Against reification

 I recently read this insightful chapter. Although the topic is developmental psychology, many of its insights are relevant for our understanding of the world, and how we -consequently- act in the world.

 My take from this chapter is that many of the issues we are interested in are the result of processes. However, we are used to think about these issues as "things", that is, objects that are fixed, given, and unchanging. For example, we think about our identity as something given and fixed. But our own identity is the result of processes that unfold over time, and we adapt and change to different setting and situations, often changing in the process. 

 

I can weave some personal experience with that: I was recently talking with a friend and she said we really never know our own parents. I guess this is partly true, but just because we do not often have opportunities to see our parents in other situations where they are not just our parents. I would have described my late father as a grumpy and preoccupied person, but when I was an adolescent I happened to meet some peers that had him as their Maths teacher, and the first thing they said about him was that he was one of the funniest teachers! I would have never said being funny was the first thing about my father, certainly not the father I saw every day. And then recently, while I had the chance to meet and spend time with people that had known my father for a long time, it stroke me how they described him as a funny, gregarious person. So the point is, our way of being in the world is not a "thing", but a process: we can be more or less funny, more or less introvert, more or less grumpy in different contexts. 

Another issue where I think our ways of thinking are not useful and can actually damage our ability to understand the world is when we think about institutions and politics.  The thought came to me while reading this piece in the Guardian, which talks about the decline of the USA political system. 

It stroke me how we tend to think about institutions and polities as if they were things. The US Constitution is considered a "thing" that can stop some other things from happening, and can enable other things to take place. But the recent events show this is mistaken. Institutions and policies are made up by people that make them work, so the key is "how" they make them work: the key is in the process. 

I think it was actually Marx one of the first philosophers and sociologists that warned against the dangers of "reification", the dangers of considering dynamic and evolving processes as "things". A constitution or an institution it's not a thing. So, the US Constitution is a very powerful document, but it does not have agency on its own. It can only work in preventing a dictator from taking power insofar the people that in different roles act to respect and safeguard the spirit of the Constitution. And even there, the spirit of the constitution is not a "thing", but rather the result of people understanding and interpreting it. After all, for a long time many people saw no contradictions in maintaining slavery in the USA when one of the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence declared "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" !

 So, if we think that the USA can be saved by its founding documents or written laws, or even institutions, we are mistaken. And one of the problems in the current crisis of many democracies is that we keep thinking that we can be saved from tyranny and abuse because our rights are enshrined in documents, forgetting that the key is not just holding on to these documents, but actually in the process of translating them into practice and action. 

Tory hypocrisy: the case of migration

 There are different ways in which the Tories have demonstrated their hypocrisy, but a blatant one is their position on immigration.

The Tories depict themselves as being all for free-market. In may fields they have nailed down the point that it is best to leave things to the market. The "invisible hand" of the market should be trusted to deliver. In name of freeing the market, they have weakened Unions that tried to tie the hand of the free market by protecting workers' rights. The "Market knows best" drove de-regulation and privatisation, with many abysmal results. 

However, there is a field where leaving the market decide may seem like a sensible policy. And yet, here the Tories have become all for regulation and constraints to the free market. This field is immigration. 

A free-market approach to immigration appears sensible: for one thing, who can decide how many immigrants should be allowed in a country to fill jobs? It is a very difficult and complex issue. Not surprisingly, governments find it challenging to plan who and when should be allowed to move to a country. Since the UK government has "taken back" control over its immigration policy by leaving the EU, the government had to issue emergency "temporary visas" for lorry drivers and again change the rules to allow more care workers to come into the country. 

The point is that the Government finds it nearly impossible to assume the role of planning and estimating the needs of the job market: it would do better to let the market work! Not surprisingly, over the years Tory governments have set targets for net migration that they had consistently missed every time, and eventually decided to scrap altogether! 

The latest figures show a wide increase in net migration (partly the result of people escaping from Ukraine or Hong-Kong). And yet, Tory governments insist these levels of net migration are "too high".  Too high why? The take-home message appears to be that the UK needs these -and probably even more- immigrants!

There may be a sensible argument among all the posturing here: it makes sense to ensure that citizens in a country have the opportunities to build careers in different sectors, including health care and medical or allied disciplines. But to insure this, a Government must provide funding and resources. What have the Tories done? They have consistently and recklessly cut funding, resulting in lost education opportunities, inequalities, and what increasingly appears like a lost long decade. And just wait for the austerity-in-all-but-name delivered in the Autumn Statement by Hunt!

So, the Tories' contradictions on this issue just show how opportunistic, ineffective, and hypocritical is Tories' belief in the free-market!

Una nuova storia dell'umanita'

Ho finalmente finito di leggere "The Dawn of Everything" di David Graeber & David Wengrow ...Il libro, tradotto in Italiano come "L'alba di tutto" mi era stato consigliato da Omar Onnis, che ne fa una recensione qui.

Trovo pero' che la recensione di Omar sia riduttiva. In particolare, Omar si concentra sugli aspetti del metodo usato nel libro, ignorando i contenuti che il metodo mette in luce. 

E i contenuti illustrati dal libro sono molto illuminanti. Del resto, il sottotitolo del libro sottolinea l'ambizione di scrivere una nuova storia dell’umanità!

Un'importante conclusione del libro e' che se attualmente e' difficile immaginare un diverso tipo di società, una delle ragioni principali e' la mescolanza e -spesso- confusione tra il concetto di prendersi cura e quello di dominio. 

Questa confusione e' particolarmente evidente nel diritto romano, il quale e' poi alla base del diritto di molte società' occidentali. Nel diritto romano il "pater familias" si prende cura degli altri membri della famiglia, ma nel farlo, esercita il suo dominio e potere sopra di loro. Questo significa che il "pater familias" nega agli altri membri della famiglia liberta' fondamentali come la liberta' di disobbedire a un ordine; la liberta' di lasciare quell'organizzazione sociale; e in ultimo la liberta' di pensare e organizzare la società in modo diverso. 

 Tuttavia il libro dimostra che questa mistione del "prendersi cura" e dominio non e' ne' necessaria ne' universale. Per esempio, in molte tribu' tra i nativi americani, l'esercizio del potere era unicamente riservato verso l'esterno, verso altre tribu'. All'interno della tribu' nessuno aveva il potere di esigere obbedienza, e i membri della tribu' erano liberi di lasciare la tribu' per aggregarsi ad altre tribu', o di provare a creare forme di aggregazione diverse. 

Nel mondo "occidentale" (diciamo cosi') invece questa mistione dei due concetti e' continuata nei secoli: gli autori del libro citano James I d'Inghilterra e VI di Scozia, il quale si paragonava a un padre di famiglia, con la responsabilità di punire -anche violentemente- i suoi sudditi se deviavano dal seguire la strada che lui, da buon padre, gli indicava. Ma questo "paternalismo" e' evidente in molti altre forme di organizzazione politiche nel mondo "occidentale". 

Per esempio, una delle caratteristiche che mi ha sempre colpito dei regimi totalitari  (pensiamo al Nazismo e allo Stalinismo) e' che questi regimi si sforzavano di mostrarsi benevolenti e solerti verso i cittadini  (almeno quelli considerati meritevoli), ma il volto benevolo del regime era sempre accompagnato dalla minaccia della violenza appena un cittadino deviava. Avevo sempre pensato che questa "doppiezza" fosse una caratteristica del totalitarismo, ma ora mi rendo conto che e' solo una versione estrema del problema di confondere il prendersi cura con il dominio.  

Questa mistione tra prendersi cura e dominio e' anche la radice della sottomissione di categorie considerate deboli. Per esempio, le donne in molte società "occidentali" sono  sottomesse perche' il patriarcato pretende di prendersi cura di loro. 

Il libro chiude comunque con una nota ottimista. Infatti dimostra che la storia dell’umanità non e' tutta caratterizzata dal paternalismo del potere. Il libro fa una critica anarchica verso il concetto di stato (soprattutto come realizzatosi nel 1800) e al marxismo, sia come visione della storia (riduttivamente pensata come storia della lotta di classe), sia come pratica politica tesa all'esercizio del dominio di una classe (quella proletaria) sopra altre. 

Ma il libro dimostra che in lunghi periodi della storia umana sono esistite società complesse che non erano organizzate in modo gerarchico e che mantenevano liberta' fondamentali per chi ne faceva parte. Per esempio, una delle prime citta' dell'umanita',  Çatalhöyük, crebbe e prospero' ma non esistono prove che esistessero gerarchie: tutte le case erano di simili in grandezza e struttura, e non esistono piazze, palazzi, o altri luoghi che fanno pensare a una gestione gerarchica del potere. Inoltre, esiste evidenza che in questa prima forma di societa' cittadina complessa, le donne avessero un ruolo quantomeno paritario nella societa'.

 E un'altro dei messaggi importanti del libro e'  che benche' quando si parli di societa' complesse molti diano per scontato che queste si debbano necessariamente organizzare gerarchicamente e in modo da esercitrare il potere e il dominio, sono esistiti, e potrebbero esistere di nuovo, modi di organizzare societa' complesse che non ricorrano a gerarchie e al dominio (e -inevitabilmente- la violenza) e gestioni carismatiche. Del resto, gli autori dimostrano efficacemente che mentre molta teoria considera il punto di arrivo della storia la formazione degli Stati, gli stati stanno gia' perdendo il predominio che avevano un secolo fa. 

Insomma, questo libro e' una fonte preziosa di fatti per rivedere idee sulla societa' e la storia, ed e' scritto in modo accessibile e chiaro. Sulla scia di questo libro, consiglio anche l'ascolto di questo podcast.

Belarus to Ukraine

 Russia's aggression in Ukraine is already recognised as a a water-shed event: it might signal the return of naked imperialism, with all the brutality and violence it involves.

It may seem lazy to compare Putin to Hitler, but clearly there are key similarities. Like Hitler, Putin's mission has been to restore national pride and what he thinks is his nation's standing in the world. Like Hitler, in Putin's world it does not compute that exerting power does not necessarily rely on force, threat, or concessions.

The other similarities are that it seems that close to 70, Putin probably feels he has little time to accomplish his "mission". Like Hitler, Putin seems to be a gambler, which means he'd go for broke. And like Hitler, Putin's gambles in Chechnya, Syria, Crimea,  so far have paid off, probably making him even more assured of his judgment. Like Hitler, it seems that Putin does not have real advisors around, but rather people that are selected based on their blind trust in him, or too acquiescent to raise any strong objection to his plans.

However, one of the reasons that many commentators seem to have overlooked in the process that led Putin to wage a war on Ukraine,  may have a lot to do with the last elections in Belarus and its aftermath.

In those election, for a long while, it had seemed possible to see the deposition of Lukashenko and the establishment of something resembling a democratic government in Belarus. That people took the street must have scared the shit out of Putin, because a successful overthrown of a dictatorship at Putin's doorstep would have been noted by Russians.

The flying of flags by Belarus protesters that referenced the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth probably added to Putin's nightmares: here were people that he would consider Russians taking inspiration from a republic in the XVI and XVII centuries that was known for being multi-ethnic, built on consensus, and tolerant. Why were so many Jewish people living in Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus before the Holocaust? Because, while religious wars ravaged across Western Europe, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was tolerant of different religions and welcomed Jews (but also Muslim Tartars). 

Despite the prospect of succeeding, the Belarus democracy movement had been violently repressed and stifled: it worked out well for Putin too, as Lukashenko, the aging Belarus dictator, realigned his policies and views to suit Putin. But Ukraine remained a thorn in Putin's side, a state that was increasingly democratic, aligned with Western views, and increasingly successful. As Belarus demonstrated, Ukraine's precedent was dangerous.

Dictatorships are intrinsically unstable, and Putin's might fear he has not built a system that can outlive him. Hence, a democratic state integrated in the EU view of consensus-based policy represents an existential threat to his idea of Russia. Hence his history essays that see Ukraine and other states as always Russian, denying any reference to the history of multinational and multi-faith mixture as well as all aspirations to openness and democracy. 

Songs of 2019 #3 Fontaines DC: Big

Fontaines DC wrote a bunch of great songs, most of which were in their debut album Dogrel. But to me Big is the one that stood out.

It's a fast piece along the long line of other punk or post-punk anthems. It starts with a compelling beat that keeps the piece going all along, and it's noisy and loud. 

And it's short, less than 2 minutes, and this is also in keeping with a post-punk ethos: e.g. hardly any song by a great post-punk band like Minutemen lasted over 2 minutes. Who needs 5 minutes when you can make an impact with less than 2?

The lyrics make this all the more impactful: Fontaines describe Dublin through the eyes of a pusher, and in an ingenious way touch upon threads like edonism, escapism, ambition, the link between the city's past as a colonial outpost and its present as a city of diverging, and at times contrasting trajectories. All that in less than 2 minutes, mind...

And it's remarkable how there is nothing contrived about this: Fontaines not only sound from the place, but their lyrics display empathy and love for the place, its history, its people. They do not "caricature", they do not watch people from afar... this is music from the people, to the people.

So, aye, this song really enshriened Fontaines in the heaven of great bands, and I will always come back to "Big" and Fontaines DC

Songs of 2019 #4: Too Real - Fontaines DC

Too Real - Fontaines DC

Well, Fontaines DC shouldn't need any introduction by now.

I had heard some of their earlier songs, but it is with Too Real that I really started to pay attention.

And I think it is with this song they really started to raise the bar in their game.
For one thing, they started to become noisier and more daring.

Too Real has a uncommon structure, with an inro of drum and bass guitar creating a crescendo, that is then followed by a dystonic guitar noise, created by sliding the neck of the bottle on the strings.
The "song" then settles into a more conventional structure before  returning to the guitar noise and an almost "Motorik" bass guitar and drum beat.  It has a lot layers all very cleverly and originally combined to create something that sounds original and magnificent.

This is also the song where all started to click for me. As in most of their songs, Fontaines DC talk from the perspective of some character. Their characters and stories are local, all based around Dublin, where they live, but by focusing on 'real' characters, they provide an insight into topical and relatable themes that feels authentic and never contrived.
In this case, they speak from the perspective of some disenchanted character getting to grips with the need/desire for material wealth. The line "None can revolution lead with selfish needs aside" strikes for its directness, and is somehow poetic in describing something quite prosaic.

In this song Fontaines DC also refer to a poem by TS Eliot. They accomplish that all in an aggro post-punk piece with references to noise-rock and other avant-garde music. Amazing!

Songs of 2019 #5: Don't Cling to Life - The Murder Capital

Don't Cling to Life - The Murder Capital

The Murder Capital are another new band that takes inspiration from Post-Punk. They are also Irish from Dublin, and while they are not singing specifically about Irish themes, their being from Dublin is evident in different ways. These characteristics mean they have been somehow overshadowed by another excellent Irish band like Fontaines DC (more about them in the future). Which is a pity, because The Murder Capital's debut album "When I Have Fears" is an outstanding piece work.

The title of the album provides a good clue about what The Murder Capital sing about, which is mostly existential themes. Their post-punk style is very well-suited to deal with these themes in an emotionally eloquent way. It is easy to spot some of their influences, most notably from Joy Division. And yet The Murder Capital combine these and articulate them in a way that provides sparks and substance.

There are some great songs on their debut album, like More is Less, and The Green and Blue. But a good example of what they are capable of is Don't Cling to Life. It's a song about death, inspired by the death of a band member's relative. Despite the dejected theme and lack of hope in an afterlife (Don't cling to life, there's nothing on the other side), it's a punchy song and has almost a celebratory tone of the fleeting moments and bliss we can engender in this world (Let's dance and cry, so we remember why we die).

They do all this with mastery and without sounding contrived. So enjoy...

Songs of 2019 #6

Patricia Lalor : Anymore

Patricia Lalor is a teenager from Ireland. She can be considered an apposite example of singers and songwriters reaching audiences from -literally- their own bedrooms.

As this article by Alexis Petridis points out, technology and social media have created opportunities for many to reach audiences directly, without any type of mediation. It is encouraging that this has created opportunities, and these have been taken particularly by young women, who can create music and songs without having to come to terms with an industry that -too often- exploits women artists and pressure them to comply with the rulebook of an industry still dominated by men and a patriarchal mindset.

As an admirer of the post-punk ethos of "do-it-yourself" and its subversion of music business, I cannot help hoping this may spawn more interesting and diverse music.

Patricia Lalor has gained many followers on YouTube thanks to her covers of songs from Mac DeMarco's Chamber of Reflection to Hozier's Take Me to Church. She has a melancholic and soothing voice, full of longing, and her rich tonal palette enlivens any song she sings.

She has also started writing her own songs, and Anymore is a very solid piece. The bittersweet melody and her outstanding voice makes it a wonderful song. And it is a very well written song. The quality of song-writing is particularly evident when the song is stripped bare of the arrangements, as in its live version.

Patricia Lalor is a very talented singer and songwriter, and I hope she will produce more great music in years to come.