 |
| Working at Home |
 |
| Contemplating Liz |
 |
| Life is like an unfinished Jigsaw |
Saturday 20 June 2020
Sunday 14 June 2020
Woman of our Time
Listened to Melvin Bragg and his guests talking about the work of Hannah Arendt.
Like so many Jewish thinkers, she puzzled why the Nazi State so successfully engaged in the impossible task of eliminating a whole people group and religion. Henri Tajfel, Chair of Experimental Social Psychology at Bristol University was also fascinated how human groups divide and polarise, choosing to punish others as a form of defense (the in-group and the out-group)..
Arendt's famous phrase is the 'Banality of Evil', used in connection with her investigation into the trail of Adolf Eichmann, after the second world. She made a distinction between cognisant evil, as famously illustrated by Shakespeare Richard III, (in his soliloquise on debating the efficacy of evil acts), and evil that is undertaken without thought. This is the difference between the bully, and the bystanders, who are pulled into the actions of the bully and in consequence, empower the bully. Thus the bully pulls the pigtails. In itself this is an ugly act, but a small act. However the bystanders are encouraged to follow suit. They also pull the pigtails as they pass. All are tainted by the sin, thought the bystanders act without thought. This is the power of racism, sexism, and all oppression. One oppressive person can do very little. When the collective takes up the oppression, as if it were invisible, the oppression becomes locked into culture. It become normal, and therefore does not require thought; it cannot be seen (like fish examining the water they swim round in.)
Arendt then went on to think about which political model could guard against totalitarianism. Being a refugee in American, she saw the American system as a healthy reproduction of classical republicanism, where the people moderate against the diminution of humanity. Arendt recognised that it is when humans become nameless; when they become feelingless, that consent to oppress is given.
Arendt believed that people should have value from the moment they are born, and this should not be based on legitimisation by the state. However she reluctantly noted that societies struggle to be this open They operate behind boundaries and borders, invisible lines across the world ("this is my country, you are a citizen, entitled to this, you are a foreigner, not my responsibility.") I once hear a quote from Yehudi Menuhin that I liked. "Borders are the prisons we choose to live in."
Arendt studied in Freiburg with Heidegger (with whom she had an affair). Whereas Heidegger saw The human relationship with death as the key to the way we understand life, for Arendt it was how we see birth. Hers was a outward looking approach; one of joy and optimism.
As a refugee, she felt keenly the indignity of the arbitrator nature of statelessness. This is the place of orphans, gypsies, exiles and anyone who falls in love with someone who is not of their category, and wants to get married.
Like so many Jewish thinkers, she puzzled why the Nazi State so successfully engaged in the impossible task of eliminating a whole people group and religion. Henri Tajfel, Chair of Experimental Social Psychology at Bristol University was also fascinated how human groups divide and polarise, choosing to punish others as a form of defense (the in-group and the out-group)..
Arendt's famous phrase is the 'Banality of Evil', used in connection with her investigation into the trail of Adolf Eichmann, after the second world. She made a distinction between cognisant evil, as famously illustrated by Shakespeare Richard III, (in his soliloquise on debating the efficacy of evil acts), and evil that is undertaken without thought. This is the difference between the bully, and the bystanders, who are pulled into the actions of the bully and in consequence, empower the bully. Thus the bully pulls the pigtails. In itself this is an ugly act, but a small act. However the bystanders are encouraged to follow suit. They also pull the pigtails as they pass. All are tainted by the sin, thought the bystanders act without thought. This is the power of racism, sexism, and all oppression. One oppressive person can do very little. When the collective takes up the oppression, as if it were invisible, the oppression becomes locked into culture. It become normal, and therefore does not require thought; it cannot be seen (like fish examining the water they swim round in.)
Arendt then went on to think about which political model could guard against totalitarianism. Being a refugee in American, she saw the American system as a healthy reproduction of classical republicanism, where the people moderate against the diminution of humanity. Arendt recognised that it is when humans become nameless; when they become feelingless, that consent to oppress is given.
Arendt believed that people should have value from the moment they are born, and this should not be based on legitimisation by the state. However she reluctantly noted that societies struggle to be this open They operate behind boundaries and borders, invisible lines across the world ("this is my country, you are a citizen, entitled to this, you are a foreigner, not my responsibility.") I once hear a quote from Yehudi Menuhin that I liked. "Borders are the prisons we choose to live in."
Arendt studied in Freiburg with Heidegger (with whom she had an affair). Whereas Heidegger saw The human relationship with death as the key to the way we understand life, for Arendt it was how we see birth. Hers was a outward looking approach; one of joy and optimism.
As a refugee, she felt keenly the indignity of the arbitrator nature of statelessness. This is the place of orphans, gypsies, exiles and anyone who falls in love with someone who is not of their category, and wants to get married.
Tuesday 9 June 2020
Finding A New Channel (for a Statue)
The Bristol protesters were criticised for not using democratic channels to remove the taunting symbol of slavery - the statue of Edward Colston. In the end they found a channel that worked. It happened to be the dock.
My thoughts are:-
1) So many people will relate to the frustration of the 'democratic process', were obfuscation, delay, and compromise leads to a sense of helplessness, in a tissue of lies. This was felt by suffragettes, Irish nationalists, on and on, to people trying to get justice in the courts today. It's not a surprise that sometimes people try to take things into their own hands.
2) The problem with Colston is that he is symbolic of an age that went on for ages. And it's horrible to look and see evil in our midst. The Germans and Japanese have needed to do it last century. How would we feel about German cities having statues of Hitler, Goering or Himmler in their town squares? ('But they gave so much to this town.')
3) Facing up to the past. Obviously in the past the ruling elite had the power. The poor of Britain and Ireland were in a category just above slavery. There was a tight hegemony between the church, state and legal profession to facilitate slavery. Britain should not have been considered a christian country.
4) It has taken generations to enable the British people to face the crimes that dwarf the Holocaust Like the Holocaust it begins by 'dehumanising' people in order to create the moral vacuum in which atrocities can take place. This has also been seen in the destruction of native peoples around the world.
5) How do we know what the current injustices are? It is the grinding poverty of the 'majority' world. All people are equal, just some people are more equal than others. As with slavery, we the citizens of the west are responsible for this.
My thoughts are:-
1) So many people will relate to the frustration of the 'democratic process', were obfuscation, delay, and compromise leads to a sense of helplessness, in a tissue of lies. This was felt by suffragettes, Irish nationalists, on and on, to people trying to get justice in the courts today. It's not a surprise that sometimes people try to take things into their own hands.
2) The problem with Colston is that he is symbolic of an age that went on for ages. And it's horrible to look and see evil in our midst. The Germans and Japanese have needed to do it last century. How would we feel about German cities having statues of Hitler, Goering or Himmler in their town squares? ('But they gave so much to this town.')
3) Facing up to the past. Obviously in the past the ruling elite had the power. The poor of Britain and Ireland were in a category just above slavery. There was a tight hegemony between the church, state and legal profession to facilitate slavery. Britain should not have been considered a christian country.
4) It has taken generations to enable the British people to face the crimes that dwarf the Holocaust Like the Holocaust it begins by 'dehumanising' people in order to create the moral vacuum in which atrocities can take place. This has also been seen in the destruction of native peoples around the world.
5) How do we know what the current injustices are? It is the grinding poverty of the 'majority' world. All people are equal, just some people are more equal than others. As with slavery, we the citizens of the west are responsible for this.
Sunday 7 June 2020
White Supremacy
These two words are too controversial to utter - the 'name that cannot be mentioned'.
Everyone is likely to have a different view...this is both a strength and weakness in this area. It makes it explosive. Like Alfred Noble (inventor of dynamite), we discover it is useful both for good and destruction.
My thoughts are the factors below should first be considered.
1) My position with regard to the subject based on - RANK
This is given to me by society and is largely non-negotiable, (both at a local and international level). This relates to the power and influence I am given based on age, experience, gender, disability sexuality, ethnicity, education etc (What Burnham has called the Social GGRRAAACCEEESSS).
2) What I have to gain and loose, and my motivation. My motivation often relates to deep seated fears and insecurities. If I were on the other side of the power line, what would 'they' do to me?
3) We must start by trying to understand the 'others' perspective', and move from their position, not our own. (Not that our experience is wrong, it is just impossible to move any other way. It is like me trying to move myself by pulling hard on my boot straps.)
My illustration is from the famous American economics study I heard quoted by Trevor Philips (past CEO of the Racial Equality Commission). At the conference Philips spoke about a study from the USA that clearly revealed the nature of Institutional Racism publish by Ayres and Sielegman (1995). The main conclusion of this study is to note that the racial and gender inequality in car buying in the USA has no clear over all factor. Computer programmes were felt to have the inequalities embedded in them that over tens of years (very difficult to unpick). The question I came away with was who is the most motivated to correct unjust systems? Surely all of us, but in reality it was the black men who were out of pocket by up to $200. Surely they will be the most motivated to see justice? When I myself am linked to the effect of the inequality, then I am most likely to be motivated.
The next is the message given by Frederick Douglas as described on In Our Time with Melvin Bragg.
Messages from people like Harriet Tubman and other black women are likely to have been better know but for massive gender inequality.
Douglass was able to point out to 'white Americans' the duplicity of 'fair and just' legal systems. After emancipation the black community was left with very little (pushed to the back of the que) with a concerted effort in place to keep them there. Just as a builder seems to slow down efforts to complete a project as the project comes to it's conclusion (I think of Zeno' paradox), true justice appears to be unobtainable. As progress moves towards a conclusion, the speed of movement slows to zero, with the target never reached.
The third is discussion on Radio 4 (Sunday Programme 7:45). The discussion focused on
- The British legacy and influence of racism on the rest of the world
- White supremacy within the British church.
- The complexity of labeling within communities.
My own parable is of a savage burglar. We are relieved that the burglar has mercifully been arrested and tried. Many say the sentence given however was too soft.
The charge is pillage, rape, deceit, emotional abuse, murder, torture and exploitation (the list goes on.)
The charges are numerous over hundreds of years. This case puts 'the crimes of the holocaust' into the shade.
In the defendant's defence the burglar notes that if they had not taken advantage of the 'open door' offered, another burglars would have. They feel in mitigation it must be noted that they were not as bad as these other burglars. The burglar provided food and some comfort to their hostages. They have also been prepared to apologies, and remain very sorry. They would like to remain on friendly terms. The burglar says they are open to listening about how relationships can be restored, and feel hurt that issues from the (distant) past continue to cause distress.
In reparation the burglar has been made to return a few cultural items. The burglar still lives free, and actually flourishes on the fat of the past pillaging. Again, surely by now, "this appropriation has becomes mine? Possession is nine tenths of the law."
For the Spanish this literally was silver and gold from Bolivia etc. For the British this was the good fortune in being about to attack and possess weighed down Spanish galleons.
Douglass came to the UK for two years. He was able to point out the hypocrisy of a christian monarchical nation who continues to oppress the poor, women, and the Irish nation. I hear that when he returned to the USA he chose to be blind to to this inconsistency, perhaps to aide the effort to apply pressure to the American political establishment. Douglass was one of the first to clearly state the links between one oppression and the the next- the Gordian's knot.
Finally of our churches. The challenge is the idea that within our church power and decision-making is to be shared. This includes churches that are white majority. Racial discrimination does not only take place in multi-cultural areas. When our eyes and heart are open, we begin to see the power of 'rank', and smell the abuses that often accompany it. Difference becomes more significant, and less troubling at the same time.
Am I able to return stolen power to others? What might this entail (sometimes it's simple, but not always.)
What are the taboo's. These days in the UK we have created a sensitivity which is both healthy, and creates barriers. I am afraid to expose my ignorance. I feel insecure because of 'the fog', but am concerned that you might realise this.
If I am genuinely interested in my neighbour, I do not need to worry. I just need to ask.
Am I willing to put my neighbours preferences and priorities over my own? Am I able to contain my personal fear of violence and retribution? That's the challenge.
Everyone is likely to have a different view...this is both a strength and weakness in this area. It makes it explosive. Like Alfred Noble (inventor of dynamite), we discover it is useful both for good and destruction.
My thoughts are the factors below should first be considered.
1) My position with regard to the subject based on - RANK
This is given to me by society and is largely non-negotiable, (both at a local and international level). This relates to the power and influence I am given based on age, experience, gender, disability sexuality, ethnicity, education etc (What Burnham has called the Social GGRRAAACCEEESSS).
2) What I have to gain and loose, and my motivation. My motivation often relates to deep seated fears and insecurities. If I were on the other side of the power line, what would 'they' do to me?
3) We must start by trying to understand the 'others' perspective', and move from their position, not our own. (Not that our experience is wrong, it is just impossible to move any other way. It is like me trying to move myself by pulling hard on my boot straps.)
My illustration is from the famous American economics study I heard quoted by Trevor Philips (past CEO of the Racial Equality Commission). At the conference Philips spoke about a study from the USA that clearly revealed the nature of Institutional Racism publish by Ayres and Sielegman (1995). The main conclusion of this study is to note that the racial and gender inequality in car buying in the USA has no clear over all factor. Computer programmes were felt to have the inequalities embedded in them that over tens of years (very difficult to unpick). The question I came away with was who is the most motivated to correct unjust systems? Surely all of us, but in reality it was the black men who were out of pocket by up to $200. Surely they will be the most motivated to see justice? When I myself am linked to the effect of the inequality, then I am most likely to be motivated.
The next is the message given by Frederick Douglas as described on In Our Time with Melvin Bragg.
Messages from people like Harriet Tubman and other black women are likely to have been better know but for massive gender inequality.
Douglass was able to point out to 'white Americans' the duplicity of 'fair and just' legal systems. After emancipation the black community was left with very little (pushed to the back of the que) with a concerted effort in place to keep them there. Just as a builder seems to slow down efforts to complete a project as the project comes to it's conclusion (I think of Zeno' paradox), true justice appears to be unobtainable. As progress moves towards a conclusion, the speed of movement slows to zero, with the target never reached.
The third is discussion on Radio 4 (Sunday Programme 7:45). The discussion focused on
- The British legacy and influence of racism on the rest of the world
- White supremacy within the British church.
- The complexity of labeling within communities.
My own parable is of a savage burglar. We are relieved that the burglar has mercifully been arrested and tried. Many say the sentence given however was too soft.
The charge is pillage, rape, deceit, emotional abuse, murder, torture and exploitation (the list goes on.)
The charges are numerous over hundreds of years. This case puts 'the crimes of the holocaust' into the shade.
In the defendant's defence the burglar notes that if they had not taken advantage of the 'open door' offered, another burglars would have. They feel in mitigation it must be noted that they were not as bad as these other burglars. The burglar provided food and some comfort to their hostages. They have also been prepared to apologies, and remain very sorry. They would like to remain on friendly terms. The burglar says they are open to listening about how relationships can be restored, and feel hurt that issues from the (distant) past continue to cause distress.
In reparation the burglar has been made to return a few cultural items. The burglar still lives free, and actually flourishes on the fat of the past pillaging. Again, surely by now, "this appropriation has becomes mine? Possession is nine tenths of the law."
For the Spanish this literally was silver and gold from Bolivia etc. For the British this was the good fortune in being about to attack and possess weighed down Spanish galleons.
Douglass came to the UK for two years. He was able to point out the hypocrisy of a christian monarchical nation who continues to oppress the poor, women, and the Irish nation. I hear that when he returned to the USA he chose to be blind to to this inconsistency, perhaps to aide the effort to apply pressure to the American political establishment. Douglass was one of the first to clearly state the links between one oppression and the the next- the Gordian's knot.
Finally of our churches. The challenge is the idea that within our church power and decision-making is to be shared. This includes churches that are white majority. Racial discrimination does not only take place in multi-cultural areas. When our eyes and heart are open, we begin to see the power of 'rank', and smell the abuses that often accompany it. Difference becomes more significant, and less troubling at the same time.
Am I able to return stolen power to others? What might this entail (sometimes it's simple, but not always.)
What are the taboo's. These days in the UK we have created a sensitivity which is both healthy, and creates barriers. I am afraid to expose my ignorance. I feel insecure because of 'the fog', but am concerned that you might realise this.
If I am genuinely interested in my neighbour, I do not need to worry. I just need to ask.
Am I willing to put my neighbours preferences and priorities over my own? Am I able to contain my personal fear of violence and retribution? That's the challenge.
Tuesday 2 June 2020
Jo and Liz
 |
| Here is Jo |
 |
| Here is Liz |
 |
| So close |
 |
| Where Liz has been living this year |
 |
| Her Kitchen- unmissable |
 |
| View from our garden |
Half Term in Leicester
 |
| Walking in the country (Stoughton Grange) |
 |
| Treading with caution |
 |
| Enjoying all the space |
 |
| Liquid gold |
 |
| Harvesting the Elder Flowers |
 |
| Murky depths |
 |
| Final product |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)