The chapter re-examines the notorious Cade scenes of 2 Henry VI in light of widespread political protests across the globe. The bloody chaos of Cade’s failed popular uprising contains within it an important flash – or counter-memory – for the political imagination. First, the popular movement creates a break with the oppressive social order by revealing the systematic silencing and oppression of the commons. It makes the invisible visible. Second, the mass movement makes a positive demand for justice that differentiates the people from the State. Examining the rebels’ “Edenic egalitarianism”, the chapter draws on the recent work of Chris Fitter, Lorna Hutson, and Annabel Patterson in reassessing Shakespeare’s representation of popular politics. However, the chapter critiques the critical tendency to concentrate on what is “useful” or “effective” at the level of plot. It instead turns to imagination as the key to thinking Shakespeare’s popular politics. The force of the “people” is not located in one figure, be it Cade or Salisbury, but is dispersed across the drama. The spirit of the “in-common”, in all its absurdity and impossibility, lives on as a form of negative, or spectral, thinking and dramaturgy. The audience is the ultimate carrier and agent of this political imagination.

Julius Caesar presents the theatrical creation of “the spirit of Caesar”. The chapter turns to Hobbes to help articulate how Shakespeare captures the role of the popular imaginary in the generation of the sovereign spirit, the Leviathan that subsumes the raucous multitude. Negation is here central. First, the spirit of Caesar is raised in and through his sacrificial death. Second, we see the power of the people (deciding Rome’s fate) as it is not seen, as it is lost, as it is given away to Antony’s manipulative theatricality and all the future Caesars. The play’s conclusion also reveals what haunts monarchical sovereignty: “a man”. Brutus is negated, but the negation, like Caesar’s before him, raises him to spiritual status. The spirit of Brutus becomes an imaginary rival to the victorious spirit of Caesar. It raises a haunting republican “what if”, a spectral, negative carrier of justice or the common good. Brutus becomes our spirit in the second circle of the audience. The audience is constituted as an alternate crowd, an overarching seat of judgment, able to see the potentially radical implications of this sceptical play: that supposedly divinely ordained sovereignty is an imaginative creation of the theatrical crowd.

Negation is marked by individual words (such as ‘not’, ‘no’, ‘never’) in a variety of functions (including adjunct, determiner, and head of VP) or by affixes within a word (the suffix ‘·n’t’ or prefixes like ‘un·’ or ‘non·’). Very often there is an effect on the whole clause, and negation is usefully divided into clausal and subclausal negation. There are a number of syntactic tests for clausal negation, including the ‘not even’ test and confirmation tags. Within clausal negation a further distinction exists between verb and non-verb negation.

The grammatical system in which positive and negative contrast is called polarity, and it can be absolute (e.g., ‘no’ & ‘never’) – or approximate (e.g., ‘few’ & ‘rarely’). A number of words or larger expressions have the property of being polarity-sensitive, in the sense that they occur readily in clauses of one polarity but not of the other. Some of these occur equally well in negative and interrogative clauses. We call these non-affirmative items.

The scope of negation is the part of the sentence that the negative applies to semantically.

This chapter explores the ways in which children develop their sense of self in relation to body image. The influence of media, family and peers pay particular credence for the child in how they develop an image of themselves that is acceptable or not. Body satisfaction can therefore be somewhat reliant upon such socialized influences in our lives which means that as educators we need to be acutely aware of the language we use and the experiences we provide to ensure they are ethical, responsible and respectful to the children we teach and those we do not teach. To combat the potential of social rejection, exclusion and poor self-concept, educators can integrate learnings of social justice concepts within their curriculum. Using the pedagogical approaches of play, particularly through the arts, educators can support children to focus more upon health than a prescribed acceptable visual appearance, incorporate approaches to appreciating what children can do and how they can support each other, and develop security within their circles of friendship and community.

Chapter 4 examines the tone of presidential discussions of Supreme Court cases, focusing on why presidents discuss cases in positive, negative, and neutral lights. We argue that presidents alter the tone of their remarks about the Court’s decisions in an effort to build public support for their presidencies, shape how the public views the constitutional issues at play, and influence the implementation of the Court’s decisions in the bureaucracy and in Congress. For example, a president happy with the Court’s decision can praise the decision and assure the country that he will take all steps necessary to ensure it is implemented. Conversely, a president displeased with a decision can criticize that decision and encourage Congress to take action to alter or reverse the decision, thus signaling that the fight over the case has not ended. Consistent with our theoretical expectations, we find that presidents criticize cases they disagree with ideologically; those that declare laws unconstitutional; and those decided by minimum winning coalitions. Conversely, presidents tend to praise salient Supreme Court decisions that support their preferred ideological positions.

We celebrate the notion of zero and negative numbers. We use the notion of an equivalence class to define the rationals and obtain their properties.