Rise of the Epsilon

Only one way of looking at things produces a supreme sense of understanding and that is a completely controlled form of delirium or simulation.

- Baudrillard, Cool Memories

Social disorder in a number of Britain’s major cities has stoked fears about social order, in particular race and class. Accordingly, pundits of all persuasions are cranking up their propaganda machines, getting irate, and trying to whip up some mob frenzy around their pet issue or political outlook. Even before the fires were extinguished and order restored the usual suspects were on the scene.

The topics for discussion are familiar: big states, small states, markets, communities, traditional values or new ones, too much welfare or too little. Dependent on political persuasion they condemn or contextualise, but above all bemoan the impunity and brazenness of it all. However, viewing events through these mainstream frames obscures wider civilisational disorder.

Initial musing about race relations and police shootings has waned as a strange materialism stripped of any bounds emerged as the primary behaviour amongst the mob. This is the Epsilon on the rampage; obsessively coveting the material trappings of modernity, yet burning or otherwise destroying what can’t be plundered. It indicates deeply disturbed views on life. However, these views do not seem restricted to those running amok on the streets. There is clearly a profound disconnect between the cohabiting residents of London.

The Commons, the media, and undoubtedly the streets are now awash with competing perspectives on the event. However, the chaos does not reveal any clear lessons about society, the welfare state, youth, or much else for that matter. Indeed this urgent effort to bring meaning to the events is more illuminating than the staid arguments on offer.

The desire to explain is common and urgent. Developing a rational explanation is the first step to reasserting control over life. Explanations facilitate rational responses, promise to stop the behaviour, and return the sensation of normality. However, I feel that this is an instance where reason will not serve society very well.

Indeed the sheer lack of reason is rapidly becoming the stand out characteristic of the event. There is no issue, no platform, no slogans, nothing. It seems we have reached what many critics argue is the final destination of postmodern society’s march to nihilism: a spatiality and practice free of politics. Here is our Brave New World.

Yet fundamental to reaching this point is an approach to society that demands clear causality. In the wave of analysis that currently sweeps the media simple reductions abound. However, what is on show here is not a rampaging, monstrous youth born of the welfare state. Youth is always imagined as overindulged, irresponsible and threatening.

Nor it is simply a matter of the cuts; though those last few quid a week are vital for many, should we honestly believe that explains all this? Of course it is also alienation. This is a generation with fewer chances than many. A situation made worse by the abundant celebration of material splendour all around them.

To try to extrapolate simple lessons from these riots them is to embrace the view that society is simply a complex mechanical entity that requires periodic tinkering to ensure its smooth function. However this is not the case. This disorder is not simply malfunction. A riot is not a protest, nor any other kind of statement, it has no reasonable implications.

Many decry the behaviour of an underclass and call for greater effort to contain and rendered them harmless. State technologies such as prisons, welfare, and education are reiterated as the favoured remedies. However, this simply indulges the notion that the Epsilons really are Epsilons, social detritus that threatens society proper.

However, such a view is challenged by reports that “normal people” have been participant in the disorder. It also demands consideration that despite their lack of participation in organised education and sanctioned economies, perhaps the Epsilon underclass is not as ignorant of society as many would suggest. The idea that being illiterate or uneducated necessarily implies an inability to ponder how things work seems to belie a lack of imagination. Baudrillard reminds us that pondering the others’ stupidity is a risky game. Taken to its extreme, stupidity holds intelligence in check.

Those who find themselves largely excluded from society may have a far more interesting perspective of how it works than those nestled safely within. In this sense these events give cause to consider - in a vague and ambiguous manner - the tone pervading society. Over the last few years it is increasingly visible that social elites behave as though their actions held no consequences, their privileged positions no responsibilities.

Think not only of the ill-conceived wars of choice dubiously begun and carelessly abandoned, but also of the global economy held to ransom by markets and financial institutions “too big to fail” regardless of their irresponsible, antisocial behaviour. These examples are also underwritten by a nihilism that says: I will have my way regardless. If such behaviour constitutes the tone at the top, a tone against which no social strata musters pragmatic opposition, what is left but mimesis?

Should we glean anything at all, it is that nihilism is both a collective and an individual choice. We can confront the strange, complex troubles which beset us socially and personally, we can also try to ignore it all by clinging to rehearsed arguments about order and property, or we can go wild, senselessly taking or destroying whatever takes our fancy.

the Colonial

the london riots explained

the genius of the web provides the most pertinent analysis yet...

http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/

thankyou creative commons

Virtual Insanity

Sadly it would appear that some of Australia’s better opinion writers have taken their eyes off the ball and become lost in the heady churn of the news cycle. Madame Albrechtsen’s article in the Australian has mistakenly been read as a serious argument rather than ironic subversion. I thought it a witty - at times hilarious - satire of the PC “debate”, alas it seems I am mistaken.

Mme Albrechtsen correctly identifies that public transgression of PC boundaries now constitutes the fundamental basis for discourse in our contemporary society. The tired tub-thumpers of every political persuasion now employ this practice to gain exposure. After all it is rather easy compared to the time consuming, oft-painful, and always difficult technique of thinking and constructing a coherent and considered argument.

Masterfully, Albrechtsen inserts the PC exploiters’ tricks - misdirection and sleight of hand - into her argument. She provides some headline examples of PC infringing: good old Geert Wilders sometime filmmaker and aspiring wedge politician, our own Pauline, some academics no one cares about anyway, and of course climate sceptics.

Having got some hackles up with these cases, she deploys the sleight of hand. Bang: it is explained that this situation is mysteriously correlated with the West’s capitulation before Islam. This is an elegant, ironic demonstration of the PC warrior in action.

Having banged on about the sneaky deployment of bipartisanship to stifle debate, the horrendous Germanic cancer on open inquiry die Totschweigtaktik, Albrechtsen proceeds to demonstrate just how it is done: invoking the clash of civilisations whilst tiptoeing around the longstanding bipartisan support for the war on terror.

Following Albrechtsen’s argument nothing makes sense, logic can be torn free from any bearings and be utilised to any end. Thus as a society we are not at war, because we engage in free and open discourse to do with politics. Yet apparently we are struggling with Islam and capitulating because we cannot cause offence. However, that we are also at war with militant Islamic sentiment is apparently not worth mention.

In the world of PC arguments a spatial separation is erected allowing arguments about virtual struggles with Islam within western discourse to obscure the actual struggle, which takes place across the western defined “Islamic World”. Despite the mainstream insistence that there is no connection between the virtual and the real, it is evident that there is.

The violence that may kill but not offend is predominantly restricted to cities and towns mainly occupied by Muslims. However, in periodic events such as September 11, the bombings in Madrid, London, Oslo and elsewhere the real disrupts the virtual. As Albrechtsen demonstrates when this does occur rather than discuss the implications of this situation, the deathly silence surrounding the merits of aimless violence remains. Instead we babble about the state of our discourse.

the Colonial

Debt ceilings, carbon atmospheres, and toxic political discourse.

In a strange turn of events radical Republicans stand as the Australian public’s final hope. Their willingness to pull down the temple of modernity by impudently refusing to raise the US debt ceiling promises to save Australians from almost certain death in the now toxic concentration of carbon tax debate.


These are our times, and lucky we are to be alive in them. Faced with the prospect of sitting through what seems to be Australia’s stupidest, least rewarding policy shit storm, I will happily embrace the exciting prospect of a post-financial hellscape where we fight each other for scraps of food.

Absurdly, the recognition we collectively must moderate the unworkable relationship between the ecological basis of our society and the destructive and unstable aspects of the capitalist system results in obstinate refusal to pragmatically address either environment or economy.

Instead the trend in politics of dogmatically defending ideological standpoints seems to indicate a wholehearted embrace of virtual reality. Australia currently endures an array of muppets of all political varieties intent on symbolically annihilating any argument that may detract from their own prominence.

This is as evident in the Greens ridiculous decision to oppose the original ETS which led us into this morass, it is evident in the stupid fuss over the future of the antiquated Hazelwood power plant (it’s fifty years old, it’s going to close, zomg!), and unfortunately it is now incessantly evident in expensive government advertising.

Hopefully come August it’ll all be over, the memory of carbon tax debates will take us back to happier days when we entertained such quaint concerns. For it seems Australia is not the only liberal democracy intent on self-destruction. The Global Financial Crisis that seemed “so 2008” is reportedly on its way back from the dead.

Soon we may be thanking extremist within the US Republican Party for its return. Whereas many people all around the world have been gingerly treading around the precarious global economic situation, wiser heads within the Party have realised that adherence to ideology of fiscal restraint, small government, and minimal taxation will sort everything out.

Interestingly, this plan does not come with a rational explanation as to how and why it might work. I presume unfailing belief in the tenets of neo-liberal economic theory and a selective interpretation of the American dream is all that is required.

Yet, this is the most exciting aspect of the whole deal, no one knows what will happen when the hub of the world economy departs from the script and defaults on its debts. There is certainly a school of thought which foresees mayhem in such an eventuality.

The US has essentially acted as the capitalist world’s economic and financial facilitator since the end of the Second World War. Although its role has changed in the intervening years, there is no obvious replacement. However, given the state of the global economy maybe some shock therapy - devastatingly disruptive as it may be - could be an elixir of life.

After all, there is an argument that debt levels around the world are so high that in many instances default is more or less a foregone conclusion. The lingering misery of the Greek “crisis” is indicative. There is no doubt as to Greece’s inability to meet its obligations; the discussion is more or less about how to deal with the presence of such a basket case within the Euro zone.

Organising an orderly “rescheduling” of debt is seen as imperative opposed to a free for all default which may panic markets and nudge other shaky euro economies into the void. However, one of the enduring traits of capitalism is its ability to survive, reorganise, and draw fresh life from major crises. This line of thought proposes that if the burdens of debt, regulation, culture, and custom are “lifted” economic activity of all kinds will flourish.

There are – as always – counter arguments to this view. They point out that when things fall apart human have a willingness to act in destructive and anti-social ways. Yet, given the demonstrated ability of politicians all over the Anglophone and wider world to pragmatically come together and work on major social and economic challenges I am confident we can handle it: default away.

the Colonial

Hack it

I have a particular love for absurdity. I also must confess I am rather partial to a little Schadenfreude. The current news cycle is indulging both of these weaknesses. How wonderful it is to see the mighty fall, or at least be temporarily inconvenienced. Turning on any news channel to see my two favourite media types hounded is a rare luxury.

Both Mr Murdoch and Mr Assange fighting for their reputations and their enterprises. To see the diametrically opposed ends of the media simultaneously wallowing in misery strikes me as too profound a coincidence to be happenstance. The situation must have a cosmic significance that we can only ponder. Yet is there more to this picture, should we simply laugh and dismiss it as just desserts, or is there something profound to be learnt, is there a moral to be found here? I am not talking about those ridiculous old fashioned morals like pride cometh before the fall, the arrogance of power coming back to haunt the mighty. No, it must be far more profound, more web 2.0.

Both Murdoch and Assange - from their respective positions - have been waging an assault on the media spectrum. Murdoch in this instance probably is more familiar to us. He is simply trying to institute media hegemony, which although unprecedented in our era, is essentially familiar to us. He is persisting with the paradigm of extending comprehensive control over mass media.

Assange is playing the opposite end of the spectrum. He too is making a major play for power within the media universe, yet his approach to structure is radical. Rather than extend formal control he is attempting to institute a new paradigm for information networks. Within this paradigm individuals leak highly sensitive information to him, assuming risk, and foregoing remuneration. He inturn engages traditional media outlets to act as agents in disseminating this information. Interestingly his business model follows that of the established churches: alongside a separate profitable business model he also draws on public donations for the Wikileaks good works program.

In this view we can imagine Murdoch as the 20th century media baron and Assange as a 21st century media godfather. The interesting issue is that they have come up against something seemingly large and immovable. This seems to be the power of the state. Long considered dead, killed off along with cross media ownership laws, or overwhelmed by globalisation, states seem to be coming back to life. Of course at this stage the most we can see is a glimmer: the faint rise and fall of the chest, a fluttering of eyelids, by it is there. It surprises few that the radical Assange should be targeted for his assault on state information and secrecy. However, that Murdoch should likewise find himself target of state sponsored ire is a wonder.

Although Assange certainly captured attention with some of his louder exploits, the flaw in his paradigm is obvious. He doesn’t make the news unless - as is currently the case - he becomes the news. He relies on someone, somewhere, to somehow provide him something juicy. Murdoch - in the traditional capitalist mode - owns the means of production. As we now know if the news isn’t flowing, he hires someone to get out there and make it flow. This capability led many to consider that he had the power to make and break governments and drive policy.

While it is too early to believe Murdoch or Assange are falling, it is highly ironic that such pathetic indiscretions are the basis for both characters’ current woes. Deception lies at the heart of this. Whereas Assange is attempting to highlight deception in unveiling it, Murdoch is in trouble for illegitimately peeking behind the veil, without the safety line of public interest. His great error seems to be hacking innocent victims alongside targets the public enjoy such as celebrities and politicians. This is the inconsistency that makes the whole situation absurd.

For all the show and fun of the media, we must admit that ultimately it is a spectacle. The red tops are moronic and no one seems to take the stories Assange has to share seriously. The public seems more interested in tabloid reports of his sex life. To argue that public trust has been abused, or anyone has found themselves less reliably informed is surely a grand joke. No one was ever forced to buy the News of the World: people liked it. Likewise despite the public opposition to the war in Iraq, no public averted that war, no public figure will be held to account now.

Rather, in the case of Mr Assange as in the case of Mr Murdoch governments have leapt upon a disturbance in public sentiment to attack impediments to their power. In both instances public mood is predicated on the on ability of each campaign to allow the individual to embrace aggrieved innocence. Assange allows us to believe that the international realm is predicated on secrecy: our politicians deceive us therefore we are not responsible for their disastrous policy. Likewise, unknown to the public Murdoch does horrible things to publish the stories we love to read. Ultimately it seems the only moral the public is willing to embrace is whatever happens, it’s someone else's fault.


the Colonial

Welcome to Hegemony!

Oh dear! The cacophony of endless screaming, ranting, and raving is the clearest indication yet that we are lost, perhaps irredeemably. The funniest part of the whole situation is that those who bleat the loudest fail utterly to recognise the bind we find ourselves in.

The International Energy Agency estimates last year’s carbon emissions to have achieved record growth to become the highest historical output. Before we say good work team, it is worth taking a breath, trying to compose ourselves, pausing to consider the discourse on Carbon in light of this historic achievement.

Madame Blanchett, wonderful as she may be, is not capable of conjuring the symbolic shift which could potentially predicate any reversal in socio-historical direction. Likewise, Mr Caton should probably stick with Maccas. Indeed, the very point to which I allude here is the fundamental failure of discourse and symbolism surrounding the climate change issue to engage with the heart of the matter: climate change is not a problem, it’s a symptom.

Despite the wealth of wonderful arguments and counterarguments which detail how we should collectively extract ourselves from the mire, very few, if any, engage with the reality that the time for opposition, implying a dialectic understanding of historical progress, is long past. There is nothing left to do except ignore the empty void at the heart of global hegemony or opt out altogether and try somehow to abandon modernity.

The progressive argument that we can somehow find a nice moderation of our current excessive existence is as intellectually bankrupt as the conservative game of chicken that demands we wait til big polluters such as China and India change first.

In Australia, a nation whose current terms of trade and material prosperity is predicated on growing emissions in nations such as China and India, there is no big Other. That is, there is no idea or imagined social form which might replace satellite suburbs, carbon intensive economies, and materialist lifestyles.

The boring litany of political babble, which now even former-politicians themselves have the gall to try to pin on the media, is evidence that the symbolic order is increasingly beyond the reach of our efforts.

Each desperate effort to craft a political discourse leaves the current government looking more inept. Concurrently, the opposition repeats its own mantras, just as a Lama might: convinced that the intensity of ritual effort will bring substance to their empty words.

It is the congruence of such empty gestures that exemplifies the extent of contemporary power arrangements. All of the old oppositions have fallen in upon themselves: there is nothing to counter the onslaught of global capital: exchanges of all forms run rampant, to the dismay and awe of onlookers, who are increasingly unable to comprehend any purpose behind the activity.

Restraint and opposition have been abolished by the successes of the global order. Thus it is clearly ordained which path the entire world must follow: it is well known to us, so much so that we scarcely notice it anymore; the moronic march towards increasing prosperity and comfort.

Even as the inherent destructiveness at the heart of global power becomes apparent, no-one caught up in the bind of modernity is capable of advocating a credible symbolic re-organisation other than climate inspired Armageddon. Perhaps this is in fact, at some level, what we all long for anyway…

the Colonial

Performing Reconcilliation

Performance matters, particularly in politics. There can be little guessing whom Mr. Baillieu is currently trying to impress. He is playing the big man in that fine traditional role: beating up the little and the powerless.

The latest string of announcements has populist conservative written all over it. First threatening to override the council to block an injecting room and now opting out of recognising the indigenous owners of this land.

Interestingly both of these examples play first and foremost to the idiot electorate. Both are mindless and counterproductive moves. However, they stand to enhance Baillieu’s standing with people who like power and like to see it performed.

We should consider his performance, newcomer that he is, against one of the world’s greatest political stayers, our queen and sovereign: Regina Elizabeth II, currently in the republic of Ireland on the first British sovereign visit since independence.

Ireland was Britain’s first colonial project. Addressing hundreds of years of oppression the Queen has managed the encounter well. In many ways rather than some grand notion such as reconciliation I feel we should direct our efforts towards better encounters. It is in this sense she has addressed the history of British oppression and Irish counter violence with sophistication, and with restraint.

It is restraint that strikes me as being fundamental to the power and the believability of the Queen’s performance. While the visit would never have been seen as anything short as symbolic of the British position on Ireland and the Troubles, it could have been played any which way.

She could have made a stilted march through Ireland as empty gesture, or conjured profuse and over-emotional nightmare where the signs and symbols of suffering could be totally appropriated for the establishment’s own use. Instead a fragile balance has been struck between recognition and remembrance, and a conviction that those practices are in the past and a different future beckons.

This political performance would be well studied in Australia. It is increasingly evident that the political stars are aligning against the marginalised in this country. Bereft of ideas and pandering to the imagined moronic mass, politicians of all stripes and at all levels are looking for easy targets: welfare recipients, asylum seekers, injecting rooms, and of course overly PC reconciliation.

While I don’t have a problem with Baillieu’s assertion that there is no need for a mandatory welcome to country or recognition of traditional owners, this move could have been announced with a strong commitment to maintain the gesture despite its now non-mandatory status.

Failing to do so sent a clear signal about how the conservative government views such issues. Moreover, it is stunning that in a state with so many obvious problems that this is an issue with which the government chooses to gain some media limelight. It is deeply troubling that so recently in office, this government is already conceding that it has no idea.

the Colonial

Related News

Interesting story here about online news and who accesses it. Increasingly important area yet difficult to research.

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/navigating_news_online

Soiled Nappy

The depth of knowledge that you or I possess relies on the consumption of local news and current affairs. From a barrister residing in inner city Melbourne to perhaps a plumber from Frankston, the Australian news landscape should provide thorough analysis for everyone. Well the landscape is changing Ladies and Gentlemen and there is a massive crater emerging amongst the tranquil natural formations. The observable ignorance of many Australians is worrying. This said we cannot blame people for burying their heads in the suffocating sand of Who Weekly and MX Magazine when their heads are slapped with ill conceived journalism the moment they raise their cranium to smell an Age Newspaper Rose. The problem is not just confined to print, television current affairs has caught an unwanted virus with the Bolt Report a good example of the throbbing, red welt inflicting journalism’s crown jewels.

The problem stems from a panic within the industry. The heart palpitation that journalism is becoming insignificant, that it is being strangled of life by a 40075.16 km (the earth’s circumference) long boa constrictor, the internet. People can get anything online; news, gossip, video, opinion, penis enlargements and an update of what Ashton Kutcher had for breakfast. It is a veritable room of coloured balls enveloping spasmodic minded cosmopolitans hungry for quality information. Each coloured ball signifies an atom of information, just enough to entertain someone, not enough to inform them. There are examples of decent online journalism; Crikey! The Huffington Post, MediaWeek, the New York Times and dare I say WikiLeaks? Let’s leave that chestnut uncracked. The problem with these journalistic sites is that they are lost like a soiled nappy within the coloured balls of information; they are hard to find. One cannot go to a newsagent and find a selection of these sights, they must be found through word of mouth or analysing ‘top 100 news blogs’ lists. Google is not a newsagent, it is a search engine. If you pay enough money and do enough research, when someone searches for ‘news’ you can have your site pop up that involves; “News on how you can pierce your own eyelid”. Finding thorough journalism on the internet is difficult and is too often a difficulty the public refrain from tackling. This is an unknown and uncertain environment for informed journalism. Questions are raised as to how to compete in such an environment and how long standing business models should be amended to address new competition. Media that relies on traditional journalism is like a raft at sea, no longer moored to the land it once knew.

Smart phones and the I-pad have made this situation worse. People now have portable access to the internet matching the traditional newspapers only trump card, portability. Tech heads and simply heads are reading news on the go, yet now it’s free. They also have access to many news sites within one piece of technology. They can flick from The Age to The Herald Sun to The Australian all within two tram stops. Video is also accessible so instead of watching 7:30 the public will watch a video bloggers summary of anything controversial that may have been telecast across the current affairs landscape, Abbot’s stuttering to an alleged Hey Dad sexual assault. The public receives a restricted perspective that stunts the growth of personal knowledge. The internet combined with this technology delivers information quickly, portably and succinctly. Detail and thoroughness are not key aspects to such a platform, just enough of a hook to get a reader to click on a story.
So what is traditional journalism to do? How can we ensure quality journalism survives and sails its raft to solid ground.

Such a question takes my mind back to the famous boxing bout in Zaire, Africa, The Rumble in the Jungle. George Foreman was the current heavyweight world champion and had to defend his title against a resurgent former world champ, Muhammad Ali. Foreman had a powerful punch and was feared for his sheer physical dominance. Ali had skill, talent and speed. Although I could recount the whole build up to the fight and its events, I feel it would simply be for my own pleasure rather than for yours. The point is that Ali didn’t attempt to match Foreman for strength, power or size. He stuck to his own strengths, speed, agility and tact and won the fight.

Does boxing have anything to do with the current state of journalism, yes, yes it does, and this is not to be questioned. Instead of Australian current affairs and print media attempting to match the online world strength for strength, they must concentrate on their own. The Age or other newspapers in the same vain are not pretty or even remotely attractive when they attempt to capture the strategy of the online world by offering colourful pages, more society and entertainment news and a more compact format. The Bolt Report’s use of Michael Kroger, Mark Latham and of course Bolt makes more of a case for increased funding for mental health than for quality journalism. Content is king. The strengths of traditional journalism are thorough investigation, quality writing; analysis and of course the crossword. These must not be sacrificed in the name of competing against “new media” and online information. Content is what makes people watch current affairs shows and makes them open up a newspaper, not artificial colour. If traditional journalistic providers continue with the strategy they are at the moment, they will lose the fight and we will all be poorer for it. So to win the economic fight for survival traditional journalism must stick to quality content and avoid sinking to the level of colourful mediocrity.

the horror

The horror, the horror… lower-rung politician babbling mindless inanity complete with blatantly xenophobic headline! If you feel like wading through the mire please by all means follow the link.

What is one supposed to think when the very call for debate identifies the symbol intended to be the subject of debate as alien? Is this simply an instance of Lukes’ second view of power; the power to set the agenda, or is it more to do with structuralism, the power relationship here is implicitly written within the discourse?

Or is it perhaps just some seriously stupid shit? After much careful analysis and consideration the latter is the only answer I can settle upon. Wonderful constructions such as “where a woman is forced under threat of coercion to wear a burqa” certainly did sway me to this conclusion, the sentiment which sealed the deal was the assertion that

“Much of our social capital is built on those face to face interactions that we have when we pass through a check out while doing our grocery shopping, when we buy a coffee in the morning or when we take our children to the playground and have a chat to other mums and dads there.”

Oh fuck.

Well where to start the analysis here? I am temped foremost to take a structuralist approach purely because of the contorted grammar. One can perhaps assume that such bizarre constructions imply that the author is being dishonest with us, or at least “veiling” the intent of their language. For instance the first sample: is one forced or coerced? Threatening further complicates issues. Threats I understand, may imply coercion but force seems to render both threats and coercion superfluous. Maybe the vagueness is because one can’t really slander the imaginary hordes of burqa wearing women the author seeks to conjure because that would appear to be overtly denigrating other women’s choices, culture, and that.

This brings us screaming to the second sample. I guess, given that we live in rational modernity, rational choice being our sacred mantra, to effectively argue that the imagined burqa community is shit we will need an alternative imagined community to rationally choose instead. In order to facilitate a rational choice for our own way of life Ms Cash presents some concoction about checkouts, coffee counters, and playgrounds. Undoubtedly many of us are found in these social spaces, the implications to be drawn from this are unclear.

The immediate body of work which springs to mind regarding the socio-political implications of the everyday is Orwell’s. His studies of the everyday are replete with instances that delve into the mutual hatreds and resentments, codified in formalized behaviours for serving and being served which accompany the performance of face to face commerce. That he wrote before the advent of industrialized shopping in the form of grocery checkouts only serves to heighten the point that such social interaction is a throwback to a cultural epoch which predates the unfettered market. To extend Ms Cash’s argument are we to imagine that the great supermarket interest’s codes of conduct for customer service constitute the heart of Australian cultural values? More importantly, what are we then to make of the push for automated checkouts? Stepping sideways, why do I feel so confronted and uncomfortable when the tellers at the Commonwealth bank ask me about my day in line with their new customer service initiatives? While it is true I suffer from paranoia, who the fuck are you to ask after my wellbeing and address me by my Christian name?

I digress, I am ranting…

Fundamentally the premise that Australia’s actual or imagined community is fundamentally predicated on clean faced interaction in social spaces either constructed by or established for commerce is questionable.

The playground scene is fundamentally problematic; the analysis of a social spatiality wedded to the concept of “play” is a sociological nightmare I do not wish to examine here. I probably don’t have to either because it is reasonably clear that the implication of the article is that burqa clad women are not welcome at authentic Australian playgrounds. This is the fundamentally interesting premise of the entire article. It is implied that facial visibility is an essential basis for participation in Australian society. Interestingly Ms Cash seems to imply that because one cannot see the face of a burqa alien they have no individuality, they are incapable of participating because they cannot be heard or interact effectively.

On the contrary it might be argued, particularly in the Australian context, that the visibility of the burqa is the key problem. Worse still the implied or decoded message issued forth by burqa wearers – or at the very least the message decoded for us by Ms Cash - is that conformity to the trends of the aforementioned western modernity is not the only possibility in terms of getting through this life. So reconfigured, the real problem with having hordes of burqa clad women ambling about our streets is that they serve to foster a constant questioning, an endless debate, a nagging doubt that the Australian identity supplied for us in the interactions of the checkout line, coffee counter, playground troika is not as fixed and settled as we may imagine.

the colonial

Rorschach reconfigured - the job hunt gets crazy

What do you see in the respective images?

Top Gun

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/china-tv-news-top-gun

This is worrying news, it seems China's military advancement is bounding forward. We all remember well how crucial Tom Cruise's efforts were in ensuring the success of Reagan's military buildup in the eighties, a policy which was instrumental in bringing about the fall of communism - an eventuality which all US government organisations accurately predicted - and ushering in our contemporary era of peace and contentment.

As we also know only too well the Chinese are no fans of intellectual property laws, but the PLA are certainly steppin it up on the aesthetics front by adopting Cruise power for their own. However, does this point to a PLA-Cruise-Scientology triangle which will bring about a shift in global power balances from west to east? Or conversely are Cruise's "people" currently working around the clock to distance him from any involvement in the US-China strategic relationship? Better yet, could a Palin Presidency in 2012 see history repeat itself with Cruise returning to reinvigorate a distracted US military? I certainly hope so... I'm sure he still has those cut-off somewhere.

Either way given that the new realm of conflict is undoubtedly the symbolic it may only be so long before China is producing unbeatable box office hits of its own. While the boffins may agonise over the implications of the Chinese carrier killer missile, stealth fighter, and carrier fleet, I personally think the true turning point will be seen when the Chinese wheel out a home grown Tom Cruise.

I hope you can use chop sticks biatch!

the Colonial

straya day, here we go again!

It’s Australia Day eve and I am already worn out! The pathetic display of nationalism of all shapes and sizes has aggravated me all day. I need to have it out so I can get on and enjoy the serenity of a cool, summer evening in the Melbourne suburbs.

This year it hasn’t been so much violent talk extolling the supremacy of an Anglo-Australian identity but its identical opposite: the betters who moan how much Australia is brought down by the aforementioned display of parochialism and bigotry. This stripe of pathetic is apparently in vogue this year; today’s press – especially the Punch: here & here - contains numerous articles revolving around the same set of arguments:

1. There is an abundance of scummy bogan Anglo-Australians who like to get shitters on Australia Day and trumpet their superiority. The lack of Australia Day Awards recipients in this social grouping means they generally celebrate superiority in processes of othering: categorising the population along ethnic lines, elevating themselves, and condemning difference as a marker of inferiority.

2. The above described practice is crass, infuriating, and evidence of the inferiority of this “type” of person. They lessen Australia.

3. This xenophobe type and their impact on Australia are refuted through a practice of comparison with another stereotype: the “noble immigrant”. Compared to the bigoted ogres of Australia’s lower classes this noble immigrant can easily be found superior. It logically follows that immigrants are good and muppets with Australian flag and Southern Cross tattoos indeed blight Australian society.

All of the above is nonsense. Although there may be grains of reality in each point, the argument they make is useless. There is no shortage of bigotry in Australia. It does not adhere to class, race, economic or any other lines. Nor should anyone get too concerned to be shamed by it. Not only is your shame not helping the situation, but there seems little point being ashamed of a tendency which crops up in most societies. Nation states the world over rely heavily on the negative attributes of Nationalism (jingoism, parochialism, ethnocentricity, bigotry) for cohesion and motivation.

However, that those ashamed individuals who imagine themselves to be above crass nationalism can only muster a response pointing out the utilitarian benefits of immigrants - they can do helpful things, like work hard, and invent new stuff - is a serious failure. This sort of argument is a deception which hopes to convince the reader that immigration is in our enlightened self-interest. This is a fundamental problem with contemporary immigration debates the world over. Clearly immigration on a socially just basis, i.e. open immigration, or full labour freedom, is not feasible, nor in the developed world’s interest.

Immigration policies in developed nations reflect this reality to varying degrees. Nations throughout Europe and North America - with Australia perhaps at the draconian forefront – have restricted their immigration programs and become more resolute in guarding their borders. Remarkably this has occurred at a time when many same nations are happy to poach the cream of developing societies. Doctors, engineers, business people, health workers, financiers and others desperately needed in their home societies are welcome to immigrate if they have the willingness to wind their way through the system which checks their identities, skills, and credentials.

This demonstrates that nations like Australia have certainly become more tolerant of skin colour and ethnic background over the years. However, rather than being overturned, the White Australia Policy has more or less only been moderated. We still want to create an economically prosperous country for nice folk; accordingly the parameters for welcome in Australia remain tight. If you can be useful to the national project and economy you should be ok. If not: fuck off – we’re full.

So Mr Koch, Mr Tin, and likeminded, before we start patting ourselves on the back for being enlightened enough to change our bad old ways maybe we should consider the principles which really drive our immigration policies. I feel we have little to celebrate. For all our enlightened views on the benefits of immigration and the noble contributions of immigrants, the awful truth is we are not so different from the bogans we deplore. So next time you encounter one in public, simply ignore them, or perhaps smash their stupid faces, don’t resort to pathetic arguments which seductively reproduce tenets of xenophobia.

the Colonial