Posts Tagged ‘Conferències’
Peter Wagner: “The mechanism of domination and resistance to domination is what brought about progress”March 3rd, 2015 Centre Documentació i Debat No Comments
Barcelona Debate 2015 is about to end with the lecture that will be given by the sociologist Peter Wagner, who will situate the concepts of “progress” and “modernity” within the framework of today’s political vocabulary and propose new readings and perspectives in order to update their meanings.
In your lecture on 9 March you will be revising the political concepts of “progress” and “modernity”.
I’ll be talking about the notion of “progress” in relation with that of “modernity” by starting to look at how western societies have grown considerably with the progress they’ve made over the past two centuries, when progress was understood not only as a possibility but as something that was really happening: it was believed that society would keep improving. Things went on like that until thirty or forty years ago but, between 1979 and 1989, something happened which made us lose our faith in progress. In my lecture I’ll discuss the reasons for this loss of faith and explain that, as a society, we have too many things that need improving so we can’t give up and abandon the idea of “progress”. We must try to recover it and, probably, give it new meaning.
After very well-attended lectures by Axel Honneth and Saskia Sassen and a panel discussion on the work of the philosopher Byung-Chul Han, The Barcelona Debate 2015 now continues, this time reconsidering the present-day sense of the main political concepts we habitually use. Bo Stråth, Emeritus Professor of Nordic, European and World History at the University of Helsinki, will take the floor to rethink, revise and discuss the concepts of “capitalism” and “welfare”. We have interviewed him, asking him to tell us in advance some of the key themes of his lecture next Monday 16 February.
Are capitalism and welfare compatible?
I shall illustrate the relationship between capitalism and welfare, and whether they are compatible, and whether they can be mutually supportive, starting by analysing how the concept of “reform” has changed. This notion first appeared 150 years ago as a counter to the idea of revolution, shortly after which it became a concept that was “in favour of something”: for a better future, for a more just society, et cetera. After that, reforms were always associated with social reform. Now I wonder: how did it happen that, nowadays, “reforms” no longer have any social dimension? All reforms today are economic and the less social the better. This transformation, or the 180o turnaround in the meaning of the word, began in the 1970s with sweeping changes in the job market.
You say that the concept of “reform” underwent a radical change in the 1970s. What happened exactly?
Until the 1960s, the idea of reform referred to social reforms, but these social reforms were not opposed to economic reforms since economic efficiency and social efficiency were mutually supportive and reinforcing. Social improvements meant economic improvements and vice versa. However, this changed in the 1970s with the crisis of the dollar after the Vietnam War which had channelled economic resources into arms production. That was the context in which welfare disappeared from the concept of reform. Ever since then, the idea of “reform” has lost its social component to become a tool exclusively geared to economic efficiency, associated with restricted production, lower labour costs, and so on.
Might the concept of “reform” come to include the social component again?
This is the big question and we don’t have the answer. There is nothing in the present structure that would allow us venture an opinion as to whether things will change or stay the same. The European political leaders are the ones who have to decide what they want to do and what Europe must do. Is it necessary to let people go hungry, as in Greece? Is it possible to re-create a social Europe? These are the big questions today.
Bo Stråth, Emeritus Professor of Nordic, European and World History at the University of Helsinki will be speaking in The Barcelona Debate, “Wield the Word” on Monday 16 February with the lecture “Capitalism and Welfare: On the Changing Meaning of the Concept of Reform”.
In recent years, as a result of his studies of the phenomenon of fatigue in capitalist societies, together with its associated symptoms such as depression and exhaustion, Byung-Chul Han has become one of the most widely read philosophers in Europe. Byung-Chul Han, who was born in Seoul and studied in Berlin, raises the questions of how we want to live today and what we can do to counteract the pressures of goal-achieving digital societies. In this sense, the fatigue syndrome is especially pernicious in South Korea which, in a very brief period, went from being a poor agricultural country to a leading industrial nation. Byung-Chul Han’s book La sociedad del cansancio (The Fatigue Society) examines Europe and South Korea in 2010, while his critical theses on society, as detailed in La sociedad de la transparencia (The Transparency Society), La agonía de Eros (The Agony of Eros), Psicopolítica (Psychopolitics) and En el enjambre (In the Swarm), are very helpful guised to understanding society in the present-day age of self-exploitation, neoliberalism and surveillance.
Since it will not be possible to hear Byung-Chul Han speak in person since he does not make public appearances or give press interviews, we shall screen the documentary film Müdigkeitsgesellschaft (Fatigue Society – Byung-Chul Han in Seoul / Berlin) by the visual artist Isabella Gresser on Monday 9 February. Gresser, who accompanied Byung-Chul Han on his visits to Seoul between 2012 and 2014, interweaves her cinematographic, photographic and sketched observations in Korea with a text spoken by Byung-Chul Han, fragments of lectures and other materials, for example an interview with the famous Korean film director and producer Park Chan-wook and recordings of monks in a Buddhist temple. A key theme of the documentary is that of the wanderer, while the part about Berlin – where Byung-Chul Han guides the spectator through the intimacies of his neighbourhood and its local nostalgic peculiarities – is closely linked with the film Der Himmel über Berlin (Wings of Desire), the screenplay of which was written by Wim Wenders and Peter Handke.
Following the screening of the documentary there will be a panel discussion on the concepts of Individual and Community with Fina Birulés, lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Barcelona, Albert Lladó, cultural journalist, Manel Ollé, lecturer in History and Culture of Contemporary China at the Pompeu Fabra University, and Isabella Gresser, visual artist.
‘Individual and Community’ is the third event in Barcelona Debate 2015 which, titled ‘Wield the Word’, will include such speakers as Axel Honneth, Saskia Sassen, Bo Stråth, Luc Boltanski, Montserrat Guibernau, Peter Wagner and Seyla Benhabib.
John and Jennifer are Yale University Biology graduates. Their CVs are identical and both have been appointed for equal positions as laboratory technicians. Now their credentials must be reviewed by 127 lecturers in Biology, Chemistry and Physics who, on the basis of their documents, must decide their salary. What they don’t know is that John and Jennifer are characters invented by the university for an experiment on gender differences. Researchers have created a situation in order to gauge the extent of gender bias. The conclusion is clear: with the same qualifications, it is better to be called John than Jennifer. The gross annual salary suggested for Jennifer is 3,720 dollars less than that proposed for John. The study, published in 2012 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was headed by a woman, Jo Handelsman, who is presently Associate Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and, as such, President Obama’s adviser on the implications of science for the nation.
Few women rise to such heights because, despite advances, science is still sexist. With the same talent as male colleagues women are frequently paid less, have more difficulties prospering in their careers, obtain fewer grants and are more likely to leave their jobs. This is a world-wide trend. Women who head research groups are still in a minority. There are only three female vice-chancellors in Spain’s 48 public universities. In order to occupy this position one must first be a professor and, in Spain, only 15% of university chairs are occupied by woman.
Women are also neglected in terms of public recognition of their work. Of the 457 Nobel Prizes conceded since 1901, only eleven have gone to women, although many women have played a major role in teams where male colleagues have received the award. One of the better known historical cases is that of Rosalind Franklyn, a biophysicist and crystallographer at the University of Cambridge (an institution which didn’t admit women to full membership until 1948 and, even then, the annual quota was 10% for years thereafter). As a researcher, Franklin made a major contribution when she discovered the structure of DNA in one of her experiments yet, after she had naively shown Francis Crick and James Watson the images she had obtained, the two men went ahead and published the results in Nature and, accordingly, were hailed by the international scientific community and awarded the Nobel Prize. They are still publically recognised as the discoverers of the molecular structure of DNA when, in fact, it was Rosalind Franklyn who should be hailed as the women who opened up a new era in medical science.
This tiny presence of women in the scientific elite contrasts with the number of women graduates and PhD holders. While women students are still a minority in some types of engineering, in other areas such as the life sciences they represent some 75% of graduates and more than 60% of PhD holders. The percentages dwindle after women turn thirty, an age when the majority start thinking about having children. At this point statistical graphs, which had previously shown two lines (one for women and one for men) of more or less parallel paths, now form a cross when the women’s line intersects the men’s line to give a scissor-shaped picture in which the lower blade, the women’s line, now drops sharply. There are exceptions but there is no denying that maternity and an absence of measures to help reconcile work and family duties are major obstacles to high-level performance, to an extent that is so discouraging that some women give up their careers. Apart from prejudice, science is demanding: one must publish, attend congresses, present projects for grants when calls for submissions won’t wait, travel… Without support, there is little chance of success even for the most devoted mothers who spend hours at the computer writing up projects and breastfeeding at the same time.
The fait accompli that men constitute the majority in the scientific elite is so internalised that many women who become leaders, or who publish in the most prestigious magazines are frequently confronted with stereotypes. It is not infrequent that, before knowing a woman scientist’s identity, people assume that this privileged mind working in top-level scientific studies belongs to a man. Some eminent women scientists say that they have been invited to speak at congresses only to find that they are presented in the programme as Mr. X instead of Ms. X.
Breaking through the glass ceiling which acts as a barrier to the advancement of women scientists entails putting an end to many deeply entrenched forms of inertia in our society. To begin with, the bias is not exclusive to the scientific world. Difficulties in reconciling work and family life are present in all professions which entail a certain degree of competitiveness and commitment, ranging from science through journalism and music to business leadership. A mother is 79% less likely to be contracted than a childless woman, and will also be paid less, according to an article published in a special issue of Nature devoted to women. This contrasts with the fact that a man who has children enjoys a professional advantage.
In the special issue of Nature, several authors present options for remedying this situation which is so deep-rooted in our society. What should be done about professions in which, apart from working conditions (which don’t help either), competitiveness means there is no respite? What instruments might redress the scissor effect? Application of quotas is controversial and, in particular, fails to rectify underlying problems such as an absence of measures adapted for a scientific career in order to help women reconcile work and family life. Brigitte Mühlenbruch, president of the European Platform of Women Scientists in Brussels, and Maren A. Jochimsen, director of Essen College of Gender Studies in Germany, have brought together in this special issue of Nature a number of possible solutions. First of all, although it is recognised that the EU Research and Innovation programme Horizon 2020 incorporates gender as an issue to be taken into account for researchers preparing proposals, they also decry the fact that the committees that determine who will receive the grants mostly consist of men. So, too, do the panels of scientific advisers who decide whether an article is to be published or not. Mühlenbruch and Jochimsen suggest that such committees and panels should be comprised by at least 40% women.
They also recommend that there should be greater flexibility for women with children who are presenting projects for funding, that measures should be taken to help the family when a job entails mobility and, moreover, that the fact of a woman’s having children and thus needing time off work should be seen as yet another merit rather than as a negative factor.
The «Women and Science» debates took place at CCCB on feburary 2015. Available online the videos of the round tables ‘Women and science: the view from institutions of quality research‘ and ‘In first person: the voice of women researchers‘.