Μια καλή φίλη προώθησε το παρακάτω link από το 'ριζοσπάστη' καθώς και ένα άλλο κείμενο υποδεικνύοντας σχετικές παρεμβάσεις ακραίων πολιτικών στοιχείων σε σχολεία δευτεροβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης(!), εκφράζοντας διαμαρτυρίες για τον τρόπο διδασκαλίας της ιστορίας, ή την (δικαιωματική!) έκφραση απόψεων από πλευράς καθηγητών στο ίδιο τους το μάθημα.
http://www2.rizospastis.gr/story.do?id=5044622&publDate=16/4/2009
Αρχικά χαμογέλασα, γιατί το θέμα είναι πραγματικά γελοίο. Σιγά σιγά όμως συνειδητοποίησα ότι επειδή για κάποιους στο ΛΑΟΣ και το ΚΚΕ (αστείο είναι που αυτές τις μέρες δεν μπορείς να ξεχωρίσεις τους σοσιαλιστές από τους συντηρητικούς και τους κομμουνιστές από τους ακροδεξιούς...) δεν έχει τελειώσει ακόμα ο Εμφύλιος, δεν έχει καταρρεύσει η χούντα των συνταγματαρχών και δεν έχει ξεχαρβαλωθεί το καθεστώς του υπαρκτού σοσιαλισμού στην ανατολική Ευρώπη, υπάρχουν δεκαπεντάχρονοι μαθητές στη χώρα μου που πάνε από την τάξη στο... κόμμα για να δώσουν τον καθηγητή που τόλμησε να μιλήσει για το Στάλιν!
Δεν μπορώ και εγώ με τη σειρά μου ως εκπαιδευτικός να μην καταδικάσω αυτές τις 'παρεμβάσεις'. Η αποστολή του δασκάλου σε όλες τις βαθμίδες είναι να εμπνεύσει μεταξύ άλλων τους μαθητές του να σκέφτονται. Δε χρειάζεται να συμφωνούν με τις απόψεις του δασκάλου, χρειάζεται όμως να τον ακούν και γιατί όχι να αναιρούν τις απόψεις του με τα δικά τους επιχειρήματα - όχι με παρεμβάσεις των βουλευτών του κάθε ΛΑΟΣ και κομματικών εντύπων.
'Έεε ρε γλέντια', θα έλεγε εκείνος ο αείμνηστος ο καραγκιοζοπαίχτης...
Saturday 16 May 2009
Αριστερά και Λαζόπουλος
Λοιπόν, πρέπει να ανανεώσω αυτό το blog ή να το παρατήσω! Αλλά θα κάνω μια τελευταία προσπάθεια να δημοσιεύω πλέον μικρότερα αλλά σχετικά επίκαιρα posts. Η αρχική μου προσέγγιση ήταν για μακρύτερα και περιεκτικότερα κείμενα, αλλά α. ποιος έχει ώρα να γράφει και φυσικά β. να διαβάζει τα κατεβατά μου! Για να δούμε εφ' εξής λοιπόν...
Εν'όψη ευρωεκλογών, πριν λίγο καιρό έγραψα στους φίλους μου στο facebook αυτό (για video από Λαζόπουλο που πετάει μια ατάκα για το ρόλο της αριστεράς)
Δείτε εδώ (όχι την... Πετρούλα, στα 9.35)
"... Η αριστερά είναι σήμερα υπεύθυνη για το δικομματισμό, γιατί δε δημιουργείτε καμία προοπτική, αυτή είναι η αλήθεια. Είστε μαγαζάκια γκρίνιας. Η αριστερά δεν είναι για γκρίνιες, είναι για ανατροπές ..."
Ασχέτως με το ποιος/τι είναι ο Λαζόπουλος (αν μας ενδιαφέρει...), αν συμφωνεί κανείς με τη χιλιοεπαναλαμβανόμενη και συνεπώς βαρετή, είναι αλήθεια πλέον, εκδοχή του stand up comedy του, αν κακώς αναλώνει το τεράστιο ταλέντο του σε προσωπικές τηλεοπτικές αντιμαχίες με τιποτένιους, ανάξιους λόγου χαρακτήρες, νομίζω ότι δεν μπορεί κανείς να του αρνηθεί ότι το αισθητήριό του της πολιτικής είναι όξυ, τεκμηριωμένο (με την επιστημονική έννοια του όρου, 'grounded') βαθιά σε μια ιδιαίτερη ικανότητα να αφουγράζεται την κοινωνία και να (ανα)παράγει σατυρικό έργο.
Και είναι, για μένα τουλάχιστο, πραγματικά τούτος ο ρόλος της αριστεράς.
Όσο για το Λαζόπουλο, αμφιλεγόμενη ίσως προσωπικότητα, αμφιλεγόμενο για πολλούς έργο και με ίδια συμφέροντα ίσως, αλλά έτσι μπορεί να ένιωθαν και οι αρχαίοι για τη σάτιρα του Αριστοφάνη.
Εν'όψη ευρωεκλογών, πριν λίγο καιρό έγραψα στους φίλους μου στο facebook αυτό (για video από Λαζόπουλο που πετάει μια ατάκα για το ρόλο της αριστεράς)
Δείτε εδώ (όχι την... Πετρούλα, στα 9.35)
"... Η αριστερά είναι σήμερα υπεύθυνη για το δικομματισμό, γιατί δε δημιουργείτε καμία προοπτική, αυτή είναι η αλήθεια. Είστε μαγαζάκια γκρίνιας. Η αριστερά δεν είναι για γκρίνιες, είναι για ανατροπές ..."
Ασχέτως με το ποιος/τι είναι ο Λαζόπουλος (αν μας ενδιαφέρει...), αν συμφωνεί κανείς με τη χιλιοεπαναλαμβανόμενη και συνεπώς βαρετή, είναι αλήθεια πλέον, εκδοχή του stand up comedy του, αν κακώς αναλώνει το τεράστιο ταλέντο του σε προσωπικές τηλεοπτικές αντιμαχίες με τιποτένιους, ανάξιους λόγου χαρακτήρες, νομίζω ότι δεν μπορεί κανείς να του αρνηθεί ότι το αισθητήριό του της πολιτικής είναι όξυ, τεκμηριωμένο (με την επιστημονική έννοια του όρου, 'grounded') βαθιά σε μια ιδιαίτερη ικανότητα να αφουγράζεται την κοινωνία και να (ανα)παράγει σατυρικό έργο.
Και είναι, για μένα τουλάχιστο, πραγματικά τούτος ο ρόλος της αριστεράς.
Όσο για το Λαζόπουλο, αμφιλεγόμενη ίσως προσωπικότητα, αμφιλεγόμενο για πολλούς έργο και με ίδια συμφέροντα ίσως, αλλά έτσι μπορεί να ένιωθαν και οι αρχαίοι για τη σάτιρα του Αριστοφάνη.
Sunday 22 March 2009
Jade
Over two years ago I wrote on my previous institution's 'inside security' blog the post I've reproduced below. It was inspired by the row that rocked celebrity big brother at the time, with the late Jade Goody at the heart of it. It reflects my then (and current) perception of the 'celebrity' culture and the damage is causing to our rights to privacy - arguing that besides the big brother state, is us too that are responsible for it.
However, Goody's decision to take this publicity to the end had a massive effect in raising awareness of cervical cancer, and regardless of any exploitation by media etc., that in itself is of great value for our society and will helpfully contribute to many early diagnoses and positive treatment. My Greek ancestors were nearly obsessed with their posthumous reputation (υστεροφημία), aspiring to lead a life and manage achievements for which they'll be remembered and celebrated by those who survived them and the many generations after them. I don't know about Jade's past, but in my opinion her last act has secured her just that... Rest in peace.
The 'feel Goody' effect: The real death of privacy is inside us
January 30th, 2007
Now that the BB furore has calmed down, there's a thing or two that came to my mind in retrospect. You'd say though, hardly are the societal effects of reality TV and d-list ‘celebrity' media exposure an issue of information security and privacy. Or maybe not?
Let me explain myself. I bet, if you live on this island, you know who Jade is. I know too. On the top of my head I can remember that she was in big brother, a series of other, otherwise successful, low-end TV productions, exercise DVDs, magazine covers, you name it. I also know that she is not married, has one or two kids, a boyfriend that is younger than her and that her mother has had recently a glamorous makeover. Oh, and of course, she was in the centre of the racial controversy in celebrity big brother.
Blimey! How did I end up knowing that much about her? You see, the thing is, as Clark Gable puts it, ‘Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!', for reality TV - and especially for Jade. But unless you live in an area that is poorly serviced by satellite or cable TV signal (and even then...), you must have seen her somewhere on that telly. She's right there, in your face, whether you want to know about her or not.
I understand the public's thirst (including myself in there) for insider knowledge of public figures' lives. The Queen, Tony, the Archbishop, my wife's all favourite Colin Firth, Jonathan Ross, Stephen Hawking etc. etc. Yes, we do like to know about the private moments of the people that rule us, bless us, drag us to war, make us laugh, make us wiser. Many are the reasons; if not for any other reason, it is for that selfish instinct, that feeling that, they too are mortal and as a consequence, we too have a chance to have an impact in life as human beings. Sociologists would argue many other reasons but I'm not one. I'm satisfied with just this one.
But this, and any other reason related to the necessity of public scrutiny of important figures' lives, cannot really explain why the media, and in consequence the public, are obsessed with the literally (extra-)ordinary lives of people like Jade. The ‘common' people from Nasty Nick, to the Badger, to Teddy Seringham's girlfriend. Hardly can those people affect us, as a mass, as the public in a collective manner. But more than they themselves do, I think that it is us who need their fifteen minutes of that glorious, temporary fame of the ordinary.
For good or for bad, judging the Queen or Tony, even for aspects of their personal lives, you inevitably become political. There's a political dimension throughout their lives as they are figures we relate to in this respect. Everything they do, including their vacation abroad, may become a political issue - such as the volume of the emissions from the PM's holiday plane in an age of global warming. But what is there in concern for someone like Jade? Following their private lives is different, from their anonymity, to the brief celebration of their commonality, to their inevitable downfall, we experience emotions by proxy - participating in their success, but primarily savouring their bitter failure from the comfort of our IKEA sofa. This kind of ‘celebrities' exists merely to the satisfaction of a judgemental, cannibalistic instinct - like the one satisfied by the morituti of the roman coliseum, in, the otherwise civilised, Rome.
I bet I have managed to get you confused by now. In the beginning of this post, I tried to make it as if information security and privacy were involved in all of this. Well, they do. There's a disastrous effect of this repeated, habitual violation of the privacy of the ordinary man. The ‘feel Goody' effect, stemming from the need of satisfaction of that savage instinct of experiencing one's self-destruction by proxy, is that we accept de facto the violation of the privacy of ordinary life, such as Jade's. And in doing this, we accept the violation of our own's. So much for the concerns of civil libertarians for the fearful technology and Orwell's big brother society - it's all going out of the window the moment we switch our telly on to watch BB.
At the end of the day it's neither the cameras nor the ID cards alone that signify the end of privacy; the true causes may as well be found and deep inside the human soul.
However, Goody's decision to take this publicity to the end had a massive effect in raising awareness of cervical cancer, and regardless of any exploitation by media etc., that in itself is of great value for our society and will helpfully contribute to many early diagnoses and positive treatment. My Greek ancestors were nearly obsessed with their posthumous reputation (υστεροφημία), aspiring to lead a life and manage achievements for which they'll be remembered and celebrated by those who survived them and the many generations after them. I don't know about Jade's past, but in my opinion her last act has secured her just that... Rest in peace.
The 'feel Goody' effect: The real death of privacy is inside us
January 30th, 2007
Now that the BB furore has calmed down, there's a thing or two that came to my mind in retrospect. You'd say though, hardly are the societal effects of reality TV and d-list ‘celebrity' media exposure an issue of information security and privacy. Or maybe not?
Let me explain myself. I bet, if you live on this island, you know who Jade is. I know too. On the top of my head I can remember that she was in big brother, a series of other, otherwise successful, low-end TV productions, exercise DVDs, magazine covers, you name it. I also know that she is not married, has one or two kids, a boyfriend that is younger than her and that her mother has had recently a glamorous makeover. Oh, and of course, she was in the centre of the racial controversy in celebrity big brother.
Blimey! How did I end up knowing that much about her? You see, the thing is, as Clark Gable puts it, ‘Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!', for reality TV - and especially for Jade. But unless you live in an area that is poorly serviced by satellite or cable TV signal (and even then...), you must have seen her somewhere on that telly. She's right there, in your face, whether you want to know about her or not.
I understand the public's thirst (including myself in there) for insider knowledge of public figures' lives. The Queen, Tony, the Archbishop, my wife's all favourite Colin Firth, Jonathan Ross, Stephen Hawking etc. etc. Yes, we do like to know about the private moments of the people that rule us, bless us, drag us to war, make us laugh, make us wiser. Many are the reasons; if not for any other reason, it is for that selfish instinct, that feeling that, they too are mortal and as a consequence, we too have a chance to have an impact in life as human beings. Sociologists would argue many other reasons but I'm not one. I'm satisfied with just this one.
But this, and any other reason related to the necessity of public scrutiny of important figures' lives, cannot really explain why the media, and in consequence the public, are obsessed with the literally (extra-)ordinary lives of people like Jade. The ‘common' people from Nasty Nick, to the Badger, to Teddy Seringham's girlfriend. Hardly can those people affect us, as a mass, as the public in a collective manner. But more than they themselves do, I think that it is us who need their fifteen minutes of that glorious, temporary fame of the ordinary.
For good or for bad, judging the Queen or Tony, even for aspects of their personal lives, you inevitably become political. There's a political dimension throughout their lives as they are figures we relate to in this respect. Everything they do, including their vacation abroad, may become a political issue - such as the volume of the emissions from the PM's holiday plane in an age of global warming. But what is there in concern for someone like Jade? Following their private lives is different, from their anonymity, to the brief celebration of their commonality, to their inevitable downfall, we experience emotions by proxy - participating in their success, but primarily savouring their bitter failure from the comfort of our IKEA sofa. This kind of ‘celebrities' exists merely to the satisfaction of a judgemental, cannibalistic instinct - like the one satisfied by the morituti of the roman coliseum, in, the otherwise civilised, Rome.
I bet I have managed to get you confused by now. In the beginning of this post, I tried to make it as if information security and privacy were involved in all of this. Well, they do. There's a disastrous effect of this repeated, habitual violation of the privacy of the ordinary man. The ‘feel Goody' effect, stemming from the need of satisfaction of that savage instinct of experiencing one's self-destruction by proxy, is that we accept de facto the violation of the privacy of ordinary life, such as Jade's. And in doing this, we accept the violation of our own's. So much for the concerns of civil libertarians for the fearful technology and Orwell's big brother society - it's all going out of the window the moment we switch our telly on to watch BB.
At the end of the day it's neither the cameras nor the ID cards alone that signify the end of privacy; the true causes may as well be found and deep inside the human soul.
Tuesday 13 January 2009
A strip of despair
The continuing drama in Palestine concerns me greatly these days. The incompetence of international establishments to provide the grounds for a long-lasting resolution in the Middle East leaves me with a bitter reassurance that institutions such as the UN have become as much ineffective as the League of Nations they replaced. Meanwhile, more people get killed.
I know this is a complex problem and it is not my job, nor expertise, to provide views for simplistic, or otherwise, solutions for it. But I am also concerned about the aftermath of the disproportional use of force by the state of Israel, in theory against the forces of Hamas, but at large against Palestinian civilians.
The inappropriateness of the means that Israel uses to resolve a situation that is (obviously) irresolvable by raw military force is striking. My view is that serving a short-sighted political ambition, the Israeli administration is probably rushing to establish a new status quo before the new US president gets in power, whilst at the same time keeping domestic voters reassured of their adherence to the (vote-attracting) hard line. Indeed, the psychology of security (1) in this situation would assure this: Israeli civilians confronting a realistic threat manifested in the form of frequent rocket launching, blended with unfounded claims for the rise of a new antisemitism (2) are more likely to support 'decisive' action of their government, than to oppose a humanitarian disaster of an 'alien people.
And to me this issue is deeply political, it has nothing to do with antisemitism or Muslim fundamentalism - religions or races. Such overweight military action is in line with the ill conceived doctrine of confronting systematically, standardised if you like, global terrorism; the means matching the also inappropriate phraseology of 'war' against a new 'axis' (of evil). And indeed there is a huge problem arising from this approach. George Lakoff in his analysis of metaphors of terror (3) analysed, a lot better than I can do here, what this problem is.
It is my firm opinion that it was a gross mistake of the Bush administration to bag under the same blanket all sorts of existing groups branded under 'terrorist' or 'revolunionarist' identities. That 'classification' of the infamous 'with us, or against us'. Nonetheless, Hamas and Hezbollah in reality have nothing to do with the Tamil Tigers, the Kurdish Workers' Party, far-leftish urban guerrillas etc. Putting them altogether, blatantly ignoring most of the crucially differentiating socio-economical, cultural and political factors around them and grossly recognising only a few (e.g. their religious identity) reduces our analytical capability to understand them and to put their actions in context. Without this understanding there can be no solutions or effective strategies devised.
Furthermore, using the same raw military force to confront all of them on 'equal' terms, be they states (Iraq), elected governments (Hamas), loosely structured coalitions of crooks/bandits/religious fanatics/morons etc. it can only force them to get together, share and exchange for real. The increase of suicide attacks employed by traditional groups which, under conventional circumstances, did not consider historically such modus operandi is a telling sign. The changing profile of such attackers, now often being women, is another. Global terror as a concept, I think, is shaped not because of genuine intentions of those groups to collaborate (their own interests are far too diverse to allow for that and even competing), but in their unity against a response from the states in power that is indiscriminate and disproportionate ('my enemy's enemy is my friend').
Religious identities and fundamentalism in this case is not much more than an excuse that both sides buy in in need of a quick justification of the deeper, political causes of the conflict - competition for land in a crowded part of the world and the right to exercise autonomous political will. Just as the Northern Irish conflict had deeper roots than the Protestand/Catholic identities. The recycling of global terror and security justification by Israel, accompanied by an implied, underlying religious fundamentalism argument is a distorted view of the world in this context and the sooner we understand that, the sooner we will stop its later backfiring. There is a true need, more that ever before, for ceasefire and diplomacy. Meanwhile, more people get killed.
(1) http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/the_psychology_2.html
(2) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040202/klug
(3) http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.html
I know this is a complex problem and it is not my job, nor expertise, to provide views for simplistic, or otherwise, solutions for it. But I am also concerned about the aftermath of the disproportional use of force by the state of Israel, in theory against the forces of Hamas, but at large against Palestinian civilians.
The inappropriateness of the means that Israel uses to resolve a situation that is (obviously) irresolvable by raw military force is striking. My view is that serving a short-sighted political ambition, the Israeli administration is probably rushing to establish a new status quo before the new US president gets in power, whilst at the same time keeping domestic voters reassured of their adherence to the (vote-attracting) hard line. Indeed, the psychology of security (1) in this situation would assure this: Israeli civilians confronting a realistic threat manifested in the form of frequent rocket launching, blended with unfounded claims for the rise of a new antisemitism (2) are more likely to support 'decisive' action of their government, than to oppose a humanitarian disaster of an 'alien people.
And to me this issue is deeply political, it has nothing to do with antisemitism or Muslim fundamentalism - religions or races. Such overweight military action is in line with the ill conceived doctrine of confronting systematically, standardised if you like, global terrorism; the means matching the also inappropriate phraseology of 'war' against a new 'axis' (of evil). And indeed there is a huge problem arising from this approach. George Lakoff in his analysis of metaphors of terror (3) analysed, a lot better than I can do here, what this problem is.
It is my firm opinion that it was a gross mistake of the Bush administration to bag under the same blanket all sorts of existing groups branded under 'terrorist' or 'revolunionarist' identities. That 'classification' of the infamous 'with us, or against us'. Nonetheless, Hamas and Hezbollah in reality have nothing to do with the Tamil Tigers, the Kurdish Workers' Party, far-leftish urban guerrillas etc. Putting them altogether, blatantly ignoring most of the crucially differentiating socio-economical, cultural and political factors around them and grossly recognising only a few (e.g. their religious identity) reduces our analytical capability to understand them and to put their actions in context. Without this understanding there can be no solutions or effective strategies devised.
Furthermore, using the same raw military force to confront all of them on 'equal' terms, be they states (Iraq), elected governments (Hamas), loosely structured coalitions of crooks/bandits/religious fanatics/morons etc. it can only force them to get together, share and exchange for real. The increase of suicide attacks employed by traditional groups which, under conventional circumstances, did not consider historically such modus operandi is a telling sign. The changing profile of such attackers, now often being women, is another. Global terror as a concept, I think, is shaped not because of genuine intentions of those groups to collaborate (their own interests are far too diverse to allow for that and even competing), but in their unity against a response from the states in power that is indiscriminate and disproportionate ('my enemy's enemy is my friend').
Religious identities and fundamentalism in this case is not much more than an excuse that both sides buy in in need of a quick justification of the deeper, political causes of the conflict - competition for land in a crowded part of the world and the right to exercise autonomous political will. Just as the Northern Irish conflict had deeper roots than the Protestand/Catholic identities. The recycling of global terror and security justification by Israel, accompanied by an implied, underlying religious fundamentalism argument is a distorted view of the world in this context and the sooner we understand that, the sooner we will stop its later backfiring. There is a true need, more that ever before, for ceasefire and diplomacy. Meanwhile, more people get killed.
(1) http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/the_psychology_2.html
(2) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040202/klug
(3) http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)