Saturday Morning Musings - Art, nostalgia & memories of time past

In a comment on Train reading – Vivien Gaston, Julia Griffin & Rain on the Uralla Road, kvd wrote:

Scarecrow on a wooden cross Blackbird in the barn
Four hundred empty acres that used to be my farm
I grew up like my daddy did My grandpa cleared this land
When I was five I walked the fence while grandpa held my hand

Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow
This land fed a nation This land made me proud
And Son I'm just sorry there's no legacy for you now
Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow
Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow

Dunno why, but 'Rain On The Uralla Road' reminded me of that song.

This is the song as recorded.:

During the week I received this message on Facebook from an Aboriginal artist::

I'm researching my cultural heritage and would like to have a conversation about Armidale peoples if you have the time I look forward to hearing from u soon.

Still on Facebook, old friend and colleague Noric Dilanchian writes on aspects connected with the Armenian past as he tries to discover his roots and present the remarkable stories of the Armenian people. 

I was going to to use the word nostalgia in connection with Noric, but it is more a connection with the past in an uncertain world, a desire to maintain continuity and links. It is also a memory of things past.

The underlying theme in the Mellencamp song, the loss or threat of loss of the family farm, the destruction of things worked for, of personal continuity, is a theme in Australian history. It was a familiar theme once, something that resonated even in the city because so many city people still had country connections.

In the Victorian melodramas, we hissed the villain who was about to seize the heroine's assets using the forces of law. Today we objectify this, we call it economic forces, structural change, the operations of the market economy. We then wonder why people oppose change; we have in fact taken the emotion out of the equation and therefore fail to recognise its importance. .

Looking back over the historical changes that have taken place over the last three hundred years, major change periods are normally followed by periods of nostalgia for things lost. The continuity has been broken. Nostalgia can drive resistance to further change. Equally often it acts as a trigger for further change, for it plays out in new ideas and cultural and political movements who draw their power in part from the desire to recover and re-present. Here art and literature become powerful allies, crystallizing feelings and requiring response.

Individual human memories may be short indeed, but cultural and societal memories are long. We saw this over the the last part of the twentieth century and the first part of this century. To my mind, the most distinctive feature of this period has been the resurgence of the past, the desire to reach back, to re-establish.

This has come as a nasty shock to those in Western society embedded in current orthodoxy and ideas such the dominance of the national state, the irrelevance and indeed dangers of religious belief, the liberal democratic paradigm. 

Mind you, we have to be careful in talking about the liberal democratic paradigm. Many of those who expose the liberal democratic paradigm are in fact statists, believing in the need for the state to protect itself first and then safety and rights (this last is very much a second order thing) of its citizens.They use the language of liberal democracy to support attacks on the very things they apparently espouse. The current Australian security legislation is a case in point.

By its nature, liberal democracy is messy and inconsistent, riven with tensions. Consider a basic premise of that democracy. I will defend you right to disagree even when I think that you are profoundly wrong, your views repugnant. How, on earth, do you maintain that position in face of certain of the views expressed? The most liberal person will suddenly demand controls even though those controls are a fundamental breech of other views he or she espouses. 

There is no answer, only constant vigilance and a willingness to adopt and support unpopular positions in the face of the possible use of preemptive state power.  

Saturday Morning Musings - words, the nature of progress & the Enlightenment

in Is Enlightenment humanism a coherent world view?, Winton Bates has continued his discussion on streams in Western thought. He concludes:

Over time, it seems to me that the values espoused by Enlightenment humanism have developed the status of a coherent world view in the democracies that is often, but not always, supported by public opinion. The process seems to be one in which disparate political philosophies, often going back centuries, act as tributaries to the broad streams of thought that flow into the rivers of public opinion. Enlightenment humanism is one of those broad streams of thought. The colour of the water in the streams and the rivers changes over time, depending on relative contributions from the different tributaries.

Winton's piece is worth reading.

In comment on A note on the idea of progress, Ramana wrote:

Surely, words like civilisation and progress themselves need acceptable definitions before we can arrive at a consensus?

These two words have gained a lot of notoriety because of the heavy slant towards the Western idea of them. That other parts of the world could have different ideas need to be recognised and accommodated.

Ramana's comment bears upon both Winton's discussion and my own musings around concepts like civilisation and progress. I agree with Ramana's point about the importance of definitions, I have argued this myself, although I* am not sanguine about the second point, the arrival at a consensus.

Ramana's second paragraph raises some complicated issues. At least I find them complicated!

The loose cross-blog discussion going on at present is in part about the history of certain ideas, their evolution and diffusion.

Winton's post refers to in part to the difference the British and continental especially French views linked to the Enlightenment. I have always thought of the Enlightenment with its focus on the importance of reason in advancing knowledge as being very French or, to a lesser degree German, and not always rational.

I say the last because I found the theoretical structures erected by the rational application of thought based on certain premises both opaque and increasingly divergent from reality. The great secular religions of socialism and communism can be traced back to European thought associated with the Enlightenment.  

The English and, to a lesser extent, British tradition was different. The industrial and agrarian revolutions that formed the base of the current global economy began in Britain. The loss of the American colonies, the Napoleonic Wars, the demands of managing a global mercantile Empire acquired almost by accident, all tempered English thought. The practical rather than theoretical was in demand.

Earlier I said the difference between the British and continental view. I used the word British rather than English because of the importance of the Scottish contribution. There is a remarkable but little known story here that skepticlawyer (Helen Dale) has traced through in some of her posts.

I first visited Edinburgh straight after Paris and was struck by it's French feel. The "auld alliance"  between Scotland and France exercises influence to this day. In her writing, Helen traced the way in which concepts from Rome and more broadly Europe influenced Scottish thought. The Scottish Enlightenment was one result. Wikipedia describes it in this way. 

Sharing the humanist and rationalist outlook of the European Enlightenment of the same time period, the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment asserted the fundamental importance of human reason combined with a rejection of any authority which could not be justified by reason. They held to an optimistic belief in the ability of humanity to effect changes for the better in society and nature, guided only by reason. It was this latter feature which gave the Scottish Enlightenment its special flavour, distinguishing it from its continental European counterpart. In Scotland, the Enlightenment was characterised by a thoroughgoing empiricism and practicality where the chief virtues were held to be improvement, virtue and practical benefit for both the individual and society as a whole.

Scotland's population was relatively small, but it was highly educated by then standards, with an estimated 75% of the population literate by 1750. Local opportunities were small, so the Scots were forced to seek opportunities elsewhere. The result was a pragmatic, outward looking, approach. It is no coincidence that Adam Smith was a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment.

I said that the loose cross-blog discussion going on at present is in part about the history of certain ideas, their evolution and diffusion. Inevitably, that discussion extends to the impact of those ideas. Adam Smith is an example, for non-one could deny his continuing influence even among those who have not read a word written by him! However, the discussion extends further into the continuing validity of the ideas in question. Here I want to reintroduce Ramana's point.

Ramana noted that these two words- progress and civilisation - have gained a lot of notoriety because of the heavy slant towards the Western idea of them. He also said that other parts of the world could have different ideas that need to be recognised and accommodated.

The ideas of civilisation and progress are deeply embedded in Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thought. They do have a particular impact today because they manifest themselves in the activities of Governments. The constitution of, and approach adopted by, the US is still linked to its Enlightenment foundation.

You can see this if you watch West Wing, a show my family is addicted too. The Democratic Party President and especially staffers express Enlightenment views. But then, so do their opponents, for the Enlightenment was  actually a broad church. Both sides display another Enlightenment position, a certainty that their position is right!

I don't actually know to what extent ideas such as progress and civilisation manifest manifest themselves in different cultures. When Ramana says that they have gained a lot of notoriety because of the heavy slant towards the Western idea of them, I can understand the political context. I am just not sure what the alternative is.

I suppose, and this is a bit of a challenge to Ramana, I need to understand the concepts embedded in alternative views. My feeling is, and I stand to be corrected, that it's actually the way of application rather than the concepts that are the problem. 

Sunday snippets - Lorenzo on radio, Wright on the Tao, Maximos62 on languages

Earlier in the week I wrote a companion post to a post by Lorenzo on skepticslawyer - A misbegotten Union – Guest post by Lorenzo. Lorenzo's post dealt with the problems faced by the EU. Now skepticslawyer's skepticlawyer advises that the ABC's ‘Counterpoint'  picked up the post and has interviewed Lorenzo.

The interview will air on Monday October 17. The show itself starts at 16:05; Lorenzo’s segment will air at about 16:20.

I really was pleased for Lorenzo and indeed for the independent bloggosphere. The post was a good one, presenting something of an alternative view, so its nice to see the recognition.

Back in August I mentioned that Denis Wright's Learning from the Sufis provides a well written introduction to Sufi beliefs that makes aspects of Sufi thought easily accessible. Now Denis has followed this up with a series of well written and easily understandable posts on the Tao. If you are interested, go to the first post Living Simply by the Tao 1 and then follow the series through. I mentioned Denis' series Friday in Round the New England blogging traps 25 - a few writers, but am repeating the link here to give the posts wider exposure.

In a post last week, Threads for later use, I mentioned a post by maximos62 What do we do about the decline of Bahasa #Indonesia in #Australia?. There I said in part that as Australia had become more multicultural with more native language speakers, the general study of foreign languages had declined. I thought that the two were connected.

maximos62's post is worth reading. I was reminded of it Friday when I went to a Sydney University graduation where my wife was delivering the occasional address.

There was a large contingent of overseas students in the group, and the presenter was seeking advice on pronunciation of names. My wife asked eldest daughter whether a particular name was Indonesian. She wasn't sure. It turned out that it was Chinese, but could be pronounced in no less than four ways depending on the country the student came from!

I had several things in mind when I suggested earlier that the fall in foreign language study was connected with the increase in the multicultural nature of Australian society.

People study other languages for multiple reasons. In a lot of cases, they want to acquire an understanding in advance of a trip. What we might call the hobby market is quite large. In a growing number of cases, children from particular backgrounds study their traditional tongue for family and cultural reasons. In other cases, languages may be selected for vocational reasons. Then, too, some are interested for purely academic reasons.

Nothing profound here, but I think it important to recognise the varying groups with their different motivations.

Australia's increased ethnic diversity means that there are more native language speakers from major language groups available who also speak English. They dominate the market. The vocational incentive to study foreign languages has, I think, actually declined among the majority community.

Further, at school, many language classes are now dominated by native speakers, with courses bifurcated into advanced dominated by native speakers and introductory - the rest. In a competitive environment, students select the courses that will give them the best exam results. This works against language study for the monolingual majority.

So we get a chain effect that works from school through both vocational and university education. I don't see an easy answer to this in a world of electives and market choice. It may be in Australia's interests for more students to study Indonesian, but its not necessarily in the interests of individual students.  

Finishing today's post, in a post on my history blog (A note on philosophy & methodology in history) I returned to my long standing preoccupation with the writing of history. I note it now because the whole topic is niggling away at my mind. I guess that you can expect more here.

Postscript

Interesting story by Rachel Olding in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, All Greek to them: classics back in vogue as schools embrace languishing languages, on the rise in interest in Latin and, to a lesser extent, classical Greek. I quote: 

In schools, the classics are steadily increasing their enrolment numbers.

This year, Gosford High School and St Catherine's of Waverley joined the 43 schools teaching classical languages, resulting in 342 enrolments from a typically small number that do languages.

Chinese background speakers is the most popular language with 963 enrolments and Dutch is the least popular with two.

The number of students sitting the NSW Higher School Certificate this year is 72,391. Compare this with the 963 enrolled in the most popular language course and you get a feel for just how low the interest in languages really is. 

Ayn Rand, selfishness and reciprocity

In Atlas Shrugged the Movie, I said in part

II have deliberately not looked at any of the arguments around the film, although again I can guess, nor have I sought to read the book again. I internalised it a long time ago, and I don't want current arguments or even my current thought to distort my perceptions before I can put them down.

That sounds fine. However, I have a bad habit of wanting to check basic facts such as when the book was written. So I went on line to do that. Inevitably, this drew me into the arguments around Ayn Rand, about the things she argued, about certain ways of thinking. I now wanted to respond to those arguments.

I may decide to do this. However, having seen the arguments and also looked at the comments from Neil and Ramana on my original post, I want to make a short and limited comment.

At the time I first read the book I was heavily into fiction of all types including science fiction where Heinlein was a particular favourite. I had not heard of the Austrian School, Hayek was a writer whose books rested unread on my father's shelves, Milton Friedman was unknown, I had never heard of neoclassical economics nor of the free market. I was reading for my personal pleasure, fascinated by pictures of different societies, absorbing ideas.

The concept of wreckers and parasites is central to Atlas Shrugged. The big train crash in the book occurs because money required for maintenance and proper support was plundered to meet immediate individual needs, self-gratification. Sound familiar?

Rand juxtaposes this with the concept of selfishness. However, this is not selfishness as the word is normally used. Rather, she argues that personal relations, the contribution made by one individual to another, has to be earned. When it comes to personal relations, no-one has rights. There is only contribution, reciprocity. By implication, this extends to the corporate sphere.

Forget all the free market wrapping she put around the book. Rand herself saw this as central, but it is secondary. It leaves open a question that Rand herself never really addressed in the book: what happens if the market is used by the wreckers?

I said that Rand had had an enduring influence on my thinking in all sorts of ways. Take my own thinking on management and especially people management.

I have, I think, had a pretty good track record at getting good results from people. I have sometimes seemed to be a soft manager, but I am actually quite hard. Rand is central to this.

in modern management, expectations are set by targets, key performance indicators. These are set from above. The whole language associated with productivity, with improved performance, is one way. What can I get from you, how do we get the best results from what we have?

In some ways this is wrecker language because there is rarely reference to what should be provided in return. It is all one way.

Rand's concept of selfishness, reciprocity, is personal; modern economics and management language is not. People have been removed from the equation

As a manager, I want good results - above average results - from my staff. To achieve this, management has to be personal, reciprocal.

The staff are paid money. They provide labour in return for cash. That is one element. But what can reasonably be expected for that cash? If you constantly ramp up pressure on staff seeking to get more for the same money without offering any gain to the staff, by increasing pressure on the staff, you risk becoming a Rand wrecker. You become the person who caused the train crash.

if you want above average returns from people, you have to offer above average returns. You have the basic equation of what you can expect from people for the money you pay. Then, to go beyond this, you have to give something back. This need not be money. Motivation, a sense of self-value, recognising people's needs, flexibility, all come into play. It is all personal.

What do you do if someone does not deliver? Well, you have to be fair. You have to understand the basic equation. You have to work with the person. You need to know the why. Finally, if someone is not delivering on the basic equation, then they may have to go. In the end, it's all a question of personal judgement. There may be formalised rules, but in the end it's about equity and reciprocity.

This is why I say that my approach to people management is in some ways perceived as soft while in fact being hard. I have been perceived as soft because I try to accommodate people, because I will fight for my people. Yet the reality is I that I generally get far better returns. Further, and unlike a lot of managers, I won't tolerate long term under performance because it's easier. I try to solve it. Most times I can.

And who are Ayn Rand's wreckers today? Well, consider this.

What about the advisers, financiers, CEO's and managers who focus on and have contracts expressed in terms of their immediate financial rewards, who bend everything to achieve their pay and bonuses regardless of the impact on others, who play corporate games, accept no concept of reciprocity beyond that which suits their immediate needs?  

I accept that my interpretation of Atlas Shrugged is personal. It is also a very long time since I read the book. There are many other aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I have spoken of just one element, I think the central element, that came to be important to me

In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart fights to save the railroad. Later she joins with Henry Rearden. It was these fights that I found the most satisfying part of the book. By contrast, I found the ending unsatisfactory. But that's another story.  

Postscript

In a comment, Winton Bates drew my attention to two posts he wrote on the selfishness issue. I am writing from a memory a long time ago. Winton has read Rand more recently. The posts are:

• Did Ayn Rand regard selfishness as a virtue?
• How far can Ayn Rand's ethical egoism be defended?