Musings of a (sometimes) academic activist

No longer active...

2010-09-14T22:19:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone...

To begin with, thanks for following me here but I have now set up my new blog - better linked with my website...

You can find all my latest stuff at www.jamesarvanitakis.net - including my latest articles and the many responses of the people I seem to rub the wrong way!

Please join me there

Cheers, james

The mining tax... why it remains a good idea

2010-08-29T14:07:00.000-07:00

Like most of you this week, I have been reflecting on the state of Australia politics and am thinking that a good shake up is exactly what we need...

For too long the two main parties have resembled each other on key policy issues - with the mining tax being one key exception.

With the independents acting as 'King (or Queen) Makers' (as the case may be), I thought I would again raise the important issue of rent resource tax...

I had this article published by The Punch... check it out here...

Economics - a discussion of housing and stimulous

2010-08-19T20:18:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone

Many of us have been frustrated with the simple positions taken in the 2010 federal election especially around economics. As a result, I have decided to write a couple of pieces as follows...

1. The stimulous package
No matter how you feel about the ALP, the stimulous package saved Australia from deep recession. While I was critical of some aspects of the package in the past, I think Rudd/Swan should be commended for it. I explain why here... for the Centre for Policy Development

2. Housing and economic policy beyond interest rates
In a globalised economy, the direction that interest rates take has as much to do with international factors as domestic management - and as a result, this proxy can be misdirected. A better way to judge economic credentials and leadership is by looking at the issue of housing: who can afford what; what are the inflationary implications; where is it located; and is it both economically and environmentally sustainable? These questions should not be limited to home ownership, but also need to be applied to the rental market. Read more here... in an article I wrote with Lee Rhiannon - Green's candidate for the Senate...

Hope you enjoy the read

Cheers, james

Population... size does not matter

2010-08-17T01:01:00.000-07:00

For those of us who feel that Australia is at a crossroad on issues around sustainability the debates related to this topic have been more than a little disappointing – and I am not just talking about the election cycle. The issue of sustainability, carrying capacity and population numbers have all been meshed together to give us a linear equation: less people = more sustainability.

I believe that this is a myth that needs to be confront... and so I have grown increasingly frustrated about this debate and have started writing a response to the simplified approach.

You can read the article that I wrote for The Punch here...

In addition, British scientist Fred Pearce, has also challenged some of the numbers people are throwing around in a recent book - read an article by him here...

Hope you enjoy

Cheers, james

This election is driving me nuts

2010-08-05T01:01:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone

I have been away for a while and have not posted much... my bad.

Despite this, much has been happening and I need to catch up on documenting it. My gig on FBI Radio is still going and I now have a new column writing for The Punch (following the sad demise of the wonderful New Matilda).

Most recently I have made my feelings known about the inadequate way the two major parties have been dealing with some major issues.

In this article I talk about why I would rather watch Masterchef (not that I ever really watched it) than deal with this election - which, as I argue, is enough to even turn political junkies off.

The article is available here...

As always, your thoughts are appreciated

Cheers, james

FBI Radio 28 April 2010

2010-04-28T18:39:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone...

This week on sociologic FBI Radio I looked at a couple of issues that will be affecting our lives... here they are:

1. Time for lazy kids to get off the dole

Last week, Tony Abbott announced that if his government was elected, they would make unemployment benefits subject to age requirements. This is one of the silliest policy suggestions for a long time and I explained why. The discussion on FBI Radio was based on an article I wrote for Newmatilda.com which is available here...

2. Climate change back flip

This week, the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that the government would be shelving any plans for a carbon trading scheme! This is one of the great political back flips and highlights three key things:

The first is a lack of political courage on behalf of the Rudd Government. They claimed this to be a key moral challenge of our time and pushed it as a way to split the Opposition. When the Opposition stood up to them, they backed down. This is a shame;
Secondly, it highlights that there are a number of dinosaurs in the Opposition. Tony Abbott is more interested in scaring the public than discussing the issue. I have written extensively about the overwhelming evidence for human-induced climate change but the same dinosaurs that believed passive smoking was not a problem have now turned their attention to climate change; and
That climate change may well be too complex an issue for our political system to deal with. If everyone waits for someone else to act, then we are in serious trouble...

For a great read about this political back flip check out Ben Eltham’s awesome piece.

If you want to let Kevin Rudd know this is political cowardice, then I suggest you sign up to the Get Up petition.

Thank, james

Racsim sucks: and so do policies aimed at discriminate against refugees

2010-04-19T04:11:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone

I given some thought at all the things that have been happening around refugees. Given the new position (outrageous) by the Rudd Government, I thought it would be time for a bit of a discussion about the way we see the world and our response to refugees.

Why this blog now? Because I am looking into the issue of racism as I prepare for a trip to Stockholm that a very unfriendly volcano seems to have thwarted. What I am researching is the way that the issue of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ is treated in our popular culture. The outcomes of that research are still coming and I am in the midst of writing a paper which I will hopefully publish in the not too distant future.

The motivations for this research have two distinct directions: the first was the underlying themes that emerged in Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy (that is, The girl with the dragon tattoo series, or in its original translation Men who hate women). One of these themes is the way that migrants are the target of violence and derision: ignored, violated, cheap labour and so on.

The second motivation for my research is the fact that Australian pop culture remains, essentially, colour blind. There are few positions for the non-white protagonist in Australian movies and television. Yes, there are exceptions but there is no way that the monochrome world of television reflects our multicultural society. Pop culture is such an important part of our society that we need to use it both as a mirror and as well as a significant guide towards attitudes: what does the lack of diversity tell us about Australian society.

Like I said, I will delve deeper into this at some future point - both with another blog and more formal publishing because now I want to highlight some aspects of refugees and amazing anti-racist activists that are responding to Australia’s stance on refugees – which I believe is deeply problematic and essentially racist.

To begin with, we should note that a refugee, according to the 1951 UN Convention, is:

Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

It is surprisingly easy to identify who is a genuine refugee: it is hard for someone to pretend to speak another language or fake a religion. If someone claims that they are from somewhere, then it is quite easy to ask them some questions to confirm this.

A few facts from the Edmund Rice Centre that confirm that Australia does not have a refugee problem. Australia remains down the bottom of countries that see both refugee arrivals and those seeking asylum. Let's look at some of the statistics:

Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 Tanzanian people (1:76)
Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British people. (1:530)
Australia hosts one refugee for every 1583 Australian people. (1:1583)

There are many myths about refugees which there is no reason to list here but I recommend you check out the Refugee Council of Australia website where some are listed and responded to.

I can only think what I would do if that was me and my family and we were forced to leave a country or persecuted: I would do anything to protect them. What drives refugees are push factors (that is, things happening back in the home country) not pull factors, such as Australia’s policies on refugees (see http://www.smh.com.au/national/oceans-apart-over-brutal-reality-20100402-rjy2.html).

I fear that the Australian Government’s position, along with the Opposition and the trashy newspapers, radio stations and tv stations is aggravating a sense of concern and unease that Australians are feeling. This sense of unease is being used for political purposes and real leadership should be shown by the Federal Government rather than pandering to the racist posturing by the federal opposition. Both parties need to come together and take a humanitarian stance: we should not be playing with people’s lives.

This is made clear in a recent campaign undertaken by Amnesty International titled Don’t use asylum seekers as political footballs. There is a petition there that over 110,000 people had signed (including me). If you are passionate about this issue or simply want people’s rights and dignity to be respected, I encourage you to sign it.

In addition, there is a very cool group that has been set up celebrating Australia’s diversity: The anti-bogan website which states that ‘True Blue is not Skin Deep’. I like these guys – and they have an awesome facebook page! Join up and support their work through their petitions and also spreading the word.

If you want to see the human story about refugees, here is a story featuring a friend of mine. He is interviewed by the voice of America about Afghan refugee and recent Australian government policy to suspend cases of asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. You can follow watch it here.

I think this remains a key issue for Australia and we need to show everyone that tolerance, peace and humanity over rules hate and ignorance: don’t hate my friends, marinate! This week in Queensland the Hammered music festival was held and it is co-sponsored by the Southern Cross Hammer Skinheads. This is an international race-hate group banned in Germany for spreading Nazi messages! A group of activists stood up to them by holding their own peace festival.

By standing up and refusing to accept racism, we can help blunt those who use it for their own ends. We can also change the political culture of this country!

Cheers, james

Socio-logic this week - 14 April 2010

2010-04-13T18:42:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone

This week we had a pretty big week on socio-logic with so many things happening…

The f-word conference

This conference was held in Sydney over the weekend of 10-11 April 2010 to discuss contemporary feminist issues - something we should all be interested in.

Over the years I have found that many of my students feel that feminism has become an dirty word: something that they cannot relate to or is relevant to them.

This is deeply problematic as many of the issues that have faced women remain in our society. Sure, we have a female deputy prime minister as well as a female CEO at Westpac Banking Corporation but there are some fundamental inequalities that remain that we must confront as well as new issues that have emerged.

For example, women are still the primary carers for children and elderly parents and do more housework. They tend to do this while balancing careers or simply casual/part-time work. We still have a small percentage of women in executive/senior positions and women earn about 60 percent of what men do in the same positions: these issues have been raised repeatedly by some impressive and successful women including Ann Summer, Eva Cox and Jane Caro.

There are also some new issues that need to be confronted. The rise of cosmetic surgery and the pressure on women to remain looking young is incredible.

Again, this does not dismiss the amazing achievements by many women or the changes in our society, but does return us to why feminism is so important: structural inequalities and discrimination remains in our society – and women often suffer from these.

It is for this reason that feminism is as relevant today as it has ever been.

Unfortunately the f.word conference blog has not been updated but please keep an eye out on some of the amazing things that are happening with this group and I am sure there are more to come: though this article appeard today in the SMH by Nina Funnell.

2. The decline of western civilisation?

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Phillip Coorey reported on a get together over the weekend of conservative thinkers including former Prime Minister John Howard and Arch Bishop Cardinal George Pell.

This is part of a broader trend of conservative thinkers who have been raising concerns about the ‘direction’ in which our society is heading.

I too hold some concerns – mostly to do with the fact that we seem to worship economic growth and progress ahead of everything. Authors such as Ronald Wright and Jarred Diamond have raised such issues: both authors I recommend you read.

This was not the focus of this group. Rather their concerns revolved around issues such as:

- The collapse of Judeo-Christian values;
- The rise of secularism;
- The emergence of a strong green movement;
- Loss of the family unit; and
- The influence of Islam in our society.

These types of concerns are nothing new and have emerged throughout Europe and the USA. The issue of the direction of society is important but I found their concerns miss the mark. For example, why would a religious ethic be more important that a secular ethic? We should not dismiss one, nor the other.

Further, we are not been over run by other religions but are a multicultural society: and many young Muslims are adopting secular values as much as Christians are.

The family unit is important – but there is no reason that non-traditional family units including same sex couples are not just as important.

Rather than being concerned about these issues, these incredibly influential and bright men (and some women) should focus on tackling some fundamental structural issues in our society: poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, displacement of people, racism and so on.

If we could sort these issues out then we would live in a better world and no matter your religion, you cannot disagree with that.

Refugees

Over the last few months the Rudd Government has been under increasing pressure by the Abbott Opposition to respond to the number of refugee boast arriving in Australia. This resulted in a freeze in processing applications from those seeking refugee status from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

Australian migration has a long and problematic history based around the fear of invasion. I do not have the time to write about this now but it I worth check out Ben Eltham’s piece on this from New Matilda.

We are part of a global humanity and to take this position on the most vulnerable shames us as Australians. There are better ways to do things and we should expect more from the Rudd Government.

Screw light bulbs: real climate change solutions

Can we have a clean, green future? Yes we can! This is the message from a new nook by Dr Donna Green and Liz Minchin. Their book is being launched at Gleebooks this Thursday evening – come along if you can – as well as buy the book to see some of the solutions they offer.

That is all from me… remember to email me at askjames@fbiradio.com if you have any questions or leave a comment below.

Cheers, james

Climate change denial: who are the big hitters

2010-04-11T23:38:00.000-07:00

As I have seen the Australian government grow indifferent about the issue of climate change, I have started to reflect on which people have been driving this trend...

The election of Tony Abbott as the leader of the Opposition coupled with the massive failure of the Copenhagen negotiations means that action on climate change lost momentum. This has been also driven by some influential figures who have helped confuse the issues...

In the NewMatilda article I recently published, I list five influential climate change deniers in Australia... it is worth a read... as well as some of the interesting comments that follow

Cheers, james

Sociologic this week... 31 March 2010

2010-03-31T15:18:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone

This week on socio-logic things got very exciting! To begin with, I got my own ‘introduction’ – a pre-recorded message introducing the show! It is called a ‘sting’ in radio talk and I was so excited that I almost bounced out of the studio!

On the show this week we covered the following...

1. Internet filters

The federal government is keen to introduce an internet filter to attempt to stop us from accessing internet sites we should not access. Whenever I hear the words ‘child pornography’ uttered by politicians, I always think of moral hazards. Yes, this is a problem but the tool that is being proposed is expensive and almost useless.

We do not know which ‘other’ sites are going to be blocked but we are being told they will be terrorist sites or ones that insight violence. This ‘blacklist’ of sites is secret and this raises questions of integrity and censorship. We also need to understand how sites make it on this list: for example, would a charity that raises money to work in places such as Palestine and have to deal with one of the militias there be placed on such a list?

Working in such conflict zones is complex and have to be negotiated – grey areas that can well be treated as black/white with such a process.

A better policy would be to provide free, controllable internet filters for Australian households and put the money into sorting out real problems.

2. China v. Google

This is another internet story with Google stating that they will no longer work with the Chinese government to filter out sites.

The Chinese government and Google cut a deal that would allow Google access to the Chinese market if it filtered out sites associated with the Falun Gong , Tibet and so on.

Google has rightly pulled out of the deal – and we should acknowledge this. It has been pointed out, however, by the super cool Jason Wilson that this is not as selfless as it appears: Google has reversed a decision in which it was criticised for about a market that it is finding it hard to break into.

Whatever you feel about the decision, the important part is that we are having conversations about censorship.

3. Forestry and koalas

I received an SOS call about a proposal to undertake forestry in the South East Region Area of NSW. The Conservation group in the area have noted that: "State Forests, the NSW Government logging agency, is demanding to woodchip the koalas’ forest home.”

This is one of the final areas of koala habitat in this part of the state and we are talking woodchips! That is, cutting down trees for low value products: not even high value timber products. This is the “last tiny colony of koalas on the south coast live in Mumbulla and Murrah State Forest. There are only 30 to 50 of them left in the whole south east region” (according to the press release).

So... we can only assume that this is a political decision rather than an economic one. My advice, email the Premier, Kristina Keneally and politely ask her to stop this. The email address is to get on is: premier@nsw.gov.au

That is it from me...

Speak soon

james

Dont hate, marinate: help end homophobic violence!

2010-03-30T14:08:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone

A friend of mine works on an anti-violence project with the aim of stopping homophobic violence.

You can help by taking part in designing the campaign...

Please votehttp://www.facebook.com/l/bc100;www.thisisoz.com.au - don't hate, marinate!

Cheers, james

This week on FBI... 10 March 2010

2010-03-10T13:10:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone

I have been absent for a couple of weeks due to semester starting last week. There has been much happening and rather than working though everything I wanted to mention a just a few things:

Being out west: Homophobic violence

To begin with I was lucky enough to be invited to chair a symposium looking at homophobic violence in Western Sydney. It was an amazing evening with stories of both violence and also hope – as some who had confronted violence spoke out against it. About 100 people showed up and each of the presentations where amazing...

What was obvious is that homophobic violence remains a problem in Australia – not just ‘out west’. The statistics are harrowing and I encourage everyone to speak out against it.

I wrote an article on the event for New Matilda available here...

Parental leave

A big ‘battle ground’ looming with the federal election to be held sometime later this year is ‘paid parental leave’. This was highlighted this week when the leader of the Opposition stated a new position on parental leave which brought a chorus of criticisms from many sides of politics.

Abbot’s position seems not to have been greatly conceived and it concerns me that this will undermine a scheme that was due to be put in place by the Rudd Government which is to start 1 January 2011.

I hope this is not the case.

What we should remember though, is how far the debate has come (reflecting the fact that societies are constantly changing).

If you want to get a great overview of some of the debates on this issue, check out this piece by Eva Cox – a former colleague of mine who is also a good friend.

Night time research project

A group of friends and colleagues at the University of Western Sydney are undertaking a research project into ‘The City After Dark’.

The group wants to know what you get up to after hours and your ideas and opinions could well shape the future design of our city.

To undertake the survey click here or for more questions call the research team at (02) 9685 9493

Ok... that is all from me...

Do not forget to email me at askjames@fbiradio.com if you have any questions...

Cheers, james

Sociologic - 24 February 2010

2010-02-23T15:53:00.000-08:00

On FBI Radio's sociologic this week we covered two areas that have been in the news quite a bit lately.

Population numbers: the elephant in the room

The first topic was about the most sustainable number for Australia’s population. This was based on an email inquiry I received from a FBI listener as well as an article I wrote for newmatilda.com. This population question has always been a sensitive one and has been described as ‘the elephant in the room’.

The article I wrote about this can be accessed here…

In essence, I argue that asking about ‘the correct size’ of the population misses the point because there are other issues surrounding sustainability. As you will see from the comments below the article, it caused quite a bit of controversy…

Housing affordability…

The second (related) topic was about housing affordability – who can afford a house in Sydney? This follows a recent report that shows housing affordability continues to decline.

This is a complicated issue with no quick fix solution – which was noted in a government inquiry no that long ago. The problem for a government is that if housing prices rise, it locks people out of the market; but if prices fall, it means that people have loans for a house that is higher than its value. This means they will try and sell it quickly and this causes a panic in the market and a downward cycle. It is this very process that led to the Global Financial Crisis.

If you have the time, check out the government report – but for me, there are three things that need to be done as a matter of urgency:

1. Focus on medium density housing: it is better to have a smaller city with more numbers that have sprawl. These have to be well designed and environmentally sensitive houses that are well serviced by public infrastructure such as schools, public transport and shops;
2. Change the taxation status for investment property: the fact that people buy into investment properties drives up the prices. It is a much too generous tax break and needs to be reviewed; and
3. Make renting more attractive: this means offering 5 to 7 year leases rather than 12 months. It means people have more security and are more likely to rent.

Finally, there will be an amazing forum this week as part of Mardi Gras: looking at homophobic violence in Western Sydney. It is on Thursday, 25 February at 5.30. Details are available here…

Thanks for listening and reading

Cheers, james

Socio-logic - week of 25 January 2010

2010-01-27T18:37:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone

On this week’ socio-logic featured on FBI Radio, we covered two incredibly important and relevant topics.

Australia Day and nationalism

The first was nationalism and Australia Day. Over the last 15 years, mainly driven by the previous Howard Government, we have seen increasingly prominent displays of nationalism. This has been as evident at schools as it has been at events such as the Big Day Out. The new ‘Australia Day uniform’ seems to include the Australian flag as a cape.

I am not one to portray a great deal of nationalism – I prefer more subtle that outlandish displays.

Saying that, I do think it is important to acknowledge the history and show pride of one’s country – both the positive and negative aspects. In Australia, the positive aspects such a long tradition of democratic values is something we should celebrate. We should also acknowledge the dark parts of our history, such as the Aboriginal Stolen Generation, so we can repair the mistakes and ensure they are not repeated.

While there are many definitions of ‘nationalism’, it essentially refers to pride and devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. This does not mean ‘blind’ or ‘absolute’ devotion – simply that someone feels a connection.

I believe that nationalism is a double edged sword. On the positive side, it involves helping others in our community no matter their background, acknowledging our national mistakes and ensuring that our nation plays a key and positive role in international affairs. This is an inclusive nationalism – we are proud to be Australian but not at the expense of other people or cultures.

One author who takes this position is Tim Soutphommasane. His recent book on ‘Reclaiming Nationalism’ discusses a progressive nationalism in detail. I really enjoyed it and recommend you read it if you want to know more about this aspect of nationalism.

The dark side of nationalism is exclusionary: where we see ourselves as better than others and other cultures as inferior. This is the nationalism that is aggressive and was one of the reasons for the Cronulla Riots a few years ago. Negative nationalism can be violent and includes slogans such as ‘f#%k off we’re full.’

John Burmingham wrote about this type of nationalism the other day. It is a great article and worth a read.

Haiti earthquake and the international response

The second topic this week was the Haiti earthquake and the international response. Before continuing, it is important to acknowledge the great work being done in Haiti by some excellent organisations including Oxfam (who I work with), MSF and the Red Cross.

The problem with aid and humanitarian work is that it is as much about politics as it is about helping others. This is a point that organisations such as Aid/Watch raise frequently: noting that the aid project is as much about ‘pursuing our national interest’ as it is about poverty relief. Such twin objectives are reflected by other governments also, which means that the relief effort in Haiti has been as much about certain nations and organisation advertising themselves as it has been about emergency relief.

Naomi Klein talks about this in some detail in her blog and is certainly worth a read.

It is a tragedy that this is occurring – and something that we should demand our governments change: aid should be about sustainable poverty relief and should not about Australia’s national interest. Contact Aid/Watch for more information (and please note, I work with these guys also).

Contact me at askjames@fbiradio.com if you have any questions.

Cheers, james

Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons

2009-12-07T19:30:00.000-08:00

Following on from my last blog on climate change fallacies and nuclear power, I had some emails thanking me and asking me some more questions. I am not an expert in this area but a recent article by Mark Diesendorf, where I am sourcing these fallacies from, can give you more details. So fallacy 6 is about spent fuel from nuclear reactors…

Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons

That is, spent fuel from nuclear power stations cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by noting that this is one of the most frequent falsities uttered by the nuclear industry and its supporters. This fallacy has been refuted by many experts including Dr Theodore Taylor, commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

MD presents the following information: a standard 1000 megawatt nuclear power station produces about 200 kilograms of “reactor-grade plutonium annually”. This, according to MD, is enough for 20 nuclear bombs. They reactor grade quality is below weapons-grade, it still has an amazing amount of destructive capability.

Attached to this fallacy is that nuclear power stations based on thorium rather than uranium cannot produce a nuclear explosion. MD says, ‘not true’: to use thorium as a fuel it must first be converted to uranium-233 which is ‘fissile’. This means that it can undergo nuclear fission and can be used as either a fuel or as an explosive in a bomb!

MD also reminds us that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intimately linked: each nation with power ambitions moves pretty quickly into establishing bombs… the more nuclear stations the more likely we are to see more nuclear weapons - something that no-one should be comfortable with.

Confronting climate change deniers 5: Nuclear is part of the answer

2009-12-03T22:17:00.000-08:00

Given the recent election of Tony Abbott as Opposition leader who supports a nuclear solution to global warming (and who has been supported as such by some sections of the media), it is time to consider the nuclear equation. As such, I turn back to Mark Diesendorf’s book, Climate Action, to reflect on this. As the title of this blog suggests, this is the fifth fallacy that those concerned about climate change must be prepared to confront.

Response: In his book, Mark Diesendorf (MD) begins by noting that high grade uranium ore will, at current rates of use, only last several more decades. When this is all used up, we will have to revert to low grade ore.

What does this mean? Well, according to MD, for every 1 kilogram of yellowcake (a type of uranium concentrate), some ten tonnes of rock will need to be mined – a process which uses massive amounts of fossil fuels. The carbon emissions of this process will be significant. MD argues that the result would be no different to running a gas-fired power station.

Some pro-nuclear commentators have argued that this can be overcome using ‘fast breeder reactors’: which have the potential to increase the original uranium fuel by a factor of 50 to 1. In response, MD notes that the world’s last large such reactor was in France and only functioned for 276 days in its 10 years of operation, and was closed in 1998 after countless problems and cost eu9 million. Only one other such reactor is currently operating and is also unreliable. Even if this was not a problem and such reactors were reliable, they require large-scale processing of spent fuel which is intensely radioactive – which involves serious hazards and costs.

There are also economic reasons why nuclear power is not the answer. MD also explains that three commercial reactors have been built in the USA, but all have failed to be economically viable and been closed.

Then there is the waste issue. Overall, MD notes that while there are a handful of non-military plants operating successfully, there is only a small fraction of plutonium produced globally in nuclear power stations is being ‘recycled’: the rest is unseparated in high-level waste and stored temporarily next to the stations that produced it. How temporary: in some cases temporary has meant 50 years!

Another limitation of the nuclear option is the long planning and construction time – especially for new entrants into this industry. In Australia, MD notes, it would 15 years to get one up and running even if there was no public opposition (which is unlikely). Further, such dangerous technologies should never be rushed or things can easily go wrong (as we have seen various spills in Australian mines and English power plants).

Even in the UK, which produces about 19 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, there have been constant problems and a need to change the type of station being built: a process that has meant construction times have been long and the costs always much higher than predicted. A new station being built in Finland is experiencing similar problems: by December 2008 is two years behind schedule and its costs had escalated by about eu1.5 billion.

MD concludes that based on current technology, nuclear power is neither a short-term nor long-term solution to global warming. The so-called Generation 4 plants are at least 30 years away: if they ever arrive. In other words, nuclear power is a distraction from genuine solutions to global warming.

If you want more information on this issue, check out the article by Prof. Ian Lowe from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (19 Nov 2009): feminism and slavery

2009-11-19T04:04:00.001-08:00

Hey everyone

The last couple of weeks have been crazy so I have not had a chance to post my blog with the usual enthusiasm, but I am back this week.

This week on FBI Radio (94.5 fm), I covered 2 broad areas: feminism (yes, the ‘f’-word) and modern day slavery.

The feminism story was inspired from the news the week before of the some of the degrading rituals that some Sydney Uni residential colleges follow. Alex and I discussed this on air but alas, no blog. For a great read, however, check out the article by Carina Garland.

So let’s look at this week’s issues...

Is Feminism still relevant?

For some background on gender, sex and feminism check out my blog below.

To begin with, we should understand that feminism simply means the push for political, cultural or economic rights and legal protection for women. (See, it is not a scary word!)

We can look at the challenges facing women both in Australia and internationally. These are different challenges and should not be simply grouped together. What is important however, is that challenges still on exist both on the economic and social front (again, see below for some evidence I provide) as well as check out the figures provided by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Feminism is about confronting these challenges with the goal of equality: and I think remains relevant today though the challenges, in Australia, have changed.

I call myself a feminist – and believe that it is just as relevant today as ever.

Modern day slavery

Slavery ‘officially ended over 200 years ago, but unfortunately, it persists today. Though exact figures are almost impossible to come by, it is estimated that that there are 27 million people around the world today are being held in slavery. To think about the size of that, it is the Australian population plus another 7 million! Figures indicate that this illegal industry generates up to US$100 billion per year.

One organisation working to stop slavery is Free the Slaves, which was founded in 2001 as well as its UK sister organisation Anti-Slavery International (which is the world's oldest human rights group).

Slavery is essentially the ownership of a person: they become like any other commodity (like a pair of shoes: unfortunate example, but this is something that we need to be brutally honest about).

Free the Slaves draws an important distinction between slavery and extremely exploitative labour, though they also admit that this is a very thin line.

Sweatshop workers are exploited by being forced to work long hours under difficult and abusive conditions with little pay. Slaves face the same conditions, but additionally they cannot walk away – having lost all their rights and free will.

Further, most slaves are paid nothing at all, and the physical and psychological violence used against them is so complete that they cannot escape their slavery.

Both Free the Slave and organisations like Oxfam Australia and also many organisations like Apheda which are associated with labour unions work on these issues.

What is important here is that we can all do something about this – our everyday actions can break down slavery and overcome sweatshop conditions.

Follow the hot-links to find out how you can help (as well as get more information).

Cheers, james

Understanding where gender relationships come from in everyday life

2009-11-18T22:42:00.000-08:00

Introduction

This blog is focussed on the idea of performance: the way we perform of ‘gender’. As I will explain below, there is an important difference between sex and gender.

Before I get into such descriptions though, I want to mention an important cultural studies theorist, Irving Goffman. Goffman studied the rituals and practices of everyday life – something that may not sound exciting, but if you think about it, it is. Think about how we behave everyday: from shaking hands to standing in queues, we follow these invisible rule. What Goffman argued was that our experiences of everyday life are all based on performance. Life is like we are living on a stage and we perform accordingly. Like any performance, much of what we perform is based on the actors around us.

So, for example, when I am hanging out with students, I take the role of a lecturer. But when I am hanging out with my big brother, take the role of little brother. In other words, our performance is always changing.

How does this translate to gender? Well, as I will argue, there are daily rituals and routines that we follow and perform that give rise to gender identity. In others words, we are going to understand what makes us a man, what makes us a woman, and how we learn to behave in the appropriate way.

By unfolding this, we learn how power is shaped in our society and why for centuries women were though of as the 'inferior sex.' Even today in wealthy nations like Australia, these gendered roles persist and create uneven power relations. To overcome these, we must understand why they come about. So, let's begin…

Sex and gender

The starting point of this blog is to understand the difference between sex and gender.
The simplest way to keep the difference in mind is to think of sex as our biological make-up. That is, there are certain biological aspects that allow us to be defined as men and women: yes, our bits! This is not always clear-cut however, as there are many who are born as what can be described as inter-sex. That is, with biological features of both men and women: never clearly defined. Our society is not used to dealing with this group of people and I would love to write more but this is not the blog to do this.

Gender, on the other hand, are the social and cultural characteristics and personality traits that we assign different the sexes. In other words, what are the characteristics that make us men and women. These are not biological, but the social dimensions assigned to men and women – such as masculine and feminine..

So, if we think about it, we can think about the characteristics that make women feminine and what makes women beautiful. We think of the ideal women and the specific characteristics she is assigned. In our society, the feminine may include things such as thin, demure, polite, sexy but not dominating. You can see how these are social characteristics assigned to women.

We can contrast this to the masculine – or the social characteristics that makes the ideal male: strong, some level of aggression but not too much, fit, the breadwinner, sexually active, the leader and stronger parent.

As we can see, there are social and cultural attributes, not just physical, that we assign to the different sexes – and this is what we define as gender.

'Male' and 'female', then, are biological terms: they point to anatomical, primarily genital difference. "'Man' and 'woman', however, are gendered terms, and signify social, that is behavioural and experiential difference. They are categories with certain coded behaviours which we as young males or females must learn in order to become men or women. Masculinity and femininity thus are not inherent characteristics" (Buchbinder, 1994: 3).

Now, the concept of gender is relatively new and only emerged in the 1970s. Up until this time, it was assumed that your gender was attributed to your sex. That is, your personality was essentially determined by your sex: culture was seen as not really being a factor.

So this brings us to the link between sex, gender and identifying who we are.

Gender, rituals and routines

The question for us to consider is, what role do routines and rituals play in our everyday lives that confirm and enforce these idealised gendered roles. If we all think of what we did in the last 24 hours, we can think of routines and rituals that we have followed and how these are gendered.

Possible examples are:

Putting on make up? Feminine
Tuning the car? Masculine
Doing the ironing? Feminine
Preparing the children for school? Feminine
Fixing a leaky tap? Masculine
Sitting on the couch drinking beer and watching footy with mates, eating pizza and yelling at the television? Masculine
Shaving your legs? Feminine

Ok, you can hopefully see that there are some specific roles rituals and routines that are assigned to genders. These are not natural or ‘innate’ but my point is about the role we assign to certain tasks.

Let's now try and ground this a little further. Think of a family roast and assign the following roles:

Who does the inviting?
Who does the cooking?
Who sets the table?
Who watches the footy while this is happening?
Who serves the food?
Who cleans the table?
Where do the different men and women congregate during the preparation?

My point here is that the process of performing gender and what is accepted as appropriate 'gendered' behaviour is learnt and culturally specific. And the way we learn most of this information is not that someone sits down and tells us: this is how men behave and this is how women should act. Rather, we learn it in the rituals and routines of everyday life – and usually by just observing what others do and following.

Importantly, these rituals and routines tell us a great deal about our culture. And we can hopefully see from the examples above, how they shape power relations in our society.

The beauty myth

So where does this take us? When I say culture, I am drawing on the following definition provided by Anthony Giddens:

'Culture consists of the values the members of a given group hold, the norms they follow, and the material goods they create' (Giddens, 1989, Sociology, 31).

Let's think about gender and beauty, and what insights this provides us about our culture and power relations in our society.

Some important economics around the beauty industry:

Australians spend $2.5 billion on cosmetics, skin care and fragrances each year;
This has been increasing by about 10% per year; and
This is part of a $50 billion industry around the world that focuses on skin care alone. (I am not sure about cosmetics and fragrances.)

We also have the rise of Botox parties and the increasing acceptance of cosmetic surgery for younger and younger girls, time spent at the gym, dieting and diet fads as well as all the focus on celebrities and what is happening on their bodies.

In other words it is not possible to actually determine how much money is spent in this area. What we produce tells us a great deal about our culture – so what does the production of the beauty industry tell us about our culture?

According to Naomi Wolf in her very important book, our culture has produced a 'beauty myth.' That is, that our culture has established the myth that there is only one understanding of beauty and this is being universalised. The beauty myth, according to Wolf, is something that we are all expected to work towards it. For Wolf, this beauty is something that is manufactured by the advertising industry and is an important component of the global economy.

While Wolf focuses on the feminine, we also see similar patterns for the masculine. Despite this, Wolf also argues that this confirms the dominance of men over women: there are many more beauty rituals that are demanded from women than men. Think of the following routines that are mainly feminine and reflect the beautiful:

Makeup: women spent a great deal of their time buying and using makeup. Wolf argues that this is to attract the male gaze;
Shaving: while men shave their facial hair, women are expected to keep all their body hair in check. If we think about the pain of waxing and the frustration of shaving legs, armpits and plucking facial hair, what use is it to women? As far as I know, there is no use except making women more feminine.
Grooming: while men are expected to groom, more pressure is placed on women to look attractive. A man can look un-kept and still be attractive. The same does not apply to women.
Cosmetic surgery: most cosmetic surgery is undertaken by women rather than men. This involves Botox to look younger, breast augmentation and cellulite – which are three of the most popular procedures undertaken.
Anti-aging treatments: most again are directed to women. Men, as they get older and get grey, are said to look sophisticated. It is hardly the case for women. (Look at news readers: most women on TV are young while men are older.)

We do not have to look far to see images around us: what we expect men and women to be like. The point of Naomi Wolf's work is to highlight how the beauty myth is specifically targeted towards women.

Authors such as Arthur Brittan undertake similar work when it comes to male masculinities. We can see pressures placed on the male identity: though this is a very different pressure that exists. For Brittan, masculinity is used as a way to measure men: to pressure them to fit into an ideal. So men are pushed towards certain professions and sports because these are the masculine. Everyday experiences of masculinities that have their own rituals and routines include the breadwinner ethic, alcohol consumption and also exposure to violence.

Why feminism is cool

In today's society, the word 'feminism' is given a bad wrap: it has been labelled as something that is from the past and is no longer relevant. I want to emphasise the point however, that the word feminism is another way to describe demands for gender justice and equal rights.

The question that I am often asked is, 'is this still relevant today?' Here are some statistics that we should note:

Average total weekly earnings according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) where: $756.50. For Men: $897.50 but for Women: $611.50;
Only 8% of board positions in publically listed companies are taken by women; and
On a daily basis, men spend 2.5 hours a day on work around the house, and women spend almost 4 hours.

If we combine this with the concept of the beauty myth, you can see that women still have a battle on their hand to achieve equality: and this is why feminism is still important – and this is why feminism is cool.

Concluding comments

The main issue I want to emphasise here is that there is an important difference between sex and gender – and we are socialised through certain rituals and routines to follow emphasise gender roles. The question is, do we simply pass them on without question and reflect existing power relationships, or do we attempt to confront them.

According to Frye, we often accept gender roles as natural or innate, but this is not the case. This has implications for power, which Frye notes as follows:

'For efficient subordination, what's wanted is that the structure not appear to be a cultural artefact kept in place by human decision or custom, but that it appear natural – that it appear to be quite a direct consequence of facts about the beast which are beyond the scope of human manipulation' (Frye quoted in Lorber & Farrel, 1991: 33).

Sources:
Billington, R. et al (1991) Culture and Society Macmillan, London.
Brittan, A. (1989) Masculinity and power, Basil Blackwell
Buchbinder, D. (1994) Masculinities and Identities Melbourne Uni. Press, Melbourne.
Connell, B. (1987) Gender and Power Polity, Cambridge.
Connell, B. (1995) Masculinities Polity, Cambridge.
Dunecki, L. (2006) 'Peddling the beauty myth', 14 October 2006, The Age
Wolf, N. (1991) The Beauty Myth, Vintage Books, Sydney.

Confronting climate change deniers 4: CCS is the sole answer

2009-10-27T17:43:00.000-07:00

Fallacy 4: We can solve everything using carbon capture and sequestration

Continuing my review of fallacies offered by climate change deniers discussed by Mark Diesondorf in his latest book, I now turn to a shorty but a goody! The fallacy is simply this: coal power with CO2 (carbon) capture and sequestration (or CCS) is the principle greenhouse solution.

Response: Big Mark D begins by note that a while a few components of this solution exist, it remains largely an unproven technology.

The federal government is pouring $2 billion into this technology in an effort to save the coal industry (yes kids, Mark does say $2 billion). Despite this, pilot plants will only be built in about 10 years with no commercial production possible until long after that.

In contrast to the Australian position, the US Government terminated funding to a power station with CCS technology because of the out of control costs. In addition, there are substantial risks that the carbon captured will escape – which adds to the cost and liability!

Despite this, Mark D does not dismiss the technology, but quotes the Future of Coal study that indicates it is possible that CCS can make a contribution but not before 2025. So rather than dismissing, Mark argues we should not put all our eggs into this unreliable and unproven basket. Rather, we should also be investing in renewable technologies that are ready to go (wind, solar and so on) as well as the ones that are close to fruition (such as rock geothermal)

Hard to argue against that one!

Cheers, james

Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (28 Oct 2009): population and religion

2009-10-27T16:46:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone

This week on socio-logic with the amazing Alex Pye on FBI radio, we looked at some controversial issues… would love your thoughts…

Population growth: what should Australia’s population level be?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/challenges-of-our-growth-spurt-20091025-hely.html

The Prime Minister recently got excited about the idea of having 35 million people in Australia. Ken Henry, Treasury secretary responded by raising concerns about Australia’s ability to handle this – fair point.

I have historically avoided talking about population growth and environmental issues because it makes me feel that we are adopting a ‘life boat mentality’ and we can use it as an excuse to exclude people (here I am thinking refugees). This has been described as the ‘greening of hate’ by the very cool Betsy Hartmann.

I think we cannot shield ourselves from what is happening around the world including population growth and herein lays the issue: the problem is not with the poor countries with big populations, but with us. That is, we use way more resources than they do.

In fact, if everyone used the same resources as an Australian, we would need four earths to support us! (Check out this website on eco-resources.)

There are two ways around this that would also act to deal with the excess resource use that is threatening our planet:

a) The first is to build smarter cities: mass investments in public transport and green medium density urban environments; and
b) We should get used to using fewer resources!

We are better off doing this now in a negotiated way and having a response to the issue of population growth – not have it forced upon us at some future point.

Religion v. ethics in schools
http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/06/dumbest-education-policy-australia

The issue of religion or scripture in public schools has always perplexed me. I only realised recently that it is done as a compromise between the State government and the Church in a deal struck in 1880 (see article above).

When I was at school, many of us avoided religious studies because we could not relate to the teachings – so we just kicked the ball around instead.

The Parents and Citizens Association has recently proposed that ‘ethics’ could be taught in parallel with religion as a way of giving non-religious children and families an alternative.

I think this is a great idea and it could act as a way of discussing the many ethical dilemmas to modern life: how can anyone be against this. Further, any teaching of ethics must include religious ethics because the frameworks are related.

In seems that sections of the Church are against it however – it seems more because it sets a precedent than because they do not like the idea. What a crock I say!

Teaching on ethics are important – both religious and secular – and are part of a well-rounded education. In fact, I have had a long association with a number of religious groups who are strong advocates for human and environmental rights: and there is no reason why these things should be in conflict. For the State government to squander this opportunity is to let us all down: well those of us who believe in a well rounded society anyway.

For some information on ethics teaching, check out the St James Ethics Centre who designed the proposed program.

Speak soon

james

Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (21 Oct 2009)

2009-10-21T15:47:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone

This week on FBi Radio (94.5 FM) we got into some serious stuff. It was a week when Parliament has been sitting and throwing mud at each other in debates that my first year students at University of Western Sydney undertake with much better dignity!

This week’s stories…

1. Refugees and Australia:

We started by looking at the Australia's attitudes to refugees: it felt like we were going to return to the Howard Government era of fear and hate towards some of the world's most vulnerable people. A brief look at the lives of those who risk their lives shows that we need a more humanitarian approach: click here for a discussion by Australia's Human Rights Commission!

There is no doubt that race plays an issue here, but as I have written for the Centre for Policy Development, I do not think we should take a simple approach by saying Australia is a racist country.

What is needed is leadership - and while the Prime Minister did not show a great deal, a number in the ALP stood up to be counted (as did the Greens Senator Bob Brown). The truth is that refugees flee countries because they have little or no choice - it has nothing to do with Australia's policies. These are human beings like us and we need to show humanitarianism rather than use it for political advantage - as the Liberal Party seem bent on doing: see a great piece by Crikey here.

2. Political Donations

The issue of political donations was the second story discussed. The question is: do political donations corrupt democracy? I have discussed this previously in a paper looking at the need to reform the system and make it more transparent (read it here).

There is no doubt that when someone makes a political donations there are, at least some, strings attached. The questions is how many strings?

I think that we need to demand more from our politicians and ask them to reform the system. All donations over $1000 should be made public and no longer should there be such cozy relationships between big business and government. Even if there is nothing to worry about, the truth is that the perception that such a relationship means 'favours' are being done, we are seeing the undermining of our democracy.

Ok, that is it for now... join me next week on FBi!

Cheers, james

Socio-Logic with James (on FBi Radio)

2009-10-13T16:25:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone

As some of you may know, I have a regular gig on FBi Radio (94.5 FM). It is a trial for 6 weeks so let’s hope that they like me and keep me! (You can email them and tell them I rock or even better subscribe to keep independent radio alive and well in Sydney).

I am on Up For It with the cool and funky Alex Pye every Wednesday morning at about 8.15 am, so please tune in!

This week’s stories…

1. Pay to use the internet:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/10/2710367.htm

This week at a conference in Beijing, the News Corporation chairman, Rupert Murdoch, criticised online companies like Google – saying they were ‘content kleptomaniacs’. His argument is that Google makes money by directing people to content loaded by organisations such as Fox News and Sydney Morning Herald, and they should pay (and by extension, we should pay).

The internet has always been a battleground since its development as corporations have always tried to commodify it and make us pay, while the open source software movement has always believed that this is something that we all own as it was built by our tax dollars and should remain free. An amazing guy here is Lawrence Lessig – you should check out his work!

I am all for free content – and think Rupert’s move is a negative one. He never establishes why we should pay to visit his site: is it better than everybody else’s? I do not think so: it is just a way to enclose more area for profit.

Watch this one – I think it will heat up – and get ready to get active to protect what is owned by all of us already (a true commons) – in which corporations are already making money off!

2. Climate camp

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/11/2710652.htm?section=justin

The second story was a discussion about Climate Camp – which is a community of volunteer’s environmental group – that has emerged because they believe that the government is not doing enough to combat climate change: and I think they are spot on the money!

The Climate Camp ran for three days at Helensburgh near Wollongong. This was symbolic because it is the site of one of Australia’s oldest coal mines and the NSW government, despite everything we know about carbon emissions, coal and climate change, has decided to expand it! (Note that residents are also concerned – not just about the emissions, but the risk to the local environment and water quality).

The meeting culminated with about 500 protesters blocking and closing down the mine on the Sunday afternoon. It was a peaceful protest though 13 people were arrested.

I am all for non-violent civil disobedience – it may be the only way to make people list and confront power.

Again, watch this space – I think we are going to see a whole lot more of these leading up to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year. (Click here to be linked to Oxfam Australia's discussion and background information and Copenhagen).

Join me next week on FBi!

Cheers, james

Confronting Climate Change Deniers Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable

2009-10-04T17:45:00.000-07:00

Continuing my review of Mark Diesendorf’s new book, Climate Action, I know move to look at the next fallacy…

Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable

This is a simple one - climate change is happening and is unstoppable, so why waste money on mitigation and spend it on adaptation.

Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by explaining the difference between mitigation (which means reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (which is reducing the impacts of climate change while doing nothing about reducing emissions).

The underlying assumptions for this position include that Australia is too small to have any impact on emissions (something that he repudiates in fallacy 2).

The second assumption is that expenditure on mitigation is expensive and ineffective and will not reduce the cost of adaptation. Big MD responds as follows: if the global mitigation effort is sufficient enough to avoid catastrophic tipping points, some mitigation is much better than no mitigation. That is, a 2 degrees rise in temperature will have a significantly smaller impact on the earth than a 3 degrees rise - so why just go with the worst possible outcome?

The third assumption is that the cost of adaptation will be below that of mitigation. For Big MD this is a ridiculous argument - and I have to say, I agree with him. He uses the following example to make the point:

One strategy of adaptation is building more dams in areas where droughts happen; as MD points out, however, what good is a dam if there is not rain brought on by climate change?

MD also quotes the Stern Review: where it notes that the cost of adaptation if climate change continues unabated, the cost of adaptation will be much more expensive.

The solution is quite simple: for some countries to take the lead and make changes. For them, they will be in a better position to take advantage of new clean industries that are going to emerge. In other words, time to show some leadership!

New article: Surviving Neo-Liberalism: NGOs Under the Howard Years

2009-09-30T18:14:00.000-07:00

I have just had this new article published titled "Surviving Neo-Liberalism: NGOs Under the Howard Years” with NEBULA - an academic journal of Multidisciplinary Scholarship.

In the article I look at the issue of social rights - and int he process provide a historiography of a government that went out of its way to silence dissent...

For those interested in understanding the complex nature of the nation state, check out my previous blog here...

Cheers, james

Promises and Perils of Modernity

2009-08-25T06:59:00.000-07:00

Introduction

This blog is based on a guest lecture I did at UNSW on the same topic. What I was attempting to do here was to look at the issue of how, based on the dominant cultural view that has emerged in the west, we attempt to control the environment. That is, since the Enlightenment, the dominant cultural view of our relationship between society and the environment is one of ‘control’: that scientific and rational decision-making can harness the power of the environment and overcome any challenges we face.

The truth is, that in the western world modernity has, until know, met many of these promises. We have used the resources of the world to a great deal of success: we have powered the industrial and post-industrial revolutions, and now have a consumerist lifestyle that even 30 years ago seemed unimaginable. We have relied on science to overcome the limitations we have faced: an exploding world population was met with a green revolution that increased food output; pollutants that have been harmful to the environment such as CFCs have been replaced; and we are finding more efficient ways to use energy. We are living longer and wealthier than we have ever been.

The problem is, I am going to argue, is that the very reasons for our success and wealth are also leading to the potential of humanities downfall. The very consumerist lifestyles that have driven our wealth are leading to potential devastation. It is for this reason that we have called this lecture the ‘promises and perils’: and I want to focus on the perils.

I will be looking at three authors: Jared Diamond, Ronald Wright and Ulrich Beck

Jared Diamond’s Collapse

Jared Diamond’s most famous work is Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. The focus of the book:

How societal collapses may not only involve an environmental component, but also contributions of climate change, hostile neighbours, and trade partners, and societal responses.

In writing the book Diamond intended that its readers should learn from history. Diamond's approach differs from traditional historians by focusing on environmental issues rather than cultural questions.

I do not have time to cover Diamond’s thesis in this lecture and we will return to it later in the semester. What is key here is that Diamond lists some key factors that have led to various societies collapsing. These are lists eight factors that have historically contributed to the collapse of past societies.

Importantly, he notes that key here is environmental abuse (including habitat destruction; soil problems; water; effects of introduced species on native species; and overpopulation). However, he also states that: "it would be absurd to claim that environmental damage must be a major factor in all collapses: the collapse of the Soviet Union is a modern counter-example, and the destruction of Carthage by Rome in 146 BC is an ancient one. It's obviously true that military or economic factors alone may suffice" (p. 15).

Diamond says Easter Island provides the best historical example of a societal collapse in isolation.

Let’s imagine what the last Easter Islander was thinking when he was cutting down the last tree:

• A scientist will come along to find a substitute;
• I am sure that the problem has been over-exaggerated;
• I am sure that there will be more trees over there somewhere; or
• It is this that made us wealthy, so why should we stop now!

It is this final point that I want to turn to: what are people thinking, and what are they willing to do. Diamond finds that societies most able to avoid collapse are the ones that are most agile; they are able to adopt practices favourable to their own survival and avoid unfavourable ones.

It is this point that ends Diamond’s thesis: the real problem is that the modern world remains in the sway of a dangerously illusory cultural myth – that most governments and international agencies seem to believe that the human enterprise is somehow 'decoupling' from the environment, and so is poised for unlimited expansion.

To emphasise the point, Diamond draws a distinction between social and biological survival (because too often we blur the two). The fact is, though, that we can be law-abiding and peace-loving and tolerant and inventive and committed to freedom and true to our own values and still behave in ways that are biologically suicidal.

In the end, Diamond raises some cultural issues dealing directly with our promises of modernity and science:

• So we should take problems seriously – as well as the difficulty in finding solutions;
• Societies may reach a cognitive impasse having mental fixations that prevent their later problems from being recognized;
• Societies make choices: both good and bad ones – which ones are we making
• Role of the elite… they did not insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. Is our contemporary society different? Just look at the gated community – which you can get away with it for only short time. It is not viable to have a two tier society
• Importance to reappraise our core values – often painful. Blueprint for trouble is when we cannot do this – especially when these core values are the source of our strength. For example, consumerism (resource consumption) and isolationism

The problem is progress – Ronald Wright

Ronald Wright argues that our modern predicament is as old as civilization itself: a 10,000 year-old experiment we have participated in but seldom controlled.

Wright examines the meaning of progress and its implications for civilizations past and present: The twentieth century was a time of runaway growth in human population, consumption, and technology that placed an unsustainable burden on all natural systems. History has shown us that each of the societies coming before us fail – and the 20th century represents our last opportunity to succeed where our forefathers almost without exception have not.

Wright's concerns reflect that of Diamond’s:

“Our civilization, which subsumes most of its predecessors, is a great ship steaming at speed into the future. It travels faster, further, and more laden than any before. We may not be able to foresee every reef and hazard, but by reading her compass bearing and headway, by understanding her design, her safety record, and the abilities of her crew, we can, I think, plot a wise course between the narrows and the bergs looming ahead… (we must act)...without delay, because there are too many shipwrecks behind us. The vessel we are now aboard is not merely the biggest of all time; it is also the only one left. The future of everything we have accomplished since our intelligence evolved will depend on the wisdom of our actions over the next few years. Like all creatures, humans have made their way in the world so far by trial and error; unlike other creatures, we have a presence so colossal that error is a luxury we can no longer afford. The world has grown too small to forgive us any big mistakes.”

He sees societies self-destruct from a combination of lack of foresight and poor choices that lead to overpopulation and irreparable environmental damage.

So returning to the guy from Easter Island – according to Ronald Wright, he was not even thinking!

He asks: "Why, if civilizations so often destroy themselves, has the overall experiment of civilization done so well?" For the answer, he says, we must look to natural regeneration and human migration.

Again, covering everything that Wright argues is not possible, but key for us are "progress traps" throughout the book — including even the invention of agriculture itself. Wright labels such cultural beliefs and interests that act against sustainability — and hence civilizational survivability as a whole — the very worst kind of "ideological pathology":

We still have differing cultures and political systems, but at the economic level there is now only one big civilization, feeding on the whole planet’s natural capital. We’re logging everywhere, building everywhere, and no corner of the biosphere escapes our haemorrhage of waste. The twentyfold growth in world trade since the 1970s has meant that hardly anywhere is self-sufficient. Every Eldorado has been looted, every Shangri-La equipped with a Holiday Inn. Joseph Tainter notes this interdependence, warning that "collapse, if and when it comes again, will this time be global. ... World civilization will disintegrate as a whole. P.124–5

Ecological markers now indicate that human civilization has surpassed (since the 1980s) nature's capacity for regeneration. Humans in 2006 used more than 125% of nature's yearly output annually: "If civilization is to survive, it must live on the interest, not the capital of nature" (p. 129).

Wright concludes that "our present behaviour is typical of failed societies at the zenith of their greed and arrogance" (p. 129). "It is a suicide machine" and "Things are moving so fast that inaction itself is one of the biggest mistakes. The 10,000-year experiment of the settled life will stand or fall by what we do, and don’t do, now". We must therefore "transition from short-term to long-term thinking", "from recklessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle" (p. 131).

The problem is, however, that we our culture is simply focused on progress and expansion, and changing this around seems impossible.

Risk society – Ulrich Beck

The third perspective is Ulrich Beck’s "risk society": a term that highlights how our very practices create risks and increasingly becomes organized in response to these risk. The thinking is that this is a consequence of its links to trends in thinking about wider modernity, and also to its links to popular discourse, in particular the growing environmental concerns during the period.

In contrast, to the positions above, society is increasingly preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk, Society must organise in a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself.

So the guys on Easter Island are still chopping down the trees, but thinking about how they can make money from it and who will wear the consequences.

The risk society is a phenomenon firmly from the perspective of modernity: which is seen as a shorthand term for modern society or industrial civilization – it is vastly more dynamic than any previous type of social order. It is a society... which unlike any preceding culture lives in the future rather than the past.

Beck argues that it is possible for societies to assess the level of risk that is being produced, or that is about to be produced. The problem is that disasters such as Chernobyl means that public faith in the modern project has declined leaving public distrust in industry, government and experts.

Beck contends that widespread risks contain a 'boomerang effect', in that individuals producing risks will also be exposed to them. This argument suggests that wealthy individuals whose capital is largely responsible for creating pollution will also have to suffer when, for example, the contaminants seep into the water supply.

So, modernity creates risks that are worn, initially unevenly, and the boomerang to everyone. While this is happening, many are making money from it, and hence this is unlikely to change quickly.

Conclusion

Modernity has made many promises – and has fulfilled these. The problem is, now that it is failing us, how do we walk away from its processes.

Environmental Economics

2009-08-18T22:05:00.000-07:00

Introduction

One of the things that seems to perplex most activists, academics and activist academics is ‘economics’: what it means, what it aims to do and how we should respond to those who put forward economic arguments to social and environmental problems and policy.

I want to start a new series of blogs on ‘economics’. This one introduces economics and how it is applied to environmental issues. It was prompted by a lecture I did at University of NSW – and I am hoping to expand on these concepts in the coming months.

While I am no fan of those who uncritically apply economics to environmental challenges, it should be recognised that environmental economics is a field that attempts to bring together one of the fundamental premises of our society (on going economic growth) with concerns that this growth is having detrimental impacts on our environment.

As you will no doubt note, I am sceptical about this field of research, but what is important here is that it is an attempt to break through the ‘progress trap’ of ongoing economic growth. As I discuss this area of economics, please weight up in your own thoughts and reflect on the following question: is environmental economics an attempt to green the economy, or part of an ongoing process of turning the environment into a commodity traded for profit rather than sustained for our livelihoods.

Economics – some brief background

While there are many definitions of economics, for us it is the study of how people make choices about what they buy, what they produce, and how our system of exchange works. Our economy, like most around the world, operates on a market system.

There are two fundamental concepts that all economists attempt to confront no matter what system they operate in.

The first is scarcity: that is, in a society where our demands, needs and wants are ongoing and seem ever growing, we live in a world that only has limited resources. (Note that many economists argue that our desires are infinite and soon as we fill one desire another emerges, I do not agree and think that is a pretty bleak vision of human nature, but do not have the space to discuss that here). Regardless, there is a mismatch between material desires and available resources.

This concept of scarcity is one of the most important concepts in economics: it is an attempt to study and assist the many decisions on how to use those resources in the face of expanding desires.

The second concept is opportunity cost: as there is a mismatch between desires and the resources to fulfil them, there is a need to choose one desire to fulfil over another. The ‘opportunity cost’ of any decision is what you are giving up to get what you want. Consequently, if you want a holiday or a new stereo and you decide on the holiday, the opportunity cost is the stereo you are giving up. You may choose to come to class or go for coffee with someone: you have to give up one to do the other. We can think of many such examples, and in each one, you make a choice and have to sacrifice another.

No matter what decision we make, there is an opportunity cost: and it is not necessarily a monetary one.

There are also four basic questions that every economy must answer:

o What should be produced?

o How many should be produced?

o What methods should be used?

o How should the goods and services be distributed?

In a market economy, the ‘marketplace’ decides how to answer these by allowing each producer to answer these questions themselves. The success of each of these decisions is, however, determined by the marketplace. So while a producer may decide what product to sell to make money, we (the consumers) determine whether to buy or not.

Note: in most textbooks you are told that there are two types of economies: a command economy (where a government makes all the decisions) or a market economy (where we are ‘free’ to choose through the market). The truth is, however, that most (if not all) economies are a mixture of the two. Even in a market economy like Australia’s, the government involves itself in the market by offering incentives (through taxes and subsidies) to guide the market. For example, there are billions of dollars of subsidies to the coal industry (including building roads and ports to assist in the production of coal) while offering very few incentives to renewable energy sources.

Economics in environmental policy

Environmental Economics… undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world... Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic substances, solid waste, and global warming.

National Bureau of Economic Research Environmental Economics (http://www.nber.org/)

The rise of environmental economics as a discipline and a field of policy follow the growing recognition that that the environment is a scarce resource and its use requires important decisions about opportunity cost. That is, in much of modern history, the environmental was seen as boundless: being a free resource that we could use forever. For example, much pollution was dumped with minimal controls because the earth was seen as both there to be used for free, and able to handle anything we throw at it.

As economics is a field aimed at dealing with scarce resources, it is a mechanism that has been seen as being useful when dealing with environmental problems.

The fundamental principle that drives environmental economics is that the environment is costed: given a price. That is, we can put a price on the value of different aspects of the environment: be it clean air, clean water, the Great Barrier Reef or a single tree – environmental economics relies on the principle that it is possible to estimate their worth.

Once this is done, it is believed that we can make decisions about use of the environmental by weighing up the financial costs and the benefits. Hence, it is possible to estimate the opportunity cost: so the cost of protecting a river because of the ‘value’ it offers as a tourist destination, can be measured against the benefits of attracting people to the areas.

Environmental economists acknowledge the difficulty in estimate such costs and benefits; it is better to estimate them than to come to the conclusion that it is too hard. The argument also goes that using the tools available through market-based instruments, environmental and economic goals can be reached efficiently.

Are these contradictory?

In fact, as the sphere of economics has become a growing part of our lives for various reasons, the public continuously demands that this is done before decisions concerning the environment are made.

Many argue, however, that there are inbuilt contradictions in the twin objectives of economics (which focuses on growth) and environmental protection (which tends to have a conservation focus). Consequently, it is believed that a choice must be made between one and the other and that both cannot be achieved concurrently.

I will not discuss this here, but will return to it in another blog.

Market failure

Central to environmental economics is the concept of market failure. This simply means that the market mechanism has essentially failed to efficiently allocate resources:

A market failure occurs when the market does not allocate scarce resources to generate the greatest social welfare. A wedge exists between what a private person does given market prices and what society might want him or her to do to protect the environment. Such a wedge implies wastefulness or economic inefficiency; resources can be reallocated to make at least one person better off without making anyone else worse off.
Hanley, Shogren, and White (2007)

Common forms of market failure include externalities, common property (or non-exclusion) and public goods.

Externalities

The basic idea is that an externality exists when someone makes a choice that has affects on other people but is not accounted for in the price set by the market. The most basic example is when a company pollutes it does not take into account the true costs that this pollution imposes on others. Consequently, the firm’s choice has a negative impact on the broader population. The result is that a less than efficient result is achieved: in this case, the resource of a clean environment is not allocated in the most efficient way.

In economic terminology, externalities are examples of market failures, in which the market does not lead to an efficient outcome.

So what environmental economics aims to do is cost these externalities: put a price on them to either act as a disincentive to stop the polluters, or charge a tax so people can be compensated for their environment being polluted.

Common property

A second focus of environmental economics revolves finding solutions to a lack of property rights that emerge when it is too expensive to exclude others from accessing a resource. When this occurs, it is said that the market allocation is inefficient.

This was highlighted by Garret Hardin's (1968) concept of the tragedy of the commons (which we will discuss in a future lecture). "Commons" refer to the environmental assets that allow collectively owned.

The basic problem is that if people ignore the scarcity value of the commons, then they can be over harvested as a resource: fisheries are one of many examples. Hardin argues that in such cases resources will be abused: and hence recommends the emergence of exclusive rights.

Note: this has been disproved including the work of Ostrom (1990) who showed how people have worked to establish self-governing rules to reduce the risk of the tragedy of the commons.

Public goods:

Public goods are a third type of market failure. This emerges when the market price does not capture the social benefits of its provision. For example, protection from the risks of climate change is a public good since its provision is both non-rival and non-excludable. That is, climate protection provided to one country does not reduce the level of protection to another country; non-excludable means it is too costly to exclude any one from receiving climate protection. A country's incentive to invest in carbon abatement is reduced because it can "free ride" off the efforts of other countries.

Public goods are a market failure because the market fails to provide them because people tend to hide their preferences (and hence refuse to pay) for the good while still enjoy the benefits.

Valuation

I want now to return to the concept of valuation: that is, estimating the value of the environment (or a piece of the environment).

There are a number of problems that exist in trying to value the environment. Central here is the concept of ‘intrinsic value’: that the environment (both as a whole and in parts) has a value that we derive from it simply by existing. For example, just the idea that the Great Barrier Reef or Amazon forest are there is important regardless of any benefits that we may gain from it. We may never see it, but just knowing that it is there is important.

But let us not just think about something with such obvious environmental and ecological importance, but just general use of environment resources: How do we value the parkland at the end of our stress or a place like Coogee Beach?

One way that has been suggested is to ask people how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.

Note: I want you to think about a place that you really value for personal and emotional reasons:

o What you would be willing to pay to enter this place?

o How much would you need to be compensated if it was to be turned into a car park?

If I were an environmental economist, to calculate the value of one of these places I would simply aggregate what everyone is willing to pay and come up with a figure. This would allow us to estimate its value and calculate the cost-benefit of the area.

Solutions

The second dimension of environmental economics that is important is the solutions offered. Let’s look at some of the solutions that are offered.

Environmental regulations:

Here, the idea is that a regulator estimates the economic and environment impacts - usually undertaking a cost-benefit analysis. While some mat argue that this is a non-market mechanism and outside the realm of environmental economics, there is still the need for the regulator to calculate the value of any regulation (both the cost of implementing the scheme as well as the cost of doing something) and compare it to the cost of doing nothing.

Quotas on pollution:

Another method for pollution reductions is through tradeable emissions permits: this allows the owners of the permits to freely trade the right to pollute. It is argued that this creates reductions in pollution at least cost. In theory, if such tradeable quotas are allowed, then a firm would reduce its own pollution load only if doing so would cost less than paying someone else to make the same reduction.

Taxes on pollution:

Increasing the costs of polluting will discourage polluting, and will provide a "dynamic incentive" to ensure pollution levels fall. A pollution tax that reduces pollution to the socially "optimal" level would be set at such a level that pollution occurs only if the benefits to society (for example, in form of greater production) exceeds the costs.

Removal of subsidies

That is, remove any hidden subsidies to dirty industries.

Better property rights:

One of the key theories in environmental economics is that the assignment of defined property rights will lead to optimal solutions – regardless of who receives them. For example, if people living near a factory had a right to clean air and water, or the factory had the right to pollute, then either the factory could pay those affected by the pollution or the people could pay the factory not to pollute. Or, citizens could take action themselves as they would if other property rights were violated.

This allows markets for "pollution rights" to emerge – and is known as emissions trading (the focus of current debates in Australia).

Do not confuse environmental and ecological economics

It is important to note that environmental economists apply the tools of economics to address environmental problems or market failure. That is, applying economics solutions to where market economics has proven unreliable.

Ecological economists take a different approach – focusing their work on the impacts of humans and their economic activity on ecological systems. Ecological economics sees economics is a strict sub-field of ecology: the economy should only expand to the size that negatively impacts on the environment.

Ecological economics is seen to take a more pluralistic approach to environmental problems, focusing on the long-term environmental sustainability and issues of scale (that is, what is the right scale for human activity).

Environmental and ecological economics have fundamentally different philosophical underpinnings.

Conclusions

There are many limitations to environmental economics. Many have rejected this field, saying that it does not go far enough in attempting to deal with the environmental challenges facing us.

Many ‘green economists’ reject this field as simply an extension of traditional forms of economics and there should be a greater focus on a new political economy that gives a greater emphasis to the interaction of the human economy and the natural environment.

For us, we should consider whether environmental economics is simply extending current practices or offering solutions…

---
Hanley, N., Shogren, J. and White, B. (2007) Environmental
Economics: In Theory & Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd ed

Hardin, G. (1968) "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, 162, pp. 1243-1248.

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

'Power-shifting the political status quo'

2009-07-27T23:19:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month, I attended Powershift - an initiative of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. While I think some parts were great, other parts did not quite work for me... Regardless, I think that it confirmed much of the research I undertook for the Whitlam Institute.

The event, as a result, prompted me to write an Opinion Piece for the University of Western Sydney, regarding young people and democratic engagement...

Read it here...

Cheers, james

Social theory and the environmental challenge: how far have we come?

2009-07-06T00:31:00.000-07:00

Benton, T. and Redclift, M. (1994) "Introduction" in Social theory and the global environment, London and New York, Routledge.

I am continuing my revisit of 'older' environmental philosophy texts and have arrived at a collection of essays edited by Ted Benton and Michael Redclift (1994).

Reading this some 15 years after it was written, it is amazing at how much we have learnt and how little we have progressed. The aim of Benton and Redclift's essays are to consider the response by the social sciences to the many emerging environmental crises. In essence, they try and confront the ongoing (and often ludicrous) disciplinary boundaries that restrict the social sciences from dealing with environmental challenges, and in so doing offer some advice as to how we might find some solutions.

Here is a bit of an overview intertwined with my own thoughts and spiced by a recent conversation I had with Daniel L Beaver on a road-trip in Tasmania. Much of what I also say has been developed with conversations and debates with one Amy Tyler…

Re-awakening of environmental challenges

Not unlike today, Benton and Redclift note that there has been a re-awakening of environmental issues caused by a number of crises. The threat of catastrophic global environmental change is at the top of our consciousness and the immediacy implied by the word ‘crisis’ means that the environment (and by extension, environmental problems) can no longer be considered as something that is 'out there'.

To understand environmental challenges, Benton and Redclift said we must see them as a multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional challenge. That is, environmental impacts flow into and affect the economic, social, cultural and political spheres as well as the more tangible impact upon the physical (natural) world. While science may provide us insights into the impacts of environmental degradation and changes, if we want to understand the causes (and by extension, find solutions), "we must investigate how our patterns of social relationships, cultural forms, political practices and economic institutions are all implanted in the production of environmental change."

Overcoming core assumptions

Benton and Redclift suggest that for contemporary society to overcome environmental crises, it is essential that social scientists confront the long categorical opposition between 'nature and culture.' They suggest that one of the reasons we have shied away from this confrontation is the difficulty social sciences have in discussing the natural or innate aspects of our society without falling into the trap of biological determinism. However, by keeping our distance, social scientists have allowed the economists to define the innate of our society: which is to say, we are greedy and driven by self-interest. This is further evidenced by the fact that economists are more advanced than the social sciences when offering solutions for the environmental crisis: for example, the carbon market.

It is true that many of the challenges, concepts and assumptions of 'mainstream' economics are the same as environmental concerns: especially around the issue of scarcity. Rather than looking at complex solutions, however, economics attempts to solve challenges by either attempting to quantify resources through price signals that are either seen as being free (if abundant – such as air) or negotiated if scarce.

One of the reasons why economics has been given such prominence is that many of its assumptions have been accepted as 'true', while the rest of the social sciences are forced to reflect and justify their positions: for example, economic theory has established that we are driven by self interest – as I noted above. This is largely accepted because we argue that biologically we are driven by individual survival. Social sciences, then, have to justify why we can also be driven by altruism. Many of the positions taken by economists when it comes to human interactions are seen as already being established and socially re-enforced: lying outside economic life.

Many would then argue that we are all ultimately individualistic and selfish and what makes for the most effective economy is one that provides a market to channel greed productively. On the other hand, Kenyan environmentalist and human rights campaigner Wangari Mathai, argues that rather than leaving it to the market or government to make our individual interests 'social,' we can work as individuals with a community consciousness. That is to say, our individual decisions are made knowing how they will impact on the well being of our community.

Another settled assumption, that Benton and Redclift argue we need to confront, is the primacy given to the nation-state - especially as a unit of analysis. Many different areas of global studies confirm that we need to look beyond national boundaries - from dependency theory to environmental challenges – because domestic issues are often regulated by international institutions or happenings in foreign countries.

A third series of assumptions that Benton and Redclift encourage us to confront are the issues of time-space abstractions. Benton and Redclift argue that we must look at environmental challenges both within a time-space analysis as well as beyond it. That is, we must integrate time and space into all sociological analysis, including our relationship with the environmental. Our relationship does change across time and space – and maybe what is natural or innate also does. This would, then, allow us to move beyond any nature/social dualisms, as well as the nation-state as a primary unit of analysis.

Theoretical divisions

Finally, Benton and Redclift argue that if we are dealing with environmental challenges, we must also deal with some long-standing theoretical divisions: and a key one is the split between structural limitations to change and individual agency. We must accept that changes to lifestyle are limited by structures: and these structural limitations are unevenly distributed spatially and across time (linking with the point above). This also represents the fact that 'power relationships' mean opportunities for encouraging agency are unevenly distributed. Consequently, while we may appeal to 'rational actors' to change their behaviours, this is not always possible as many people are locked into patterns of life that are environmentally destructive.

Despite this, we need to avoid 'structural determinism' and recognise that structural change has always occurred when savvy individuals fight for it.

Another theoretical area of dispute that we need to overcome with respect to environmental challenges is the cultural v. individualist approaches to change. That is, are we more than just a group of individuals living together? Economics, especially in its dominant neo-classical approach, is inherently individualist. On the other end of the spectrum is anthropology, which argues that a group of individuals leads to the emergence of a society and culture. This split has a profound impact on environmental research and policy: and we need to consider overcoming any false (and forced) binary.

Benton and Redclift argue that, whatever approach we take, we must accept that human social structures bind together not just individuals, but also (non-human) animals, physical objects spatial areas and so on. Human structures have effects everywhere, not just with humans.

To express the need for action to deal with environmental crisis, we need to overcome the gap between those technocratic perspectives and ones that emphasise the role of popular culture and lay knowledge. This is most evident when dealing with risk, where there is a gap between the official 'risk' numbers (such as a 1 in 1 million chance of something happening), and the socio-cultural preferences that 'lay' people assign to such risks (and here they quote Mary Douglas).

The environmental debate in its current contemporary form rests upon different knowledge claims such as scientific v. non-scientific. That is, what is tested and proven and what is still being speculated on. For example, a friend says that climate change is not necessarily real because it is not scientifically proven. On the other hand, if we wait until it is definitively and scientifically proven, it will be too late because it will have happened.

We must also acknowledge that if we only accept scientific knowledge then this will also change the communication path. Scientific knowledge does not take into account the cultural or social aspects that cause specific actions or events to occur. While science may 'prove' that cars produce CO2 and that CO2 contributes to climate change, they do not look at social or cultural factors that encourage society to keep on purchasing cars even when the majority of society 'knows' that they are causing environmental damage. Moreover, the factors that encourage automobile purchases are culturally appropriate; in one city they may be structural (bad public transport) in another it might be a sign of wealth.

The final point that Benton and Redclift raise relates to the increasing sense of individualism. This is occurring in the material world, but also how the social sciences characterise the present condition of social life as 'postmodern': meaning that there is an academic focus away from explaining social behaviour through large scale social historical processes to micro-sociological events that make meaning subjective of individual life and culture. Are we then doomed to push for individual action in order to confront environmental crises? If we all become vegetarian will the world be saved? Or is there a way to reignite collectivism where we can learn to eat appropriate meats for our environment and change our diet to one or two meat meals a week? Moreover, how we analyse the relationship between society and the environment has important implications for how we treat issues of justice and equality.

Role of social sciences

Finally, Benton and Redclift move onto arguing that no one discipline can provide the insights into why we face environmental crises: we must take an interdisciplinary approach. Environmental problems and solutions transcend disciplines: we cannot solve environmental problems with just physical sciences but we need to include understandings of economics, politics, cultural studies, sociology, anthropology and so on. Environmental crises demand that we breakdown disciplinary boundaries.

This is important, because we often see the issue of linearity when it comes to policy design with respect to the environmental issues that works in the following way: scientific research, impact assessments and then policy responses. This totally ignores the fact that most of the causes behind environmental crises today are human-centered. Benton and Redclift argue that we will fail unless we accept that global environmental issues must consider the cultural dimensions: this leads us to consider globalisation as a cultural process linked to changes in the environment (both linked to environmental change, but distinguishable in its own right).

The strength of globalisation studies is that we must accept the interconnectedness that globalisation represents: and what is more interconnected than environmental issues? Redclift and Benton argue that this interconnectedness happens on four key levels: spatial, technological, material and representational.

Part of understanding the global nature of the challenge also takes us to another foundational assumption: the process of development. The ordering of the global agenda is something that is dominated by the industrial North: development, for example, is still considered and measured by the number of goods and these are instigated and driven by the North. This has consequences everywhere.

This power and spatial difference has meant that we have seen, and continue to see, growing differences between global environmental groups and the demands (and needs) of development that are raised by the populations of poorer countries. Even when Benton and Redclift were writing some 15 years ago, there was an acknowledgment by the North that we needed to shift our understanding of development. The debate, however, has not progressed a great deal: we are seeing a split in the way forward between the greening of industry to limit impacts (or Dobson's environmentalism which I covered in a different blog) and a dramatic restructuring in our demands and aspirations - a cultural shift which is described by Dobson as ecologigsm.

Benton and Redclift note that development concerns in the South are radically different to those of the North. (But with the rise of the middle classes in China, Brazil and India, I would think that this has now seen a merging of some of the material asprations). Rather, we get people on the margins across the world – both in the North and South - who never figure in our 'images of the environment'. It is important to remember that the majority of the world's population lies outside this image (and discourse). What makes these margins different is the type of responses they can expect from respective governments. In Australia, our government might be able to help out farmers faced by drought while in Colombia the farmers are left to fend for themselves.

To respond to the environment we need to bridge many gaps and accept that scientific knowledge is a cultural artifact. Consequently, policy should not be distinguished from social and cultural contexts. Culture and knowledge are not merely determined by science, but serve to fashion science and policy themselves. We must understand all these dimensions to understand the demands that environmental challenges make on social theory and the interventions we need to take.

Cheers, james

How to respond to 'ute-gate': time for political donation reform...

2009-07-05T15:50:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone,

Like anyone else interested in politics, I have been following the whole silly 'ute-gate' affair: firstly with amusement, then with disbelief. Watching Treasurer Wayne Swan call an Opposition backbencher a 'moron' in Parliament last week, I was struck by the growing resemblance between the behaviour of politicians during question time and a pre-match interview of the World Wrestling Federation.

I write the following article for the Centre for Policy which can be accessed here and relates how we can use the affair to achieve some real reform around political donations...

Cheers, james

Assessing the role of the Opposition in Australian politics

2009-06-21T15:32:00.000-07:00

The other day I was reflecting on the role of the Opposition and how they were doing much better in the polls lately.

Despite this, I am not sure if its actual performance improving?

This piece was published for the Centre for Policy Development

Cheers, james

Protecting the Australian Commons and privatisation

2009-06-21T15:27:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was invited to be a guest on ABC's Nightlife. The discussion was focused on whether, in a modern complex state, the integration between the public sphere and private enterprise can define how we all live.

From transport to telecommunications, governments around the world are struggling to find out which gives us the best standard of living - the market or the ministers? I tried to present the issue of the commons, though we got focused on privatisation, there was still some good points discussed...

Listen to it here...

Cheers, james

Are we a racist country?

2009-06-04T20:35:00.000-07:00

There was something about former Telstra CEO, Sol Trujillo that many Australians never warmed to: maybe it was his brash style or the fact his vision for Telstra was so far removed from what many of us thought it should be, that any goodwill quickly disappeared. His recent interview confirms he never quite clicked with Australia, and his view that Australia is a racist country confirms he never quite “got” us, or our humour. Or does it?

Check out what Antionette Abboud and I are thinking... and what some of the great resonses are at the Centre for Policy Development...

Feedback welcome

Cheers, james

Technology in our contemporary society

2009-05-11T16:58:00.000-07:00

Technology in our contemporary society

Technological development has been an integral part of human history. In pre-modern times, societies had some of the most important technological advancements – often as a result of necessity. Even today, when we are focussed on wireless and globalised technologies, we should remember the fact that the wheel was a technological advancement: and probably the world’s most important breakthrough!

In this blog, I want to look at the emergence and importance of technologies in shaping our lives in contemporary society. Importantly, we should remember that this is not a one way relationship: for it is the structure of our society that shapes technologies. In other words, just like other dimensions of life that I have discussed in these blogs, technology is socially constructed.

If we see technology as socially constructed, then we can avoid the trap of 'technological determinism': that is, the idea that technology is independent, autonomous and inevitable, and somehow disconnected from social processes. Our current technological advances have a historical and social basis. And as will be seen, a history and sociality that is strongly rooted in modernity.

Transport and communications

Before beginning, it is important to consider that technology takes many different shapes. Obviously it is impossible to discuss all technologies in a short blog, so I will be concentrating on transport and communication technology that affects our every day lives in contemporary society.

Once, transport and communications technology used to mean the same thing. But now, with massive advances in both, they have essentially separated. With regard to transport, we have seen the world grow smaller as we have moved from the steam train to the jet.

Similarly, the development of communications technology such as intercontinental cables, satellites and internet means communications can occur instantaneously over vast distances.

Technology and globalisation

While I will discuss globalisation in a future blog, it is not possible to discuss technology today without also looking at the issue of globalisation. To ensure that this blog makes sense, let me briefly describe globalisation as a process that essentially makes the world smaller! That is, in compresses time and space.

For this to make sense, think about how even ten years ago if you wanted to call someone to see if they were home, you would have to find a phone booth. Now you just grab your mobile and call them. Your friends seem much closer even if they live the same distance away. For those of us who use Skype to make international phone calls, we can log on and see who is on the net and call them anywhere in the world for free! Or you can contact 100 friends simultaneously via Facebook or twitter! Imagine trying to do that with everyone just by using a home phone!

Another example would be to see how easy and cheap it is to fly to Europe. It now costs less than $1,500 to fly to London, and you can get there in less than 24 hours. Some 15 years ago, the cheapest fair was $2,500, you would have to check visa requirements, and flights took hours longer. In other words, the world is much smaller than in previous times in history.

Such dramatic changes that affect our everyday lives in contemporary society could not be possible without the many benefits that technology brings.

We should, however, not just view technological change in a globalised world as consumers. We need to also understand how the world has changed from a production perspective. For example, once in the not too distant passed, cars were designed, built and assembled in one place and in one factory. Now a car will be designed in Europe with parts built from nations as diverse as South Africa, Indonesia and Australia, and assembled in Korea. Then they are exported all over the world on well established routes with payments made instantly via wireless connections.

Authors such as Manuel Castells (2000) – who s very influential in this area – refer to technology as involving capacities to develop new ways of doing things: often in a reproducible manner. That is, finding ways to better reproduce things in an easier, quicker and cheaper manner. Think of micro-processors that reproduce their own technology that allows computers to become smaller and faster.

It kind of hurts my head if I think about the many technological networks that we rely on everyday. In this way then, technological advances should not be seen in abstraction, they influence our daily lives in many ways – from the economy, to the way our politicians react, but also how we see ourselves (or our identity and subjectivities).

Think about how spaces on the net like Facebook or Secondlife.com allow people to establish multiple identities in a way that have never been possible before. How we now communicate via text messaging: people sustain whole friendships and relationships by sending messages to each other. (I mean I know I do.)

My point is that technology is closely aligned with a host of social changes at local and global levels.

Technology and modernity

As I said above, we should not think of technology as something that is prolific only in our contemporary society. Scientific and technological innovations were prolific in the Renaissance and early modern periods.

As I noted in a previous blog on modernity, the belief in progress, rationality, predictability and science offering us a better path through advances are all very much part of the intellectual paradigm that emerged during the Enlightenment. Technology fits into this world view. The Enlightenment and in many ways, modernity, were driven by a utopian vision which could be reached using technology.

However, this utopian vision was fractured by many of the atrocities of the 20th century. While technological innovations promised so much, it also brought us the Nazi death camps, Hiroshima nuclear bombs, nuclear accidents and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq today – which is having horrific side effects on Iraq civilians and US veterans alike.

So, while we celebrate technological advances, we need to put them in context of the historical periods from which they emerged, and the political beliefs that have driven them. Consequently, technology is not itself neutral and benign, and should not be viewed uncritically.

As we have also seen, networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have also given rise to internet bullying, while naked photos of ex-partners have often been distributed via texting: these are issues that have led to major social problems – even suicide.

Technology and politics

Let's take a closer look at this statement by looking at technological developments since WWII. While many of these have been beneficial to us, they are closely aligned with to political and military objectives.

For every piece of technology, you have those who celebrate it and those who raise concerns. The politics of nuclear power is one example. You cannot disconnect discussions of nuclear technologies from global politics. So while many celebrate the potential of nuclear power to achieve resource efficiency and decrease global warming, others raise the risks.

But even more than that, it is the world's wealthiest nations that have this technology, and it is in their strategic and economic interests to limit its availability to others. Think about how the USA has reacted to Iran's nuclear aspirations. Is this driven by concerns that Iran is really a nation that is a rogue state or is it of strategic importance to ensure the Middle East remains nuclear free?

Personally I would prefer that no-one has access to nuclear technologies, but you can think about that one. But while you do, think about the fact that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is about ensuring that nations without nuclear technology do not get it: those who already have it do not have to abide by the same rules.

We can draw also examples such as genetically modified seeds. Many promise that they can end world hunger – but many who do so are the same ones that develop the seeds and sell them. Others say it will merely make poorer nations even more reliant on the wealthy (see, for example, the work of Vandana Shiva).

Both these examples highlight how technology is used to maintain and enhance power relations rather than used to overcome them.

Technological enthusiasm

However, we should note that technological advancements are generally celebrated in our society – almost always seen as a good thing. This position that embraces technology and looks forward to more and more developments is titled 'technological enthusiasm'. In essence, technological enthusiasts embrace the following ideas:

Technological advances in the second half of the 20th century have been the principle drivers of globalisation;
Technological forces exceed the power of nation-states, leading to global markets and a global village;
Technological advances renders national border meaningless;
Technological advances, including those that promote a global economy, should not be interfered by governments;
Technological advances are inevitable and desirable; and
The concepts of the nation state and national economies have become essentially obsolete.

It is important to note that many who are viewed as technological enthusiasts also believe that technology cannot be stopped. In this way, they believe technology will shape society for the better and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. This returns us to the concept of technological determinism that I mentioned above – and warned you against!

Technology and inequality

Many authors, such as Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman, celebrate technological innovations and the opportunities that they offer – and in this way they can be described as technological enthusiasts. They cite examples of communities that are struggling using the net to sell something unique products all over the world or jobs appearing in India in call centres that did not exist a few years ago. This is a celebration of technological capitalism and is embraced enthusiastically.

A more critical reading of this is offered by Manual Castells, who analyses the rise and development of information technologies in relation to globalisation and the economy. Like Fukuyama and Friedman, Castells sees a new economy that has emerged. However, this is different world vision and based on a group of networks that bypasses laws and solidarity units such as the state and labour unions. This allows capital to move easily with little regard for regulation or community needs, and results in exploiting the most vulnerable.

The conclusion that Castells draws is that we see an increasing polarisation – like the one I described when discussing class – driven by technology. Those who access technology can take advantages of the new economy, but those who cannot are left further and further behind.

It is important to stress that this takes place both within and between across nations: think about the technological ability of those using the net in Australia against those using it in the Solomon Islands. In addition, there are vast differences in the technology available to those living in remote parts of Australia with those in Sydney.

Likewise, this returns us to the availability of different technologies across public and private school issue I discussed in a previous blog: access to technology in public schools is much below that of private schools. Those with access have the ability to cement their position in social stratification in a way that those who do not, cannot.

Castells argues that information technology is beyond the nation state control and we are seeing tensions emerging between state power and capital power. Riding on the back of developments in communication and transport technology, capital and its managers can go anywhere in the world and hold governments to ransom. If they do not get what they want – subsidies or reductions in taxation – they can move on. In this way, the powerful and large corporations can hold nation-states to ransom!

Another dimension of life that technology seems to cement is unequal relationships between different genders. In many parts of the world, and this includes Australia, men have greater access to technology in comparison to women. Young men are encouraged to a greater degree to access communication technologies and continue to dominate areas that require access to technology.

But technology is not always negative: again, it depends. There are many positive events in which technology has played an important role… and I will discuss some of these below

Transformative power of technology

Technology, particularly information technology, transforms the global political, economic and social landscape. One simple example is the internet – which has had profound effects socially and politically.

One researcher (Aronson 2001) has found that technological advances have a number of profound impacts on government institutions. One example is that information overload impacts on the ability of many governments to make decisions and has influenced policy making in various ways:

Governments have so much information that their decision making can become paralysed;
Governments often aim to centralise information when we are seeing many other organisations – civil society, media and corporations – decentralising information. This means that these other groups may even be better informed than government decision makers.
Global networks increase the transparency of information. This means that issues such as terrorism and global warming cannot be dealt with unilaterally

Aronson also notes that the rapid growth in information technology has not been coupled with appropriate government regulation. This means that the information technology has allowed corporations to expand with little oversight. In this way, if we look at the 100 largest economies in the world today, more than half are private corporations. There are less than 200 governments but over 60,000 TNCs that individually and collectively wield a great deal of power.

The third dimension of transformation is the way that NGOs have proliferated and taken advantage of global communication technology – with some of them becoming important global actors. These include activist NGOs involved in promoting environmental and human rights issues, rallying against arms proliferation as well more conservative and right-wing organisations.

Finally, Aronson notes that we have seen global communications technology empower people and allow collective social movements to be formed. The internet, a structure designed by the military, is the very structure that has been used to protest against issues such as the Iraq invasion in 2003. But at the same time we should think how similar technologies were used to rally a large crowd that resulted in the Cronulla riots.

Conclusion

In concluding, I want to emphasise how technology is grounded in power relationships and is never neutral.

Importantly, technology interacts with many of the other dimensions of contemporary society that we have discussed in many ways and influences them as they influence technology.

References
Aronson, J. (2001) "The communication and internet revolution", in Baylis, J. and Smith, S. (eds.) The Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford University Press

Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, OUP, Melbourne

Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishing Limited

Friedman, T.L. (2000) The Lexus and The Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization, Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Fukuyama, F. (1992) The end of history and the last man, Penguin, London.

Shiva, V. (2000) Protect or plunder? Understanding intellectual property rights, Zed Books, London.

For more information on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty see http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/peace/solutions/international-solutions/npt

Putting the politics back into 'Politics'

2009-05-10T21:44:00.000-07:00

One of the things that has always interested in me is why the myth persists that 'young people are just not interested in politics'. The truth is that they are...

I just co-wrote a new report for the Whitlam Institute on this issue... but not only highlighting the way that young people are interested in politics, but also, what we can do to make our democratic processes more attractive?

In the report we highlight how both national and international research has found clear evidence to support that young people are interesed in politics, but they are turning their backs on formal political processes (or capital ‘P' politics). Reasons for disengagement include a feeling that their efforts are not appreciated and a sense that no one is listening, a general distrust of politicians and Politics, and a belief that Politics is disconnected from everyday experiences.

To read an overview of the report, check out an article I recently published for the Centre for Policy Development.

If you are interested in the entire Report, it can be found on the Whitlam Institute website.

As always, feedback is welcome

Cheers, james

Why are we still listening to economists?

2009-05-03T18:40:00.000-07:00

I am amazed that anyone listens to mainstream economists anymore.

As we have seen during this financial crisis, the economists who occupy the centre of public debate have never got it so wrong. In the face of the current global crisis, those economic liberals who were until recently defenders of the status quo need to face two things: first, this a crisis of their own making; and secondly, they have little (if anything) left to offer.

I published the following opinion piece for the Centre for Policy Development on this issue... check it out at:

http://cpd.org.au/article/why-are-we-still-listening-economists

Understanding the state in contemporary society

2009-04-28T06:52:00.012-07:00

Understanding the state in contemporary society

Introduction

The aim of this blog is to look at the concept of the nation-state in contemporary society. Before doing so, I want to remind us of the definition of society that we have been using:

A social system made up of many smaller parts or institutions (including the family, the church, prisons, schools and social groups) living and working together in the pursuit of both self-interest and social harmony.

Society is made up of both its parts and the way that these parts are put together and organised. Therefore, it comprises of both organisations and social relations.

Probably one of the organisations in our modern lives is the ’state’: it is how we define ourselves; how we describe who we are (’I am an Australian’); we even claim our rights and the responsibilities we carry in terms of the state. It is linked with the quality of our lives (compare our lives to those people living in Zimbabwe), our identity and the daily interactions we have with both others and institutions (the laws of the land, bureaucracies and so on).

So, it is for this reason, the topic area of the state is one that crosses all academic fields and is an area that encroaches all dimensions of our lives: therefore, we cannot disconnect it from other aspects of our lives. This includes the fields of: politics (citizenship, immigration, law and order); economics; health and welfare; education; and as I mentioned above, identity.

Before proceeding, however, it is important to remember that ’states’ are not natural – they too are socially constructed. That is, the boundaries that define different states have been constructed over centuries of conflict, wars and negotiations. Political boundaries as we now them, have only come into existence over the last few hundred years – they are determined by humans and can and do change. East Timor, for example, went from being a Portuguese outpost, to a sovereign state, to being part of Indonesia to a sovereign state again: all in the space of a few decades.

Many academics have asserted that the international system of states, multinational corporations and organizations that exists today began in 1648 at the Peace of Westphalia – though many still dispute this.

Understanding the state

It is important to distinguish the nation and the state – but before doing so, I want to emphasise that, because of the above reason, we need to look at the state in a holistic manner considering the political institution, the nation and its society within a global manner.

Particularly in a time of globalisation, the state is not insulated from other parts of the world. The autonomy of the state is affected in many ways and by various global forces. While the state has borders, many global forces do not (for example environmental problems, terrorism and kinship networks)

Therefore, while Australia maybe an island geographically, it is not isolated from what is happening around the world. Even looking at today’s newspaper, you can see how international events are impacting on Australia: the global financial crisis, the swine flu pandemic the fact that Channel 10 may cancel the Simpsons because the producers are asking too much money!

There is an important distinction between the nation and the state that must be understood.

The state – like the term country – is a political institution that claims sovereignty over a given territory. Within this territory, the state has a monopoly over the use of force and attempts to control and define power. While defined by borders, the state’s territory can always be breached in both major ways (such as invasion) and minor ways (such as refugees arriving).

As a political institution it is ruled by bureaucracies and laws – which intertwine. Think of how passports are both bureaucratic and legal instruments: you need one to travel and to get pass border control. If you do not do this, you will be delayed. If you cross borders without one, then you will be arrested.

In contrast, the nation is culturally defined. It is a community of people who claim to have a common culture. Therefore, while the state is a political grouping, the nation is a cultural grouping. So we have Greece as a state – but the nation of Greeks can extend to many different parts of the globe. This is the same when we hear the term ’The nation of Islam’ – this is not a country but a cultural grouping.

Importantly, we need to also understand that this is not a homogenous grouping – there are a wide variety of different groups represented within the nation of Islam – so even the term ’nation’ can be seen as somewhat problematic.

People living in a state may share a common citizenship but have very little else in common: think about the many different ways that Australians would spend the Easter weekend: for some Easter is a religious festival, for others it is nothing more than an excuse to party hard. Even for those who see it as a religious festival, the type of ceremony followed, the language spoken and the way it was spent all vary considerably.

We must remember that no state is uni-cultural: even the most homogenous states such as Japan have diversity (including the very different culture from Okinawa). In this way, all states have multiple nations inside them. Therefore, we can think of multi-cultural as meaning one state containing many nations.

The political institution of the state comes into existence through a constitution. Interestingly, the Australian constitution does not recognise our rights as citizens but depends on the law courts and judgements. In contrast, states like the USA build their citizenship rights into the constitution

An imagined community

Despite not really having anything in common except a shared citizenry, we imagine that we are a ’national’ community and all have something in common. So we see Grant Hackett or Ricky Ponting on television and we feel an affinity towards him for no other reason than he is Australian.

This is a process that has seen the state described as an ’imagined community.’ This concept of imagined community is an important one and was originally discussed by Benedict Anderson (1991).

Benedict Anderson defined a state as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign". This imagined community should be seed as different from an actual community because it cannot be based on face-to-face interactions between its members. Rather, we imagine an affinity based around some shared values. Therefore, according to Anderson, a state:

…is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.

These communities are imagined as both limited and sovereign. That is, they are limited in that they are seen to have "…finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations." They are sovereign insofar as no monarchy can claim authority over them – an idea arising because of modernity:

...the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the [direct relationship] between each faith’s ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under God, directly so. The gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state. (pp. 6-7)

Finally, a nation is an imagined community because "regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings."

According to Anderson, creation of imagined communities became possible because of ’print-capitalism’. That is, capitalist entrepreneurs printed their books and media in the ’national’ dialect rather than exclusive languages such as Latin in order to maximize circulation. As a result, readers speaking various local dialects became able to understand each other, and a common discourse emerged. Anderson argued that the first European nation-states were thus formed around their "national print-languages."

The state and government

There is a need to make a distinction between the state and government: governments come and go, but the political institution of the state remains. So when Kevin Rudd replaced John Howard as Prime Minister, but the political institution of the state remained the same.

The state exercises power through different organs including:
• Executive power (government, military, police, prisons and public bureaucracies)
• Legislative power (parliaments which pass laws) and
• Judicial power (courts which pass judgements and set precedents)

It is easy to see how the state through all these dimensions can regulate all aspects of our lives.

The state and power

Importantly, you also cannot disconnect the state from politics: because politics is all about relations of power. Here we must consider the nature of power and how it is distributed between a centralised institution called the state and the rest of us.

Consequently, citizens must always remain vigilant to ensure that their rights are not impinged upon: we must constantly consider whose interests are being represented. So when we see changes to laws, we must consider who do they benefit? Do they reinforce or challenge current power structures? What are the long-term consequences of these changes?

There are many critics that raise concerns about the ways states exercise power both within and outside their borders, while others believe that the state should have a greater role in our lives. Many see that the role of the state should be somewhere in the middle: involved in the public sphere but leaving the private sphere to individuals

Out of the major supporters and critics, three broad theories have emerged:
• Liberal: where the bed is neutral and works on consensus. The state is seen as being the only legitimate power and without it you have anarchy
• Pluralist: again the state is seen as neutral. The state is also independent and it mediates between different groups as a plurality of competing interests emerge
• Marxist: here the state is seen to exist only to protect the interests of capitalists and is in constant struggle between the capitalists and workers

Conclusion

The state is a key element of modernity: never before in history have sovereign lines described as border been such an important element of the global landscape. Today we see barbed wire between states and the rights of citizenship clearly protected.

However, we cannot think of the state as something separated from social, political and economic processes: all these influence the state dramatically. In this way, the power that the state distributes should not be seen as neutral but may be considered as cementing and promoting certain powerful interests. Consequently, we must remain vigilant and always be prepared to challenge its authority – ensuring it remains a servant of the people.

We will return to the issues of the state when we discuss globalisation: the question that many have asked is whether the processes of globalisation are eroding state sovereignty and what the implications are: does it benefit us or detract from the quality of our lives.

References
Anderson, B. (2006/1991) Imagined Communities, New, London, New York: Verso
Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, OUP, Melbourne

Background: Social construction

2009-04-06T23:17:00.000-07:00

Background: Social construction

A term that I often use in these blogs (and teaching more generally) is ‘social construction’.

When something is socially constructed, it is a phenomenon that is constructed by members of a particular culture or society. These constructions emerge and remain because people agree – either consciously or subconsciously – to follow certain conventions and to behave in certain ways. As I note in my book, one of the challenges in our investigation of contemporary society is to detect and unmask the social constructions that we, by our very actions, support.

Key to understanding social construction is the idea that members of a society which interact together form, over time, representations of what to expect from each other. That is, we establish expectations of how certain people behave: be it boys, girls, Greeks, Italians or Lebanese.

Eventually these become embedded in the behaviours we expect and are also reflected in the way institutions such as schools are organised. In the process, we see the construction shape what we consider to be ‘reality’.

The structure of society then revolves around this constructed reality (or realities) that we accept as being both natural and normal (or innate). One example of a social construct is gender roles: that males and females act different ways. Here the concept of masculinity is based around how ‘real men’ are expected to behave: play sports, be tough, and not be overly emotional. From when we are born, boys are dressed a more masculine blue compared to the pink we give to girls.

When I was growing up, I was repeatedly told that I should ‘act like a man’: something that I imagined was kind of like Arnie in the Terminator. Though these roles are slowly changing, we are still aware of the roles men are supposed to play by what is portrayed in the media, the sports boys play (more males play rugby than netball) and the insults dished out to those who do not meet these criteria (such as ‘you throw like a girl’ or ‘put a skirt on’).

The reality is, however, that these are constructions: there is no reason that boys should wear blue, and as a female friend said to me once, ‘If you are so tough, trying coping with the pain of giving birth’.

One article that a student sent me that explores these ideas is from Sesame Street. You can read it in at:

www.sesameworkshop.org

As always, feedback welcomed…

Cheers, james

Background: Race and ethnicity

2009-04-02T03:05:00.000-07:00

Background: Race and ethnicity

Before getting into this blog, I want to remind you all of the concept of ‘social construction’: when discussing issues such as the social expectations around gender (what is expected of males and females), these expectations are socially constructed. In other words, they are not natural or innate. We are not discussing obvious physical differences (our bits so to speak), rather, we are looking at those things that are socially constructed.

In this blog, I want to discuss how similar issues emerge around ‘race’. What will we see, is that while we use the word ‘race’ in everyday language, it is a word that has an important and specific meaning that has to do with identifying the social as well as the biological traits that people display. This is the key theme of this blog, is that the word race is about looking at not simply biological traits, but the personality and social traits that has come to be associated with skin colour!

As we will see, this belief was driven and also drove scientific research that justified colonialism and slavery. As I discuss this, you will probably draw important parallels between historical attitudes to women and the attitudes we see towards different groups of people based on their skin, hair and eye colour.

What is race?

Theoretically, the concept of race is based on the idea that a specific population differs in the “frequency of one or more biological traits” (Blakey 1999: 1). In this way, races are usually characterised as having several distinguishing characteristics. Now, the way that we think of these characteristics in our contemporary society is usually biological: as I mentioned, skin colour, eye colour and shape, hair and other such features.

Importantly however, though race is a biological concept, it is also socially constructed (Blakey 1999: 1). Now there are two important dimensions to this.

The first is that biological traits are linked to social traits. That is, the colour of your skin and other such biological features also gives us insight into your personality and aspects of who you are. That is, by looking at the colour of your skin, I could automatically tell you the type of person that you. There are many examples of this that you may recognise include:

• That Asians are are good at maths;
• Middle Easterners do not respect women;
• Pacific Islanders and Africans are inherently lazy; and
• Jews are good with money.

Hopefully you can see that these generalisations are pretty silly: there is no reason that just because you come from somewhere in Asia (Vietnam, China, Thailand or the dozen or so other countries), you would be automatically good with maths. The point here is that we see social traits seen to extend biological features.

These are broad generalisations – and wrong ones at that – used to describe and define entire populations of people. All you need to do is think about the people that you know: how much are they represented by these descriptions?

Well, the obvious answer is that they are not: my friend Ella is Chinese: she is hopeless at maths. But according to the above descriptions, she should be: she should be genetically programmed to be good at maths. So we can immediately question these descriptions – for both their accuracy and why would they be used in the first place.

The second dimension aspect of race is that it is relational – much like gender. That is, I identify myself as advanced and civilised by comparing myself to you. So, for example, we know that we are more advanced by comparing ourselves to others.

What is racism?

So then, what is racism and why is it important to understand it in our contemporary society? Racism is a form of discrimination based on the belief of race: the belief that one race is superior to another. We can see racism expressed overtly: through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or covertly (unconsciously) through institutions that promote inequality between races.

That is, racism is an inherent belief in the superiority of one population (or ‘race’) over all others and leads to a belief that one group of people have the right to dominance. In reverse, this also means that one ‘racial group’ is believed to be inferior to others. This gives the dominant group the right to control other groups. We see this as a combination of power, prejudice and discrimination.

We see racism expressed in different ways:

• Institutional racism: this can be seen as racial discrimination by governments, corporations, or other large organisations that is inherent in their structures and stops people from entering or progressing.

For example, in Australia we celebrate Easter and do not put exams on Easter weekends. As a lecturer I try and avoid exams and assignments anything due around Ede.

Historically, however, no universities recognise holidays other than traditional Christian ones – though this is changing. You could argue that the fact that we are blind to a religious celebration that represents a large proportion of our population is institutionalised racism.

• Environmental racism: is racial discrimination in environmental policy-making and the targeting of certain communities for toxic waste disposal and placement of polluting industries. For example, if you do a search in NSW of the location of highly polluting industries, you are likely to find a strong correlation between their location and the proximity of indigenous communities.

Origins of racism

It is important for us to understand where this came from and what the results are, for these also link to modernity and the way our societies function today.
The first phase of racism was based on simple observations: when the English for example, went to Africa for the first time they observed that the local population would sleep during the day. Now it was 40 degrees so it makes sense to me that you would work in the morning and the afternoon, while sleeping during the day. Based on simple observation, a number of simple correlations were drawn: blacks sleep during the day so all blacks are lazy.

This development expanded with increases in science and scientific processes: remember how observation was an important element of science and the rise of modernity. So in many ways, such racism is a direct result of modernity. So some people argue that racism, as we know it, emerged only in modern times.

Other ‘scientific’ measure also emerged that supported such observations especially around cranial measures (the thicker the skull the ‘dumber the person’). Importantly however, what you will find is that all these scientific tests merely reiterated the existing social order.

This also gave rise to the justification of colonialism and the slave trade. That is, how do you justify invading the nation and taking the land of another group of people? Well, you can justify it on the grounds of superiority and inferiority: that is, as the civilised and superior European, there was an inherent right to take lands and also civilise the ‘savages’.

While justified by science, it was couched in terms that it was a burden for the white man to have to carry: that is, it is the white man’s burden to bring civilisation to those less fortunate – in this case ‘black’ and coloured people.

Biological determinism

Now all this gave rise to the concept of ‘biological determinism’: that is, all human nature is inherited and all human attributes are fixed. Further, this human behaviour is based on the way that people look (absurd I know). The belief then, is that human behaviour is therefore innate and cannot be changed or altered. In this way, the concept of biological determinism disregards or denies the effects of environmental variables.

Such a viewpoint leads logically to the idea that criminals cannot be reformed – they are, in effect, ‘born that way’.

Biological determinism taken to its logical conclusion divorces human action from human responsibility. This then places the blame (or the credit) for actions (both failures and successes) simply on someone’s genetics. Indeed, in this form biological determinism dismisses the idea of free will entirely.

Between 1930-1980 such a concept was directly challenged, and we see the development of alternative theories of race that dismisses the concept of ‘innate superiority’ and the influence of biology on behaviour and social status.

During this period we see the civil rights movement really take hold as well as the emergence of anti-racist science. By 1950, the link between biology and social characteristics is broadly accepted as a social myth. This was confirmed beyond doubt, when in 1962 Frank Livingstone analysed blood group variations, and he found no evidence of differences of any genetic traits amongst different social groups such as Caucasian and “Negroid” (the official term for ‘black’ people then). In fact, he found that all biological traits were independent of one another. Livingstone also found that a great deal of genetic traits were based on the ecological conditions – as people biologically adapted to their environments.

Why is this important?

To understand the importance of the concept race, there is a need to understand both the political implications of biological categorisation as well as the scientific biases in this social construction. Blakey (1999: 1) argues that races are merely the “convenient way” of lumping and splitting human groups into different divisions based on the combination of several traits. But the reality of these categories is that their creation is by scientists rather than nature. Using ‘averages’ and generic categories, Blakey argues, we get statistical representations of group’s biological characteristics that in reality, represent no one. It is here that the social construction of race occurs.

Think about this class: imagine I was told to describe the average student in my class. Let’s say I did: but how representative is this average of any one of you. When I sat in the lecture today, I would say the ‘average’ student is: about 21, female, Caucasian with light hair. But who does this average really represent? The answer is very few people if anyone! And more than that, there is no way you can guess what that person is like by just looking at them.

Despite this, race remains a concept that is seen to be very real, natural and fixed. Politically, it can be used to define and marginalise people. Over the last few years, we have seen broad groups of people categorised together and described in certain ways: this does not need to be overt – it can be subtle and the results are devastating. Worst still, it follows a long tradition of giving social characteristics to biological traits.

What it also does do is that it establishes socially constructed hierarchies within our society that can be used for political purposes.

Conclusion

So where does all this take us? If we think about the last couple of weeks, we see a link between biology and social behaviour. This was a link that was justified by science and resulted in the justification of slavery and colonialism.

That link has been proven to be false – a myth – but it persists in more subtle ways today. In many ways, it is harder to identify because it is subtle: rather than overt it is covert. It is hidden in language and as I mentioned a few weeks ago, in the images we see on television.

I once heard a US General in Iraq state that they only keep body counts of Coalition servicemen and women – not that of Iraqi civilians. In his language, it sounded like that the dead from the other side did not matter as much. I struggle to understand how the suffering of one group of people can be calculated to be below that of our own: the death of a 12 year old in an explosion – be it a war zone or not – must be unbearable for any family no matter the colour of their skin or religion they follow. To suggest other wise buys into centuries and myths and falsehoods that has got us into the mess we are currently in.

References:
Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, OUP, Melbourne
Blakey ML (1999), ‘Scientiﬁc racism and the biological concept of race’, Literature and
Psychology, vol. 45, pp. 29–43.

Background Class and Class Relationships

2009-03-17T21:02:00.000-07:00

Class and class relationships

The issue of class is rarely discussed in contemporary Australia. If it is, it is usually to dismiss any one who might argue it exists. But I believe, and the evidence confirms, that class remains an important issue in our contemporary lives.

This blog gives provides some background to the issue of class and what it means. As you read it, you should reflect on what class means to you – if anything – and what are your own experiences of it.

What does class mean?

Unfortunately, like most of every concept in sociology, class has many meanings and your final understanding will ultimately depend on how you approach the term. There are two dimensions to class:

• Class refers to access to economic resources including money and capital; and
• Class refers to access of opportunities.

Those who believe class is important see society divided by a specific hierarchy of social groups defined in terms of their access to economic resources and with fundamentally different and opposed interests. Class groups can be divided by both wealth and status. This comes from two broad theoretical positions:

• Class in materialist terms
This position argues that we need to look and understand class through materialist (or money) terms. That is, we can divide and separate society into different groups based on their access to wealth: these are classes. (Personally, I think that this is much too simple, and while it is important to recognise wealth as a determinant to class, there is more to it than that.)

• Class and status
Another way to look at class is through social status: that is, money counts, but what is more important is your background and the opportunities that this affords. Therefore, you may be earning twice the amount of money than someone else, but if you do not live in the right area or go to the right school, speak with the proper accent, then your status can be seen as below hers.

Therefore, status creates a hierarchy (or order) of social groups with a shared sense of social belonging and prestige that becomes the basis for the unequal distribution of resources and also opportunities.

Theoretical framing

There are two broad schools of thought that are important in discussions of class. The first is historical materialism and its founder was Karl Marx who saw that the driver to all social change was class struggle. For Marx, the material class interests (or the class that we belong to) are the basis of society. This is how we identify who we are.

The class divisions and structures cause ongoing tensions within society. These tensions emerge as those with power exploit those with less power. This tension always creates a potentially explosive situation.

For Marx, and other materialists, this tension drives social change. So we can look at the 38-hour working week or maternity leave – this occurred not because one day the capitalist class felt that they should give workers more time. Rather, there was a struggle between the material interests of two classes: a conflict resulted that resulted in a compromise.

The second school of thought is that, while class is important in understanding society, conflict does not necessarily result. Society does function around class tensions but this creates a kind of harmony as we see the upper class and want to be like them. So we get consensus theories.

Australia – a classless society?

Every nation likes to portray a specific identity and Australia is no different as we often argue that we are a classless society: that is, there is no distinction and limitations of opportunities between different groups within Australia based on access to economic wealth and resources.

According to authors such as McGregor (2001), there is no such thing as a classless society because class provides the basic social structures for all modern societies. In other words, while we may pretend that Australia's does not have a class system, it does not mean class is not real. In fact, evidence provided by McGregor (2001) shows that in the last 10-15 years, the inequalities in Australia are becoming increasingly pronounced.

Sam Pietsch (2005) gives the following example in his attempt to convince readers that class counts in Australia:

• In the year 2000 the federal government announced its funding formula to secondary schools (that has subsequently been supported by the new, Rudd Government). The process was justified on grounds of 'socio-economic areas' – that is, geographic areas, as if in some way certain areas are all the same.
• The result was that the 62 richest schools in Australia received an extra $56 million in funding (including Kings and Knox getting an extra $1.3 million each). Parramatta high got a few thousand dollars extra.
• The Kings’s School and Parramatta High are in the same area: Kings has 15 cricket fields, 5 basketball courts, 12 tennis courts, 13 rugby fields, 3 soccer pitches, a gym and indoor climbing activities, not to mention an indoor rifle range). I am not sure which of these Parramatta has.
• If we look at the federal government, more than three-quarters of the politicians were educated in private schools (with both the current and previous prime ministers the notable exceptions).

This example is not used as a way to marginalise private schools or create some type of antagonism between public and private, but rather to highlight how privilege breeds privilege. Thus is because if you did go to Kings then this is because your family can afford it. The consequence is that the opportunities then afforded to you compared to Parramatta High, are significantly different.

Some more statistics:
• The 5 percent of the wealthiest Australians own more than the bottom 90 percent put together. These top 5 percent have access to the best education, career opportunities and the seats of power.
• And this translates in many ways, not just income. Poorer Australians, including indigenous people, have high levels of health problems, suicide, are victims of crime and die younger.
• In addition, the truth is that most of us will not be able to move away from the class we were born in. Though class mobility is possible, it is a lot less than you would think.
• Class, working class, upper class or middle class, often defines our leisure time including the sports that we follow. How many working class people are interested in polo for example?
• Ownership of large companies is extremely concentrated, with the top 20 shareholders usually having control of the company. Directors of the top 20 companies hold an average of 2.2 directorships.
• The top 20% of households average $1.7 million p.a., while the bottom 20% owns just 1% of Australia’s wealth at $27,000 pa per household.

All this is evidence of the class system in action. So, the fact is that different classes in Australia have different incomes, different jobs, different interests, and different health experiences (just to mention a few). In other words, we see people living very different lives.

Class mobility in Australia

Though class mobility is possible, it is a lot less than you would think: that is, the ability to move up in different positions of status (and also income). Measured by the Gini-coefficient, which measures income equality/inequality, class mobility has decreased as inequality has increased in the last 10 years. So: do you know believe class exists in Australia?

Understanding class-consciousness

Despite this evidence, most politicians and political commentators in Australia rarely use the word and there us a belief that we live in an egalitarian society continues to dominate. There are two competing interpretations of why people are rarely conscious of these inequalities.

The first interpretation is that such denial of class makes us less conscious of class. This means that we allow things to occur that we otherwise would not. So, some commentators would look at the fact that full fee paying students are allowed to enter universities below the UAI scores and say that this confirms the class system in Australia. Further, the fact that there were no massive protests and public outcry means that we do not have a class consciousness. This all means that we allow those in power maintain the status quo.

This is an important dimension of understanding authors such as Karl Marx. Marx argued that structural inequalities would persist until we overcome the lack of consciousness to these inequalities.

The alternative interpretation is that a lack of class discussion means that we are not over exposed to such ideas and are much more attuned to identifying it when it emerges. If politicians or others begin to use class for political means, then we see a backlash against them. The issue of full fee paying students is not a class issue then, but something that adds to the choices made by many Australians.

Depending on your opinion, this will explain why there is no 'class conflict' in Australia. The first interpretation confirms that a lack of consciousness stops people from fighting back, while the later interpretation indicates that we see and accept inequality but that we also see it as not built in, but something that can be overcome.

Power and class

As indicated above, class relationships are also focussed on the issue of power. The wealthy owners are seen to attempt to gain as much profit as possible. In this way, capitalism is an economic system based on antagonism as businesses ruthlessly compete to make a profit. But while corporations compete on a daily basis, they do share certain fundamental political and economic interests – you could even say social. In other words, those in power with all the wealth actually work to keep society working to their advantage.

You should not think of this as a conspiracy, it is not. There are too many people involved and we all know how the system operates.

There are many views on how this operates, but one important perspective is the idea of 'hegemony'. Hegemony means 'dominance' over others. The term has been extended to refer to the dominance of one nation over others, and, following the work of Antonio Gramsci, of one class over others (see Ives 2004). Gramsci's use of the concept extends it beyond international relations to class structure and even to culture.

The middle class

Another explanation for general harmony is Australia revolves around the emergence of a strong middle class: with Australia sometimes called the most middle class society in the world. That is, historically society was defined by two classes: the bourgeoisie (owners of the factors of production or businesses) and the proletariat (the workers). The middle class did not rate a mention. But today, we refer to the class structure as upper, middle and lower.

The emergence of such a strong middle class is driven by:
• Self-identification (or the way we see ourselves) with 90 percent of people in studies identifying themselves as either middle or working class;
• Australia has very high levels of home ownership, dominance of white-collar occupations, high incomes and a large section of the population living in suburbs. (This means that you may not see yourself as a 'boss', but not a worker either because you have access to some economic capital.)
• Another important factor here is that 42% of shareholders hold less than $10,000 shares: this represents half of Australian adults owning shares directly or indirectly. (The income they receive is not enough to live on, and just as important is the fact that they will never have enough voting power to direct the company)

But is the middle class being hollowed out? Well, over the last 15 years or so we have seen massive amounts of social change brought about by globalisation and the accompanying neoliberal policies of free trade. These have undermined the stability of the Australian economy as well as that of the middle class.

In a landmark survey, Michael Pussey (2001) from UNSW found that 85 percent of respondents were angry about the changes brought about by the forces of globalisation and its impacts on the middle class. The people interviewed felt that they could not count on a job for life, and their financial situations were dominated by stress, anxiety and a lack of control over their lives. This is spilling over into the community and we are seeing a decline in the sense of community that people experience.

The way that Pussey puts it, we can account for suicide, stress related illness and drinking, violence and gambling mainly as a result of stress placed on families
Maybe we can even interpret the reaction against refugees and even the Cronulla Riots from a class based perspective: that is, the stress that people in the middle and lower class is feeling is spilling over into violence.

Social commentator, Hugh Mackay, now believes that the middle class is shrinking. This is in part driven by the fact that the increase in casual and part-time work has seen a fall in middle class incomes. If anything, this is likely to get worse: we are seeing record levels of people going bankrupt and losing their homes. The Smith Family and other organisations that offer support to those struggling are seeing an increase in people turning up with nice cars: if you live in the outer suburbs, you need a car to survive rather than it being a luxury good

Despite such changes, self-identification persists, as does much other evidence to support the class hypothesis.

A divided society

There are two broad views in what is going to happen next in our society. The first is that we will continue to see a hollowing out of the middle class. One group, those who have adapted to the information age and the forces of globalisation are continuing to reap its benefits. Then there are those who have been left behind.

So in a way, we can look at the geography of Sydney and see a very different city depending on your life chances. Some of us can jump in a plane and get work in Europe, India or the USA. Others are unlikely to ever travel beyond the east coast of Australia for a holiday. So when you graduate, you may end up having more in common with teachers or other professionals in Pakistan, Israel or France, than what you do with those who live in the next suburb.

The second perspective is that this is a minor hiccup and we will return to a bulging middle class: people just have to get used to all the changes that are occurring.

We will find out soon enough.

Cheers, james

Bibliography

Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Ives, P. (2004) Language and hegemony in Gramsci, Ann Arbor, MI, London
McGregor, C. (2001) Chapter 1 'Class counts', Class in Australia, 2nd ed., Ringwood Vic.: Penguin pp. 1–29
Pietsch, S. (2005) 'To have and to hold on to: wealth, power and the capitalist class', in R. Kuhn (ed.) Class Struggle in Australia, Sydney, Pearson Education Australia, pp.22-38.
Pusey, M. (2003) The experience of middle Australia: the dark side of economic reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest

Understanding modernity

2009-03-10T21:38:00.000-07:00

Understanding modernity

Modernity is one of the most important concepts that you will come across when it comes to studying sociology. The terms modernity and modernisation are used to describe the complex range of phenomenon associated with these changes that separated contemporary society from previous (traditional) societies.

Specifically, modernity refers to the various characteristics I will describe while modernisation refers to the many processes that take a society along this path.

This blog is a simple introduction to the concept and in later blogs I will expand on some of the ideas. It will hopefully provide you some insights into this phenomenon. As these are listed, it is important to understand that modernity transformed both the structures and relationships of the world, and while it was concentrated in Europe, its effects were far reaching. This also transformed the way we see the world and learn.

Key thinkers of modernity focussed on attempting to understand the forces that shape contemporary life: that is, key features and social trends that have shaped society in the past, and shape our lives today and most likely to continue to shape society into the future. The thinkers who started researching these areas include August Comte, Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. They wanted to understand how societies moved from pre-industrial to modern societies, and what the future was likely to be.

Now the exact time we moved from pre-modern to modern societies is open to different views, but the starting point most often favoured is the beginning of the industrial revolution. These changes were described by Karl Polyani (1958) as the 'great transformation' of western societies.

The ten key dimensions of modernity are as follows:

1. Rationality
The first important characteristic of modernity is that society should be organised under 'rational' lines rather than according to tradition. That is, at one time, societies used to organise themselves according to tradition: women raised children because that was the tradition. No we have 'rationality', or rational principles. These principles emphasise the use of logic, observation, scientific principle and experimentation as the basis of what to believe and the actions to take.

2. A 'belief' in science
Implicit in the belief that the world should become more rational is a belief in science and scientific method. As a result, science has become one of the core guiding principles in our society. We build houses and buildings based on scientific knowledge not traditional processes. Medicine has become a dominant way that we see our lives – what we eat, how we exercise and issues of hygiene. But this has not always been the case.

3. The nation state
Modernity has also seen the nation-state as the key organising principle and political organisation of our lives. On pre-modern times, boundaries between social groups were quite fluid and open to dispute. Modernity has brought the emergence of nation states with (generally) fixed and stable borders, and accompanied by strong centralised governments that have the ultimate military power within its borders. This type of social organisation was vital for the development of capital and industry. This is closely linked with the rise and development of bureaucracy and the intrusion of the state into the daily lives of its citizens – the focus of the research undertaken by Max Weber (which I will probably discuss at sometime in the future).

4. The emergence of 'class' structures
The key theorist here is Karl Marx, who argued that what separates modern (capitalist) societies from other social orders and what brings us to modern life is that people do not produce goods for their own consumption but for markets and for profit. Up until the emergence of modern societies, most things were produced for consumption with the excess traded. But this changed under conditions of modernity as people began to make extra produce specifically to sell and make a profit. This caused a split in society in two: the bosses (or the owners of the factors of production) and the workers (those who had to work for a living).

5. The belief in 'progress'
If we think about pre-modern societies, life moved in cycles often relying on weather patterns and seasons. But under conditions of modernity, human beings and societies are believed to be evolving or progressing to a 'better' state, which can deal with injustice, poverty and inequality. This is associated with a long-term belief that all societies will become democratic, and that certain 'freedoms' will become universal. But as we also discussed last week, this is not something that is universally accepted.

6. The rise of the individual and freedom
The sixth dimension of modernity is the rise of the individual and individualism. A key dimension of the move from traditional to modern life was the idea that you as an individual could make choices. Where once all your life choices were bound by tradition. Once, as women, your role was assigned as mother, home-maker, and care giver. I am not saying that there are still not power relationships that do not limit your choices, what I am saying is that now at least the very idea of 'life choice' exists. This concept of choice is reflected in many ways in our contemporary society – not only with the emergence of life choices but also with the idea of consumption and consumer choice. As individual consumers, we are not bound by one choice, but pick how we want to consume. Our roles on consumers of leisure, for example, may be 'masculine' or feminine.

7. Self expression and identity
The move from traditional societies to modern ones was also supposed to allow us the ability to for our own identities and express these the way we wanted to. So your identity was basically dependent on your birth. The move from traditional societies to modern ones was also supposed to allow us the ability to for our own identities and express these the way we wanted to. There are a number of ways to do this: through your choice of career but also fashion and what you buy.

8. Expression of culture in the negotiation of power
Modern life is also is awash with signs, images and meanings. Most obviously it involves the aestheticisation of our lives through commodities and advertising, packaging and so on. Much of these images actually create issues around power. So, that is, in modern societies, power is expressed in a number of ways. While it is also portrayed through guns, armies and force, it also emerges through symbols that show you what is preferred, establishing unequal power relationships. One example I is the idea of happy families in advertising that encourages how comfortable we fill in our environment. Think of any advertising and ask yourself, what is the image – the skin colour, body shape, good looks – and think about how that makes you feel about who you are. How many veiled newsreaders are there? How many indigenous faces are portrayed on packaging? There is a specific hierarchy of happiness and authenticity in modern society that is embedded within broader society.

9. Control
This then takes us to the issue of 'control'. Once you free people from tradition, their choices are always an area of concern for the governing elites. The ninth characteristic of modern society is that we are meant to have control over lives, but the issue is, we cannot have too much choice because this threatens the stability of society. So choice exists but it is within boundaries. Even today there is a great deal of debate about how leisure time should be spent, the work-life balance is constantly in the news, how much alcohol we drink and so on.

10. The private sphere
The final dimension discussed f the gap between the public and private sphere: that is, in modern societies we separate what is public and what is private – though this is a division that keeps on moving. This clear division has existed to a degree throughout history, but we have never there are two differences. The first is that we have never lived in urban centres before – meaning that privacy and being surrounded by strangers has never been such an important issue. The second issue, and even more important, is the fact that there are many choices we make that are, at least in principle, unconstrained. That is, no one has the right to tell you how to spend your money or your leisure time. But this issue of the private sphere actually creates an interesting challenge: that sometimes what suits the private is actually problematic for the public. Think of the discussion around greenhouse emissions. Each of us chooses to drive and to use a heater or air conditioner at home. This is our private choice and right. But the impacts on the broader community are leading to climate change and actually challenging the very infrastructures which hold our communities together.

That is a quick summary of the characteristics of modernity: I will add some more stuff on the complexities of modernity at some later date.

As always, feedback welcome

Cheers, j

References
- Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, Melbourne
- Slater, D. (1997) Consumer Culture and Modernity, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
- Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest

What is structuralism?

2009-03-03T17:38:00.000-08:00

What is structuralism?

A term often used in sociology is ‘functional structuralism’.

I thought I would write a quick blog and answer the question: What is structuralism?

Structuralism is an important sociological school of thought. The basic premise here is the assumption that human action can be primarily understood as a product of the underlying 'structures' (van Krikan et al 2006). These structures include the economic and political systems that we live in, as well as the ideological systems that dominate. For example, because we live in a capitalist system with specific capitalist structures, all our actions should be primarily understood from this perspective.

Structuralists (or those that support the theory of structuralism) also believe that these structures are concrete and immovable, and therefore almost impossible to change.

Think about it this way – how difficult is it to imagine living without structures that are central to our capitalist system. Is it possible to imagine bartering rather than shopping?

Sociological structures express the idea that social formations are organised. This organisation occurs along patterned lines that endure and persist over time. We may not even be aware that these patterns exist, but they are there and act as a constraint for those living within them. In some ways, this position is instinctive, as it is hard to argue that we are not born into a social vacuum. Rather, there are an existing set of social arrangements which carry with them expectation that, if we transgress, we may be punished.

Every time you go shopping, you support the capitalist system that we live in. Imagine you decided to 'fight back' against the capitalist system by refusing to pay for things? You would not get very far… and this is called stealing!

It is the ideological structures that are the subtlest because they are essentially invisible. Despite this, these ideological structures shape our assumptions, establishing what is seen as being true, inevitable and basic commonsense.

Our society is not unique in this way as all societies at all times are shaped by patterned way of doing things – and it is this that we define as 'social structure'.

One of the fathers of sociology, Emile Durkheim, used the term 'social fact' to express this notion (Van Kriekan 2006). Durkheim argued that who we are and how we behave in society is a result of the influence of these social facts, arguing that it is specific social arrangements that constrain and regulate our actions as humans.

Structuralism is broadly split into two broad versions: consensus structuralism (or structural functionalism) and conflict structuralism (also known as critical or conflict theory). We discussed these in class but I will probably cover them in further blogs.

References
Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest

The referendum in Venezuela...

2009-03-01T05:26:00.000-08:00

On 15 February 2009 Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, won an historic referendum clearing the way for him to keep running in — and possibly winning — presidential elections. Chávez justified the constitutional change on the grounds that he needs to continue his reign for another 10 years in order to implement his 21st-century version of socialism. He won over 54 per cent in a vote that had the second-lowest abstention rate in the last 10 years.

This seems to be a developing trend in Latin America, with Colombian President proposing a similar referendum.

In this article, co-written with Amy Tyler, we attempt to consider whether: "Is Chávez's Win A Good Thing?"

Check it out at....

http://www.newmatilda.com/2009/02/27/chavez-win-good

Cheers, james

Background: Introduction to Sociology

2009-02-25T15:14:00.000-08:00

Background: Introduction to Sociology

This is some background material on Understanding Sociology - it is not a text book or refereed though it draws on some of the work within my book Contemporary Society. It should be used to enhance your knowledge, not as 'gospal'. As a result, do not use it in essays, but do use some of the refernces that I have listed.

The aim of this blog is to answer some questions... so let's go:

What is sociology?
Who we are as individuals is dependent in many ways on our social context. As a result, our social arrangements in which we live our lives shapes our sense of identity, how we live and also relate to the environment around us (be it the urban, rural or 'natural' environments). The study of these social arrangements is sociology.

Sociology is defined by Robert Van Kriekan 'the study of society… a description and analysis of the social forces that shape human behaviour… including the influence of the social, political, economic and cultural creations of social groups on their local, national and global environment' (Van Kriekan et al 2006).

What is meant by the sociological imagination?
For most of us, our understanding of the world is limited to our immediate experience of it – that is, our immediate environment. As a result, we often are unable to imagine the challenges the world faces because we are often focussed on our own concerns.

Sociologist and writer, C. Wright Mills (1966) attempted to deal with this issue by developing the term 'the sociological imagination'. That is, the connections between individual behaviour and the social forces which have shaped it.

C. Wright Mills used the terms: private trouble (factors specific to individual) and public issues (factors which are caused by social forces beyond the power of any single individual to change). It is the public issues that sociology is concerned with. It takes sociological imagination to distinguish between situations caused by individuals or larger social forces that allows us to make an incomprehensible world comprehensible

What is meant by critical thinking?
Central in overcoming the challenge here is the concept of 'critical thinking'. That is, being able to look at the assumptions behind the things in everyday life that are arranged in certain ways and we consider it 'normal'. That is, we need to understand why boys wear blue and girls wear pink – there is nothing 'normal' about this, it is just the way the world is organised. Peter Berger (1966) called it 'debunking'

Consequently, we should come to accept that nothing is 'human nature'. Things are determined by our culture and society rather than being fixed and therefore, things vary between societies.

Often things in life may be seen as fixed because that is what our experience is limited to. Using our sociological imagination involves taking a fresh look at social formations not based on what we consider to be 'commonsense', but having a critical look at the invisible social factors behind them.

Is there one truth? Understanding sociological perspectives
It is important to note that there is no single sociological perspective – but a number of perspectives and theoretical approaches. This follows what philosopher Thomas Kuhn (1962) said about paradigms (the way we see the world or our perspectives), and their construction and reconstruction. A number of paradigms can co-exist, with no undisputed truths, but as a multiple ways of seeing things.

I used the following references in this blog:
- Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, Melbourne
- Berger, P.L. (1966) Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective, Anchor
- Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London
- Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest
- Wright Mills, C. (1966) The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press

On being an activist-academic...

2008-06-15T17:56:00.000-07:00

I often describe myself is as an ‘activist-academic.’ (I use the hyphen rather than a dash or a space not for any other reason that the fact that a friend of mine has a hyphen in her surname and it has always given me ‘name envy.’)

But what does this mean? How does one ‘do’ activist-academia? To be honest, I do not know exactly know what being an activist-academic involves and I believe that that there is no single model academics follow to become activists (or activists follow to become academics for that matter).

It is a fair question to ask – especially at a time when fulltime positions are hard to come by and many of the post-grads that are working to complete their PhDs are desperate for a job and can be seen to be hostage to their institution. As such, the precarious nature of their position means that they do not want to ‘rock the boat.’

I am lucky – obtaining a fulltime academic position within two years of graduating: all about being in the right place at the right time. It was not too long ago that in addition to doing my PhD, I did nine tutorials and gave lectures across three institutions. I was also employed by Oxfam Hong King and actually commuted a few times from Sydney to Hong Kong.

While in Hong Kong, I took part in several protests and at one point was tear-gassed: all about being at the right place at the wrong time. At the time I remember thinking that being arrested in a foreign country would not look good on my academic record: even if it was for something banal like supporting the Korean farmers.

Upon reflection, maybe an activist-academic can be someone who attempts to link their research passions, with their politics and reflect this in their teaching (both in the style and the substance). That is, there is no point talking about the injustices of a class system that limits opportunities to education without acknowledging that there are some students who, because of work, are going to need the lecturer to be flexible even if is inconvenient to the lecturer.

So, how do we balance our activism with our life as an academic – especially one that operates within institutional boundaries? It is this question that was raised by a number of post-graduate students at University of Western Sydney in their reading group.

The issue is addressed in three separate articles from a special 2008 edition of Antipode (vol. 40, no. 3) that were distributed for discussion, which are:

Doreen Massey, “When theory meets politics”, pp.492-97;
Don Mitchell, “Confessions of a desk bound radical”, pp.449-54; and
Jenny Pickerill, “The surprising sense of hope”, pp.482-88.

The three articles take a very different approach to what being an activist-academic means. Massey’s article begins with a drive in the streets of Caracas, Venezuela, as she reflects life as a ‘public intellectual.’ As Massey is driven around, she notices signs of activism and begins to consider how our work can be part of an emancipatory process.

The key thing that I really liked with this article is the way Massey concludes by noting that theory is best developed by interacting with the world around us: it is more robust and much more useful. This interaction with activism is how we can develop theory and make it better.

For Massey then, we can see academic-activism as the process of developing theoretical postulations that are based on the world around us and which are useful to those who are attempting to bring about emancipatory change.

The second article is by Don Mitchell who, as the title suggests, is struggling to reflect on his worth as an academic in progressive politics. I was a bit frustrated reading this – felt like yelling at him to ‘get over it.’ I mean, not everyone is cut out to be tear gassed, do a ‘lock on’ or read Delueze (or possibly do all three) – we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Mitchell laments, in part, the way he is stuck behind a desk but also acknowledges that there is information produced by the academic that can be used in social change and progressive politics. This conclusion is hardly surprising.

The important dimension of Mitchell’s work is that he reminds us that, just like activism, there is no ‘one way’ to be an activist-academic. Some people protest, others work in soup kitchens, others interact with activists and some are organisers themselves. Just like there are activists all over the world using different tactics, there is room for academics to work towards change using different strategies.

The third of this collection of articles is by Jenny Pickerill. This is the article that I could relate to the most, as it seems Jenny – I kind of feel like I am on a first name basis with her as a result – is actually an activist who becomes an academic. This reflects my own journey.

This article sees Jenny struggle in her move from organiser to someone now working in an institutional setting. She wonders if her research is simply sucking the intellect out of the activist community who she often feels she is taking advantage of. That is, by spending time with activists with the aim of publishing, she feels that it is more about furthering her own career rather than taking part in the process of social change.

Jenny also moves to discuss the issue of sustainability. In her journey, she figures out that her strength is writing – much like the above authors – so why spend time getting arrested on the frontline of a protest when discussing the issues faced is much more her strength (and writing is her passion).

----

There are three important themes that emerge from these readings that I think are important in the journey of an activist-academic. The first is that teaching is a form of activism. This is not just teaching in the classroom setting, but the process of producing research. The question that is important is who we are teaching and writing for. I mean, we all need to publish in obscure academic journals, but why should we not turn these articles into accessible publications also – looking at various outputs including fact sheets, newspaper articles and even letters to the editor. It is with such information that activists can be armed to confront injustice.

The second theme that is important here is that we should try and limit the gap between activism and academic. The gap is a socially constructed one and we need to accept movements for change require a broad range of skills and people: is the person handing out the leaflets demanding a just system for refugees any more ‘hardcore’ than the person writing the leaflet? The answer is not necessarily so – and it may even be the same person. The divide between the two borders on irrelevant.

The process of research itself is political – and by researching and providing information academics are adding to the momentum for change. To dismiss this contribution smells of anti-intellectualism – no matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on.

The third theme is that we sometimes need to get over ourselves. I mean that, while reflexive thinking is important in this journey, it is also essential not to take our roles too seriously. We should not see ourselves as tortured artists paralysed by a fear that we are not doing the right thing, but as having an important role to play in a global process of solidarity. (For my own work, I carry around a bunch of neuroses and insecurities. I stress that it is not good enough or that I may get the representation wrong of the groups that I work with.)

As Jenny says, however, what is important is looking for the spaces of hope. These are the ones that we need to highlight and slowly link together with the belief that radical and progressive change is possible. Talking about both the issues that need to be changed and identifying the change required is part of the journey that is what being an activist-academic is all about – it is part of producing spaces for change. You just have to figure out how to follow your own journey.

Alvin Y. So's discussion on New Dependency Theory

2008-03-25T17:02:00.000-07:00

Alvin Y. So (1990) Social change and development: modernization, dependency, and world-system theories, Sage Publications, Newbury Park

Overview
Alvin So wrote this book in 1990 and is looking at Cardodo’s ‘new dependency theory.’ So argues that it is popular because of the following reasons:

It is historical-structural: that is, it can identify the historical uniqueness of a given dependency situation – explaining each situation specifically;
There is also a focus on the internal structures of dependency: meaning that we see a focus on the socio-political causes of dependency not just economic ones. Therefore, we see a focus on both the people within a nation and coerciveness of their own institutions.

So also acknowledges the complex relationship between local and international causes and particularly class interests. To deal with this, he calls for “an internalisation of external interests.”

So does not see dependency theory as ‘structural determination’: that is, that the structures immediately result in a pre-determined result. Rather, dependency theory is an open-ended process. Consequently, if we are given some of the same structures, a range of outcomes are possible which are dependent on a range of political alliances and social movements. While structures influence, there is no definite trend or direction that they result in.

Associated dependent development
Cardoba dismissed classical critique of military coup in Brazil: rather, he saw it as ‘associated dependent development’. This approach combines two statements that appear contradictory: dependency and development.

This is a new phase driven by the ongoing expansion of Trans-National Corporations (TNCs) that result in an invasion of industrial capital in periphery economies and leads to a new international division labour. Development occurs if the interests of the TNCs match those of the periphery nation. This, however, does not always lead to the ‘modernisation path’ – regression can and does occur in nations.

He also argues strongly, that a nation not should rely on TNCs setting up – rather, each nation must assert itself into the circuit of international capitalism.

To understand developments, there is a need to look at both foreign domination and domestic political forces: and these are dynamically interrelated and change. So presents three political actors here: the military, TNCs and bourgeoisie (p.142). This analysis has seen the emergence of ‘triple theme development studies’ – which has been applied in many areas.

O’Donnell’s bureaucratic-authoritarian state (B-A)
The bureaucratic-authoritarian state has a number of characteristics including:

A dominance by bureaucrats;
Political and economic exclusion of the many;
A process of de-politicisation; and
The deepening of dependence on capitalism.

The B-A state emerges only if corporations are willing to invest in the longer term – which is driven by a belief that there is a profitable and stable economy. To attract capital, then the B-A state must eliminate any threats that emerge towards this. Both the process of development and the elimination processes take time and are precarious. This process, driven by bureaucracies, may even mean there is a need to confront and faced challenges from old and established allies. This is a process that also relies on international institutions such as World Bank and the IMF for recognition.

When international capitalism begins to enter a nation in sustained fashion we see the concentration of power. If this leads to economic growth and development, then it is likely that we see control eased.

In what sounds familiar even today, the B-A state claims it is representing and pushing for what is best for the nation. Those who are excluded are asked to participate vicariously. This creates complex power relations, encouraging competitive capitalism to permeate everywhere except where capital flow are concerned – which continue to be monopolised by the elites. As a result, the relationship between the B-A state and international capital is described as ‘mutual indispensability.’

O’Donnell saw two ways for the BA state to fall: either it does not fulfil obligations and is forced to pass power to other elites, or it is successful and gives up its control (though remaining a power broker).

O’Donnell wrote this in the 1970s at the height of BA power.

Evan’s analysis of Brazil
Following the development ‘miracle’ in Brazil, its economy collapsed in the 1980s. Evan’s argument is that a changing external environment and internal contradictions caused this.

Evan’s sees this happening around a triple alliance of interests: the state, TNCs and local capital. While they often cooperate, Evan’s also believes these can also be in conflict. In Brazil then, we had the contradiction of dependent development were we get economic growth that benefits the few while the many suffered.

Gold and Taiwan
Gold was interested in understanding how far dynamic development could proceed without abandoning dependency theory, taking his analysis from Latin American model to SE Asia.

Gold’s focus is Taiwan, and how it moved towards Japan post the Chinese revolution, and began to implement export-led industrialisation (which included export processing zones and capital inflows. The transition has not been smooth with boom and trough, but there has emerged a dynamic dependency with deepening levels of industrialisation.

Unlike classical theorists, Gold sees Taiwan as ‘new factory imperialism.’ He is, however, quite optimistic, arguing that selective capitalism can assist nations develop in many positive ways.

Conclusion
New dependency theory has modified many of dependency theory’s assumptions – moving from determinism to dynamic in both internal and external factors. This gives us a more sophisticated analysis and includes:

Ensuring historical factors are considered;
A strong focus on internal and socio-political activities
Looking at the links between dependency and development.

My thoughts on this: I am thinking that much of these writings are still relevant today - it is always possible to dismiss the flaws in these theories, but they provide us with an important understanding of historical developments and how nations become dependent. This retards their 'development' because it is an unequal power relationship.

The attitude that emerged in the neoliberal world, however, is one that all states are equal, and historical factors do not count. These theorists remind us that they do!

Andre Gunter Frank: Theorist of underdevelopment

2008-01-27T15:51:00.000-08:00

...I recently went back to read Frank’s theory of dependency. While many trash it and would point to the miracles of India and China as proof that ‘low-income’ nations can take a magic path to development, there is a lot to learn from Frank.

Frank is defined as a ‘development theorist’, and argued that development and underdevelopment are essentially two sides of the same coin. This is because underdevelopment results from a development that occurs through exploitation and suppression: which are a necessary component of the West's wealth accumulation and development.

On that point, by the way, there is a bunch of reasons while parts of China and India are doing so well – and in many ways, Frank’s arguments provide us insights around the satellite/centre reliance that has occurred within both China.

So, here is a solute to Frank and his work – done my reminding us of some of the important insights that he has provided us.

Frank’s analysis evolves around colonialism and imperialism – but he also stressed that it was not about substituting this ahead or in replacement of class analysis – rather a compliment to it.

Part 1: history

Frank begins his analysis by arguing that capitalism brings inevitably creates under-development: this is a systematic feature of capitalism that must be confronted. Frank’s project is to look the limitations of capitalism and how the demands to industrialise and develop lead to continued under-development of satellite nations. To do this, he looks at the ‘so-called’ inefficient and poor Brazilian Agricultural economy and argues that it is caused by international capitalist flows that place demands on poorer nations.

Frank then turns to remind us of the history and historical economic, colonialist and imperialist processes that have created the current capitalism-satellite relationships between nations: that is, we have powerful, wealthy nations in the centre (US and Europe), and smaller nations on the semi-periphery (such as Australia) and poor nations as satellites on the periphery. It is the exploitation of the satellite states that allows the wealthy to stay wealthy. Noting this, Frank states:

…it is fruitless to expect underdeveloped countries of today to respect the stages of economic growth passed through developed societies (p. xii)

Frank also argues that language is important – more implicitly than explicitly – noting that there is damage done when we describe people from the ‘third world’ and say that they are ‘backward’.

Importantly, Frank believes that the process of imperialism have concentrated wealthy within poorer nations – a concentration that continues to ensure that they stay on the periphery.

Combining these various streams, Frank’s key conclusion is that national capitalism together with the high level of concentration of wealth means that capitalism offers little, if any, way out of Latin America’s underdevelopment

So, given this colonial past, we cannot expect this capitalist structure to ever liberate the low-income world – rather, the role of promoting real development has fallen to the people alone. Frank argued that it was the responsibility of the intellectual to support these struggles. But to understand what people in low-income nations really need and want, Frank notes her had to “free myself of the liberal maxim” (p. xiv).

Frank then notes that we he first started his work, he believed that the problems of development were largely domestic – but for many, the problems are cased by liberal ideology that puts pressure on individual development and wealth.

Part 2: Internal colonialist development and capitalist underdevelopment

In this section Frank turns to expand his point that the imperialist project also led to internal colonialism. Imperialism should be viewed not as a specific series of events but fundamental to capitalism itself.

The internal colonialism has led to a concentration of wealth and power which leads to a polarisation of wealth because of the:

Concentration of investment in both the public and private sphere;
The emergence of a regressive taxation structure; and
A transfer of capitalism from poor to wealth areas.

Analysing this, Frank argues that we get similar patterns internally as emerge in the international satellite structures. There is an exploitation that occurs between the national ‘centres’ and the periphery – especially the rural areas. This leads to single crop production that can lead to further reliance by the periphery.

Colonialism also gave rise to a structure that benefited a specific landed class. This resulted in a concentration of income to a few individuals and families. In this way, ‘development’ leads to a loss of land for many. Farmers, therefore, move from tenants to agricultural wage earners – which ultimately leads to a fall in the quality of life.

This is cemented by tax concessions and subsidies that assist in the concentration: monetary and fiscal policies that assist wealthy farmers at the expense of farmers. The system is unlikely to change as it benefits those in charge.

Part 3: Imperialist development and capitalist under-development

One idea that Frank continues to come back to in his arguments is that under-development is driven by structural cause. In an insight that many of those theorists that are concerned about the excess of free markets – including me of course – that when the markets fail the solution is more access to markets, Frank argued that the very policies that have caused problems are the ones that are re-introduced.

He also argued that there are many important economic issues, such as terms of trade, which are used take the focus away from the real structural problems causing under-development.

He then turns to make two broad arguments that I suppose would be dismissed today. The first is the argument for ‘import substitution’. Importantly, Frank states that it has to be a specific form and around specific goods, can work. In its current form, however, it does not work and mainly aggravates the problems of development.

The second point that Frank makes is that technology continues to be expensive and continues to keep the periphery reliant on the core. This has changed somewhat, but access to technology that is both affordable and appropriate continues to be a problem 40 plus years after Frank wrote this work.

In finishing this section, Frank argues that there is little chance in overcoming the crisis of under-development within the very system that produces it (p.213).

Conclusion

Frank concludes by returning to the issue of Brazil – which he sees as continually becoming ever more integrated in the metropolis/satellite structure of the world capitalist system. Within this system, there is little chance to act independently: for those who though that the left leaning president, Lulu, would change this have seen just how integrated Brazil is in this periphery/core system. Frank concludes by saying that to change this, we must see the system changed the masses of people rather than the elites who have been captured (p.217).

Frank, A.G. (1967) Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America; historical studies of Chile and Brazil, New York, Monthly Review Press

Theorists: Understanding Antonio Gramsci

2007-11-18T14:54:00.000-08:00

(or why Gramsci is the dude)

James Arvanitakis

This is a (very) brief introduction to the work of Antonio Gramsci: who I think is an important and influential thinkers even 70-years after his key work. His insights have much to offer us in understanding the world and how to change it: especially if you are involved in education.

There is a great deal written about Gramsci – and it is not possible to do his work justice here, but here I provide an overview of some of his key concepts. Gramsci is considered a theorist from the Marxist tradition – though much of it saw him diverge from this school of thought as he moved to highlight areas Marxists ignored.

Gramsci was an Italian theorist who was set to jail for his revolutionary actions, and it in prison he wrote his famous work: The Prison Notebooks (in the 1930s). It was, as the title suggests, written in prison – and it is in prison he died.

The importance of Gramsci’s work is that he prompts us to question everything around us including what we consider to be ‘commonsense’ in our culture.

Culture and hegemony

Gramsci recognised that the diverse forms of national and international culture were never neutral or sperate from politics: culture, which often seems natural, is bound with power, control and leadership – and is also historical. Gramsci saw and important link between culture and politics – but this is not a simple or straightforward one.

(When I am referring to culture, I am talking about the routines, rituals and beliefs that dominate everyday life: see my previous blog for an in-depth discussion.)

Culture is often reproduced in a way that assists in maintaining the status quo by reflecting and reproducing the established power structures in a way that seems ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. That is, these structures seem to make commonsense and have always been that way. In this way, power structures are constantly reproduced and we consent to this even if they negatively affect us. This was a concept that Gramsci described as hegemony.

Gramsci explain then, that power was maintained, not just by the threat of violence and coercion, but also through ideology. This culture establishes commonsense values that reflect what suits those already in power – that is, the capitalists. These values are also picked up and accepted by the working class who support structures that negatively impact them rather than revolt.

Therefore, Gramsci saw control as much more sophisticated based on both force (coercion) and consent (hegemony). This was achieved through a complex series of cultural, political and ideological practices that cement society into a relative – though never complete – unity.

Gramsci also argued that the dominant cultural values of the ruling class were tied to Christianity: meaning that much of his attacks on the hegemonic culture are also aimed at religious norms and values that dominated Europe.

Hegemony was used by Gramsci to explain why capitalism was entrenched in western societies even if a majority of people were suffering.

Importantly, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is linked to the capitalist state. The state is not to be understood in the narrow sense of the government but moves into the ‘private’ (non-state) sphere, including the economy.

Culture and power

Gramsci argues that we need to free ourselves of seeing culture as something that is made up of encyclopaedic knowledge, receptacles of empirical data and a mass on uncorrelated facts. Culture is not something that is external but internal to us: that is, it is about one’s ‘self’. In other words – and as I noted above – culture is historical, not natural.

That is, we can understand changes in political culture – and the power that we reflect through everyday practices (or hegemony) through historical reflection.

In the 1930s, Gramsci began looking at the concrete forms of cultural organisations – such as schools, churches, newspapers and so on – that keep ideological world in movement and examined how they function in practice. That is, how these institutions ensure power continues to support current structures. In other words, Gramsci felt that these institutions did not challenge power structures but, rather, supported them.

Changes to established power structures have only been proceeded by criticism and a spread of ideas to people who are at first resistant because they are dealing with their immediate circumstances. These people, because of their focus on their immediate circumstances do not get political (or have no solidarity).

We can think how today, many of us are too busy with uni, paying rent or mortgages to support protesters even if we agree with them!

One problem that Gramsci saw, which stopped change happening, was large gap between intellectual groups and the popular masses. One reason for this was that there is no single (or homogenous) conception of the type of change that we want: something that we still see today. The result is that the intellectual groups are scattered while real change can only happen through collective movements.

Confronting power – making change

The answer then, is for working class and other opposition groups to develop their own culture that would replace what is currently seen as natural or normal. For example, taxation benefits us through government services, but we have come to believe that it is a negative thing. This new cultural position should attract both the intellectuals and the oppressed.

For Gramsci, this raised the need for cultural-social unity through which brings together dispersed wills with heterogenous aims into a single objective. This would lead to a new social order that it would be produced and re-produced, bringing together institutions, social relations and ideas. This also highlights the importance of language that allows a single cultural chant.

Gramsci believed intellectuals have an important role in society. ‘Modern intellectuals’, Gramsci believed, did not just theorise, but were also organisers who built society and help produce hegemony by means of institutions such as education and the media.

It is here that Gramsci felt there was potential for change. Because he believed that each social class produces from its own ranks intellectuals 'organically'. The 'organic' intellectuals do not simply describe just social life, but rather articulate, through the language of culture, the feelings and experiences that the masses find it hard to.

Gramsci called on those intellectuals that came from the working classes to promote a kind of education that would challenge the status quo.

Ideology, popular beliefs and commonsense

Gramsci, when looking at the concept of commonsense, wanted to criticise how previous thinkers – including Marxists – neglected the area of consciousness

For Gramsci, ideas are real (or material) forces. This is, because consciousness is not just born but structured in certain ways to reflect the general organisation of society. This was not meant to be a ‘conspiracy’. Rather, to highlight how the way that ideas and philosophy come about are complex: are something that ultimately reflects power structures.

Gramsci argued that there are three ways that elites link together:

Language,
Commonsense, and
Folklore (that is, a form of popular religion, opinions, ways of seeing things and superstition)

Commonsense was key for Gramsci as it is pervasive but unsystematic: that is, while it is the basis of popular experience, it does not represent a unified conception of the world as philosophy does. Here philosophy is an intellectual order, which neither religion nor common sense can be. There are various philosophies or conceptions of the world – and one makes a choice between them – the question is how is this made? The philosophy that we come to accept and live by is also a political action.

The social basis of these ideas is that we come to belong to a group that gives us social elements of thinking and acting. This gives us something to conform to. In this way, our personalities are composite.

Sources

Bottomore, T. (1992) The Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell Publishers,

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, International Publishers

Jay, M. (1986) Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukacs to Habermas, University of California Press

Boggs, C. (1984) The Two Revolutions: Gramsci and the Dilemmas of Western Marxism, South End Press

Call for Objects: The Embodiment of Borders

2007-10-21T18:36:00.000-07:00

Call for Objects: the Embodiment of Borders
In conversation with Sandro Mezzadra

The concept of ‘borders’ is one that is fundamental to our lived experience. From private property, to the question of refugees and migrants, as well as the clear separation between the social and the environmental, borders are continuously invoked by conservatives (for the sake of nationhood) and progressives (in the public/private split) to show a clear line of separation between an inside and an outside. Borders are part of our everyday lives even as many become blurred.

Today, we must consider how we embody borders and how they come to define the landscape of our political, social and cultural world’s.

Italian social theorist, Sandro Mezzadra, reflects on such questions within the European context in his many writings. In a recent interview – partly reproduced below – he reflects on the issue of borders and argues that their blurring “should lead us to think of a situation which is marked by a different relationship between war (even in a philosophical sense) and politics”.

This is a Call for Objects – which asks you to read the reproduced text below and reflect on both how we embody borders and how they come to shape our world – and then produce on Object to respond to Sandro’s writings.

This Object may be a piece of writing (academic, non-academic, fictional, poetry), art (photos, drawings, paintings, design), music, spoken word or any other form of expression.

You are then invited to attend a session and hear Sandro in conversation with UWS academic Brett Nielson. Following this short discussion, you will then have the opportunity present your Object. Accepted works will then be reproduced in a special edition e-zine.

For details, email James Arvanitakis at j.arvanitakis@uws.edu.au or 0438-454-127.

----
Extract of Sandro’s writing from “Borders, Citizenship, War, Class: a discussion With Étienne Balibar and Sandro Mezzadra”, from New Formations.

In discussing multiculturalism, borders and a crisis of tolerance, Sandro notes (p.7):

In this sense, the discussion of multiculturalism in Europe has always been… a discussion about the identity and the borders of Europe. What does it mean, in this situation, to make the point that the crisis of multiculturalism… is at the same time a crisis of tolerance? It means to underscore that this crisis cannot be reduced to the relation between a homogeneous Europe and its cultural and geographical ‘others’. The re-emergence of the long history of the European colonial project, which was in a way the hidden face of the concept of tolerance, tends to disrupt the ‘civility’ of social relations within Europe, that is, it can destroy what has always been presented as the fundamental achievement of ‘tolerance’.

Of course I do not want to deny the fact that many theorists of multiculturalism were, and still are, engaged in an attempt to overcome the contradictions and pitfalls of modern universalism. But when I say that we are confronted today with a crisis of tolerance, I am suggesting that the colonial border between Europe and its outside, which was presupposed by the concept of tolerance… The ‘whiteness’ of the European citizen… has not been put into question by multiculturalism: it has only been rhetorically ‘weakened’, in order to make its coexistence with ‘non-white’ citizens possible, while this coexistence has been always imagined and constructed… as a hierarchical coexistence.

Of course what is currently discussed as a crisis of ‘multiculturalism’ in Europe – that is, we must be very clear on this point, as a crisis in the coexistence of ‘white’ and ‘non white’ citizens within the European polity – opens up the space in which the danger of the radicalisation of the hierarchical character of that coexistence emerges. But in order to counteract this danger we must displace the very framing of the crisis: to talk about the current situation as a situation which is marked by a latent crisis of tolerance… means to stress the fact that the problems we are confronted with are not to be understood as problems of relations between a compact ‘we’ and the ‘others’. They are rather problems which address the very definition of a European ‘we’: to recognise this means in my opinion to accept the challenge which is posed by the concept of a postcolonial condition when applied to Europe.

In discussing the blurring of borders between war and non-war – and hence the ubiquity of war, militarisation of politics and society – Sandro notes (p.12-13)

The discussion we are developing on the transformation of borders has to do with the logic of war entering into political spaces which had been in a way protected from it by borders. Borders were in modern history a mechanism for neutralising war, that was their first function. Or rather, they were, in the sense suggested by Carl Schmitt, a mechanism which made possible at the same time the ‘expulsion’ of war from the political space of the state, and the ‘regulation’ of war between states… In 1907, Lord Curzon stated that ‘frontiers are indeed the razor’s edge on which hang suspended the modern issues of war and peace’.

So what we are saying today about the transformation of borders should lead us to think of a situation which is marked by a different relationship between war (even in a philosophical sense) and politics. To put it briefly once again: war is playing an increasing role in shaping social relations within unified political spaces, while the ‘traditional’ war itself tends to develop independently of the regulations that have been set up by modern international laws…

…My point is… the border between war and peace, which was one of the main distinctions upon which some of the most important political concepts of modern times were based, has become blurred, and this is really a radical challenge. I think this is a point that we should deepen in our discussion on the transformations which are reshaping the very institution of the border.

…When I say that the border between war and peace has been blurred, I am referring to a situation in which the border between interior and exterior is itself being blurred. Once again: this does not mean that this border does not exist anymore – quite the opposite is the case – and the everyday experience of migrants in Europe shows this in an often dramatic way. But that border is not anymore an absolute border, be it in a geopolitical or in a conceptual sense. To talk about the ubiquity of war is another way of talking about the ubiquity of the border…

… (Anthropologist) Pablo Vila in his work on the US-Mexican border, it opens up the possibility of border crossing as the substance of citizenship, but also border reinforcing. you have shown in essays that have been very important for my own work how the border is the ‘non-democratic’ element of democracy. The ubiquity of the border is the ubiquity of this ‘non- democratic’ element, which can take the shape of war-like technologies of governance within the European space itself.

The blurring of borders for the migrants as they are simultaneously inside and outside (p.18):

… the border between the ‘social’ and the ‘institutional’ which appears to have been blurred. If we take a look at the whole debate that has taken place around the concept of ‘governance’ in the last decade, it seems to me that it is focused on just this process. But I think we could and should radicalise the problem: if the border between the interior and the exterior is being blurred, this means that it does not make sense anymore, from a conceptual point of view, to think of politics and democracy in the terms suggested by the category of ‘integration’. From this point of view, I think that the condition of migrants in Europe is particularly meaningful for us. To borrow the concepts used by the postcolonial feminist Nirmal Puwar in a recent book, migrants are at the same time insiders and outsiders. … We are talking about ‘subject positions’ which can be defined at the same time as insider and outsider, on the one hand because of specific policies which are making rights themselves precarious, on the other hand because certain kinds of ‘belonging’ which were among the presuppositions of what you call the ‘national social state’ have been – and continue to be – criticised and deconstructed by several social movements which put into crisis the ‘national social state’ long before the start of ‘neoliberal’ policies. These movements shape, on the level of social behaviours and desires, the actual composition of ‘living labour’, and this is the reason why I tend to be very critical of the theoretical and political positions which frame the criticism of ‘neoliberalism’ in terms suggesting a return to the welfare state as the only possible ‘critical’ solution.

p.21… Well, on the one hand, the recent literature on migration (I’m thinking, for instance, of the so-called ‘new economics of migration’ but also of the works which employ the concept of ‘transnationalism’), has pointed out that a set of ‘social institutions’ – family and ‘ethnic’ networks for instance – play a key role at every stage of the migratory process. But, on the other hand, we cannot be uncritical towards these ‘institutions’: they can function as means of resistance, and the whole history of the struggles of migration show that, but they can also function effectively as sites of reproduction of old and new mechanisms of domination and exploitation. The relation between a new reflection on the issue of institutions and the autonomy of migration can be developed only within a broader conceptual and political framework, focused on the construction of a new political space which tries to develop in a positive way the challenge posed by the process of the blurring of borders…

Cultural Studies 2: Studying everyday life

2007-10-20T18:58:00.000-07:00

Introduction

To begin with, I want to remind you that cultural studies aims, amongst other things, to understand the hidden and secret rules behind our society: that is, our culture. Thought there are many definitions of 'culture', in essence t involves looking at the rules and values that we all follow, most often without even knowing that they are there.

A key definition that I like to use is presented by influential sociologist Anthony Giddens:

'Culture consists of the values the members of a given group hold, the norms they follow, and the material goods they create' (1989, 31).

There are three key points that we should highlight here:

Values: that is, what is important in our society? What do we consider important? What hierarchies exist in things like work or leisure? For example, from the pay scales we can see that we 'value' bankers more than nurses or teachers – despite all the rhetoric of the exact opposite. What does that tell us about the structure of our value system?

The second section to this definition is norms: that is, what are the rules that we follow – what do we consider 'normal'? There are many norms in our society – many of which are changing. Again, despite all the rhetoric of 'family values', it is now normal for people to work on weekends. Only a decade or so ago, most shops were closed Sundays. Again, what does that tell us about who we are?

The third dimension of this definition is the idea of what goods we produce. This may sound somewhat weird at first but let's think it through. Pre-modern societies used to focus on the production of necessities: enough food to eat; enough clothes to wear; shelter and some extras to trade. This told you much about the way that people lived: a lack of technology meant that they could not store food for too long. But today, we produce food but we specialise – selling most and trading. But the biggest focus on our society is the production of luxury good – new phones, a new Ipod, a new Nintendo and so on. We do not really hear what the apple farmers are up to but we are always aware about the new products that Apple is producing. So, the production of certain material goods tells us a great deal about who we are – that is, our culture.

It is within this that we are looking at everyday life: how the rules and values shape our lives, the way we see the world, how power operates and the rituals that we follow. For, as I will discuss in future blogs, it is regular rituals that we do not think about that tell us something about our society. So when we look at a society like Australia, we can ask binds us: language, beliefs, institutions, stories and myths, but also common practices – that is, rituals.

How will we be studying everyday life?

As I have already mentioned in my previous blog, there is no 'one-way' to undertake the study of everyday life so we employ multiple methods. This is known as an 'interdisciplinary approach' and we draw on from the schools of Anthropology, Sociology and Cultural Studies: though it is cultural studies that is our focus here. The main research methodology employed, however, is taken from anthropology and known as 'ethnographic research'. This is a form of research focusing on the sociology of meaning through close field observation of social phenomena.

According to Marvin Harris and Orna Johnson (2000-, ethnography literally means "a portrait of a people." It is a written description of a particular culture and its customs, beliefs, and behaviour.

Typically, the researcher – also known as the ethnographer – focuses on a community, selecting informants who are known to have an overview of the activities of the community. Such informants are asked to identify other informants representative of the community (this is a process described as 'chain sampling' because of the interlinked nature of the informants).

As part of the ethnographic analysis, and usually after the observation has been undertaken, informants are interviewed (often a multiple times). This process is intended to reveal common cultural understandings related to the phenomena under study.

Such a research process involves two important assumptions that we need to accept. Note that there are others, for the purpose of this overview, the following should are key:

The first is that ethnography assumes the main focus of research is affected by community cultural understandings: This means that if we are studying a group of people, and we watch them greet each other then we can assume that the greeting is the same for all people within that group – not just the process but the meaning also.

Ethnography also assumes that we, as researchers, are capable of understanding the cultural meanings of the population we are studying. This may be easy in some situations, but what if you are studying a group with a different language; use technical jargon; or even undertake certain rituals that you do not recognise?

Ethnography: a case study

In my previous blog I noted four key dimensions to ethnographic research that we need to understand (again there are others but for the purposes of this overview, let's focus on these). I want to apply these four dimensions to some of my own experiences. I worked for a while in a part of PNG called Bougainville as a consultant to the Central Bank. This was a country that was just emerging from conflict and I was interested, as part of another project, to understand how people were attempting to rebuild their lives from the conflict.

Observing and understanding: that is, you do not ask interviews but observe (at least initially). When I researched squats in Amsterdam and tried to figure out how they worked, I just went and lived there for a while. I did a similar thing in PNG. The point was I did not ask people how they got along or what rules they followed, I just observed and attempted to understand what was happening.

What I did was I went and lived in the community to observe what was going in. I volunteered to undertake and assist the men in their work. This often involved manual labour even though I was an outsider, after a while they begin to just accept me being there.

While I worked, had dinner, drank coffee and so on, I observed what was going on. I did not ask any questions like, how do you guys do that, but just attempted to understand from my observing.

See, what had happened was that there was a civil war and many neighbours had turned against each other. The questions I was interested was on how people were rebuilding trust with their neighbours. What I found was that it was happening in small steps: people asked to borrow a hammer or gave a hand at some chores. So what I observed was that trust builds slowly, and the more it builds, the more it feeds itself – kind of like a magic pudding.
Focus on meaning: that is, when we do something we need to look beyond the event and understand the meaning behind it. So, buying a Coke is not just buying a Coke, the process has a bunch of meaning attached (like accepting that you are part of capitalist system, money is a means of exchange and that property rights allow you to own a can of Coke only after paying for it).

Think about being at the pub and buying a shout – you are not just being nice, but there is a reason why you do it: to confirm that you are part of the group; that you are all going to stick around and share the evening; there is meaning behind what you are doing. When studying everyday life, we would not just observe 5 guys standing around drink beer but attempt to understand what it means.

Ok, this extends the above point then: lending someone a hammer does not seem to mean much but if only a few months ago these same people were at war, then the lending of tools takes on additional meanings. So I looked for the subtle meanings in the practices of the everyday – learnt how there was a separation between groups still but also came to understand how people reached out.

This means that a greeting, the sharing of a tool and a bunch of other things seem have much greater meanings than what we give them credit for.

There are many things that have meaning that we do not think about. As we will see in future blogs, there are a great deal of meanings attached to specific rituals such as birthday parties and also the gifts that we give.

Insiders' viewpoint: this extends the first point – that we do not rely on someone else's observation but do it ourselves. When it comes to observing our own society, this is part of the making the familiar unfamiliar: that is, seeing ourselves as 'anthropologically strange'. So we look at things and attempt to understand them from an insider's perspective.

In Bougainville, I went and lived within these communities to understand what was going on. Sure, I did not understand everything, but I began to gain insights that would not have been possible if I was just passing through.

But while doing this, it is important to avoid being ethno-centric: this means, we need to accept that there is more than one way of seeing the world and that our own biases will always impact upon what you see – no matter how hard you try to avoid that.

Finally, the truth is that I will only ever be able to gain a specific view – which as biased and coloured by the things that I understand. I came to accept these limitations in the work.

Cultural Studies 1 - Introduction: studying cultural studies through everyday life

2007-10-03T22:12:00.000-07:00

This blog is about introducing the discipline of cultural studies through the study of everyday life.

So, what do I by ‘studying everyday life’? I mean, is not the everyday boring and mundane? Nothing happens on an average day and should we not be studying the extraordinary events that occur such as elections, wars, terrorist attacks and so on – things that are unique, happen rarely and we stop and notice?

The answer is yes, we should be studying these events – because they are both important and shape our world. The war in Iraq, for example, will be studied in years to come as a moment in history when the world changed: it may be seen as the beginning of the end of US power, or maybe the beginning of peace and stability in the region… who knows what history holds? We can only speculate.

But the study of the everyday is different: it allows us to turn into anthropologists and look at our own civilisations like zoologists look at elephants. In this way, we learn to look at the way we live by taken-for-granted understandings about the ‘rules’ of everyday life. This gives insights in the power relations in our society, what we consider important, the way we structure our society and a whole lot more.

So, studying the everyday life is both self-evident and puzzling as it is everywhere but invisible. We need to unpack the very things that we take for granted. It involves, not the one-off events, but the everyday patterns and events. To do this, it is necessary to begin the process of ‘unlearning’. That is, the things that we consider normal and natural we need to learn to stop doing them and looking at them like we are looking at them for the first time: unpack the familiar – which is known as ‘deconstruction’.

So, in cultural studies we are less interested in how we structure our society, but more in the logic of things: for example, do we drive rather than take public transport because of convenience, or is there something specific in our culture – the way we see the world – that prioritises cars over public transport? And why does this persist even when we know it is damaging the environment?

Some background

The study of everyday life emerged as academics became interested in the life of ordinary people. Early historians were interested mainly in the lives of the elites – nobility, royalty and generals – but by looking at everyday life, it was possible to gain insights into how our own society is arranged, liveable, understanding why we accept certain things, do not revolt, why we are happy or miserable.

The field emerged as society changed particularly through mass urbanisation and more and more people came to live in cities: the questions that were raised included how do we all get along? What rules do we all accept and follow? How do we learn those rules?

Now, one of the challenges of studying this area is that sometimes things change subtly and we do not even recognise it. Other times there is rapid change. As change happens, we can no longer take everyday interactions for granted: what may seem normal at one point is no longer the case. Likewise, what was once accepted as normal, now seems strange.

One example is multiculturalism. For at least two generations it has been an acceptable and it would have appeared permanent part of Australian life. Previously, however, we had the White Australia Policy. The change from white Australia to multiculturalism was both subtle and dramatic. We had a department of multicultural affairs and a dedicated minister. Now this has changed dramatically and the current government has removed references about the term from its departments and renamed the department to Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

So we study everyday life to understand both the subtle dimensions and major changes of our lives.

Why study everyday Life?

So the question is, why do we study everyday life? Is it not the major events that define us and is everyday life not mundane, obvious, and ‘natural’? I have kind of answered this question already, but I think the following quote sums it up well:

‘It is one of the most fundamental paradoxes of our social life that when we are at our most natural, our most everyday, we are also at our most cultural; that when we are in roles that look the most obvious and given, we are actually in roles that are constructed, learned and far from inevitable’ (Willis, 1979: 184 – my emphasis).

That is, everyday life often masks social power, social order and process of socialisation. And it is often with the ordinary and mundane that we can get amazing insights into our culture. As one famous theorist, LeFebvre, noted, we must ‘look for the extraordinary in the ordinary’: in other words, behind what we consider ordinary there is a great deal happening that we should analyse and challenge.

So we have relations of power that come to feel normal – but they are not – we construct them. All dimensions of life are socially acquired even things such as sitting on a bus or food hall. The rules of dealing with the stranger is to act indifferently towards them.

Irving Goffman, a major theorist, presented the concept of civil indifference and dealing with the unfamiliar. That is, when you see something or someone unfamiliar, you act indifferently. For Goffman, this was one reason that we all got along. So acting politely indifferently is one rule of life.

Aspects of Everyday Life

When we are looking at everyday life, we need to recognise that the events of our lives are historically specific and situated. That is, if we were studying the lives of your parents 20 years ago, or say any children that we might produce in 20 years time, it would be different. The rules we follow within our daily lives are specifically situated. As I said, some changes have been subtle and others dramatic.

Compare how we would organise someone’s birthday party a few years ago. You would write invitations and send them out. Today, we organise parties through MySpace and Facebook where once people relied on phones and even physical invitations! What does it tell us about the way we communicate? What does it tell us about our culture?

Ok… so let us look at the cultural meaning behind some things that we do without even thinking about it – cultural meanings that we actually accept. Let me give you an example, when you go to a shop and buy a can of Coke, the process of pulling money out and paying the dude at a convenience store is pretty simple. But think about all the associated meanings:

• In the process of paying for something you are accepting the fact that cash is a mechanism of exchange.
• You are saying that we live in a capitalist society and there are property rights – the store owns the Coke until you pay for it and then it is yours.
• You are saying that like it or not, this is normal and you buy into that system.
• You buy a Coke… this is not a random decision but because you feel like a Coke. You know about this because of advertising – a walking down the street drinking a Coke has meaning behind it (say compared to walking down the street and drinking a beer or Bicardi Breezer or milk)

No one really explained to us these rules, but they are there. Most of us will never just walk into a shop and take things without paying for it or refuse to pay for it for revolutionary reasons – just as most of us will never think about the cultural meaning associated with buying a Coke.

Saying that, if in such a simple there exist so many rules and it carries so much meanings, what happens if you took them away? How would we shop?

It is such interactions that are embedded in everything we do and never really think about it.

Some important definitions

Ok, I want to look at some definitions for terms that you will come across in this subject:

• Ideology: a more or less coherent set of beliefs and values that serves to mask or legitimate relations of domination and subordination: think of capitalism and the class system
• Agency: is the ability of the individual to act autonomously. To have ‘agency’ is to be able to act with choice.
• Structures: are the social institutions and social practices that constrain our choices, and that shape our attitudes and beliefs. Structures can influence agency
• Culture: there are many definitions of culture – and is impossible to really define simply or even explain it. I have a bunch listed in the notes but I will explain a couple of these here. But when we talk of culture we are not talking of ‘high culture’ such as the theatre, but talking about the culture of our society. It is the way we see the world, understanding and make sense of what is going on around us and what are the rules of our lives.

Anyway, here are two definitions I like and I think summarise the concept well:

‘Culture consists of the values the members of a given group hold, the norms they follow, and the material goods they create’ (Giddens, 1989, Sociology, 31).

‘Culture is the ensemble of social processes by which meanings are produced, circulated and exchanged.’ (Thwaites, Davis & Mules, 1994:1).

Culture is something that affects us all and shapes our lives – and it is constantly changing. And importantly, no one culture shapes us: there is our Australian culture, whatever that is, but also the culture of ethnicity, sexuality etc. so we are influenced by multiple cultures and thus have multiple identities.

Political musings: Politics and weight - who have you spotted at the gym?

2007-09-17T04:51:00.000-07:00

There is an entire branch of sociology concerned with the study of ‘symbols’ called ‘symbolic interactionism’. In fact, similar fields have emerged in various disciplines and are amongst the more interesting areas to teach sociology students at university.

The theory behind symbolic interactionism is that things are never as they appear and we must look behind certain symbols to understand their true meaning.

An example is someone who lives in the city of Sydney yet purchases one of those large, fuck-off, four-wheel drives. This may seem to be just another car, but depending on where you sit it symbolises something deeper.

For the new owner, amongst others, it is a symbolises success and control: the ability take the car off-road whenever they see fit, taking on the great Australian outback. To others – including me – it simply symbolises someone as a total wanker: having no regard for congestion, pollution, global warming or pedestrian safety.

It is from this perspective we need to understand John Howard’s less than graceful slip the other week. I do not like John Howard – never have – but that is not the point. I gain no enjoyment from seeing some ‘silly old bugger’ (thank you Bob Hawke) fall over. I know of no-one who would enjoy such a spectacle.

No, the Prime Minister’s fall represented something more: a man who has stayed too long and is starting to look a little feeble. This is not a rant against older pollies – I mean some of my best friends are older Australians – it is what the fall symbolises.

In politics, symbols are everything – and this brings me to the issue of weight loss. The theory being that the public would not vote for a fatty – dismissing a politician who does not look like they are willing to take care of themselves. (Phillip Ruddock is probably the exception the proves the rule – but that is a cliché I never really understood.)

In NSW, Barry O’Farrell’s political ambitions were linked to his weight. I suspect that Peter Debnam’s ongoing desire to be photographed in his budgie-smugglers had less to do with an attempt to sell an outdoor, masculine image – I mean who is that gullible – and more to do with taunting Barry. A kind of, ‘check me out Barry, no way you can have my job.’

Peter Debnam was never that smart – and never looked that good in the budgie-smugglers – so when Barry hit the treadmill, we all knew what was coming.

We can draw similar comparisons between John Howard’s morning walk in his tasteful and elegant tracksuit as a taunt to Kim (I save my best speeches when I am about to step down) Beasley. Kim was a sitting duck in terms of symbolic interactionism.

This is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon and is just as important in the USA. A friend tells me there are (unconfirmed) rumours that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have staffers who study the most recent photographs of Al Gore for any hints of weight loss. No word yet on Big Al’s political motivations, but like the Oracle of Delphi, we turn to his ample mid-section as a sign of what we should expect.

It is with interest then, that I read that Newt Gingrich has been ordering oatmeal with no milk or sugar around Washington. Yes, big bad Newt may be the dark horse for the Republican nomination. This is the man who was one of the architects of the Iran-Contra affair and a man who, in 1996, closed the USA government down for 27 days because of a personal stand-off with Bill (please pass my cigar) Clinton. There is also Newt’s hypocrisy: that is, his high moral position while having affairs. I mean, go for it Newt, all power to you, but do not preach family values while you are doing it.

Will the American public may be willing to forget and forgive if Newt tones up a little? The lead Republican candidate, Rudolph Gulliani, is in the box seat, both with weight and fund raising, at the moment. From my intelligence – and I am using this term loosely – he is not phased by Newt’s positioning at the moment.

But is anyone taking Newt seriously?

I spoke to some Americans the other day and they seemed to laugh off any suggestions regarding Newt’s nomination: noting that he was past his best, had no fresh ideas, lacked personality, has his independence compromised by his close relationship to Fox News, is basically known for being a complete knob.

But what of his weight loss I inquired: would a skinny-Newt be any different to a cuddly-Newt? Can politicians re-invent themselves by a bit of weight-loss, some hair colouring, bright teeth and a smile?

Their response threw me: ‘Well, anyone can become President of the USA.’

They then asked me, ‘Can anyone be Prime Minister of Australia?’

I reflected on this, thinking of all the Prime Minister’s I knew, settling on the image of John Howard falling over, and responded with a confident, ‘Yes, I suppose anyone can be Prime Minister.’

In generations to come, sociologists will probably look at what Prime Minister John Howard symbolised and draw their own conclusions.

You decide, I am off to the gym with Brendan, Pete and Malcolm.

Practical Economics: Privatisation - do not always believe your textbook

2007-09-17T04:37:00.000-07:00

The theory of privatisation is simple: the market will always deliver better, more efficient and cheaper services to consumers than governments can. As an economist, this mantra was repeated to me both while studying at university and working in the finance sector.

Given the NSW government’s discussion to privatise the delivery of electricity, it is time to move beyond the textbook and consider reality. Unfortunately for advocates of privatisation, this reality is significantly different as we can see from international examples, including New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Do not get me wrong, I am neither against privatisation per se nor believe that it is always a bad idea. Rather, my position is one that argues that each industry must be looked at on its own merits and informed, long-term decisions need to be made rather than blindly following an ideology that does not always work.

In other words, there is a need to consider which industries have a natural propensity for privatisation, and which should be considered as belonging to our community and, therefore, being outside the market. To do this, we can begin by splitting government assets into three groups.

The first group is what can be called commodities. These commodities can be defined as those assets that fit neatly into a market logic: that is, they can be delivered for profit and the goals of the private sector align with those of broader society. Here, the private shareholders can demand profits while competition ensures that service delivery remains a priority.

The gaming industry is one example. The privatisation of TAB Corp. can be considered a success as the market is large enough to encourage competition and service delivery can be achieved through many channels. Certain dimensions of insurance industry – such as car insurance – can also be considered to be ripe for privatisation as there are enough competitors that ensure the price remains competitive. Privatisation of GIO, for example, while it has its critics, also removed the burden of risk from the government and has allowed the private sector to carry it.

The second category is those government assets that can be considered outside the market. These are those assets whose service delivery allows our community to operate: these include water, health care, education and yes, energy.

In such industries, the market logic and the needs of society come into conflict. To explain this, I will return to my first year economics textbook and the basic rules of supply and demand. What makes a commodity valuable is its scarcity. This is why diamonds are more valuable than water – though most of us can comfortably live without diamonds. The market then, gains from scarcity as it drives up prices and profits. In contrast, our society is better off if we experience abundance.

Further, the service delivery of these goods and services, if provided with only the profit motive in mind, leads to exclusion. While global warming means that we need to reconsider the use of electricity, we still need to ensure that all sections of society can access such assets. In other words, as a member of a community, I am happy to pay a little extra for electricity knowing that the farmers and others living in remote parts of our state also have access to energy.

The market does not reflect this logic and as a result, it is difficult to imagine the private sector being interested in delivering services to remote communities without substantial price rises: just ask the executives at Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

So, how are we to understand such assets? We should think of them as ‘commons.’ While the word commons has a history in Middle Ages’ England and its use has all but disappeared from the English language, it has relevance today. The term commons is being applied to all those assets, both provided by nature (such as air, water and the oceans) as well as government services that we all use but no-one owns. That is, assets common to us all.

In fact, such commons have been passed on to us from previous generations and in truth, we are only holding them in trust for future ones. The concept of the commons allows us to draw a line in the sand and say that some dimensions of our society are much too valuable to trust to the whims of the market.

The third category is those assets that fit somewhere between the market and the commons. We can think of Telstra in this way: if the federal government had its way over again, it would probably privatise service delivery and keep the infrastructure in public hands. This way the competition between service providers could ensure new technologies and cheaper prices, while remote parts of the nation are assured access.

The answer then, is not to sell off assets but to invest in the infrastructure to ensure that we achieve that twin goals of efficiency and sustainability. In situations like energy delivery, massive amounts of investment are needed to achieve these goals, and in reality, only the government is in the position to undertake this. Anything less leaves many in our society vulnerable, and betrays the legacy left to us as well as the duty we owe to future generations.