Well I had a rather nice surprise a little earlier when I collected my marked essay that I talked about in my last blog post. I scored 85%, which is far better than I thought I would do and my tutor thought I made an excellent and sustained argument. There were a few little points that I was picked up on, mainly stupid mistakes, which if I'd taken a little more time over the writing would have been sorted out before I submitted. Still, this is a good boost and it bumps up my average score for the course, which makes me happy :-)
I had another day at Bletchley Park (BP) on Saturday and I am enjoying my role there as a steward. In fact, I find it more satisfying than I do my day job. Although the days at BP are relatively long with few breaks I do get to meet and chat with some interesting people and I am learning new stuff all the time. The most common question I get asked is 'where are the toilets?' but I don't mind, I am enjoying myself and hopefully making a visitor's day there just that little more pleasant. I hope to find a free day one weekend to go there as a visitor and do some of the guided tours to learn more about the Park and its history as my knowledge at the moment is patchy at best. Everyone I've met so far has been nice and welcoming and I look forward to doing my next duty later this month.
Over the weekend I had an e-mail from a journalist who says he is writing a book about sub-cultures and would like to feature some 'trainspotters' for a piece he is writing. I do detest the term 'trainspotter' because it has such negative connotations and is so often used as a term of derision. I am always a little wary of these sort of requests as I wonder what the agenda is and I don't fancy putting myself forward for something that is going to be used to mock either me or what I do. Will see what happens...
I've started ploughing my way through watching all five seasons of Six Feet Under. I've seen them all before of course on TV but now I have all the seasons on DVD, I am re-watching it from start to finish, much the same as I did with The West Wing. Watching these early episodes of Six Feet Under I am struck by how great this show is and how inventive and fresh it remains. The acting is universally excellent particularly the main leads - Peter Krause, Frances Conroy and Michael C Hall. There is not a step wrong; the writing is superb, the production, design, just the whole feel and look of the show is dead on (excuse the pun!). Few programmes can make me laugh, cry and feel so despondent and happy in the same episode.
Showing posts with label OU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OU. Show all posts
Monday, July 14, 2008
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Thank goodness that's done!
I've had a bit of a stressful few days and evenings frantically trying to finish my latest OU course essay for the deadline this evening. The advantage of being able to submit online is that in theory as long as you get the thing in before midnight, you're okay! I always do this to myself though, leave the writing to the last minute and then find I really don't have enough time to do myself justice yet I seem to get motivated and work better when I am up against an immovable and fast approaching deadline. Anyhows it is done now, nothing more I can do about it. Just wait for the marked copy to come back and in the meantime start thinking about the next one...
Only two more essays to write and then an extended end of course essay and if, fingers crossed, I do reasonably well in these, I will have a Diploma in Politics and Government before the end of the year. That will make it all seem worthwhile.
Only two more essays to write and then an extended end of course essay and if, fingers crossed, I do reasonably well in these, I will have a Diploma in Politics and Government before the end of the year. That will make it all seem worthwhile.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Clash of Civilisations
It was as long ago as November 2006 that I purchased Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order (my blog entry of 5 November 2006 refers) and I've only just started reading it! As I mentioned then this was a book that was mentioned along with Francis Fukuyama's The End of History thesis in the OU course I did on the United States. Huntington and Fukuyama to a lesser extent are both referenced in my current course and I thought now was an opportune moment to get to grips with the former.
Okay, so I haven't read all of this as yet and my comments here are abridged and condensed and my interpretation, so don't take what I say as the gospel on Huntington! Essentially Huntington's argument is that with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Communism, the world moved into a multi-polar, multi-civilisational age. By multi-polar he means the end of the dichotomy of two superpowers vying for hegemony and thus the dispersal of power amongst many. However, it could be argued that the United States as the sole remaining superpower is pre-eminent and with its imperial ambitions, is without equal. The general point though is that US power, whether it be political, military or economic is in decline. The second point Huntington is making is that the post-Cold War world consists of broadly nine civilisations - Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese. Whereas during the Cold War nations were roughly polarised between East and West or non-aligned, with the fall of Communism, old identities and groupings are re-emerging.
So, he says that the major conflicts of the twenty-first century will be along the fault-lines between civilisations. This we have certainly seen with the Al-Qaeda attacks on the US on 11 September 2001 and also the break-up of Yugoslavia and the divisions there along largely cultural lines.
What Huntington is doing in this book is presenting a new paradigm - a framework or lens - through which the modern world and international relations can be understood. In doing so he is dismissing theories which were dominant throughout the Cold War such as realism and roundly dismisses Fukuyama's End of History thesis - what Fukuyama was advocating was that Western liberal democracy (and capitalism) had triumphed and would be the dominant political system. This, Huntington concludes, is false and he presents a view that the Western civilization is in decline, having reached its peak somewhere around the 1920s. The reasons for this are complex and also interesting. I don't think I can do full justice to Huntington's arguments but I will do my best to tackle them here.
Essentially, if I have understood Huntington correctly, what he is saying is that modernisation (which is a product of the West) in non-Western societies leads to 'de-westernisation' and the promotion of the indigenous culture. The reasons for this are variously:
1. Modernisation leads to dislocated and alienated peoples - traditional bonds and social relations are broken down. Thus the peoples turn principally to religion to fulfil the void. Religion is key to cultural identity
2. In addition modernisation tends to empower these societies - their populations become better educated, socially mobile and increasingly urbanised. In turn this leads to a greater pride and 'belief' in their culture, which is then reasserted
3. Rapid population growth is typical in non-Western societies with large populations of young people (15-24), who Huntington cites as the motors of political change. With an empowered society and an articulate population, it is only a matter of time before the civilisation comes to believe itself separate and distinct from others including Western civilisation
Thus there is then this challenge between this new civilisation and others because it has become culturally, economically and politically distinct, whilst absorbing into it the benefits and attributes of other cultures, particularly modernisation. So what Huntington is saying is that the world is becoming more 'modern' and less 'Western' hence his theory that the power of the West is in decline and that of other non-Western civilisations is on the rise.
I hope I've made a reasonable job of explaining Huntington's points so far. I won't go into his comments and analysis of the Islamic Resurgence because I am not sure that I fully understand it yet!
Okay, so I haven't read all of this as yet and my comments here are abridged and condensed and my interpretation, so don't take what I say as the gospel on Huntington! Essentially Huntington's argument is that with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Communism, the world moved into a multi-polar, multi-civilisational age. By multi-polar he means the end of the dichotomy of two superpowers vying for hegemony and thus the dispersal of power amongst many. However, it could be argued that the United States as the sole remaining superpower is pre-eminent and with its imperial ambitions, is without equal. The general point though is that US power, whether it be political, military or economic is in decline. The second point Huntington is making is that the post-Cold War world consists of broadly nine civilisations - Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese. Whereas during the Cold War nations were roughly polarised between East and West or non-aligned, with the fall of Communism, old identities and groupings are re-emerging.
So, he says that the major conflicts of the twenty-first century will be along the fault-lines between civilisations. This we have certainly seen with the Al-Qaeda attacks on the US on 11 September 2001 and also the break-up of Yugoslavia and the divisions there along largely cultural lines.
What Huntington is doing in this book is presenting a new paradigm - a framework or lens - through which the modern world and international relations can be understood. In doing so he is dismissing theories which were dominant throughout the Cold War such as realism and roundly dismisses Fukuyama's End of History thesis - what Fukuyama was advocating was that Western liberal democracy (and capitalism) had triumphed and would be the dominant political system. This, Huntington concludes, is false and he presents a view that the Western civilization is in decline, having reached its peak somewhere around the 1920s. The reasons for this are complex and also interesting. I don't think I can do full justice to Huntington's arguments but I will do my best to tackle them here.
Essentially, if I have understood Huntington correctly, what he is saying is that modernisation (which is a product of the West) in non-Western societies leads to 'de-westernisation' and the promotion of the indigenous culture. The reasons for this are variously:
1. Modernisation leads to dislocated and alienated peoples - traditional bonds and social relations are broken down. Thus the peoples turn principally to religion to fulfil the void. Religion is key to cultural identity
2. In addition modernisation tends to empower these societies - their populations become better educated, socially mobile and increasingly urbanised. In turn this leads to a greater pride and 'belief' in their culture, which is then reasserted
3. Rapid population growth is typical in non-Western societies with large populations of young people (15-24), who Huntington cites as the motors of political change. With an empowered society and an articulate population, it is only a matter of time before the civilisation comes to believe itself separate and distinct from others including Western civilisation
Thus there is then this challenge between this new civilisation and others because it has become culturally, economically and politically distinct, whilst absorbing into it the benefits and attributes of other cultures, particularly modernisation. So what Huntington is saying is that the world is becoming more 'modern' and less 'Western' hence his theory that the power of the West is in decline and that of other non-Western civilisations is on the rise.
I hope I've made a reasonable job of explaining Huntington's points so far. I won't go into his comments and analysis of the Islamic Resurgence because I am not sure that I fully understand it yet!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
