Search This Blog

Wednesday, 26 December 2018

Brexit Is For the Few


Friday, 14 September 2018

Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov on RT: Cherchez la femme

IN their interview on Russian television channel RT, Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov made a very good point in their own defence. Why would two alpha Russian males risk questions at airport security about a small bottle of women’s perfume? Their masculinity would be affronted.

So how was this affront avoided? Well, one possibility is that the sample bottle of Nina Ricci was given to them in London. It travelled separately, either in a diplomatic bag or with a female passenger on Aeroflot who may or may not have shared flights with the sports supplement guys. A handover took place in London.

Cherchez  la femme.

Monday, 13 August 2018

How Should A Young Person Respond to Brexit?

It’s said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. That’s a short summary of the main weakness of collective decision making when it aims at compromise rather than truth. Nobody gets what they want because other won’t let them, but the others don’t get what they want either. So everybody gets something they don’t want, a camel rather than a horse. So it will be with Brexit.

It’s also an unfortunate truth that, however much you may wish it, once you have dug yourself into a hole it may not be possible to dig yourself out. Once you have gone down a certain road, there may be no turning back. Maybe because others won’t agree to turn back and you can’t do it on your own. Maybe because newcomers won’t let you back – they’ve occupied the ground you once occupied. Maybe because you can no longer afford the reverse trip.

Brexit is going to cost one helluva lot of money down the drain and there won’t be any funds left for a reverse Brexit. And,anyway, no one will want to have us. We've proved ourselves first of all perpetual nuisances and then just very arrogant and stupid.

Amsterdam, Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris, Rotterdam, Vienna, Zeebrugge will have occupied the slots in aviation, banking, shipping that the UK once occupied and as yet unidentified cities will have the car manufacturing. 

The diehards here will be pressing for the reintroduction of pounds, shillings and pence just to complete the brave new world of Ruritania where a new royal baby will be born every week and the food banks will be named after them.

If you were born after about 1990 and have a bit of a brain, my advice is simple: Leave. Try your luck elsewhere, if they will have you. There’s not much of a future for you here in England, still less in Wales which is  death-wish territory. Maybe some future in Scotland and in Northern Ireland if it unites with the south, otherwise not.

The big obstacle for someone born in England after about 1990 is that in all probability you don’t speak any language other than English unless you have the good fortune to come from an immigrant background. But that obstacle is not insuperable. It’s true you could head for Australia or Ireland (the republic), though not the USA where things will also go from bad to worse. But it’s also true that you are young enough to learn a foreign language properly. You’ll have to take a low paid job, attend lots of classes, and give up social media in English (they should be given up anyway). It will take you a year to crack it, maybe a bit more if you head to somewhere where the alphabet is different.

But just Go and don’t come back. You won’t regret it. Spend an evening with the film Cinema Paradiso and think about it.

Friday, 10 August 2018

The Selfishness of Older People

Some figures appeared today on the BBC News website and were fairly rapidly hidden. Sir John Curtice introduced the figures produced by Survation and which averaged four polls taken between May and July 2018.

Asked how they would vote in a new Brexit  Referendum, 82% of 18 – 24 year olds would vote Remain, 68% of 25 – 34 year olds, 55% of 35 – 44 year olds, 43% of 45 – 54 year olds, 42% of 55 – 64 year olds and 33% of the over 65s. When summed, 52% of all voters would vote Remain and 48% Leave.

What the figures show  dramatically is the selfishness of older people. Two years on from the 2016 Referendum, they would still vote for a huge, untested upheaval in society, the effects of which will only be felt  when they are dead. Those who are still alive pretty much know by now that those policies will reduce the life prospects of those they leave behind. They couldn’t care less,any more than they care about the shortage of affordable housing they have insisted on as part of their birthright. And since the young seem unwilling to take to the streets, it seems that it is now too late to do anything about it

Thursday, 9 August 2018

Ruth Davidson and the Burqa

The Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson is usually credited with having more brain cells than the entire Westminster government front bench put together. But today she is reported as saying that for a woman to wear a burqa is in the same category as for her to wear a crucifix.

That is either breathtakingly mindless or insincere, or both.

Leave aside the fact that there are men who wear crucifixes, there is a big difference between something which in no way interferes with your everyday mobility and ability to interact with those around you (including your own children) and something which does. The burqa clearly does, which is one reason that women take it off the moment they get indoors (read the books about Afghanistan). And it interferes to a much greater degree than, say, wearing high heels – which some employers compel because there would be no voluntary compliance.

The suspicion which I think most of us have is that women in the UK who wear the burqa do not do so of their own free will. They do so because they are compelled by men in tee shirts and jeans and trainers who basically think they own the women. In a British high street, the burqa is not a sign of religious piety; it looks like a sign of modern slavery. And sorry, very conservative Ruth Davidson, that is something which should be investigated before we give the burqa a clean bill of health.

The big problem is that we are not really prepared to find out whether our suspicions are well-founded. It is quite hard to find out. The women who wear burqas are not all available for interview; it seems that some are prevented from learning English. The men may not be reliable sources of information. The idea of “freedom of religion” blocks proper investigation  in this case just as it does when it comes to child abuse by Anglican or Catholic priests.

The feelings people in the street have are little to do withe their feelings about Islam. People who are very uncomfortable about the burqa have no similar feelings about the hijab, and nowadays are all used to having  perfectly ordinary, everyday conversations at supermarket check outs and so on with women who wear the hijab. 

Am I really to suppose that women who wear burqas in the UK never feel disadvantaged by the rules they follow?

Tuesday, 7 August 2018

Universal and Compulsory Sunday School

There was a time in my country when lots of rough children got sent to Sunday School where the teachers tried to make them a bit more respectable. The teachers were often young and literate but not educated. They conveyed a sense of what was Nice and what was Not Nice but they had no real understanding, no coherent theory of what it was that placed one thing on one side of the divide and one thing on another. In this situation, teachers did not all agree with each other and it is most unlikely that their pupils really understood what they were trying to achieve anyway. There would have been some common ground, nonetheless.

It was Not Nice to fart loudly and appear delighted to have done so. Ideally, one should not fart at all but, if needs must, then an apologetic and shamefaced demeanour was required. And the audience should at least endeavour not to titter. In this way, Sunday Schools undoubtedly contributed to the cultural reproduction of local farting etiquette.

There were words a child should definitely never use, at least aloud, and in some cases they were words which adults should not use either. There were words which no children or women should use, but which might be tolerable when used by a man. And there were probably words which no child might use but all adults might. I will hazard that bloody was most definitely not available for use by children as a curse word, but that some uncertainty and disagreement surrounded words like ruddy and perishing and a range of other adjectives which might in context sound like code-words for an underlying, unvoiced bloody. The same would apply to exclamations like Jesus! and Christ! and Blimey!  and Crikey!, though the last was all right because it was used by posh children.

There was no unity of view about the punishment due to offenders against language etiquette – whether, for example, they should simply be reproved or whether they should actually have their mouth washed out with soap.

Nowadays, those Sunday Schools - which in any case only took up an hour a week - are thankfully a thing of the past. In their place, we now have the universal, compulsory and 24/7 Sunday school known as the social media. Here young and literate (or semi-literate) but not educated (though sometimes with a worthless degree) teachers call out the Rough and point them towards the path to the Respectable. They don’t use those words, but that is the general policy direction. If you don’t conform, then a variety of punishments are available, from social ostracism to loss of your job and even, potentially, imprisonment.

Where there is face to face contact over time, a modus vivendi may get established which departs in some ways from original policy on both sides. An idealistic young Sunday School teacher may end up allowing to pass a quiet fart and a restrained titter.  

But where there is no face to face contact, just individuals bunkered down with their smartphones, there is also no pressure to search for a way of getting along with your neighbour. Indeed, in practice the demands of the new Sunday school teachers are free to escalate to the point where those who were once regarded as feminists become mysogynists and those who championed gay rights become homophobes. If you get off on calling people out, then the higher you set the threshold for Niceness the more people there are to convict of Not Niceness.

The zealots of social media are well on the way to creating a world in which no one dares to breathe or achoo. There are just so many ways in which offence can be given and even more ways in which offence can be taken. For the present, people get by with grovelling Apologies which simply feed into someone’s lust to watch you swing.

But it only a matter of time before people rebel against the claustrophobia of it all and  decide that they will fart as loud as they like and you can just Fuck Off  if you don’t like it. They have nothing to lose but their Twitter accounts.

Tuesday, 3 July 2018

My Political Prediction for 2018: Boris Johnson is Finished

On my Blog for 31 December 2010, I made the following Prediction:

 Dr Liam Fox will not be Secretary of State for Defence by the end of 2011

He was sacked in April 2011, basically for using his official position to further the economic interests of Adam Werritty, and did not get back until  Theresa May had to give him a job.

I don't make many predictions because it's a hazardous business, but the tea leaves are now speaking so clearly that I have to tell you

Boris Johnson is finished

Since that is too much like The End of the World Is Nigh I will quantify it:

By the end of 2018 Boris Johnson will not be either Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister.


9 July 2018: Boris Johnson resigns as Foreign Secretary

31 December 2018: Mystic Trev's Prediction fulfilled. HOWEVER, over at the Financial Times, chief political correspondent Robert Shrimsley in his New Year's Message thinks that Mr Johnson will get one last shot at power in 2019 and may well succeed. Since Mr Johnson's rivals for  the keys to 10 Downing Street (Mr Corbyn having already shot himself in the foot multiple times) are busy making even bigger fools of themselves than even Mr Johnson can manage, Mr Shrimsley may be on to something ....

Thursday, 21 June 2018

Naz Shah's Vote and the Labour MPs who did not step up to help

Because of a breakdown of the usual convention, Labour MP Naz Shah had to vote yesterday after discharging herself from hospital and arriving in a wheelchair. Normally, such problems are dealt with by finding an MP intending to vote the other way who would sign-up and agree not to vote. Ms Shah could then have stayed in hospital as her doctors advised.

Since Labour MPs voted on both sides for yesterday's division, then even if the evil Mrs Leadsom's Conservatives refused to co-operate, Ms Shah could have been paired with a Labour MP intending to vote the other way. It would have left the gap between the Ayes and the Noes unchanged.

There were four Labour MPs who could have stepped up to the plate: Frank Field, Kate Hoey, John Mann, Graham Stringer.

Image result for naz shah voting in wheelchair
800 × 451Images may be subject to copyrightFind out more
18 hours ago

Sunday, 17 June 2018

Tackling the Statue Problem: What Goes Up Should Come Down

In the United Kingdom, it is a convention that all postage stamp designs include a portrait of the current monarch. From 1840 up until now, not one stamp has been issued without the monarch’s head. But when the monarch changes, so does the portrait and no one seems to think this disrespectful.

Banknotes change in the same way but, in addition, their designs have to change within the reign of one monarch to cope with inflation and the needs of maintaining and enhancing security against forgery. In my country, when banknotes change the opportunity is also taken to change the great or good personage now conventionally represented on the back of every note.  But those personages don’t last forever; it is soon the turn of someone else. We will swap the critic of slavery for the friend of slavery, and so on.

In contrast, we are stuck with the men on plinths – even more so now that we have started to big up women on their own plinths. Once a statue has been put up, it is supposed to stay up, and any attempt to take it down would be met with fierce opposition – not that anyone very often even tries. As a result, we have cityscapes where a great deal of pavement and park is given over to monuments to the temporarily-reckoned great and good of the past few centuries.

The atavistic stone and brass works on plinths are one or two steps removed from embalmed corpses or effigies, but for the most part they aim to be copied from life, perhaps larger than life size but otherwise naturalistic. In artistic terms, nearly all these monuments are without merit nor are they really intended to be with merit. This is as true of Gillian Wearing’s Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Sqaure as of the men around her. Nonetheless, it is partly because they are seen as works of art that the totems on plinths are safe from being toppled. If we could get away from that idea of work of art, it would begin to make the task of de-cluttering our cityscapes that much easier.

Who gets to be monumentalised is partly decided by governments and partly by Public Subscription. The latter creates its own problems. When people contributed their shilling towards a brass or marble statue, they expected the result to stay where it is put. They expected long-term value for their money. It’s not for some future generation to declare some person unworthy of a statue in public space; the subscribers have already settled the matter for eternity.

This is a bizarre line of thought. Public cemeteries are full of the work of monumental masons paid for by the grateful inheritors of some dead person’s property, but the cemeteries fill up and decay, the monuments topple over, and eventually the whole lot is bulldozed. Nobody much minds. No one cares who paid or how much or why for some drooping angel.

Most Londoners who pass around Trafalgar Square on their way to work could no doubt sketch Nelson’s Column on the back of an envelope and supply the name of the monument at the same time. But how many could sketch the men on horseback on the three plinths around Nelson, or name them? I leave you to do the necessary search to discover that they are not particularly meritorious individuals, unless you have a very rose-tinted view of our Imperial history. But just imagine what an exhausting business it would be to get those statues off those plinths and shipped off to some horse sanctuary or knacker's yard willing to take them. But that is what should happen.

Wednesday, 6 June 2018

Jobs for Brexiteers

In Iasi, Romania's second city, young people say they have no intention of picking fruit.
Puiu Jonut, 23, studies geography.
"The English pick and choose what they want to do and leave the harder jobs for the foreigners," he told BBC News.
"There are a lot of English people that could work the fields and not let the fruit rot. That's why Brexit to me was really strange because the foreigners are coming to do the hard jobs and the low-paid jobs - surely you want them to stay."

Source: BBC News 6 June 2018

Friday, 1 June 2018

Germaine Greer and Tanja Bueltmann

I call for Germaine Greer to stop calling herself a feminist. Because she very clearly isn't. And the hailing of her as one needs to stop. It should have stopped a long time ago, really, but now is certainly a good time to really do it.

The latest spat about Germaine Greer – see Tweet above – has taken me off into re-visiting my views on the use people make of titles they possess. My own view is that titles should not be used outside the context to which they belong. So if you are a university Professor, then on campus you are Professor X, but off campus you are not unless you are speaking or writing on a subject about which you are claiming an expertise to which your title gestures. Ditto if you are a General.

Professor Tanja Bueltmann may be a jolly good professor (she’s a historian) but that does not give her any special claim on Twitter to pass judgement on Germaine Greer, nor should she be using her title for this purpose. It has clearly been a helpful thing to do because it has meant that the deference-encouraging BBC has picked her Tweet for wider dissemination. As plain Tanja Bueltmann my guess is that she would not have so easily achieved her five minutes of fame. In my view, that’s unfair on the many Tanjas who aren’t professors and who may have equally or more interesting thoughts about Germaine Greer.

Tuesday, 29 May 2018

Some Problems With Identity Politics

In a very distant past, people proclaimed themselves anarchists, communists, conservatives, liberals and socialists with political parties to match (the anarchists excepted). In those days, people were likely to join in discussions by saying things like, “As a socialist, I suppose I think …”  It would be regarded as an irrelevant, ad hominem argument if you replied to this by saying, “But you went to public school …” An appropriate response would be something on the lines of, “As a liberal, I place more value on personal freedom than is allowed for in your argument for nationalising fish and chip shops…”

Nowadays, people open discussions with such phrases as “As a gay man, I feel …” or “As a black woman, I think …” Whether it’s feeling or thinking something, such phrases are often enough meant to close down rather than open up discussion. You have got a chance if you can reply, “Well, that’s interesting, but as gay man I feel rather different about this …”  You haven’t got much chance if you reply, “It’s irrelevant that you’re a black woman, the point is that ...”.  This may simply be regarded as offensive, since it denies a claim to authority based on personal positioning.

But there is a good argument which would say that though personal experience is often and maybe always relevant in debate (“I went to public school and I hated it”) it has no special authority. From this perspective, identity politics can then be defined as that variety of political positioning which consistently confers special authority on personal experience framed by a self-defined identity.

The trouble with special authority is that it almost always turns into some kind of one-upmanship, some kind of sharp-elbowed jockeying, which is intended to reduce a supposed conversational partner to silence. “When you get to my age, young man, you will realise …” is the archetype of such one-upmanship. There’s no dodging it unless you try something like, “Well, I try not to be ageist in the way I think” which probably won’t go down very well.  More recently, “I have had the experience, you haven’t”, does the same job. You are probably in deep trouble if you reply to that, “So what?”

There is another problem with arguments from special authority. Those who assert an identity and claim authority based on it don’t agree with each other. So in the United Kingdom, the Labour Party has groups for people who self-identify as this that or the other, but so do other parties. There are gay socialists but also gay liberals and gay conservatives, which actually suggests that being gay is politically irrelevant. Or rather, it is only relevant because you have constituted yourself into a lobby group for a special interest: you want the Labour Party to pay special attention to your needs; over in the Conservative party, there is a parallel group jockeying for that special attention.

In America, this would once have been called pork barrel politics or log rolling – in any case something to be disdained. But now it’s mainstream and Americans are supposed to approve of it. In the UK, The Guardian newspaper aligns itself very much with trends in the USA. I eventually gave up reading it when I came across a story headlined East Asian Actors Under-represented in Hollywood. Just try to get your head around that. First off, there is the geographical challenge: who are these North Asians, South Asians and West Asians who are cheating East Asians out of the desirable good of playing bit parts in bad Hollywood movies? Second, there is the rather bigger challenge of what would count as fair representation. In some cases, this is obvious; in many it isn’t. If you are making a film about the lives of Korean comfort women in the Second World War and the Japanese men they were made to serve, how does the concept of “fair representation” apply? If you are making a film about the lives of women who were parachuted into France in World War Two as agents of SOE (the Special Operations Executive) and what happened to them, how does the concept of “fair representation” apply? In each case, who ends up not getting parts?

I want to argue that the concept of “fair representation” is very hard to specify because it runs into problems analogous to those identified by Kenneth Arrow in his classic Social Choice and Individual Values (1951). Re-discovering a theorem which had first been proposed by the Marquis de Condorcet in the eighteenth century, Arrow showed that there is no possible democratic decision-making mechanism which will avoid the problem of intransitive choices. We like to assume, with the logicians, that if A implies B and B implies C, then A also implies C. Unfortunately, when you aggregate choices, it doesn’t. If more voters choose A when offered A or B and more choose B when offered B or C, it does not follow that more voters will choose A when offered A or C.  

D’oh! This conclusion is rather alarming. It means that in a democratic system, the outcome of a Pick A or B vote is rather less decisive than it might seem. If you had framed the choice differently, you may well have got a different result. This problem of cyclical majorities also introduces a strong element of instability into democratic systems. What looks like the capriciousness of voters - something which might be dealt with by severe exhortations to weight the choice carefully - is actually a manifestation of a general problem of choice intransitivity.

The same problem will I think arise in endeavours to achieve fair representation. These are entirely worthy endeavours but they face the problem that what looks like fair representation when the choice is between A or B and then between B or C may not look fair if A or C is introduced. Kenneth Arrow’s view was that such dilemmas can only be eliminated by introducing non-democratic elements into choice mechanisms, which in this case would involve laying down the law on what is to count as fairness and allow no more choice in the matter. Fairness becomes what I say it means and that’s an end to it, and this is perhaps the fall-back position which inspires identity politics and explains its own arbitrariness.

Trevor Pateman writes cultural and political criticism, some collected into The Best I Can Do (2016) and Silence Is So Accurate (2017) both available very cheaply on Amazon

Wednesday, 2 May 2018

Cultural Appropriation

Those who criticise what they call 'cultural appropriation' are actually defending cultural segregation. If you think of them as segregationists, they don't sound so convincing. They want culture in a museum, not culture as a living force which moves in ways no one can control however hard they try.

Tuesday, 24 April 2018

Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square

The main effect of bigging up Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square will be to give a new lease of life to the men already bigged up there. Most of us had long ceased to notice the men  and were happy to leave them to the mercy of pigeons overhead and dogs down below. Fawcett adds one more ugly monument, in Gillian Wearing’s very obvious signature style, to those already there and its newness will temporarily revitalise the entire graveyard.

The common desire to big up dead heroes, some of them not so heroic of course, is probably too atavistic to challenge - though there are strands in religious thought (Wahabbi Islam the most notorious) which object to the practice. The desire has always been a competitive one, as can be seen in any old Roman Catholic graveyard where the wealthy compete to have my drooping angel bigger than your drooping angel. 

Graveyards eventually get bulldozed and nobody much minds. But it is very hard to get rid of these public monuments raised by Public Subscription to assert the importance of this hero or that. There are just too many of them now, cluttering up public space, but there will always be objectors to pulling any one of them down, including the ones who turn out not to have been heroes at all. The only solution is to pull them all down. Individuals are people best remembered in our heads, in the books we read, the museums we visit, and in the causes we support. Hectoring plinths occupied by larger-than-life tasteless monumental sculptures are tiresome and best toppled. A good start could be made in North Korea.

Bodies mummified in bronze are very different to collective memorials, like the Cenotaph just up the road from Parliament Square, to which individuals can respond each in their own way provided only that the monument has  a certain abstractness, a certain symbolic character, which is entirely lacking in the banal literalism of Gillian Wearing’s monument.


For more on this topic, see the chapter "Death Rituals" in my The Best I Can Do (degree zero 2016 or yours for a penny on Amazon)

Saturday, 7 April 2018

Long Live the Ruritanian Monarchy!

Prince Charles has been made a grass-skirt wearing High Chief in Vanuatu and the BBC can't get enough of it. I leave you to look up Vanuatu and the pictures.

Rule Britannia!
The sun never sets!
Bring back the 1950s!
Bet you're jealous Putin!
Coming next: Dr Fox's Patent Trade Deal with Vanuatu!

(Those wishing to place a bid on the grass skirt, Lot Number 2018, should contact ....)

Tuesday, 27 February 2018

Disorderly Brexit Has Already Begun

When Thomas Hobbes fled from London to Paris in 1640 he proclaimed himself, rather proudly, as “The first of all that fled” from England’s looming civil war.

I recalled that when it occurred to me that it is not so much that England risks a disorderly Brexit as that we have one already. The moment Theresa May wrote her political obituary, her Article Fifty letter, individuals and organisations began to make their own moves.

The Lithuanian, Polish and Romanian workers began to go home and fruit and vegetables began to rot in the fields though I don’t know how many newspapers apart from The Financial Times printed the photographs. EU nurses and doctors began to go home too, or look for jobs in Remain EU countries. The NHS authorities are now pleading with the government to admit more non-EU foreign workers to replace those who have been lost. 

The European Union itself began to pack up its agencies in the UK, including the European Medicines Agency. Quite a few UK citizens contemplating the limitations of the threatened blue passports found their Irish roots and applied for Irish passports. Dual nationals switched to the better side.

A few companies have moved out and perhaps a few vulture firms have moved in, sensing the chance of a kill when companies go bust or top end house prices fall or the USA gets the permission it wants to dump chlorinated chicken and unfit milk on the UK.

As I write, we are bracing for Unilever’s announcement that they will abandon their UK headquarters and work exclusively from their Dutch one. Easyjet has already launched its contingency plan with a new base in Austria.

Anyone and any company with any sense is hoarding euros. And so it goes on. This is already disorder, though merely a foretaste of what is to follow when the factories start to close, the food banks become even more essential, the criminals start to celebrate. As a writer in The Financial Times observed, a civil war is starting in a country hopelessly divided. The worst is yet to come.

Added 5 April: Here's a link to a Financial Times article which is just one story of what is already happening:

Wednesday, 21 February 2018

A Simple Solution to the Hollywood Problem

Just don't go there.

Since I deleted the Hollywood-obsessed Guardian and Huffington Post from my Favourites bar, must be over a year ago now, I find I know so much less about Hollywood and it's a good state to be in. As for the actual films, I am sure that occasionally a decent one slips through the net, but that's certainly no reason for enduring the others.

Back in 2014 I had some time to kill in London and, finding myself in Leicester Square, decided to re-visit a cinema which once specialised in arthouse movies. They were screening Darren Aronofsky's Noah. It was all right, Noah as a Californian hippy, but there is only so much surround sound someone like me can tolerate. I haven't been back.

Thursday, 1 February 2018

The Biggest Demonstration Ever - To What Purpose?

The usual suspects are telling us they will organise the biggest demonstration ever if Donald Trump visits London. They may well succeed. It will conveniently avoid confronting the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has led his party into an alliance with the Donald Trump wing of the Conservative party to deny young people the rights and opportunities which those older have benefitted from. One third of Leave voters have a good opinion of Trump.

There can be no Big Tent in British politics because the country is split down the middle over Brexit.  Demonstrating against Trump can be no more than  feelgood politics for those who are not so much disenfranchised as deprived of a political party - but unwilling to confront that glaringly obvious fact.

Sunday, 28 January 2018

Re-defining the word "Intimate": Modern Bollocks, Number III in an occasional series

"Prince Harry and Ms Markle will get married in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. It holds about 800 people, making it a more intimate setting than the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding in Westminster Abbey."

BBC News website, 28 January 2018, explaining why President Trump does not have an invitation

Tuesday, 23 January 2018

Wind The Bobbin Up: Mumsnet and the Satanic Mills

A user on Mumsnet has called out the nursery rhyme Wind the Bobbin Up. I have cut and pasted from the Internet:

“Wind the bobbin up originated in the cotton mill towns of the north of England in Victorian times,” she wrote.
“As anyone who knows a bit about a bit history can tell you, the cotton mills were horrendous places which horrifically exploited women and children, forcing them to do dangerous work in appalling conditions for little pay.”
“How can it be right to trivialise these horrors by getting children to sing a light-hearted ditty about it… It’s offensive to the memory of all those who suffered these horrendous conditions and experienced serious injury or even death as a result of hideously exploitative working practices,” she finished her post.
The author does not tell us who originated this "ditty", though it may well have been some of those horrifically exploited women and children; the Opies date the rhyme to Yorkshire in the 1890s. If its origins are humble, then the Mumsnet writer in downgrading it from a singing rhyme to a "ditty" might be accused of trivialising their imaginative creation.

When I sing the rhyme to myself I use the words Wind my bobbin up which is a corruption but one which reflects the fact that songs and rhymes get their living meaning from what we now do with them rather than what they might once have meant or been used for. Children singing this rhyme in a school today are not being prepared for a grim life in satanic mills; the rhyme is employed because it is fun and promotes hand- eye co-ordination and so on. In this case, I am prepared to give schools the benefit of the doubt on their motives.

It's rather a tribute to the memory of those who worked in the mills that this rhyme is not simply a museum piece, but something which new and hopefully more fortunate generations can enjoy,

The Mumsnet post may be a hoax, designed to draw out the Political Correctness Gone Mad headline; but the surfeit of adjectives and adverbs simply suggest bad faith.

Wednesday, 17 January 2018

The Social Function of Political Correctness: Do Your Shoes Shine in the Right Kind of Way?

This Blog post has been rewritten 25 March 2018

In all societies, at least some important goods are scarce. In all societies, goods are unequally distributed. Some societies are more rigid than others but probably none prevent all kinds of upwards social mobility. In a despotic monarchy, a king surrounded by unreliable nobles, each with their own power base, may choose to promote to high office a complete outsider -   someone who has no title, who owns no land, and who may even dress badly and speak coarsely. That person is completely dependent on the king and so the high office does not strengthen an existing power base. That is why the person has been favoured.

It’s supposed to be the case that in caste societies you cannot move up from your caste of birth, or down for that matter, but that in class societies you can. Nonetheless, in class societies it’s blindingly obvious that though those one step up are obliged or even willing to admit newcomers to their ranks, entry is always policed in one way or another. If too many people are trying to climb the ladder at some historical moment, you can be sure that more rungs will be added to it to make the climb more difficult and to reduce the numbers of those making the upward ascent.

When Britain was numerically dominated by an industrial working class, some members of that class sought to differentiate themselves from the mass and thereby achieve a sort of internal mobility. If you played your cards right, you could make yourself better off than those around you. The key to this internal mobility was respectability which took you away from the roughness of those around you. Over time, the markers of respectability evolved but for most of the industrial period they included habits of religious observance, sobriety (which quite often meant total abstention from alcohol), avoidance of coarse language, primness, cleanliness and thrift. When you got down to the smaller details, they might include shining your shoes, having net curtains, and reading The Daily Mail rather than a workers’ rag like the Daily Herald (now The Sun).

Those who pursued respectability were most often taking their cues from what was then called the lower middle class of people who did very modest jobs that did not involve getting their hands dirty. There was no such thing as rough lower middle class and the lower middle class as a whole renewed itself by recruiting from the ranks of respectable working class or their children. The daughter of a miner might become an elementary school teacher; the son of a factory hand an office clerk. But the entrance tests, the signs you had to display to move up, were quite demanding and, of course, differentiated by sex. The use of a swear word which might be tolerated in a male could be fatal to the aspirations of a female.

A very obvious site for the struggle of the respectable to separate themselves from the rough was school uniform and to this day a depressingly familiar newspaper story informs us that a head teacher has sent all the pupils home for breaches of some set of wilfuly elaborate school uniform rules. He or she has stood at the school gates, assisted by highly paid deputies. School budgets in England always contain a significant slice to pay this Uniform Police time. It’s one reason why there is so little learning in English schools.

The industrial working class and the lower middle class, symbiotic with it, are no longer with us, though it is a bit unclear what is with us.

My own lifetime has been marked by the advent of mass higher education, every polytechnic and technical college turned into a university to keep young people out of the labour force for three more years after the end of a schooling extended to eighteen. This expansion does not appear to have been associated with an expansion in the number of jobs for which a university degree was traditionally an entry requirement. Nor do the degrees with which young people graduate obviously equip them for new jobs which have emerged. Instead, many graduates now face the prospect of working in low-paid, low-status jobs which do not make any use of what they studied at university. In other words, the graduate barista.

But there’s some nice work if you can get it and for that work there is fairly intense competition. Most people would like a decent salary, decent career structure, decent pension. It is in this context that I believe we should understand what is called political correctness at least insofar as it is something driven by organisations like the National Union of Students and by young graduate employees. The social function of political correctness is not to make society a nicer place in which to live; it is to keep potential competitors away from desirable jobs. It is a sharp-elbowed politics of exclusion rather than a cuddly-bear politics of inclusion.

The topics which agitate the sharp-elbowed are simply a revised and updated version of those which agitated the defenders of respectability. The emphasis on unacceptable language is the most obvious example. Where once coarseness would block upward mobility, especially for females, now language which can be construed as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic … will halt you in your career tracks.  Tellingly, the list keeps getting longer and the barrier raised. Words which were acceptable to those who first thought of political correctness no longer are. I think this is indicative of the real intensity of competition for scarce goods. 

There is one key difference. Whereas one hundred years ago, women were most likely to fall foul of respectability tests, which were always set higher for them than for men, today it is men who are most often tripped up. That may reflect nothing more than the fact that mass higher education has hugely increased the participation of females in higher education, where they often form a numerical majority. At the same time, more women want to participate on a permanent basis in economic activity. The truth is, sexual equality in the job market cannot be achieved without some men going down the social mobility ladder and faults against political correctness are one way of kicking them down. Just as in the past, coarse language excluded women from respectability so now the wrong words can exclude men from desirable employments.

Time and time again, those who fall foul of the vigilantes of political correctness are groups like male-dominated or male-exclusive sports clubs and other “fraternity” outfits. They are not organisations which appeal to me - they are too much  like permanent stag do’s -  and I realise that the mass expansion of higher education means that some students are not just rough but downright unpleasant.  But I am not convinced that the vigilantes always occupy the moral high ground.  In the past, dreadful things went on behind the net curtains of respectable homes. I am pretty sure that some dreadful things are said and done behind the closed doors of righteous groups who self-identify as this-or-that. Just as with the deranged headteacher at the school gates, measuring hair and finger nail length and goodness knows what else, political correctness can and does assume absurd and grotesque forms – hence all the stories of “Political Correctness Gone Mad”. But the madness is not just a mental disturbance; it has very material roots.

Tuesday, 16 January 2018

Going Viral?

At this time of year, I spend a lot of time trying to avoid viruses. But I think I should make it a year-round preoccupation. There are so many things which go viral. Admittedly, their half-life is very short. But, still, all of them are best avoided. They do damage your mental health. Right now, there are people all round the world sitting at home thinking about how they can make themselves go viral. Don't encourage them. Disconnect from Twitter and you are already half way back to living a viral-free life.

Friday, 12 January 2018

Modern Bollocks II: Stars in Their Words › News › Donald Trump

Trump Refers to "S***hole Countries" During Immigration Meeting With ...

President Trump denies making 's******e countries' comment during a ...

Question: Who is Being Protected from What by Whom?

Modern Bollocks

Police had been unable to tell the age or gender of the victim because the body was so badly charred

BBC News 12 January 2018