Glacier Shadow

Glacier Shadow reflecting blueish inner light, La Jonction, Chamonix

Absence lacks Nothing

Shadows don't exist as things so much as as circumstances--as relations. Each is simply an absence of light. Shadows are nothings that we think of as somethings because light dominates in the visual realm with the consequence that shadows appear as distinct individual entities, patches, mottlings and skeins. As a shadow grows in scale (as light recedes) it’s character transforms from a thing to a phenomenon: it becomes an general cast; no longer on the order of things but an absence; of light, and we call this absence darkness. No longer is the shadow graspable by vision but instead it encompasses vision, starves it or overwhelms it. A shadow is no more a thing than a vacuum or nothingness.

"Death doesn't exist. It never did, it never will. But we've drawn so many pictures of it, so many years, trying to pin it down, comprehend it, we've got to thinking of it as an entity, strangely alive and greedy. All it is, however, is a stopped watch, a loss, an end, a darkness. Nothing." — Ray Bradbury

And yet shadows are rarely empty
They are filled with the soft ambience of reflected light
Both partial darkness and partial illumination combined
In which subtle modulations of light and half light
Merge and interweave
A penumbra
A semidarkness in which may be perceived
A boundless play of tonalities.

For Dr.art Aija Druvaskalne-Urdze 1963 – 2010.

Is Reflection a Class Issue?

I've recently been involved in an online discussion on James Atherton's “Recent Reflection” blog (all relevant links below). The exchange began as a response to a video of Sir Ken Robinson (talking rather hyperbolically about the need for a “revolution” in education) posted on TED.com. The responses very quickly polarised between two differing philosophical viewpoints which might be roughly characterised as a contrast between British pragmatic empiricism and the American Dream. As the debate drifted ever closer to the issue of class, I was reminded of the famous comedy sketch by the two Ronnies and John Cleese which plays upon representations of British class divisions. I looked the sketch up on YouTube and as I watched it I was struck by something said by the working class character, played by Ronnie Corbett: “… though I'm poor, I'm industrious honest and trustworthy. Had I the inclination, I could look down on them, but I don't.”

Since we can't really expect a comedy sketch to explain itself we need to look elsewhere to be able to tease out what's going on here. The remark demands a little, dare I say, reflection.

The first part of the statement is a clear case of what we could call a self-representation; a self-image which describes the qualities which this character values in himself and feels others might value in him also. Interestingly, as a description, it's in marked contrast to those given by the other two characters. He describes himself through qualities which anybody would be proud to say about themselves; he describes himself in ways which have very little to do with his social status as such and he describes himself in ways which actually say only two distinct things: he works hard and he's worthy of other peoples' trust. This begs a question about how he has arrived at these representations of himself? Is this self-image something which is self generated or is it something which has been adopted? Whilst the other two characters describe things about themselves which other people might find distasteful or problematic in some way (and are certainly social constructions too), this character only describes things about himself that the other two would wish to be the case. His self-image conforms exactly to what the other two would have him be. He's a mirror of their idea of the underclass and he is a mirror which shows not the slightest threat nor subversive inclination - even the inclination to look down on them ie: to adopt their repugnant supercilious attitude.

Class society in the UK has changed a great deal since 1966 when this comedy sketch was first broadcast. Thatcher's government presided over an unprecedented fragmentation of the working class, but despite claims of the demise of class society in the UK, the underclass is still a very tangible reality.

I'm currently reading (more like skimming through really) Pierre Bourdieu's book “Distinction” in which he uses the term “habitus” to describe how different social classes distinguish and express their values through their differing tastes. It occurs to me that the very act of critical reflection itself is often seen as being a bourgeois pretension; an elitist nonsense like so many other abstract intellectual pursuits - as Isaiah Berlin is reputed to have said: the British have never had an Intelligentsia.

We often think of critical reflection as freely available, unlimited, and unencumbered, since it can be carried out in the relative comfort one's own mind with no further requirements than a lack of physical discomfort or distraction. But, looked at from this new perspective, it becomes clear that critical reflection is something which is frequently avoided or devalued amongst the very people who, arguably, could benefit from it most. Anti intellectualism may not be exclusive to any particular social class but it undoubtedly benefits some social strata much more than others. It suits them very well because it disempowers the people who might rise against them in a legitimate struggle for emancipation.

As I said in my comments on the Recent Reflection blog discussion:

"People who have the privilege of better education, more money and more time are in the position of being able to “reflect” and make choices about their future. Reflection doesn't come for free - it has to be cultivated and given space to develop. Many people on the bottom rung of society often don't even have the time to be able to reflect and make clear choices about WHAT they'd like to do, let alone HOW, and they very often don't have the inclination to reflect because this has never been cultivated in them or valued by their social habitus."

I wrote the above as a response to the following statement:

"It is absolutely a societal responsibility to the extent possible to create genuine opportunities for everyone."

Opportunities are practically meaningless without the means to take advantage of them. A lottery ticket is an opportunity. We could argue over whether it's a "genuine" one or not, but the fact remains that providing access to opportunities is simply not enough. The "genuine" things that people really need are help, support and encouragement to participate in society at all levels, including the intellectual. If my speculations about reflection are in any way correct, then what we need far more than opportunities is a transformation in the way that people from all social strata view and apply critical, reflective and intellectual thought. Many would argue that this starts with education and yes, this is certainly a major contributor but it also starts much deeper than this, in the very attitudes that society fosters and perpetuates in all its citizens and this is a significantly bigger challenge.

References:

Context of the original discussion here (beware, it's long!).

Video of Sir Ken Robinson on TED.com here

Habitus in Sociology here

Marks and Angles

I'm no fan of grades and I begrudge having to apply them to the work of students because the attention they command is completely disproportionate to the detail (or rather the lack of it) that they provide. I wonder if anyone really believes that grades serve anything but the most rudimentary purpose. If, instead of viewing assessment and feedback as two distinct things, we thought of them both as part of a single continuum then I think we'd have a much clearer picture of how they function. If detailed feedback is the most fine-grained and valuable form of evaluation which we can offer a student then grades are probably one of the most impoverished ways of feeding back about their achievements. The only thing which provides less information than a grade is simply to attribute a pass or fail to submitted work. Indeed, we could create a bandwidth hierarchy which demonstrates this relationship:

Of course, most universities, and the courses which comprise them, almost always provide some form of feedback in addition to grades. However, at the pinnacle of every single student's achievement at university, the final point of recognition and the culmination of years of application, engagement and endeavour are summed up in a single grade with no further feedback whatsoever. What does this actually say about what universities really believe in or what they think their students should aspire towards? No wonder students seem overly fixated on grades.

How much better would it be if we radically changed our angle on assessment. Instead of spending days discussing, debating and occasionally arguing over the minutiae and comparative strengths and weaknesses of students' final submission portfolios/exhibitions in order to come up with such blunt instruments as grades, perhaps our time would be better spent in writing detailed analytical feedback which the students could take away with them and from which future employers could derive a far more detailed and useful picture of the students' applicability for employment (it might even save us writing so many references in future). I don't doubt that universities would see this as being an unacceptably “high risk” approach in that it would leave them accountable in a way that marks simply don't. But should we be denying students quality feedback simply because universities haven't got the bottle to really stand by their professed principles? What we really need in universities is a revolution in the understanding and application of assessment.

Overrated Consciousness

The following video is by a YouTube and BlipTV "broadcaster" I subscribe to who goes by the name of Conferencereport. It's a succinct, clear and beautifully argued meditation on the oft referred to idea of the universe becoming conscious of itself. I'm not convinced I'd subscribe to his concluding remarks (about preferring wings to consciousness) but the earlier analogy about monkeys is hilarious.

Sex with Someone You Love

Since writing the last post, it's been pointed out to me by a couple of people that I’ve neglected to mention that some members of society are unfortunate enough not to have a fair opportunity for the realisation of either rapacious or reciprocal desire. I'd originally intended to address this point but decided not to complicate the discussion any further than was already the case. However, it’s an important issue which needs to be addressed.

Michael Sandel's assertion, also quoted in the last post, pointed to the need to keep the discussion both ongoing as well as open for citizens to collectively debate and define the common good. I would certainly support this approach. However, the position I would put forward would emphasise that we need to be highly vigilant about how and why we might wish to cater to rapacious desire. This would need to underpin all of the principles and narratives which guide our understanding and management of rapacious desire. For example, the story of Little Red Riding Hood is a very familiar archetype of rapacious desire in common circulation but whilst such characterisations have the power to represent our urges in instructive form, I think it's also very important to emphasise that rapacious desire is a natural desire, just a desire that needs to be understood, managed and wherever possible, replaced by reciprocal desire. This isn't to say that rapacious desire deserves to be repressed. Repressing things only causes problems, but as a selfish urge, rapacious desire should be satisfied by means of the self alone: through masturbation and we need to be absolutely unabashed about this - as Woody Allen famously said: "don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love."

But the fact remains that there are many people unable to satisfy either reciprocal or rapacious desire due to disability or awkwardness etc. Should these people be denied expression and access to such experiences? As I've already explained, I believe that the expression of rapacious desire should be carefully limited to avoid the objectification and therefore degradation of others. Nonetheless there are things that can be done to facilitate the fulfilment of this desire in the same way that we facilitate many other needs; through the use of technology for example. This should not be seen as disgusting but as a free expression of a perfectly natural impulse.

Finally and most importantly there’s the question of the “right” of everyone to reciprocal sexual experiences, or at least, the closest approximation of them possible for people in disadvantageous circumstances. Is this a right? Is love a right? I don't claim to have an easy answer to these questions but I would argue that in a society that has the imagination and vision to accommodate all of the aforementioned changes that it would certainly be far more probable and possible to achieve a solution to this difficulty than is currently the case.

Rapacious Desire

There has been a fair amount of debate about the above video on YouTube over the last week or so and the discussion has provoked me into examining a number of issues which demand further scrutiny. The video comes as a response to feminist opposition to the sex industry due to its objectification of women. The counter argument posed by this video sees such opposition as an infringement of the right to use one's body in whatever way one chooses. This is a classic "liberal" argument which, at first glance, seems both logical and fair but which ignores the fact that a lack of boundaries doesn't necessarily coincide with a reduction in potential harm. If we were free to do as we wish with our bodies, would it be acceptable to sell one of our kidneys, one of our eyes, or even something more life-threatening or to offer our bodies for others to punch and beat in return for cash? If a market exists for such things, as it undoubtedly does, then there's money to be made. But as we all know, money corrupts. People are willing to do all kinds of things for money which they would never otherwise volunteer to do. Accepted, there are many unpleasant or dangerous occupations which only money can compensate for but usually these don’t disable or degrade the people doing them and if they do, every effort is made (or should be) to minimise this risk and compensate for it.

The American philosopher Michael Sandel has some fascinating views on the subject of prostitution and commercial surrogacy which are relevant here. He argues that such practices "corrupt the good bound up with the moral meaning of the human body and sexuality". Whilst we might wish for greater clarity here, I would agree with Sandel about what he identifies as an "impoverished conception of freedom that is concerned only with individual or consumer choice in the marketplace." Sandel argues for an alternative to consumer or market freedom which he terms "civic freedom" which:

"actually encourages men and women to think of themselves first as citizens, at least for political purposes, not first as consumers… This isn't really about restricting freedom, it's about enlarging and making more demanding the understanding of what freedom is. The freedom of citizens to deliberate about the common good, not just the freedom of consumers to pursue their own self-interest unimpeded."

One of the most powerful objections against calls for the legalisation of prostitution is that it's rarely, if ever, offered willingly, but rather as a result (direct or otherwise) of poverty, drug abuse or corruption. It's certainly difficult to imagine how anything but money could compensate for such a vocation, but the important thing to recognise here is that underlying this perception is often a more pernicious and insidious “commonsense” injunction against prostitution: the view that it’s somehow unclean, dirty, filthy, seedy, sleazy, sordid, base, squalid, nasty, foul, disgusting and repulsive. If ever a list of synonyms was a clear indicator of social disapproval, this is undoubtedly it. Most of these terms are inevitably and unthinkingly directed at the workers themselves to the point where it's very difficult to determine which is actually the more degrading: the job, or society's portrayal of the people who perform it. The stigma derives from prostitution’s longstanding historical association with sexually transmitted diseases, but at another level the attitude is also perpetuated by - and intricately intertwined with - more deeply seated puritanical values about the vices of carnal acts - with all their attendant primitive urges and bodily humours. However, it's always clear when such arguments are mobilised, particularly ones which resort to yuk responses, that this is simply a shorthand for "I haven't really thought this through and I'm just accepting what I've received from popular opinion."

Putting social circumstances aside for the moment (which may appear as one abstraction too far), what’s the essential difference between “normal” sex and sex with a prostitute? Normal sex involves reciprocal sexual desire whereas prostituted sex does not. It’s this deceptively simple yet fundamental difference which has such profound repercussions for our understanding of sex and sexual relations. The reason that many people have an aversion to prostitution is not so much because it's sleazy (for some this would be one of its attractions) but rather because it’s selfish (previously I wrote "inauthentic" - see the comments). And by this I mean that the desire involved is a one way street: its not reciprocal, simply consensual. Sex and sexual desire should never have to be measured against something as prosaic as consent. Consent is a nadir not a zenith; it’s a bare minimum; the lowest possible denominator below which is nothing but rape.

I think we need to make an extremely important distinction between two radically different kinds of sexual desire: reciprocal desire and rapacious desire. Reciprocal desire gives itself actively and freely and with one condition: that this desire is shared, whereas rapacious desire is a predatory desire distinct from lust by being particularly self-serving rather than simply impassioned. Rapacious desire treats others as things; as means to an end; as objects. Rapacious desire is exactly the self-interested pursuit of consumption which Sandel spoke of above and we need to be extremely vigilant about how and why we might wish to cater to this desire.

For this reason I disagree with the “Making Sex Work” video. I realize that the situation is deeply complex with far too many conflicting agendas to cover in a blog post, but of all the current ways of dealing with this morass of opinion and argument I think the Swedish Model is by far the most rational: decriminalize prostitution and support and provide legal protection for prostitutes but criminalize the users of prostitution. Target rapacious desire.

There’s a world of difference between the freedom of expression and the freedom to be abused.

Art, Meaning and Purpose

An online article was posted last week at the following website (here) which discusses the earnings which students make after studying different subjects at university. Unsurprisingly perhaps, at the very top of the list are Law degrees followed by those in Management. At the very bottom of the list are Arts degrees.

In general, women who study at university tend to earn significantly more than their counterparts who don't go to university but male graduates from arts degrees are actually likely to earn slightly less than their peers with the same entry qualifications but who decided not to go to university.

Should art students be worried about these reported facts? If they're looking for art school to turn them into money generators then they probably should be worried, but if you were to ask any art student why they're studying, most of them will probably tell you that they're certainly not doing it as a means of becoming rich. In the following short clip, shot in 1972, of the Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl he addresses exactly this very point:

"Treat a man as he is, he will remain so. Treat a man the way he can be and ought to be, and he will become as he can be and should be." Goethe

So the point is an ontological one - so much less about money and more about “being” - it has everything to do with the aspirations of people to participate and make sense of the ambiguities of life and it seems fitting therefore that art, meaning and purpose are so clearly opposed to law, management and money.

Nae on NEON (Scotland)

Draw Muhammad Day

There’s a campaign currently growing on Facebook and YouTube to initiate a "Draw Muhammad Day" on the 20th May. This has formed in response to recent fundamentalist threats and the subsequent censorship of an episode of Southpark which contained a satirical depiction of the Prophet. Unfortunately, the people behind this misbegotten campaign seem to be making the error of conflating two distinct issues: free expression and the criticism of Islam. They're obviously under the impression that it makes sense to cause deliberate offence by exercising their right to free expression.

Along with the right of free expression also comes the right to deliberately offend anyone one chooses. This we call freedom. But despite such inalienable rights, most people understand that there's very little to be gained from offending people, whether or not you agree with their beliefs. If vegetarians claimed that they are offended by images of animals being tortured (as most of them are) would we feel a compulsion to exercise our right of free expression by disseminating such imagery? Unlikely, but then again vegetarians aren't making death threats are they? But let’s picture another scenario: imagine that a subsection of an ethnic minority decided to make death threats against anyone making racist comments. Would it seem appropriate to instigate a campaign of racism simply to "dilute the targets" as Molly Norris (the illustrator behind the draw Muhammad day campaign) has claimed?

If the issue at hand is infringement of free speech then I'll be one of the first at the barricades but if you wish to stoke tensions and misunderstanding by inciting ill conceived acts of provocation then count me out.

If I might mix two religious metaphors: what does it profit a man if he ignites fires on the chest of Islam?