One of the most significant stories that is not getting press is the massive demonstration in Kiev against the national government. For many reasons, including timing and location, few happen to know what's going on in Ukraine. During my masters I studied the post-Soviet space and I therefore have a keen interest in the geopolitics of the region.
The future of Ukraine is largely understood as a binary. It is generally understood that the nation can either lean toward Russia or toward the European Union. This constant push and pull places Ukraine in the middle of a scary geopolitical situation. Neither option will secure a successful future for Ukrainians.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has pursued a policy by which it feels as though it has a right to interfere in the affairs of its former constituents. Russia considers the historical political, cultural, and economic relationships as an entitlement, its so-called "Near Abroad". As such Ukraine's relationship with Russia has been complex and little has changed since 1991, including ethnic Russians still making up roughly 18 per cent of the population. Russia has sought to exert economic and political influence on Ukraine, namely in the form of gas prices. Moscow has both offered discount prices and cut off the supply. This approach has been clearly aimed at ensuring that Ukraine does not pull away from Russia.
In the past two decades Ukraine has experienced a significant connection to the European Union. The organisation has expanded into Eastern Europe in the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, most recently in 2004 and 2007. The European Union is seen as a beacon of economic prosperity and democracy and many in Ukraine are hopeful that European integration will transform the country. The EU has been clear about not expanding further for the time being, but it is intent to develop a special relationship with Ukraine. That said, there is a significant amount of hesitant amongst EU officials not to intrude into Russia's affairs.
In the west, Ukraine is often expected to simply divorce itself from Russia's sphere of influence in order to pursue full integration into the European Union. In Moscow, Ukraine is often expected to spurn all advances by the European Union. As mentioned before, there is minimal space for Ukraine to navigate partnerships on their terms. Instead, the intended course of action for Ukraine is to align or to remain uncomfortably situated between Europe and Russia. This is an example of cold war bipolarity and is quite destructive to Ukraine.
In the wake of an unsigned trade deal, youth in Ukraine have taken to the streets to demonstrate against a government that leans too far toward Moscow. It has been branded as an expression of democracy, one that is for an idea (European integration) rather than in favour of a particular political movement or party. Activists feel connected to Europe and view integration as a panacea. Unfortunately, expectations of the EU are high and it's an example of idealism. Minimal attention is given to the fact that the European Union is not a protector of democracy but rather a vehicle to create larger markets.
What's unfortunate is this appears to be the next chapter in a constant pendulum swing between Europe and Russia. This is particularly significant given that Russia is constantly in the news with the Sochi Games on the horizon. Much attention has been given to Russia's new homophobic laws, the crackdown on political opposition, and the policy of violence in the Caucasus. While Ukraine is likely to swing far to one side, it is likely both short term and of minimal benefit for the majority of Ukrainian society.
Is This Progress? This Is Progress.
Monday, 23 December 2013
Sunday, 15 December 2013
Whenever We Finish
Music has been a massive part of my life ever since I first picked up an instrument. In the fifteen years since it has come to define my experience. Music is so well connected to memory, and I am always transported by harmony, timbre, and melody. I write this because last night I went to see Two Hours Traffic, my favourite Canadian band, here in Ottawa. The band is having its farewell tour and I was lucky to go check them out for their last tour. I have seen them now eight times and this will be the finale.
Everyone who knew me up until I finished my undergrad knew me as the ultimate Oasis fan. It was all I listened to, all I talked about, and what I wanted to be. The transitions I went through up until that point had been defined by the songs and albums of Oasis - they synched up with life. That collapsed in 2009 when Oasis unexpectedly broke up. It felt, in many ways, like the end of being a teenager. I had to move on. Thankfully, in my fourth year of university I was listening to CBC when I heard "Sure Can Start" and I was hooked on a new band from PEI called Two Hours Traffic. I got their debut album for Christmas and it stayed in my car for over a month. Like Oasis had done for so many years, Two Hours Traffic played the backing tracks of my life over the next six years. The breakup of the band now feels like the end of my adolescence.
From 2007 to now my life has been turned around so many times it's hard to piece it all together. However, every new adventure seemed to be accompanied by the band. The debut album got me through breaking up with my first partner. When I went to teachers college their album Territory dropped the first week. Going to grad school, starting my teaching career, and now moving back to Southwestern Ontario have all taken place with this music as a backdrop. It seems fitting that a tumultuous period of intense change is hopefully ending.
Moreover, Two Hours Traffic taught me how to sing harmony more solidly and helped change the way I looked at writing melodies. Two Hours Traffic is connected to my growth as a musician. The music is also a part of many of my closest interpersonal relationships: my former bandmate David, my sister overseas, my partner, and Jenn, my very close friend from university. As mentioned before this marks the end of an era for me.
It's sad on the one hand to move on, but it's an acknowledgment that I'm onto somewhere new and exciting, which is very positive. This morning I found my old Two Hours Traffic albums hidden away, covered with signatures and brief messages from the band. I'm looking forward to finding out what my next favourite band will be, the one that defines the next stages of my life.
Everyone who knew me up until I finished my undergrad knew me as the ultimate Oasis fan. It was all I listened to, all I talked about, and what I wanted to be. The transitions I went through up until that point had been defined by the songs and albums of Oasis - they synched up with life. That collapsed in 2009 when Oasis unexpectedly broke up. It felt, in many ways, like the end of being a teenager. I had to move on. Thankfully, in my fourth year of university I was listening to CBC when I heard "Sure Can Start" and I was hooked on a new band from PEI called Two Hours Traffic. I got their debut album for Christmas and it stayed in my car for over a month. Like Oasis had done for so many years, Two Hours Traffic played the backing tracks of my life over the next six years. The breakup of the band now feels like the end of my adolescence.
From 2007 to now my life has been turned around so many times it's hard to piece it all together. However, every new adventure seemed to be accompanied by the band. The debut album got me through breaking up with my first partner. When I went to teachers college their album Territory dropped the first week. Going to grad school, starting my teaching career, and now moving back to Southwestern Ontario have all taken place with this music as a backdrop. It seems fitting that a tumultuous period of intense change is hopefully ending.
Moreover, Two Hours Traffic taught me how to sing harmony more solidly and helped change the way I looked at writing melodies. Two Hours Traffic is connected to my growth as a musician. The music is also a part of many of my closest interpersonal relationships: my former bandmate David, my sister overseas, my partner, and Jenn, my very close friend from university. As mentioned before this marks the end of an era for me.
It's sad on the one hand to move on, but it's an acknowledgment that I'm onto somewhere new and exciting, which is very positive. This morning I found my old Two Hours Traffic albums hidden away, covered with signatures and brief messages from the band. I'm looking forward to finding out what my next favourite band will be, the one that defines the next stages of my life.
Monday, 9 December 2013
The Politics of Memory
Memory is a topic I've written on frequently here as I'm an historian. Most recently I discussed Remembrance Day and the passing of Thatcher. These are both examples of how popular history and political discourse intersect. This is incredibly relevant this week with the death of Nelson Mandela.
It was a moment that people will take with them: where were you when you heard that Nelson Mandela died? Very few people make an impact so wide and so deep on popular history. The story of Mandela's opposition to apartheid in South Africa is full of easily identifiable good and bad, much like the story of Nazi Germany. Mandela stood up against an oppressive regime that rested on a deplorable notion of legal racism. For standing up for freedom, democracy, and equality, Mandela was jailed for 27 years. After his release in 1990 he went on to help dismantle apartheid all the while preventing racial conflict. When he was elected president he went on to nominate a cabinet that included former administrators of the apartheid mindful to not hold onto grudges. It also allowed the nation to heal from its incredible wounds. Forgiveness was a key part of his vision, leading to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
His works and his beliefs have earned him numerous accolades, not the least of which being the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize. Mandela will go down in history as an example of compassion, humbleness, and dedication. He is the rare figure that is extolled by all. While this is a wonderful recognition of the universality of struggling against injustice, it also falls into a basic paradigm: understanding history as a linear process and categorising actors as dualistic. Ultimately, South Africa has become a much more equal place but there is still an incredible amount of injustice. Likewise, Mandela is neither a sell-out nor a saint.
In framing Mandela's life virtually all outlets have focused on the notion of how oppressive the past was and how this fog has been lifted. There were clear enemies and heroes and a starting and ending point. Few sources have truly examined modern South African society by looking at how apartheid lives on by manifesting itself through neoliberal economic policies. Nor has attention been put on how unequal Canadian society is. Limited focus has been put on examining why apartheid was enacted and who supported this regime or why. Little has been said about other actors who helped change South Africa. The narrative of Mandela has largely left out details that don't fit into the clean box of pro-western freedom fighter. The narrative of South Africa has been painted without contemporary turbulence.
From my perspective, freedom, justice, or democracy are not destinations. They are ideals to try to remain close to. As a Marxist historian I try to keep in mind that social pressures hold these ideals in a place of perpetual tension. It is therefore important to continue to agitate and to motivate others to participate. In today's climate that encompasses diverse struggles such as fighting against surveillance and discrimination and fighting for environmental justice and more human rights.
It was a moment that people will take with them: where were you when you heard that Nelson Mandela died? Very few people make an impact so wide and so deep on popular history. The story of Mandela's opposition to apartheid in South Africa is full of easily identifiable good and bad, much like the story of Nazi Germany. Mandela stood up against an oppressive regime that rested on a deplorable notion of legal racism. For standing up for freedom, democracy, and equality, Mandela was jailed for 27 years. After his release in 1990 he went on to help dismantle apartheid all the while preventing racial conflict. When he was elected president he went on to nominate a cabinet that included former administrators of the apartheid mindful to not hold onto grudges. It also allowed the nation to heal from its incredible wounds. Forgiveness was a key part of his vision, leading to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
His works and his beliefs have earned him numerous accolades, not the least of which being the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize. Mandela will go down in history as an example of compassion, humbleness, and dedication. He is the rare figure that is extolled by all. While this is a wonderful recognition of the universality of struggling against injustice, it also falls into a basic paradigm: understanding history as a linear process and categorising actors as dualistic. Ultimately, South Africa has become a much more equal place but there is still an incredible amount of injustice. Likewise, Mandela is neither a sell-out nor a saint.
In framing Mandela's life virtually all outlets have focused on the notion of how oppressive the past was and how this fog has been lifted. There were clear enemies and heroes and a starting and ending point. Few sources have truly examined modern South African society by looking at how apartheid lives on by manifesting itself through neoliberal economic policies. Nor has attention been put on how unequal Canadian society is. Limited focus has been put on examining why apartheid was enacted and who supported this regime or why. Little has been said about other actors who helped change South Africa. The narrative of Mandela has largely left out details that don't fit into the clean box of pro-western freedom fighter. The narrative of South Africa has been painted without contemporary turbulence.
From my perspective, freedom, justice, or democracy are not destinations. They are ideals to try to remain close to. As a Marxist historian I try to keep in mind that social pressures hold these ideals in a place of perpetual tension. It is therefore important to continue to agitate and to motivate others to participate. In today's climate that encompasses diverse struggles such as fighting against surveillance and discrimination and fighting for environmental justice and more human rights.
Friday, 29 November 2013
On Black Friday
Today is Black Friday and there has been a lot of news about what's going on. It's a relatively new phenomenon here in Canada, but growth in Black Friday sales has been substantial over the past few years. For most it marks the start of the holiday season.
One of the most troubling, though entirely unsurprising, stories to come out this year has to do with the presentation of prices. In an effort to lure customers, retailers shock us with prices that continue to look lower. The operative part of this is that prices appear to be good deals when in reality there are not. For example, some shoppers refuse to go out unless the reduction is greater than, say, 40 per cent. Some stores will inflate the price to show consumers deals that look for fantastic that they really are. It's a trick that we're used to seeing on infomercials, and unsurprisingly they are effective. Studies have in fact suggested that we are spending roughly the same amount on purchases but merely feeling that we are getting a better deal. That psychological element should not be overlooked.
What perhaps makes this even more interesting is that the notion of door crasher prizes, where the first people admitted into the store get a free product, are often lesser products. Reports that televisions given away are actually a variation on a model available on the shelf. In most cases, these products are either fashioned with inferior materials or have fewer functions than the for-sale counterparts. This trend is on the rise, particularly with electronics such as televisions.
This year has seen a scandal in that American Thanksgiving and Christmas are the closest they can be to one another. As such, the number of days between holidays is projected to cause people to spend less money during the holidays. Most retailers are deeply concerned that this will cut into their profits and damage their financial standing. There are numerous problems with this, not the least of which being that the long-term viability of most retailers will be entirely unaffected by the sales from one quarter. Moreover, customers will have numerous other reasons to get out and shop. I imagine that, for the most part, the sales figures from this year will be comparable to all recent Black Fridays, despite the fact that there are five fewer shopping days than last year. Customers will likely be packing their shopping into more intense sessions.
In order to combat the shortened season, many stores have began opening on American Thanksgiving, which is a watershed moment in Black Friday history. It has not gone without some serious controversy, some even calling this Grey Thursday. Many retailers, however, are staying out. These stores are viewed as heroes by many on social media as they are resisting the creeping barrage of consumerism into what is a family holiday and a paid day away from the working world.
A lawmaker in Ohio has, in response, urged the state government to intervene in this madness. He has suggested that retailers who wish to remain open on Thanksgiving be forced to pay triple time. This proposal is a valiant attempt to prevent the holiday from being taken over completely, but it is also not taken seriously as a real remedy. This is especially true since most Americans hardly think that a day of sales being extended into a binge weekend is even a problem in the first place.
The general attitude of consumer madness is highly problematic and speaks to the larger question of intense materialism in our society. The period between Thanksgiving and Christmas is full of an overwhelming pressure to shop and to be good corporate citizens by consuming. I've written about this phenomenon before, but I wanted to restate that finding alternate ways to show your affection and care for others is important for many reasons. There are many great way to participate in what is often termed the "No-Gift Christmas" such as giving your time, a donation, your crafts, or something that is not new. There are plenty of places to get inspiration, but not a lot of support for people who wish to remove themselves from the web of consumerised giving at Christmas.
The craze of Black Friday is not a fad - it's an integral part of the shopping calendar in an increasing number of countries around the world. Without being checked by consumers or by governments, these sales will only continue to become more aggressive and overtake a greater amount of time away from what is meant to be a time for family and for getting away from the workplace.
One of the most troubling, though entirely unsurprising, stories to come out this year has to do with the presentation of prices. In an effort to lure customers, retailers shock us with prices that continue to look lower. The operative part of this is that prices appear to be good deals when in reality there are not. For example, some shoppers refuse to go out unless the reduction is greater than, say, 40 per cent. Some stores will inflate the price to show consumers deals that look for fantastic that they really are. It's a trick that we're used to seeing on infomercials, and unsurprisingly they are effective. Studies have in fact suggested that we are spending roughly the same amount on purchases but merely feeling that we are getting a better deal. That psychological element should not be overlooked.
What perhaps makes this even more interesting is that the notion of door crasher prizes, where the first people admitted into the store get a free product, are often lesser products. Reports that televisions given away are actually a variation on a model available on the shelf. In most cases, these products are either fashioned with inferior materials or have fewer functions than the for-sale counterparts. This trend is on the rise, particularly with electronics such as televisions.
This year has seen a scandal in that American Thanksgiving and Christmas are the closest they can be to one another. As such, the number of days between holidays is projected to cause people to spend less money during the holidays. Most retailers are deeply concerned that this will cut into their profits and damage their financial standing. There are numerous problems with this, not the least of which being that the long-term viability of most retailers will be entirely unaffected by the sales from one quarter. Moreover, customers will have numerous other reasons to get out and shop. I imagine that, for the most part, the sales figures from this year will be comparable to all recent Black Fridays, despite the fact that there are five fewer shopping days than last year. Customers will likely be packing their shopping into more intense sessions.
In order to combat the shortened season, many stores have began opening on American Thanksgiving, which is a watershed moment in Black Friday history. It has not gone without some serious controversy, some even calling this Grey Thursday. Many retailers, however, are staying out. These stores are viewed as heroes by many on social media as they are resisting the creeping barrage of consumerism into what is a family holiday and a paid day away from the working world.
A lawmaker in Ohio has, in response, urged the state government to intervene in this madness. He has suggested that retailers who wish to remain open on Thanksgiving be forced to pay triple time. This proposal is a valiant attempt to prevent the holiday from being taken over completely, but it is also not taken seriously as a real remedy. This is especially true since most Americans hardly think that a day of sales being extended into a binge weekend is even a problem in the first place.
The general attitude of consumer madness is highly problematic and speaks to the larger question of intense materialism in our society. The period between Thanksgiving and Christmas is full of an overwhelming pressure to shop and to be good corporate citizens by consuming. I've written about this phenomenon before, but I wanted to restate that finding alternate ways to show your affection and care for others is important for many reasons. There are many great way to participate in what is often termed the "No-Gift Christmas" such as giving your time, a donation, your crafts, or something that is not new. There are plenty of places to get inspiration, but not a lot of support for people who wish to remove themselves from the web of consumerised giving at Christmas.
The craze of Black Friday is not a fad - it's an integral part of the shopping calendar in an increasing number of countries around the world. Without being checked by consumers or by governments, these sales will only continue to become more aggressive and overtake a greater amount of time away from what is meant to be a time for family and for getting away from the workplace.
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Talking About Remembrance
There has been a lot of talk this year about acts of remembrance. The White Poppy, which is an alternative symbol of memorialising victims of war, has been in the spotlight in what has been a contentious debate about the role of remembrance day in Canada and, more broadly, the purpose of historical memory. As an historian I know that one of the most significant roles of history is how it is remembered publicly. Academic history is absolutely fascinating but is a realm not generally accessible to the masses. In most cases, constructs of history are played out more frequently in film or in commercials than they are in journal articles or seminars.
From my vantage point, I feel that a lot of the conjecture about poppies comes from the fact that Canada's history is both a very clear narrative and a sparse amalgam of divergent stories. Most people are aware that Remembrance Day is an important holiday in the trajectory of Canada as a nation. However, for most I believe the shared sentiment stops there. Everyone's personal perspective on the act of remembrance changes thereafter, to whether they think about the families of soldiers recently deployed in Afghanistan, or about the horrors of post-traumatic stress disorder, or about the military as promoting violence and war. Individuals are entitled to think about what interests them personally and what affects them emotionally about these questions. I believe the point of remembrance day is, quite explicitly, to remember the cost of warfare, which is left wide open to interpretation.
I feel that the right has a tendency to voice support for the military in a doctrinal way such as placing the soldier as an idealised figure in a glorious service role. Likewise, I feel that the far left is often all too keen to disparage most elements as though everything about the military actively promotes ideals like hierarchy and obedience in the name of "freedom" or "democracy". To me, the wide rift is mostly a result of thinking about the military as something we are either for or against. These positions lack precision and are gross oversimplifications of the role of violence and order in a global historical context. It's helpful to separate the military into several interrelated pieces: the soldier, organised violence, military institutions, and conflict itself.
I can't speak to the multitude of perspectives on these complex issues, but I can flesh out how I feel. I'm inclined to support soldiers, not simply because they have given of themselves, but because there seems to be a tacit respect for them but no real support in the long term once they leave active duty. I think of numerous family members who served during the Second World War only to come back to a society that did not understand them. I think of infantry coming back from Afghanistan who experience night terrors. I think of the families profoundly affected by this. While I support the people who serve, I don't buy into the rhetoric that we need to "support our troops" because that for me is wrapped up in supporting specific conflicts and/or the military as an institution. I'm under no auspices that the military should be abolished or that we can live in a world without conflict, but the military needs to be an institution worthy of criticism and transparency. I think that, as I mentioned before, Remembrance Day should be about taking the time to reflect privately and publicly about these issues. It makes me think about the types of questions I want to ask. What I want to talk about. What I want to hear others engage with.
What is or is not admirable about the roles of those who are in the military?
What is the cost of peace?
What is the role of states to intervene in the affairs of others?
How can military institutions be held more accountable?
How can we promote peace while going to war?
How do we honour those who serve without valourising war?
Lastly, what of the poppies? Ultimately, remembrance is a very personal and invididual choice. I believe that those who choose to remember differently or who choose not to remember are participating in valid ways. Likewise, I believe that policing the types of poppies people wear is problematic and polarising. Let's not allow Remembrance Day to be a holiday away from critical thought, one where we feel obliged to follow tradition. Let's be conscientious and try to approach issues around peace and sacrifice with open hearts and minds.
From my vantage point, I feel that a lot of the conjecture about poppies comes from the fact that Canada's history is both a very clear narrative and a sparse amalgam of divergent stories. Most people are aware that Remembrance Day is an important holiday in the trajectory of Canada as a nation. However, for most I believe the shared sentiment stops there. Everyone's personal perspective on the act of remembrance changes thereafter, to whether they think about the families of soldiers recently deployed in Afghanistan, or about the horrors of post-traumatic stress disorder, or about the military as promoting violence and war. Individuals are entitled to think about what interests them personally and what affects them emotionally about these questions. I believe the point of remembrance day is, quite explicitly, to remember the cost of warfare, which is left wide open to interpretation.
I feel that the right has a tendency to voice support for the military in a doctrinal way such as placing the soldier as an idealised figure in a glorious service role. Likewise, I feel that the far left is often all too keen to disparage most elements as though everything about the military actively promotes ideals like hierarchy and obedience in the name of "freedom" or "democracy". To me, the wide rift is mostly a result of thinking about the military as something we are either for or against. These positions lack precision and are gross oversimplifications of the role of violence and order in a global historical context. It's helpful to separate the military into several interrelated pieces: the soldier, organised violence, military institutions, and conflict itself.
I can't speak to the multitude of perspectives on these complex issues, but I can flesh out how I feel. I'm inclined to support soldiers, not simply because they have given of themselves, but because there seems to be a tacit respect for them but no real support in the long term once they leave active duty. I think of numerous family members who served during the Second World War only to come back to a society that did not understand them. I think of infantry coming back from Afghanistan who experience night terrors. I think of the families profoundly affected by this. While I support the people who serve, I don't buy into the rhetoric that we need to "support our troops" because that for me is wrapped up in supporting specific conflicts and/or the military as an institution. I'm under no auspices that the military should be abolished or that we can live in a world without conflict, but the military needs to be an institution worthy of criticism and transparency. I think that, as I mentioned before, Remembrance Day should be about taking the time to reflect privately and publicly about these issues. It makes me think about the types of questions I want to ask. What I want to talk about. What I want to hear others engage with.
What is or is not admirable about the roles of those who are in the military?
What is the cost of peace?
What is the role of states to intervene in the affairs of others?
How can military institutions be held more accountable?
How can we promote peace while going to war?
How do we honour those who serve without valourising war?
Lastly, what of the poppies? Ultimately, remembrance is a very personal and invididual choice. I believe that those who choose to remember differently or who choose not to remember are participating in valid ways. Likewise, I believe that policing the types of poppies people wear is problematic and polarising. Let's not allow Remembrance Day to be a holiday away from critical thought, one where we feel obliged to follow tradition. Let's be conscientious and try to approach issues around peace and sacrifice with open hearts and minds.
Friday, 13 September 2013
On the Charter of Values
The major political issue this week has been the release of a Charter of Values in Québec. It has ignited an explosive debate nationwide that has centred around several questions, though the discourse is rather firmly entrenched in the notion of how much society must bend for the individual or how much the individual must bend for society. While there has been a decent amount of good writing on the topic, my fear is that certain terms and concepts are not being discussed well in many forms of conventional or social media. My post today will attempt to address some of these transgressions.
Secularism refers to a political ideology where religion and government are divorced from one another. As a policy it is dominant in the United States, Turkey, and France, where these societies struggle with how religion influences politics, social interaction, and the economy. Secularism manifests itself differently in different societies. In the United States, an example with which Canadians are rather familiar, it has largely been an attack on other religions while reinforcing a deeply Christian past. In my view this is due to the fact that secularism in the United States was all about religious tolerance for different Protestant Christian groups. In France and Turkey, secularism has largely targeted all religions, in a way that it similar to what is happening currently in Québec.
As for multiculturalism, it is a policy, not a reality. Diversity is a fact of modern society and multiculturalism refers to a specific way of integrating others, and in Canada, as with the rest of the world, there are serious debates about the degree to which multiculturalism is in fact successful. Mind you a large portion of it is uninformed, xenophobic, political nonsense, but much of it is careful consideration of what other alternatives might be. Fundamentally, the idea should be that multiculturalism, while I support it steadfastedly, is not infallible. There could be something better and reasonable discourse on the matter should be encouraged rather than believing that it is outright the only way. In order to evaluate it you have to examine alternatives, and that's precisely what comparative politics is all about. To start, it's helpful to understand what other jurisdictions have multicultural policies. The sad truth is, not many. Secularism is billed as the alternative to multiculturalism, but establishing this as the binary is really useless since that barely covers the issue. Moreover, secularism and multiculturalism are not opposites.
Another concept that I feel is not being unpacked is the idea of how different Québec and Canada are, particularly in terms of identity. It's no secret that most Canadians tend to feel a sense of superiority over Americans based on the treatment of minorities. I'd argue that anglophone Canadians feel the same way about Québec in a lot of ways. It reinforces for Canadians that they are superior because an issue like this is not happening there. It allows Canadians to forget about the ways in which they marginalise others that may be less blatant.
This otherness is amplified by the limited knowledge of Québec's history by outsiders. As someone who is a Quebecer and who teaches Québec history, I can say that I have a slightly more intimate knowledge of Québec than the average anglophone. What most people tend to miss is that Québec is rather different from Canada in a lot of meaningful ways, not the least of which being that since the 1960s it has taken a sufficiently different approach to the organisation of society than Canada has. For the most part, it has actively sought to remove the church from all facets of formal power. There is an open acknowledgement among francophones of the historical role played by Catholicism, though the major current is that religion does not mix with public life. This is highlighted in the controversy about the crucifix in the National Assembly. Given that Québec (at least outside Montréal) is relatively free of cultural minorities, a secular tradition has not posed many serious problems until recently.
On a practical level, I really can't condone what Québec is proposing. Nor can I support other imperatives like the FIFA scandal from the spring. The Charter is obviously about women covering their faces, and it is therefore a clearly Islamophobic move. Division amongst society is relatively high, and that all of Québec is being admonished as on board with this troubles me. There are segments of all societies that hold attitudes that reinforce oppression. What's particularly interesting is that a wide gap has developed between so-called "conservative" and "liberal" feminists. Conservatives connect Islam to sexism while liberals grab onto the notion of choice. There are no clearly drawn lines when it comes to interpretation, and this is again why it's such a difficult element.
Lastly, I have been trying to understand this as an economic issue. It seems to be pretty far removed from the realm of the economy, though it is expressly reinforcing notions of who can and should work: the secular person. Work is a key part of economic activity, and this is therefore an important connection in a story that seems to not be talked about from the financial perspective. In a world where Québec is seldom mentioned outside of talking about separatism, this move has garnered serious attention. And perhaps it's most interesting because one of the major elements of this scandal is that, in my opinion, it is designed to be a wedge issue. The Parti Québecois has failed to gain traction amongst francophones on the economy, language, or climate change. The issue of secularism is something that has a significant power to shape the way that Québecers think of themselves. The federal government is already preparing itself for a fight, and Québec society, in many regards, seems to feel ready for it.
Secularism refers to a political ideology where religion and government are divorced from one another. As a policy it is dominant in the United States, Turkey, and France, where these societies struggle with how religion influences politics, social interaction, and the economy. Secularism manifests itself differently in different societies. In the United States, an example with which Canadians are rather familiar, it has largely been an attack on other religions while reinforcing a deeply Christian past. In my view this is due to the fact that secularism in the United States was all about religious tolerance for different Protestant Christian groups. In France and Turkey, secularism has largely targeted all religions, in a way that it similar to what is happening currently in Québec.
As for multiculturalism, it is a policy, not a reality. Diversity is a fact of modern society and multiculturalism refers to a specific way of integrating others, and in Canada, as with the rest of the world, there are serious debates about the degree to which multiculturalism is in fact successful. Mind you a large portion of it is uninformed, xenophobic, political nonsense, but much of it is careful consideration of what other alternatives might be. Fundamentally, the idea should be that multiculturalism, while I support it steadfastedly, is not infallible. There could be something better and reasonable discourse on the matter should be encouraged rather than believing that it is outright the only way. In order to evaluate it you have to examine alternatives, and that's precisely what comparative politics is all about. To start, it's helpful to understand what other jurisdictions have multicultural policies. The sad truth is, not many. Secularism is billed as the alternative to multiculturalism, but establishing this as the binary is really useless since that barely covers the issue. Moreover, secularism and multiculturalism are not opposites.
Another concept that I feel is not being unpacked is the idea of how different Québec and Canada are, particularly in terms of identity. It's no secret that most Canadians tend to feel a sense of superiority over Americans based on the treatment of minorities. I'd argue that anglophone Canadians feel the same way about Québec in a lot of ways. It reinforces for Canadians that they are superior because an issue like this is not happening there. It allows Canadians to forget about the ways in which they marginalise others that may be less blatant.
This otherness is amplified by the limited knowledge of Québec's history by outsiders. As someone who is a Quebecer and who teaches Québec history, I can say that I have a slightly more intimate knowledge of Québec than the average anglophone. What most people tend to miss is that Québec is rather different from Canada in a lot of meaningful ways, not the least of which being that since the 1960s it has taken a sufficiently different approach to the organisation of society than Canada has. For the most part, it has actively sought to remove the church from all facets of formal power. There is an open acknowledgement among francophones of the historical role played by Catholicism, though the major current is that religion does not mix with public life. This is highlighted in the controversy about the crucifix in the National Assembly. Given that Québec (at least outside Montréal) is relatively free of cultural minorities, a secular tradition has not posed many serious problems until recently.
On a practical level, I really can't condone what Québec is proposing. Nor can I support other imperatives like the FIFA scandal from the spring. The Charter is obviously about women covering their faces, and it is therefore a clearly Islamophobic move. Division amongst society is relatively high, and that all of Québec is being admonished as on board with this troubles me. There are segments of all societies that hold attitudes that reinforce oppression. What's particularly interesting is that a wide gap has developed between so-called "conservative" and "liberal" feminists. Conservatives connect Islam to sexism while liberals grab onto the notion of choice. There are no clearly drawn lines when it comes to interpretation, and this is again why it's such a difficult element.
Lastly, I have been trying to understand this as an economic issue. It seems to be pretty far removed from the realm of the economy, though it is expressly reinforcing notions of who can and should work: the secular person. Work is a key part of economic activity, and this is therefore an important connection in a story that seems to not be talked about from the financial perspective. In a world where Québec is seldom mentioned outside of talking about separatism, this move has garnered serious attention. And perhaps it's most interesting because one of the major elements of this scandal is that, in my opinion, it is designed to be a wedge issue. The Parti Québecois has failed to gain traction amongst francophones on the economy, language, or climate change. The issue of secularism is something that has a significant power to shape the way that Québecers think of themselves. The federal government is already preparing itself for a fight, and Québec society, in many regards, seems to feel ready for it.
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
VMAs 2013: Media and Sexuality
On Sunday night the MTV Video Music Awards were presented, shining a spotlight on American culture. Much has been written about Miley Cyrus joining Robin Thicke onstage for the controversial summer hit "Blurred Lines". I've been busy paying attention to what's going on through social media, television, and online articles written from numerous perspectives. I want to state some things that I thought were relevant, which I'll hopefully do succinctly below.
Instead of trying to explain what happened, I'll leave you with the performance itself so that you can have an unfiltered explanation. There's a lot to take in, that's for sure. The performances were, firstly, absolutely atrocious. I found the singing and dancing to be pretty abysmal, but quality is not the primary focus, not by a longshot. The sexualised nature of the performance has drawn criticism from hundreds of millions of people.
The media reaction has been swift, and it has developed into a massive storm. Social media sites, Twitter in particular, have been inundated with posts about the VMA performance. The mainstream media has gotten in on the action, with CNN (among other guilty parties) privileging the VMA scandal over the developments in Syria where civilians were gassed. Largely, the reactions have been to the effect of slut-shaming. Twitter has been awash with statements condemning the performance and the mainstream media has joyfully jumped in, with some even going so far as to question the sanity of Cyrus. The central arguments seem to be that this was an over-sexualised act marketed to children, and that it is offensive because it is "indecent".
The feminist blogosphere, however, with sites such as Feministing and Jezebel, has countered some of the major discourses coming out of social media, print, and television. They have been quick to hit back that the performance is offensive, but not really for the reasons listed above. While the acts were sexual in nature, the problem, to many, has been the overtones and undertones or race, sexuality and gender.
We live in a society where sex is a significant part of public life. The VMAs, in my opinion, were complicit in normalising behaviour where men and women play oppositional roles and are therefore viewed through radically different lenses. Thicke's actions have not come under scrutiny thus far, and it seems likely that they will not, despite the rather expressly rapey content of his single "Blurred Lines".
I've read some great articles that also highlight the degree to which young female artists break the mould by becoming "rebels" by adopting selected parts from myriad western queer and black cultures. ThinkProgress' Alyssa Rosenberg put it nicely when she said this is common for young peformers who wanted to "demonstrate a certain kind of rebelliousness, while still remaining largely acceptable to a mass-market audience" without struggling with the loss privilege that transgressing these lines would entail.
I think that what's missing, from my perspective, is a serious discussion about agency. I won't pretend to know what's going on behind the scenes or even on stage, but I imagine there's an intricate balance between the actors we see and the actors we don't see that produces this type of stuff. Matthew Good sums it up quite well when he states that female child performers "no longer have access to the machine that made them stars, one so powerful there is almost nothing comprable in entertainment, so decisions have to be made". It's no surprise that the trajectory taken Cyrus is a well-travelled road. The larger cultural attitudes are certainly propagated by young artists, but I'd argue that they are reactions to a culture that finds it satisfying to observe and an industry that feeds off this system. Again, slut-shaming and talking about sex is more interesting to the average American than a discourse on economic inequality or human rights violations. I believe it's easy for people to have an opinion on something like this so the volume of participants is high. It helps that this is so controversial that it is no problem to sustain.
Instead of trying to explain what happened, I'll leave you with the performance itself so that you can have an unfiltered explanation. There's a lot to take in, that's for sure. The performances were, firstly, absolutely atrocious. I found the singing and dancing to be pretty abysmal, but quality is not the primary focus, not by a longshot. The sexualised nature of the performance has drawn criticism from hundreds of millions of people.
The media reaction has been swift, and it has developed into a massive storm. Social media sites, Twitter in particular, have been inundated with posts about the VMA performance. The mainstream media has gotten in on the action, with CNN (among other guilty parties) privileging the VMA scandal over the developments in Syria where civilians were gassed. Largely, the reactions have been to the effect of slut-shaming. Twitter has been awash with statements condemning the performance and the mainstream media has joyfully jumped in, with some even going so far as to question the sanity of Cyrus. The central arguments seem to be that this was an over-sexualised act marketed to children, and that it is offensive because it is "indecent".
The feminist blogosphere, however, with sites such as Feministing and Jezebel, has countered some of the major discourses coming out of social media, print, and television. They have been quick to hit back that the performance is offensive, but not really for the reasons listed above. While the acts were sexual in nature, the problem, to many, has been the overtones and undertones or race, sexuality and gender.
We live in a society where sex is a significant part of public life. The VMAs, in my opinion, were complicit in normalising behaviour where men and women play oppositional roles and are therefore viewed through radically different lenses. Thicke's actions have not come under scrutiny thus far, and it seems likely that they will not, despite the rather expressly rapey content of his single "Blurred Lines".
I've read some great articles that also highlight the degree to which young female artists break the mould by becoming "rebels" by adopting selected parts from myriad western queer and black cultures. ThinkProgress' Alyssa Rosenberg put it nicely when she said this is common for young peformers who wanted to "demonstrate a certain kind of rebelliousness, while still remaining largely acceptable to a mass-market audience" without struggling with the loss privilege that transgressing these lines would entail.
I think that what's missing, from my perspective, is a serious discussion about agency. I won't pretend to know what's going on behind the scenes or even on stage, but I imagine there's an intricate balance between the actors we see and the actors we don't see that produces this type of stuff. Matthew Good sums it up quite well when he states that female child performers "no longer have access to the machine that made them stars, one so powerful there is almost nothing comprable in entertainment, so decisions have to be made". It's no surprise that the trajectory taken Cyrus is a well-travelled road. The larger cultural attitudes are certainly propagated by young artists, but I'd argue that they are reactions to a culture that finds it satisfying to observe and an industry that feeds off this system. Again, slut-shaming and talking about sex is more interesting to the average American than a discourse on economic inequality or human rights violations. I believe it's easy for people to have an opinion on something like this so the volume of participants is high. It helps that this is so controversial that it is no problem to sustain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)