Category Archives: society and sociology

sister sonia the social pariah: we must silence dissent!

5

go ayeshe!

amusing title for a post eh? sister sonia the social pariah.  much as i would like to claim that as one of my witty inventions, i”m afraid the glory must be given over to one Pickled Politics commentator, who goes by the name Ashik.  it sounds as though it ought to be from a monty python sketch, or a Carry On film, perhaps.

the thread, titled the “rise of secularism” like many others on Pickled Politics, soon veered off topic, well perhaps not really, as i was explaining my take on the “secular” or what we ought to keep in mind in thinking about religion, the state, power and the “secular” : it”s all about thinking of the power of religious institutions and their intertwingling (good word) and interdependence with State apparatus and authority. It”s important to make clear what one is talking about as so many different opinions/views seem to be shoved under the label “secularism” .

“but in any case, i thought the whole point of the ’secular’ was that you have whatever religion you have, because one religion over another isn’t promoted by the State apparatus. this would seem to me, to give more people religious freedom, given that people want to follow different religions.

clearly what people think of as secular or (secularism) must be different, because so often i hear people talking about what individuals are doing, in the “public sphere”. which is rot of course, because the difference between a secular state and a non-secular state, (or the way it should be) is the influence, or intertwining of religious institutions and state authority.

if you’re an individual hanging about preaching on street corners, that’s one thing. that’s not a problem for most people really. not at all. people generally want to have religious freedom.

now for some reason the French seem to understand things somewhat differently, so perhaps that’s muddied the waters.

I wouldn’t define as a ’secularist’ if that meant interfering with what individuals who have no state authority are doing - whether thats hanging about the streets preaching islam, wearing outlandish clothes or preaching satanism.

but definitely i am a secularist when it comes to de-linking the power of religious insitutions with the State authority and apparatus. Most definitely so. what Religion you follow or not SHOULD NOT have any connection with what rights you have as a citizen. if everyone has the right to wear something they want, so if your choice is religious based that’s up to you. of course similarly, when others aren’t given the freedom to wear what they want, on the grounds of religion, you can’t expect special favours, not on the grounds of religion anyway. it should be on the grounds of individuality, and it should be advocating similar freedom of choice for other people. ( like, think uniforms people)”

Our friend Ashik, who doesn”t seem inclined to discuss state power and religion, instead goes in for “the kill” and gives me and the readers a good dose of unadulterated community authoritarianism:

” Sonia:  ‘ …have every right (and if I don’t I bloody well should do) to criticise that religion without people suggesting i am ‘hating muslims’. that’s bollocks because obviously my family is muslim and in their eyes i am one too…just because i dont like the picture of God [the religion paints] doesn’t mean i don’t have the relationships, empathy and connections to those who choose to believe in that religion. that’s entirely their business, and what I ask for simply is to be able to discuss my views alongside listening to them say what their views are. the prophet is a historical figure and does not belong to anyone.’

In your case Sonia you have done a very unIslamic and unBengali (according to scripture and Bengali cultural mores) thing by marrying [name deleted- he actually decided to try and drag my husband into this by name, heh]. Therefore you are no longer a Muslim. Hence your criticisms have to be seen in this context. You are unlikely to be engaged in mere philosophical and intellectual criticism of religious/Islamic dogma but in validating your own lifestyle choice, with which (knowing Bengalis) members of your own family no doubt have grave concerns.

Personally I think that if you are happy with your choice and the consequences then there is little need for you to comment (almost always negatively) on a religio-cultural identity you have voluntarily left behind. “

now this is a common thing one hears..okay they don”t want to argue with you, they say you”re happy with your choice (yes thank you I am, and thank you for your acceptance, which we must commend him for) yes i left voluntarily (well obviously, would i leave “involuntarily”?) You are no longer a Muslim, just leave us alone, what”s with all this commentary? that part of your life is over!  (which it clearly isn”t - i pointed out that thankfully the bit about god and hell is thankfully over. and whilst one may be finally feeling free to let loose, (after all those years of involuntary holding on one”s tongue) mentally, the reality is hardly one where you are hardly able to “come out” to your community without inviting fatwas and whatnots, and frankly, i don”t see why i should have to court that kind of notoriety, what would i do with a fatwa?)

So its very intriguing that this argument keeps cropping up - what are these community elder people afraid of? (apart from the usual losing face, hysterical “keep it all in the family” type secrecy we are obsessed with) commentary from the likes of me yes of course is not going to “sway” some hardcore religious believers/core community members (Aunties and mother-in-laws of the Matriarchy making up the masses, alongside whom range some puny men who pass themselves off as mullahs/head of tribe etc.) which is fine as i”m not out to “convert” the religious of their belief, or to rob people of their families, but to tell my story, and to perhaps provide a bit of sanity to all those undergoing similar struggles.  and my story, like other people”s story, has plenty of relevance for many other people who are feeling overwhelmed by social control . (And the trying to make you feel as if you”re being terrible! terrible! to your family to want to have your own thoughts, to highlight the social and moral injustices you nay perceive, and by doing so this is shaming your tribe your community! )  Enforced Patriotism: Loyalty to the Group and if there isn”t a problem, why there should be no threat in me telling my story. Interestingly, the only criticism forthcoming is “well you”re a bad person, you”ve broken our rules, you make our community look bad, now fuck off. ” its all obsession with appearances. clearly no interest in learning/self-critique, what would we want with that!?

fat lot of good spirituality will do for those obsessed with maintaining face. it”s a materialistic earthly obsession if you ask me. still humans will be humans it seems. for whatever reason, many people want us to switch off our commentary, (cult-like behaviour, that)  as if the process we have been through is not significant, not important for social learning.  Of course those things are not important, the only thing is to be an obedient member of the group. And finally as if one can actually extricate oneself from pre-existing social bonds, expectations - without having completely “left behind” the family unit. Stark choices as I pointed out to Ashik. Writers like the Apostate share with us the heart-rending and stark choices people have to make if they want to live their own lives with little or no subterfuge.

Anyhow, the point of this post is not really about religion per se, its about groups exerting stringent social control over members. which of course religio-cultural groups have done in history certainly, and many carry on attempting to do so today, and the added edge is of course that if you dare to question too much, you”re outside the bounds of acceptability and there”s the extra god will get you -  trick. cunning eh. not will you be a pariah in this world but you won”t get any virgins in the next! ( not that as a woman you”re getting that much of a good deal anyway)

but ashik provides us with some interesting ethnographic insight: i love it when this sort of thing comes along, because they are doing the reform work for us: highlighting the bigoted attitudes present in so much community politics:

“Regardless of what members of PP think, you have done the worst possible thing a Bengali gal can do ie. marry out of culture/religion. You also admit to being an apostate. You are a social pariah and happy about it, so why continue to feign any interest in culturo-religious matters for which you admit you care very little? They no longer impact upon you. Your family is in Bangladesh, over 1000 miles away. Be the assimilated person you want to be. Don’t let the gnawing insecurities and self doubts play so on your mind. In any case what you have to say on Bengali and Muslim culture will have little weight,. Regardless of how well you put your argument.

…”Whether one is a Sylheti or Dhakaiya, a rickshaw puller or the daughter of the Prime Minister, Bengalis/South Asians tend to be of one voice when it comes to voicing their opinions about inter-racial marriages. Especially those involving women marrying out. There is a reason mothers from your ‘circle’ in Bangladesh won’t leave you alone with their daughters. They think you’ll ‘influence’ them to do something similar.”

and some of the best bits:

“bengali girls are feisty and fight for their rights, that’s great, but they don’t go beyond the pale as you have. Social conditioning and all (more effective than any political ideology).”

shock horror! whatever happened to our izzat based communities eh? a nice piece of xenophobic misogyny. there we go, brother ashik tells us all - anytime someone talks about social conditioning, all the hyenas fall upon him/her denying such social conditioning, oh no! no these things do not exist ( we must preserve a good community image). At least Ashik is honest about the society he finds himself in - well done mate ( i bet he would be surprised to see this kind of praise from me, the poor dear thought i”d be in tears or something)

thank you for exposing the sort of thinking that goes on amongst the traditionalists and the community sticklers: ooh! you”re bad girls and boys you are! haram haram! you will become a social pariah! Yes it is social conditioning, and it is successful, why wouldn”t it be, threatening to make someone an outcast is an old old trick, played by lots and lots of community elder types. Even today, it has a big hold on our imagination, daring to take a steps that take us into “uncharted territory” -what support mechanisms will you have? if your society and community turn their backs on you, then that is indeed quite heavy emotional blackmail.

so when anyone wants to write commentary on immense social, emotional, psychological issues this kind of “pressure” is brought to bear. ” Oh just go quietly and don”t slam the door behind you!” It”s oppressive if nothing else was, its trying to make you invisible, voiceless, impact-less. we don”t want the voices of ex-muslim women who”ve had to fight community prejudice and continue to do so, aired, ooh no, we want to keep the picture of the “sisterhood” homogeneous. (and a sisterhood obedient to the Authority of the Elders, be that what it may, Allah or not) and if you”re ex-sisterhood, well hasta la vista baby!   Yup, silence the voices. Don”t let them speak! we can”t have any social commentary thanks very much.

Back to Ayshe & Andi: 

“Being rather impressionable, Murat starts becoming radicalized. Here he speaks to Andi, who”s dating his sister: “Stay away, Andi! I have recently come to know the true Islam, and it doesn”t allow my sister to mess around with an infidel.” (The book”s title is “Invitation to Jihad.”)

oh we don't want any government 'regulation'..

15

yesterday”s epolitix bulletin had this lovely snippet:
“The chancellor Alistair Darling uses an interview with the Financial Times newspaper to say sudden changes on taxing private equity could impact negatively on the “absolutely critical” role of the City in the economy”

oh yes of course alistair. whilst i may not be disagreeing with you on this particular point ( well i shan”t say what i think, apart from to laugh hollowly), i do find it amusing given how the usual diatribe from “market fundamentalists” is “oh we don”t want any government interference”.

what they really mean of course is

“oh we don”t want any govt. interference unless it is the kind that specifically allows us to do what we want - i.e. the kind that gives us special license, the kind of thing we don”t call “regulation”, the kind of thing we don”t want you to think of when we talk about not wanting “regulation”. We only want you to think of “regulation” in a specific way - i.e. in the context when the rules are not in favour of us. Otherwise, we love rules, how else would we have the monopoly, the special privileges, the institutional barriers we like to erect around our so-called “free “market”. So yes we don”t want government interference..of course not, why would we want any such thing, we got to where we are today without any such “help” or any institutions, don”t you know, we didn”t have to join all the right clubs, didn”t need to be a member of all the right groups, didn”t need to be able to create money as debt, didn”t need any help to get the financial monopoly we do have, course not.”

very clever i must admit as well - the best deception around. give something a name, keep referring to it, and after a while, people might just assume everytime you say “regulation” it means a particular kind of regulation, rather than the broad sense of the word.

who falls for it? economics students it seems.

Womens Learning Partnership: for Rights, Development and Peace

14

morocco

I”ve been meaning to write about this wonderful network - the Women”s Learning Partnership (WLP) - before but have been procrastinating.

No time like the present:

In a nutshell, they”re about female empowerment as part of human equality, and positive thinking : they”re a network of networks - they work with 18 autonomous and independent partner organizations in the Global South, particularly in Muslim-majority societies, to “empower women to transform their families, communities, and societies.”

One of their particular campaigns that I wanted to highlight is “Claiming Equal Citizenship“: the Campaign for Arab Women”s Right to Nationality.

Women’s right to equal citizenship is guaranteed by the majority of Arab constitutions, as well as by international law. Yet across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and the Gulf, women are denied their right to nationality – a crucial component of citizenship.

In almost every country in the MENA and Gulf regions, women who marry men of other nationalities cannot confer their original nationality to their husbands or children. Only fathers, not mothers, can confer their nationality to their children.

Discriminatory laws denying women equal nationality rights undermine women’s status as equal citizens in their home countries. Such laws send the message that women do not enjoy a direct relationship with the state, but must access their citizenship rights through mediation of a male family member, such as a father or a husband. Until women in the MENA and Gulf regions are recognized as full nationals and citizens, they cannot participate fully in public life, nor claim the other rights to which they are entitled as equal members of their societies.

The denial of women’s nationality rights also created real suffering for dual nationality families living in the woman’s home country. Children and spouses are treated as foreigners and must obtain costly residence permits. Children are often excluded from social services such as social security, healthcare and subsidized or free access to education. In many countries, spouses and children have limited employment opportunities and are unable to own property. In terms of psychological impact, many women feel isolated and guilty because they feel responsible for the difficulties faced by their families, while children suffer from low self-esteem because of their second-class status.

I have written about this problem as affecting Bangladeshi women in the past - not being able to confer nationality upon their children - as it is passed through the father. Essentially this is how I found out about this campaign, one of the WLP activists commented upon my post and pointed me to their work.

The goals of the campaign are to call for

  • Legal reform enabling women to confer their nationality to their husbands and children without condition
  • Full implementation of reformed nationality laws and equal access to these laws for all women
  • Recognition of women as equal citizens in all areas of life

Please sign the petitions to support equal rights to citizenship for men and women.

Your signature sends a message of support to partners, who can use the international visibility to strengthen their advocacy efforts for amending nationality laws.

image

Thoughts - on 'foreign policy', terrorists, and power..

32

So the discussion around “foreign policy” - Ministers saying but of course we wouldn”t change our foreign policy just because of some stupid terrorist threat, or what some stupid people suggested has something to do with the threat”. Right - if that”s the only reason you were going to change what is agreed by most people as a highly unethical “foreign policy” - (ooh i love that phrase - such a nice way of “externalizing” and removing the problem one or two steps away - “but dear, it”s foreign policy” doesn”t affect us here”) - clearly it”s not good enough.

How clever though - the reason we heard so much about this fine phrase of not changing policy “because we don”t negotiate with terrorists” - because then - if anyone does speak up about the lack of fit of being a democratic civilized nation and the shitty stuff that passes for foreign policy - why there”s a simple solution: Honey we don”t change policy to suit terrorists - okay? Even if it”s shit we gotta put up with it. We can”t be seen to be responding..

Well that might seem sensible except that it doesn”t seem to be understanding the point of terrorism. Which is to cause terror and gain power. If not “literal” power of the sort governments have - power nonetheless - power over how people see themselves, what they believe in, what they will do for those beliefs etc. - i.e. moral authority. As i”ve said elsewhere, terrorists and governments have much in common - a guy like Bin Laden has plenty in common with politicians who want power over “their people” - scaring your people, propaganda, etc. etc.

Terrorists are effectively similar to people who are career politicians - their end game is the same - terrorists use different means. ( and for those of you who believe the end justifies the means - think about this long and hard..) They”re all folks who basically in search of nation-states and the accompanying power and authority. ( remember what distinguishes the Nation-State from any other form of formal social organization - the monopoly on violence) So whilst some folks might not like my saying it like it is - some people use “legitimate” roots of gaining power within the existing model - and some - who feel they can”t get power in the system - find other ways of grabbing power. Power - also - manifests itself in different ways. Essentially the “War on Terror” gave Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted - to be seen as some sort of moral authority for Muslims. Machiavellian tactics in use here.

In any case - someone somewhere said if you magically wave a wand and change British foreign policy it wouldn”t mean the violence would end. Well - obviously, plumping for peace doesn”t mean all the violent idiots out there are never going to kill anyone any more. But it does mean that with less violence going about, we can spot the violence a mile off and say ah - this isn”t good, and in the process distinguish ourselves from these other criminals. otherwise one is permanently in the subjective state of oh well i can kill some people because I have justification, but these people cannot come and kill me which is fine for a lot of us clearly! but some of would rather be honest about the whole malarkey. In any case this is the basis for “law and order” in ordinary society “within” the nation-state - you can”t go about “taking the law into your own hands” because if you do, you are as guilty as the other party. Anyway, this is obvious so the people who don”t get it aren”t really interested I suppose. Still the point remains that in trying to condemn terrorism for the shitty thing it is, state-sponsored violence gets in the way of being able to do this properly. Pure and simple that”s what it is. Not this business of “justifying” terrorism - (which is actually what the countries are trying to do) but precisely the opposite - condemn terrorism and violence for what it is. If countries want to go about being violent - then obviously we ordinary individuals have tried but have not been able to stop them. Pointing to the cycle of violence which makes it much harder to stop future violence is hardly “justifying” violence - precisely the opposite - you want to stop ALL kinds of violence! if you wanted to justify violence you wouldn”t be much interested in stopping the overall cycle. I guess a lot of people are just too dumb to see that or frankly = not interested in the overall picture. They could just be honest about that.
And “justification” of violence is neither here nor there ( in a moralizing world it might be ) for those of us who”re interested purely and simply in providing a suitable environment to live in and enjoy ourselves however best we can - it doesn”t matter. We just want peace. I”m not bothered about “oh this person”s violence was good and this person”s was evil - that good and evil dichotomy is frankly nonsense and “religious” if anything. All this moralizing again simply reminds me of the sort of thing that terrorists are supposed to be about. “Oh we have a glorious cause for our violence. Some say it”s democracy** ( hah ) and some say its their religion.” Oh great. I”m not interested in either excuse thanks very much - no shrapnel or shards of glass in my skin is what i”m interested in! And being able to live to savour tomorrow.

Is this sooo difficult to understand? Surely not.

** Amusing sidenote: { ha- i suppose soon we”ll be hearing calls for “banning” democracy because their proponents have resorted to violence in their pursuit of it - in a similar way we hear that religion must be banned because of all the people who”ve resorted to violence in their pursuit of it..} Golly its the sort of oxymoronic thing where anti-war protestors stage a “war” with the other side to make their point. Oh then of course people would say “one should ban pacifism”. Really there”s no end to amusement - sit back and view the world..as long as we don”t take it seriously, you could fill a book with “can you believe they actually thought this one up..

role of international institutions mr. blair?

3

this morning”s epolitix summary highlights the following about Tony Blair”s trip to the US: -
“Before heading back to the UK, the prime minister delivers a keynote speech setting out his views on the role of international institutions in an era of globalisation. Ahead of the speech, Blair said the international community needs to deal with global problems. “If they”re not tackled, the consequences are very quickly felt around the world,” he said. “And you have got to have institutions that are capable of taking them on and tackling them and getting action taken.”

ah ha! very interesting - thanks tony for pointing out the role of international institutions. precisely. who are these international institutions, what “power” have they got - who controls them - and the most important questions are - is there any democratic accountability?

free the free market please

9

it makes me laugh. we”re so stupid and we love accepting what we”re told without questioning the basics. ( what! you mean this doesn”t apply to just religious people?)

what”s so “free” about the free market? please someone can you explain that to me and give me some simple answers?

there is no such thing - i for one, have always had a libertarian vision of society - the way it should be - not the state of affairs we”re lumbered with.

and a free market? well im in favour of a free society - and since a market is a part of society - im in favour of free markets. duh - you”d think that was obvious to a two-year old. How can anyone have a free market without a free society? ( well if you don”t see markets as part of society ..) Venn diagrams people - think carefully. next edition of this rant will be fully equipped for those of you who can”t see what i mean..
im most bemused by how people say we”ve got free global markets when a) we”ve not got a “free” society and b) in order to have a fully global free market surely you”d think one would have to have full free global movement for the social actors partaking in these so-called free global market. ( which we don”t - for those of you not sure what i mean - please refer to earlier rants on the fact that your global movement depends on your “group” aka that wonderfully “liberating” social unit - the Nation State.)
oh no. and then of course - perhaps people don”t understand “markets” and “social institutions” or governance or government. we are told a free market is a sign of a “laissez-faire” approach - hands off government regulation! it”s “free”. oh yes - it”s “free” - is it now? Even if there”s no government regulation - does it mean it”s free of all forms of regulation? for what is regulation if not “control”? and if anyone”s saying oh yes free markets are free of “control” ill laugh like a wild hyena. oh yes free of control - from social institutions who”re not “government” but how “free” is that - is the big question. is someone saying there are no “forces” out there controlling the situation? yes they squeak - it”s all marketforces - that”s the point. right in that case, we haven”t got free markets, last time i looked folks like the world bank and imf and the WTO and the powerful nation-states ( looking after their own interests :-) nothing wrong with that) didn”t look too much like a market but more like big powerful institutions to me. why pretend ?
so yeah - its pretty clever -focus on govt. “regulation” - and stick the power in the hands of shadowy complex non-accountable organizations - non-national (so it gets past the oh we cant have regulation by national governmental institutions) probably global - ( think IMF! World Bank - again) and hey presto! we all think we”re not “regulated” but free! free as a bird. :-) oh yes…

like i said, it makes me laugh. clearly most people don”t think about social organization. we”re trained to think about “government” — well governments at the end of the day are a form of governance. why we imagine that non-government institutions don”t have power over our lives ( the other thing of course is the term regulation, its very “official” and people don”t really think about how our lives are socially regulated by norms and groups ( aka institutions) even in the absence of “formal” regulation. ) me i”m a fan of as much individual liberty as possible - hence my anarchistic focus on social regulation - ( no point in just looking at formal “regulation” per se) - and that”s precisely why i”d like the spotlight to be on our oh-so-tightly controlled and regulated societies - when institutions have “power” over our lives - whether they”re our group of mates or the world bank - then i think we need to look at these social dynamics.
so the point is this. in societies with no “official” government and “formal” regulation - do we seriously imagine the dynamics are a) free b) not controlled by any “social forces” ? hah.

don”t imagine that cabals, cliques, coteries with power aren”t “regulating” the “market” - because they”re “regulating” the society - so naturally that affects the “marketplace”. who can do what, who can sell what to whom, who gets a preferred price, who gets no access to the market cos they”re a social outcast - you get the picture? the emphasis should be on the social context that the “market” is situated within.

Social forces - why aren”t we looking at that?
chances are if you”re an economist, you won”t get any of this - you”ll bleat - but the market the market! what”s this about the social ? ( no offense to the “enlightened economists” - of course you know that you”re a rare breed :-)
or a conformist - what? you mean all this talk about free markets and we haven”t got any? But..!! ooh dear - shock horror. yep, we need free collaborative markets -where you, me and any tom dick and harry- i.e. individuals can trade with each other without having to worry about what a bunch of uninvited big institutions think about what we ought to be doing. if a group of people organize themselves and want to trade with each other - good for them. why should i let some global institution which is not accountable to me democratically tell me what i can or cannot do based on my membership of that awful construct - the nation-state? Phooey to that - and we”re told that”s “liberalism” of some kind ( ha!!?? ) and “free”.

oh yes - “free” - for those of us in the “right” groups - the ones with the power that is.

not free as in the way i define free. not free for any random individual. oh no!

then again - its like any of these things. some folks thing something is “liberal” and some folks think ..what! ( like religion :-))

Bottom line - some people have laid the groundwork so that any discussion on freedom and markets are carried out without any consideration of the social context and the social organizations and institutions we”re saddled with. which shape the social forces we operate within. taking nation-states for “granted” as some “god-given” social unit with perfect legitimacy and as some wonderfully “free” and equal unit - not as a highly flawed social construct that spawns major global inequalities. oh no.

so of course in the context of that discourse, “free markets” - are all about markets based on national denominations. then the focus is always on this country can”t regulate itself - it must give it self up to “invisible” global regulation. i.e. let”s pretend if there is no “national” regulation, there is no regulation full stop. ( why who”d spot differently!!) of course the emphasis is never on the fact that certain other institutions somewhere else have worked very hard to ensure the current state of play - now that doesn”t sound very “laissez-faire” to me or “free from control and manipulation”. the point - as David Harvey makes - the neoliberals have some very “strong” institutions pushing through their agenda.
Anyhow - i am going to push my agenda - which is that markets aren”t free, and we need free markets - not ones that pit individuals against each other in nasty big cliques and focus on the health of the “nation-state” or big fat institutions-aka big business.fuck that - but free collaborative markets - where individuals are free to barter, exchange, and collaborate with each other. whether that is me as in moi, or me in my voluntary social collective of some sort - you know - the type you actually choose to join and have some democratic involvement in and has accountability to its members - and not some coercive focred social contract.

Liberty and free societies - and thereby - free markets - one day hopefully.

government of by and for, corporations

Finally! Some sense at last: the 'social'

11

Some more warbling on my pet subject: the social. I have “ranted” on this here and elsewhere. in fact sometimes people do think im a silly old so and so for going on about something that they all take for granted. But this is where i always say - what”s the point of theorizing or thinking about anything if we aren”t willing - or able- to go back right down to first principles. leaving out “fancy jargon” for the moment - at the simplest level, if we are ever going to usefully make sense of Anything, we need to all start from the same clean slate - or at least - be able to look at the first principles involved in any discussion. Any talk of any aspect of society - globalization, nations, economics, capitalism, socialism, global markets - all of this is highly complicated by the fact that not only are most of us not even thinking of the same thing when we use what has effectively become “buzz-words” in many ways, but also the simple fact that it all comes down to what we understand or mean when we think about the social. Or rather, that a hell of a lot of us aren”t at all thinking about it at all. As i”ve said elsewhere, there”s a great big hoo-ha all over the bloody place about “markets” and global markets, and generally it has become accepted practice to forget about the fact that markets and economic activity are nothing but subsets of social activity. So if we are going to theorize about markets, or “globalization” we”re not going to get anywhere without considering first and foremost about the social context.

Voila! - simple one might think, aha but as some of us can see - simplicity is a stepping stone to clarity and as Machiavelli might have said, who wants clarity when a whole bunch of confused people are much easier to manipulate.

Anway - focusing now more specifically on that much maligned term “socialism”. First off let me say there”s this great big idea/myth floating around all over the countryside that somehow if you have any progressive aspirations or ideas on society and people and on trying to live collectively together ( and face it - what else are we going to do? Fuck off to Mars - maybe until then we”re stuck here so we”d better learn to get along one way or the other. Simple again? Ha.) and somehow you espouse some idea that leads some other person to say ah! you sound like a “lefty” ( whatever that may mean- seems to be anyone who”s not a fascist of some sort - and if that”s the case, fine by me as i consider fascism a highlighly significant problem - and guess what - those of you with limited imagination - i ain”t referring just to mr. hitler or mr. stalin there are a WHOLE bunch of people in my book under the heading of fascists - more on that later) or a “socialist”. Now of course if the latter, a lot of people imagine you must be “a Marxist” or if they”re feeling not too “let”s box u in” that day - simply socialist. which is fine by me - but then again, presumptuous assumptions come to the forefront and you find out that lots of people - including a large bunch of these “socialists” imagine there is only one thing that could possibly mean i.e. you must be a “statist”of some kind. I use the term statist in a more sociological sense rather than the standard economic one. ( see the Wikipedia entry for a nice explanation) Loosely - let”s say the assumption is we must all be in favour of some big state-y centralist control type scenarios - or that - in order to have any progressive ideas, we must be in favour of a big fat government telling us all what we must or mustnt do and “regulate” per se. Now this is where i say we need to all re-think what we understand and mean by “public” - (as in a lot of people”s heads if you refer to the public interest the first thing that comes into people”s heads is “government”. [you know the silly dichotomy between govt. /private etc. ] ) - “regulation” etc. My understanding is that it doesn”t matter shit about all this - what we need to understand instead - institutions, and organizations. Very simple? or not. Big central institutions - public or private - generally end up being structured and organized in such a way as to limit the individuals within them -and this is where my interest in them stems. We need to think about distributed, decentralized forms of organization. How our social organizations work is of fundamental importance to all of those main issues listed way up above, is basically my point. And to understand that we need to think about social dynamics and organization.

So the reason for my excitement - simply an indication that someone else has thought ( or may have done!) about this business of the “social”: check out this LSE Public Lecture - on Thursday 23rd February:

Taking the “Social” in “Socialism” Seriously

Speaker: Professor Erik Olin Wright, Vilas Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin

23 February at 6.30pm in the Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House, LSE

“While the word “social” appears in both socialism and social democracy, generally it is invoked in a loose and ill-defined way. In practice, socialism has generally been understood as a highly statist project of social transformation. This lecture proposes an alternative grounding for the idea of social-ism, one which places “social empowerment” at the centre of the institution-building agenda.”

—–

machiavelli

4

the ZenPundit blog has a great quote:

” The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities” — Machiavelli

Yup Machiavelli you clever old thing you were certainly right, no wonder you were a master of statecraft..ha you realized that this meant the great majority of mankind therefore are pretty easy to manipulate.

Fat and Feminism?

17

Susie Orbach highlighted in her 1978 groundbreaking book “Fat is a Feminist Issue” how female identity is “hopelessly inextricable from body image” ; she”s recently updated the introduction to this book indicating how things haven”t changed all that much, well actually ..they”ve been getting much worse.

An interesting analysis of social construction of body image. I think one thing i”d like to highlight here is the circularity of such social construction. say if you happen to be female and have somehow managed to defeat all this social pressure and expectations to behave in a particular way -and are not particularly bothered with the way you look - aha! what then? - say in the online medium, where no one can see what you look like - people will still expect a character to have a “feminine” identity, and there will be some expectation re: association with body image. This can range from all sorts of thinking like. either you”re a “silly girl” and will be fluffy, and project some kind of feminine physique across the online medium ( say with your photo or giggles on the page) and if you don”t do that -well - you must be a man or you”re an ugly woman. ( heh heh)

Okay so it”s not like that”s the only idea floating around just as well!) but you do come across it still. Analysing the Internet as a gendered space is clearly still a very revealing area of study. :-)

Freedom - what is it?

13

People seem to be so afraid of freedom. Do they want to be told what to do? Whether by a state in favour of totalitarian conformity - or by their mates - certainly its starting to look that way!

“Totalitarian Conformity - “We can make decisions on what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for all people - there is no such thing as context! All world is black and white -so we know what decisions to make, for all people!”
( read aloud in strong indian accent)

Heh indeed. [doesn't that sound like mao and his mates?look, such a happy lot of people who lived in 'a black and white' society - you're with us - or you're against us! Agree - or die! yes a lot of fakely smiling people, we live in a totalitarian society - yeah for me!] the stupidity of people is amazing clearly no-one values their individuality and freedom, i do - so this is a bit worrying..eh?

Mao 1968

 Page 1 of 2  1  2 »

Archives