The Politics of Resentment.

Everyday, I travel to work by bus. I am bombarded by marketing images that I rarely take notice off. One that did stand out recently, however, was an election poster for the United Kingdom Independence Party. (UKIP)

The image was cut in half.On the left hand side, was photograph of exhausted workers travelling by bus to or from work. On the right hand side, was a suited and booted bureaucrat. Under the image was how much money is spent in Europe every year.

The poster is designed to appeal to workers who feel disappointment and perhaps anger with their lot in life. But instead of questioning the roots causes of this, the poster creates a scape goat in the form of the suited man.

A politics of resentment does not question structural injustice.  Rather, it is designed to gather disgruntled voters to a party that has created an enemy of a very select group. It is a shallow kind of politics.

The politics of resentment is a waste of energy that will change very little in a positive way.

Toward a Cosmopolitan Political Comportment.

Cosmopolitanism as a political philosophy is fraught with difficulty. It is a stance I passionately believe is worth pursuing. I first of all need to be clear by what I mean by cosmopolitanism however:

Cosmopolitanism is not coherent theoretically:  When people speak about cosmopolitanism, they often mean different things. The first cosmopolitan in recorded history was Diogenes of Sinope. He considered himself a citizen of the cosmos and constantly acted in ways that questioned cultural convention. This included debasing coinage and back-chatting Alexander the Great. It this sense he was a metaphysical rebel, questioning the shared assumptions and meanings that allow our lives to function. On the other hand, cosmopolitan can be a way to defend empire building. If one assumes a universal morality, or that there is Good and Evil in the universe – a powerful country or multi-national organisation, can defend intervention on the basis that it is gifting civilization to the savage or converting the ungodly.

These two versions of cosmopolitanism cannot co-exist theoretically. Diogenes’ orientation is questioning and wishes to undermine the foundations of conventional morality. The empire building orientation, however, does not see moral foundations as based on social or political convention but on a universal law. The danger of the second stance is that the metaphysical basis becomes unquestionable, at least in the mind of the meta-physician.

Diogenes’ can help one make a distinction between Internationalism and the more original version of cosmopolitanism. Many Internationalists may consider themselves cosmopolitan. It does not follow that all cosmopolitans consider themselves internationalists. The current international order is made up of various conventions. One such convention is that a country will not become involved in the internal dynamics of another country, unless legally sanctioned to do so, through organisations such as the United Nations.

With the invasions of Iraq, for instance, much of the political discourse focuses on the legal basis for going to war. That the legal frame work exists at all is rarely debated at all. Likewise, politicians in Northern Ireland are not very forth coming, in regards to the Scottish Independence debate. If pressed, both Nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland will say that the decision is up for the people of Scotland. Yet, the final decision of this referendum could have a massive impact upon the very future and foundation of the Northern Irish State.

We therefore see that the rebellious form of cosmopolitanism will trespass current political norms, such as getting involved in the internal affairs of another territory. Not only can the convention of political borders be questioned but the normalisation of law making bodies and how political debate is framed.

To be a cosmopolitan in the original sense, means being able to question and challenge processes of normalisation that channel our behaviours and thought.

The liberal illusion.

 

moses

On paper, we live in a free and democratic society. Such freedom, we are told, was hard won. Our forefathers fought against fascism and other forms of totalitarianism, securing our rights as free thinking and self determining citizens.

In the abstract, all this sounds good, just and reasonable. Looking at western democracies through these lenses, however, ignores major parts of our lived experience, that  might actually set us on an illusory path.

(1) On Liberal Democratic Societies: What is so often unsaid, is how political space is determined, We often view politics, as a legal/procedural area for (political) professionals. While we elect our politicians, we more than likely defer any serious political issues to those elected. We also ignore the fact that most people are now-a-days unelectable. Elected politicians must involve themselves in a process that means that they tow party politician lines. The majority of politicians are selected before they are elected. The free nature of enquiry is therefore already stifled, through a process of political distillation. Independent, free thinking politicians can be counted on one hand.

(2) On Living in a Free Society: While the thought of living in a totalitarian state sends shivers down my spine, we can not afford to be complacent. In areas such as gender politics, much is still to be done. This does not just mean putting more women into the board room. Women and men are influenced by societal norms that are not always questioned enough. A women’s right to explore her sexuality, for instance, is still a very difficult path to negotiate. Women have the right not to be treated as sexual objects by those who would also condemn them for making their own liberal sexual choices. Informally, we citizens are not as free as we might like to think, given the non-official pressures that we all face.

(3) On capitalist economics: Nation states compete for investment. This means that large multi-national companies can choose where to invest. This in turn gives companies leverage over a countries tax laws. In the UK, for example, there is much debate about how devolved authorities may change the rate of corporation tax. The theory goes that if the tax rate is lower, one can become more competitive within the global market place. At the very least, this dilutes the influence of the electorate to determine a country’s future. A worse case sees this as a way in which elected politicians are complicit in the exploitation of the work force: free on paper, but economic slaves nevertheless. The centre of power has is not easily determined.  Power is not as direct as one would expect in totalitarian or slave societies. Rather, it is more subtle and manipulative.

(4) On self-help, positive thinking philosophies: If we are free thinking, self determining individuals, then it follows that we are responsible for our lot in life. If we fail, it is our fault. We have already seen, however, how power is exercised indirectly. This applies equally to gender politics as much as it does to work place dynamics. The self-help industry is based on a lie. Yes, we should take responsibility for ourselves. Only, we might continue to fight for ourselves and each other and we might still fail. That will not mean that we are to blame for our failure. Rather, we can be strong or wise enough to be worthy of the kind of society we dream about – only without any guarantee of success.

Quote

Friday Quote: Laurie Penny

“There is nothing wrong with a bit of showmanship. Nor is using feminist ideas to sell chocolate and cosmetics a bad thing. But there are some ideas that will remain challenging and disturbing, however you dress them up. You can’t walk into a shop and buy a torch of freedom – you have to light the fire yourself, and pass it on.” Laurie Penny

smokey

From Laurie Penny’s New Statesman article: “First the admen stole feminism – then they used it to flog cheap chocolate and perfume to us.”

 

Spectacles of Disaster.

 

south-korea-ferry

Forgetting for the moment the actual human cost of major disasters, what most interests me is how the media portrays such events as spectacles.

This week we have live footage of the South Korean ferry disaster, it’s the 25th anniversary of The Hillsborough Football disaster and always lurking at the back of our imaginations – is 9/11, 7/7 and other incidents that collectively remind us of our impotence.

This is significant. We normally live our lives by putting our faith into a big Other, whether this be God, The Nation or some other cause that transcends our very fragile state as human beings.

The effect of witnessing human disasters, therefore, engenders a kind of pornographic curiosity. In the case of the Korean ferry disaster, we see state agencies struggle to save those on board. With Hillsborough, questions are still being asked about the stewardship of the game, 9/11 sees the most powerful nation on earth being attacked on a monstrous scale by a very few dedicated individuals. It’s utterly terrifying because our faith in the big Other becomes undermined. We then fall back upon ourselves to rediscover how insecure and vulnerable we are.

A Metaphysics of Nationhood.

 

images scotland

As a non-Scot living in Scotland, the dynamics of the independence debate has emphasised some of the underlying assumptions about nationhood – whether one is pro-independence or pro-union.

The construction of the international order assumes ‘The Nation’ to be the space where power is located, where democratic processes can flourish and where economic and cultural priorities can be set. ‘The Nation’ is assumed to be the basic unit of politics. To my mind, this is a narrow minded and structurally conservative view of things.

Scottish Radicals tend to support independence but do so in a way that does not question the basic dynamics of the international order. This is partially due to a lack of imagination. What exactly would a world politics look like when the basic unit is no longer ‘The Nation’? No one has really answered this, as the international order is so ingrained, that we treat it as a naturally occurring phenomenon, much in the same way as we treat money and finance. Nationhood is a metaphysical construction. Only by seriously interrogating these ideological components, can ‘The Nation’s’ relation to power and how this limits our lives as citizens be fully exposed.

Power can be understood in very basic terms, as the ability to exercise influence over others. Looked at in this way, it is obvious to point out that power is not just about how one legislates within an internationally recognised legal framework, within a sovereign space.   Bigger nations can always exercise power over smaller nations, but multi national companies also  exercise influence when nations compete for limit investment.  Private organisations and individuals can have huge influence upon how we manage our environment and lead our lives. But religious and philosophical ideas also flourish and can exercise great influence in a way that is not controlled by the state or world financial institutions.

Returning to the Scottish Independence debate, neither Scottish self-government or better government from Westminster is a panacea for the (genuine) discontents of people living in Scotland. In fact, a referendum creates a false and simplified choice. And when politicians focus on getting a result, this leads to a sophisticated environment where skilled orators can make the weaker argument sound the stronger.

Yet, by questioning the very metaphysics of nationhood, we can begin to understand and debate, what living a good life might look like. And by coming to a decision about that, we can be more creative as our understanding of politics grows in a way that is multi-dimensional, multi-faceted and without ideological dogmatism.