I don’t know how Americans have come to restrict their vocabulary so much, but the dichotomy Liberals (which in the US is taken to mean left, from centre-left to loony-left) and Conservatives (meaning right-wing) seriously distorts any meaningful understanding of political science. Such acception empties the term ‘liberal’ of its authentic meaning. Liberal does not mean lefty!!!
When such flawed terminology is applied to morality is epistemologically wrong and just bonkers. It leads to the endorsement of an old-fashioned political duality left/right (what about the true liberals?), which in ethics becomes Manichean. In short: it’s nonsense.
The culprit this time are a group of ‘moral psychologists’, including Professor Jonathan Haidt, who has caused me great irritation by entering the world of political theory, philosophy and theology with the instruments of biology. It's a bit like analysing a poem with a ruler.
I’m not against moral psychology per se. It seems obvious to me that human beings, as part of the natural world, would have biological traits that would support the development of ideas and morality. You can’t play music without an instrument (I include the voice as instrument). I have no problem even accepting that some people might have a certain predisposition to behaving in a ‘moral’ way, such as giving to charity, having compassion of others etc. This is why, at least in Judaism, charity is charity when it involves a ‘sacrifice’, when it ‘pains’ you in some way. But this stuff is seriously flawed.
The ‘fun’ part are the tests. Haidt has researched the phenomenon of disgust, but his interpretation of the term is a bit off the wall and its application in the tests simply puzzling. I mean, one might not find eating paper disgusting, but if the question asks you to choose between a piece of fruit and paper, isn’t the one who chooses paper just an eejit?
It turns out my ‘disgust’ scale is higher than average. For Haidt this should mean that I have a strong sense of purity/sanctity, which is linked to mortality, the body, blood etc. I take it to mean that I have good manners!
They are clearly (badly) designed for Americans and many questions just don’t make sense. For example:
- Say something bad about your nation (which you don't believe to be true) while calling in, anonymously, to a talk-radio show in a foreign nation.
Err, just read my blog! I do mean what I say though when I write about Italy and the UK. I do not, however, ascribe the problems I encounter with both countries to inherent characteristics of the (ever changing) populations. I'd like to think my whinges are analyses of the socio-political situation at the present moment.
- Curse the founders or early heroes of your country (in private, nobody hears you).
If it’s in private and if they are dead, what’s the point of cursing them? Seriously, in Europe this doesn't make any sense. Besides, what is a 'curse'? A complaint? An insult? A shout for help? An attempt to break free from authority and affirm one's personhood?
- Renounce your citizenship and take one of another country.
I am a EU citizen, which means there’s no point in changing it to another European national citizenship. I wouldn’t give up my EU citizenship because it gives me more rights than probably any other. Besides, giving it up would require moving or applying for permanent leave and so on. I'm, of course, culturally European but citizenship is a legal category.
The problem with Haidt’s theory. These tests seem to aim to identify a 'instinctive' morality, however morality is contextual. There are always
conditions one is in and consequences for one's action. That's why biology can't measure it.
Haidt has developed the psychological understanding of morality from matters of harm, rights and justice to include other categories such as loyalty and authority, thus going beyond the individual. He claims that there are five psychological foundations for the world’s many moralities: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.
He also claims “Cultures vary on the degree to which they build virtues on these five foundations. As a first approximation, political liberals value virtues based on the first two foundations, while political conservatives value virtues based on all five. A consequence of this thesis is that justice and related virtues (based on the fairness foundation) make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives.”
Haidt misses the point. He wants people to get on so if liberals and conservatives could understand each other a bit more, the world would be a better place. The point of Liberalism (European acception) is that you do not impose your morals on others. I might be part of a religious/political/cultural community, but I have the right to criticise it, act according to what I think is right, not just what the group or authority decides. So Haidt’s harm and fairness should be replaced with freedom of choice.
1. Language: Haidt makes assumptions about the meaning of the words he employs. This is evident in the tests, where one needs to apply their intended meaning and restrict one’s answers. For example, he mentions chastity in relation to purity/sanctity, what does it mean? To me, chastity can refer to many things, not just sexuality. When referred to sexuality, I interpret it as sex in a respectful and meaningful relationship, since I believe that there is something sacred about (respectful) relationships, love and sexuality (this interpretation of chastity is also part of the Vatican thinking). I would not interpret it, however, as ‘no sex before marriage’. However, I fear that Haidt attaches that narrow meaning to the world. Not to mention ‘purity’ which in Judaism is a rather difficult concept best explained as immanence. It follows that it gets interpreted and re-interpreted according to the context. Haidt’s rigidity of interpretation makes the whole exercise pointless.
2. Liberalism vs. Communitarianism: Haidt could have referred to the dichotomy of liberalism/communitarianism (which might require some political science). Of course, in this context, liberals are NOT Haidt’s lefties. In fact, arguably, many concerns of social justice come from the communitarian tradition rather than the liberal one. Haidt mentions policies of positive discrimination which are clearly not policies descending from liberal philosophy (although they might be adopted by liberal parties). As a liberal, I have some problems with communitarianism, however I believe that my liberalism comes from my morality and that our rights and freedoms are dependent on us living in a society. If I were on a desert island, I wouldn’t have any rights or duties, although I could play lots of records without bothering colleagues ;) (sorry, a Radio 4 moment).
3. Liberalism: real liberalism, unlike Haidt’s broad coalition of lefties, rests upon the idea of individual autonomy above community. It does not however mean that the individual is not in the community. Therefore, individual claims need to be adjusted to the ‘claims’ of the community. The idea of authority also presents difficulties. In traditional societies, the male ‘elders’ might have been the authority dictating the rules of behaviour, but we no longer live in a traditional society. The democratic ideal has sunk deeply into our conscience and ‘traditional authority’ has waned. However, if by ‘authority’ we mean legitimate ‘power’ such as the legal system, we are bound by it.
4. Utilitarianism: Haidt’s lack of political analysis seems to justify a utilitarian position with a streak of relativism. He argues that for those of conservative views, their attachment to order and perceived lack of change serves a human need. Morality goes beyond usefulness. You cannot justify harm or injustice on the basis of usefulness. Human beings are not pawns of society. This is fundamental to religion and to liberalism and this is why I think liberalism has moral foundations.
5. Modernity: personal autonomy is a modern philosophical category (and reality!). This means that I might consider the Talmud or the Bible authoritative, however I would interpret its teaching in the light of the ethical principles I derive from my tradition. This means that I don’t read the Bible literally, which is a relatively recent (200yrs) trend anyway!
6. Morality is contextual: in order to understand a situation in its ethical perspective, one needs to consider the conditions in which of the moral agent acts, the likely consequences, what brings the moral agent to act in a certain way. E.g. we can say that adultery is wrong, but if the adulterer has suffered domestic violence for years and fears leaving the spouse, is most definitely not the same. As I argued before, a moral dilemma is NOT about right and wrong, but wrong and wrong (with a bit of right on both sides probably).
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
14 April 2008
10 April 2008
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:
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
07 April 2008
Italian elections from abroad
I have to say that, like many Italians right now, I flirted with the idea of not voting. There are many reasons for this: Italy is in deep crisis with too many groups defending vehemently their own interest with no regard for the rest of the population and the future of the country (see the opposition to TAV – high-speed trains; the opposition to the sale of Alitalia; opposition to the liberalisation of professions etc.). Italy has always been affected by deeply rooted corporativism, which sits uncomfortably in the globalised economy of the 21st century. There are many things that need to be done and yet political parties are squabbling. There is very little vision, direction and gravity.
Nonetheless I voted. After all, I thought that the people who might not vote at these elections are the moderate ones, those who are fed up with games, sound-bytes and shouts. This leaves the hard-core voters of Alleanza Nazionale (rightwingers), Lega Lombarda (Lombardy League) and the communists … oops the Sinistra Arcobaleno (those who would like to live in Cuba if it wasn’t for the systematic abuse of free speech and civil liberties). This is what made me vote! My vote counts.
The policies are similar and I haven’t got the time to look at the specifics or the costing. So it all comes down to trust, as in most elections.
I have no idea how much I can trust the coalition of the Partito Democratico (Centre-left) of which Italia dei Valori are part. I know I cannot trust Popolo delle Liberta' (Berlusconi’s party). Not because of Berlusconi, but because I don’t trust a party that did all they could to make the government fall. This is NOT responsible politics! It is NOT in the interest of the country, even of those who voted for the opposition.
I hope the new government, whoever they are, will have to guts to challenge the vested interest of small groups and bring Italy into the 21st century. I hope they will promote accountability and trust starting from the local level. And I sincerely hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure that important reforms go through. We deserve this much!
As mentioned in my previous post, I contacted the main parties’ candidates and asked the same two questions, what they thought of the privatisation of Alitalia and the refuse problem in Naples without giving any hint about my position.
[Needless to say I’d like to see Alitalia sold to AirFrance, that being the best offer, thus giving Italian taxpayers a break as they’ve been dishing out cash to a badly managed ultra-protected company for donkeys years; while the refuse problem needs concerted action starting from tackling the mafia and introducing better ways to manage waste such as recycling, re-using but also green plants producing energy without releasing harmful emissions, yes they do exist! I would also like to see reforms to increase transparency and accountability for universities, the whole administration of justice and, of course, local government.]
The winner was Mr Angelo Berardini (Italia dei Valori – centre-left) with a very exhaustive and balanced reply, which I report below (sorry too long to translate).
Nonetheless I voted. After all, I thought that the people who might not vote at these elections are the moderate ones, those who are fed up with games, sound-bytes and shouts. This leaves the hard-core voters of Alleanza Nazionale (rightwingers), Lega Lombarda (Lombardy League) and the communists … oops the Sinistra Arcobaleno (those who would like to live in Cuba if it wasn’t for the systematic abuse of free speech and civil liberties). This is what made me vote! My vote counts.
The policies are similar and I haven’t got the time to look at the specifics or the costing. So it all comes down to trust, as in most elections.
I have no idea how much I can trust the coalition of the Partito Democratico (Centre-left) of which Italia dei Valori are part. I know I cannot trust Popolo delle Liberta' (Berlusconi’s party). Not because of Berlusconi, but because I don’t trust a party that did all they could to make the government fall. This is NOT responsible politics! It is NOT in the interest of the country, even of those who voted for the opposition.
I hope the new government, whoever they are, will have to guts to challenge the vested interest of small groups and bring Italy into the 21st century. I hope they will promote accountability and trust starting from the local level. And I sincerely hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure that important reforms go through. We deserve this much!
As mentioned in my previous post, I contacted the main parties’ candidates and asked the same two questions, what they thought of the privatisation of Alitalia and the refuse problem in Naples without giving any hint about my position.
[Needless to say I’d like to see Alitalia sold to AirFrance, that being the best offer, thus giving Italian taxpayers a break as they’ve been dishing out cash to a badly managed ultra-protected company for donkeys years; while the refuse problem needs concerted action starting from tackling the mafia and introducing better ways to manage waste such as recycling, re-using but also green plants producing energy without releasing harmful emissions, yes they do exist! I would also like to see reforms to increase transparency and accountability for universities, the whole administration of justice and, of course, local government.]
The winner was Mr Angelo Berardini (Italia dei Valori – centre-left) with a very exhaustive and balanced reply, which I report below (sorry too long to translate).
Gentilissima Signora Francesca
Grazie per l'attenzione che ha voluto riservare alla mia candidatura nella lista dell'Italia Dei Valori.
I due temi che mi ha sottoposto sono importanti ed anche emblematici della realtà dell'Italia e della sua realtà socio-economica, rispetto all'Alitalia: la privatizzazione è una realtà e nello stesso tempo una necessità, semmai il problema è che in tutti questi anni essa è stata al centro di una politica di protezione che le ha impedito di competre nel mercato come hanno fatto altre compagnie aeree europee e internazionali; ritengo anacronistico ripresentare il tema dell'Italilanità dell'alitalia, è giunto il momento per essa di "navigare" in mare aperto e affrontare le onde e le burrasche con i suoi mezzi, che si attrezzi, che partecipi alla competizione del mercato attingendo alla professionalità, alla competenza e soprattutto all'abbandono del clientelismo di cui è stata vittima e carnefice nello stesso tempo. La questione dell'aeroporto Malpensa è un tema diverso e solo i mistificatori tendono a confondere le acque e a tenere insieme le due questioni.
Rispetto al tema dei rifiuti: prima di tutto chiederei, come del resto ha già fatto Di Pietro, le immediate dimissioni dei principali responsabili, in primis Bassolino e metterei in campo una governance di esperti totalmente indipendenti dal potere politico con il compito solo di portare a soluzione il problema dei rifiuti che per essere risolto ha bisogno di una molteplicità di interventi: educativo (cultura della raccolta differenziata), etico (cultura della legalità della responsabilità),
politico (coinvolgimento di tutti i cittadini singoli e raccolti in associazione in un'azione di denuncia e di ripristino sul tema dei siti), tecnico (bonifica delle scariche e individuazione di luoghi di stoccaggio), costruzione di nuovi e moderni impianti per lo smaltimento), chederei solidarietà e aiuto alle altre regioni (sempre dietro una rassicurazione che la richiesta è una tantum e che partecipa di un progetto integrato per la soluzione del problema, una volta tanto mi rivolgerei al popolo campano sano, quello che ha intelligenza e onestà per sollecitarlo a credere che la soluzione del problema è dipende in larga parte anche da lui.
Capisco che non ho risolto i problemi, ma spero di essere riuscito a far capire che alcune idee possono essere messe in campo.
Se eletto, come ho risposto adesso, così risponderò domani, fornendo soluzioni e accogliendo consigli.
28 March 2008
To vote or not to vote?
It’s that time again of a long series of doubts, questions and lack of information. No, I’m not talking about the elections in Cardiff!! I’m referring to the Italian elections being held on the 13th of April. Voting by post, I only have time until the 7th apparently.
I haven’t thought much about it, I haven’t checked the political parties’ websites and know very little about the candidates. It feels very odd given that I’m someone who has no such doubts when it comes to politics in the UK.
Since the last elections, the Italian Parliament has MPs representing Italians living abroad. I don’t know the numbers of those eligible to vote but there are millions of Italians living across the globe!! How can these MPs actually do something for us except the odd law about Italian schools abroad and so on?
I don’t think it was the right thing to do. They should have created an elected representative post for each embassy instead. I would have very much liked someone representing my needs and interests as an Italian citizen in the UK. For example, I’d like someone campaigning for more support for Italian Cultural Institutes (the London and Edinburgh ones are great!) and so on.
Above everything else I’d like someone who keeps in touch and the current Italian MPs currently representing me have sent me no communications until now.
It is possible to choose one candidate among the list presented by each party writing his/her name on the ballot paper. The parties have, of course, chosen their ‘star’ candidate so I have no information on the others. The manifestos are all the same and terribly non-controversial that it’s impossible to make an informed choice. I don’t know what they stand for (aside from the usual stuff for residents abroad such as consulates, culture etc.). None of them have told me what they have been doing and none of them seem to have done any campaign outside Parliament.
So I’m contacting them! So far, I have written to Gianni Farina (PD) and Guglielmo Picchi (Polo delle Liberta’) and asked their view and their party’s view on the refuse problem in Naples and the Alitalia privatisation.
I’m just one vote out of hundreds of thousand, but it counts!
The irony is that even my home town council keeps in touch with me sending their regular magazine (which includes a short article from each party on the Council). They are also more effective: I can change my address online, request to renew my ID card online … local government does it better!!
I haven’t thought much about it, I haven’t checked the political parties’ websites and know very little about the candidates. It feels very odd given that I’m someone who has no such doubts when it comes to politics in the UK.
Since the last elections, the Italian Parliament has MPs representing Italians living abroad. I don’t know the numbers of those eligible to vote but there are millions of Italians living across the globe!! How can these MPs actually do something for us except the odd law about Italian schools abroad and so on?
I don’t think it was the right thing to do. They should have created an elected representative post for each embassy instead. I would have very much liked someone representing my needs and interests as an Italian citizen in the UK. For example, I’d like someone campaigning for more support for Italian Cultural Institutes (the London and Edinburgh ones are great!) and so on.
Above everything else I’d like someone who keeps in touch and the current Italian MPs currently representing me have sent me no communications until now.
It is possible to choose one candidate among the list presented by each party writing his/her name on the ballot paper. The parties have, of course, chosen their ‘star’ candidate so I have no information on the others. The manifestos are all the same and terribly non-controversial that it’s impossible to make an informed choice. I don’t know what they stand for (aside from the usual stuff for residents abroad such as consulates, culture etc.). None of them have told me what they have been doing and none of them seem to have done any campaign outside Parliament.
So I’m contacting them! So far, I have written to Gianni Farina (PD) and Guglielmo Picchi (Polo delle Liberta’) and asked their view and their party’s view on the refuse problem in Naples and the Alitalia privatisation.
I’m just one vote out of hundreds of thousand, but it counts!
The irony is that even my home town council keeps in touch with me sending their regular magazine (which includes a short article from each party on the Council). They are also more effective: I can change my address online, request to renew my ID card online … local government does it better!!
11 February 2008
Law, morality and the Archbishop
I read Rowan Williams’ long pages of ambiguous woolliness and managed not to get too irritated. He’s right, of course, to say that as soon as you mention sharia most people (or the media?) think “it is repressive towards women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments”. No wonder it caused such a bang, which, I assume, was Rowan’s intention to ‘diffuse’ or confuse tensions ahead of Lambeth Conference. It feels, however, that he has miscalculated how loud the bang would be.
The Archbishop in acutely careful language criticises the monopoly of positive law over principles. Law is not the pure positivistic construction the nation-state created. It is only fair that in a pluralist society our diversity is reflected in it by allowing flexibility of interpretation. Sharia, Torah and Christian Canon law are guided by principles and the Archbishop would like to see religious courts exercising a limited role in applying the law according to their principles as a form of ‘supplementary jurisdiction’. Rowan is well aware of the pitfalls to which this suggestion may lead. For example, he states that:
To counter this problems, he reassures us that
This would mean that one who appeals to the religious courts would be granted all the rights that civil courts guarantee. In what way would it be different than the current situation? Rowan Williams does not explore it in any detail so it is impossible to guess what would be the matters on which the courts could judge legitimately. It is, at best, impractical and expensive for the community.
The point Rowan so badly tried to put across is that he wants more flexibility in interpreting human rights. He’s keen to have more exemptions on the basis of one’s ‘conscience’.
Actually, it’s very easy to see why the principle cannot be extended in other areas! Leaving the abortion discussion aside for once, I cannot see the deontological validity of the opt-out of professionals from performing legally recognised procedures. I believe a blanket policy in such matters is inevitably discriminatory. More importantly, shouldn’t theologians and religious ministers advise on moral matters rather than other professionals?
If we recognise the opt-out principle, why not the ‘go forward’ one? Both Liberal and Reform Judaism had been celebrating homosexual weddings (albeit in private) well before they became legally recognised in European states. They recognised women as equal and therefore allowed to be rabbis before equality legislation.
Human rights legislation protects individuals regardless of their religion, sex, race, ability/disability, sexual orientation. You might not realise it, Rowan, but your courts, if given legitimacy, would undermine the human rights of all. They would call into question what we’ve so painfully achieved so far and bring relativism back in from the front door.
I believe there are fundamental misunderstandings in this reasoning. Firstly, the law is flexible and changes according to political priorities but also societal changes through government policies, parliamentary legislation and the courts. Religious law does change but it very seldom does so as a result of the community’s will, especially now that we are granted rights and liberties under secular legislation. Who would set the law guiding these courts? Unelected institutions? Unelected theologians?
Secondly and most importantly, legal systems are hierarchical. It follows that the religious courts he’s promoting would not be able to derogate from primary, secondary legislation and, needless to say, EU law. This is the best bit. Leaving aside competition law, the most important document underpinning European legislation is the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, it’s binding! Yes, it’s part of UK law, albeit belatedly!
The funny thing is that (from my perspective) the recognition of the dignity of the human that is enshrined in human rights legislation comes from religion. Human rights are simply the secularised version of the guiding principles of major religions.
Europe has seen many forms of governments including monarchies, empires, city-states, nation-states and now the European Union. With modernity, sovereignty has moved gradually but decisively from the political, ethnic and religious communities of pre-modern times to the individual. The individual and his/her autonomy are at the centre. Thus, following the end of the Second World War and its horrors, the recognition of the individual (=human) was the cornerstone of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Daily Mail is right, it is European (human rights) law that is sovereign and has therefore power to strike down national laws that do not comply. However, European, national and regional courts enforce universal law, albeit ‘translated’ in the local understanding of it (=proportionality).
It will, thus, be a very interesting exercise to recognise religious courts in ‘public life’ as these would be required to uphold common human rights principles. These are ‘common’ because recognised by democratically elected states and therefore are taken to represent the view of the majority and include the recognition of minority rights. There is no need for any 'supplementary' jurisdiction, human dignity is already enshrined in human rights' law.
The Archbishop in acutely careful language criticises the monopoly of positive law over principles. Law is not the pure positivistic construction the nation-state created. It is only fair that in a pluralist society our diversity is reflected in it by allowing flexibility of interpretation. Sharia, Torah and Christian Canon law are guided by principles and the Archbishop would like to see religious courts exercising a limited role in applying the law according to their principles as a form of ‘supplementary jurisdiction’. Rowan is well aware of the pitfalls to which this suggestion may lead. For example, he states that:
recognition of 'supplementary jurisdiction' in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women.
To counter this problems, he reassures us that
If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights.
This would mean that one who appeals to the religious courts would be granted all the rights that civil courts guarantee. In what way would it be different than the current situation? Rowan Williams does not explore it in any detail so it is impossible to guess what would be the matters on which the courts could judge legitimately. It is, at best, impractical and expensive for the community.
The point Rowan so badly tried to put across is that he wants more flexibility in interpreting human rights. He’s keen to have more exemptions on the basis of one’s ‘conscience’.
Earlier on, I proposed that the criterion for recognising and collaborating with communal religious discipline should be connected with whether a communal jurisdiction actively interfered with liberties guaranteed by the wider society in such a way as definitively to block access to the exercise of those liberties; clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right. The point has been granted in respect of medical professionals who may be asked to perform or co-operate in performing abortions – a perfectly reasonable example of the law doing what I earlier defined as its job, securing space for those aspects of human motivation and behaviour that cannot be finally determined by any corporate or social system. It is difficult to see quite why the principle cannot be extended in other areas.
Actually, it’s very easy to see why the principle cannot be extended in other areas! Leaving the abortion discussion aside for once, I cannot see the deontological validity of the opt-out of professionals from performing legally recognised procedures. I believe a blanket policy in such matters is inevitably discriminatory. More importantly, shouldn’t theologians and religious ministers advise on moral matters rather than other professionals?
If we recognise the opt-out principle, why not the ‘go forward’ one? Both Liberal and Reform Judaism had been celebrating homosexual weddings (albeit in private) well before they became legally recognised in European states. They recognised women as equal and therefore allowed to be rabbis before equality legislation.
Human rights legislation protects individuals regardless of their religion, sex, race, ability/disability, sexual orientation. You might not realise it, Rowan, but your courts, if given legitimacy, would undermine the human rights of all. They would call into question what we’ve so painfully achieved so far and bring relativism back in from the front door.
I believe there are fundamental misunderstandings in this reasoning. Firstly, the law is flexible and changes according to political priorities but also societal changes through government policies, parliamentary legislation and the courts. Religious law does change but it very seldom does so as a result of the community’s will, especially now that we are granted rights and liberties under secular legislation. Who would set the law guiding these courts? Unelected institutions? Unelected theologians?
Secondly and most importantly, legal systems are hierarchical. It follows that the religious courts he’s promoting would not be able to derogate from primary, secondary legislation and, needless to say, EU law. This is the best bit. Leaving aside competition law, the most important document underpinning European legislation is the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, it’s binding! Yes, it’s part of UK law, albeit belatedly!
The funny thing is that (from my perspective) the recognition of the dignity of the human that is enshrined in human rights legislation comes from religion. Human rights are simply the secularised version of the guiding principles of major religions.
Europe has seen many forms of governments including monarchies, empires, city-states, nation-states and now the European Union. With modernity, sovereignty has moved gradually but decisively from the political, ethnic and religious communities of pre-modern times to the individual. The individual and his/her autonomy are at the centre. Thus, following the end of the Second World War and its horrors, the recognition of the individual (=human) was the cornerstone of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Daily Mail is right, it is European (human rights) law that is sovereign and has therefore power to strike down national laws that do not comply. However, European, national and regional courts enforce universal law, albeit ‘translated’ in the local understanding of it (=proportionality).
It will, thus, be a very interesting exercise to recognise religious courts in ‘public life’ as these would be required to uphold common human rights principles. These are ‘common’ because recognised by democratically elected states and therefore are taken to represent the view of the majority and include the recognition of minority rights. There is no need for any 'supplementary' jurisdiction, human dignity is already enshrined in human rights' law.
25 January 2008
The Next Revolution
Last week I was telling a friend of mine that if it weren’t for the fact that Italy is a democracy, there would be a revolution. The issues facing the country are deep and permeate the whole of society. They reach far back in history and cannot be summarised easily.
There is the crisis of refuse collection in southern Italy which reaches far back to the re-creation of the mafia near the end of WWII for military expediency, leading to local and then national political patronage which has been exploited by successive governments.
There is the crisis of employment, especially for young people, now always temporary, with no guarantees and badly paid. Whilst salaries have failed to increase across the western world, in Italy the problem is more acute due to static economic structures.
There is the crisis of the ‘caste’, the control over political and economic resources by the vested interest of certain groups. As argued elsewhere, Italy's politics and economy are in crisis because of their subservience to power groupings traditionally dominated by (older) men with strong political links to ensure influence. Such groups hold the key to personal and corporate success. This too reaches far back and was exacerbated (or endorsed?) by the influence being exercised by the USA and USSR during the Cold war.
There was a time after the end of the Cold war, where there was hope. There was hope around the world for a new world order. Italy moved from the First to the Second Republic. Yet, the ‘new’ politicians (who couldn’t be really ‘new’) relied on the old structures of power. It may be that they had no choice in this, but nobody since the early 1990s has ever attempted real structural reforms.
The revolution is under way. Court cases have exposed the unashamed use of political patronage in the academia and business, for example. Everybody knows, everybody has always known. It is now time to change it.
Whilst I recognise that Berlusconi’s electoral tinkering has jeopardised the possibility of a functioning government, I still think Prodi was always too concerned about himself rather than the country.
Walter Veltroni, the now leader of the main centre-left party, was anointed by 3.5m people last autumn at the primaries. What is he going to do?
If I were Veltroni, I would propose a bold manifesto with my vision for Italy and call for a coalition to implement it. I would want transparency for all appointments, I would want structural reforms of the economy, I would want substantial devolution to the regions and cities, I would want new proportional electoral arrangements and, yes, even quotas for women. In this case, and for a limited period, they are indeed essential to allow a new politics. If I were a journalist, I would call on the media to stop play the game of the powers that be, such as the Vatican. If I were the Pope I would be constructive and give money to the priests that are fighting the mafia, the drugs and are helping the victims of the new slave trade. If I were … the revolution is a responsibility of all.
I suppose I just mean reforms, reforms that will reflect the local diversity. So far there have been confused movements of protest, such as the one started by comedian Beppe Grillo, that have fallen into the ‘game’ and conformed. Yet, it’s not impossible, only difficult.
There is the crisis of refuse collection in southern Italy which reaches far back to the re-creation of the mafia near the end of WWII for military expediency, leading to local and then national political patronage which has been exploited by successive governments.
There is the crisis of employment, especially for young people, now always temporary, with no guarantees and badly paid. Whilst salaries have failed to increase across the western world, in Italy the problem is more acute due to static economic structures.
There is the crisis of the ‘caste’, the control over political and economic resources by the vested interest of certain groups. As argued elsewhere, Italy's politics and economy are in crisis because of their subservience to power groupings traditionally dominated by (older) men with strong political links to ensure influence. Such groups hold the key to personal and corporate success. This too reaches far back and was exacerbated (or endorsed?) by the influence being exercised by the USA and USSR during the Cold war.
There was a time after the end of the Cold war, where there was hope. There was hope around the world for a new world order. Italy moved from the First to the Second Republic. Yet, the ‘new’ politicians (who couldn’t be really ‘new’) relied on the old structures of power. It may be that they had no choice in this, but nobody since the early 1990s has ever attempted real structural reforms.
The revolution is under way. Court cases have exposed the unashamed use of political patronage in the academia and business, for example. Everybody knows, everybody has always known. It is now time to change it.
Whilst I recognise that Berlusconi’s electoral tinkering has jeopardised the possibility of a functioning government, I still think Prodi was always too concerned about himself rather than the country.
Walter Veltroni, the now leader of the main centre-left party, was anointed by 3.5m people last autumn at the primaries. What is he going to do?
If I were Veltroni, I would propose a bold manifesto with my vision for Italy and call for a coalition to implement it. I would want transparency for all appointments, I would want structural reforms of the economy, I would want substantial devolution to the regions and cities, I would want new proportional electoral arrangements and, yes, even quotas for women. In this case, and for a limited period, they are indeed essential to allow a new politics. If I were a journalist, I would call on the media to stop play the game of the powers that be, such as the Vatican. If I were the Pope I would be constructive and give money to the priests that are fighting the mafia, the drugs and are helping the victims of the new slave trade. If I were … the revolution is a responsibility of all.
I suppose I just mean reforms, reforms that will reflect the local diversity. So far there have been confused movements of protest, such as the one started by comedian Beppe Grillo, that have fallen into the ‘game’ and conformed. Yet, it’s not impossible, only difficult.
21 January 2008
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?
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?
16 January 2008
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.
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.
11 January 2008
Clinton vs Obama in the 21st century
Yes, Clinton is arrogant, she's not a good communicator and is seen as divisive, but she has brains and substance. More importantly I don't think Obama can win. Europeans are holding the breath and crossing their fingers hoping for something good to come out of the Primaries and the election later this year. After all, the rest of the world is affected by the choice of President Americans make. True we (Europe) should be more independent and assertive, in the meantime ... can we have a Democrat in the White House?
Clinton is not likable but she was the one who put forward a comprehensive plan to expand healthcare. She seems to me as someone who still stands for the right things, in fact someone who stands for something. The problem I have with Obama is that he's insipid, all things to all men. He's smooth and likable and that's what irritates me. Is Hilary she seen as divisive just because she's not woolly? Is the American electorate fed up with the old regime? What's so good about being 'new' and with little life experience? I have noticed quite a few MPs on our shores (across the political spectrum) who are rather young and seem to have lived in a rather cocooned environment. They might be 'new', likable and even good looking, but I can't think anyone less suitable at making decisions and at facing the challenges of the 21st century.
My problem, though, is that way too much power is concentrated at the centre. Cities and states in the US should have more of a say, congress men and women should be elected differently and the American media should have more guts.
I'm amazed that 25 states are in favour of Kyoto (+various cities) and yet the administration doesn't care a jot. The democracy of the 21st century cannot be afraid of diversity, it needs to embrace it. The only way forward is by devolving power down and listening to people and local representatives. Local democracy is ahead of government in finding solutions and tackling global problems. In the post-national 21st the local blends with the global in ways that national governments cannot see. It is time institutions undergo reforms to adapt to the new century.
Clinton is not likable but she was the one who put forward a comprehensive plan to expand healthcare. She seems to me as someone who still stands for the right things, in fact someone who stands for something. The problem I have with Obama is that he's insipid, all things to all men. He's smooth and likable and that's what irritates me. Is Hilary she seen as divisive just because she's not woolly? Is the American electorate fed up with the old regime? What's so good about being 'new' and with little life experience? I have noticed quite a few MPs on our shores (across the political spectrum) who are rather young and seem to have lived in a rather cocooned environment. They might be 'new', likable and even good looking, but I can't think anyone less suitable at making decisions and at facing the challenges of the 21st century.
My problem, though, is that way too much power is concentrated at the centre. Cities and states in the US should have more of a say, congress men and women should be elected differently and the American media should have more guts.
I'm amazed that 25 states are in favour of Kyoto (+various cities) and yet the administration doesn't care a jot. The democracy of the 21st century cannot be afraid of diversity, it needs to embrace it. The only way forward is by devolving power down and listening to people and local representatives. Local democracy is ahead of government in finding solutions and tackling global problems. In the post-national 21st the local blends with the global in ways that national governments cannot see. It is time institutions undergo reforms to adapt to the new century.
06 December 2007
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?
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?
22 October 2007
Abortion rights and wrongs
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, wrote a very measured piece on the Observer yesterday about modern attitudes towards abortion. He expressed concerns that there has been a “weakening of the feeling that abortion is a last resort”. He laments the fact that there’s no longer the presumption of marriage as a lifelong union, that marriage and family are no longer seen as the “foundational things in a properly nurturing and stable society”, rather, people choose not to marry in ever greater numbers. Of course, he is not condemning anything, not against divorce, not against civil partnerships. In fact, he does not even suggest to outlaw abortion, but to tighten the law. … And?
I’m not sure whether Rowan Williams is trying to boost his liberal profile after the hard line taken against the American Episcopalians recently, or simply get some press coverage ahead of the anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 and show that he’s doing something. He might just be concerned and want a more stringent law. But why?
The law generally reflects society’s morals; it does not teach them. If Williams is right and abortion is no longer seen as ‘last resort’, but another form of contraceptive, which I’m afraid is what is being inferred here, the law would not change people’s minds a bit. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of some Pro-Life groups: they want the law changed to enforce their view. That’s why, I believe, in the US extremist Pro-Life groups went on to become violent. After all, if you think right and proper to force a particular moral view, the logical step is to force it by ‘other means’. It feels like the Catholic Church is smarter and better at the game. Whilst they do their bit of condemning, they concentrate on instilling their views in people’s minds. Nevertheless, it’s probably impossible to tell if it works given that any comparison between the US and Catholic countries would need to take into consideration too many factors influencing one’s behaviour in this matter.
The problem I have with all this stuff is that I can’t help finding it self-indulgent. Let me first say where I stand: I do consider abortion morally wrong because it’s ending potential life. In Judaism, foetuses are not equal to human beings, so abortion is not murder. Nevertheless, I believe abortion should indeed be last resort. This should not impact on a woman’s right to choose what to do with her life and future. Let's be clear: nobody wants more abortions. I, like everybody else, would like to see fewer abortions, I’d like a world where women are not raped, where they can demand the use of contraceptives without being thought of as ‘difficult’ or ‘fussy’, where couples have meaningful and respectful relationships. If pro-lifers were serious about this, they would try to find out why people resort to abortions rather than passing judgement. How many abortions are sought as a result of rape/incest? How many as a result of medical complications? How many simply as a result of ‘inconvenience’? All the abortion cases have their own story, their own real people facing a dilemma. By the way, a dilemma is a choice between wrong and wrong, not between right and wrong!
The language of ‘foetal rights’ obfuscates the reality of abortion and instils a presumption that many women choose lightly to have an abortion and treat it as another form of contraceptive. Even if this was the case, it would be symptomatic of the need for better sex education, which would include the discussion of human relationships, for moral, financial or human support.
Nevertheless, one cannot help thinking that some groups advocating morality devote more attention to ‘foetal rights’ than to the deeply immoral injustice, poverty, discrimination and violence many people experience every day in the UK. Morality is a political issue. Let’s bring it to the fore of public debate: let’s talk about violence, injustice and poverty.
I’m not sure whether Rowan Williams is trying to boost his liberal profile after the hard line taken against the American Episcopalians recently, or simply get some press coverage ahead of the anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 and show that he’s doing something. He might just be concerned and want a more stringent law. But why?
The law generally reflects society’s morals; it does not teach them. If Williams is right and abortion is no longer seen as ‘last resort’, but another form of contraceptive, which I’m afraid is what is being inferred here, the law would not change people’s minds a bit. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of some Pro-Life groups: they want the law changed to enforce their view. That’s why, I believe, in the US extremist Pro-Life groups went on to become violent. After all, if you think right and proper to force a particular moral view, the logical step is to force it by ‘other means’. It feels like the Catholic Church is smarter and better at the game. Whilst they do their bit of condemning, they concentrate on instilling their views in people’s minds. Nevertheless, it’s probably impossible to tell if it works given that any comparison between the US and Catholic countries would need to take into consideration too many factors influencing one’s behaviour in this matter.
The problem I have with all this stuff is that I can’t help finding it self-indulgent. Let me first say where I stand: I do consider abortion morally wrong because it’s ending potential life. In Judaism, foetuses are not equal to human beings, so abortion is not murder. Nevertheless, I believe abortion should indeed be last resort. This should not impact on a woman’s right to choose what to do with her life and future. Let's be clear: nobody wants more abortions. I, like everybody else, would like to see fewer abortions, I’d like a world where women are not raped, where they can demand the use of contraceptives without being thought of as ‘difficult’ or ‘fussy’, where couples have meaningful and respectful relationships. If pro-lifers were serious about this, they would try to find out why people resort to abortions rather than passing judgement. How many abortions are sought as a result of rape/incest? How many as a result of medical complications? How many simply as a result of ‘inconvenience’? All the abortion cases have their own story, their own real people facing a dilemma. By the way, a dilemma is a choice between wrong and wrong, not between right and wrong!
The language of ‘foetal rights’ obfuscates the reality of abortion and instils a presumption that many women choose lightly to have an abortion and treat it as another form of contraceptive. Even if this was the case, it would be symptomatic of the need for better sex education, which would include the discussion of human relationships, for moral, financial or human support.
Nevertheless, one cannot help thinking that some groups advocating morality devote more attention to ‘foetal rights’ than to the deeply immoral injustice, poverty, discrimination and violence many people experience every day in the UK. Morality is a political issue. Let’s bring it to the fore of public debate: let’s talk about violence, injustice and poverty.
21 October 2007
Liberal Democracy and multiculturalism according to the Chief Rabbi
Jonathan Sacks, Chief Orthodox Rabbi, has jumped on the latest bandwagon blaming multiculturalism for the demise of society, morality, the nation and all things Tory. There are so many things wrong with his piece that it’s difficult to rebut concisely, but here are a few thoughts.
According to Sacks, multiculturalism, notwithstanding the good intentions, has resulted in segregation of groups, rather than integration and, subsequently, in a fragmentary identity politics which endangers liberal democracy.
Whilst it is true that many groups live separately, this is not the inevitable fruit of multiculturalism, rather it is the negative outcome of ill-conceived government policies and laisser-faire attitude. As such, segregation can only be tackled through a reinvigorated local democracy and policies aimed at substantive participation, rather than putting a cross on a ballot paper every four years. (By the way, this is also what I wanted to do my PhD on, so if you feel particularly generous and want to fund me, let me know!).
Sacks falls prey of a particularly pernicious type of nostalgia wishing the return to one common national culture and morality. This manufactured identity was always authoritarian and oppressive excluding those who did not fit the script. Thus, the Welsh were not allowed to speak Welsh and women could not be doctors, lawyers or academics.
Not content with all this, Sacks gets into a deeper mess by holding multiculturalism responsible for the demise of morality confusing individual autonomy with the excessive individualism and consumerism of the 1980s.
Individualism has indeed affected how we relate to the res publica, the shared polity, but this has nothing to do with the ability of the individual to make choices about his/her life, such as having homosexual relationships. Paradoxically, his dream of Britain as ‘one nation, one morality’ was dreamt by quite a few people before him including the English monarchs who expelled the Jews in 1290, the Spanish Kings who followed the same policy in 1492, and … oops Adolf Hitler!
I’m sure he doesn’t mean it this way, but perhaps he should think things through before publishing a book. This approach inevitably leads to authoritarianism due to the missing element of diversity. He also refers obliquely to Alisdair MacIntyre by mentioning ‘after virtue’, with which MacIntyre refers to modern ethics as devoid of meaning.
There is a big difference between excessive individualism where nobody cares about the res publica, the shared polity, and individual autonomy. As I have argued many times, individual autonomy is the inheritance of the Enlightenment, allowing us to be autonomous moral agent, no longer dependent on authority on matters that regard our own lives. The liberal democracy Sacks wants defended is predicated upon the same freedom and equality that he attacks, fruit of the meeting and often clashing of cultures throughout many centuries, and not of a 'one nation' myth. Democracy happens when individuals’ diversity and rights are respected just as much as groups’ diversity and rights. The alternative is the tyranny of the majority.
Previous posts on similar topics are on freedom of conscience, law and morality, the century of the self and testing britishness.
According to Sacks, multiculturalism, notwithstanding the good intentions, has resulted in segregation of groups, rather than integration and, subsequently, in a fragmentary identity politics which endangers liberal democracy.
Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation. It has allowed groups to live separately, with no incentive to integrate and every incentive not to. …
Liberal democracy is in danger. Britain is becoming a place where free speech is at risk, non-political institutions are becoming politicised, and a combination of political correctness and ethnic-religious separatism is eroding the graciousness of civil society. Religious groups are becoming pressure groups. Boycotts and political campaigns are infecting professional bodies. Culture is fragmenting into systems of belief in which civil discourse ends and reasoned argument becomes impossible.
Whilst it is true that many groups live separately, this is not the inevitable fruit of multiculturalism, rather it is the negative outcome of ill-conceived government policies and laisser-faire attitude. As such, segregation can only be tackled through a reinvigorated local democracy and policies aimed at substantive participation, rather than putting a cross on a ballot paper every four years. (By the way, this is also what I wanted to do my PhD on, so if you feel particularly generous and want to fund me, let me know!).
Sacks falls prey of a particularly pernicious type of nostalgia wishing the return to one common national culture and morality. This manufactured identity was always authoritarian and oppressive excluding those who did not fit the script. Thus, the Welsh were not allowed to speak Welsh and women could not be doctors, lawyers or academics.
Not content with all this, Sacks gets into a deeper mess by holding multiculturalism responsible for the demise of morality confusing individual autonomy with the excessive individualism and consumerism of the 1980s.
But there was something else happening at the same time, of great consequence: the slow demise of morality itself, conceived as the moral bond linking individuals in the shared project of society. …
In 1961, suicide ceased to be a crime. This might seem a minor and obviously humane measure, but it was the beginning of the end of England as a Christian country; that is, one in which Christian ethics was reflected in law. It was a prelude to other and more significant reforms. In 1967 abortion was legalised, as was homosexual behaviour. …
Individualism has indeed affected how we relate to the res publica, the shared polity, but this has nothing to do with the ability of the individual to make choices about his/her life, such as having homosexual relationships. Paradoxically, his dream of Britain as ‘one nation, one morality’ was dreamt by quite a few people before him including the English monarchs who expelled the Jews in 1290, the Spanish Kings who followed the same policy in 1492, and … oops Adolf Hitler!
I’m sure he doesn’t mean it this way, but perhaps he should think things through before publishing a book. This approach inevitably leads to authoritarianism due to the missing element of diversity. He also refers obliquely to Alisdair MacIntyre by mentioning ‘after virtue’, with which MacIntyre refers to modern ethics as devoid of meaning.
There is a big difference between excessive individualism where nobody cares about the res publica, the shared polity, and individual autonomy. As I have argued many times, individual autonomy is the inheritance of the Enlightenment, allowing us to be autonomous moral agent, no longer dependent on authority on matters that regard our own lives. The liberal democracy Sacks wants defended is predicated upon the same freedom and equality that he attacks, fruit of the meeting and often clashing of cultures throughout many centuries, and not of a 'one nation' myth. Democracy happens when individuals’ diversity and rights are respected just as much as groups’ diversity and rights. The alternative is the tyranny of the majority.
Previous posts on similar topics are on freedom of conscience, law and morality, the century of the self and testing britishness.
16 October 2007
Liberal Democrats Italian style?
The Lib Dems have managed to lose three leaders in a couple of days; it shows how much a small group of determined people can achieve given the chance. I wish we were like that at election time. Lembit Opik MP resigned from his leadership role of the Welsh Lib Dems, Mike German AM announced he will step down as leader of the Welsh Lib Dems in the Assembly next year and, of course, Menzies Campbell MP is the victim of the latest coup. They were all pushed to a certain extent. This makes me feel rather uneasy although I can see the need for renewal and I can think of some good candidates. The wound caused by the backstabbing of Charles Kennedy is still fresh in our minds. I strongly deplored it then and still do so now. Kennedy should have been told to check himself into a detox clinic, end of the story. But ego is everything in politics so some MPs ditched the leader. Or was it what the Lib Dems meant by ‘decapitation strategy’ during the elections 2005?
There must be a different way. I wasn’t too convinced by the idea of ‘primaries’ as recently carried out by the Italian Democrats. However, whilst the press were scathing, 3 and ½ million Italians turned out to vote for the new leader. That alone would be quite a result, but the minimum fee in order to vote was 1Euro and many people gave much more. Yep, 3 and ½ million people paid to choose a party political leader. This is made even more incredible by the fact that, in the past few months, Italy has gone through an ‘anti-politics’ time, led by a high profile comedian embarking in a crusade against politicians of every party. The outrageous perks, the indifference, the nepotism, all was made public, no stone was left unturned. Yet, democracy works. If you give people the opportunity to participate, they’ll feel empowered. For many people in power, it is easy to be complacent, to take people for granted and think that they have nothing to do with party politics. But why should membership alone, or even worse MPs, decide the face of the Party? Party activists generally vote for campaigners while ‘armchair members’ vote for recognisable faces, MPs … let’s leave it there! Given that political party membership is at an all time low, why don’t we ask people who they think would make a better leader?
There must be a different way. I wasn’t too convinced by the idea of ‘primaries’ as recently carried out by the Italian Democrats. However, whilst the press were scathing, 3 and ½ million Italians turned out to vote for the new leader. That alone would be quite a result, but the minimum fee in order to vote was 1Euro and many people gave much more. Yep, 3 and ½ million people paid to choose a party political leader. This is made even more incredible by the fact that, in the past few months, Italy has gone through an ‘anti-politics’ time, led by a high profile comedian embarking in a crusade against politicians of every party. The outrageous perks, the indifference, the nepotism, all was made public, no stone was left unturned. Yet, democracy works. If you give people the opportunity to participate, they’ll feel empowered. For many people in power, it is easy to be complacent, to take people for granted and think that they have nothing to do with party politics. But why should membership alone, or even worse MPs, decide the face of the Party? Party activists generally vote for campaigners while ‘armchair members’ vote for recognisable faces, MPs … let’s leave it there! Given that political party membership is at an all time low, why don’t we ask people who they think would make a better leader?
10 September 2007
Faith schools ought to be funded by the government
With the document ‘Faith in the System’, the Government is moving to support more faith schools, in particular for ‘under-represented religious groups. As reported by the BBC:
I have nothing against faith schools per se. In fact I’m all in favour of schools who try to instil some meaning and sense of purpose in their pupils. There are, nevertheless, some issues that need to be addressed and can only be addressed if the schools are not fully independent. This means that it's better is faith schools are funded or partly funded by the government.
Inclusion: faith-schools should be allowed to give precedence to pupils from the school’s religion, otherwise what’s the point of going to a faith school? Besides, by imposing quotas, you can incur in discrimination by possibly excluding pupils from religious households. I would quite like integrated schools like in Northern Ireland. Pupils learn about their own religion, but also about others’ and have common sessions such as school assembly. Most importantly, however, the best times for pupils to mix are for play and sport. Sharing common spaces, such as sports’ facilities, should be relatively easy and would even cut costs. I should think ditching the school uniform (at play & sport time) would be a good thing too, so that pupils would be prone to mix instead of keeping with the crowd wearing the same uniform.
Employment: I can’t see why faith schools should not favour teachers who profess their own religion. Some unions say that this would impinge on the quality of the staff. I assume faith schools want good results and would not jeopardise that in order to employ someone from their religion despite his/her lack of talent.
Curriculum: in government funded schools Ofsted/Estyn inspectors should be able to raise objections if the school goes crazy and starts teaching creationism. There are no controls for independent schools.
Privacy: I have been searching over the internet but I couldn’t find anything specific on the law regulating employment by religious organisations. Every now and then, I come across some cases where a person was sacked or refused employment for being homosexual. If the organisation received government grants, this should not be possible.
Human rights: there have also been cases where women seemed to have been discriminated against in their employment. This issue needs to be clarified and resolved. For religions where women are not allowed to exercise certain functions, discrimination should not be allowed for all other posts. (It would be time for them to change policies, but that might take some time…)
Religion: the tricky part of all this is to determine what constitutes faith precepts, theological doctrines or organisational policies. There are many forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc., I would not want a codification of policies that would assume the value of dogmas. I think flexibility needs to be exercised and the government should push for it. This means that regardless of one’s denomination or level of practice, one should not be discriminated.
There seems to be a prejudice against religious schools as hot-beds of bigotry. There's plenty of bigotry outside!
The point is to look at the issues calmly and have a commitment from the government and religious groups that discriminatory practices against homosexuals and women would not be carried out, that there will be strong anti-bullying policies, including homophobic bullying, equality training for all the staff etc. Would the government impose any conditions for funding?
"The government recognises that, in relation to the overall size of their populations, there are relatively few faith school places in the maintained sector available to Muslim, Sikh and Hindu children compared to the provision available for Christian and Jewish families."
I have nothing against faith schools per se. In fact I’m all in favour of schools who try to instil some meaning and sense of purpose in their pupils. There are, nevertheless, some issues that need to be addressed and can only be addressed if the schools are not fully independent. This means that it's better is faith schools are funded or partly funded by the government.
Inclusion: faith-schools should be allowed to give precedence to pupils from the school’s religion, otherwise what’s the point of going to a faith school? Besides, by imposing quotas, you can incur in discrimination by possibly excluding pupils from religious households. I would quite like integrated schools like in Northern Ireland. Pupils learn about their own religion, but also about others’ and have common sessions such as school assembly. Most importantly, however, the best times for pupils to mix are for play and sport. Sharing common spaces, such as sports’ facilities, should be relatively easy and would even cut costs. I should think ditching the school uniform (at play & sport time) would be a good thing too, so that pupils would be prone to mix instead of keeping with the crowd wearing the same uniform.
Employment: I can’t see why faith schools should not favour teachers who profess their own religion. Some unions say that this would impinge on the quality of the staff. I assume faith schools want good results and would not jeopardise that in order to employ someone from their religion despite his/her lack of talent.
Curriculum: in government funded schools Ofsted/Estyn inspectors should be able to raise objections if the school goes crazy and starts teaching creationism. There are no controls for independent schools.
Privacy: I have been searching over the internet but I couldn’t find anything specific on the law regulating employment by religious organisations. Every now and then, I come across some cases where a person was sacked or refused employment for being homosexual. If the organisation received government grants, this should not be possible.
Human rights: there have also been cases where women seemed to have been discriminated against in their employment. This issue needs to be clarified and resolved. For religions where women are not allowed to exercise certain functions, discrimination should not be allowed for all other posts. (It would be time for them to change policies, but that might take some time…)
Religion: the tricky part of all this is to determine what constitutes faith precepts, theological doctrines or organisational policies. There are many forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc., I would not want a codification of policies that would assume the value of dogmas. I think flexibility needs to be exercised and the government should push for it. This means that regardless of one’s denomination or level of practice, one should not be discriminated.
There seems to be a prejudice against religious schools as hot-beds of bigotry. There's plenty of bigotry outside!
The point is to look at the issues calmly and have a commitment from the government and religious groups that discriminatory practices against homosexuals and women would not be carried out, that there will be strong anti-bullying policies, including homophobic bullying, equality training for all the staff etc. Would the government impose any conditions for funding?
Liberal? It's all in the mind err... brain!
Research by psychologist David Amodio found that a specific region of the brain's cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives. As reported in the Chicago Tribune:
I wouldn't make too much of this, but I would definitely say that some people are very rigid in their thinking, be they rightwing or leftwing. They think in black & white terms and cannot manage complexities. It’s all for or against, soft or tough, with no understanding of the issues and no clue on how to solve it. Their brain’s ‘wiring’ might make it more difficult to see the issue from different perspectives and take into account variables and consequences, but surely not impossible. Attributing too much importance to biology risks obfuscating our human nature, which is indeed very complex and dependent on many factors. It is those who make too much of our biological/genetic/chemical make up, as determinant of behaviour and ideas, that might have an inflexible cortex. But then again, I'm liberal!
The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking. "Say you drive home from work the same way every day, but one day there's a detour and you need to override your autopilot," said Amodio, a professor at New York University. "Most people function just fine. But there's a little variability in how sensitive people are to the cue that they need to change their current course."
That "cue" is processed in a part of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex, and Amodio was able to monitor its electrical activity by hooking his subjects up to electroencephalographs (EEGs) while they performed laboratory tests.
I wouldn't make too much of this, but I would definitely say that some people are very rigid in their thinking, be they rightwing or leftwing. They think in black & white terms and cannot manage complexities. It’s all for or against, soft or tough, with no understanding of the issues and no clue on how to solve it. Their brain’s ‘wiring’ might make it more difficult to see the issue from different perspectives and take into account variables and consequences, but surely not impossible. Attributing too much importance to biology risks obfuscating our human nature, which is indeed very complex and dependent on many factors. It is those who make too much of our biological/genetic/chemical make up, as determinant of behaviour and ideas, that might have an inflexible cortex. But then again, I'm liberal!
29 August 2007
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!
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!
23 August 2007
The Politics of God - yet more nonsense
Mark Villa’s essay ‘The Politics of God’ (N.Y. Times mag) couldn’t be any more coherent and yet wider of the mark. He claims that there was a ‘Great Separation’ in political thought with Thomas Hobbes, which led to a separation between religion and politics. Professor Villa conveniently separates morality from religion, so that he can blame, at least in part, ‘political theology’ for obscurantism of whatever sort, even Nazism. At first, I wasn’t quite sure where the problem was, so coherent was his argument. Alas, extreme coherence is what generally gives nonsense away: Professor Villa is rather confused about history. Just a few points:
1. Villa projects the present onto the past by inventing ‘political theology’. Beginning with the Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, political power adopted religion as identity and ideology, not the other way round. In Villa’s theory, theology (although he does not state which and at what particular time and place) is given enormous credit. Theologies are like philosophies, they tend to be for the few who read texts, like systematising the world and their ideas about it. Above all, theologians and philosophers, being human, are influenced by the historical and socio-economic conditions present at a certain point of time and place. Villa confuses theology with ideology.
2. Ideologies are theories with systematic and totalitarian tendencies as they generally claim to explain the world around us, and sometimes beyond, in prescriptive and all-encompassing terms. Ideologies can claim to guide social and political movements, but, even then, only when attached to power. The Reformation had much more to do with politics and economics than Villa would like to admit. More importantly, it would have gone nowhere had it not had political backing.
3. The real revolution was not ushered by Hobbes, but by the industrial revolution. In contrast to Hobbes’ absolute sovereign, the industrial age, dependent on science and technology, opened the door to the autonomous individual, once again arbiter of his/her own destiny, knowledge and beliefs.
4. On a minor point, Villa fantasises about a secular America, where disagreements over abortion, prayer and bioethics are settled within the bounds of the Constitution. Yet, fundamentalist religious ideology, in the United States, is very much encroaching on political rhetoric trampling upon individual autonomy and rights. Sadly, this is starting to happen in Europe as well. It would be wiser to give more credit to liberal religion, rather than running scared of religion per se. Liberal religion, influenced by liberal philosophy and liberal politics, provides theological ground to liberal interpretations of the texts. Fundamentalist religion, by contrast, provides literalist interpretations moulded by reactionary politics and philosophy.
5. Finally, why on earth does he go on and on about God as a ‘He’?
1. Villa projects the present onto the past by inventing ‘political theology’. Beginning with the Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, political power adopted religion as identity and ideology, not the other way round. In Villa’s theory, theology (although he does not state which and at what particular time and place) is given enormous credit. Theologies are like philosophies, they tend to be for the few who read texts, like systematising the world and their ideas about it. Above all, theologians and philosophers, being human, are influenced by the historical and socio-economic conditions present at a certain point of time and place. Villa confuses theology with ideology.
2. Ideologies are theories with systematic and totalitarian tendencies as they generally claim to explain the world around us, and sometimes beyond, in prescriptive and all-encompassing terms. Ideologies can claim to guide social and political movements, but, even then, only when attached to power. The Reformation had much more to do with politics and economics than Villa would like to admit. More importantly, it would have gone nowhere had it not had political backing.
3. The real revolution was not ushered by Hobbes, but by the industrial revolution. In contrast to Hobbes’ absolute sovereign, the industrial age, dependent on science and technology, opened the door to the autonomous individual, once again arbiter of his/her own destiny, knowledge and beliefs.
4. On a minor point, Villa fantasises about a secular America, where disagreements over abortion, prayer and bioethics are settled within the bounds of the Constitution. Yet, fundamentalist religious ideology, in the United States, is very much encroaching on political rhetoric trampling upon individual autonomy and rights. Sadly, this is starting to happen in Europe as well. It would be wiser to give more credit to liberal religion, rather than running scared of religion per se. Liberal religion, influenced by liberal philosophy and liberal politics, provides theological ground to liberal interpretations of the texts. Fundamentalist religion, by contrast, provides literalist interpretations moulded by reactionary politics and philosophy.
5. Finally, why on earth does he go on and on about God as a ‘He’?
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.
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.