Address to the conference CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH TRENDS OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS – POZNAN, OCTOBER 24TH, 2013

Having been invited to be member of the Scientific Committee of this conference had been a special honour for me for several reasons – one being that I could maintain and extend good contacts to Poland, continuing an experiences which had always been very enriching and also pleasant for me. And saying “good” contacts is not least a matter of having been able to attend several conferences and workshops – this and the collaboration with various colleagues brings me to two points that guide this short address to you as participants.

* The contacts and experiences, which had been academically and politically reflecting a wide range of different positions, had been for me very encouraging. In some respect these experiences had been opposing a mainstream trend in (social) science that we may identify as extrinsic motivation: positions and reputation, guidance by peer-reviews instead of open discourse, structured by administrative requirements and funding opportunities instead of fostering open processes. All such criteria that are extern and alien to the actual matter of research are part of a scale that may be seen as suicide of science – with this wording I allude to an excellent study undertaken by Carin Holmquist and Elisabeth Sundin (see Holmquist, Carin/Sundin, Elisabeth (2010) ‘The suicide of the social sciences: causes and effects’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 23: 1, 13 — 23; DOI: 10.1080/13511611003791141).

* Nevertheless we have to face of course a common challenge: an entirely self-referential system is equally dangerous – and we know too well from the early periods of social science that these systems had been disjoined: academia as a world that had been sealed off in an ivory tower, careers depending to a large extent on patronage.

Actually many of the current processes and structures – peer-reviewing, administrative and managerial control etc. can be seen as reply on these self-referential systems, and paradoxically establishing similarly estranged patterns of encapsulation.

Indeed it is highly problematic if we see academic work being undertaken without any responsibility in terms of external standards.

Of course, we are entering here a complex field – and we have to be careful with any one-sided explanation and critique. I want to take up on just one aspect – a general one that is concerned with the economic setting within which we are working as researchers and also as teachers. And I do not want to take up the surely important aspect of ‘commodification’ of science and academic work and its subordination under the requirement of immediate profitability. A issue that is more fundamental is the general concern with the mode of production – in a less ambitious formulation the concern with the question: What is actually the reasoning that is guiding our economic activities and thinking? Again and in its own terms a complex field that had been employing the thinking of the three adversaries that are also determining contemporary debates in alphabetical order: Keynes, Marx and Mills.

Keynes talked about reaching a level of saturation with material goods that would allow us to concentrate again on those issues that are of real importance:

The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems / the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behavior and religion. (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/john_maynard_keynes/ – 17/06/2013)

Marx highlighted that we move towards a mode of production that allows working in a completely different way. In the German Ideology we read:

In communist society, 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, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

(Marx, Karl/Engels, Frederick, 1845-46: The German Ideology. Critique of modern German Philosophy According to its Representatives Feuerbach, Ba. Bauer and Stirner, and of German Socialism According to its Various Prophets; in: Karl Marx/Frederick Engels. Collected Works. Volume 5. Marx and Engels: 1845-47; London: Lawrence& Wishart, 1976: passim)

And in the Critique of the Gotha Programme we read that distribution is guided by needs.

Mills finally talks about the developed society as ‘static society’, not geared to growth as ultimate aim.

There is one important aspect, though coming from different perspectives, underlying all three paradigms – and this could also be seen as something important as guideline and challenge for academic work: We can summarise it by saying that we are dealing with complex soci(et)al practice. This practice in its complexity has to be motive, the foundation from which we start and at the very same time its ultimate goal.

Importantly we all, if we are working in social science or any field of science in the strict sense of English language have to think about this question – what the social and its practice is about.

I cannot present this in detail – but I want to point out one direction that I think is highly valuable in this respect and that employs much of my work: the theory of social quality. It is an approach that systematically develops an understanding of what the social, understood as noun, is about. The understanding is guided by three dimensions: conditional, constitutional and normative factors. Me may translate and say: it is a matter of considering the conditions which we find and have to develop, constituting through our practice the processes that these conditions become real and considering the meaning and impact this practice has for others and our environment – and of course with this we are back to the conditions that are not once and forever given but shaped by our own practice.

With this I want to close my remarks by quoting Boaventura de Sousa Santos

It is important not to reduce realism on what exists. Doing so we would only justify the existing, not withstanding how injustice and suppressing it may be.

(Sousa Santos, Boaventura de, 1997: Hacia una concepción multicultural de los derechos humanos: 15; http://democraciayterritorio.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/hacia-una-concepcion-multicultural-de-los-derechos-humanos/ – 06/10/13)

World Systems Theory and Theory of Social Quality as Proposal for a Methodology for Rethinking a World in Crisis and Transformation

 

(Prelimanry version – an updated version will be published in due time as working paper at http://www.wvfs.at)

World Systems Theory and Theory of Social Quality as Proposal for a Methodology for Rethinking a World in Crisis and Transformation1

Abstract

Two fundamental problems are standing at the outset of my considerations:

  • The current crisis is often seen as the deepest, longest lasting, fundamental etc.; however: it is not clearly spelt out that we are dealing with a truly systematic crisis.

comme une crise du système économique et également du système anthroponomique, c’est-à-dire du système qui concerne toute la vie humaine en dehors de l’économie, avec ses quatre moments : le parental, le travail, le politique et l’informationnel (la connaissance, la culture). (Ivorra, Pierre, 2013: Crise de civilisation, crise de 2008-2010 et solutions systémiques; in: Économie&Politique. Revue marxiste d’économie; 708-709, Juillet-Août 2013; 39-39; here: 39; see also Boccara, Paul, 2010: La crise systémique : une crise de civilisation. Ses perspectives pour avancer vers une nouvelle civilisation, note de la Fondation Gabriel Péri)

  • Globalisation is a nearly permanent point of reference in contemporary debates, however it is not clearly spelled out as something that is characterised by two very different dimensions which are actually to some extent contradicting each other: the one can be captured by an increasing density of relations between nation states and regions – the character of these may be very different; the other is a matter of the factually increased relational interdependence – and factual also means that the knowledge of this relational interdependence becomes a material force very much like theory that captures the masses.

The challenge is to find a proper analytical framework that allows taking both, the systemic character of the crisis and the globalisation of the current challenges in the second understanding of globalisation serious. Bringing World Systems Theory and Social Quality Theory together, provides a promising framework for finding an answer to present challenges.

****

Looking at the current crisis in the said understanding of globalisation, it is quickly getting obvious that highlighting its global character is not least characterised by the fact that there is no escape possible: where previously economic development and crisis had been characterised by apparent opportunities to ‘externalise’ unwanted moments in space and/or time, this is not possible anymore. Though there may be in some respect still escapes, this is more the exception than the rule. However, the reception of the crisis remains caught in national thinking – we may speak of methodological nationalism in the sense Maurice Roche coined the term, contending that analysis and politics

are designed on a basis which appears to take the nation state, its sovereignty and the powers of its government utterly for granted.
(Roche, Maurice, 1992: Rethinking Citizenship: Welfare, Ideology, and Change in Modern Society; Polity: 184 f.; quoted in Gore, Charles, 1996: Methodological Nationalism and the Misunderstanding of East Asian Industrialisation; in: European Journal of Development Research; 8, 77-122 [1 June 1996]: 80 doi: 10.1080/09578819608426654)

Gore himself goes further, pointing out

Explanations which are methodologically nationalist try to explain economic and social trends in countries, basically reference to facts about the countries themselves. The focal object of understanding is often described as the economic or social ‘performance’ of a country, usually in comparison with other countries. Specific performances are typically ‘explained’ by dividing causal factors into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors, and then attributing what is happening in a single country or set of countries within a region of the world … mainly to internal factors.
(Gore, op.cit.: 80 f.)

This is a rather fundamental moment that is in some way reaching further than aggressive nationalism and its internationalisation as imperialism. It is accepting theoretically and in ultimate terms of policy-making nationality as last reason. Such approach of methodological nationalism actually reduces all debates on globalisation on a line of international relationships, not allowing a cosmopolitical stance. This contradicts in a fundamental way the developmental stage of the means of production. It means also that it takes a wrong emphasis on political processes and structures, neglecting the fundamental issue of political economy. The nation state had been seedbed and result of the emergence of capitalism. With capitalism reaching obviously its structural limits, we have to open the view also in terms of the framework of regulation – and we all know that this is already in different ways taking part: World Bank, IMF, UN etc. are just few examples – showing the general need and also the limitations arising in the current situation.

Moving this argument further we face in very general terms following, in part contradicting, patterns.

(i) Local reference of production (with its four elements: manufacturing, consumption, distribution and exchange) does not play decisive role. Importantly this includes the increasing relevance of locality: the number of small traders, local consumption is growing hand in hand with the number and spread of large corporations.

(ii) Based on different mechanisms, we find in terms of the mode of production developments pointing in opposite directions: large scale, automated production is standing side by side with an again increasing small-scale, craftsmanship guided work.

(iii) Notwithstanding the fact of global dominance of the capitalist mode of production, we see that the always prevailing non-capitalist elements are currently regaining relevance also in quantitative terms:

  • the increasing meaning of work disfavouring labour
  • increasing meaning of direct exchange and even of use-value exchange, not replacing market-mediated forms but complementing them in certain areas that go beyond the “neighbourly help” that is already well known as epiphenomenon of capitalism
  • increasing meaning of ‘direct provisions’ both as direct provision of statutory services and as ‘charitable welfare’
  • also in the political sphere we find increasingly signs of a shift beyond the patterns of democratic-national policy production; this is not primarily about the increasing meaning of supra- and international bodies – more important is the loss of demos as at least formally acknowledged point of reference and actor.[2]

(iv) With this we find another contradictory pattern, namely the fact that on the one hand globally economics takes completely over, penetrating all pores of life, however meaning at the same time that any development, and with this any crisis, is also a systemic crisis, already defined as

une crise du système économique et également du système anthroponomique, c’est-à-dire du système qui concerne toute la vie humaine en dehors de l’économie, avec ses quatre moments : le parental, le travail, le politique et l’informationnel (la connaissance, la culture).
(Ivorra, Pierre, 2013: Crise de civilisation, crise de 2008-2010 et solutions systémiques; in: Économie&Politique. Revue marxiste d’économie; 708-709, Juillet-Août 2013; 39-39; here: 39; see also Boccara, Paul, 2010: La crise systémique : une crise de civilisation. Ses perspectives pour avancer vers une nouvelle civilisation, note de la Fondation Gabriel Péri)

****

Not only the crisis points on instability – perhaps even more a proof of systemic instability is the persistence of systemic alternatives. Admittedly, the ‘great revolution’ has been lost – it is not the occasion to fully discuss the details. A short note, however, is required: In my understanding one of the major problems has not been a ‘political failure’; nor do we have to blame primarily the ‘economic strength of the West’. Instead I think we have to investigate that this search for alternatives had not been extended on the entire and complex mode of production with all the different aspects of manufacturing, consumption, distribution and exchange as relationship of elementary forms of society building.

This brings me to the two main analytical dimensions that I want to suggest for both, analysis and developing a perspective for future politics and policies.

World Systems Theory

The positive side of World Systems Theory is that it provides a framework that allows thorough consideration of the complexity of relationships between states and regions, considering these not least as power relationships going far beyond recently increased and accelerated ‘trade relations’. And of utmost importance is the fact that World Systems Theory draws our attention to hegemonic relations: capitalism as dominant system, though structuring dominance, ruling and governance in highly complex and differentiated ways. Important is not least the fact that hegemony also means the differentiated involvement of those who are object of processes of ruling into the systems of ruling (governance).

Though the debates on this are in detail varied, it may be said that the differentiated view on the actual mode of production in a complex way – going beyond a rough formative perspective – remained limited. We may speak of ‘methodological capitalism’, not sufficiently allowing the view on a world systems in which capitalism does not exist or is not dominant. Even the link between hegemonic centres and subordinated periphery is not sufficiently analysed by way of thoroughly considering differences in the modes of production. The present proposal – still only a rough outline – emphasises that any mode of production is in actual fact a composition of different moments. Broadly we may say one dimension consists of the four elementary forms of production, namely production (A), consumption (B), distribution (C) and exchange (D).

The other dimension is based on the contradictory moments pointed out earlier. It is schematised in the conceptual form of considering spatiality and time-comprehensiveness of production (1), economies of scale (2), value dimension of production [priority of use or exchange value] (3) and (4) political-economic governance.

Lacking a better term, I propose to classify each of them by their ‘degree of modernity’.[3] This translates into the following meanings of ‘developed stages’

(1) national boundary, oriented on competitiveness

(2) large scale, ‘industrial’ production

(3) dominance of exchange value, disfavouring use value

(4) rational and bureaucratic rule of law.

Now we have to consider a further step, namely the application of these dimensions on two levels, namely the national (or possibly regional) level (I) and the international level (ii).

Bringing this together, allows us presenting the following scheme.

 

1

2

3

4

A

               

B

               

C

               

D

               
 

I

II

I

II

I

II

I

II

Matrix 1: Analytical Scheme for Assessing Countries

This may be also seen as foundation for an empirical analysis of a global order, classifying the dependencies. It would be calculated a weighed index that comprises the different countries and regions on the basis of their share in performance values. However, importantly we have to recognise that the valuation and weighing has two dimensions: the one is the simple calculation of relevant values; more difficult is however determining the qualitative aspect. This is actually of crucial meaning at this historical stage. In a nutshell: we see that many of the standards are breaking away and the hegemonic claims cannot be made on the same foundations which had been unquestioned for a long time: growth of GDP as standard measuring wealth, economies of scale, locality and identity … – these are just few examples marking shifts on the scale of valuation of the foundation of hegemonic claims.

Social Quality Theory

This leads directly to the argument that social quality is actually not just an attractive paradigm. Instead we find here a proposal that is geared towards rethinking a world in crisis and transformation.

We may say that World Systems Theory is in some way only a formal framework, considering an important and even central aspect of societal constitution of which Frederick Engels said that

[a]ccording to the materialist conception, the determining factor in history is, in the last resort,, the production and reproduction of immediate life. But this itself is again of a twofold character. On the one hand, the production of the means of subsistence, of food, clothing and shelter and the implements required for this; on the other, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species. The social institutions under which men of a definite historical epoch and of a definitive country live are determined by both kinds of production: by the stage of development of labour, on the one hand, and of the family on the other.
(Engels, Frederick, 1884: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State [in the light of the researches by Lewis H. Morgan]; in: Karl Marx. Frederick Engels. Collected Works. Volume 26. Engels: 1882-1889; London: Laurence&Wishart, 1990: 129-276; here: 131)

However, only recognising the complex points Engels makes, allows us elaborating the substantial side which World Systems Theory falls short to develop. Of course, classical Marxist analysis left a large part of the social dimension outside of its immediate consideration, not least by implicitly developing it implicitly by providing a methodological framework.

  • A shortcoming, however, has to be seen in the fact that the classical Marxist approach had been very much limited by focusing the analysis on the emerging capitalist formation – suggesting this way a very specific take on social issues.[4]
  • Furthermore, leaving few exceptions aside, the idea of ‘one society’ did actually not exist – instead, class society as divided society had been ‘accepted reference’. ‘Hegemony’, in this respect, had been only spelled out as blunt ruling of market force: oppression, hierarchy, dependency, living at the margins … – all this had been by and large unquestioned and did not need much of justification by pretending harmony. The divided society had been given and it had been suggested as ‘natural order’. As it had been a reinterpretation of the ‘liberal citizen-society’, the revolution of the citoyenitée had been a ‘failed but maintained project’: It had been failed as it did not keep its promises of equality and fraternity; however, it had been maintained by promising ongoing liberty, though reduced on freedom of the agents on the market. In this sense the paradox had been that a highly unequal society that could justifiably claim to be the heir of the anti-feudalist revolution.
  • As much as the ‘project capitalist formation’ had been caught by and limited in the framework of a utilitarian project, the adjunct ‘social project’ had been caught in the same limitation: as the one had been very much guided by methodological nationalism, the other had been very much based in methodological individualism. Both moved in the very same framework. For the social project it meant for instance pedagogisation, psychologisation, ‘securitisation’, and ‘provisionalisation’ (granting of benefits and services) and the like.
  • This meant not least that thinking (about) the social had been limited in the ability to develop a perspective that would be able to transcend presence as time frame and nation state as space. Furthermore, it limited in this way the social perspective as an ‘add-on’, not being able to present a truly genuine understanding of the social.

The social quality theory is an approach that had been developed from the middle of the 1990s in order to argue in favour of a more social Europe. However, being in the beginning very much concerned with a rebuke of ‘economistic over -determination’, it became increasingly clear that the problem is not a supposed dominance of the economic sphere. Instead, the problem had been increasingly getting seen as a lack of the definition of the social – understood as noun. In general, social science refers to the social without even thinking about its underlying substance area – substituting considerations by reference to supposed aggregates (as society, state etc.) or to assumed attributes of values and moral characteristics. Analysing social situations in this light had been usually rather short-sighted, being on the one hand concerned with institutional perspectives of provisions of socio-economic security (pensions, health care, social benefits …), looking on the other hand at ethical and moral dimensions of behaviour. The SQT, however, looks at the social, understood as noun and defined as

an outcome of the interaction between people (constituted as actors) and their constructed and natural environment. Its subject matter refers to people’s interrelated productive and reproductive relationships. In other words, the constitutive interdependency between processes of self-realisation and processes governing the formation of collective identities is a condition for the social and its progress or decline.
(van der Maesen, Laurent J.G./Walker, Alan, 2012: Social Quality and Sustainability; in: Van der Maesen, Laurent J.G./Walker, Alan (eds.): Social Quality. From Theory to Indicators: Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 250-274; here: 260)

The definition had been developed by applying an iterative approach – which had been originally limited to EUropean member states.[5]

It is based in three sets of factors, namely: conditional factors, constitutional factors and normative factors, defined by four dimensions each. We arrive at an architecture, determining the social and allowing to assess its quality, which is bringing constitutional, conditional and normative factors together (see van der Maesen, Laurent J.G., November 20th, 2012: Working-paper no 9: Elaboration of a Lecture on the Orientation, Strategies and Model (or Experiences) of the City of Hangzhou (Zhejiang province of mainland China),  from a comparative; working papers at http://socialquality.eu/ – 20/09/2013 : 4).

As said, so far the concept had been originally developed in the collaboration of colleagues from EU-member states, and later it had been further discussed with colleagues from different Asian countries (see for the latter http://www.socialquality.net/).

All this is surely still work in progress – the following major challenges can be made out at this stage:

  • to integrate rights-based thinking, and this is also legal paradigms into the theory;
  • probably more urgent point is to develop a clearer economic thinking in this context, i.e. to develop social quality thinking further in connection with political economy;
  • to globalise the approach, i.e. to go beyond its application in different countries and regions and adapt the general scaffold to the conditions en lieu: at the end – and linking to what had been said – we always have been  and are increasingly visibly and palpable for everybody – living in one global world: not “interconnected nation states” but one space, defined by the same conditions, challenges, practices and futures;
  • to ‘communitiaraise’ the approach by looking at concrete ways in which people accommodate their lives in the given circumstances.

Social quality in this brief outline will provide a useful guideline and framework for the envisaged research. A clearer understanding requires however to enter a wider array of paradigms that should at least be briefly mentioned as complementing SQT and SQA, allowing at least to arrive at a clearer understanding of the context in which developments of societies, the social and identity stand today. Important is that this approach actually focuses on two ends. On the one side against national or spatial boundaries. This can be summarised by two contentions, presenting the political and the economic perspective. Hans Heinrich Rupp states that

thinking in spational categories is the enemy of all academic legal attempts to conceive of law as a social phenomenon
(Rupp, Hans Heinrich, 1991 : Grundfragen der heutigen Verwaltungsrechtslehre; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 258)

Philip E. Steinberg marks the economic dimension, contending that

the territorial state emerged concurrent with the deterritorialization of political economy and geographical imagination
(Steinberg, Philip E., 2009: Sovereignty, Territory, and the Mapping of Mobility: A View from the Outside; in: Annals of the Association of American Geographers; 99, 3, 467-495: 468).

On the other hand, however, it emphasises the ultimate importance of the community level as place of immediate interaction and with this (re-)production of the social.

****

Now, the optimistic view so far is that we are actually able to refer to a methodological framework – perhaps we may even claim two frameworks: one of methodological mondialism and the other of methodological socialism – allowing us to analyse the current situation fairly well. And it is also a framework that is actually relatively open to different ideological approaches. Relatively means it takes openly position towards the political goal of a world society that provides equal opportunities for all – a formula that brings together the three sets of factors; but within this broad remit it recognises accepting different traditions, different structural patterns and set-ups and different concrete political processes coming to the fore as strategic perspectives.

The, for me, most important point is that we reached a historical turning point that bears some similarities with the situation to which Karl Marx referred, claiming that

[a]t a certain stage of development it brings forth the material agencies for its own dissolution. From that moment new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society; but the old social organisation fetters them and keeps them down.
(Marx, Karl, 1867: Capital Vol. I; in: Karl Marx. Frederick Engels. Collected Works; Volume 35; London: Lawrence&Wishart, 1996: 749)

Seemingly – at first glance – this contests both, many aims we had been striving for and many achievements reached during the historical development of the last 150 plus years: social insurance, social benefits, even human rights in the understanding of mainstream interpretations. This mans, however, only to recognise fully the historical character of society and the social.

I have to limit myself to highlighting few fields that I see as being of utmost importance under the heading of the search for international humanitarian law.

  1. We actually have to go beyond the search for humanitarian law, and reclaim demanding true human rights
  2. We have to develop anti-imperialism by way of moving towards genuine mondialism
  3. We have to search for ways overcoming ‘social provisionalism’ by enabling soci(et)al self-determination
  4. We have to find ways of re-naturalising the mode of production, re-installing it as conscious metabolism.

Ad 1

I suggest that there is a certain shortcoming if we speak of humanitarian law.

  • Though the term humanitarian suggests intuitively an emphasis on relations between human beings, founded in mutual respect (which carries always an egalitarian notion with it), it suggests also a rather ‘soft’ understanding of such respect and egalitarianism. In this respect, reference to human beings has a stronger recognition of respecting human existence in its own value.
  • The important relationality, i.e. complex of relations between human beings – is regained by orienting on rights. With this we are overcoming some structural limitations of law which tends to reduce dealings on formalised relations between individuals.

Such orientation would not least mean to orient strongly on the right to self-determined (re-)production in terms of

  • determining use-values, instead of being determined by exchange values; this includes importantly the recognition of the (re-)production of social relations as productive force;
  • optimising relationships to – or better: the integration into – ‘nature’, i.e. a determined respect of collective rights within a given organic environment; this can be integrated into the proposal made by Durkheim by his analysis of mechanical solidarity.[6]

Taken together, this means that a human rights perspective has to develop towards a 4th generation: The right to collective (re-)productive self-determination, based on environmental integrity.

Ad 2

Seemingly contradicting is the second point, demanding a genuine mondialist perspective. Global competition and the orientation of competitiveness is as much in the way of such strategic as any attempt towards autarkic seclusion. This has especially major implications for international trade and taxation. Point of reference is ultimately a non-anthropocentric, non-present-time orientation. This means to see human existence as part of a much wider spectrum of existence: in question is indeed the universe and the possibility of the universal reproduction on a permanent (sustainable) basis. The rejection of anthropocentrism human existence escapes the equation. In actual fact, human existence enters exactly here the stage by emphasising its existence s complex and concrete relation. Being ‘part of’ nature means that it existence surely takes parts out of nature (pars capere) but it also means that it can only exist within it and by securing its reproduction. Securing these (inter-)dependencies is thus essential.

We are dealing with a specifically defined level of abstraction. On the one hand we are forced to look at a very concrete level of people’s practice as

[r]elations are the most abstract and metaphysical ideas of any which men can have occasion  to form, when they are considered by themselves and separated from the related object.
(Hugh Blair:  Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres; in:  Birindellei, Massimo (1981): Piazza San PietroRoma/Bari: Editori Laterza: 0)

However, on the other hand we are challenged to accept the concrete not simply as ‘something given’ but as something that is historically created and that can be changed. As Boaventura de Sousa Santos points out

it is important not to reduce realism on what exists. Doing so we would only justify the existing, not withstanding how injustice and suppressing it may be.
(Sousa Santos, Boaventura de, 1997: Hacia una concepción multicultural de los derechos humanos: 15; http://democraciayterritorio.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/hacia-una-concepcion-multicultural-de-los-derechos-humanos/ – 06/10/13)

Ad 3

With this we arrive at a third point. Without tracing the line of historical development thoroughly back we can say that we reached a new stage on which human practice is divided in the following ways:

  • One dividing line is going right through practice itself and defines economic activities as separate from the entirety of human practice. In the extreme we find it reflected in Marx’ formulation on alienation, pointing on

the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home.
(Marx, Karl, 1844: Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts; in: Karl Marx Frederick Engels. Collected Works Volume 3: Marx and Engels 1843-1844; London: Laurence&Wishart, 1975: 229-346; here: 274)

  • Second, this establishes a central dividing line, juxtaposing in opposition human existence and human beings on the one hand and nature on the other hand. This is not about the freedom gained by knowing the laws of nature but it is about knowing the laws of nature in order to subordinate nature itself under humankind.
  • With this we find as third dividing line the one between past, present and future. This is not as such a problem – the problem only begins where the need of continuity – as matter of working within the historical process – is denied and a loan is taken on the future without including considerations into the present practice about how to pay this loan back.
  • A fourth dividing line – to some extent bringing different lines together – concerns the regionally unequal distribution: though soci(et)al (re-)production is and will – objectively – always be a holistic process, it is artificially divided n respect of space and time: we borrow from other countries and from the future without considering the effects. And this means of course that some countries are lenders. And some countries are donors. Now, important is terminological clarity. Though the rich countries may be indeed seen as donor countries in terms of money, they are actually only doing so by way of paying a kind of interest for the goods and services they receive. We can express this also in economic terms: parallel to constant capital, replacing variable capital we find here finance capital replacing real capital. Fact is, however, that the replacement of variable capital by constant capital (‘rationalisation’) can be structurally viable, the replacement of real capital by finance capital cannot. Actually this form of replacement (‘f by r’) is the attempt to maintain capitalism as ‘virtual project’.
  • This is manifested in a fifth dividing line, actually a bundle of lines as between rural and urban areas, between the commodity producing Global South and the commodity consuming Global North, but increasingly between the global rich and the global poor.[7]

Of course, of crucial importance is with all this the matter class division, which finds then also its prolongation and extension as part and parcel of the other divisions.

In actual fact, we are dealing with complex and interwoven processes of division: borrowing from the future and borrowing from other regions and borrowing from other classes and borrowing from nature are possibly temporarily advantageous. However, in the medium and especially long run such borrowing is not viable. Moreover, in the short and medium run it means facing an increasing limitation of the scope of action as soci(et)al practice is reduced on compensation by provision, not providing space for self-determination. – The debate on so-called developmental aid shows this throughout history again and again – even more: money spent is in multiplied forms flowing back into the so-called donor countries.

To the extent to which the provisions are not part of the production itself, we face multiple dilemmas which can be summarised by saying that systems loose the capacities to reproduce themselves – this can be seen in the ‘bubble-economies’, demographic ‘imbalances’, environmental hazards, the fact that formal norms are overgrowing substantial rules, and not least the fact that ‘productive’ potentials are disregarded as they are not taking the commodity form. Many other features could be mentioned.

Demanding overcoming ‘social-provisionalism’, i.e. mechanisms of correcting soci(et)al ills by ex-post provisions, then means in simple terms moving towards a (re-)convergence of the various

  • technical
  • social
  • temporal and
  • spatial

moments of (re-)production.

In actual fact we are another time returning to the importance of regional cultures of self-determined production.

Ad 4

Al this means in particular the re-establishment of the true metabolism that is entailed in production proper. The most-far reaching separation characterising the development of the productive forces is actually the one that is concerned with tendency of overcoming the dependency of or at least stretching the distance between human kind and nature. It is not about rejecting rationalisation and a rebuke of technical progress. However, it is about rejecting a dominance of technisation that leads to a stage where we are producing without knowing the reason behind it.

I want to conclude with a remark taken from speech given by Ernesto Che Guervara, addressing his co-workers at the ministry of industry in 1961, facing new challenges:

We can all contribute with our own efforts, everybody with his/her own view which may very different; and based on his/her own convictions which may also be very different, but always aiming on contributing in the vital work – leaving the figures behind, as far as this is possible, interpreting the reality as it really is. That does not mean to return to the short-sighted practicism of the first days but we have to find a point of reference to combine the two essential things in an optimal way: namely on the one hand the practical and immediate knowledge, the reality and communication amongst us and on the other side the large abstract effort which is necessary to fulfil our tasks.
(Che Guevara, Ernesto,  October 6th, 1961: Gibt es ein Recht auf Verschwendung; in: Che Guevara, Ernesto: Der Neue Mensch. Entwürfe für das Leben in der Zukunft. Selected, interpreted and introduced by Horst-Eckart Gross; Dortmund: Weltkreis: 1984: 61-80; here: 63)


[1]            Preparations for a presentation for the workshop on Strategic Studies: Rethinking a World in Crisis and Transformation held by the Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional, Havana, October 2013

[2]            This is in actual facto a far-reaching statement, suggesting policy making as process of production that follows similar patterns as capitalist commodity production.

[3]            ‘Modernity’ in the present understanding is by no means understood as simply a progressive and positive pattern or stage of development. Instead, here it is simply a ‘descriptive’ means, capturing the pattern of societal organisation that developed with the contradictions as result of the bourgeois revolution and Western-style enlightenment.

[4]            Given by the need of thinking about issues concerned with securing matters of mere existence.

[5]            Due to the origin of the work and the availability of funding

[6]            In this light the term ‘organic’ environment refers very much to the biological understanding of nature etc.

[7]            Expressing the fact that there is an increasing wealth in so-called developing countries and the emergence of “pockets” of poverty, precarity etc in the so-called developed countries.

PRECARITY – AN ISSUE OF CHANGED LABOUR MARKET AND EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS OR OF CHANGED SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS

A new working paper had been published under the heading

PRECARITY – AN ISSUE OF CHANGED LABOUR MARKET AND EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS OR OF CHANGED SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS

Reading the abstract may raise your interest in reading the entire paper, prepared for this years EUROMEMO-workshop in London

The fact of an increasing precarity of employment is widely analysed and discussed although we surely face various different definitional approaches. An important part of the differences in the definitions (as matter of the conceptualisation of precarity as analytical and political issue) is due to not tackling sufficiently consensual the following question: Is precarity a matter of dissolving the standard pattern of entering the social security system (i.e. fundamentally rejecting the right to work) or is it a matter of ‘lacking flexibility’ and even retrenchment of social security systems?

The contribution will, first, discuss some of the conceptual and definitional questions. Second, some broad outline of the situation will be given by empirical statements. A final third section will formulate policy demands in a long- and a short-term perspective.

The presentation is connected with editing a book in this area. The relevant individual countries that will be looked at in the book are Hungary, Italy, and Russia.

Human Rights – “Lives Rights” – Children’s Rights

[1]

Abstract

The article attempts to add a new direction to the debate on human rights by looking at it from four perspectives: practice, development, everyday’s life and political responsibility of social work. This aims not least on working towards the foundation of a fourth generation of human rights, supplementing the generally accepted three generations. At stake is the genuine acknowledgement of social human rights in everyday’s life.

Human rights are often looked at if they are – be it in reality or by way of perception – breached. To speak of perceived or real breaches is certainly often superfluous, because it is obvious that certain actions and situations are even a matter of disrespecting the most fundamental and inalienable human right: the one to live, i.e. to mere existence of the human being. However, in many cases the situation lacks such clarity: definitions and practices are controversial, and furthermore it is often controversial whether certain issues, though they may be obviously being inhumane, are actually human-rights-related questions. The reason for such statement, possibly surprising for some of the readers, is simple:  human rights have their origin in protecting citizens against arbitrary abuses of the states’ power against the (world) citizens. In other words human rights had been linked to the state, as Weber says the only entity upholding the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order.

In such a reading private actions – and these are also acts of companies in global markets or actions of fanatical fundamentalist religious communities[2] – are strictly irrelevant to human rights. There is another dimension to the fact that these rights are nearly only issued in case of violation: both, the rather abstract reading of human rights and the consideration of individual violations reveals again and again that addressing these rights is bay and large detached from everyday’s life. At least apparently they do not affect the ordinary insanity: conflicts repeatedly preventing in different ways in everyday’s life that people can develop with all its facets of personality.

Admittedly this is a rather complicated and complex situation. But it is also a fundamental question, concerning the fundamental difficulty of defining human rights. Narrow definitions look at very obvious “cases” – even if one has to admit that the two declarations of human rights claiming universality (resolution 217 A [III] of the General Assembly on 10 December 1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights; http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml – 7/8/13; Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Aug. 5, 1990, UN GAOR, World Conf on Hum Rts, 4th… sess, Agenda Item 5, UN Doc A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.18 [1993]; http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html – 7/8/13) are in fact not really universal. This is also true and clearly the case for the UN Declaration, which contains a strong affirmation of the capitalist mode of produciton (see below and Presentation Narrowing the Gap Between the World’s Richest and Poorest Contribution for the German wave GLOBAL MEDIA FORUM 2011). However, a broad definition runs not only the risk of including too many aspects, but at the same time it also opens the door for arbitrariness. Anyway, it is important to focus on the importance of human rights in every day’s life, going beyond the protection of mere existence. The development up to now is commonly seen as characterized by three generations:

The first generation concerns “negative rights,” in the sense that their respect requires that the state do nothing to interfere with individual liberties, and correspond roughly to the civil and political rights.

The second generation … requires positive action by the state to be implemented, as is the case with most social, economic and cultural rights. The international community is now embarking upon a third generation … which may be called “rights of solidarity”

(Vasak, Karel, 1977: A 30-Year Struggle. The Sustained Efforts to Give Force of Law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in: The UNESCO Courier. A Window open on the World; Paris: UNESCO: 30/11: 29/32; here: 29; cf. Herrmann, Peter (forthcoming): Justice and Law Today: On the Translation of General Ideas on Justice into Claims for Security and Responsibility; in: Herrmann: God, Rights, Law and a Good Society [Writings on Philosophy and Economy of Power, 2]; Bremen/Oxford: EHV Academic press, 2012)

It is fundamental that a fourth stage is missing – and such stage is actually difficult to imagine within contemporary paradigms of social sciences in general: the social law and the socio-economic self-FORMATION law in a very genuine sense. It is justified to see the debate on human rights as being firmly based in the tradition of positive law – be it in a positive or in a negative way. However, it has to be seen that

[p]ositive law assumes an ordered social context that exhibits certain deficiencies: it envisages more desirable – an ideal – ordering of the context; it prescribes the steps to be taken in order to move the actual towards the ideal; and it orders that these measures be instituted. That is, positive law is at once expository, normative prescriptive, advisory, and imperative. But it is positive law as a means to an end …

(Jenkins, Iredell, 1980: Social Order and the Limits of Law. A Theoretical Essay; Princeton: Princeton University Press: 75)

This can only be understood in the context of society and socialization. Significant is the statement of Norbert Elias, who points out that people can only be understood as a process in its ongoing development, and he also suggests that this orientation is constantly undermined by the overwhelming tendency to push all processes into some form of structures (see Elias, Norbert, 1980/81: Social Process Models on multiple levels, in: Elias, Norbert: Essays On Sociology and the Humanities III; Dublin. University College Dublin Press, 2009: 40-42).

******

Of course, structural thinking knows as well thoughts about development, but these are fundamentally shaped by a very particular and peculiar understanding: it assumes an indispensable link between two areas:

  • First it is stated that there is a (more or less) straightforward development to “modern” societies – this is idealised as enlightenment, in reality it is about the development of capitalist modes of production;
  • Secondly, development is then also increasingly about development of human rights. On the one hand this is seen as development of human rights themselves – i.e. they are taken as dynamically expanding, steadily albeit very slowly; on the other hand “successful development” is indentified with modern societies and it is suggested that they are guaranteeing human rights – certainly is not denied: “unfortunately” we would find “slips” within and even caused by the capitalist system, but this is just considered as an exception and mostly seen as “bad practice”, which can actually only be found in the countries of the global South.[3]

Important is not so much the accuracy of the proposed relationships – which is of course highly questionable. A key point is more a question of the methodology (see Herrmann / O’Leary, in preparation: Human Rights – Search for a Fourth Generation): Apart from the fact that the underlying understanding is highly individualistic – thus following very much the tradition of European Enlightenment – another problem has to be seen in the fact that certain human rights are faded out by a structural-methodological pattern. First, these are everyday issues – as mentioned earlier, human rights issues are only then on the agenda where we find breaches in extreme situations. Secondly, however, the concept of development itself implies a certain ignorance: underdevelopment means lack of development of human rights or lack of human rights awareness and therefore “underdeveloped people” need to be “developed” in order to be able to accept and live these rights.

Of course, this is an exaggerated and simplified version of a complex problem. But such simplification is useful to clarify extremely important questions:

  • Human rights are in this way conceptually reduced and seen as passive rights – and only “fully developed human beings” can really take full advantage of these rights (of course it is left open who these “fully developed human beings” are;
  • they are only taken individualistically – as only the capitalist formation represents such “full development” and provides completely developed awareness in terms of the underlying idea of man.

Just a quick note on the last point must do suffice: The UN Declaration points in Article 25.1 out:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

In other words, realistically, the only way of full involvement is to participate in the global capitalist system.

******

Formulated provocatively, social work is facing an impossible task – the squaring of the cycle. On the one hand it is of course important to recognise the basic human rights in the given understanding, aiming on securing their realisation. But at the same time we are facing the necessity of engaging in the balancing act of criticizing these rights at the level of the underlying methodology and the subsequent definitions. Two aspects have to play a particularly important role – in the following they are only addressed as questions for future research and action:

The first is development of practice: human rights must be understood more as matter of social human practice. This means in a global perspective the need to acknowledge other modes of production; in national perspectives it means to allow other ways of life – not only as matter of multiculturalism, but more in the sense of different understandings of the production and reproduction of everyday’s life. Obviously, this includes especially the recognition of such modes of work and lifestyles as they are claimed by some ethnic minorities. And importantly we are here also facing the particular issues and conflicts: are such rights compatible with requirements of gender equality – as for instance some issues of gender equality in the modes of production of Gypsies, Islamic communities, etc. – Mentioning the possible tensions is here only meant to raise issues, not more and not less.

The second issue is development. It is a challenge as we have to ask and answer how we are dealing in this light with “non-development” and “not-developed people”. In this formulation, this seems to be sufficiently provocative to clarify the issue at stake: the conceptual difficulties that do exist in dealing with interpretations presented by certain groups. These are considerations that are partly already arising in official discussions in connection with the so-called rights of the third generation. In the present case, however, the solidarity rights must be understood correctly: we are talking about the right to develop and practice the social, and not only realise oneself within a defined social context. That means both “rights for the weaker members of society”, but it also means to overcome fundamentally the concept of weakness, gong much beyond ideas of support. One of the issues that is obviously conflictual is the religious requirement of self-determination, which then potentially threatens the right to life under certain circumstances. Children are just one important group that requires solidarity in this sense.

Thirdly, it is about daily life: All these considerations need to be anchored in everyday life – not only with regard to the daily lives of the many whose rights are obviously violated, but also the matters that are still leading to structural “hidden disadvantages”. Actually these infringements are not so secret at all. An example that is not sufficiently seen as breach of basic human rights is the disadvantage of women as it finds its expression unequal pay. A permanently occurring question has to ask if it can be justifiable that collective agreements are not possible anymore and it has to evaluate in which ways they are increasingly undermined.

Fourth, the question of political responsibility must be re-visited. This refers in particular to processes of education. The responsible citizen, capable and ready to participate is certainly a widely used catchword. But it is at the same time also a question that needs to be considered in normal daily life of social work practice. This means as well that it is about the normal daily life of people – even the ordinary people. Change of society should not be moved to infinity by the fact that one cares first only about “really serious cases”. Just because a negative comparison is ridiculous, it is important that such extreme breaches can not least happen, because we easily ignore minor injuries – and this means also that we have to take the violations of the small ones, the children more serious. We easily assume a natural superiority of the West, the adult , the men of the professions etc. And we forget them equally easily, because we often emphasise the rights of “the disadvantaged” without further reflection: multiculturalism, anti-globalization, freedom of religion, transsexuality, the conflictuality  – important issues to reflect upon without neglecting the highly conflictual, and often explosive content.

And yet it moves – Galileo Galilei supposedly said those words. It does not matter whether he said it or not. Social work, generally, the social professions have finally (again) realise that they have to move more and they have to move in more fundamental ways.


[1]            Rough translation of an article, published in Sozial Extra 7|8, 2013

[2]            One may think of gender policies in the name of Roman-Catholic fundamentalism – this saves from reflecting on more or less distant regions, for instance dominated by Islam.

[3]            Such regionalisation is indirectly suggesting that the real reason can be found within these countries.

Once upon a time – and everything changed … !?!?!?

A day at the end of June, 8:36 a.m. – high-speed train G7381 with the name “harmony” brings me from Shanghai to Hangzhou.

Apparently it had been Marco Polo who said

下来有苏杭

上 有天堂

and indeed, it seems to be heaven on earth. I am moving there on the ground, at the earthly speed of nearly 350 km …

… outside the built-up areas, the fields, the streets and the huge green-house areas – passing like images of a dream, appearing and disappearing like the clouds one may see when looking out of the window of an aircraft … 350, 300 …

… 250, 200, 180, 140, 90, 80, 55, 30, 20, 10, 9, 7, 4 … the train stops …

********

… it is a while ago that I lived in a town in Germany – mind, not a village, not a city: a town. There had been approximately 25,000 inhabitants and occasionally we went to a city nearby: a place with probably 100,000 inhabitants. Well, we thought it would be a city. At least there had been an opera house and theatre and I had been privileged, occasionally being able – finding transport and having the money – to go there. I had been a child then and this is one of the memories I am fond off; one of the things I thoroughly enjoyed during my childhood; perhaps I enjoyed it so much because it was a little perforation in an environment that seemed to be smooth and that actually had been smooth, any attempt to escape only leading on slippery ground that did require permanent movement, but did not allow progressing.

A bit later this tiny, seamless world had been bursting – for me in the same way as for the many who turned to the streets at the end of the 1960s: against the aggressors in Vietnam, against the German media-giant Springer who had been one of the gofers of the aggressors in the far-east; against the Gaullist system in France; but also in favour of matters: of Bloch’s notion of the Principle of Hope and Marcuse’s realist utopia, proposing

You should sleep nine hours without dreams. Then you have the day for dreams.

And we had been moved in favour of A.S. Neill’s ideas on education, seeing

[t]he function of a child is to live his/her own life, not the life that his/her anxious parents think he/she should live, nor a life according to the purpose of the educators who thinks they knows best

and seeing this not only as right of children but as right of human beings in general. And those of us, who had been more radical, saw it as particular right of the oppressed: the working class, women, migrants …

Another short while later, after laying down sound foundation stones of my future academic life, I actually lived …, well in a city you may say, probably nearing 200,000 inhabitants …

… and another bit later I began floating around … – real cities, reasonably spread across the globe. After a while I stopped bothering about numbers – perhaps an exception being the time I worked in Taipei which I found remarkable not really because of the number but because of a kind of de-pressing tightness; and an exception at some stage Munich – the first time when I lived there I have had the impression that this would be the real eternal city: eternal vividness if one accepts that 24 hours, exactly one day, is eternity. There seemed to be no real rest: some time the entire city comes to a respite. Moscow perhaps had been another exception at some stage – but it may well be that I had been actually impressed by the seize of the building of the university in which I lived: one of the Vysotki, the “seven sisters” is surely something remarkable …

… travelling, moving on …, at least moving from one place to another, between large places and small spots … and though there is a lack of stability when it comes to the side to which I actually had to leave the bed, there had the stability of my brain: never really loosing the direction, always answering the wake-up call in the hotels in the correct language (even when talking to an automated system), and indeed always leaving the bed to the right side – knowing that it has to be at the end lead to the left side anyway.

********

A day at the end of June – Shanghai is now left behind – I spent only a short time there, about two weeks, teaching at SHU – but still it allowed me to explore a little bit of the city …, no: time to explore the contradictions of a place which surely is a city. Apparently one cannot rely on figures when it comes to its population – but what does it matter if it is 20 million or 24 million. Aren’t a few million people at the end small differences in such place? The really exciting part is actually another: that this city – probably like any other city – is a multitude of social places where

the social is an outcome of the interaction between people (constituted as actors) and their constructed and natural environment. Its subject matter refers to people’s interrelated productive and reproductive relationships. In other words, the constitutive interdependency between processes of self-realisation and processes governing the formation of collective identities is a condition for the social and its progress or decline.[1]

And they do it in very different ways.

The baseline is that many of these are Chinese citizens, but not registered in Shanghai. The baseline is that there are many foreigners – not allowed to work but nevertheless working, even paying taxes. The baseline is that this mega-city is gigantic hub, lacking clarity though its different nods of traditionalism and modernity, poverty and affluence, paralysis and vividness are entangled by an amazing network of a progressive metro system with 13 lines (though line 12 does actually not [yet] exist), covering 439 kilometres.

Any move that is guided by some basic attentiveness discourages us to speak of a city as living space. Although people move around, although the clash of poverty and affluence is permanently present, the actual life is taking part in some other regions – and it is surprising …

********

Actually the original plan for these months had been to live in Rome, the so-called eternal city. And instead of settling in a new life, I continue floating around. So instead of change there is continuity in my life: travelling, occasional concerts, galleries.

I am so lucky that Lv and Xuxiang show me around. Or should I say, allow me to live a little bit with them, joining their life.

Lv herself is one of these sweet Asian girls – matching every prejudiced expectation: looking like the blossom of lotus, her voice being like the sound of the flute she played the one night when I got known to her, and having eyes shining like jade [actually I am so ignorant that I do not even know the colour of her eyes for a long time; and then it turned out that they are actually brown … – yes, there is brown jade]. Well she is really good looking and a really lovely person, leaving poetical embellishments aside. And this young woman showed me so many places: galleries, concerts, the small old shopping centres, most beautiful gardens and a modern department store.

Though she knows exactly where we are going, it is more strolling around – and going may mean walking, going by taxi, taking the metro are sitting in the back of the Rikscha (though not a real one, but its motorised version).

… and it is surprising indeed …:

While being a modern and fast developing place, the tradition cannot be overlooked. Of course, it is the tradition of temples and the ornaments of some of the buildings. The parks still being a spot for many – and actually walking through them gives occasionally the impression of too many going there. But even if they are busy they are a kind of oasis – an oasis by contrasting the busy hassle and bustle of this multi-million project of togetherness; an oasis by contrasting the smoothness of the straight-lined modern business centre with the romantic bridges across the small ponds, never just a line from one spot to another – instead they are angular constructs that allow engagement with space, provoking playful rendezvous with nature and the self and others. Sometimes music is playing in the background, coming from loudspeakers – or is it actually the singing of birds? Or even only an illusion: the memory of the flute play of the one evening, of the tender sound of the Guqin?

And the parks, the small tables on the streets in the quartiers are an oasis as they let us forget the ere seize of the mega cities, show us where life simply flows like the water after having left the spring and forming a little trickle before it is getting lost in the large streams.

In some way all is of special attractiveness where it is remarkably “dislocated” from real life of contemporary realities and still visible as its vivid part. As the middle-aged woman, sitting in front of the house in the presumably poor area near the posh 1933 shopping and arts centre. Somebody else – her mother, a woman from the neighbourhood …? – holding the sheets of music. And the woman sitting on a simple chair, holding the instrument – a pipa – on her lap and creating a harmony that is simply “round”, content and resting in itself – resting in order to allow permanency of movement.

Exotic one may say. One may also say it is just the visibility of the daily tensions and the beauties that are even entailed in what we usually assess as something negative: tensions.

Some time during my visit I will have the opportunity to look at the sheet of music for the Guqin – it looks a little bit like a technical construction plan, the instruction for an arithmetic equation. It is so different from Western sheets of music – and it makes me think about “hearing maths”, something I had been reading some tome ago in a Russian journal.

For the layperson it may look like a plan that presents the blueprint for one of these monumental metro stations – some of them are surely as large as the core of the small village that served me once as home.

And it is this a paradox of continuity of personal life and societal life alike. As much as

the territorial state emerged concurrent with the deterritoriali- zation of political economy and geographical imagination,[2]

as much we can see that we are personally increasingly defensive of our own little territories, many of us having lost the sense and ability of genuine sociability. I will come back to it later – under the title the bowl of rice for every one but not for all.

We see this difference also in the new ways of life and living – still the old patterns of communities – but as they loose their strong inherent coherence that defines their closure from inside, that are now increasingly defined as gated communities: the inner wall replaced by the outer wall, the knowledge and compliance with moral requirements and orders, the acquaintance with a common and more or less unique language …, all this replaced by a single piece of metal or a chip or a PIN, opening the gate. And still there are the same things happening inside: the play of chess or card games, making music or listening to it …, and match making, different in forms but following this language that is written between the lines, the meaning that is standing behind the words – and cannot be found in any dictionary. But still

the interaction between people (constituted as actors) and their constructed and natural environment

follows different rules and although

[i]Its subject matter refers to people’s interrelated productive and reproductive relationships

this does not say anything about the concrete forms that it takes.

Recognising the increasing meaning of the patterns of the Westernly-enlightened world, does not necessarily suggest levelling of difference. On the contrary it is – be it pleasing or scary or both at the same time – of special interest in which way the different offers merge, evolve into something new as dance on the squares: unconditional participation and equally unconditional dedication; the understanding of rights and duties, or righteousness and wrongness … – it is also the matter of bringing the different resources together: many shops actually being workshops in the true sense – selling the repair of nearly everything, the perfection of recycling and ideally the interaction with the customer who is present while the way of repairing is looked after and the actual work undertaken. This is where productivity is so limited – and where the social character of production is so genuinely present. And this is where productivity is so high – where the social character of production is so genuinely part of what is produced …

– … like in water heavens – but this is something that will retain our thought much later.

********

Continuities in a life – hearing and reading in e-mails about the post that arrives home, in Rome. Being there in the Far East, I look forward to going home though it has to wait another couple of weeks – and then I will be there only for few days: Arriving home, i.e. in Rome, like I came home to Aghabullogue in my previous life: short meetings, changing clothes, checking post – that is what a director, even an academic director does, right?

– Anyway, after having been strolling around in the megacities different villages with my friend, I look also forward to spending the other day again together with her and her friends. We will go to Suzhou … continuities of explorations and excitements.

But before going there, I am attending a one-day conference at SHU: sitting in some large place: the conference hall that is part of the library building, listening to presentations and at the same time writing – multitasking-abilities of the equipment being increasingly mirrored by the need of the operator to follow in the same mode. Well, in this case the presentations had been more than boring and I do not have a clue why they invited these people to speak – all somewhat Americans: “genuine” Americans from the “second generation” (i.e. the ones who are successors of those who conquered the country about 200 years ago and drove the Indians to the deserts and mountains, if they did not completely genocide them – well, even if language does not fully appreciate the fact: genocide always had been and will always be something that is done, and should be expressed by a verb) or people who settled there, as the Oz-Italian yank whose words had been so shallow that even dust would not have been able to find a place underneath.

********

So nothing changed? Or everything changed? What did really change? This moment, sitting there in the hall, I have increasingly (mind: italics) the impression that my “real life” is not real at all. Living in such a world where it is true what I came across long time ago as a joke, somebody saying to me on departure

Had been good meeting you. Look forward reading you.

A joke I thought as the person I met actually meant he would read more articles and books of me instead of actually seeng me. Yesterday somebody saying

Best regards from Nadia

– short hesitation. Yanfang saw it, mentioned the surname:

I just exchanged mails with her and she … .

And right now receiving a mail from Poznan, somebody asking me to join some board: I listened to your presentation in Moscow and …

I would be honoured if you agree to accept my invitation …

No, it is not about being real “player” in this global world – what actually really changed is that I feel like a cue ball on a playing field that is much too large for me and probably too large for all the other players, feeling somewhat crunched between and by different players. And having the feeling that it is not just me who is crunched but that there is something and so much going on that is completely out of control – though processes of controlling are mutually exercised.

During this conference I had been approached by somebody – a “low-position assistant”, asking a question on logistics – and I answered, showing her the staff card with my name …

I know who you are …

Well, then she obviously knows more than I do: perfectly trained. But also: You are your name and well, I will come back to it later – they are so meaningful here, every word well chosen: the meaning and what do I want my son/daughter be, that is what is expressed by the name – not looking back as the O’s and von’s and van der’s; not looking at the profession of the forefathers of the Thatchers and Muellers. We are looking into the future, seeing that

you are wisdom, reflecting before you act

– I think that is the full name of this one queen I can call my friend…; and Yanfang actually being with her name a “queen”, but I know only the first part of her name …

Anyway, I had been sitting in the conference hall, writing my article against “knowledge from books” and I should possibly have added some sentences against approaches suggesting one could learn creativity from books, fancy power point presentations and shallow-fancy phrases. Then I had to stop before the conference came to an end as I had to watch the time, having been asked to join for a special dinner (very formal and not the best for me as vegetarian). But I stopped writing at that stage anyway as there had been another beautiful music performance at the end – classical Chinese music … – after that a very short break and some Chinese youngsters playing pop music …: loud, though it had been in some way soft rock music (well known songs – the Western charts), it had been somewhat like hammering it in the brains …, and the Americans around, cold when before the beautiful music had been played, now moving their body, underpinning each bar, seeing their culture hammered into the minds of people, into a culture, like they are building skyscrapers in Pudong, pillars that are keeping up the MacD-, Starbucks- and KFC-culture on the ground.

Yes, pillars maintaining their foundation …, a world standing on its head. No, I didn’t cry though I had been actually near to it; I didn’t scream though I felt like a scream being possibly a means to maintain sanity – and I did not even kick the guy sitting next to me: an Indian-American, hammering with the others against his knees – though I had been near to kick. Even much, much worse, I mentioned my body moving too … .

********

… and I walked a little later, on the occasion of another ceremonial event, across the carpet – yes, a red one, perfectly ignoring the flashes of the cameras, smiling and waving: somebody telling me what to do …

It is only a show …

again I did not cry, scream, kick …; I tried to enjoy the show of which I had been one of the involuntary players.

While being driven to one of these events, another small facet comes to my mind. The colour of the cars –those vehicles used on such official occasions: black. As black is also the colour of moaning in so many cultures, I am wondering if it used for these events as an expression of government bodies, officialdom, academia, business etc, expressing the wretchedness of the loss of ground.

So far I came across only one exception when it came to these cars: Cuba. An old car, the driver probably having many other jobs. I also remember that we discussed the upcoming meeting with the driver while he brought us from the ministry of culture to the meeting of the Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional  – government buildings, by the way, that would surely not have been recognised as such (though I have to admit that I know this also from other countries: the actual work of ministries done in houses and quarters where one would not expect it).

********

Sure, all this is so far presented in a black and white kaleidoscope, a burning glass that does not even allow seeing shadows let alone the truly colourful joys of honest academic debates.

Such debates I experience actually one of these days in Hangzhou – finally meeting a colleague with whom I had been in contact for a long time.

I am collected from the airport and the first thing after arrival is that one of the students in the “office of the professor” – while he does not use it after moving to another campus, two master students can use it for the work on their varied topics – offers me something to drink.

You want coffee of tea?

I decide for the tea, of course, and I am told about the special green tea here in the city. I get it from a paper cup. Not the moment of celebrating tea, but still admittedly a really lovely taste of the Longjing tea. I assume somewhere there is a special language – as there I a special language for wine. Being ignorant of such a language, I can only try to grasp the by the words fully flowered, tasting sweet-bitter. I take great pleasure in this refreshing taste and also enjoyed chatting with An – a very open young student, telling me about her work but also asking about what my interests are.

It is not long and my colleague arrives – my expectation from the previous cooperation is not matched: a joyful, more or less young man, very energetic, stretching his hand out to me and greeting me with a warm, welcoming laugh. He tells me a little bit about the program of the next two and a half days: the work, the lunches and dinners, the excursion to the garden and the West Lake, and he presents the structure of the departments, schools and institutes to me. I am standing in front of the large organisation chart: public administration, private and cooperative economy, governance … – mixing in ways that are unknown from my usual Western environment.

– One thing may be remarkable in a side remark: the party is part of it – as party cell of the university. But it is not mentioned.

Later it will be mentioned – when we sit for a formal lunch. Formal means that the various representatives are present. For me is surprising what the locals probably do not even recognise: the presence of students and administrative staff. Formal means that we are eating together – my neighbour Xian-guo, Dean and professor, makes me aware of the actual meaning of something that I always get pleasure from without having yet thought why it is so delightful: the we-eating, the different dishes, permanently new ones being brought, exchanged by other dishes, all standing on the large glass in the middle of the table, turned around according to gusto, the “power” as matter of taking the liberty to look for whatever one wants, the “power” as matter of consideration on the wishes and doings of the others. – I cannot refrain from making a side remark, remembering several similar occasions when some Westerners had been sitting around such “rotating table”, keenly looking on what they yearned for, forgetting everything around them, as much as they forgot that communication is not about telling stories bunt about the

interaction between people (constituted as actors) and their constructed and natural environment.

Earlier I wrote that we might come back to the bowl of rice for every one but not for all. It may well be the bowl of rice we all like to have as coming with the meal. This, and the bowl of soup, is in the Asian concept of meal apparently the only part that is “belonged” by individuals, personal property that we Westerners had been extensively clinging on after the curse of the apple, bringing individualism and the claim of property rights over humankind; and after this blight had been multiplied by the capitalist enlightenment – an enlightenment that allowed citizenship only as precondition but not as actual consequence of freedom.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

– even Kant with his categorical imperative would and could not have dared to think first of the brother or sister. And liberty had been first needed – even if it had been only in order to abandon it, to treat it as freestyle and thus as residuum as soon as equality of the contracting parties had been reached.

********

Back to the lunch, having been a formal lunch meant many toasts – I had to learn that it sometimes has to do suffice to take the glass without actually drinking. Toasts, clinking glasses – another we-experience but also a matter of individuals: somebody getting up from the other side of the table, welcoming somebody else, cheering each other up … – and finally allowing now the party coming into play: after the exchange of 12 name cards between 12 people and at least 24 toasts later, the topic changes: we talk about the Great Chairman. Yes, ever present – and yes, also a matter of critique, debate, search for solutions – and questioning.

There is a tiny detail, worth mentioning. It is abut the name cards – in the West we are usually talking about business cards, right? But there is so much in a person; and here is so much in a name – although it may be a wish, a dream the parents have for their children. And although these wishes are of course about wealth, security, saturation, they are still very much about the wisdom of matching the silk hair with the silk shawl – just wait a while and I will explain ….

********

– This critique, debate, search for solutions – and questioning is surely not the same as I mention, coming back to Lv and Xuxiang. And actually earlier the week comments by my students gave me some insight into expectations – and disappointments. Few of them follow here:

  • As through several classes, we’ve already have our own understanding about social, social quality and the structure. For justice and quality, so many years I do not recognize the difference between them, because they always been translated to the same word, now I finally catch the subtle nuance. The whole class ,I guess it not only has been an interesting thing, but also the way to teach us how to theorizing what we observed, and this is the serious part.
  • The way Peter teach is quite different from the Chinese way, it gives us more chances to present what we think, but not take it all from the book. I think it’s more flexible, through this we learn the course more rapid.
  • This foreign teacher is serious and earnest, the theory and opinion he gives is not just other people’s, part of them maybe came from his own observation and contemplation, so its quite fresh and original.
  • The summer semester is short, but I’ve learn things, especially the theory about social equality and social responsibility, these are the hot issue through the country, what we learn in class make us rethink the social policy in our own country, not daily discussion but to theorizing the events.
  • The first time to take a English course, and I followed it through, as a student from engineering, the most important thing Peter gives me is the way to analyze the incidents in our daily life, from a social scientific perspective.
  • This class has been useful. Now I have a general idea about these several definition like society and sociology. Also, we learned a new way of thinking.
  • It is not everyday we have a chance to get a lesson, especially everyone was given chance to do a presentation. I hope our professors in SHU could give more lessons like this.

Sure, this says more about the students and their experience in the educational system … – and also about what they experience in and want for life, it says more about this than it says about me and my teaching. And it leaves me with some contradiction. Though such statements are surely indicating some strive to break open conventional ways, I see also that many of the ways are actually already open. This critique, debate, search for solutions is surely much more open than what I experienced for so many times in these so-called open-governance circles of pseudo-critical Western lefties, where left is more about having left reason behind, having left the ground of proper consideration, instead of being a matter of political positioning.

I know, the following may easily be misunderstood – supposedly whitewashing many breaches of rights, apparently denying the problems of this country, be these the ongoing problems of what is still so often called a developing country or the new problems of an overdeveloping BRIC-country – one of these countries where bric may stand for brick: as building block or as instrument that falls on peoples’ head, neck, back or feet, striking without any care, but with its destroying energy the life of so many people. – These days I think frequently of Arrighi’s work and his analysis of “progress”: the move of the centre from Asia to Italy, to The Netherlands then, before reaching England, later taking off from there to the United States of Northern America – had not all these emergences being accompanied by these huge forces of corrosion? Not the Schumpetarian creative destruction (if we should consider something like this being real), but the destroying force of a steamroller of alleged progress. Not least a progress brought to the fore by the old superpowers. Nobody talks about the breach of human rights by capitalism – I do not mean just the obvious use of child labour etc., it is just the power of capitalism that moves into every pore of life – just as we know it already from Marx, pointing in the first volume of The Capital out that there exists a General Law of Capitalist Accumulation:

It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital. [..] This antagonistic character of capitalistic accumulation is enunciated in various forms by political economists, although by them it is confounded with phenomena, certainly to some extent analogous, but nevertheless essentially distinct, and belonging to pre-capitalistic modes of production.

And there is another point that strikes me time again – it is not the first time but I remember the same happening when I visited Cuba, Moldova, Russia, Taiwan, Turkey and others: the thinking of the Westerners. It is apparently so easy to forget – forget what one criticises in the “own” country; and so easy to forget what one acknowledges when looking at the host country from the outside. – And some may even wrap their forgetting nicely; transforming the “critique of imperialism” into the “right of the oppressed to adore the oppressor”. Sure, many find by going this way an excuse for their own lack of more fundamental critique.

********

Theatre, stages of producing oneself, not least by producing the other – without consideration, accepting the reality only to the extent to which it is result of the construction by oneself. But also without consideration of the fact of the self being equally constructed – by the constructed other. Reality is indeed more Kafkaesque the even Franz K could imagine …

– So I still dream, looking at what seems to be the only real world that is left for me: a lovely walk with the girl whose name is “you are wisdom, reflecting before you act”, and I look forward to next Saturday: I will return from Hagzhou, meet this wisdom and her friend at the people’s square and we will go to a concert, before I leave the morning, well, just after midnight, to Moscow. Lv, when we organised this, said

You will be tired.

I could only nod, but I am more tired from permanently leaving, from living between Ireland, Italy and Hungary and Greece and France and Germany and The Netherlands and China and … . No, I am actually not so much tired from travelling and calling at times a suitcase my home. It is more about being tired to live on this stage of mutual constructions, where everything has to be calculated, emerges as part of the theatre, a matter of roles to which the book had been written not just by somebody else, but even worse by an unknown author, now disguising him- and herself, claiming to be “I” and “we”, though leaving “me” and “us” actually in a world that seems to be without real exit …

…, only allowing few escapes – admittedly beautiful escapes like those to the heaven of tranquillity in the midst of 20 million+ people – a heaven of harmony in a hidden teahouse …

No, it is not paranoia (yet?); and perhaps it is not even really that anything changed. Perhaps it is just the continuation of a Diary of a Journey into Another World.

********

I am dashing across the train station, finally the silk fever got hold of me: I see a beautiful shawl in the window of one of the shops – pure silk. Seeing it, I see immediately that it is a nice present for a nice person. Actually I do not even think about the person, do not have to visualise her. I just see both matching. I look at the price tag, think about ..

… no, Sir, we do not accept credit-cards …

I ask for an ATM – and though the words are not understood, the matter at stake is understood. Soon I am nearly flying through the lines of people waiting for their train, trying not to loose my new guide out of sight: the sales person does not only show me the way to the next ATM – mind the emphasis on ATM, not so much on next (if next is understood as something that is near), she also shows me how to jump the queue, pass security gates without major stops; and she makes sure that I find the way back: the way to her shop, well the shop in which she works.

What is the link between such hunt across the main train station of a 24 million city and the following words, I quote in a new text I am working on:

Time gains a new meaning insofar as it has to be made part of considerations in its meaning of a (très) longue durée.[3] Instead, time is meaningful, not as a matter of historical consciousness, but as part of immediate practice – histoire événementielle interwoven with and welding with the longue durée and vice versa.[4]

It is rather simple: even in something like this scene, which may well be seen as buying binge on my siede and rip-off on the other side, there is at times an amazing harmony: the perceived beauty, the expected match, the transposition into market relationships and the strive for natural survival for which income – coming out of the pockets of people like me – is needed. At least it seems that life, living is not taking place outside of this relationship but is immediate part of it. It is difficult to define, de-fine…, fine with its two meanings, find …

It is something that occupies frequently my mind these days. Here in China – perhaps more in general: in Asia – the idea of harmony plays such an important role. It is guiding social policy as much as it is already a principle that is guiding arts – I will come back to painting at a later stage. But here I am – again – simply stuck by the ideas, the feelings …: listening to the soft sounds that are so characteristic for the traditional local music, the harmony of the gardens that play such an important role also today, the silk that is so common here for dresses of different kind and the long soft hair of my friend that I felt the one day on my arm, when we stood in the museum, looking closely at the scrimshaw of the traditional exhibits.

– Only a matter of the past and the diehards? Only a matter of wealth and for the wealthy? Something else comes to my mind – from the same text I am working on, concerned with Green Growth: the attempt to emphasise the temporal dimension of dialectics.

Rather than understanding dialectics in the (simplified) triangular relationship of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis (which, of course, remains as basis principle in place) it is here fundamentally historicised by way of looking at past, future and presence. With view on the organisations and the sector in question it means to acknowledge that they are

  • in principle rooted in pre-modern frameworks – as matter of the past

  • anticipate potentially post-contemporary features and requirements – as matter of the future

  • and – equally potentially – implementing these under the (at times recalcitrant) conditions – as matter of the presence.

And what is in this new text said in regard of CSO’s and the so-called third sector is cum grano salis probably also true for any kind of social action – and we remember the social being defined as

outcome of the interaction between people (constituted as actors) and their constructed and natural environment. Its subject matter refers to people’s interrelated productive and reproductive relationships. In other words, the constitutive interdependency between processes of self-realisation and processes governing the formation of collective identities is a condition for the social and its progress or decline.

Sure, the instruments are different, but the tune is not so different at all … And we have to look at the many untold, even unknown histories on every day’s culture: tea and coffee, silk and wool, eating with chopsticks or cutlery, haircuts and the way of walking – actually all these hi–stories are not untold and surely well known. But then they had been nicely wrapped, making us forget how much they are reflecting out daily life, i.e.

people’s interrelated productive and reproductive relationships.

********

Finally I arrive in the hotel – a modern place next to the university. And I am not so sure anymore about what I just wrote before. Is it really just about different instruments, playing very similar tunes? I enter the room – the soft beat of the song, asking to

Take me to your heart

sounds as strange as the Lipton tea tastes strange.

Hiding from the rain and snow

Trying to forget but I won’t let go

Looking at a crowded street

Listening to my own heart beat

The recent chat with Xiaohong on painting – comparing European and Asian arts – comes to my mind. Talking with him, I mention what Lv told me, commenting on a painting we saw in Sozhou:

It is so difficult. It takes a long time to learn this kind of painting.  One has to learn to breathe every stroke with the brush.

And as Xiaohong, an elderly man, develops: it is part of a complex cultural pattern.

This painting is modest in colours and forms, modest in the use of space. It comes from the utmost inner of the artist and is not about exploring, let alone about encapsulating space. It is about devotion, developing an inner harmony – a harmony between humans and the environment in which they live.

********

The evening before my flight leaves Shanghai Pudong International, I experience this so vividly – when I go with my friends to the Water Heavens by Tan Dun; a bit more then an hours drive outside of Shanghai. I am admittedly a bit nervous – finally I have to get the flight few hours later.

Still, it is truly the experience that

music can be seen and architecture can be heard.

This is what Water Heavens is about. I may add to this sentence, that I red in the program brochure, that the move of the bodies plays melodies and the melodies emerge from the amalgamation of bodies and environment.

Sure, this harmony (or disharmony) of mergers and exclusions, of enrichment between different cultures and the difficulties can sometimes be easily translated into very trivial problems. For instance the eating with chopsticks. Not that it would cause problems for me. However, when it comes to the point of spreading butter, imported from Denmark or New Zealand, with chopsticks on the Délifrance-bread, it requires some creativity. And it is surely much less exciting than the eating of Lotus-flowers as little snack as I did while we had been strolling around the streets of the mega-cities.

********

A day at the end of June, 1:45 p.m. – Aeroflot flight SU207, nameless, bringing me from Shanghai to Moscow. We are moving with a groundspeed of exactly 349 kilometres – the plane is taking off. Heaven on earth will soon be underneath. Underneath also the built-up areas, the fields, the streets and the huge greenhouse areas and the cities. – Now all is passing in the memories, if I will manage to sleep? Thoughts blurring with dreams – those that are not kept for the days when we are going to change life, lives and living conditions. Dreams like those that bring us solutions rather than asking us to work towards them – and surely they have their genuine right too:

You know, when I was in primary school my dream was playing the flute and sitting on a cow near west lake when it was raining, because I always think there will appear a handsome god, make your dream come true.

What still stays with me is small, and still this megacity and the ultra- development cannot easily destroy it: the souvenir of the soft voice of a young woman who is searching, full of energy, her way in this mix and blurring of different worlds – and finding it not only for herself; the memory of the soft sound from the Guqin, played by her boyfriend when we visited together the tea house: still determined to go the harsh way of studying abroad, studying for himself, for contributing to the advancement of science and his fellow citizens. And what still stays with me is … – si, un mazzo di fiori … – and even if it will soon be withered, remembering the smell, remembering the two friends may be one of the contributions helping to move on, and helping to slow down …. – making stages to spaces of real life again.

********

谢谢

– I look on the tray in front of me; I look up, the airhostess looks friendly at me …, and I correct myself

спасибо

… she smiles at me …

Opening another chapter of this book of which we are all part though frequently forgetting this somewhat funny feeling of living in a history book – the book of which everybody is him- and herself author.


[1]            van der Maesen, Laurent J.G/Walker, Alan, 2012: Social Quality and Sustainability; in: van der Maesen, Laurent J.G/Walker, Alan [eds.]: Social Quality. From Theory to Indicators; Houndsmills: Palgrave 260

[2]            Steinberg, P. E., 2009: Sovereignty, Territory, and the Mapping of Mobility: A View from the Outside. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99[3]: 467–495: here: 468

[3]            Understood quite in line with the work presented by the École des Annales

[4]            Herrmann, Peter, forthcoming: Green Growth – Critical Perspective on Third-Sector Development; in: Anastasiadis, Maria [ed.]: ECO-WISE. Ecologically oriented Work Integration Social Enterprises; there quoted from: Herrmann, Peter, forthcoming: Do we really need Human Rights; Rodrigue, Barry et altera [eds.]: NN; University of California Press

Poverty of the Welfare State or: Poverty: construction – de-construction – and losing the battle

The following notes had been made in preparation of the contrubution to the Spring Symposium “Conceptualising and Measuring Poverty: methods for the 21st century” at University College Cork – it took place on the 17th of May 2013.

At a later stage an elaborated annd extended version of these catchwords will be published in the framework of the book under the title

Poverty of the Welfare State.

*****************

*****************

Surely it is necessary, painting a bleak picture, showing the harsh measures and consequences of austerity policies under the aegis of neo-liberalism.

Sure, I would love to deconstruct now for the next two hours the ideology of neo-liberalism – I think there is much more and something different in it than we usually think about. Anyway, as I am supposed to talk about the EU, I may end right now with reference to just one letter from an official from the European Commission outlining in a very firm and concise form the EU’s privatisation strategy.

*****************

being originally from Germany I may start here pointing out what this potentially means in such a rich and democratic country – of which the constitution has still some obligation to

democratic, social and federal principles (Article 23)[1]

In my view it is hardly possible to justify under such heading a strategy of evicting homeless people.

*****************

It is equally clear that we have to highlight the immorality of such policies.

Having lived for some time in Ireland, I want to refer to Michael Higgins, addressing the European Parliament – see on this also already an earlier post)

There he stated

– Schuman, who was aware of it, reached back to recall the early monastic perigrinatio and declared Columbanus to be “the patron saint of all those who now seek to build a united Europe”.

– The Schuman meeting, and the others which followed it, assisted by such as Jean Monnet, was responding to near and terrible events. But we should never forget, and I emphasize it today, that in their response they recognized its immense value, and drew on, the rich scholarship, philosophy, moral instincts and generous impulses of European thought as they sought, not only to replace war with peace, but more importantly, to construct a vision of Europe’s people working together in an inclusive way. It was not any abstract construction. It was a practical proposal drawn from the head, propelled by the heart, and uniting economy and ethics in its aspiration.

(Higgins, Michael D., 2013: ‘Towards a European Union of the Citizens’. Adress to the European Parliament, Strasbourg, Wednesday, 17th April, 2013http://www.president.ie/speeches/address-by-president-michael-d-higgins-towards-a-european-union-of-the-citizens-european-parliament-strasbourg-wednesday-17th-april-2013-2/ – 10/05/2013)

*****************

Furthermore we should not hesitate to critically discuss the various “approaches” of dismantling the “welfare state”

Coming currently from Hungary Victor Orbán has to be mentioned, of course. He shocked some people by the orientation on a munka alapú társadalmat , i.e. work-based society – mind, there are some issues around translation – the official translation speaks of workfare society though the actual translation is likely “work based”. –

More captivating is in Hungary the shift of social policy issues to the minister of inner affairs – defining relevant issues a matter of control.

And more shocking is the fact that going through Budapest and seeing the amount of people sleeping rough. And it may actually be the contrast I faced actually last Sunday: passing one of the beautiful old buildings, still carrying the marks of the recent renovation and the archway offering shelter, no: a living space for a group of homeless people.

*****************

Criticising such positions: the harsh measures, the rejection on moral and ethical grounds and the conceptual dismantling means not least to defend the welfare state and actually to engage for its formation.

Living now in Italy we still face the challenge of replacing the traditional social protectionism as it had been established by Mafia with a modern welfare state.

But of course, it is then a question if our constitution gets the priorities right.

L’Italia è una Repubblica democratica, fondata sul lavoro.

Actually some may remember the times when the inclusion of the employment chapter into the EU-treaties had been celebrated as major success of social policy on the European level.

*****************

And of course I could go on with this EUropean game. And finally I would return to Brussels.

Well, two weeks ago I had been there again. After about four years I re-entered that stage. A bit strange, having been there for several years, being allowed to walk in and out …; this time it had  been more like entering an alien world of a fortress – with external and not least internal borders – discussing clear lines of programs, policy packages … – and knowing: the transparency suggested by the massive glass fronts showing as much reality as the screen saver of our computers.

*****************

Sure, there are reasons to celebrate – the EU as Nobel laureate.

But it had been on the personal level – carrying specific experiences from my Brussels years with me – again frightening to see how the less celebratory parts are forgotten – the memorial by ATD-Fourth World in front of the European Parliament is worn out.

*****************

OK, enough of this little EUropean game

We face some kind of paradox:

Poverty is seemingly a “general condition of socio-human existence – or even a condito humana, rooted in eternal greed and the immortality of immorality? Occasionally reaching unbearable scope, and reminding us of the need of a good life?

Or poverty is a very specific pattern of a very specific formation of society?

*****************

Part of this problem is the difficulty we face when it comes to defining poverty

I.

We see terms that are questionably used to be near to synonyms:

  • deprivation
  • social exclusion
  • disadvantage
  • exclusion

II.

We find complex approaches towards a definitional framework:

  • relative income or equality as matter of well-being
  • subjective and objective criteria
  • capability approach
  • human development and human security

And we find with this the different analytical perspectives behind it, e.g.

  • Human Development Index (HDI)
  • Human Wellbeing Index (HWI)
  • Weighted Index of Social Progress (WISP)
  • Social Quality (SQ)

*****************

Two issues are – in today’s debates – somewhat permanent companions.

I.

While we are talking about poverty, we are actually concerned with wealth

  • for Adam Smith it had been the Wealth of the Nation
  • implicitly linked to the wealth of individuals, inherently understood as matter of increased availability of goods – SI, QoL
  • and frequently questioned by the wealth of society –in the pre-capitalist society for instance by an important economist like John Stuart Mill with his notion of the stationary state

I cannot, therefore, regard the stationary state of capital and wealth with the unaffected aversion so generally manifested towards it by political economists of the old school. I am inclined to believe that it would be, on the whole, a very considerable improvement on our present condition. I confess I am not charmed with the ideal of life held out by those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and treading on each other’s heels, which form the existing type of social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind, or anything but the disagreeable symptoms of one of the phases of industrial progress. It may be a necessary stage in the progress of civilization, and those European nations which have hitherto been so fortunate as to be preserved from it, may have it yet to undergo. It is an incident of growth, not a mark of decline, for it is not necessarily destructive of the higher aspirations and the heroic virtues; as America, in her great civil war, has proved to the world, both by her conduct as a people and by numerous splendid individual examples, and as England, it is to be hoped, would also prove, on an equally trying and exciting occasion. But it is not a kind of social perfection which philanthropists to come will feel any very eager desire to assist in realizing. Most fitting, indeed, is it, that while riches are power, and to grow as rich as possible the universal object of ambition, the path to its attainment should be open to all, without favour or partiality. But the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to fear being thrust back by the efforts of others to push themselves forward.

(Mill, John Stuart, 1848: Principles of Political Economy with some of their Apllications to Social Philosophy; London et altera: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1920 [based on the 6th edition from 1865]: 748 f.)

Sure, talking about wealth is somewhat breath-taking then 150 billion USD that computer giant apple stores hording is the proper term, as we know it from Marx.

*****************

II.

It had been also a somewhat unquestioned reference established to capitalism.

Occasionally it meant to criticise capitalism as fundamentally problematic.

More often it had been about a fundamentally affirmative approach, possibly slightly brushed up by looking at the varieties of capitalism (Hall, Peter A./Soskice, David (eds.): Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), the claim of a “good capitalism” (Baumoll, William J./Litan, Robert E./Schramm, Carl J. Schramm (2007): Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity; Yale University Press).

*****************

Sure, as we accepted taking responsibility over from god, we have to look now at The Spirit Level (Wilkinson, Richard G./Pickett, Kate, 2009: The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London, Allen Lane) – mind the multiple meaning, linking to bubbles, levelling and spirituality itself. And with this we find of course easily also a link to the mushrooming moral economy.

*****************

What do these two links

  • wealth
  • capitalism

actually mean? We have to explore this against the background of a by and large undefined understanding of welfare.

We may translate it into the concern for the nation state as new framework for (re-)production of social and individual existence, defined by the means of production.

*****************

It has to be left to a side remark: this shift to the nation state as framework had been not least a fundamental shift of what (re-)production is about. Coming back to John Stuart Mill we see at the beginning of the chapter from which the quote is taken the actually interesting concern.

The preceding chapters comprise the general theory of the economical progress of society, in the sense in which those terms are commonly understood; the progress of capital, of population, and of the productive arts. But in contemplating any progressive movement, not in its nature unlimited, the mind is not satisfied with merely tracing the laws of the movement; it cannot but ask the further question, to what goal? Towards what ultimate point is society tending by its industrial progress? When the progress ceases, in what condition are we to expect that it will leave mankind?

It must always have been seen, more or less distinctly, by political economists, that the increase of wealth is not boundless that at the end of what they term the progressive state lies the stationary state, that all progress in wealth is but a postponement of this, and that each step in advance is an approach to it. We have now been led to recognise that this ultimate goal is at all times near enough to be fully in view ; that we are always on the verge of it, and that if we have not reached it long ago, it is because the goal itself flies before us. The richest and most prosperous countries would very soon attain the stationary state, if no further improvements were made in the productive arts, and if there were a suspension of the overflow of capital from those countries into the uncultivated or ill-cultivated regions of the earth.

(Mill, John Stuart, 1848: Principles of Political Economy with some of their Apllications to Social Philosophy; London et altera: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1920 [based on the 6th edition from 1865]: 746)

Of course, this opens an interesting debate not least on utilitarianism – a theory of ethics which surely needs to be seen beyond its translation into utilitarian-based conceptualisations of exchange.

*****************

The main points are then the following.

(1) The development of the “welfare state” had been a differentiated process – giving answers to distinct socio-economic patterns. – This actually explains very much the different analytical approaches and criticisms around problem solving, control, socialisation, productive function of the welfare system (see Pierson, Christopher/Francis G. Castles (eds.): 2006: The Welfare State Reader; Cambridge: Polity Press)

(2) We are focusing now a comparable situation as it characterised the emergence of the different welfare states: the “EU” establishing itself as new national welfare system, but not (sufficiently) recognising the changed objective conditions.

(3) In order to understand these processes we have to investigate the foundation which is given by the link between means of production – mode of production – social system – social policy.

(4) Following classical economic thinking, EU social policies (and also the national social policies) are tied up by the limited understanding of the economic process as production function. The clearest formulation of this is the Cobb-Douglas production function:

Y = ALßKα

Production equals factor productivity multiplied by Labour input defined by output elasticity multiplied by capital defined by output elasticity

At least some of the problems with this have to be mentioned: it does not clearly spell out what the different factors are, and actually attributes productivity to capital, i.e. it supposes that capital would produce anything. It does not! Furthermore, it suggests implicitly that productivity is solely about commodity production – a factor that is not only in the light of more recent debates questionable. Most importantly, it refers to labour where we actually have to talk about labour power.

The latter point is of special importance as it allows us to focus our attention on the cost of the production and reproduction of labour power.

*****************

A brief overview of the analytical – and actually methodological – perspective has to do suffice. The elements will be presented in four matrixes which will lead to a further matrix which presents an analytical tool for welfare systems – they had been introduced already earlier.

focus of the productive process

consumerism[2]

rationalisation/ technicisation

Demand-supply-side economics

matrix 1: Value Generation

*****************

high-value production founded in informational labour

high-volume production based in low-cost labour

redundant producers, reduced on devalued labour

production of raw material founded in natural resources

matrix 2: Resource Reference

*****************

autocentric development

extraverted development

relative economic sustainability

competitiveness

matrix 3: Patterns of Growth

*****************

monetary policy i.w.s. as means of social integration

monetary policy i.w.s. as means of securing international sovereignty

competitiveness

traditionality

matrix 4: Socio-Political System and Sovereignty

*****************

This taken together provides an analytical tool for looking at development and the welfare system

resource reference

value generation

patterns of growth

socio-political system and sovereignty

matrix 5: welfare system – analytical tool

*****************

To some extent this surely reflects the traditional mainstream perspective with the common reference to T.H. Marshall:

I shall be running true to type as a sociologist if I begin by saying that I propose to divide citizenship into three parts. But the analysis is, in this case, dictated by history even more clearly than by logic. I shall call these three parts, or elements, civil, political and social.

(Marshall, Tom H., 1950: Citizenship and Social Class; in: Citizenship and Social Class; Tom H. Marshall/Tom Bottomore; London et altera: Pluto Press, 1992: 8)

*****************

The difficulty of understanding consists of the necessary differentiation between

  • secular trends
  • secular capitalist trends
  • specific developments as they are reflecting the connection between them

*****************

In any case: Capitalism surely had been up to hitherto the main driver of the development of the means of production, thus allowing also a major development of the productive forces (as matter of the production in Department I) and production of consumables (as matter of the production in Department II), thus being also a matter of the Wealth of Nations.

*****************

The fundamental challenge however is the following: This system defines its various borders in a way that contradicts its own conditions

  • e.g. the costs of labour power vs the need to ensure mass purchasing power
  • time
  • space
  • environment and externalities.

*****************

Then Social Policy and Welfare States have to be understood in a much broader way, including in particular

  • governance
  • productivity in economic terms
  • productivity in terms of social integration and cohesion
  • global inclusiveness.

*****************

It is surely a complex field we are looking and the actually important point is to accept this complexity. We may briefly come back to the Cobb-Doulas function mentioned above. There the approach had been criticised by the following:

“it suggests implicitly that productivity is solely about commodity production – a factor that is not only in the light of more recent debates questionable. Most importantly, it refers to labour where we actually have to talk about labour power.

The latter point is of special importance as it allows us to focus our attention on the cost of the production and reproduction of labour power.”

And we see marked shift in terms of the latter when we look at the current development not of income but on the source and securitisation. A few examples may do suffice – each of them standing for a specific fundamental problem.

  • Karstadt, a major trade chain at least of German origin and today surely in various ways internationally and globally braided, plans to withdraw for two-years from collective agreements which can be discussed in the perspective of income and rights
  • The eviction of people from their homes in Spain which is answered by a law against the banks, limiting their space for action inclusion and rights
  • The mushrooming of  soup kitchens – surely doing good for people concerned but undermining any rest of cohesion and rights
  • And globally an absurd call for more slums, clearly showing the need to reflect on empowerment and rights

*****************

Seen in such perspective, we should actually not be afraid if social policy is seen as productive factor. The question is – as always:

  • what do we actually produce?
  • how do we produce?

This is also important as this perspective allows us to go beyond a perspective that sees social policy as instrument of poor relief and charitable add-on to normal capitalism.

But it faces us with a major challenge, namely linking rights and law – some of you may know from my writing the inherent problem, due to the inherent individualist and individualising character of law.

*****************

In any case we may add another useful tool for the analysis, namely the assessment of control – centrally understood as multiple cumulation of power and property.

*****************

Of special relevance are here

  • control of means of production
  • control of processes of production
  • control of products
  • control of the distribution of products

*****************

The Social/Welfare Welfare Systems (see in this context also already the blog entry on China and Asia – A New Capitalist Centre or A New Capitalism?)

  • the social state – von Itzenplitz
  • the welfare society – Wigforss-Hansson
  • the welfare state – Beveridge
  • the familiarist-public welfare state – Leo XIII
  • the co-operative social economy – Raiffeisen
  • the harmonious familiarist paternalism – Confucius, Mencius

(see in this context in particular Herrmann, Peter, 2012: Social State, Welfare State and Then? Where to Move from the Welfare state? A Cooperative State of Sustainable Sociability as Perspective for Innovation; in: Heiskanen, Johanna/Henry, Hagen/Hytinkoski, Pekka/Köppä, Tapani (eds.): New Opportunities for Co-operatives: New Opportunities for People. Proceedings of the 2011 ICA Research Conference, 24-27 August, 2011, Mikkeli, Finland; Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Ruralia Institute, 2012: 295- 313).

*****************

EUrope – here we see roughly the development of the following major stages

  • from basic social security for workers (gender, ESF, social charter)
  • over marginal poverty relief and experimental good-doing
  • to employment policies
  • arriving at social innovation and social investment of the Lisbon competitiveness strategy.

*****************

The overall pattern

  • from civil liberties – single market
  • to political rights – crisis of legitimacy and EP-elections
  • to social rights – as matter of employment policies

*****************

But also – and not least:

All this is systematically caught in the contradiction of

  • productivist nation state building and
  • consumerist dependencies

*****************

Seen in this light, the EU is now facing a new competition between systems.

The wealth of nations is not an option for the EU,

  • being caught in internal and international/global competition
  • not having sufficient power and resources for inner and external colonialisation

*****************

In consequence we are confronted with a disastrous mine field

  • several countries “externally bankrupt” as for instance Cyprus and Greece
  • several countries “internally bankrupt” as for instance Germany
  • having a “model” and values for social policy that actually evolved from conditions that do not exist anymore
  • and not having the strength to establish – on its own – a valid socio-economic alternative

*****************

The two main problems and challenges I see:

  • the lack of suitable social fabrique
  • the need to reintegrate political economy

I am afraid that technical approaches like those proposed by Gabriele Giudice, Head of Unit, ECFIN.G3: Greece at European Commission and proposals for Social Investment will only provide a mere perspective – this is a nice way to speak of privatised services that are not accessible, and rocketing unemployment rates.

*****************

Moving on seems a bit like a Don Quijoterie ….

But at least it would be wrong to say that we have to worry about money – at least here in Ireland there is still so much money around that it can be literally be put into the waste bin. – on ebay a Quinnsworth-plastic bag  had been offered  earlier this year for 997 Euro.


[1]           Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany; version October 2010; https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf – 10/05/2013

Interestingly he previous version had been different

Article 20 (Basic principles of state order, right to resist).

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social Federal state.

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Promulgated by the Parliamentary Council on 23 May 1949) (as Amended by the Unification Treaty of 31 August 1990 and Federal Statute of 23 September 1990); http://www.constitution.org/cons/germany.txt – 10/05/2013

[2]            Degree to which the economic process is focussed on extended reproduction

Dimensions of Development and ‘Welfare’ – An Analytical Tool

The following emeges from and brings together different views on developmet, focussing on the political economy of processing structures, however taking also sociological, psychological and “governance” aspoects into account. Importantly, it is not least bound to a specific understanding of the relationality in which social processes and the “environment”.

An elaborated proposition will be published under the title “European Policies of Social Inclusion – Fatality of Good-Will”. A major reference for the elaboration had been the teaching of the MA in International Economy and Business at the Faculty of Economics at Corvinus University, Faculty of Economics, Department of World Economy. Thanks go to the students and some inspiring debates during the course work.

focus of the productive process

consumerism[1]

rationalisation/ technicisation

Demand-supply-side economics

matrix 1: Value Generation

high-value production founded in informational labour

high-volume production based in low-cost labour

redundant producers, reduced on devalued labour

production of raw material founded in natural resources

matrix 2: Resource Reference

autocentric development

extraverted development

relative economic sustainability

competitiveness

matrix 3: Patterns of Growth

monetary policy i.w.s. as means of social integration

monetary policy i.w.s. as means of securing international sovereignty

competitiveness

traditionality

matrix 4: Socio-Political System and Sovereignty

This taken together provides an analytical tool for looking at development and the welfare system

resource reference

value generation

patterns of growth

socio-political system and sovereignty

matrix 5: welfare system – analytical tool

An extension can be achieved by considering that this methodological framework is not necessarily limited to capitalist societies. Instead, it is possible to apply the same approach also to non-(“pre and Post”) capitalist societies, focusing on power-relationships (with the two dimensions of property and control).

capitalist mode of production

non-capitalist mode of production

control of means of production
control of processes of production
control of products
control of the distribution of products

matrix 6: Dimensions of Property


[1]            Degree to which the economic process is focussed on extended reproduction

Strategies

Earlier I typed strategy – and a tiny typo in collaboration with the auto-correction made it to “static”. Recent blogs topic, right?
Anyway, the following is actually about dynamics – a very dynamic presentation at the School of Applied Social Studies of University College of Cork. A “Director of Planning & Institutional Research” giving an

Overview of UCC’s Strategic Plan

Now, aren’t we in politics always asked to begin by highlighting the positive aspects? That is what I learned while working in lobbying in Brussels. So, be it then: the outline of the so-called strategic plan (I try since a couple of days to access the website – but it seems to be a strategy that this site remains until the time of writing inaccessible, although I lodged the technical flaw at the mail address of the webmaster) is very simple and open – mind, I’m not writing using “a simplified approach to a complex issue”. And being aware of the fact that I cannot delve into all the valuable aspects and details issued in both, the plan and presentation, I want to continue with another positive moment.

I.

The presentation had been highlighting the importance of strengthening

research, innovation and job creation.

There are frequent debates on the sequence of such features and here we can praise that the strategy is first about research – as it should obviously be the objective for an academic institution. Job creation, without doubt important, is not the ultimate and primary goal … .

But a little hesitation emerges if we think about another aspect of the presentation, the emphasis of financial sustainability. Not that I suggest neglecting the importance of this matter. Still, there are two points that are worthwhile to look at:

  1. Social science is currently discussing the question of sustainability in a more serious and generic way, highlighting that any debate on sustainability has to go beyond “single issue orientations”. There is no environmental and financial and economic and social … sustainability – there is only one complex, genuinely integrated and genuinely relational sustainability or there is no sustainability at all. Having said that there is a wide debate on this does not mean that there is an overall consensus on what this means – I elaborated on some of the issues In a recent article published in the International Journal of Social Quality under the title “Economic Performance, Social Progress and Social Quality”. At this stage it isd important to emphasise that there is some readiness to ask questions and work on elaborating answers.
  2. The  point that is crucially implied is less about theorising this issue. Two points are hugely important when it comes to the “pragmatics” of policy making though.
  • A sustainability strategy of a university has to be oriented on the requirements set by academia – and although this is surely nothing that should be trimmed and protected in an ivory tower, it is equally sure that this is not about any kind of fulfilling needs of a capitalist growth economy.
  • This brings us actually to the second point: of course, any university strategy has to be part of a national plan – actually another point that has to be positively highlighted in the presentation. It clearly an unquestionably emphasises this need. But … – but this makes only sense if the national plan is worthwhile and can be seen as being positively concerned with sustainability – btw, we speak in our work of the social quality network increasingly about social sustainability, an issue which will obviously employ quite a lot of our strategic thinking in the Observatory on Social Quality, now being established at EURISPES in Rome.

II.

In any case, the national plan – be it concerned with general questions of development or with the area of third level education and research is rather questionable. Only few points will suffice to issue the problematique – and they are all immediately also linked to the presentation.

We find the topic of internationalisation – in this section we hear about recruiting international students but we hear little to nothing about how we aim and put into practice the recruitment of students from financially weak backgrounds: people with working class background from “rich countries” and people from countries of so-called developing countries or “the global south” as it is called today [and actually should (if we take the equator as reference) include parts of the east and west, equally poor]. It is worth a side remark: I remember a student from the “global west”: coming from be USNA, arriving with a generous Lions or Rotary grant – and being a total failure. The only reason that he actually did not fail literally …: he had been “too rich to fail” – if anybody thinks about large banks now …, well this is your thought then. My thought at the time had been: it is strange that this student had been “taken out of my custody”, actually he had been “transferred” to another course, passed successfully and this is surely very different to another student who never made it into my course as he could not afford paying the approximately 16,000 euro fee at the time (the European rate had been approximately 3,000 euro in those years). Sure, this student from an African country nearly got the place: the charity which had been ready to pay his fees announced the decision too late. The “right of the rich” and the “charity for the poor” as national strategy then? A meaningful shift in thinking is required, pursuing the right of everybody to avail of valuable, emancipative education, different to skills training for the upper and middle classes only (and a true knowledge space for a small elite). Every first-year student I am bringing her to legal studies learns that law is not about straight application of legislation but it is still about the Kantian challenge, given with the definition he provided, namely saying that

[r]ight is therefore the sum of the conditions under which the choice of one can be united with the choice of another in accordance with universal law.

(Kant, Immanuel, 1797: The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by Mary Gregor. With an Introduction by Roger J. Sullivan; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996: 24 [In the German original slightly different in its emphasis ‘Recht ist der Inbegriff der Bedingungen, unter denen die Willkür des einen mit der Willkür des anderen nach einem allgemeinen Gesetz der Freiheit vereinigt werden kann’ (Kant, Immanuel, 1797: Die Metaphysik der Sitten in zwey Theilen; in: Kant, Immanuel. Werke in zwoelf Baenden. Hrsg. v. Wilhelm Weischedel; Bd. VIII; Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1982: 337)]

III.

And we findin the presentation of the strategic plan under the heading of internationalisation the orientation on FDI, yes indeed: foreign direct investment. Every first-year student I teach economics learns that – in particular but not only today under conditions of globalisation – two things are not feasible, not sustainable: a strategy that is based on FDI and/or export as sole and main pillar; and a strategy that understands indigenous development inter light of a parochial mindset.

It is actually frightening that the presenter, holding an MBA from Henley Management College, celebrated on one of the university’s websites as somebody who

has over 20 years experience in consultancy, operations, engineering, supply chain management and higher education roles

apparently missed this point too: it had been the orientation on such a wrong strategy that brought (not only) the Irish economy into severe trouble. It is a strategy of statics, degrading a country and its people to supernumeraries on the global scale, actually making a large number of the population to global players by forcing them to emigrate. – sure, individual examples of successful FDI can be found. But to tell us that we should jump out of the window, because some individuals actually survived can only come from a presenter who gets paid for showing off with the lack competence.

– You don’t believe that you can make money from incompetence, even stupidity? I heard the other day for a guy who cut off a branch from a tree. He got 20 grand for it. The reason: he had been sitting on the branch, on that part he cut off. The case went to court and the judge granted compensation mentioned before.

So what is then the contribution of Irish universities to internationalisation. I saw recently a poster from UCC, a good example for expressing visually how such a contribution is u understood: missionaries under the academic and secular instead of the christian gown. – Sure, the hope remains: Christian missions brought us liberation theology, secular mission may then truly liberate liberal economics by establishing a new mode of production, based i collective and social liberties.

IV.


And indeed there seems to be a very limit understanding when it comes to “contributing to the community”. First it’s about commercialisation, the creation of jobs and all this … and then it is about actually “contributing to the community”. The balance act between the bourgeois: the free marketer, and the liberal citoyen. It is frightening to learn another time that people are allowed to ruin societies by simply not understanding and admitting that even after Alfred Marshall economy is still political economy. Any attempt to maintain the Marshallian separation of the economy for the political sphere is meant to fail like any strategy of sustainability is doomed to fail as long as it is understood as technical challenge. Sure, we “need jobs in the communities” and we need highly qualified people in the communities. But we won’t get them there by introducing new PhD courses; and we won’t get there even by simply opening the doors of academic institutions. All this is about understanding with an open mind academia as social force, responsible for emancipation of the majority of the people in their own personal and social growth – the economy and the development of the mode of production have to follow this power-requirement and nothing else. And it is definitely not a matter of the interest of the “corporate universitarian interest”.

V.

The vision:

To be a world-class university connecting our region to the globe.

As said earlier: moving on the stage of politics is supposedly about being fair, highlighting also the positive aspects of the position that one critically investigates. The positive point here is that such statement is so shallow, so empty that it cannot even fail. The strategic goal of Lisbon 2000 claimed to

make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

The Lisbon strategy, with this vision, failed – and for many the failure had been visible from the outset. UCC’s strategic plan is not really facing such danger: too many empty words, to much glossy paper to be really relevant – it can only leave us with shaking heads, though some will fall in the meantime and others will fall in the future. And some will remain – those of people who are able to maintain meaningful reputation over time, paradoxically engaged in the fundamental questions of their own era and exactly due to this engagement remaining highly relevant beyond their particular day. Many may remember him: Max Horkheimer; and surely few will oppose what he claimed and what he lived for, a university

that is characterised by the passionate orientation on the complex whole, less occupied than elsewhere by illusions, but especially by the fact that its members – professors and lecturers, students – are in spite of all the differences of their views engaged together in the common belief that against all the odds there is a future, that human beings are able to control the destructive external and internal/personal forces and establish a humane universe.

(Horkheimer, Max, 1952: Akademisches Studium. Immatrikulationen-Rede. Sommersemester 1952; in: Max Horkheimer, 1953: Akademisches Studium. Begriff der Bildung. Fragen des Hochschulunterrichts; Frankfurt/M.: Vittorio Klostermann: 5)

And instead of following the fashionable trend to professionalisation and “presentability” we should acknowledge the deep truth of his reflection:

disappointment and perplexity [are not simply emerging] because students are too weak to learn the technical aspects the instruments of the subject; it emerges because they do not see the bridge between the ‘professional’ and those matters that deserve thge name of truth and that had been the motivation that brought them to the university.

(ibid.: 7)

Indeed, not all bad; especially as I received the other day an e-mail … – yes, from Cork – signed by http://www.attackthetax.com/ and the Common Law Society, talking about FEAR.

it stands for “FALSE EDUCATION APPLIED REPEATEDLY”

Which means, that if you fill a Man or Woman full of rubbish for long enough, constantly REPEATING the same mundane shallow drivvvvvel,,, eventually although in their hearts they know that it is wrong … they will enivatebly start to beleve what they are being told, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The Greatest threat to the State is not groups, crowds, organisations, political parties, movements or collectives … it is the Man or Woman that can think Critically.

That is the Man or Woman that cannot be enslaved … and they will teach others.

May be this is something to think about when it comes to strategic development of strategy development. But then, can we expect this from people who are victims of previous FEAR, now fearing more to loose their well paid jobs rather than loosing the little bit of sense they may have left?

Yes indeed, a lot done – much to be revised …

REINVENTING THE WHEEL OR SQUARING THE CIRCLE – SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL QUALITY VS SOCIAL POLICY

Notes in Connection with a Presentation on Occasion of Retiring from University College Cork, School of Applied Social Studies

Introduction

Social policy arrives frequently at junctures, being a non-discipline, bordering and combining elements from various other disciplines. The presentation will look at two major challenges:

(1) Academic work frequently overlooks that division of labour, i.e. the establishment of subjects in research and teaching is also about disciplining. But is the notion of Spinoza’s time, suggesting that Omne ens habet aliquod esse proprium – every entity has a singular essence is true? Who and what is setting the references?

(2) Part of the process of (self-)disciplining is about defining points of references. The ongoing challenge is not least about balancing politics and policies. Sustainable Social Quality is an attempt to integrate these dimensions.

(3) To arrive at the trinity, that we have to look for a definite point of reference in societal practice not (only) as matter of analysis but also by way of taking the role of “organic intellectuals” (Gramsci)

It is another attempt – after many predecessors, and competing with other paradigms. So are we then just reinventing the wheel or squaring the circle?

The presentation will, of course, not provide the answers – but it may be able to put forward some questions that need attention and demand us as collective to thoroughly think about.

Language matters – and it is also important to look at from where language actually comes – easily seen by Norbert, being asked for a power point presentation. Well, yes, here it is

In general and for the purpose of this presentation we should not establish too high expectations: take things as they are said – and be aware of the fact that they are stated in a very specific socio-historical context. In order to understand this, the presentation will occasionally make some inspiring detours – hopefully allowing also enjoying some beauties of life that carry historical messages about structure and change – be aware: exploring the beauty of history and the meaning of society takes time, requires patience …

Although we may say that it goes without saying, we are frequently forgetting the deep meaning of exactly this fact: In any scientific work we are dealing with both, structure and process.

*****

We may usefully start from Aristotle’s zoon politicon, the human being seen as social being. This does not simply look at the interaction between human beings – surely an important factor. There are already difficulties as it is not clear in which way the politicon has to be interpreted. There is both, the reference to the state, to politics and to a very general understanding of togetherness, interaction.

Importantly it is clear that with all this we are not least acting beings – only our own action, i.e. societal practice actually defines our very existence. Thus includes the ability not to act. Now, we may think of Friedrich Schiller who sees the highest form of existence, as

man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays.

(Schiller, letters, XV/9)

Here we surely find a complex understanding dealing with regaining power over the will not only by way of control, i.e. oppression, but by way of developed forms of free play.

– What do we commonly think when it comes to these terms: play, freedom …? Children, unhindered in their naïveté is in may cases likely the first connotation. And the second connotation may be the artful play of … – for instance the reasonably uncontested beauty of a harmonious dance.

It is the beauty of clarity, order and balance. It seems to be a self-explanatory approach, allowing us to accept without asking, looking at something that has its own order, being independent. Probably this is part of our tendency to perversely celebrate power: the monuments of past and present oppression – yes, I had been in the German Reichstag not only due to business, and part of the study trips I did with the students here from Cork had always been the admiration of some of these ‘monuments’, the last one the most impressive town hall in Paris.

It is the admiration of something able to stand without support. Supposedly in sculpturing Michelangelo’s statue David is a very early example for such order: the first free-standing statue, the young man standing on his own. As such, standing upright, the statue had been sending a strong – and actually hugely contested – message.

As the Florentine chronicler Luca Landucci noted in his diary, stones were thrown at the collossal sculpture even if it was being transported from the Office of Works, so that a guard had to be mounted to protect it.

Importantly

The stone-throwing youth’s came from pro-Medici families for whom the prospect of a figure with republican connotations being installed in front of the seat of the Florentine government must have been thorougly unpalatable.

(Zoellner, Frank/Thoenes, Christoph, 2007: Michelangelo. 1475-1564. Life and Work; Koeln:Taschen, 2007/2010: 46)

Giorgio Vasari chronicled in this context a little story that has some metaphorical meaning.

It happened at this time that Piero Soderini, having seen it (the statue, P.H.) in place, was well pleased with it, but said to Michelangelo, at a moment when he was retouching it in certain parts, that it seemed to him that the nose of the figure was too thick. Michelangelo noticed that the Gonfalonier was beneath the Giant, and that his point of view prevented him from seeing it properly; but in order to satisfy him he climbed upon the staging, which was against the shoulders, and quickly took up a chisel in his left hand, with a little of the marble-dust that lay upon the planks of the staging, and then, beginning to strike lightly with the chisel, let fall the dust little by little, nor changed the nose a whit from the what it was before. Then, looking down at the Gonfalonier, who stood watching him, he said, ‘Look at it now.’ ‘I like it better,’ said the Gonfalonier, ‘you have given it life.’ And so Michelangelo came down, laughing to himself at having satisfied that lord, for he had compassion on those, who, in order to appear full of knowledge, talk about things of which they know nothing.

(Vasari, Giorgio, 1568: Lives of Painters, sculptors and architects. Vol 2: translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. With an Introduction and Notes by David Ekserdjian; New York et altera: Alfred Knopf, 1996: 654 f.)

From here it takes some steps to the question of the disciplining effects of which I promised to talk. But with a little bit of common sense, putting away the cultural bias it will actually be soon clear.

  • One of the fundamental demands put forward in science is concerned with the discovery of structures that are characterising any given reality. Methodologically this is a complex process – and speaking of methods it seems to be a rather simple matter of the famous bean counting. And with the latter we usually overlook that even the counting of beans isn’t as simple and without presumptions as we like to see it. On the contrary – and I quote Joe Finnerty

one of the most effective applications of indicators is not merely to describe but also to analyse, thereby sometimes changing the definition of a problem.

(Finnerty, Joseph, 2005: Social Indicators: Pitfalls ad Promise; in: Herrmann, Peter (ed.): Utopia between Corrupted Public Responsibility and Contested Modernisation. Globalisation and Social Responsibility; New York: Nova Science Publ.; 61-76; here: 69)

  • With this we arrive at the fact that paradoxically a second and simultaneous fundamental rule of science is construction – though analysing reality, this reality isd also constructed by the process if selection and combination. If we focus on elementarity as core moment of the research process, i.e. if we look for what is elementary, we are always applying a histrocial and social (class) dimension.
  • The story of David and Michelangelo’s presentation captures both, the determination of structure based on some form of de-construction and the construction according to the interest that is standing behind research:
  • * David stands in front of his colossal enemy, finding the small point of his vulnerability: the gap through which he could throw the fatal stone
  • * Michelangelo interpreted this: emphasising David’s beauty, virginity and power: a firm independence. However, this translates into some inability to move. It is correct to speak of structure; and it is equally correct to say that this structure follows in some way a rule that is inherent in the person of the David – later in history this is fully spelled out, the early modernity suggesting

Omne ens habet aliquod esse proprium (every entity has a singular essence)

(Johannes Duns Scotus, Opera Omina [1266 à Duns 1308] quoted in: Suarez-Nani, Tiziana: Pietro Pomponazzi et Jenas Duns Scot critiques de Thomas d’Aquin; in: Biard, Joel/Gontier, Thierry (dir.): Pietro Pomponazzi entre traditions et innovations; Amsterdam/Philadelphia: B.R. Gruener Publishing, 2009: 29-67; here:  33)

  • * And finally, the supposedly neutral viewer – the Gonfalonier – is getting lost in all of this: being deceived by falling dust and taking it for change. It is the lack of ability to understand the rigidity caused by looking at isolated ‘facts’. We may take it as metaphor, seeing it as confirmation of Michael Hardt’s and Antonio Negri’s stance:

The triple imperative of the Empire is incorporate, differentiate, manage.

(Hardt, Michael/Negri, Antonio, 2000: Empire; Cambridge, Mass./London,Engl.: Harvadd University Presee: 201)

Now it is not a major step anymore – David can be seen as anticipated manifestation of modern understanding of Anglo-American social policy as academic discipline: it is a discipline that defines itself by de-contextualising the subject matter; it is a discipline that looks at social administration of the good and the evil, the deserving and the non-deserving … .

  • Of course, it is a long and winded road …, at the end of which structuralism evolves. We may speak of Davidian social science and can easily see the fatal development: ‘methodological individualism’. Social processes are dissolved, deconstructed. And from here this social science – always being applied social science – supports in real history the emergence of something new, namely the modern individual, reflecting only him or herself. As we know from Descartes, it is the individual that comes only with this reflection to its existence. It is this reification of Narcissus that leads then Adam Smith to look for an invisible hand – power and security standing outside, being seen as independent from the dynamic processes.
  • However, as much as we are dealing with ideal figures: imagined independent structures, we should not forget that these constructions are not based on free will. They are reflecting societal and eco-technical circumstances as they are given in the social structures: the productive forces and the mode of production – the pedestal on which Davidian thinking stands.

So much on David and the meaning for social science: established had been a figure that expressed

compassion on those, who, in order to appear full of knowledge, talk about things of which they know nothing.

The Gonfalonier, Michelangelo is facing is manifest in today’s office worker: senior officials and the administrator depending on their instructions, immersed in seemingly neutral rules; rules themselves presenting themselves as technical whereas their essence is substantially about socio-political power: law and administration as presented by Max Weber, speaking of

[s]pecialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. 1905,Chapter V, Asceticism and the Spirit of Capitalism

Karl Marx refers to this in the famous statement from the 18th Brumaire.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.

(Marx, Karl, 1852: The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; in: Karl Marx/Frederick Engels: Collected Works; Colume 11: Marx and Engels: 1851-53; London: Lawrence&Wishart, 1979: 99-197; here: 103)

The dream of freedom emerges turns into its opposite

The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.

(Marx, Karl, 1852: The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; in: Karl Marx/Frederick Engels: Collected Works; Colume 11: Marx and Engels: 1851-53; London: Lawrence&Wishart, 1979: 99-197; here: 103)

And exactly this is Michelangelo’s paradox as much as it is the frequently re-emerging paradox of history: the dwarf, the powerless gaining power and establishing him/herself as giant. I am not talking about the tyrants, emerging for usually brief periods in history. I am talking about the tyrannical systems for which they are only mere backers.

Coming back then to Marx contending that

[m]en make their own history

we have to recognise that this claim stands fundamentally in opposition to structuralism – be it as closed and disciplining scientific methodology or be it as ‘way of life’. It stands against the rigidity of oppression, against the abduction and rape of the freedom of thought.

The most impressive statue I ever came across is Bernini’s Rato di Proserpina.

For me it is an amazing, most powerful expression in sculpturing or even in art expressing the victory of process over structure. Sure, the title still focuses on the old hegemony: abduction and rape. Nevertheless, it also suggests a different focus. At the centre we find Prosperpina: fighting, resisting. Her rejection and aversion is expressing a new beauty: the beauty of action, the beauty of a revolutionary process.

According to Simon Schama in a BBC-feature, this statue, Bernini’s great work, is the first piece in the history of art that dynamises sculpturing in a serious way (Schama: passim). Behind this we find in very broad terms two inventions:

  • the invention of the now ‘civilised individual’, distanced from nature and distanced from the social
  • and the invention of the economic sphere as distinct area – a ‘de-socialised sphere of social action’, organised by stratified-functional segmentation.[4]

Of course, this meant not least that the process had been a matter of dialectical development: clearly positioning structures as independent of each other, the escape of the individual from the oppression of the political power had been simultaneously the establishment of new structures. In methodological terms it is what Karl Marx develops, contending that

proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticise themselves constantly, interrupt themselves continually in their own course, come back to the apparently accomplished in order to begin afresh, deride with unmerciful thoroughness the inadequacies, weaknesses and paltrinesses of their first attempts …

(Marx, Karl, 1852: The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; in: Karl Marx/Frederick Engels: Collected Works; Colume 11: Marx and Engels: 1851-53; London: Lawrence&Wishart, 1979: 99-197; here: 106)

But importantly we find this as a process of a permanent restructuration and reconstruction – this is only possible by way of fundamentally accepting the ‘blurring of boarders’. With this we arrive at a point not only of questioning given border lines, but also as matter of establishing new points of reference. Processes of change are of course again linked to real processes – at stake is not an intellectual exercise of ‘reordering the world’. Instead we are dealing again with the fact that processes and structures alike are reflecting societal and social structures: the productive forces and the mode of production. Proserpina is, in this interpretation, not just expressing her rejection but she is also expressing part of another world, now being possible. And now also being necessary as matter of developing independence.

The actual challenge for (social) science is to find a way that allows the construction of an ongoing structured processualistion – in actual fact a rather harsh process of open battles, reminding me of Pablo Picasso’s masterpiece Guernica.

Such quest may replace at least to some extent the dominant discussion of social science that juxtaposes function and structure. Critical realism – for instance being brought forward by Roy Baskar and Margaret Archer – can be an important inspiration for this process. The social quality approach makes importantly reference to this work. At the same time it emerges from the analysis of concrete policy processes, in particular in the area of EUrope – and looking back to art we come at this stage really back to dance – earlier reference had been made already earlier to its beauty.

At the core this new approach in discussing social policy is about a more radical version of dance, not limited top the disciplined form of an academic subject. Even as somebody who had been not only teaching social policy but who had been working for a quite a while in the lobbying industry for changes of social policy I dare to say that the social quality approach is about rejecting the concept of social policy at least in its mainstream understanding. This is not primarily about a rejection by way of criticising certain measures or policy programs. Nor is it about a rejection due to social policy being annexed to other areas of policy making, in particular economics, captured as social investment, the productive role of social policy, the increasing subordination under managerial, legal and financial requirements and regulations. At the core of the critique stands something else: the conceptual framework that is based in two fundamental flaws – with this I come back to matters that had been mentioned already on more general terms.

  • It is about the definition of social policy as something that is rooted in processes and structures that are seemingly standing outside of society. Although social policy is surely seen as something that deals with issued that ‘emerge from society’, social policy itself is considered to have somewhat different roots: it is about intervention, activities ‘on behalf’ or ‘in the interest’ of certain groups, pursuing certain moral ideas and … – and predominantly at the end society comes into play and social policy strives for a better society.  – In short, the social is by and large something imagined, not something real. It is a ‘distinct state’ in some ways similar to Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities.
  • * To put it on its feet, we would need a clear and explicit understanding of what the social actually is – the proposal by the social quality approach is to understand it as

outcome of the interaction between people (constituted as actors) and their constructed and natural environment. Its subject matter refers to people’s interrelated productive and reproductive relationships. In other words, the constitutive interdependency between processes of self-realisation and processes governing the formation of collective identities is a condition for the social and its progress or decline.

(van der Maesen, Laurent J.G./Walker, Alan, 2012: Social Quality and Sustainability; in: van der Maesen, Laurent J.G./Walker, Alan (Eds.): Social quality: From Theory to indicators; Basingstoke: Macmillan: 250-274: 260)

  • * Furthermore, the real ground has to be seen in the production and reproduction of daily lives. David Harvey asserts that

[a]t Marx’s conception of the world lies the notion of an appropriation of nature by human beings in order to satisfy their wants and needs.

(Harvey, David, 2006: Limits to Capital; London/Brooklyn, Verso 5)

This brings us immediately to the point Marx himself emphasises. Point of departure is a simple relationality:

[i]ndividuals producing in a society

(Marx, Karl: Introduction (to the Economic Manuscripts of 1857-1858 [First Version of Capital]); in: Karl Marx. Frederick Engels. Collected Works; volume 28: Karl Marx: 1857-61; London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1986: 17-48; here: 17)

And he ascertains:

The further back we go in history, the more does the individual, and accordingly also the producing individual, appear to be dependent and belonging to a larger whole. At first, he is still in a quite natural manner part of the family, and of the family expanded into the tribe; later he is part of a community, of one of the different forms of community which arise from the conflict and the merging of tribes.

(ibid.: 18)

Now it is important to emphasise that

[a]ll production is appropriation of nature by the individual within and by means of a definite form of society. In this sense it is a tautology to say that property (appropriation) is a condition of production.

(ibid.: 25)

However, social policy in its mainstream thinking – including approaches claiming radical changes – are lacking a proper reference in this respect. Instead, arguments are brought forward from idealist perspectives. A confirmation is that social policy, at least in its mainstream and especially in its Anglo-American perspective, does look at the exclusion and oppression of the working class – but it hardly recognises that it had been the working class and the relevant movements that led to what we see as social policy today.

  • The other reason for rejecting mainstream views on social policy is a variation of the first: although the dominance of economic interests is frequently highlighted and criticised – and although it is even recognised as matter of power relationships – the concept of economy is de-socialised. This could be further elaborated; and it could also be elaborated by way of extending the analytical alienation by showing a similar process of de-socialisation in political thinking. In the same way in which Alfred Marshall deprived political economy from the political dimension it can be said that Hobbes (to name just one) the state from the political. The Leviathan is an anonymous institution, bar of a political dimension, reduced on its instrumental and thus technical character of controlling individuals. – And paradoxically we find in both cases the emergence of superpowers that exist as a kind of cloud-castle.

Society is dissolved into three spheres: market, state and communities – and politicians as well as academics fit easily into the role of secular priests, celebrating the economy as father, confirming the state in the role of the obedient son, and hoping for the community and family as emerging holy spirit.

Of course, law plays a role too – presenting itself as a kind of Holy Scripture: a skeleton, keeping things together by way of a seemingly neutral, formal framework – claiming universalism, pertaining particularistic class interests. On the one hand

[a]n understanding of law’s nature is hard to attain because, on the face of things, law seems to possess characteristics that cannot be combined within a single entity: law is an established social institution, but also a guiding ideal for such institutions; an apparatus of organized force, but also the antithesis of force; a product of authority, but also the source of any such authority. It is in this quality that has some theorists to conclude that traditional ideas of law embody a belief in the ‘incarnation’ of the ideal within the realm of the actual, or a belief that law is ‘brooding omnipresence in the sky’.

(Simmonds, Nigel, 2007: Law as a Moral Idea; Oxford: Oxford University Press: 21)

    On the other hand

[m]en and women create their moral identities and values as by-product of interaction and mutual acknowledgement, just as they create culture, language and the structures of thought. The relationships in which we associate together can embody values that structure our choices and decisions.

(ibid.: 7)

And in a society in which power is not distributed equally, the meaning is clear: it is about the moral identities and values of the ruling classes.

  • And to produce then myself such trinity, I come to the next point of rejecting the stance of mainstream social policy: the externalisation of nature – actually we are still dealing with more or less a variation or even the accumulation of the first point, namely the dissociation and idealisation of individual action. From here anthropocentrism is nearly unavoidable

Leaving detailed discussion aside, we find human beings loosing the ability to act – or more precise: they are able to act but there is no space left for developing practice.

For social policy it means that it is fundamentally characterised by especially two flaws:

α) It is highly individualistic, even to such an extent that so-called social rights are only conceptualised as rights of individuals;

β) furthermore social policy is systematically limited by being detached from the socio-ecological causal and contextual foundation, i.e. the (re-)productive existence.

Consequently – and wrongly – social policy as theory and practice – avoids economy (and economics) like the plague. The celebration of noble ambitions, the striving for values that are proclaimed as universal is not simply a quirk of academic thinking – it is in actual fact a dangerous des-empowerment.

– It may be worth a nota bene that it is also undermining academic work: values are stated, remain unquestionable and opposing them is similar to opposing god. A new Alighieri may tell us if Benedict has to go through similar pain, as we know from Pope St. Celestine V, left to ‘gran rifiuto’ – the great refusal (see Alighieri, Dante, 1308-21: La Divina Commedia. Inferno; illustrata da Gustavo Doré, con commenti di Eugenio Camerini; Roma: Fratelli Spada Editori, without date: 36). And furthermore somebody else may show us how this kind of academic dislocation will be end in vein – if we won’t see it already with our own eyes.

I do not want to delve into details of social quality as alternative approach. Shortly, however, one point. I had been asked last week during a debate in Rome as seemingly question: Why don’t you call it socialism?

  • The initial answer had been straightforward: Personally I call it a socialist strategy.
  • Nevertheless, there is a more complex answer: we have to look for ways to adapt socialism and the search for socialist policies to the changed conditions. I.e. we have to find sound answers to the questions of the development of the productive forces, the meaning of such development also in a global, not only a national or regional perspective. Only from here we can understand the meaning of these changes for needs and also for governance. Though this surely means claiming socialist orientation it goes also further. It is a matter of analysing contemporary conditions, it is a matter of social practice in a conscious way. Taking the Marxist tradition, it means to use a permanently critical approach.

Critique is the practice of exposing the social basis underlying an argument. Marxist critique is generally immanent critique, that is, critique springing from inside. …

… critique implicitly recognises that the argument it opposes is right, but right in the context of a specific form of social practice which may not be declared.

(Marxists Internet Archive: Encyclopedia. Critique;)

– Another nota bene: It is exactly this approach that is applied in some work by the Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internatioal (CIPI) in Cuba in which I am involved. It is also something that has important repercussions in countries like Bolivia, Venezuela etc. I make this remark as it highlights that we can expect in particular from peripheral countries and regions inspiring theoretical challenges in this context.

Furthermore, the approach of Social Quality Policies instead of social policy is also not simply socialist as it is an approach that still ask for small measures, traditional policies and reforms that may be departure for further and more radical developments.

  • But having said this, at the end of the day it is a socialist approach to the extent to which it focuses on the social as complex structure of power-based interactions. Here we can briefly look at Antonio Gramsci’s discussion of hegemony and the role of the organic intellectual. Important is to recognise first of all that the core of Gramsci’s work is concerned with the structural conflict in society and the need for addressing it as question of clashing class interests – for those who don’t like the term: just refer to fundamental and antagonist conflicts between different interests. Second, Antonio Gramsci speaks of different forms of power – much later Michel Foucault comes up with this as well, transposing it from the Gramscian view on class struggles into a more generic context of different forms of power imbalances on the one side, power struggles on the other side – culminating in the view on the indivisible relationship between power and knowledge. The important point is that for Gramsci power is only real when it is intermingled with knowledge – deep knowledge leading to organic power reflected in and by the organic intellectuals. Briefly quoting the Quaderni

The criterion on which we should base our analysis is this: that the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as ‘domination’  and as ‘intellectual and moral leadership’. A societal group is dominant over opposing groups which it tends to ‘liquidate’ or which it even aims to subdue by armed force and it is leading the allied groups and immediate allies.[7]

With this I am coming to the end by highlighting four points that are in my opinion central for the development for taking responsibility in teaching sustainable social quality.

First, I said in the beginning language matters. It does so in a twofold way: it is about clarity of language and at the very same time about use of language to substantially engage with what is going on around us. Engagement may be about going with the stream of beauty; and it may also require taking up fundamental challenges of disputes.

Second, it is also about the clarity of analysis: only posing an exact question will allow us to find exactly the causalities – and of course the casualities of wrong politics and policies. This is conditio sine qua non for finding therapies: answers to the burning questions.

Third, it requires looking at the realities – not as they appear but as they are. If we then say social policy – to use this term, though not the concept – is predominantly about Social Justice (Equity), Solidarity, Equal Valuation, Human Dignity (the four normative factors elaborated by the Social Quality Theory) and if we see that these values are decomposing, it is because the reality that had been behind them is decomposing. And without falling into relativism, we should not forget that our understanding of Social Justice (Equity), Solidarity, Equal Valuation, Human Dignity is always a historical one. Without this recognition – and without taking firm responsibility for a clear analysis and open dispute, we arrive indeed at reinventing the wheel or squaring the circle.

– Of course fourth: Have  look, the little boy, stepping out.

If you ant, this kind of enlightenment is then leading to paradise – referring to another time to Dante, now the third volume, tha Paradiso

Like sudden lightning scattering the spirits
of sight so that the eye is then too weak
to act on other things it would perceive,

 

such was the living light encircling me,
leaving me so enveloped by its veil
of radiance that I could see no thing.

 

The Love that calms this heaven always welcomes
into Itself with such a salutation,
to make the candle ready for its flame.[9]


[4]            We can leave the further consideration aside, including the fact that actually globalisation is to a large extent a kind of replication of stratificatory differentiation; see in this context already Herrmann,Peter, 1994: Die Organisation. Eine Analyse der modernen Gesellschaft; Rheinfelden/Berlin: Schäuble

[6]            http://www.birdnest.org/edensk2/dance4.jpg – 27/02/2013

[7]            Il criterio su cui occorre fondare il proprio esame è questo: che la supremazia di un gruppo sociale si manifesta in due modi, come ‘domino’ e come ‘direzione intellettuale e morale’. Un gruppo sociale è dominante dei gruppi avversari che tende a ‘liquidare’ o a sottomettere anche con la forza armata ed è dirigente dei gruppi affini e alleati.

Gramsci, Antonio, 1934-35: Quaderni del Carcere. Vol 3: Quaderni 12-29; Edizione Critica dell’Istituto Gramsci. A Cura di Valentino Gerratana; Torino: Giulio Einaudi editore, 1977: 2010

[8]            “Seven Ages of Man” William Mulready, 1838 – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Seven_ages_of_man.jpg. 27/02/2013

[9]            Dante Alighieri: Paradiso, Canto XXX, lines 46–54, Mandelbaum translation. http://www.worldofdante.org/comedy/dante/paradise.xml/3.30 – 27/02/2013

Higher Education – Academic Whistle-Blowing

Administrative and Legal Questions of Educational Institutions in the Context of Modernising Education and Social Relations – The Socio-Cultural Perspectives

Notes for a presentation on the occasion of the conference ‘Deviation within the context of transformation of social relations and education.

Moscow, February 21st, 2013

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to address this important event. Thanks to Andrey Lymar my contribution during thesxe conferences can claim already some tradition.

In some sense it is difficult to contribute – I am contributing as outsider to a debate on topics that are very much questions that fully develop their meaning n national or even local contexts. This is true for both: education on the one hand and administration and law on the other hand.

However, there are also general questions and they are surely general in two respects:

  • law and administration are obviously relevant for everything we do
  • and at the same time we see an increasing relevance: law and administration taking over, reaching into all pores of life and determining the professional space and our professional activities – it does not really matter much that this is a complain that we can find already formulated for instance by Aristotle and Socrates.

We take it frequently as matter of heteronomy – an external power and rationality taking over.

My thesis will be: Talking about increasing meaning of judification and administration is an expression of the very same rationality that we claim as genuinely our own ‘academic’ mission of Western enlightenment.

This may sound to some a provocative argument – and it will take some effort to develop it in detail. However, in the following some indications will give you an idea from where I am coming. It is at the end a fundamental critique of the path Western modernisation took.

First, this Western enlightenment ideology is very much guided by the idea that progress equals ‘distancing from nature’. This went hand in hand with the development of anthropocentric interpretations of the world. And it went – to some extent paradoxically – hand in hand with a process of de-socialisation. This culminated in the absolutist state and later even in the absolute state.

Second, rather than developing an integrated rationality, we saw with the Renaissance the emergence of understanding rationality as something that is inherent to and in everything:

Omne ens habet aliquod esse proprium

– every entity has a singular essence

This doesn’t mean anything else that we are creating externalities: rationality is not genuinely about action but about detecting the rationality and following its requirements. – Actually it is the very consequent conclusion of Christianity.

Third, this way we created not least the methodological individualism – the core of Western social science. At its heart we find the ‘survival instinct’: excessive individualism that is guided by excessive hording of goods and money and that is finally steered by equally excessive means of control.

Fourth, and finally, this is fertile ground for administration and legal systems, taking over according to their own rules. And they do it to such an extent that they even strangulate themselves.

Fifth, in order to end on a more positive note, looking for a re-orientation I see in particular the following four points

  • the need to re-introduce the social – not as normative concept but as responsible reflection of the means and mode of production in the light of a socio-ecologically sustainable way;
  • fully acknowledging the public character of educational systems and processes
  • accepting that education is more and different to transferring knowledge and skills training
  • not least the orientation on education as process of actively engaging in public spaces and on public issues

Law and administration can then actually play an important positive role – and from various contacts, that to Andrey being an important one here too I know that there is futile ground here in Russia to acknowledge also this direction of thinking.

Thank you for your kind attention.