Challenging Religious Education in a Multicultural World

This paper both challenges religious education in the UK to embrace issues of value, equality and anti-racism, and also encourages teachers and schools to ensure that religious education is challenging to pupils. It demonstrates the importance of focusing teacher training more on how the subject is taught and less on content, seeing religious education as a process rather than a body of knowledge. It asserts the importance of open dialogue and respect, to produce religious education which edifies pupils from all faiths as well as those with no religious allegiance

The Jury's Still Out on What Constitutes a Microaggression

In "Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence," Scott Lillenfeld argues that, despite a decade of scholarship, the Microaggression Research Program (MRP) continues to suffer serious analytic and evidentiary problems. After walking through these shortcomings, he provides 18 suggestions to help improve the reliability and utility of the MRP. In "Microaggressions and 'Evidence': Experimental or Experiential Reality?" Derald Wing Sue responds. This chapter provides background on the origin of the MRP, and referees the dispute between Lillenfeld and Sue about its contemporary status

The scientist and the church

The April 21, 2005 issue of the LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS carried a lead article titled ‘Blood for Oil?’ The paper is attributed to a group of writers and activists – Iain Boal, T.J. Clark, Joseph Matthews and Michael Watts – who identify themselves by the collective name ‘Retort.’ In their article, the authors advance a supposedly new explanation for the wars in the Middle East. Much of their explanation – including both theory and fact – is plagiarized. It is cut and pasted, almost ‘as is,’ from our own work. The primary source is ‘The Weapondollar-Petrodollar Coalition,’ a 71 page chapter in our book THE GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ISRAEL (Pluto 2002). The authors also seem inspired, incognito, by our more recent papers, including ‘It’s All About Oil’ (2003), ‘Clash of Civilization or Capital Accumulation?’ (2004), ‘Beyond Neoliberalism’ (2004) and ‘Dominant Capital and the New Wars’ (2004). In their paper, the Retort group credits us for having coined the term ‘Weapondollar-Petrodollar Coalition’ – but dismiss our ‘precise calibration of the oil/war nexus’ as ‘perfunctory.’ This dismissal does not prevent them from freely appropriating, wholesale fashion, our concepts, ideas and theories – including, among others, the ‘era of free flow,’ the ‘era of limited flow,’ ‘energy conflicts,’ the ‘commercialization of arms exports,’ the ‘politicization of oil’ and the critique of the ‘scarcity thesis.’ Nowhere in their article do the authors mention the source of these concepts, ideas and theories; occasionally, they even introduce them with the prefix ‘Our view is. . . .’ Their treatment of facts is not very different. They freely use (sometimes without understanding) research methods, statistics and data that took us years to conceive, estimate and measure – again, never mentioning the source. These concepts, theories and facts are far from trivial. Until recently, they were greeted with strategic silence, from both right and left. Their publication has been repeatedly denied and censored by mainstream as well as progressive journals (including, it must be said, by the LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS, that turned down our paper on the subject). They cannot be found anywhere else in the literature, conservative or radical. To treat them as ‘common knowledge’ is deceitful. To cut and paste them without due attribution is blatant plagiarism. The first part of our paper illustrates this process of ‘intellectual accumulation-by-dispossession’ with selected examples. The issue, though, goes well beyond personal vanity and self-aggrandizement. At the core, we are dealing here with the clash of science and church, with the constant attempt of organized faith – whether religious or academic – to disable, block and, if necessary, appropriate creativity and novelty. Creativity and novelty are dangerous. They defy dogma and undermine the conventional creed; they challenge the dominant ideology and threaten those in power; occasionally, they cause the entire edifice of power to crumble. For these reasons, the latent purpose of intellectual accumulation-by-dispossession – like the accumulation of private property – is primarily negative. The word ‘private’ comes from the Latin ‘privatus,’ meaning ‘restricted,’ and from ‘privare,’ which means ‘to deprive.’ And, indeed, the most important feature of private ownership is not to enable those who own, but to disable those who do not. It is only through the threat of prevention – or ‘strategic sabotage’ as Thorsein Veblen called it – that accumulation can take place. It is only by restricting the free creativity of society that society itself can be controlled. The second section of the paper explains how the appropriators of ‘Blood for Oil?’ fit this pattern. The final section of the paper is an epilogue. It describes our failed attempts to get this paper published with The LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS; Retort’s efforts to mislead us; and some additional insight from their AFFLICTED POWERS, a 2005 Verso book that contains the same plagiarism and more. The epilogue concludes with a few observations on the nature of academic dialectics.academia; arms; accumulation; capital; capitalism; church; conflict; corporation; crisis; data; development; distribution; dual; economy; elite; energy; finance; globalization; growth; imperialism; distribution; institutionalism; IPE; liberalization; methodology; Middle East; military; national interest; science; security; oil; OPEC; ownership; peace; plagiarism; politics; power; profit; religion; ruling class; sabotage; stagflation; state; TNC; United States; violence; war

‘Keeping it real’: the politics of Channel 4's multiculturalism, mainstreaming and mandates

This article is a post-print version of the published article which may be viewed at the link below. © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Screen. All rights reserved.When Channel 4 decided how it was going to fill what was described in the Annan Report as ‘the empty room of British broadcasting’, it was agreed that Britain's Africans, Caribbeans and Asians were to be important residents. This was meaningful for Channel 4 because it was tasked with providing what Stephen Lambert then described as ‘opportunities for talents which had previously not been fully served’ and with serving needs ‘which have not been fully defined’. And yet the recent history of the channel has been characterized by the closing stages of a particular kind of ‘public service’ approach; one in which ethnic minorities have become simultaneously integrated in and disconnected from mainstream output in distinct ways. Twenty-five years on, the channel is caught up in the difficulties facing the structuring of public service broadcasting and in the challenges posed by the highly contentious politics of recognition for the settlement of the relation between a variety of social rights. On the one hand, black and Asian Britons, who as part of the postcolonial phase of migration to the UK might be regarded as the ‘old ethnics’, do not now appear to be a priority for Channel 4. On the other, the legacy of the relationship between Channel 4, these communities and broader ideals of ‘multiculturalism’ appears to be strong, not least according to the channel's current claims

The Great Divide

At the turn of the century, Russell, Husserl and Couturat singled out Leibniz the logician as an important precursor of the way they thought philosophy should be done. Like their most gifted contemporaries they conceived of philosophy as essentially argumentative and - as Russell put it in a 1911 talk in French - analytic. Unsurprisingly, the search for the best arguments and analyses meant that good philosophy was cosmopolitan. William James and Ernst Mach were read everywhere. James studied Mach and the pupils of Brentano, whom Stout introduced to Cambridge. Moore recognised the deep kinship between his work on ethics and that of Brentano. Russell was influenced by Peano, used and criticised Meinong and was attacked by Poincaré. Pragmatism was subjected to a series of criticisms by realists in German and in English but gradually began to win adherents, for example in Italy, where Vailati and Calderoni introduced both pragmatism and Austrian philosophy of mind

Not all Humans, Radical Criticism of the Anthropocene Narrative

Earth scientists have declared that we are living in “the Anthropocene,” but radical critics object to the implicit attribution of responsibility for climate disruption to all of humanity. They are right to object. Yet, in effort to implicate their preferred villains, their revised narratives often paint an overly narrow picture. Sharing the impulse of radical critics to tell a more precise and political story about how we arrived where we are today, this paper wagers that collective action is more effectively mobilized when we identify multiple agencies and diverse historical processes as sites in need of urgent intervention

Science vs. science: the complexities of interdisciplinary research

Human-Computer Interaction and Web Science are radically interdisciplinary fields, but what does this mean in practical terms? Undertaking research (and writing papers) that encompass multiple disciplinary perspectives and methods is a serious challenge and it is difficult to maintain conferences that fairly review and host contributions from multiple disciplines. The colocation of the ACM WebSci conference with CHI in Paris, offers an unusual opportunity to bring these two communities together. Previous discussions have considered how to conduct interdisciplinary work that bridges HCI/WebSci with specific areas. Our objective is to provide a space for interested researchers from both communities to share their views and approaches to tackling the tensions and complexities associated with interdisciplinary work, whatever fields are being bridged

Egypt\u27s New Constitution: The Islamist Difference

The paper discusses the distributional impact of the rules of the new Egyptian constitution (2012). It specifically addresses the way such rules, substantive and (potentially) procedural, can influence Egyptian law\u27s identity and the underlying relations between the state and individuals and among individuals themselves that such identity implies

Intra-Industry Trade in the Baltic Sea Region

The purpose of this paper is to analyse economic integration in the Baltic Sea Region as it has emerged from mid-1990s. More importantly, we seek to assess the quality of integration as conferred by the development of intra-industry trade between the two groups of countries in the Baltic Sea region: Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany at the Western coast, and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland at the Eastern coast of the Baltic Sea. The analysis of the change in the quality of the traded goods reveals that the economic intergration in the Baltic Sea Region has so far not led to a vast increase of the competitiveness of industry at the relatively less developed Eastern coast of the Baltic Sea. The equalisation of market prices has predominantly taken place in the trade of raw materials, whereas the Eastern countries continue to trade with deficit in the majority of manufactured goods where the equalisation of unit prices has actually taken place. The above seems to support the results of our previous research, in which we have concluded that the economies of the Baltic States and Poland continue to act as lower value-added parts of the cross-border clusters in the Baltic Sea Region. Consequently, if catching up in living standards with the northern and western neighbours is envisioned, much more systematic investment into education and technology is needed in the Baltic States and Poland.Baltic Sea region, intra-industry trade integration