A few weeks ago, some of us had the privilege to listen to Professor Maarten Jansen speak as part of the visiting Lecture series. His lecture on indigenous heritage and human rights was highly interesting, however it provoked some questions.
To give a short summary of his talk, Professor Jansen started his lecture by investigating what exactly was meant by the term “indigenous peoples” before moving on to looking at the various stereotypes that have typified representations of Indigenous groups throughout Central America (i.e. ‘Cannibals’, ‘Human Sacrifice’ and ‘the Noble Savage’). After this introduction, Professor Jansen used these historical points to introduce his opinions on the current situation of indigenous groups and their struggles for rights and recognition in Mesoamerica. He stated that the importance of indigenous ‘participation’ in larger society rather than ‘integration’ was a vital change in policy needed in the struggle for indigenous rights and mentions examples of the changing status of indigenous rights throughout the world (e.g. The 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples). Moving on to the idea of the ‘endangered heritage’ of indigenous people, Jansen mentions the fact that it is estimated that of the 7000 languages currently spoken in the world, six thousand will most likely be lost by the end of the century. Not only that but, most of those six thousand are actually already considered ‘extinct’, or to rephrase Maarten Jansen, it is like a species of animal who, though the last specimen is still alive, has lost the ability to reproduce and is as such ‘extinct’.
Jansen further outlined how since the Spaniards ‘discovered’ the Americas, Ancient artifacts belonging to the Indigenous peoples have been brought to Europe and the ‘western’ world (naming as an example the famous ‘Crown of Moctezuma’ which currently resides in a museum in Vienna). He stated that the indigenous peoples whose culture these artifacts belong to contend that “Why should ‘they’ have all the benefits while it is the work of ‘our’ ancestors?”
Professor Jansen then moved on to his personal work in the field with indigenous communities, using both the returning of artifacts to indigenous groups and the risk of the loss, or ‘extinction’ of culture to validate one project he has been working on, namely the ‘teaching’ of Mixtec culture and language to Mixtec Indigenous peoples. Using his background in Archaeology and in particular, his expertise on the interpretation of Mixtec pictorial manuscripts, Professor Jansen goes to Mixtec Indigenous communities and works together with the people there to ‘interpret’ artifacts of Ancient Mixtec culture in order to maintain the culture and language of the area. Here I must critique his method as serious issues arrive when considering the ‘teaching’ of culture.
Professor Jansen stated that ‘we’, here he meant of course western society and in particular himself, are able to understand, and thus teach about, Mixtec pictorial manuscripts as accurate ‘dictionaries’ exist which provide translations of the pictorial manuscripts. These dictionaries however were written by the Spanish conquerors of the area and as such provide only an interpretation of what the Spanish conquerors thought the meaning of the pictographs were. This of course means that the very translations which Jansen is basing his teachings on are simply the ‘western’ perspective of the meaning of those manuscripts. Thus Jansen is in fact not maintaining the Mixtec culture by instructing Mixtec people about the manuscripts but he is fact influencing their culture by teaching it to them from a western perspective. When I brought up this issue with Professor Jansen, he admitted that this was a cause for concern and his counter argument was that he worked together with the local people in his work in order to improve the accuracy of the translations.
Though I personally believe in the fact that culture must be preserved it must also be taken into consideration that the culture that Jansen instructs about in fact no longer exists because the ancient Mixtec culture of 500 years ago has developed since colonisation to become what it is today. Jansen seem to imply in his lecture that he was ‘reviving’ a culture and language --however he is teaching the history of a culture to its descendants. That is of course a valuable thing to do as knowledge of the history of one’s ancestry is important, but I think that the work that Jansen does in Mixtec communities cannot be seen as the ‘revival’ of a culture, simply the investigation of the history of a culture.
The lecture by Professor Jansen thus brought up a variety of interesting questions in us as an audience. In particular the question as to whether the ‘teaching’ of an indigenous culture to its descendants is useful was an interesting point to contemplate as the question of western involvement in indigenous communities is of course one of great contention.
Jori Nanninga
BA 1
Friday, 18 November 2011
Friday, 7 October 2011
Raymond Geuss: "The Ambiguities of Democracy and Human Rights"
The Ambiguities of Democracy and Human Rights
(On the occasion of Prof. Raymond Geuss' lecture 'The Authority of Democracy and Human Rights' and a research seminar in which he discussed his paper “Does criticism always have to be constructive?” the next morning)
We live in a really threatening, unsurveyable and infinitely complex world. It is a world in which many different individuals who value and aspire many different things have somehow found a way to live together; it is a world in which we continue to be baffled by forces of nature and the intricate web of human relations: it is a difficult world to make sense of. As such, it is natural for us to simplify it in terms of abstract schemata that allow us to somehow order the world. These schemata, stresses the Cambridge professor of philosophy Raymond Geuss, once in place, often take the form of dogmas. This is not a problem, as long as we realise that they are ultimately human constructs with limited applicability. It is especially important that we realise that this is also the case with two of the central dogmas of Western political thought: the belief in the inherent value and universal applicability of democracy and human rights. “It is natural to structure the world such that what you are best in appears pivotal,” explains Geuss, “[but] we ought to resist fetishizing good working schemata by abstracting them and projecting them on other structures.” Vividly illustrating why it is a mistake to take these dogmas for somehow deeply, inherently justified ideas with universal aspirations, professor Geuss then sets out to expose the ambiguities and incompatibility of the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights.’
When we speak of democracy, he warns, we are not speaking of a uniquely specified phenomenon. Numerous models of democracy have been proposed and enacted throughout history, each different from the other. The direct democracy practised in the Ancient Greek poleis, for example, is vastly different from the representative democracies we now know in for example The Netherlands, yet both forms of government carry the same name. However, that two different interpretations of a particular concept appropriate the same name does not necessarily imply that either one of them is wrong, or, in this case, undemocratic. It is important here, states Geuss, to distinguish between two fundamentally different senses in which the term democracy is typically used. Usually, it is taken to be a descriptive empirical term describing a particular organisation of society and its institutions. When I contrasted the Ancient Greek democracy with the contemporary Dutch one, I used the term in a descriptive manner. However, if I were to criticise either one of the regimes I mentioned above by contrasting them with a non-existent ideal type of democracy, I am using the word in an altogether different sense as a “highly theoretical interpretation of what ought to be going on.” Used this way, the word has a strong normative connotation. When someone speaks of democracy, therefore, we ought to ask ourselves whether he or she is using the term in a descriptive or normative manner: we ought to remember that it is an ambiguous concept that can be interpreted in numerous ways.
Although the two senses of democracy under discussion are analytically different, explains Geuss, they are often used in conjunction and sometimes conflated with each other. Over the course of the last decades, particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the term democracy has undeniably come to be regarded as normatively positive by the Western public. Somehow, we get the impression that when someone speaks of democracy, it is clear that he or she is speaking of an inherently valuable and deeply justified form of government with universal aspirations. Yet, as we have seen, the term 'democracy' may denote many different things. Therefore, if we attach the label 'democracy' to our own institutional arrangement of society and take this as sufficient justification for spreading it as a state model, we are conflating the descriptive and normative element of the term democracy. This is problematic, because, as Geuss argues, the fact that democracy works well for us does not necessarily imply that it works well elsewhere. Moreover, he points out, it is likely that 'true democracy' does not exist if we take it to mean a form of government in which the 'people' exercise power. Firstly, because this notion posits a unitary people somehow capable of exercising power, while in reality societies are composed of numerous individuals with often conflicting interests. Secondly, because in most modern democracies the power to rule is not vested in the people, but in separate structures that operate beyond the direct control of a state's citizens. In fact, the modern state's reason of being seems to be the institutionalisation of power and, as such, they are by definition undemocratic. “Democracy, then,” Geuss concludes, “is not a good conceptual tool to analyse contemporary politics.”
The second and equally problematic central dogma of Western political thought that Geuss discusses in his lecture is that of human rights. Like democracy, the term human rights is widely regarded as an undeniably valuable concept with universal aspirations. They are thought to be rights that every human being possesses on account of his or her humanity. Hence, they are not rights assigned to individuals through political processes, but they are rights that exist independently of human interference. That is, they are natural rights. This notion becomes problematic when we subject the term 'rights' to closer evaluation. The concept of 'rights' is only useful if these rights can be enforced. Otherwise, they lose their meaning. For human rights to be a meaningful concept, therefore, there must be someone or something capable of enforcing them. In Locke's theory of natural rights, there was a deity to take care of this job. However, if we do not believe in the presence of a God, it is also difficult to think of natural rights as a useful concept. As soon as we, humans, start taking the role of enforcing them, they are no longer independent of human interference and hence lose their status as somehow transcendental rights. Furthermore, it is very ambiguous what natural rights are in the first place. “The context-given interpretation of natural rights,” states Geuss, “is very important.” Though we now all agree that holding slaves is a direct violation of human rights, this was not a problem for the Founding Fathers who signed the U.S. Constitution in which they proclaimed that every man is born equal. What is and is not a human right, then, is a highly political matter that somehow depends on personal interpretation. Which personal interpretations we take to be most accurate in describing human rights depends on who we believe to be in the right authority to evaluate them and is therefore highly subjective. The concept of human rights, by consequence, is not a clear “cognitive tool to assess modern societies.”
If, taken on their own, the concepts of human rights and democracies are problematic, they are even more so taken together. Much of modern political theory, Geuss points out, is devoted to showing that both concepts are somehow compatible. Yet, he maintains, this is an impossible task: while democracy “vests final power, legitimacy and authority in the 'people',” the concept of human rights “posits the individual bearer of such rights as the final origin and locus of authority.” Hence, we may have to re-think the way we think about democracy and human rights. They are dogmas among other dogmas, and we should not overgeneralise them. If we accept this, it is no problem that democracy and human rights are incompatible concepts, for they are not the somehow “deep, inherently justified ideas” that we sometimes perceive them to be. Accepting this, moreover, implies that we have come one step closer to “resisting fetishizing good working schemata by abstracting them and projecting them on other structures.” Even if the he terms democracy and human rights worked well for us to think about society (a contention that we may have to reconsider after Prof. Geuss' talk), they would not for that reason be equally useful elsewhere. At any rate, we should not aspire to export our state model throughout the world. For, as we have seen, we live in an infinitely complex world, and the world view that appeals to us most likely does not appeal to everyone.
Barend de Rooij (LUC, 2nd year student)
5-10-2011
(On the occasion of Prof. Raymond Geuss' lecture 'The Authority of Democracy and Human Rights' and a research seminar in which he discussed his paper “Does criticism always have to be constructive?” the next morning)
We live in a really threatening, unsurveyable and infinitely complex world. It is a world in which many different individuals who value and aspire many different things have somehow found a way to live together; it is a world in which we continue to be baffled by forces of nature and the intricate web of human relations: it is a difficult world to make sense of. As such, it is natural for us to simplify it in terms of abstract schemata that allow us to somehow order the world. These schemata, stresses the Cambridge professor of philosophy Raymond Geuss, once in place, often take the form of dogmas. This is not a problem, as long as we realise that they are ultimately human constructs with limited applicability. It is especially important that we realise that this is also the case with two of the central dogmas of Western political thought: the belief in the inherent value and universal applicability of democracy and human rights. “It is natural to structure the world such that what you are best in appears pivotal,” explains Geuss, “[but] we ought to resist fetishizing good working schemata by abstracting them and projecting them on other structures.” Vividly illustrating why it is a mistake to take these dogmas for somehow deeply, inherently justified ideas with universal aspirations, professor Geuss then sets out to expose the ambiguities and incompatibility of the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights.’
When we speak of democracy, he warns, we are not speaking of a uniquely specified phenomenon. Numerous models of democracy have been proposed and enacted throughout history, each different from the other. The direct democracy practised in the Ancient Greek poleis, for example, is vastly different from the representative democracies we now know in for example The Netherlands, yet both forms of government carry the same name. However, that two different interpretations of a particular concept appropriate the same name does not necessarily imply that either one of them is wrong, or, in this case, undemocratic. It is important here, states Geuss, to distinguish between two fundamentally different senses in which the term democracy is typically used. Usually, it is taken to be a descriptive empirical term describing a particular organisation of society and its institutions. When I contrasted the Ancient Greek democracy with the contemporary Dutch one, I used the term in a descriptive manner. However, if I were to criticise either one of the regimes I mentioned above by contrasting them with a non-existent ideal type of democracy, I am using the word in an altogether different sense as a “highly theoretical interpretation of what ought to be going on.” Used this way, the word has a strong normative connotation. When someone speaks of democracy, therefore, we ought to ask ourselves whether he or she is using the term in a descriptive or normative manner: we ought to remember that it is an ambiguous concept that can be interpreted in numerous ways.
Although the two senses of democracy under discussion are analytically different, explains Geuss, they are often used in conjunction and sometimes conflated with each other. Over the course of the last decades, particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the term democracy has undeniably come to be regarded as normatively positive by the Western public. Somehow, we get the impression that when someone speaks of democracy, it is clear that he or she is speaking of an inherently valuable and deeply justified form of government with universal aspirations. Yet, as we have seen, the term 'democracy' may denote many different things. Therefore, if we attach the label 'democracy' to our own institutional arrangement of society and take this as sufficient justification for spreading it as a state model, we are conflating the descriptive and normative element of the term democracy. This is problematic, because, as Geuss argues, the fact that democracy works well for us does not necessarily imply that it works well elsewhere. Moreover, he points out, it is likely that 'true democracy' does not exist if we take it to mean a form of government in which the 'people' exercise power. Firstly, because this notion posits a unitary people somehow capable of exercising power, while in reality societies are composed of numerous individuals with often conflicting interests. Secondly, because in most modern democracies the power to rule is not vested in the people, but in separate structures that operate beyond the direct control of a state's citizens. In fact, the modern state's reason of being seems to be the institutionalisation of power and, as such, they are by definition undemocratic. “Democracy, then,” Geuss concludes, “is not a good conceptual tool to analyse contemporary politics.”
The second and equally problematic central dogma of Western political thought that Geuss discusses in his lecture is that of human rights. Like democracy, the term human rights is widely regarded as an undeniably valuable concept with universal aspirations. They are thought to be rights that every human being possesses on account of his or her humanity. Hence, they are not rights assigned to individuals through political processes, but they are rights that exist independently of human interference. That is, they are natural rights. This notion becomes problematic when we subject the term 'rights' to closer evaluation. The concept of 'rights' is only useful if these rights can be enforced. Otherwise, they lose their meaning. For human rights to be a meaningful concept, therefore, there must be someone or something capable of enforcing them. In Locke's theory of natural rights, there was a deity to take care of this job. However, if we do not believe in the presence of a God, it is also difficult to think of natural rights as a useful concept. As soon as we, humans, start taking the role of enforcing them, they are no longer independent of human interference and hence lose their status as somehow transcendental rights. Furthermore, it is very ambiguous what natural rights are in the first place. “The context-given interpretation of natural rights,” states Geuss, “is very important.” Though we now all agree that holding slaves is a direct violation of human rights, this was not a problem for the Founding Fathers who signed the U.S. Constitution in which they proclaimed that every man is born equal. What is and is not a human right, then, is a highly political matter that somehow depends on personal interpretation. Which personal interpretations we take to be most accurate in describing human rights depends on who we believe to be in the right authority to evaluate them and is therefore highly subjective. The concept of human rights, by consequence, is not a clear “cognitive tool to assess modern societies.”
If, taken on their own, the concepts of human rights and democracies are problematic, they are even more so taken together. Much of modern political theory, Geuss points out, is devoted to showing that both concepts are somehow compatible. Yet, he maintains, this is an impossible task: while democracy “vests final power, legitimacy and authority in the 'people',” the concept of human rights “posits the individual bearer of such rights as the final origin and locus of authority.” Hence, we may have to re-think the way we think about democracy and human rights. They are dogmas among other dogmas, and we should not overgeneralise them. If we accept this, it is no problem that democracy and human rights are incompatible concepts, for they are not the somehow “deep, inherently justified ideas” that we sometimes perceive them to be. Accepting this, moreover, implies that we have come one step closer to “resisting fetishizing good working schemata by abstracting them and projecting them on other structures.” Even if the he terms democracy and human rights worked well for us to think about society (a contention that we may have to reconsider after Prof. Geuss' talk), they would not for that reason be equally useful elsewhere. At any rate, we should not aspire to export our state model throughout the world. For, as we have seen, we live in an infinitely complex world, and the world view that appeals to us most likely does not appeal to everyone.
Barend de Rooij (LUC, 2nd year student)
5-10-2011
Friday, 16 September 2011
Study Trip Funding & Call for Applications Mini Interviews
Interested in Study Abroad? Need to find extra funding? LUF might be able to help!
The Leiden University Funds (LUF) is designed to fund students at all levels in order to help them pursue their academic goals.
The LISF is a fund set up specifically for students who are planning a study trip abroad. They offer up to 2,000 euro for one trip.
Students who want to apply must fill out the application form (in the LUF link below), and have a clear idea of exactly what/where they want to study abroad, how this trip fits into their academic goals, and why they deserve to be funded in the first place.
There are two more deadlines in 2011:
Monday, October 10
Monday, November 14
There will be more deadlines starting again in February 2012. However, if you are a student who has a strong GPA and CV and already has a firm idea of where and what you would like to study abroad, you should not hesitate to apply this fall.
For more information please check:
http://www.luf.nl/default.asp?paginaID=199
For those of you interested in applying, please
1. go through the LUF website (listed above) and double check the application form/requirements
2. speak to your tutor about your application for the LISF--the application requires a recommendation from your 'study co-ordinator' --your tutor would be the best person to write such a recommendation.
3. contact the Research Centre--we would be only too happy to help you compile your application and make sure it gets off to the LUF committee in time.
Good luck!
II. ACADEMIC SOUNDBYTES: CALL FOR APPLICATIONS FOR MINI-INTERVIEWS
As announced earlier, the LUCRC would like to have students interview (for 5-10 mins) our guest speakers and put the interviews up on our blog. Students are urged to check the LUCRC website for mini-bios of our confirmed speakers for this semester. When you have chosen a speaker who you are interested in, please write to us, in 100 words or less, a question or the motivation behind why you would be the right student to choose. We will notify you a week before the interview--except in the case of Karlijn van der Voort, who is speaking on Wednesday (we apologize for the short notice). If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us at the LUCRC.
The Leiden University Funds (LUF) is designed to fund students at all levels in order to help them pursue their academic goals.
The LISF is a fund set up specifically for students who are planning a study trip abroad. They offer up to 2,000 euro for one trip.
Students who want to apply must fill out the application form (in the LUF link below), and have a clear idea of exactly what/where they want to study abroad, how this trip fits into their academic goals, and why they deserve to be funded in the first place.
There are two more deadlines in 2011:
Monday, October 10
Monday, November 14
There will be more deadlines starting again in February 2012. However, if you are a student who has a strong GPA and CV and already has a firm idea of where and what you would like to study abroad, you should not hesitate to apply this fall.
For more information please check:
http://www.luf.nl/default.asp?paginaID=199
For those of you interested in applying, please
1. go through the LUF website (listed above) and double check the application form/requirements
2. speak to your tutor about your application for the LISF--the application requires a recommendation from your 'study co-ordinator' --your tutor would be the best person to write such a recommendation.
3. contact the Research Centre--we would be only too happy to help you compile your application and make sure it gets off to the LUF committee in time.
Good luck!
II. ACADEMIC SOUNDBYTES: CALL FOR APPLICATIONS FOR MINI-INTERVIEWS
As announced earlier, the LUCRC would like to have students interview (for 5-10 mins) our guest speakers and put the interviews up on our blog. Students are urged to check the LUCRC website for mini-bios of our confirmed speakers for this semester. When you have chosen a speaker who you are interested in, please write to us, in 100 words or less, a question or the motivation behind why you would be the right student to choose. We will notify you a week before the interview--except in the case of Karlijn van der Voort, who is speaking on Wednesday (we apologize for the short notice). If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us at the LUCRC.
Saturday, 3 September 2011
Raymond Geuss opens Visiting Speaker Series 2011/2012
Dear students and staff,
The LUC Research Centre is delighted to start its new season of visiting speakers on 16 September with the eminent Raymond Geuss, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, who is a political philosopher and scholar of 19th and 20th century European philosophy. This lecture is the second in our series, ‘Philosophy in the World,’ which was inaugurated by Simon Blackburn in March 2011.
Professor Geuss will talk about 'The Authority of Democracy and Human Rights'.
For more details please go to LUCRC's 'events' page and download the poster for this exciting lecture there.
Because of the special nature of this event, it will be held in our Stichthage building, on the first floor of the The Hague Central Station main hall from 19.00 hrs onwards.
Registration is recommended: events@lucresearch.nl
I hope to see many of you there!
Esther
(LUCRC research officer)
The LUC Research Centre is delighted to start its new season of visiting speakers on 16 September with the eminent Raymond Geuss, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, who is a political philosopher and scholar of 19th and 20th century European philosophy. This lecture is the second in our series, ‘Philosophy in the World,’ which was inaugurated by Simon Blackburn in March 2011.
Professor Geuss will talk about 'The Authority of Democracy and Human Rights'.
For more details please go to LUCRC's 'events' page and download the poster for this exciting lecture there.
Because of the special nature of this event, it will be held in our Stichthage building, on the first floor of the The Hague Central Station main hall from 19.00 hrs onwards.
Registration is recommended: events@lucresearch.nl
I hope to see many of you there!
Esther
(LUCRC research officer)
Monday, 30 May 2011
How a lie becomes the truth
Maybe some of you remember the piece Jules has written a couple of weeks ago on George Orwell’s dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four, one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. If you enjoyed it - which I certainly did – this is your lucky day. That same novel also drew my attention, yet for a different reason. I have not been fascinated by the writer’s possible intention to ensure that we remember the importance of personal freedom and privacy, but by the possible intention which I picked up by reading it: ensuring that we are aware of our own truth, and the freedom to express it, to a certain extent. I will elaborate on this intention further below, but first I want to fresh up your mind by giving a short summary of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Summary
The novel is set in an alternate reality 20th century London, which is now called Airstrip One. Together with the America’s, Australia, the rest of Great Britain and several other parts of the world, it is part of the greater nation Oceania. This continent is ruled by The Party, an ultra-authoritarian government led by the mysterious Big Brother. The Party regulates and monitors everything in the population’s daily life; work, marriage, upbringing, etc. Even the history and language of the nation are under control of that ‘omniscient’ government, to keep a thumb on the own will of the population. Or what is left of it, since no one really knows anymore what is truth and what is lie due to all the changes in ‘facts’ The Party has made over the years. “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” Personal emotions are not tolerated, and enjoying the wonderful experiences of love is even forbidden. Instead The Party has embraced ultimate obedience, domination, hatred and fear.
In this frightening world a young Inner Party worker, named Winston Smith, has given his life for the ruling existence of The Party, working in the Ministry of Truth. His job is the burden of erasing and creating history, as to the will of Big Brother.
Although, that attitude is what he radiates to the outside world. Deep inside he becomes more and more aware of the cruelty and unfair methods The Party maintains. Because The Party can control, regulate and monitor the actions of its people, but it cannot fully control their thoughts. Winston starts to “inwardly rebel” and now only wants to escape the permanent monitoring and regulating of the government, and live an own life in which he can embrace his emotions (and especially love) - even though he knows that will lead to inevitable death. And so it happens; due to the constant monitoring and regulating, The Party can arrest Winston for his ‘unorthodox actions’, and knead him into a new slave of Big Brother. “Thoughtcrime does not entail death; thoughtcrime IS death”.
The Aspect of Truth
What drew my special attention in Orwell’s novel was the concept of truth. In his reality future society this value is altered in many aspects, which even makes the main character not confident about his own truth anymore; Winston does not even know in what year he is living, he only has a vague idea which no one else can confirm either. The Party regulates and monitors the society already for such a long period, that too many lies have become the real ‘truth’. As explained, The Party controls and monitors the actions of its population in various ways. Via constantly adjusting the past and present to the predictions and statements of Big Brother, so that He stays Godlike towards its people, they try to force ultimate obedience from their people driven by pure fear.
One of those altering manners is by adjusting the current language into one without ‘unnecessary words’; the so-called Newspeak. With such an adjustment meaningful grammar constructions, with which people can express their emotions and sorrows, fade away as well. Especially the disappearance of contradictions is highlighted in the novel, by the slogan “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”. Without contradictions people cannot express themselves in a similar way as their emotions let them feel anymore. Therefore they can only use the censured amount of words and expressions The Party allows them to use, which does not give them the opportunity to express their real emotions. They only can and will hear themselves expressing the will of The Party, and if this action continues long enough they will even start to believe what they say, because they never hear something else anymore. Everyone will ‘agree’ with Big Brother, and thus his power will only increase.
Another way of altering the truth can be found in Winston’s job. He has to adjust the past to the predictions and statements of Big Brother. If Oceania is in war with Eurasia at this point of history, but it would be more convenient for whatever reason (for example, to keep control over the population driven by fear, or for certain resources) that Oceania is in war with Eastasia, Winston would have to change the news items into this new present, and erase the past war with Eurasia on paper to make the new war - which was of course already several years ongoing for the conscience of the population – the new ‘truth’. As if Big Brother has always been right and will always be right. Because “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.”
Yet the pinnacle of altering the truth to keep the own will of the people under control, is the fact that even the opposition is under the control of The Party itself. Opposition leader Emmanuel Goldstein, who has written the book - a compendium of all heresies, which circulates here and there – is held by The Party to be the Enemy of the People. However, when Winston is arrested by The Party and tortured by O’Brien to knead his own will back into ultimate obedience to The Party again, it appears that O’Brien is one of the writers of the book. Which means that both Emmanuel Goldstein and the book are created by The Party. That ultra-authoritarian government even controls their own opposition. But where does that leave the concept of truth, real TRUTH?
Conclusion
To be honest Orwell’s dystopia was quite shocking to me, since the story told in the novel could become our reality future if we are not aware of the actions of the powers that rule us. And although even such an ultra-authoritarian government as The Party could only control the actions of its people and not their thoughts, we still must be conscious of the fact that also that last bit of personal property does not come under control of one malevolent person, with crazy ideas on domination and ultimate obedience. People driven by such a powerful will, will always try to find a way to come to your thoughts as well, and brainwash you until you do not know which thoughts and emotions are you own and which ones are implemented.
And in the end I assume that this is also one of the intentions George Orwell wanted to reach with writing Nineteen Eighty-Four; ensuring that we are aware of our own truth, and the freedom to express it. If we would have not listened to survivors of the second World War for example - who experienced the horrible happening themselves and have formed their own truth about it- who knows what lies would have come into the world about what precisely happened in that period of time. Gladly, we have listened to the various experiences several people have had - although not every experience has been one to remember - to form a correct picture, to know the real truth.
One should always better derive his information from a first source, to make sure the stories told are not influenced by misleading untruths. Be aware of your own truth, before taking the truth of another for granted. Otherwise a lie becomes the truth.
Alexandra Danen, 1st year student, LUC
The LUC Dean's Masterclass is run each semester for the students who made the honour roll in the previous semester.
Friday, 20 May 2011
Party at the end of the world/year
Dear students,
There's so much to say about the last year (the first year) of LUC, but there was no time to say it at our Finishing-Line party a couple of nights ago. Actually, there was time, but there was too much alcohol and too much noise for anyone to make sense of anything any of us were saying ... so, instead, I thought I'd pen a little something here.
The first thing to say is this: wow!
And the second thing, which is a slight expansion of the first, is this: well done!
I mean these things in various and complicated ways. The most obvious (but certainly not the least important) is simply to observe how much you have all accomplished over the last year. LUC has risen from nothing into a thriving and exciting community of learning since last summer -- you have built it through your toil and tears and laughter, and you should be incredibly proud of what you have done. I am certainly proud of you ... well, of most of you ;) It has been wonderful to watch how you have taken on this challenge.
On another level, it's also just fantastic to see how many of you are still here! It has been a very intense ride; there has been a lot of work, a lot of arguing, scheming, debating and structuring, a lot of playing (maybe not enough playing), and not a lot of sleeping. But you are still here, and (most of you) still smiling. It's very inspiring for me to see how you have all drawn energy from your own activities and from the satisfaction of expending all your energy on building something worthwhile.
Some of you will recall something I said at the (unofficial) opening of the college last summer, when I told you to take your responsibilities at LUC seriously, because you were all specially selected to be here, and because your being here means that other people (who wanted to be here) were not. Well, you're still here, and I am unspeakably proud of the way you have honoured your responsibilities this year.
In other words, you have not only survived but thrived. In some intensive institutions, like Cambridge University, where I did my undergraduate work, the end of year events are sometimes called the 'Survivor's Ball.' This term usually refers to the fact that you've made it through the exam-hell at the end of term ... or sometimes to the fact that you're still conscious for the group photo at end of the ball. At LUC this year, though, the idea of survival has a more profound meaning: it reminds me of the ideas about challenge, violence, bloodshed, toil, change and tears that we discussed right at the start of the year, when we watched Apocalypse Now as the Dean's Choice movie. Oh, the horror, the horror …
While I don't want to claim that you have survived the apocalypse this year at LUC (!), I also don't want to diminish the sense of our having confronted some angels and daemons together. And, most importantly, I want to spare a little thought for the Greek origins of the term apocalypse, which refers to the idea of revelation or of lifting the veil of ignorance. The apocalypse reveals a process that discloses something hidden or profound in a time or context of ignorance, misperception, or falsehood. In other words, like the virtual, architectural tram-ride that was built by one of the teams for the Designing Academic Inquiry poster conference, the apocalypse is a trial and a process that leads to enlightenment (or a horrible death ... but we're all survivors!).
So, we began the year rather ominously with Apocalypse Now, and we end here, on the way to enlightenment, ready for something new to begin after the end of the world (of the first year of LUC). I can’t wait to see what the next year will bring, and I’m excited to know what a post-apocalyptic LUC might look like!
Meanwhile, there are a few people I’d like to thank for their help, industry and enthusiasm this year, without which we would not have made it through in such a spectacular way. In some ways, I could say this of all of you, but there are some particular people who should be recognised.
The first group is the board of our shiny new student association (which became a legal association on Monday of this week), Fortuna. The members of this board, under the sagely guidance of our first ever student president, Flip, have worked extremely hard and accomplished so much, not only organizing so many great events and processes, but also actually creating the association from scratch. My thanks to Flip and his team: Stefan, Sanne, Marc, Georgina, Marline, and Laurens (and also thanks for the sweat-shirt!).
Instead of listing names of other individuals (who will receive a letter from me in the summer), I’d also like to give special thanks to those students who organized reading groups, those on the Housing Committee, those who organized the Amnesty Benefit activities, the inter-UC sports tournament, the Act Aware events, the Current Affairs evening, the Pax Magazine, the Debating Union and the World Foresight conference. You have all brought something special and valuable to LUC, and you have my gratitude and admiration.
I wish you all a sunny and rejuvenating break, and look forward to welcoming you all back again, together with a whole new year of students, at the end of the summer.
Cheers and beers,
Chris (the dean)
There's so much to say about the last year (the first year) of LUC, but there was no time to say it at our Finishing-Line party a couple of nights ago. Actually, there was time, but there was too much alcohol and too much noise for anyone to make sense of anything any of us were saying ... so, instead, I thought I'd pen a little something here.
The first thing to say is this: wow!
And the second thing, which is a slight expansion of the first, is this: well done!
I mean these things in various and complicated ways. The most obvious (but certainly not the least important) is simply to observe how much you have all accomplished over the last year. LUC has risen from nothing into a thriving and exciting community of learning since last summer -- you have built it through your toil and tears and laughter, and you should be incredibly proud of what you have done. I am certainly proud of you ... well, of most of you ;) It has been wonderful to watch how you have taken on this challenge.
On another level, it's also just fantastic to see how many of you are still here! It has been a very intense ride; there has been a lot of work, a lot of arguing, scheming, debating and structuring, a lot of playing (maybe not enough playing), and not a lot of sleeping. But you are still here, and (most of you) still smiling. It's very inspiring for me to see how you have all drawn energy from your own activities and from the satisfaction of expending all your energy on building something worthwhile.
Some of you will recall something I said at the (unofficial) opening of the college last summer, when I told you to take your responsibilities at LUC seriously, because you were all specially selected to be here, and because your being here means that other people (who wanted to be here) were not. Well, you're still here, and I am unspeakably proud of the way you have honoured your responsibilities this year.
In other words, you have not only survived but thrived. In some intensive institutions, like Cambridge University, where I did my undergraduate work, the end of year events are sometimes called the 'Survivor's Ball.' This term usually refers to the fact that you've made it through the exam-hell at the end of term ... or sometimes to the fact that you're still conscious for the group photo at end of the ball. At LUC this year, though, the idea of survival has a more profound meaning: it reminds me of the ideas about challenge, violence, bloodshed, toil, change and tears that we discussed right at the start of the year, when we watched Apocalypse Now as the Dean's Choice movie. Oh, the horror, the horror …
While I don't want to claim that you have survived the apocalypse this year at LUC (!), I also don't want to diminish the sense of our having confronted some angels and daemons together. And, most importantly, I want to spare a little thought for the Greek origins of the term apocalypse, which refers to the idea of revelation or of lifting the veil of ignorance. The apocalypse reveals a process that discloses something hidden or profound in a time or context of ignorance, misperception, or falsehood. In other words, like the virtual, architectural tram-ride that was built by one of the teams for the Designing Academic Inquiry poster conference, the apocalypse is a trial and a process that leads to enlightenment (or a horrible death ... but we're all survivors!).
So, we began the year rather ominously with Apocalypse Now, and we end here, on the way to enlightenment, ready for something new to begin after the end of the world (of the first year of LUC). I can’t wait to see what the next year will bring, and I’m excited to know what a post-apocalyptic LUC might look like!
Meanwhile, there are a few people I’d like to thank for their help, industry and enthusiasm this year, without which we would not have made it through in such a spectacular way. In some ways, I could say this of all of you, but there are some particular people who should be recognised.
The first group is the board of our shiny new student association (which became a legal association on Monday of this week), Fortuna. The members of this board, under the sagely guidance of our first ever student president, Flip, have worked extremely hard and accomplished so much, not only organizing so many great events and processes, but also actually creating the association from scratch. My thanks to Flip and his team: Stefan, Sanne, Marc, Georgina, Marline, and Laurens (and also thanks for the sweat-shirt!).
Instead of listing names of other individuals (who will receive a letter from me in the summer), I’d also like to give special thanks to those students who organized reading groups, those on the Housing Committee, those who organized the Amnesty Benefit activities, the inter-UC sports tournament, the Act Aware events, the Current Affairs evening, the Pax Magazine, the Debating Union and the World Foresight conference. You have all brought something special and valuable to LUC, and you have my gratitude and admiration.
I wish you all a sunny and rejuvenating break, and look forward to welcoming you all back again, together with a whole new year of students, at the end of the summer.
Cheers and beers,
Chris (the dean)
Thursday, 12 May 2011
LUC poster boys (and girls)
+Public transportation
+Healthcare
+Recycling and waste management
+Sporting and leisure facilities
+Museums and cultural provisions
+Parks and open public spaces
Congratulations to the students on this fantastic accomplishment – I’m impressed and proud of you all!
Posted by Chris (the dean)
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Global challenges with Michael Jackson
EARTH SONG, by Michael Jackson (1995)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU&feature=player_detailpage
Earth Song (lyrics, excerpt)
What about sunrise
What about rain
What about all the things
That you said we were to gain...
What about killing fields
Is there a time
What about all the things
That you said was yours and mine...
Did you ever stop to notice
All the blood we've shed before
Did you ever stop to notice
The crying Earth the weeping shores?
posted by Thomas
Monday, 9 May 2011
War and peace in 1984
“War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.” There are probably only a few of us who don’t recognise these sayings. To clarify, these lines are the three slogans of the Party in George Orwell’s 1984. Before last month, and I say this with great shame, I was one of the few who wouldn’t have recognised the slogans. Perhaps that is exactly what caused 1984 to have such a huge impact on me. The stories told by my peers who had already read 1984, the hailing of the novel being one of the greatest of the 20th century and the often made connection between 1984 and Brave New World (which happens to be one of my favourite novels) raised my expectations to a maximum. Often, high expectations only lead to disappointment or disillusionment. Orwell’s great dystopia, however, did not only live up to my expectations, it also blew me away.
Given the fact that so many of us have already read 1984, it seems illogical to portray merely a summary of it in this blog. Rather, I’d like to share with you my perception of the novel. First, for the ones who share the same shame as I did one month ago, let me provide a small summary. The novel is set in alternate reality 20th century London, which is now called Airstrip One and has been integrated into the greater nation of Oceania (the America’s, Australia, Great Britain and several other parts of the world). Oceania is ruled by the Party, an ultra-authoritarian government led by the mysterious and almost godlike Big Brother. The Party regulates and monitors every aspect of daily life: work, marriage, exercise, family and spare time. Even the history and language of Oceania are under direct influence and regulation of Party policy. By altering history and thereby altering knowledge, the Party has an incredible power over its subjects: “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” All in all, Oceania has become a nation which has abandoned freedom, rights and love as we know them. On the other hand, the nation has embraced domination, fear and hatred.
Orwell shows us the life of a simple Inner Party worker, Winston Smith. Winston works for the Ministry of Truth and is burdened with the task of creating and erasing history. More and more, Winston realises the brutality and cruelty of the Party and “inwardly rebels” against the life he is forced to live. Despite the realisation that rebelling against the Party will lead to inevitable death, Winston finds himself increasingly resisting the Party rule. Irrevocably, the Party, through its methods of monitoring and regulation, arrests Winston for his crimes against Big Brother. Finally and unfortunately , Winston has to pay the price for his unorthodox actions.
What struck me most about the novel was the extreme methods the Party used in observing, monitoring and controlling its population and the therewith involved consequences. It was not only the types of methods that disturbed me, but also the motivations and implications behind them. The portrayed denial of peoples’ rights, freedoms and privacy on such a scale and to such an extent made me realise that we should always remember to cherish those rights and freedoms that our predecessors have bitterly fought for. In the end, I assume this is what George Orwell intended with writing 1984: ensuring that we remember the importance of personal freedom and privacy. The irony here is that many of us don’t seem to realise that we are unconsciously already giving up many of our privacies through aspects of daily life. Take, for instance, the widespread registration of individual data connected to the OV-card (a card that has to be used for many parts of public transportation). Or another example: yesterday I was throwing away the trash with my little brother. Since two years, there is one location where to dispose of your domestic waste per street. Every household in the particular street is given an individual key to open the waste containers which are provided by the municipality. When walking back home after throwing away the trash, my little brother told me that the municipality registers every time trash is thrown away by a household. This is done through a chip put into every single key given to households. Of course, this is only a small and unimportant example of the giving up of individual privacy, but we should realise that small examples like these occur on a very frequent basis in daily life. Furthermore, we don’t only give up our rights through direct and possibly harmless government registration, but also through exposure by the use of public networks such as Facebook or Twitter. If a government had the ill will to monitor its citizens for wrong purposes, it wouldn’t even have to install the methods as seen in 1984: they would just have to check our Facebook updates. For now, enough cheesy talk of this undergraduate student with his naïve views on life. However, I would like to end this blog entry with a funny and ironic little screenshot I took today from my own Facebook page:
Jules van de Sneppen, 1st year student, LUC
The LUC Dean's Masterclass is run each semester for the students who made the honour roll in the previous semester.
First ever LUC poster conference!
The first ever cohort of students of Leiden University College The Hague are in the midst of an interdisciplinary methodology course entitled "Designing Academic Inquiry", which springs off disciplinary building blocks to reach higher planes of academic thinking. This systematic mapping of method and knowledge will not only equip our honours students with concrete skills in research design and analysis in a liberal arts and sciences framework, but will also culminate in the first ever LUC student research poster conference on 12 May 2011.
Having completed the lecture component of the course, with individual assignments based on the themes below,
* Objectivity + Subjectivity
* Deduction + Induction
* Causation + Correlation
* Language + Representation
* Structure + Agency
all LUC students are now applying their conceptual and methodological understanding by finalising their group research project. Each seminar will present a set of academic posters on one of the following topics pertaining to the city of The Hague:
* Public transportation
* Healthcare
* Recycling and waste management
* Sporting and leisure facilities
* Museums and cultural provisions
* Parks and open public spaces
With the guidance of their course instructors, the students are excited to deliver their findings to an audience within and beyond LUC, including key representatives from City Hall. It will be a pleasure to welcome you to this special event; please do join us on 12 May, 13:00 - 15:00, at Lange Voorhout 44 for a glimpse into a foundational step towards addressing global challenges.
Posted by Cissie Fu
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Reparations for your soul
LUC is happy to invite you to the final seminar in our Visiting Speakers Series 2010/2011.
We are delighted to be able to host Dr. Claire Moon of the London School of Economics, to talk about 'Who will pay reparations for my soul? Compensation, Social Suffering and Social Control in Argentina.' In her seminar, Dr Moon will discuss how state reparation to victims of (state) atrocities can work to administer and control social suffering but can, in some cases, intensify the trauma rather than ameliorate it. She will use the refusal of state reparations by the Argentinian mothers of the Plaza de Mayo as an example to make this argument.
Claire Moon is senior lecturer in the sociology of human rights at LSE, a member of the Advisory Board of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, LSE. She is the convenor of the Atrocity, Suffering and Human Rights Research Group and has been reviews editor of the British Journal of Sociology since 2007. Dr. Moon is also a member of the British Sociological Association.
As usual, this seminar will take place in the LUC Manor, Lange Voorhout 44, at 16.15-18.00.
We are delighted to be able to host Dr. Claire Moon of the London School of Economics, to talk about 'Who will pay reparations for my soul? Compensation, Social Suffering and Social Control in Argentina.' In her seminar, Dr Moon will discuss how state reparation to victims of (state) atrocities can work to administer and control social suffering but can, in some cases, intensify the trauma rather than ameliorate it. She will use the refusal of state reparations by the Argentinian mothers of the Plaza de Mayo as an example to make this argument.
As usual, this seminar will take place in the LUC Manor, Lange Voorhout 44, at 16.15-18.00.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Your response: Osama bin Laden's death
‘Obama > Osama’
- Rron Nushi, Facebook status 2/5/2011
‘I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.’
- Martin Luther King
‘I welcome the death of Osama Bin Laden’
- Julia Gillard, Australian Prime Minister
‘The operation shows those who commit acts of terror against the innocent will be brought to justice, however long it takes’
- Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minster
‘Finally the leader of the terrorist al-Qaeda group faced his inevitable destiny. What an exciting end. He was killed by Americans in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The man they nicknamed "the leader of the mujahideen" was killed in his spacious house and not on the battlefield or carrying out jihad. He died with his wife and not with the youth he misled.’
- Tariq Abd-al-Hami, in Al-Sharq al-Awsat (pan-Arab newspaper)
‘Following Bin Laden's crimes, the US manufactured an excuse to wage an unholy war on Muslim countries… Now, after US President Barack Obama's announcement of Osama Bin Laden's killing, will the end of the war against terror be declared or does the US still have outstanding goals?’
- Unknown, editorial in Al-Jumhuriyah (Egyptian newspaper)
Please leave your responses to either the above reactions of politicians, journalists and editorials, or your general reaction to the recent events surrounding Osama bin Laden's death.
Cecilia Diemont, 1st year student, LUC
- Rron Nushi, Facebook status 2/5/2011
‘I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.’
- Martin Luther King
‘I welcome the death of Osama Bin Laden’
- Julia Gillard, Australian Prime Minister
‘The operation shows those who commit acts of terror against the innocent will be brought to justice, however long it takes’
- Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minster
‘Finally the leader of the terrorist al-Qaeda group faced his inevitable destiny. What an exciting end. He was killed by Americans in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The man they nicknamed "the leader of the mujahideen" was killed in his spacious house and not on the battlefield or carrying out jihad. He died with his wife and not with the youth he misled.’
- Tariq Abd-al-Hami, in Al-Sharq al-Awsat (pan-Arab newspaper)
‘Following Bin Laden's crimes, the US manufactured an excuse to wage an unholy war on Muslim countries… Now, after US President Barack Obama's announcement of Osama Bin Laden's killing, will the end of the war against terror be declared or does the US still have outstanding goals?’
- Unknown, editorial in Al-Jumhuriyah (Egyptian newspaper)
Please leave your responses to either the above reactions of politicians, journalists and editorials, or your general reaction to the recent events surrounding Osama bin Laden's death.
Cecilia Diemont, 1st year student, LUC
Monday, 2 May 2011
Personal utopias and the dispossesed
The past updates on this blog about our Masterclass mentioned books that critically assessed the State, the functions of the State and what the goals of the State ought to be, or potentially could be – both to the horror and awe of people. Assumptions were shattered and possibilities explored; in the backdrop of a religion-changing England, one Thomas More explored the importance of ‘a’ religion ; Looking Backward and The Iron Heel both were written with the Communist Manifesto in mind. But it is an offspring of Marxism, and a last assumption that we still have left hanging in our mind in our recent encounters with utopia’s that Ursula K. Le Guin tries to examine – and maybe even do away with – in her fantasy landmark The Dispossessed.
Published in 1974, at the height of the Cold War, Le Guin shows us a possible third way away from the capitalist structure of America and the state-run enterprise of the USSR: a Stateless society. In The Dispossessed, the idealist anarchists, following the teaching of a certain ‘Odo’, leave the planet of Urras to form an utopia on its moon, Anarres. Urras, in turn, mirrors our world during the Cold War: A-Io is a wealthy nation driven on capitalism, with a clear hierarchical system based on the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. In Thu, they chose to follow the teachings of ‘Odo’, centered on freedom and equality, towards a authoritarian State ruled in name of the proletariat. These nations even fight proxy wars over nations that follow their ideological structure, as becomes apparent when in the second half of the book war breaks out in Benbili.The society of Anarres is based on anarcho-syndicalism: the idea that you should not be a ‘slave to the wage’, but rather work for your needs. To this end, the Anarresti abandon the concept of ‘ownership’. You do not own your goods, as ownership means that you have control over that product, and can decide which people can and cannot use this product. This is problematic as this creates a power imbalance (opposing egality) and does not necessarily distributes goods according to what people actually need. Therefore, you do not own things on Anarresti, but you take what you, as an individual, need to survive. As a consequence, a societal norm exists that you also actively contribute towards the production of goods that can meet the needs of society. The anarchists furthermore eradicate ownership so completely that they construct a language, Pravic, that does not know these concepts in words. The usage of possessive pronouns, for instance, is eradicated. At birth, one is separated from its parents in order not to feel attachment, or stake a claim upon their parents. Characters stress that Anarres is a voluntarily society: all the work that is done, is done because the people want do these specific jobs (egoistically) or feel that they have a certain skill or aptitude towards a certain type of work that would suit the community (altruistically). The first mode of reasoning, however, is cancelled out by the societal norm which deems ‘egoizing’ to be the worst possible act.
The book is written as the story of the anarchist Shevek, a brilliant scholar of physics, who comes to visit Urras in an attempt to understand the society that his people have left behind and broke contact with. A second storyline unfolds in which his motivations for leaving Anarres – at least temporarily – become clear, and the tensions within this utopian society unfold.
Because it seems that a certain form of centralization is unavoidable when you effectively want to distribute goods and labours, and when you need to deal with foreign nations, and therefore a certain power imbalance will necessarily be created, and that issues arise when the economical and the collective take precedence over the social and individual desires, as humans value emotional ties more than ties towards the collective. But, more importantly, le Guin shows the problematic aspects of dogmatic reasoning. Shevek’s first inquiries into physics are frustrated by the senior physician, whose theory were developed in a conflicting field with Shevek’s, and therefore denies these theories publication. Discussing the social norm of collective altruism is also considered a taboo and frowned upon: challenging the status quo is straw manned as ‘egoizing’ by most people in Anarresti society. But also on Urras freedom of information is ostracized, with the newspapers being considered fodder for the lowly educated, and the upper class relying on insider information and mouth-to-mouth storytelling (One could argue that in this way the upper class ‘possesses’ information as well as material goods). This creates problems as it tempers the revolutionary spirit, it tempers the critical reflexion of the ideals that made the Anarresti go to Anarres in the first place, and it allows ideological flaws within the system to be sustained. In this way, le Guin shows us the problem of dogma in the era of McCarthyism.
Another pressing and prevalent problem in The Dispossessed deals with resource scarcity. Halfway through the book Shevek mentions that Odo’s ideas were specifically written with the resource-abundant planet of Urras in mind. In contrast, Anarres is a planet plagued with droughts, infertile soil and a lack of natural resources and biodiversity. This forces the anarchists to put the economical above the social ; it is a necessary evil for survival, because if you don’t co-operate, we all will die.
The question, however, is whether resource abundance would solve this problem. Le Guin remains vague on this, but I suspect myself that this is not the case: as the social norm against profiteering is more effectively coerced in times of need, when you realize the consequences of going against that norm directly, it could logically follow that people would not be so much bothered by the norm when they could leave the society and start ‘profiteering’.
But is this ‘third way’ then doomed to fail? No, not in the way that it is worse than the options known to men in 1974, or maybe even today. Because the Dispossessed does not deny – and certainly spends a lot of time in pointing out – the flaws that capitalism and communism have. The interesting omission, of course, is the role of liberal democracy within le Guin’s framework, as this form of government now used by an enormous amount of countries in the world is lacking in voice in this narrative. However, ‘liberalism’, might be the victorious voice in the end. Because the reader, having realized the imperfections of these State systems, is then introduced to the Hainish. This old alien society, the presumed ‘ancestor’ of the human civilizations, has ‘tried’ all State forms, and they too realized the imperfections of all systems. Their solution is daunting: the individual Hainish can all choose to try out the system they think suits them best. It is a solution that does not only need the eradication of a State, and of a social contract binding you to a State or society. It needs the dismissal of emotional ties, it needs to dismiss that we have a moral obligation towards caring for people who cared for us, or for the survival of the ones near to you. Le Guin’s final suggestion is that individuals need to be free in order to choose ones personal utopia.
Daan Welling, 1st year student, LUC
The LUC Dean's Masterclass is run each semester for the students who made the honour roll in the previous semester.
Friday, 29 April 2011
Fighting terror
LUC is excited to welcome Sir Nigel Rodley, Professor of Law and Chair of the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, to talk about 'Fighting Terror' on Wednesday 4th May, 16-18.00, in the college Manor (LV44).
After various academic and professional positions in the US and Canada and after receiving his 2nd LLM degree in 1970, Nigel returned to the UK to become the first Legal Adviser of the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, a position he held until 1990; during the same period he taught Public International Law at LSE. In 1994 he became Professor of Law at the University of Essex.
In March 1993 he was designated Special Rapporteur on Torture by the UN Commission on Human Rights, serving in this capacity until 2001. Since 2001 he has been a member and vice chair of the UN Human Rights Committee. He was elected a Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists in 2003 and is a member of Council of its British Branch, JUSTICE. He is a Trustee of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Nigel Rodley was knighted ‘for services to human rights and international law’ in 1999.
In March 1993 he was designated Special Rapporteur on Torture by the UN Commission on Human Rights, serving in this capacity until 2001. Since 2001 he has been a member and vice chair of the UN Human Rights Committee. He was elected a Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists in 2003 and is a member of Council of its British Branch, JUSTICE. He is a Trustee of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Nigel Rodley was knighted ‘for services to human rights and international law’ in 1999.
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Current affairs and ice cream; 20 April
Maybe it was appropriate that on the hottest day of the year so far, a group of LUC students and staff sat down to discuss the events going on in the arid desert of Libya. While their immediate thirst may have been quenched by an ice cream break half way through the night, their thirst for stories, opinions and knowledge kept them hanging on the lips of the speakers until security guards ushered them out of the building and shut the door behind them.
Going back to where the night started, the first LUC Current Affairs Night began, in true student style, about 15 minutes late. Gathered in the Student Lounge at the Lange Voorhout, a handful of professors, three speakers and around 40 students sat in a circle ready to informally ‘discuss foreign affairs with a glass of wine’. After a quick introduction and recap of the world headlines that week Jaap de Hoop Scheffer started off the evening by talking about Libya. As the subject rapidly ventured out to include Europe’s dependence on the US, the nature of Resolution 1973 and humanitarian intervention, the time was up and questions and remarks had to wait, as Aernout van Lynden took the spotlight.
The war correspondent and previous university professor spoke of ‘An Arab Awakening?’, where he distinguished between the different types of unrest the Middle East is experiencing. Reminding students never to make comparisons, he described how the countries differ immensely in terms of ethnic makeup, national priorities, governmental system and political histories, and how this fundamentally influences the current unrest. He reminded us of the near-permanent state of conflict Europe experienced between the late 19th century up until the end of the Cold War, shedding light on the bizarre expectation the global media and policy makers hold in terms of the war in Libya and other conflict being over within months. Cut off by a bleeping sound marking the end of his time, Chris Goto-Jones broke up the theme of civil unrest by addressing the situation of disaster-struck Japan.
While in reality civil unrest seemed not so far from the truth in Japan either, it was refreshing to focus on a completely different part of the world, and Chris surprised many about the semi-secret relationship the US and Japan have had since the Second World War. Furthermore, he spoke about Japan’s attitude towards aid and the politics involved in it, as well as the strange position Japan is experiencing suddenly being the receiver rather than the giver of aid.
After a quick break and re-building of the furniture, the audience, now divided into three groups, engaged in small-scale discussions addressing one of the three topics with the respective speaker. This format allowed everyone to contribute and fire individual questions to the speakers, as well as comparing perspectives on particular issues (‘Gaddafi: Should he stay or should he go?’). After 20 minutes and at the tune of the latest hits, the speakers rotated groups, allowing everyone to engage in each of the topics before the end of the second hour.
After a wrap up of the event people were invited to stay longer, and many students, still plagued by the heat and the prospect of empty water bottles and lack of leftover ice creams, took up on this offer and relocated themselves to the outside courtyard. Here conversation among students and one of the speakers continued until the security guard forcibly removed the group and set them on the doorstep of the Lange Voorhout. Still sparked by arguments and engaged in intense discussion, the closed green wooden door did not deter the students and Aernout, and after relocating to a nearby café, tales and conversations about the Middle East could be heard resounding far into the night.
For me, the fact that conversation and intense discussions did not end as the Current Affairs Night did, and even prevailed over the fact we were set outside of the building and found ourselves standing in the dark late at night, shows that it was a success. The night was meant to spark a greater interest for discussing current affairs, and the enthusiasm and active participation shown last night illustrates that our student body really is engaged and ready to discuss, and eventually face, these Global Challenges surrounding us.
A huge thank you goes to Aernout van Lynden, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Chris Goto-Jones for coming to speak and contribute their invaluable insights, as well as Cissie Fu for helping coordinate the event. Lastly a thank you goes to the students, whose participation and constant questioning in search of answers made me confident that even on the hottest and most beach-appropriate day, we are ready to engage in international and globally significant matters. And who knows, maybe next time we can devise a way to combine beach and heated discussion…
Cecilia Diemont, 1st year student, LUC
Going back to where the night started, the first LUC Current Affairs Night began, in true student style, about 15 minutes late. Gathered in the Student Lounge at the Lange Voorhout, a handful of professors, three speakers and around 40 students sat in a circle ready to informally ‘discuss foreign affairs with a glass of wine’. After a quick introduction and recap of the world headlines that week Jaap de Hoop Scheffer started off the evening by talking about Libya. As the subject rapidly ventured out to include Europe’s dependence on the US, the nature of Resolution 1973 and humanitarian intervention, the time was up and questions and remarks had to wait, as Aernout van Lynden took the spotlight.
The war correspondent and previous university professor spoke of ‘An Arab Awakening?’, where he distinguished between the different types of unrest the Middle East is experiencing. Reminding students never to make comparisons, he described how the countries differ immensely in terms of ethnic makeup, national priorities, governmental system and political histories, and how this fundamentally influences the current unrest. He reminded us of the near-permanent state of conflict Europe experienced between the late 19th century up until the end of the Cold War, shedding light on the bizarre expectation the global media and policy makers hold in terms of the war in Libya and other conflict being over within months. Cut off by a bleeping sound marking the end of his time, Chris Goto-Jones broke up the theme of civil unrest by addressing the situation of disaster-struck Japan.
While in reality civil unrest seemed not so far from the truth in Japan either, it was refreshing to focus on a completely different part of the world, and Chris surprised many about the semi-secret relationship the US and Japan have had since the Second World War. Furthermore, he spoke about Japan’s attitude towards aid and the politics involved in it, as well as the strange position Japan is experiencing suddenly being the receiver rather than the giver of aid.
After a quick break and re-building of the furniture, the audience, now divided into three groups, engaged in small-scale discussions addressing one of the three topics with the respective speaker. This format allowed everyone to contribute and fire individual questions to the speakers, as well as comparing perspectives on particular issues (‘Gaddafi: Should he stay or should he go?’). After 20 minutes and at the tune of the latest hits, the speakers rotated groups, allowing everyone to engage in each of the topics before the end of the second hour.
After a wrap up of the event people were invited to stay longer, and many students, still plagued by the heat and the prospect of empty water bottles and lack of leftover ice creams, took up on this offer and relocated themselves to the outside courtyard. Here conversation among students and one of the speakers continued until the security guard forcibly removed the group and set them on the doorstep of the Lange Voorhout. Still sparked by arguments and engaged in intense discussion, the closed green wooden door did not deter the students and Aernout, and after relocating to a nearby café, tales and conversations about the Middle East could be heard resounding far into the night.
For me, the fact that conversation and intense discussions did not end as the Current Affairs Night did, and even prevailed over the fact we were set outside of the building and found ourselves standing in the dark late at night, shows that it was a success. The night was meant to spark a greater interest for discussing current affairs, and the enthusiasm and active participation shown last night illustrates that our student body really is engaged and ready to discuss, and eventually face, these Global Challenges surrounding us.
A huge thank you goes to Aernout van Lynden, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Chris Goto-Jones for coming to speak and contribute their invaluable insights, as well as Cissie Fu for helping coordinate the event. Lastly a thank you goes to the students, whose participation and constant questioning in search of answers made me confident that even on the hottest and most beach-appropriate day, we are ready to engage in international and globally significant matters. And who knows, maybe next time we can devise a way to combine beach and heated discussion…
Cecilia Diemont, 1st year student, LUC
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Oppression and revolution
London's critical utopia
Imagine the world in the XXVII century. Imagine a society in which capitalism as a ruling system has given its way to the Brotherhood of Man. Now, imagine a diary written in 1932 has been found, the biography of a great revolutionist called Ernest Everhard, written by his beloved wife and fellow comrade Avis. You are then presented with a detailed account of the first revolutionaries' struggle to overthrow the Oligarchy, the Plutocracy, the Iron Heel which is the entity that controls the power and wealth of the United States.The greatness of The Iron Heel is that it speaks on behalf of different people, first of all Ernest, the eloquent socialist hero; Avis, the highly educated girl converted to the Cause of Socialism, and finally the academic notations of a man who now leaves in the utopia envisioned by the revolutionaries.
Through Avis's passionate and subjective record of Ernest's talks on the injustices of the Iron Heel towards the members of the labour class, London creates a first layer of narration, through which he can express his critical analysis of the American class struggle, and possibly his delusion for the failure of the 1905 Russian Revolution. London actually writes the novel in 1908, a period of labour's struggle in the USA against the evergrowing power of corporations that constitutes the suffocating regime Avis and Ernest dream to overthrow.
The second layer of narrative, the perspective of the XXVII century scholar, serves as more than one function; firstly, it represents a utopian age in which the socialist dream has finally been achieved, when people don't even remember certain practises or they find them barbarian; secondly, it balances Avis's account by correcting or explaining certain facts or characters that she talks about. London uses this second narrative-framing voice, both as a device to take distances from Avis's story, but also as yet another way to criticise and to make bitter remarks about his own society.
Description of the utopian society of the XXVII century, that so critically describes those of the XX century, are only hinted in the foreword and footnotes, and the reader is not to know how the centuries' long struggle eventually positively ended with the establishment of the Brotherhood of Man – London is concerned with the description of the present conflicts and does not bother with the explanation of a reality that is, in its nature, utopic. Knowing that there is the future perspective of a fair society is enough to provide for a happy ending that Avis's story, abruptly interrupted in the middle of a sentence, actually does not have.
The Iron Heel is about injustices, violence, conflicts. London shows how these actions are perpetuated by both sides of the “enemy line”, as both Oligarchists and Revolutionaries adopt violent methods to confront each other. However, London's sympathy, and the reader's, cannot help but falling with the rebels, who are striving for change in face of the oppressive status quo.
The society that the Oligarchy shapes and controls through its power relationship and invisible claws still bears remarkable similarities to the present US society, where lobbies and trusts are able to influence government's policies, where freedom of speech is threatened by the laws made ad corporationes, where the poor are denied health insurance or good education. London's text shouldn't be read as prophetical, but as a starting point from which to reflect upon the status of our present society. Do we still live under the Iron Heel? Do we have to wait for other six centuries before getting rid of systems of oppressions? Is Capitalism THE best economic-political-social system we can think of, or is a (modernised) socialist Utopia still a suitable option for designing our society? Food for thought, my friends, but remember: the fight goes on.
Sofia Lotto Persio, 1st year student, LUC
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Three hundred and forty-six
Accused as ‘slacktivism’, a feel-good type of activism, by a student (who, might I say, never took up the offer of explanation or discussion) I’d like to remind all those who did participate in the recent Amnesty Letter Writing Campaign that their efforts weren’t in vain. Yes, they did contributed to a wonderful and entertaining evening in the LUC Common Room, but let us also not forget the impact and support oppressed families around the world will experience upon the arrival of hundreds of letters of support.
The recent turbulent events in North Africa and the Middle East have shown how people and ideas can be empowered by the use of mass media, essentially shedding light on the immense power of the propagation of words. History has shown how the impact of people writing letters can be enormous too, and thus also play major role in ensuring justice is done.
Since Amnesty International’s earliest days in the 1960s, letter writing has been an integral part of the campaign for demanding human rights and the release of political prisoners. Hundreds of prisoners have been freed due a continuous stream of letters from Amnesty members calling for the respect of human rights, as well as voicing their support for political prisoners.
And letter writing is exactly what LUC students undertook last Monday night. Starting at 22:00 and going all the way through to 04:00, a dedicated group comprising of roughly half the College gave their time, creativity and ink to Write for Rights. Besides formal letters to politicians and diplomats (regarding the detainment of Burmese political prisoners and the exploitation of illegal immigrants in Malaysia), students settled down in the Common Room and feverishly wrote notes of support and encouragement to a host of political prisoners and human rights NGOs. As the night progressed and the impressive pile of filled envelopes grew, various musical performers, litres of hot drinks and snacks drove the group to produce letters of praise, poems and drawings.
Throughout the night a humanitarian-focused movie was shown, students performed a preview of the LUC play, some sang or DJed, while others contributed lame dance moves during their letter writing breaks. The buzzing atmosphere and insane amounts of sugary snacks kept everyone in high spirits, while friendly (and completely beneficial) competition saw students such as Limo Baroud and Sarah-Louise Todd write non-stop for the whole six hours. These latter two students produced a spectacular 106 letters between them. If anyone were ever entitled to a hand massage, or possesses these skills, please look no further than these two!
Slashing all expectations, 04:00 saw a considerably large group bearing down into the depths of the box with letters, two last students calling out from the other side of the room that they were ‘nearly done! Just two more! Please! Give me a few more minutes!’ With great pride we’d like to announce that a total of 346 letters were written over the course of 6 hours and 49 students.
Due to LUC students’ incredible effort we are sending letters of protest and support over the whole world this week. So whether you are a true believer of blog-driven revolutions or more cautious about the power of the spread of words, your commitment to take action through words on Monday night is truly appreciated, and on behalf of SAIM The Hague we would like to say: thank you thank you thank you, and we are so proud of all of you who participated.
Cecilia Diemont, 1st Year Student, LUC, Co-Chair of SAIM (Student Amnesty Int. Movement)
A big thank you also goes to those students who attended the Amnesty Training Day on Wednesday. Through a very interactive and informative session led by two regional Amnesty employers, members of SAIM learnt vital information about Amnesty’s founding, the structure of the organization, worldwide membership and brainstormed for ideas for campaigns in the future. To Marianne and Naomi—thank you for coming down to visit and inspire us, and we will keep you updated on our activities!
Since Amnesty International’s earliest days in the 1960s, letter writing has been an integral part of the campaign for demanding human rights and the release of political prisoners. Hundreds of prisoners have been freed due a continuous stream of letters from Amnesty members calling for the respect of human rights, as well as voicing their support for political prisoners.
And letter writing is exactly what LUC students undertook last Monday night. Starting at 22:00 and going all the way through to 04:00, a dedicated group comprising of roughly half the College gave their time, creativity and ink to Write for Rights. Besides formal letters to politicians and diplomats (regarding the detainment of Burmese political prisoners and the exploitation of illegal immigrants in Malaysia), students settled down in the Common Room and feverishly wrote notes of support and encouragement to a host of political prisoners and human rights NGOs. As the night progressed and the impressive pile of filled envelopes grew, various musical performers, litres of hot drinks and snacks drove the group to produce letters of praise, poems and drawings.Throughout the night a humanitarian-focused movie was shown, students performed a preview of the LUC play, some sang or DJed, while others contributed lame dance moves during their letter writing breaks. The buzzing atmosphere and insane amounts of sugary snacks kept everyone in high spirits, while friendly (and completely beneficial) competition saw students such as Limo Baroud and Sarah-Louise Todd write non-stop for the whole six hours. These latter two students produced a spectacular 106 letters between them. If anyone were ever entitled to a hand massage, or possesses these skills, please look no further than these two!
Due to LUC students’ incredible effort we are sending letters of protest and support over the whole world this week. So whether you are a true believer of blog-driven revolutions or more cautious about the power of the spread of words, your commitment to take action through words on Monday night is truly appreciated, and on behalf of SAIM The Hague we would like to say: thank you thank you thank you, and we are so proud of all of you who participated.
Cecilia Diemont, 1st Year Student, LUC, Co-Chair of SAIM (Student Amnesty Int. Movement)
A big thank you also goes to those students who attended the Amnesty Training Day on Wednesday. Through a very interactive and informative session led by two regional Amnesty employers, members of SAIM learnt vital information about Amnesty’s founding, the structure of the organization, worldwide membership and brainstormed for ideas for campaigns in the future. To Marianne and Naomi—thank you for coming down to visit and inspire us, and we will keep you updated on our activities!
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Fundraising result
Following our information evening and panel event on 1 April, we are proud to be able to announce that we have now raised over 2,000 euro. The money has been donated to the Red Cross.
Many thanks to all those staff, students and other participants from around the Netherlands who supported this event and this cause.
LUC and MEARC wish to extend their ongoing support to the people of Japan at this difficult time; we will not forget that the process of recovery will take a long time, and we hope to be able to play a small role in the future.
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
LUC's first Current Affairs evening
Dear staff and students of LUC,
I would like to invite you to the very first Current Affairs Night this coming Wednesday, to be held in the student lounge from 19.00-21.00 at the Lange Voorhout.
The event will be based on informal, interactive discussion about current global affairs. The aim of the evening is encouraging both students and professors alike to gain new insights and understanding of events in the news by questioning each other and being exposed to different perspectives. There will be three speakers who will shortly introduce a theme they have particular expertise in, after which there will be small scale-discussions in which everyone will be able to contribute.
The program is as follows;
19.00: Welcome and introduction
19.15: Chris Goto-Jones (on Japan)
19.30: Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (on Libya)
19.45: Aernout van Lynden ('An Arab Awakening?')
20.00: Break to refill drinks etc.
20.05-21.00: audience divided into three groups to discuss each of the topics with the respective speaker, rotating every 20 minutes
21.00: Thank you, and option to stay and continue discussion if people wish to do so
Given the interesting speakers and the close relation Current Affairs has with the LUC program, I hope to see many of you there. Besides this I believe it would be a great opportunity for students and professors to interact in a different and more informal setting, and I am looking forward to seeing the differences of perspective on the various issues between students and staff!
I hope to see you there Wednesday evening!
Best wishes,
Cecilia (1st year student, LUC)
I would like to invite you to the very first Current Affairs Night this coming Wednesday, to be held in the student lounge from 19.00-21.00 at the Lange Voorhout.
The event will be based on informal, interactive discussion about current global affairs. The aim of the evening is encouraging both students and professors alike to gain new insights and understanding of events in the news by questioning each other and being exposed to different perspectives. There will be three speakers who will shortly introduce a theme they have particular expertise in, after which there will be small scale-discussions in which everyone will be able to contribute.
The program is as follows;
19.00: Welcome and introduction
19.15: Chris Goto-Jones (on Japan)
19.30: Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (on Libya)
19.45: Aernout van Lynden ('An Arab Awakening?')
20.00: Break to refill drinks etc.
20.05-21.00: audience divided into three groups to discuss each of the topics with the respective speaker, rotating every 20 minutes
21.00: Thank you, and option to stay and continue discussion if people wish to do so
Given the interesting speakers and the close relation Current Affairs has with the LUC program, I hope to see many of you there. Besides this I believe it would be a great opportunity for students and professors to interact in a different and more informal setting, and I am looking forward to seeing the differences of perspective on the various issues between students and staff!
I hope to see you there Wednesday evening!
Best wishes,
Cecilia (1st year student, LUC)
Capitalism as the pathway to glory
Strikes, boycotts, “wild threats from anarchists” – the workers’ struggle was in full swing in late nineteenth-century America.[1] It had by this time become apparent to many of the country’s elite and oppressed alike that the rapid industrialisation of the preceding decades and the socio-economic system that resulted from it was far from perfect. Enabling a select group of individuals to live in tremendous wealth, it forced the overwhelming majority of the population into poverty. By the end of the nineteenth-century, this awareness had led numerous intellectuals to criticise the economic relations and social structures of the time, some convinced that they could not be changed, others presenting a way out of them. “Workers of the world, unite!” exclaimed Marx and Engels in their eloquently formulated attack on capitalism, The Communist Manifesto. Elsewhere, too, the socialist movement began to take flight – throughout the world the workers’ struggle expressed itself in strikes and boycotts, inspiring a sense of disdain and fear in the minds of the targeted bourgeois and a sense of hope and power in the minds of the proletariat. In Looking Backward (1888), the American novelist Edward Bellamy reveals what he perceives to be most pressing problems of the nineteenth-century – and how they are solved completely in an imaginary alternative society set a century into the future. Tellingly, this ‘perfect society’ is not the result of a violent class struggle or bloody revolution, but the result of capitalism itself – an end of the industrial evolution.
In this ideal society, the United States is prosperous because the old economy of private capital does no longer exist. Rather, it has evolved into an economy of publicly owned capital, a natural outcome of the “industrial evolution.”[2] Seeking to expand their businesses, merchants united into corporations and aggregated their capital and as such a smaller and smaller group of individuals and businesses controlled an increasingly large amount of capital. This process continued until eventually certain syndicates controlled larger flows of money than states. At this point, all business was nationalised in a final act of monopolisation: the nation became the greatest corporation of all, and its inhabitants became its employees – it is the year 2000 (though we are led to believe that the reign of selfish capitalism had ended decades before the time in which Bellamy sets this story). As the sole employer, the state owns all capital and rewards every employee. It divides the national product equally among its citizens, and is in charge of both the distribution and production of goods. Money has no use anymore, as private transactions have been abolished: everyone buys standardised products from great malls stocked by the nation with credit, an abstraction of money (which does not exist in material form). As such, no one is driven by greed for money; instead the population is driven by greed for honour – motivating every individual to work to the best of his ability.
From this brief description might have become clear that Bellamy’s utopian society shows many characteristics of a socialist society – private capital does not exist, and the entire society is organised in line with the maxim “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Yet Bellamy repeatedly bashes the “followers of the red flag” in his novel, accusing them of hindering (social) change rather than promoting it. [3] As a representative of the American bourgeois, and writing to a bourgeois audience, he could not afford (nor did he probably want to afford) to make the parallels with socialism all too clear, as the many strikes, threats of violence and boycotts did not particularly inspire solidarity in the upper classes of society – those who could force change top-down. This distrust of socialism might also explain why Bellamy chose to set his novel in the future, rather than in an elusive, contemporary, terra incognita like his literary colleague Thomas More. Would he have presented it as an already existing society, his fellow countrymen might easily associate it with ‘the socialist threat’, a concern that may have been reinforced by the fear that the socialist revolutions in Europe could be exported to the American continent.
Yet there may be another reason (and numerous other reasons, for that matter) that Bellamy chose to set his novel in a future America. It showed his contemporaries that an alternative society, a society in which labour problems are impossible, is conceivable even without giving in to socialism, as a result of capitalism – and even in America (instead of an elusive country in another part of the world). Presenting an alternative to communism and the path to glory defined by Marx and Engels, Bellamy demonstrated to his readers that even if some of Marx’ assumptions were correct a class struggle would not be the only conceivable way out of the labour problems. As such, Looking Backward might be called a counter-narrative to The Communist Manifesto – a vision of the future that was probably reassuring to the workers and propertied classes alike (‘capitalism may not be all that bad’).
At any rate, Bellamy’s utopian novel has been a huge literary success, selling millions of copies even in the nineteenth-century. Inspiring countless political movements back in its day, Looking Backward is a perfect example of how utopian literature can both reflect and shape (political) reality. It is an extraordinarily detailed book, and I have not done it justice in this brief essay which focuses merely on the socio-economic aspects Bellamy highlights in the novel. I can recommend it to everyone – it is an easy, enjoyable read which offers an intriguing insight in the problems and (perceived) solutions in late nineteenth-century America. Just don’t expect to find a blueprint for a perfect society – you’ll find that you probably would not want to live in the society outlined by Bellamy (but then, this is not where the novel derives its power from in the first place).
Barend de Rooij (1st year student, LUC)
[1] Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, rev. ed. (1888; repr.,Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, 2011), 163.
[2] Bellamy, Looking Backward, 36.
[3] Bellamy, Looking Backward, 163
The LUC Dean's Masterclass is run each semester for the students who made the honour roll in the previous semester.
In this ideal society, the United States is prosperous because the old economy of private capital does no longer exist. Rather, it has evolved into an economy of publicly owned capital, a natural outcome of the “industrial evolution.”[2] Seeking to expand their businesses, merchants united into corporations and aggregated their capital and as such a smaller and smaller group of individuals and businesses controlled an increasingly large amount of capital. This process continued until eventually certain syndicates controlled larger flows of money than states. At this point, all business was nationalised in a final act of monopolisation: the nation became the greatest corporation of all, and its inhabitants became its employees – it is the year 2000 (though we are led to believe that the reign of selfish capitalism had ended decades before the time in which Bellamy sets this story). As the sole employer, the state owns all capital and rewards every employee. It divides the national product equally among its citizens, and is in charge of both the distribution and production of goods. Money has no use anymore, as private transactions have been abolished: everyone buys standardised products from great malls stocked by the nation with credit, an abstraction of money (which does not exist in material form). As such, no one is driven by greed for money; instead the population is driven by greed for honour – motivating every individual to work to the best of his ability.
From this brief description might have become clear that Bellamy’s utopian society shows many characteristics of a socialist society – private capital does not exist, and the entire society is organised in line with the maxim “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Yet Bellamy repeatedly bashes the “followers of the red flag” in his novel, accusing them of hindering (social) change rather than promoting it. [3] As a representative of the American bourgeois, and writing to a bourgeois audience, he could not afford (nor did he probably want to afford) to make the parallels with socialism all too clear, as the many strikes, threats of violence and boycotts did not particularly inspire solidarity in the upper classes of society – those who could force change top-down. This distrust of socialism might also explain why Bellamy chose to set his novel in the future, rather than in an elusive, contemporary, terra incognita like his literary colleague Thomas More. Would he have presented it as an already existing society, his fellow countrymen might easily associate it with ‘the socialist threat’, a concern that may have been reinforced by the fear that the socialist revolutions in Europe could be exported to the American continent.
Yet there may be another reason (and numerous other reasons, for that matter) that Bellamy chose to set his novel in a future America. It showed his contemporaries that an alternative society, a society in which labour problems are impossible, is conceivable even without giving in to socialism, as a result of capitalism – and even in America (instead of an elusive country in another part of the world). Presenting an alternative to communism and the path to glory defined by Marx and Engels, Bellamy demonstrated to his readers that even if some of Marx’ assumptions were correct a class struggle would not be the only conceivable way out of the labour problems. As such, Looking Backward might be called a counter-narrative to The Communist Manifesto – a vision of the future that was probably reassuring to the workers and propertied classes alike (‘capitalism may not be all that bad’).
At any rate, Bellamy’s utopian novel has been a huge literary success, selling millions of copies even in the nineteenth-century. Inspiring countless political movements back in its day, Looking Backward is a perfect example of how utopian literature can both reflect and shape (political) reality. It is an extraordinarily detailed book, and I have not done it justice in this brief essay which focuses merely on the socio-economic aspects Bellamy highlights in the novel. I can recommend it to everyone – it is an easy, enjoyable read which offers an intriguing insight in the problems and (perceived) solutions in late nineteenth-century America. Just don’t expect to find a blueprint for a perfect society – you’ll find that you probably would not want to live in the society outlined by Bellamy (but then, this is not where the novel derives its power from in the first place).
Barend de Rooij (1st year student, LUC)
[1] Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, rev. ed. (1888; repr.,Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, 2011), 163.
[2] Bellamy, Looking Backward, 36.
[3] Bellamy, Looking Backward, 163
The LUC Dean's Masterclass is run each semester for the students who made the honour roll in the previous semester.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Espinoza on inequality in Latin America
Professor Espinoza is professor at the Universidad de Santiago de Chile and holds the Andres Bello Chair at Leiden University in 2011. He is well known for his work on inequality, social networks, social mobility and community.
LUC is delighted to be able to host Professor Espinoza during his stay in The Netherlands. He will talk about the reasons for the persistency of inequality despite great advances in affluence in Latin America, and also about the reasons why such inequalities are considered problematic. He will consider this situation from the standpoint of policy and social mechanism.
The seminar will be at the usual time and place: at LUC's manor building (LV44) at 16.15-18.00 on Wednesday 20th April. A poster with further information is here.
Students will be interested to know that LUC's first current affairs evening will take place after this event in the college lounge, from 19-21.00.
LUC is delighted to be able to host Professor Espinoza during his stay in The Netherlands. He will talk about the reasons for the persistency of inequality despite great advances in affluence in Latin America, and also about the reasons why such inequalities are considered problematic. He will consider this situation from the standpoint of policy and social mechanism.
The seminar will be at the usual time and place: at LUC's manor building (LV44) at 16.15-18.00 on Wednesday 20th April. A poster with further information is here.
Students will be interested to know that LUC's first current affairs evening will take place after this event in the college lounge, from 19-21.00.
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Suganami on the causes of war
Hidemi Suganami studied International Relations at Tokyo University, University of Wales, and the London School of Economics. He taught International Relations at Keele University in England (1975-2004) where he held a personal chair in the Philosophy of International Relations. He currently teaches at Aberystwyth University, Wales, where he is Professor in the Department of International Politics. His publications include The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals (1989), On the Causes of War (1996) and, with Andrew Linklater, The English School of International Relations (2006). He is currently working on the relationship between history, theory and ideology in the study of international relations.
In his seminar, Professor Suganami intends to cover questions such as: (1) Are there some standard ways in which war comes about? (2) How should we respond to the finding, which has caused much excitement among IR scholars, that there is no war between democracies? (3) Isn’t there a case for suggesting, as historians tend to do, that each war has its unique set of causes? (4) What is the relationship between the accounts we give to the occurrences of war and the ways in which they come about? And, finally, (5) how does our analysis change its content when we shift our focus away from war between sovereign states towards different kinds of war?
More details are here (poster).
Students interested in doing some preparatory reading can look here and here.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
七転び八起き
First of all, I would like to express my sympathy with the victims of the disaster in Japan and all of those involved. To remain strong in such a horrendous situation deserves nothing but respect and high esteem. Furthermore, many thanks to the organisers of Friday’s information evening. Besides answering many of the visitors’ questions, the evening also symbolised an inspiring feeling of commiseration for those in peril. The widespread and palpable feeling of solidarity last Friday gave me an insight in the potential of LUC the Hague. Besides functioning as a regular university college, LUC could become a platform for information on contemporary affairs and situations in the world. As students and staff of the very first year of LUC, it is our responsibility to live up to the mission statement “building knowledge for a better world”. Important events such as the information evening about Japan are the true foundation of the process of building for a better world. By listening to, observing and interacting with leading experts in the fields of different global challenges, students can create the necessary awareness for a necessary better world. On a planet where nature is not always on our side and vice versa, future scholars or policy makers should be aware of the risks and dangers of life on earth. LUC can serve as a distributor of knowledge that could enable us to live on earth our earth sustainably, safely and peacefully. As scholars and students, we have the duty to learn from disasters and horrors in order to learn to deal with them in the future . I would like to end this short blog entry with a Japanese saying that a friend of mine once told me: 七転び八起き(nana korobi - ya oki), Fall seven times – get up eight.
Jules Marc van der Sneppen (1st year student, LUC)
Jules Marc van der Sneppen (1st year student, LUC)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)