Giovanni Arrighi comes to town

Keough Naughton Institute of Irish Studies has put together an interesting schedule of events, including three public seminars. The schedule can be found here. I know that Fergal will be particularly interested in Tuesday the 24th of June as Giovanni Arrighi will be speaking on “Hegemony Unravelling: American Imperial Decline and the Ascent of China”.

Below is the blurb from the seminar organisers:

To mark its first decade, the Irish Seminar has invited three very distinguished international intellectuals to offer free public lectures at the National Gallery of Ireland, (entry Merrion Street West entrance), over three successive Tuesdays at 8pm.

On Tuesday 17 June, Professor Jacqueline Rose, will deliver a lecture on Partition, Proust and Palestine.” An internationally distinguished feminist and literary critic, Rose has in recent years also become one of Britain’s most outspoken critics of Zionism and has written widely on that topic. Her many publications include The Haunting of Sylvia Plath (1992), Why War?—Psychoanalysis, Politics, and the Return to Melanie Klein(1993), States of Fantasy (1996), Sexuality in the Field of Vision (1996, reissued 2006), The Question of Zion (2005); and The Last Resistance (2007).

On 24 June, the renowned economic historian Giovanni Arrighi, author of The Long Twentieth Century and Adam Smith in Beijing, will discuss the economic decline of American empire and the Rise of Asia. Arrighi is Professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University and, with Fernand Braudel and Immanuel Wallerstein, one of the leading international theorists in the field of world systems analysis. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times (1994) and Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century (2007) are widely recognised as classic studies of the history and economics of European and American imperialism.

On 1 July, Perry Anderson, whose family comes from the south of Ireland, will discuss the current collapse of American global hegemony and the situation of the contemporary left in a now rapidly-changing international arena. A founder-editor of the New Left Review and a polymath intellectual historian of enormous range and ambition, Anderson has been one of the most influential figures on the intellectual left for decades. He teaches at UCLA (where he has a joint appointment in History and Sociology) and is the author of numerous works including Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism (1974); Lineages of the Absolutist State (1974); Considerations on Western Marxism (1979); In the Tracks of Historical Materialism (1983); English Questions (1992); A Zone of Engagement (1992); The Question of Europe (1997); The Origins of Postmodernity (1998); and Spectrum (2005).

This year’s Seminar also features a number of lecture series: Clair Wills will discuss women’s writing and culture in twentieth-century Ireland; Seamus Deane will survey the intellectual history of Irish republicanism from Toland and Hutcheson through Tone and Mitchel to Davitt and Connolly; Luke Gibbons will consider issues of race, spectrality and Irishness; Chris Morash will track the development of modern Irish theatre 1900-1950; and Joe Cleary will review the careers of some influential twentieth-century Irish cultural critics. Other highlights include a forum on The Novel in the New Ireland led by Patrick McCabe and Barry McCrea, a Symposium on the works of Thomas Moore to mark the bi-centenary of his Irish Melodies, and lectures on a range of leading contemporary Irishwriters and artists from Edna O’Brien to Sinead O’Connor. For full details of the programme, see http://irishsem.googlepages.com

Policy based evidence…

This is one thing (amongst many) that annoyed me this week. David Cameron talking about how the Tories will make sure there is a fairer deal for charities - see the full story by clicking the link below. I hate the phrase, but that is his ‘take home message’ . Another reading of this policy might be that it amounts to a further dissolution of the welfare state with more and more ’statutory’ services provided by non-statutory bodies. Someone has obviously ‘done the math’ and worked out that whilst appearing generous to third sector organisations, it will also save the treasury money in the long term. To do all of this whilst purloining notions of post-bureaucracy and network bureaucracy is quite frankly ridiculous. In order to hive off statutory provision, the state must ensure a rigorous regime of regulation and monitoring - the rise of regulatory regimes is what we can see in the current government’s NHS policies. For Cameron to talk about pushing more of this statutory provision out into the 3rd sector whilst at the same time clothing it in an ill-informed misrepresentation of post-bureaucracy is an oxymoron. Post-bureaucracy does not mean no bureaucracy, and quote ‘non state collective provision’ end quote will require a high degree of regulation, particularly in relation to vulnerable groups.

I’ve not been this vexed since Bertie invoked Robert Putnam. I am all for sociology being invoked in contemporary political discussions, (indeed the more the better) but all too often it is used simply as a crutch of legitimacy rather than as a vehicle for generating meaningful debate and exchange…Sociology is all to often seen as the means of legitimising the already formed policy, rather than providing the drivers for generating those policies. The one recent exception to this might be Gidden’s third way, and we all know how divided sociologists are on the merits of that particular ‘programme’. Perhaps the answer lies in a much more central role for a sociology of social policy, rather than the current predilection for sociology in social policy.

see link here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/voluntarysector.davidcameron

Nottingham terror arrests

I had the dubious pleasure recently of following the events at Nottingham University at fairly close hand, through a colleague who’s been involved in organising support for the two people who were arrested, had their homes raided, spent 6 days in detention and (in the case of one) is now facing deportation to Algeria for printing off a document which is freely available on the FBI website and Amazon.

There’s a lovely, angry account of the whole thing by “Kemo Sabe” at http://freehichamyezza.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/kemo-sabe-gives-his-account-the-war-on-terror-comes-to-campus/ - well worth a read.

The whole story would be laughable if it were not so tragic; anyone can hit the panic button too soon, and clearly it would have made a lot more sense to pick up the phone and call the student’s supervisor to check that he was indeed researching Islamic fundamentalism (as of course many people do in UK departments specialising in international relations). What’s strange is how hard the university seems to find it to say “sorry, we made a mistake, could have happened to anyone, we’re going to fund legal support for this guy so he doesn’t have to suffer as a result”.

In A fish called Wanda, the heroine has to talk her boyfriend (the ex-CIA assassin) through this particularly difficult step:

“Now think. What would an intellectual do in a case like this? What would Plato do?”

- (through gritted teeth) “Apologise”.

“What did you say?”

- (shouting) “APOLOGISE!”

on da telly

I gave a seminar paper to the good people at Nottingham U’s Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice in April about movement-relevant research. At the last moment, they sneakily told me I had to do a podcast, and then left me hanging in horrified suspense for two months before posting it.

Hard to know what to think when you see yourself on telly, except that it always seems to make sense to be as clear and direct in what you really mean…

Anyway, it has a few things to say about how movements create knowledge, in a fairly bloggish form:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ldzwww/podcasting/cssjg_Laurence_Cox.html

Public Sociology

Aileen

Michael Burawoy is an marxist sociologist based at the University of Berkeley. He is probably best known for a book he wrote called ‘Manufacturing Consent. Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism’ which aimed at explaining why is it that workers work as hard as they do (he uses the metaphor of a game, which reminds me I must also blog about The Wire).
More recently he used his 2004 presidential address to the American Sociological Association to call for a more public sociology. This sparked a flurry of debates, and (a certain amount of hostility), with the British Journal of Sociology, Critical Sociology, Socio-Economic Review and The American Sociologist devoting special issues to the topic . The sociology department at NUI Maynooth held a symposium on Public Sociology 2005, and of course the socio-blogisphere has been debating the issue.
All this is way of an introduction to a very good blog from Older Woman on Scatterplot.

Many excellent points are made, one of them is that tenure (which is the American way of saying a permanent academic job) is one of the things that allows public sociology to exist as academics can speak without fear of job loss should they upset the powers that be. That should give us pause for thought. In Ireland there has been a marked shift in the academic job structure in the last ten years as many of us bounce between one one year teaching contacts and one to three year research contracts. However all is not lost in terms of civil engagement, read her post, it is very good.

Timescapes

Aileen

I am a woman of many hats, both real and metaphorical. The metaphorical hat that pays the bills is working on the soon-to-be-set-up Irish Qualitative Data Archive. IQDA invited Libby Bishop over to tell us about her experience working on Qualidata the UK Qualitative Data Archive. While here she told us about the new project she is working on. Timescapes is a qualitative longitudinal study of the life course. As the data produced it is being archived; the project has just launched so there isn’t much up, but already searching for “father”, will bring you photographs and show you that there is an interview that contains that word. In time, it will be possible for outside researchers to access the data. And the breath of the data is impressive.

Timescapes is made up of seven projects ; “two on young lives (siblings and friends, the changing lives of teenagers), three on mid lives (motherhood, fatherhood and work life balance) and two on older lives (grandparenthood and the oldest generation)”.

There is growing move towards digitising data to enable sharing of work among researchers – the Timescapes project seems to me a beautiful example of what the future of qualitative research might look like.
Ewen you might be interested in a similar archive which focuses on experiences of health and illness. http://www.dipex.org (note: I had difficulty accessing it in firefox – someday I will blog about the problems technical challenges of digital archives).

round and round

…exam scripts to be marked and second marked… dissertations to be marked and second marked… supervisory boards to be chaired… doctoral students supervisions to be scheduled… conference papers to be written… exam scripts to be marked and second marked… dissertations to be marked and second marked… supervisory boards to be chaired… doctoral students supervisions to be scheduled… conference papers to be written… exam scripts to be marked and second marked… dissertations to be marked and second marked… supervisory boards to be chaired… doctoral students supervisions to be scheduled… conference papers to be written… exam scripts to be marked and second marked… dissertations to be marked and second marked… supervisory boards to be chaired… doctoral students supervisions to be scheduled… conference papers to be written… all of which means I just don’t have time to post a blog this week, not that I suspect anyone will notice…

Choose Life… Choose a job… Choose a career… Choose a family… Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance… Choose your future… Choose life

Choice is a leitmotif of neoliberalism. It is the choice imperative that drives key performance indicators across the public sector, whether it is education, health care or social care. The rationale is that ‘the public’ need to know which service providers are performing well (i.e. meeting their targets) and which service providers are performing badly (i.e. not meeting their targets). Based on this information, ‘the public’ are then in a position to choose which service provider they utilise…that’s the theory at least… Choice of service is often linked to other lifestyle choices, where in the ironic words of Renton (from Trainspotting) we are exhorted to choose good health, choose a job, choose life. But this choice is more than it appears to be, it carries a whole host of incumbent consequences that are not an explicit feature of the rhetoric.

Take the NHS as an example. Choice is also the leitmotif of the contemporary NHS, with changes to service provision branded under the ‘choice agenda’. An expedient example is the NHS website. Here the public are informed that it is “your health your choices” (http://www.nhs.uk/). By making it ‘our choice’, it also made to be an individual property rather than a feature of our society. Within this rubric, the situation emerges whereby our health is marked out by our choices, with the implicit assumption that we are free to make the ‘right’ health choices. Whereas citizenship is accompanied by discourses of rights and responsibilities, consumerism is accompanied by discourses of entitlements and expectations. This alteration functions to shift the locus of responsibility away from the state and onto the consumer, who in turn push it onto the professions providing the services. Within this shift health comes to be described in an individual language of lifestyle choice.

The medical patient constrained by structural factors impacting directly upon their health status, is now contradicted by the individual as sovereign consumer with the freedom to make lifestyle choices. As I see it, the rhetoric has changed, but the impediments have not. The idea that we have the responsibility to choose good health is perhaps best regarded as a rhetorical twist that makes health targets much easier to meet. With the healthy consumer, the health performance targets become properties of an individual’s lifestyle rather than being seen as reflecting wider social inequalities

Creating Healthy Consumers

Put simply where has the idea of people as consumers of health care come from? There are a number of possible tangents off from this question, and I will hopefully be able to semi-coherently blog about them over my month as guest blogger…The first tangent for me is trying to make sense of the historical processes that created the conditions in which it is possible to conceive of patients as consumers. Going back a step, the medical patient did not always exist, but was itself the product of disciplinary struggles and negotiations between different parties with vested interests. Patients are an essential component of the modern medical project. Without them, medicine is simply about anatomy or physiology. The import of the practice of locating illness or disease within the individual bodies of patients cannot be understated in relation to the development of modern medicine. As such, any changes to this conception of the person with the condition requiring treatment are obviously of sociological interest.

In a UK context, the rise of the health consumer corresponds with the rise of principles of managerialism enacted after the 1983 Griffiths Report, commissioned by a Thatcher government just beginning their second term in office. In a broader socio-historical context, the Griffiths Report can be allied to the neoliberal agenda and New Public Management (NPM) reforms which were being pushed aggressively through the public service policies of Thatcher and Reagan in the early 1980s. To borrow from Foucault, the Griffiths Report marks the beginning of the caesura between the patient and the consumer.

An inherent feature of these NPM reforms was the translocation of a public services framework from a model predicated on providing care and treatment for patients, to a model predicated upon the (supposed) sovereignty of the consumer. What I want to pursue over my remaining guest blogs for the month are some of the implications and consequences of these changes, starting with how an emphasis on meeting the needs of the consumers (through provision of choice and through quality assurance and processes of governance) can be seen to meet the needs of just about everyone except those self same ‘consumers’…

Introducing Ewen Speed, guest blogger for May.

 Aileen

Ewen had the dubious pleasure of sharing a postgrad room with me back in the day. Then he was working in the Sociology of Mental Health and looking at users experiences of mental health systems from the perspective of user social movements. Now working in the University of Essex he has retained an interested in choice around health care and health bureaucracies (subjects of great importance in Ireland at the moment). He is starting work on a number of projects which look at the ways policy makers use soft bureaucracy and the ‘rhetoric’ of choice in health systems to hide the states role in managing (or failing to manage) the health service (though he is looking at the NHS, I think this work is of great relevance to Ireland). I think this is a very interesting and useful piece of work, so I’ve encouraged Ewen to join us, to tell us of what he has found as he begins his research journey. Welcome Ewen.