Social Immobility

A recent article from the Associated Press (Mutler, 19/06/12) highlights the level of dishonesty within Romanian academia, with the new Prime Minister, Victor Ponta, accused of plagiarism in his doctoral thesis. Apparently, this is indicative of a corrupt academic system emerging after the fall of communism and the rise of free market reforms. Stelian Tanase, a Romanian political analyst, explains that "people with ambition, money and influence have been buying doctorates for the last 20 years". This interests me: I shall explain why, but first some background is needed.

A friend of mine is an aspiring academic. They have a first class degree in their field coupled with a Master's degree for which they received a distinction. Their undergraduate degree was at a fairly new, and not very well respected, university while their postgraduate degree was at a university ranked in the top fifteen in the UK. Financially, they have never had more money than is necessary to scrape by with. A fairly hefty student loan coupled with a career development loan has paid for their education up to now; repayments for both will kick in later this year. Scary times, indeed. What makes it scarier is that they have few prospects. Their goal is to complete a doctorate and become a lecturer/researcher but with the cuts to education there is little to no funding available. Therefore, from a 'get-by' job, they sit on the bottom rung, once again, and watch as the rich kids wave in jest from the top of the ladder. As you may be able to tell, and as I have mentioned, this interests me.
 

So Tanase describes a situation where people buy their way to what is seen as a 'fashionable title' of Doctor. Let me get this straight: education is saved for those with the 'backing' to 'warrant' it, and this is considered "cheating"? Is that not exactly what happens in this country? With an immaculate record in higher education, top of almost every class they have been in, my friend has no access to funding. I'm not bragging about my social networks, I'm raging - and deservedly so. This is forced social immobility. There is no possible way to obtain a respectable doctorate, despite being told by numerous academic staff that they are a talented individual within their field. While others purchase their way to the top in three years, it will take my friend, as it will others, perhaps five to ten years to force a path. As implied, this is by no means an isolated case, there are surely tens of thousands of people in this position. This begs an additional, slightly eye opening, question: what are we missing out on if such a huge volume of potential is missed or overlooked?

Could it be possible that the powerful of the country are trying to maintain an historic divide by restricting access, as much as possible, away from the majority and into the hands of their 'own'? This is not a novel argument and I think it's a very convincing one. If you doubt it, look at the emerging paradox: if a valued opinion is an educated one, and those with the power can afford the education, then how does the valued opinion not become a biased one. The real distinction between the so called 'cheating' in Romania and the situation in the UK is that they, the Romanians, are at least trying to hide it. The obliviousness of people in the UK to this, despite the obviousness, is worrying. In Bourdieusian terms, this 'reproduction' highlights subordination in order to maintain distinction. Mutler, of the Associated Press, argues that university credentials have been used in Romania to climb the social ladder. I put forth a separate argument, if simply to stimulate dialogue: that university credentials are used to dampen the ladder, to make it too slippery for those pesky lower classes to climb. 

Beggars on the Underground

"There are beggars and buskers operating on this train - do not encourage them by supporting them". Oh and while you're at it, you see that little old lady that keeps smiling at you when you look up? Give her a good ol' kick and take her purse. It's a 'dog-eat-dog world' out there, every man or beaten up little old lady for themselves. After all, beggars and buskers only want money to score crack, buy beer and generally make others feel bad; they don't want shelter, safety and hot food... one moment, I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere here.

So these guys, these often homeless and almost certainly penniless guys, they're the outlaws? They're the ones to be spat at? Interesting that... and those heroic individuals urging us to not help desperate individuals in need must be the good guys! Its difficult to know what stand to take here. If I were to say 'up yours, London Underground' and give this beggar sniffing at my shoe a fiver then I would likely be shunned along with my new friend; but if I were to ignore him, or her of course, entirely then I would be with the soulless majority. And therein lies the problem... the soulless majority.

Maybe soulless is a bit extreme... in most cases anyway. But if this is the way we are running our city society then what help is there for the bottom rung. I know that 'animal instinct is survival of the fittest' and all that crap but aren't we, through having higher learnt than unlearnt behaviour, supposed to have evolved into a social species with a sense of... what's that word... community? And that is exactly it. Community. The antithesis to, well, what we seem to live in now! 

Next time you see, or are approached by, a homeless person, beggar or busker, try talking to them. I mean, think about it, how fascinating do you think their story is? Probably more so than your own. Most will be willing to engage and most will be friendly. If you find yourself worrying 'but what will all these others around me think?', then don't worry too much, you can always cheer yourself up by tripping up that gentle old man getting on the train and pinching his walking stick.

Those who wish to do more than simply talk to struggling members of our community visit:
http://www.centrepointroom.org.uk/

Death Counts - Controversial Perspective

I couldn't for a moment argue against the vast volume of tributes for the recently fallen British soldiers in Afghanistan, in fact I feel for the families and friends as much as the next morally-guided individual. However, maintaining that same moral attitude, perhaps a few words ought to be said for the thousands upon thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who have prematurely lost their lives in the space of ten years.

The Afghan population was the first subjected to a functional revenge motive of the corporate sponsored American government (and its 'wannabe big-time' allies) after that tragic day in September 2001. The airstrike bombardment initiated on the 7 October 2001 began a period of catastrophic civilian death rate with The Guardian estimating 20,000 dead in 2002. In the airstrikes many Taliban bases were destroyed and presumably many Taliban supporters were killed, this is all well and good (job done if you believe so) but what about those unfortunate innocent men, women and children who happened to get caught up in the devastation, and let's not play it down, it can only be described as utter inescapable devastation, where is the justice in that? And where is the logic? Angering the irrelevant population surely only makes them relevant. This was an example being made NOT a tactical conflict strategy.

Corporate greed is possibly to blame for the advance on Iraq - clear evidence of which is in the 'surprising' lack of WMD sites (for which international war-criminals have not yet, metaphorically or not, been hung for). Estimated civilian deaths in Iraq reached 100,000 since 2003, with wikileaks information perhaps pushing that higher (Iraqbodycount.org, March 2012). A number of that size may seem hard to visualise in terms of people, but you count up to 100,000 and imagine each number being a person you have once known as a body - perhaps some perspective can be achieved.

Can these individuals that lose family, friends, work, the ability to eat and feed their remaining family - everything - through the actions of the 'allied forces' be blamed for wanting to join an insurgency? That is for each individual to decide, but maybe look at the facts first. This commentary is not littered with statistics to make up anyone's mind - that is the responsibility of each person. If that responsibility is ignored and we don't consider the views of others then we can only be viewed ourselves as irresponsibly informed, as ignorant.

It is not, and cannot be, an 'eye for an eye' in a conflict waged and regulated, for dubious reasons, by individuals across the world sat comfortably at home in their armchairs watching their power play out on CNN, Fox News and the BBC. Despite this, we would do (and the media do) history an atrocious injustice by not demonstrating the multi-faceted dimensions in progress. Furthermore, a simple, clearly needed, reminder that despite all prejudices one might have, we all share characteristics that make us a collective.

Perhaps as a point of departure this can lead to an investigation into the simple question: what gives us the right? As a British citizen who feels fairly useless with regard to the shit state of it all; of all the corporate, governmental, mediatized, propaganda-infused lies, I just hope that those who are suffering know that there are some of us on their side and we can together hope that the powerful scaremongers of the West get what they deserve.