Long live the (industrial) revolution

Well, I have read chapter one of my new module textbook, (Microeconomics), entitled, "Are we living through a new industrial revolution. The evidence of the so called ,new economy, might at first suggest that we are. Since the mid 90s the global economy was given a huge boost by the advances in technology based industries and consumerism based around this. So much so that it fuelled separate share indices in the stock markets, leading to the dot com boom at the turn of the century, and subsequently, to the misplaced confidence which has led to the financial maelstrom affecting most of the global economy right now. That is a strand of the subject which I will doubtless cover as my studies progress, and will absolutely be devoting an entry too.

Back to the question in hand. We must compare previous instances of upheaval in working lives/practices to address the question. The Agrarian (or Agricultural) Revolution was driven by the study of efficiency of planting and soil use, leading to the still used practice of crop rotation. That would not have changed working lives, since a field being ploughed sown and harvested is the same process for the farm workers. The development of tools, such as the horse-drawn seed drill (among others) were the real technological change which led to farmers needing less labourers, and subsequently to huge unemployment.  (Note to prog rock fans, a book , the horse-drawn seed-drill was written by a certain Jethro Tull, now you know where the name came from)

This unemployment was one of the few times in history that farm labourers were able, or in this case forced to migrate to find work. Soon after, there were jobs aplenty in the cities, as the Industrial Revolution kicked in. The factories springing up were mainly driven by harnessing the power of moving water, then steam power to drive textile production on a scale unimagined by the people who would have previously spun yarn, and loomed cloth in their cottages, whilst the men of the family were toiling in the farmer's fields. Although they would not be affluent, they would at least have steady work, and a clean environment in which to raise their families. Within a generation, the men women AND children of these families would be working in factories. Now, regular readers of my entries will at this point be able to tell which way the wind is blowing, and you are right, I am not about to praise up factory owners for supplying steady work to displaced country folks. There are exceptions, such as Robert Owen, who developed workers' co-operatives. For every Owen there were too many others, whose workers were not even paid money. Rather, they were paid in tokens, redeemable only at shops owned by the same people who owned their factories. people would be working 14 hour shifts 6 days per week, and often ended up in slums, again owned by people who were every bit as exploitative as their factory bosses. Factory conditions changed again with the advent of the harnessing of electricity as a power source for machinery. A similar process came about in the 1920s, when car manufacture changed from being a hand crafted industry, to the assembly line which anyone could be quickly trained to work on. Artisans and craftsmen suffered, but the ordinary worker could get a comparatively good wage, resulting in thousands of people travelling from all over the US to Detroit. Work was easy to find, but the factories were run by owners who were vehemently opposed to unions. There is also a  migration similar to that of agrarian workers in the late 18th century.

To answer the question, it has to be determined whether or not people's lives have been affected by changes brought about by the 'new economy'. The rise of call centres has certainly changed peoples' work/life balance.  People are working at all times of day and night in order to deal with the queries of people using the service. This will impact on the time people have to devote to social and family life, not only at home, but abroad where the employees may be cheaper. Many businesses working practices have changed, due to people being able to shop online, not just for goods, but services such as travel agency, so leading to companies needing less employees. Also, due to the relative cheapness of labour in some countries, a lot of manufacturing work has been moved, leading to people having to find not only a job, but a new skill set. Because of this, people are working many short term contracts, rather than having a career in one post.  So, technology is still affecting people in the same ways in which it always has. People are still losing jobs. People are still having to move to find work, or accept work under reduced terms and conditions. I, and many people reading this, are probably able to quote their own experience(s) of any of these affects. As an example of how  bosses will always try to get more out their employers, and usually by introducing new technologies and working conditions, I offer this recent example. See how the employee is at first worried for his job, then is delighted by the new machine, then resigned to the new working conditions imposed upon him. Some people may think that I read too much into things. I disagree. I am simply more willing than most to peel back the layers.                                                                                                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5PO793A3jI

Brand new module, same old politics.

Hi readers. Sorry for the long gap in entries. My first module, DD101, Introduction to Social Sciences, ended in October, and the next one only began two weeks ago. I have been ill during this time, and began my reading of the new materials yesterday, and have almost caught up. This is not to say that I'm super absorbent, or that I have skimmed through the reading. It is more that the first week of a module is an introduction, and the 2nd is not overly stuffed with detail.

The new module is entitled DD202, Economics and Economic Change, and marks the beginning of my specialist studies. I was concerned on two fronts about this module. 1. That it would be boring beyond belief. 2. That I would not have an opportunity to write (what I consider) blog entries of interest to my enjoyment of both learning, and of having a right good rant about my political leanings. I am not always right, and at this time, I'm delighted to be wrong in my concerns. I have read the first chapter of the first (of two) textbooks, Microeconomics. Straight from the off the book speaks to theories on globalisation, of inequality, of ethics, and history. This writer is looking forward to spewing forth tidal waves of vitriol about all of these aspects of economics. Only, this time around, they will be informed by my studies of economic theory.

So, no rant on this occasion about my studies. Just an introduction, and a reminder that history repeats itself, and in so doing will give me the opportunity to express my views whilst studying the processes behind the events which shape them. My first Tutor Marked Assignment (hereafter, TMA) is due for submission on the 25th of March. I may write an entry before then, but will definitely have something to say at that point.

Here it is. Another entry outside of a module being studied. What started out on Facebook as a comment on the journalist/columnist/self absorbed git, Jeremy Clarkson, and his views on public sector strikes led to debate on the racist woman on the tram. More on her later. What I want to address here today is the right to free speech. Mainly because someone whom I  have never met in my life said he wanted to break my jaw today, because I challenged him on racist stereotyping. I may have confused him by confounding his prejudices with  intellect. I offer no apology for that. Play to your strengths.

Exclusive Exclusions

Well, module DD101 is one month behind me now (final mark will be issued next month), but I do feel I should keep posting on the world and its workings in a few terms. 1, through the theories I have come across in my studies, 2, through my own political leanings, and a general mash-up of these two and some of the examples from the text books.

What I would like to look at in this entry is the reporting of tabloid journalism. I will be looking a little at the theories of Michel Foucault, (referenced in "I'm Free, June 2011).  Two of  most obvious aspects of tabloid reporting is the sensationalist manner in which "news" is reported, and of how little reporting is devoted to items of genuine newsworthiness.

So, to Foucault. I studied and applied his theory of discourse previously, of how discourse, in the form of authoritative figures, or in experts invested with authority. These figures have changed throughout history, from kings, lesser nobility, to the government ministers, committees, and appointed experts of today. Foucault theorised that discourse from top down enters into everyday thinking, and that we adapt this in the long term into social norms. That was the theory I applied to the above mentioned entry, and although I will go on to look at another of Foucault's theories, his thinking on discourse is a basis of it.

Foucault has many theories surrounding sex, sexualisation, and procreation. He theorised that, apart from the sexual imperative of continuing a family, there was procreation. This, in his opinion, was only permitted, historically,  to  the ruling classes. The ruling classes were the ones with the power to make the laws of the realm, and to decide upon punishments for transgressions of these laws. In other words, they used the laws, and social order of these, to set examples. Their own crimes would be judged by their peers, so preserving the status quo, but that is for another day.

How, then can this be linked to tabloid rags, which, most people would agree, are actually aimed more at the lower end of the class scale (not unique to UK, incidentally)? After all, I'm sure your average judge or magistrate does not take legal advice from the problem pages of The Sun, et al.

The answer lies mostly in the idea of discourse. Newspapers still enjoy a large circulation, and the number of newspapers sold is only part of the number of people who might read them. eg in my house there are four adults, but only one paper has to be brought in to the house for all to read. The remainder of the answer is in Foucault's theories on sex, and social order, and in the move of population from rural to urban settings, which added to rising literacy rates, along with the growth of mass produced newspapers. And the Tories.

Yes, the Tories. They were in government in the UK for 18 years, during which they would obviously become a part of discourse. From 1989 right up until the end of their tenure in 1997, (and, for some time after) there were regular stories involving Tory MPs and "kiss and tell exclusives".  Although they were in power, and in Foucault's thinking, "permitted" to procreate, the means to report on this type of activity was there, established in the public domain. Despite exposure, very few MPs actually lost jobs through this, some spending time on the back benches before coming back to the forefront of political life.

Although politicians have been involved in such scandals before, the consequences have become less severe as time has passed, as mentioned above. Perhaps, because this type of scandal has entered into discourse, and because, more and more, people have recovered their public lives following "Exclusives" by newspapers, it has not become such a big deal. Perhaps the public have become desensitised by over exposure. This does not seem to be the case, because tabloid newspapers run the same type of stories, and their respective circulations have not dropped off.

Why, then are these rags still selling? Taking the theories of Foucault - discourse, sexual permission and social order, It can only lead to one thing. In the last 15 - 20 years populations have become so taken by it that they have gone from being interested, to obsessed, to willing to go through anything to attain it. The C word. Celebrity. Celebrities have been behaving like MPs (sexually) for as long as anyone can remember, and have been berated for it as much. To take an example of the obsession for celebs, let's look at Russell Brand.

The Sun, in particular,  regularly featured this man over a 2-3 year period, at first reporting, then glorifying the sexual exploits of a man, who is, it must be said, is a genuinely witty and entertaining comedian, eventually turning him into a parody of himself, awarding him the title "Shagger of the Year" twice running. So, a combination of celebrity, and a national obsession surrounding it, perpetuated the cycle of  kiss and tell stories, in this case, not always by the smitten fan I should add, adding to the parody. So, if this kind of froth continues to sell newspapers, can we really blame them for sticking with a winning formula?
.
Yes. Yes, we can. We can and we should. Remember, Foucault has the power of discourse and social order in the hands of kings and nobles. The best known term for newspaper owners is "Press Baron". Baron. A noble. Ruling class. Is there a vested interest for reporting on celebrities, sports stars and  soap operas? Perhaps it is a diversion from the real issues, which would rouse people to take a more active interest in the real issues affecting our lives in the world today. To quote the late Bill Hicks, "Honey, come see, they figured out what really happened with Kennedy.....wait, Gladiators is on TV".

Perhaps the invasion of Iraq would truly not have been in our names. Perhaps the newspapers would have been less mercenary in their news gathering (hacking, blagging, etc). Perhaps true democracy could be in place in our countries, rather than just turning up and voting (for the parties supported by the papers we read). Perhaps the 99% would really be 99%, instead of what it is being reported by some "news" papers as being.

Blind universal justice.

Well folks, I have now finished Module DD101 - introduction to the social sciences. The final essay went today. In this, I had to "Critically asses the claim that states are necessary evils". There were a few examples I could have used to do this. What I decided to look at was the role of states as members of the United Nations, specifically, the resolution authorising the use of force in Afghanistan, and the NATO intervention in Kosovo. This was paralleled with the incidences of piracy through the last 2,000 years, and the legal doctrine of universal Jurisdiction was used to bring all these together.

First, the (social) science bit. I looked at the theories of Max Weber, a German sociologist of the 19th century. His definition a a state is along the lines of  'the authority of a government of a territotial area claiming  a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence'. Also considered was the theory of J Hoffman, who argued that Weber's type of state was claiming something it could never have, because having a monopoly on the use of force would surely mean that everyone was compliant and that no one was challenging that monopoly (or claim to it). The last was Artyama Sen, an economist who argued that 'democracy is the default setting of a legitimate state'.

The gist of part of the essay was that the UN had agreed unanimously (including ALL permanent members of the security council) that force could be used to go after Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan after the Taliban's refusal to hand them over. This was due to a group (Al Qaeda) using violence outside the accepted norms. In the NATO intervention in Kosovo, the unanimous agreement of the security council was not given, so NATO acted with out the rest of the UN. NATO argued that the doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction should be expanded to cover the intervention. Universal Jurisdiction covers piracy (it is often in international waters, international terrorism, and cross border criminality).

So, what has this got to do with pirates?  What has been said about pirates from Cicero (Rome BC) to the UN (resolution1851) is that they act outside the normal accepted framework of states, and that they create their own authority in the absence of any other present. (piracy in the Indian Ocean has increased markedly since the collapse of the Somalian state). Cicero declared them to be 'the common foe of all people' Sir Edward Coke (16th century) declared them 'hostes humanes generis' - enemy of all humanity, and the UN #has decided that their crimes are something which carry Universal Jurisdiction, so that all nations/states (in accordance with resolution 1851) must act in whatever capacity they can to stop them. This has led to mucho macho posturing by the presence of a multi-national pirate hunting fleet in the Indian Ocean, which is another matter, for another entry perhaps.

Let's get back to Kosovo. NATO argued that crimes taking place there should be covered by Universal Jurisdiction, since they are against some very fundamental human rights, with summary executions, rapes and people becoming homeless and/or refugees. This is the point in the blog where I take my social science learning and combine it with my own world view.

The financially straitened times in which many millions of ordinary people are being forced to contend with right now are exactly like the types of crimes which many of the world's great powers want to see in expansion of Universal Jurisdiction. How? The actions have effects which cross borders, just like international terrorism. Basic human rights are being infringed, since people are being driven into poverty, and potentially homeless. The driving force for the actions which led to the recession (now, likely to become a double-dip recession) was financial gain - just like piracy. So, who's for Universal Jurisdiction? Who has the stomach for it? What bankers and governments alike need to remember is this. Hard times bring hard reactions. Hard times are a breeding ground for extremism. WWII came hard on the heels of the Great Depression of the (original) Wall Street Crash. Some might argue that the Nazis brought about WWII, but, if unrealistic reparations had not been put upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, then the driving force of much of their radical politicians would have been diminished.

One thing is certain though. In contemporary UK, the public are not as docile as politicians would like to believe. This is the birthplace of NIMBYISM (not in my back yard), and for the first time in a long time, more of us will become interested in what must look like the very attractive doctrine known as Universal Jurisdiction.

Conflict of interesting

Hi all
I've just finished writing my 6th tutor marked assessment. I was given a choice between two essays this time. Option A. Evaluate the claim that Britishness is a shared set of values
Option B. Evaluate the claim that conflict is a  catalyst for identity change.
I chose option B. When I first looked at the paper I immediately thought of option A, but after studying the material, went for option B. Here are my synopsis and thoughts on what I wrote.

The conflict referred to is everyday conflict, not about wars between states. There was a wealth of material and social science theories on which I could draw to write the essay. I chose to write about an extract from a scenario wherein a young black man was considering his employment prospects, having done well in his exams, achieving 8 passes. He acts out a phone call to an employer, and in a few sentences, puts on the fake accent of a middle class white guy, but later talks about coming to work with his '20 hoodie mates', and also makes light of the minimum qualification requirements by pointing out his academic achievements.  More on this later.

There are many social science theories on identity change. I looked at Erik Erikson, who theorised on "developmental psychology" - meaning that identity and its changes are measured over a lifetime. He wrote about "projecting" identity to suit certain situations and people. Erikson also felt that as life moved on, and changed, then new daily living (or practices) would lead to identity change, through the conflicts of changing from, for example, a school pupil to employee. This is not new thinking to my studies.   Erikson would have had "Anthony" projecting an image to suit the employer in the scenario in the first part of the extract, and in the last part.

The theory I found more interesting was that of Frantz Fanon, a psychologist born in the the French colony of Martinique, who ended up in France. After working in France, he came up with theories based on his own experience of being a black man in a country of mostly white men. He felt that 'race' was just a construct of white people's historical view of people of colour being somehow inferior. Even though he was an eminent psychologist and psychiatrist, he felt as though he was only ever seen as a black man, when he wanted to to be seen simply as a man. This weighed heavily enough on him to theorise that the very nature of racial construct had eventually become a part of the identity of people of colour.

Taking Fanon's theories and applying them to "Anthony's" scenario, we can see that "Anthony" is still projecting an identity to suit the situation in the first part of the extract. In the 2nd part, he is projecting an image which Fanon would say was already held by the (assumed) white middle class employer. This is a bit dismaying from both points of view. If the young man believes that a certain view is held about him in terms of his identity, then he is doomed to fail. If the imagined employer actually does hold this view then he is doomed to fail again. The light at the end of the tunnel here is his mention of his academic record. In this, he has already put forth the image of a hoodie. (at the time of the interview hoodies were the latest demons in the media), but has also highlighted a positive, his qualifications gained, even though he is an inner city yoof. If he stick s to this, he may find his way into employment, which will lead inevitabily to a change in daily practices, which will cause conflicts, and will lead to identity change.

If Fanon's theories are followed through, all "Anthony" will know will be conflict, but without any change at the end of it.

I would hope that the world has changed its identity since Fanon's writings were published in the 1950s. If not, then all we will know is conflict without change.

summer blues, and tans, and reds.

Hi all. I've been away on holiday, so have fallen behind by about two weeks on my course timetable. (Many thanks to my tutor, Tricia, for giving me a week's extension,  on the latest essay.)

The latest essay asked me to write a report on risk. On how people manage risk, and whether or not they use expert advice to manage it, or indeed, whether they interpret such advice to suit their lifestyles or activities. I chose to report on a case study relating to people's attitude to suntanning. The focus group in the study came from Glasgow, described as having short summers, long winters. Yes, we all know that already, but a background has to be set in these types of studies, otherwise, we don't have all the factors we need to consider.

A focus group is different to an individual interview in the respect that, whilst there is still an interviewer asking questions, the results are taken from the interaction between members of the group. This group talked about preparing for travelling on holiday, and rheir feelings and attitudes during and after. I could not relate to the group in the respect that, unanimously, they agreed that they would use a sunbed before going away to "avoid looking peely-wally". I did understand the choice of holiday clothes though, such as the types of clothing, and the light colours of these. The group talked about being able to spot Scottish folk a mile away because of their light colour, and, more worryingly, that this was a source of embarrasment to them. What they also said was that on return from holiday, they would feel that they were somehow being judged on the quality of, or lack of a suntan.

For me, this is really quite disturbing. That people can be more concerned with a visible sign of consumption, than with the risk of developing skin cancer is crazy. Maybe, as someone who has sallow skin, and doesn't look like Mr Blobby after a half hour of gardening, I'm not in a position to understand these "concerns", but even in considering this, I still plastered myself in a high factor sunblock, and avoided as much as possible, being outside in the hottest part of the day. I did get a touch of sunburn on the second day of being away, but this was due to my underestimation of how hot the day might have been, due to it being quite cloudy. A lesson learned there.

The difference, as I see it, was that I took the advice of experts and used it to keep safe. The focus group referred to above, interpreted conflicting expert opinions (Cancer Research say to avoid over exposure to sunlight, other medical opinions say lack of sunlight can lead to poor mental health) to put themselves at risk.

Whichever advice you want to follow is a matter for your interpretation, and your own experiences, but one thing is certain. Sun safety is not exactly a burning issue when you live in Glasgow.