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.
Showing posts with label discussions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discussions. Show all posts
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
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.
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/
Sunday, 14 January 2007
Science: Who do we trust?
This is a continuation of a comment made by Cara on 'JCR Smoking Bans'. I was initially going to leave it as a comment, but I feel that it warrants a whole separate discussion. :)
Who do we trust on scientific issues? Are the science sceptics right?
Perceptions of science risk, and common sense are often wrong. They are developed by the people, the media, the spin doctors, and do not rely on much fact.
If you read any red-top newspaper, you will most likely find some article about some 'fantastic new treatment' that'll save our lives, cure Alzheimer's, and wipe out HIV. Once you read further into the article, often they will qualify their headline (which is what the TV will report on) by stating that the research has been mice and maybe it's showing a small preventative measure with a specific type of the disease.
If you read the headlines for a year, you could easily be lead to believe that we've cured the world ills. (This is not confined to red-tops, go and pick up a new scientist - a leading 'scientific' periodical, non peer reviewed, it does the same.)
This is often due to different interests at stake: the media want to sell news; the scientists want publicity; the public crave information. They meet half way, and produce a sensational half truth for the general public to digest. (Of course, it would be unreasonable for the public to be able to directly research the drug, as the people doing the research are highly trained experts in their fields, and papers are a very difficult research material for the untrained.)
- I would like to point out here that this mis-mash of news is probably the best alternative. The public need to be informed, and often it's better to try to understand a half truth, than no truth at all. Secondly, scientists need incentives, exposure, and money in order to conduct their research. A few wrongs here and there are outweighed by so many rights.
Science should be right, and should be what we follow. However, as a scientist who has to read paper after paper, and conducts research, I am often amazed at the politics that is involved.
To name but some of the politics involved in science. You can look no further than the mainstream press and the recent scandal about cloning in Korea. There the desires and wishes of one researcher dominated the lab, and lead them to fabricate results. (At least this is how the press reported it.)
This in turn had serious repercussions: it has increased our scepticism of scientific knowledge; it has lead to a further mistrust of the research process; it has harmed the image of cloning, this was a specific form of cloning, and it may go on to harm further grants and research into very beneficial cloning. - Incidentally, this has been perpetuated by the media covering the story, and suitable punishment in the scientific community has been dealt out.
This is but a small insight into the world of science research. In order to conduct research, you must often find someone to supervise you, they must in turn be funded by someone, and they do their work in a lab run by someone else. Who's interests are actually best represented when you are approved to do your research; are you merely just keeping the lab alive by subverting your original research aims in order to hit the press, gain attention, and thus get more money? What motivates a scientist to do research, and while researching how do their motivation, aims and morals change?
One of the key ideas behind science is that we aim to try to explore our environment, our universe and try to explain and exploit theses findings to the benefit of others. Most scientists are wonderful people, bright, enthusiastic and with the aims of the public at heart. - It is worth noting that these aims are the perceived aims of the public, and may not actually be true, I'm sure that's a whole other topic.
Science is also empirical, we learn by experience, and thus we learn by our mistakes and our successes. Life would be boring without the mistakes, and many 'mistakes' have lead to advances elsewhere. If we obtained the answer straight away, there would be no thirst for knowledge, and no development of tangential ideas.
These mistakes are often misreported and sensationalised by the press. We as the general public gain a sliver of the truth, and our 'common sense' or collective wisdom is realigned to accommodate this change.
Our freedom, especially in this very industrial age, relies on the advances in science and technology. Our freedom also relies on our understanding of what is being researched and whether it benefits society. There is a certain degree of perception involved here, especially on the concept of freedom in society. In our democratic society, we have a very limited democratic right to chose what is currently under investigation. We may guide the scientists by expressing talking about science; reading the articles in papers about science; expressing outrage; expressing support; and giving money and support to causes we believe in.
- This is a critique of the scientific community, I do realise that it offers limited solutions. I feel that science is the UK is well maintained, well understood, and a benefit to society. We shouldn't give up thinking about the implications of science, and as laymen try to understand what the geniuses in white coats are up to!
Who do we trust on scientific issues? Are the science sceptics right?
Perceptions of science risk, and common sense are often wrong. They are developed by the people, the media, the spin doctors, and do not rely on much fact.
If you read any red-top newspaper, you will most likely find some article about some 'fantastic new treatment' that'll save our lives, cure Alzheimer's, and wipe out HIV. Once you read further into the article, often they will qualify their headline (which is what the TV will report on) by stating that the research has been mice and maybe it's showing a small preventative measure with a specific type of the disease.
If you read the headlines for a year, you could easily be lead to believe that we've cured the world ills. (This is not confined to red-tops, go and pick up a new scientist - a leading 'scientific' periodical, non peer reviewed, it does the same.)
This is often due to different interests at stake: the media want to sell news; the scientists want publicity; the public crave information. They meet half way, and produce a sensational half truth for the general public to digest. (Of course, it would be unreasonable for the public to be able to directly research the drug, as the people doing the research are highly trained experts in their fields, and papers are a very difficult research material for the untrained.)
- I would like to point out here that this mis-mash of news is probably the best alternative. The public need to be informed, and often it's better to try to understand a half truth, than no truth at all. Secondly, scientists need incentives, exposure, and money in order to conduct their research. A few wrongs here and there are outweighed by so many rights.
Science should be right, and should be what we follow. However, as a scientist who has to read paper after paper, and conducts research, I am often amazed at the politics that is involved.
To name but some of the politics involved in science. You can look no further than the mainstream press and the recent scandal about cloning in Korea. There the desires and wishes of one researcher dominated the lab, and lead them to fabricate results. (At least this is how the press reported it.)
This in turn had serious repercussions: it has increased our scepticism of scientific knowledge; it has lead to a further mistrust of the research process; it has harmed the image of cloning, this was a specific form of cloning, and it may go on to harm further grants and research into very beneficial cloning. - Incidentally, this has been perpetuated by the media covering the story, and suitable punishment in the scientific community has been dealt out.
This is but a small insight into the world of science research. In order to conduct research, you must often find someone to supervise you, they must in turn be funded by someone, and they do their work in a lab run by someone else. Who's interests are actually best represented when you are approved to do your research; are you merely just keeping the lab alive by subverting your original research aims in order to hit the press, gain attention, and thus get more money? What motivates a scientist to do research, and while researching how do their motivation, aims and morals change?
One of the key ideas behind science is that we aim to try to explore our environment, our universe and try to explain and exploit theses findings to the benefit of others. Most scientists are wonderful people, bright, enthusiastic and with the aims of the public at heart. - It is worth noting that these aims are the perceived aims of the public, and may not actually be true, I'm sure that's a whole other topic.
Science is also empirical, we learn by experience, and thus we learn by our mistakes and our successes. Life would be boring without the mistakes, and many 'mistakes' have lead to advances elsewhere. If we obtained the answer straight away, there would be no thirst for knowledge, and no development of tangential ideas.
These mistakes are often misreported and sensationalised by the press. We as the general public gain a sliver of the truth, and our 'common sense' or collective wisdom is realigned to accommodate this change.
Our freedom, especially in this very industrial age, relies on the advances in science and technology. Our freedom also relies on our understanding of what is being researched and whether it benefits society. There is a certain degree of perception involved here, especially on the concept of freedom in society. In our democratic society, we have a very limited democratic right to chose what is currently under investigation. We may guide the scientists by expressing talking about science; reading the articles in papers about science; expressing outrage; expressing support; and giving money and support to causes we believe in.
- This is a critique of the scientific community, I do realise that it offers limited solutions. I feel that science is the UK is well maintained, well understood, and a benefit to society. We shouldn't give up thinking about the implications of science, and as laymen try to understand what the geniuses in white coats are up to!
Saturday, 13 January 2007
Cuddle Party: are we living in a touch-phobic society?
Short documentary-style clip on recent American 'Cuddle Party' phenomenon - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76Mf9LhRW7w
and from cuddleparty.com-
"In a society that is increasingly touch-phobic, many of us aren't getting our Recommended Daily Allowance of welcomed touch. For many people, the only options for getting their touch needs met, consist of paying for a massage, having a drunken hookup or getting a pat-down from airport security. Cuddle Parties seek to change that in a way that's conscious, healthy and nutritious. "
Let's consider this in the context of a '‘normalisation of the experience of abuse’ (Frank Furedi) - are the more insecure amongst us really living in fear of paedophiles, elderly abuse, domestic violence and the general risks associated with trusting other human beings?
If we are in need of a purging of this misanthropic, risk-conscious outlook then is pretending to be a cow and rubbing up against some strangers to the ting ting ting of the "sexual emergency bell" actually going to achieve anything? Or is cuddle party shying away from what is actually a political problem and wrapping it up in the warm embrace of a stranger? Is it cynical to think that the concept of sharing physical affection with strangers can only be artifical and vacuous?
Also - not mentioned in either of the sources above is that it costs around £20 a session - if touch is what you are after, is paying for relationship advisors to supervise a cuddle party any different from paying for a massage?
and from cuddleparty.com-
"In a society that is increasingly touch-phobic, many of us aren't getting our Recommended Daily Allowance of welcomed touch. For many people, the only options for getting their touch needs met, consist of paying for a massage, having a drunken hookup or getting a pat-down from airport security. Cuddle Parties seek to change that in a way that's conscious, healthy and nutritious. "
Let's consider this in the context of a '‘normalisation of the experience of abuse’ (Frank Furedi) - are the more insecure amongst us really living in fear of paedophiles, elderly abuse, domestic violence and the general risks associated with trusting other human beings?
If we are in need of a purging of this misanthropic, risk-conscious outlook then is pretending to be a cow and rubbing up against some strangers to the ting ting ting of the "sexual emergency bell" actually going to achieve anything? Or is cuddle party shying away from what is actually a political problem and wrapping it up in the warm embrace of a stranger? Is it cynical to think that the concept of sharing physical affection with strangers can only be artifical and vacuous?
Also - not mentioned in either of the sources above is that it costs around £20 a session - if touch is what you are after, is paying for relationship advisors to supervise a cuddle party any different from paying for a massage?
JCR Smoking Bans
Kicking off discussion on the new blog, here are some comments on the JCR smoking bans. Quite importantly, it is based on being convinced sometime in the past that passive smoking wasn't actually that dangerous to your health - on which I'd happily be proven wrong.
First of all, I'm a non-smoker and I think it is a disgusting habit (except when soundtracked by the famous aria "Casta Diva" in the film '2046'). So, the idea of smoke-free JCRs is appealing.
However, the bans in JCRs across Oxford have been put through using the wrong arguments and by a process which leaves much to be desired. The bans are an example of increasing over-regulation of personal habits which it's sad to see seeping in from national government to student politics - which has traditionally been seen as an arena for more 'radical' ideas.
The main arguments put forward in my own JCR (St Catz) were that -
1. the majority of people don't smoke or don't like smoking
2. a government ban was going to come in soon anyway, and this would 'ease' us into it
3. it makes it more difficult for people who have recently given up to keep off the fags
This is a rather poisonous concept of 'democracy', where all that is required is for a majority to find something unpleasant for a ban to be put in place and for the civil liberties of a minority to be stamped all over. In many cases it is not even a true majority of the JCR who vote to ban smoking as there are often such low turn-outs to meetings.
Similar issues are evident in the government's 'Respect' campaign where ASBOs which can lead to criminal convictions are handed out for the most minor of behavioural nuisances. Without intending to be too melodramatic, justice is being handed over to the most vociferous of the self-perceived victims.
The only genuine case for a ban on smoking can be with conclusive scientific evidence that links passive smoking to health problems - where the rights of non-smokers are directly impinged by smokers.
Lets take back 'tolerance' and 'good manners' from the political arena (particulary from the horiffic Respect campaign) and lets restore the faith in people's respect for each other without intervention - smokers are often happy to stub out a ciggarette or move outside in response to a polite request and non-smokers are often happy to put up with a bit of smoke or to move themselves. I can't believe anyone in college is that intimidating that we need to defer such simple issues to a JCR vote and ban.
First of all, I'm a non-smoker and I think it is a disgusting habit (except when soundtracked by the famous aria "Casta Diva" in the film '2046'). So, the idea of smoke-free JCRs is appealing.
However, the bans in JCRs across Oxford have been put through using the wrong arguments and by a process which leaves much to be desired. The bans are an example of increasing over-regulation of personal habits which it's sad to see seeping in from national government to student politics - which has traditionally been seen as an arena for more 'radical' ideas.
The main arguments put forward in my own JCR (St Catz) were that -
1. the majority of people don't smoke or don't like smoking
2. a government ban was going to come in soon anyway, and this would 'ease' us into it
3. it makes it more difficult for people who have recently given up to keep off the fags
This is a rather poisonous concept of 'democracy', where all that is required is for a majority to find something unpleasant for a ban to be put in place and for the civil liberties of a minority to be stamped all over. In many cases it is not even a true majority of the JCR who vote to ban smoking as there are often such low turn-outs to meetings.
Similar issues are evident in the government's 'Respect' campaign where ASBOs which can lead to criminal convictions are handed out for the most minor of behavioural nuisances. Without intending to be too melodramatic, justice is being handed over to the most vociferous of the self-perceived victims.
The only genuine case for a ban on smoking can be with conclusive scientific evidence that links passive smoking to health problems - where the rights of non-smokers are directly impinged by smokers.
Lets take back 'tolerance' and 'good manners' from the political arena (particulary from the horiffic Respect campaign) and lets restore the faith in people's respect for each other without intervention - smokers are often happy to stub out a ciggarette or move outside in response to a polite request and non-smokers are often happy to put up with a bit of smoke or to move themselves. I can't believe anyone in college is that intimidating that we need to defer such simple issues to a JCR vote and ban.
Tuesday, 2 January 2007
Manuel Castells: Politics and Power in the Network Society
Manuel Castells: Politics and Power in the Network Society
LSE Miliband Public Lecture, London, 18 March 2004
Tom Ogg
For a seasoned sociologist, this was a treat. I sat next to a professor who had travelled from Nottingham University to hear the man speak. For those relatively new to sociology, as I was, there could be no better introduction. Castells has penned twenty books, and over a hundred academic articles, and he advises dozens of international organisations and national governments and universities worldwide.
He apologised for going over the basics, but I was understandably happy. A society, he said, is merely its values and institutions. Power is the structural capacity to impose one's will, and politics is the process of determining where power lies and governs its exercise. However, politics is culturally specific; it is affected by society, technology, the economy, traditions and conventions. Castells' thesis revolves around the effect of the 'rise of the network society' upon politics and power and the 'crisis of informational politics'.
The first of two trends important in understanding the Network Society is a worldwide crisis of political legitimacy, caused by a lack of trust in the political class. According to survey evidence, politicians are consistently seen as the least trusted professional class by the public. In Italy politicians have no prestige, as even the prostitutes and Mafiosi are trusted more! Californians have turned to the Terminator to destroy the political class, because 39% of the public view politicians as 'crooks'.
Voter turnout is declining worldwide. Only half of Americans eligible to vote can be bothered even in presidential elections. It takes a destructive geopolitical event like the Madrid bombing to get 79% of Spain to vote. When people do vote, their vote is negative; against the ruling party (or perhaps still against the Tories), rather for anyone offering something positive. Protest votes, most obviously with Le Pen of France, are appallingly widespread. Finally, parties are empty shells - professional elites with no significant membership or strong personal links to society. Overall, the general trend is that the younger the voter, the greater the dissatisfaction.
Even PY Gerbeau recognises the French regional election results as votes either against reforms altogether, or against the timidity of the reform process undertaken so far. Micheal Portillo recently analysed the problem of trust as one inherent in party politics. Individuals within political parties must compromise - agree to agree, and this leads to the intuition that all politicians are 'liars'. He regards ITV's new reality TV show with scorn (which aims to produce a 'politician idol' to run in the 2005 election) because for individuals it is undemanding, no difficult compromises are necessary.
The second significant trend (decribed by Robert Putnam) is individualisation, increasing social mobility and a decline in political involvement from general society. Traditional forms of socialisation and their relation to politics, most obviously in trade unions, have largely disappeared. The rise of NGOs, which Castells calls neo-governmental organisations due to significant funding by the state (if indirect), has also meant a transfer of moral authority. This amounts to a growing gap between citizens and the political process. This is not the end of ideology, he told us, it is rather the end of trust.
Castells identifies two spheres of explanations for these shifts - changes in the nation state (including relationships between nation states) and changes in the media. The first is what he calls the crisis of the nation state. Globalisation has meant that the only remaining sovereign state is the United States of America. Whilst it is true that neo-liberal/radical prophecies of the extensive erosion of the state seem so far to be wrong, there are many new constraints upon actions of the nation state. Financial flows, internet communications, oil dependency, transnational criminals and scientists of all varieties, interdependence and a global division of labour all lessen the power on individual nation states to act.
In reaction to this, we seem to have become more, albeit differently, nationalistic, appealing to our ethnic and regional identities as the meaning of being British, or French becomes increasingly contestable. He tells us surveys in Europe and America show when asked 38% identify with the nation state, whilst 48% cite their regional identity. The nation state nonetheless adapts. Decentralisation, regionalisation, and devolution (eg to Scotland and the Basque region of Spain) all aim to bring power closer to the people.
Conversely, supranational institutions like the EU, and international organisations like the UN and WTO aim to bring under control the negative effects of globalisation. This form of networking, its institutionalisation (hence continuation) has made networking more effective. The dialogue such networking entails, it would seem, held the world in relative peace after WW2 and oversaw the historic rapprochement of France and Germany. The problem, he says, is the difficulty of representation. The protesters in Atlanta yelled 'no globalisation without representation' - but as Manuel pointed out, there is representation; the problem is it very indirect, and individuals no longer feel in control.
Politics is now 'defined within the media space - a new public space'. The reality is, as he put it, 'it's a binary model; you must be in the media to be in politics… you must influence it'. This creates problems, for whilst 'neither Berlusconi nor Murdoch dictates everything' they can influence minds and votes. People read the media headlines about a party programme, rather than the manifestos themselves (although Labour was not helped 2001 with the Prescott punch on the same day as their manifesto launch). Politicians now must ask themselves, 'What is a credible message to translate through the media?' Hence the media acts as a powerful filter to the public.
Today's media is couched in negative terms. The personalisation of politics and the shift towards credibility being founded in personality has made the politics of scandal more significant. It seems JS Mill's 'eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship' has had an effect. Negative advertising is apparently 5% more effective than other current forms of ads in the US. I felt there was a problem with this statistic. This statistic must surely have assumed that policies are equally valuable in order to extract this figure - surely the better the idea, the more effective the 'positive' ad?
The media is 'predicated on the destruction of everything', and 'yet they accuse each other of being negative'. Tragically, in my opinion, he diagnoses that 'ultimately, discourse based on principles becomes unreliable and is seen as absurd'. Democracy becomes a 'defensive principle' whereby all you demand from it is that if you hear a knock at 5am, you expect it to be the milkman! Peace and independence, are seen as satisfactory, and nothing more.
This is the situation we find ourselves in today, according to Castells. The Network Society, where we are heading, is where everything is organised by electronic networks. This has made society more binary, as is the nature of digital information; you are either in or you are out of a network, with very little scope for ambiguity. The nature of power is then redefined. The question becomes, who decides who is excluded? Is it easier or less easy to exclude people? Does this changing nature of communication and networking widen the potential numbers of an elite, or close it off to society more than before?
Castells left many of these questions unanswered in his lecture (it is work in progress), but already he provides a basic analysis leading to some interesting questions. Digital networks have the key asset of increasing the autonomy of communication. Hence the nature of power changes because the power of the network is important to politics.
There are two sources of power in the Network Society. The first is the ability to change the aims of the network. The question I think he was posing is, for instance, whether the Network Society is more efficient and achieving its goals, and so the power at the centre of the network is augmented (alternatively, due to easier networking does decision making become less centralised?). Broadly, he is asking how the digitalised society changes the powers of influencing decisions, and hence politics.
The kind of questions he was asking refers also to culture wars. Does the easier communication allowed by the internet change the influence it is possible to exert on politicians or other decisions makers? For instance, is it increased because more individuals are being able to contribute to a debate, or is the force of any argument put forward is devalued by the plurality of sources of arguments? openDemocracy.net, for instance, allows a greater pool of experts to contribute, giving some fascinating viewpoints, but also there are so many articles- to what extent do we need a filter (as of old imposed by technological constraints leading to oligopoly?).
The second source of power is the switchers, the links between the networks of people. Isolated networks are fragile, whereas being connected is a form of power. Again, I have tried to interpret the significance of this. Belonging to more than one network has clearly always been useful, but in the Network Society, due to the binary nature of exclusion, and the fact that it is easier to exclude, does inclusion gives more power than it did? Yet with electronic communication isn't it easier to join a network (group emails etc), so inclusion is in fact devalued?
I'm a member of almost all the political groups at university, without necessarily going to all of the meetings, and this is possible through electronic means. So do people have more opportunities to be switchers? Is that how we should interpret the power shift? So power lies with switchers, there is more scope for switchers, and hence power is less exclusive than before? Is this an example of the Network Society re-grassing rooting politics?
Castells certainly argues the digital revolution is grass rooting politics again. His clearest example was the protests after the Madrid bombings. Despite it being a 'day of reflection' (and so protests were banned), young people in particular used text messages and the internet to organise a demonstration numbering in the tens of thousands. SMS traffic was up some 20-40% over the protest and bombing period, and youth participation in the election was at record levels. This surely is an example of the Network Society making inclusion much easier, and showing that networks can be much wider.
Communication can only be a good thing, right? My concern is that so far, the network society has not seemed to solve many of the problems outlined above. Electronic communication seems to make politicians seem more remote- there is still no connection between politics where power is brokered, and the Network Society itself. We can be optimistic however, that perhaps the Network Society has the capacity to achieve this. Castells raises many interesting questions, some of which I have tried to highlight here, though I feel this is an idea that has many more features to be worked out.
LSE Miliband Public Lecture, London, 18 March 2004
Tom Ogg
For a seasoned sociologist, this was a treat. I sat next to a professor who had travelled from Nottingham University to hear the man speak. For those relatively new to sociology, as I was, there could be no better introduction. Castells has penned twenty books, and over a hundred academic articles, and he advises dozens of international organisations and national governments and universities worldwide.
He apologised for going over the basics, but I was understandably happy. A society, he said, is merely its values and institutions. Power is the structural capacity to impose one's will, and politics is the process of determining where power lies and governs its exercise. However, politics is culturally specific; it is affected by society, technology, the economy, traditions and conventions. Castells' thesis revolves around the effect of the 'rise of the network society' upon politics and power and the 'crisis of informational politics'.
The first of two trends important in understanding the Network Society is a worldwide crisis of political legitimacy, caused by a lack of trust in the political class. According to survey evidence, politicians are consistently seen as the least trusted professional class by the public. In Italy politicians have no prestige, as even the prostitutes and Mafiosi are trusted more! Californians have turned to the Terminator to destroy the political class, because 39% of the public view politicians as 'crooks'.
Voter turnout is declining worldwide. Only half of Americans eligible to vote can be bothered even in presidential elections. It takes a destructive geopolitical event like the Madrid bombing to get 79% of Spain to vote. When people do vote, their vote is negative; against the ruling party (or perhaps still against the Tories), rather for anyone offering something positive. Protest votes, most obviously with Le Pen of France, are appallingly widespread. Finally, parties are empty shells - professional elites with no significant membership or strong personal links to society. Overall, the general trend is that the younger the voter, the greater the dissatisfaction.
Even PY Gerbeau recognises the French regional election results as votes either against reforms altogether, or against the timidity of the reform process undertaken so far. Micheal Portillo recently analysed the problem of trust as one inherent in party politics. Individuals within political parties must compromise - agree to agree, and this leads to the intuition that all politicians are 'liars'. He regards ITV's new reality TV show with scorn (which aims to produce a 'politician idol' to run in the 2005 election) because for individuals it is undemanding, no difficult compromises are necessary.
The second significant trend (decribed by Robert Putnam) is individualisation, increasing social mobility and a decline in political involvement from general society. Traditional forms of socialisation and their relation to politics, most obviously in trade unions, have largely disappeared. The rise of NGOs, which Castells calls neo-governmental organisations due to significant funding by the state (if indirect), has also meant a transfer of moral authority. This amounts to a growing gap between citizens and the political process. This is not the end of ideology, he told us, it is rather the end of trust.
Castells identifies two spheres of explanations for these shifts - changes in the nation state (including relationships between nation states) and changes in the media. The first is what he calls the crisis of the nation state. Globalisation has meant that the only remaining sovereign state is the United States of America. Whilst it is true that neo-liberal/radical prophecies of the extensive erosion of the state seem so far to be wrong, there are many new constraints upon actions of the nation state. Financial flows, internet communications, oil dependency, transnational criminals and scientists of all varieties, interdependence and a global division of labour all lessen the power on individual nation states to act.
In reaction to this, we seem to have become more, albeit differently, nationalistic, appealing to our ethnic and regional identities as the meaning of being British, or French becomes increasingly contestable. He tells us surveys in Europe and America show when asked 38% identify with the nation state, whilst 48% cite their regional identity. The nation state nonetheless adapts. Decentralisation, regionalisation, and devolution (eg to Scotland and the Basque region of Spain) all aim to bring power closer to the people.
Conversely, supranational institutions like the EU, and international organisations like the UN and WTO aim to bring under control the negative effects of globalisation. This form of networking, its institutionalisation (hence continuation) has made networking more effective. The dialogue such networking entails, it would seem, held the world in relative peace after WW2 and oversaw the historic rapprochement of France and Germany. The problem, he says, is the difficulty of representation. The protesters in Atlanta yelled 'no globalisation without representation' - but as Manuel pointed out, there is representation; the problem is it very indirect, and individuals no longer feel in control.
Politics is now 'defined within the media space - a new public space'. The reality is, as he put it, 'it's a binary model; you must be in the media to be in politics… you must influence it'. This creates problems, for whilst 'neither Berlusconi nor Murdoch dictates everything' they can influence minds and votes. People read the media headlines about a party programme, rather than the manifestos themselves (although Labour was not helped 2001 with the Prescott punch on the same day as their manifesto launch). Politicians now must ask themselves, 'What is a credible message to translate through the media?' Hence the media acts as a powerful filter to the public.
Today's media is couched in negative terms. The personalisation of politics and the shift towards credibility being founded in personality has made the politics of scandal more significant. It seems JS Mill's 'eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship' has had an effect. Negative advertising is apparently 5% more effective than other current forms of ads in the US. I felt there was a problem with this statistic. This statistic must surely have assumed that policies are equally valuable in order to extract this figure - surely the better the idea, the more effective the 'positive' ad?
The media is 'predicated on the destruction of everything', and 'yet they accuse each other of being negative'. Tragically, in my opinion, he diagnoses that 'ultimately, discourse based on principles becomes unreliable and is seen as absurd'. Democracy becomes a 'defensive principle' whereby all you demand from it is that if you hear a knock at 5am, you expect it to be the milkman! Peace and independence, are seen as satisfactory, and nothing more.
This is the situation we find ourselves in today, according to Castells. The Network Society, where we are heading, is where everything is organised by electronic networks. This has made society more binary, as is the nature of digital information; you are either in or you are out of a network, with very little scope for ambiguity. The nature of power is then redefined. The question becomes, who decides who is excluded? Is it easier or less easy to exclude people? Does this changing nature of communication and networking widen the potential numbers of an elite, or close it off to society more than before?
Castells left many of these questions unanswered in his lecture (it is work in progress), but already he provides a basic analysis leading to some interesting questions. Digital networks have the key asset of increasing the autonomy of communication. Hence the nature of power changes because the power of the network is important to politics.
There are two sources of power in the Network Society. The first is the ability to change the aims of the network. The question I think he was posing is, for instance, whether the Network Society is more efficient and achieving its goals, and so the power at the centre of the network is augmented (alternatively, due to easier networking does decision making become less centralised?). Broadly, he is asking how the digitalised society changes the powers of influencing decisions, and hence politics.
The kind of questions he was asking refers also to culture wars. Does the easier communication allowed by the internet change the influence it is possible to exert on politicians or other decisions makers? For instance, is it increased because more individuals are being able to contribute to a debate, or is the force of any argument put forward is devalued by the plurality of sources of arguments? openDemocracy.net, for instance, allows a greater pool of experts to contribute, giving some fascinating viewpoints, but also there are so many articles- to what extent do we need a filter (as of old imposed by technological constraints leading to oligopoly?).
The second source of power is the switchers, the links between the networks of people. Isolated networks are fragile, whereas being connected is a form of power. Again, I have tried to interpret the significance of this. Belonging to more than one network has clearly always been useful, but in the Network Society, due to the binary nature of exclusion, and the fact that it is easier to exclude, does inclusion gives more power than it did? Yet with electronic communication isn't it easier to join a network (group emails etc), so inclusion is in fact devalued?
I'm a member of almost all the political groups at university, without necessarily going to all of the meetings, and this is possible through electronic means. So do people have more opportunities to be switchers? Is that how we should interpret the power shift? So power lies with switchers, there is more scope for switchers, and hence power is less exclusive than before? Is this an example of the Network Society re-grassing rooting politics?
Castells certainly argues the digital revolution is grass rooting politics again. His clearest example was the protests after the Madrid bombings. Despite it being a 'day of reflection' (and so protests were banned), young people in particular used text messages and the internet to organise a demonstration numbering in the tens of thousands. SMS traffic was up some 20-40% over the protest and bombing period, and youth participation in the election was at record levels. This surely is an example of the Network Society making inclusion much easier, and showing that networks can be much wider.
Communication can only be a good thing, right? My concern is that so far, the network society has not seemed to solve many of the problems outlined above. Electronic communication seems to make politicians seem more remote- there is still no connection between politics where power is brokered, and the Network Society itself. We can be optimistic however, that perhaps the Network Society has the capacity to achieve this. Castells raises many interesting questions, some of which I have tried to highlight here, though I feel this is an idea that has many more features to be worked out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
