To escape the isolation, monotony and unceasing desire to procrastinate, I decided to attend a three day course at the university this week. It is a 'Philosophy of Social Science' course, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Not only the course content, but the contact time with fellow students (albiet only 6 of us on the course!) has reminded me why I am the luckiest girl alive to be paid to study something I love.
I will explain some interesting things that I have learnt/experienced so far.
Yesterday we were discussing rational choice theory, utilitarianism, game theory and 'tipping points'. Rational choice theorists argue that human beings make rational choices based on preferences to maxise their utility (whatever that may be to them). One of the questions of government is how to encourage the population to make rational choices about certain issues where we frequently act irrationally- against our best interests.
The thing is, whilst people (rationally) should choose to not smoke, booze, shag around, get fat, pollute the environment... They instead make a rational choice based on instant gratification... or other value systems.
Apparently, the conservative government are very interested in 'tipping points' whereby social norms change, and behaviour changes. For a recent example, see smoking. One minute, it was socially acceptable, the next minute, wholly unacceptable. One idea to encourage tipping pointss is to incentivise desirable choices to increase the instant gratification outcome and therefore encourage a rational choice to lose weight, stop smoking etc...
We were discussing all this, and then this morning I checked the BBC news and lo and behold! The NHS are reviewing using incentives to encourage people to quit health damaging behaviours, and pay cash rewards to people who acheive health goals: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8692241.stm . So, philosophy into action or what? I got excited anyway.
I absolutely detest that idea by the way. I lost 3 stone and stopped smoking and know how hard it was- but cash rewards? Totally ridiculous. Massively open to abuse, and surely we cant incentivise life changing behaviour. I need to think more about this one. Anyone got any thoughts on the NHS paying people to behave in a certain way?
Moving on- we then had a lecture on Marxism. It is a philosophy I sympathise with and support many of the ideas. After the lecture, whilst walking to the train station with an enormous anti-capitalst tirade swirling round my head, also blended in with rage over the objectification and normalisation of women, I went past a clothes shop and thought 'oooh that dress is so pretty, I really want it'.
...I horrified myself. Whilst conscious of the discourses (capitalist etc)I am part of in society, I cannot free myself from them. I am trapped by these discourses! I had a bit of a giggle at that, but seriously...
I am sure all the women (and men to a lesser extent?) can identify with the feelings of horror when confronted with the magazine racks in supermarkets. Four shelves of magazines that feature highly gleaned, sterilised and photoshopped women portraying society's perception of feminine beauty and success. All the mags are guilty- they are all about looking at and critiqueing (in an academic sense) the female body. Men's mags pour over big tits, women's mags highlight and zoom in on spots, cellulite, wrinkles, bulging tummies... even professional photography magazines about PHOTOGRAPHY heroically manage to feature a woman, usually sprawled half-naked artistically across a shadowed rock or suchlike. I buy runner's world as a runner- and though I always thought the journalism was to a mixed demographic- I realise looking back over the issues- the last 4 issues have featured a woman on the cover.
So, when I go to buy my bread or milk, or cheeky bag of haribos, I have to look at this. And god help it when you actually read one of the offending magazines.
When I go to the hairdressers I get the chance to peruse these magazines and indulge in personal outrage and curiousity. Last time I was there, I scanned them and practised a bit of critical discourse analysis... so, this is what women are interested in:
Dieting
Other women's bodies
Celebrities
Fashion
Make up
Other people's lives.
I frequently fantasise about deconstructing these magazines, and asking where are all the fat women? Where are all the curvy women? They are missing from our magazines, missing from our shop window displays, missing from our cat walks. They are hidden and scrutinised and criticsed (and now incentivised!).
It makes me feel powerless. I cannot do anything about it! I am trapped!
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Why I still hate the conservatives more
I have learnt about a downside (upside?) of blogging. You have to carefully construct your posts to be clear. And I thought this would be a break from essay writing...
I decided to write this blog because of following the election very closely and getting very involved in politics/policy. My own emotional-value-laden distate for the conservative party riles me up and makes me so angry that it catalyses an eruption which I thought best channelled into something productive.
However, I acknowledge the Labour party were not any better. I am not a party follower, I am a policy advocate. If I support any party it would be an amalgamation of the Greens/Lib Dems/Labour manifesto. The 'New' Labour party represented a continuation of the Thatcherite Neoliberal agenda, often rolling out policies that would have been considered bold even for the lady herself.
The Greens are the only party commiting to any serious reform in this country. Their contraversial citizen's wage which would pay a wage to recognise voluntary work and caring responsibilities is a particular favourite of mine. It is contraversial in terms of our current politics, and yet frequently discussed in the policy literature as a solution to social exclusion, unpaid carers, gender inequality and lack of community cohesion.
I suppose none of the political parties truly support these societal aims. The desperate blundering of public services would have happened under any of our main three parties. However, I can't see Labour cutting child benefit. Labour at least in theory oppose these kind of cuts.
The fundamental difference between Labour and The Conservatives is philosophical. The Conservatives follow the free markets with an almost religious commitment: state intervention into markets is wrong, taxation is slavery, intervention into the lives of the individual (other than to impose law and order) is wrong. The market delivers all! Progess is wealth, inequality stimulates productivity, inequality encourage innovation. Wealth and inequality in wealth are the staple tools in our society.
From this viewpoint, inequality is a necessary part of the market. It is not something to reduce, and any interference in the market or the lives of the individuals to improve the situation of those worse off is unwelcome.
The Labour party (in theory) follow a more collective philosophical agenda. As opposed to the staunch individualism of the conservatives, they believe (in theory) that society should act collectively to remove inequality. Markets are seen as imperfect mechanisms that create inequality, and governments are meant to protect the worst off from these effects. Markets are flawed, and cannot deliver public services such as health care and education.
Therefore, (in theory) inequality is something to be stamped out. People disadvantaged by the market should be protected against the worst effects... poverty and all that goes with it.
It is forgotten that this is the root of the differences between the parties. I know I have presented the differences in black and white form, when in actuality there are few fundamentalists. However, essentially, my comments remain true.
Maybe my hatred for the conservative party is that it stands for this in principle. That is why I am so angry about them getting elected... at least with a Labour government we could pretend that we cared. I also find the incredible wealth of the tories rather distateful. And their inheritance tax policy represents everything I find disgusting about society. Are they so out of touch with the average UK citizen that they actually feel sorry for 'the normal hard working people' who get taxed on £1,000,000?
Additionally I am fearful of the zombies creeping out the woodwork into Cameron's cabinet for 'Change', missing (hidden) from the election campaign. Hague, Duncan Smith, Letwin, May. The people of nightmares! Shudder.
But do not confuse this personal distaste with a belief that the Labour party, away from the theory, in practise were/are much better.
I decided to write this blog because of following the election very closely and getting very involved in politics/policy. My own emotional-value-laden distate for the conservative party riles me up and makes me so angry that it catalyses an eruption which I thought best channelled into something productive.
However, I acknowledge the Labour party were not any better. I am not a party follower, I am a policy advocate. If I support any party it would be an amalgamation of the Greens/Lib Dems/Labour manifesto. The 'New' Labour party represented a continuation of the Thatcherite Neoliberal agenda, often rolling out policies that would have been considered bold even for the lady herself.
The Greens are the only party commiting to any serious reform in this country. Their contraversial citizen's wage which would pay a wage to recognise voluntary work and caring responsibilities is a particular favourite of mine. It is contraversial in terms of our current politics, and yet frequently discussed in the policy literature as a solution to social exclusion, unpaid carers, gender inequality and lack of community cohesion.
I suppose none of the political parties truly support these societal aims. The desperate blundering of public services would have happened under any of our main three parties. However, I can't see Labour cutting child benefit. Labour at least in theory oppose these kind of cuts.
The fundamental difference between Labour and The Conservatives is philosophical. The Conservatives follow the free markets with an almost religious commitment: state intervention into markets is wrong, taxation is slavery, intervention into the lives of the individual (other than to impose law and order) is wrong. The market delivers all! Progess is wealth, inequality stimulates productivity, inequality encourage innovation. Wealth and inequality in wealth are the staple tools in our society.
From this viewpoint, inequality is a necessary part of the market. It is not something to reduce, and any interference in the market or the lives of the individuals to improve the situation of those worse off is unwelcome.
The Labour party (in theory) follow a more collective philosophical agenda. As opposed to the staunch individualism of the conservatives, they believe (in theory) that society should act collectively to remove inequality. Markets are seen as imperfect mechanisms that create inequality, and governments are meant to protect the worst off from these effects. Markets are flawed, and cannot deliver public services such as health care and education.
Therefore, (in theory) inequality is something to be stamped out. People disadvantaged by the market should be protected against the worst effects... poverty and all that goes with it.
It is forgotten that this is the root of the differences between the parties. I know I have presented the differences in black and white form, when in actuality there are few fundamentalists. However, essentially, my comments remain true.
Maybe my hatred for the conservative party is that it stands for this in principle. That is why I am so angry about them getting elected... at least with a Labour government we could pretend that we cared. I also find the incredible wealth of the tories rather distateful. And their inheritance tax policy represents everything I find disgusting about society. Are they so out of touch with the average UK citizen that they actually feel sorry for 'the normal hard working people' who get taxed on £1,000,000?
Additionally I am fearful of the zombies creeping out the woodwork into Cameron's cabinet for 'Change', missing (hidden) from the election campaign. Hague, Duncan Smith, Letwin, May. The people of nightmares! Shudder.
But do not confuse this personal distaste with a belief that the Labour party, away from the theory, in practise were/are much better.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
The conservative government
So, we have a new government and this government has inspired me to start blogging. That is one positive thing right?
Today I read how Cameron has dished up the UK government's portfolio of country houses among his new ministers. And it made me feel sick. Our leaders really have no clue about what life is really like. These 'cuts' will not affect them. Yeah, a 5% pay cut for ministers... most of whom are squatting on their inherited fortunes amassed by exploitation by their prestigious families. They don't use the public services. Their jobs will not be cut. Cameron promises to cut the number of MPs in Parliament... will he really?
They have put aside £6bn to use for redundancy in the NHS. No cuts to the NHS then Cameron?
It makes me sick to think of some people losing their jobs whilst the cabinet ponce around their state funded stately homes at the weekends. Oh, I know its nice to do such things, but how many of us can actually afford to do such things? Sell off the stately homes and keep people in their jobs.
Another thing that erks me somewhat, is this cutting child benefit for 'middle classes'. Child benefit is a universal benefit paid directly to the mother in each family. This universal payment means that the payment is not stigmatised, and it also contributes in a small way to redress the gender inequality in our welfare system ( / society). I reluctantly agree to a trial in removing the benefit for households over a certain income. However, I think it needs to be done very carefully. How about households earning over 30,000 per child in household? Not some arbitary cut off point- and if an arbitary cut off point then at least make it quite high.
Has anyone checked to see the costs of bringing up a child in our ragingly capitalist consumerist society? Healthy food, exercise...? Extra tuition costs? Posh baby clothes all that is available? Nursery fees (which the government will raise and proliferate) And that is just for those who can afford to be picky in how they bring up their children.
Not to mention the administrative costs of enforcing a threshold. More forms to be filled out to 'claim' for child benefit? Accidental overpayments (mistakes of government) to be paid back (at expense of child and family). Staff, forms, helplines, computer systems... £££. And less money actually spent on child welfare.
So, I wait with bated breath about this threshold.
Now, I don't even want to get started on the gender/ethnic inequalities in cabinet.
I will move swiftly along to a final thought about the budget deficit. Countries have them you know. Shit happens. So what is the big deal? Well, I believe that the government are pushing through this cutting the deficit as a mask for their own neoliberal agenda. They keep scaremongering about the deficit and how we need to pay it all off now. It makes no sense. And it isn't the only option! We certainly don't need to pay it all back in 5 years.
Conservative governments like CUTS and they ideologically oppose government spending on public services. They would have wanted to cut these anyway. However, they now have an excuse- a huge deficit! Why can't they just be honest admit that they are doing this for ideological reasons. Economics is not a straight forward science, it is value-laden, and I wish politicians and the media would be transparent about this.
They are pushing through cuts on the back of ideology and using the deficit as an excuse.
Well, I feel better now.
Today I read how Cameron has dished up the UK government's portfolio of country houses among his new ministers. And it made me feel sick. Our leaders really have no clue about what life is really like. These 'cuts' will not affect them. Yeah, a 5% pay cut for ministers... most of whom are squatting on their inherited fortunes amassed by exploitation by their prestigious families. They don't use the public services. Their jobs will not be cut. Cameron promises to cut the number of MPs in Parliament... will he really?
They have put aside £6bn to use for redundancy in the NHS. No cuts to the NHS then Cameron?
It makes me sick to think of some people losing their jobs whilst the cabinet ponce around their state funded stately homes at the weekends. Oh, I know its nice to do such things, but how many of us can actually afford to do such things? Sell off the stately homes and keep people in their jobs.
Another thing that erks me somewhat, is this cutting child benefit for 'middle classes'. Child benefit is a universal benefit paid directly to the mother in each family. This universal payment means that the payment is not stigmatised, and it also contributes in a small way to redress the gender inequality in our welfare system ( / society). I reluctantly agree to a trial in removing the benefit for households over a certain income. However, I think it needs to be done very carefully. How about households earning over 30,000 per child in household? Not some arbitary cut off point- and if an arbitary cut off point then at least make it quite high.
Has anyone checked to see the costs of bringing up a child in our ragingly capitalist consumerist society? Healthy food, exercise...? Extra tuition costs? Posh baby clothes all that is available? Nursery fees (which the government will raise and proliferate) And that is just for those who can afford to be picky in how they bring up their children.
Not to mention the administrative costs of enforcing a threshold. More forms to be filled out to 'claim' for child benefit? Accidental overpayments (mistakes of government) to be paid back (at expense of child and family). Staff, forms, helplines, computer systems... £££. And less money actually spent on child welfare.
So, I wait with bated breath about this threshold.
Now, I don't even want to get started on the gender/ethnic inequalities in cabinet.
I will move swiftly along to a final thought about the budget deficit. Countries have them you know. Shit happens. So what is the big deal? Well, I believe that the government are pushing through this cutting the deficit as a mask for their own neoliberal agenda. They keep scaremongering about the deficit and how we need to pay it all off now. It makes no sense. And it isn't the only option! We certainly don't need to pay it all back in 5 years.
Conservative governments like CUTS and they ideologically oppose government spending on public services. They would have wanted to cut these anyway. However, they now have an excuse- a huge deficit! Why can't they just be honest admit that they are doing this for ideological reasons. Economics is not a straight forward science, it is value-laden, and I wish politicians and the media would be transparent about this.
They are pushing through cuts on the back of ideology and using the deficit as an excuse.
Well, I feel better now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
