Proof
Friday night I saw David Auburn's Proof in the Arts Theatre in Leicester Square. It dealt with the questions I asked myself in Warm Heart, Cold Heart, Post-Emotionalism and the Third Way and Addicted to be Linked. A young girl (Cathy) drops out of school to take care of her mentally unstable father, who used to be a genius mathematician. Upon her father's death, she confronts her sister about the choices they made, and her father's student (Hal) about the magical proof that is found in her father's desk.
***SPOILER***
When Cathy accuses her sister of living her own life while she was taking care of their dad, her sister reminds her of the tacit division of labour between them: While Cathy stayed with their dad in Chicago, she worked in NY and paid the bills. She also points out that it might have been better for their father if he was institutionalized. Again, division of labour: There are institutions who are specialized in taking care of the mentally instable, so their families can continue living their lives.
As rational as this sounds, it is pretty cold and harsh. It is really nobody's responsibility that their father fell ill. It is just plain bad luck. Who, then, should take care of him? Any one of us could fall so ill that we can no longer take care of ourselves. Behind a Rawlsian veil, it gets harder to decide on general principles. But then, one could also claim that if someone sacrifices too much to take care of a loved one, their unhappiness would leave them useless, even harmful. Someone should either fast without complaint, or not fast at all. But apparently her father appreciates and asks for Cathy's support.
Then Cathy gives Hal, who convinces her that he cares deeply about her, a key to her father's locked drawer. In the drawer is a notebook that has a revolutionary mathematical proof in it. Cathy claims to have written it as she was spending most of her time in the house, taking care of her father. Hal, dedicated to mathematics but far from a creative mind himself, refuses to believe her.
Hal genuinely cares about Cathy, and he means well, but her newly-found genious catches him by surprise. It tips the balance of their relationship in his head, as he pictured himself as the stronger one, the care-taker. He finds it impossible (and if not, unfair) that this young girl comes up with something that he couldn't after years of hard work.
I thought the play made good points on human nature, on selfishness, sacrifice, envy. I hope I will be able to write stuff like this one day! (If I'm patient enough to sit down and actually create something meaningful!)
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Inequality, Injustice, Illegitimacy and Insecurity
I went to two very inspiring lectures over the past week. The first one was Joseph Nye's lecture at King's College on Feb. 14, titled "The Future of American Power." Nye is a Professor of International Relations at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and he's credited for having pioneered the "soft power" theory.
The second one was Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei's lecture on Feb. 19 at the LSE, titled "Global Security: Challenges and Opportunities." ElBaradei is Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.)
ElBaradei spoke of how inequality is the source of insecurity in the world. He spoke of people who live without electricity, who use biomass to cook food, who go to bed hungry, who die because of their poverty. He compared the American spending on defense with the spending on development aid. This comparison shows that Americans choose to address solely the symptoms of the problem, not the roots.
Then he spoke of the unequal value we put on human life. People in Congo, people in Rwanda, people in Darfur die, because they are not important enough [for us] to be kept alive, he said. "How can we expect them to grieve us when we don't grieve them?" he asked.
This reminded me of a lecture I covered on March 23, 2004 by Pulitzer Winner journalist Samantha Power. You can access it here. Here is an excerpt from the article:
"Power started her lecture by quoting a speech President Bush made on Nov. 6, 2003 in Washington, D.C. “Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.’”
...
Power said “the enemy of my enemy can be my friend” attitude in foreign policy must change. She gave the example of U.S. backing of Iraq when “Iran was the enemy in the neighborhood.”
She said at the time Saddam Hussein was violating the rights of the Kurdish minority in Iraq, but the United States overlooked these violations.
“Lines not to cross were moved to keep Iran down,” she said.
When Iraq started threatening not only Iran, but also Kuwait and Israel with its weapons development program, it became clear that the United States could no longer support Hussein, according to Power.
Power outlined many obstacles to integrating concern for human rights into U.S. foreign policy.
The first one, she said, is that “victims of human rights abuses don’t vote in the U.S.” She said even she, “the genocide chick,” did not vote on the 1996 elections on the basis of how the Clinton administration “allowed” genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.
According to Power, the second obstacle is a structural one. She said unlike domestic politics, foreign policy does not have “checks and balances” to make sure “urgent will not trump the important, and short term will not trump the long term.”
Power said the third obstacle is people’s lack of “moral imagination.” She said even though people know real-time facts, like the number of Rwandans who died in the genocide, they have no real knowledge of the “human stakes,” they do not stop to imagine the struggle of every person.
The main default of foreign policy is that short-term security and economic interests always get in the way of the concern for human rights and that while ethnic lobbies like Albanians and Armenians play a constructive role for policy change, their efforts focus on a particular group and lack universality.
Power called U.S. foreign policy “gratuitous unilateralism,” recalling the resistance of the United States to the International Criminal Court. She said the United States tried to convince its allies not to turn in U.S. soldiers to the international court and cut or suspended military aid to countries that refused."
***
This brings me to the Nye lecture. Nye went back to the days when the Soviet troops left Afghanistan and the country "collapsed on itself," but the Americans did not mind because it was "half way around the world." Their indifference lasted until Sep. 11, 2001.
Nye used the metaphor of a "three-dimensional chess board" to explain current world politics. The first dimension is military power, one aspect of "hard power," and noone can challenge the US on that. He said that the world is already multi-polar when it comes to economic power, another aspect of "hard power." The third dimension, however, covers the transnational threats such as terrorism, poverty and global warming, and the US should use the "legitimacy of its actions" to influence other actors' actions, i.e. "soft power."
So far, the US has not been very successful in doing that. Nye pointed out that the number of recruits of the extremist groups in the Middle East exceeds the number killed or captured by the American troops. Even if the Americans dismantle one group of extremists, another will spring up as long as the perceived inequality, injustice and illegitimacy is not addressed.
Injustice: ElBeredei said he has difficulty asking countries to conform with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, when the nuclear powers do not fulfill their obligations to disarm.
***
Now we should each turn to ourselves and ask, "why don't I care?" Why are we indifferent to the poverty, violence and suffering that happen far from us? (The distance is both in terms of time and space. We don't care about those who suffered in the past, and we don't care about those who are suffering far away, now... This means we won't do anything to make sure that people won't suffer in the future.) Why do we lack that "moral imagination" Samantha Power describes? I wrote many posts ("Post-Emotionalism and the Third Way," "Luck and Responsibility," even "Indifference") under the label "Post-emotionalism" exploring this phenomenon. We put too much value on individual responsibility, we try our best not to intentionally hurt people in our vicinity, but as long as we are not directly responsible for their suffering, we simply do not care. Our perceived lack of responsibility in their suffering frees us from guilt and the obligation to do something about it.
We are indifferent as long as they don't touch us. We live in bliss. But people who suffer far away can come closer and touch us. Inequality, injustice brings insecurity, terror. That's the feeling I described in "Turkey's Paradox." I don't feel free in Turkey, because I don't feel safe to be free. And the feeling of fear, insecurity stems from inequality. The fear won't leave us until we become aware of the sources of the problem and do something about it. Or else, our survival will be a matter of chance.
I went to two very inspiring lectures over the past week. The first one was Joseph Nye's lecture at King's College on Feb. 14, titled "The Future of American Power." Nye is a Professor of International Relations at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and he's credited for having pioneered the "soft power" theory.
The second one was Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei's lecture on Feb. 19 at the LSE, titled "Global Security: Challenges and Opportunities." ElBaradei is Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.)
ElBaradei spoke of how inequality is the source of insecurity in the world. He spoke of people who live without electricity, who use biomass to cook food, who go to bed hungry, who die because of their poverty. He compared the American spending on defense with the spending on development aid. This comparison shows that Americans choose to address solely the symptoms of the problem, not the roots.
Then he spoke of the unequal value we put on human life. People in Congo, people in Rwanda, people in Darfur die, because they are not important enough [for us] to be kept alive, he said. "How can we expect them to grieve us when we don't grieve them?" he asked.
This reminded me of a lecture I covered on March 23, 2004 by Pulitzer Winner journalist Samantha Power. You can access it here. Here is an excerpt from the article:
"Power started her lecture by quoting a speech President Bush made on Nov. 6, 2003 in Washington, D.C. “Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.’”
...
Power said “the enemy of my enemy can be my friend” attitude in foreign policy must change. She gave the example of U.S. backing of Iraq when “Iran was the enemy in the neighborhood.”
She said at the time Saddam Hussein was violating the rights of the Kurdish minority in Iraq, but the United States overlooked these violations.
“Lines not to cross were moved to keep Iran down,” she said.
When Iraq started threatening not only Iran, but also Kuwait and Israel with its weapons development program, it became clear that the United States could no longer support Hussein, according to Power.
Power outlined many obstacles to integrating concern for human rights into U.S. foreign policy.
The first one, she said, is that “victims of human rights abuses don’t vote in the U.S.” She said even she, “the genocide chick,” did not vote on the 1996 elections on the basis of how the Clinton administration “allowed” genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.
According to Power, the second obstacle is a structural one. She said unlike domestic politics, foreign policy does not have “checks and balances” to make sure “urgent will not trump the important, and short term will not trump the long term.”
Power said the third obstacle is people’s lack of “moral imagination.” She said even though people know real-time facts, like the number of Rwandans who died in the genocide, they have no real knowledge of the “human stakes,” they do not stop to imagine the struggle of every person.
The main default of foreign policy is that short-term security and economic interests always get in the way of the concern for human rights and that while ethnic lobbies like Albanians and Armenians play a constructive role for policy change, their efforts focus on a particular group and lack universality.
Power called U.S. foreign policy “gratuitous unilateralism,” recalling the resistance of the United States to the International Criminal Court. She said the United States tried to convince its allies not to turn in U.S. soldiers to the international court and cut or suspended military aid to countries that refused."
***
This brings me to the Nye lecture. Nye went back to the days when the Soviet troops left Afghanistan and the country "collapsed on itself," but the Americans did not mind because it was "half way around the world." Their indifference lasted until Sep. 11, 2001.
Nye used the metaphor of a "three-dimensional chess board" to explain current world politics. The first dimension is military power, one aspect of "hard power," and noone can challenge the US on that. He said that the world is already multi-polar when it comes to economic power, another aspect of "hard power." The third dimension, however, covers the transnational threats such as terrorism, poverty and global warming, and the US should use the "legitimacy of its actions" to influence other actors' actions, i.e. "soft power."
So far, the US has not been very successful in doing that. Nye pointed out that the number of recruits of the extremist groups in the Middle East exceeds the number killed or captured by the American troops. Even if the Americans dismantle one group of extremists, another will spring up as long as the perceived inequality, injustice and illegitimacy is not addressed.
Injustice: ElBeredei said he has difficulty asking countries to conform with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, when the nuclear powers do not fulfill their obligations to disarm.
***
Now we should each turn to ourselves and ask, "why don't I care?" Why are we indifferent to the poverty, violence and suffering that happen far from us? (The distance is both in terms of time and space. We don't care about those who suffered in the past, and we don't care about those who are suffering far away, now... This means we won't do anything to make sure that people won't suffer in the future.) Why do we lack that "moral imagination" Samantha Power describes? I wrote many posts ("Post-Emotionalism and the Third Way," "Luck and Responsibility," even "Indifference") under the label "Post-emotionalism" exploring this phenomenon. We put too much value on individual responsibility, we try our best not to intentionally hurt people in our vicinity, but as long as we are not directly responsible for their suffering, we simply do not care. Our perceived lack of responsibility in their suffering frees us from guilt and the obligation to do something about it.
We are indifferent as long as they don't touch us. We live in bliss. But people who suffer far away can come closer and touch us. Inequality, injustice brings insecurity, terror. That's the feeling I described in "Turkey's Paradox." I don't feel free in Turkey, because I don't feel safe to be free. And the feeling of fear, insecurity stems from inequality. The fear won't leave us until we become aware of the sources of the problem and do something about it. Or else, our survival will be a matter of chance.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Comments on Turkish Economy
in response to Pratik's posts on Turkey:
India, Turkey and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
Turkey's Silver Lining - An Outsider's Account of the 2001 Financial Crisis
Hey Pratik!
Thanks for your interest in my country :) It seems to me that you got the facts right, but the dots need a little more connecting. I will paint a slightly gloomier picture of the Turkish political economy today (and hence Dervis' influence.) Feel free to correct my economics wherever I go wrong!
Among all the emerging markets, Turkey still remains one of the most susceptible to global and domestic shocks, because it still finances its large current account deficit with short-term capital inflows. First a little history to explain the roots of the problem.
In the 1980's, Turgut Özal liberalized the Turkish economy by replacing import substitution with export promotion, opening the capital account and encouraging foreign investment in the country. The problem was that the social safety nets for losers from the reform were not in place on time. Instead, to avoid losing their votes, weak coalition governments kept making discretionary payments to losers, while subsidizing the exporters heavily, and this in turn led to high public debt and high interest rates. Banks preferred lending to the government instead of the private sector, and this reduced the competitiveness of the economy as a whole.
In the run-up to the crisis in 2000-2001, the Lira was overvalued: Its rate of depreciation was not able to match the inflation rate. This led to a large current account deficit financed by short-term capital inflows. There was a currency-board that pegged lira to the dollar. The sterilization of the inflows resulted in a bigger monetary base and lower real interest rates, and the banks which held treasury bills became extremely vulnerable. Sensing a crisis was looming, investors took out a large chunk of their short-term investments in 2000, but IMF came to the rescue. After the argument between the President and the PM in 2001, however, a second flight rendered the floating of the Lira and a large devaluation unavoidable.
Now the Turkish lira is again perceived to be overvalued, and the large current account deficit is again financed by hot money. The difference from 2001 is that the banking system is more robust (thanks to Kemal Dervis who established the independence of the Banking Regulatory Authority) and the Lira is floating. However, this does not mean that the economy is not vulnerable. The most recent fluctuation, which also hit Hungary, came last May, and the Central Bank had to raise the interest rates considerably to prevent a capital flight.
The deep-rooted political tensions between the nationalist-secularist establishment and the more liberal-minded (including EU proponents) are likely to stay (For more on this see http://lightcapsule.blogspot.com/search/label/Turkey) The current government was not able to act decisively, but there is no real alternative. The social security system continues to run large deficits, and a recent reform proposal was reversed by the Constitutional Court. 2007 is feared to be a "lost year:" General elections will follow the controversial presidential elections. A crisis would especially hurt those who borrowed in foreign currency.
Meanwhile, another important criticism is that while FDI has increased, rather than starting businesses and creating new employment, foreigners prefer to acquire existing Turkish firms and banks.
I wanted to play the devil's advocate and paint a gloomy picture, but I know first-hand that all this does not prevent local entrepreneurs from making investments and creating employment. I hope the efforts of the private sector will improve our competitiveness despite the decades of bad public administration.
Thanks for the Sunday morning brain stimulation, but now gotta head over to the Chinese New Year parade!
in response to Pratik's posts on Turkey:
India, Turkey and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
Turkey's Silver Lining - An Outsider's Account of the 2001 Financial Crisis
Hey Pratik!
Thanks for your interest in my country :) It seems to me that you got the facts right, but the dots need a little more connecting. I will paint a slightly gloomier picture of the Turkish political economy today (and hence Dervis' influence.) Feel free to correct my economics wherever I go wrong!
Among all the emerging markets, Turkey still remains one of the most susceptible to global and domestic shocks, because it still finances its large current account deficit with short-term capital inflows. First a little history to explain the roots of the problem.
In the 1980's, Turgut Özal liberalized the Turkish economy by replacing import substitution with export promotion, opening the capital account and encouraging foreign investment in the country. The problem was that the social safety nets for losers from the reform were not in place on time. Instead, to avoid losing their votes, weak coalition governments kept making discretionary payments to losers, while subsidizing the exporters heavily, and this in turn led to high public debt and high interest rates. Banks preferred lending to the government instead of the private sector, and this reduced the competitiveness of the economy as a whole.
In the run-up to the crisis in 2000-2001, the Lira was overvalued: Its rate of depreciation was not able to match the inflation rate. This led to a large current account deficit financed by short-term capital inflows. There was a currency-board that pegged lira to the dollar. The sterilization of the inflows resulted in a bigger monetary base and lower real interest rates, and the banks which held treasury bills became extremely vulnerable. Sensing a crisis was looming, investors took out a large chunk of their short-term investments in 2000, but IMF came to the rescue. After the argument between the President and the PM in 2001, however, a second flight rendered the floating of the Lira and a large devaluation unavoidable.
Now the Turkish lira is again perceived to be overvalued, and the large current account deficit is again financed by hot money. The difference from 2001 is that the banking system is more robust (thanks to Kemal Dervis who established the independence of the Banking Regulatory Authority) and the Lira is floating. However, this does not mean that the economy is not vulnerable. The most recent fluctuation, which also hit Hungary, came last May, and the Central Bank had to raise the interest rates considerably to prevent a capital flight.
The deep-rooted political tensions between the nationalist-secularist establishment and the more liberal-minded (including EU proponents) are likely to stay (For more on this see http://lightcapsule.blogspot.com/search/label/Turkey) The current government was not able to act decisively, but there is no real alternative. The social security system continues to run large deficits, and a recent reform proposal was reversed by the Constitutional Court. 2007 is feared to be a "lost year:" General elections will follow the controversial presidential elections. A crisis would especially hurt those who borrowed in foreign currency.
Meanwhile, another important criticism is that while FDI has increased, rather than starting businesses and creating new employment, foreigners prefer to acquire existing Turkish firms and banks.
I wanted to play the devil's advocate and paint a gloomy picture, but I know first-hand that all this does not prevent local entrepreneurs from making investments and creating employment. I hope the efforts of the private sector will improve our competitiveness despite the decades of bad public administration.
Thanks for the Sunday morning brain stimulation, but now gotta head over to the Chinese New Year parade!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A radio interview with Turkish writer Elif Şafak about memory, faith, femininity and language... I admired the clarity and richness of her thoughts.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7217653
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7217653
Indifference
Once I read somewhere (now it's a cliché) that the worst is not dislike, but it's indifference. Because a person who dislikes you still cares. If they make you upset, you can still annoy them. But you can't touch a person who does not care, who is not aware. They are out of the reach of your influence. Their unresponsiveness is not because they want to seem detached (if this was the case, it would be a sign of caring) but that you are not a matter of importance to them. They overlook you.
They don't do it on purpose, so you can't really accuse them of being a bad person (if that would change anything!) They just don't care about you, and that's not a crime. Your hands are tied in front of them.
The best thing you can do is to remain indifferent for as long as possible. Unfortunately, the moment you try to stay indifferent, you have already entered the territory of conscious action, from which there is no return. Every time you claim you forgot someone, you confirm that you haven't. If you have really forgotten, you would not be thinking about them at all.
You understand the value of indifference once you lose it. It's like health. Cherish every moment of it.
My only consolation is that there are so many people I'm indifferent about, I wouldn't even be able to point them out to you (if that helps!)
Once I read somewhere (now it's a cliché) that the worst is not dislike, but it's indifference. Because a person who dislikes you still cares. If they make you upset, you can still annoy them. But you can't touch a person who does not care, who is not aware. They are out of the reach of your influence. Their unresponsiveness is not because they want to seem detached (if this was the case, it would be a sign of caring) but that you are not a matter of importance to them. They overlook you.
They don't do it on purpose, so you can't really accuse them of being a bad person (if that would change anything!) They just don't care about you, and that's not a crime. Your hands are tied in front of them.
The best thing you can do is to remain indifferent for as long as possible. Unfortunately, the moment you try to stay indifferent, you have already entered the territory of conscious action, from which there is no return. Every time you claim you forgot someone, you confirm that you haven't. If you have really forgotten, you would not be thinking about them at all.
You understand the value of indifference once you lose it. It's like health. Cherish every moment of it.
My only consolation is that there are so many people I'm indifferent about, I wouldn't even be able to point them out to you (if that helps!)
Friday, February 09, 2007
Princeton:
Purpose.
It’s that little flame
That lights a fire
Under your ass.
Ha!
Purpose.
It keeps you going strong
Like a car with a full
Tank of gas.
Everyone else has a purpose,
So what’s mine?
Oh look.
Here’s a penny.
It’s from the year I was born.
It’s a sign!
Ha!
Ba ba ba ba doo doo doo doo doo.
I don’t know how I know,
But I’m gonna find my purpose.
I don’t know where I’m gonna look,
But I’m gonna find my purpose.
Gotta find out.
Don’t wanna wait.
Got to make sure that my life will be great.
Gotta find my purpose.
Before it’s too late.
Ensemble: He’s gonna find his purpose.
Princeton:Whoa ooh oh.
Princeton and Ensemble:I’m [He’s] gonna find my [his] purpose.
Ensemble: He’s gonna find his purpose.
Princeton:Yeaaah yeah yea.
Princeton and Ensemble:I’m [He’s] gonna find my [his] purpose.
Princeton:
Could be far.
Could be near.
Could take a week
A month
A year
At a job.
Or smoking grass.
Ha!
Maybe at a pottery class.
Could it be?
Yes it could.
Something’s coming.
Something good.
I’m gonna find my purpose.
Yeah.
Ensemble: You’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:
Whoa ooh oh.
I’m gonna find it!
What will it be?
Where will it be?
My purpose in life is a mystery.
Gotta find my purpose.
Gotta find me.
Ensemble:You’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:Whoa ooh oh.I’m gonna find my purpose.
Ensemble:Your’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:Pur- pur- purpose Yeah yeah.
I gotta find me!
More Avenue Q lyrics:
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/fornow.htm
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/iwishicouldgobacktocollege.htm
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/theresafinefineline.htm
Purpose.
It’s that little flame
That lights a fire
Under your ass.
Ha!
Purpose.
It keeps you going strong
Like a car with a full
Tank of gas.
Everyone else has a purpose,
So what’s mine?
Oh look.
Here’s a penny.
It’s from the year I was born.
It’s a sign!
Ha!
Ba ba ba ba doo doo doo doo doo.
I don’t know how I know,
But I’m gonna find my purpose.
I don’t know where I’m gonna look,
But I’m gonna find my purpose.
Gotta find out.
Don’t wanna wait.
Got to make sure that my life will be great.
Gotta find my purpose.
Before it’s too late.
Ensemble: He’s gonna find his purpose.
Princeton:Whoa ooh oh.
Princeton and Ensemble:I’m [He’s] gonna find my [his] purpose.
Ensemble: He’s gonna find his purpose.
Princeton:Yeaaah yeah yea.
Princeton and Ensemble:I’m [He’s] gonna find my [his] purpose.
Princeton:
Could be far.
Could be near.
Could take a week
A month
A year
At a job.
Or smoking grass.
Ha!
Maybe at a pottery class.
Could it be?
Yes it could.
Something’s coming.
Something good.
I’m gonna find my purpose.
Yeah.
Ensemble: You’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:
Whoa ooh oh.
I’m gonna find it!
What will it be?
Where will it be?
My purpose in life is a mystery.
Gotta find my purpose.
Gotta find me.
Ensemble:You’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:Whoa ooh oh.I’m gonna find my purpose.
Ensemble:Your’re gonna find your purpose.
Princeton:Pur- pur- purpose Yeah yeah.
I gotta find me!
More Avenue Q lyrics:
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/fornow.htm
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/iwishicouldgobacktocollege.htm
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/theresafinefineline.htm
Sunday, February 04, 2007
A Small Note on Higher Education Fees
Today at Warwick Economics Summit there was a debate on higher education fees, and one of the participants asked whether the fees should be determined based on the costs of each student or the expected salary of the graduate (as the private benefit from the degree is the expected increase in the salary.) Actually, the fees are determined by both! The cost is reflected by the supply curve, and the expected salary (utility) makes up the demand curve.
P.S. Pratik's analysis on the need for raising the cap on variable fees, and the political economy of higher education reform (i.e. the need to explain the reform to students and parents to make sure that the proposal is politically feasible, and even more importantly, that people can utilize the system to its utmost potential once it is implemented.)
http://pratiksrandomwalk.blogspot.com
Today at Warwick Economics Summit there was a debate on higher education fees, and one of the participants asked whether the fees should be determined based on the costs of each student or the expected salary of the graduate (as the private benefit from the degree is the expected increase in the salary.) Actually, the fees are determined by both! The cost is reflected by the supply curve, and the expected salary (utility) makes up the demand curve.
P.S. Pratik's analysis on the need for raising the cap on variable fees, and the political economy of higher education reform (i.e. the need to explain the reform to students and parents to make sure that the proposal is politically feasible, and even more importantly, that people can utilize the system to its utmost potential once it is implemented.)
http://pratiksrandomwalk.blogspot.com
Being Good
"People who can't be witty exert themselves to be devout and affectionate." George Eliot
Today I made a comment and one of my friends said, "she's being all nice and sweet again..." I pondered out loud in response, "I wonder if I'm really good or if I'm making myself [sound]good." Then my other friend said, "you're conscious of your bad side, so you're trying to make sure your good side prevails... you're a conscious person."
When I was in middle school I wrote something about being an orange versus being a lemon. Being an orange is all nice and sweet, but I'd really like to see myself as a lemon, because a lemon is much more interesting!
"People who can't be witty exert themselves to be devout and affectionate." George Eliot
Today I made a comment and one of my friends said, "she's being all nice and sweet again..." I pondered out loud in response, "I wonder if I'm really good or if I'm making myself [sound]good." Then my other friend said, "you're conscious of your bad side, so you're trying to make sure your good side prevails... you're a conscious person."
When I was in middle school I wrote something about being an orange versus being a lemon. Being an orange is all nice and sweet, but I'd really like to see myself as a lemon, because a lemon is much more interesting!
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Baobab Tree
If there is one metaphor for life, that's the Little Prince, my favorite book in the entire world.
You know, the Little Prince lives on a planet with his rose and volcanoes, and he goes on a trip to see the other planets.
Every character in the book is golden, but tonight I'll tell you about the baobab trees. You know, we each have a planet. The wind brings seeds to our planet, and little baobab sprouts may resemble small rosebushes. We may believe in them, we might think they will grow into something beautiful, we tend to them. But they are in fact baobab seeds, and if we let them grow too big, they will take over our planet and break it into small pieces. So we must uproot them as soon as we realize they are baobab trees.
Just take my word and read this book if you haven't already, it's just beautiful.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Feminism and Academia
There are levels in the sky. I'm not talking about the Islamic seven floors of heaven story, but the clouds where academics sit. I have great respect for people who stop and try to look at the situation they are in from outside. You try to identify the variables and cause-effect relationships in order to understand the motivations behind your own actions. But if you look at reality for too long from too far above, you might start to see things that are only intelligable to you, and all your theorizing and big words are no use to most of the people who are actually living the reality.
I guess one of the most difficult "situations" to step out of and examine objectively is our sexuality and gender roles.
Yesterday I went to Angela McRobbie's lecture Illegible Rage: reflections on young women's post feminist disorders. I was hoping to hear something that I could relate to as a young woman with no extreme problems but some discontent, anxiety and fatigue. To be honest, I did hear some interesting things: Of course I knew about how fashion photography and girls' magazines make us all over-conscious of our body image. Everybody knows that (although this doesn't reduce the importance of this fact.) But she called looking at these pictures "fascinated gazing," which hints not only at admiration, jealousy and inferiority that always hangs on the backdrop, but also lesbianism.
She cited Judith Butler quite a lot, and not having read any of her work, last night I did a little search online to find out what she says. I found this essay written by Sally Young (who was apparently a first-year undergrad when she wrote this) about Butler's Gender Trouble. (Please feel free to correct me if you know more about Butler!) The question I think she's trying to answer with her work on sexual identity is, "To what extent are our actions driven by biological instincts, and how much of it is guided by socially constructed norms?" The heterosexual categorization of sexes and sexual identity assumes that the male has masculine characteristics, and the female has feminine characteristics. Butler disintegrates biological features from sexual identity and argues that both sexes are conditioned by the society to perform the role expected from them. She argues that both men and women may perform "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics according to the situation they are in. And femininity does not necessarily bind all woman together. Young gives the example of a "poverty-stricken factory worker woman from the The Third World" who will more easily relate to a male co-worker than to a powerful businesswoman in New York. Butler argues that if we give both males and females the right to perform both masculine and feminine acts, the problem of inequality will be resolved by itself. She gives the examples of drag queens and pop stars who feel strong enough to resist the pressure of the society.
Here's my cut at the whole situation. I do think gender identities have a certain, tangible biological basis, and the different ways male and female brain works remains a very interesting research area. I think men and women do pursue different goals which do not always complement each other.
At the same time, I feel like gender roles and responses are taken to the extreme, caricaturized by the mass media and passed on from generation to generation. Take romantic comedies and soap operas, for example! All the characters behave very predictably. People who watch them, including myself, assume that people in the real world are so clear-cut like that and develop false expectations from our relationships with the opposite sex. Likewise, fashion magazines create perfect prototypes of ideal women and then market the products that can take us closer to the ideal.
On the other hand, I believe women are increasingly adopting masculine characteristics (as they were encouraged by the feminist movement), and men feminine characteristics, but this is not the be-all end-all solution. I can speak for women that having to be masculine at work and feminine in private life takes way too much energy. Women are expected to be strong and focused at work, and sexy and emotional in their private lives. Our happiness now depends on success in both spheres. This is a very difficult balancing act, and sometimes it gets very difficult to keep one sphere from the influence of the other. Women feel the pressure and stress in this rat race, and they perceive the competition from other women more threatening than competition from men. I think this is proof to my claim that gender roles do have a biological basis, and they cannot be adopted and dropped so easily.
Lastly, I do understand that women are not the only ones who are trying hard to achieve. I sympathize with the insecurities of men in their business and private lives, the society's traditionally high expectations from them, and their big responsibilities. Moreover, the society is not as tolerant with straight men showing feminine characteristics as with straight women showing masculine characteristics. It will take us more time to accept that men can be weak, than asserting that women should be strong.
There are levels in the sky. I'm not talking about the Islamic seven floors of heaven story, but the clouds where academics sit. I have great respect for people who stop and try to look at the situation they are in from outside. You try to identify the variables and cause-effect relationships in order to understand the motivations behind your own actions. But if you look at reality for too long from too far above, you might start to see things that are only intelligable to you, and all your theorizing and big words are no use to most of the people who are actually living the reality.
I guess one of the most difficult "situations" to step out of and examine objectively is our sexuality and gender roles.
Yesterday I went to Angela McRobbie's lecture Illegible Rage: reflections on young women's post feminist disorders. I was hoping to hear something that I could relate to as a young woman with no extreme problems but some discontent, anxiety and fatigue. To be honest, I did hear some interesting things: Of course I knew about how fashion photography and girls' magazines make us all over-conscious of our body image. Everybody knows that (although this doesn't reduce the importance of this fact.) But she called looking at these pictures "fascinated gazing," which hints not only at admiration, jealousy and inferiority that always hangs on the backdrop, but also lesbianism.
She cited Judith Butler quite a lot, and not having read any of her work, last night I did a little search online to find out what she says. I found this essay written by Sally Young (who was apparently a first-year undergrad when she wrote this) about Butler's Gender Trouble. (Please feel free to correct me if you know more about Butler!) The question I think she's trying to answer with her work on sexual identity is, "To what extent are our actions driven by biological instincts, and how much of it is guided by socially constructed norms?" The heterosexual categorization of sexes and sexual identity assumes that the male has masculine characteristics, and the female has feminine characteristics. Butler disintegrates biological features from sexual identity and argues that both sexes are conditioned by the society to perform the role expected from them. She argues that both men and women may perform "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics according to the situation they are in. And femininity does not necessarily bind all woman together. Young gives the example of a "poverty-stricken factory worker woman from the The Third World" who will more easily relate to a male co-worker than to a powerful businesswoman in New York. Butler argues that if we give both males and females the right to perform both masculine and feminine acts, the problem of inequality will be resolved by itself. She gives the examples of drag queens and pop stars who feel strong enough to resist the pressure of the society.
Here's my cut at the whole situation. I do think gender identities have a certain, tangible biological basis, and the different ways male and female brain works remains a very interesting research area. I think men and women do pursue different goals which do not always complement each other.
At the same time, I feel like gender roles and responses are taken to the extreme, caricaturized by the mass media and passed on from generation to generation. Take romantic comedies and soap operas, for example! All the characters behave very predictably. People who watch them, including myself, assume that people in the real world are so clear-cut like that and develop false expectations from our relationships with the opposite sex. Likewise, fashion magazines create perfect prototypes of ideal women and then market the products that can take us closer to the ideal.
On the other hand, I believe women are increasingly adopting masculine characteristics (as they were encouraged by the feminist movement), and men feminine characteristics, but this is not the be-all end-all solution. I can speak for women that having to be masculine at work and feminine in private life takes way too much energy. Women are expected to be strong and focused at work, and sexy and emotional in their private lives. Our happiness now depends on success in both spheres. This is a very difficult balancing act, and sometimes it gets very difficult to keep one sphere from the influence of the other. Women feel the pressure and stress in this rat race, and they perceive the competition from other women more threatening than competition from men. I think this is proof to my claim that gender roles do have a biological basis, and they cannot be adopted and dropped so easily.
Lastly, I do understand that women are not the only ones who are trying hard to achieve. I sympathize with the insecurities of men in their business and private lives, the society's traditionally high expectations from them, and their big responsibilities. Moreover, the society is not as tolerant with straight men showing feminine characteristics as with straight women showing masculine characteristics. It will take us more time to accept that men can be weak, than asserting that women should be strong.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
The Case of Hrant Dink sheds light on the Case of Turkey
Hrant Dink's very thoughtful and sensible arguments on Armenian identity (in Turkish.) Of course I'm not to decide what's thoughtful and sensible, Armenians are the ones who should decide that... but we have a saying, "Friend speaks bitterly," meaning frankly. I think Dink's thoughts are frank and bitter -and therefore truly friendly- to both sides.
http://www.agos.com.tr/ermenikimligi.html
The English version of his last three pieces:
http://www.agbu.org.au/HrD-03.PDF
The first sentence of the last piece was taken out of context and Dink received a 6-month sentence in violation of Article 301 in October 2005, despite an equally sensible "Friend of the court" report, which found Dink not guilty considering both the specific sentence in question and his general mention of the "Armenian Genocide."
http://www.agos.com.tr/bilirkisiraporu.htm
The court of appeals (Yargitay) approved the sentence, despite the attorney general accepting that Dink was not guilty. Dink made the following press statement in response, saying he would never insult Turkish people, because insulting people because of their differences is racism, it's an atrocious crime, and racism is exactly what he is trying to fight.
http://www.agos.com.tr/basinbulteni.html
Dink stayed in Turkey, and he was assasinated in Istanbul on 19.01.2007.
Now that his suspect, a 17-year-old boy is arrested, and the threats he received from an ex-general is surfaced, the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Hrant Dink sent an article to Turkish newspaper Radikal right before his death.
http://213.243.28.21/haber.php?haberno=210582 (Turkish)
http://www.agos.com.tr/#latest (English)
In this beautiful article, he asks why he was convicted under Article 301, while the cases of writers like Orhan Pamuk and Elif Şafak were dropped. The media quoted that one sentence over and over again in a campaign to isolate him. He concludes that he was convicted, attacked in the media and received threats because he was Armenian, and "those great forces" saw an interest in silencing him. He likens his worries about his and his family's security to the uneasiness of a dove. But he says he is one of those whom comfort bores. He's not one who would leave a "boiling hell" and seek refuge in a "ready heaven."
"We were sort of people desiring to turn hell to heaven."
The case of Hrant Dink sheds light onto these "great forces." But it also sheds light onto people who won't accept that. Thousands walked on the streets of Istanbul to voice their agony and anger over his assassination, shouting "we are all Armenians." The coverage of the issue in the Radikal newspaper is courageous and respectable. The posts in the Ekşi Sözlük (http://www.sourtimes.org) show that people are aware of what's happening. And hopefully they care.
There's meaning to a greater story, after all. There are still those people who believe in a greater story, the possibility of turning hell to heaven.
Hrant Dink's very thoughtful and sensible arguments on Armenian identity (in Turkish.) Of course I'm not to decide what's thoughtful and sensible, Armenians are the ones who should decide that... but we have a saying, "Friend speaks bitterly," meaning frankly. I think Dink's thoughts are frank and bitter -and therefore truly friendly- to both sides.
http://www.agos.com.tr/ermenikimligi.html
The English version of his last three pieces:
http://www.agbu.org.au/HrD-03.PDF
The first sentence of the last piece was taken out of context and Dink received a 6-month sentence in violation of Article 301 in October 2005, despite an equally sensible "Friend of the court" report, which found Dink not guilty considering both the specific sentence in question and his general mention of the "Armenian Genocide."
http://www.agos.com.tr/bilirkisiraporu.htm
The court of appeals (Yargitay) approved the sentence, despite the attorney general accepting that Dink was not guilty. Dink made the following press statement in response, saying he would never insult Turkish people, because insulting people because of their differences is racism, it's an atrocious crime, and racism is exactly what he is trying to fight.
http://www.agos.com.tr/basinbulteni.html
Dink stayed in Turkey, and he was assasinated in Istanbul on 19.01.2007.
Now that his suspect, a 17-year-old boy is arrested, and the threats he received from an ex-general is surfaced, the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Hrant Dink sent an article to Turkish newspaper Radikal right before his death.
http://213.243.28.21/haber.php?haberno=210582 (Turkish)
http://www.agos.com.tr/#latest (English)
In this beautiful article, he asks why he was convicted under Article 301, while the cases of writers like Orhan Pamuk and Elif Şafak were dropped. The media quoted that one sentence over and over again in a campaign to isolate him. He concludes that he was convicted, attacked in the media and received threats because he was Armenian, and "those great forces" saw an interest in silencing him. He likens his worries about his and his family's security to the uneasiness of a dove. But he says he is one of those whom comfort bores. He's not one who would leave a "boiling hell" and seek refuge in a "ready heaven."
"We were sort of people desiring to turn hell to heaven."
The case of Hrant Dink sheds light onto these "great forces." But it also sheds light onto people who won't accept that. Thousands walked on the streets of Istanbul to voice their agony and anger over his assassination, shouting "we are all Armenians." The coverage of the issue in the Radikal newspaper is courageous and respectable. The posts in the Ekşi Sözlük (http://www.sourtimes.org) show that people are aware of what's happening. And hopefully they care.
There's meaning to a greater story, after all. There are still those people who believe in a greater story, the possibility of turning hell to heaven.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Something I wrote in 22.12.2005, a slightly shorter version:
Warm Heart, Cold Heart
The symptoms of being in a high: High self-esteem. High hopes. High awareness of all the opportunities that lie ahead of me, and how capable I am of taking them. All the cities I could “spend a year” in, all the different, interesting jobs I could take, all the different ways I could make a difference in the world… The colors of the world, all that history, all the different songs, different tastes, different people, all the passion, joy, variety and beauty… I have done quite a bit already, and I could do so much more! I’m independent, I’m self-sufficient, strong and capable, I don’t have any attachments or hard feelings, I don’t need anyone. Everybody pursues their own happiness, and one can’t really count on anyone to love them purely and unconditionally. I don’t trust anyone completely, so I don’t care about anyone because I’m certain noone can care about me like they should. So I’m a rock, I’m an island, I touch noone, noone touches me. And this is my high, my branches reaching out to the sky, all so self-possessed, they are so high above that they would all claim they are rootless.
Then all of a sudden I go into a low again. Now I don’t look into the future, but I look into the past. I see the people I loved, and whom I still love. Most of the time they are away from me, and so is happiness. I see missed opportunities in their lives, and in my life. I see people who had passions and dreams, who now have only habits and obsessions. I want to stay with them, I don’t want to have to go away from them all the time, I can’t leave them behind. I care for these people, and still I’m afraid that I don’t care for them enough, that I can’t make them happier. I want to go back to my roots, where it’s warm and familiar, where I miss and where I’m missed.
Then my cold heart tells me that if I went to my roots, there would be some missed opportunities, I will become someone with habits and obsessions. I shouldn’t be tricked by love or my motherly instincts, because I suspect they will get old as soon as they are fulfilled, and I will give too much and get too little in return.
And my warm heart tells me that having no pain, no attachments, no responsibilities means being cold and lonely. And I know that I owe my ability to even dream about all these possibilities to my family's patient, hard work.
I don’t know how to be happy, and what step I should take next.
.....
But wouldn't not seizing these opportunities betray their hard work in the first place? We all have to be rational.
Warm Heart, Cold Heart
The symptoms of being in a high: High self-esteem. High hopes. High awareness of all the opportunities that lie ahead of me, and how capable I am of taking them. All the cities I could “spend a year” in, all the different, interesting jobs I could take, all the different ways I could make a difference in the world… The colors of the world, all that history, all the different songs, different tastes, different people, all the passion, joy, variety and beauty… I have done quite a bit already, and I could do so much more! I’m independent, I’m self-sufficient, strong and capable, I don’t have any attachments or hard feelings, I don’t need anyone. Everybody pursues their own happiness, and one can’t really count on anyone to love them purely and unconditionally. I don’t trust anyone completely, so I don’t care about anyone because I’m certain noone can care about me like they should. So I’m a rock, I’m an island, I touch noone, noone touches me. And this is my high, my branches reaching out to the sky, all so self-possessed, they are so high above that they would all claim they are rootless.
Then all of a sudden I go into a low again. Now I don’t look into the future, but I look into the past. I see the people I loved, and whom I still love. Most of the time they are away from me, and so is happiness. I see missed opportunities in their lives, and in my life. I see people who had passions and dreams, who now have only habits and obsessions. I want to stay with them, I don’t want to have to go away from them all the time, I can’t leave them behind. I care for these people, and still I’m afraid that I don’t care for them enough, that I can’t make them happier. I want to go back to my roots, where it’s warm and familiar, where I miss and where I’m missed.
Then my cold heart tells me that if I went to my roots, there would be some missed opportunities, I will become someone with habits and obsessions. I shouldn’t be tricked by love or my motherly instincts, because I suspect they will get old as soon as they are fulfilled, and I will give too much and get too little in return.
And my warm heart tells me that having no pain, no attachments, no responsibilities means being cold and lonely. And I know that I owe my ability to even dream about all these possibilities to my family's patient, hard work.
I don’t know how to be happy, and what step I should take next.
.....
But wouldn't not seizing these opportunities betray their hard work in the first place? We all have to be rational.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Luck and Responsibility
One thing I learned in my "Religion Culture and Knowledge of Morality" class that I never forget is Hz. Muhammed's following Hadis: "On doomsday, everybody will be given their due rights. Even the revenge of the sheep without horns will be taken from the sheep with horns."
What do you feel when you see someone less fortunate than yourself? I feel guilt, and even more so, fear. In my post about the Third Way and Post-Emotionalism, I described the wide-spread belief that those who are unfortunate can improve their situation. Put another way, we believe that those who are unfortunate are responsible for the misfortunes that befall them. Probably this is true in some situations, and not true in others. What concerns me is how our assumptions about the reasons behind inequality shape our emotions and reactions.
Let's say we see a poor, uneducated person. It is easy to soothe our conscience then: We tell ourselves that if this person works hard enough, he can climb to an upper social class. We all have fathers and grandfathers who did just that. We do not feel guilty of our relative richness, which we see deserved, and thus we do not feel any responsibility towards improving that person's welfare. (This perception is true on a wider scale, too. For a long time, it was believed that African countries were poor out of choice: They were lazy and corrupt. This perception freed developed nations from guilt, and the obligation to help Africans. As Jeffrey Sachs showed in the End of Poverty, though, Africans are in a poverty trap because of their bad luck - they simply cannot improve their situation on their own.)
Let's say we see a person with HIV. Easy again, they must have had unprotected sex or are a drug addict. It was their choice to be negligent, so we don't need to pity them. We are not afraid of catching HIV, because if we are careful enough, we can prevent it from happening. Everything is under control.
Let's say we hear about a person who was mugged or raped. If they were walking in a sketchy neighborhood, if they were wearing a mini skirt, we feel better. We prefer simple stories with clear cause-effect relationships. They put themselves in trouble. If we avoid reckless behaviour like that, we won't get mugged or nobody will rape us. If we wear our seat-belts, we won't fly out of the car, and if we don't smoke, we will reduce our risk of getting lung cancer. Everything is under control.
But what if a friend gets mugged and shut in our neighbourhood? What if a conservatively-dressed woman gets kidnapped and raped? What if a young boy gets shut on a crowded street on New Year's Eve? What if a young girl in our apartment building dies of cancer? It wasn't their fault. Then, how can we justify us being here, alive and well? Who can guarantee that we will remain so?
One thing I learned in my "Religion Culture and Knowledge of Morality" class that I never forget is Hz. Muhammed's following Hadis: "On doomsday, everybody will be given their due rights. Even the revenge of the sheep without horns will be taken from the sheep with horns."
What do you feel when you see someone less fortunate than yourself? I feel guilt, and even more so, fear. In my post about the Third Way and Post-Emotionalism, I described the wide-spread belief that those who are unfortunate can improve their situation. Put another way, we believe that those who are unfortunate are responsible for the misfortunes that befall them. Probably this is true in some situations, and not true in others. What concerns me is how our assumptions about the reasons behind inequality shape our emotions and reactions.
Let's say we see a poor, uneducated person. It is easy to soothe our conscience then: We tell ourselves that if this person works hard enough, he can climb to an upper social class. We all have fathers and grandfathers who did just that. We do not feel guilty of our relative richness, which we see deserved, and thus we do not feel any responsibility towards improving that person's welfare. (This perception is true on a wider scale, too. For a long time, it was believed that African countries were poor out of choice: They were lazy and corrupt. This perception freed developed nations from guilt, and the obligation to help Africans. As Jeffrey Sachs showed in the End of Poverty, though, Africans are in a poverty trap because of their bad luck - they simply cannot improve their situation on their own.)
Let's say we see a person with HIV. Easy again, they must have had unprotected sex or are a drug addict. It was their choice to be negligent, so we don't need to pity them. We are not afraid of catching HIV, because if we are careful enough, we can prevent it from happening. Everything is under control.
Let's say we hear about a person who was mugged or raped. If they were walking in a sketchy neighborhood, if they were wearing a mini skirt, we feel better. We prefer simple stories with clear cause-effect relationships. They put themselves in trouble. If we avoid reckless behaviour like that, we won't get mugged or nobody will rape us. If we wear our seat-belts, we won't fly out of the car, and if we don't smoke, we will reduce our risk of getting lung cancer. Everything is under control.
But what if a friend gets mugged and shut in our neighbourhood? What if a conservatively-dressed woman gets kidnapped and raped? What if a young boy gets shut on a crowded street on New Year's Eve? What if a young girl in our apartment building dies of cancer? It wasn't their fault. Then, how can we justify us being here, alive and well? Who can guarantee that we will remain so?
Although I moved around a lot myself, it's still like it's said to me:
Hareket Vakti
is karası gibiyim o temiz ellerinde
dil yarası gibiyim o masum sözlerinde
kal deme hiç bunu benden isteme
sus bu gece bana aşktan sakın hiç bahsetme
dur bu gece bana dokunma beni delirtme
sana boşuna umut vermek istemem
çağıran bir şeyler var hep
beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince
mum gibiyim
senin ışıl ışıl o gözlerinde
kum gibiyim
uçsuz bucaksız o çöllerinde
kış gibiyim
yakan yaz güneşinde
hırsız gibiyim
kadehteki o ruj izlerinde
dil gibiyim yanağındaki o beninde
kal deme hiç
bunu benden isteme
çağıran bir şeyler var
hep beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince
çağıran bir şeyler var
hep beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince
Barlas
Hareket Vakti
is karası gibiyim o temiz ellerinde
dil yarası gibiyim o masum sözlerinde
kal deme hiç bunu benden isteme
sus bu gece bana aşktan sakın hiç bahsetme
dur bu gece bana dokunma beni delirtme
sana boşuna umut vermek istemem
çağıran bir şeyler var hep
beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince
mum gibiyim
senin ışıl ışıl o gözlerinde
kum gibiyim
uçsuz bucaksız o çöllerinde
kış gibiyim
yakan yaz güneşinde
hırsız gibiyim
kadehteki o ruj izlerinde
dil gibiyim yanağındaki o beninde
kal deme hiç
bunu benden isteme
çağıran bir şeyler var
hep beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince
çağıran bir şeyler var
hep beni uzak şehirlerde
bana ait birşeyler var
o sert gülüşlerde
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
benim için sakın değişme
giderim bugün ha yarın
hareket vakti gelince
sen yine olduğun gibi kal
misafirim bu şehirde
bir el sallarsın yeter
hareket vakti gelince
Barlas
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Taking Sides in Iraq
A very true saying goes, "not taking sides is injustice to the right side." Saddam Hussein was executed in Baghdad today, just on the eve of Eid. Probably he deserved this sentence. So we might say the output of the trial is legitimate. But the lawyers I just listened to on TV claim that his trial did not meet the international standards, and the execution was carried out too quickly to avoid any legal or violent contestation. Watching the video of the moments right before his execution, I could not help but pity him. Think what the Sunnis in Iraq and Muslims all over the world will think seeing this execution video right on the eve of Eid.
Bringing democracy is not a justification for invasion. The hope was that ensuing security and democracy would make people forget and forgive the means through which democracy was pursued, i.e. invasion. But the lack of legitimacy in the process is the greatest obstacle in the way of the desired outcome. This is not an ex-post conclusion one reaches after seeing the violence that ensued in Iraq. This is a general lesson that needs to be taken.
This is all I have to write in 2006. I wish a happy new year to everyone.
A very true saying goes, "not taking sides is injustice to the right side." Saddam Hussein was executed in Baghdad today, just on the eve of Eid. Probably he deserved this sentence. So we might say the output of the trial is legitimate. But the lawyers I just listened to on TV claim that his trial did not meet the international standards, and the execution was carried out too quickly to avoid any legal or violent contestation. Watching the video of the moments right before his execution, I could not help but pity him. Think what the Sunnis in Iraq and Muslims all over the world will think seeing this execution video right on the eve of Eid.
Bringing democracy is not a justification for invasion. The hope was that ensuing security and democracy would make people forget and forgive the means through which democracy was pursued, i.e. invasion. But the lack of legitimacy in the process is the greatest obstacle in the way of the desired outcome. This is not an ex-post conclusion one reaches after seeing the violence that ensued in Iraq. This is a general lesson that needs to be taken.
This is all I have to write in 2006. I wish a happy new year to everyone.
Rats
The story I'll tell now, I read long ago. It's disturbing and chauvinistic, and although it was presented as a real experiment where I read, I think it is just a made-up story. I will use it here, because it is a useful metaphor, more like a warning (to myself and any girls who might be reading this.)
Male rats and female rats were put in a box with an electric wire seperating them. After a while, a male rat attempted to jump to the other side, but was tangled in the wire and died. None of the rats moved for a while. Then, seeing that the male rats weren't doing anything, female rats started jumping over the wire one by one, falling dead one after another.
We girls are used to doing our best. We think that we can attain everything if we work hard at it. We believe in meritocracy. But relationships require mutual effort, and it won't work if it is only us who is trying to make a relationship work. Besides, if we change ourselves too much, we won't be the same person he loved in the first place. So doing your best isn't always working hard. Doing your best is realizing what works and what doesn't, putting effort in the right person, protecting and preserving yourself. (For more on this, read "He's Just not that Into You.")
The story I'll tell now, I read long ago. It's disturbing and chauvinistic, and although it was presented as a real experiment where I read, I think it is just a made-up story. I will use it here, because it is a useful metaphor, more like a warning (to myself and any girls who might be reading this.)
Male rats and female rats were put in a box with an electric wire seperating them. After a while, a male rat attempted to jump to the other side, but was tangled in the wire and died. None of the rats moved for a while. Then, seeing that the male rats weren't doing anything, female rats started jumping over the wire one by one, falling dead one after another.
We girls are used to doing our best. We think that we can attain everything if we work hard at it. We believe in meritocracy. But relationships require mutual effort, and it won't work if it is only us who is trying to make a relationship work. Besides, if we change ourselves too much, we won't be the same person he loved in the first place. So doing your best isn't always working hard. Doing your best is realizing what works and what doesn't, putting effort in the right person, protecting and preserving yourself. (For more on this, read "He's Just not that Into You.")
Attachment
In an interview with the Sabah newspaper, Orhan Pamuk said that he believes in attachment more than love. He described attachment as something "instinctive, childish," likened it to what a small child feels when his mom goes shopping. I guess you realize you are attached to a person in periods of "dispossession." It comes with spending time with that person, being able to be comfortable, safe and "yourself" around that person.
In an interview with the Sabah newspaper, Orhan Pamuk said that he believes in attachment more than love. He described attachment as something "instinctive, childish," likened it to what a small child feels when his mom goes shopping. I guess you realize you are attached to a person in periods of "dispossession." It comes with spending time with that person, being able to be comfortable, safe and "yourself" around that person.
Rationalism and Constructivism
So my German friend was right, after all :) Every option has a pay-off, shaped only by the player's material interests. The option with the highest pay-off is the preferred option. Rationalists argue that the pay-off associated with each option, thus the preferences are fixed. Institutions they work within only constrain their means to reach given ends, and ideas are only language and symbols to justify their "self-interested policies." Agreement between two players is possible only if their interests coincide, or they accept each other's preferred options simultaneously through issue-linkage. Let's say Actor A advocates Policy A, and Actor B lobbies for Policy B. Actor A's pay-off associated with only Policy B is very low. But if Policy A and Policy B are passed simultaneously, the combined pay-offs may be acceptable to Actor A. Through issue linkage, pay-offs of Policy A and Policy B stay constant, but their combined pay-off also becomes relevant, breaking the stalemate.
Constructivists, on the other hand, argue that actors' understanding of the pay-offs may change, without an actual shift in material interests. Especially in crisis situations ("a policy window"), actors may be more open to new ideas - because they realize that what they always believed in doesn't work. A charismatic actor ("an institutional entrepreneur") comes up with a new idea, and uses such a policy window to persuade the other actors. As they interact and negotiate ("social learning" within the existing institutional framework,) actors change their minds about the pay-offs associated with each option.
So my German friend was right, after all :) Every option has a pay-off, shaped only by the player's material interests. The option with the highest pay-off is the preferred option. Rationalists argue that the pay-off associated with each option, thus the preferences are fixed. Institutions they work within only constrain their means to reach given ends, and ideas are only language and symbols to justify their "self-interested policies." Agreement between two players is possible only if their interests coincide, or they accept each other's preferred options simultaneously through issue-linkage. Let's say Actor A advocates Policy A, and Actor B lobbies for Policy B. Actor A's pay-off associated with only Policy B is very low. But if Policy A and Policy B are passed simultaneously, the combined pay-offs may be acceptable to Actor A. Through issue linkage, pay-offs of Policy A and Policy B stay constant, but their combined pay-off also becomes relevant, breaking the stalemate.
Constructivists, on the other hand, argue that actors' understanding of the pay-offs may change, without an actual shift in material interests. Especially in crisis situations ("a policy window"), actors may be more open to new ideas - because they realize that what they always believed in doesn't work. A charismatic actor ("an institutional entrepreneur") comes up with a new idea, and uses such a policy window to persuade the other actors. As they interact and negotiate ("social learning" within the existing institutional framework,) actors change their minds about the pay-offs associated with each option.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Post-Emotionalism and the Third Way
I found out that what I tried to describe in the last few entries has a name, and it's called "post-emotionalism." I'm putting all the related entries under one label now.
"Certainly, there is evidence, for example, that over the past quarter of a century people in Britain have come to see personal relationships 'less in terms of social responsibilities and obligations and more in terms of personal resources and fulfilment.'...
It has been suggested that we live increasingly in an amoral, 'post-emotional' age, in which people's emotional responses have ceased to be aesthetic or authentic and their goals are informed by a self-centred form of survivalism. The consumer culture to which the inhabitants of Western societies are subject leads to a 'Disneyfication' of the emotions. Though people can express or 'perform' emotions, these are trumped by rational self-interest...
Post-emotionalism entails a hollowed-out form of compassion for others and a distinctively apolitical preoccupation with one's own interests and well-being, or those of one's most immediate family. It is ostensibly consonant with a Third Way approach to social policy that regards the welfare functions of the state no longer in terms of meeting needs, but of managing risks. " - Hartley Dean, from "The Third Way and Social Welfare: The Myth of Post-emotionalism"
Although people believe that everybody should be held responsible for the choices they make (and disapprove of the "dependency culture,") there is still recognition that people are vulnerable to risk and uncertainty. Dependency out of choice is not tolerated, but people realize that they might be dependent to others (and others may be dependent on them) out of bad luck.
[T]he majority –in spite of the prevalence of popular prejudices against welfare dependency- acknowledged that they themselves were at least potentially dependent beings (and/or that other people dependent on them); and that there are at least certain things to which all human beings are or should be entitled… From behind a Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ as to the extent of the risks they face, people do by and large espouse an implicit theory of social justice (Dean, 704, 705.)
I found out that what I tried to describe in the last few entries has a name, and it's called "post-emotionalism." I'm putting all the related entries under one label now.
"Certainly, there is evidence, for example, that over the past quarter of a century people in Britain have come to see personal relationships 'less in terms of social responsibilities and obligations and more in terms of personal resources and fulfilment.'...
It has been suggested that we live increasingly in an amoral, 'post-emotional' age, in which people's emotional responses have ceased to be aesthetic or authentic and their goals are informed by a self-centred form of survivalism. The consumer culture to which the inhabitants of Western societies are subject leads to a 'Disneyfication' of the emotions. Though people can express or 'perform' emotions, these are trumped by rational self-interest...
Post-emotionalism entails a hollowed-out form of compassion for others and a distinctively apolitical preoccupation with one's own interests and well-being, or those of one's most immediate family. It is ostensibly consonant with a Third Way approach to social policy that regards the welfare functions of the state no longer in terms of meeting needs, but of managing risks. " - Hartley Dean, from "The Third Way and Social Welfare: The Myth of Post-emotionalism"
Although people believe that everybody should be held responsible for the choices they make (and disapprove of the "dependency culture,") there is still recognition that people are vulnerable to risk and uncertainty. Dependency out of choice is not tolerated, but people realize that they might be dependent to others (and others may be dependent on them) out of bad luck.
[T]he majority –in spite of the prevalence of popular prejudices against welfare dependency- acknowledged that they themselves were at least potentially dependent beings (and/or that other people dependent on them); and that there are at least certain things to which all human beings are or should be entitled… From behind a Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ as to the extent of the risks they face, people do by and large espouse an implicit theory of social justice (Dean, 704, 705.)
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Another very very true piece :) Again Hasmet Babaoglu! (04.12.2006)
http://www2.vatanim.com.tr/root.vatan?exec=yazardetay&sid=&Newsid=96024&Categoryid=4&wid=9
“Arkadaşlığın bir üstü, sevgililiğin bir altı”
Hani yıllardır yazıp duruyorum ya... Aşktan söz edilmesine bayılıyoruz, içinden aşk geçen şarkılara, türkülere, şiirlere yanıp tutuşuyoruz; dahası, aşka âşık oluyoruz; hepsi tamam ama aşkın hayatımızdaki anlamı “arıza” gibi bir şey. Oysa “arıza” çıksın istemiyoruz. Kafamız bulansın, işimiz gücümüz aksasın istemiyoruz. Açıkça itiraf etmekten çekiniyoruz ama kimi zaman sevmek artık sevilmek için ödenecek bir bedel gibi algılanıyor! Ve en önemlisi şu ki altan alta asıl derdimiz aşk şarkıları eşliğinde âşık olmak falan değil. Hayır! Aşk şarkıları eşliğinde EĞLENMEK istiyoruz!Modern flört kültürü gizliden gizliye aşktan kaçtıkça, aşk da gitgide kaba saba bir delilik; hatta gazetelerin 3. sayfa haberlerine özgü bir suç türü olup çıkıyor.
***
Geçen gün Marie Claire dergisini karıştırırken Hollywood’un yeni gözdelerinden Kirsten Dunst’ın bir sözüyle karşılaştım. Hazcı beklentileri yüksek olan günümüz insanının aşka dair endişelerini çok net ortaya koyuyordu. “Arkadaşın bir üstü, sevgilinin bir altı olmak en ideali!” İşte modern flört kültürünün en özlü ve yalın anlatımı! Zamanında “Vampirle Görüşme” filmindeki küçük kız rolüyle gönülleri çalan ve şimdilerde “Hollywood’un en erotik bakışlı genç kadını” olarak tanınan Kirsten Dunst’ın, bu sözünün ardından söyledikleri de çok anlamlı. “Böylece kimse yara almaz, zarar görmez. Seks utanca dönüşmez, yetişkin duruş bozulmaz, aşk daha uzun sürer.” (Tabii, buradaki “aşk” sözcüğünü “ilişki” olarak anlamak gerek!) İşte aşk üzerine onca şamatanın, onca aşk filminin, onca aşk hikâyesinin gençleri getirip bıraktığı nokta! İnançsızlık mı? Korku mu? Acı çekmeye ve bunalıma dair en küçük bir ihtimalin varlığından bile uzak durma çabası mı? Yoksa hayatımızın bütün hücrelerine egemen olmaya başlayan “iyi vakit geçirme-eğlence-haz” anlayışının en son hali mi?Belki hepsi!
***
Yaldızlı laflarla aşkı savunup bu bakışa burun kıvırmak kolay! Önce bu hali anlamaya çalışmak ve aşkın tarihini-sosyolojisini sorgulamak gerek. Aşk insan içindi. Ama herkes için miydi acaba?İnsanlığın hiçbir büyük geleneği aşkı herkes için ve herkese göre bir şey diye anlatmamıştı. Aşk hiçbir zaman herkesin çıplak elle dokunabileceği bir ateş olarak tarif edilmemişti. Her gelenek “yanmak”tan söz etmişti. Sonra nasıl olmuşsa olmuş, romantik çağ Batı modernizminin içine bu ateşi üflemiş; içtenliğin ve cinselliğin aşka, aşkın da mutluluğa yeteceği iddiası geniş kabul görmüştü. Bugün o romantik yanlışın, o popülizmin acısı çekiliyor. Aşkın mutluluk ve huzurla aynı platformda yer aldığını sanmanın acısı şimdi şimdi çıkıyor. İlişkiler arkadaşlığın bir üstü kadar mahrem, sevgililiğin bir altı kadar canlı-renkli olsun isteniyor. Malum, arkadaşlık yeterince yakın değil fakat eğlencelidir. Sevgililik de çok yakın fakat bu yüzden “boğucu”dur. Tablo bu. Tartışmasına gelince...Bitmez.
This one is basically in line with the one below (read that one first.) There are a couple of cool points though. The first one is that "loving is seen as the price to be paid for being loved." Second, Kirsten Dunst defines the ideal relationship as being "above friends and below lovers." "Above friends," because we want it to be close and intimate, but "below lovers," because we want it to be chill, lively and fun - we don't want it to be suffocating. That way, she says, "Nobody gets hurt, sexuality doesn't turn into shame, the adult posture doesn't break down, love is sustained longer."
Lastly, to Babaoglu, the assumption "sincereness and sexuality will be enough for love, and love will be enough for happiness" was a mistake. The truth is, love is not for everyone, unlike what movies try to make us believe (besides, if our lives were that exciting, we wouldn't take refuge in stories.) And it brings neither happiness nor peace.
http://www2.vatanim.com.tr/root.vatan?exec=yazardetay&sid=&Newsid=96024&Categoryid=4&wid=9
“Arkadaşlığın bir üstü, sevgililiğin bir altı”
Hani yıllardır yazıp duruyorum ya... Aşktan söz edilmesine bayılıyoruz, içinden aşk geçen şarkılara, türkülere, şiirlere yanıp tutuşuyoruz; dahası, aşka âşık oluyoruz; hepsi tamam ama aşkın hayatımızdaki anlamı “arıza” gibi bir şey. Oysa “arıza” çıksın istemiyoruz. Kafamız bulansın, işimiz gücümüz aksasın istemiyoruz. Açıkça itiraf etmekten çekiniyoruz ama kimi zaman sevmek artık sevilmek için ödenecek bir bedel gibi algılanıyor! Ve en önemlisi şu ki altan alta asıl derdimiz aşk şarkıları eşliğinde âşık olmak falan değil. Hayır! Aşk şarkıları eşliğinde EĞLENMEK istiyoruz!Modern flört kültürü gizliden gizliye aşktan kaçtıkça, aşk da gitgide kaba saba bir delilik; hatta gazetelerin 3. sayfa haberlerine özgü bir suç türü olup çıkıyor.
***
Geçen gün Marie Claire dergisini karıştırırken Hollywood’un yeni gözdelerinden Kirsten Dunst’ın bir sözüyle karşılaştım. Hazcı beklentileri yüksek olan günümüz insanının aşka dair endişelerini çok net ortaya koyuyordu. “Arkadaşın bir üstü, sevgilinin bir altı olmak en ideali!” İşte modern flört kültürünün en özlü ve yalın anlatımı! Zamanında “Vampirle Görüşme” filmindeki küçük kız rolüyle gönülleri çalan ve şimdilerde “Hollywood’un en erotik bakışlı genç kadını” olarak tanınan Kirsten Dunst’ın, bu sözünün ardından söyledikleri de çok anlamlı. “Böylece kimse yara almaz, zarar görmez. Seks utanca dönüşmez, yetişkin duruş bozulmaz, aşk daha uzun sürer.” (Tabii, buradaki “aşk” sözcüğünü “ilişki” olarak anlamak gerek!) İşte aşk üzerine onca şamatanın, onca aşk filminin, onca aşk hikâyesinin gençleri getirip bıraktığı nokta! İnançsızlık mı? Korku mu? Acı çekmeye ve bunalıma dair en küçük bir ihtimalin varlığından bile uzak durma çabası mı? Yoksa hayatımızın bütün hücrelerine egemen olmaya başlayan “iyi vakit geçirme-eğlence-haz” anlayışının en son hali mi?Belki hepsi!
***
Yaldızlı laflarla aşkı savunup bu bakışa burun kıvırmak kolay! Önce bu hali anlamaya çalışmak ve aşkın tarihini-sosyolojisini sorgulamak gerek. Aşk insan içindi. Ama herkes için miydi acaba?İnsanlığın hiçbir büyük geleneği aşkı herkes için ve herkese göre bir şey diye anlatmamıştı. Aşk hiçbir zaman herkesin çıplak elle dokunabileceği bir ateş olarak tarif edilmemişti. Her gelenek “yanmak”tan söz etmişti. Sonra nasıl olmuşsa olmuş, romantik çağ Batı modernizminin içine bu ateşi üflemiş; içtenliğin ve cinselliğin aşka, aşkın da mutluluğa yeteceği iddiası geniş kabul görmüştü. Bugün o romantik yanlışın, o popülizmin acısı çekiliyor. Aşkın mutluluk ve huzurla aynı platformda yer aldığını sanmanın acısı şimdi şimdi çıkıyor. İlişkiler arkadaşlığın bir üstü kadar mahrem, sevgililiğin bir altı kadar canlı-renkli olsun isteniyor. Malum, arkadaşlık yeterince yakın değil fakat eğlencelidir. Sevgililik de çok yakın fakat bu yüzden “boğucu”dur. Tablo bu. Tartışmasına gelince...Bitmez.
This one is basically in line with the one below (read that one first.) There are a couple of cool points though. The first one is that "loving is seen as the price to be paid for being loved." Second, Kirsten Dunst defines the ideal relationship as being "above friends and below lovers." "Above friends," because we want it to be close and intimate, but "below lovers," because we want it to be chill, lively and fun - we don't want it to be suffocating. That way, she says, "Nobody gets hurt, sexuality doesn't turn into shame, the adult posture doesn't break down, love is sustained longer."
Lastly, to Babaoglu, the assumption "sincereness and sexuality will be enough for love, and love will be enough for happiness" was a mistake. The truth is, love is not for everyone, unlike what movies try to make us believe (besides, if our lives were that exciting, we wouldn't take refuge in stories.) And it brings neither happiness nor peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)