Annie, Morality and the American Dream: A Historical Appoach

Film is often a good way to explore historical issues, and on Boxing Day afternoon I sat down to one of my favorite childhood films, Annie. Yer the story is cheesy, the acting is dire and the music is very catchy. But somehow it is entertaining. The story is straightforward enough, abused orphan girl named Annie gets a chance to spend a week with a billionaire bachelor, who starts off being less than enthusiastic, but ends up adopting her. The historical background in which the film is set is the heyday of early twentieth century American capitalism the so-called ‘Roaring Twenties’. It’s in this context that Annie’s dreams of a happy family life are fulfilled. The significance of economic power to the story must not be overlooked. Indeed Annie was originally a cartoon strip created by Harold Gray, who imprinted a strong free market ethos on the work. This is visible in the fact that one of the main characters, the billionaire, Oliver Warbucks, was a ‘self-made’ man. The emphasis on the importance of hard work and an individualist ethos, is reflected in the positive way it depicts the role entrepreneurship in society, and portrays it’s opposite as corrupt and immoral. Behind this is a particular conception of the American Dream, and the relationship between economics and morality. One that links the idea of moral good to a precise understanding of political-economy, that is a product of the experience of industrialisation in America, one which was uneven and geographically irregular. As a consequence, areas such as the north east, where Annie is set, saw heavy industrial development. Thus the emphasis on hard work in the story with regard to Warbucks’ own back story must be understood as being restricted by the local experiences of industrialisation. Part of the reason for this post is to demonstrate the importance of the discipline history in the U.K. today. By viewing film in a historical light, a fuller appreciation can be given to the moral content of the story.

The West's attitude towards Syria and Moral Values

As Congress is sitting tonight deciding whether or not to intervene in Syria in the wake of last weeks chemical attacks and the British parliament decision not to back intervention, many questions have been asked, such as, what does this mean for Britain? Did Mr Cameron make the right call? Or, what is the impact of the Iraq war on this decision? One question that hasn’t been asked and in some ways must merit serious consideration is, given that there has been outrage at President Assad’s regime, where does this leave the argument for moral relativism which is meant to occupy a central tenant of western liberal thought? In this article, I want to explore the dilemma of western thought that taking a stand against the Syrian regime may, in fact, pose a serious problem for those who argue that morality is relative and any distinction between good and evil no longer makes sense. In the period that followed the Second World War, the old powers (Britain and France) came under intense pressure (from the U.S., amongst others) to decolonise and relinquish ideas of imperial grandeur. This coupled with the social revolution of the 1960’s whereby the discussions around morality were permeated by ideas of relativism and the idea of the primacy of individual agency, led to the questioning of the traditional distinction between good and evil. The idea of moral relativism is associated with the Social Revolution of the 1960’s, where for a variety of reasons it was asserted by liberal intellectuals that absolute morality could not exist and with the decline of religious values, any reference to good and evil made little sense. This process is of fundamental importance to the present topic at hand. Bcause if the west is serious about taking action against Assad, (which by in large I think is correct, although I don’t personally support military intervention) then it must admit that moral relativism is not only the incoherent(as recently pointed out by Julien Beillard (Beillard, 2013, 23-24)) but also a problematic given the actions of the Syrian government. In order to fully comprehend the position of world politics today, it is necessary to consider that the duplicity of western morality has fundamentally eroded its own moral position. Whether one supports action or not, the rhetoric coming out of Downing Street and the White House camouflages the insecurity of the supposed moral righteousness of the message.

Some reflections on the goal of the academic blog

The more I consider it the more I think the idea of an academic blogger, is somewhat problematic. At the heart of the issue is the question ‘what is my role in society?’. Let me explain. In my life I am a student, an academic, a son, a brother and a citizen. If we accept Jung Harbermas’s distinction between the public and private realm, then the academic blog is not as straight forward as it first seems. If one concedes that universities have a public role in society which is more than granting qualifications to students. Then one could go down the route of Plato and say that academic are philosopher-kings, ruling of a variety of subject. But this is just madness, it presupposes some ordained right to make public pronouncements based on the fact that a person happens to be an academic. In considering this point it is apparent that this sort of thinking occurs in some individual who engage in both politics and academia, the “ I know about this subject, I have studied it. Listern, you need to do it this way “ approach. This is of course pure arrogance And will invariably fail. For an academic blogger to succeed, they must by all means give their opinions to the best of their abilities, but remember that they are but mortal beings and should try not to consider themselves lords of all knowledge. A second issue is the one hinted at at the start of this post. That of the public/private realm (Or sphere) distinction. The idea of the public sphere was developed by Jung Habermas as a tool to demarcate what ought to be considered as within the public realm as opposed to that of the private. According to Habermas, the bifurcation occurred as the result of the evolution of two independent but interconnected processes. Firstly through the changing needs of the merchant class from the late 15th century onwards. Secondly the evolution of the concept of the state which sort to reformulate it from private dominion of the monarch to it becoming an institution embodying civic power. One of these institutions was the university. The universities they witnessed their own revolution. Starting in the 17th century, they were subjected to a modernisation programme in which the aim was to give individuals (Usually the older son) the correct skills needed to cope in the big wide world. This gradually lead to the professionalisation of academia as a consequence of the need for a more technical form of education. This, I want to argue presents a problem for the academic blogger. By formalising the role, society gave the academic an important public function, but more than that, it changed the role in western culture so as to push academics towards Plato’s ideal, which as hinted above, is’nt a good thing. On reflection one question is this tension between the want to demonstrate ones abilities on the one hand, and the inherent danger in presuming your ability meant that you can become an arbitrator of knowledge is to complex and pervasive to resolve. Yet the conclusions I have come to is that academic blogging is possible if one views academia not exclusively as a professional venture but one that has a private motive as well. It is on that basis that this blog is written. For mine and your enjoyment.

Why do this?

The decision to start a blog must always be accompanied by a justification. Blogging academics (those people employed or registered at a HE institution) are now a feature of the 21st century university sector. But explanation for this isn’t so much an exercise in self-congratulatory examinations of the world, as there attempt to show the outside world what thought processes go on within academia. This has become a hot topic within the university sector, as institutions have latched on to the idea of ‘public engagement’ (a somewhat useless and patronising idea). This blog aims to give its readers an insight into a humanities research student’s world. In doing so it provides me with an opportunity to do three things. Firstly, some light social commentary, people who know me know that I have strong political views. I try my hardest not to let them impede on my work as I believe that too much politics clouds ones academic judgement, that said I intend to do odd posts about politics and society (But I will endeavor to keep them to a minimum!). Secondly, I will use it to practice my writing. This may seem an odd thing to say, but I have Cerebral Palsy which means that I find it difficult to type my work so dictate it instead, as I have the use of my right hand ( my left is just used to hold caps lock down!). So this blog will give me the chance to practices doing some writing on my own. Finally, although I won’t discuss my work directly, this blog will mainly consist of posts where I flesh out ideas associated with my research and try to explain academic concepts.