Random Variable

As it has been reported in the news that we may spend more than £2.5 billion on Christmas presents today, I thought it’d be prescient to address something that’s been nagging on my mind.

When (Red) first tried to add me to MySpace, I immediately clicked “Deny” and left it at that. It’s only in the last week I actually understood what the purpose of (Red) was – a multi-vendor brand that participating companies donate a proportion of profits to, in order to provide antiretroviral drugs to Africa.

So this is another example of the new-age philanthropy of the 21^st Century. For a while I’ve been thinking that sustainability/ethicality is the natural evolutionary/revolutionary step for capitalism. Heck, “why the hell not?” I thought.

However, there seems to be a sinister obverse to this apparently sustainable capitalism.

Before I go further, let’s look at some numbers (UNAIDS 2006):

 

140 000 is a rather small figure compared to the grandiose advertising that (Red) has created. Their manifesto (the marketers are not even beneath stealing political language) almost suggests that their work alone will save everyone from AIDS in Africa. The problem with this is the message that such a campaign sends out – that politics is useless, and economics can save the day. Yes, governments have been dragging their feet in providing donations, but that is no reason to say that we can ignore politics altogether.

What’s scarier is the assertion of commodity fetishism, or as Žižek puts it “liberal communism.” Yes, you may continue to consume and exploit as much as you wish, but as long as you moderate it – donate some money to charity, offset your carbon emissions, buy (Red). Not only that, but as the advert above shows, isn’t this the friendly face of neo-colonialism. Look at how Gisele represents the West; modern, artificial, and Kesme represents Africa; primitive, natural. The message being that Africans are incapable of helping themselves, that we must preserve their way of life, and we can do this through our consumerism. This ignores the fact that a large problem is the intellectual property war conducted by Western pharmaceuticals against those who would produce cheap generics, and also that our consumerist excesses are going to damage Africa in the form of ecological crises. Africans can golly well help themselves, if we didn’t try to fuck them at every opportunity. Mark from K-Punk has written a more detailed write-up of the semiotics of that particular advert over at AnyBody.

The logic of “liberal communism” appeared once again at my school, last week during charity week. I don’t wish to criticize the fact that we were supporting a good cause, but it struck me as odd that the fundraising (estimated to be several thousands of pounds) was accompanied by an orgy of consumerism. You could not walk down the corridor without a student trying to sell you something in the name of charity. In addition, each house, ala Harry Potter, put on a lunchtime event which basically consisted of teachers being humiliated in school versions of the crassest television programmes currently on air (and frequently involved male teachers in drag, singing). Of course, this is all met with the rebuttal “It’s all for a good cause, etc…” It’d be almost acceptable if it weren’t for events like the fashion show, which seemed little more than an excuse to accentuate consumerist teenage sexuality.

By the end of it all, whilst observing all the waste surrounding the place, I was muttering to myself Žižek’s opening remarks in his May master class (Žižek 2006): “No charity, we need some bloodshed.” Of course, I wouldn’t want a sponsored charity Battle Royale, but perhaps we need to beat ourselves up a little bit more.

Further reading

Donnelly, John. (RED)-hot this season - The Boston Globe. December 8, 2006. http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2006/12/08/red_hot_this_season/ (accessed December 23, 2006).

UNAIDS. 2006 Report on the global AIDS epidemic: Executive Summary / UNAIDS. Geneva: UNAIDS, 2006.

Žižek, Slavoj. “Master Class on Jacques Lacan: A Lateral Introduction.” no. . London: Birkbeck University, May 25, 2006.

Richard Feachem (Donnelly 2006), executive director of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, estimates that (RED) will raise $1 400 000 by the end of Christmas. If the cost of treating a patient in Africa for a year is $1 000, this will mean an extra 140 000 people treated with antiretroviral drugs – 2% of the 6 300 000 urgently needing antiretroviral drugs.

I no longer take comfort that teaching in the UK is nowhere near as bad as the American education depicted in HBO’s The Wire. In Episode 3, the first day of school ends with someone’s face being sliced with a flick knife. The teacher, an ex-cop, distraught prepares a talk to comfort the kids the following day, but they, however, seem to have already forgotten the event. As Adam R writes on The Weblog, “It’s great that it’s good, but is it good that it’s real?”

Is there any clearer indicator that the American education system is in dire need of a reboot?

I’ve uploaded a segment from BBC Newsnight broadcasted on September 20th 2006 on climate change denialism. George Monbiot investigates the links between organisations currently spreading misinformation about climate change and those who spread misinformation about tobacco in the nineties.

Paxman then interviews Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and John Mitchell, the Chief Scientist at the UK Meteorological Office and a member of the UN IPCC Working Group 1. I don’t Ebell quite understands that British media, particularly the BBC isn’t as susceptible to libertarian-inspired pseudoscience as US media clearly is. Myron’s argument soon falls apart after Paxman asks him the simple question “Are you a scientist?”

Paxman: Mr Ebell, you are not a scientist. It is clear that many people on your side of the fence are misrepresenting the arguments. You yourself described the government’s chief scientific advisor in this country of “knowing nothing about climate science”. He is at least a scientist. Now, do you see the problem that respectable scientists have with the sort of points made by organizations such as yours?

Partial transcipt courtesy of The Myron Ebell Climate.

Over the last few months, I have accidentally engaged in an ethnographic study of grassroots ecological direct action movements.

The result of my encounter with such a movement has resulted in a torrent of ideas which I will now try to write up over the next few months. My influences range from my obvious overused ones (i.e. Ulrich Beck) to some new characters, in particularly, Nathan Sayre over at Berkeley UofC.

Before I go any further, I have to say I encountered a wonderful bunch of people who I all wish to meet again when I move back to London.

I identified a number of problems within these movements, and I’ll go through each of them, one by one, in individual posts.

Today, I want to look at group polarisation, which seems to be a major issue.

What do we mean by group polarisation? It’s a well studied phenomenon by which members of group adopt a more extreme position through deliberation than they would otherwise hold individually.

Talking to individual members did reveal a disparity between the group’s aims and individuals themselves who on the whole appeared less extreme.

So what exactly did the group in question believe? Well, nothing short of an anarchic revolution to solve the climate crisis. In later articles I may discuss my opinion that this would be ecologically disastrous.

However, it is not the group’s aim to foster polarisation – quite the opposite, the structure of meetings is designed to prevent such phenomenon. Most groups adopt a “non-hierarchical” direct action approach – there are no leaders and everyone is equal. But this denies the weighting of individual nodes within the social network of the activist groups that actually occurs. To have a network where all nodes have an equal weighting would probably not function at all.

The main problem is not even that the group goes for the most risky position, or decides upon the most dangerous action – but the inability to incorporate differing views into their network.

I made it very clear from the outset that I was no anarchist, but solely concerned with the potentially ravaging effects of climate change. I stated that my reason for becoming involved in direct action was to increase diversity in the overall push for sustainability with the eventual result of political reform. This merely provided an excuse to more easily dismiss my other views which did not stem from my political leanings towards liberal cosmopolitanism – namely that of ensuring scientific accuracy and remaining self-critical to ensure that the groups eventual aims would not be counter productive in affecting the global climate.

There seems to be no easy way to fix the problem of polarisation.

In my final post, I will try to present some solutions to the problems.

Much hoo-ha has been made on outsourcing, and the fact that we’re going to lose our jobs, which although not a worrying prospect for someone who’s yet to find employment, is a concern.

However, I would like to argue, by way of a personal anecdote, that there is a strong business case not to outsource, and I’m going to argue like this…

I recently bought a phone. As some of you know, it’s a HTC Universal.

My phone number originated in a company that was purchased by another. I then bought a new phone from a competitor and transferred my number to it, using a process called “porting”. I’ve now got my new phone and tried to transfer the number back.

I was told by the agent in the shop, that this uncommon case might cause some problems on the network.

The porting process takes about a week, and after that time, you experience perhaps 2 hours of outage whilst your number is “ported”.

This day came, and for about ten hours, my number was disconnected to the outside world. Anyone who tried to phone me was greeted with the words “the number you have dialled is incorrect”

So you can imagine my reaction…oh shit…

I phone the company’s customer services, which are based in India.

I get through, and try to explain my dilemma. They ask for my phone number, so I give them my usual number. They reply that I have an “online” account, and that I need to speak to the “online” company, which is separate to the “in the shop” company. I explain that my old account was with the “online” company. So they do some digging and find three accounts in my name. Firstly, the “online” account which was disconnected in 2004, another one which appears to be a) a typo or b) illegitimate, and an account with a temporary number. So I ask them to checkthe last one and they say it’s all OK. So I explain that it’s not OK, and try to attempt to explain what my odd case above. They reply that I have an online account, and before I say anything they transfer me over to the online customer services (based in Scotland). They tell me that I have a “in the shop” account and there’s nothing they can do for me.

So I phone customer services again, and go the option which is what you press when you’re unhappy with the customer service. Again, it’s in the Indian call centre.

I try to explain my situation, when I’m just greeted with the words “you have an online account.” I calmly say, “No, if you look I have three accounts in my name.” The agent refuses to acknowledge this and says without hesitation that I’ve phone the wrong company.
By this time I’m fairly angry.

I ask “Can I speak to someone with a modicum of technical expertise in the ports department.”

“No. You need to speak to “online””

“Look, you can’t buy online accounts in the shop. I bought the phone in the shop, hence I have a standard pay monthly account, hence when I dial customer services on my phone it goes through to you!”

“You need to speak to “online”. Oh, and a port takes a week”

“No it doesn’t, it takes a week to initiate, but the actual port only takes an hour or two.”

“You need to speak to “online”.”

“I know where I bought the phone, and it was in a shop”

“You still need to speak to “online””

I hang up.

The whole office is in hysterics at this point, and this phone call soon becomes the stuff of company folklore.

My last chance of hope, is the Corporate BlackBerry support number – only for corporate blackberries, like the name suggests.

I ring up.

“How can I help with your BlackBerry sir?”

“Look, this isn’t about a BlackBerry, this is about me. I’ve just had an fucking awful time with personal customer services, and you’re my only hope.”

“OK, what’s up?”

AHHHHH! Relief!

I explain the situation, and they reply back to me:

“Can you give me your port code from your previous provider. I’ll just put you on hold, and call the ports department and see what’s happening.”

See, you can immediately tell that this person knows what they’re talking about.

After about five minutes, they take me off hold.

“They’ve had a look at the system, and it seems to be running very slowly today. Your port’s scheduled to complete at 10pm, but there’s going to be no problem with your number. Anything else I can help you with sir?”

“No, you’ve saved my life. Thanks!!”

“That’s OK. Goodbye sir!”

So, where is this corporate blackberry support HQ located? In the UK of course.

This is the crux of my argument.

You can’t outsource your customer facing operations to people who have no domain expertise. How is a Indian worker in a distant call centre supposed to understand concepts of number porting, mergers and acquisitions, disconnecting and reconnecting when they’re unlikely to have any experience of it themselves, personally or professionally.

You may as well train computers to do customer services, because in fact all you’re doing is “programming” the customer support workers to talk a foreign and alien language.

Their command of the English language or their intelligence is completely irrelevant without the benefit of experience.

Besides, isn’t that how companies choose who to employ anyway, based on experience?

I suspect that companies using outsourced customer service operations are probably losing revenue in the form of leaving irate customers who know more about their services and systems than the call centre staff.

Oh, and by the way, the company in question is O2. Formerly BT Cellnet. O2, ladies and gentlemen. They suck ass bad.

I had the pleasure of attending a very interesting lecture this evening at the London School of Economics entitled “Neo-Conservatism and the Origins of the New American Empire” given by Dr. Stefan Halper and Professor Anne Norton.

By coincidence, I was holding a copy of Adbusters “The Big Ideas of 2006” which had an article by Anne Norton entitled “Is it fascism yet?”

Anne Norton is particularly concerned about the growth of anti-Semitism against Muslims. She says she often finds herself scrubbing out anti-Arab statements on walls and trucks. Stefan Halper disagreed that this was particularly harmful, and said this is an expression of the regular, but regulated dislike for “The Other” which has also been recently similarly displayed in Europe.

So what did I learn? Leo Strauss referred to his students as puppies and would often get them to pick up his laundry for him. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld aren’t neoconservatives, but classical conservatives who allied themselves with the influential people. That the neocons have largely abandoned Leo Strauss’s idea of restraint and prudence in foreign affairs. Finally, that neo-conservatism rose to prominence during a period in history where “American Exceptionalism” – the notion of the US as the unique chosen nation – rears its ugly head, and is linked with a affinity with Israel not based on religion, but on the basis of another “exceptional” nation fighting against the odds.

The question I would have liked to ask was whether or not this exceptionalism may die out, or change in character as the ethnic character of the USA evolves over the next few decades. I hope that US realises as Europe did after a millennium, that religion and war are bad allies of the state.

In any case, I should look more into this concept of The Other posed by Lacan, Žižek and Badiou (hint to anyone looking for useful Christmas presents).

Do check out the partial podcast. It’s a bit messed up at the moment, but I’ll clean it up tomorrow.

The bit where an audience member boldly proclaims that 9/11 was an “inside job” and that everyone in the audience knows it, is especially funny.

When I got home, I decided to check out BBC’s This World series with the programme The Last Stand, about a family willing to take up arms against the Israeli army to stay in the Gaza strip. The parents portrayal of Arabs was particularly disturbing, and more so the number of people who agreed them, especially the kids.

Shocking stuff, and I found myself exclaiming “fucking idiot” at the screen several times.

Dr. Stefan Halper is the Chair of International Studies at Cambridge University and Anne Norton is a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania.

In this entry I will try to outline how a new popular movement of Islam could serve to democratize the Middle East, and also pose a formidable and welcome challenge to Western domination of the third world.
But first, let me make clear my motives.
I am not a Muslim. I was a one-time member of a semi-extremist Islamist political movement whose misguided, cold-war era aims were to drive back the world to a 13th century despotic kingdom, but more on that another time.

Individualize and open the institutions

Now, you may think that individualisation has destroyed religion more than any other feature of post-modern society, but it’s not entirely true.
Individualisation leads to a resurgence in religion in a world where the modern notion of sociotechnical progress has lost most of its currency.
What evangelical Christians fail to realise is that their particular form of faith where God talks to you personally is a new concept in Christianity’s history. It’s symptomatic of individualism, a social process that can give rise to new forms of synchronization, both constructive (liberal Christianity) and destructive (right wing fundamentalist Christianity).
The belief held by suicide bombers that their deaths are a requirement of faith is due to the individual internalisation of their personal anguish and frustration into their religious beliefs.
I believe that if institutional Islam – its mosques and religious leaders – allow the individualisation of religion, and provide support for it, people will have an outlet for their frustrations and problems that perhaps do not have to display themselves in such barbarous acts. The evidence that the majority of suicide bombers are either 2nd generation or foreign migrants leads credence to this theory. In a sense, Islamic institutions must become the social welfare officers of the Muslim world.
Islamic institutions must also support positive displays of individualised Islam – in the forms of art, film, music and culture. That works of modern religious art are paid for by western art galleries presents a great loss of essential cultural identity to the Muslim world, which exacerbates the problems above.
Just as the BBC took the decision to broadcast Jerry Springer the Opera as a cultural work, Islamic societies should also embrace critical, hostile and blasphemous works created by its own members as part of its culture, not a dangerous rejection of it.

Allow people to realize that there is a political vector of change in Islam by providing mass education of real histories

The common misperception amongst Muslims is that the religion has remained fundamentally unchanged since its inceptions. Any historian worth their salt knows that this is pure nonsense. Islam has had massive upheavals depending on which ruling family was in power at the time. Few Muslims realise that the last huge change in Islamic thought was instigated by the British in the early 20th century to justify the forthcoming rule of the Saud family.
Education is key to this – but this is problematic in the Middle East where in some areas literacy is as low as forty percent.

Provide empowering not stultifying religious education

The hadith is the collated sayings of the Prophet Mohamed. Tradition states that most of these were collected together by a Russian scholar named Bukhari who spent his entire inheritance on this collection. He gathered together these sayings through interviews with companions and then established a chain of trust for each saying, with particular emphasis on primary and secondary sources. These hadith are passed on in the oral tradition, and most “students” education consists solely of memorising these by heart.
I contend that this is redundant in a century where publishing is cheap and DVDs store gigabytes of data. Students should spend more time in critical analysis of these ahadeeth
The University of South California has created a Hadith database of academic standard with the proviso;
“There is a real danger that Muslims will fall under the impression that owning a book or having a database is equivalent to being a scholar of ahadeeth. This is a great fallacy. Therefore, we would like to warn you that this database is merely a tool, and not a substitute for learning, much less scholarship in Islam.”
Still, access to databases should remove the memorisation of hadith as the raison d’être of a Muslim scholar.

Abandon the ulemah and develop the concept of the public sphere

Islam has always prided itself on having no clergy. This had advantages in previous centuries in that it prevented the stagnation of social development that was witnessed in Europe. The lack of one overarching clergy led to a lot of conflict between kingdoms that strengthened technological advancements as well as enabling the flow of literature and art.
Most Muslims believe in the concept of the ulemah – an established group of scholars who make all the big decisions. But where are they? Their voices seem to be silent compared to the likes of Bin Laden and Co. – almost to the extent that the Ulemah have undergone a psychotic transference of power over to Bin Laden in the minds of many Muslims. This goes to some extent in explaining the rise of terrorism.
The one billion or so Muslims who inhabit this planet must collectively apply their private minds to the public problem of Islamic fundamentalism and reform.
At the end of the day, the religion is the sum of the actions of its ummah – its masses – not the voice of a few men in beards.

Abandon the project of moral relativism and embrace cosmopolitanism in setting up a democratized Middle East

America’s idea of installing democracy in the Middle East is a based on the moral relativism proposed by Samuel P Huntingdon, who believes that the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic civilisations are as different to each other as a cat is to a monkey. Ignoring the racist undertones in Huntingdon’s works, he claims that there’s no way we can impose our universalism on the Islamic world.
But wait a minute, isn’t taking our “democracy” over there evident of us pushing universalism?
Well, no, not really – at least not in the form of democracy we’re seeing in Iraq.
The American administration want to set up a morally relativistic democracy where it’s ok, say for example, for prisoners to be executed without fair trial and a Shia theocracy to be installed.
In a realistic cosmopolitanism, societies have to accept a priori certain universalistic negatives such as denouncing the denigration of human dignity, genocide and slavery, but simultaneously are able to apply contextual principles to their social realities. Thus it is not difficult to envisage a Shariah that both respects international law and Islamic law

Of course a fragmented Islam puts the Western world in a favourable position. Without a strong cohesive intellectual community, Islam as a popular ideology cannot pose as a serious threat to Western imperialism. The Muslim world should expect no official help from the West for as long as there is oil under their feet.

That’s all about all I have to say on the matter for now. I’m sure I’ll return to it later.

Please comment.