Mary Beard's blog - A Don's Life:
Over at the Guardian Jonathan Jones is blogging about Beard and Smith on the column:
blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/03/trajans_column_row_spirals_off.html
And I confess that (breaking my rule again) I posted a comment. It was when I saw myself being accused of pedantry that I tipped over the line. Why go on about these trifling details when the real point about the column is is massive dominance of the Roman skyline etc? Answer, Jonathan, is that I was reviewing a book that was ABOUT such trifling details!
Posted by: Mary | 13 Mar 2007 08:36:12
timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2007/02/is_zadie_smith_.html#comment-63083388
*******************************************************************
Choppa's response
All this ties in with how we see, understand and respect or not DEATH. Another Cantab blogger does the honours at "Digging up the dead":
http://kenodoxia.blogspot.com/
and asks "How should an archaeologist treat the dead?"
Given the artistic perfection often seen in funerary monuments (the insides of mummy cases, of pyramid tombs) or otherwise only partially or wholly inaccessible works (cave paintings, the parthenon friezes) it's pretty clear that the audience for the work as such in all its detail was not the real living people in the community that threw it up. One or two maybe, at the most, singled out by privilege, but perhaps none at all. The imagined spirit world provided a satisfactory motivation for the effort involved, combined with reward to the artists and the usual oppressive assertion of power and ideology against potential doubters (or reluctant artists).
Our own day is slowly replacing the spirit audience with democratically and ideally equal human beings of flesh and blood. Zadie S and other novelists have all their artistic detail slapped on the marble slab of public access for appraisal and dissection like a haddock at the fishmongers.
Some artists and craftsmen still produce for minimal audiences (jewellers, commissioned portrait painters to the ultra-rich, architects to the same, etc), and a war is still being fought (as it has been for centuries now) for everyman's right to access and to appreciate and judge the best of contemporary and past art. Sometimes the public wins (free entry to the BM, virtually free access to old books on the web, the good side of Google), sometimes the obscurantist privateers, elitists and gougers win (the sacred eternal copywrong crowd). When it comes to public spaces, the obscurantist moneybag advertisers have it all their own way, sickeningly.
JJ got hold of the wrong end of the stick here by branding Mary B with pedantry and the inability to appreciate a damn fine phallus :-) Let him go to St Petersburg (Leningrad) and do a couple of weeks' penance before the most phallic column of them all.
http://www.tcaup.umich.edu/stpetersburg/alexander.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xjy/403309501/
Reply to KenodoxiaMonday, March 12, 2007
Some promising signs from the new Dearing report on language learning in schools. There will be recommendations for foreign language teaching in primary schools at least at Key Stage 2 (that's from 7 years old). However, the messages are mixed: there is no sign of a recommendation to reinstate compulsory language learning up to the age of 16. (The report is now available as a .pdf here; for some early reaction see here and here.)
Younger children love learning languages, as far as I can see. And there are some good (if expensive) courses for them. Try the BBC's Muzzy course, for example.
The report also makes some interesting comments about Higher Education, and in particular about the influence that universities can have on the uptake of languages in schools (p.21):
The influence of Higher Education
3.72 Although beyond the remit and competence of the review, the recent decision by one major University (UCL) to include languages as a criterion for selection of undergraduates has already attracted comment. Several Head Teachers have observed that if such a view was more widespread it would have a significant impact on the take-up of languages post 14. We therefore urge universities to consider whether, and in what ways, they can show that they value languages, albeit in ways that do not impact adversely on the widening participation agenda. We are aware, for example, of a recent proposal that where a candidate for entry does not have a language at GCSE level they might be required to continue their studies at university, or show evidence of studying a language, or a proven interest in languages.
This sounds very sensible and also rang a bell with another recent report into the general level of knowledge of science in the UK. It seems that since in the US, for example, most undergraduates are required to take at least some science-based courses at university, there is a higher general level of scientific understanding there than in the UK. Of course, university courses are crowded and busy as it is, and it would be a terrible task to add in additional language and science course, but I do wonder whether some of our undergraduates could benefit from a broader range of teaching than they receive at present.
Posted by JIW at 10:14 AM
************************************************************
Choppa's reply:
There's a problem with starting too soon on a foreign language that's not part of your everyday life, and that's the confusion it can cause in concept formation at a very basic level. It's not a problem for kids surrounded by articulate and concept-grounded adults who talk to them a lot of the time. But it's a *huge* problem for kids without that background - especially for kids who need to learn the language of their wider community as a second language. Immigrant kids or kids with a minority language or an "impenetrable" dialect of the standard.
The problem is compounded by disadvantaged kids sometimes wanting a different second language from the one offered. As in Sweden, where a lot of immigrant kids and parents fight like tigers to have their kids learn English while their Swedish is still very poor (and this can be at the age of 12+ still, despite a childhood spent in Sweden).
I've seen and suffered from this at first hand as a teacher of English at a secondary school with 100% immigrant kids, most of them at a conceptual level in Swedish in the seventh year (12-13) corresponding to second to fifth year pupils. Many of them have no chance of learning English. The language just refuses to stick. And they lose 3 periods a week which could go to learning their own mother tongue or Swedish. So they end up even more disadvantaged, having tried to learn more subjects than a Swedish kid of the same age with infinitely less social and conceptual preparation for it.
The studies I've read also indicate that the age of commencing a second language (if it's not part of the everyday life of the kids) makes little difference. In other words, no real advantage is bestowed by early learning, except perhaps for the pleasure of it in a good class in a good school with a good teacher.
I think the wiser thing is probably to rethink conceptual and social/human preparation for youngsters generally and take a leaf out of Comenius's book. Make sure kids up to the age of 12 get a thorough grounding in movement, rhythm, mother tongue, music, art,crafts, etc so they can communicate physically, orally and in writing and other forms of representation. So they can tell and present and absorb all kinds of human stories. And as much basic maths as they can take so they can have fun making things that are stable and have interesting forms etc.
If kids can be kept fresh and curious and creative till they're 12 or so, then they can get stuck into any number of demanding subjects in a more methodical and abstract fashion. And they will have a huge advantage when it comes to learning languages, because their imagination will not have been stultified, and they will know about other countries and people through stories of various kinds (history, discovery, animals, travel).
And today, with the internet it won't be long before they're snogging virtually with teenagers in other cultures using other languages ;-)
So I think the report may be good in its attitude to the benefits brought by language, but it's arsy-versy when it comes to the context of language learning in present-day Britain, with its "real-existierend" community, culture and schools. Given a human, creative and optimistic Britain, with meaningful jobs and a day full of self-discovery and self-expression, there won't be any problem with learning anything.
**********************************************************
(Additional - misguided - comment now at Kenodoxia)
There's a good interview by Sameer Dossani with Noam Chomsky on CounterPunch about war, neo-liberalism and empire now:
http://www.counterpunch.org/dossani03092007.html
It makes good points about the differences between Asia, Latin America and Africa.
I felt a couple of things could have been brought out more clearly, though.
What Chomsky doesn't mention is the political power reason WHY the Asian countries could ignore IMF and US pressures and industrialize. Particularly Japan (the big one), Korea, and the other "tigers". It was a clear policy choice by the States to give them their head after the war, and let the local capitalists thrive. It was the only way to avoid a devastating series of social struggles encouraged by the defiant existence and growth of China and Vietnam that could have thrown imperialism out of the region. Not the same history of imperialist/colonialist domination as in Latin America and Africa (which Chomsky does point out, to great effect).
He also remains silent on the strategic revolutionary/socialist aspects of Cuba's international intervention(s). Its subordination to Moscow's Socialism in One Country nationalism etc.
He doesn't mention the changing class structure in India, with the wholesale extinction of the old mainly rural caste system and the creation of a modern urban working class. He describes impoverishment, but not proletarianization as a process. He describes the flight of millions whose land has been stolen from them into the cities to unemployment, but doesn't mention the class dynamic involved in this.
And he doesn't go into where Lula comes from and why he might be a good leftie (class betrayal running the errands of foreign capital and big local capital, instead of the working class that nurtured him), or where Chavez comes from and why he's a leftie at all (same kind of petty-bourgeois military base as Castro in the 50s, and same reliance as Castro on the support of the poor masses to withstand the attacks of imperialism). Of course, Castro had Moscow, but on the other hand, Chavez is deeply rooted in Venezuela itself, and in the military, and he now has control of oil rather than sugar. Serious democratic nationalism today is forced to head for socialism and internationalism if it wants to survive, it has no other choice except capitulation to imperialism. So in a way, Chavez is a throwback to the anti-colonial struggle in the age of imperialism :-) Not much of a model for other countries to follow in other words - but quite possibly an enabler of more working-class and contemporary socialist movements in other countries (maybe Bolivia, Ecuador, even Argentina) to seize the reins of power and move forward.
Interesting that he mentions Clinton but doesn't generalize on the strategic importance of his Latin American initiatives more. Clinton's policies re Mexico, re Colombia, and re Iraq all contributed more than anything the more aggressive Bush has done to undermine those countries and weaken them strategically. And we can expect a repeat performance if another soft-cop Clinton gets into the White House.
Avundsjukan har väl en motsvarighet i barndomsvärldens millimeterrättvisan. Innan jag tittar närmare på dem, skulle jag vilja fråga vad motsatsen skulle vara.
Det är väl mannamån och favoritismen?
Då anar man genast vad som kan ligga begraven i en för flitig användning av dessa termer från tex politiskt håll.
Det försåtliga med dessa negativt laddade ord är att de kopplas nästan undantaglöst till anekdoter som kasta grällt ljus på en klar orättvisa.
Därmed blir det underförstått att det blir bra att sopa väck denna millimeterrättvisan eller avundsjukan, för att åstadkomma Rättvisan.
Men tänk om den som framfört anekdoten inte tänkt på rättvisa? Utan på mannamån och favoritismen? En människa en röst - usch nej! då blir det pöbelvälde och katastrof. Ett fyllo på gatan får samma politiska tyngd vid valurnan som den väl insatte akademikern. Den håglöse arbetslöse får lika mycket att säga till om som den driftige företagsgrundaren som skapar alla jobben! Bättre med viktade röster för dem som har ett verkligt intresse av ett fungerande rättssamhälle!
Det är samma visa när det gäller skatter. Fast då slår det åt två helt olika håll. Å ena sidan högern som skriker att det är orättvist att de som skapar rikedomen (alltså i deras ögon -- de rika) ska beskattas i samma proportion som det tärande packet eller mer. Som den vidriga Thatcher i England som ville att drottningen (som lär vara världens rikaste kvinna) skulle betala exakt lika mycket i pund och pence i kommunalskatt som min pensionerade mor. Millimeterrättvisa åt de rika! Å andra sidan vänstern som talar om proportionellt lika beskattning och till och med ibland om progressivt ökande beskattning av de rika och kapitalägande. Men som ger efter för tjatet om millimeterrättvisan med momssatserna som är exakt lika för alla procentuellt oavsett betalförmåga, och dessutom innebär beskattning av redan beskattade pengar, särskilt för dem som bara har en anställningsinkomst och följaktligen inte kan dra av momsen i samband med rörelsekostnader.
En likartad fras som favoriserar högern är nivellering etc i utbildnings- och kulturvärlden. "De begåvade uppmuntras inte i den kommunala skolan!" heter det, men de som skriker menar egentligen att de rika inte får köpa sina barn förtursskolplatser. Och i England ser man resultatet av en sån inställning. För att de köpte platserna ska duga som priviligierade gentemot de kommunala så förstörs de kommunala skolorna konsekvent och brutalt. Högskolan likaså.
Jantelagen är egentligen bara en utveckling av samma tema. "Ingen får sticka upp" betyder väldigt ofta "jag får inte de privilegier jag ska ha". Frasen uppstod i Norge med Axel Sandemose som påverkades av sin tids fascistiska övermänniskoideal (som många andra författare i och för sig).
Det är nog dags att lämna hela debatten om avundsjuka etc åt sidan och börja fundera på hur ett rättvist samhälle skulle se ut. Om alla skulle vara med i produktionens (alltså de rikedomsskapande) beslutsprocesser på jämställda villkor, alltså med kollektivt och demokratiskt ägande av samhällets stora produktionstillgångar, då skulle man vara med om fördelningsbesluten, vilket skulle ta bort en del av olustkänslan och avundsjukan, och förhoppningsvis också skapa rättvisa förutsättningar för att utveckla alla inneboende förmågor och inte hålla tillbaks de ovanligt begåvade individerna.
Underligt nog så lyckades nog den gamla Sovjetunionen väldigt bra med denna uppmuntran i form av speciella skolor för matematiskt begåvade barn till exempel, även om systemet konsekvent missbrukades av den byråkratiska regimen till sin egen fördel. Och detta i ett land där millimeterrättvisan utvecklades till en konstart. Någon beskrev Sovjet som ett land besjälat av en vildsint jämlikhetspatos ("a fierce egalitarianism"). Jag tycker vi behöver mera sånt i Sverige. Då skulle kommunala musikskolan vara ett mönster för andra konst- och teknikskolor här och i världen, i stället för isolerat och nedläggningshotat. Och museerna skulle vara gratis och smockfulla av kunniga och entusiastiska besökare. Det behöver inte sägas att då skulle det finnas jobb och utkomst åt alla och problem med brottslighet och vandalisering skulle vara minimala (sånt kan även hända i ett kapitalistiskt land, som i Sverige stort sett under efterkrigsperioden (de gyllene åren) fram till ca 1985). För trygghet behövs det rätt lite. Problemet är bl a att myten om avundsjukan hindrar detta lilla från åt bli verklighet.
PS Det är glädjande att de nya "socialliberala" högern, Sveriges nya arbetarparti (vrålgarv!!), redan blivit av med två lögnaktiga ideologiskt drivna priviligierade lagbryterskor och girigbukar till statsråd. Detta innan de ens börjat! Och inte med en gång som Mona Sahlin med sin Tobleronekaka. Utan efter en massa fotsläpande och lögner. Vilka klantarsel och amatörer! Jag ser fram emot vad som kommer fram när man synar de mera slipade regeringskumpanerna i sömmarna!
"Eppur si muove" is what Gallileo muttered under his breath when the Inquisition forced him to declare that the world was at the centre of the universe and immovable -- "It's moving, regardless".
And regardless of what today's Inquisitors -- governments, big media, schools -- want us to sign up to, history is still moving. The present social and economic system is as useless for humanity as the Catholic Church and its astronomy were back around 1600. Despite the collapse of the USSR and its handing over to the imperialist system by the bureaucrats who ran it, capitalism offers no better life for the people there or anywhere else in the world. If it did, Russia and the other ex-Soviet-bloc countries wouldn't be in the desperate mess they are today. History is moving -- the great changes emerging from the wars, crises and revolutions of the early 20th century are still working themselves out. In this blog, I want to look at some of these changes and how they are working out.
We are in the middle of a prolonged war to establish a better system of running society and using the creative, productive potential of humanity for the benefit of all people. It's a world war on a greater scale than either WW1 or WW2, but it's an invisible war for most people, because almost nobody fighting it calls it by its proper name. It's a struggle for power between the current holders of power, the imperialist bourgeoisie, representing big capital interests -- the banks, insurance giants, investment groups, the owners of manufacturing and technology -- and the international working class, representing the people who actually produce the things and ideas that keep the world turning.
The leaders of the imperialist bourgeoisie are easily recognized -- the political leaders run the great imperial states, with the United States at their head, and the actual decision-makers own the biggest concentrations of capital. They decide what the system needs, and the political leaders do all they can to satisfy their needs.
But they don't have it all their own way. The working class resists. But it rarely resists directly through its official leadership -- the big labour parties or the big unions. Not even through the Soviet bureaucracy when the USSR existed as a non-capitalist state! Indirectly, through unofficial and half-understood struggles, ordinary men and women refuse to be slaves. And they smoulder with resentment under the capitalist system of wage-slavery that they can't avoid and would dearly love to throw off their backs if they only knew how.
The nature of this class war was clearly stated by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party in 1848. Its first chapter opens with the words: "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles."
The secret of the indirect war and the national slant that warps our perception of everything is also clearly stated there: "Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie."
The proletariat -- which owns nothing but its labour power, its capacity to perform work for others, which is bought by the hour by the capitalists -- is confronted in reality by the police and military of whatever nation state it finds itself confined to. Or some other nation state that steps in if the local oppressors aren't successful enough at their slave-driving.
Mao Tse-Tung wrote that imperialism is a paper tiger. This is an over-simplification. It's more like a strange hybrid beast with borrowed sinews and bones. By itself, it's a lump of dead meat. When it is able to wrap itself on a skeleton and send signals to move its limbs, it becomes a voracious killer of juggernaut proportions. But the bones and sinews aren't its own. They are rented. They are the weapons and troops used to attack the enemies of imperialism. And they are made by, and provided by the proletariat.
So when the proletariat of any nation settles matters with its own bourgeoisie in a revolution, one of the most striking elements is always the taking back of the bones and sinews of power. The masses seize the weapons they have made, and the troops recruited from the more despairing ranks of the proletariat refuse to fight. Once this happens, the monster collapses in a heap. The body of a new society can rise from the mess with its bones, muscles and brain where they should be, take stock, and start working to satisfy its own real needs.
*****
The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
