looking back – time to say good bye?

16 giugno 2012 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, Peter's Log, social quality, works, projects, publications

It feels a bit strange – sitting at the gate at Budapest airport, heading to Cork. I am invited speaker and Monday I will address the Poverty Summer School. It is a strange feeling to speak at the “own university” as representative of an organisation that has othing to do with it, speaking as advisor of European Foundation on Social Quality and member of the EuroMemo Group, European Economists for an Alternative Economic Policy in Europe. It reminds me of having addressed many years ago a Congress of Private and Public Welfare in Germany – then I had been talking on “Being a Stranger in the Own Country”.

And in one way or another this will also be at least background of the presentation on Cork. Being increasingly stranger in the area of social policy, being increasingly talking from the standpoint of somebody who is fully aware of a EU-development that took at some stage a wrong turn – in many respects. A strange feeling of having been part of policy-making and having left already some time ago. When I left I wrote on EU-social policy

It had been a success story since the early 1970s, when amongst others Ireland joined the institutionalised Europe. A success story topped now by Padraig’s flagship: a civil dialogue, going hand in hand with the social dialogue. A flagship going hand in hand with the beginning of another event, ostensibly a step back when the European Court of Justice rejected a fourth program to combat poverty, however a boost for getting social competencies in the later Treaties (the Employment chapter, the article 113 and even the debates of the 11th working group when it came to elaborating the “Constitution” which never came through). Success stories and at the same time critical points of ventures: separating economy and society. It had been a strange course which frequently popped up without being really and fundamentally considered. What would all this be about? An economic interest and a social interest? A general interest which lost its economy? Or an economy that claims to be in the general interest?

This is just a small paragraph of a longer story that makes me feel like somebody who is getting old and grumpy, and who is full of confidence, ready to take up the ext steps, not reinterpreting the world but aiming on changing it – as Karl told us in the 11th thesis on Feuerbach to do. Indeed, it is not the time to say good-bye.

four in one – A Contribution to the International Women’s Day

8 marzo 2012 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in general, social quality, thoughts on life and its philosophy

Four-in-One-Perspective – or One Divided by Four Equals One

Thoughts in connection with Frigga Haug’s presentation of Die Vier-in-einem-Perspektive (Haug, Frigga, 2008/2009²: Die Vier-in-einem-Perspektive. Politik von Frauen für eine neue Linke; Hamburg: Argument Verlag – reference [i.e. page numbers in brackets], where not specified otherwise, is made to this book. Translations by P.H.)

That the capitalist welfare state, based on the rule of law, can only maintain itself by simply prolonging the strategies which arguably led to its dominance is not only obvious from the very recent developments, i.e. the severe crisis emerging from the collapse of the finance system. If we are realistic, this will be historically just one crisis amongst many – and leaving its harshness aside, we have to accept that the capitalist system itself is still very well able to cope with it in its own terms. Even more so, it is exactly at the moment of this severe economic crisis that capitalism comes to its height: unadorned, free of all supposed ‘ballast’ and ‘social junk’ it shows its immaculate purity, its true face: here ‘immaculate’ simply means that it is only concerned with what capitalism in its purest form is about.[1]

There is a ‘but’, of course: as well known this ‘pure capitalism’ undermines its own existence on at least four dimensions.

* First, this system fails in its own terms. We may look at different dimensions as for instance the tendency of the profit rate to fall. Two other aspects may be highlighted as they play a particular role at stages of developed capitalism: (i) developed capitalism is very much based on mass consumption – a feature that is not only linked to the so-called Fordist stage but goes much beyond. However, put bluntly, pure capitalism is undermining this condition as it systematically prioritises mechanisms in order to reduce income – (i) by way of (aiming on) low wages (with major impact on purchase power), (ii) by way of keeping social support low and relying on family support based on the argument of subsidiarity (‘privatisation of the social’ which is of course a contradiction in terms) and (iii) by asking for low (corporate) tax (lowering this way possible public demand).

* Second, the latter two moments are, however, also moments of further capitalisation.[2] On the one hand it takes the form of privatisation of economic activities which are at their very core public (already moving into the areas of ‘privatisation of public security’. On the other hand it is about the inclusion of an increasing array of issues into the realm of capitalist production.

* Third, the legitimacy of this system is further limited with every further move into any of these directions. On the one hand we may point on the development that had been characterised as contradiction in terms: the ‘privatisation of the public’ and the ‘individualisation of the social’. On the other hand we have to point on the increasing and specific ‘socialisation’ as it emerges from the increasing and even complete absorption of previously private household (production) by the market – such process goes much beyond colonialisation of life worlds: we are witnessing the complete subsumption of all spheres of life under the principle of a profit-based ‘market’ system – already well known from the works of Karl Marx. This represents an objective dimension of redefinition. And we are witnessing a specific hegemonisation as we know it from the works of Antonio Gramsci and which can be seen as subjective dimension of redefinition.

* Fourth, capitalism is thus historically characterised by another fundamental contradiction: Pure capitalism cannot survive as it is economically undermining the conditions of its existence (mass consumption and ‘fair competition’); socially creates an increasing number of ‘outcasts’, not least by pushing people into precarity and involuntary freelance work (‘self-employment’), thus undermining its legitimacy; ecologically it is not able to solve the fundamental problems as it is based on the feature of growth as end in itself, thus being inclined to unscrupulous exploit fossil resources. However, capitalism cannot survive either by even modest alteration: changing the system of remuneration and introducing protective mechanisms around working conditions, introducing social protection, in particular by acknowledging the social character and meaning of certain previously private activities and environmental protection even of a modest kind are undermining the system as well: requiring its distancing from profit as central criteria of control ….

This means not least that especially at such a crossroads thinking about alternatives faces in particular the difficult fourfold challenge of (i) developing alternatives that are going far beyond the current system, moving beyond alterations; (ii) avoiding voluntarist approaches, (iii) not loosing out of sight that such search and future reality has to take the given conditions into account – not only as something given but furthermore as something that developed and can only be understood in the perspective of its development and finally (iv) avoids glorification of patterns that had been characterising earlier historical stages, at the time appropriate but not allowing being (mechanically) transferred.

Frigga Haug, based on the experience from research in varied fields and following a feminist research strategy, took up this challenge by the presentation of the Four-in-One-Perspective. Politics by Women for a New Left. It is a compilation of contributions with very different foci, however: as such providing more and other than a patchwork. The overall topic is the search for a new strategy, but more so: for a different (understanding of) society. Point of departure is not primarily the analysis of the general crisis of the current epoch of capitalism. Rather the analysis of the fundamental division of society – going hand on hand on the one hand with the division of labour and on the other hand with the social division as class division and here even more the gender division are at the centre of the debate. And the second angle is a general vision of the society that is envisaged, asking for social justice which is derived from the most fundamental principle of equality.

In concrete terms the elements of society, societal structuration and politically-strategic development of society are located in four areas, namely employment, reproductive work, cultural development and politics from below.

Importantly the approach is not simply looking for policy changes – although they play also a role in some contributions (for instance explicitly in the contributions on ‘The [female] patient in the neoliberal hospital’ or ‘Quota for women and gender mainstreaming’) – but for politics. At least from the perspective of mainstream policy making (sic!) and in particular in the Anglo-American perspective this is an issue that needs to be emphasised. This is even more important as the now widespread orientation on governance in the EU-(member states)-context is actually more closing the orientation than it is opening up perspectives. The fact that more ‘stakeholders’ are involved – thus opening the ‘stage’ – has the paradox effect of narrowing the agenda, being one moment in the increasing technical and instrumentalist approach we find in the political arena.[3]

Implicitly this means that the feminist perspective – and this is an important point – is in actual fact not so much a feminist perspective in a restrictive understanding. Although there are important aspects explicitly coming from such perspective in the strict sense, I would see it with a different emphasis. At the end it may be called a ‘genderist perspective’, meaning that we are dealing with a perspective that is not primarily proposing a politics by women but in actual fact politics that takes societal arrays into account that had been and still are faded out, a fact that is very much due to the fact of being issues that are treated in this way due to the fact of their gender bias but where we are mainly dealing with issues that may be not less importantly approached by an overall perspective. This is made clear on another occasion – the presentation of the perspective the in an article in Das Argument (Haug, Frigga: Die Vier-in-einem-Perspektive als Leitfaden für Politik; in; Das Argument; Hamburg: 291/2011: 241-250), where we read:

On this basis we can see that for women the question cannot be simply about equality within these structures of the system but this very structure is at stake. Consequently the segregation of many areas as politics on women-issue is emerging as critical point from a feminist perspective. This segregation made politics on women-issues a trap: in last instance moving within such realm meant to maintain the overcome structures. Therefore the 4-in-1-perspective develops into politics concerned with general liberation.

(242)

Of course, the question ‘And what is with women?’ remains an important one, going through all spheres of life. However, not less important is – and this in actual fact one of the main threads through the work in question – that many issues are societal in a much wider sense. Though, being here and now ‘gender issues’, requiring a feminist approach in the narrow sense, they are not less issues that also need to be approached in a wider perspective. Of course, this can easily lead to hair-splitting debates. But Frigga Haug makes also reference to the importance of related questions when she makes reference to the contributions by Althusser and Structuralism (passim).

Therefore some hesitation emerges when the core of the project is presented by saying that

we develop as guideline for a perspective of politics a fundamental modification of division of labour. We aim on a systematic conjunction of those four areas of human practice.

(20)

This is followed by a short elaboration of the underlying understanding of the relevant areas, namely employment, reproductive work, cultural development and politics from below. In my view the notion of ‘four areas of human practice’ deserves special emphasis and I would suggest going a step further, seeing all the areas as matter of a process of relational appropriation. Leaving other aspects aside, my attempt is to open the door for two important aspects: first such approach may bring us a step further towards a thorough integration of these areas and with this it allows us secondly to elaborate the genuinely social dimension of human practice. Institutional forms and also the core-reference of the activities: production of commodities and means of sustenance, production of the ‘humane human’, the lifelong unfolding of own personality and the codetermination of society (s. ibid.), are in this perspective getting secondary, the social personality move centre-stage. We can specify this by the following systematisation of relationality, we are dealing with

* auto-relation

* group-relation (as general sociability)

* ‘other’-relation (as ‘institutionalised and ‘defined’ socialbility – including class relationships etc.) and

* environmental (‘organic nature’) relations.

Mind, however, this systematisation is not more than a heuristic, analytical tool and we have to avoid the danger of drawing a horizontal dividing line, aiming to replace the vertical division. With this perspective a notion brought forward by Michael Brie in his short Draft of a Political Strategy based on Frigga Haugs Four-in-One-Perspective (linked from http://www.friggahaug.inkrit.de/ – 02/12/2011 10:16 a.m.) opens a trap: he orients on a

strong sector that is characterised by public finance and extensively self-organising sector in the area of education, culture and science, which is not least nurtured by the voluntary engagement of the many who live socially secured

(1)

and presents the ‘exchange society’ as something that is globally given and more or less unquestionable. It is surely a matter of a new mode of life. But Frigga Haug goes beyond that – without psychologisation/individualisation – stating that

the ‘fundamental question’ of sociology, concerned with the relationship between individual and society is augmented by the psychological question, asking for the architecture of the individual her/himslef. With thus we do not think individual and society as initially separate in order to be subsequently able to ask for their link/interpenetration as it is usually undertaken in sociology. The other way round we begin by saying that human beings are soci(et)al beings. This means we do not ask in which way society deforms and alienates the individual; instead we ask how they are (by societal conditions) hindered to unfold their sociability.

(176)

This is an important step – and as much as it links back to ancient thinking as for instance the famous Aristotelian notion of the political being (see Aristotle’s famous phrase of the ‘political animal’ in Book I and for instance extensively Book II of Politics). However, it is now open to the necessary transposition into complex soci(et)al conditions.

With this we see on the one hand that gender relations are relations of production (contribution in Das Argument; op.cit: 241), but with this the challenge that we have to focus more on the changes within the different areas. Calculating 4 times 1 has to arrive at two results: it results in four matters that need to be changed ‘internally’ and it results in one, a new soci(et)al entity. Indeed, we are importantly concerned with the need

to revolutionise the fundamental structures of soci(et)al practice: profit as driving force and that means the power of the realisation of capital taking precedence over the labour, based on division of labour and property

(43).

Importantly it means:

In order to move the realms out of their marginalised position they would need to be generalised and consequently they would need to be revaluated. And in the same vein the realm, that is seen as societal work would need to be occupied by women, with this its dominance needs to be undermined. If both sexes would share into all areas … a negative power and control relationship is broken up. To me, this seems to be a precondition for allowing love returning into labour. Subsequently the movement of women will be central on the way to humanise society.

(45)

With this we have to ask if it is sufficient to put the important separation in the life of wageworkers … between work and leisure time on one level with the notion that wageworkers are ‘during their leisure time at home and, as private beings, that escape work’ (49). In my view there is need for a thorough reflection on private, public, individual and social. This is surely a matter of investigating the model of civilisation (a term and concept introduced on page 103). But it is not sufficiently getting clear if such a shift away from the concept of the mode of production can sufficiently cope with the danger of a new pattern of exclusion. On the one hand the proposed orientation is excitingly opening political debates for seriously dealing with sociological theories of civilisation as matter of increasing ‘inner socialisation’ (as for instance elaborated by Elias’ Socigenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations under the main title of The Civilising Process [Elias, Norbert, 1939: The civilizing process: sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations. Translated by Edmund Jephcott with some notes and corrections by the author; edited by Eric Dunning, Johan Goudsblom, and Stephen Mennell; Oxford, UK; Malden, Mass., US: Blackwell Publishers, 2000). On the other hand it needs to be elaborated further by making full use of and developing further the investigation into the process of production as undertaken by Karl Marx in the Outline of the Critique of Political Economy (Grundrisse) [1857-1861], where he dedicates a chapter to Production, Consumption, Distribution, Exchange (Circulation). Taken seriously, looking at the General relation between production, distribution, exchange and consumption, means looking seriously at the actual model of civilisation. In case we elaborate this understanding of production further, the 4-in-1-perspective can be tightened and extended by orienting on a sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigation of the civilisation of the mode of labour.[4] Thus we arrive not least at labour – or perhaps we should speak even of production with its four dimensions – as a matter of (i) development of personality, (ii) development of inter-personal relationships, (iii) development of society, and (iv) working[5] conditions (cf. importantly 114). For my own work this is inspiring for further elaborating the theory of régulation which I tentatively extended by adding to the accumulation regime and the mode of regulation the life regime and the mode of life (see for instance Herrmann, Peter, 2011 b: Mergers and Competition: Whereto leads the Economisation of the Social Sector? In: Herrmann, Peter [ed.]: The end of Social Services. Economisation and Managerialism; Bremen: Europaeischer Hochschulverlag: 18-61, in particular 56; Herrmann, Peter, 2011 a: Deciphering Globalisation – An Introduction; in: Herrmann, Peter (ed.): All the Same – All Being New. Basic Rules of Capitalism in a World of Change; Bremen: Europaeischer Hochschulverlag: 3-60).

The important point is that this is on the one hand strengthening the actor and practice perspective; however, on the other hand it is opening the perspective on the positive role of ‘The World that does not end in the private home’ (contribution on page 162 ff.). My point here – and this follows from the extended approach to relationality – is to aim on overcoming the apparent dichotomy between human actor and organic environment. This allows also to engage with the contradictions that arise from ‘the disruption and contradictoriness of the soci(et)al being as such’ (180) under consideration of the fact of society being not least a reflection of how people (and humankind as such) engage at a given stage with the organic environment. The understanding of ‘cultural practice’ as it is introduced later by seeing cultural as ‘action/activities that are an end in themselves’ must be somewhat problematic. As social beings and this is as relational beings, even self-reference is by definition also ‘means-tested’. However, this does not refer to any usual understanding of a restrictive stance nor does it refer to a utilitarian understanding. Rather, it is about what had been said before: the process of relational appropriation – we should revisit the principle underlying the Kantian approach as it is expressed in the categorical imperative, demanding each individual to

treat himself and all others never merely as means but always at the same time as ends in themselves.

(Kant, Immanuel, 1785: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, passim)

The challenge is to elaborate on the tension between ‘never merely’ and ‘at the same time’. The question is if this tension allows sufficiently determining the character of what social personality is about. This means that – for women and men – an important question is not ‘mastering of nature’ (241) but appropriating relationships – as matter of developing ownership (the ‘property’ dimension) and as matter of suitability (being appropriate in social practice). As correct as the claim of mastering of nature is made in the contribution on ‘Women – Victims or Culprits?’ as much we need to extend the question in a relational perspective, searching for a perspective on true soci(et)al development rather than arriving at the trap laid open by easing the situation of individuals and groups. On a different level, we are here dealing with the same tension as we are facing it when discussing quota-politics/policies and mainstreaming: what is a legitimate orientation on one level and during a certain phase, is in danger of turning into a constraints at another stage. Means-tested can now be understood as moment of personal development, better: development of personalities, freely adapted from Friedrich Schiller who elaborates on this by looking at the role of play, pointing out

… as the sensuous impulsion controls us physically, and the formal impulsion morally, the former makes our formal constitution contingent, and the latter makes our material constitution contingent, that is to say, there is contingence in the agreement of our happiness with our perfection, and reciprocally. The instinct of play, in which both act in concert, will render both our formal and our material constitution contingent; accordingly, our perfection and our happiness in like manner. And on the other hand, exactly because it makes both of them contingent, and because the contingent disappears with necessity, it will suppress this contingence in both, and will thus give form to matter and reality to form. In proportion that it will lessen the dynamic influence of feeling and passion, it will place them in harmony with rational ideas, and by taking from the laws of reason their moral constraint, it will reconcile them with the interest of the senses.

(Schiller, J. C. Friedrich von, 1794: Letters upon the Æsthetic Education of Man. Letter XIV)

And of course, in the Marxian interpretation we see from here the meaning of the definition of freedom as it is outlined in the contribution of the Marxists-Internet archive:

Freedom is the right and capacity of people to determine their own actions, in a community which is able to provide for the full development of human potentiality.

I suggest to go from here beyond the orientation on self-realisation as oriented along the lines of action that is an end in itself – and in this sense self-reflexive – and focus instead on socio-personal development as practice of appropriation by which power as ability and power as control are balanced with each other. Self-realisation gains with this – as socio-cultural practice – an immediate character of a higher form of socio-personal activity. As important as it is to rebuke the notion of double-burden of women – employment and housework – as quantitatively oriented reductionism (184), it is necessary to move further and add the explicit and elaborated ‘social dimension’. Here it seems to be necessary to clearly spell out what the consequences of the change are actually for men. Power moves again to the centre of the soci(et)al dispute. And as much as this is a question of power of men over women, it is much more the power distribution on a structural level, concerned with counter-balancing the process of production as organic whole as Marx outlined it in the Grundrisse. A closer look at this question would allow developing further the question of the soci(et)al character of those activities that are distinguished as (a) ‘production and administration of the means needed to life and in the relation to which the means of production are developed further, thus providing the foundation for further division of labour’ and (b) ‘the area in which life is created, cared for and maintained and which is marginalised against the other area’ (contribution in Das Argument; op.cit: 241).[6] And it requires to address at least the following three moments: (i) exactly determining the actual soci(et)al character of this work, (ii) looking at the recognition of this soci(et)al character and (iii) the exact way of ‘designing’ this soci(et)alisation (see also on this topic 199). Having in this way a look at the inner conflict and inner-rebellious attitude allows us to develop a new perspective. Two-foldedness of existence (Doppeltheit der Existenz), developed with reference to Klaus Holzkamp’s work (202), means that the individual produces society and with this her/himself. In the perspective of the presentation of the 4-in-1 perspective it means ‘that in the bourgeois society this twofold challenge humans face is distributed unequally between women and men’ (ibid.). It is now proposed to go a step further, proposing that gender-specific culture (205) has to be developed more explicitly as transition project (see contribution in Das Argument; op.cit: 246) and as such it has also address explicitly its own abolition – if and to the extent to which this is agreeable we may learn from the discussion of Marxist theory of the state and the discussion of the question of the need to overcome the capitalist-bourgeois state by a new state which had been suggested as a state in dissolution. Philosophically it means to overcome static approaches, by inherently processualising any structural thinking.

From here we will be able to move further when looking at the ‘double character of soci(et)al production, on the one side producing life and on the other side producing the means necessary for life’ (323). In the presentation this double character appears somewhat disjoined from the previously mentioned ‘two-foldedness of existence’. Merging the two-by-two perspectives may be developed further, class and gender question can be elaborated further in order to find the points of their clear overlaps and their clear separations.

With this, the emphasis of the ‘dispute over time’ which is centre-staged on another occasion (contribution in Das Argument; op.cit: 242) may also be enriched by another perspective, clearly defining time as being not more than a container – a container for the dispute over the social and social quality as it is dealt with in another four-in-one perspective: the search for social quality (see Laurent van der Maesen/Alan Walker [eds.]: Social Quality. From Theory to Indicators; Houndmills. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

[1] This puts recent debates on a more humane capitalism, on revitalising the so-called social market economy also on the spot of dubious mis- and wrong understandings, dangerously opening the doors of ideological trimming.

[2] It is more accurate to speak of capitalisation rather than monetarisation. We are in actual fact concerned with the aim of capital as a moment that realises itself.

[3] This could be seen in very concrete terms with the consultation processes of green/white papers issued by the EUC.

[4] Mind the shift from work earlier in this text to labour at this stage. Also, instead of speaking of labour conditions it has to be highlighted that we are now speaking of the mode of labour.

[5] Here again working conditions as matter of immediate involvement not least into the process of capitalist production.

[6] All this not least needs elaboration with respect of the two sides of power and also appropriation as mentioned on another occasion in this comment.

Social Quality From Theory to Indicators

21 gennaio 2012 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, social quality

Social Quality From Theory to Indicators
Edited by Laurent J. G. Van Der Maesen and Alan Walker;
Palgrave/MacMillan

Now it is out – the publication is now available, the work done and at the same time it is just the point of departure for further elaboration of the social quality approach. This work started already with major cooperations in particular in the city of The Hague. Next Wednesday important negotiations will take place in order to venture future plans, not least consider closer cooperation with Eurispes – Istituto di Studi Politici Economici e Sociali in Rome
This is not least and in particular an important issue on taking centrally the question of sustainability on board. The present book can sulrey be seen as a mile stone in this respect.

On the book the following information is taken from the flyer.

This book provides the most up to date account of the concept of social quality. Developed originally as a response to the promotion of neo-liberal policies in Europe, the idea has been taken up and applied in China and East Asia. This book is the key reference point for the continuing spread and adoption of the concept. It develops the theoretical foundations of social quality and locates it within the main theoretical frameworks of western social science. It provides a clear account of the methods for measuring social quality which includes the initial indicators developed by a major European research project. It includes an in-depth analysis of the four core components of social quality: socio-economic security, social cohesion, social inclusion and social empowerment. Then it applies the concept of social quality to some of the most pressing policy challenges, including the future of the European Union and sustainability. Its theory, methods and compelling arguments in favour of social justice are essential for students studying a wide variety of social sciences and policy makers and general readers interested in creating a more socially just society.
CONTENTS:

Introduction; L.van der Maesen & A.Walker

European and Global Challenges; L.van der Maesen & A.Walker

Theoretical Foundations; W.Beck, L.van der Maesen & A.Walker

Conceptual Location of Social Quality; P.Herrmann, L.van der Maesen & A.Walker

Social Quality Indicators; P.Herrmann, L.van der Maesen & A.Walker

Socio-Economic Security; D.Gordon Social Cohesion; Y.Berman & D.Phillips

Social Inclusion; A.Walker & C.Walker

Social Empowerment; P.Herrmann

The Functions of Social Quality Indicators; L.van der Maesen

Social Quality and Sustainability; L.van der Maesen & A.Walker

It remains to be emphasised that the work on the book, taking so much time, had been a most exciting and valuable experience of … – social quality. Combining individual work with close cooperation – and with gaining and maintaining collegiality and friendships.
From my side I want to add my very personal Thank You to Laurent for all the work and also to Yitzhak with whom I galdly maintained contact even after our immediate cooperation ended.

The cooperation – for me at least – showes: also in academia another world is possible, not in need of any presidential elitist advise (on this also here).

Ode of Joy and the Tragedy of Europe

30 dicembre 2011 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in contemporary socio-economic situation, joys - what we usually take for it, social quality, works, projects, publications

In the tragedy Fiesco, or the Genoese Conspiracy Schiller’s Moor says at the end of the fourth scene the words

The Moor has done his work – the Moor may go.

And perhaps the times we are asked to say the same to the masterpiece chosen to be the EUropean anthem.

A piece of music, bringing together the genius of Beethoven as composer and the Schiller as poet.

For Beethoven it had been the culmination of his work, for the first time bringing the human voice into the tonal language. And for the listener it is at first glance an impression of the utmost humanist idea.

Beethoven as composer made an important step in the history of music – and surely expressing a fundamental change of society: Rather than being composer to the court or to the church, he had been free composer, realising his music for a market, following his own gusto, following but as well shaping the Zeitgeist – which at the time had been surely sparked by revolutionary ideas. And it is this new freedom reflected in the ‘Ode to Joy’ – humanist in the deep understanding of the values of the time:

Liberty – Equality – Fraternity

Words, however, are not much more than empty notions.

Looking at those values at the time we also have to consider time – that time. And that time had been very much about the celebration of the individual, responsible to him-/herself (though she had been very much oppressed, considered as ‘not-existent), seen as rationally and morally responsible. However, this responsibility had also been founded in the idea of independence: not the relational personality as we may interpret it in the spirit of Aristotle. But the individual whose action is only later compounded by an ‘invisible hand’. We may say the hierarchy up to hitherto given ex ante by god(like beings) emerged now ex post by the new godlike law of the market. An interesting feature is developing from here, full of tensions – and looking at the Ode of Joy we can see the joy of independence, the new freedom of the artist who did not need a mediator between the self, the emotions and the world but could act immediately: express immediately the feelings. On the other hand we know too well that a new mediator came up: the unknown other, competitor on the market or customer.

But the laws that had been mentioned before had been ‘created’ not only by following the laws of the market but also by permanently creating the market: production on demand and production of demand. An endless circle, though a circle in need of overtaking itself, the production of demand coming out on top.

And then, on the formal level, we can still claim that EUrope follows this ambitious notion of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

Translated into 2011-plain text:

Free movement of capital, goods and services and workforce – Equality of participants on the market – conspiracy of the governing bodies

No doubt, analytically each of them is a complex field, often also a minefield.

* The free movement is surely limited by ‘converse economies of scale’: though we usually discuss economies of scale as matter of an exorbitant growth of seize, reaching a level that is beyond operational scope, we find in particular the advantage of large scale operations when it comes to such ‘free movement’ …;

* of course it is not only the equality of participants o the market(s) – equality is not less relevant for the non-participants: in all countries their number grows, we find the equality amongst those in precarious situations, the equality of an increasing number of people whose basic human rights as for instance the right to organise themselves in trade unions is limited ….;

* and we find many in fact joining the conspiracy fair while claiming fundamental opposition.

And of course, we find other movements too:

* major efforts to control the freedom by way of social responsibility and even social obligations …;

* the equality amongst those who are ready to live together by way of examples of what a better life could look like …;

* and the fraternity of those who stand together: in their protest and their visions … .

At least we can be sure that today Beethoven and Schiller would be an unhappy couple, seeing what ‘their Europe’ looks like. She lost …. – he gained. She had been the Europe of vision and passion, bringing together ευρύς (width) und οψ (sight). He left a state of actual weakness – severely hurt by the one-sided orientation on a single market and single currency which became end in itself, serving the perpetuation of a system that lost its own foundation. We may of course characterise the situation as crisis of finance capitalism – and that is surely correct. However, we may also say that this is actually only the technical side. Behind this we find a more fundamental crisis of the capitalist mode of production – and we surely have to go a ling way to fully understand its meaning.

___________________

At least something from a recent mail to a colleague in England (slightly modified):

“Thank you both, your formulation is little misleading I suppose

the worst (for capitalism) is still ahead of us

Let us hope it is still ahead – the worse for capitalism is its end and that can only be good.

You are surely right, saying that we have to question existing institutions. And moreover we have to question certain ideologies. But all this means we have to be even more careful and mind thinking about bating water, endangered little children, hens and chicken …, and not least we have to look for the tap from which the water comes and the egg that surely plays a role too.

What I want to say is the following: I am frequently afraid that there is one issue that remains dealt with in a very casual way: the role of politics, polities and economics.

* Two examples. Reading in a Wagenknecht/Geissler interview in Die Zeit

Geißler:

This is what my world would have to look like: priority of politics over the finance world and economy. Furthermore: a global Marshall Plan by the rich countries and an international market society, based on the ethical foundation of the social, ecology and peace. (1)

I am getting alert, at least having a question, though not claiming to have the answer as well: A major progress of capitalism (an ECONOMIC formation) has to be seen in its ability to overcome arbitrariness and violence of all systems hitherto.

* The debate about Human Rights, the rights of indigenous people is in my opinion to a large extent misleading as it is very much based on the idea of individualism … . And we surely have to look for ways of defining truly social rights. This is in some respect simple: sufficient material resources etc. And of course, it is also about the right to choose the “own” productive/economic system. So far so simple. But then we are confronted with the question of how to reconcile this with communitarian oppression and ‘nationalist exclusiveness’ of the traditional systems. And there still is a question which I may put forward in a cynical way: Talking about different life styles, modesty etc. is rather simple …. as long as we can be sure that it does not mean to die with 40 or 50 (average). Recently I had been talking to a well-known human rights activist from Turkey – and it had been so difficult to look into her face and to say: Yes you are right, you have to claim your right as a people. And nevertheless, you are wrong with all your nationalism … . A discussion, now more moderate, we have also in Ireland; and in some respect one can see it also here in Germany where apparently the difference between Ossis and Wessis is still more important (for many) then the “difference between rich and the poor” (an expression that only captures part of the surface).

May be I am too much structuralist and also too much idealist that …. – that I do not see that we actually may need a “morally different capitalism”: the “patrons of the good”, a new Gaius Cilnius Maecenas alias Bill and Melinda Gates … – this is what I mean with “fundamentally reconsidering the mode of production”. It would be too simple to mean talking about “New Princedoms” literally; but I think it is also too simple to see an Economic Leviathan. Sure, the “abnormal normality” (or normal abnormality?) is frightening and remarkable: people begging, people falling outside of health protection … . What is not less remarkable is the “new normality”: indeed, the small (“Tafeln”, soup kitchens …) and the large (B&M-Foundation …) good doers, the permanency of “sales”, closing down (and immediately opening again or not) sales, the 1-Euro-shops, discount bakeries, book-shops with permanent special offers (“returned books sale” …), “swap markets” based on lack of resources …but as well: the raise of biologic/organic food, fair trade (yes, also in the large chain shops and supermarkets) ….

Short stories if we take them on their own; I guess long stories if we take them as chapters of a book, perhaps a new volume of world history.

Questions only …, but I suppose important enough to be asked and to be answered at some stage.

____________________

And to be clear again, at least trying to be clear: I am convinced that we cannot move on by simply using the old concepts: seeing a development from liberalism to neoliberalism to ultra(neo)liberalism. I am convinced that more has changed, that we are not concerned with a “fundamental alteration” of the previous stage. I am conventionalist in so far that I think we are still facing a capitalist system. And as such, the system is – amongst others – characterised by (i) the production of surplus value, somewhat independent of the production of the production of exchange value; (ii) the need of the production of use value, which is under the conditions of capitalist production however “added value”, not necessarily depending on exchange value (iii) and in many cases actually independent of it as it emerges in spheres outside of the market, (iv) providing the foundation of a rather fundamental division of labour (and power) within societies and between societies. And as much as these fundamental patterns remain in place as true seems to be that the relationship between them are socially dislocating their relational positions, “crossing borders” like undergoing a tectonic movement without actually breaking at their core. This is at least one of the major reasons behind the limitations of moral appeals and small-scale solutions in the search for a better world. And it is equally a major reason behind the limitations of a morally-based corporate social responsibility. The concept of an ongoing accumulation by dispossession may be one of the entrance doors for further consideration. Paul Boccara reflected on this under the heading of a modele anthroponomique. And I published some considerations in the my chapter in the book I edited under the title All the Same – all Being New and also in the chapter I wrote together with Sibel Kalaycioglu in the book we edited under the title: Precarity. More than a Challenge of Social Security. The problem remains to find a fundamental origins and shortcomings of methodological individualism of life.

In an interview with Federica Matteoni, Michael Hardt has a simple answer: The current crisis did not arise from the separation of the real economy and a fictive sphere of the finance capital as real- and finance economy are today inseparably linked. Such insight seems to be trivial and/or ignorant especially if we read further:

What seems to be new and challenging for me in connection with this crisis is that the capitalist production in general moved towards taking a a fictive character.

This sounds good and is surely in some way true – but it does not help us any further. As said, one point may be that looking at an ongoing accumulation by dispossession is sufficient to explain what is going on. The important point is that it really and fundamentally sticks to value production, thus allowing to analyse surplus value as surplus value, i.e. as moment that is inherent in the economic process, i.e. the process of production. Hardt, contrary to this, suggests to leave this area half way: fictive capital is one thing, fictive value another, and a fictive real economy will remain a hoax. Possibly it works for a while but only to fall even deeper – and here we arrive at the current crisis as it is: the separation of the real economy and a fictive sphere of the finance capital.

If we want to turn the notion of a move towards a fictive character of the economic process productively, we may speak indeed of the re-appropriation of politics by those forces who have control over economic resources rather than controlling the economic process as productive process which is based on the commodification of labour power and the with this possible production of surplus value. If we really move further down this road of interpreting the current situation as re-appropriation of politics by those forces who have control over economic resources we have to be aware of the fact that we can actually not continue with ease speaking of capitalism. At least concepts as neo-liberalism or as well the proposed shift from a fordist to a post-fordist accumulation regime, including the shift Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare State as proposed by Bob Jessop would not have sufficient power for explaining the current situation and development.

At this stage this cannot be discussed further – the aim being only to table the question in which way we can utilise Marxist analysis, be it by way of analysing the current capitalist system or by way of looking for the fundamentally new character of capitalism, focusing on the economic question, i.e. the question of value production.

A short remark may be added. Suggesting at least for some time that the thesis of re-appropriation of politics is correct, we can actually explain the hype around topics as greed, the ‘new interpretation’ with which people like Sarah Wagenknecht approach the ‘social market economy’ but also the queer developments of capitalists like Bill Gates presenting themselves as revolutionaries. Not least important as with all this we easily arrive again at claiming rights as matter of being good like god – rather than rights being derived from a society based on the production of goods, i.e. commodities.

Remains a double-A: accumulation versus appropriation. And remains the search for a triple-A: overcoming accumulation not by appropriation but by acknowledgement: the acknowledgement of

Fraternity, Equality and Liberty

or in other words

People’s Liberty – Equality – Fraternity

____________________

In this context it may also be worthwile to revisit the concepts that had been discussed at earlier times in history – and that may be especially meaningful when it comes to discussions on legislative systems. Interestingly, the French revolution introduced the principle of fraternity – and it is important to note that that it had been the last in a row, after emphasising liberty as the core value, interpreting it as a matter of equality which would lead to a ‘modern brotherhood’. In actual fact, it had been very much a brotherhood with two connotations: the one merging into the paternalism of the enterprises, the capitalist patron replacing the earlier master of the guild-system; the other merging into the solidarity based system of the working classes. Subsequently, solidarity – and it had been solidarity in the second meaning – had been seen by some as synonym for fraternity. And subsequently refers to the terminological synonymisation but also to the fact that only some used it in this way. And there had been a good reason for being split on this topic, indeed. Originally solidarity – as juridical rather than as social and political concept – had been the commitment of members of a group to cover the dept of one of their members. In other words, the new understanding based the social and political meaning on an economic concept, carried economy into the socio-political realm. This means that we are facing a radical shift, a radical approach as well to the economy.

Pierre Leroux, in his work De l’Humantié from 1840 elaborated this, positioning solidarity against the principle of charity and also against contractualist approaches as they had been put forward for instance by Hobbes and Rousseau. In his understanding he rightfully argued against the latter by highlighting their principal stance of seeing people as in principal atomised individuals; where as charity had been characterised by forcefully putting the individual under a community, continuing the view on the community as given by the almighty will of god rather than seeing it as genuinely human and humane. Following Leroux consequently to the end, we see the tyranny of the secularised individual versus the tyranny of the divine community. Tertium non datur? Leroux saw the ‘third way’ in solidarity: a just society based in genuine social existence. Taking up what had been said before (at the end of the previous paragraph), we see that solidarity in this perspective had been a germ for an ‘alternative’ economy: an economy based on common property – the germ of socialisation its its true meaning.

Surely a long way to go, from the joy, where we still ask for approval of the creator

Be embraced, millions!
This kiss for the whole world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
Must a loving Father dwell.
Do you bow down, millions?
Do you sense the Creator, world?
Seek Him beyond the starry canopy!
Beyond the stars must He dwell.

Leroux’ creator could only be the self-creator, the social authority emerging from true social existence.

____________________

Coming back to Europe then, and the efforts to permanently ignore this depth of the crisis it does not make a difference if He enters the stage as Iron Lady, frankly stating that

One cannot rely on the fact that things that are said in advance of elections, is maintained afterwards (Angela Merkel in 2008) (2)

and ready to claim:

that we will not allow that something being technically possible is not utilised by the state (Merkel in 2008 during a canvassing event in Osnabrueck on the topic of surveillance) (3)

But even she, i.e. Merkel knows

Democracy is not always a matter of individuals deciding but it usually is the business of opinion making by many. (4)

Occupy? Sure, but not simply by building a wall of defence. What we need is a positive outlook – a new approach to understanding

Liberty – Equality – Fraternity

People’s Liberty – Equality – Fraternity

Sure, there had been the version of history where Europe appears only as victim – and this is what she was.

Fighting against this is a matter of thoroughly thinking about strategies and we all have to acknowledge what Merkel said in 2007 (mind, she is scientist and in this case she definitely knows what she is talking about)

Banging the head against a brick wall won’t work. It finally always means that the wall will win. (5 [see photo 19])

But equally sure, she had been also the one looking further and following this Europe is not least a matter of joining Frigga Haug in the debate and work on a Four-in-One-Perspective.

And surely this is well linked into the ongoing work on Social Quality

The latest step of which is the publication of Foundations 3^rd Book

Social Quality. From Theory to Indicators

_______________________________

There remains, at the end of 2011, and looking for ways in 2012 surely also an outlook which fits well under the

Ode to Joy

And when the announcement on the website to yesterday’s performance of Beethoven’s work states

on occasion of the turn of the year it is nearly a must

we may join in it: It is a ‘must’ to look for the positive power of its suggested

Liberty – Equality – Fraternity.

It is a ‘must’ to remember these two great and idealist German thinkers.

And it is also a ‘must’ to remain alert – referring to Slavoj Zizek, writing in the New York Times – we see that

at Bar 331, the tone changes totally, and, instead of the solemn hymnic progression, the same “joy” theme is repeated in the “marcia turca” ( or Turkish march) style, a conceit borrowed from military music for wind and percussion instruments that 18th-century European armies adopted from the Turkish janissaries.

The mode then becomes one of a carnivalesque parade, a mocking spectacle — critics have even compared the sounds of the bassoons and bass drum that accompany the beginning of the marcia turca to flatulence. After this point, such critics feel, everything goes wrong, the simple solemn dignity of the first part of the movement is never recovered.

But what if these critics are only partly correct — what if things do not go wrong only with the entrance of the marcia turca? What if they go wrong from the very beginning? Perhaps one should accept that there is something of an insipid fake in the very “Ode to Joy,” so that the chaos that enters after Bar 331 is a kind of the “return of the repressed,” a symptom of what was errant from the beginning.

Sure, looking at what we (too easily) call neo-liberalism should not be underestimated – and we surely have to criticise positive historicism, its representatives as Comte, Mill, Buckle and much later Rostow for their short-sighted utilitarianism; but we should equally be aware of the dangers of metaphysical historicism, reaching from Plato over Hegel and Toynbee to … those who remain in the marcia turca of carnivalesque parades. – Comte and Plato, Mill and Hegel, Hayek and Habermas …., all shaking hand with each other.

Only when put back on its feet, when freed from all the bombastic pomp, the joy will be a real one, one for all of us and one we find in very day’s life, without the danger of turning into tyranny. Until that day we may simply enjoy such events, taking the greatness they have as animation for acknowledging the part we can take – acknowledging the claim to participate.

We may like it or not, the way leading us there will still be a stony one, overcoming the bombastic pomp depending on solidarity amongst different, overcoming the artificial divisions rather than pretending equality where it does not exist. Yes,

Be embraced, millions!

But there is still a way to go – and a question to ask:

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
when tomorrow comes…
Tomorrow comes!

_______________

(1) So müsste meine Welt aussehen: Priorität der Politik gegenüber Finanzwelt und Ökonomie. Außerdem: ein globaler Marshallplan der reichen Länder und eine internationale Marktwirtschaft, deren ethisches Fundament das Soziale, Ökologische und Friedenspolitische ist

(2) Man kann sich nicht darauf verlassen, daß das, was vor den Wahlen gesagt wird, auch wirklich nach den Wahlen gilt

(3) Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass technisch manches möglich ist, aber der Staat es nicht nutzt

(4) Aber Demokratie ist nicht immer eine Sache von einsamen Entscheidungen, sondern in der Regel ein Geschäft der Meinungsbildung vieler.”(Interview with the Berliner Zeitung (7//11/07)

(5) Mit dem Kopf durch die Wand wird nicht gehen. Da siegt zum Schluss immer die Wand.

The President and the Dairymaid

25 dicembre 2011 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, contemporary socio-economic situation, social quality, works, projects, publications

At least in the German language there is the saying of a calculation undertaken by a dairymaid, suggesting a calculation is extremely simplified and important variable are left out. Sure, this extremely unjust as these people, as long as they don’t loose their common sense, are well able to take things right, much better than people who refer to a so-called academic qualification and …

– … and get things wrong even they may actually have received the most prestigious awards.

Have a look at this – it is not a laureate text but one that is so typical for today’s academic world.

The next summit of the 20 industrialised and emerging countries (G20) will take place on 3rd and 4th November next. These 20 countries represent 85% of the world’s economy and 2/3 of its population. The declared goal is to discuss the world’s economic situation and to come with joint responses. What can we expect of this?

Fondation Robert Schuman. European Interview N. 41, 31st October 2011: Editorial Introductory remark to an Interview with Jean-Paul Betbèze.

But where is the president now? Well, actually this present epistle is indeed not about the economic question (though I will briefly come back to it) but indeed about the president. And in this case, the president is Mister Murphy, current president of University College Cork, Ireland. He disrobed himself recently, talking about academia and universities today. There is only one hope (though it is not likely anything more than hope, here meaning illusion: that it had been a badly uninformed story in the Irish Examiner, reporting on the 21st of December under the title

Pressure on college resources sees flight of talent.

It is very much the usual lament – some quotes may confirm this:

UCC president Dr Michael Murphy said the price of widening third-level access was the inability of colleges to provide the best education for top students.

The UCC president said opportunities were created for the brightest students through scholarships when resources were scarce in the past. But the universities’ ability to maximise the talents of the intellectually gifted has diminished as expanding higher education has brought weaker students who need more academic support from fewer staff.

And he is directly quoted with the words

“The ICT age, the space age, the nuclear age, the Hollywood age, all were mostly sparked by those in the top 2% to 5% of academic performers, who attended schools and universities that met their needs in innovative ways.

Under the leadership of people like Mr. Murphy there is a new age coming up, indeed: a social ice age, featuring ignorance about what academia is about.

________

Let me shortly reflect on this in a different perspective – taking a sentence written by Theodor Mommsen, taken from his Correspondence with Wiliamowitz. It is the letter 393, dated on the 25^th of February 1894. Mentioning the date is of special importance. Reading always means considering some basic facts of the context as for instance the date, i.e. time of writing; and in this case it is of special importance for another reason: the German original tells immediately that this is not written in today’s words. My exiguous translation will not tell immediately – so first the German, then the translation:

Unser Universitätsregiment ist freilich ein schlimmes Ding. Das Willkürregiment einerseits und der Mangel an innerlichem Zusammenhalten der Kollegen andererseits sind in stetigem Steigen, und beiden gegenüber ist der Einzelne machtlos. Wohl ist noch manches zu erreichen […]. Aber es ist ein drückendes Gefühl, von solcher Favoritenwirtschaft auch nur in diesem Sinn zu profitieren. . Du wirst dieselbe Erfahrung machen, Althoff wird, soweit er es kann (seine Macht zum Guten ist sehr viel geringer als sein Wille), Dir in solchen Dingen entgegenkommen, aber Freude wirst Du davon nicht haben, liebes Kind zu sein.

Now the translation:

Of course, the regime of our universities is a really nasty thing. The arbitrary regiment on the one hand and the lack of inner coherence and solidarity amongst the colleagues on the other hand are permanently increasing, and both cannot be changed by the individual. Sure, there is still something we can achieve […]. But it is an onerous feeling to profit from such red tape even in this way. You will experience this yourself, Althoff will, as far as possible (his power to do good is much more limited than his will to do good), to accommodate you in such things, but you will not be able to enjoy this by being a good boy.

I do not want to discuss Mommsen here. Nor do I want to discuss the exclusive, elitist and strangulating system of the ‘good old times’ of academia – something that never existed. Reading many (auto)biographies, looking into issues of sociology and history of science eclipsed much of the golden gleam for me. There is, however, a point one should not forget. Leaving many things aside that are not of importance here, the understanding of academic work had been substantially different to what Mr. Murphy suggests. The freedom had not been primarily defined by the narrow stance of a micro-administrative framing – the article refers to such perspective, stating:

Dr Murphy said universities needed greater freedom on how to spend limited resources and called for an end to stifling Government micro-management.

On the contrary, grant schemes had been generous in the sense of allowing for developing wide perspectives of managing tasks as they developed from the practical developments, from real life and the opportunities it can open. Let us face it, the most known, most progressive, most advanced results of science did not come from bright individuals as suggested by UCC’s president. It had not been

those in the top 2% to 5% of academic performers, who attended schools and universities that met their needs in innovative ways

as it is quoted. Rather, the noblest advances are characterised in particular by the following:

* These colleagues had been bright, indeed – real scientists by way of coming from wide and broad approaches to reality. – Try to locate Albert Einstein, Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Bertrand Russell, Norbert Elias or today Amartya Sen, Zsuzsa Ferge, Laurent van der Maesen, Hans Zacher, Andrey Korotayev, Leonid Grinin …, and clearly classify them as …, yes, what? Surely academics, but then? Mathematicians? Philosophers? Economists? Moralists? Sociologists? Lawyers? Historians? Anthropologists? ????

* Many of these colleagues had been or are as personalities and academics very much part of the political and social life of their time, i.e. part of real soci(et)al life. This meant very different things – and would mean even more different things if we look at others. And some of them had been surely hugely questionable when it comes to the political practice. But still … – the conservative Weber, claiming ‘value freedom’ of research, was nevertheless only able to do what he did by standing in the middle of the political movements and by committing himself to values and taking positions (there is much confusion when it comes to the debate on value freedom and we should revisit Weber, Sombart and Schmoller on this and later also Popper and Adorno for the ‘second round’ of the ‘Werturteilsstreit’ [still useful in this context mot least the work on Materialism and Empiriocriticism]; Einstein, first contributing to the disaster due to his involvement in politics, working at the end on contributing to the development of nuclear bomb, showed how he learned from his mistakes, advancing to a most engaged figure of the peace movement, condemning all nuclear weapons …

* Although we usually look at these individuals, at their high intellectual performances and excellence indeed, we should not forget that many of them had been ‘managers’, working in groups, being intellectually stimulated by disputes with others – managers who in some cases surely worked out things in egoistic ways, utilising the work individually for themselves – nevertheless not being guided by administering stuff or staff.

These colleagues mentioned above, without holding back with criticising them where appropriate, are colleagues I truly like to see as colleagues. And I am proud and humbled by knowing some of them personally. Sure, they may never bring it to such fame as Mr. Murphy, entering the history books as one of the main promoters of the social ice age. But they are surely more distinguished, more aware of what they are saying, more respectful even in the conservatism which some of them represent.

The following has to be added – though surely this short note does not in any way cover things in full nor does it want doing so. Nevertheless, the following is the most important when it comes to the self-designated applicant for the position of a president of the new ice age.

* Our universities have to face the challenge to regain openness. Specialisation, striving for excellence and dividing staff by permanent evaluation and ‘the notion of distinction’ is one of the coffin nails of academia. Real academia can only be reached by openness, a wide mind is a bright mind. – Well, that a cobbler should stick to his last is widely accepted. And cum grano salis, for medical doctors the same should apply

* Political and soci(et)al engagement is a most crucial nourishment of academic development. Many of the colleagues especially in the first half of the previous century distinguished themselves by such engagement – and many did so by engaging on the side of the ruling classes. True opening today has to consider this in a complex way: ‘Opening academia’, launching and maintaining access-project cannot be about just opening doors. It has to be about opening the way of academic thinking, making it possible to think about the real challenges we are facing today. And these are not technical by nature. They need a more fundamental shift of our thinking – Social Quality, Big History, World Systems Theory may be candidates, and I admit I only mention these because of my own specific involvement. But I could well move on, just making these days the most exciting experiences by meeting and communicating with colleagues from Kurdistan, Turkey, India, South Africa, Chile/Mapuche and Bolivia – and though many of them are academics, we meet as people. And these encounters allow me to meet myself – as stranger in my own countries (sorry, not able to speak in singular). And this is the point I want to make: All this is not about the traditional academic debates but about what we lived through, each in his/her place and each deprived in one or another way from it. Full of contradictions. Surely not easy – but not a fight, a pool of inconceivable richness, real experience of a globalising self, breathing the fresh air of different life, and inhaling the toxic elements where they are. Surely not easy – but not simplifying as the journeys of those travellers who are globalising the other, blinding the other by the dust that is dispersed by the carriers of their palanquins. Surely not easy – but more honest than the mendacity of a administered quasi-academic elite. And again, this is the point I want to make: we should be open to the huge pool of experience out there, ready to change ourselves rather than aiming on braking their will, subordinating them under the law of the ‘imagined 85’ (see below).

We need strangers – you may want to read what Georg Simmel wrote on this topic of The Stranger.

And we equally need to allow ourselves to be strangers in our own country [You may want to red what I wrote on this but for this you have to by a book ;-)].

* And we should open internally too: creating for a for collaboration rather than presentation of excellence, engaging in disputes rather than preaching from the pulpit of a new historical school of administration. – Sure, the historical school of economics did have a role to play at its time – but we should not forget that it failed in preventing two world wars. The new economic school of administration may well fail to prevent the emergence of a social ice age.

Leaving the polemical undertone for a moment aside, having stated ‘and we equally need to allow ourselves to be strangers in our own country’ is far-reaching and more meaningful than what we usually discuss and hat we usually are actually ready, able to see. the question at stake is one of ontological and epistemological in its very nature. So I actually have also some doubts when it comes to access programs, science shops, participatory research etc., but coming from another angle, suggesting that they are far too tame. Looking at the UCC’s current strategic plan (probably we find very similar plans elsewhere) we see its emphasis on ‘contributing to society’. It is surely a problem that the link between universities and society (it sounds bizarre, doesn’t it? – It is bizarre that this actually is an issue!) had been unobserved, for so many years, pushing our critique from many years ago aside, emerging as playing field in ivory towers and on silicon valleys. But the latter is the point: The link had never been rally broken – the link that really had been broken has to be seen as the link between academia and peoples’ societies. Establishing such a link is not about working for society, but in society; it is not about ranking and excellence but about real life and its contradictions. It is about the beauty of development and the power of the ordinary rather than the streamlined and purified forms.

– Let us be brave, let us for instance have a look at ‘Die Bruecke’, the path opened for the ‘Blue Rider’ (alluding to the two groups of expressionist arts in the beginning of the last century), let us have a look at the deconstruction of Cubism that allowed new construction rather then following simply the baroque – the latter surely great in working with a descant, able to elevate from there; but not able to fundamentally overcome the path defined by this descant. That elevation had been nothing more than the last judgement: like a god dividing between good and evil. What we need is the readiness to work on something new, going beyond a smart society, walking as minor partner of a smart economy. What we need is a fundamental answer to the Guernica that smartness of the 85-2/3 society produces every day.

________

Well, Mr. Murphy, anecdotes …. – as we learn from the article

“There is extensive anecdotal evidence of many of our brightest students emigrating after completing Leaving Certificate for overseas education and never returning,” he said.

Anecdotes …, isn’t that about story telling, our great Irish tradition?

It may be that another anecdote will be told one day, a fairy tale.

Once upon a time there had been president, a good administrator, looking for excellence but not really knowing what he meant by it, believing just in figures – like a little journalist. Reading for instance something like this:

… These 20 countries represent 85% of the world’s economy and 2/3 of its population. …

he could not even think about the triviality of a pyramid turned with its head down: these 85% and 2/3, historically able to stand for some time on the shoulders of the minority 15 and 1/3 would surely collapse sooner or later.

Well, this president had been standing well and safe and he tried to gather with his companions, giving them tid-bits, feeding them like the old lady fed the little boy in one of Grimm’s fairy tales (Hansel and Gretel) and presenting them with golden tiaras, bracelets and earrings. Only with the time all these jesters of the new ice age found themselves drawn to ground by the heavy chains that glimmered so tempting and promising. They found themselves freezing in their fur coats that only provided warmth for a short time. And the president himself, looking more and more like an old man, calling all people to meetings to measure if their fingers had been fattened had to acknowledge one day: the brightest of the people around …, they apparently disappeared, looking for new shores, for open seas to see, rather than for narrow-minded channels. And he did not live happily ever after. You want to know why? The 15 and 1/3 on which they stood looked into the mirror and saw: actually they had been the 85 and together with the many who had minor positions in the excellence centres and who really worked for excellence. Those who lost their golden chains and who now claimed the right to live in paradise – a paradise of real knowledge production rather than gathering and improving skills; a paradise …

where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critique.

a paradise just as it is mentioned in part 1 of the German Ideology, a piece of excellence written in 1845.

___________

Sure, a fairy tale – but still, the old man did not succeed.

What remains to be said at the end?

Sorry, Mr. Murphy – there may be some points that had been misrepresented in the Examiner, there may be some points that you would qualify yourself. And there are surely also some points in what I wrote that need further elaboration, qualification and …, yes, and discussion. But at least one should be very careful in such a position as yours when it comes to speaking to

business leaders at a Cork Chamber breakfast

And another point may be added – just allow me to quote one of the great academics of history though he is more known as a writer and perhaps also pictorial artist. This great and contestable mind once said

However, we all, old Europeans, are more or less cordially evil. Our conditions are too artificial and complicated, our feeling, our way of life against nature, our social relationships lack love and benevolence. Each is fine, friendly, but no one has the courage to be honest and true, so that an honest man, with natural tendencies and emotions, ends to feel quite badly.

And of course, this ‘honest man’ may well be the dairymaid, who academia has to encourage to have the courage to be honest and true.

Looking Back – Looking Forward: Responsibilty

22 giugno 2011 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in contemporary socio-economic situation, social quality, works, projects, publications

It is so easy: Talking about Human Rights as matter of charity and good will and virtues. And it is so difficult: of course we find this blunt, brutal violation: open for everybody. And of course we have to everything we can against the killing of women for religious reasons, religious fundamentalism (which, by the way “we” enlightened people of the west, can easily see as serious issue when we look at them, though we are easily overlooking when it comes to religiously motivated violation in the christian traditions in every days life).

Some real issues are then easily left out – and can easily be seen not only here but also here – just mentioning two examples: Not just the gap between rich and the poor – but especially the fact that this growing is not least consequence of the rich gaining on the back of the poor. Just one of the interesting facts that had been mentioned during the one of the sessions of the conference that took place over the last days: tax evasion as one of the causes – and it is so easy. Another issue which cannot be easily issued is the fact that the mode of production is limited not least by its orientation on commodity production which is systematically, structurally fading out issues of producing the social as equity oriented system.

Of course, it is a complex issue – and I hope that I can make at least some contribution to the debate. It had been part of the work I undertook in Ankara and Moscow over the last month and will be part of the work which is planned for the next month – it is on the way under the title

Social Policy – Production rather than Distribution. A Rights-Based Approach.

The final publication of this publication will hopefully be announced some time at the end of the year, proposing the need for a fundamental change of the social policy debate. It is also meant to lay the ground for a shift in the social quality debate and its orientation on sustainability.

Indeed, human rights are about economics and the responsibility of the rich countries. – Surely something to be further discussed during the next days in Esslingen,where we will be working during the XVth International INKRIT-workshop on the Historical-Critical Dictionary on Marxism.

A short PS: on the positive, not to say delighting side: though not dominant in the published debate, sessions on such critical issues had been well attended.

On another positive side: the forum I attended and I mentioned in earlier posts took actually place in the building which in earlier years hosted the German parliament. It is now an international conference centre. Other buildings, formerly hosting parts of the German government, are now accommodating offices of the United Nations. Some shifts, at least ….

Four-in-One-Perspective – or One Divided by Four Equals One

Iscriviti al blog tramite email