A quick notice about an event I am co-hosting

The 2nd Annual Climate Change and The Humanities Workshop On the 16th October 2014, the Centre for Social and Political Thought and the Centre for World Environmental History at Sussex University will be hosting a one-day joint workshop on how the humanities and social sciences have and can engage with issues around climate change. The intention of the workshop is to demonstrate how the humanities engage with climate change, one of the most significant occurrences in our contemporary world. It is clear that research on this question within the humanities whilst significant has been largely under-represented in the existing literature and although certain humanities disciplines have confronted climate change, there has been a lack of inter-disciplinary approaches. We hope to address this lacuna through a workshop that show-cases the work that is currently happening across the humanities, to explore different approaches to the understanding of the climate change phenomenon, with a view to further enhancing the inter-disciplinary approach to the subject. Thus, this workshop will provide an opportunity for, among others, social theorists, environmental historians and philosophers to come together to exchange ideas about how to understand the ‘climate change phenomenon’. Speakers Dr Kate Soper (Brighton) ‘The Humanities and the Environment: contradiction, crisis and the politics of prosperity’ Dr Richard Staley (Cambridge) ‘Understanding Climate change historically: What can history bring to a science in debate?’ Dr Dr Jenneth Parker (Schumacher Institute) 'Interdisciplinarity and Climate Change' Dr Jane Hindley (Essex) ‘What Would Descartes Say? Social Imagination and the Challenges of Climate Change’ Dr Paul Davies (Sussex) ‘Another Future: Investment without Return’ The workshop will run from 11:00-17:00 Room: BSMS 1.13 There is no fee for the workshop but registration is important as space is limited. To register please email Alex Elliott at aje28@sussex.ac.uk or jamescullis@hotmail.com by the 12th October. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cweh/ http://www.sussex.ac.uk/aboutus/findus

A response to PHDisabled

C Ok first up What I said this morning was wrong and deeply offensive, I should have held back and just remained silent on the matter (thus disproving JS Mill’s point about freedom of speech which I am always happy to do). SECONDLY I regard the current governments attack on welfare and HE as a war on public morality. The ‘reforms’ to benefit amount to an dissolution of welfare rights in favour of bogus consumer rights. My point (which was not that clear) was that being an academic and disabled should not be fused together. What makes academia so special is that all that counts is words on a piece of paper (or screen). It is one of the few spaces in society where the content# of one’s mind trumps any difficulties an individual has. It is still not perfect, the place of mental health is fundamentally neglected within HE, but we are slowly getting there. My disagreement is over how to proceed. Society constantly pigeonholes disabled people “haven’t they done well getting a 2:1 in spite of all their problems”.. No one ought to accept this sentence as it ultimately suggests some quasi-feudal paternalistic view if disability. Thus by denoting that in an academic environment or any public space, MY disability is MY personal prerogative and not letting the two mix. That is why I have issues with the view (which I of course respect) taken by those who wish to identify as disabled academics.

Iraq's post-invasion history: Against the Blair Thesis

Looking back over the last 15 years, there was a time when I was a definite liberal, and I regret it. It was late 2002 early 2003, naively thinking that invading a country that had nothing to do with the UK was a great idea. In my silly defence, I suppose I brought the hole ‘get rid of Saddam, make the world safe’ rubbish spewing from the militant neo-con brigade who hogged the airwaves throughout the period. Whilst a history lesson and a detailed examination of the politics and run-up to the war may once more be required, bellow I just want to examine MR Blair’s contention that the current crises in Iraq HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE WEST ARROGANTLY INVADED A SOVEREIGN STATE AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED IT. In doing so I wish to contend that the failing of Blair’s argument is that it severely neglects the role of religion in the dynamics of any Middle East society. ccording to Blair, ISAF’s recent brutal take-over of towns and cities, the imposition of truly barbaric forms of martial laws and their advance on Baghdad, has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. However his line of argument is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that it is predicated on a liberal democratic reading of Iraqi history since 03. That is, for Blair the terrorism perpetrated by ISAF represent an attack on the mainstream in Iraq, which understands the terrorist group as being external to civil society. Such a reading not only misrepresents the nature of Iraqi history, but also shows Blairite historiography to be inadequate in explaining and accounting for the contemporary role of religion. First, as the origins of it lie in the British Empire, thus the idea of ‘Iraq’ overlooks the deep and real ethnic and religious divisions, which severely limit the possibility of creating any sense of nationhood. Secondly, and more fundamentally. In characterising the religious extremism of ISAF as external to society, Blair ultimately understands Iraq in terms of a Eurocentric liberal paradigm. Blair’s intervention must concern all those whose the Iraq war as a complete failure. But what should be of a second order concern is the way in which he imposes a secular understanding of the contemporary history of Iraq.