Saturday, October 11, 2008
Back from Dubai
I have not posted for a few days because I’ve been at a conference in Dubai and have also had to follow the market mayhem. I hope to write a piece about recent market developments over the weekend – arguing that share price movements are a poor indicator of economic health – but in the meantime a quick thought on Dubai.
Before visiting the emirate I was struck by how many people – most of whom have never been there – told me it was awful. No doubt there are genuine grounds for criticism. For example, its lack of democracy and its unequal treatment of migrant workers. But what most people seem to dislike is precisely what is good about it: its modernity. The critics seem to hate the fact that it has created gleaming, modern buildings out of what was until recently desert. In other words they are criticising precisely what is the best thing about Dubai. It is akin to an aristocrat, who perhaps is not as affluent as he once was, sneering at what they regard as the vulgarity of the new rich.
Before visiting the emirate I was struck by how many people – most of whom have never been there – told me it was awful. No doubt there are genuine grounds for criticism. For example, its lack of democracy and its unequal treatment of migrant workers. But what most people seem to dislike is precisely what is good about it: its modernity. The critics seem to hate the fact that it has created gleaming, modern buildings out of what was until recently desert. In other words they are criticising precisely what is the best thing about Dubai. It is akin to an aristocrat, who perhaps is not as affluent as he once was, sneering at what they regard as the vulgarity of the new rich.
Labels: development, economics, modernity, technology
Sunday, June 22, 2008
On consumerism and globalisation
Benjamin Barber, a professor at the University of Maryland, writes that the contemporary world as besieged by two forces: consumerism and globalisation. Both of them, in his view, lead to the erosion of national autonomy. Consumerist capitalism is driven by an ethos of infantalisation which encourages narcissism and an obsession with consumption (he identifies key critics of this trend as David Riesman, Theodor Adorno and Jean Bauldrillard). Meanwhile, globalisation encourages privatisation This again, in his view, leads to an unhealthy atomisation of society.
Although much is wrong with Barber’s arguments there are elements of truth. For example, there is certainly a strong sense of powerless about what nation states can achieve. There is also an erosion of sovereignty of weaker states. In addition, there is an obsession with consumption in contemporary society.
However, his arguments are also one-sided. Nation states in the developed world are in many respects more powerful than ever. Indeed privatisation can be understood as in some ways representing an extension of state activity rather than its diminution. And obsession of consumption is itself a result of a more fundamental trend: the diminished subject. In other words the pervasive sense that people can do little to control their own lives.
Obviously such ideas demand a more thorough critique. Earlier posts on Barber were published in posts on 7 May 2007, 13 January 2008. 9 March 2008 and 28 April 2008.
Although much is wrong with Barber’s arguments there are elements of truth. For example, there is certainly a strong sense of powerless about what nation states can achieve. There is also an erosion of sovereignty of weaker states. In addition, there is an obsession with consumption in contemporary society.
However, his arguments are also one-sided. Nation states in the developed world are in many respects more powerful than ever. Indeed privatisation can be understood as in some ways representing an extension of state activity rather than its diminution. And obsession of consumption is itself a result of a more fundamental trend: the diminished subject. In other words the pervasive sense that people can do little to control their own lives.
Obviously such ideas demand a more thorough critique. Earlier posts on Barber were published in posts on 7 May 2007, 13 January 2008. 9 March 2008 and 28 April 2008.
Labels: consumption, economics, ethics, modernity
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Happiness update
I have come across so much on happiness in the last few days that I will have to resort to relaying it in bullet point form:
* Happiness debate in the Financial Times. Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, had a belated review of Richard Layard’s 2005 book on happiness published in Wednesday (“Why progressive taxation is not the route to happiness” 6 June). A particularly interesting point he made was that the attack on happiness can be seen as a challenge to modernity itself. Developments such as improvement in life expectancy, the liberation of women from household drudgery or easier divorce do not increase reported happiness.
Two book hitters in the happiness debate replied to Wolf with letters. Layard says that there are some aspects of modernity that should be ameliorated. He gives levels of trust as an example. Meanwhile, Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at the University of Warwick and well-known happiness advocate, makes the familiar point that reported happiness has not increased over time in the rich countries over the last few decades. He goes on to state: “That graph could usefully be pinned up in every minister’s and president’s office”. Why he thinks it should be such a decisive argument is not clear.
* Debating Andrew Oswald at Debating Matters. Talking of Oswald, I will be debating him at the national final of the Debating Matters competition in London on June 29. We will both be “expert witnesses” debating whether happiness should be a goal of national policy. Later on the same motion will be debated by the high school students who are taking part in the competition. In conjunction with the discussion the Debating Matters team has produced a useful topic guide for the debate. (Last year I debated John Hilary of War on Want on globalisation at the same event).
* Quoted in Financieele Dagblad. Yesterday I was also quoted on the happiness debate in a substantial feature in the leading Dutch financial daily newspaper by Esther van Rijswijk. I am hoping to get it translated.
* Paradox of Prosperity essay republished. My spiked essay on the “paradox of prosperity” is to be republished by the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India. The organisation is publishing a book in its professional reference series which is provisionally entitled: Prosperity Index: Assessing Growth Anew. It is due out in November.
* Happiness expert website. Ruud Veenhoven, one of the world’s leading experts on happiness, has a website: here. Evidently he also argues that a “paradox of prosperity” does not exist.
* Parenting-happiness link. A parenting expert made the point to me yesterday that the debates on happiness and parenting are linked. The likes of Oliver James argue there is a clear link between women not looking after children and the outbreak of “affluenza” in society.
* Happiness debate in the Financial Times. Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, had a belated review of Richard Layard’s 2005 book on happiness published in Wednesday (“Why progressive taxation is not the route to happiness” 6 June). A particularly interesting point he made was that the attack on happiness can be seen as a challenge to modernity itself. Developments such as improvement in life expectancy, the liberation of women from household drudgery or easier divorce do not increase reported happiness.
Two book hitters in the happiness debate replied to Wolf with letters. Layard says that there are some aspects of modernity that should be ameliorated. He gives levels of trust as an example. Meanwhile, Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at the University of Warwick and well-known happiness advocate, makes the familiar point that reported happiness has not increased over time in the rich countries over the last few decades. He goes on to state: “That graph could usefully be pinned up in every minister’s and president’s office”. Why he thinks it should be such a decisive argument is not clear.
* Debating Andrew Oswald at Debating Matters. Talking of Oswald, I will be debating him at the national final of the Debating Matters competition in London on June 29. We will both be “expert witnesses” debating whether happiness should be a goal of national policy. Later on the same motion will be debated by the high school students who are taking part in the competition. In conjunction with the discussion the Debating Matters team has produced a useful topic guide for the debate. (Last year I debated John Hilary of War on Want on globalisation at the same event).
* Quoted in Financieele Dagblad. Yesterday I was also quoted on the happiness debate in a substantial feature in the leading Dutch financial daily newspaper by Esther van Rijswijk. I am hoping to get it translated.
* Paradox of Prosperity essay republished. My spiked essay on the “paradox of prosperity” is to be republished by the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India. The organisation is publishing a book in its professional reference series which is provisionally entitled: Prosperity Index: Assessing Growth Anew. It is due out in November.
* Happiness expert website. Ruud Veenhoven, one of the world’s leading experts on happiness, has a website: here. Evidently he also argues that a “paradox of prosperity” does not exist.
* Parenting-happiness link. A parenting expert made the point to me yesterday that the debates on happiness and parenting are linked. The likes of Oliver James argue there is a clear link between women not looking after children and the outbreak of “affluenza” in society.
Labels: affluenza, growth, happiness, india, media appearances, modernity, speeches, spiked
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Spiked article on modernity and 9/11
I have a short article on Spiked on how hostility to modernity has become embedded in Western society (pasted below). It is part of a collection of articles looking at the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks:
What strikes me as most odd about the response to the 9/11 attacks was their representation as a specifically Islamic fundamentalist reaction to modernity. They were seen as mainly rooted in the caves of Afghanistan, the madrassas (Islamic schools) of Pakistan, and the desert sheikdom of Saudi Arabia. Hardly anyone seemed to notice that hostility to modernity has become mainstream in Western culture.
The enormous gains of civilisation are constantly being called into question. What were once, rightly, seen as huge benefits to humanity are now viewed with anxiety. The water that we drink and use to clean ourselves is seen as a scarce resource. Cheap food – which has liberated us from the curse of constantly living on the edge of starvation – is blamed for causing obesity. Long-distance travel is stigmatised. Cars are blamed for causing pollution and contributing to global warming. Aircraft are also accused of damaging the environment and the passengers they carry are criticised for undermining local cultures.
Attacks on modernity have their origins in the West rather than the Middle East. If a war is to be fought it should be against the ideology of anti-modernism emanating from Western societies.
What strikes me as most odd about the response to the 9/11 attacks was their representation as a specifically Islamic fundamentalist reaction to modernity. They were seen as mainly rooted in the caves of Afghanistan, the madrassas (Islamic schools) of Pakistan, and the desert sheikdom of Saudi Arabia. Hardly anyone seemed to notice that hostility to modernity has become mainstream in Western culture.
The enormous gains of civilisation are constantly being called into question. What were once, rightly, seen as huge benefits to humanity are now viewed with anxiety. The water that we drink and use to clean ourselves is seen as a scarce resource. Cheap food – which has liberated us from the curse of constantly living on the edge of starvation – is blamed for causing obesity. Long-distance travel is stigmatised. Cars are blamed for causing pollution and contributing to global warming. Aircraft are also accused of damaging the environment and the passengers they carry are criticised for undermining local cultures.
Attacks on modernity have their origins in the West rather than the Middle East. If a war is to be fought it should be against the ideology of anti-modernism emanating from Western societies.
Labels: modernity, spiked, transport
Monday, August 14, 2006
Planes as symbols of modernity
Do jihadis attack planes precisely because they are symbols of modernity? That is the argument of Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King’s College, London, in an article in Saturday’s Times (London):
His argument puts the common environmentalist dislike of air travel into perspective (see August 5 dispatch). Few environmentalists would blow up aircraft but they share a similar aversion to air travel as a symbol of modernity.
Then again other symbols of modernity, such as skyscrapers and cars, are also under attack in different ways.
“Commercial aircraft represent globalism and high technology — they shrink the world and threaten cultural conservatism. The Boeing 747 was the last of the “great machines” that characterised the 20th century: it opened up air travel to the mass market.”
His argument puts the common environmentalist dislike of air travel into perspective (see August 5 dispatch). Few environmentalists would blow up aircraft but they share a similar aversion to air travel as a symbol of modernity.
Then again other symbols of modernity, such as skyscrapers and cars, are also under attack in different ways.
Labels: environment, modernity, technology, transport
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Modernism
I was stunned today by the Modernism exhibition at London’s Victoria & Albert Museum. I am not qualified to discuss its artistic merits but what struck me most was the difference in perspective between the modernists, particularly in the early years of the movement from 1917 through the 1920s, and today (for a review of the exhibition see Karl Sharro on Culture Wars ). They welcomed science and technology as a way of enhancing the potential of humanity. In contrast today, tragically, the development of human control over nature is generally seen as a threat.
Labels: modernity, science, technology
