'The London Olympics are the most right-wing major event in Britain’s modern history', proclaims Andrew Gilligan. In his article about the event, he correctly argues that the London Olympics provide advertising space for large corporations, that unsubstantial protests have been squashed and people have been kicked out of their homes. However, contrary to his claims, by having the audacity to actually enjoy the event, the left have not been "suckered in" by the Olympics.
The part of the event that Gilligan refers to that had us captivated (much more preferable to the phrase "suckered in") was the opening ceremony, brilliantly conceptualised by the director Danny Boyle. I enjoyed every minute of it and tweeted my delight during the latter hours of the event, therefore I missed parts of it. I will watch it again when time allows and I am looking forward to it already.
The opening ceremony was particularly outstanding because it provided an account of British history which meant something to the viewers. People I know from both the right and the left of the political spectrum loved it. There were few dissenters, despite my rather cynical network of friends.
My favourite part was the emergence of the industrial revolution, accompanied with lights, fireworks and high-energy music. Sadly, there was no Margaret Thatcher figure to smash it to pieces at the end of the episode to add to the accuracy of the proceedings.
The deliberately extended section celebrating the NHS told the world that our health service is something to be celebrated. After witnessing that, it is entirely up to the present government if they wish to smash that to pieces as well. If there is only the possibility that the show would make the coalition government think twice about dismantling the NHS, then it has contributed to the future of our nation in a small way.
The celebration of Britain's multiculturalism was sufficient to have some far-right politicians tweeting with rage, generally embarrassing themselves and playing a game of roulette with their careers in the process. And as for the appearance of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti, I imagine that would have been the straw which broke the camel's back for many Tories.
It was the opening ceremony that had the lot. It had the lights, the pyrotechnics, tributes to my favourite bands of the past few decades, Dizzee Rascal, our finest sportspersons, Mr. Bean, animals, the Queen and James Bond.
Looking at the bigger picture, I appreciate the claims made by Gilligan. While I agree with his distaste about the influence of corporations, I warn him against selectivity. There is much to celebrate, particularly the inclusiveness encouraged. To witness Saudi Arabia shamed into including female athletes as part of their team is consistent with the Olympic spirit.
To witness countries I have never heard of bringing with them small teams, however nominal their performances turn out to be, delivers to people something that FIFA has never been able to achieve with football.
The leftists are right to celebrate this, yet we have not taken our eyes off the ball. Between appreciating the opening ceremony, there were also plenty of online updates about the plight of protesters in and around the Olympic event.
There is already an emerging anger about how corporations have swallowed up tickets for events and not used them, resulting in empty seats for events that the general public were disappointed to have missed out on. This ties in beautifully with theory (and not just among leftists) that corporations and banks are monumental wrecking machines responsible for a vast proportion of misery, economic or otherwise.
I am now looking forward to enjoying the sport, yet I remain aware of the wider issues of which the Olympics are a symptom rather than a cause. If we are to change corporate discourse, we must do so at the root of it, not at the expense of life and events operating within it, such as sporting events or even our own purchasing decisions.
Despite their presence at the Olympics, I am not about to start guzzling jugs of Coca-Cola or bags of McDonalds, but I will remain partial to the occasional indulgence. Saying the Olympics suckered in the left is akin to saying Starbucks was an inappropriate choice of coffee shop for last year's London occupiers campaigning against corporatism, despite the fact London is a ruthlessly competitive place for business, where the strongest prevail, with the result of limited purchasing options.
So where else do protesters go for an emergency coffee fix? And where else would we go to find the excitement of the Olympics?
Sunday 29 July 2012
Friday 13 July 2012
Can men write and engage with feminism?
I was intrigued by an interesting proposition the other day, a notion that men could be feminists. Is it possible? Can men champion the female cause? In theory, it is possible. For instance, racial oppression has been defeated in the past, with help from sympathetic white people who challenged the racist structures that allowed it to flourish. However, for reasons I will explain, I do not share the same optimism with gender relations.
Though men can take the position of gender theorists, it is far more difficult for them to be specifically feminists. To make it a little bit clearer, I am attempting to explain that men can research and write feminist scholarship, but they risk being seen as disingenuous (in particular, trying to court female interest), lacking in credibility, or participating in a movement that is none of their business. In other words, while it is technically possible for men to produce feminist research, they risk rejection.
I am going to use a simple example, perhaps a little too simple, but it is the most straightforward way of explanation. Take a look at the following picture. What do you see?
Source: The Sun (who else?!!)
Visually speaking, it is a photograph of Katie Price. The photo here shows in limited clothing, in front of an audience, positioned in a highly provocative pose. Two different feminists could have a two unique opinions of this image, depending on how liberal their feminist standpoint is.
The first feminist may see the picture as Price using her sexuality to promote her wealth and fortune, and enjoying the freedom of expression afforded to the modern woman. Another feminist may see the picture as Price bringing women's liberation into disrepute, playing up to male fantasies and causing women's rights campaigners - such as Emily Davison - to spin in their graves.
Herein lies the problem. The two feminist critics could engage in this debate, with the most likely outcome a stalemate and neither compromising towards the other's position. At least both leave with their credentials intact. Men engaging in such debate would not have that luxury.
A man could take either position in the debate, but they can easily be discredited by women who take the alternative view. By biological default, the man's strength of argument is weakened by the fact he is debating a feminist point when not female. If a man and a woman discuss women's politics from differing viewpoints, whose account appears to be most credible?
I enjoy reading about feminism. For the above reasons, I choose not to produce it or contribute to the literature. Maybe I feel it is not my place to, and it is a subject more appropriately and effectively tackled by women. Ultimately, men could create feminist scholarship, but with it comes a risk of it not being fully accepted as authentic.
Though men can take the position of gender theorists, it is far more difficult for them to be specifically feminists. To make it a little bit clearer, I am attempting to explain that men can research and write feminist scholarship, but they risk being seen as disingenuous (in particular, trying to court female interest), lacking in credibility, or participating in a movement that is none of their business. In other words, while it is technically possible for men to produce feminist research, they risk rejection.
I am going to use a simple example, perhaps a little too simple, but it is the most straightforward way of explanation. Take a look at the following picture. What do you see?
Source: The Sun (who else?!!)Visually speaking, it is a photograph of Katie Price. The photo here shows in limited clothing, in front of an audience, positioned in a highly provocative pose. Two different feminists could have a two unique opinions of this image, depending on how liberal their feminist standpoint is.
The first feminist may see the picture as Price using her sexuality to promote her wealth and fortune, and enjoying the freedom of expression afforded to the modern woman. Another feminist may see the picture as Price bringing women's liberation into disrepute, playing up to male fantasies and causing women's rights campaigners - such as Emily Davison - to spin in their graves.
Herein lies the problem. The two feminist critics could engage in this debate, with the most likely outcome a stalemate and neither compromising towards the other's position. At least both leave with their credentials intact. Men engaging in such debate would not have that luxury.
A man could take either position in the debate, but they can easily be discredited by women who take the alternative view. By biological default, the man's strength of argument is weakened by the fact he is debating a feminist point when not female. If a man and a woman discuss women's politics from differing viewpoints, whose account appears to be most credible?
I enjoy reading about feminism. For the above reasons, I choose not to produce it or contribute to the literature. Maybe I feel it is not my place to, and it is a subject more appropriately and effectively tackled by women. Ultimately, men could create feminist scholarship, but with it comes a risk of it not being fully accepted as authentic.
Tuesday 10 July 2012
The social influence behind Labour's support for military academies
The Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg, has caused uproar among many grassroots Labour activists by endorsing military academies to school the most troubled pupils in society. For many activists, it is an indication that the party cannot let the militarism of the early 2000s go, nor return to its natural habitat of the centre-left politics of days gone by. I cannot say I am overly enthused about the idea either. However, it is understandable why parties are sentimental towards military solutions to societal and global problems (that is of course when the coalition government are not cutting troop numbers) - there is much public support at stake.
Over recent years, we have witnessed the popularisation of militaristic discourse in this country. You only have to look at those heavily duplicated Facebook pages, urging support for the armed forces and tough jobs they are expected to undertake.
Meanwhile, it seems as though every helping of human misery is equated to those lives lost in the battlefield. At a time when football supporters were posting messages of good will on the Internet in support of the critically ill Bolton player, Fabrice Muamba, others were critical of the attention being given Muamba when hundreds of soldiers had lost their lives. They could have pointed to the many lost lives on the roads as well, but that is somewhat less political and less in tune with current popular military discourse.
Then there are the millions of pop records sold by the wives of servicemen. There are surely many choirs up and down this land, but the success of the military wives was no fluke. It was a true measure of support for the armed forces and their families. There are also the 'Keep Calm and Carry On' branded products and their variations, which nostalgically reflect a country under siege.
I could go on, but I think the amount of examples I have recalled are sufficient enough to support my point. Indeed, even old rocker John Lydon indicated a separation from his old punk persona by stunning Question Time viewers (and a few old fans, no doubt) by declaring that "one of the most beautiful things about Britain, apart from the NHS and the free education, is the British Army."
As a consequence of these glamourisations, the military is always going to be a central plank of any targeted election campaign. Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived to be on a par with those two great social creations, the NHS and our education system, as being something great. It is just a shame it seems the education system can no longer be trusted to school our youth despite the fact we invented it.
I have a lot of sympathy for those Labour activists working hard to battle the Tories, who fear that the support of military academies could possibly backfire and see Labour's 9 to 12 point lead turn to dust. I admire how critical they have been. To see the dozens of Labour activists I follow on Twitter irritated by the idea demonstrates a reflexivity among us that you would never see in Tory or Lib Dem activists.
Those Lib Dem activists who still remain despite Nick Clegg, David Laws and friends painting their party orange, and eroding the relevance of the party in the process, have hardly uttered a word of dissent. Meanwhile, sticking up for bad Tory ideas seems to be a core characteristic of many Tories who are so unflinchingly tribal. In fact, you see more antagonistic debate on the Tory benches in the House of Commons, than among those Twitter Tories.
So like the idea of military academies or not, you can guarantee it will be strongly debated within Labour before it ever sees the light of day.
Over recent years, we have witnessed the popularisation of militaristic discourse in this country. You only have to look at those heavily duplicated Facebook pages, urging support for the armed forces and tough jobs they are expected to undertake.
Meanwhile, it seems as though every helping of human misery is equated to those lives lost in the battlefield. At a time when football supporters were posting messages of good will on the Internet in support of the critically ill Bolton player, Fabrice Muamba, others were critical of the attention being given Muamba when hundreds of soldiers had lost their lives. They could have pointed to the many lost lives on the roads as well, but that is somewhat less political and less in tune with current popular military discourse.
Then there are the millions of pop records sold by the wives of servicemen. There are surely many choirs up and down this land, but the success of the military wives was no fluke. It was a true measure of support for the armed forces and their families. There are also the 'Keep Calm and Carry On' branded products and their variations, which nostalgically reflect a country under siege.
I could go on, but I think the amount of examples I have recalled are sufficient enough to support my point. Indeed, even old rocker John Lydon indicated a separation from his old punk persona by stunning Question Time viewers (and a few old fans, no doubt) by declaring that "one of the most beautiful things about Britain, apart from the NHS and the free education, is the British Army."
As a consequence of these glamourisations, the military is always going to be a central plank of any targeted election campaign. Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived to be on a par with those two great social creations, the NHS and our education system, as being something great. It is just a shame it seems the education system can no longer be trusted to school our youth despite the fact we invented it.
I have a lot of sympathy for those Labour activists working hard to battle the Tories, who fear that the support of military academies could possibly backfire and see Labour's 9 to 12 point lead turn to dust. I admire how critical they have been. To see the dozens of Labour activists I follow on Twitter irritated by the idea demonstrates a reflexivity among us that you would never see in Tory or Lib Dem activists.
Those Lib Dem activists who still remain despite Nick Clegg, David Laws and friends painting their party orange, and eroding the relevance of the party in the process, have hardly uttered a word of dissent. Meanwhile, sticking up for bad Tory ideas seems to be a core characteristic of many Tories who are so unflinchingly tribal. In fact, you see more antagonistic debate on the Tory benches in the House of Commons, than among those Twitter Tories.
So like the idea of military academies or not, you can guarantee it will be strongly debated within Labour before it ever sees the light of day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)