It seems that the free speech fever has really hit Oxford, with ‘No Platform’ hitting the agenda of the Student Union presidential hopefuls to last night’s ‘debate’ on Free Speech with Anne Atkins, James Dray, Nick Griffin, Evan Harris, David Irving, and Jess Prince. With free speech, where do we really want to draw the line in the sand?
The Oxford Union described last nights debate as a ‘qualified success’, this was achieved by having 500 protesters, splitting the debate into two locations (with Irving, Harris and Atkins in the chamber, and Griffin, Prince and Dray in a different room), and by failing to let all those who wished to attend in (approximately half of the 500 ticketed members were allowed into the Union premises). In the Griffin debate, their real success was having an ‘intellectual’ debate, which challenged the views of all those present. The chair of the debate, Emily Partington (President-Elect), steered the discussion back onto free speech wherever possible, which while Griffin was often spouting bigoted and unfounded opinions, mislabelled as ‘facts’, left some remarks unquestioned, and enabled the talk to focus on the general issue of Free Speech.
It seemed that Prince and Dray highlighted that the extent of free speech is both difficult to define in a multicultural society, that there is a fundamental concept which we all hold dear. They raised the point that free speech is there to enable we, as members of society, to express our voices and opinions to others, however not to the extent which impinges on the ‘dignity’ of others. When questioned on the framework of society to upheld this concept of ‘dignity’, they admitted that this is quite difficult to enforce, but starting off with a fundamental concept was more important that trying to draw the line.
Griffin did start off promisingly (although only after he stumbled by insulting Oxford, dismissing them as the ‘intellectual elite’ – Griffin is a law graduate of Downing College, Cambridge), he started his brief speech discussing the merits of free speech and the problems which a multicultural society has when dealing with these issues. However, when he attempted to qualify his argument with ‘facts’, it became quite unsettling as he proceeded to use the famous quote “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins – Oliver Wendell Holmes” to twist his fascist views on the protection of a ‘British Indigenous People’ (read White Working Class) into a seemingly legitimate standpoint. However, he failed to backup any of his ‘points’ with real facts, and instead used half truths, opinions labelled as facts, and cherry picked individual experiences which were clearly mislabelled as generalisations. These included descriptions of ‘Muslim men grooming non-muslim women for sex’, by using cigarettes/alcohol/rollups/cannabis/crack (in that order) and then inviting them back to be ‘gang-raped’ and attributing this sex crime as a race crime. (I agree with Jess Prince, grooming for sex is abhorrent, in this case it was difficult to trace the race related issue.) The audience expressed dismay at many of his unfounded points, either by questioning directly (often linking these back to his fascist doctrine), or by awkward gasps/laughs.
The propaganda which Griffin was uttering, was clearly visible, he pandered to an anti liberal-leftwing-intellectual establishment which was disempowering the Real People, and seemingly providing a rational alternative with his ‘Pro British White Man’ party; citing the injustice of the establishment’s gagging, due to ‘No Platform’ policies, dismissal of BNP views, and ‘limitations on free speech’ with incitement to religious and racial hatred based laws. To make his view point seem more hip’n’interesting he jumped on the climate bandwagon and attempted to blame global warming on immigration. This seemed a little incongruous with his previous arguments, and just served to highlight his blinkered view of the world. (People have a carbon footprint wherever they live, and we as a global society have to deal with that issue, whether they wish to call Britain their home or not.)
As a society, we need to examine what we consider to be ‘decent’ in our society, especially when it comes to our rights and on issues such as free speech. Our right to exist as ‘dignified’ human beings does come with some caveats, as we must be aware of the impact we have on others. The effect of free speech rang most true with the passion and articulate voices at the debate, both from the speakers, the chair and the audience. Everyone was there to listen and to make up their own minds.
The views expressed here are of the author, and do not constitute the views of the Oxford Hive as a whole.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Sunday, 27 May 2007
"Salvaging Sovereignty and Saving the Nation State?"
8.15pm, Wednesday 6th week (30th May)
Lower Lecture Theatre, Lincoln College
The decline of state sovereignty and its consequences with Chris Bickerton,
co-editor of 'Politics Without Sovereignty'.
The sovereign state is in bad shape. Thanks to fashionable notions of
international law, universal human rights, the need for world-wide environmental
action and humanitarian intervention, the belief that the sovereign state can do
what it wants within its own territory has been fatally undermined. But should
this development be welcomed? Does the destruction of state sovereignty mean the
introduction of arbitrary power in the international system? What right do
international bodies have to interfere with the internal business of any state?
Is state sovereignty more important than universal morality? Who, if anyone, is
accountable in this new age of supra-state power? Join the Hive for a lively and
stimulating discussion of these and other issues.
Wine provided. (Suggested donation £2)
Read more about Chris, and his article entited "This is where the buck stops" here.
Lower Lecture Theatre, Lincoln College
The decline of state sovereignty and its consequences with Chris Bickerton,
co-editor of 'Politics Without Sovereignty'.
The sovereign state is in bad shape. Thanks to fashionable notions of
international law, universal human rights, the need for world-wide environmental
action and humanitarian intervention, the belief that the sovereign state can do
what it wants within its own territory has been fatally undermined. But should
this development be welcomed? Does the destruction of state sovereignty mean the
introduction of arbitrary power in the international system? What right do
international bodies have to interfere with the internal business of any state?
Is state sovereignty more important than universal morality? Who, if anyone, is
accountable in this new age of supra-state power? Join the Hive for a lively and
stimulating discussion of these and other issues.
Wine provided. (Suggested donation £2)
Read more about Chris, and his article entited "This is where the buck stops" here.
Saturday, 17 February 2007
No Platform: Intolerance for the tolerant?
I apologise for this being somewhat late, I have been busy working!. As a bonus this is an early post for tomorrow. From our recent debate on "Free Speech for Fascists?" I have been led to write the following article.
NUS, OUSU and various other institutions have a 'No Platform' policy which means 'excluding fascists from debate.' From the NUS, 'The no platform policy says firstly that fascists should not be given public forum, and secondly that if they do gain a platform other political parties and organisations should refuse to share it with them.' Can we really combat fascism by promoting a silence of this abhorrent group? In our liberal society how do we justify this lack of tolerance and direct prejudice towards other people?
Fascism is a problem in our society. The resurgence of fascist groups, such as the BNP, do plague us. They cause upset, harm, and fear amongst the general population. A no platform policy is an expression of our solidarity against this menace to society. However, it is a poor choice in solidarity, it immediately places some restrictions among our fellow people, and in doing so is a self criticism of our own liberal beliefs.
Students and members of society do have a duty to promote a liberal and free society; where people are free of oppression, harm and fear. Fascists often seek to upset this free society, often using xenophobia and discrimination of minorities as their key tools. How can we justify our version of society over theirs, when we seeking to curtail people's freedoms?
We do not have the right to limit their voice because they do not agree or promote a free society. Who has decided that they do not consign to our version of a liberal society? Instead we must work to instil tolerance and similar values upon members of society; so that those members are then empowered to dismiss fascists individually.
Any form of consensus is a majority decision, and thus will limit the rights of a minority group. Even if this is a well meaning decision, hoping to protect the vulnerable, it is very difficult to justify this double standard. Recently, it was decided to add other groups to this no platform policy, how exactly was this decision reached? By citing is as a democratic decision, that is a decision of a majority, and it may not benefit the whole of society.
Previously fascism was said to be an abhorrent group, however when reading further into fascism we can uncover a huge difficulty in quantifying exactly what fascism is. Look at the wikipedia article, it is very difficult to pin down a reliable definition of a fascist. We therefore have a consensus on who qualifies as a fascist, and who will be limited by the no platform policy.
OUSU must look out for the welfare of all students, it must aim to promote the free discussion and understanding of those individuals. It is patronising and disgraceful to think that the no platform policy is protecting students; it merely provides a bubble. Society has nasty people in it; people who will incite and cause harm to others. Instead of merely hiding from these groups and ignoring them, we should engage them in an active discussion, and tackle the problem head on. We can then lead by example, and convince spectators that our beliefs and values are what should be upheld.
There are various cases which show that as soon as a fascist group, such as the BNP, are allowed a voice on student campuses that incidents of racial violence will increase. However, silence and shying away from tackling the problem head on, equally is not solving the problem. Instead it provide an alternative legitimacy and 'underdog' status to those groups.
One of the arguments cited in favour of the no platform policy is that by providing a platform we legitimise their conduct. They can then use our good name to explain that their policies are acceptable in the mainstream. It is up to the individual to accept or deny that right, it is up to umbrella organisations, such as a students union, to promote the idea that tolerance is about respect of other people's views, opinions, and to live a life free of persecution.
The KKK was taken down in the US by a culture of discussion and openness. The mysterious and cultist behaviour of the KKK was running unchallenged on the fringes of society. Arguably this could be done while maintaining a no platform policy. It is important to ensure that people have sufficient knowledge of the other parties beliefs and actions in order to make a rational decision.
The double standard of a no platform policy is redundant in our modern society. While we may seek to drive fascists out of our institutions, their ideas are easily accessed by the web, newspapers, and other forms of media. Instead the policy promotes an underdog status to fascists. It curtails freedom of members of our society, thus undermining our liberal values.
NUS, OUSU and various other institutions have a 'No Platform' policy which means 'excluding fascists from debate.' From the NUS, 'The no platform policy says firstly that fascists should not be given public forum, and secondly that if they do gain a platform other political parties and organisations should refuse to share it with them.' Can we really combat fascism by promoting a silence of this abhorrent group? In our liberal society how do we justify this lack of tolerance and direct prejudice towards other people?
Fascism is a problem in our society. The resurgence of fascist groups, such as the BNP, do plague us. They cause upset, harm, and fear amongst the general population. A no platform policy is an expression of our solidarity against this menace to society. However, it is a poor choice in solidarity, it immediately places some restrictions among our fellow people, and in doing so is a self criticism of our own liberal beliefs.
Students and members of society do have a duty to promote a liberal and free society; where people are free of oppression, harm and fear. Fascists often seek to upset this free society, often using xenophobia and discrimination of minorities as their key tools. How can we justify our version of society over theirs, when we seeking to curtail people's freedoms?
We do not have the right to limit their voice because they do not agree or promote a free society. Who has decided that they do not consign to our version of a liberal society? Instead we must work to instil tolerance and similar values upon members of society; so that those members are then empowered to dismiss fascists individually.
Any form of consensus is a majority decision, and thus will limit the rights of a minority group. Even if this is a well meaning decision, hoping to protect the vulnerable, it is very difficult to justify this double standard. Recently, it was decided to add other groups to this no platform policy, how exactly was this decision reached? By citing is as a democratic decision, that is a decision of a majority, and it may not benefit the whole of society.
Previously fascism was said to be an abhorrent group, however when reading further into fascism we can uncover a huge difficulty in quantifying exactly what fascism is. Look at the wikipedia article, it is very difficult to pin down a reliable definition of a fascist. We therefore have a consensus on who qualifies as a fascist, and who will be limited by the no platform policy.
OUSU must look out for the welfare of all students, it must aim to promote the free discussion and understanding of those individuals. It is patronising and disgraceful to think that the no platform policy is protecting students; it merely provides a bubble. Society has nasty people in it; people who will incite and cause harm to others. Instead of merely hiding from these groups and ignoring them, we should engage them in an active discussion, and tackle the problem head on. We can then lead by example, and convince spectators that our beliefs and values are what should be upheld.
There are various cases which show that as soon as a fascist group, such as the BNP, are allowed a voice on student campuses that incidents of racial violence will increase. However, silence and shying away from tackling the problem head on, equally is not solving the problem. Instead it provide an alternative legitimacy and 'underdog' status to those groups.
One of the arguments cited in favour of the no platform policy is that by providing a platform we legitimise their conduct. They can then use our good name to explain that their policies are acceptable in the mainstream. It is up to the individual to accept or deny that right, it is up to umbrella organisations, such as a students union, to promote the idea that tolerance is about respect of other people's views, opinions, and to live a life free of persecution.
The KKK was taken down in the US by a culture of discussion and openness. The mysterious and cultist behaviour of the KKK was running unchallenged on the fringes of society. Arguably this could be done while maintaining a no platform policy. It is important to ensure that people have sufficient knowledge of the other parties beliefs and actions in order to make a rational decision.
The double standard of a no platform policy is redundant in our modern society. While we may seek to drive fascists out of our institutions, their ideas are easily accessed by the web, newspapers, and other forms of media. Instead the policy promotes an underdog status to fascists. It curtails freedom of members of our society, thus undermining our liberal values.
Monday, 5 February 2007
We don't need your education: what is the curriculum for?
With education continually in the media, and the government looking
into reforming A levels, SATs and GCSEs, we have invited David Perks
and Andrew Hunt along to provide their insight.
David Perks writes for The Times Education Supplement, The Guardian,
The Times, and Spiked. He speaks regularly on Education, and has
contributed to The Routledge Falmer Guide to Key Debates in Education.
He gained his PGCE in Oxford and has been a teacher for 20+ years.
Andrew Hunt is director of the Nuffield Curriculum Centre. He
contributes to the development of the Association for Science
Education's Science across the World project. He has written several
Chemistry text books, and is a former science teacher.
Sunday, 28 January 2007
You are what you eat: Do we give a shit?
Nutrition is an important factor in our day to day life. We are inundated with guidance about what we should and should not be consuming. Does the old adage “You are what you eat” really hold water?
Dieting is big business: in the US the diet ready meal sector is worth $800 million; fad diets come and go, while making their creators mega rich; newspapers and magazines peddle their own 'nutrition gurus'. As consumers we have to navigate this precarious minefield; who's advice do we listen to?
Food is a serious issue: The WHO estimates that over 1.6 billion people are overweight, with over 400 million of those clinically obese. It affects the health service we are provided in the UK, and affects the lives of many across the globe. Obesity killed 400,000 people in 2000 alone, and has exceeded smoking as the number one killer.
The human body is amazing; we have evolved to become a very complex beast with the most fantastic ability to be omnivores. We have adapted to be comfortable in many different climates, with varying staple foods: nomads in the desert can survive with very little water; The Inuit can survive almost exclusively on raw meat; Japan has fish and rice; and yet in the west we seem to be getting it all wrong (as Asia's diet 'modernises' they seem to be catching us up).
The revolution in food preparation, preservation, and transport that has happened in the last hundred years has shocked our digestion system. We now have access to most foods, whatever season, whatever country of origin. Does this increase in access and choice equate with healthier eating?
We crave 'leisure time'; the abundance of 'instant' foodstuffs that laden our supermarket shelves is evidence that we are spending less time preparing, consuming and thinking about the food that we consume. We are omnivores, but we also require a balance and wide variety of food in order to fuel our complex bodies.
With the increase in our understanding, we gain an insight into the our nutritional needs. Nutritionists have sprung up who proclaim the harms and benefits of many common foodstuffs. In the UK there is no national accreditation or body for nutritionists, all those people who call themselves 'experts' are self proclaimed. 'Dr' Gillian McKeith, the stick thin, intimidating food 'guru' has a doctorate from a non accredited correspondence course in the US. Yet television networks give people like herself primetime spots in which she stands upon her high horse and cackle, peddling her myths about food (have a read at badscience). Is entertaining 'expert advice' worth the danger it poses to our health?
We must be very careful about nutrition, there are so many factors that we need to consider when we study food and it's consequences. What priority do we assign to various aspects of our bodies? Are our hearts more important than our quality of life? We do not know enough about the consequences of what we eat; a recent study which is due to be published this year looks into the effect of following a fast food diet. The outcomes are less than clear, and do not wholly coincide with Spurlock's 'Super Size Me'.
There are so many fingers in the nutritional pie. Supermarkets are the most common supplier of foods, what are their motives and aims? Private companies often have their financial future as their prime concern. If their future is linked with keeping us healthy, they will market themselves in that direction. In the run up to Christmas, we are inundated with adverts proclaiming the indulgent feasts that we can conjure up to wow family and friends. Once New Year comes around, they swap it for a keep fitter, eat healthier and live longer campaign. Harvest seasons are now replaced with the marketing campaigns, built to extract our cash in the most efficient way. (Supermarkets are the front end of food distribution, we could extend this discussion all the way back to some farmers.)
There is a backlash against this 'for profit' image of food, take a look at organic food. Care and concern about the actual animals and plants becomes a prime issue when considering what to consume. This direct responsibility and understanding of how our food comes to our tables is a more primal outlook on food production.
There are so many factors to consider when we look at how we should eat. At the end of the day, does it really matter? Are we condemned to be obese if our DNA dictates it? Can we really fight for our right to good quality, nutritious and balanced food on our tables? Should we embrace modernisation in order to gain an increase in choice; or an increase in ease and possible decrease in quality? Should the government step in and ensure that they have a healthy populous in order to benefit society? Can we really navigate the food minefield?
Dieting is big business: in the US the diet ready meal sector is worth $800 million; fad diets come and go, while making their creators mega rich; newspapers and magazines peddle their own 'nutrition gurus'. As consumers we have to navigate this precarious minefield; who's advice do we listen to?
Food is a serious issue: The WHO estimates that over 1.6 billion people are overweight, with over 400 million of those clinically obese. It affects the health service we are provided in the UK, and affects the lives of many across the globe. Obesity killed 400,000 people in 2000 alone, and has exceeded smoking as the number one killer.
The human body is amazing; we have evolved to become a very complex beast with the most fantastic ability to be omnivores. We have adapted to be comfortable in many different climates, with varying staple foods: nomads in the desert can survive with very little water; The Inuit can survive almost exclusively on raw meat; Japan has fish and rice; and yet in the west we seem to be getting it all wrong (as Asia's diet 'modernises' they seem to be catching us up).
The revolution in food preparation, preservation, and transport that has happened in the last hundred years has shocked our digestion system. We now have access to most foods, whatever season, whatever country of origin. Does this increase in access and choice equate with healthier eating?
We crave 'leisure time'; the abundance of 'instant' foodstuffs that laden our supermarket shelves is evidence that we are spending less time preparing, consuming and thinking about the food that we consume. We are omnivores, but we also require a balance and wide variety of food in order to fuel our complex bodies.
With the increase in our understanding, we gain an insight into the our nutritional needs. Nutritionists have sprung up who proclaim the harms and benefits of many common foodstuffs. In the UK there is no national accreditation or body for nutritionists, all those people who call themselves 'experts' are self proclaimed. 'Dr' Gillian McKeith, the stick thin, intimidating food 'guru' has a doctorate from a non accredited correspondence course in the US. Yet television networks give people like herself primetime spots in which she stands upon her high horse and cackle, peddling her myths about food (have a read at badscience). Is entertaining 'expert advice' worth the danger it poses to our health?
We must be very careful about nutrition, there are so many factors that we need to consider when we study food and it's consequences. What priority do we assign to various aspects of our bodies? Are our hearts more important than our quality of life? We do not know enough about the consequences of what we eat; a recent study which is due to be published this year looks into the effect of following a fast food diet. The outcomes are less than clear, and do not wholly coincide with Spurlock's 'Super Size Me'.
There are so many fingers in the nutritional pie. Supermarkets are the most common supplier of foods, what are their motives and aims? Private companies often have their financial future as their prime concern. If their future is linked with keeping us healthy, they will market themselves in that direction. In the run up to Christmas, we are inundated with adverts proclaiming the indulgent feasts that we can conjure up to wow family and friends. Once New Year comes around, they swap it for a keep fitter, eat healthier and live longer campaign. Harvest seasons are now replaced with the marketing campaigns, built to extract our cash in the most efficient way. (Supermarkets are the front end of food distribution, we could extend this discussion all the way back to some farmers.)
There is a backlash against this 'for profit' image of food, take a look at organic food. Care and concern about the actual animals and plants becomes a prime issue when considering what to consume. This direct responsibility and understanding of how our food comes to our tables is a more primal outlook on food production.
There are so many factors to consider when we look at how we should eat. At the end of the day, does it really matter? Are we condemned to be obese if our DNA dictates it? Can we really fight for our right to good quality, nutritious and balanced food on our tables? Should we embrace modernisation in order to gain an increase in choice; or an increase in ease and possible decrease in quality? Should the government step in and ensure that they have a healthy populous in order to benefit society? Can we really navigate the food minefield?
Sunday, 21 January 2007
Mobile Phones: Call me sociable?
I will aim to have a new article up every sunday, so here's number two :).
Mobile phones are everywhere, we see adverts everywhere telling us to buy them, the mobile industry tuns over £13.6bn in 2005; and you probably own one. Are they really making us more sociable, or do we own one just because everyone else does?
In 2003: 75% of UK adults owned a mobile phone, with 8% of UK households having a mobile as their only method of communication (from national statistics). Four years later, those statistics have probably increased.
A mobile phone is one of the greatest examples the technologically advanced world: always on, always accessible, and ever more advanced. Many people's lives go on hold when they lose their phone. Are they really worth all the hype?
In theory they enable us to communicate, they provide the ability to have direct person to person voice contact, pretty much anywhere in the world. They enable us to contact loved ones when we are late home; they enable us (particularly as students) lose the hand cuffs of the land line, in favour of the liberating mobile.
This liberation comes at a heavy price: we are now tied to our mobiles, replacing handcuffs for a ball and chain; we construct our social lives around them; we become irate at other peoples' use of mobile phones in public.
Communication between two humans face-to-face relies on non verbal communication. This was first noted by Darwin when he described facial gestures as a form of communication, and then expanded into many fields: body language; gesture; facial expressions; eye contact; clothing (and hairstyles); etc. When using a mobile phone, we rely on using just our vocal communication in order to get our point across; this can often lead to a miscommunication because the added qualifiers gained from these non verbal cues are missing. Even some vocal cues, emotion and speaking style, may be lost when the quality of the verbal communication is decreased.
Mobile phones enable us to be selfish, we are given the chance to pick and choose who we decide to interact with in any situation (as long as there is signal). We are no longer forced to talk with those around us, instead we could call or text a friend to distract us. How often have you been sitting around with a group of friends, when a phone rings and someone breaks up the conversation by explaining to the voice at the other end that they are in a pub having a very nice drink with friends?
There is a serious backlash against mobile phones, especially using them on forms of public transport. (Next time you are on a bus/train, count the number of “I'm on the train...” conversations.) There is a group, People Against Cellular Phones, who are dedicated towards restricting mobile phone usage just to private homes. In response to, “Do I need a mobile phone?”, many guardian readers started slating the devices. Jon Stewart at Edinburgh has the interestingly titled, “Mobile Phones: Cigarettes for the 21st Century” website.
The increase in personalisation and self definition by mobile phones leads to an increase in the imposing of individuality of others onto our daily lives. Whole subcultures have been defined by specific ring tones (remember Crazy Frog?), this could be interpreted as bonding by their common theme tune and thus sociable, or as an effort to annoy and exclude others.
Mobile phones can enable you to be more sociable, by talking to a distant friend; even if you are on your own in a private location, they could be in a quiet public place, your phone call could have distracted numerous others. You could have used a land line and called their land line, thus ensuring that they are at home. If you are running late, you can call ahead to warn the other person, but have mobile phones enabled us to have more of an excuse to be late and decreased our priority to be punctual?
With everyone around you owning and using a mobile phone to text and contact loved ones, it would be quite excluding to not own a mobile phone as you would be unable to communicate on a level playing field (especially with text).
Mobile phones are useful, there is no denial there, but do they really provide a benefit to social aspect of society? People used to live without them in the not so distant, quite sociable, and quite technological past.
As a short post script, I appreciate that as students they are useful where it is often difficult to have a fixed land line. The case for mobile phones for emergencies is also very strong, but that would not be of a direct social function.
Mobile phones are everywhere, we see adverts everywhere telling us to buy them, the mobile industry tuns over £13.6bn in 2005; and you probably own one. Are they really making us more sociable, or do we own one just because everyone else does?
In 2003: 75% of UK adults owned a mobile phone, with 8% of UK households having a mobile as their only method of communication (from national statistics). Four years later, those statistics have probably increased.
A mobile phone is one of the greatest examples the technologically advanced world: always on, always accessible, and ever more advanced. Many people's lives go on hold when they lose their phone. Are they really worth all the hype?
In theory they enable us to communicate, they provide the ability to have direct person to person voice contact, pretty much anywhere in the world. They enable us to contact loved ones when we are late home; they enable us (particularly as students) lose the hand cuffs of the land line, in favour of the liberating mobile.
This liberation comes at a heavy price: we are now tied to our mobiles, replacing handcuffs for a ball and chain; we construct our social lives around them; we become irate at other peoples' use of mobile phones in public.
Communication between two humans face-to-face relies on non verbal communication. This was first noted by Darwin when he described facial gestures as a form of communication, and then expanded into many fields: body language; gesture; facial expressions; eye contact; clothing (and hairstyles); etc. When using a mobile phone, we rely on using just our vocal communication in order to get our point across; this can often lead to a miscommunication because the added qualifiers gained from these non verbal cues are missing. Even some vocal cues, emotion and speaking style, may be lost when the quality of the verbal communication is decreased.
Mobile phones enable us to be selfish, we are given the chance to pick and choose who we decide to interact with in any situation (as long as there is signal). We are no longer forced to talk with those around us, instead we could call or text a friend to distract us. How often have you been sitting around with a group of friends, when a phone rings and someone breaks up the conversation by explaining to the voice at the other end that they are in a pub having a very nice drink with friends?
There is a serious backlash against mobile phones, especially using them on forms of public transport. (Next time you are on a bus/train, count the number of “I'm on the train...” conversations.) There is a group, People Against Cellular Phones, who are dedicated towards restricting mobile phone usage just to private homes. In response to, “Do I need a mobile phone?”, many guardian readers started slating the devices. Jon Stewart at Edinburgh has the interestingly titled, “Mobile Phones: Cigarettes for the 21st Century” website.
The increase in personalisation and self definition by mobile phones leads to an increase in the imposing of individuality of others onto our daily lives. Whole subcultures have been defined by specific ring tones (remember Crazy Frog?), this could be interpreted as bonding by their common theme tune and thus sociable, or as an effort to annoy and exclude others.
Mobile phones can enable you to be more sociable, by talking to a distant friend; even if you are on your own in a private location, they could be in a quiet public place, your phone call could have distracted numerous others. You could have used a land line and called their land line, thus ensuring that they are at home. If you are running late, you can call ahead to warn the other person, but have mobile phones enabled us to have more of an excuse to be late and decreased our priority to be punctual?
With everyone around you owning and using a mobile phone to text and contact loved ones, it would be quite excluding to not own a mobile phone as you would be unable to communicate on a level playing field (especially with text).
Mobile phones are useful, there is no denial there, but do they really provide a benefit to social aspect of society? People used to live without them in the not so distant, quite sociable, and quite technological past.
As a short post script, I appreciate that as students they are useful where it is often difficult to have a fixed land line. The case for mobile phones for emergencies is also very strong, but that would not be of a direct social function.
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
Scottish Independence: Anyone give a hoot?
A new year, a new beginning and, potentially, new dawn for Scotland. The Scottish parliamentary elections are just around the corner and, more so than at any time in recent years, Scottish independence is back on the agenda. In Scotland, Labour is, thanks in large part to opposition to the war in Iraq, increasingly unpopular, the Lib Dems have forsworn the possibility of a coalition arrangement should Labour find itself in a minority position and the Scottish Conservatives continue to revel in the in their irrelevance. Three factors that have the SNP gleefully rubbing its hands in expectation. In England, the distinct possibility of a Scot moving into No.10 and the continuation of the 'Scottish raj' within Whitehall have brought the West Lothian question, a product of devolution that more and more seems to be the Union's Achilles heel, has come back into play. These factors, mixed with the post-Cold War ascendancy of the principle of self-determination in international relations and good old fashioned tartan pride, make it all the more likely that at some point in the near future Scotland will fly the nest of Britain to make its own way in the world.
What's more, I can't imagine why the other residents of these sceptered isles would be sorry to see us go. Indeed, they may even be glad to see the back of our ginger heads:
- Scotland has some of the most deprived, economically unproductive and unhealthy regions in the UK; getting shot of them would be a blessing.
- It's hardly likely to affect Britain's position within Europe. It's not entirely clear whether or not Scotland's position within the EU is guaranteed and the rest of the UK need no necessarily lose votes in the European Parliament proportional to the population loss. Even if it did, Britain's position relative to other states would remain unchanged.
- An independent Scotland is not going to make it hard for the English/Welsh/Northern Irish to invest in/gain from the Scottish economy; why would it alienate it's closest and most important economic allies?
- The SNP claims that Scottish tax payers in fact provide a net subsidy for English tax payers. Regardless of whether this is correct or not, why shouldn't Britain take advantage of the claim and ask the Scots for some form of reparations to compensate for independence? Britain might even get a good deal. After all, what about the rights of those who wish to remain living in a United Kingdom including Scotland?
Each of these points is very much off the top of my head but I can't for the life of me come up with a single argument to the effect that the rest of Britain would be sorry to see the Scots go.
Independence is not yet inevitable, a cornerstone of the SNP's policy is a referendum on the issue and opinion polls, and my own personal experience, suggest that a majority of Scots do not want it. I count myself among this majority as I emphatically believe that independence would be a disaster for Scotland.
However, regardless of the eventual outcome, there seems little reason for anyone else in Britain to be upset, or even care, if my kilted comrades cast off the yoke of the Union and march merrily off into the sunset of independence.
Give a hoot? Nah.
James C
http://jimthought.blogspot.com/
What's more, I can't imagine why the other residents of these sceptered isles would be sorry to see us go. Indeed, they may even be glad to see the back of our ginger heads:
- Scotland has some of the most deprived, economically unproductive and unhealthy regions in the UK; getting shot of them would be a blessing.
- It's hardly likely to affect Britain's position within Europe. It's not entirely clear whether or not Scotland's position within the EU is guaranteed and the rest of the UK need no necessarily lose votes in the European Parliament proportional to the population loss. Even if it did, Britain's position relative to other states would remain unchanged.
- An independent Scotland is not going to make it hard for the English/Welsh/Northern Irish to invest in/gain from the Scottish economy; why would it alienate it's closest and most important economic allies?
- The SNP claims that Scottish tax payers in fact provide a net subsidy for English tax payers. Regardless of whether this is correct or not, why shouldn't Britain take advantage of the claim and ask the Scots for some form of reparations to compensate for independence? Britain might even get a good deal. After all, what about the rights of those who wish to remain living in a United Kingdom including Scotland?
Each of these points is very much off the top of my head but I can't for the life of me come up with a single argument to the effect that the rest of Britain would be sorry to see the Scots go.
Independence is not yet inevitable, a cornerstone of the SNP's policy is a referendum on the issue and opinion polls, and my own personal experience, suggest that a majority of Scots do not want it. I count myself among this majority as I emphatically believe that independence would be a disaster for Scotland.
However, regardless of the eventual outcome, there seems little reason for anyone else in Britain to be upset, or even care, if my kilted comrades cast off the yoke of the Union and march merrily off into the sunset of independence.
Give a hoot? Nah.
James C
http://jimthought.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
