Search

Marnie's Blogs

Definitely Not a Liberal, So Your Libtard Insult Means Nothing To Me

Mental Health in Tayside – Carseview Psychiatric Centre. A Personal Story

FB_IMG_1492058647217

If you would like to share your experiences in the past year of Carseview (both good and bad) please contact Fiona Walker at the BBC. This will be an ongoing feature for BBC Scotland that won’t be going away, no matter how much NHS Tayside and the Scottish Government stall on the issue.

Today is the eve of the interim report by The Independent Inquiry into Carseview psychiatric hospital in Dundee, Scotland. I’ve already received the report from Fiona Walker at the BBC as I didn’t engage with The Independent Inquiry due to ill feelings from the families who requested it as I contacted NHS Tayside Board to participate in their own independent inquiry when they called for patients to get in touch after the airing of the ‘Breaking Point’ documentary in July 2018.

I was admitted to Carseview in August 2017 after 6 weeks with the Crisis Team at the facility. It all began when I was brought in by police after my GP had phoned them about their concerns for me after cancelling an emergency appointment – I called to cancel as I had made plans to complete suicide and was driving my son to his grandparents so he was safe. I had already left my affairs in order, left out my identification including bank statements, debit card and a note to say what had led to that point with my final wishes. I was a single mum with no support from family when I was calling out for extra help; completing my MSc Psychology at Abertay University where I was having a hellish time with departmental bullying after an amazing final year as a sociology undergrad; had finished my first year teaching and surviving off naps, not eating and losing weight quickly with suspicions of Crohn’s disease. It was a rough two years and I was at my wits end and couldn’t find any enjoyment in life.

On my way home I had planned on getting a case of beer to go with the pills I had saved up but I was refused sale as I didn’t have any ID on me, it was in the house, sitting on the kitchen counter with my note. I was annoyed by this and said fuck it and went home. As I made my way up the stairs I wondered what had happened to my front door – the door was off the hinges. As I walked in there were 3 officers who were going through all my belongings and had my house in a state. I was furious they were there, a feeling that I still get angry about because I haven’t been able to feel so determined to kill myself before or since. If they hadn’t been there, I most certainly wouldn’t be here writing this today. They told me they found my note and were looking for pictures of me so they could put out a missing person’s notice across Scotland – as if my graduation pictures they pulled off the walls weren’t enough. They’d tracked my car from road traffic cameras and believed I had made plans to jump off the Kingston Bridge. Although there’s anti-suicide barriers along there now, most people who jump from there don’t actually land in the water, they land on nearby ground and buildings – a fate I honestly never wanted to have. That thought came to mind there and then and I had a silent chuckle to myself.

They were taking me to the hospital where I was going to get assessed. They told me I’d only be there for the assessment and I’d get to go home after 24 hours they said. I asked them if I had to go in the car, they said I did. The thought mortified me as I knew my neighbours would have known that they were there – this is an area where we don’t talk to police and having them at your door raises suspicions. On the way out they asked me if I harmed my son which horrified me. They’d gotten a set of ladders somewhere and went into the attic space to look for bodies. They also said they were surprised that I was in this predicament because I didn’t seem the type to want to harm myself because I had a whole wall in my living room dedicated to my son’s art work from a baby to present and the house was immaculate. They stated that people with chaotic lives usually have chaotic homes, and me and my home were well turned out. I guess you can’t make assumptions of people’s lives just by how they’re perceived – mental illness isn’t a stereotype.

2 officers escorted me to Carseview and we were placed in a small waiting room at the ambulance entrance. I felt embarrassed and ashamed with undertones of resentment that I was there. I apologised many times to the officers about having to stick with me and asked if it was necessary for them to stay. One of them wasn’t into talking and just gave a one word reply, the other cracked a joke that sitting here with me beats them having to go out and arrest junkies. Someone from the Crisis Team eventually came after about an hour, which was the cue for the police to leave and their final words wishing me all the best. The suicide note had been taken and that was handed to the psychiatrist who was waiting for me. He asked if it was OK to spend some time reading it before speaking to me and I agreed. What would they do if I said no? At the end of the hour long consultation the doctor asked for my note to be placed in with my notes – sure, it’s not like I’m needing it now, is it? The psychiatrist was allowing me to go home after that initial assessment – only if I stated I wasn’t going to go home and kill myself and would agree to meeting the Crisis Team every other day. I was given a script for my severe anxiety – quetiapine, which would help with my racing thoughts, shakes and lack of sleep. It’s a drug that I’m still thankful to be on and wish I had been prescribed it years ago as I’ve been on all forms of classic and go-to drugs for anxiety and depression the GP’s dish out, without much success for half my life.

I was allowed to get home visits from the Crisis Team but I refused and said I’d rather come into the centre for my appointments because I didn’t want them coming into my house. I’d rather have the motivation in my days to get up, showered and dressed. Looking back at it now, I was in denial about needing an intervention and having them in my home felt like an admission and invasion. I liked the women I spoke to at these meetings, they gave me a lot of sound advice and were willing to help prescribe me things there and then that I’d asked for from my GP to help manage life day to day. At the time, management was on an hour by hour basis, not the day to day that most people think of because I was feeling that terrible about myself and my situation. They had a simple request of me: to spend one hour out of my day focusing on myself, to do something I enjoyed that would be relaxing. I couldn’t do it as I did nothing but focus on work. They even tried to make me have 10 minutes and I couldn’t even give myself that. Looking back on it now, I don’t understand why I couldn’t give that to myself and how patient the Crisis Team were with me. Crisis Team interventions only gives you 6 weeks with them and the 6 weeks were now up.

It was a Saturday that I had for my final appointment. I hadn’t made any improvements except passed the point of having the motivations to kill myself since the medication had had time to work. The Crisis Team had at this appointment, focused on me as a mother and if I’d seen or spoken to my son in that time. This has always been an issue with me as I’ve suffered with severe post natal depression. It was a difficult pregnancy and a traumatic birth where we’re both lucky to have survived it. I’ve always felt like I’ve never bonded with my son because I’ve never had that unconditional, instant love that every other woman seems to have, even though I’ve always been told how fantastic a mum I have been with my son. Because I’ve never felt that connection, I always have the guilt that I’m a horrible parent, I shouldn’t be a mum and totally inadequate because I’m not living up to what society says a mum should be. It really effected me any time my son was brought up and the Crisis Team saw this. I thought I was going to be going home and continuing in the same ways as I had been until I was told that there was something different about me today. The Crisis Team weren’t happy sending me home and they wanted me to be an inpatient. I refused to go in and was told if I didn’t come in voluntarily I’d be sectioned. Anyone who’s been in this situation knows that the last thing you want is to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. I said absolutely not to being sectioned so I’ll come in ‘voluntarily’ which they told me would just be over the weekend for respite. I was happy with that as I had just started back to work after the holidays, thinking at most I’d have the Monday off.

03jbdTcarseviewcentre8539a-e1484667351809-515x372

Everyone kept acting like I was only in for a few days – the assessment period in a ward is 72 hours. It wasn’t until the following day when I got notified of my named nurse that I was going to be in longer, only because she was telling me of the things that I could do while I was in which were days off the following week. I had an appointment with the consultant later on in my first day, who just said to me that it’s a wonder why this was my first time ever in a psychiatric hospital given my family history of mental health issues and my life experience, as most people in less traumatic situations had been hospitalised well before my age of 29.

I kept a diary on my laptop while I was in for those 13 days I was in. I luckily had my laptop with me in the car that was still parked in the hospital car park so I could keep a record of my days there. I had to keep a diary while I was in because it helped keep track of the days because very quickly every day is exactly the same. The institutionalisation sets in after day 2 as you get into the routine of the place. There’s barely anything to do in there to keep your mind busy. The only things you’re aware of and look forward to is visiting hours at 3pm and 6.30pm, cuppy times in between meals, and your 3 meals a day. That diary I will probably publish somewhere at some point after I’ve read through it and changed everyone’s names for anonymity. Some things are still painful to revisit with some incidents that can’t be released until a High Court case which is due to be at some point this year.

Just as you get used to the routine of the wards, you also quickly get used to the staff: those who you can trust, and those you need to watch out for. There was a lot of things I saw that I didn’t like that upset me and other patients, and little glimmers of hope as well. The same went for patients as well because there were people who, although were deeply unwell, were still switched on enough to manipulate and take advantage of you. You had to know how to handle yourself because the staff weren’t there to keep you or your belongings safe.

Because you’re contained to 4 walls in a small ward with up to 20 other people, you develop very strong bonds with other patients. With these people I shared some really funny moments that made the days a lot more bearable when mixed with some awful things. There was always a laugh to be had with those you grew close to about our situations and what led to our incarceration. The morbidity of that sense of humour would likely shock and appal most people, but it got us through being at the lowest moment of our lives, sharing it together. There was the running joke about the things that were banned on the ward because they would be used as ligatures to hang yourself. A moment I always laugh about is someone who had just days before I arrived been revived after trying to hang themselves with their laptop cable they were trusted with in their room, asking for a swing ball set for the garden so we could pass the time. He had to be reminded by staff it was on a rope and therefore contraband. He wasn’t even allowed his headphones any more but was somehow trusted enough to have his shoes laces when they were most likely to be more effective than the wires.

I met some pretty amazing people while I was there, one of which gave me some of his stunning art work he created on the ward, that still hand proudly in my living room, at either side of my graduation photos, as a reminder of the dark times that I’ve survived.

20170921_130439.jpg

Look closely and you should be able to see different forms come out from the paint patterns. From eyes, lips, bodies etc. The pieces can be rotated to see more. Maybe it’s the drugs we were given, or the lack of stimulation but we had a great time looking at these types of paintings on the ward. I was the only lucky one to be allowed to keep these only because the man who painted these knew Angus Menmuir Neil who painted me not long before he died. He was a patient of my mother’s in Sunnyside psychiatric hospital in the 90s.

20170921_130450.jpg

The serious incident that I’m waiting to give evidence at the High Court about led to my sudden discharge in September 2017. Me and one other, who I continued to stay in contact with upon our release as I took him to his Crisis Team appointments and brought food round for. That person wasn’t as fortunate as me and to be allowed to be readmitted when he needed it which resulted in his suicide in November that same year. It’s something that I’m still angry about and something which I have a lot of guilt over as I’m sure that the night it happened I could have stopped – it was the night of my graduation where a feeling in my body compelled me to go to his house and I sat outside arguing with myself whether I should knock on the door or not. The logical side of me said not to as it was around 10.30pm on a weekday. The guilt shouldn’t be with me, it should be with Carseview for not taking him seriously.

It wasn’t until January 2018 when I was readmitted. I just wasn’t coping after my release because there was no after care or support put in place for me and I was still the same as always. I had had one appointment with the psychiatric community team at Wedderburn which had been scheduled 3 months after my discharge. There, the consultant simply said to me after 30 minutes “Well I can see why you’ve been feeling the way you have been and to be honest, I don’t know what else I can do for you. Come see me in 3 months to see what’s changed.” Very helpful, thanks for that.

My second stay was a little different. I was a veteran to the wards by now so I was treated differently. I was given more privileges than most do in their 72 hour ward based care (WBC) assessment time. I was trusted that I could be taken out with other patients to smoke as the smoking ban had been put in place where everyone had to be taken off the grounds. Before you were allowed out to the enclosed garden. That thankfully was signed off by my named nurse from my first visit who was really the only saving grace of that place as she had a real sense of treating patients like adult human beings, and not children who needed minded. She was thoughtful and seemed like she genuinely cared. This was only granted because she realised that although unhealthy, smoking is a relief and coping mechanism for a lot of people. She recognised it in me because of the state I had been upon my arrival where my dad didn’t take too kindly to the news from my sister that I was back in. As I’ve said, my family haven’t been supportive of me at any time throughout my life, and it culminated in a vicious phone call to the ward and emails from him and his partner calling me a disappointment as I was a month from my 30th birthday, acting like a child and attention seeking. I told my sister not to tell my dad because I knew I was a disappointment without him telling me. As I was on WBC I didn’t have the means to harm myself except from what I had on my person. After that phone call I took my shoelaces out and tried to strangle myself in my room with little success. The staff noticed the marks around my neck and questioned me. This is when they removed any type of ligature I could use, including the eye mask I had for sleeping (you needed one because there was a light in your room that never went off). It took a week to get my laces for my shoes again.

There were some faces the second time around that I recognised from my first stay. Some had never left and some had, like me, a brief stint on the outside and were back in because there was no community help for them as well. I was in for 3 weeks this time and had a better outcome as I wasn’t prematurely discharged. They set me up with a pain specialist as they weren’t happy with how my GP was managing my back pain and also with the sleep clinic with the neurology department, stating in the referral I had insomnia. Before my discharge this time, I was asked to complete a support pack with a wellness and trigger toolkit that I’d have a copy of and give to non existent friends and family to keep a check on my status. It seemed my stay was a much more positive experience this time although there were still a lot of the same troubling behaviours I saw last time. I was able to attend the gym, although some times I’d go in the morning after breakfast and it was locked as the single physio that’s allocated to the centre wasn’t there; and I got to go to a relaxation session which was great. This is where I found out about mindfulness and thought to start embracing meditation and focusing on living in the present, instead of constantly being in the past and future. I still do mindfulness daily and recommend it to anyone. It’s allowed me to come off a lot of my medication and return back to work.

I eventually got my appointment with neurology where straight off the bat they said I didn’t have insomnia, I have complex PTSD from childhood trauma. They told me that childhood trauma makes someone more likely to develop PTSD as an adult, which I did develop in my early 20s after a serious assault, as well as all forms of depression, including PND. I was told that how I’ve been experiencing life is extremely common and they have a dedicated counselling service to help deal with my experiences and they’d put me on the waiting list. I was warned though, that the wait is long and they’d refer me to Murray Royal Hospital as well in the hopes they’d see me sooner. I was advised to get continual counselling (or as much of) with Insight who I had started seeing during my wait to see neurology and found it really helpful. It’s a resource that’s under funded and much needed. I was told the intensive counselling sessions would be required for years and it will be difficult. I will get to the point where I don’t want to see them any more, but that will be the indication that we’ve just scratched the surface. The consultant told me this as if it would be difficult to hear, but honestly I felt relieved and happy because I was ready to deal with what I need to. It was the first time in my life that I’ve had the validation that I’m not over reacting, attention seeking or being dramatic as I’d been raised to think. I have all the common symptoms of childhood abuse: a constant perfectionist lifestyle, unsatisfied with any accomplishments, long term sleep disturbance (had it since childhood) and difficulties remembering anything in my life. It’s just nice to know I’m not the only one who feels like this as you always feel like you’re the only one.

I had been contacted by an ex-patient from Carseview not long after I had come out of my second stint to ask me if I wanted to speak to the BBC about my experiences. Because of the incident that happened the first time and after the death of another patient, I decided that I had to. I was in the position where I felt emotionally empowered to talk about it, where others couldn’t. I was angry at the system because of the horrible things I’d witnessed and been a part of. I wanted there to be justice because no one would listen to any patient, believing that we’re all psychotic and out of touch with reality, so how could you believe any of us? By this point I was no longer talking to my dad, he’d been black listed on my medical records and would never be considered a ‘named person’ after the phone call, and only had my sister down south as ‘support.’ She told me not to talk to the BBC and ‘air my dirty laundry’ because the BBC would take advantage of me, my name would be mud everywhere and I’d have a hard time going back to work because of the stigma. I ended up falling out with her about it and I haven’t spoken to her since my initial hour long phone call with the BBC. I spent 3 hours being filmed by the BBC for the documentary and over the summer I went back to work on a 2 week residential with young people when the documentary was due to be aired. My testimony was to be the biggest part of that documentary as we hadn’t heard from the Courts about the serious incident that happened so we were going ahead with it. The day before the airing, I got a phone call to say the documentary had to be changed into what it is now as the Procurator Fiscal said to pull it – there was now an imminent court case. It felt like the BBC’s legal team going back and forth for weeks was now seeing some justice finally being done.

p01lcg9q

Anxiety started ramping up in me as the time grew closer to the airing and it took me a few days before I actually watched it. Any time I went out in public I thought everyone recognised me and had judgement, even though I received messages from old students, friends, ex patients and strangers saying thank you and well done for having the bravery to speak out.

30 minutes never did it justice because so much was never shown for anyone to get a full picture or sense of the gravity of the problems in the hospital. I felt pretty disappointed by it to be honest, and to know that my one bit was about the minor things of my experiences with drugs on the wards. It was never explained that drugs are on the wards because taking drugs and getting high for a few hours is escapism for those in there, to kill some time and also to self medicate. I didn’t realise that what other people saw was horrifying for those who believed it, and slander to those who didn’t. My friends went on Twitter and told me of the reactions which made me go on there to stand up for and validate the things that patients who I was in with experienced as they were called lunatics, liars and slanderous things such as junkies and prostitutes only wanting their 15 minutes of fame. I was surprised I was never lumped in with these people, although people (ex nurses) said I was exaggerating/lying.

20170913_191157

The following day the NHS Tayside Board released a statement that they wanted to do their own independent inquiry into the allegations and would be open to anyone who contacted them. I agreed to do that, thinking that going directly to the institution would mean that actions would need to be taken as there was now a paper trail. I used the diary that I had kept to give specific dates and names of staff members so allegations of abuse and misconduct could be internally investigated, but also to praise the good that was there as well. I hadn’t heard anything back from the Board for a long time, it wasn’t until I was back to work 8 months later did I get a reply, asking me to come in for a meeting as they saw me as an expert witness. The meeting only lasted an hour where it was mostly just me recapping some experiences and what I think should be done to make improvements. From things like redecorating to avoid the sea of magnolia, introducing counselling and therapies, increasing the amount of good quality activities in the wards (bookcases not filled with Enid Blyton books and jigsaws with missing pieces) to improving the community services in Tayside. Apparently it was all improvements that seemed fair and could be implemented which they were keen to have me on board to help with the implementation after they’ve had a discussion to see what things I could actively work on after the report came out in full. I’m still waiting to hear back from these people more than 6 months later.

_106477770_carseviewptc_frame_908

Things with the Board had stagnated, to the point where a senior Board member has been so unhappy that they leaked the interim report to the BBC last month. I was sent the confidential report and asked to be filmed again for an update story that went out on all media platforms. The report had already been written before I had met with the Board and the recommendations I had asked for were already stated. It was a pleasantry to meet me and ask for my input, stringing me along to seem like I’d been taken seriously – they already knew what had to be done. All I did was verify it for them. And to think all this time has passed – almost a year now and they haven’t done anything. It’s disheartening to think that anything will be done.

I received a text from Fiona Walker tonight to ask if I’d read The Independent Inquiry’s interim report which has gathered evidence from hospital staff, patients, carers, family, GPs, CAMHS, church groups and other community services about their experiences of Carseview. Fiona sent it over and I had a read of it and was disgusted by how blatant and shocking the report is. It details that staff aren’t trained properly or encouraged to be actively in Continuous Professional Development (CPD), and work in a climate of fear in regards to saying anything negative because the institution treats any negative experience as, not an opportunity for reflection and improvement, but something which won’t be tolerated. Staff don’t know who their line managers are because the turn over is so high which has led to inconsistent communications on day to day management and that best practice is shared ‘as an exception.’ Even things down to risk assessments on patients aren’t carried out, and so anyone can self discharge when it’s known that they want to leave in order to harm other people so public safety is at a risk, not just for the patients and staff on the wards.

The 2016/17 audit of NHS Tayside

Shona Robison who had been the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport up until the documentary airing had visited Carseview on a number of occasions after suicides were made public, stated she was doing everything she could to work with NHS Tayside, and didn’t see the issues that we’re seeing brought to light now. She had the full backing and support from our First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on the matter. We can’t say that Shona didn’t have the full knowledge of the extent of Carseview because she was also the MSP for Dundee East. She’d have been well aware of the notoriety of Carseview because it’s an open secret of how appalling the service is with anyone in Dundee, because most people know someone who has been in the care facility at one point in time. But I don’t suppose it’s any wonder that these things have been swept under the rug when our own First Minister’s constituency of Govan has residents living in rat infested slums unfit for habitation. What a disgrace it is to have a Scottish Government that’s so apathetic to it’s constituents, yet cry out in Westminster that they’re the saving grace for a socialist Scotland under brutish Tory rule. Mix that in with appalling state schools where attainment under the Curriculum for Excellence has failed to meet the targets it set out in it’s 7 year plan; where Dundee yet again has the lowest attainment rates in the whole of Scotland and the second highest district with children living in poverty in Scotland. Even with this independent inquiry, I doubt we’ll see much improvement of any public service in Dundee any time soon.

Financialisation and Working Class Happening – Short Exam Prep Essay for Class, Work and Global Economy Module – Sociology With Weekly Reading and Recommended Reading List

This was another favourite module for me in my final year at University. I highly recommend that you find Sylvia Federici’s Caliban and the Witch book to show how society and class has been created and changed over time from the perspective of women. There’s great historical stories surrounding witch hunts and how matriarchs were once the rulers of our societies.

With the reading lists, these are in every module guide you get on day one of all your classes. It outlines your essay questions, submission date, expectations for formatting and where to submit. There is a weekly reading list which has a mandatory text to read and you’re also expected to read at least a minimum of two readings in the recommended list. You’ll find that there’s over lap with your readings for other classes and from previous years which lightens the load if you’ve been studious and taking your learning seriously. If you do that, as well as a minimum of writing 3 generic essays per exam question then you’re easily on your way for a 2:1/1:1 honours degree. Doing the bare minimum is not going to get you very far. This is why it’s so important to instil these good study practices in early so that you’re well used to handling life, work and studying and still be very successful.

After a while, you get used to the workload and reading becomes easier so the mountain summit gets easier to reach as the years progress. These reading lists provide the minimum expectations for a 4th year university student of Sociology and is expected in all your modules. Remember, essays are your friends for exams!

Essay on Financialisation

Adam Smith believed that the ‘invisible hand of capitalism’ would always create a balance between supply, demand, prices and competition in order for individuals and businesses to reach their own goals, and unintentionally create a positive effect on the rest of society. This notion of the invisible hand has been twisted by neoclassical economics for over 40 years in order to facilitate the normalisation of neoliberalism throughout the western world; allowing for states to withdraw their involvement in national economies in the hope of creating more responsible, free thinking citizens who are less reliant on the state, but ultimately to create monopolies for the wealthy. This essay will explain the process from the highly regulated Keynesian economic system to the current unregulated system of neoliberalism and why states choose this method over an alternative.

Classical economics bases itself on a small government which regulates institutions and allows individual autonomy, whereas neoclassical economics (which includes Keynesianism and neoliberalism) seeks a small government separate from institutions within society to create a cultural hegemony where consumers proactively participate in the free market which regulates itself through supply and demand.

As a result of the Great Depression, the 1944 Bretton Woods conference brought together 44 governments to create a comprehensive and legalised set of regulations to create a more stable and open international financial system, allowing governments to adjust exchange rates and control all capital movements with the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) – now the World Bank – for long term investments in infrastructure and short term balance payments, which supported John Maynard Keynes’ theory explained in ‘General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money’ (1936) (Helleiner 2010). This meant that economic markets were now open with money easily transferred throughout all western countries, overseen and regulated by the IMF.

Rising disposable income fuelled consumer demand which is where difficulties in Fordism arose. Inflation in the 1970s resulting in rising unemployment levels and the growing threat of outsourced industries in the Far East and South America (who offered far lower labour costs) were the first signs of Britain in transition from an industrial to a post industrial society. Alain Touraine (1971) and David Bell (1973) both recognise a decline in manufacturing at this time with and a significant growth in services which created a shift in class identity, leading us to see an emergence of the middle class who moved into the new IT and service sectors.

IT is a natural development of the capitalist process and concentrates on sectors which requires a more educated and trained workforce which Schumpeter (1943) refers to as a ‘creative destruction’ in that it replaces outdated, expensive manufacturing industries into efficient service industries. David Bell called this society the ‘information society’ rather than ‘post industrial’ where a counter culture develops out of these struggles which questions Fordist management of the economy during the late 1970s, leading to the election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in 1979 after bitter workers strikes and rising unemployment.

The elites were trying to resolve the 1973 financial crisis by embracing economic reforms developed by Milton Freidman and the ‘Chicago Boys’ from 1975 associated with their experiment in Chile under the Pinochet Regime which Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan gladly embraced. Harvey (2007) believes the success of South American neoliberalism lead to a compliant and easily persuaded population ready to embrace open markets. Neoliberalism has the intention of redistributing wealth by making sure that what was given to the poor is taken away and given back to the elites. This is done in the form of lowering state investment into public sectors and privatising publically owned assets including natural resources such as oil, gas and coal. Property rights were changed to allow for the accumulation of private property where physically removing the poor from areas of land was carried out in order to take control. Thatcher’s message for the UK was ‘there is no such thing as society’ which meant that the state were no longer going to look after the population, they had to survive on their own success, even though there is always going to be losers amongst the winners.

This process of selling off state assets continued with Tony Blair’s New Labour government from 1997 – 2007 now dubbed the IT revolution; fuelling further consumerism, heightened by increased borrowing from banks as housing prices soared. For Crouch (2009) this boom was a new kind of privatised Keynesianism where debt is transferred onto the individuals rather than the state.

Debt is created by private banks who offer it to consumers as credit which is paid back with interest. Banks will try to convince people it is their fault as consumers for increasing inflation and house prices therefore needing higher wages; even though it is the central banks who affect the changes in interest rates and inflation by speculating on the market. In 1971 the gold standard which regulated how much money could be printed and circulated by a state ceased and the introduction of fiat (Latin for ‘let it be done’) money took over, which is necessary for neoliberalism to function. Fiat money gives banks the opportunity to create money based on the market’s situation which will be legally enforced by the government through legal tender.

Allan Greenspan was chosen as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board by President Reagan in 1987 – 2008 to oversee deregulation of the central banks where he slashed interest rates to allow banks to lend to people who could not afford loan repayments to buy homes which were fast becoming incredibly expensive due to inflation. The housing bubble which lead to the 2008 economic crisis took capital and used it to speculate house values in order to increase the housing prices to earn a profit as their value consistently increased over time. Like in the UK, the US were pushing for people to own their own home as a sign of success and a way to invest in their futures for it to only improve the profits for the banks. This growing need for owning property lead to the subprime housing crisis which all financial institutions knew was a reckless decision and it was only a matter of time before it collapsed. Bankers took advantage of customers by introducing flexible interest rates on mortgages to those they knew could not afford to buy a house, which hit places like Baltimore and New Orleans in the US the hardest as areas were populated by predominantly black people in precarious work situations. To continue the exploitation of black home owners, financial institutions lobbied to Congressman to block race related acts which would have stopped minorities falling victim to predatory scams called reverse redlining. Financial institutions will recruit five lobbyists per Congressman to persuade them to pass legislation to influence the financial market (Pell and Eaton 2010) which is commonly known as the Wall Street – Washington Corridor. Campaign contributions will allow an industry’s opinion to speak louder than the national interests. This is also seen in the UK with Transparency UK stating from 2001 – 2010 £250 million of the £425 million pounds in party donations were given from a small amount of individuals where donations were £100,000 and over (Corruption in Politics Report, 2012). There has been efforts from the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) to update regulations on the securitisation on subprime loans and the unrecorded long term structured investment vehicles (SIVs) (tax free offshore accounts) which is part of the shadow banking system – a system which most banks are involved in as it allows assets to be transferred to corporations from investors with a fee charged for doing so (Shadow Banking: Strengthening Oversight and Regulation, 2011).

From 1979 onwards the Conservative government set out to make the economy flexible in terms of organisation, work practices and workers by the breaking down of demarcation barriers; outsourcing production and increasing the supply of labour by encouraging more temporary part time staff rather than permanent full time staff. From this time the state is seen as too involved in the market and it should be up to the private sector to stimulate growth in order to cut back on state spending. A long process of financialisation begins through public manipulation using the media, universities and public policy reforms to encourage and promote neoliberalism to the masses. This then initiated the public into the world of investment and savings of neoliberal thought whereby privatisation of publically owned industries were welcomed and also included the Right to Buy scheme to free up state assets for investment. Harvey (2007) sees Reagan’s destruction of the air traffic controllers (PATCO) in 1980 and Margaret Thatcher’s defeat of the British miners in 1984 as crucial moments in the global turn toward neoliberalism. The problem with neoliberalism is though that it will create great inequalities with regular booms and recessions which the state has to intervene in to soften the blow of losses made to industries and also to invest in service improvements. The state will always bail out the financial sector on the backs of the poor by cutting public services and welfare and raising inflation, all of which are further expanding the gap of inequality between the working class and the elites. The increasingly widening gap of inequality was reasoned by supporters of neoliberalism by stating if anyone was to fail in the market it was due to their lack of drive to succeed, laziness and lack of educational attainment and solely the individual’s fault. “While ‘blame’ should rest on the financial sector, governments failed to protect the market from itself and to protect society from the kinds of excesses that have repeatedly imposed high costs on taxpayers, workers, homeowners, and retirees.” (Stiglitz, 2009).

These processes are allowed to happen after the repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 which separated investment and commercial banks from one another to protect customers. With the advice from Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, President Clinton in 1999 repealed the Act in the hope to free up the market to make it perform better. After the 1999 repeal Goldman Sachs went from an investment to commercial bank, which allowed for state protection in case of economic downturn and as one of the biggest banks in the US were a major player in selling subprime mortgages. They made profits from the subprimes by insuring the debts to other financial companies in a process called ‘short selling’ up until 2008. Wall Street are effectively high rollers using the working class as poker chips in a casino where governments turn a blind eye, causing massive negative repercussions to society as huge stakes are at risk, allowing for mass unemployment, destitution and financial collapse which did eventually happened in 2008. The only people who do not experience the devastating effects of recession and austerity are the bankers and elites themselves. Forbes 400 offers real time analysis on who the richest people in America are, which constitutes as the top 3% of the population, showing that they are the only group in society in the current climate who are making steadily increasing annual profits in real terms.

Goldman Sachs’ recklessness until 2008 resulted in them needing a $10 million bail out from the state because one of the biggest banks defaulting will inevitably lead to civil unrest, so the government had to make money through quantitative easing. Government should be small in neoliberal capitalism but it is more bloated than it has ever been as it is constantly buying out banks for reckless behaviour caused by deregulation. Good enterprise should be rewarded and bad enterprise should fail which unfortunately has not happened. Rather than the free market working for the consumer who participate in it, we are now at the mercy of the financial institutions. With all financial institutions passing the buck and denying the true factors at fault while having the ability to fund think tanks and access universities and media outlets they are able to spread disinformation in order to keep the support for neoliberalism going.

Neoliberal capitalism has improved living standards and created wealth for the baby boomers of the ‘50s and ‘60s who have experienced an age of decadence over the past 40 years, giving them instant gratification which has made them apathetic to the destructive system that perpetuates their immediate needs and its impact on future generations. There are still great inequalities around the world where people are exploited and living in destitution while the elites gain profit from these people’s misfortunes; it simply cannot be claimed it is due to a lack of hard work and drive to succeed. Neoliberal capitalism has crescendoed to create a paradox where the more we consume the more debt we create. Our level of consumption today is akin to that which Huxley speaks of in Brave New World and it should be seen as a warning. Most of these problems can be improved by fairly redistributing wealth; localising economies instead of globalising them; creating a system revolving around production not consumption; introducing strict banking regulations and create a strong government that will follow Iceland’s example of holding reckless bankers responsible for unethical financial practices.

References

Bell, D. 1973. The Coming of Post Industrial Society: a venture in social forecasting. USA: Basic Books

Crouch, C. 2009. Private Keynesianism: An unacknowledged policy regime. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 11(3): pp. 382–399.

Federal Reserve Bulletin. 2014. Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances. [Online]. Available from: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf [Accessed 16 November 2015].

Financial Stability Forum. 2011. Shadow Banking: Strengthening Oversight and Regulation Recommendations of the Financial Stability Board. [Online]. Available from: http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/wp-content/uploads/r_111027a.pdf?page_moved=1 [Accessed 16 November 2015].

Forbes 400. 2015. [Online]. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#version:realtime [Accessed from 16 November 2015.

Harvey, D. 2007. Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 610(1): pp. 21 – 44.

Helleiner, E. (2010) A Bretton Woods Moment? The 2007-2008 Crisis and the Future of Global Finance. International Affairs. 86(3): pp. 619 – 636

Hinnant-Bernard, T. and Crull, S. R. (2004). Subprime lending and reverse redlining. Housing and Society. 31(2): pp. 169 – 189

Keynes, J. M. 1936. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. [Online] Available from: http://cas.umkc.edu/economics/people/facultypages/kregel/courses/econ645/winter2011/generaltheory.pdf [Accessed 16 November 2015].

Pell, M. B. And Easton, J. 2010. Five Lobbyists per congressman on financial reforms Public Integrity [Online] http://www.publicintegrity.org/2010/05/21/2670/five-lobbyists-each-member-congress-financial-reforms [Accessed 15 November 2015].

Schumpeter, J. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge

Stiglitz, J. E. 2008. Capitalist Fools. Vanity Fair. [Online]. Dec 10. Available from: Common Dreams on the World Wide Web: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/12/10/capitalist-fools [Accessed 15 November 2015]

Stiglitz, J. E. 2009. The Stiglitz Report [Online]. Available from: http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/docs/FinalReport_CoE.pdf [Accessed 15 November 2015]

Transparency International UK. Documents. 2012. Corruption in UK Politics: Policy Paper Series Number 3 [Online]. Available from: http://issuu.com/transparencyuk/docs/corruption_in_uk_politics?e=10896477/7671081#search [Accessed 15 November 2015].

Touraine, A. (1971) The Post Industrial Society. Tennessee, USA: Kingsport Press

Exam Prep Notes

E. P. Thomson’s (1963) notion of a class happening involves a shift from a subsistence economy to a money economy and an understanding of the history involved in the creation of classes as a relationship found within people, who share similar experiences, are like minded and see themselves as a group different to others. As class happening is a historical phenomenon for Thompson, it is defined by the every day lives of every person and that we are creating our own class history as we live today. Thompson sees class as a form of social evolution in that there is no hindsight into its creation and is simply formed by trial and error over the ages.

In the age of Antiquity, it was seen as an embarrassment to work, with the slaves of the great empires allocated to 100 days of work per year, with the rest of their time devoted to religious practice, crafts, singing and dancing. Those who were not slaves carried out work which was seen as essential to their survival, a subsistent form of living which had no demarcations between work and life, true vocations where work was carried out in task oriented time. The working day revolved around the necessities needed for the day such as collecting food, water and caring for animals. This way of life continued through to the feudal period before the Enlightenment which brought a new way of life involving as Weber called the Protestant work ethic and the spirit of capitalism. For Adam Smith, revenue was important to class because the income from wages and rent indicated a person’s class. The belief at the time was that God created differences between the poor and rich and believed that commodification was natural as we are born to trade, sell and buy. Bartering is our human nature and in order for the poor to help themselves they needed to support capitalists in their economic ventures. Smith believed in 3 distinct classes of the capitalists/industrialists, landowners and the working class.

Puritans believed that they were nothing without work and their hard work while alive would be their salvation when they come to meet God when they die. The Christian Directory targeted workers, rather than employers, to instil a work ethic which saw work needing to be utilised as it was taking up time, which had a value and is seen in Benjamin Franklin’s writings that ‘time is money’. The efforts of hard, long work resulted in more money and in turn brought people out of poverty. Thompson sees the growing use of the clock as an important aspect to this change in our way of life as it soon became a tool to dictate to communities how they managed their day and how long tasks should take. The Reformation affected the views of work in that any work was worthy of God’s praise, like any ‘sacred’ calling. Money that was earned from hard work was not to buy luxuries, as it was deemed a sin, as money should not be wasted. It was also against the Protestant practice to give their earnings to charity as it encouraged beggary, which was an affront to God as it was a sign of laziness. The only option that was left was to invest in land and property and with this, we see the developments which spurred capitalism and on the Industrial Revolution as it forced many of the poor off the communal lands and into cities for waged work. Capitalism is based on conflict of class and large scale primitive accumulation. The Spanish Colonies from the 16th century according to Federici (2002) had a mode of production that couldn’t be matched by Europe which is why colonialisation was carried out on such a large scale. At this time, we see the emergence of the working class as industrialisation brought working men into one place and gave them the opportunity to develop new solidarities and share their own interests, traditions and who believe themselves to be separate to their capitalist masters.

The wide use of the clock which created a new discipline, a new human nature created a workforce less reliant on the natural rhythms of the Earth and allowed for increased input of production for employers. Communities no longer followed natural work patterns of days of inactivity and intense labour, but regimented time structures that all employees followed. Thompson called this the ‘tyranny of clock time’. Up until the 19th century parishes set clocks by the sun and had a bell ringer peal the bells to notify the community when it was 4 am and 8 pm during winter, this was because it was still relatively expensive to own a clock and was reserved for the propertied for prestige amongst their ilk. However, as the Industrial Revolution continued to expand, the standard of living improved and allowed workers to afford timepieces which they were used as a source of investment (for pawning in difficult times) and prestige. In 1700 the Law Book of Crowley Iron Works created time sheets and civil and penal codes to control workers. Industrial capitalism now saw workers clocking in with time sheets, overseen by time keepers and informers regularly would notify management of workers not working when they should, resulting in fines.

With factory work came the efficiency to increase production and profit for employers because factory workers were allocated to monotonous work, where they are deskilled and their personal talents ignored as there was no need for skills as anyone can be trained for factory work. This is a process of alienating workers from their mode of production whereby capitalists turn workers concrete labour into abstract labour an act of commodification. Workers have an economic compulsion to work, and since workers now have the rights to the freedom of work, they will choose to work for capitalists and divorce themselves from their means of production. When serfs and slaves were under direct coercion to work for masters, in the factories it is now hidden under the guise of social rights offering the freedom of movement.

Holloway (2002) believes that people accept misery, violence and exploitation associated with capitalism because they have been dehumanised and deprived of their relation between objects after losing the skills associated with subsistent life. Again, the significance of how people have come to this point is historical, beginning with the first factories employing the first generation of workers where the main objective for capitalists was to instil time keeping and the importance of it and forcing people to work 12 – 16 hours per day. The introduction of schools to child factory workers taught the importance of industry order and regulation to create a docile workforce. However, factory workers would continue to struggle with capitalists over their working conditions and saw the rise in the working class solidarity in which they managed to successfully fight for a reduction in working hours, lowering it to 10 hours per day. The struggle continued further by a third generation of workers who wished to have their overtime work acknowledged and paid for. With the conflicts arising in factories, capitalists begun to expand their empires throughout the world by appropriating land from indigenous people and forced them into work. Federici (2004) states Mercantilism saw populations key to prosperity and power of nations. Humans were seen as a raw material, workers and breeders for the state through work houses, slaves and declaring idleness a social plague.

The working class have become complicit in their own alienation and are ignorant to historical class consciousness because they are happily integrated in capitalist society. Gunn (1987) believes the working class are mystified by freedom of the labour market stating that the feet of the worker are “mired in exploitation whilst their heads breathe in the bourgeois ideological clouds” where the clouds are equal and free bargaining over wages and conditions of work.

Primitive accumulation is the central point of a specific capitalist mode of existence consisting of labour power as a commodity. It is for Marx, the historical ‘act’ that constitutes capitalist social relations. Further, Marx believed it difficult to assume social groups as part of a social relation which is why a class consciousness was not of interest to Marx. Class is relations between things and a living contradiction in that it is as Holloway (2002) states a class and anti-class in that if there is no exploitation then there is no class, but also the labour itself is a class and the production that comes from that labour makes up a class and acknowledges that class existed beforehand.

To be working class is to be subordinated from capital. John Holloway (2002) states “we don’t struggle AS working class, we struggle AGAINST being working class, against being classified.” And goes on further to say “we are the anti-class who are in-against-beyond being working class.”

According to Max Weber, who critiques Marxist views on class, he believes that there is no class consciousness as there is no community which people are a part of. Class is dependent on power, prestige and wealth; dependent upon a person’s life chances such as their educational attainment, experiences and who they know as well as their income, assets and the skills that they have that may be useful to the market.

It is difficult to define class as it’s difficult to analyse and describe. Savage (2013) tried to design a new model of class based on Bourdieu’s social theory on habitus and doxa which dismantled the notion of a single working class into 3 separate categories dependent on education, networks, income and hobbies. However there are political implications of defining class as cultural and family relations is who someone is and changing those relations changes the person. Only social relations can be changed to avoid detection of changing behaviours, which is an insidious form of control which goes beyond the social rights of freedom of movement in the early stages of capitalism. Gunn (1987) sees class as structuring our lives through struggle and creates struggle for us to act on it. He believes that we should not pigeonhole individuals because every life is complex and different and because we all divide in and against each other we therefore cannot be considered in ‘pure’ classes.

If Puritanism created industrialisation to combat poverty, why has there been no opportunity for workers to relax? As long as people are put to work to produce commodities that make the most profit, capitalism will enforce it on a massive scale. Capitalism’s creation of abstract labour allows a constant compulsion to increase production and profit. “The logic of separation entails that a capitalist needs to expand his capital in order to preserve it, but extend it he cannot, except by progressive accumulation.” Without accumulation, capitalists risk bankruptcy and so they must continue their cycle of accumulation and exploitation.

Core Texts

Bonefeld W. and Holloway J. 1995 Global Capital, National Sate and the Politics of Money, Basingstoke:Macmillan
Dicken P. 2007 Global Shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy London: Sage.

Dinerstein, A. and Neary, M. 2002. (ed.) The Labour Debate, Ashgate Aldershot, 2002

Federici, S., 2004 Caliban and the Witch, Autonomedia.

Radice, H. (2014) Global Capitalism, London: Routledge.

Williams S., Bradley H., Devadason R., Erickson M. 2013 Globalization and Work Cambridge: Polity.

Weekly Reading List

Introduction to Module and Film Screening of ‘The Happy Lands’

Seminar-Essential Reading:

Federici, S., 2004 Caliban and the Witch, Autonomedia, pp. 61-85. Available at https://libcom.org/files/Caliban%20and%20the%20Witch.pdf

Work, Discipline and Resistance

Seminar-Essential Reading:

Thompson, E. P. 1967 ‘Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism’, Past and Present, No 38, pp. 56-97.

Further Reading:

Cleaver, H. 2002 ‘Work is Still the Central Issue! New Words for New Worlds’, in A. Dinerstein and M. Neary, The Labour Debate, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Holloway, J. 2010 Crack Capitalism, London: Pluto, esp. pp. 83-161.

Lafargue, P. 1883 ‘The Right to Be Lazy’,

available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/

Morris, W. ‘Useful Work versus Useless Toil’,

https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/useful.htm

Postone, M. 1996, Time, Labour and Social Domination, Cambridge University Press.

Russel, B. ‘In Praise of Idleness’, https://libcom.org/files/Bertrand%20Russell%20-%20In%20Praise%20of%20Idleness.pdf

Tronti, M. 1965 ‘The Strategy of Refusal’, available at http://libcom.org/library/strategy-refusal-mario-tronti

Vaneigem, R. 1994, The Revolution of Everyday Life, Rebel Press.

Capital, Accumulation of Labour and the Degradation of Women

Seminar-Essential Reading:

Federici, S., 2004 Caliban and the Witch, Autonomedia, pp.85-115. Available at https://libcom.org/files/Caliban%20and%20the%20Witch.pdf

Further Reading:

Aston, T.H. and C..E. Philipin (eds), The Brenner Debate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.

Bonefeld, W., Imagining the Future – Subverting the Present, Autonomedia, New York, 2008, chapters by Bonefeld, Dalla Costa, de Angelis, Midnight Notes, and Zarembka.

Dalla Costa, M., ‘Development and Reproduction’, in Bonefeld, W. (ed.) Revolutionary Writing, Autonomedia, New York.

Dinerstein, A. and Neary, M. 2002. (ed.) The Labour Debate, Ashgate Aldershot, 2002, chapters by Bonefeld, Clarke, and Holloway.

Dobb, M., 1946. Studies in the Development of Capitalism, Routledge, London.

Hobsbawm, E. 1969. Empire and Industry, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Marx, K., 1973. Grundrisse, Penguin, London, pp. 459—471.

Perleman, M., The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation, Duke University Press, Durham and London.

The Sociological Approaches to Class from Smith to Weber

Seminar-Essential Reading: (08/10/15)

Weber, M. (2010) ‘The distribution of power within the community: Classes, Stände, Parties’, Journal of Classical Sociology, vol. 10, (2): 137-152

Further Reading:

For Adam Smith:

Smith, A., The Wealth of Nations, Book I, chs. 1-9, various dates of publication and publishers.

Clarke, S., Marx, Marginalism and Mondern Sociology, ch. 2, Palgrave, London, 1991.

Clarke, S., Keynesianism, Monetarism and the Crisis of the State, chs. 1-3, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, 1988

Dobb, M., Theories of Value and Distribution, chs. 2-4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973.

Hirschman, A., The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph, Princeton University Press, 1977.

Ricardo, D., Principles of Political Economy, Preface, chs. 1,2,4-6, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1971.

Rubin, I., History of Economic Thought, Parts 3 and 4, Pluto, London, 1989

Wilson, T. and A. Skinner (eds.) (1976), The Market and the State, OUP, Oxford.

For Max Weber:

Breen, Richard and David B. Rottman, 1995, Class Stratification: A Comparative Perspective, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Breen, Richard and David B. Rottman, 1995, ‘Class Analysis and Class Theory’ Sociology 29, 3: 453-73.

Breen, Richard, 1997, ‘Risk, Recommodification and the Future of the Service Class’, Sociology, 31, 3: 473-489.

Breen, Richard and John H. Goldthorpe, 2001, ‘Class, mobility and merit: the experience of two British birth cohorts’, European Sociological Review, 17, 2: 81-101.

Erikson, Robert and John H. Goldthorpe, 1992, The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Erikson, Robert, John H. Goldthorpe and Lucien Portocarero 1979, ‘Intergenerational Class Mobility in Three Western European Societies: England, France and Sweden’, British Journal of Sociology, 33: 1-34.

Goldthorpe, John H. 1980, Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Weber, Max, 1978, Economy and Society (2 vols) (edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich) Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weber, M. (1994), Weber: Political Writings, CUP, Cambridge.

Whimster, S. (ed.) 2004. The Essential Max Weber. A Reader, Routledge, London.

Class and the Stratification of British Society

Seminar-Essential Reading:

Savage, M. Devine, F. et al. 2013 ‘A New Model of Social Class? Findings from the BBC`s Great British Class Survey Experiment’, Sociology, 47 (2): 219-250.

Further Reading:

Woodward, K. Murji, K. Neal, S. and Watson, S. 2014. ‘Class Debate’, Sociology, 48:427-428.

Bradley, H. 2014. ‘Class Descriptors or Class Relations? Thoughts Towards a Critique of Savage et al.’ Sociology, 48(3): 429-436.

Dorling, D. 2014. ‘Thinking about Class’, Sociology, 48(3): 452-462.

Mills, C. 2014. ‘The Great British Class Fiasco: A Comment on Savage et at.’, Sociology, 48(3): 437-444.

Rollock, N. 2014. ‘Race, Class and “The Harmony of Dispositions” ’, Sociology, 48(3): 445-451.

Class as a Critical Concept

Seminar-Essential Reading:

Thompson, E.P. 1981. The Making of the English Working Class, Penguin, esp. read Preface, pp. 8-12 and Postscript, pp. 938-939.

Gunn, R. 1987. ‘Notes on Class’, Common Sense, 2:15-25. Available at http://www.richard-gunn.com/pdf/4_notes_on_class.pdf

Further Reading:

Adorno, T., 2003. ‘Reflections on Class Theory’, in Tiedemann, R. (ed.) Can one live after Auschwitz?, Stanford University Press, pp. 93-110.

Bonefeld, W. 2002. ‘Capital, Labour and Primitive Accumulation: On Class and Constitution’, in Dinerstein, A. and Neary, M. (ed.) The Labour Debate, Ashgate Aldershot, pp. 65-88.

Bonefeld, W. 2014. ‘Class and Struggle: On the False Society’, in Bonefeld, W. Critical Theory and the Critique of Political Economy’, Bloomsbury, pp. 101-120.

Holloway, J. 2002. ‘Class and Classification: Against, In and Beyond Labour’, in Dinerstein, A. and Neary, M. (ed.) The Labour Debate, Ashgate Aldershot, pp. 27-40.

Tischler, S. 2008. ‘The Crisis of the Classical Canon of the Class Form and Social Movements in Latin America’, in Bonefeld, W., Imagining the Future – Subverting the Present, Autonomedia, pp. 161-175.

Keynesianism and the Welfare State

Film Screening: ‘The Spirit of `45’ (2013)

Seminar-Essential Reading: (05/11/15)

Marshall, T. 1950. Social class and citizenship. In: C. Pierson, F. Castles and I. Naumann, eds. The welfare state reader. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity. 2013, pp. 28-37.

Further Reading:

Blythe, M. 2002. Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (chapter 3)

Cohen, L. 2003. A consumers’ republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America. New York: Vintage. (chapters 3 and 4)

Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. London: Wiley. (chapter 1)

Jessop, B. 2002. The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity. (chapter 2)

Pierson, C., Castles, F. and Naumann, I. 2013. The welfare state reader. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity

Rose, N. 1999. Powers of freedom: Reconfiguring political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (chapter 3)

Skidelsky, R. 2010. Keynes: The return of the master. London: Penguin. (Part II)

Weir, M. and Skopol, T. 1985. State structures and the possibilities for “Keynesian” responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States. In: P. Evens, D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skopol, eds. Bringing the state back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-151.

The Rise of Neoliberalism

Seminar-Essential Reading:

Harvey, D. 2007. Neoliberalism as creative destruction. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 610(1): pp. 21-44.

Further Reading

Crouch, C. 2009. Privatised Keynesianism: An unacknowledged policy regime. British Journal of Politics & International Relations. 11(3): pp. 382–399.

Crouch, C. 2011. The strange non-death of neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity.

Dean, M. 2014. Rethinking neoliberalism. Journal of Sociology. 50(2): pp. 150–163

Ferguson, J. 2010. The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode. 41(s1): pp. 166-184.

Foucault, M. 2008. The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Lazzarato, M. 2009. Neoliberalism in action: inequality, insecurity and the reconstitution of the social. Theory, Culture and Society, 11(26): pp. 109-133.

Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mirowski, P. 2013. Never let a good crisis go to waste: How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. London: Verso. (chapter 2)

Financialization and the Global Economic Crisis

Seminar-Essential Reading:

French, S. and Leyshon, A. 2010. ‘These f@#king guys’: The terrible waste of a good crisis. Environment & Planning A. 42(11): pp. 2549-2559.

Further Reading:

Chima, O. and Langley, P. 2012. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again: Financialisation and the management of the subprime mortgage crisis. Global Society. 26(4): pp. 409-427.

Cutler, T., and Waine, B., 2001. Social insecurity and the retreat from social democracy: Occupational welfare in the long boom and financialization. Review of International Political Economy. 8(1): pp. 96-118.

Erturk, I., Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A. and Williams, K. 2008. Financialization at work: Key texts and commentary. Abington: Routledge.

French,S., Leyshon, A. and Wainwright, T. 2011. Financializing space, spacing financialization. Progress in Human Geography. 35(6): pp. 798-819.

Froud, J., Haslam, C., Johal, S. and Williams, K. 2001. Financialisation and the coupon pool. Capital and Class. 8(3): pp. 271-188.

Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A. and Williams, K. 2006. Financialization and strategy: Narrative and numbers. Abington: Routledge.

Langley, P. 2015. Liquidity lost: the governance of the global financial crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leyshon, A. and Thrift, N. 2007. The capitalization of almost everything: The future of finance and capitalism. Theory, Culture and Society. 24(7-8): pp. 97-115.

Martin, R. 2003. Financialization of daily life. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Finance, Consumption and Debt

Seminar-Essential Reading:

Langley, P. 2014. Equipping entrepreneurs: consuming credit and credit scores. Consumption, Markets and Culture. 17(5): pp. 448-467.

Further Reading:

Deville, J. 2015. Lived economies of default: consumer credit, debt collection and the capture of affect. Abington: Routledge.

French, S. and Kneale, J. 2009. Excessive financialization: Insuring lifestyles, enlivening subjects, and everyday spaces of biosocial excess. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 27(6): pp. 1030-1053.

Langley, P. 2010. The everyday life of global finance: Saving and borrowing in Anglo-America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Langley, P. 2008. Sub-prime mortgage lending: A cultural economy. Economy and Society. 37(4): pp. 469-494.

Leyshon, A. and French, S. 2009. ‘We all live in a Robbie Fowler house’: the geographies of the buy to let market in the UK. British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 11(3): pp. 438-460.

Marron, D. 2014. “Informed, educated and more confident”: Financial capability and the problematization of personal finance consumption. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 17(5): pp. 491-511.

Watson, M. 2009. Planning for a future of asset-based welfare? New Labour, financialized economic agency and the housing market. Planning, Practice and Research. 24(1): pp. 43-56.

Watson, M. 2010. House price Keynesianism and the contradictions of the modern investor subject. Housing Studies. 225(3): pp. 413-426.

Climate Change and Global Carbon-Emissions Markets

Seminar-Essential Reading: (03/12/15)

Levy, D. and Spicer, A. 2013. Contested imaginaries and the cultural political economy of climate change. Organization. 20(5): pp. 659-678.

Further Reading:

Aldreda, J. 2012. The ethics of emissions trading. New Political Economy. 17(3): pp. 339-60.

Böhm, S., Misoczky, C. and Moog, S. 2012. Greening capitalism? A Marxist critique of carbon markets. Organization Studies. 33(11): pp. 1617-1638.

Bond, P. 2011. Emissions trading, new enclosures and eco-social contestation. Antipode, 44(3): pp. 684–701.

Callon, M. 2009. Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 34(3-4): pp. 535-48.

Caney, S. 2010. Markets, morality and climate change: What, if anything, is wrong with emissions trading? New Political Economy. 15(2): pp. 197-224.

Lohmann, L. 2010. Uncertainty markets and carbon markets: Variations on Polanyian themes. New Political Economy. 15(2): pp. 225-54.

MacKenzie, D. 2009. Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 34(3-4): pp. 440-55.

Exam Notes Example for Human Rights – Gendercide/Genocide with Weekly Reading and Recommended Reading List

In my final year at University, one of my favourite units was Human Rights. It involved half our classes being on Universal Laws set by Europe and the UN. The other half was historical and philosophical lectures about the development of Laws and Rights of Humans today.

When I was revising for my exams which were 2 hours long, answering 2 unknown questions, I would write bullet points and when I had time would write a lengthy generic essay with those main points. I’d then have post it notes with quotes, memorable dates etc. and have them plastered all around the house from inside cupboards to on light switches where I would read, recite and try to remember for the exam. The generic essays I would read again a few times before the exam to familiarise myself with what was in it so that when questions came up, I had an essay already formed in my mind and would pull out various quotes and dates to be specific to the exam question. There was always past papers available on the University portal so that you could see what types of questions had been asked previously, make a good guess at questions that might come out and be familiar with the wording and expectations.

I always did this for my exams and it paid off as exams were one of my strongest assessments with high Bs at least. Using your essays and keeping detailed notes of all your readings as you went along with your studying meant that you have a bank full of information that you could copy and paste into exam essays without needing to cram for hours/days at a time. Every bit of information I used in any writing was always held in a bibliography in Harvard so I could also copy and paste that into essays and for in text referencing. Other students used the same method as I did, and the lecturers encouraged it as well. So it’s always in your best interests to be studious and methodical when it comes to academic work. You will save yourself so much time by taking things slow, steady and paying attention to the details.

When you get your module guide on your first day of each class, it outlines your assessments with their due date with a choice of essay questions. There is also a weekly reading list with essential and further reading sources. You MUST read the essential reading for your tutorial and at least attempt 2 readings from the further reading section. This will help immensely when it comes to exams and essays. This is expected reading for all your classes per semester (4 when I was at uni, currently 3). This is why setting yourself homework weekly and keeping a timetable for studying is so important as you will be reading hundreds of pages a week for your final assessments. Be prepared! Below highlights just the minimum of work required for a 2:1/1:1 Sociology degree for one module only.

There was always some hints of the topics that would be covered in the exams. There was always 5 questions and you had to answer 2. So just to be safe, you’d make sure you studied at least 3 topics in case one didn’t come up. Below is the bullet points I used for my gendercide/genocide exam question and using my Classical Jurisprudence essay question to give me a timeline of key moments in the evolution of Human Rights. My favourite readings in this module were from E. P. Thomson, I highly recommend checking the reading list below to find out more.

Genocides

Gender aspect of it – Gendercide

Give examples – Armenian Genocide, pits in mountains where people were burnt alive, taken to rivers, tied together with one shot and the other drowned. Men taken away from families and killed, women and children were taken into the desert. Sri Lanka – State vs. Tigers and the genocide of all peoples where the UN aided in the ‘civil war.’

Hunt (2008) sees a paradox of distance and closeness at work in modern times. With the age of technology we have made it easier to empathise with people all around the world and urge our governments or international organisations to intervene. On the other hand we have seen how neighbours have been able to brutally kill each other.

Careful research has shown that ordinary human beings are capable of atrocities because they have been in the ‘right’ circumstances that legitimate those actions.

Relatively new term first used in 1944

Recognised as a crime by the United Nations in 1946

Key characteristic: to eradicate groups of people on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion or national group (Yazidi women and ISIL?)

Often seen as ONE criminal episode. However, usually comprises a large number of wide-ranging offences

International Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (09.12.1948): Article 2 . Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a) Killing members of the group

b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Some countries also include political groups in their definition

Threshold- thousands, millions? – down to courts discretion

Ethnic cleansing – not in Article 2 but recognised by UN General Assembly in 1992

The concept of genocide applies only when there is an actualised intent, however successfully carried out, to physically destroy an entire group (as such a group is defined by the perpetrators) (Steven Katz, 1989).

Genocide is the systematic, one-sided mass killing of persons selected on the basis of their perceived membership of an ethnic or communal group, with the aim either of eliminating the group in its entirety, or of eliminating whatever threat it is perceived to pose (Chalk, Jonassohn and Levene, 1990).

Genocide is the sustained purposeful action by a perpetrator to physically destroy a collectivity directly or indirectly through interdiction of the biological and social reproduction of group members, sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat offered by the victim (Helen Fein, 1993).

Genocide in the generic sense means the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defencelessness of the victim (Israel Charny, 1994).

(Tatz, Colin (2003) With Intent to Destroy: Reflecting on Genocide, London: Verso)

Sudan is the largest country by area in Africa

Darfur is a region in western Sudan, approximately the size of Texas

6 million people used to live in Darfur

–450,000 dead (from violence, famine, and disease)

–2.5 million refugees and internally displaced persons

–150,000 – 300,000 refugees in neighboring Chad

1956 Sudan gains independence from British rule

Civil war between North and South from 1955-1972 and again from 1983-2002

–South Sudanese not represented in Khartoum government

–While oil was discovered in Southern Sudan in the 1970s, the Khartoum government demanded all of the oil revenues be funneled to the national government

Peace agreement in 2003

In 2003, two rebel groups from Darfur rise up against the Sudanese government

–Sudanese Liberation Movement

–Justice and Equality Movement

The political aim of the rebel groups is to compel to Sudanese government to address underdevelopment and political marginalisation of the region

Sudanese government arms Janjaweed militia, comprised mostly of members of Arab nomadic tribes who have been in conflict with settled farmers in Darfur. Janjaweed kill and expel Darfurians

Janjaweed has been translated as “devil on a horse” in Arabic

In addition to killing and expelling members of a village, the Janjaweed burn their food stores so that the survivors cannot return

2.5 million refugees and IDPs in Sudan and neighboring Chad.

Thousands die each month from the effects of inadequate food, water, health care, and shelter in a harsh desert environment. Pictured are graves outside and IDP camp.

The victims and others said the rapes seemed to be a systematic campaign to humiliate the women, their husbands and fathers, and to weaken tribal ethnic lines. In Sudan, as in many Arab cultures, a child’s ethnicity is attached to the ethnicity of the father. The crisis in Darfur is a result of long-simmering ethnic tensions between nomadic cattle and camel herders, who view themselves as Arabs, and the more sedentary farmers, who see their ancestry as African. In February 2003, activists from three of Darfur’s African tribes started a rebellion against the government, which is dominated by an Arab elite. The rapists use the terms ‘slaves’ and ‘black slaves’ to refer to the women, who are mostly from the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups.” Rape and gang-rape continually used as a weapon, with motivation of diluting the gene pool.

“They grabbed my donkey and my straw and said, ‘Black girl, you are too dark. You are like a dog. We want to make a light baby,’” said Sawela Suliman, 22, showing slashes from where a whip had struck her thighs. ‘They said, ‘You get out of this area and leave the child when it’s made.’”

Rape is used to humiliate both men and women, as there exists a stigma against rape in Darfurian Muslim culture

Reports state the African Arab Janjaweed shout racial slurs as they destroy the villages, claiming that they will kill all non-Arab “Africans” or “Blacks”. While both the Janjaweed and Darfurians have black skin, the Janjaweed persecute the Darfurians because they are non-Arabs.

One refugee told New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that “the Arabs want to get rid of anyone with black skin. . . . There are no blacks left [in the area I fled].”

The Eight Stages of Genocide were first outlined by Dr. Greg Stanton, Department of State: 1996.

Classification: Us versus Them n“Us versus them”

Distinguish by nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion.

Bipolar societies (Rwanda) most likely to have genocide because no way for classifications to fade away through inter-marriage.

  • China, Russia, Malaysia and India’s investments in Sudanese oil fund the Khartoumgovernment’s perpetuation of genocide.
  • China and Russia are also on the United Nation’s security council
  • Roots of genocide lie in the colonial past?

Rwanda

  • Small East African nation with a population of 8 million
  • 14% of population Tutsi; 85% Hutu; 1%Twa
  • Tutsi = landowners / Hutu =labourers
  • Hutu and Tutsi have always spoken the same language
  • Tutsi meant warrior/farmer
  • Hutu meant peasant
  • While Tutsis generally are taller and lighter skinned, intermarriage through the years has rendered identification by sight impossible
  • Hutus, by accumulating enough property, could become Tutsi. The distinctions were fluid
  • The Germans were the first Europeans tocoloniseRwanda.
  • They did so in the early 1900’s.
  • The Germans helped to fight off other countries that wanted to attack Rwanda (the Hutus and Tutsis). This helped to protect Rwanda and make it strong.
  • After WWI, the United Nations decided that Germany could no longer rule Rwanda.
  • The country was now under the safeguards of the United Nations, and it was to be governed by Belgium.
  • Belgium decided to use the class system (that had already been put into place) to their advantage.
  • The Belgians favored the Tutsis and gave them privileges and western-style education.
  • The Belgians did this because they could control Rwanda easier this way.
  • The Belgians also favored the Tutsis because they appeared more European in their tall, slender features. They discriminated against the Hutus because they appeared less European.
  • After creating laws that gave special privileges to the Tutsi, the Belgians ran into a problem… how could they be sure who was a Tutsi and who was a Hutu?
  • Physical characteristics identified some, but not all.
  • The solution: Have every single citizen register and carry an identification card.

If you could not give proof of your ancestry, the Belgians would simply measure your height and other features.

If you appeared more European, they listed you has a Tutsi.

If your features were shorter, darker, stronger, etc. they listed you has a Hutu.

Parmehutu

  • The Party for the Emancipation of the Hutus is formed in 1959.
  • Hutus rebelled against the Belgian colonial power and the Tutsi elite.
  • 150,000 Tutsis flee to Burundi (which at the time was part of Rwanda).
  • The troubles between groups have persisted since

Genocide against the Tutsi population occurred in 1994, but there had been massacres between 1990-1994

Power was seized by the military after the president (Hutu) was killed in a plane crash (in unknown circumstances)

Police, soldiers, but mainly civilians began the genocide

During 100 days between April and mid-July it is estimated between 800,000-1million Tutsis, moderate Hutus were killed

America’s response to the genocide: “Be careful. Legal at State was worried about this yesterday — Genocide finding could commit [the US government] to actually ‘do something.’ ”

Richard Clarke: Critic of Bush policy on Iraq. Managed US policy on Rwanda and staunchly opposed any intervention and demanded the removal of UN peacekeeping forces.

When UNAMIR officers said 5000 troops could stop the killing, the UN, under US pressure, withdrew all peacekeepers.

Genocide succeeds when state sovereignty blocks international responsibility to protect.

The UN represents states, not peoples.

Since founding of UN:

Over 45 genocides and politicides

Over 70 million dead

Genocide prevention ≠ conflict resolution

Reasons to not declare genocide:

They’re crimes against humanity, not genocide.

They’re “ethnic cleansing”, not genocide.

There’s not enough proof of specific intent to destroy a group, “as such.” (“Many survived!”

UN Commission of Inquiry on Darfur.

Claim the only “real” genocides are like the Holocaust: “in whole.” Ignores the “in part” in the Genocide Convention.

Claim declaring genocide would legally obligate us to intervene. (We don’t want to intervene.)

Political reasons:

Avoid upsetting “the peace process.” “Look to the future, not to the past.”

Deny to assure benefits of relations with the perpetrators or their descendents. (oil, arms sales, alliances, military bases)

Don’t threaten humanitarian assistance to the victims, who are receiving good treatment. (Show the model Thereisenstadt IDP camp.)

CIA documents released in 2004 showed that Bill Clinton, President at the time knew about the genocide but choose not to act. The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

  • Bosnia,formallypart of Yugoslavia
  • Population = 3 million

1.3 million Bosnian Serbs (Orthodox Catholic Christians)

1 million Sunni Muslims

700,000 Bosnian Croats (Roman Catholic Christians)

  • Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia declared independence 1990-92, which wasrecognisedby the USA and the EU (1992)
  • War broke out in 1992
  • Serb paramilitaries attacked villages and towns in theNorth Eastof the country

Serbs seized control of these towns; murdering or expelling the Sunni Muslims

Serbs wanted the areas to be ‘ethnically pure’

Characterised by horrendous violence in some cases

Srebrenica 1995; 8000 Sunni Muslims massacred with UN Dutch soldiers present

The evolution of conventions (UN) and the establishment of the International Criminal Court has provided a mechanism to deal with the perpetrators of genocide

Increasing numbers of prosecutions have been secured

The above mark a shift in attitude – that genocide will not be tolerated

But not a view shared by all

  • ICC International Criminal Court
  • The ICC is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 122 countries (effective as of 1 May 2013).
  • Independent internationalorganisation, not UN,
  • The Hague
  • Governed by RomeStatue
  • 17th July 1998 120 States adopted RomeStatue
  • Ratification by 60 countries entered into force 1st July 2002.
  • What about Armenia?

More than 20 countries recognised genocide together with the UN and the European Parliament.

In Turkey Article 301 of penal code ‘Insulting Turkishness’.

… an analogy between the concept of genocide and what I call gendercide. The Oxford American Dictionary defines genocide as “the deliberate extermination of a race of people.” By analogy, gendercide would be the deliberate extermination of persons of a particular sex (or gender). Other terms, such as “gynocide” and “femicide,” have been used to refer to the wrongful killing of girls and women. But “gendercide” is a sex-neutral term, in that the victims may be either male or female. There is a need for such a sex-neutral term, since sexually discriminatory killing is just as wrong when the victims happen to be male. The term also calls attention to the fact that gender roles have often had lethal consequences, and that these are in important respects analogous to the lethal consequences of racial, religious, and class prejudice … Mary Anne Warren (on Genderside)

  • Sexually discriminatory killing, misogynist ideologies and anti-femalegenocide
  • Gender variable to “racial, religious, and class prejudice.”
  • Early examples: Sati in India; Female infanticide; witch-hunts in Europe.

Mass rape and sexual violence

“ …enemy males were killed and enemy females enslaved, the only surviving adult representatives of the defeated enemy would of course be female, and the psychological equation would have been established, over time, between femaleness and the enemy ‘Other.'”

  • I was … told that in Cerewek, Gabus, and Sulur [Indonesia, after the 1965-66 genocide] 70 percent of the population are widows.
  • Rwanda has become a country of women. It is currently estimated that 70 percent of the population is female and that 50 percent of all households are headed by women.

2009: Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic faces 11 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the 1992-1995 Bosnian war in which 100,000 people were killed, including two charges of genocide.

Three categories of charges: Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and Violations of the Laws or Customs of War

Genocide charges:

Charged with committing genocide against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, participating in a ‘joint criminal enterprise’ (JCE) between 1992-1995 to remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina claimed as Bosnian Serb territory. As well as the 1995 massacre of Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica, the worst atrocity in Europe since World War Two. Prosecutors say more than 7,000 were killed in organised and opportunistic executions.

He denies all the charges

Green and Ward: 1.The propagation by the ruling elite of an ideology excluding the victim group from the perpetrator’s universe of obligation.

2.The elite’s perception of the victim group as a threat or obstacle in a context of economic and political crisis, generally against the backdrop of war.

3.The use of psychological mechanisms of denial and neutralisation to overcome the inhibitions created by the more inclusive ideology.

4.The perpetration of excesses that reaffirm the banishing of those inhibitions.

5.A competing ideology, rooted in national and/or international culture that does not recognise the victims as worthy of moral concern.

  • Non-combatant men have been and continue to be the most frequent targets of mass killing and genocidal slaughter, as well as a host of lesser atrocities and abuses

“The practices of killing all male captives, of castrating the men whose lives have been spared, and of offering men less opportunities for manumission from slavery, all show that men’s domination of men outside the bonds of kinship and community has been more severe and brutal than men’s domination of women within or outside the kin or ethnic group”

The major long-term demographic result [of Pol Pot’s 1975–1979 genocide] is the preponderance of women in modern Cambodia. Women, including large numbers of widows, make up 60 to 80 percent of the adult population in various parts of the country, as well as among Cambodians abroad.

Classification is a primary method of dividing society and creating a power struggle between groups.

Belgians distinguished between Hutus and Tutsis by nose size, height & eye type. Another indicator to distinguish Hutu farmers from Tutsi pastoralists was the number of cattle owned

Names: “Jew”, “German”, “Hutu”, “Tutsi”.

Languages.

Types of dress.

Group uniforms: Nazi Swastika armbands

Colours and religious symbols: Yellow star for Jews. Blue checked scarf Eastern Zone in Cambodia

Symbolisation

“Ethnicity” was first noted on cards by Belgian Colonial Authorities in 1933.

Tutsis were given access to limited education programs and Catholic priesthood. Hutus were given less assistance by colonial authorities.

At independence, these preferences were reversed. Hutus were favoured.

These ID cards were later used to distinguish Tutsis from Hutus in the 1994 massacres of Tutsis and moderate Hutus that resulted in 800,000+ deaths

Jewish Passport: “Reisepäss”

Required to be carried by all Jews by 1938. Preceded the yellow star.

Homosexuals = pink triangles

Identified homosexuals to SS guards in the camps

Caused discrimination by fellow inmates who shunned homosexuals

Cambodia: People in the Eastern Zone, near Vietnam, were accused of having “Khmer bodies, but Vietnamese heads.”

They were deported to other areas to be worked to death.

They were marked with a blue and white checked scarf (Kroma)

Dehumanisation:

One group denies the humanity of another group, and makes the victim group seem subhuman.

Dehumanisation overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.

Hate propaganda in speeches, print and on hate radios vilify the victim group.

Members of the victim group are described as animals, vermin, and diseases. Hate radio, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, broadcast anti-Tutsi messages like “kill the cockroaches” and “If this disease is not treated immediately, it will destroy all the Hutu.”

Dehumanisation invokes superiority of one group and inferiority of the “other.”

Dehumanisation justifies murder by calling it “ethnic cleansing,” or “purification.” Such euphemisms hide the horror of mass murder

Organisation

Genocide is a group crime, so must be organised.

The state usually organises, arms and financially supports the groups that conduct the genocidal massacres.

Plans are made by elites for a “final solution” of genocidal killings.

“Hutu Power” elites armed youth militias called Interahamwe (“Those Who Stand Together”).

The government and Hutu Power businessmen provided the militias with over 500,000 machetes and other arms and set up camps to train them to “protect their villages” by exterminating every Tutsi.

Polarisation

Extremists drive the groups apart.

Hate groups broadcast and print polarising propaganda.

Laws are passed that forbid intermarriage or social interaction.

Political moderates are silenced, threatened and intimidated, and killed.

Public demonstrations were organised against Jewish merchants.

Moderate German dissenters were the first to be arrested and sent to concentration camps.

This is how Rwandan local radio incited the Hutus to violence (an act against international law):
‘You have to kill the Tutsis, they’re cockroaches.’
‘All those who are listening, rise so we can fight for our Rwanda. Fight with the weapons you have at your disposal: those who have arrows, with arrows, those who have spears, with spears. We must all fight.’
‘We must all fight the Tutsis. We must finish with them, exterminate them, sweep them from the whole country. There must be no refuge for them.’
‘They must be exterminated. There is no other way.’

Attacks are staged and blamed on targeted groups.

In Germany, the Reichstag fire was blamed on Jewish Communists in 1933.

Cultural centers of targeted groups are attacked.

On Kristalnacht in 1938, hundreds of synagogues were burned.

Preparation

Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols.

Death lists are made.

Victims are separated because of their ethnic or religious identity.

Segregation into ghettos is imposed, victims are forced into concentration camps.

Victims are also deported to famine-struck regions for starvation.

Weapons for killing are stock-piled.

Extermination camps are even built. This build- up of killing capacity is a major step towards actual genocide.

Extermination begins, and becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.” Most genocide is committed by governments.

The killing is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe the victims are fully human. They are “cleansing” the society of impurities, disease, animals, vermin, “cockroaches,” or enemies.

Although most genocide is sponsored and financed by the state, the armed forces often work with local militias.

Denial

Denial is always found in genocide, both during it and after it.

Continuing denial is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres.

Denial extends the crime of genocide to future generations of the victims. It is a continuation of the intent to destroy the group.

The tactics of denial are predictable.

Deny that there was any mass killing at all.

Question and minimise the statistics.

Block access to archives and witnesses.

Intimidate or kill eye-witnesses.

Destroy the evidence. (Burn the bodies and the archives, dig up and burn the mass graves, throw bodies in rivers or seas.)

Attack the motives of the truth-tellers. Say they are opposed to the religion, ethnicity, or nationality of the deniers.

Point out atrocities committed by people from the truth-tellers’ group. Imply they are morally disqualified to accuse the perpetrators.

Claim that the deaths were inadvertent (due to famine, migration, or disease.)

Blame “out of control” forces for the killings.

Blame the deaths on ancient ethnic conflicts.

Emphasise the strangeness of the victims. They are not like us. (savages, infidels)

Claim they were disloyal insurgents in a war.

Call it a “civil war,” not genocide.

Claim that the deniers’ group also suffered huge losses in the “war.” The killings were in self-defense.

Bibliography

Genocide

  1. G.Andreopoulos (ed.),Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Considerations
  2. F.Chalk,The History and Sociology of Genocide
  3. H.Fein,Genocide: A Sociological Perspective
  4. M.Shaw,War and Genocide: Organised Killing in Modern Society
  5. Shaw,What is Genocide?

The Holocaust

H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem

Z. Baumann,Modernity and the Holocaust

C. R. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy

D. Cesarani (ed.),The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation

L. Dawidowicz,The Holocaust and the Historians

D. J. Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners (if you read this, you should also read the critical response: N. Finkelstein & R. Bettina-Bern, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth)

R. Hilberg,The Destruction of European Jewry

P. Levi, The Drowned and the Saved (includes the essay, ‘The Grey Zone)

Levi, Survival atAuschwitz

M. Marrus,The Holocaust in History

M. Marrus,The Nazi Holocaust

A. S. Mayer, Why did the Heavens not Darken?

Rosenbaum (ed.),Is the Holocaust Unique?

K. A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy towards German Jews 1933-39

W. Sofsky and W. Templer, The Order of Terror: The Concentration Camp

Holocaust Literature:

(Essential reading Levi, Wiesel, etc., but the following are less conventional)

A. Appelfeld,Badenheim 1939;

Borowski, This Way to the Gas, ladies and Gentlemen

A. Spiegelman,Maus I & II;

Holocaust Literary Theory

S. Friedlander (ed.),Probing the Limits of Representation

D. G. Geis, Considering ‘Maus’: Approaches to Art Spiegelmann’s “Survivor’s Tale” of the Holocaust

B. Lang (ed.),Writing and the Holocaust

L. Langer,The Holocaust and the Literary Imagination

A. Leak & G.Paizis (eds.), The Holocaust and the Text: Speaking the Unspeakable

G. Steiner,Language and Silence

Holocaust Film Theory

J. E. Doneson, The Holocaust in American Film

A. Insdorf,Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust

Y. Loshitzky,Spielberg’s Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on ‘Schindler’s List’

G. Sujo,Legacies of Silence: The Visual Arts and Holocaust Memory

Memory

T. Adorno, ‘What Does Coming to Terms with the Past Mean?’, in *G Hartman (ed.),Bitburg in Moral and Political Perspective

P. Carrier, Holocaust Monuments and National Memory Cultures in France and Germany since 1989

Epstein, Children of the Holocaust

N. Finkelstein,The Holocaust Industry

S. Friedlander,Memory, History and the Extermination of the Jews of Europe

P. Novick, The Holocaust and Collective Memory

J .Young,The Texture of Memory

J .Young,The Art of Memory: Holocaust Memorials in History

J .Young, At Memory’s Edge: After-Images of the Holocaust in Contemporary Art and Architecture

Rwanda

Destexhe, Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century

Eltringham, Accounting for Horror: Post-Genocide Debates in Rwanda

Gourevitch, We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families

Mamdani, When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and the Genocide in Rwanda

Melvern, A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda’s Genocide

Melvern, Conspiracy to Murder: Planning the Rwandan Genocide

Reading List For Human Rights Module

Essential Reading:

Ishay, M., R. (2008) The History of Human Rights. From Ancient to the Globalization Era, ch. 2, ‘Human Rights and the Enlightenment’, London: University of California Press, pp. 64-75 and 84-107.

Further Reading:

Douzinas, Costas (2007) Human Rights and Empire, Routledge, pp. 8-26. Available as e-book.

Douzinas, C. (2000) The End of Human Rights: Critical legal thought at the end of the century, Oxford: Hart. (Ch. 2, 3, and 4)

Fine, Robert (2002) Democracy and the Rule of Law Blackburn Press, ch.1 ‘Classical Jurisprudence’ pp. 11‐ 65.

Freeman, M. (2011) Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Polity. (Ch. 2: Origins: the Rise and Fall of Natural Rights) Available on Blackboard

Grotius, H. (2005) The Rights of War and Peace, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Grotius, H. (2004) The Free Sea, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Grotius, H. (2006) Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Hobbes, T. (1968) Leviathan, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Locke, J. (1988) Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1978) A Treatise of Human Nature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rousseau J.J., (1984) A Discourse on Inequality, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Rousseau J.J., (1973) The Social Contract and Discourses, London: Dent.

Salter, J. (2001) Hugo Grotius. Property and Consent, Political Theory, 29(4), pp. 537-555.

The French Revolution and Human Rights

Essential Reading:

Hunt, Lynn (2007) Inventing human rights: a history, New York: W.W. Norton;

[ch. 3: ‘They have set a great example: declaring rights’ and ch. 4: ‘There will be no end of it: the consequences of declaring’].

Further Reading:

Hunt, Lynn (1996) The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History, Palgrave MacMillan.

Muthu, Sankar (2003) Enlightenment Against Empire, Princeton: Princeton University Press; Chapter 3: ‘Diderot and the evils of empire’ pp. 72-121.

Brunkhorst, Hauke (2005) Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT; Chapter 3: ‘The ideas of 1789: patriotism of human rights’.

Bhambra, Gurminder (2007) Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. Basingstoke: Palgrave; Chapter 5: ‘Myths of the modern nation state – the French Revolution’

Buck-Morss, Susan (2000) ‘Hegel and Haiti’, Critical Inquiry 26 (4): 821–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344332

Kristeva, Julia (1991) Strangers to Ourselves, New York: Columbia University Press; Chapter 7: ‘On foreigners and the Enlightenment’.

Foucault, Michel ‘The body of the condemned: torture’ in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison

Marx as a Critic of Human Rights

Essential Reading:

Marx, K. (1843) ‘On the Jewish Question’ in Lucio Colletti (ed.) Marx’s Early Writings, Penguin.

Also available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

Further Reading:

Fine, Robert (2002) Democracy and the Rule of Law Blackburn Press, ch.2 ‘Marx’s critique of classical jurisprudence’ pp. 66‐85 and ch.4 ‘Law, state and capital’ pp. 95‐121.

Bernstein, Jay `Right, revolution and community’, in Peter Osborne (ed.), Socialism and the Limits of Liberalism, Verso, 1991.

Collins, Hugh (1982) Marxism and Law, Oxford.

Draper, Hal (1977) Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution, Monthly Review, Vol 1.

Bruno Bauer (1983) ‘The Jewish Problem’ in LS Stepelevich (ed.), The Young Hegelians: An Anthology, CUP.

Bloch, Ernst (1967) ‘Man and citizen according to Marx’ in E Fromm (ed.), Socialist Humanism, Allen Lane.

Bloch, Ernst (1987) Natural Law and Human Dignity, MIT Press.

Fine, Robert (2001) Political Investigations: Hegel, Marx, Arendt, Routledge, ch5 ‘Right and value: the unity of Hegel and Marx’, pp. 79-99.

Fine, Robert (2009) ‘Marx’s critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’ in Andrew Chitty and Martin McIvor Karl Marx and Contemporary Philosophy, Palgrave, pp. 105‐120.

Traverso, Enzo (1994) The Marxists and the Jewish Question: History of a Debate 18431943, Humanity Books, ch.1 ‘Marx and Engels’.

Carlebach, Julius (1978) Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism, Littman Library of Jewish Civilisation, ch.7 ‘The radical challenge to Jews’ and ch8 ‘The Marxian response’, pp.125‐186

Varga, C. (ed.) (1992) Marxian Legal Theory, New York University Press.

Kamenka, E. (1983) ‘A Marxist Theory of Law?’, Law in Context 1, reprinted in C. Varga (ed.) Marxian Legal Theory.

Critical Social Theory and Human Rights

Essential Reading:

Thompson, Edward (1976) Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Act Penguin.

Pashukanis, Evgeni: Law and Marxism, Pluto, 1983, ch. 4 `Commodity and Subject’.

Further Reading:

Fine, Robert (2002) Democracy and the Rule of Law , Blackburn Press, ch.7 ‘20th century theories’, pp. 155‐189.

Kay, Geoff (1988) ‘Right and force: A Marxist critique of contract and the state’, in G Reuten and M Williams: Value, Social Form and the State, Macmillan.

Warrington,R (1981) ‘Pashukanis and the commodity form theory’, International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 9(1).

Norrie, Allan (1982) ‘Pashukanis and the Commodity Form Theory’, International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 10.

Binns, Peter (1980) ‘Law and Marxism’, Capital and Class, 10, pp. 100-113.

Sharlet, P `Pashukanis and the withering away of law in the USSR’, in S Fitzpatrick (ed.): Cultural Revolution in Russia 1928-31.

  1. P. Thompson, Writing By Candlelight, `The state of the nation’, pp. 189-223.

Fine, Robert `Muggletonian Marxism and the Rule of Law: The Perplexities of Edward Thompson’, Journal of Law and Society, 21, 2, June 1994, pp. 193-213.

Kellner, Douglas (1979) ‘Critical Theory, Democracy and Human Rights’, New Political Science, pp. 12-18.

Fine, Robert (2013) ‘Natural law and critical theory: Bringing rights back in’, Journal of Classical Sociology, 13(2), pp. 222-238.

Postcolonialism and Human Rights: Are Human Rights Western?

Essential Reading:

Butler, Judith (2008) ‘Sexual politics, torture and secular time’ British Journal of Sociology, 59 (1), pp. 1-23.

Further Reading:

Kapur, Ratna (2005) Erotic Justice: Law and the New Politics of Postcolonialism, Glasshouse Press, ch. 4 ‘The tragedy of victimisation rhetoric: resurrecting the ‘native ‘ subject in international / postcolonial feminist legal politics’

Bhambra, Gurminder and Shilliam, Robbie (eds). Silencing Human Rights: Critical Engagement s with a Contested Project London: Palgrave, pp. 1‐60.

Kapur, op.cit ch5 ‘The other side of universality: cross‐border movements and the transnational migrant subject’

Ferrara, Alessandro The Force of the Example: Explorations in the Paradigm of Judgment, Columbia University Press, ch6 ‘Exemplarity and human rights’.

Brennan, Fernne and Packer, John (eds) Colonialism, Slavery, Reparations and Trade, London: Routledge, 2013.

Miller, Christopher (2008) The French Atlantic Triangle: Literature and Culture of the Slave Trade, Duke University Press.

Said, Edward (2003) Orientalism, Penguin, ‘Introduction’, pp. 1-28.

Human Rights in Armed Conflict

Essential Reading:

A.E. Cassimatis, International humanitarian law, international human rights law and fragmentation of international law, I.C.L.Q. 2007, 56(3), 623-639

Further Reading:

Bethlehem, The relationship between international humanitarian law and international

human rights law in situations of armed conflict, C.J.I.C.L. 2013, 2(2), 180-195

de Than and E. Shorts, International criminal law and human rights, Sweet and Maxwell, 2003, chapter 6.

Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of the United Nations General Assembly, 19 December 1968.

International Committee of the Red Cross – treaties and customary international law

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/index.jsp

Goodman, The power to kill or capture enemy combatants, E.J.I.L. 2013, 24(3), 819-853.

Tomuschat, Human rights and international humanitarian law, E.J.I.L. 2010, 21(1), 15-23.

Responsibility to Protect

Essential Reading:

Nardin, From right to intervene to duty to protect: Michael Walzer on humanitarian intervention, E.J.I.L. 2013, 24(1), 67-82

Further Reading:

Kalkman, Responsibility to protect: a bow without an arrow, C.S.L.R. 2009, 5(1), 75-92

Orford, Moral internationalism and the responsibility to protect, E.J.I.L. 2013, 24(1), 83-108

Report of the Secretary-General of the UN on Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, A/63/677, 12 January 2009

Responsibility to protect: An idea whose time has come – and gone? The Economist, 23 July 2009, available at http://www.economist.com/node/14087788

UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/1 of 16 September 2005 on the 2005 World Summit Outcome

The International Criminal Court – The End of Impunity?

Essential Reading:

Robinson, Serving the interests of justice: amnesties, truth commission and the International Criminal Court, E.J.I.L. 2003, 14(3), 481-505

Further Reading:

Anderson, The rise of international criminal law: intended and unintended consequences, E.J.I.L. 2009, 20(2), 331-358

Potter, The International Criminal Court and the complexities of international criminal justice, 231-253 in G. Boas, W. Schabas and M. Scharf, International Criminal Justice: Legitimacy and coherence, Edward Elgar, 2013 (available as an e-book)

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, articles 1-10, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf

Schabas, The contribution of the Eichmann trial to international law, L.J.I.L. 2013, 26(3), 667-699

Stephen, International criminal law: wielding the sword of universal criminal justice? I.C.L.Q. 2012, 61(1), 55-89

Warbrick, International criminal law, I.C.L.Q. 1995, 44(2), 466-479

Refugees and Asylum Seekers (Dr Monish Bhatia)

Essential Reading:

Bloch, A., & Schuster, L. (2005). At the extremes of exclusion: Deportation, detention and dispersal. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(3), 491-512.

Bhatia M (2015) Turning asylum seekers into ‘dangerous criminals’: Experiences of the criminal justice system of those seeking sanctuary. Journal of Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 4(3): 97-111.

Bosworth M (2008) Border control and the limits of the sovereign state. Social and Legal Studies 17(2): 199-215

Further Reading:

Schuster L (2011) Turning refugees into ‘illegal migrants’: afghan asylum seekers in Europe. Ethnic and Racial studies 34(8): 1392-1407.

Weber, L. (2002). Detention of Asylum Seekers: 20 Reasons Why Criminologists Should Care, The Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 14, 9.

British Red Cross. (2010). Not Gone But Forgotten: The Urgent Need for a More Humane Asylum System. from http://www.redcross.org.uk/About-us/Advocacy/~/media/BritishRedCross/Documents/About%20us/Not%20gone%20but%20forgotten%20destitution%20report.pdf

Bloch, A. (2000). A new era or more of the same? Asylum policy in the UK. Journal of refugee studies, 13(1), 29-42.

Fekete, L. (2003). Death at the Border—Who is to blame? European Race Bulletin, 44, 2-3.

Gibney, M. J. (2004). The ethics and politics of asylum: liberal democracy and the response to refugees: Cambridge University Press.

Hyndman, J. (2000). Managing displacement: Refugees and the politics of humanitarianism (Vol. 16): U of Minnesota Press.

Hassan, L. (2000). Deterrence measures and the preservation of asylum in the United Kingdom and United States. Journal of refugee studies, 13(2), 184-204.

Tuitt, P. (1996). False Images: Law’s Construction of the Refugee: Pluto Press, London.

Zolberg, A. R., Suhrke, A., & Agoayo, S. (1989). Escape from violence: Conflict and the refugee crisis in the developing world. Oxford University Press.

Genocide

Essential Reading:

Green, P. and Ward, T., 2004. State crime: Governments, violence and corruption. Pluto Press.

Jones, A. (2010). Genocide: a comprehensive introduction. Routledge.

Further Reading:

Alvarez, A. (2001). Governments, Citizens, and Genocide: A Comparative and Interdisciplinary Analysis. Indiana University Press.

Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. Buckingham: Open UP

Ervin Staub. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. Cambridge University Press.

Fein, H. (ed.) (1992) Genocide Watch. New Haven: Yale.

Shaw, M (2003) War and Genocide: Organized Killing in Modern Society. Polity Press, UK.

Melvern, L. (2000). A people betrayed: the role of the West in Rwanda’s genocide. Zed Books.

Straus, S. (2013). The order of genocide: Race, power, and war in Rwanda. Cornell University Press.

Recommended Reading List

Arendt, Hannah (1977) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Penguin

Arendt, Hannah Arendt (1988) The Portable Hannah Arendt, Penguin, ed. Peter Baehr

Baxi, Upendra (2009) The Future of Human Rights Oxford University Press

Benhabib, Seyla (2004) The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents and Citizens Cambridge University Press

Bhambra, Gurminder and Shilliam, Robbie (eds) (2009) Silencing Human Rights: Critical Engagements with a Contested Project, Palgrave

Brunkhorst, Hauke (2005) Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community. MIT Press

Clapham, Andrew (2007) Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press

Donnelly, Jack (2006) International Human Rights Westview Press

Douzinas, Costas (2007) Human Rights and Empire: The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism Routledge-Cavendish

Fine, Robert (2007) Cosmopolitanism, London: Routledge

Fine, Robert (2002) Democracy and the Rule of Law: Marx’s Critique of the Legal Form, Blackburn Press

Fine, Robert (2001) Political Investigations: Hegel, Marx, Arendt Routledge

Freeman, Michael (2002) Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Key Concepts) Cambridge: Polity

Habermas, Jürgen (2006) Times of Transitions Cambridge: Polity

Habermas, Jürgen (2006) The Divided West Cambridge: Polity

Habermas, Jürgen (2001) The Postnational Constellation, Polity Press

Hirsh, David (2003) Law against Genocide: Cosmopolitan Trials, Glasshouse Press

Hunt, Lynn (2007) Inventing human rights: a history, W.W. Norton.

Hunt, Lynn The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History (The Bedford Series in History and Culture) Palgrave MacMillan 1996.

Ignatieff, Michael Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, The University Center for Human Values Series

Ishay, Micheline (2008) The History of Human Rights: From Ancient times to the Globalization Era, University of California Press.

Kant, Immanuel (1991) Kant: Political Writings, Edited by Hans Reiss, Cambridge University Press

Koskenniemi, Martti. 2002 The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures. Cambridge University Press.

Morris, Lydia (ed) (2006) Rights: Sociological Perspectives Routledge

Morris, Lydia (2010 forthcoming) Asylum, Welfare and the Cosmopolitan Ideal: A Sociology of Rights, Glasshouse Press

Muthu, Sankar (2003) Enlightenment against Empire Princeton University Press

Sands, Philippe (2006) Lawless World: Making and Breaking Global Rules Penguin

Other Useful Texts on Human Rights

Apodaca, C. (1998) ‘Measuring Women’s Economic and Social Rights Achievement’, Human Rights Quarterly, 20, pp. 139 -172.

Barsh, R. (1996) ‘Indigenous People and the UN Commission on Human Rights: A Case of the Immovable Object and the Irresistible Force’, Human Rights Quarterly, 18, pp.782 -813.

Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: the Human Consequences. Polity Press.

Bokhari, F. (2008) ‘Falling Through the Gaps: Safeguarding Children Trafficked into the UK’, Children & Society, Vol. 22(3), pp. 201-211.

Bottomore, T. (1992 and 1996) ‘Citizenship and Social Class: Forty Years On’, Introduction to Marshall, T.H. and Bottomore, T. Citizenship and Social Class. Pluto.

Brown, A. (2005) Human Rights Law Basics. W Green.

Chase, E. and Statham, J. (2005) ‘Commercial and sexual exploitation of children and young people in the UK—a review’, Child Abuse Review, Vol. 14(1), pp. 4-25.

Cook, R.J. (1994) Women’s Health and Human Rights: the Promotion and Protection of Women’s Health through International Human Rights Law. WHO.

Cook, R.J., Dickens, B. and Fathalla, M.F. (2003) Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics and the Law. Open University Press.

Correa, S., Petchesky, R. and Parker, R. (2008) Sexuality, health and human rights. New York: Routledge.

Cowan, J., Dembour, M and Wilson, R. (eds.) (2001) Culture and Rights Cambridge University Press. (esp. Chs. 1,2, 3 and 4).

Cushman, T. (2000) ‘Genocide or civil War?: Human rights and the politics of conceptualization, Human Rights Review, 1(3), pp. 12-14.

Downes, D. M. (2007) Crime, social control and human rights: from moral panics to states of denial, essays in honour of Stanley Cohen. Cullompton: Willan.

Evans, T. (2001) The politics of human rights : a global perspective. Pluto Press

Ewing, K. & Dale-Risk, K. (2004) Human Rights in Scotland Text Cases and Materials. Thomson / W Green.

FORWARD (2007) A statistical study to estimate the prevalence of Female

Genital Mutilation in England and Wales. Forward: London.

[http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/download/96]

Foster, S. (2003) Human Rights and Civil Liberties. Longman.

Freeman, M. and Veerman, P. (1992) Ideologies of Children’s Rights. Martines Nijhoff.

Fried, S.T. (2003) ‘Violence Against Women’, Health and Human Rights, 6(2), pp. 88-111.

Gies, L. (2011) ‘A Villains’ Charter? The Press and the Human Rights Act’, Crime Media Culture, 7, pp.167-183.

Goodey, J. (2008) ‘Human trafficking: Sketchy data and policy responses’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 8(4), pp. 421–442.

Green, M. (2001) ‘What We Talk About When we Talk About Indicators: Current Approaches to Human Rights Measurement’, Human Rights Quarterly, 23(4), pp.1062-1097.

Janis, W., Kay, R. & Bradley, A. (2002) European Human Rights Law. Open University Press.

Joseph, S. and McBeth. A. (2010) Research handbook on international human rights law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. [Ebook available from Dawsonera]

Kangaspunta, K. (2003) ‘Mapping the inhuman trade: preliminary findings of the database on

trafficking in human beings’, Forum on Crime and Society, Vol. 3(1/2), pp. 81-104.

[available online: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/forum/forum3.pdf]

Landman, T. (2006) Studying human rights. London : Routledge. [Ebook available from Dawsonera]

Lebov, K. (2010) ‘Human Trafficking in Scotland’, European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 7(1), pp. 77–93.

Lerner, N. (2003) Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law. Martines Nijhoff.

Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. Macmillan. (esp. Ch. 3)

McColgan, A. (1999) Women under the Law: the False Promise of Human Rights. Longman.

Mills, C. W. (1970) The Sociological Imagination. Penguin.

Morris, L. (1997) ‘Globalization, Migration and the Nation-State: The Path to a Post-National Europe?’, The British Journal of Sociology, 48(2), pp.192-209.

Morris, L. (2006) Rights: Sociological Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Morris, L. (2007) ‘New Labour’s Community of Rights: Welfare, Immigration and Asylum’ Journal of Social Policy, 36(1), pp. 39-57.

Munro, V. E. (2006) ‘Stopping Traffic? A Comparative Study of Responses to the Trafficking in Women for Prostitution’, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 46(2), pp. 318-333.

Oberleitner, G. (2007) Global Human Rights Institutions. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Parmentier, S. (2010) ‘Epilogue: Human Trafficking Seen from the Future’, European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 7(1), pp. 95–100.

Preis, A. (1996) ‘Human Rights as Cultural Practice: An Anthropological Critique’, Human Rights Quarterly, 18(2), pp. 286-315.

Reddy, R. (2008) ‘Gender, Culture and the Law: Approaches to ‘Honour Crimes’ in the UK’, Feminist Legal Studies, 16, pp. 305-321.

Reichert, E. (2006) Understanding Human Rights: An Exercise Book. London: Sage.

Roger, N. and Zaidi, S. (2008) Human rights at the UN: the political history of universal justice. Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Press.

Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People & the Centre for Rural Childhood, Perth College (2011) Scotland: A safe place for child traffickers? A scoping study into the nature and extent of child trafficking in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. [available online: http://www.sccyp.org.uk/uploaded_docs/policy/sccyp%20child%20trafficking%20report.pdf]

Smith, R. (2007) Text and Materials on International Human Rights. Oxon: Routledge-Cavendsh.

Smith, R. K.M. (2010) Textbook on international human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Stone, R. (2012) Textbook on civil liberties and human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2006 edition also available]

Symonides, J. (ed.) (2000). Human Rights: Concepts and Standards. Ashgate: Dartmouth.

Tilly, J. (2000) “Cultural Relativism”, Human Rights Quarterly, 22(2), p.501 – 547.

Turner, B. (1993) “Outline of a Theory of Human Rights”, Sociology, 27(3), p.489-512

Turner, B. (1997) “A Neo-Hobbesian Theory of Human Rights: A Reply to Malcolm Waters”, Sociology, 31(3), p.565-571.

Turner, B. and Rojek, C. (2001) Society and Culture. Sage (especially chapters 7 and 11).

Vol. 7(1), pp. 77–93.

UNDOC (2009) Global Report on Trafficking in Persons. UN.GIFT.

[available online: http://www.unodc.org/documents/Global_Report_on_TIP.pdf]

Smith, R. (2005) Textbook on International Human Rights Law. OUP.

Voorhoof, D. and Cannie, H. (2010) ‘Freedom of Expression and Information in a Democratic Society: The Added but Fragile Value of the European Convention on Human Rights’, International Communication Gazette, 72(4-5): 407 – 423.

Wallace, R. (2001) International Human Rights: Text and Materials. Sweet & Maxwell.

Waters, M. (1996) ‘Human Rights and the Universalisation of Interests’, Sociology 30(3), pp. 593-600.

Wellman, C. (2000) ‘Solidarity, the Individual and Human Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly, 22(3), pp. 639-657.

White, R., Ovey, C. and Jacobs, F. (2010) European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woodiwiss, A. (2005) Human Rights. Routledge.


E. H. Dargie BA (hons) – Lukes’ radical theorisation of power is now four decades old – does it still stand up to critical scrutiny?

This is a piece by a University friend of mine who graduated with a first class honours in Media and Culture Studies, Euan Dargie. This post is on the same book and topic as my “What is Power?” post. As you’ll see, our responses and interpretations of the same book are vastly different. This is the great thing about sociology, everyone’s own ideas and interpretations are valid, as long as we have the evidence to back it up and make a strong argument. Each student is expected to have different essays when they submit for marking because sociology can be a very subjective course to study, especially when you get into your later years at university when you find your niches to drawn connections with the theory. This is the level of writing comprehension and style of writing you will reach as you graduate. Enjoy the selection of sociological themed memes selected by Euan!

oh-youre-studying-materialist-philosophy-please-tell-me-how-much-you-love-deleuze

In Power: A Radical View Steven Lukes states that: “In brief, my suggestion is that the one dimensional view of power presupposes a liberal conception of interests, the two-dimensional view a reformist conception, and the three-dimensional view a radical conception” [2005:38], while Lukes’ radical framework for examining power is now four decades old, it will be argued that it stands up to critical scrutiny, partially due to Lukes’ willingness to accept criticism leading to his conceptual framework having a flexible nature, insofar as it is has been reforged. However, it is just one tool in the examination of power and it gains in usefulness when used alongside other theoretical concepts. In order to show its enduring strength, it will be employed to examine the role that positive psychology has in the formation of public policy.

There are three keys issues that Lukes raises with the one dimensional and two dimensional views of power: Methodological, theoretical and political [2005:14-15]. In terms of methodological issues Lukes highlights the limits of a behaviourist approach, the role of values in the explanation of power and methodological individualism [2005:14]. With regard to the theoretical criticisms, Lukes highlights the limits or bias of pluralism, false consciousness and real interests [2005:14-15]. Finally, with political criticisms Lukes focuses on the three key areas covered in the Dahl [1961 cited in Lukes 2005]: urban redevelopment, public education and political nominations [2005:15] In addition to this Lukes examines poverty and race relations in Baltimore, and air pollution. Lukes does stress that “these matters will not be discussed in their own right, but merely alluded to at relevant points in the argument” [2005:15], the issues themselves therefore at not the important factor but how they are discussed in studies. At this point it is worth noting that the methodological and theoretical criticisms made by Lukes are key to understanding the importance of Lukes’ argument in a contemporary setting, an example being with the influence of behaviourist thinkers in the “happiness movement” have over public policy in the United Kingdom. This influence will be discussed later.

Lukes terms the pluralist view of power as the “one-dimensional view” [2005:16]. This is a simple approach to the study of power insofar as it follows a simple formula of “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” [Dahl 1957 cited in Lukes 2005:16]. In regard to the study of power this focuses almost solely on “concrete, observable behaviour” [Lukes 2005:17 emphasis in original], this comes from the pluralists view that it is the role of the researcher to only study behaviour that is observable [Polsby 1963 & Merelman 1968 both cited in Lukes 2005], and accurately shows Lukes’ criticism “that the pluralists’ conclusions are already built into their concepts, approach and methods” [2005:16]. Insofar as, while in certain circumstances they can reach pluralist conclusions, and in other circumstances they can reach different circumstance [Lukes 2005:16], the focus solely on decision making processes allows them only to see decision making processes. To the pluralists power in decision-making is best shown through conflict. In terms of A and B the effect of A’s power/influence/control over B would be shown in the A triumphing over B in terms of a clash of interests. In this model there is an assumption that the interests are consciously formed, “exhibited on actions, and thus to be discovered by observing people’s behaviour” [Lukes 2005:19]. In addition, Lukes argues that the “pluralists assume that interests are to be understood as policy preferences” [2005:19 emphasis in original]. It can then be drawn from that, that a conflict of interests is simply a conflict of preferences. There are clear limitations to this position, as interests cannot be simply reduced to preferring one policy over another, but work at a variety of levels both conscious and unconscious, are articulated and unarticulated, are known and unknown [Lukes 2005:19]. There is an uncritical nature to the one-dimensional model, by reducing power to influence over what policies are enacted, it can be used to argue that any bourgeois democracy is democratic, as on the surface a number of interests can be served [Lukes 2005:15].

IMG_3586

In terms of a two-dimensional view of power, Lukes highlights a difficulty in that reformist critics of Dahl’s study use power in two distinct senses [2005:21]. They still use the behaviourist definition of A getting B to something B would not otherwise do [Lukes 2005:21]. The other sense, they use  power to describe “the securing of compliance through the threat of sanctions” [Lukes 2005:21], which Lukes argues is better described as coercion [2005:21]. Despite differing from the behaviourist approach by focusing on nondecision-making as well as decision-making [Lukes 2005:22], they still focus on conflict, assuming that it is a feature of both decision-making and non decision-making [Lukes 2005:23]. According to Lukes the two-dimensional view of power does provide “a qualified critique of the behavioural focus of the first view” [Lukes 2005:24 emphasis in original], yet still focuses on (non)decision-making processes through policy preferences and “subpolitical grievances” [Lukes 2005:25].
The three-dimensional model criticises the first two models focus on behaviour as being too individualistic and seeks to critique this behavioural focus [Lukes 2005:28] by focusing on four aspects: “decision-making and control over political agenda (not necessarily through decisions)”, “issues and potential issues”, “observable (overt or covert), and latent conflict” and “subjective and real interests” [Lukes 2005:29], this is also seen when Lukes asserts that while there are difficulties with the three-dimensional view, “they certainly do not require us to consign the three-dimensional view of power to the realm of the merely metaphysical or the merely ideological” [2005:59]. However, it can be argued that Lukes also looks at wider structural conditions for the examination of power, particularly when he returns to it, and addresses criticisms for the 2005 edition.

Through engaging with criticisms and other works in both editions of Power: A Radical View, Lukes shows the strength of his framework. It can be argued that Peter Morriss is the most vocal critic of Lukes. In addressing Morriss’ first criticisms, in relating power to responsibility, in that if someone holds power they must be held to account [cited in Lukes 2005:66]. Morriss goes on to argue that if someone is powerless due to the society they live in then this can be addressed by changing the social order [cited in Lukes 2005:67-68] and that: “A radical critique of a society requires us to evaluate that society, not distribute praise or blame to people” [Morriss 2002:40-42 cited in Lukes 2005:68 emphasis in Lukes]. While Lukes accepts structural arguments around powerlessness and  domination, he does note that there are instances where “people often rendered and kept powerless by the deliberate activities of others” [2005:68], his main counter to Morriss’ criticisms is that the concept of power used by Morriss is too narrow [2005:68]. As stated earlier by Lukes “power is real and effective in a remarkable variety of ways, some of them indirect and some hidden” [2005:64], and that this “is at its most effective when least accessible to observation, to actors and observers alike” [2005:64], with these actors being of “many kinds: states, institutions, associations, alliances, social movements, groups, clubs and so on” [Lukes 2005:72]. Therefore “social life can only properly be understood as an interplay of power and structure” [Lukes 2005:68-
69]. It can be argued that this can also be understood in terms of Lukács’ concept of totality [1968], the “web of possibilities” [Lukes 2005:69] that means that action and structure are an interwoven whole.
images (3)

As the purpose of sociology is not solely to be a thought exercise but it must apply the real world. Therefore the key to the endurance of a theoretical framework is whether it still can be used to explain current phenomena, and in following Lukes’ theoretical framework to examine hidden power the role of positive psychology in forming social policy will be examined. The criticisms of the behaviourist approach highlighted in Lukes criticisms of the one-dimensional view of power, also apply to political psychology, particularly in the application of the behaviourist Positive Psychology in
the policies of both the Labour and the Coalition governments [Fitzpatrick 2011]. In many ways, this represents a logical conclusion of a behaviourist approach to understanding power, if the decision making of populous can be influenced into making the “right” choices. The influence of behaviourist approaches can be seen in Martin Seligman being appointed Blair’s “happiness Tsar”, Richard Thaler being appointed to the Behavioural Insight Team set up by Cameron [Fitzpatrick 2011], and can be seen in some elements of the Scottish Government’s Curriculum for Excellence in terms of the focus on recognising achievement and building “a sense of physical, emotional and mental wellbeing” [Education Scotland ND] being heavily influenced by the Three Pillars of Positive Psychology: positive emotions, positive traits and positive institutions [Seligman 2002:xiii]. The political application of  Seligman’s ideas that if we focus on the positives we become happier [2002] results in a (a)political theory which seeks to “conveys the multifaceted nature of wellbeing and will help policy-makers and citizens understand which domains of wellbeing should constitute priorities for public policy” [Forgeard et al 2011]. Not only do the Positive Psychologists make the same assumptions as earlier behaviourists that the bourgeois state is benign, but take that further to use their behaviourist theories as tool to enforce power. They also site the unhappiness an individual experiences as coming from the individual, and in no way related to the conditions of the spaces the individual inhabits. It is the siting the problem with the individual that is key to understanding the role of positive psychology in terms of power.
It can be argued that positive psychology is a form of domination. While this is explicit in nudge theory [Thaler & Sunstein 2008], which in many ways is a practical application of the one dimensional view of power – A getting B to do something B would not otherwise do. With positive psychology more generally, the mechanics of this domination is subtler. The focus on the individual that is central to positive psychology is rooted in the liberal subject. The role this has it situated along multiple axes, and becomes a feedback loop. Seligman, Thaler et al are influenced by the bourgeois individual, as they have succeeded within the capitalist system they see the system as a success, and are unable to see the system from any other stand point other than their own [see Lukács 1968]. Their theories are picked up by successive governments due to the confirmation of the system, so it then feeds back into reproducing the Individual. It is this that turns positive psychology into a form of domination by creating “favourable alignment of social relations” [Lukes
2005:78], and fostering a false consciousness, with two main outcomes. The first, as discussed, is a reinforcing of the primacy of the individual. The second is that flak directed towards the conditions created by capitalism is effectively deflected back to those dominated; it is not poor housing, low wages or unemployment that is making you unhappy, but your own failure to be happy with your conditions. Just as Lukes employs Spinoza’s argument that: “One man’s power of judgement can be  subject to the right of a second in another way: the first man may be the dupe of the second” [1677 cited in Lukes 2005:87]. Lukes builds upon this when he states:

Power can be deployed to block or impair its subjects’ capacity to reason well, not least by instilling and sustaining misleading or illusory ideas of what is ‘natural’ and what sort of life their distinctive ‘nature’ dictates, and, in general, by stunting or capacity for rational judgement [2005:115]

The application Positive psychology blunts the capacity to reason, simply by dismissing criticisms of a system of subjection and reinforcing its ideology – effectively imposing a false consciousness. Lukes framework for understanding power goes beyond Foucault’s arguments about the power of psychiatry [1961/1995], which ultimately positive psychology is a part of. Although, arguments could be made that the power of positive psychology can be seen in terms of Regulation of Movement [1961/1995:172], insofar as the subject becomes unable to move through a social space.

However, there are stronger arguments around panopticonism [Foucault 1975/1991], particularly around the power’s gaze [1975/1991:202], with this gaze coming from within. However, it still remains that Lukes provides a better framework for understanding the power of the concept of the individual, by providing a mechanism for examining the material function of this power. With regard to the totality of society, this goes beyond Morriss’ argument that powerlessness and domination are conceptually different [2006:130], taking Lukes position Morriss somewhat makes the mistake again of being too narrow in the definition of power, they are but different manifestations of power.
Given that behaviourist explanations of power and society are to a certain extent still dominant, then Lukes criticisms and his model of conceptualising power is still relevant, but they can also gain further strength from other theoretical positions. The power of Positive Psychology can be part explained by Foucault’s theories of power, particularly with regard to the power of psychiatry and domination within society [1975/1991], which in many ways Positive Psychology represents, which  effectively breaks out of the asylum to infect public policy. Also of use in building upon Lukes’ framework is Lukács’ concept of totality [1968], insofar as it can be used to argue the interconnectedness of all aspects of society. In addition, Lukes’ willingness to adapt in the face of criticism shows the enduring usefulness of his framework. Bringing all these points together suggests that his framework has withstood critical scrutiny.
Bibliography
Education Scotland. ND. The purpose of the curriculum. [online] Available at:
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/thecurriculum/whatiscurriculumforexcellence/thepurposeofthecurricul
um/index.asp [Accessed: 08/12/14]

Fitzpatrick, M. 2011. Mad men take over the coalition. The British Journal of General Practice. 61(582): 71. doi:
10.3399/bjgp11X549126
Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. & Seligman, M. E. P. 2011. Doing the right thing: Measuring
wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing. 1(1): 79-106. doi:10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15
Foucault, M. 1961/1995. Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. Translated from
French by: R. Howard. 1967. London: Routledge
Foucault, M. 1975/1991. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Translated from French by: A. Sheridan.
1977. London: Penguin
Lukács, G. 1968. History and class consciousness. Translated by R. Livingstone. 1971. London: Merlin Press
Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A radical view (2nd ed). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian
Morriss, P. 2006. Steven Lukes on the concept of power. Political Studies Review 4(2): 124-135. DOI:
10.1111/j.1478-9299.2006.000104.x
Seligman, M.E.P. 2002. Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for
deep fulfillment. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing [ebook] Available at:
https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9781857884135 [accessed: 8/12/14]
Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New
Haven : Yale University Press

An argument against the strict use of scientific experimentation in social science

 

The western way to analyse our world is to do so on a scientific basis, where we focus on reason found in structures, patterns and categories, holding the belief in things to be either true or false with the ability to test our understandings through quantifiable predictions and theories. This way of thinking has become dominant since the Enlightenment, when the social sciences are borne from the first questions regarding the self with Descartes’ famous ‘dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum’, to highlight our ability to question (doubt) our realities in order to find the meanings within ourselves and between each other. This essay will critically evaluate Shotter’s use of Wittgenstein’s notion of ‘langauge games’ to argue against the ways in which social theory attempts to formalise people’s saying and doings.

John Shotter (2015) like others who debate the legitimacy of scientific method within the social sciences, state that the emphasis for the need for definitive answers within human behaviour and is what holds the key to true enlightenment within our reality, is troublesome and a risky practice for social science because it is not like the natural sciences. Our learning associated with engaging with other people in our world is not as straight forward as other aspects of learning, such as at school, for example as Shotter states ‘for what is learnt here is not facts or information, but, to repeat, what we call ‘correct judgments’’ (pp. 62) which involves making sense of and thinking of social events that have happened, are happening and will happen all in a single moment that is almost instantaneous within our minds.

download (2)

‘The Idea of a Social Science’ by Peter Winch (2003) proposes that the way in which we think about understanding and explaining our world is not based solely on causal notions, but we should also consider how we use language to explain our understanding. Winch makes reference to Wittgenstein’s use of language games and the importance of context when finding the meanings within language. Without context, it is difficult to presume the meanings of language as for Winch, words can be thought of in different ways depending on the person, situation and interaction. The learned rules of language games that we develop allow us to differentiate between contexts and meanings, but also that the sounds that we make are created into words because of it’s use within an activity.

‘Wittgenstein’s argument is that it is not those practices considered on their own which justify the application of categories like language and meaning, but the social context in which those practices are performed’ (Winch, 2003, pp. 35).

By using this as a basis for our understanding, it is perfectly acceptable for scientists to use philosophy to further the understanding of human behaviour in a meaningful sense that is not recognised by the methodologies of the natural sciences. If there is too much emphasis on the need to use method for understanding human behaviour, difficulties emerge in the need to find a general theory in which to begin understanding, which could disguise the true meanings meant as the observer is clouded by theoretical bias but also their own perceived understandings which they use to interpret meaning, particularly if there are cultural and language difference whereby only basic understandings are recognised.

Although there are numerous language games, each with their own rules, it is still possible to successfully interact with people, as there is a correct way in interacting, that follows a rule that goes beyond specific language-game rules, but it is not a general theory of everything. In his explanation, Winch points out that devising a rule that fits playing football, patience or chess does not improve the games, it is unnecessary and over complicated and to do so to language games also creates complexities that do not need to be there. For him and Wittgenstein, it is acceptable for the social sciences to accept this taken-for-granted reality which ‘sums up’ our meanings in the context of the time that we are in. Just as philosophy is important to the sciences, appreciating historical contexts of language and knowledge is important for finding meanings in actions and interactions today.

download (1)

Foucault’s history of the medicalisation of society begins in Madness and Civilisation (2006) which brings to life the social history of the 16th century, detailing the beliefs and reactions of society towards mental illness before awareness and understanding was meaningfully carried out. Doctors using early scientific reasoning believed that the mentally ill could not contribute to society and began the condemnation of the sick to poor houses, prisons and asylums. After classification within these institutions of each sick person, came greater understanding of mental illness and a recognition and a development of a new language. For Foucault, although there was progress in the treatment of the sick, the knowledge held by doctors was for him a source of power which is a running theme throughout all of his work.

Foucault believed the increased knowledge developed within the social sciences, and the progress within penal system continues to create more categories of the population based on deviant behaviours. Deviant behaviour which had historically been punishable by torturous methods evolved in a way which is now considered to be more ‘humane’ by society. Due to the enlightened thought of science and its rational understanding of our world, it was deemed to be more humane to remove deviants from society and house them in secure facilities than it was to publically maim and kill individuals for crimes against the sovereign. The act of imprisoning a person involves further actions of analysis and categorisation whereby behaviour is recorded, systematically for classification purposes. A strict timetable of activities are to encourage repeated behaviours in order to rehabilitate an inmate because each demarcated part of prison life, in ways, can pinpoint specific ‘problems’ in behaviour (self) and allows efficient management to change/correct  the self.

“What was being formed was…a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behaviour. The human body was entering a machinery of power that explores it, breaks it down and rearranges it… Thus discipline produces subjected and practised bodies, ‘docile bodies'” (Foucault, 1977, pp. 138).

However, there is a problem with this method as it leads to institutionalisation where it is difficult for long term inmates to be rehabilitated and released from the system because the world outside is not regimented like prison and those external factors forcing prisoners to correct themselves no longer have power over them. With all the reasoned, scientific knowledge that we have there is still problems with how we punish those involved in antisocial behaviour, especially when we see reoffenders continuing to commit crimes, over populated prisons and capital punishment ineffective as a deterrent for serious crime. There are reasons other than a flaw in the self which makes individuals commit crimes which is ignored in favour for what Burkitt calls ‘punitive rationality’ (Burkitt, 2008, pp. 88).

For Foucault there is no such thing as self and soul which we were all been born with, but our souls are a product of all historical acts before us, shaping our beliefs, social practices, norms, expectations and behaviours in a web of inescapable power relations that exist around us, to control and mould us; in our family, our community and the globalised world from birth which continues after we die. Burkitt (2008) sees Foucault’s use of discourse, which is

“…the rules that govern the language and conceptual vocabulary which…order the world and the relations between the things in it, and also involves institutional sites and social practices that help to form and put in place the conceptual order of normality” (pp. 93).

This is a system in which to control our understanding of our world given that in order to understand things we must have the language to describe phenomenon to begin with. By using the deviant as a reference point to categorise people, we create a discourse full of explanations, descriptions, understanding on that deviant behaviour; which leads to shortcomings in detailing what it is to be sane, healthy and responsible citizens, where the language is lacking and fails to expand our understanding and ultimately leads us down a path of one way of thinking and understanding of  our world. In order to free ourselves from the limitations of social life, bound by laws and social norms, Foucault believes that we need to question scientific knowledge, the law and the structures in place that facilitate these systems as power and knowledge can be played off itself from opposing ends to change the hegemonic and taken-for-granted way of life.

Although Foucault makes valid points about the treatment of prisoners and the mentally ill, his theories can only be spoken of in those contexts as they cannot be used to explain all manners of social life. Burkitt (2009) sees Foucault having an over-reliance on scientific knowledge and law to make his arguments, while almost completely disregarding the relationships between social relations and the acknowledgement of emotions within those relationships which is an important part of being human as it is what constructs our identities.

download (3)

Berger and Luckmann (1991) believe that to understand sociology of knowledge, we need to appreciate the sociology of religion and language for they believe that ‘…integration between the structural realities and the human enterprise of constructing reality – in history’ (pp. 208 – 211) is important in understanding society. However, even they realise that the practice of collecting empirical data and carrying out analysis within the social sciences is problematic in the classical sense of scientific inquiry. The questions of human life for Berger and Luckmann comes down to questions answerable within philosophy and its historical impact because our reality is a continuously recreated social reality. They see the importance in understanding reality using skills involving signs which show a subjective meaning in an object which did not have that meaning for its intentional use, using the example of a knife which could be used for hunting animals, it can also be objectivated by others to mean anger, aggression or fear depending on its context. Berger and Luckman see signs not just in objects, but also in language, seeing it as

‘the most important sign system of human society…[and] essential of any understanding of the reality of every day life’ (pp. 51- 52).

They see the taken-for-granted understanding of language as creating a common-sense reality where signs create the rules assigned to how we interact with others and understand each other, arranged by categories, subtexts as it were, that we all have experiences of, that we can quickly relate their meanings to. In addition, when signs carry their meanings over various realities, they become symbols which hold an abstract understanding across these realities which include philosophy, art, religion and science. Along with signs, symbols create semantic fields to categorise and differentiate objects with the type of words we use, how we say them and the rules we create to use them. Berger and Luckmann make reference to how other languages do not form the same rules and patterns for speech, and each language develops its own meaning, phrases and grammar which need to be learned by beginners of the languages. By having a general understanding of our reality, a general theory within ourselves, we are able to successfully cope with every day life but we never have a full understanding of it; almost like using a torch in the dark that illuminates one area we are focused on and dulls the rest of our reality until we move focus on to it.

The linguist Mikhail Bakhtin (1993) sees our life in a world where we participate in it as individuals and collectively which leads to us developing patterns of behaviour. Moments of interactions within our world for Bakhtin consist of ‘I-for-myself’, ‘I-for-others’ and ‘others-for-me’ where people’s awareness of their selves are created through asking the question of ‘who am I?’ as an individual but also in society and as part of society. By using our perceptions of ourselves, others and how we believe we should be perceived by others we develop a way of thinking which Shotter (2015) calls

“before-the-fact thinking, a kind of thinking that oscillates back-and-forth between our exploratory movements within a circumstance, and our sense of our progress so far in achieving within it an outcome acceptable to the others around us. We could say, paradoxically, it is a kind of thinking in which we only find out what to do in the course of our doing it” (pp. 64).

Emotions and connotations in the language we use allows people to discover a sense of themselves in that particular moment in time, where we, or they, are either accepted or are forced to change within that social situation as governed by those around us, who are following the taken-for-granted rules of the game. These moments continually take place throughout our day to day lives, even down to the smallest, mundane of interactions. Shotter believes this is an important aspect of meanings and interactions with human behaviour because

“if it really is the case that we all occupy a fluid, indeterminate, not-yet-finalized reality…continually having to step out into an uncertain future, our expectations as to how those around us will react are crucial” (pp. 60).

To illustrate the importance of emotion and meanings within social interactions, rather than simply believing in mechanical and cognitive processes which can be quantified within other areas of science, Leudar and Costall (2009) use the autobiographical writings of high functioning individuals with autism to understand the social underpinnings of daily life. They propose that instead of the commonly accepted belief in psychology that people with autism lack of ability to understand social interactions in what has been coined the ‘Theory of Mind’ (ToM), that instead, autism is the result of people having difficulties in creating complex theories of mind (rules for language games) with others which involves ‘beliefs, desires, intentions, imagination and emotions to the self and other people in order to explain and predict behaviour’ (pp. 145 – 146). The concept of ToM is that we are born to inherently learn our own theories of social interaction from birth which continues to develop throughout our lives which starts at our own understandings of ourselves and will gradually become more complex and intertwined with shared theories based on other people and situations. By using the diaries of 10 participants with autism they found that they all see themselves as anthropologists, observing their alien world around them, but never being a part of it; failing to keep up with the information communicated to them during interaction which includes speech, body language, tone of voice, nuances and innuendos.

images (1)

As Wittgenstein stated, language games are not consciously processed by us, it is instinctual, because to do so, would cause us delays in our interaction and take up too much of our time and thinking for even the most basic interactions. Although autistic people have created coping mechanisms to deal with life and manage to have successful careers, they are almost a living example that language and social interaction cannot be simplified down into a general theory of behaviour based on rational logic, which is the qualities of the natural sciences. There are aspects of our lives which are not mapped out in theories, or that they are far too complex to create because they are based around emotion which is more difficult to rationalise and quantify because it creates ‘unpredictability, variety, creativity and complexity inherent in human interactions’  (Leudar and Costall, 2009, pp. 161). Luedar and Costall propose that the issues for people with autism is not that they do not understand the rules in language games, but instead do not know how to apply them to social situations in a generalised form, and that their only option in interacting with people is to use a cognitive approach, which in most situations causes difficulties and embarrassment.

By recognising that our social world is made up of a number of different contexts all coming together at that single point in time and treating it as is, instead of compartmentalising each factor and trying to understand the wider picture through that one perspective, we would be in a better place to understand our reality. There is no need in the social sciences to follow the methodologies suited for the natural sciences whereby experiments are used to ‘prove’ something to be true. The social world cannot recreate the exact situation in which a certain phenomenon happened naturally in order to repeat an experiment for proof that there is a measurable pattern to our behaviour, and there is also no way of measuring and observing the abstract meanings which make up social interactions which would perhaps go towards creating theories of interaction. Shotter, Winch and Wittgenstein are correct in their saying that there is no such thing as social sciences in the framework of natural sciences and that philosophy is an important aspect of understanding our social world as it accepts our taken-for-granted construction of reality as ‘just is’. Accepting that human behaviour involves following general rules, and that we can ask questions as to why that behaviour follows rules is part of the understanding of interaction, but to explain using a general theory of behaviour is incorrect because with general theories we lose the most important aspect of human interaction, and that is of the meanings of our shared experiences.

 

References

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. 1991. The Social Construction of Reality: A treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin

Burkitt, I. 2008. Social Selves: Theories of self and society. London: Sage

Leudar, I and Costall, A. 2009. Against Theory of Mind. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan

Mikhail, M. Bakhtin. 1993. Toward a Philosophy of the Act. Translated by. V. Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Shotter, J. (2015) “Undisciplining Social Science: Wittgenstein and the Art of Creating Situated Practices of Social Inquiry.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 46 (1) pp. 60 – 84.

Winch, P. 2003. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge

What is power, how do we define it and how does it affect autonomy?

The questions which sociologists ask and seek to answer begins with the basic ideas of agency and structure by analysing phenomenon within society and asking if they occur as a result of an individual’s autonomy or as the result of socialisation by structures created by society. This essay will examine Lukes’ conception of agency in his book ‘Power: A Radical View’ (2005) by asking what is power, how do we define it and how does it affect autonomy with reference to social theories by Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu.

lukes_

Lukes starts his analysis by explaining Robert Dahl’s pluralist concept of power in American politics which consists of an elitist power structure where Dahl explains this relationship as “A having power over B to the extent that he can make B do something that B would not otherwise do.” (Dahl, 1957) This suggests there are unproblematic power relations in this case and it is observable and therefore quantifiable. According to this view, when conflicts in decisions arise, it is a conflict in policy preferences, which is centred on the majority’s political viewpoint and nothing more as Dahl believes all who participate within decision making are fully aware of their choices.

The emphasis for one dimensional power is in the behaviour resulted from conflict of interests. Lukes does not have a problem with Dahl’s one dimensional view of power as Dahl is correct to state this relationship exists, but he does not believe that it adequately explains instances where power is not as obviously seen. Lukes needs a further explanation to the power relations at work where there exists overt and covert forms of power in the form of decision making and non – decision making by using Bachrach and Baratz’s (1970) critique of Dahl. They argue that power is not solely a matter of getting B to do something that B does not want to do, but can also be a matter of preventing B from doing what he wants to do by creating barriers which can for instanc, stop public knowledge of policy conflicts surrounding the dominant power that Schattschneider (1960) calls the ‘mobilisation of bias’ which will only bring to attention what is important in order to maintain the status quo; but also it can be used to unconsciously reinforce traditional values and beliefs which favours the current political process, unaware of alternatives. This will create tensions between social groups who are excluded and critical of the decisions being made and sparks the development of social movements to challenge the hegemony. Lukes sees there needs to be a distinction in Bachrach and Baratz’s definition of power as he sees that there is power but also coercion at work where ‘A has power over B, meaning A has B’s compliance…with the threat of sanctions.’ (Lukes, 2005) Compliance can come without protest through A’s influence and authority, and also by force. The main critique of one dimensional power for Bachrach and Baratz is that power exists to narrow the choices when making decisions to what they refer to as ‘relatively “safe” issues’ (1970, pp.50). Like the one dimensional concept there is the emphasis on observable factors at play, and instead of observable compliance, the two dimensional concept is focused on observable conflict regarding significant issues, believing that no conflict – overt or covert – qualifies as consensus of the decision process. But what is to be seen as a significant issue? Lukes believes that whatever is the desired outcome for the majority of individuals simply does not come to pass.

Lukes’ third dimension of power delves even further into the power matrix by going on to state that the third dimension prevents significant issues and conflicts ever arising in the first place which would be associated with the second dimension. This is carried out through socialisation to create compliant citizens who accept and support structures of inequality, and by setting agendas to discredit other alternatives being aired on public platforms. The third dimension will always take into account that there is the possibility for potential issues to arise which will be neglected by institutions or social orders and can occur when there is no observable conflict, which Lukes refers to as ‘latent conflicts’. Further, the third dimension of power believes that ‘consensual authority, with no conflict of interests, is not…a form of power’ (Lukes, 2005 pp. 35).

When the question of rational persuasion as a form of power and influence arises, Lukes cannot answer this because he believes that there are two different forces that could be at work which cannot be determined where he believes that B can be autonomous and choose consciously to accept the influence of A, and on the other hand B could be following the rules of human nature as proposed by Kant’s theory of causality (Kant, 2011).

When considering B’s best interests, power can be exercised in various ways but the most successful option that does not lead to anarchy for Lukes is for A to create ‘short power’ (pp. 37) over B until they autonomously recognise their real interests through democratic participation. At this point, power will cease to exist as there results consensual authority. Using Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks” as an illustration for bringing attention to the reactions of individuals and social groups who are given, or take the opportunity to escape subordination in hierarchical systems, we see that even when there is the opportunity to radically change the system of power, subordinates will always aim for an improvement in their current situation which will include an increase in wealth, education and political power and they soon replicate the same hierarchical system that was once before.

There was much critique after the first publication of ‘Power: A Radical View’ so Lukes’ revised his writing and included chapters based on the newly translated works by French post structuralists Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu.

03f

Lukes believes that Foucault had created a potential fourth dimension of power where power in the sense of domination has permeated into all levels of society and there is no escape from it because it has existed before our own lives and is involved in every stage of our development so that we have internalised the social and cultural roles that we are exposed to, in order to become capable and willing to follow the norms of society through the inward surveillance of ourselves and others. This power is seen from as soon as we are born through our parents exercising authority over us; education, social services and prisons systems and constant feeds of mass media setting the bar for conformity. We have been conditioned and indoctrinated into acting the way we do, down to how we speak and the language we use. It could be seen that we have been produced by domination to instil correct behaviour. Power for Foucault is not something which someone can have and use over others, it is something which people are intertwined with, alongside of and are, used in order to facilitate power. ‘Power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… Power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor a possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society (Foucault, 2008 p.93). This correlates with the Latour paradox which states that ‘when you simply have power – in potentia – nothing happens and you are powerless; when you exert power – in actu – others are performing the action and not you.’ (Latour, 1984 pp.264 – 265) The difference between power in potentia and power in actu is the power of others. Power is a consequence of many people but attributed to one of them. The amount of power exercised is not related to how much someone has but to how many assist in its exercise. Analysis is needed on how collective action comes about, or how actors come to be associated, and how and what binds people together.

For Foucault there is no human nature because we are knowleged into beings and therefore believes power can be seen as productive because knowledge is power. You do not own your own thoughts, you operate using the discourse you are given via socialisation. Self is unstable and fits different institutionalised powers where power creates the mind, which Foucault calls the soul. When there is expanded knowledge there is more places for power to permeate within the individual, making the processes of surveillance and punishment grow and becomes so entrenched in the individual and then across the whole of society that it is difficult to find its origin. This is the next level of power beyond Lukes’ analysis in which Foucault believes that we have reached an Orwellian state where freedom is an illusion, created by slavery.

Foucault’s system of power is based from bottom – up resistance, not a top – down hierarchical system as claimed by other theorists. “There is no single locus of great refusal, no soul of revolt, source of all rebellions, or pure law of the revolutionary. Instead there is a plurality of resistances, each of them a special case” (Foucault, 2008 pp. 42). Power is also repressive and rigid with scientific knowledge of the body, mind and society all converging to create biopower, which is key to creating self-monitoring subjects who collude in their own manipulation of objects which is key to Foucault’s vision of modernity. Power will always exist inside and outside of institutional systems but not ones which reinforces hierarchies. The most insidious form of power is reforming ‘deviant behaviour’ and seeing corrections as progress when it only creates repression and oppression – this where we are made to feel subjective but in fact we are not autonomous beings, we are all objects of biopower.

Foucault sees bureaucracy as a way to survey behaviours in the forms of grades, performance indicators, daily work quotas, inspections etc. People end up internalising their own behaviours and become both a prisoner and guard when dealing with their own panopticon. Foucault describes these people as the ‘disciplinary individual’ where there is no further need for institutions to exercise power over people and punish them because power has become individualised and deconstructed and thus pluralised.

Although Foucault’s writings are exaggerated; are not historically accurate and full of loose ends, they have created ideal types of power. Foucault’s ideal types have encouraged new and thoughtful discussions on new processes of power particularly for feminism which have gone to show that there may not be a true escape from it, no matter how conscious we are of it.

DUx-zksXcAAK0hg

Lukes believes that Bourdieu’s explanation of fields illustrates the hidden and unintentional results of power and domination through the deeply embedded normalisation of social- and class-based norms and expectations. Though Lukes agrees with Bourdieu on power and domination on the agent, he is sceptical of his notion of socialisation running so deeply in all of us that there is no social change to be had when social movements gather to change society’s consciousness in order to change norms and roles.

Habitus becomes a self-perpetuating system of historical accumulation of life experiences associated with specific social positions. It adapts individuals’ expectations and behaviours to a social space that is constructed on an unequal distribution of resources. This discrimination does not apply to life chances and careers, but to lifestyle ‘choices’ seen in Bourdieu’s book ‘Distinction’ regarding art work, classical music and political views etc. Social capital perpetuates class position across generations by providing access to opportunities denied to those who do not possess such resources. Social reproductions consist of repeated, stratified, hierarchical relations that deflect or resist radical change by dominated positioned social space. This means the dominated social groups sanction the legitimacy of the existing system of relations, thus perpetuating their own domination. Like Marx – “the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class” (Marx, 2000) Bourdieu sees relations of domination disguised through a false consciousness that renders the social system immune from challenges. This is made possible once the real source of individuals’ domination are ‘misrecognised’ as coming from personal failings or from causes beyond the control of their society and its leaders. Education is the most prominent institution which reproduces class relations where the system is misrecognised as meritocratic, rewarding individuals on their aptitudes rather than hereditary privileges. Culture is a structuring device used to separate people into classes/social positions – it is not accidental as there are patterns to it. People are active in society and they make social structures but these structures also make people and just as Gramsci observed, people replicate structures that dominate them.

Another important area of Bourdieu’s concept of social order is doxa which is created through power relations such as classifications and values, similarly reinforced like habitus and fields. The mutual reinforcement of habitus and field strengthen doxa and give the ‘feel’ of the social order. The shared beliefs of doxa within the field creates a symbolic power which is mediated by various forms of accumulated economic, cultural and social capital – acted out as an individual’s charisma, prestige and authority but is differential to other capitals. Symbolic power is embedded in recognised institutions as well as institutionalised social relations – which include education, religion and art – that have their own power to establish and allocate differential values in the market of symbolic goods, which further legitimises them in the process. When symbolic violence occurs we see that there is a misrecognition of reality in favour for elitist views, when the “dominated perceive the dominant through the categories that the relation of domination has produced and which are thus identical to the interests of the dominant” (Bourdieu, 1998 pp.89). Domination is naturalised and legitimised due to symbolic violence which then reproduces unnatural ideas of elitist ideology and ostracises any person who do not conform to their ideology. This leads to classes being natural to human nature because we all find ways to relate or distance ourselves from others. Common bonds is what creates society and allows it to function. Agency is very important because without it there is no class system.

Doxa is a set of beliefs or opinions that are intimately linked to the field and habitus, and orthodoxies are ‘taken for granted’ assumptions of an epoch which lie beyond ideologies, yet can generate conscious struggle. The natural order of traditional societies where what is essential goes without saying because it comes without saying. Doxa’s relation to the social world is the absolute form of recognition of legitimacy through misrecognition of arbitrariness, (since it is unaware of the very question of legitimacy) which arises from competition from legitimacy, and hence from conflict between groups claiming to possess it (Bourdieu, 1977).

Recognition is the by-product of unquestioned norms that have been internalised by social agents as opposed to physical pressure put upon them. Bourdieu believed that doxa would become questioned and “the universe of the undiscussed” would disappear in times of crisis, when drastic socio-structural modifications and disruptions could give rise to a critical consciousness that might undermine the prevailing doxa, and foster the emergence of others ones, different from the current ruling doxa. But for Bourdieu, any common sense reflection on established rules are restricted by day to day experience of the current norms, and any action put upon the socially dominated will never be anything more than weak, and in practical means of protest and violent bursts or transplanted into institutionalised third parties like trade unions and political parties.

Orthodoxy is acknowledging the current doxa – current rules of the game and going with it. Heterodoxy acknowledges differing beliefs coming together to challenge each other through discursive rather than practical action. The most efficient form of heterodoxy comes from social groups sitting in the middle of society. Neither of them from the lower or dominant parts of society, they are rich in cultural capital but poor in economic capital, but will be mediated by the ruling doxa. The unchecked growing influence in a field of unquestioned sets of beliefs that belong to other fields and habitus leads to a growing heteronomy in the field. Bourdieu insists that the forming and expression of opinions is conditioned and constrained by experienced linguistic abilities, gender, economic conditions, and educational background and to presuppose formal equality is to hide real inequalities which is discussed in ‘Public Opinion Does Not Exist’ (Bourdieu, 1971).

Lukes believes that any situation could be analysed and found to have any of the 3 dimensions of power because each is entirely different. With perhaps more investigating we could find the third and possibly fourth dimensions at work but it all comes down to the interpretation of the researcher to distinguish what is power and what conflicts exist. Lukes states that we all are capable of having the consciousness to be aware of the power relationships intertwined within social life and believes that even though we have internalised unnatural forms of social order as Bourdieu states, we can still choose to consent or resent the powers that govern us as we still remain autonomous within modern society.

References

Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. 1962. The Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review. 56 (4) pp. 947 – 952.

Bourdieu, P. 1971. Public Opinion Does Not Exist [Online] Available from: http://www.acrimed.org/L-opinion-publique-n-existe-pas#top [Accessed 21 November 2015].

Bourdieu, P. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity

Bourdieu, P. 2010. Distinction. London: Routledge

Dahl, R. A. 1957. The Concept of Power. [Online] Available from https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/articles/Dahl_Power_1957.pdf [Accessed 24 November 2015].

Digesser, P. 1992. The Fourth Face of Power. Journal of Politics. 54 (4) pp. 977 – 1007

Faubion, J. translated by Robert Hurley and others. New York: New Press.

Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline and Punish: Birthplace of the prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books

Foucault, M. 2000. Power in Essential Works of Foucault 1954 – 1984 volume 3. Ed

Foucault, M. 2008. The History of Sexuality, Vol 1: The Will to Knowledge. Translated by Robert Hurley. Melbourne: Penguin

Kant, I. 2011. The Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn. US: Pacific Publishing Studio

Latour, B. 1984. The Power of Associations. The Sociological Review. 32 (1) pp. 264 – 280.

Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A radical view. London: Palgrave

Marx, K. and Engels, F. 2000. The German Ideology. [Online] Available from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf [Accessed 22 November 2015].

Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A realist view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

Bibliography

Adorno, T. W. and Horkheimer, M. 1997. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso Books

Bellamy, R. Developments in Pluralist and Elite Approaches, in Nash, K. & Scott, A. (eds) (2004) The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 7-28

Habermas, J. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a category of the bourgeois society. Translated by Thomas Burger Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Hay, C. et al. 2006. The State: Theories and Issues Palgrave MacMillan

Hindess, B. 2012. Foucaultian Analysis of Power, Government, Politics in Amenta, E. et al (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 36-46

Orwell, G. 2013. Nineteen Eighty Four. London: Penguin Modern Classics

Strange, S. 1990. Finance, Information and Power. Review of international studies. 16, pp. 259 – 274

Human Rights – The achievements and limits of classical liberal jurisprudence

Early civilisations had a simple, self-sufficient and communal way of life orientated around natural law, which involved unwritten moral codes in which people were respectful of their environment and each other; including beliefs that the Earth was the centre of everything, given to everyone equally by God and provided all sustenance for life. As societies grew and developed into empires with rulers and the church in the powerful positions to create laws which economically and religiously codified, standardised and regulated the life of the population, and changed the expectations of society and resources. Religious leaders ordained the divine right of kings, allowing monarchs to be the only sovereign of the state as they proclaimed they were rulers directly chosen by God. This created the legitimacy of religious laws embraced by the people, developing insidious institutionalisation of the state, intent on private economic growth. The objective of this essay is to critically discuss the achievements and limits of classical liberal jurisprudence by outlining the arguments during the Enlightenment which brought about fundamental and significant changes to society which still has an impact on our lives today.

rphab

After the abolition of feudalism, the period of Enlightenment began the discussion of the rights of man. Hugo Grotius was key in acknowledging and developing the modern concept of rights, moving away from medieval ideas dictated by the church. His belief was that God created the world for all of human life and the laws which govern us, and therefore concluded that God was law (Freeman, 2011, pp. 22).

The state, in the view of political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, was essential to a cohesive civilisation as without it the State of Nature would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’ where there would be ‘a war of all against all’ (Hobbes, 1968). Men are naturally and exclusively self-interested, and coupled with limited resources and no power available to force men to cooperate, a level of distrust forms and all civilisation ends in chaos. However, because people are rational, Hobbes argues that they will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to live in a civil society with laws, which they instinctively know is in their best interests.

The state is the overseer of all life in society which puts in place laws which all men are to adhere to, including the monarch, and is considered to be the embodiment of reason. In order to get acceptance for the state to be legitimised by the people, rights and obligations were created whereby all citizens gave away some of their freedom in exchange for security from ill treatment from others. This is the creation of the social contract which emancipated people from feudal life and gave freedom to seek employment outside the control of landowners; fair trials and punishments and the ability to enjoy their own private property. The right to private property is central to classical jurisprudence because “private property…made possible the break from stagnation and the narrow boundaries which had hemmed in the old world.” (Fine, 2002, pp.12) but it also was the beginning of universal justice. A contract is created in which individuals collectively and reciprocally renounce the rights people had against one another in the State of Nature and agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it. This is seen today as the criminal justice system and the enforcers of the law – police. Society becomes possible because, as with the State of Nature there was no power to control behaviour, there now exists artificially and conventionally superior and more powerful people who can force men to cooperate in the form of the Sovereign.

John Locke, a political philosopher in the 17th century, influenced by Hobbes, believed society should have a minimal state which allowed for the right to personal property with trades regulated and protected. He wished to uphold the notion of natural law stating ‘no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions’ (Locke, 1988). Private property is created when a person mixes his labour with the raw materials of nature, whereby if someone tills a piece of land in nature, and makes it into a piece of farmland, which produces food, then there is a claim to own that piece of land and the food produced upon it. Under natural law, morally no one is allowed to take more than they can use which would cause others to go without because nature is given to all of mankind by God for its common subsistence.  The Enlightened thought believed sovereignty, liberty and free conscious humans were highly compatible with early forms of capitalism as it allowed for the freedom of movement, trade and private property; but it always favoured the wealthy who would accumulate wealth through the purchase of property during the death throes of feudalism. Lords appropriated communal land in order to rent it out to the property-less to gain continual income.

download

The government acts as facilitators of the ‘neutral’ state and exercises power through the rule of law which is written down and publicised (and reflects the will of all), enforced by civil servants including the police, lawyers and judges. Political society comes into being when individual men, representing their families, come together in the State of Nature and agree to each give up the executive power to punish those who step over the Law of Nature, and hand over that power to the public power of a government. Having done this, they then become subject to the will of the majority. In other words, by making the change to leave the State of Nature and form society, they make “one body politic under one government” (Locke, 1988) and submit themselves to the will of the state. Having created a political society and government through their consent, men then gain three things which they lacked in the State of Nature: laws, judges to adjudicate laws, and the executive power necessary to enforce these laws. Locke replaced the idea of natural law with positive law, naturalising the tensions between the rule of law being essential to civilised social life and it being the result of the power wielded by the bourgeoisie.

When mentioning people as sovereigns to the state, Locke was not talking about all citizens, only ‘heads of households…excluding women children, servants, fools and criminals’ (Fine, 2002). While Locke uses Hobbes’ notion of the State of Nature, as do virtually all social contract theorists, he uses it to a quite different end. Locke’s arguments for the social contract, and for the right of citizens to revolt against their king were enormously influential in the democratic revolutions that followed, including the American Civil War. Thomas Jefferson, one of the United States’ founding fathers, wrote as part of the US Constitution that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were important to its citizens (Jefferson, 1776).

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1762) believed ‘man was born free yet everywhere in chains’ to critique the modern state. In his Discourse on Inequality (1984) he creates a four part account of the moral and political evolution of human beings over time, from a State of Nature to modern society. It firstly contains his naturalised account of the social contract, which he sees as very problematic. Rousseau then creates a social contract which was meant to solve the problems that modern society has created for citizens, laid out in the ‘Second Discourse’ (1984) where private property, which he sees as the moment in humanity’s evolution out of a simple, pure state into one characterised by greed, competition, vanity and inequality, which results in the detachment from the State of Nature.

Having introduced private property, initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some citizens have property whereas others are forced to work for the propertied, resulting in the development of social classes. Eventually, those who have property notice that it would be in their interests to create a government that would protect private property from those who do not, but are able to acquire it by force. Through a contract, government is established, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all, even though its true purpose is to naturalise the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the contract, claims to be in the interests of everyone equally,when it is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. The legitimacy of state is important in order to create social cohesion. By offering reciprocal rights and duties, subjects can be seen to obey laws, give taxes, cooperate with policy and even fight in the state’s defence. The state is there to represent the will of all and is objective, neutral and resolve conflicts. This is an idealistic approach which has not been seen, as wealthy families’ control and influence governmental sectors, even today. The state is necessary to social order and human civilisation and to perpetuate the class systems and inequality.

Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress’ of civilisation has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons, we can achieve freedom in a society of rules. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of democratic agreements.

yay-for-north-korean-democracy_o_2940549.jpg

Some argue that ‘consent’ is distinctive of liberal democracy but Beetham, D. (‘Political Legitimacy’ in. Nash et al. 2008. pp 107 – 116) argues that the popular authorisation of government rather than popular consent is the distinctive feature of liberal democracy and its legitimisation. Subordinates elect from a group of people already picked from other authorities such as the church, party members, self-appointment et cetera. It is the constitutional rule of law and protection of individual rights started during the bourgeois revolutions which has differentiated liberal democracy to other regimes which have not managed to survive to modernity. But there are issues with liberal democracy which includes the inescapable tensions between economic and social inequalities necessary for capitalism. Although everyone is treated equal under the law, E. P. Thomson believes that a paradox is created whereby the ruling class need the rule of law to facilitate their agenda through coercion, but at the same time the law restricts their ability in controlling by force when he said “the great gentry were content to be subjected to the rule of law only because this law was serviceable and afforded to their hegemony the rhetoric of legitimacy” (pp.269, 1976).

It is believed rights are there to empower the ordinary citizen but people have diverse opinions and do not have a voice unless they are associated with large political systems. A hegemonic view of society which favours the ruling class due to naturalised societal norms which believe in the good of the ruling class results in a tyranny of the majority whereby citizens are prone to further subjugation; particularly ethnic and religious minorities, women and the poor. As Thomson said “…the rule of law is only another mask for the rule of class” (pp. 259, 1976). The French Revolution tried to counter this inequality by creating a new class system which allowed for social movements to make claims against the state. Their new rational-legal state implied an equal democracy to allow for the progression to new universal rights to previously ignored citizens. This led the way to black citizens and French colonies receiving equal rights as French citizens and women the right to divorce in 1791.

However, the social contract created easier trade arrangements which were rationalised because of the naturalised exploitative trading practices which allowed ‘free’ individuals to voluntarily enter contracts with the bourgeoisie after they removed serfs from land and properties. As Marx explained in Capital (1990), the bourgeoisie has mystified the proletariat into thinking they are now free, when in fact they were entrenched by the rule of law as labour is now a fetishised commodity.  However, Marx ignores other forms of social dominance, such as ‘patriarchy, ethnic, ‘racial’, hegemonic masculinities, interstate, regional and territorial etc. which also ignores the disorganisation of the classes, as none are unified.’ (Jessop, B., 2008 pp. 3 – 14). Liberal theory only took into consideration the white European male when developing human rights which saw ethnic minorities and women left behind in universal suffrage, equal rights to work and education. The French were the first nation to introduce rights to women and minorities after the Revolution of 1789, although Napoleon Bonaparte reinstated slavery in 1802 when the slaves of Saint-Domingue were revolting for their independence from France (Dubois, 2004). The idea of human rights is seen by many Post Colonialists as another form of discrimination as they impose European/Western ideologies onto others who do not share the same values and social practices, and because of that difference, an ‘otherness’ develops where European values and way of life are superior because it is deemed as civilised. This reinforces old stereotypes seen during colonialism but it is also worth noting ‘… [t]he Arab and Islamic world as a whole is hooked into the Western market system. No one needs to be reminded that oil, the region’s greatest resource, has been totally absorbed into the United States economy (Said, 2003). Said explains that the West is still exploiting human life because it is still fixated on the capitalist economic market which is powered by inequality. Butler (2008) believes that Judeo-Christian influences throughout history has led to deep rooted social norms which have been unconsciously incorporated into secular Western way of life and the notions of civilisation and modernity. These rationales are used by governments to legitimate modern day imperialism through coercive military assaults against the Middle East which is celebrated by the citizens of the West due to the sense of otherness which sees foreign citizens as inhuman and pre-modern who need to be ‘freed’ from the restraints of backwards religious thought. To get rid of discriminatory state practices which are carried out in the name of universal freedom, Butler proposes that we first need to ‘critique state violence and the power it wields to construct the subject of cultural difference’ (2008, pp 21) and instead base our ideas of freedom on a basic human level rather than from outdated and bigoted pseudoscience and religious dogma.

Just like the philosophers of the Enlightenment who saw themselves as modern pioneers in universal equality, we also believe that of ourselves by comparing our present to the past and comparing our progression today on that past. However, it is by looking at the past and basing our future on it instead of starting from a new beginning entirely based on true equality which is perpetuating a cycle of Western imperialism throughout the world where the ruling class still dictates the social practices, behaviours, attitudes and laws as they did in the beginnings of capitalist society.

 

References

Beetham, D. 2008. Political Legitimacy in ‘Nash, K. Amenta, E., Scott, A. 2008. Wiley – Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology’. Blackwell: Oxford

Butler, J. 2008. Sexual Politics, Torture and Secular Time. The British Journal of Sociology. 59 (1) pp. 1 – 23

Dubois, L. 2004. Colony of Citizens: Revolution and slave emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787 – 1804. UNC Press: USA

Fine, B. 2002. Democracy and the Rule of Law: Marx’s critique of the legal form. Blackburn Press: New Jersey

Freeman, M. 2011. Human Rights: An interdisciplinary approach. Polity Press: London.

Hobbes, T. 1968. Leviathan, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Hume, D. 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jessop, B. 2008. Marxist Approach to Power in ‘Nash, K. Amenta, E., Scott, A. 2008. Wiley – Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology’. Blackwell: Oxford

Jefferson, T. 1776. Declaration of Independence. [Online] Available from: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html  [Accessed 7 March 2016].

Locke, J. 1988. Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marx, K. 1990. Capital Vol 1. Penguin: London

Rousseau J.J., 1984. A Discourse on Inequality, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Rousseau J.J., 1973. The Social Contract and Discourses, London: Dent.

Said, E. 2003. Orientalism, Penguin: London

Thomson, E. P. 1976. Whigs and Hunters: The origin of the Black Act. Penguin: London

Professor Phillip Alston to visit UK to investigate extreme poverty and human rights

From 6 – 16 November 2018, by invitation of the UK Government, Prof. Phillip Alston will act as The United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in the UK. His visit will focus, in accordance with his mandate, on the relationships between poverty and human rights in the United Kingdom.

Welfare-state1

The UK Government has been under fire for years by opposition parties, public and third sector organisations and its citizens because of draconian welfare policies and laws which are known to affect the disadvantaged and working class. We’ve seen ESA/PIP assessments which were found to be unethical, unprofessional and biased, with many assessors unable to meet the Government’s own quality standards, to the appeals process for disability benefits having set monthly quotas which has meant that all initial assessments are awarded 0 points and require a ‘mandatory reconsideration’ in order to meet the Government standards for assessment appeals. This is simply a tactic to force disabled people who have a range of disabilities from mental health, learning disabilities to terminal cancer and Alzheimer’s, to give up the fight to claim these necessary allowances to help them when they are already vulnerable, unable to work or need extra assistance. Why would you need to fight for these allowances? Because it helps the Tory propaganda machine fudge the statistics to say they’re getting people off welfare and into work. It’s worth noting that during these appeal processes, claimants do not receive any financial assistance and the appeals process will take months, and years for some. These people will be instead forced to apply for universal credit which itself leaves you out of pocket until your claim is processed. This means you better hope you’ve got savings, still in employment, can be given food parcels and vouchers and you’ve got an understanding landlord/bank for your rent/mortgage.

Universal credit has now been rolled out across the UK after trials of the system were carried out in a few areas and then gradually spread across the nation. The system was created to slimline the Labour creation of means tested benefits from working tax credit, child benefit, job seekers allowance, income support, employment support allowance, personal independence payments etc. into one single payment. The Tory Government wanted people to have a single payment each month which included housing benefit and was based on your monthly gross income. It seems like a good idea but from the get go, it has been plagued with issues, mostly because of the sheer man power needed to process the nation’s entitlement claims. But, the main issue facing most applicants for universal credit is the waiting time to process claims. The majority of people claiming universal credit are in work who are on low pay, part time or on variable/zero hour contracts. It is essential that people are encouraged to go into work, to be able to sustain themselves and their families while working, but the system doesn’t allow that. During your initial application, the benefits you were claiming before are stopped. You are left with only your earnings from work to sustain yourself. The Government claims that the process should take 4 weeks but it’s consistently seen that people will wait much longer, some for months. If you don’t have a job, then you’re going to have to find other means to see yourself through until your first payment. And be be prepared for the fight for back dated money and lots of administrative mistakes. Everything is PC based from the application to speaking with your work coach, so you need to be computer literate, have access to a computer and the internet or face sanctions.

What these welfare reforms do is put pressure on the local councils to provide you with things like food vouchers and discretionary housing payments to cover your rent, and even then you’ll have a wait to get a decision, so be prepared to tell your landlord you’re going to be behind in rent for a few months at least. It also puts pressure on NGOs to provide welfare, training and working initiatives, food and clothes banks for people who are now destitute because of Tory policies. Trussell Trust is the most widely known food bank run by corporate funders such as John Lewis, Tesco, F&F, where they gave over 1 million food parcels from 2017-2018 financial year alone and has been a continuously growing amount since the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition government in 2010. Their statistics do not include the community run food and clothing banks across the nation so take these stats with a pinch of salt; there’s a lot more hungry people out there, relying on the help of others to give them the very basics of survival. And the majority of these people are working. This was the whole point of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ if you remember, to see the community helping itself with little involvement of the government, which has also led to councils receiving less funding. This just doesn’t mean that there will be less bin pick ups and pot holes not getting filled. It means that council funded social initiatives like third sector employment, welfare and training agencies and social care being affected; resulting in mass closures and redundancies in your local area. So there’s more unemployment, yet the government states they’re getting more people into work than ever. Where’s the sustainable, full time jobs coming from?

slider-1

This affected my city of Dundee. Back in 2015 I was a 4th year sociology student conducting research for my dissertation on youth unemployment. I wanted to see what initiatives were being run for young people who didn’t have the qualifications to go to college and university and simply just wanted a job, and what was offered to them. After being told by the Job Centre (JC) and Skills Development Scotland (SDS, Government funded) I couldn’t get access to any young people, I reached out to the organisations themselves who are outsourced by the Job Centre and SDS where I was welcomed warmly. They wanted people to come in to see the difficulties they have. I spoke with 16 – 18 year olds on the Tool Box programme which provided pre-apprenticeship training to young people who wanted to get into a construction trade. The majority of these young people hated school and couldn’t wait to leave, with only a few having 1 or 2 National 6s, the majority had nothing. I even spoke to one 16 year old who had a child they couldn’t live with because they were being housed in emergency housing for the young unemployed. These housing arrangements are vital, but the day you get a job you need to leave. There’s no option stay for awhile so you can save for a deposit on a rented flat, and with the new legislation that only allows those over 21 years to apply for housing benefit, there’s no hope for young people to be independent. It’s a fantasy to think that parents can or will be financially able to support their children or want to. Many people come from low income or abusive households where it’s not possible to ask parents to help you out.

After I handed in my dissertation in April 2016, I had one printed and bound for Craigowl Communities who ran the Tool Box programme. I was happy to have finally submitted and hoped with this research the charity could use it for funding applications. I was told that the Tool Box programme had been cut due to funding and pretty much all other programmes, except for its care sector training had to close down and make redundancies. They relied heavily on the Scottish Government and even though they are partnered with SDS and JC, they received absolutely nothing in funding from them. So what it looks like is that these ‘training’ opportunities that SDS and JC promote as running themselves is a front for extra funding for them to do as they please with. This is a common sight around my hometown and what do we do with these young people? Nothing. They’re left until they’re 18 to claim benefits and some how try to find money to contribute to their families for a few more years until they can get their own place. College places and courses cannot cope with the mass applications they receive, and in order to pick the best candidates, staff will choose those with the better grades and those who have a certain level of qualifications; even when there’s young people out there with the knowledge and work experience to do well but who weren’t successful academically. This hits a nerve with me because I was one of those people many years ago and only got my break from Abertay Uni because I had an incomplete HNC and classed as a mature student. I’ve only got 1 higher and an Int 2 because the school and college teaching environment wasn’t how I learnt best, university was. And after 15 years, nothing has changed, it’s just gotten worse. I still wonder how these young people are and hope they still have the passion as they did to carry on as best they can.

3581760994_04d6794fc7_b

We’re also seeing now that over half of homeless in the UK are working families. I thought the Tories said that “Work Pays”? With Ian Duncan Smith once saying “Work actually helps free people“, oblivious of Auschwitz, Nazism and the similarities of what he and his party stand for. The problems are with rising private rent prices as social housing is like gold dust, the freeze on housing benefit payments, and being in insecure, short term tenancies. In Scotland at least there is the AT5 form which means you cannot be evicted if you don’t have a property move in to, but in England you will be removed once you’ve had your notice to quit served with no conscience of what’s going to happen to you. The landlord doesn’t care, he’s got his owned council property back and they’ll probably stick the rent prices up and move someone in and live comfortably off that when the majority of people are spending one third of their income on a less than perfect roof over their head.

The complete callousness of this Tory government and their confidence in not hiding the fact that they hate anyone who isn’t wealthy is shocking in itself, but what is more shocking is that we have people in this country who aren’t wealthy, voting for them. And it only seems to be now, when austerity has reached them do they seem to care. Because if it’s not affecting them, why should they care about others? The neoliberal ideology that began with Reagan and Thatcher, and continued even with Blair’s Third Way is that we are inherently a meritocratic country and if you work hard enough you’ll get by comfortably in life and if you’re poor, well that’s your fault because you didn’t pull up your boot straps and work hard enough. These ideas that the majority of the voting public seem to believe have never held up to any reason and logic. The very idea of capitalism is that it needs to keep people poor to maximise profits. Those most likely to vote, the boomer generation, are the greediest and narcissistic of them all. They grew up on the prosperity after the Second World War when rationing ended. They took full advantage of a socialist system that gave them universal and free education, even up until university level; universal and free healthcare; welfare allowances that gave them a disposable income so they could live comfortably and be able to afford a modest holiday once a year. There’s no wonder that this was called the Golden Age in our modern civilisation. The ethos in the country was, “we all stuck in to get the job done, to win the war with Nazi Germany, we lived appallingly, we want better for our children.” Their parents wanted better for them and they reaped those rewards of massive investment into all sectors of life which eventually bankrupted the country and led to the introduction of offshore accounts to balance the books and the rise of neoliberalism.

They never realised the benefits of the society they came from and decided that the best attitude to have was to fight for those already scarce resources that were left and invest it all for themselves so that they could profit off those who had nothing, and then gloat about their ‘success’. They supported Reagan and Thatcher in their ideology of ‘privatisation and deregulation is good and thinking of others was bad’. This ageing population lapped up the whole Thatcher dogma that there is no such thing as society and there is no such thing as public money. They are completely unaware of who they are and where they came from, and who the Conservatives are and where their loyalties lie. Being working/middle class and voting for Conservatives is the same as having O’Brian’s boot repeatedly stamping on your face.

Mass media, advertising and a new age of prosperity was used by the neoliberals to demonise the working class, to see it as something inherently bad and instead promoted how magical it is to be the middle class. All this is is a divide and conquer mentality that works. Conservatives are wealthy, they only have the wealthy in mind and the middle class certainly don’t reach the bottom tier of wealth that Tories are championing for. They want you to feel bad about being working class, and to have those vital jobs that keep our society functioning because it helps their campaigns for you to be against Unions, Labour and any socialist political party and helping others by sharing the wealth we have as a nation. They need the votes of the common folks to stay in power and the electorate take it hook, line and sinker.

cameron-2

Now that the 4 years of austerity we were supposed to have has been and gone and still continues, and because it’s seeping into the middle class; along with Brexit and the lies about it becoming known where we’re told by Walter from the Bash Street Kids that it’ll be 50 years until we see the positive effects of Brexit, mixed with a Trump presidency, we’re coming to an important time right now. We either have to pull up our boot straps and carry on being exploited in all forms by the State and witness our very souls and dignity being stripped away, or we say no to our constant lives of increasing poverty. We need to see ourselves as a collective, that the majority of the population is not reaping the benefits we were promised since the Thatcher era and what we see in the wealthy, to open our eyes to the fact that the wealthy get wealthier when there is austerity and do all we can to stop it. We need to come together as a single class of people, to be proud to be working class. We need to do all we can for each other and fight against the dismantling of the very things created to stop a return to mass ill health, slums and poor houses. There is no middle class, it’s a myth. The divide between rich working class and the truly wealthy is gargantuan. If you’re not getting invited to any of their dinner parties and fox hunts, then you’re not wealthy and you’re a commoner like the rest of us, so you might as well join us.

I hope that with this new report from the UN that its publication is not coincidentally hidden from the media by some outrageous political story and people are exposed to what the rest of the world is seeing. To be one of the richest countries in the world being under the constant gaze of the UN, who regularly calls out the country’s failings of its citizens is nothing less than appalling.

Below I’ve included the UN report which outlines more about Professor Phillip Alston and his role, along with the aims of his visit.

Who is the Special Rapporteur?

The Special Rapporteur is an independent expert appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 Member States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe. The United Kingdom is a Member of the Council.

Special Rapporteurs are selected on the basis of their expertise and experience in the area of their mandate, personal integrity, independence and impartiality and objectivity. They are not employed by the United Nations and receive no remuneration for their UN work.

Philip Alston is a Professor of Law at New York University working in the field of international law and international human rights law. He has extensive experience as an independent UN human rights expert. He previously chaired the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for eight years (1991-98) and was United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions (2004-10).

His resume can be found here.

What does a country visit entail?

The Special Rapporteur is part of a system of so-called UN Special Procedures, made up of independent experts who regularly undertake country visits around the world to report on human rights issues. The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has since 2014 (when he was appointed by the Human Rights Council) undertaken country visits to Chile, Romania, Mauritania, China, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Ghana. Every country is different, and each faces its own human rights challenges. The Special Rapporteur thus adapts his approach in accordance with the specific circumstances of the country involved.

The Government’s invitation to the Special Rapporteur to visit the United Kingdom reflects its standing invitation to all UN Special Procedures, and its commitment to the principle of accountability, which it encourages other UN Member States to respect also in their countries. An overview of visits by all UN Special Procedures to the United Kingdom and other countries since 1998 can be found here.

Country visits are based on extensive preparations by the Special Rapporteur and his team and are supported by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. They involve extensive study of topics relevant to the issue of poverty and human rights as well as interviews with civil society organisations, experts and affected individuals before a visit. The actual country visits usually last for about two weeks and include meetings between the Special Rapporteur and government officials, members of the legislature and judiciary, state institutions, civil society organisations, academics, and individuals who have experienced poverty. During his visit the Special Rapporteur will travel to various parts of the UK, but a final decision on his itinerary will not be made until close to the start of the visit.

Podcasts

I’ve been listening to podcasts for years and have a variety of subjects I listen to. From stand up to serial killers to BBC 4 statistical analysis.

Right now my favourite podcast to listen to is Last Podcast on the Left. If you’re into serial killers, conspiracy theories and all things weird, it’s a good listen with lots of humour from the hosts. Each episode is around an hour long and usually a subject they’re examining lasts for 4-6 episodes, but they’re are stand alone episodes to wet the appetite.

So far I’ve found out all about Rasputin, Biggie and Tupac, Norwegian Black Metal, John Wayne Gacey, Richard Ramirez and a whole load of others. They also talk of historic crimes such as Nazi Germany and Japanese torture.

The worst story on the podcast is of the Toy Box Killer. They refused to go into details of what actually happened to the victims and it’s something you need to search for online to find out. And it’s something that definitely is for adult audiences and those with a strong stomach. I’ve never heard of such a horrendous serial killer.

I’ve also been watching 24hrs in Police Custody. Showing how police make arrests, investigate and interview suspects for crimes in order to get the Crown Prosecution Service to make the decisions to charge/dismiss suspects. All filmed in a Luton police station.

As we’ve got new units this year I have been working on development in forensic psychology and crime scene investigations. As well as delving into the US criminal justice system, focusing on the offender’s journey from arrest, prosecution, sentencing, incarceration and release. There is so much to know in such a short period of time for these classes. This is a thesis on its own!

But for now I’m away to pack my bag for my night shifts starting tomorrow with Lift Off, staying in St Andrews student halls. Hopefully I can get some work done during the days!

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑