It is often said these days that progressives must engage with the ‘values’ of the neglected masses. And what values are we talking about here? Apparently, these are values founded on a deep-seated antipathy towards the outlook of the so-called liberal ‘elite’. Angry traditionalists, we are told, are fed up with out-of-touch modernists and their being open-minded about everything. But should we start queuing up to spout the ‘greatness’ of how it used to be?
Let’s look at a few stand-out issues. First and foremost, there is the narrow, monolithic ‘we’ who want to have their neighbourhood, religion, country, and customs, just the way they were back in the ‘golden age’ (before those foreigners arrived). That’s pitted against the cosmopolitan, multicultural, ‘anywherers’/’citizens of nowhere’ who allegedly have no sense of belonging or proper identity. In reality, people with diverse skin colours, accents, faiths, customs, backgrounds, have been cooperating and enriching each other’s lives for centuries. It is an established fact that in areas where there is more mixed interaction, people are more positive about diversity, whereas in places with low immigration or rigid social segregation, there is greater distrust and unease about ‘newcomers’. The way forward is to promote more social mixing and collaborative community ventures.
Secondly, open-mindedness about family structures and gender roles is another common target. Right-wing populists champion ‘values’ that are associated with the traditional male-dominated family model, and are often found to speak up against gender equality, same sex marriage, or tougher enforcement to tackle sexist abuse or domestic violence. Far from endorsing outmoded prejudices dressed up as ‘traditional values’, progressives should point positively to examples of thriving relationships and happy families that are not hampered by discriminatory attitudes.
Thirdly, the problem of insecurity can be dealt with through an open-minded pragmatic approach to see what works best, or it can be confronted with force regardless of circumstances. Those yearning for good old macho toughness will instinctively back the bombing and invasion of foreign countries, detention of suspects without trials, lengthy prison sentence irrespective of the offence, and capital punishment even when critical testimony has been retracted. By contrast, if one really wants greater security, one should be willing to explore what is actually going to be most effective under different conditions – choosing and combining, e.g., deploying diplomacy and/or armed intervention; opting for incarceration and/or rehabilitation; granting a second chance and/or imposing tough penalties.
Finally, and in general, those who crave for certainty without having to engage in thoughtful assessment are always more susceptible to demagogic rhetoric that feeds their prejudices, hands them false promises, and manipulates them to serve someone else’s ambitions. But to find answers that will truly attain for them a better quality of life, they should be assisted with improved understanding of how objective analyses and empirical investigations work, and supported by open-minded examination to arrive at the most reliable paths to reach their goals.
Those running scared of right-wing populists may want progressives to start espousing blinkered views because they think that would be an electoral asset. But the rest of us should enhance our outreach and cooperate with all citizens in learning to test out what will really help us individually and collectively.
We should be confident in our inclusive values and proud of our open-mindedness.
Friday, 1 November 2019
Tuesday, 15 October 2019
The Politics of Saints & Sinners
When more people want their political leaders to be absolute saints who stand on the side of the angels on every conceivable issue, the less likely it is they will find anyone good enough for them to help society in times of need. By contrast, when more people are ready to follow sinners as long as they take pride in committing one of their favourite sins, the more likely irredeemable scoundrels will win political power.
The seekers of ideological saints feel very strongly that no one is worthy of their support unless they back and act on the most impeccable principles in relation to every aspect of life. Even if their policy stance is sound on many issues, any shortcoming in a single area could be enough to render them unfit to lead. As for their personal behaviour, if there is the slightest indication that they do not meet the highest standards at all times, that would be considered utterly unacceptable. So, unless you are ready to tackle poverty, climate change, inequality, problems with the criminal justice system, arms deals with oppressive regimes, industrial decline, crumbling infrastructure, underfunded health service, deficient education provision, and behave with due courtesy with everyone all the time, you will be rejected as a hopelessly flawed candidate.
The acolytes of charismatic sinners, on the other hand, are not at all bothered by their sinning, so long as they are willing, or indeed enthusiastic, when it comes to promoting some reprehensible deed they rather adore. Take, for example, making money for oneself while ruining the environment for everyone else; hurling sexist and racist abuse at women and minorities; pocketing profits generated by workers and paying them a pittance; inciting hatred against immigrants and refugees; championing capital punishment regardless of unsafe convictions; or dropping bombs on civilians abroad as a show of military strength. Politicians who embrace one or two of these will win admiration from people who don’t mind if they are not 100% committed to every one of them. Furthermore, even if their personal behaviour is routinely dishonest or degenerate, they are forgiven.
Thus, in politics, the greater the demand for saints, the higher the bar is set for politicians who are keen to serve the public interest. However hard they try, they are castigated and swiftly lose support for falling short on one issue or another. Meanwhile, the psychology of sinners keeps lowering the bar until it hits rock bottom. Any charlatan who is happy to push one or another of the negative buttons (proudly labelled by serial sinners as ‘politically incorrect’) will attract loyal supporters irrespective of their corrupt, nasty, and deceitful actions.
Some may think that the long wait for saints to come along is worthwhile because we need supremely principled people who will do the right thing on everything. But in practice, there are numerous contradictory demands and competing priorities. Anyone honest and wanting to get things done will have to make compromises. To maintain the image of saintliness, a politician would have to pontificate righteously on every issue, but fudge and avoid taking any action whenever a hard choice has to be made. And in that time, the sinners who have won power will carry on with one vile act after another, and getting away with it all.
To remove the sinners, stop looking for saints.
The seekers of ideological saints feel very strongly that no one is worthy of their support unless they back and act on the most impeccable principles in relation to every aspect of life. Even if their policy stance is sound on many issues, any shortcoming in a single area could be enough to render them unfit to lead. As for their personal behaviour, if there is the slightest indication that they do not meet the highest standards at all times, that would be considered utterly unacceptable. So, unless you are ready to tackle poverty, climate change, inequality, problems with the criminal justice system, arms deals with oppressive regimes, industrial decline, crumbling infrastructure, underfunded health service, deficient education provision, and behave with due courtesy with everyone all the time, you will be rejected as a hopelessly flawed candidate.
The acolytes of charismatic sinners, on the other hand, are not at all bothered by their sinning, so long as they are willing, or indeed enthusiastic, when it comes to promoting some reprehensible deed they rather adore. Take, for example, making money for oneself while ruining the environment for everyone else; hurling sexist and racist abuse at women and minorities; pocketing profits generated by workers and paying them a pittance; inciting hatred against immigrants and refugees; championing capital punishment regardless of unsafe convictions; or dropping bombs on civilians abroad as a show of military strength. Politicians who embrace one or two of these will win admiration from people who don’t mind if they are not 100% committed to every one of them. Furthermore, even if their personal behaviour is routinely dishonest or degenerate, they are forgiven.
Thus, in politics, the greater the demand for saints, the higher the bar is set for politicians who are keen to serve the public interest. However hard they try, they are castigated and swiftly lose support for falling short on one issue or another. Meanwhile, the psychology of sinners keeps lowering the bar until it hits rock bottom. Any charlatan who is happy to push one or another of the negative buttons (proudly labelled by serial sinners as ‘politically incorrect’) will attract loyal supporters irrespective of their corrupt, nasty, and deceitful actions.
Some may think that the long wait for saints to come along is worthwhile because we need supremely principled people who will do the right thing on everything. But in practice, there are numerous contradictory demands and competing priorities. Anyone honest and wanting to get things done will have to make compromises. To maintain the image of saintliness, a politician would have to pontificate righteously on every issue, but fudge and avoid taking any action whenever a hard choice has to be made. And in that time, the sinners who have won power will carry on with one vile act after another, and getting away with it all.
To remove the sinners, stop looking for saints.
Tuesday, 1 October 2019
You Say You Want a Constitution
Many people who champion liberal, progressive causes seem to believe that a written constitution is something we should call for.
But while one may hope that a written constitution will spell out exactly what from a progressive perspective should be carried out or forbidden, and enshrine the highest commitment to ensure that no violation will be permitted, there is no guarantee that this will happen in practice. A written constitution could just as easily codify ideas and practices that are ambiguous or potentially undesirable.
What if we have a written constitution that rules out any organised action by workers to challenge their employers; forbids interracial or gay marriage; grants immunity from prosecution to anyone who can pay a large fee to the state; or gives one supreme leader the unquestionable power to order the execution of any individual that leader declares to be a dangerous enemy?
Who is to say a written constitution will encapsulate our aspirations as opposed to what authoritarians and plutocrats want?
It is often suggested that the task of drafting a written constitution should be given to some form of citizens’ assembly, whereby a demographically representative group of randomly selected citizens will deliberate and formulate what should be included in a written constitution. Yet even if such a process could be secured, with impartial facilitation and expert guidance, and a set of proposals were to emerge, who is to be given the authority to deem the proposals sound and adopt the draft constitution formally?
Should the existing legislature make the decision? If that is done on the basis of a simple majority, the provisions can in future be overturned by a simple majority; in which case, the written constitution would be as readily amendable as any ordinary law. Or, one can insist that the adoption of the constitution (and any future revision) must be by a special majority (e.g., two thirds, four fifths) in the legislature, but either that is uniquely binding (in which case, the question arises as to why this special majority threshold should be respected; and to argue that it is set out in the draft constitution would simply be begging the question); if not, the very clause relating to special majority can itself be made void by the legislature repealing it with a simple majority.
Another possibility would be to put the draft constitution to a referendum. But we have seen how without proper safeguards, the holding of a referendum simply opens the door to mass deception, law-breaking that corrupts the voting process, and on-going distortion of what option is allegedly selected when none of the options is ever clearly explained in a binding manner. In the absence of due process and adequate enforcement, data manipulators and authoritarian propagandists can ‘win’ a referendum for the most oppressive constitution, and proclaim that all citizens must accept it as legitimate.
Finally, even if a seemingly sensible constitution is adopted, we have the issue of interpretation and revision to deal with. Laws are subject to interpretations that are tested in court and can be altered by the legislature on a simple majority. But any clause in a written constitution is accorded a higher status, and instead of any dissatisfaction with the law being resolved by the elected members of the legislature, contention over what a given provision requires of us is to be settled by the most senior court of the land. In practice, as the experience of the US has shown, when it comes to hotly disputed issues, more often than not, the judges on the supreme court will vote in line with the political party of the President who put them on the court in the first place (which could have happened ten, twenty or more years ago). So, instead of key issues (such as gun control, corporate involvement in elections, abortion, etc) being determined by the current elected representatives of the people, they will be decided mostly by people appointed on a partisan basis by politicians who are very likely no longer in office.
This is not to say we should not have a written constitution. But before we invite a government led by someone like Boris Johnson or any other self-absorbed demagogue to produce one, we had better get some satisfactory answers to the problems flagged up above.
But while one may hope that a written constitution will spell out exactly what from a progressive perspective should be carried out or forbidden, and enshrine the highest commitment to ensure that no violation will be permitted, there is no guarantee that this will happen in practice. A written constitution could just as easily codify ideas and practices that are ambiguous or potentially undesirable.
What if we have a written constitution that rules out any organised action by workers to challenge their employers; forbids interracial or gay marriage; grants immunity from prosecution to anyone who can pay a large fee to the state; or gives one supreme leader the unquestionable power to order the execution of any individual that leader declares to be a dangerous enemy?
Who is to say a written constitution will encapsulate our aspirations as opposed to what authoritarians and plutocrats want?
It is often suggested that the task of drafting a written constitution should be given to some form of citizens’ assembly, whereby a demographically representative group of randomly selected citizens will deliberate and formulate what should be included in a written constitution. Yet even if such a process could be secured, with impartial facilitation and expert guidance, and a set of proposals were to emerge, who is to be given the authority to deem the proposals sound and adopt the draft constitution formally?
Should the existing legislature make the decision? If that is done on the basis of a simple majority, the provisions can in future be overturned by a simple majority; in which case, the written constitution would be as readily amendable as any ordinary law. Or, one can insist that the adoption of the constitution (and any future revision) must be by a special majority (e.g., two thirds, four fifths) in the legislature, but either that is uniquely binding (in which case, the question arises as to why this special majority threshold should be respected; and to argue that it is set out in the draft constitution would simply be begging the question); if not, the very clause relating to special majority can itself be made void by the legislature repealing it with a simple majority.
Another possibility would be to put the draft constitution to a referendum. But we have seen how without proper safeguards, the holding of a referendum simply opens the door to mass deception, law-breaking that corrupts the voting process, and on-going distortion of what option is allegedly selected when none of the options is ever clearly explained in a binding manner. In the absence of due process and adequate enforcement, data manipulators and authoritarian propagandists can ‘win’ a referendum for the most oppressive constitution, and proclaim that all citizens must accept it as legitimate.
Finally, even if a seemingly sensible constitution is adopted, we have the issue of interpretation and revision to deal with. Laws are subject to interpretations that are tested in court and can be altered by the legislature on a simple majority. But any clause in a written constitution is accorded a higher status, and instead of any dissatisfaction with the law being resolved by the elected members of the legislature, contention over what a given provision requires of us is to be settled by the most senior court of the land. In practice, as the experience of the US has shown, when it comes to hotly disputed issues, more often than not, the judges on the supreme court will vote in line with the political party of the President who put them on the court in the first place (which could have happened ten, twenty or more years ago). So, instead of key issues (such as gun control, corporate involvement in elections, abortion, etc) being determined by the current elected representatives of the people, they will be decided mostly by people appointed on a partisan basis by politicians who are very likely no longer in office.
This is not to say we should not have a written constitution. But before we invite a government led by someone like Boris Johnson or any other self-absorbed demagogue to produce one, we had better get some satisfactory answers to the problems flagged up above.
Sunday, 15 September 2019
Shameless Subversion: Con politics explained
In news commentary and academic writings, one still frequently comes across attempts to encapsulate Con politics as some kind of ideological doctrine that merits critical examination. Analysts and scholars try to compare the merits of Neo-Conservatism/Neo-Liberalism with progressive alternatives, and discuss them in connection with rival philosophical and economic theories. But that is simply falling for the Con.
Con politics is not an ideological doctrine at all. It is a manipulative strategy to win support and power to advance its advocates’ position and wealth. It has no coherence except for an underlying focus on saying anything – regardless of their vacuity, incompatibility with other things said, harmfulness, or untenability – so long as it can help to deceive more people into backing its quest for political power.
Let us look at a few examples.
Con politics pretends to be religious, to be on the side of God. But its ‘God’ is a mask for hatred and intolerance. When sacred texts enjoin people to love their neighbours and care for strangers, they ignore them in favour of self-styled preachers who spread venom against the weak and vulnerable instead. When the Pope or an imam speaks out against bigotry and violence, they are dismissed as unrepresentative of the ‘true’ faith. Con politicians have no real religious integrity, just a readiness to invoke ‘God’ arbitrarily to justify whatever nasty rhetoric and policy they want to run with.
Con politics positions itself as being supremely concerned with security, but it promotes the spread of weapons at the domestic and global level so that insecurity grows, and more money can be made for the makers and sellers of weapons from handguns to missiles. In the name of security, it also calls for mass surveillance and intrusion into citizens’ privacy, except for its wealthy supporters who can keep their offshore accounts secret.
Security is swiftly thrown overboard when liberty can be shouted out as the ultimate value. Freedom from government control is the cover given for irresponsible businesses selling unsafe products, exploiting workers, and polluting the environment. Freedom of speech is the cover given for spreading lies and hate-mongering. Adam Smith is deified and his writings, like those of any ‘divine’ texts, are misinterpreted and selectively quoted to create the myth of the ‘free’ market devoid of Smith’s advocacy for appropriate government intervention.
Freedom from state intrusion is in turn jettisoned whenever it fits with the latest Con trick. It proclaims the need to keep government at bay, except when it comes to preventing women from making abortion decisions, sentencing people to death on the basis of trial procedures which are flawed, or punishing people for wanting to end their days of terminal illness with unendurable pain.
The Con cloaks itself with the flag and false patriotism. It talks about the country’s greatness even as it pushes for diminished support for the health and education of citizens. It condemns the poor, homeless, disabled as people who have not made enough of an effort to help themselves. It sends young men and women to fight and die on foreign soil while it concocts excuses for its rich advocates to stay out of military duties.
Above all, it embraces fascist sentiments and attacks its critics as ‘fascists’; it pumps out fabrications by the hour and denounces those who expose its deceptiveness as purveyors of ‘fake news’; and it shrugs off public accountability while censures honourable people who challenge them as ‘enemies of the people’.
Con politics is a shameless subversion of all that is good and decent in society. No one should waste time on discerning what doctrine it espouses. Just expose it as the Con that it is from beginning to end.
Con politics is not an ideological doctrine at all. It is a manipulative strategy to win support and power to advance its advocates’ position and wealth. It has no coherence except for an underlying focus on saying anything – regardless of their vacuity, incompatibility with other things said, harmfulness, or untenability – so long as it can help to deceive more people into backing its quest for political power.
Let us look at a few examples.
Con politics pretends to be religious, to be on the side of God. But its ‘God’ is a mask for hatred and intolerance. When sacred texts enjoin people to love their neighbours and care for strangers, they ignore them in favour of self-styled preachers who spread venom against the weak and vulnerable instead. When the Pope or an imam speaks out against bigotry and violence, they are dismissed as unrepresentative of the ‘true’ faith. Con politicians have no real religious integrity, just a readiness to invoke ‘God’ arbitrarily to justify whatever nasty rhetoric and policy they want to run with.
Con politics positions itself as being supremely concerned with security, but it promotes the spread of weapons at the domestic and global level so that insecurity grows, and more money can be made for the makers and sellers of weapons from handguns to missiles. In the name of security, it also calls for mass surveillance and intrusion into citizens’ privacy, except for its wealthy supporters who can keep their offshore accounts secret.
Security is swiftly thrown overboard when liberty can be shouted out as the ultimate value. Freedom from government control is the cover given for irresponsible businesses selling unsafe products, exploiting workers, and polluting the environment. Freedom of speech is the cover given for spreading lies and hate-mongering. Adam Smith is deified and his writings, like those of any ‘divine’ texts, are misinterpreted and selectively quoted to create the myth of the ‘free’ market devoid of Smith’s advocacy for appropriate government intervention.
Freedom from state intrusion is in turn jettisoned whenever it fits with the latest Con trick. It proclaims the need to keep government at bay, except when it comes to preventing women from making abortion decisions, sentencing people to death on the basis of trial procedures which are flawed, or punishing people for wanting to end their days of terminal illness with unendurable pain.
The Con cloaks itself with the flag and false patriotism. It talks about the country’s greatness even as it pushes for diminished support for the health and education of citizens. It condemns the poor, homeless, disabled as people who have not made enough of an effort to help themselves. It sends young men and women to fight and die on foreign soil while it concocts excuses for its rich advocates to stay out of military duties.
Above all, it embraces fascist sentiments and attacks its critics as ‘fascists’; it pumps out fabrications by the hour and denounces those who expose its deceptiveness as purveyors of ‘fake news’; and it shrugs off public accountability while censures honourable people who challenge them as ‘enemies of the people’.
Con politics is a shameless subversion of all that is good and decent in society. No one should waste time on discerning what doctrine it espouses. Just expose it as the Con that it is from beginning to end.
Sunday, 1 September 2019
Where is the Jobs Manifesto?
Politicians are increasingly divided into two camps. On the one side there are those who are convinced that they can win power by stirring up xenophobia – build a wall to keep Mexicans out; scream for Brexit to keep EU citizens out; blame immigrants for everything. On the other side there are those who frown on such xenophobic manipulations, and want to take power away from their champions. Unfortunately, the second group have been so concerned with exposing the egoism and deceit of jingoistic charlatans that they have forgotten to address what citizens most need from their political leaders – a manifesto for jobs.
Jobs are important not only because they enable people to meet their basic needs in terms of sustenance and shelter, but they also hold the key to giving people a sense of identity, self-respect, and autonomy. We all want to make a difference, to contribute to something bigger than ourselves, to be recognised as being ready to shoulder responsibilities for the wellbeing of others.
While xenophobic demagogues have been spreading their lies and fanning hatred, the crisis of low pay and job insecurity continues to worsen. The best way to defeat them is to deal with the underlying socio-economic problem of precarious employment. A political commitment to generate decent job opportunities for all is what is urgently called for. And in case anyone thinks that is not possible, here are at least four things that can be done.
First, place a legal obligation on firms profiting from the spread of labour-displacement technology to invest in training for workers to take up roles in companies that focus on quality personal service, and in business development support for enterprises with such a focus. Secondly, provide advice and start-up investment for the setting up and growth of worker cooperatives, and offer guidance on protection from demutualisation. Thirdly, tackle staffing shortages in key public services such as health, education, policing, and housing with a sustained programme of training, recruitment, and retention. Fourthly, give backing to local development projects where local service and employment needs are prioritised through devolved management, and day-to-day personal contact and relationships are appreciated in preference to automated communications that are remote and unresponsive.
There are many progressive economists, community finance pioneers, and experienced strategists for sustainable employment who can refine and expand on these and other ideas. Although it is important to unmask the con perpetrated by xenophobic ‘populists’, the battle for prosperity and decency cannot be won unless the spectre of precarious employment is cast away.
If we want people to turn away from scoundrels and hatemongers, we must come up with a robust and unequivocal manifesto for jobs.
Jobs are important not only because they enable people to meet their basic needs in terms of sustenance and shelter, but they also hold the key to giving people a sense of identity, self-respect, and autonomy. We all want to make a difference, to contribute to something bigger than ourselves, to be recognised as being ready to shoulder responsibilities for the wellbeing of others.
While xenophobic demagogues have been spreading their lies and fanning hatred, the crisis of low pay and job insecurity continues to worsen. The best way to defeat them is to deal with the underlying socio-economic problem of precarious employment. A political commitment to generate decent job opportunities for all is what is urgently called for. And in case anyone thinks that is not possible, here are at least four things that can be done.
First, place a legal obligation on firms profiting from the spread of labour-displacement technology to invest in training for workers to take up roles in companies that focus on quality personal service, and in business development support for enterprises with such a focus. Secondly, provide advice and start-up investment for the setting up and growth of worker cooperatives, and offer guidance on protection from demutualisation. Thirdly, tackle staffing shortages in key public services such as health, education, policing, and housing with a sustained programme of training, recruitment, and retention. Fourthly, give backing to local development projects where local service and employment needs are prioritised through devolved management, and day-to-day personal contact and relationships are appreciated in preference to automated communications that are remote and unresponsive.
There are many progressive economists, community finance pioneers, and experienced strategists for sustainable employment who can refine and expand on these and other ideas. Although it is important to unmask the con perpetrated by xenophobic ‘populists’, the battle for prosperity and decency cannot be won unless the spectre of precarious employment is cast away.
If we want people to turn away from scoundrels and hatemongers, we must come up with a robust and unequivocal manifesto for jobs.
Thursday, 15 August 2019
The Art of Political Criticism: an educator’s guide
One of the most difficult and yet indispensable life-skills to instil in citizens is the art of political criticism. It is dangerous for people to accept everything they are told without question by those in power. But it is just as risky to reject whatever is put forward without giving it due consideration. Knowing how to scrutinise political claims in a coherent and effective manner is a vital part of being a responsible citizen.
Educators may find it useful to approach the task through five learning routes:
[1] Grasping Key Concepts
At the roots of most flawed arguments and attempts at misdirection are inappropriate uses of key concepts. Notions such as ‘freedom’, ‘rights’, ‘responsibility’, ‘democracy, are often taken to imply certain general principles which are in fact quite unfounded. Freedom, for example, is something we value, but not if it becomes a licence for people to act in callous and harmful ways towards others. Democracy is a much-needed form of governance, but it is not obtained merely by a majority vote if misinformation and corruption influence voting intentions. Educators should ensure key political concepts are widely understood.
[2] Reviewing Historical Perspectives
What happened in the past can often be highly relevant to what society should do now and in the future. But that relevance is only discerned through proper interpretation of the causes and consequences of different events. Dwelling on some events while ignoring others, or distorting the reasons behind notable successes or failings, would only lead to misunderstanding or mistakes being repeated. Educators should be equipped to cite balanced historical accounts, and facilitate learning of the critical lessons that are still applicable today.
[3] Identifying Practical Options
One of the biggest challenges for political educators is how citizens can take part in the decision-making of government institutions when there are so many seemingly insuperable obstacles. Whatever democracy may suggest in theory, it is often felt that in practice members of the public will seldom be able to have any meaningful say at all. It is up to educators to draw attention to the many successful approaches and examples of deliberative engagement and state-citizen cooperation, and promote their adoption in all spheres of civic life.
[4] Cultivating Critical Challenges
Demagogues seeking power and many of those who have already gained high office, are adept at rhetoric that makes the most dubious claims sound rousing and convincing. It takes the development of a critical mindset to see through such claims without falling into some form of ‘we-can’t-believe-anything’ scepticism. It is incumbent on educators to inculcate the disposition and ability to question the powerful in a logical and objective manner, appreciating what expertise and evidence can be relied on, and what unwarranted claims to discard.
[5] Exploring Alternative Futures
Imagination can be an important tool in bringing out what people may otherwise overlook. Misplaced complacency on the one hand, and mind-numbing saturation with negative news on the other, could leave many oblivious to the threats posed by plutocracy and fundamentalism. Dystopian literature helps to highlight what may otherwise be overlooked. Educators should facilitate the exploration and discussion of stories that dramatically present the kind of political outlook and social structures that everyone should seek to avert.
--
For a short guide to Henry Tam’s learning resources relating to the Art of Political Criticism, click on: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-art-of-political-criticism.html
Educators may find it useful to approach the task through five learning routes:
[1] Grasping Key Concepts
At the roots of most flawed arguments and attempts at misdirection are inappropriate uses of key concepts. Notions such as ‘freedom’, ‘rights’, ‘responsibility’, ‘democracy, are often taken to imply certain general principles which are in fact quite unfounded. Freedom, for example, is something we value, but not if it becomes a licence for people to act in callous and harmful ways towards others. Democracy is a much-needed form of governance, but it is not obtained merely by a majority vote if misinformation and corruption influence voting intentions. Educators should ensure key political concepts are widely understood.
[2] Reviewing Historical Perspectives
What happened in the past can often be highly relevant to what society should do now and in the future. But that relevance is only discerned through proper interpretation of the causes and consequences of different events. Dwelling on some events while ignoring others, or distorting the reasons behind notable successes or failings, would only lead to misunderstanding or mistakes being repeated. Educators should be equipped to cite balanced historical accounts, and facilitate learning of the critical lessons that are still applicable today.
[3] Identifying Practical Options
One of the biggest challenges for political educators is how citizens can take part in the decision-making of government institutions when there are so many seemingly insuperable obstacles. Whatever democracy may suggest in theory, it is often felt that in practice members of the public will seldom be able to have any meaningful say at all. It is up to educators to draw attention to the many successful approaches and examples of deliberative engagement and state-citizen cooperation, and promote their adoption in all spheres of civic life.
[4] Cultivating Critical Challenges
Demagogues seeking power and many of those who have already gained high office, are adept at rhetoric that makes the most dubious claims sound rousing and convincing. It takes the development of a critical mindset to see through such claims without falling into some form of ‘we-can’t-believe-anything’ scepticism. It is incumbent on educators to inculcate the disposition and ability to question the powerful in a logical and objective manner, appreciating what expertise and evidence can be relied on, and what unwarranted claims to discard.
[5] Exploring Alternative Futures
Imagination can be an important tool in bringing out what people may otherwise overlook. Misplaced complacency on the one hand, and mind-numbing saturation with negative news on the other, could leave many oblivious to the threats posed by plutocracy and fundamentalism. Dystopian literature helps to highlight what may otherwise be overlooked. Educators should facilitate the exploration and discussion of stories that dramatically present the kind of political outlook and social structures that everyone should seek to avert.
--
For a short guide to Henry Tam’s learning resources relating to the Art of Political Criticism, click on: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-art-of-political-criticism.html
Thursday, 1 August 2019
The Stoic-Epicurean Resolution
How are we to navigate the vicissitudes of life? On the one hand, Stoic philosophy is often presented as directing us to fulfil our public duties and lead a solemn, simplistic existence. On the other hand, Epicurean ideas are supposed to guide us towards the quest for private pleasures, away from the wider turmoil of society.
But this apparent dichotomous choice is a false one. On closer examination, what Stoic and Epicurean thinkers put forward actually fit into a single coherent ethos. The starting point is what will bring us fulfilment – that state of being which we would be content and happy to attain. Stoics come at this by setting out what everyone must do for the conditions to be in place for each to find fulfilment. For example, we should not harm others, but defend one another from aggressors; we should respect other people, and treat all on honest, reciprocal terms. It follows that there are public duties that should be upheld by all if each is to find fulfilment. Epicureans come at this by reminding us that nobody who neglects one’s own wellbeing can ever truly experience a fulfilled life. For example, we should not damage our own health, but nurture it; we should evaluate our desires, and pursue only those that are realistic and would not undermine our longer-term happiness.
Together, the Stoic-Epicurean approach leads us to take a holistic view about what we should do in relation to both ourselves and others, and consider the long term as well as short term implications. Strategic thinking and impulse control are vital. There is no room for insatiable chasing after pleasures, power, fame, wealth, or anything that may directly or indirectly ruin the chances of attaining a fulfilled existence. Moderation, consideration, cooperation are key ingredients in cultivating the collective and personal conditions for living a genuinely satisfying life.
If one can make a difference in strengthening the social and political structure needed for such cultivation, one must act on one’s public duty. If circumstances are such that one would have no real opportunity to influence wider trends and outcomes, then one should sensibly focus on the more limited sphere within which one can shape the course of events.
The assessment of desires, personal aptitudes, social arrangements, scope for development, and options for action and abstention, should be guided – and here Stoics and Epicureans are at one – not by superstitions, dogmas, rash assumptions, or flawed reasoning, but by the systematic application of logic, evidential findings, and experimental learning. Wisdom, grounded on critical thinking and practical examination, will thus help us decide how we should live.
But what about the Stoic respect for ‘God’ and the Epicurean dismissal of divine causes? There is actually no contradiction between the Stoic ‘God’ as the totality of nature and the Epicurean notion of nature as the ultimate foundation of all existence and meaning. By whatever name we call it, nature interacts with us as we seek to make the most of the life we have. We need to study and understand nature, and recognise that it has no volition of its own to grant us wishes or thwart our pursuits. There is nothing beyond nature, and we must develop plans and solutions in line with nature if we are to attain a life worth living.
But this apparent dichotomous choice is a false one. On closer examination, what Stoic and Epicurean thinkers put forward actually fit into a single coherent ethos. The starting point is what will bring us fulfilment – that state of being which we would be content and happy to attain. Stoics come at this by setting out what everyone must do for the conditions to be in place for each to find fulfilment. For example, we should not harm others, but defend one another from aggressors; we should respect other people, and treat all on honest, reciprocal terms. It follows that there are public duties that should be upheld by all if each is to find fulfilment. Epicureans come at this by reminding us that nobody who neglects one’s own wellbeing can ever truly experience a fulfilled life. For example, we should not damage our own health, but nurture it; we should evaluate our desires, and pursue only those that are realistic and would not undermine our longer-term happiness.
Together, the Stoic-Epicurean approach leads us to take a holistic view about what we should do in relation to both ourselves and others, and consider the long term as well as short term implications. Strategic thinking and impulse control are vital. There is no room for insatiable chasing after pleasures, power, fame, wealth, or anything that may directly or indirectly ruin the chances of attaining a fulfilled existence. Moderation, consideration, cooperation are key ingredients in cultivating the collective and personal conditions for living a genuinely satisfying life.
If one can make a difference in strengthening the social and political structure needed for such cultivation, one must act on one’s public duty. If circumstances are such that one would have no real opportunity to influence wider trends and outcomes, then one should sensibly focus on the more limited sphere within which one can shape the course of events.
The assessment of desires, personal aptitudes, social arrangements, scope for development, and options for action and abstention, should be guided – and here Stoics and Epicureans are at one – not by superstitions, dogmas, rash assumptions, or flawed reasoning, but by the systematic application of logic, evidential findings, and experimental learning. Wisdom, grounded on critical thinking and practical examination, will thus help us decide how we should live.
But what about the Stoic respect for ‘God’ and the Epicurean dismissal of divine causes? There is actually no contradiction between the Stoic ‘God’ as the totality of nature and the Epicurean notion of nature as the ultimate foundation of all existence and meaning. By whatever name we call it, nature interacts with us as we seek to make the most of the life we have. We need to study and understand nature, and recognise that it has no volition of its own to grant us wishes or thwart our pursuits. There is nothing beyond nature, and we must develop plans and solutions in line with nature if we are to attain a life worth living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)