• Home
  • Blog - Notes from a cliff-edge
  • Essays and Articles
  • Monographs
  • Edited books
  • Drawings, sketches, paintings
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Eco-Apocalypse Novels
  • openDemocracy
  • Social Media, Politics, Democracy
  • Managing Covid: a View from Political Ecology
  • Taking ‘Cli-Fi’ Seriously: comparing 'Flight Behaviour' and 'Solar'
  • Citizenship in the Anthropocene
  • Emancipation in the Anthropocene: taking the dialectic seriously

Notes from a cliff-edge

political cross-dressing

9/21/2021

 
530 words: 4-minute read

Leftist progressive environmentalist George Monbiot is shocked that there are antivaxxers among his acquaintances.  Something ‘weird’ is going on, he says, whereby the curiosity, scepticism and suspicion typical of people on the left has driven those selfsame people to adopt rightwing versions of this language, so much so that ‘some have succumbed to a far-right conspiracy ideation, up to and including Q-anon’.
 
He’s right, that’s weird.
 
He goes on, ‘The far-right seized and repurposed the language of leftwing revolt: rebel against the elite, take back control etc … Some people on the left, hearing stuff that sounded familiar, seem to have fallen for it’.
 
Right again.
 
There’s more: ‘The necessary and justifiable revolt against corporate and oligarchic power has morphed in some cases into an extreme individualism’.
 
Monbiot is right about that too.
 
‘It doesn't help that we've suffered decades of betrayal by formerly left-ish political parties, that fell into line with neoliberal capitalism’, he writes, ‘This left many people both profoundly confused and susceptible to the liberationist claims of the far right’.
 
Absolutely.
 
He concludes: ‘Left and right political parties have swapped their language. Now the right talks about liberation and revolt. And the left talks about security and stability’.
 
Acute. Brilliant. A perfect summary of the confused and confusing state of ideological play in liberal-capitalist countries like the UK today.
 
What’s missing, though, is the recognition that the left has contributed to this state of affairs by allowing the right to arrogate to itself the language of freedom and liberation in the two key events of the past few years: Brexit and Covid.
 
By the time Covid turned up the Brexit battle was over, but the left hadn’t learned its lesson. Instead of debating, designing and exemplifying a left-libertarian approach to Covid it went full throttle for an ironclad lockdown, leaving the door marked ‘freedom and liberation’ wide open for the swivel-eyed right of assorted denialists and anti-vaxxers to walk right through.
 
And some on the left, as Monbiot recognises and bemoans, have followed them.
 
But the answer is not to accuse these leftists of ‘falling for’ false idols, of ‘succumbing’ to conspiracy, or of some fatal ‘confusion’ that can only be put right by attending to the high priests of correct leftist thinking.
 
The answer is to focus unerringly on that sweet spot where freedom AND security are located.
 
In the Covid case, this would have been to point out that a properly funded NHS and social care system, staffed by properly rewarded professionals (all this representing SECURITY), would have allowed family members to be present as their relatives passed away instead of dying lonely and isolated (representing FREEDOM). The left were all too ready to allow elderly people in care homes to be kept in segregated solitude for months on end - ‘collateral damage’ to be stoically accepted for the sake of an unwavering commitment to an uncompromising lockdown.
 
So yes, it’s weird that some of George Monbiot’s freedom-loving acquaintances have turned to the right. But this was never going to help.

memory and justice

9/20/2021

 
​257 words: 2-minute read

​In a recent interview in El País Semanal, Trinity College Dublin professor and psychiatrist Veronica O’Keane claimed that ‘to some extent all our memories are false’. This is quite a declaration - but one which in the day-to-day most of us recognise to contain a grain of truth. We remember things wrongly and sometimes we don’t remember them at all. At the very least, our memories are selective and subjective and this is enough to sow seeds of doubt when it comes to remembering the past.
 
Most of the time this doesn’t matter too much since in the normal run of things nothing much hangs on whether we’ve remembered events correctly or not. It’s mostly a matter of minor disputes and inconveniences.
 
But sometimes it matters a lot, such as in court cases, where the life chances of accusers and defendants can turn on whether events are remembered correctly or not.  At this point O’Keane’s claim that ‘to some extent all our memories are false’ becomes severely problematic. She’s not saying that some of our memories are false some of the time  but that they are all false all of the time, to some extent.
 
To some extent?  To what extent, exactly? How are we supposed to calibrate her claim in the context of criminal justice where memory plays such a crucial role? Here is another recent article, in which Bob Dylan is accused of sexually abusing a 12-year-old in 1965.  What would Professor O’Keane say if she was called to the witness stand by the defence?

    Andrew Dobson

    Archives

    May 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    November 2024
    August 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    January 2024
    September 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    February 2022
    September 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020

    Categories

    All
    Anthropocene
    Censorship
    Covid 19
    Identity Politics
    Justice
    Politics
    Sustainability
    The Cosmos
    Ukraine

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly