The politics of the West Wing

I feel like being trivial today so here we go: the West Wing. Let me start by saying that I really enjoy the show. It’s well written, has rhythm and is generally well acted. Now, let me demolish it.

The boys' club: There is an underlying patronising attitude to the female characters, which I can't stand. It would have been nice if the writers had put more effort into making these characters more authoritative and credible rather than go for the good looks, shrill voice, 'I'm just a girl' character. That’s entertainment, I suppose.
However, I believe one can still be funny and goofy while making intelligent statements, such as like spilling your tea while pontificating about Rawls, a regular occurrence for some :).
The only ones who do not succumb to this fate are C.J., the First Lady and, to a lesser extent, Donna. Had it been a bit more female-oriented they could have developed the character of Donna, have a little more clash and attraction between Donna and Josh (Mary-Louise Parker as Amy Gardner can’t pull it off). C.J. should have become Chief of Staff at the end of the fourth series with Leo elected to something. With Donna working for the First Lady, the role of the First Lady could have been expanded too. They sort got stuck with a formula and didn't attempt to develop it. Shame.

It’s the economy, stupid: not in the West Wing obviously! The President is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics (whatever!), but economics and finance are hardly ever spoken of. When they are, the approach is so superficial to the point of irrelevance. I might be biased. I tend to think that there’s an economic aspect to nearly all things, especially in politics, but isn’t there? :)

The smartest kid in the class: there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of genius as dissociated from hard work and perseverance. Luckily, Martin Sheen has gravitas, charisma and tries to be a good guy so he can pull it off.

The retro feeling: the politics of the West Wing seems firmly set in the 1980s. I don’t know much about American politics, but the screen-writers seem to be living in their own bubble and enclose their characters in the West Wing bubble. No wonder the following of the show ended up being restricted to a particular section of society. No wonder only a few bother to vote if politics is so distant.
Everything seems to be happening inside the White House with Congress only getting a mention in passing, never mind the rest of the country. Unbeknown to the authors, theories of government/governance have changed profoundly and gone beyond the State vs. Free Market dichotomy. I don’t expect Aaron Sorkin to know about Public Value Management Theory, but a better grip, even on traditional politics, wouldn’t go amiss. I would have certainly liked more on Congress, the Cabinet and state politics across the US, which is steadily gaining prominence.
The other two big issues, which we are witnessing in the American primaries now, race and gender, are treated with lack of understanding and superficiality. I can’t believe that Amy Gardner, the head of the women’s lobby (whatever!) is asked to comment on the dichotomy ‘stay-at-home mum’ vs. ‘career-girl’ and after thinking about it (yep), she comes out with ‘I don’t care who stays at home as long as it’s their choice’ type of reply. Err … how about some research? How about the fact that the US are one of very few countries were statutory parental pay is not provided? Who can actually choose? What determines choice? How about the fact that women managers have started giving up their careers? Why not taking a look elsewhere where men are starting to value fatherhood and flexible working? Is there a class divide? Is there still a culture of division between work (public sphere) and home (private sphere)? By the way, the ‘fatherhood’ mantra from the feminists was full blown in the 1990s in the States. It needs better articulation in terms of policies and rights, but it has been there a long time.
The West Wing chickens out from the big questions and the difficult issues such as immigration, unemployment, finance and economic and social inequalities. They like international crises too much and don’t manage even to grasp the issues there. What happened to the old saying ‘write something you know about’?

I still enjoyed it though (notwithstanding intense moments of irritation). What I found interesting is the attempt to convey the idea of the American dream, in the tradition of Frank Capra. At first, it feels ... well ... American! It makes you cringe and wince, but then it seeps into you and lets you see a bit more.
It’s the sincere belief in America as an idea, as a country to be built, not inherited. It’s the mentality of a settler society, which is perhaps rather alien to us. Nevertheless, we face similar dilemmas. We would like our country and ourselves to be hospitable, to do the right thing, to uphold the law and defend minorities but we are faced with a very heterogeneous society where 'values' need interpretations that go deeper.
Governments look for answers in definitions of Britishness or Europeanness (remember the Constitution preamble?), and so do religious figures (see previous posts 1 and 2), but I feel they miss the point. They look at the past not for guidance but to pin down who we are and should be. I feel very European (which includes British) in my ways, habits, political philosophy etc. but I am a human being and my values, I believe, are human values. Freedom and equality do not stop at the border and we do not have the copyrights. As a wise man once said:

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

- Sir Ernest Benn

Sex, the media & personal freedom

I realised I condensed a few thoughts in a very short piece in my post Sexy, so here are a few more thoughts.

Dignity: my main objection to the perpetual portrayal of people, mostly women, as sexual objects is that people are deprived of their humanity. I’m fed up with seeing mainstream media trashing our human dignity. Our imagination and psyche are being desensitised to the humanity of those around us. It might lead one to think that it is they who are the objects, not us, however by seeing others as less than ourselves aren’t we diminishing our own humanity?
Furthermore, a negative construction of gender such as that given by many music videos and similar material affects everybody in as much as we are judged against that yardstick/model of femininity or masculinity or feel the pressure to follow those images. Ideas and images surrounding femininity have changed, of course, but the construction of gender is always there to remind us that we do not own our social body.

Liberation vs. Liberalisation: there is the trite and idiotic argument that women working in the sex industry comes from sexual 'liberation'. It’s a rather old and disingenuous argument, which has really past its sell by date. Some, of course, might feel ‘liberated’ by playing at being sexual objects or predators. However, I think it’s more a sign of liberalisation of sex rather than liberation.
It is true that there isn’t only one form of sex work and that not all sex workers ('Prada prostitutes') are victims (although they are the majority). Nevertheless, I think that, as a society, we should strive to ensure everyone’s personal freedom. This means that we should concentrate on those who work in the sex industry as a result of having been trafficked, abused or who are addicted to drugs. I think we should also make more available treatment for sex addiction.

Consumerism: leaving gender aside, the mainstream media have concentrated in reducing us to consumers driven by our appetites and basic instincts (that’s why I refer to my post on the Century of the Self). It’s quite interesting to see that actors smoke far less in films nowadays than they used to in the past. Times have moved on, so why can’t there be a portrayal of sexual relationship and 'roles' that is more positive?

Moralisers vs. sexual freedom: some object that to see stripping or half-naked women as degradation is bigotry. The argument is flawed on three accounts. Firstly, to think of lap-dancing or soft-porn music videos as separate from the sex industry is naïve, especially given the rise in sex addiction. I am not arguing for censorship but for responsibility by those who produce videos and films.
Secondly, isn’t degrading to be seen as body parts (mostly women) or as sex-driven robots (mostly men)?
I seriously doubt that, in the majority of cases, sex workers choose freely the profession. By the way, free choice is more than lack of coercion.
Thirdly, to the risk of patronising the body parts & the robots, isn’t this just the acting out of hegemonic images? (see Gramsci!) Doesn’t labelling detractors as moralisers suit the narrative of the ‘producers’ of ‘sexy’ material? Doesn’t it equate to being a product in the consumerist chain?

The media control the media: those working in the ‘media’ often shy away from taking responsibility hiding behind the usual lame excuses, such as the trend in depicting sex & violence being widespread and the public wanting it. Images of greed, egotism and objectification are widespread, but who shapes the trend?
The idea that it’s the public who want to be fed rubbish is nonsense. After all, the public got fed up with being fed junk food at McDonald’s and McDonald’s had to switch to ‘healthier options’. How about using imagination for once rather than the trite bad taste images that fill our space?

Masculinity and femininity might be in crisis (finally!), so what? Why can't we be human? :)

Sexy

I keep on coming across appalling music videos where women act or are paraded as if they were for sale. There seems to be a very fine line between what is deemed 'sexy' in a woman and the debasing display of body parts.
Men (and women) are fed an awful lot of nonsense about what a man is supposed to like and what women are supposed to be like. The driving force is supposedly sex, which is reduced to the physical act and deprived of everything I would personally define as sexy. We are constantly being told that half-naked women behaving like idiots are sexy, that men like that and find confident women intimidating. It might be the case for many, but I believe many more are simply victim of these messages. A few considerations:

What is sexy? No, I don’t find half-naked people sexy. I don’t like body parts, I like the whole person. I find people sexy when they have sense of humour and are comfortable with themselves. I like warm clear voices and sincere smiles. I think sense of humour is the basis of attraction.
Yet, we are fed an ugly narrative that deprives us of our humanity, of our imagination and personhood. If women (or men) are reduced to body parts or men (or women) to their basic sexual instincts severed from desires, imagination and mind, what are we?
Nothing to do with sex. Research shows that men who go to lap-dancing clubs, pay for sex and so on, are not simply reacting to basic sexual instincts, they are seeking power. The idea of sexy as portrayed in a million billboards, music videos and films is one that is constructed around the dynamic of power and powerlessness. A confident woman is intimidating because she is not powerless. Music videos seem to be the worst with half-naked women crawling around with no dignity. It is a rather pathetic spectacle.
Addictive images. The ‘producers’ do not respond to a need, rather they create a dependent consumer by perpetuating a view of the world based on the old-fashion power relations. They create identities based on domination and debasement. And they are not even subtle at that! It’s advertising after all, Bernays-style!
Sex addiction is on the increase, will advertisers start thinking about the health implications of the junk they produce?

...on addiction to sex, see this from the FT. Addiction seems to be dependent on genes. However the constant exposure to the same messages, the same iconography, the same narrative habituates us to viewing the world in a certain way, anaesthetises the brain and creates a need. We banned tobacco advertising and are trying to tackle junk food, why not junk sex? For the record, I'm not advocating censorship, just responsibility. After all, the media control the media!

The information market

Sometimes I come across rather frightening blogs where the author twists the information, has no regard for objectivity, historicity and is filled with paranoid propaganda. The sad aspect of this is that the authors of such blogs/sites and many of their readers believe their own nonsense.
Ideology and propaganda have always been around, but the new means of information have much wider availability, audience, and next to zero critical thinking. Next to the blogs and sites where the information is checked and often referenced, there are millions of others that are sheer nonsense. I might be guilty of some nonsense but I’m happy to review what I say or simply be persuaded by a contrary argument.
Persuasion and debate are the foundations of our democracy. A truly plural liberal democracy should encourage diverse groups promoting their interests and identities and reflecting in their arguments their specific viewpoints. I like niche markets and, from a consumerist point of view at least, we should have more. As argued in past posts, I would like to be able to read and watch sites/programmes on topics in which I’m interested regardless of where they are from, especially those in other languages as they offer a different perspective. Yet, it seems that niche markets are not as developed as niche propaganda.
Our democracy is undergoing profound changes but national governments are not gearing up to manage them. The proliferation of groups, interests and identities is an opportunity for increased diversity and flexibility, yet unless governments (in particular local government) engage sensibly with the new Babylon and establish some ground rules to ensure the rights of all, we will be crushed by it. The city of Bologna has issued a charter of rights and duties, which is an interesting example, so if you have others get in touch! But what about misinformation?
I could think of a couple of good examples of misinformation in Cardiff but let’s leave it there! The problem is that I haven’t come across a good way of managing communication. What is the best way for local government, politicians, interest/identity groups, lobbies etc to communicate in the public arena?
When does persuasion become propaganda? How do citizens defend themselves from misinformation? How do we protect the ‘common good’ and the res publica (as in the public democratic space) from the unscrupulous use of propaganda? In ancient Greece and Rome, the art of rhetoric had moral qualities. It was not to further untruths. Greeks and Romans were not that different from us, although they seem to have lots of intelligent people and a relatively small population.
How do we bring morality back in? The more the theo-cons are allowed to monopolise morality, the more our res publica will suffer from their propaganda. Long live liberalism?

Is Muslim the new 'Communist'? Who is the new McCarthy?

I’ve come across an e-mail with rumours that Obama is a Muslim. The details can be found at Urban Legends and more on CNN, Washigton Post etc.
It is clearly a paranoid attack trying to induce fear in the electorate. The most uncomfortable aspect of it is the fact that it implies that American Muslims are not American. It is rather reminiscing of the McCarthy era, although I doubt this is what awaits us. It would be important, however, to see whether there is a new McCarthy out there, be it a group or just stupid individuals. Most importantly, what is causing the paranoia? The media, politicians?
This race for the White House shows that America, like most countries perhaps, has deep-seated issues with race, gender, pluralism and religion. It is claimed that American Muslims are more integrated than British Muslims. Yet, American society’s discomforts about race can potentially radicalise groups on either ‘side’ (albeit not necessarily bringing violence), when all this could be avoided.
The abortion debate in the States seems to me an example of a society that does not really accept pluralism and where fundamentalist groups (such as those who target doctors), gain a voice precisely because they are a niche and are therefore unrepresentative.
I believe pluralism is about liberalism. It is not about creating a million interest or identity groups, but about respecting one’s multiple identities and interests without labelling one. A Catholic is no less a Catholic for not wearing a cross or a Jew no less a Jew for not eating kosher (stop saying that they are ‘not practising’!). Above all, pluralism allows individuals to interpret their tradition and identity and to choose how to express it while respecting others. This is liberal democracy at its best and it does require diversity.

Welsh role models

The newly appointed Children's Commissioner, Keith Towler, has called for better role models for youngsters. Here is my nomination of Philip Jones Griffiths.
I learnt about him a long time ago, when I was still a teenager from an Italian magazine. I've never come across anything else about him here in Wales or indeed Britain. It takes Italians to appreciate a good Welshman! :)
Philip Jones Griffiths is one of the most talented war photo-reporters ever. He covered the Algerian war, the Yom Kippur war in Israel and Vietnam and Cambodia, among others.
His groundbreaking pictures show us our humanity in its perverse cruelty and disarming vulnerability. His photos talk of love, death, politics, violence with irony and humility. He puts a mirror in front of us to remind us of who we are and who can be.
... Please, please, come to Wales!

Is Christmas under attack?

Zaki Cooper, on the Guardian reminds us that 'some of the staunchest supporters of Christmas come from other religions'. 'Support' seems to imply that Christmas is somehow under the prospect of being cancelled. Undoubtedly renaming Christmas ‘Winterval’, as Birmingham Council did some years ago, allegedly not to offend people of other faiths, is simply barmy. However, this does not mean in any way that Christmas is under attack. One could make the argument that people are, in general, less religious and therefore Christmas is not being celebrated religiously as in the past. Personally, I think religion is back on the scene so I don’t think that is the case. Purists might say that decorated trees and Coca-cola red Santas have nothing to do with Christmas. It is true that the decorated tree became the ‘Christmas’ tree after the Victorians decided to revive an old pagan custom. It is also true that the familiar face of Santa has been spread around the world by Coca-Cola, although it was originally invented by cartoonist Thomas Nast in 1862. However, why should we snub these symbols? Christmas and other celebrations are the result of the inevitable mix of pagan, Christian, and now commercial, images. It is what keeps celebrations relevant and alive throughout time. After all, Christmas replaced previous pagan celebrations and, I assume, inherited the need for lights in the middle of winter when the days are short and cold. That’s pretty much why Jews celebrate Chanukkah, the festival of lights. What is problematic though is the loneliness that comes with Christmas. While the rest of the world celebrates with presents, food, company, suicides increase significantly. Perhaps Christmas and Chanukah should be about bringing some light into the lives of the people around us. This reminds me I’m supposed to make some latkes for a friend!!!

Nick Cohen: left, right or wrong?

Nick Cohen, the Observer’s journalist, has taken to caricature the Left as a fascist cohort supporting militant Islam. I went to his talk at the Café Philo in Hampstead a week ago or so. He started his talk on 'what's left of the left' by expressing his shock and surprise at the support leftwing politicians and intellectuals give to militant Islam. Not sure what is surprising about some extremists on the left, i.e. those proclaiming that they are ‘all Hitzbollah now’, supporting religious and political obscurantism. After all, it wasn’t such a long time ago when most of the left was supporting of people such as Fidel Castro and even Ho Chi Min. What escapes Cohen is that there’s never been one socialist or liberal tradition, but many. Liberalism and socialism have shaped western democracy. They made possible the recognition of liberty and equality as fundamental to society. They also have a heavy baggage, which ranges from Stalinist dictatorships to unbridled capitalism.
Personally I think liberty and equality are two sides of the same coin of justice. After all, how can one be free to choose if one has no opportunities? There are still women around the world who do not own anything and are prevented to own by the society in which they live, they are often illiterate and simply do not count. The inequality they experience prevents them from being free. This I suppose makes me a liberal-socialist in the tradition of Italian liberal-socialism (a strong and great movement), headed by Carlo and Nello Roselli.
Nick Cohen, obviously ignorant of history, philosophy and politics, bundles together politicians, journalists and various intellectuals from the centre and the left (whatever that means today) under the banner of liberals. His aim is to create an enemy with whom to wage war and thus justify his stance in favour of the war in Iraq. Yes, he’s that pathetic.
It’s the oldest and cheapest trick: decry the opposition instead of engaging with the arguments.
I haven't read his book 'What's left', nor do I plan to read it. However, as I was browsing it, I've stumbled on a heavily loaded sentence where he forces an association between the 3m-strong demonstration against the war in Iraq in Rome back in 2003 with the Italian fascist regime, Rome having been the capital under the Mussolini dictatorship. Except Rome started off as a republic, which makes it, as far as I know, the first example of a republic in history (with Athens being the first democracy).
For Cohen, the war in Iraq is all about removing an evil dictator regardless of the disaster this has brought and regardless of what else could have been done instead. Ultimately, he doesn’t understand that our democracies are grounded on the respect of human life. It is true that there are people who support Hitzbollah and make excuses for radical Islamic terrorism. There are also people who are just as contemptuous of human life and advocate war (in Iraq, Iran etc.) regardless of the consequences. Nick Cohen seems to be one of them. Has Nick Cohen reached the bottom? What's left of him?

Bin Laden on 9/11

Bin Laden appears to have released a video eulogising the 9/11 attacks. Dead or alive, even terrorists are broadcasting only repeats these days!
Conveniently, no comment has been made on the pro-Taliban suicide bombing in Pakistan that killed 16 people today. Not to mention all the blood that has been spilt around the world in the name of 'resistance'. I wonder whether we'll ever evolve morally.

Islamism and the war of words

Islam, terrorism, fundamentalism, are too often used inappropriately, the war of words has started. With so many journalists turned writers covering difficult topics such as terrorism, picking on the shoddy use of language and terminology has never been easier.
Jason Burke, on the Observer, chose an unfortunate way of publicising his book: he contested ‘terror’s lexicon’. The poor thing amply provides entertainment to the pedant by suggesting a rather odd locution to replace the term Islamism. Burke uses 986 words in his article and yet miserably fails to provide any grounds, let alone theory, in support of his choice for ‘modern Islamic militancy’. In fact, I wonder whether he is aware of the meaning of these three words.
Modern: it does not mean contemporary! Modern is a rather contested term depending on the field in which it is applied. Modernity refers to different periods of time. In sociology, modernity is taken as the period between the XIX and XX century, when under the thrust of industrialisation, the prevalent conception of society was transformed and the autonomous individual emerged.
Islamic: (literally) it means anything related to Islam.
Militancy: a very unfortunate term to use as it derives from miles, soldier.

By not putting forward any theory or adequate explanation behind the choice of this terminology, Burke leaves us with the literal reading of ‘modern Islamic militancy’ as ‘armies professing the Islamic faith or from Islamic countries or cultural background, whose ideology sees the individual at the centre’. Oops! This is unlikely to be what he meant!
In contrast, the term Islamism emphasises the fundamentalist character of the ideology behind terrorist violence as perpetrated by Al-Quaeda and other groups or individuals. As such, Islamism can be taken to indicate a fundamentalist ideology that interprets (and I would say perverts) Islam in adversarial (and Manichean) terms vis-à-vis the Western world. It does not necessarily lead to violent action, which can take many forms, such as international terrorism, local guerrilla insurgency, terrorist acts carried out by individuals etc. This, of course, would also benefit from systematisation. There's a difference between reporting conflict, terrorism etc. and analysing them!

Lawrence killer in Italy? Why not?

It is because I take murder very seriously that I find utterly disgraceful the recent tabloids’ hysteria and the government’s jumping on the ‘Lawrence killer’ bandwagon. Learco Chindamo is now 26, he was 15 when he was jailed for life for killing Philip Lawrence back in 1995. He moved to the UK when he was 5, he has no links to Italy whatsoever. When he was arrested, he didn’t even know how to spell his address, never mind speak Italian. Nevertheless, the tabloids want him extradited to Italy. No surprises there. If Chindamo does indeed pose a threat, he should not be released. End of the story, but this is not what the hysteria is about. The tabloids, the police and the government are not saying that he should not be released; they are saying that he should be sent to Italy.
Leaving aside the legal practicalities, if I were representing the Italian government, I would call the tabloids & UK government’s bluff. Chindamo is no longer illiterate, while guest at H.M. prisons, kindly paid by the taxpayer, he passed GCSEs and he’s now deemed a ‘reformed character’ and therefore ready to be released. The Italian authorities could sponsor him to learn Italian while living and working in Italy, thus contributing towards Italian society and Italian taxes. Can anyone now see how ridiculous this hysteria is?
As an Italian in Britain, I often find distasteful how the media pander to xenophobia. I’ve experienced xenophobia, although mostly veiled; but I’ve also lived in this country for nearly 10 years, contributing to its economy and political life. When I was running for elections in 2004, people greeted me and were happy that I was working hard for them. They didn’t care about my nationality. By pandering to fears and treating foreigners as a threat, the Labour government is showing that is afraid of taking its citizens seriously.

The Century of the Self

I watched the documentary The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis the other day. It’s fascinating, yet Adam Curtis treats human beings as those irrational beings whose minds Edward Bernays wanted to control. In summary, Bernays invented advertising by using his uncle Freud’s ideas about the unconscious. He associated products with desires and got everybody hooked on consumerism. After Nazi Germany, Bernays thought necessary, in order to maintain democracy, that the masses had to be manipulated. Satisfying their desires would have kept their irrational unconscious forces at bay. The equation: consumerism = democracy, was soon advocated by many. In the 1960s, the idea was challenged and psychotherapy was advocating the expression of the inner self. Needless to say that ‘power’ exploited this celebration of the self by tailoring advertising to the ‘Me Generation’. In the final episode, the documentary applies the theory to politics seen more as a victim of the ‘me me me’ mantra trying to give people what they wanted through spin and polls. Curtis seems to think that politics by applying psychology has stopped being about rational debate and has regressed to emotions.
It’s a long documentary so I’ll make only few comments.

1. Adam Curtis’ paranoia: there is no place for complexity and contradictions. There are the good people like Roosevelt who fought against the unrestrained capitalism of the market and the conspirators (= big business, CIA, Bernays, Anna Freud?) who want to control people’s minds, albeit to ensure the preservation of democracy. Err, businesses just wanted to sell more cars!
2. Irrational unconscious desires: only sex, money and power figure as unconscious desires. Leaving aside the definition of unconscious (vs. subconscious and so on), whatever happened to the desire for justice, love and respect? Too noble to be seen as emotions? This twisted idea that human ‘rationality’ is superior to our ‘irrationality’, i.e. feelings, is reminiscent of misogynistic Greek thought. It’s never clear what this phantom rationality is (being able to do sums?) and feels rather reductionist and materialistic.
3. Politics: Curtis seems to regret the fact that politicians have sold their souls to the devil (psychology & spin presumably) and have abandoned rational debate. Once more he implies that emotions are bad and shouldn't be listened to. Whilst I agree that emotions run the risk of turning politics into demagoguery, politics is about ideas and about how you feel about them. There’s no equation to prove ideas’ ‘objectivity’. I believe that individual rights and freedoms are paramount because I’ve always had. Politics is about ideas, symbols (NHS, schools…), identity and many other things, not about what is more practical. In politics, you’re dealing with people’s lives. The practical details can be up for discussions (mostly among civil servants), but people vote for a vision, not a manual. Emotions might be difficult to handle but this is what human beings are made of. Managing expectations and people’s emotions is what makes politics challenging and rewarding.

Adam Curtis forgot that we can choose and we do choose. That’s why businesses had to change tactics and products to make them more personal, what we want rather than what is cheaper to produce. They are ahead. Government is starting to catch up now and move to personalised services because, guess what, people are complex and are not all the same!

The importance of being Nice

… why women are paid less.
Recent research has finally made official what we all knew already: that women asking for money are judged ‘less nice’ and are penalised. This has always been the case, in particular in the context of personal relationships. A common occurrence in divorce cases is the woman having spent her money on food, cleaning, petrol, house repairs and the man having bought the car, the house and all those things that actually stay and are not simply consumed. Another common occurrence, when the breadwinner is the woman, is that she supports her husband, pays for his university course, the mortgage (his share too) and then she gets a very heart-breaking and pocket-bursting goodbye. To do otherwise would have been ‘mean’, but now that she is saddled with the kids and the mortgage, she has no claim on him, who, in fact, can claim half of the house and, if without a job, money. Yep, I remember how common it was deemed in legal magazines.
Women are expected to be nice, not to make a fuss about their salary, their job, their life. I still don’t get why people are still so oblivious of their own sexism and double standards. I often hear people complaining about religious people for ‘thrusting it down your throat’. Really? When was the last time you were approached by a religious person who wanted to convert you? How many times do you come across religious adverts?
And how many times do you come across sexist adverts? Sexist jokes, comments and behaviour? Of course, to realise that one has been blind to injustice is a courageous step. It is much easier to follow society’s narrative without having a stake in shaping it. It is much easier to conform and perpetuate the same oppressive norms. It is much easier to believe that the women who demand respect are ‘less nice’. I have been penalised and I will be penalised, but at least I will have been Blunt & Disorderly with plenty of personality!

TV and the sleep of reason

A friend of mine sent me this recently. It says that watching TV costs you quite a bit (pay TV, games, DVDs, accessories etc.) and that if you did away with it you could save $1m over 45 years. Not sure about the maths here, but the cumulative cost of entertainment is not insignificant, although I don't believe that the best things in life are free as I love cinema, books and music. There are some costs although not necessarily borne out by the user/consumer (libraries come to mind).
When I was a child a friend of mine told me that research showed that TV made you stupid. Being gullible, hypocondriac and trusting my friend, I believed him. I still do! TV doesn't make you stupid exactly but it's passive entertainment, it doesn't get you to ask questions (generally), it provides answers. I had a recent discussion with another friend about entertainment (not sure whether he got that I was being provocative), who defended entertainment. Provocation aside, I don't like entertainment but I would not file good films and good TV under entertainment. Entertainment is the sleep of reason. It provides a false sense of security, solace and escapism. Sometimes, escapism is needed (I don't get nearly enough cosidering how stressful my life is). Yet, even escapism needs to serve a higher purpose. Dreams are not to make life better, they need to inspire one's life. A good book/film does not entertain you, it challenges you and broadens your perception.
One more time, let me recommend 'Good night and good luck'!

Boris 4 Mayor?

You know Boris Johnson is no longer cool when the Guardian is backing him!
Of course, Roy Hattersley's reason for backing Boris' nomination is that it'll be disastrous for the Tories. Nevertheless, it's a clear sign that Boris is no longer cool!

Religion - what is it all about?

There seem to be people out there attempting to counterbalance anti-religious polemic unfolding on bookstores and newpapers in (mainly) the UK and the US by providing sociological and anthropological interpretations. In ‘The sacred and the human’ in Prospect Magazine, Roger Scruton gives us the anthropological interpretation of religion, while Peter Thompson goes the Ernst Bloch way in the Guardian's Face to Faith. It takes all sorts!
For Thompson, religious belief is the response to humanity's existential sense of loss and need for 'home'. Citing Bloch, Thompson states that

"what drives us forward is the paradoxical desire to find our way back to somewhere we have never been: home."

However, most ideologies serve this purpose. This interpretation does not shed any light on the continuous appeal of religion and the difference between religious faith and secular ideologies.
Scruton writes a long essay on Girard, but he seems to think that religious scriptures were understood literally until Voltaire & Co. came along to enlighten us. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scriptures start to be taken literally in the XIX century with fundamentalist movements reacting against modern science. Before that, ‘God’s word’ was always deemed as in need of exegesis precisely because it was taken as 'the word of God'. In this sense, religious ‘doctrine’ is about the meaning of creation not creation as a historical event.
Anthropology of religion plays an important role in aiding our understanding of culture and humanity’s understanding of itself. However, both sociology and anthropology of religion, have been at the forefront of the current reductionist view of religion, which sees religion, at best, as an attempt to make sense of the world, and, at worst, as a delusion. Contrary to what Scruton and Thompson suggest, religion is most definitely about God. Religious faith and theology point to the infinite and to the absolute truth. It is the human attempt to go beyond culture, society and physical reality in order to find the universal and transcendent in our being. By declaring human beings as participating in God’s infinity, religious belief transcends mortality. Perhaps this is what anti-religious polemicists find so annoying: the ability to think ourselves beyond our physical reality.

Who’s afraid of Europe? The Ryanair revolution

The UK government’s pusillanimous approach to the European constitution (or Reform treaty?) is annoying both pro- and anti-Europeans. Pro-Europeans are mystified by the timidity, when not antipathy, in embracing the liberal democratic values enshrined in the charter of fundamental rights, which are already part of British law and tradition. Anti-Europeans regard the absence of ratification through a referendum as an affront to British democratic sovereignty.
A treaty is generally a document that requires specific legal knowledge. Parliament ought to be given the opportunity to ratify clause by clause any treaty, but I find that a referendum on the new treaty would be like asking people to express their opinions on the constitutional set up of the UK including devolution, the monarchy, House of Lords, House of Commons and the courts. It's a bit like having a referendum on land taxation. It’s that sort of thing. I'm not opposed to a referendum but I think we should have one on European principles and priorities (such as terrorism, climate change etc.)
Of course, the government (any British government that is) is too afraid to take any Euro stuff to the people. Misgivings about the European project have been a traditional feature of British politics, but are they still justifiable?
Undoubtedly, there will always be a number of people who are suspicious of Europe and want the UK government to keep as far away as possible from European institutions. They are those who have buried their heads in the sand and fail to understand a deeply interconnected world where to keep outside means letting others decide for you. For the past 50 years, politicians and the media have been playing the ‘European game’, where Europe is seen as either an unpalatable but necessary tool or the bogey man.
What is doubtful is the general population’s feeling about it. The game is over. People want their politicians to be the main players, not the poodles. They rightly question why governments can’t find agreement on themes that affect the whole of Europe and that don't stop at a country's border, such as terrorism and organised crime (including trafficking of people, arms and drugs), environment, migration, and health and safety standards of food. They are no longer afraid of Europe. I like thinking of it as the Ryanair revolution. Low-cost flying has forever changed the way Europeans (including Britons) think of Europe and themselves. It might not be environmentally friendly (I myself would prefer travelling by train and hopefully this will happen soon), but easy access between European countries has been exceptionally valuable. There are people commuting across countries, including the UK, every week or sometimes even more frequently. All of a sudden, a holiday or even a short break abroad has become affordable. People have discovered new tastes and places. They enjoy the food, the wine, the sitting outside in cafés and want a slice of that at home. I’ve lived in Britain for nearly ten years and I can assure you that life has changed and, at least in some small part, Ryanair and all the other low-cost airlines have played a role. Easy communication has unleashed a thirst for a different approach to life as a whole. It’s about Britain finding its place in Europe instead of looking always across the pond of the Atlantic. It’s about a Europe with soft power but a strong identity. A referendum on principles and priorities, such as the charter of fundamental rights, would give a face to Europe. Citizens would have the opportunity to decide what Europe is really about. It should be about individual citizens whose rights come before the so called ‘national interest’, a euphemism for what is good for some in the business community. It should be about our rights and freedoms that cannot be violated by any government including our own. It is about us participating in making democracy work instead of being the end receivers of politicians who tinker at the edges due to lack of vision. The people of Europe are ready, why aren’t the politicians?

Faith, religion and violence to language

Here we go again. Here is yet another in a seemingly endless string of 'authors' taking advantage of the public's renewed interest in religion in order to sell books.
Christopher Brookmyre rightly observes that “belief in spite of an absence of proof or even in the face of compelling contrary evidence … needs not merely to be challenged, but to be given the full point-and-laugh treatment”. He will thus be pleased that his faithful claim that “no belief in the afterlife equals no suicide bombers” qualifies for such treatment. Mr Brookmyre strangely connects spiritualism with religious faith to discredit the whole of religious faith. Belief in the afterlife does not imply belief in the possibility of communicating with the other side. That is why spiritualism and magic have been systematically condemned by main religions since biblical times. On the contrary, one does not need to be religious to believe in an afterlife or magic.
More worryingly, Mr Brookmyre seems to ignore the meaning of the words he so clumsily employs. First of all, faith and belief are not necessarily confined to the realm of the transcendent. As such, faith in matters related to the physical world, such as mid-nineteenth century’s biological beliefs about race, can be subject of scientific inquiry and when disproved should indeed be rejected.
Physical laws, by contrast, cannot be applied to mysticism. However, depending on the discipline, different forms of evidence can be applied in order to establish the veracity or likelihood of a thesis, such as documentary and testimony evidence in legal cases.
Finally, it is not clear how Mr Brookmyre puts forward his argument that faith in the afterlife leads to suicide bombing. If this was the case, our streets would be crowded with suicidal murderers of all sorts. Like Jenni Russell before him, he confuses metaphysical beliefs, term she invents and that means nothing, I presume she means beliefs such as the Trinity and afterlife, with ethics, which is the philosophy of morality.
What most of us find abhorrent is not the suicide bombers’ belief in heaven, rather it is their unethical disregard for life. It is with concern, however, that one notices yet another savage attack, not so much on religion, to which we have become accustomed in these troubled times, rather on language. I believe there is now abundant evidence to support the use of a dictionary before any more innocent ink is spilled.

Understanding terrorism

The latest effort to ‘understand’ terrorism comes from Jenni Russell on the Guardian, who sadly fails rather miserably. She comes up with her own brand of tosh by mixing Samuel Huntingdon’s theory of the clash of civilisations, ethics and metaphysics. Aside from the fact that she confuses metaphysics with ethics, Ms Russell claims that ‘metaphysical beliefs’ are the result of “our earliest experiences and the culture around us”. As such ‘the dissonance between our own powerful sense of what is right’, which is one’s ethics, and ‘the values of the society around us’ leads some people to violent action.
There are two fundamental misconceptions at the core of this argument. Firstly, her understanding of metaphysical beliefs (term she invents!)and ethics, if you really want to bang the two together, as stemming from culture negates the universalistic nature of ethics. To take an example, human rights are founded on the universal value of life, which is not dependent on one’s geography, economic conditions or any other cultural variable. These rights, although systematically violated in most countries, are recognised across the world as human, and therefore universal, values. Secondly, this relativist idea of culture as giver of meaning and values is but an offspring of European secularist ideologies and post-colonial ideas of self-determination. Contemporary Islamists are not moved by a metaphysical belief embedded in a specific culture, but by envy. When they refer to the US as the ‘great Satan’, they do not equate it with evil, but with seduction. Islamists have been deeply influenced by Western secular nationalism of the XIX and XX centuries. Islamism has applied Islamic vocabulary to European nationalism and has thus betrayed Islam, as a religion that preaches universality. In doing so, Islamist terrorists have been inspired by an ideology borne out of relativism and that, in its extreme forms, has death at its core. The only clash is between those who choose life and those who choose death.

Italy, the land that feminism forgot?

The FT had a very interesting article on the death of Italian feminism. I share Adrian Michaels’ frustration with the explicitly sexual (and sexist) imagery dominating Italian television and publicity. However, in his comparison with Britain and the US, he seems to paint a too stark picture of Italy as ‘the land that feminism forgot’. After all, I remember a similar frustration and surprise at the relatively ordinary ‘nakedness’ of young women in Britain going out clubbing, when I first moved here nearly ten years ago. I'm afraid sexism is alive and well across the globe. The dire state of Italian publicity has more to do with its clients not seeking creativity than Italians being comfortable with it. Nevertheless, it is true that the situation in Italy is indeed worse; however it is primarily due to structural rather than cultural reasons. There are, of course, cultural differences, such as an understanding of sexual explicitness as rebellion to Catholic predominance and therefore as a liberating tool. There is also a more open attitude to sex than in Anglican/Protestant cultures, hence censorship being less rigid. Regrettably, across the western world, the sixties’ revolution liberalised sex instead of liberating it from its male-centredness and its objectifying nature.
However, Italian publicity is saturated with naked women for the same reason why economic structural reforms are extremely difficult. Italy is a country still steeped in corporatism, dominated by the vested interest of a myriad of groups. Italian politics and economy are in crisis due to their subservience to groups of power, traditionally dominated by (older) men with strong political links to ensure influence. Such groups hold the key to personal and corporate success. They are boys’ clubs making the rules on who is on television, in politics and in the academia, to name a few. So far they have excluded women, young talent and innovation. It is a deeply felt crisis resented by all. When I visit Italy, I see men and women just as embarrassed and angry at the ubiquitous display of female flesh on billboards and television as they are at the tight grip with which Italy’s elders are strangulating the country.

nakeditaly