by Jonathan Boswell & Henry Tam
Communitarian concerns for mutuality and solidarity can be traced back to ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers and mainstream world religions. They came to be embraced in action by working class movements, cooperative Owenites and others in the 19th century. The ethos of cultivating democratic cooperation to build inclusive communities, where none will be left to the whim and mercy of others, became an inspiration to all who want an alternative to regimes that only regard might (military, hierarchical, or increasingly, economic) as right.
With the rampant rise of market individualism in the 1980s, the two of us (both academics – one ex-industry and politics, the other with experience from national and local government), decided to set out what communitarianism should mean in theory and practice if it is to help society navigate through the battering of plutocratic forces.
Jonathan Boswell’s book on democratic communitarianism, Community and the Economy (1990), argued for prioritising values of fraternity, complementary association and democratic participation. It examined public co-operation in the economy, and proposed arrangements whereby sectional interests could better co-operate with each other and government in the interests of social norms and public policies.
Henry Tam’s book, Communitarianism: A New Agenda for Politics and Citizenship (1998) attacked both individualism and authoritarianism. It argued for the ideal of inclusive communities based on the principles of co-operative enquiry, mutual responsibility and citizen participation. These were applied to the development of education, work and protection for citizens across state, business and third sectors.
Both books were widely reviewed and came to define the reform focus of communitarianism. We warned against allowing the Thatcherite-Reaganite ideology of the unrestrained market to corrode society and the economy. Sadly, however, plutocracy has since triumphed over the timid reform agenda of New Labour. We now have big money dominating government; public services relentlessly contracted out or sold off; accelerating disparities in income and wealth; deregulation unleashing greed, speculative frenzy and financial crisis; and failed banking institutions requiring bailouts, burdening the state with massive deficits. On top of it all, we have bone-headedly misguided economic policies, already producing miserable results for all but the privileged few.
So who is to be entrusted with rebuilding our crisis-torn economies and social fabrics? Up to 2010, our approach was to keep all political channels open. We placed a lot of emphasis on the voluntary, local and educational. We looked to civil society to play a key role, separate from party politics, as well as independent of both central government and the market. But in the light of what the present Government is doing to the UK, a party political strategy is no longer optional.
A new government is urgently needed to redress the damage and ensure those with an abundance of resources they have accumulated on the back of others’ hard work, will contribute to the common good. We've concluded that only the Labour Party is in a position to form such a government. But to succeed, Labour must face up to three key challenges.
First, it must be clear that it has learnt the lesson on the deregulations which helped to ruin the economy and distort public finances. It must be prepared to take vigorous state action to confront the problems of unethical, anti-social banking; over-mighty corporate lobbies; media irresponsibility; and massive tax avoidance. It should show leadership in investing in growth, employment, and affordable housing. It should recognise that to support these aims richer forms of public co-operation will be needed.
Secondly, it needs to promote social, civic and collaborative criteria, not competitive ones, in all public services from health and welfare, to education and criminal justice. Local government needs to be reinforced and empowered with real freedom, not financially decapitated. And it should ensure that citizens are aware of and involved in the development of decisions that affect them.
Thirdly, a Labour government should promote co-operative enterprises and both worker and community involvement in business in the private sector. It should also improve civic education and nurture public interest forums at local as well as national levels, as these will be important as bridges between social, economic, environmental and other groupings.
Blue Labour advocates have invoked some elements of communitarian thinking in their attempt to refocus British politics. In our view, the only worthy government would be one committed to meeting the communitarian challenges in full in reversing the growth of inequalities, rebuilding social solidarity, and reinvigorating a cooperative economy. That is the path to put our fragmented communities back together in one inclusive nation.
[Communitarian ideas were taken forward in the US too by eminent colleagues such as Amitai Etzioni, Philip Selznick, Charles Derber and Robert Bellah; and currently these ideas appear to have a major part to play in President Obama's Second Term.]
Friday, 15 February 2013
Friday, 1 February 2013
No, Minister
The Forum for Youth Participation & Democracy (University of Cambridge) has launched its 2013 ‘No, Minister’ poll. The aim of the exercise is to challenge the misconception that all politicians in government are the same, by raising awareness of the esteem or reprobation members of the public attach to different Ministers.
Democracy can be damaged not only by crude cynicism – dismissing every political agent as equally bad; but also by naïve neutrality – giving everyone the continuous benefit of the doubt. By pooling citizens’ views of what different Government Ministers have done, we can more effectively promote informed participation in politics.
The ‘No, Minister’ poll is conceived as an antidote to the outmoded ‘Yes, Minister’ caricature of British politics, which presents Government Ministers as innocents abroad at the mercy of their manipulative civil servants. The reality is quite different. In recent decades Ministers have invariably set out their preferred policies, and civil servants have increasingly striven to deliver them even if, in certain cases, speed can only be achieved at the expense of more extensive scrutiny.
So how does the ‘No, Minister’ poll work?
1. You can put forward up to three Secretaries of State you would like to see ejected from their posts: just send their names along with your reason (tweet to @HenryBTam or email to hbt21@cam.ac.uk)
2. You can do the same for up to three Secretaries of State you would like to see retained in their posts.
3. The results will provide a basis for reviewing how the public think about the people who hold the highest political offices in the country.
4. Poll closes 15 March 2013 (names of participants in the poll will not be published)
Our objective is not to conduct a scientific poll, but to prompt reflections on the impact Ministers have on society. The votes and reasons will be collated, with the results published in April on the website of the Forum for Youth Participation & Democracy.
[For the ‘No, Minister’ poll, votes are only to be cast for full Cabinet members, not those who may attend Cabinet meetings. For a current list, see: http://www.number10.gov.uk/the-coalition/the-cabinet/]
Democracy can be damaged not only by crude cynicism – dismissing every political agent as equally bad; but also by naïve neutrality – giving everyone the continuous benefit of the doubt. By pooling citizens’ views of what different Government Ministers have done, we can more effectively promote informed participation in politics.
The ‘No, Minister’ poll is conceived as an antidote to the outmoded ‘Yes, Minister’ caricature of British politics, which presents Government Ministers as innocents abroad at the mercy of their manipulative civil servants. The reality is quite different. In recent decades Ministers have invariably set out their preferred policies, and civil servants have increasingly striven to deliver them even if, in certain cases, speed can only be achieved at the expense of more extensive scrutiny.
So how does the ‘No, Minister’ poll work?
1. You can put forward up to three Secretaries of State you would like to see ejected from their posts: just send their names along with your reason (tweet to @HenryBTam or email to hbt21@cam.ac.uk)
2. You can do the same for up to three Secretaries of State you would like to see retained in their posts.
3. The results will provide a basis for reviewing how the public think about the people who hold the highest political offices in the country.
4. Poll closes 15 March 2013 (names of participants in the poll will not be published)
Our objective is not to conduct a scientific poll, but to prompt reflections on the impact Ministers have on society. The votes and reasons will be collated, with the results published in April on the website of the Forum for Youth Participation & Democracy.
[For the ‘No, Minister’ poll, votes are only to be cast for full Cabinet members, not those who may attend Cabinet meetings. For a current list, see: http://www.number10.gov.uk/the-coalition/the-cabinet/]
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Leave No One Behind
The military ethos that true patriots uphold has nothing to do with macho posturing or jingoistic flag-waving. What matters is dedication to one simple motto: leave no one behind.
There is no greater test of the love of our country than being ready to defend our fellow citizens when they are under threat from forces, which would otherwise overrun them. This solidarity transcends all other differences. Only cowards and bigots would say ‘I’m alright, Jack’, and leave others behind just because they are women (or men), gay (or straight), black (or white), secular (or religious), poor (or rich). In the face of danger, we are all equal.
And as those who have been in the military know, it is not just an enemy’s bullet or bomb that can hurt us. Safe and effective transportation, decent living quarters, provision of healthy food and medical care are all needed to keep people fit and safe.
But is the ethos of solidarity only relevant on the battlefield? Are we to suppose that before any threat to our common safety is in sight, we should each look only to oneself and care nothing for others? And similarly, as soon as the fight is over, are we to forget the maxim of watching one another’s back? There is undoubtedly some who would like nothing more than everyone else rallying to protect them when they feel endangered but care nothing for others at other times. Yet the majority of us recognise standing together means no opting out.
In the UK, for example, after the Second World War, voters decided the threats of disease, squalor, ignorance, idleness and want could not be overcome without collective efforts to protect one and all. Despite the national debt as % of GDP being 3 times that of the debt level created by the 2008 banking crisis, the country pulled together to build security for all. Social housing, the NHS, inclusive education, police and military defence, benefits for those unable to work or temporarily without a job, combined to give all citizens the protection they need. It in turn fuelled a vibrant economy.
Regrettably, some of those who profited from prosperous times since then have decided to withdraw behind their moats and pull up the drawbridge. They no longer want to contribute to the collective good, and want those less fortunate to suffer on their own. They will pay themselves more while make others redundant. Anyone who cannot get a job; earn enough money; are sick, disabled or too old; they will without a second thought jettison. They will even claim that they are the custodians of their country’s interest.
But real patriots will not put up with anyone hijacking the flag of our nation, or demeaning our democratic fellowship. We know we are at our strongest when we refuse to be divided. So let us recover our common protection, and ensure that however adverse the circumstances, we shall as one nation leave no one behind.
There is no greater test of the love of our country than being ready to defend our fellow citizens when they are under threat from forces, which would otherwise overrun them. This solidarity transcends all other differences. Only cowards and bigots would say ‘I’m alright, Jack’, and leave others behind just because they are women (or men), gay (or straight), black (or white), secular (or religious), poor (or rich). In the face of danger, we are all equal.
And as those who have been in the military know, it is not just an enemy’s bullet or bomb that can hurt us. Safe and effective transportation, decent living quarters, provision of healthy food and medical care are all needed to keep people fit and safe.
But is the ethos of solidarity only relevant on the battlefield? Are we to suppose that before any threat to our common safety is in sight, we should each look only to oneself and care nothing for others? And similarly, as soon as the fight is over, are we to forget the maxim of watching one another’s back? There is undoubtedly some who would like nothing more than everyone else rallying to protect them when they feel endangered but care nothing for others at other times. Yet the majority of us recognise standing together means no opting out.
In the UK, for example, after the Second World War, voters decided the threats of disease, squalor, ignorance, idleness and want could not be overcome without collective efforts to protect one and all. Despite the national debt as % of GDP being 3 times that of the debt level created by the 2008 banking crisis, the country pulled together to build security for all. Social housing, the NHS, inclusive education, police and military defence, benefits for those unable to work or temporarily without a job, combined to give all citizens the protection they need. It in turn fuelled a vibrant economy.
Regrettably, some of those who profited from prosperous times since then have decided to withdraw behind their moats and pull up the drawbridge. They no longer want to contribute to the collective good, and want those less fortunate to suffer on their own. They will pay themselves more while make others redundant. Anyone who cannot get a job; earn enough money; are sick, disabled or too old; they will without a second thought jettison. They will even claim that they are the custodians of their country’s interest.
But real patriots will not put up with anyone hijacking the flag of our nation, or demeaning our democratic fellowship. We know we are at our strongest when we refuse to be divided. So let us recover our common protection, and ensure that however adverse the circumstances, we shall as one nation leave no one behind.
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
Like to Teach the World to Vote?
Give people a vote,
The illusion of having secured democracy may last a day or two.
Teach people how to vote,
And they can mobilise as citizens for the rest of their lives.
What we all too often hear in Britain, America and elsewhere is that there is no point in using the vote. The vote, allegedly, won’t change anything because the people standing for public office are all as bad as each other – which anyone who has worked with politicians would know is not true; and their proposals are basically the same – which is patently false when the policy differences can be measured in the vast number of people given or deprived of vital assistance.
The main reason why so many people feel that having a vote is irrelevant is because it is presented to them like a mystery gift, with no explanation of how to make use of it. They hear one set of politicians saying they should vote for them, and another lot arguing to the contrary. One side attacking those in government, and the other denouncing their critics. As words and figures clash, confusion is spread, and many end up either voting for the party saying the things they like to hear, or they don’t bother voting at all.
Without informed guidance on how to interpret politicians’ claims, voters are effectively disempowered. Imagine what would happen to the jury system if the lawyers for the prosecution and the defense can say whatever they like with no judge to rule out irrelevant diversions or strike out baseless assertions. Or how patients may cope with presentations from two rival doctors competing to treat them (and obtain their fees) without any body untied to profit-making to arbitrate on claims of miracle cures or groundless warnings.
Politicians will no doubt be concerned with anyone providing guidance on how to make sense of their arguments, and will understandably try to dismiss any advice contrary to their own position as unfairly partisan. But there already exist many research institutions, whose independence can be validated by the absence of funding from party or profiteering sources, which are capable of assessing the implications of policy proposals and the consequences of their implementation.
Educators should not be afraid or hesitant in teaching others how to navigate the claims of politicians, look behind the rhetoric, check the veracity of conflicting assertions, and ascertain the consequences for them and society more widely with one party rather than another in power. Furthermore, they should help citizens learn about the impact of their vote under different systems so as to maximise it for existing electoral arrangements and enhance it through future reforms.
And to provide an impartial framework for ensuring activities relating to electoral discussions and voting practices do not breach democratic propriety, we can build on the work of well established institutions such as (in the UK) the Electoral Commission; and (in the US) the Federal Election Commission.
So teachers in schools and tutors of lifelong learning, if you have acquired a critical understanding of how politics works, don’t keep it to yourselves, share it with your students – the future of democracy depends on it.
The illusion of having secured democracy may last a day or two.
Teach people how to vote,
And they can mobilise as citizens for the rest of their lives.
What we all too often hear in Britain, America and elsewhere is that there is no point in using the vote. The vote, allegedly, won’t change anything because the people standing for public office are all as bad as each other – which anyone who has worked with politicians would know is not true; and their proposals are basically the same – which is patently false when the policy differences can be measured in the vast number of people given or deprived of vital assistance.
The main reason why so many people feel that having a vote is irrelevant is because it is presented to them like a mystery gift, with no explanation of how to make use of it. They hear one set of politicians saying they should vote for them, and another lot arguing to the contrary. One side attacking those in government, and the other denouncing their critics. As words and figures clash, confusion is spread, and many end up either voting for the party saying the things they like to hear, or they don’t bother voting at all.
Without informed guidance on how to interpret politicians’ claims, voters are effectively disempowered. Imagine what would happen to the jury system if the lawyers for the prosecution and the defense can say whatever they like with no judge to rule out irrelevant diversions or strike out baseless assertions. Or how patients may cope with presentations from two rival doctors competing to treat them (and obtain their fees) without any body untied to profit-making to arbitrate on claims of miracle cures or groundless warnings.
Politicians will no doubt be concerned with anyone providing guidance on how to make sense of their arguments, and will understandably try to dismiss any advice contrary to their own position as unfairly partisan. But there already exist many research institutions, whose independence can be validated by the absence of funding from party or profiteering sources, which are capable of assessing the implications of policy proposals and the consequences of their implementation.
Educators should not be afraid or hesitant in teaching others how to navigate the claims of politicians, look behind the rhetoric, check the veracity of conflicting assertions, and ascertain the consequences for them and society more widely with one party rather than another in power. Furthermore, they should help citizens learn about the impact of their vote under different systems so as to maximise it for existing electoral arrangements and enhance it through future reforms.
And to provide an impartial framework for ensuring activities relating to electoral discussions and voting practices do not breach democratic propriety, we can build on the work of well established institutions such as (in the UK) the Electoral Commission; and (in the US) the Federal Election Commission.
So teachers in schools and tutors of lifelong learning, if you have acquired a critical understanding of how politics works, don’t keep it to yourselves, share it with your students – the future of democracy depends on it.
Friday, 21 December 2012
Who’s Afraid of Father Christmas?
[Sir Reginald Pratt, one of the most celebrated entrepreneurs and philanthropists in the world, and widely known to his friends in the City as ‘Father Christmas’, has once again agreed to be interviewed by ‘Question the Powerful’. When we met, he had recently returned from abroad.]
Q: You’ve been away for nearly six months. Have you missed Britain?
R: Terribly. I can’t tell you what it’s like not being able to look in on my estates or catch up with old friends in the City. But the tax system here is dreadful. It leaves me no choice but to spend a lot of time in my other homes around the world.
Q: What kind of changes to the tax regime might entice you back to these shores?
R: Funny you should say that. I was just talking to young Osborne the other day about it. Basically, the scale of tax rates should be reversed. So the more you earn, the lower % you pay.
Q: You mean anything above, for example, £150,000 should be taxed at a lower rate than 20%?
R: No, no, at each higher threshold, the tax rate for your entire income should be reduced. I would say that once you’ve reached an annual income of, say, £1 million, you shouldn’t pay any tax at all.
Q: You’re serious about this?
R: Don’t you see, it would be a splendid incentive for people to earn more money for themselves. And people on low income paying high taxes would only have themselves to blame. Osborne loved the idea, wished he had thought of it himself, but poor chap, hasn’t quite got it up there.
Q: Wouldn’t that impoverish the state? Who would pay for our public services?
R: Well, that’s where Britain is showing some signs of improvement. You let brilliant entrepreneurs like us keep our money, the state has to cut back on everything, and before you know it, 90% or more of the population will be without proper healthcare, job security, not even basic fire or policing service. They would be completely dependent on the charity of the rich. Then finally they would learn to respect us, defer to our better judgement, and learn to do as they’re told.
Q: You think charity will be sufficient to help all the sick and feed those going hungry?
R: That’s not the point of charity. Charity is about feelings. For the riffraff, it’s that desperate feeling in hoping that some kind soul might rescue you. For us benefactors, it is a noble feeling in sensing that we can do something for these wretched people.
Q: But don’t you think more people would suffer when we displace public support by private charity?
R: ‘Suffer’ is a relative term. The real problem is that people don’t appreciate they have it so good. They should learn to complain a little less, and be thankful for what we let them have a little more.
Q: And what are you letting them have once you stop paying your taxes altogether?
R: Charity, my dear fellow, gifts freely given. Talking of which I must be off - got to go to an event in some inner London borough where there are lots of poor people. My office elves are coming along with me to give out the best present they will ever have.
Q: Blankets, food parcels, a job with one of your companies?
R: Better than all those combined – they will each get a signed copy of my autobiography, Who’s Afraid of Father Christmas? A wonderful book about how I’ve always managed to persuade the regulators not to fret about my business activities. It really is quite an unbelievable story.
[For observations between QTP posts, go to my Twitter account (@HenryBTam) and click ‘Follow’.
For our interview with ‘Father Christmas’ last year, see: http://henry-tam.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/santa-city-xmas-special.html]
Q: You’ve been away for nearly six months. Have you missed Britain?
R: Terribly. I can’t tell you what it’s like not being able to look in on my estates or catch up with old friends in the City. But the tax system here is dreadful. It leaves me no choice but to spend a lot of time in my other homes around the world.
Q: What kind of changes to the tax regime might entice you back to these shores?
R: Funny you should say that. I was just talking to young Osborne the other day about it. Basically, the scale of tax rates should be reversed. So the more you earn, the lower % you pay.
Q: You mean anything above, for example, £150,000 should be taxed at a lower rate than 20%?
R: No, no, at each higher threshold, the tax rate for your entire income should be reduced. I would say that once you’ve reached an annual income of, say, £1 million, you shouldn’t pay any tax at all.
Q: You’re serious about this?
R: Don’t you see, it would be a splendid incentive for people to earn more money for themselves. And people on low income paying high taxes would only have themselves to blame. Osborne loved the idea, wished he had thought of it himself, but poor chap, hasn’t quite got it up there.
Q: Wouldn’t that impoverish the state? Who would pay for our public services?
R: Well, that’s where Britain is showing some signs of improvement. You let brilliant entrepreneurs like us keep our money, the state has to cut back on everything, and before you know it, 90% or more of the population will be without proper healthcare, job security, not even basic fire or policing service. They would be completely dependent on the charity of the rich. Then finally they would learn to respect us, defer to our better judgement, and learn to do as they’re told.
Q: You think charity will be sufficient to help all the sick and feed those going hungry?
R: That’s not the point of charity. Charity is about feelings. For the riffraff, it’s that desperate feeling in hoping that some kind soul might rescue you. For us benefactors, it is a noble feeling in sensing that we can do something for these wretched people.
Q: But don’t you think more people would suffer when we displace public support by private charity?
R: ‘Suffer’ is a relative term. The real problem is that people don’t appreciate they have it so good. They should learn to complain a little less, and be thankful for what we let them have a little more.
Q: And what are you letting them have once you stop paying your taxes altogether?
R: Charity, my dear fellow, gifts freely given. Talking of which I must be off - got to go to an event in some inner London borough where there are lots of poor people. My office elves are coming along with me to give out the best present they will ever have.
Q: Blankets, food parcels, a job with one of your companies?
R: Better than all those combined – they will each get a signed copy of my autobiography, Who’s Afraid of Father Christmas? A wonderful book about how I’ve always managed to persuade the regulators not to fret about my business activities. It really is quite an unbelievable story.
[For observations between QTP posts, go to my Twitter account (@HenryBTam) and click ‘Follow’.
For our interview with ‘Father Christmas’ last year, see: http://henry-tam.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/santa-city-xmas-special.html]
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Tune into UN 194: the Sound of a Beautiful Resistance
Last month the UN voted overwhelmingly to recognize Palestine as the world’s 194th state. By an apt coincidence it was UN Resolution 194 (passed in 1948) that recognized the rights of Palestinian people to return to their homes after they were forcibly removed to make way for what would then be converted into the state of Israel. But 64 years on, they have not been allowed to return.
Many Israelis empathise with the plight of the Palestinians. They understand all too well what it means for a people to be told at gunpoint to leave their homes, and transported to camps to which they would be confined to their dying days. But their voices are blocked out by others who are oblivious to the cruel irony of telling Palestinians to put up with being permanently expelled from where they had lived all their lives.
In the face of such intransigence, what can Palestinian people do? What the media focus on is invariably where anger, frustration, resentment have reached boiling point and erupted in violence. Such violence then fuels stories about Palestinian threats and attacks on Israelis, serving as the backdrop for Israel’s military operations. For example, between 2000 and 2012, the media reported over 1,000 Israelis killed by Palestinians (during that time, 6,600+ Palestinians were killed by Israelis; see:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html)
Tragically, the taking of innocent lives can only lead to a spiral of bloodshed. It is therefore all the more remarkable to find in this seemingly hopeless situation a path to what has been fittingly called acts of ‘Beautiful Resistance’. In 1998 Dr. Abdelfattah Abusrour set up the Alrowwad Cultural & Theatre Society (http://www.alrowwad.org/) to give young people in the Palestinian Aida Camp a chance to express themselves through the non-violent channels of art and drama.
Young people are not told to ignore the injustice that daily confronts them. Instead, they are guided to reflect on and show their feelings through a variety of aesthetic activities: dancing, taking photographs, and acting in plays. Neither they nor the outside world should forget what has happened to them, but there is no need for guns or explosives to remind people of what had gone wrong. In place of the counter-productive outbursts of violence, which would only beget more injuries and deaths, political energy is poured into a potent form of resistance.
You probably won’t hear about it in the mainstream media, but in March 2013, Alrowwad will be celebrating their 15th anniversary. They have kept going with the help of volunteers and donations. And they need help to carry their work forward.
This Christmas when ‘Bethlehem’ is whispered along with a gentle soundtrack, think not just of one child being born away from home, but of thousands – born, growing up, stranded in camps remote from the homes of their parents and grandparents.
To find out how you can support the Beautiful Resistance, go to:
Friends of Al-Rowwad (US): http://alrowwadusa.org/home;
Friends of Alrowwad (UK): http://www.friendsofalrowwad.co.uk/donate.html; or
Société des amis d’Alrowwad (France): http://www.amis-alrowwad.org.
Many Israelis empathise with the plight of the Palestinians. They understand all too well what it means for a people to be told at gunpoint to leave their homes, and transported to camps to which they would be confined to their dying days. But their voices are blocked out by others who are oblivious to the cruel irony of telling Palestinians to put up with being permanently expelled from where they had lived all their lives.
In the face of such intransigence, what can Palestinian people do? What the media focus on is invariably where anger, frustration, resentment have reached boiling point and erupted in violence. Such violence then fuels stories about Palestinian threats and attacks on Israelis, serving as the backdrop for Israel’s military operations. For example, between 2000 and 2012, the media reported over 1,000 Israelis killed by Palestinians (during that time, 6,600+ Palestinians were killed by Israelis; see:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html)
Tragically, the taking of innocent lives can only lead to a spiral of bloodshed. It is therefore all the more remarkable to find in this seemingly hopeless situation a path to what has been fittingly called acts of ‘Beautiful Resistance’. In 1998 Dr. Abdelfattah Abusrour set up the Alrowwad Cultural & Theatre Society (http://www.alrowwad.org/) to give young people in the Palestinian Aida Camp a chance to express themselves through the non-violent channels of art and drama.
Young people are not told to ignore the injustice that daily confronts them. Instead, they are guided to reflect on and show their feelings through a variety of aesthetic activities: dancing, taking photographs, and acting in plays. Neither they nor the outside world should forget what has happened to them, but there is no need for guns or explosives to remind people of what had gone wrong. In place of the counter-productive outbursts of violence, which would only beget more injuries and deaths, political energy is poured into a potent form of resistance.
You probably won’t hear about it in the mainstream media, but in March 2013, Alrowwad will be celebrating their 15th anniversary. They have kept going with the help of volunteers and donations. And they need help to carry their work forward.
This Christmas when ‘Bethlehem’ is whispered along with a gentle soundtrack, think not just of one child being born away from home, but of thousands – born, growing up, stranded in camps remote from the homes of their parents and grandparents.
To find out how you can support the Beautiful Resistance, go to:
Friends of Al-Rowwad (US): http://alrowwadusa.org/home;
Friends of Alrowwad (UK): http://www.friendsofalrowwad.co.uk/donate.html; or
Société des amis d’Alrowwad (France): http://www.amis-alrowwad.org.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
Dreaming of a Dark Christmas
As Christmas approaches, the contrast between luxurious display and bleak poverty intensifies ever more.
Could things be otherwise? At this time of year, there is no shortage of dramatic imagination to show up possible alternative endings to human misery. In one or another version of ‘A Christmas Carol’, you will see that if only selfish people like Ebeneezer Scrooge became kind and generous, all would be well. And if you tune in to the inevitable screening of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, you will find that George Bailey should just keep faith in the goodness of other folks, who would inevitably come to the rescue of the less fortunate.
Are these the best stories we can tell? What about the systemic inequality that concentrates power in a small elite, enabling them to exploit the rest, leaving those at the bottom of the pile crushed and humiliated? Why can’t we draw on tales that will show up the real causes of suffering in society, and what changes are actually necessary beyond the fluff of feel-good movies?
This Christmas please help spread the word about a dark fable that is has been acclaimed as “an unmissable page-turner” (President, the Independent Publishers Guild); “original, engaging … [with an ending that is] astonishing” (Fantasy Book Review); and “a tour de force … full of plot surprises and layers of deeper meaning” (Director of Education, WEA). Kuan’s Wonderland is a novel that takes the reader on a roller-coaster ride of suspense and surreal adventure, and at the same time paints a vivid picture of what lies beneath the unjust and callous treatment of the vulnerable in society.
Kuan’s Wonderland has been selected for inclusion by the Equality Trust (see their review: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/node/696) in an Equality Education Project it will be taking forward in 2013. I am working with the Trust to produce learning resources to aid discussion amongst readers and teachers about its ideas, allusions and relevance to contemporary politics.
The novel can currently be downloaded as an e-book from Amazon for just £0.77 (but there will be no charge at all during the limited period of 7-11 December). If you do not have a Kindle, you can get a free app from Amazon to enable you to download the book to your iPad, laptop, desktop, or just about any type of computer device.
If you’re in the UK, go to:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kuans-Wonderland-ebook/dp/B008144G9I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336413074&sr=8-1
If you’re in the US, go to:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008144G9I
[Feedback from readers would be of great help to me in developing the learning resources for schools. If you would like to be involved or find out more about this equality education project, you can contact Henry Tam, Cambridge University at: hbt21@cam.ac.uk]
Could things be otherwise? At this time of year, there is no shortage of dramatic imagination to show up possible alternative endings to human misery. In one or another version of ‘A Christmas Carol’, you will see that if only selfish people like Ebeneezer Scrooge became kind and generous, all would be well. And if you tune in to the inevitable screening of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, you will find that George Bailey should just keep faith in the goodness of other folks, who would inevitably come to the rescue of the less fortunate.
Are these the best stories we can tell? What about the systemic inequality that concentrates power in a small elite, enabling them to exploit the rest, leaving those at the bottom of the pile crushed and humiliated? Why can’t we draw on tales that will show up the real causes of suffering in society, and what changes are actually necessary beyond the fluff of feel-good movies?
This Christmas please help spread the word about a dark fable that is has been acclaimed as “an unmissable page-turner” (President, the Independent Publishers Guild); “original, engaging … [with an ending that is] astonishing” (Fantasy Book Review); and “a tour de force … full of plot surprises and layers of deeper meaning” (Director of Education, WEA). Kuan’s Wonderland is a novel that takes the reader on a roller-coaster ride of suspense and surreal adventure, and at the same time paints a vivid picture of what lies beneath the unjust and callous treatment of the vulnerable in society.
Kuan’s Wonderland has been selected for inclusion by the Equality Trust (see their review: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/node/696) in an Equality Education Project it will be taking forward in 2013. I am working with the Trust to produce learning resources to aid discussion amongst readers and teachers about its ideas, allusions and relevance to contemporary politics.
The novel can currently be downloaded as an e-book from Amazon for just £0.77 (but there will be no charge at all during the limited period of 7-11 December). If you do not have a Kindle, you can get a free app from Amazon to enable you to download the book to your iPad, laptop, desktop, or just about any type of computer device.
If you’re in the UK, go to:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kuans-Wonderland-ebook/dp/B008144G9I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336413074&sr=8-1
If you’re in the US, go to:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008144G9I
[Feedback from readers would be of great help to me in developing the learning resources for schools. If you would like to be involved or find out more about this equality education project, you can contact Henry Tam, Cambridge University at: hbt21@cam.ac.uk]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)