Therese Tinkering

Does Combatting the Defamation of Religion protect human rights?

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:37:00 +0000

From my post at the BIC Interns Blog:

A few days ago the UN General Assembly Third Committee passed a resolution on Combatting the Defamation of Religions. The proponents of this resolution argue that there is a need to protect religious minorities from stereotyping and to prevent messages of religious hatred from being disseminated. I agree that there is such a need. However, upon further consideration, and certainly after attending a panel discussion on this topic a couple of weeks ago, I have become convinced that focusing on combatting the defamation of religion will not achieve this aim, but rather create multiple problems of its own.

On the normative level, such a move is very dangerous, because it obscures the fundamental concept of human rights. This resolution associates the protection of religions with the protection of individual human rights. Making the leap of giving human rights to religions is inconsistent with the principle of human rights and international law in general. Individuals have human rights because they are human. Thus, a legal system with human rights at its core would seek to protect the individual from abuse by government, other individuals, and more impersonal forces like the market. Seeking to extend the same protection to beliefs, ideas, and practices, will in the end do individuals a great disfavour, irrespective of their religion or beliefs.

In practice there are two immediate problems that arise when seeking to apply the concept of rights to religions. The first is the conflict of interest that may arise when the rights of an individual are in conflict with those of a religion. The resolution implicitly opens the door for restricting individual rights (particularly the right to freedom of expression) in the name of religion. Among other things, the resolution explicitly condemns the use of various media to incite violence and xenophobia, or “discrimination against any religion” or religious symbol.

Clearly, I am not in favour of incitement to violence and xenophobia either, and am glad that most countries already have laws that impose reasonable restrictions on free speech in these areas (though they could be better enforced). But focusing on religions (as opposed to individuals with diverse beliefs) primarily serves to muddle the issue. For what is a religion? And what constitutes discrimination against a religion?

This brings me to the second problem, which is that this resolution implicitly makes the government the official watchdog of religion. Governments would be tasked with defining (a) which sets of beliefs constitute 'valid' religions, (b) which of the hetrogeneous beliefs held by the followers of a religion constitute the 'pure' and inviolable core of that religion, and (c) what constitutes defamation of this sacred core.

It is easy to perceive that the scope for misuse by undemocratic governments is large. It would justify the suppression of free speech on the grounds that religious principles are being defamed. It would permit restrictions on religious minorities, should their beliefs be deemed defamatory to other religions by the government. Suppression of the rights of women in the name of religious tradition would become justifiable under international law. It is a true pandora's box of human rights violations, as in the extreme sense, the existence of one religion can be construed as the defamation of another.

What, then, ought to be done? The issue is really one of adequately enforcing existing legislation that protect individuals, especially religious minorities, against defamation and incitements to violence, and to make sure that they can freely practice their religion. Such measures would reap the benefits intended by the Defamation of Religion resolution, but avoid the pitfalls.

A second course of action is for each individual to excercise the right (and responsibility) that comes from having freedom to speak our opinion. Indeed, more free speech is the best way to counter defamatory and ignorant speech. When confronted with bigoted and malicious opinions, we should speak, blog, write to the newspapers, go on radio, and so forth, and set them right.

Courageous Princes in Denmark?

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:44:00 +0000

Today is Blog Action Day, and the focus this year is climate change. So I thought I'd participate by posting a few of my own thoughts about where the issue stands. As I have been attending discussions and blogging about climate change over the past few weeks, I have thought about the scientific, political, and economic aspects of climate change. And then I was struck by an idea that perfectly captured how I felt about the ongoing climate change negotiations.

Since I was young, I have loved to read about heroes, fictional and real, who had the problems of the world thrust upon them through no fault of their own. And they were human, they made mistakes, they doubted, they were afraid. But one thing united them all: they arose for the sake of others and faced their fears; they had courage.

Today the world is facing climate change, a calamity of unprecedented and unpredictable proportions, a calamity that will submerge countries (first in line are small island states and Bangladesh), lay lands barren through droughts and floods, and cause violent and unpredictable spells of extreme weather.(1) It is the stuff stories are made of, set on a beautiful blue pearl of a planet speeding through endless space, faced by imminent catastrophe, with so much potential, so much to save, and so little time. A potential best-seller if I ever saw one. And there are heroes: Farmers doing their best to feed their families despite the droughts(2), activists who dedicate their lives to protecting the environment and raising awareness(3), scientists researching the issue(4), and millions of people making changes in their every-day lives.

I do not wish to belittle their efforts in any way, but I am afraid it will not be enough. For where, I ask, where are the leaders with whom we have entrusted the responsibility to, as their titles signify, to lead humanity through his challenge? Where are the valiant princes and noble rulers of the earth? So I remain dissatisfied... I was never very fond of tragedies, and this has the potential to be a truly memorable, indeed unforgettable, one. One that will rival the finest Shakespearean tragedy, and make Hamlet and Macbeth seem cheerful by comparison.

However, I am yet hopeful that we may turn out to be in an epic drama, not a tragedy, of global proportions. I am hoping to see, out of the corner of my eye, the knights in shining armour come charging in on the international political arena, full of energy and courage, ready to act. We have talked for two decades about climate change. Now is the time to courageously step forward and bravely propose, commit, enact, and make the green future a reality.

Courage is the true characteristic of any heroic leader, and that is what the story sorely lacks to date. Heroes who have the courage to face the press and the polls, the campaign-funders and each other, and who do not fear going down the green road before anyone else does. Where is this courage to do what science, humanity, and ultimately, our deepest moral convictions tell us is the only responsible course of action? This courage must be born from the heartfelt conviction that humanity shares one common fate, and that we are all connected.(5) Most leaders will not lose their homes and livelihoods from global warming, but they must act for the sake of those who will.

Will world leaders come to the the Copenhagen Climate Conference, armed with love for justice and the knowledge of the oneness of humankind, and establish an international climate regime that is fair, ambitious, and binding enough to secure our common future? Will they brave their fears and become the heroes of future generations? Or will they, like princes in Denmark before them, succumb to prevarication and inaction, bringing us one step closer to global tragedy?

(This blog has also been posted at the Interns@BIC Blog, and is reposted here with some minor changes.)

Blogging at the BIC Intern Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:21:00 +0000

This fall I'm doing an internship with the Baha'i International Community, where I will be doing a few different things. One of the things I'll be doing is writing for their Intern Blog. Some of these posts I'll also cross-post here.

The Baha'i International Community (BIC) is an international non-governmental organization that cooperates with the United Nations, international organizations, and other NGOs. The aim of the BIC is to promote and apply the principles of the Baha'i Faith to "contribute to the resolution of current day challenges facing humanity and the development of a united, peaceful, just, and sustainable civilization." Among other things they have an excellent and very interesting collection of statements.

Being at the BIC and at the UN (mostly the Third Committee of the General Assembly) I get to see and hear first-hand some interesting talks, presentations, and statements, and I hope to share some of this on the blog.

Of Manners and Morals

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:39:00 +0000

Yesterday I came across a reference to Miss Manners Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior. I was intrigued – what is excruciatingly correct behavior like? Is it really so excruciating?

I was intrigued, but also expecting to be provoked, as I googled my way to some more examples of Miss Manners’ advise on etiquette and good manners. I expected to be provoked, because I firmly believe that the correct way in which to eat asparagus is of negligible importance in the grand scheme of things. Our morals, truthfulness, courage, and so on, can in no wise be compared to our ability to distinguish one fork from another.

However, I was very pleasantly surprised by Miss Manners, and I have learned to appreciate why manners are important, even beyond smoothing out the occasional awkwardness of social situations.

Comparing the relative virtue of morals and manners, as I have done, misses the fact that manners are not there to replace morals, they are there to make the most of them. Moral values, such as courage and honesty are universal – everyone may not have them in equal amounts, but everyone can appreciate them. Manners, on the other hand, pertain more to how we behave in a specific situation - do we hold open the door, or not - and rely on a shared understanding of what holding the door open actually means.*

(*To some, this means “you must have weak arms and be generally incapable of opening doors,” and to others, “I open the door for you because my own efforts are of little consequence compared to your comfort.”)

Manners make the most of our morals because they often provide the means through which we express them. If I were truly grateful for a gift from a friend, would it not be natural to write her a card to say how grateful I am? The generosity and deep appreciation of my own heart should dictate that I seek to share these emotions with her in a way she will understand. It is not about reciprocating tit for tat (which would require me to do something comparable for her), or upholding an empty social ritual, but about communicating my gratitude.

If I greatly respect someone, I may express this by giving them a seat at the head of the table, be quiet while they speak, and/or whichever small tokens she would understand. This is not about being stiff or sucking up, but rather to reinforce (or sometimes even replace) spoken language (“I respect you”) with another kind of language: actions. And what are manners but very small acts, acts that nevertheless speak loudly?

A second, equally crucial, but perhaps less obvious value of manners is that they may prevent us from inflicting our own shortcomings on others. It seems Miss Manners is forever asked questions of this sort, “What is the polite way to tell the guests that really all we want for our wedding is a lot of cash?” Her answer is, of course, that there is none. It is poor manners to expect gifts in the first place, and equally poor manners to tell people what to get you. Refraining from putting “Give us money, please” on your wedding invitation, because you don’t want people to think you’re rude, doesn’t mean you’re not greedy. But it does prevent you from inflicting it on your poor wedding guests.

Resurrecting Therese Tinkering

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Sat, 23 May 2009 22:20:00 +0000

Over the past few months, there has been an increasingly insistent voice in the back of my mind, asking me to blog, blog, blog! This voice has been echoed by some of my friends, in very kind and encouraging ways.

I have therefore resolved that it is about time I get back to some serious Tinkering! Not too serious, I hope, but at least regular and enthusiastic tinkering. There are still a few technical quirks I need to sort out, so I ask your patience while I get all the links and menus working right.

Having taken a rather extended break from excessive tinkering, (and from thinking in general) has been very refreshing. However, the reason for taking a break is, in the end, to resume with new vigour and inspiration. I hope this will be the case.

Hopefully I will also find the time to share a few of my non-computer tinker-projects from the past year.

Taking a break

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:21:00 +0000

This blog has not been updated for a while, and it wont be updated for another while yet. I have some thoughts and plans for the revival of Therese Tinkering, but in the meantime, please be patient and do not take anything I say here too seriously :)

I will make sure to make it known when I really get going again with this blog.

National and international copyright law

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:16:00 +0000

I'm not a particularly good blogger, it turns out, having failed miserably to regularly update my blog. But having been forced to take a break in my schedule by some at first delicious, and then quite pernicious, fish soup, I might as well do something moderately useful with my time.

I was just reading an article entitled The Day the Music Died by Prof. Michael Geist, about a 100% legal wiki-based collection of music scores, the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP). The site was based in Canada, and all the music was in the public domain in Canada. However, it went offline after Universal Edition, an Austrian firm demanded it remove certain works from being accessed from Europe, whereworks take longer to enter the public domain.

The legal grounds of Universal Edition are not strong, as a Canadian court would find the site to be in full compliance with Canadian law, and an Austrian court does not have jurisdiction in Canada. Despite the site being in total compliance with domestic law and the questionable jurisdiction of any Austrian claims, however, the site complied with the firm's demands, and disappeared entirely.

I think it is fair to say that while the internet may not be a clearly defined legal space, it is far from a legal vacuum, and the vagueness that comes from operating in a mishmash of domestic laws seldom ends up benefiting law-abiding internet users like myself (or any other hypothetical readers of this blog).

I'm not a fan of copyright or unrestrained big business. At the same time, I believe in being obedient to the law even if it is inconvenient and silly (some copyright law falls into this category in my opinion). But what about that huge gray expanse between the laws of one country and those of another? Between the assertions of the self-proclaimed owners, and the assertions of those who claim the right to use the materials?

Well, despite companies like Universal Edition getting their way more often than not (the ongoing case of Allofmp3.com is an interesting one to watch), it is important to remember that international copyright law, like other international law, is not as straight-forward as domestic law. The fact remains that international law takes states as its subjects. Thus, despite the hegemony of certain countries (e.g. the US) and their companies, their assertions and copyright warnings amount to nothing unless they are also endorsed by the law of the country in which I am at the time, and the host country of the online services I'm using.

Having spent a very interesting summer in East Timor, I discovered that among the whole sets of laws yet to be passed in this young democracy are property laws. It would therefore be entirely legal to purchase copied DVDs (which there were a lot of).

However convenient this can be for those who frequent such places, I believe that a reasonable and much more representative international legal code for the internet and information ownership is long overdue, going well beyond the issue of file-sharing. Trade and information on the internet cannot conform to all the worlds domestic laws, as Geist pointed out. Freedom of speech needs both to be protected and exercised responsibly online as in the non-digital world. Who has the right to see whose e-mails in the name of counter-terrorism?

The issue that arises is one of accountability: If the laws of another country regarding my (a) financial transactions, (b) freedom of speech, (c) privacy, or (d) access to information in the public domain, are applied to me, isn't that indicative of a failing in democracy? If taxation without representation is hard to swallow, shouldn't legislation without representation be equally so? There are two ways about the issue: Logging off, or creating an international democratic framework for clarifying and upholding information, speech, and privacy rights (of both ownership and access).

Material and spiritual civilization

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:11:00 +0000

I ended my last post with a question about whether material development (industrialization etc.) must necessarily bring with it a way of life that emphasizes speed and consumption. As I was falling asleep last night, there rang a bell far back in the logs my head seems to keep (much to my own surprise) of things I read. Today I found the reference. It is a quote by Abdu'l-Baha, the son of Baha'u'llah (the founder of the Baha'i Faith) and head of the Faith after his Father's passing. Abdu'l-Baha traveled quite a bit to the West, and this particular piece is from a speech given 14th of April 1912 in New York City.

“Since my arrival in this country I find that material civilization has progressed greatly, that commerce has attained the utmost degree of expansion; arts, agriculture and all details of material civilization have reached the highest stage of perfection, but spiritual civilization has been left behind. Material civilization is like unto the lamp, while spiritual civilization is the light in that lamp. If the material and spiritual civilization become united, then we will have the light and the lamp together, and the outcome will be perfect.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 11)

I think the metaphor of lamp and light is very beautiful, and it also conveys a nuanced relationship between material and spiritual civilization. Exactly how to define the two, I'm not sure, but I imagine material civilization to pertain to worldly achievements such as economic prosperity, increased scientific knowledge, health, literacy and arts, and so forth. Spiritual civilization I imagine to pertain to things that give our lives meaning, such as faith, service, love and justice in our interactions with others. Material civilization may protect and strengthen spiritual progress, but it's important to remember that the purpose of material civilization is to spread the light of spirituality, to create meaningful human lives.

This is, at least, how I understand it. And it explains why the capability approach advocated by Sen in the field of development makes so much sense, precisely because it focuses on those (material) capabilities that enable individuals to pursue the lives they have reason to value.

But how exactly do we find meaning, or value, in our lives? Through what kind of reasoning? Is what we choose to value necessarily the same as a deeper meaning in (or of) life?

Evidence (war being exhibit number one) seems to suggest that it is not; we often choose to pursue the wrong kind of value. That, in turn, explains why Abdu'l-Baha noted that spiritual civilization had not progressed in pace with material civilization. Globally, this means that our material capacity for waging war has by far outstripped the spiritual capacity for making peace.

Personally, it means that my material capacity to spend all night on facebook (or blogging for that matter) far outstrips my spiritual capacity to use it for meaningful purposes, or better yet, turn off the computer, say my prayers, and go to sleep.

Slowing Down

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:29:00 +0000

Slow down, you move to fast.
You got to make the morning last.

Turns out that Simon and Garfunkel, in the "59th Street Bridge Song" are not the only people who think so. Carl Honore, in this TED talk, gives an interesting insight into what "Slowing down in a world built for speed" means. He's also written a book, In Praise of Slowness, which I haven't read, but I'm hoping to do so this summer.

I am no expert on modernity and all its critics, but I think the slow movement presents an important critique of the modern conception of the good life. By insisting that less is more, or at least that less can be more (i.e. better), it contradicts systems of thought that seeks progress through increases in production and consumption.

The slow movement started in Italy with Slow Food, which promotes food that uses traditional recipes, regional produce, and is generally also organic. It also encompasses slow cities, slow schools, slow travel, slow money; in short, you can do most things the slow way. The key to the slow movement is that instead of doing as much as possible, it is better to set aside the time to really enjoy some things.

What I find interesting about this is that is a very diffuse movement, driven by an alternative understanding of what makes the good life good: living life, not hurrying through it, as Carl Honore says. It is thus markedly different from the postmodern critiques of modernity (debunking ideas of progress, faith in technology, pointing out its ethnocentric nature, etc), both in that it is popular, not elitist, and in that it posits a concrete alternative way for the individual to live. The deconstructivist approach of e.g. Michel Foucault or Arturo Escobar is not very easy to practice or even read, without a certain educational background. Slow is different in that it emerges from individuals' lifestyle choices, not an intellectual project. (There is nothing wrong with intellectual projects, of course, but the difference is interesting to note.)

A second thing I find interesting is the much broader view of the human being it takes, not only as consumers or voters, but as also needing social interaction, time to reflect, and so forth. I think that, as a practical philosophy on how to achieve the good life, it presents a non-modernist vision of what development ought to be about. It lacks all the finesse of Sen's capabilities approach, but can be seen to be articulated rather in the ways in which everyday people invest their resources: how they spend their time, how they spend their money, the educational choices they make for their children, and so forth.

While being non-modernist, and appreciating traditional cuisine, etc, I would be hard pressed to call the slow movement traditional in any sense of the word. It is a critique of modernity that has emerged from within the modern states, and as such it undoes the traditional dichotomies of modern=First World=West vs. traditional=Third World=South. This is a refreshing insight for two reasons: first, it highlights the heterogeneity of opinions within the first world itself. Second, it opens up for the possibility of views that fall outside this schemata all together: neither modernist nor traditional.

This leads me to an interesting question: Is it possible to have material progress without establishing a modern consumerist and materialist society? And (being an optimist) how can this be done? If you have an answer, I'd be happy to hear it!

Having just voiced my belief in progress, it is clear that I am not a hard core post-modernist, but I am not a modernist either. Neither am I a 'slowist.' Theirs is a critique of modernity that is, perhaps, not quite critical enough, despite being interesting. That said, I went to a slow school, buy slow food, and I try to slow down my life, but must confess that I've found the three-hour exam system of my university to be very uncooperative with a slow approach to learning and assessment.

Bath and Persuasion

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:16:00 +0000

Yesterday I took a trip to Bath, a very charming city in Somerset, England. It was a great trip with great people. Walking through Bath is a bit like walking through the past, from Roman times to the Regency era. Of course, a small dose of imagination to get rid of all the cars and the various shop signs helps. However, having recently watched the 1995 BBC film adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion, partially set in Bath, I seem to be mentally stuck in the Regency era anyways.

Persuasion was the last book Jane Austen wrote, written as her health was declining and published posthumously. The main character is Anne Elliot, who at 27 is beyond the bloom of her youth, and on the track to spinsterhood. Events reintroduce her to Captain Wentworth, to whom she was briefly engaged eight years ago. Anne broke off the engagement under the persuasion of Lady Russel, a close friend of the family. In the end they renew their engagement, while walking through the pretty streets of Bath.

I find the book particularly interesting because of the insight it gives into the thoughts and feelings of Anne, even more so than Austen's other books. While calm on the outside, the internal life of Anne is full of tumult. Anne is a mature and sensible woman, and it is not the extremes of her feelings that fascinate me, but rather the fact that she feels so much, all at once. Elizabeth of Pride and Prejudice first feels intense dislike, then love, for Mr. Darcy. Anne, on the other hand, embodies all the contradictions simultaneously. She is at once calm and agitated, resigned yet hopeful about her fate, critically aware yet charitable towards people's shortcomings, in pleasure and pain.

For example, when Mr. Wentworth runs into her by chance in Bath, she sees him first and has a chance to prepare. Thus, "all the overpowering, blinding, bewildering, first effects of strong surprise were over with her" when he sees her. "Still, however, she had enough to feel! It was agitation, pain, pleasure, a something between delight and misery."

The book is full of these small contradictions. She suffers exquisite gratification and acute misery, all in one sentence, throughout the novel. At one moment Anne wonders "how were his sentiments to be read? Was this like wishing to avoid her? And the next moment she was hating herself for the folly which asked the question."

I like the movie adaptation, but this rich view into the character's mind is very hard to translate onto the screen. My friend commented that it was a more mellow story than Pride and Prejudice, wondering why I would prefer them both equally. I know Pride and Prejudice is a general favourite. Yet, I think, that when considering the voice of the author, Persuasion is actually the more intense of the two. Until that comment, I had not realized how important the voice of the novel was in my appreciation of it. Anne has less wit than Elizabeth, but her insights are sharper, and the social critiques they represent are bolder. The silly vanity of looks and pride in title of Anne's family compares unfavourably with the friendly openness and hard work of the people of the Navy; the book argues for meritocracy over aristocracy.

And now, I am all impatience to be done with this post, all eagerness to spend lavishly of my (post-exam) free time to make it just right. In short, I could go on writing and editing forever, but I probably ought to finish. To end, I strongly recommend all three: Bath, the movie, and the book. The movie I'd give 4.5/5. The book gets a 5/5.

Perhaps I ought to add a short explanatory note on these scores I keep giving. I am not a great enthusiast for everything I read. Rather, I try not to clog this blog by writing about uninteresting books, among them Statistical Methods in the Social Sciences, which at the moment gets 1/5 for inducing acute boredom and featuring confusing explanations throughout. This score may be revised to a -200/5 or 2.5/5, pending my exam results.

Exams and Avocado Salad

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:42:00 +0000

I realize I haven't written in a few days. I am neither dead nor bored with blogging, but just very busy studying for exams. Therefore, I don't have much time to spend tinkering with ideas and other things. Well, almost no time. I had avocado salad for lunch yesterday, and decided to put the seed in water. It looks something like this:

The image is borrowed from WikiHow's article on how to plant an avocado tree. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Despite having just undermined the overall argument of this post, it is true that for the most part I haven't been tinkering with anything, even when not studying. I think a lot of stress is one of the best ways to squash the creativity out of people, at least out of me. The idea strikes me as oddly familiar... ;)

I originally set myself a goal of at least three posts per week. While waiting for normalcy to return, I may have to revise that.

Multidimensional aspects of poverty

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:18:00 +0000

The last couple of days I've been very busy, as I was so lucky as to get an invitation for a conference that marked the launch of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI). The different presentations were very interesting, and they all centred around the idea of the multidimensionality of poverty.

The first session looked at ways of incorporating questions on five 'new' capabilities into national surveys, in order to understand more about them and about how to prevent capability deprivation in these areas. The first four are capabilities 'proper': empowerment, employment/quality of work, respect/going around without shame, and safety from violence, and the last one, which is not a capability per se but still very important is subjective assessment of happiness, wellbeing, and meaning. I thought it was very encouraging to see my class' economics tutor present on living without shame. However, I personally found the inquiry into subjective assessments the most interesting, especially the part going into the role of meaning.

The second session was with Amartya Sen at the Sheldonian Theatre. Most of the lecture was from his paper "What do we want from a theory of justice?" (2006), and interesting and entertaining as usual. It is interesting to see how his concept of incompleteness can be applied to theories of justice as well.

One thing I really liked about the last session, in which F. Bourguignon from the World Bank was one of the speakers, was the degree to which he not only paid homage to, but fully incorporated the concept of multidimensionality, and how this is being put into the research at the World Bank. That was very encouraging, and I am beginning to think that while Bourguignon may be a few years ahead of the whole machinery of the Bank, the criticisms currently being launched at the Bank by development activists and academics reflects the Bank as it stood a few years ago, but not where it's heading. I hope it continues to move in that direction. The World Bank is also in the position to be strong and secure enough in its finances and legitimacy to be able to criticise itself quite harshly (and hopefully also learn from that criticism) without worrying about finance and influence disappearing. I hope it will continue critical self-reflection.

I could ramble on - it was definitely food for thought, but I've got other stuff to do. It was a great experience, and I had a very good time with the other participants from my class.

Creativity and Consultation

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Mon, 28 May 2007 15:04:00 +0000

Here is a really neat video that I just watched. Sir Ken Robinson is speaking at TED Talks on "Do schools kill creativity?" The presentation is very interesting, and humorously delivered.

While listening to the talk I had a nagging feeling that this was, somehow, absolutely essential to the topic of development. I have to confess that my studies in international development have not had a great deal to say about creativity, but then again, there are so many things to be said. Or is that really why it's been missed?

I think the contribution of this talk lies in the rich way in which it views the human being, and how it conceives of human flourishing. Thinkers who have put their heads to what human flourishing means (what capabilities it requires), such as Martha Nussbaum, would clearly second creativity as part of the capability to have senses, imaginations, and thought, as she puts it: "Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason – and to do these things in a ‘‘truly human’’ way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education..." and "Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one’s own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth." (from "Capabilities as fundamental entitlements" 2003).

Thus creativity can be seen as an integral part of human flourishing. And if that is so, an educational system that squashes it will be anti-developmental (at least in that respect).

However, I think, as Robinson points out, that the benefit of creativity lies not only in its inherent value, the fulfilment, joy, and growth it supports. Creativity is also instrumental: Robinson argues that creativity is necessary if we are to make the best of our collective future. While the industrial world that emerged in the 19th Century and its educational needs (for literate and numerate workers) has not so much disappeard as been exported from the North to other parts of the world, his point still holds true.

Thus there is a crucial need to reform educational systems at all levels of teaching to consider the whole human being (mind, body, soul, imagination, etc), because it (a) is part of human flourishing, and (b) is necessary to solve human problems. And by creativity, I do not mean only arts, or technological innovation (though certainly these are included), but I think creativity must be thought of as a mode of interaction that can allow not only new theories, new things, and new arts, to emerge, but also new forms of social structure.

Unfortunately I don't think it is only educational systems that kill creativity. I think our political systems have a tendency to do so as well. As Robinson pointed out: the fear of making a mistake kills creative thought. Thus political systems built up around the concept of conflict are not conducive to creative solutions, because the important thing is to be perceived to be in the right (or at least less wrong than the opposition), not to ask the difficult but important questions to which one might not know the answer yet. (In the private sector, I think Google is a company that has managed to make creativity an integral part of their structure and identity.)

Exactly what political and social systems that that enable the creative search for truth look like I'm not quite sure. However, I believe that it must be intimately connected with the concept of consultation as explored in the Baha'i writings. Abdu'l-Baha says:

"Man must consult on all matters, whether major or minor, so that he may become cognizant of what is good. Consultation giveth him insight into things and enableth him to delve into questions which are unknown. The light of truth shineth from the faces of those who engage in consultation. Such consultation causeth the living waters to flow in the meadows of man's reality, the rays of ancient glory to shine upon him, and the tree of his being to be adorned with wondrous fruit. The members who are consulting, however, should behave in the utmost love, harmony and sincerity towards each other. The principle of consultation is one of the most fundamental elements of the divine edifice. Even in their ordinary affairs the individual members of society should consult."

and:

"In this Cause [the Bahá'í Faith] consultation is of vital importance, but spiritual conference and not the mere voicing of personal views is intended. In France I was present at a session of the senate, but the experience was not impressive. Parliamentary procedure should have for its object the attainment of the light of truth upon questions presented and not furnish a battleground for opposition and selfopinion. Antagonism and contradiction are unfortunate and always destructive to truth. In the parliamentary meeting mentioned, altercation and useless quibbling were frequent; the result, mostly confusion and turmoil; even in one instance a physical encounter took place between two members. It was not consultation but comedy."

and:

"The purpose is to emphasize the statement that consultation must have for its object the investigation of truth. He who expresses an opinion should not voice it as correct and right but set it forth as a contribution to the consensus of opinion, for the light of reality becomes apparent when two opinions coincide. ..." (Excerpts from here)

Thus consultation is an integral part of the Baha'i administrative order. I could probably go on posting such insightful quotations for a long time, but I shall limit myself to these three, keep on thinking about how to enable the flourishing of creativity and creative desicion-making in the light of Abdu'l-Baha's words on consultation.

Monstrous Regiment

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Sun, 27 May 2007 21:20:00 +0000

So, being in university, I can't help reading books and articles, lots of them too. However, the other day I took the time to read something else, to read for pleasure, in fact. The book of my choice was Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett, and I thought it an interesting read.

The book is basically about Polly, who pretends to be a boy and joins up to the war in order to find her older brother and bring him home. However, Borogravia is loosing their perpetual warfare against all their neighbours, no matter what 'everyone' says. In the end Polly and her regiment of women end up getting entangled in the politics of it all, and there is a negotiation that allows them to be in the army as women, and that temporarily ends the war.

I think that, with the possible exception of The Night Watch, this is the darkest of Pratchett's novels to date. The insanity and suffering of a society that, through fear and propaganda, is made to support the perpetual war effort is made clear. The country's religion is that of the god Nuggan whose growing list of abominations (such as the color blue, crop rotation, and babies) is nothing short of insane, and makes life increasingly difficult for its citizens. The ruler is the Duchess, who (not unlike Orwell's Big Brother) is always watching from her portraits on the wall, and probably dead a long time ago. Most people just want to go on with their lives in the face of this insanity, but Pratchett does not idealize people's solidarity.

The darkest aspects of the novel are to be found in his treatment of the Working School for girls, in which three of the soldiers in the book have been exploited and abused before escaping to join the war. Wazzer's life there has broken her in all but one respect: her faith in the Duchess (whose smiling face was probably the only friendly face she ever saw, Polly recons) has taken her to the war on the mission to end it, which she does (like a true Joan of Arc). The impact of this cruelty is also seen in Lofty who is a near-mute pyromaniac. Thus men (and women in disguise) are mangled (both inside and outside) in the war, but this also happens at home to the girls at the working school, only everyone is too scared to ask questions.

Powerlessness and its gendered dimension is thus explored in Monstrous Regiment. Yet Pratchett does not see the solution in simply giving power to women. Indeed, the end reveals that many of the Borogravian army generals are in fact women, who have joined the army disguised as men, and have been just as good, or perhaps even better, at perpetuating the war-making machine as their male colleagues. The experience of Polly and the monstrous regiment is different, because they are permitted to join the army as women, yet the prospect for change this offers is left hanging as a question at the end of the novel, when Polly rejoins the army. However, the empowering effect on the monstrous regiment is seen - Polly becomes more assertive, and Lofty and her sister Tonker rob a bank after burning down the Girl's Working School.

I do apologize for rambling on, but I think it is an interesting thing that Pratchett is getting at here: social structures of violence do not change merely by placing women on top. Polly's contribution to change lies in her finding voice and confidence (e.g. to oppose the still war-bent Borogravian generals through media blackmailing), not in her beating them at their own game (making war) while pretending to be a boy, though the monstrous regiment does that too. Perhaps I am extrapolating too far from Pratchett in making this statement, but it seems to me that the issue of gender and power has less to do with rearranging the hierarchy than with the values on which society operates. That is, the goal is not to make men out of women (or vice versa), but to transform social relations and values so that neither men nor women are constrained by stupid ideas of nationalism, pride, glorifications of violence, heroic wars, and judgements about what the different genders ought or ought not, to do.

I'd give this book a 4/5.

My first post

noreply@blogger.com (Therese) — Sat, 26 May 2007 16:24:00 +0000

This is the first post in my newly created blog, Therese Tinkering. The original plan was to call it Therese Thinking, but I decided against it for two good reasons and one silly one. First, I think Therese Thinking is a slightly more pretentious title, and may lead people to expect profound insights, and I don't want to give people false hopes. The second is that while I do a bit of thinking now and then, I am always tinkering. The third (silly) reason is that Therese Tinkering alliterates, and I like alliteration.

I am not quite sure where I am going with this blog. At the moment I am just (*ahem*) tinkering around. ;) There will probably be more of that in the future. I might even share some of my real world tinkerings and experiments.

However, given the nature of a blog (written language communication), most of the tinkering here will probably be with ideas. The particular topics of interest are the Baha'i Faith, development studies, language and linguistics, and fantasy literature.