SocProf links to a really fascinating piece on Obama’s Nobel Prize [previous LP discussion here] by Don Waisanen at ThickCulture, riffing on Weber’s characterisation of modernity as disenchantment of the world.
It would appear that the Nobel committee at least partially picked Obama for his renewed faith in public discourse to bring about peace and change in the world. Tim Rutten argues in the Los Angeles Times that the award was rightly given to the President for “words” rather than “deeds.” I would further argue the prize most appropriately went to Obama for finding a midway through Weber’s predicament in the above passage. Obama’s rhetoric has sought to enchant the political realm through sublime values that no human being can live without—for example, through the trope of “hope”. At the same time, these are values that are grounded in direct and personal human relations, or in abductive intersubjectivity rather than deductive, non-contextual assertion. There is much to critique in Obama’s administration, but it has at least evidenced an empirical concern for active listening and diplomacy as consequential in politics.
I think that’s a very consequential set of observations. It also makes me wonder if there’s not a continuity between Bush and Obama’s administration (beyond the obvious maintenance of core aspects of the US’ war-imperial machine, which is at the heart of the left objection to his acceptance of the award). Thinking back to the infamous comments from a Bush administration official about remaking reality, it strikes me that both administrations are fundamentally postmodern in their use of rhetorical discourse to reshape facts. That’s about as far as you can get from Weber’s modern government as “administration of things”.
One of the most interesting teaching assignments I’ve had for a while is tutoring in a course in New Communications Technologies offered through the School of Humanities at Griffith. Some of the class discussions we’ve had so far this semester have been really interesting – confirming some hunches I have about the fallacies of the ‘Digital Natives’ discourse among other things. But one of the most intriguing aspects of our interchanges has been the articulation of differing views on and revelation of different levels of knowledge about the issue of privacy in the use of social media, and particularly social networking sites such as Facebook (whose use is now so ubiquitous that like Google, it’s morphed from a proper noun into a verb).
It would seem that I’m not the only person facilitating such conversations in a university context. Melissa Gregg, from Sydney Uni, wrote a really ace post the other day about some issues which had arisen in tutorials she convened about Facebook and employers’ demands for profiles as part of the recruitment and selection process. She writes about this at home cooked theory:
…for me, the most disturbing revelation came in tutorials, when students started talking about how many employers are now asking for print-outs of Facebook profiles from job applicants. It sounded particularly common in entertainment and service industries, even though I detected some were suggesting it was commonplace in corporate interviews as well–that it should be taken for granted if you were looking to work for a significant firm.
Her remarks sparked some interesting comments, and prompted a post on the legal issues surrounding this sort of demand by Legal Eagle at Skepticlawyer. Legal Eagle’s post, as usual assured in its comprehensiveness and insight, correctly notes that the law has not kept up with technology in this domain, as in many others.
There’s another set of issues arising here about the increasing blurring of professional and personal identity. Continue reading ‘Facebook, social media, subjectivity and workplace privacy’
The big questions for those in Poznan are those around financing. In what ways do existing instruments need reform? What novel measures could be devised to reign in emissions growth in areas like air and sea transport? So it was with some interest that I noticed a little PR at work. The administrators of the Clean Development Mechanism, scrambling for public recognition, announced the awards for the 2008 Changing Lives photo contest. Unsurprisingly, there is an eerie resonance between the winning entries and criticisms of the CDM itself, captured mostly recently by the US GAO report. That report, far from being simply ‘US criticism of the UN’ is the culmination of a year’s work, including engagement with some 26 experts, and on the effectiveness of the CDM. Continue reading ‘Tuesday Photoblogging – CDM edition’
On a couple of reports on tonight’s tv news, I saw a citizen of Mumbai being interviewed who demanded the Indian government go to war with Pakistan. That set me to wondering what such a war – and God forbid one is launched – would solve. War, increasingly, has lost its (perhaps always somewhat illusory) ability to resolve conflict after intensifying it. There are a lot of factors operating here – but one aspect of the globalist discourse that doesn’t receive as much attention as it should (and it’s one aspect that clashes with the more ideological aspects of neo-liberal globalisation talk, and maybe there’s a connection there) – is the inability of states to monopolise the use of violence on their own territory. That capacity, was of course, the key aspect of Max Weber’s classical sociological definition of the state. And, as other sociologists such as Norbert Elias have demonstrated, it’s not either an abstract conceptual nicety or an ahistorical effect, but rather something that has developed over time. Indeed, it can, and no doubt has been argued that the United States is not a modern state at all because it’s never taken seriously one of the core things modern states do – that is, to disarm their own populace. (The better to govern them, among other reasons, and that’s why you get the strong cultural link between guns and liberty.)
In 1999, the celebrated historian Eric Hobsbawm participated in a range of conversations with Italian writer Antonio Polito, subsequently published as On The Edge of The New Century. One of the most striking points Hobsbawm made was that the secular trend of the increasing ability of states to prevent non-state violence on their own territory went into reverse in the 1970s. That’s not the sort of declining power of the state that globalists normally talk of (preferring to see the state as losing power to the market), but it’s at the centre of a lot of what is happening in today’s world, and what is happening to make it a far less safe place. One could hardly imagine that a hypothetical Indian victory in war over Pakistan would render either that territory governable or India’s less violent. As well as assymetry in warfare, we’re also seeing the fruits of a deterritorialisation of identifications which can be pushed to the ultimate limit of death, and the state is also presenting itself as something far more akin to what “public” authority was in pre-modern history – a competing power centre among many. These shifts demand far more thinking through – because in many respects far too many of our political and social currents are still shaped by the concepts of a modernity now partially in ruins. One sociological thinker who’s been doing this hard work is Saskia Sassen, long one of the most interesting writers on globalisation, and she has an important article in Open Democracy on the implications of warfare over the space of the city, prompted by the Mumbai terror attacks.
Continue reading ‘Cities, states, globalisation and warfare (and global sociology)’
Recent comments
josh, jeff, Mercurius, silkworm, SJ, Razor [...]
Sam, durutticolumn, Paul Burns, durutticolumn, patrickg, Jamo [...]
Paul Burns, Lefty E, PinkyOz, Mercurius, Geoff Honnor, Lefty E [...]
informally yours, Chris, informally yours, Saint Furious of Ikea, Chris, Paul Burns [...]
BilB, Peter, BilB, OldSkeptic, anthony nolan, mitchell porter [...]
Zorronsky, Razor, terangeree, Deborah, Saint Furious of Ikea, terangeree [...]
Mark, Paul Burns, Bert, Rx, Paul Burns, Andos
anthony nolan, Helen, Nickws, kph, Helen, Caroline Church [...]
Fran Barlow, Robert Merkel, Kiashu, Mervyn Langford, OldSkeptic, Frankie V. [...]
anthony, Ginja, Anthony, Terry, Alison, anthony nolan [...]
Chris, Ken Lovell, Gummo Trotsky, desipis, Pavlov's Cat, Pavlov's Cat [...]
RightHandThread, Nabakov, rumrebellious, Nabakov, RightHandThread, RightHandThread [...]