I have a problem understanding the moral outrage at murder, slavery and vandalism- but the blindness to structural processes of capitalism. aka: what's pretty much built in. To not draw issue with these processes is typically picking and choosing what to care about and what to ignore. These processes influence, produce and regulate our actions.
The huge, obscene amount of deaths caused by the structural tendencies of capitalism renders it genocidal. This is brought into effect in many ways.
Statistically, poorer people live less. This is a washed over correlation that seems to shake few. This can be down to many reasons, poorer areas are dirtier, more enclosed, stress prone (maybe lack of money? or a lack of the ability to self-determine!?) they cannot cannot afford the same par of healthcare. What do you think all the issues over third world debt are about, these people arn't struggling to pay for their second house- because of their lack of money, they have no water, no food, poor infrastructure. The formula Money=Life should make sense of it all.
The ability of capitalism with it's incentive of money (which translates as... life) to organize and mobilize people for production (without the reality of everyone opposing such production, which perhaps links into slavery) is able to bring into existence a mass of weapons of destruction. Without such an apathetic labour force, insomuch as work is for money and not tied to what the work is. i.e. the manufacture of weapons, this would not be possible.
The same form of apathy is employed in capitalism with cost/benefit analysis. Cost is money lost, while benefit is money gained over money lost. The analysis is of money but the apathy deployed entails that people do not enter this equation. A good example is not the cutbacks of jobs for money, but the much used GDP of economies. This does not show the well being of people. People within a country could be dying but their GDP is up! Structurally this translates as the governments of those economies not being pressured for an increase in general welfare (GW?!) and not responding to the GW of it's people - while it has a growing economy and foreign investment, what's wrong!?
The capitalist relations with the environment can be described as an angry lumber jack chopping everything down. He, the capitalist, has a reason- plus, without his work there would be no living, and when he cuts trees down everything looks clearer and more civilized. But this description misses all the people standing in the forest or who are underneath the timbre.
Although, clearly, this ties in with vandalism, for capitalism drives industry which pollutes (and has a profit motive for avoiding environmental regulation shown by company moves to less regulated countries for profit) and vandalises the air, the ground and the sea, these repercussions are felt in the deaths of millions of people. Whether these deaths are past events, such as this; or current events, such as what we are breathing now, or the mobilization that's been able to mass produce and distribute tobacco alcohol and guns; or future events, either the somehow debatable erosion of the o zone layer, or any replication of past events.
The most difficult issue to level to people is that of slavery. Because of the past we think of slavery as a very overt conception whereby you literally need to be in chains. But this cannot be so. In fact it must not be so, it is an important concept with strong emotive implications and if we are to use it well it should be redefined. Most often it is understood as ownership of a person, but it could also be where a person is controlled via other methods. Slavery in it's broadest strokes should be seen as control that is not seen, or not understood. It the enslavement of your mind to assume that certain relations are OK. The slightest and most subtle formation of slavery, then, is born out of a hierarchy of relations. The family, the pub, the shop, the law, school, money, friendships. All these have hierarchies that if not addressed and unveiled are enslaving in as much as we become subject to them and most often respond with compliance. It is the lack of awereness of these oppressive relations (which could be reconfigured) that brings the term slavery. For instance, it isn't usually considered a problem that money defines, largely, what you can do.
However, this was just the broadest dynamic of slavery. It appears in far more classical terms (ownership, or non-evadable coercion) when we review the role of jobs/work and markets. Here, I will be drawing heavily on the The Coming Insurrection by The Invisible Committee. Simply put, to access the means to live we must get a job and earn money. TCI summarises this notion in the title of a chapter: "Life, health and love are precarious- why should work be an exception." Work is a structural necessity for capitalism, it "is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods and than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers and of preserving... the order of work" and of capitalism. We are trapped in the vortex of a confused economic and political system where, to access the means of life, we are forced to the imperative of getting a job and entering the market. Rather, it would be more appropriate to have access to the means of life. The argument here lies in the contrast, we have the technological capabilities to provide for people without charge, based on peoples input, but instead we ensure that money holds a monopoly over existence.
In another classical sense the wage-slavery concept comes into play. This suggests that people who work do not earn enough money to change their situation. However, other definitions are suggested like living for your wage, a case where your existence is dependant on you wage. There is no agreed definition- likely, because the term refers to many similar phenomenon. While the paragraph above refers to the imperative of money (aka, you need it), wage-slavery refers to ones abilities once they have money. (you're still not free!)
By far the easiest claim to level at capitalism is that of vandalism. Interestingly, this is not often a claim levelled at capitalism. When a company drops toxic waste in a river it is deemed to be the fault of the company- case closed. While this is true, it is the fault of the company and we cannot shed responsibility in that area, it ignores the scope of the problem. Here the company had the profit motive; it was cheaper to dispose of it down river. There was an incentive to vandalise, (which killed and maimed) systemically present in the capitalist framework (maximization of profits). This type is the typical vandalism that is more or less systemic in capitalism, companies have a huge incentive to tip waste products and avoid regulation for profit.
However we can ask deeper questions... why is it not considered vandalism when a company forces the foreclosure of family business, or even another business that has been bringing the community together (such as a pub or coffee house). We are forced to say, in the rhetoric of the market, that they weren't "efficient" enough, that they couldn't "compete"- this misses the issue entirely. Community comes second to capital.
If the foreclosure of small family business in favour of homogenized corporation can be levelled as the actions of a vandal, a similar form is present too. Governments that subsidize their industry, such as the E.U or US subsidy over farming, damage the market prospects of better products and undercuts the competition- isn't this a form of vandalism? essentially the direct sabotage of better companies in favour of the "national interest".
But why does the analysis only go as far as external property, what of ones mind, surely that can be vandalized. As an economic structure, capitalism has vastly influenced and defined the way we think. Instead of the altruistic helping of people, we employ help. Note the word, employ. We have a state of being that is closer to a relationship between things (objects, commodities) than between people. Quite often we choose friends in the same way we choose shampoo.
It may have spawned entire ways of thinking, the cultural imperative to get a job, pay taxes- being the sponge or the layabout- the life of an accountant- our response to the 2008 financial crash- being "working class"- insurance. All of these discourses are found within capitalism, and would very unlikely exist otherwise. Look at education, it is driven by, and held back by, money. In fact the curriculum itself is the by-product of a working society, we must work to work, we must, learn to work. Grades are geared towards achieving in the competitive job market and in many way serve to neutralize so many economic inequalities. The problem with assessing how capitalism makes us think is that it is the way we think, it is not obvious and requires imagining an almost alien reality.
As was reflected in an earlier paragraph, the organisational capabilities of capitalism rendering it a "murderer", and which make us alien (apathetic) to what it is we are doing, extends to vandalism. Needless to say, the extent of pollution; the foreclosure of community business; the subsidy of business; the overcrowding of space (with buildings) is only possible with mobilization capabilities which are present in capitalism, and the apathetic attitude which it instills.
I hope this post raises an empathetic and emotive attitude to the cards being dealt in this life, it really should stop, but it starts with the majority.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Monday, 12 July 2010
Post-Capitalism
Beyond Capitalism?
Could we exist in a world that had forgotten money? a world where value takes on a role only as a reference to a specific cultural conception, specific, again, in history? or a world, at least, which has chosen to organise itself. (so unlike the world today).
It could happen several ways. I mean, we could always choose to exist on a relational level other than via a transactional network of inherently unequal relations - it would however require the equal consent of the many land owners and engineers (etc) to happen. Or we can pay for this form of organisation (painfully, at that) by setting up sustainable infrastructure but, again, developing a set of relational networks that do not use money is required.
The trick to post capitalism, that is, the trick to achieve it, is rather relieving in simplicity. The current profit motive provides an ample framework for people to be driven ; the same way we are driven to work everyday - for MONEY, to want a post capital order. To have low costs on the essentials of life is to free people from work.
If governments, or the private sector can provide key aspects of existence for next to no cost the goal is in sight. Housing, water and food are the most important parts of this, to provide these next to cost is integral to a way of achieving post capitalism. None, in their current dimension are adequate, the housing market, for instance, is subject to rent seeking and more importantly, the current architectural design and environmental relationship is flawed. I.e. housing is monolithic, expensive, inappropriate. Really, it does not reflect the mobile and communitarian nature of people. Food is centralised, subsidised, and prosthetic. It needs to be grown and sustained and reproduced (in excess) by people on a decentralised basis. etcetcetcetc.
The idea is to make the fundamentals of existence replicable via social, rather than capitalist means.
There is no inherent reason why this has not been achieved. What barriers are there to this? I do not take answers such as labelling essential ideas of humans, i.e. we are greedy/stupid. It is apparent, and we can reconfigure this many times in different ways, that social existence can be and could be constructed in many different ways. Our social practises can be reconstructed at any moment. We are not subject to them, they are subject to us.
Apparently this is not so.
When the Banks failed, we bailed them out. For some reason no one was patiently sat there, waiting, poised, a symbol reflecting that repetitious volatility of capitalism and our self awareness of that fact. No one, for some obscene reason, was ready. But when they failed a "select group of people", because "we" certain didn't, poured lots of public ("our") money "saving" the banks. This was done to "save us" from the economy.
now why not just say, "oh." We have a system that we have little, passive, control over. We don't control our productivity, it does. (note the job losses and lower company profits since the meltdown) Our life, the apparent stability of it, is reliant on the economy being stable. NOW WHY DO WE DELEGATE THE POWER TO HAVE A STABLE LIFE INTO DISEMBODIED, UNSTABLE "ECONOMY".
It is an interesting state of affairs that we have the communication to achieve the post capitalist end... but don't.
I hope this post draws attention to the aims of post capitalism, the relative ease (in theory, apparently) of achieving it; the reconfigurable nature of social relations; the happy connection between the profit motive and it's stimulation of post capitalism (namely, that people want to avoid spending money); and the redundancy of now.
Could we exist in a world that had forgotten money? a world where value takes on a role only as a reference to a specific cultural conception, specific, again, in history? or a world, at least, which has chosen to organise itself. (so unlike the world today).
It could happen several ways. I mean, we could always choose to exist on a relational level other than via a transactional network of inherently unequal relations - it would however require the equal consent of the many land owners and engineers (etc) to happen. Or we can pay for this form of organisation (painfully, at that) by setting up sustainable infrastructure but, again, developing a set of relational networks that do not use money is required.
The trick to post capitalism, that is, the trick to achieve it, is rather relieving in simplicity. The current profit motive provides an ample framework for people to be driven ; the same way we are driven to work everyday - for MONEY, to want a post capital order. To have low costs on the essentials of life is to free people from work.
If governments, or the private sector can provide key aspects of existence for next to no cost the goal is in sight. Housing, water and food are the most important parts of this, to provide these next to cost is integral to a way of achieving post capitalism. None, in their current dimension are adequate, the housing market, for instance, is subject to rent seeking and more importantly, the current architectural design and environmental relationship is flawed. I.e. housing is monolithic, expensive, inappropriate. Really, it does not reflect the mobile and communitarian nature of people. Food is centralised, subsidised, and prosthetic. It needs to be grown and sustained and reproduced (in excess) by people on a decentralised basis. etcetcetcetc.
The idea is to make the fundamentals of existence replicable via social, rather than capitalist means.
There is no inherent reason why this has not been achieved. What barriers are there to this? I do not take answers such as labelling essential ideas of humans, i.e. we are greedy/stupid. It is apparent, and we can reconfigure this many times in different ways, that social existence can be and could be constructed in many different ways. Our social practises can be reconstructed at any moment. We are not subject to them, they are subject to us.
Apparently this is not so.
When the Banks failed, we bailed them out. For some reason no one was patiently sat there, waiting, poised, a symbol reflecting that repetitious volatility of capitalism and our self awareness of that fact. No one, for some obscene reason, was ready. But when they failed a "select group of people", because "we" certain didn't, poured lots of public ("our") money "saving" the banks. This was done to "save us" from the economy.
now why not just say, "oh." We have a system that we have little, passive, control over. We don't control our productivity, it does. (note the job losses and lower company profits since the meltdown) Our life, the apparent stability of it, is reliant on the economy being stable. NOW WHY DO WE DELEGATE THE POWER TO HAVE A STABLE LIFE INTO DISEMBODIED, UNSTABLE "ECONOMY".
It is an interesting state of affairs that we have the communication to achieve the post capitalist end... but don't.
I hope this post draws attention to the aims of post capitalism, the relative ease (in theory, apparently) of achieving it; the reconfigurable nature of social relations; the happy connection between the profit motive and it's stimulation of post capitalism (namely, that people want to avoid spending money); and the redundancy of now.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Capitalism and Freedom
There is little connection, if any, to these two words acting as a title. Capitalism, does not necessitate, freedom. Both Fukuyama and Milton Friedman figured that capitalist markets are the purest expression of freedom - at least, as far as we can deduce. Friedman for his defence of a free market in promoting freedom, and Fukuyama for a market as an End State to humanity.
I am not going to attack the alleged relationship between capitalist markets and freedom by negating the suggestions by these two people or others nor by attacking the concept of freedom as incoherent, which it, pretty much, is. Quite simply, I am attacking the the state of being one has in a capitalist market, and our current understanding of freedom (assuming it is some coherent expression) within capitalism- and how that idea is internally fissured. In conclusion, i draw this together and suggest alternatives to experiencing freedom.
When we enter the capitalist framework several things become apparent, if you don't have the money for something, you cannot have it. While this is not a problem in it's most superficial aspects - no, you are not allowed to own the ferrari- it is hugely problematical when we consider that this person cannot have the best healthcare. It is a difficulty where that person cannot have clean water, or cannot have a safe home or get the best education.
Not only is the quality of, and access to, a service being arbitrated by the amount of money you have, but there is the internal problem that the service quality itself is negotiated by it's access to money.
One must exist based in relation to their capital, the ability to "do" is ultimately de-limited to what they can afford. This ranks next to: the length and quality of our life has a relationship with money.
This is our current social organisation. Where action is precipitated far quicker by money than by effort and ingenuity. (unless we replace effort with how much money you put in, and ingenuity to the subtle allocation of money.) And this is the quintessential problem when framed according to our capacity for freedom. How free are you where your actions are arbitrated by some paper, and the extent of your actions are arbitrated by paper. Simplistically, but this really does get to the heart of it: if i have a ten pounds, i am far more free than the person with none.
We often go for an account of freedom and organisation based on liberalism. This account of freedom, of morality, of organisation, sounds something like: "we are all equal" and "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others." It sounds oddly utilitarian. However this notion of liberalism is curiously tied up with capitalism and in fact, surely, it is at odds with itself. The typical liberal account of what it means to be free, or even some of it's fundamental tenets such as "equality" and "rights" are under heavy fire in a capitalist market. In this way it seems there is a severe confusion over what it means to exist freely and our relationship to the economic model of capitalism. This confusion is amplified to a state of delusion when the two ideas are connected, and there is no apparent contradiction.
The idea is further and far more obviously confused when we look at economic liberalism (an extreme strand of capitalism) in it's relationship and even it's root in liberalism. Why is there even an academic strand that goes as far as connecting philosophical liberalism to economic liberalism when the two are most certainly at odds. It seems perverse to suggest, that in an unregulated market, any sense of liberalism can hold out: we would not be equal, have equal things, or even basic rights. We would be as free as how much money we have.
It also raises the observation of having a moral model which is internally fissured in logic but externally coherent in perception, in its marriage within a capitalist existence. Not only does this highlight the lack of necessity, in accuracy, between language and things, it also goes to show how perception can define our relations. With this in mind, freedom becomes a far more important concept. Our idea of freedom becomes the measure of freedom, we have a position of philosophical liberalism and this exists alongside capitalism and this is not a problem? This is not contradictory? This doesn't make us revolt - because, for some reason, this is what it means to be free. This is a pretty convenient state of affairs for us.
In conclusion an excerpt from wikipedia really sets the groundwork, "Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom" this is the sounding of Fukuyama and Friedman, that freedom in it's totality can be gleamed by the existence of economic freedom. The assumption that economic freedom should take the form of capitalism is sick - indeed, the fact the the words economic liberalism and economic freedom signify capitalist markets is sick. There is little relationship between capitalism and freedom especially when they are seen as distinct states of affairs. Capitalism often undermines freedom.
If social and political freedom has an integral relationship to the economy, and we know the social and political freedoms we want (broadly speaking a form of liberalism and democracy), we can engineer an economy; simply, we should be developing an economy that does not work on scarcity or profit and removes the totality of capitalism (the fact that everything- even food and water- costs) from our lives. We should develop an economy based on social action, human action, rather than that which is motivated by profit or money to achieve social and political freedom. In this way we agree with the quote, when economic freedom ceases to mean capitalism, no matter the strand, and begins to mean economic freedom - then we'll have freedom.
I am not going to attack the alleged relationship between capitalist markets and freedom by negating the suggestions by these two people or others nor by attacking the concept of freedom as incoherent, which it, pretty much, is. Quite simply, I am attacking the the state of being one has in a capitalist market, and our current understanding of freedom (assuming it is some coherent expression) within capitalism- and how that idea is internally fissured. In conclusion, i draw this together and suggest alternatives to experiencing freedom.
When we enter the capitalist framework several things become apparent, if you don't have the money for something, you cannot have it. While this is not a problem in it's most superficial aspects - no, you are not allowed to own the ferrari- it is hugely problematical when we consider that this person cannot have the best healthcare. It is a difficulty where that person cannot have clean water, or cannot have a safe home or get the best education.
Not only is the quality of, and access to, a service being arbitrated by the amount of money you have, but there is the internal problem that the service quality itself is negotiated by it's access to money.
One must exist based in relation to their capital, the ability to "do" is ultimately de-limited to what they can afford. This ranks next to: the length and quality of our life has a relationship with money.
This is our current social organisation. Where action is precipitated far quicker by money than by effort and ingenuity. (unless we replace effort with how much money you put in, and ingenuity to the subtle allocation of money.) And this is the quintessential problem when framed according to our capacity for freedom. How free are you where your actions are arbitrated by some paper, and the extent of your actions are arbitrated by paper. Simplistically, but this really does get to the heart of it: if i have a ten pounds, i am far more free than the person with none.
We often go for an account of freedom and organisation based on liberalism. This account of freedom, of morality, of organisation, sounds something like: "we are all equal" and "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others." It sounds oddly utilitarian. However this notion of liberalism is curiously tied up with capitalism and in fact, surely, it is at odds with itself. The typical liberal account of what it means to be free, or even some of it's fundamental tenets such as "equality" and "rights" are under heavy fire in a capitalist market. In this way it seems there is a severe confusion over what it means to exist freely and our relationship to the economic model of capitalism. This confusion is amplified to a state of delusion when the two ideas are connected, and there is no apparent contradiction.
The idea is further and far more obviously confused when we look at economic liberalism (an extreme strand of capitalism) in it's relationship and even it's root in liberalism. Why is there even an academic strand that goes as far as connecting philosophical liberalism to economic liberalism when the two are most certainly at odds. It seems perverse to suggest, that in an unregulated market, any sense of liberalism can hold out: we would not be equal, have equal things, or even basic rights. We would be as free as how much money we have.
It also raises the observation of having a moral model which is internally fissured in logic but externally coherent in perception, in its marriage within a capitalist existence. Not only does this highlight the lack of necessity, in accuracy, between language and things, it also goes to show how perception can define our relations. With this in mind, freedom becomes a far more important concept. Our idea of freedom becomes the measure of freedom, we have a position of philosophical liberalism and this exists alongside capitalism and this is not a problem? This is not contradictory? This doesn't make us revolt - because, for some reason, this is what it means to be free. This is a pretty convenient state of affairs for us.
In conclusion an excerpt from wikipedia really sets the groundwork, "Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom" this is the sounding of Fukuyama and Friedman, that freedom in it's totality can be gleamed by the existence of economic freedom. The assumption that economic freedom should take the form of capitalism is sick - indeed, the fact the the words economic liberalism and economic freedom signify capitalist markets is sick. There is little relationship between capitalism and freedom especially when they are seen as distinct states of affairs. Capitalism often undermines freedom.
If social and political freedom has an integral relationship to the economy, and we know the social and political freedoms we want (broadly speaking a form of liberalism and democracy), we can engineer an economy; simply, we should be developing an economy that does not work on scarcity or profit and removes the totality of capitalism (the fact that everything- even food and water- costs) from our lives. We should develop an economy based on social action, human action, rather than that which is motivated by profit or money to achieve social and political freedom. In this way we agree with the quote, when economic freedom ceases to mean capitalism, no matter the strand, and begins to mean economic freedom - then we'll have freedom.
Saturday, 26 June 2010
My analysis of football (on wine)
A terrible travesty, if there ever was one, to have burdened the earth and poisoned our minds... Unlike wine.
I wrote on last fm...
"haha. I'd rather listen to about three tracks of godspeed... (around 90min, funnily enough) than watch football... I genuinly can't stand the attachment of a team to a country.... it makes no sense.. just cus they're called england does not mean they represent engand... thats like me whacking an AA badge on myself gettin hammered, killing a prostitute and then having people blame AA for sobriety induced stress."
then i giggled...
Sport is great. Sure, i'll give you that one. Definitely two thumbs up for entertainment and competition. But the climactic juncture of football induced frenzy, frothing mouthed people, is enough for me to "thumb-down" signalling, kill this awful abomination of satan-spawn stricken puke piece.
Here are my personal grievances, listed, numerically, for you:
1. Football has been obsessively bought into, which makes sense considering the size of the market, but this means mental rape every time i go near a media source.
2. The attachment of England (the team) as England (the country) and the ensuing nationalism... my team my country blablabla. The same approach goes for more local football clubs...
epitomized by the language "we beat them" as though our locality somehow connects us.
i wish it did.
3. they are paid to much. Based on basic supply and demand... they don't - but concerning the extent of world problems.... >> they should get paid faaaar less.
4. It's boring.
i don't think i even have that many points... and i don't think i even have a problem with football that much... just
GET OVER IT.
the wineage is calling.
I wrote on last fm...
"haha. I'd rather listen to about three tracks of godspeed... (around 90min, funnily enough) than watch football... I genuinly can't stand the attachment of a team to a country.... it makes no sense.. just cus they're called england does not mean they represent engand... thats like me whacking an AA badge on myself gettin hammered, killing a prostitute and then having people blame AA for sobriety induced stress."
then i giggled...
Sport is great. Sure, i'll give you that one. Definitely two thumbs up for entertainment and competition. But the climactic juncture of football induced frenzy, frothing mouthed people, is enough for me to "thumb-down" signalling, kill this awful abomination of satan-spawn stricken puke piece.
Here are my personal grievances, listed, numerically, for you:
1. Football has been obsessively bought into, which makes sense considering the size of the market, but this means mental rape every time i go near a media source.
2. The attachment of England (the team) as England (the country) and the ensuing nationalism... my team my country blablabla. The same approach goes for more local football clubs...
epitomized by the language "we beat them" as though our locality somehow connects us.
i wish it did.
3. they are paid to much. Based on basic supply and demand... they don't - but concerning the extent of world problems.... >> they should get paid faaaar less.
4. It's boring.
i don't think i even have that many points... and i don't think i even have a problem with football that much... just
GET OVER IT.
the wineage is calling.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Language and educational performance.
I almost misspelt and published "performance" missing the N. We'd have a case of perfor-mace, like i could spray it in your eyes and, yes, i do believe you performance would be lowered. Sadly this post is not about macing people, although i think that might a be a fun topic.
This is about our capacity to use and understand language, and it's relationship to educational performance/attainment.
A sociologist Bernstein did a study which illustrated the use of Restricted and Elaborate language which are the ideas, the impetus from where i am drawing on. His ideas cover the implicit meaning in language, which, when kept implicit constitute restricted code.
i don't think this is a fair presentation of Bernstein and by google(ing) or just clicking here, you can read about him.
Lucky for Bernstein, his fans, and by causality, me, this is not about Bernstein.
Through socialization, of family, media, school, reading books playing games - essentially- through our remembered experiences we collect, learn and disseminate language.
But it is the case that certain groups are less fortunate than others in their control over language, i mean, typically, i'm talking about class, but that doesn't explain it.
Instead, ill introduce the idea of social capital (in this sense, the collected "social" - here, language) and say there is a correlation between class and social capital.
But my actual point is simply that it is not over, and we still have (no matter the class) a big problem with language and educational performance.
A few days ago, and this is the reason for writing this, (just to provide a small explanation) an English question used the word "provocative" and the student didn't understand.
Language is a serious barrier to educational performance, and i'd even go as far to say, some ones understanding of the world.
This is about our capacity to use and understand language, and it's relationship to educational performance/attainment.
A sociologist Bernstein did a study which illustrated the use of Restricted and Elaborate language which are the ideas, the impetus from where i am drawing on. His ideas cover the implicit meaning in language, which, when kept implicit constitute restricted code.
i don't think this is a fair presentation of Bernstein and by google(ing) or just clicking here, you can read about him.
Lucky for Bernstein, his fans, and by causality, me, this is not about Bernstein.
Through socialization, of family, media, school, reading books playing games - essentially- through our remembered experiences we collect, learn and disseminate language.
But it is the case that certain groups are less fortunate than others in their control over language, i mean, typically, i'm talking about class, but that doesn't explain it.
Instead, ill introduce the idea of social capital (in this sense, the collected "social" - here, language) and say there is a correlation between class and social capital.
But my actual point is simply that it is not over, and we still have (no matter the class) a big problem with language and educational performance.
A few days ago, and this is the reason for writing this, (just to provide a small explanation) an English question used the word "provocative" and the student didn't understand.
Language is a serious barrier to educational performance, and i'd even go as far to say, some ones understanding of the world.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
The Eras of History
The aim of this blog is to give people a better understanding of what it is historians actually do and how varied their area of study can be. It is also worth noting that its not just era historians tend to specialise in but also geography, historical school (historiography) and the type of history as well. For example I would class myself as a Late Modern/Contemporary Marxist Historian of European Socio-Political History, with a main focus on Britain, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I also often look into the 'Great Man theory' of history. Indeed, a historian is very specific and never general about what he/she studies unless they work within the Annals School of history.
Prehistory - history from the beginning of life on Earth up until the first accounts of written in history. Which is roughly between 5000BC and 3500BC. Can be narrowed down to:
- Stone Age
- Bronze Age
- Iron Age
Note: some have argued that the Big Bang itself is the beginning of prehistory.
Antiquity - This tends to cover Mesopotamia right up until the end of the Classics. For example it includes:
- Ancient Egypt
- Ancient Rome
- Ancient Greece
- Persian Empire
and many others.
Middle Ages (Medieval) - Subsequently at the end of the Roman Empire, the Middles Ages begins around roughly 500ad. It can be divided into three sub eras:
- Early Middle Ages approx. 500ad - 1000ad (Dark Ages)
- High Middle Ages approx. 1000ad - 1300ad
- Late Middle Ages approx. 1300ad - 1500ad (Renaissance)
Modern - You then have Modern history which again can be narrowed down to three sub eras:
- Early Modern approx. 1500ad - 1750ad (Enlightenment approx 1637ad - 1804ad) (Debated)
- Late Modern approx. 1750ad - 1989ad (Industrial Revolution approx. 1780ad - 1890ad) (World War I 1914ad - 1918ad, World War II 1939ad - 1945ad and the Cold War 1946ad - 1989ad) (Industrial Revolution and Cold War dates are highly debated)
- Contemporary Modern 0r Post-Modern approx. 1989ad - present (Collapse of Communism)
Note: this is highly debated by historians and therefore this should not be taken as dogma. For example some argue that the Contemporary era begins in 1900ad. I can agree to this to some extent as their are still people alive from that date. (Or there was when I last checked). Therefore we can argue that Contemporary history begins with the birth date of the oldest person on the planet as Contemporary means to 'be there' or 'eye witness'.
Some Historians debate all of this, this is the 'popular' and also my accepted eras of history.
The reason I have done this is because people often make the mistake of thinking historians study all history. this is not so, it would be impossible. Indeed I do find pretty much all history interesting. However as an Academic I only tend to study the Late modern and Contemporary Eras.
Note: This is all due to change as new evidence is uncovered everyday. For example it is hypothesized that there was a civilisation before Mesopotamia in Greenland or Antarctica.
- So now the question is, whats next? There is a subject within history known as Futurism. This is the study of what possibilities may occur in the future, be it immediate or distant. Futurists tend to see Post Modern as a different era to Contemporary History.
Prehistory - history from the beginning of life on Earth up until the first accounts of written in history. Which is roughly between 5000BC and 3500BC. Can be narrowed down to:
- Stone Age
- Bronze Age
- Iron Age
Note: some have argued that the Big Bang itself is the beginning of prehistory.
Antiquity - This tends to cover Mesopotamia right up until the end of the Classics. For example it includes:
- Ancient Egypt
- Ancient Rome
- Ancient Greece
- Persian Empire
and many others.
Middle Ages (Medieval) - Subsequently at the end of the Roman Empire, the Middles Ages begins around roughly 500ad. It can be divided into three sub eras:
- Early Middle Ages approx. 500ad - 1000ad (Dark Ages)
- High Middle Ages approx. 1000ad - 1300ad
- Late Middle Ages approx. 1300ad - 1500ad (Renaissance)
Modern - You then have Modern history which again can be narrowed down to three sub eras:
- Early Modern approx. 1500ad - 1750ad (Enlightenment approx 1637ad - 1804ad) (Debated)
- Late Modern approx. 1750ad - 1989ad (Industrial Revolution approx. 1780ad - 1890ad) (World War I 1914ad - 1918ad, World War II 1939ad - 1945ad and the Cold War 1946ad - 1989ad) (Industrial Revolution and Cold War dates are highly debated)
- Contemporary Modern 0r Post-Modern approx. 1989ad - present (Collapse of Communism)
Note: this is highly debated by historians and therefore this should not be taken as dogma. For example some argue that the Contemporary era begins in 1900ad. I can agree to this to some extent as their are still people alive from that date. (Or there was when I last checked). Therefore we can argue that Contemporary history begins with the birth date of the oldest person on the planet as Contemporary means to 'be there' or 'eye witness'.
Some Historians debate all of this, this is the 'popular' and also my accepted eras of history.
The reason I have done this is because people often make the mistake of thinking historians study all history. this is not so, it would be impossible. Indeed I do find pretty much all history interesting. However as an Academic I only tend to study the Late modern and Contemporary Eras.
Note: This is all due to change as new evidence is uncovered everyday. For example it is hypothesized that there was a civilisation before Mesopotamia in Greenland or Antarctica.
- So now the question is, whats next? There is a subject within history known as Futurism. This is the study of what possibilities may occur in the future, be it immediate or distant. Futurists tend to see Post Modern as a different era to Contemporary History.
Monday, 7 June 2010
Competitative Markets, A Fault In Design?
This idea is not mine and although i haven't read any literature about it, no doubt someone has been able to illustrate this faaaaar clearer than me:
In any competitive preference catching system (of units, e.g. votes/money), occupation of the centre of preference is, tactically, the best decision. In real life, this is an abysmal flaw.
This was a Facebook post.
The idea is that where the collection of units is needed, the collector will sit in the most effective area for that collection.
Take, for example, an idea from a book called something like: dumbing down. The book argues that media (as it is within a market) occupies the centre (in terms of what it shows and the complexity of what it shows) because this is where the market share is.
You don’t buy a paper if it appears to complicated, you don’t buy a paper if it is mind numbingly simple.
Now, the effect of this is… an average of STUPIDITY!
Why?
People are reading magazines, newspapers and watching news, films and television... that have been designed to occupy the centre and collect the most money.
In a competitive market challenging the way a reader thinks and challenging their ability to read is monetary suicide. There is a market for it, but it is NO where near as big.
An example in politics shouldn't be difficult. After all, in the UK and the US, the main political parties occupy the centre: Mediocre language complexity and hazy policy commitments (unless useful), avoidance of divisive issues (also, unless useful).
Look at the debates, after all, there wasn’t an in depth discussion using complicated language… it was politicking.
The centre is more or less, the status quo. It is the area the majority occupy.
The status quo is an IQ near 100.
A preference of hedonism (pleasure/entertainment).
And finally an implicit acceptance of capitalism.
The effect of this, i think, to some extent, is a dumbing down (or, simplification) of language and media. A slimming of choices where a group has monopolised the centre. A homogenization of culture. And a replication of the status quo, e.g. capitalism and IQ averages. Overall, a replication and simplification of ideas.
Not really a good thing.
In any competitive preference catching system (of units, e.g. votes/money), occupation of the centre of preference is, tactically, the best decision. In real life, this is an abysmal flaw.
This was a Facebook post.
The idea is that where the collection of units is needed, the collector will sit in the most effective area for that collection.
Take, for example, an idea from a book called something like: dumbing down. The book argues that media (as it is within a market) occupies the centre (in terms of what it shows and the complexity of what it shows) because this is where the market share is.
You don’t buy a paper if it appears to complicated, you don’t buy a paper if it is mind numbingly simple.
Now, the effect of this is… an average of STUPIDITY!
Why?
People are reading magazines, newspapers and watching news, films and television... that have been designed to occupy the centre and collect the most money.
In a competitive market challenging the way a reader thinks and challenging their ability to read is monetary suicide. There is a market for it, but it is NO where near as big.
An example in politics shouldn't be difficult. After all, in the UK and the US, the main political parties occupy the centre: Mediocre language complexity and hazy policy commitments (unless useful), avoidance of divisive issues (also, unless useful).
Look at the debates, after all, there wasn’t an in depth discussion using complicated language… it was politicking.
The centre is more or less, the status quo. It is the area the majority occupy.
The status quo is an IQ near 100.
A preference of hedonism (pleasure/entertainment).
And finally an implicit acceptance of capitalism.
The effect of this, i think, to some extent, is a dumbing down (or, simplification) of language and media. A slimming of choices where a group has monopolised the centre. A homogenization of culture. And a replication of the status quo, e.g. capitalism and IQ averages. Overall, a replication and simplification of ideas.
Not really a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)