No intervention

It seems like a strange thought that the government shouldn't interfere and intervene in the business world. After all the government is pretty much what represents people and the most effective, powerful organizations that's supposed to enforce common interest.

Saying that the economy will sort itself out, seems to be a bit like saying:

"Don't touch the economy, because the economy is magic!"

Why would any system suddenly produce good outcomes for most people? And if it does not, why should our most costly defense system not be allowed to regulate it?

Bacon and Moore at the Ashmolean

I finally found the time to visit the Francis Bacon-Henry Moore exhibition at the Ashmolean. And it was well worth it!

As most temporary exhibitions at the Ashmolean this one is also small: it takes up only three rooms. Therefore it is very important that the selection of works be really good. Also, there is no space to present a lot of context, a very detailed story of the development. But the curators (Martin Harrison and Richard Calvocoressi) have done a good work and selected pieces both by Bacon and by Moore which highlight the major influences on them, connect their work to each other, and illustrate their major themes.

Of course besides fulfilling the above mentioned educational end aesthetic duties the exhibition offers more. In fact, it was a very strange and very personal experience. For some time I was appalled by Bacon's figures.Their grotesque movements, positions, the distorted faces, the flesh and bones made visible...I enjoyed the sensitivity and honesty of these works in a dark way. As statements about humans, as showing equally ferocious and ugly truths hiding below our skins. But today another aspect of Bacon's work struck me. It is the honesty of it. The figures stopped being threatening, although some of the pictures create the illusion that one has just stepped into a room where one is struck by the sight of these people doing there whatever they are doing. From threatening it went into compassionate. It appears now to me that what makes it hard to endure Bacon's works is the need it presents for opening up towards the vulnerability, the need for support and understanding that radiates from these figures.

Francis Bacon Second version of Triptych 1944 (1988, oil on canvas)

What appeared to be hostile monsters in the Second version of Triptych 1944 I suddenly saw as lungs, intestines, throats and mouths grown together in desperate, exposed positions. Why are they there? Who did this to them? Why is it happening? The focus shifted from the feeling of 'what is going to happen to me if I'm left alone with these beings?' to one of 'why would anyone do that to others?'

As I already mentioned, the exhibition created an exhibition that emphasizes important similarities between Bacon's and Moore's work. Some of Moore's statues almost call out for a gentle touch, or seem to suggest that their characters are already entrapped in a situation that is beyond help... In this way they make the onlooker feel powerless and lost, recreating the effect of those maddening situations when one's beloveds or friends need help and one cannot provide it.

I won't go on any longer about my experiences and what the works evoked in me. I suggest to everyone who can to go and see for themselves, and bring home a touching and humbling experience.

In case you are looking for a bit of introduction to their work, this interview with Bacon, and this short film about Moore (featuring himself, and showing how he handles the chisel) might be nice places to start.

Henry Moore Three Standing Figures (London, Battersea Park)

Bullshit worries about 'bullshit' jobs

David Graeber is one of those folks who do not help much to better the reputation of Anthropology, or tenured professors. His article 'On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs' went viral on the internet and every week a couple of my friends put it on their wall as if it would help them achieve some sort of revelation. 'Oh my, I might work in a bullshit job!' 'Wow, we would be so much better off if we wouldn't do all these jobs!' I can imagine them thinking stuff like this. But I cannot imagine that they actually spend one more minute thinking because then they would just close the tab with Graeber's article, blush because at first impulse they agreed with it, and then forget about it.

So, what's wrong with the claims of the article?

On bullshit jobs: Graeber claims that many service sector jobs (including admin jobs, but he also mentions jobs in transportation, PR, health admin, fast food restaurants, etc.) are meaningless, and the people who have to do these jobs are the worse off for this. They do not gain self-respect or self-fulfillment from working in these roles.

That's one of those 'oh, in the past everything was better (big sigh)' type of claims which do not make sense. When were masses of people employed in easy jobs which afforded them a living? In the middle ages? Clearly not. In the Roman Empire? Not really. During the Industrial Revolution? All those happy people toiling in the factories and mines? Or the ones sent off to the colonies? The proud ones in forced labor? In the early twentieth century? And why would everyone find a fulfilling job? If no one cares for sewage and cleaning will we be better off? A happier society with no butchers, because it is kind of hard and sometimes disgusting? Not to mention the early starts!

Graeber also laments the loss of jobs where people do 'real work'. It is true that it often causes problems if a skilled worker is replaced by a machine on the production line. But this is also more complicated than just the personal tragedy of that single individual. Probably the machine is more productive. Hence the company can make more profit. And then it can pay more taxes. And that goes back to public services. Also, people with only one skill-set were never in an easier situation. It was the false promise of the WWII enthusiasm and economic boom when people thought that they will have secure jobs 'til the end of their lives. But that was during the economic upheaval following the war. Not before that, not after that. And not in general terms: one of the reasons for it was that the colonies were still mostly under European control, so, they could pay for much of the losses of the European societies. So, if you do not just concentrate on your own neighborhood, you can easily see that this kind of comfort has a high price.

On the uselessness of service jobs: Graeber is one of those guys who didn't get economics 101. When you are thinking of what you pay for it is not only the material and the product that is involved. No one is - and shouldn't be - doing work for free. People's effort and time isn't for free. If someone prepares your food, walks your dogs, takes care of your kids, prepares your taxes, etc. that person is saving you time. The trick is to make good bargains: try to get the money you need to pay them in such a way as to be better off. If you can save 2 hours of work by getting your meals done, while you can pay for this with money you earn in an hour and a half you are better off. You can earn more in that half an hour, or even better, relax, be with your family, kids, walk your dog, read a good book, visit your parents.

Add to this that someone with good skills can probably earn more per hour - say an engineer - than someone without good skills. So, why would this person spend his or her time preparing food every day for a long time if he can in that same time earn more and thereby 1. she/he can pay someone else who doesn't have skills which are in demand, thereby helping that person earn a living, 2. provide better for her/his family and community, and self. So much about the loss of 'real jobs'.

Then take the rants about administration. People are shocked how there are more and more admin people about. Funnily, they always forget to mention that there are also way more people around, living for a longer time, being in better health (due in large part to well organized and accessible health services), enjoying more and more services. To coordinate all this demands larger admins, and yes, not proportionately larger ones, but exponentially larger ones. Why is that so? First, because the same amount of humans can create more data and do more types of things, have more demands, if they work more effectively. Which is just what technology enables us to do. Also, it enables us to enjoy our free time in many-many more ways then we used to. We get everywhere quicker, can communicate and therefore make decisions quicker, calculate and solve problems quicker, plan quicker, run experiments quicker. Maybe these things aren't easy to recognize for someone being as far from the competitive public sector as possible, but it is still so. These exponential growths in demands, opportunities, work output call for larger admin bodies to run well.

Graeber doesn't cite any statistics or any data confirming that bigger administrative structure makes things run less effectively. What does the decreased effectiveness then consists it? That he himself has to fill out more papers at work? Well, that's life: whereas earlier we used to have privileged positions in society where you weren't really accountable, that is not so anymore. Not as bad as you would think, at least not for the people who pay you, and the ones who you are supposed to serve.

Or that administration is boring? Sure it is. But nobody said it would be easy to live nowadays in a highly developed industrialized society. At least, not that easy that you have only to do what you enjoy and find fulfilling, and even that activity only for as long as you like to do it.

Stoic week!

Look, look! A wonderful idea, and a fun one to. Especially to people who are interested in practical uses of life-philosophies. Handbook, measurements, exercises. Have a great experience and try it out for a week what it is like to be a stoic.

Application and more info here: http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/stoic-week-2013/

Pop psychology and the ideal character

When reading popular psychology and self-help books one often encounters that the aim of the writer is to help the readers 'to get it right'. What this means varies from book to book: it can be about becoming self-confident, more creative, less anxious, making better relationship choices, being less of a slacker, and so on.

The success of these works relies in their capacity to make people believe that they can actually offer them what they (often mistakenly) think they need. As with all simple solutions, these ones are also bullshit. But their popularity lies exactly in this. They do not do the careful analysis needed for proper treatment, they do not adjust for individual differences, and they do not tell their readers that what they seek is not achievable, or that for moral reasons they shouldn't achieve it. Although this might often be the case.

The idea behind this claim is always one of the following: (1) that everyone, independently of personal differences has the same potential to be (x) - substitute the desired trait in question in place of x; (2) that there is a norm of behavior and of feeling which everyone should aim to achieve - say, there is a norm of being social enough, of not being anxious, of being a happy person for most of the time, etc.

These assumptions then get coupled up with (3) the illusion of there being one more-or-less complicated recipe. You only have to think through it. And don't think too hard! God forbid, that you should actually think hard and long. The book isn't gonna sell if it can't be read on the train or in the evening before going to sleep. Also, it won't be popular if you have to think in a way that you aren't used to.

We can point out the following problems with the above: regarding (1), it can and should be admitted that there are individual differences both in emotions, in the reactions people have, in their interpersonal relations and skills, and in a host of other important personal qualities. Why then assume that (1) is true? Because it makes readers believe that they don't have to accept themselves, or work hard on realizing what would make them happy. Instead, they are led to believe that it is fine to want to live in the same way that others do or popular stereotypes suggest. These books do not make people reflective and make them think about whether their preferences are the ones they should stick to. They just affirm that they are, and they can actually be fulfilled, by everyone, in the same way.

The problem with (2) is similar. It suggests that it would be normal for everyone to have the same feelings towards the same things. We all should like funny series. We all should like dancing. We all should appreciate deep thoughts. We all should find poetry a bit dull and outdated, except if it is really easy to understand and is about love or emotional suffering. But why would this be true? Is there any harm in having very different preferences in social matters? If one co-worker is happy being silent, thinking about his own affairs, should she adjust herself to the preferences of the talkative people? Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the talkative, community seeking ones. And I can also see reasons for fostering community centered activities. They help exercise abilities which work well only in groups (like reasoning and planning), they help a lot for the more socially inclined people, the more insecure people can get reassured, and interaction also fosters a sense of community and leads to commitment. But does this mean that only these things matter or these things can only be achieved in one way? Of course not.

I'm not going to waste much effort on (3). Any person of a more mature frame of mind knows that there are no magical overall solutions. The interesting thing about life is exactly the multitude of little social-engineering tasks we are faced with. And of course if we don't like to bother with these we can devise good strategies on how to get into the sorts of situations we are comfortable with. But how you can do that while still getting good results for yourself will have to be figured out by you.

Doris Lessing passed away

Doris Lessing died. See the news here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24979129

I read her book The Fifth Child a year ago. It was a shocking experience and very humbling. It actually helped me to understand those people - among them a very close relative - who cannot let the hands of their children go, even if this cripples their own and their families lives. It is a touching and terrifying account of the strength of attachment, and I think in a sense speaks well for the claim that a mother would belie her self if she would abandon her child in that way.

In the novel the father character grows distant and alienated from the child. Is is sad that he cannot help in supporting him, but the good side is that he is still there for his wife and is a firm financial support - don't underestimate the value of that in such situations.

A wonderful writer is gone now, and I hope many will take up some of her books and remember her in the best possible way: by reading her work!

Signs of getting tired...

Suddenly longing to read works which are totally unrelated to my research and I don't find generally useful or entertaining...
Suddenly being angry at people in the library who have a not-so-typical voice...
Suddenly starting to plan my holidays...

...are all sings that I'm getting tired of work for today.

Coetzee on Humanities and Universities

The link is here, it makes a good read during lunch break:

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-01-universities-head-for-extinction/

I agree with Coetzee very strongly that a certain amount of universities should be financed in keeping up decent humanities units. The question how many and how many students should be supported by the state to study there is a more difficult question.

What I've witnessed so far is that most Humanities disciplines are too difficult for a great many of the students attending, who then tend to blame their education instead of realising that they are not cut out for it. Of course I'm not saying that failure is only their fault. It might be the result of many components: engaging in these disciplines is hard, one needs a good background in culture and history, one needs to be motivated and willing to work hard (you cannot pick literature to learn a bit about good books, or German to learn the language). At the same time many of these diplomas are not preparing you for a specific job, so you will have to gather other skills after or besides your education if you want to land a job not related to your education.

Also, due to terrible financing schemes on the part of the government many uni's needed to accept huge numbers of students to finance their departments. This is very destructive for humanities. Instead of valuing a good academic stuff tutoring few quality students, and doing important work on culture, social issues, education, and cooperating with local communities and government on such issues, the teachers have to conduct mass classes to people who don't really know why they are there and often do not read the compulsory texts.

All in all, I would opt for retaining larger research and public engagement oriented humanities units, with less students.

Structure in Jude the Obscure

An interesting structural feature of Hardy's Jude the Obscure that I have just discovered, being half-way through the book:

1. Part first, chapter 2: helping animals (letting the birds feed on corn) - leading to problem (loss of job at farmer Troutham).

2. Part first, chapter 10: helping an animal (killing the pig quickly, instead of letting it bleed out) - leading to problem (Arabella gets mad at him).

3. Part fourth, chapter 2: helping an animal (killing the rabbit caught in a trap on the night of his aunt's funeral) - leading to problem (getting into a conversation with Sue at night and telling her that he'll give up his religious goals) - which then leads on to further problems (he loses even the small amount of motivation he had so far to resist his urge to be with Sue). 

The help Jude offers is quite ineffective in all cases, but it throws light on his compassionate and kind character. At the same time his acts of mercy symbolize that he is trespassing constraints: he ought not let the birds eat the farmer's crops, he ought to kill the pig in the best way for making money out of selling its meat, he ought to let the rabbit that someone else caught alone - the last one meaning the rabbit and Sue at the same time; Sue being caught in the marriage with Phillotson. A bad catch, so to say: the trap causes her much pain. But Jude ought no to interfere.

I do not yet know the outcome - I can make guesses. George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss keeps coming to my mind...Hardy depicts his characters in a similar way to Eliot as being driven to their fate by their passions. Both seem to point out at the same time the irrationality and pitiable lack of self-control of the character, while also criticizing social structures and institutions which do not give people like them the chance to fulfill their desires.

The fact that Jude's misfortunes are in parallel with his acts of mercy can also be interpreted as a criticism of lack of justice in the world. Those who follow the right moral principles will be frustrated in life because the dominant concept of what counts as rational, what is allowed does not leave room for the tender and gentle.

Help channels for typhoon victims

CNN has compiled a useful list of organizations that try to alleviate suffering and help the needy after the typhoon. See here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/world/iyw-how-to-help-typhoon-haiyan/index.html

As usual with donations, every little helps - 5-10 dollars can make a difference.