like country & western music with sermons telling them it’s Godly to buy things like big TVs and surf-skis.

The Broad & Hazy

The broad church is more a club than a church, something like the Tory Party at prayer.  The parishioners will choose the church they (occasionally) attend on the same basis as their golf club, driving miles if need be to find a congregation acceptably free of racial and cultural DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion).  They’re interested not at all in theology or anything too abstract so sermons need to be brief and sufficiently vague to please the bourgeoisie.  The broad church stands for most things in general and nothing in particular; finding most disputes in Anglicanism baffling, they just can't see what all the fuss is about.

The High & Crazy

The high church has clergy who love dressing up like the Spice Girls, burning incense and chanting the medieval liturgy in Latin.  They disapprove of about everything that’s happened since the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer and believe there’d be less sin were there still burnings at the stake.  Most high church clergy wish Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) still sat on the throne of Saint Peter and some act as though he does.

Of human nature

Cady's Map by Janis Ian.

The human race does seem inherently fissiparousness and wherever cultures have formed, history suggests divisions will form and folk will tend to coalesce (or be allocated or otherwise forced) into factions.  Usually, this is attributed to some defined or discernible difference (ethnicity, skin color, language, tribal affiliation, religion et al) but even among homogeneous groups, it's rare to identify one without sub-groups.  It does seem human nature and has long since become institutionalized and labelling theory practitioners can probably now build minor academic careers just by tracking the segregation as it evolves (boomers, gen-X, millennials etc).  The faction names of the cliques at North Shore High School (Mean Girls, Paramount Pictures 2004)) were Actual Human Beings, Anti-Plastics, The Art Freaks, Asexual Band Geeks, Asian Nerds, Burnouts, Cheerleaders, Cool Asians, Desperate Wannabes, Freshmen, Girls Who Eat Their Feelings, J.V. Cheerleaders, J.V. Jocks, Junior Plastics, Preps, ROTC Guys, Sexually Active Band Geeks, The Plastics, Unfriendly Black Hotties, Unnamed Girls Who Don't Eat Anything, and Varsity Jocks.  Given the way sensitivities have evolved, it’s predictable some of those names wouldn’t today be used; the factions' membership rosters would be much the same but some terms are now proscribed in this context, the threshold test for racism now its mere mention, racialism banished to places like epidemiological research papers tracking the distribution of morbidity.