We are seeking provocative, original, and well-researched submissions for the first issue of our new quarterly Clamour.

What We're Looking For

We welcome submissions for our general section. These can be hard-hitting articles on politics, history, economics, travel, education, housing -- basically anything of contemporary relevance or concern. Investigative pieces are welcome. We will also accept critical, offbeat, and enlightening film and book reviews.

The inaugural issue will feature the theme of “War,” loosely defined. This can include war in the traditional sense, but also a war on inequality, war on bad taste, etc. Don’t go to absurd lengths to stretch your piece to fit this theme (that would be bullshit, see below). Pieces featured in the general section should be no greater than 5,000 words. Please see the “What We Expect” section below.

We also want pieces for our regular sections:

• Profiles in Infamy: Where we highlight a person, company, organization, or system deserving of public scorn and exposure. More than others, pieces for this section should be chock full of appropriate evidence and citations.

• Under Our Noses: In which one scours public legislation systems like Thomas to find proposed amendments or bills that have to date gone under-reported and which could have great public consequence. Explanations of these issues and their potential effects in accessible language most welcome. Historical context is necessary. This section may also be used to highlight illogical laws that are just plain nonsense.

• Dangerous Climes: This section will feature pieces that relate to the climate change issue in ways that are counterintuitive, i.e., not directly related to the science itself or the political debates surrounding it. A good example would be writing about how the root cause of such-and-such conflict is a drought that climate change made worse. We will also accept pieces that point out good things happening in this area, in terms of positive reactions to highlighting people/organizations that benefit from climate change.

• Out of the Closet: Where we profile a great but unknown thinker, artist, writer, activist, poet, politician, journalist, physicist, policy-maker, cook, carpenter or community-organizer. If someone wants to profile a radical financier, by all means. This section will vaguely resemble the obituary from the Economist, with the caveat that our “heroes” are still alive and never held cabinet positions in a Thatcher government.

• Republic Politicking: This section will highlight successful public policies from around the world that address the question of sustainable urban development. Though 50% of humanity lived in a city in 2010, this number is expected to jump to 70% by 2050. With a focus on inclusive, sustainable and aesthetically-minded urban development, this section will address those policies which aim to improve the quality of life of all inhabitants in major urban centers, not just those in its privileged sectors.

• Cities: Each issue will feature a profile of a different city, peeling back the common perceptions of the locale and highlighting some interesting aspect that makes it unique.

What We Expect

Our publication takes no specific political stance save for one: we despise the acceptance and proliferation of bullshit.¹ For that reason we demand that, when the evidence supports it, writers call out bullshit whenever possible and do so in plain, clear language. This extends to the general style: we’ll take a colloquial word over its ten-cent cousin, and not just because we’re underfunded (tactful use of four-letter words will also do). Insofar as writers use academic language to hide their arguments behind fortified ivory towers, we seek to get rid of it (almost) entirely. If this means you must rely upon anger, write angrily. If it means you must rely upon satire, write satirically. No matter how you write just be sure to back yourself up with good evidence.²

One final and very important note. History isn’t just the purview of those in the tenured tweed uniform or the roving bands of adjuncts trying to get their EBT cards. It’s a relevant source of evidence for any argument. Because of this, we value the use of history in any piece and encourage writers to take some historical perspective where possible, especially when discussing contemporary issues.

Who We Are

We are a collective of underemployed millennials scattered across the North Atlantic, who share an interest in history, politics, economics, and cultural debate.³ We believe that the current media landscape tends to lack a certain vigor, edge, and intellectual honesty, not to mention creativity. Hopefully you can help us fill this void.

How to Submit Proposals and Contact Us

Please email your proposals for submission (or any pieces you think might fit) or any relevant questions, such as pay requirements, to [email protected].