17/07/2010 by admin.

With Stephan, colleague and friend from Middlesex University, I had a conversation about blogs - how to advertise them (via Twitter, apparently) and how to manage them. I sometimes wonder if I am writing to a non-existent audience in an ocean of fellow bloggers but no readers. Stephan’s blog is specifically professional, whereas a blog from another friend, Patricia, is decidedly more personal, although she too writes about her professional life. Obviously, the two types of blog have very different functions and therefore audiences.

One blog I like is ICCI Blog, mainly because it’s the cognitive bit of culture that ruffles cross-culturalists. I strongly believe that many academics live in silos, where they only preach to the converted and refuse to consider alternative hypotheses. So, it’s good to read an opposing view once in a while. Just like I sometimes expose myself to Fox News or the Daily Mail. For this reason I read Ann Coulter’s blog too some years ago (Did Philip Pullman call the ice mother in His Dark Materials ‘Mrs Coulter’ on purpose??)

I have two more blogs listed among my many bookmarks. I checked - one is a feminist blog, which I should read and the other is a political blog, which looks interesting although I am currently unsure why I bookmarked it specifically.

I like blogs because, unlike Wikipedia or news sites, I like to read behind the ‘facts’ and learn what is going on in people’s heads when they write. Second, I encourage students to think critically but also to be reflective so to become aware of any bias that they may have - blogs also allow for the space to do this. Coming to think of it, it may be a good type of assessment that is different from standard essays or case studies. Similarly, should blogs be considered an academic output? We’d need them to be peer reviewed. Academics, prepare to be thwarted by tweets in the future.

Posted in Review of events | No Comments »

30/10/2008 by admin.

Nathalie van Meurs and Charles Harb recently attended the conference ‘Countering Radicalisation: perspectives and strategies from around the globe’ organised by the Dutch government in The Hague for ministers of internal and external affairs, national security officers, policy makers and researchers. Ruud Lubbers, former Dutch PM and High Commissioner for Refugees chaired the meeting, which involved round table discussions on radicalisation and terrorism. Tony Heal, the Deputy Head of the Prevent Unit within the Home Office of the UK also presented, and alerted the researchers among the audience that, although approximately 14,000 articles on counter radicalisation exist, very few contain empirical data. More research is required and policy makers are very interested to talk to the academic community about formation of identity, management of conflict, and strategies for collaboration between local and national government on this issue.

Posted in Review of events | No Comments »

28/05/2008 by admin.

On the 29th of April, 2008, Professor Lord Bikhu Parekh (University of Westminster) gave a talk on his new book “A New Politics of Identity”. He was accompanied by a panel of experts in the field, namely David Goodhart (Editor of Prospect), Professor John Keane (University of Westminster and the Wissenschaftszentrum, Berlin), and Prof Lord Tony Giddens (Chair).

After Professor’s Parekh’s presentation, the panel discussed Bhiku Parek’s work, which covers the impact of globalisation on ethnic, religious, and national identities. The event was open to all and organised by LSE’s Centre for the Study of Global Governance.

Professor Parekh decided not to summarise the book but to focus on its message and launched the concept of three identities: personal, social, and human. Each of these identities raise questions about lifestyle decisions and beliefs. He addressed the issue of how we organise our identities; are they prioritised by oneself or primed? As an example he mentioned that a person may be a Christian cricketer. Does being Christian affect being a cricketer (e.g., in terms of competitiveness - do onto others…. ) and vice versa?

His main focus, however, was on this new ‘human’ identity. We must ask ourselves “as a human being, what kind of life am I to live?”. He linked this with the work of the philosopher Hegel (and Marx to an extent) in terms of whether this universal identity is mediated by other social identities. If someone is a globally oriented citizen, does this affect their behaviour? If so, how? For example, in terms of justice and obligations, should there be a political community that aims towards universal democracy and global welfare state, not limited to a nation? The panel commented on these and other aspects within the book. David Goodhart focused on the concept of citizenship and argued that ‘the left’ needs to rethink the definition of ‘the nationstate’ as human rights presupposes a citizenship. In terms of immigration, this means that the UK should follow the Canadian model and that each individual needs to add value based on their skills. Citizenship comes with rights. These ‘rights’ conflict with moral liberal thinking and the focus should be on rights AND obligations. He continued to argue that majority groups’ identities are not satisfied by current political arrangements. For this reason, he states, Parekh’s book is too balanced (on the one hand, on the other hand) and a case is made for both liberalism and group rights. He said people should settle with the fact that identity is often politically defined in terms of race, religion etc.

The issue of immigration and individual vs. group rights was also elaborated upon by John Keane. He criticised the book for not addressing the causes and agents of globalisation. He aimed to clarify that globalisation does not mean Americanisation per se nor does it imply homogenisation. A discussion ensued regarding the idea that the concept of the state and the concept of humankind are juxtaposed but whether it is truly a matter of bipolarity. Parekh replied pragmatically that it is necessary to think beyond the nation state. If, for example, talent is taken from India (e.g., IT specialists or medical experts) then scholarships should be provided. He argues that we should think in terms of a post national state with reference to human rights and political morality. There is a need for some kind of social cohesion and less of a need for a focus on the state and culture. Due to the complexity of identities it is nonsensical to think of a state as ‘liberal’. Equally, universalism is not necessarily a good thing.

Posted in Review of events | No Comments »

02/09/2007 by admin.

Mixedness and Mixing e Conference: New perspectives on Mixed Race Britons

Inspired by the success of the Negotiating Identities eCongress, the Commission for Racial Equality (now Commission for Human Rights and Equality) hosted an eConference on 4-6 September looking at issues relating to Britain’s mixed race population (mixedness) and mixed families (mixing).

Mixed-race people account for around one in six of all ethnic minorities in Britain today. They belong to an ethnic group that is not only the fastest-growing in Britain today, but also has the youngest average age and the greatest amount of diversity. It is also perhaps the least well understood.

The events brought together a wide variety of perspectives to identify and discuss new approaches, ideas and experiences, and to consider how these can best be used to formulate policy that delivers equality to all mixed-race people.

Nathalie van Meurs wrote a paper for this conference.

Check out: http://mixedness.millipedia.net/index.html

Posted in Review of events | No Comments »