Just passing by…

For most students and lecturers in the the UK, and generally in the ‘west’, the Cold War ended on November, 10 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Poland criticised recently released video by the European Commission celebrating 20 years of liberty, because it squeezed over 20 years of Polish  anti-communism struggle into 5 seconds. And this time we’re not bothersome with no reason.

Poland complained that our part in bringing the Soviet Union down has been obviously underestimated. And I absolutely agree – the western misconception that by making a hole in a wall Berliners brought the Evil Empire down is just bogus. In most books, anti-regime actions between 1980-89 in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia; are thrown into one chapter mostly describing how people were standing in queues and celebrated buying a new car that came in only one colour. Something about church is added, and nicely translated Solidarity is mentioned. No wonder why there’s a visible knowledge gap between UK and Poland in, among many, history. Wałęsa is generally known and mentioned, maybe because he was on TV here. But except that, all Poles apparently did were few strikes, and then smoothly moved towards stealing all jobs from poor British.

So, we complained about the video and immediately people on the streets started saying ‘oh Brussesl is ignoring us an our history and generally is evil’. And what grinds my gears is not the fact that people say so, but that the EU (probably Germans)  makes such a useless video and simply turns people against itself. I generally hate people saying ‘Brussels this and that’ but in this case I agree that the Commission did a really crappy job. I mean, this video is really not that big a deal – showing some happy people and how they live in free Europe. But it was like giving your mum roses on Mother’s Day with thorns on which she can cut herself. I personally don’t see the point of this vid. If you want to educate people, at least do it properly. All it did in Poland and other central-european states is cause more negative mood towards the EU, and in the same time set other states against us as ‘OMG, Poles are complaining again….’. Well yeah, we’ve got a reason for it. I’m not saying here that I want to defend it,or flush it down the pipe; just some reasonable critique…

Also, the upcoming elections to the European Parliament. How many old people will our political parities send there for retirement? This is reeeeeeeally annoying. ‘Oh, okay, you served your time here, you won’t really make it big here any more ’cause you’re old and some people don’t like you, so just go there an chill out’. And that’s exactly what they do. Or, they send young people that know sh*t and only hope to get warm jobs later  back home, after they follow everything they’re told. Of course, this is not only Poland’s behaviour. Everybody does that. And this is exactly why things are the way they are, not much successful change. What the EU needs, are European politicians working for the ‘good of the community’, not country’s interest. Possible?

Constructing Reality

When I first encountered Constructivism in IR I was quite sceptical about it. A theory claiming to take the ‘middle-ground’ sounded for me as another one of those ‘everything depends, yes but now in the same time‘ theories that don’t really push things forward, but you have to know them anyway. But as I dug in…

I finally came around some interesting differentiation between theories. Baylis & Smith in “The Globalization of World Politics” (2001) specify that Constructivism is not a substantive theory that provides hypotheses about patterns in social world such as Marxism or Rationalism, but a social theory that, similarly to rational choice theory, “offers a framework for understanding the relationship between actors and their environment” (p. 258). This means that both theories don’t attempt to explain what are actor’s preferences or what are their beliefs. They are tools to analyse the agency-structure situation.

Constructivism explains agency-structure debate in a simple and logic way. We must realise, that there is no ‘true’ and ‘correct’ answer to this question. Constructivism is explaining how norms, rules, institutions and structures are constructed and sustained in the society.  In this continuing process, individuals are not born outside it and then enter the environment, but are created by the it and crate it at the same time (3 ‘its’ in one sentence…). Seems pretty simple, but people write books about it…

Another great thought I found, was broadening the concept of logic to consequences and appropriateness. The first one assumes that people in their decisions follow their interests, and clearly is undertaken by the rational choice. The logic of appropriateness on the other hand is constructed by norms and rules that shape behaviour. Constructivism argues that people follow the later, and that interests are constructed by the environment. This made me think. I agree that people follow their interests in all decisions, and I also agree that in most cases these interests are socially constructed. But, I realised how pessimistic and dull this looks. First of all ,this means people don’t really have any choice, only follow what ‘environment’ made them chose. Second , there are people aware of socialization of values and interest, and they criticise the world and seek emancipation (and they are not only old hippies, Marxists, drunks, punks you see sitting on benches and the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars).

TBC

And I think I’ll come back to punks because they are funny…

If girls wore trousers (oh, wait…)

Feminism, the F-Word, Feminazism – just to bring up few names. Is feminism still a taboo? And what is it all about? My attempt to straighten some things out.

Feminism is, in my view, one of the most underestimated and misunderstood issues in modern politics. For most of men – reason for a sarcastic smile; fore some women – storm in a teacup. I must say that I understand these reactions. The way that feminism and gender issues are forces down our throats at university (maybe only University of Birmingham…) made me allergic to the topic. And although the stereotype of an ‘evil feminist’ is harmful and biased, it still rings a bell.

One of the thing that for me always seemed bit contradictory in feminists’ logic is the fight over women’s humans rights. Of course, it may be explained that feminism is a very broad church with many different approaches to social world, but I’m still not convinced. On one hand feminists argue that all humans are equal, no matter of their gender (will be back to this soon) and therefore should have equal rights and privileges – women can be in the military, can be politicians, butchers, workers, wrestlers; men can be nurses, hairdressers, cooks or secretaries. But on the other hand, they argue that women are not the same as men, and should have different, specific rights. They call for ‘women human rights’ what for me is just worsening the situation. What we should create, are Human Rights that suit everybody. But again, is everybody the same? Can we apply universal human rights? Post-modernists would accuse me of western universalism and forcing our concepts of the world on other cultures. I won’t get involved in this discussion here.

What I’d like to explain, is some misunderstandings about Feminism. Fist of all, not all feminists are lesbians that want to kill men and destroy oppression in capitalist family (as Pat Robertson said). Second of all, men can be feminists (although the name is a bit prescriptive). Feminism is not only about women, but also touches on important issues in politics, such as what is the political and what private and the agency/structure debate (Nuts and bolts).

The issue of gender indeed is a complicated one nowadays. Feminists put forward that gender is not the same as sex. Sex is the biological characteristic that defines male and female. Gender is a socially constructed definition of ‘boy’ and ‘girl’, that is boys have short hair and girls wear dresses. However, I can find more than plenty girls out there that are stronger or taller than me, and I can find many boys that look feminine. Still, the assumed images of ‘typical’ girl and boy are extremely strong and shaping our understating of the world. For example when NASA launched Pioneer 10 in 1972 they attached these plaques for ‘aliens’ to show who lives on Earth. Can we argue that they are stereotypical and biased? There are male and female sexual and gender characteristics. Men are muscular and aggressive, women weaker and sensitive. But are these only socially constructed by gender? In my opinion no, and exceptio probat regulam. In terms of gender, I can find females that behave like boys and males that are sensitive. And I’m not labeling them as transvestites or gay, albeit many people do. However, I agree that the social construction of men and women is growing, and becoming more ridiculous nowadays. Feminists blame the vision of skinny woman in bikini advertising bear on ‘malestream’ evil society while guys have issues over models on packages of boxers. Boundaries are yet blurred and debate remains open…

Nuts and bolts III

Two important challenges to the statement that people behave rationally, and therefore to Rational Choice Theory, are: a) what shapes preferences and beliefs? and b) actors do not posses absolute knowledge about the situation to make the rational choice.

To answer the first one – preferences are shaped by the society, knowledge and experience. Argument of false consciousness, which Lukes presented in his third face of power, is in my view not dismissing the idea of rationality, neither does the problem of limited information from question b.

The III Face of power is part of the ‘faces of power’ debate in Political Science – debate that attempts to establish what is power. Firs dimension of power – decision making (ability of A to make B do something B wouldn’t otherwise do). Second dimension – decision-making and agenda-setting (for example providing choices available to B). Third dimension invented by Lukes – decision-making, agenda-setting and preference-shaping (what B wants, and what B thinks is ‘good’). Every political scientist should should theoretically analyse and choose which dimension is the most useful and applicable to understanding politics (I still have no idea…)

What I argue, is that following false consciousness, created by whatever we agree,  be it the society or ‘they’, is not  undermining the concept of rationality. Similarly, not possessing absolute information about choice and circumstances is not making actors’ behavior irrational. Sometimes people choose what they believe is best for them although it is not. However, in the very moment of making the decision with all available knowledge the actors were still behaving rationally because chose the action that would fulfill their preferences. As a result, a mistake made accidentally or because of misinformation is not equal to irrational acting. What we must consider when analysing people’s rational behaviour is the impact of the society, institutions, culture and values on their preferences. What creates people’s desires?

Nuts and bolts II

Contemporary international relations is dominated by post-marxist theories. On the positive side, structuralism, social constructivism and Critical Theory broaden the field of IR and include ideologies, culture, religion and discourse in the analysis. On the negative, demonise capitalism.

I’ve been revising post-marxist critical theories with a delicate smile on my face. With no beating around the bush,  I’m more on the capitalist side, getting bit tired of constant prophecies of inevitable collapse. However, I must admit that there is a fair number of features presented by critical theories that I agree with. Quoting Jill Steans  and Lloyd Pettiford’s book:

“Gramsci’s work on hegemony has also been very important in critical IR theory, particularly in relation to the study of world order and institutions [..]. Gramsci highlighted the central importance of ideology in maintaining class rule and in bringing about social change. Gramsci arguer that ruling groups were able to legitimise their rule by persuading people that it was just and fair. He insisted that, in order to bring about social change, it was necessary to not only win the battle ‘on the ground’, but also in the realm of ideas. Counter-hegemony involved, therefore, not only social and political struggle against capitalism, but also the development of and alternative set of values, and crucially, and alternative set of concepts in order to think about and describe current social ‘reality’ and possible alternatives. [..] Increasingly critical thinkers have become, if not disillusioned, then certainly more circumspect, about the possibility of working class revolution. Moreover [they] have become much more sensitive to the multiple oppression inherent in capitalism. From a critical perspective, capitalism is transforming the world radically, but in the process it is generating major forms of inequality based on class, race and gender. Capitalist enterprises are devouring more and more of the world’s precious resources in order to promote mindless consumerism in the name of ‘freedom of choice’.

[...]

However, while this more nuanced analysis of the global impact of capitalism might have more explanatory power, once the analysis of capitalism moves away from a central concern with class, what happens to the project of human emancipation? How can Critical Theorists develop a conception of a fair and just society, if it is no longer a question of getting rid of inequalities rooted in social class? Who will be the agents of radical change? What does it mean to be ‘emancipated?’”

Although I would leave the questions of ‘evil’ class oppression and exploitation to further discussion, I agree with the problem of ideology and values in the modern society. Gramsci put forward that enterprises are draining world’s natural and human resources under the banner of freedom of choice, and while I personally disagree with painting this so black and white (range of choices is an advantage, you must agree), I support the criticism of mindless consumerism of modern society. Modern society lacks strong charismatic ideologies and more importantly it lacks positive values. No respect for work, no respect for time, commitment and money, and dramatically, no respect for other human being, is what we can observe every day, everywhere.

Now, what I disagree with, is portraying capitalists as evil people that do not care about other, want to drain their work, destroy the environment and get rich. This is, roughly, how critical theories present it. And I noticed that many ‘capitalists’ don’t necessary dismiss this label. “Homeless people on the streets! Get a job you lazy!” is a statement that is not just a stereotype of a ‘capitals pig’. This is exactly what I would like to challenge here. I am convinced, that through capitalism we are able to change the world for good. Socialism is not the only way to welfare and better living for all. Politicians that favour capitalist solutions, can indeed pursue similar goals to socialists. I know that this is boldly general, and little bit naive. Yet the truth is that all those theories are moving to the centre now, and there are no more radicals that call for wild laissez faire economy, or Utopian communism. Goal should be to change the existing society for better by all means.

TBC.

Nuts and bolts I

The question to answer is why people are behaving the way they are? Those who answer that  the society shapes behaviour favour the structural approach, against the agential understanding that people by their actions shape the environment.

The so called Structure and Agency dilemma is the sort of question what came first the chicken or the egg? Society, culture, media, history, norms shape how people’s behaviour but also beliefs, preferences and consciousness.  in the same time, people create culture, art, ideas, fashion.  Now it is important to roughly describe what is the human nature and what drives our behaviour. Of course any answer about the nature of the social world and human behaviour will be a normative and biased statement dependent on our view on people. This issue can be traced back across the entire history of social sciences. Hobbes in the Leviathan presented the concept of state of nature – no laws, no property, no regulations; stronger beats the weaker to survive in competing over limited resources. Marx argued that people are communitarian beings that cannot survive alone and need the society. However, he described people as lazy creatures that prefer to free-ride on the expense of the society and others’ work.

More recently (1970′s) rational choice theorists (RCT) tried to apply economical generalizations to social science. In brief, they concluded that people are utility maximizers that pursue maximum output from minimal input. No matter what  criticism and challenges may be presented to RCT, I draw its essence to analyse human behaviour. All political actors are rational. Any decision is motivated by certin interets. People in their decision-making process pursue fixed preferences to maximize utility by making the decision that at the very moment of choice offers greatest potential of success (maximum expected profits). However, cruel and sad it may sound -  we are all selfish.

Intro

When I told my brother that I’m starting my own blog, he first asked me if I’m mad (actually, he used a much more offensive and politically incorrect phrase that I will no quote) and later said  blogs are no longer fashionable, and that he’s disappointed.

The idea behind it was, that I can complain and bitch about things that annoy me, and not waste somebody’s time while doing it. However, there are some people who like and enjoy my complaining, and I admire them for strength they have and the fact that similar things annoy them as well (Miś). My mom said that me bitching about everything that annoys me is stupid, because I’m intolerant and it doesn’t change anything. I personally think I’m a reasonably tolerant citizen, and this statement leaves me with a fair flexibility I need to moan and complain about people and things they do. It is not that I’m picky and socially retarded. I am convinced, that most of the things that I’ll be writing here about, you’ll find awkwardly familiar. These will be things that for most of people are indeed awfully annoying, and yet are happening more and more often. I’ll be publicly complaining about things that in ‘common sense’ (I absolutely adore this phrase; it just cuts down everything and brutally flattens the world) are bothersome, disturbing, irritating (these are all synonyms, I just put them here to make it all look fancy).

What for you ask? Well, it may be bit bold but I hope that: a) somehow it will make you think about these things, and b) through point a will affect what you do, what finally leads us to c) change the world.