Shaoming Zhou on Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars. . . "

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Americans (and I use the term quite broadly) have cultivated a somewhat sophisticated love-hate relationship with ideology. Americans tend to use it as a pejorative, as a system of thinking about things that may be artificial, or better put, brittle. It is rarely a match for the more profound normative systems offered by natural law, or religion, or those ancient systems of ethics and morals that produce our laws, norms, social and economic structures. These are natural--in their the scientific or religious sense--and thus more robust than "mere" ideology, now understood as a self conscious construct. They are not constructs of the devious mind seeking to build systems the way Dr. Frankenstein built his monster. In a sense, there is an undercurrent in thinking about ideology that would see in it an exercise in an inversion of failure--ideology produces facts from truth.

There is a little of that in much American engagement with (mere) ideology. And that ideological substructure (if I am permitted a little word play here) is all too apparent when Americans tend to view the normative structures of Chinese societal or political organization. The cultivation of this perspective is important and may be deeply culturally embedded, especially within our intellectual classes. But it does serve to provide a necessary orientation when Americans engage in the project of comparison, generally, but especially of assessment, of systems that are quite formally distinct. To consider an ideology--say Chinese ideology--is to consider the instrumental political platforms of factions playing out against a broader, and implicitly more legitimate, normative system which is either ignored, resisted or masked by the ideological games of elites, whose legitimacy is weakened thereby.

It is with this in mind that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, and I thought it would be useful to consider these issues through the lens of a recently published essay that nicely raises some of these themes. Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars: In the reform era, economic growth reigned supreme. But now, a revival of competing beliefs has polarized Chinese society," Foreign Policy March 1, 2016.

Our thoughts may be accessed here:

Part I: Flora Sapio
Part II: Jean Christopher Mittelstaedt
Part III: Larry Catá Backer
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou

This post includes Shaoming Zhou's thoughts.

Part 3 (The Social Self and the Mother)--Dialogues on a Philosophy for the Individual: The Social Self

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Flora Sapio and I continue our experiment in collaborative dialogue. We move from the individual to the social self as we work toward a philosophy of the individual. While at first blush this appears to be well worn ground--who hasn't, over the course of the last 5,000 years, in every civilization with a recorded history NOT spent vast amounts of time thinking about the social self?  But much of this thinking starts at the social and works through the issues of control, management and socialization of the individual.  That is, they start from the core premise that the individual is the object of a project for which the social serves as an instrument and as an ends.  In the spirit of the emerging philosophy of the individual, we propose to invert the conversation--to start with the individual and work through the issues of control, management, and individuation of the social.

But we move from the individual in herself, to the individual as subject and as symbol, as something which, when observed and transformed from itself to the idea or symbol of itself, assumes a quite distinct, and useful, position for the organization of selves--and for the structure and operation of the law of the social.  To that end our conversation will likely flow around and through the following: 

1--the social self as the reflection of the mother
2--the social self as a reflection of the family
3--social self as a reflection/result of one's ancestors
4--the social self as a reflection of God
5-the social self as a refection of the state
6--the social self as terrorist
7--the social self as orthodox

This conversation, like many of its kind, will develop naturally, in fits and starts.  Your participation is encouraged.

In this post Beitita Horm Pepulim (BHP) joins us again and responds to Flora Sapio's (FS) consideration the social self and the mother with a response in turn from LCB.

Contents HERE.

Larry Catá Backer on Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars. . . "

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Americans (and I use the term quite broadly) have cultivated a somewhat sophisticated love-hate relationship with ideology. Americans tend to use it as a pejorative, as a system of thinking about things that may be artificial, or better put, brittle. It is rarely a match for the more profound normative systems offered by natural law, or religion, or those ancient systems of ethics and morals that produce our laws, norms, social and economic structures. These are natural--in their the scientific or religious sense--and thus more robust than "mere" ideology, now understood as a self conscious construct. They are not constructs of the devious mind seeking to build systems the way Dr. Frankenstein built his monster. In a sense, there is an undercurrent in thinking about ideology that would see in it an exercise in an inversion of failure--ideology produces facts from truth.

There is a little of that in much American engagement with (mere) ideology. And that ideological substructure (if I am permitted a little word play here) is all too apparent when Americans tend to view the normative structures of Chinese societal or political organization. The cultivation of this perspective is important and may be deeply culturally embedded, especially within our intellectual classes. But it does serve to provide a necessary orientation when Americans engage in the project of comparison, generally, but especially of assessment, of systems that are quite formally distinct. To consider an ideology--say Chinese ideology--is to consider the instrumental political platforms of factions playing out against a broader, and implicitly more legitimate, normative system which is either ignored, resisted or masked by the ideological games of elites, whose legitimacy is weakened thereby.

It is with this in mind that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, and I thought it would be useful to consider these issues through the lens of a recently published essay that nicely raises some of these themes. Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars: In the reform era, economic growth reigned supreme. But now, a revival of competing beliefs has polarized Chinese society," Foreign Policy March 1, 2016.

Our thoughts may be accessed here:

Part I: Flora Sapio
Part II: Jean Christopher Mittelstaedt
Part III: Larry Catá Backer
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou

This post includes my thoughts. 

Jean Christopher Mittelstaedt on Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars. . . "

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Americans (and I use the term quite broadly) have cultivated a somewhat sophisticated love-hate relationship with ideology. Americans tend to use it as a pejorative, as a system of thinking about things that may be artificial, or better put, brittle. It is rarely a match for the more profound normative systems offered by natural law, or religion, or those ancient systems of ethics and morals that produce our laws, norms, social and economic structures. These are natural--in their the scientific or religious sense--and thus more robust than "mere" ideology, now understood as a self conscious construct. They are not constructs of the devious mind seeking to build systems the way Dr. Frankenstein built his monster.  In a sense, there is an undercurrent in thinking about ideology that would see in it an exercise in an inversion of failure--ideology produces facts from truth.

There is a little of that in much American engagement with (mere) ideology. And that ideological substructure (if I am permitted a little word play here) is all too apparent when Americans tend to view the normative structures of Chinese societal or political organization. The cultivation of this perspective is important and may be deeply culturally embedded, especially within our intellectual classes. But it does serve to provide a necessary orientation when Americans engage in the project of comparison, generally, but especially of assessment, of systems that are quite formally distinct. To consider an ideology--say Chinese ideology--is to consider the instrumental political platforms of factions playing out against a broader, and implicitly more legitimate, normative system which is either ignored, resisted or masked by the ideological games of elites, whose legitimacy is weakened thereby. 

It is with this in mind that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, and I thought it would be useful to consider these issues through the lens of a recently published essay that nicely raises some of these themes. Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars: In the reform era, economic growth reigned supreme. But now, a revival of competing beliefs has polarized Chinese society," Foreign Policy March 1, 2016.

Our thoughts may be accessed here:

Part I: Flora Sapio
Part II: Jean Christopher Mittelstaedt
Part III: Larry Catá Backer
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou

This post includes Jean Mittelstaedt's thoughts.

Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, UN Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights: 4 reports on inequality, illicit financial flows, lending policies of China and on Greece

(Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky)

The United Nations Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and Human Rights,  Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, presented 4 reports to the Human Rights Council on 7 March 2016.  These included the following:

 --Inequality, financial crises and human rights (annual thematic report);

-- Illicit financial flows, human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (final study);

-- Human rights in the international lending of China (report of country visit);

-- Greece: Economic and social rights have been denied in a widespread manner (report of country visit)

Mr. Bohoslavsky has previously reported on the nature of Chinese sovereign lending in 2015 (UN Independent Expert on Foreign Debt: “A human rights focus would upgrade China’s international lending” – UN expert on foreign debt/联合国外债专家：重视人权将让中国在国际贷款方面更上一层楼), which highlighted the distinct views of the nature and character of sovereign lending (see, e.g., here, and here).

Some conclusions worth debating: (1) structural adjustment programs should be subjected to robust human rights impact assessments and not only orientated at short term fiscal targets to regain debt sustainability; (2) the human rights effects of tax avoidance ought to be considered--as well as the structural problems of taxing transnational production chains; (3) China lacks a robust framework for robust human rights impacts assessments of its lending activities, especially abroad; and (4)that lending programs for Greece must be sensitive to their human rights effects on the Greek population. Each of these insights suggest the need for coherence in policy among a constellation of economic activity in the public and private spheres.  But some of the insights can be generalized--especially those that were derived from the examination of Greek debt and Chinese lending activities. At the same time, the reports also suggest a substantial tension: the relationship between sovereign rights and responsibilities of states (especially in the Greek case) and transnational protection for human rights of those who states are obliged (under constitutional and international law) to represent.  Until that contradiction is overcome--or principles of constitutional and international governance advance, solutions will always be partial and fractured.

A summary of the reports with links follow.

Flora Sapio on Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars"

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Americans (and I use the term quite broadly) have cultivated a somewhat sophisticated love-hate relationship with ideology. Americans tend to use it as a pejorative, as a system of thinking about things that may be artificial, or better put, brittle. It is rarely a match for the more profound normative systems offered by natural law, or religion, or those ancient systems of ethics and morals that produce our laws, norms, social and economic structures. These are natural--in their the scientific or religious sense--and thus more robust than "mere" ideology, now understood as a self conscious construct. They are not constructs of the devious mind seeking to build systems the way Dr. Frankenstein built his monster.  In a sense, there is an undercurrent in thinking about ideology that would see in it an exercise in an inversion of failure--ideology produces facts from truth.

There is a little of that in much American engagement with (mere) ideology. And that ideological substructure (if I am permitted a little word play here) is all too apparent when Americans tend to view the normative structures of Chinese societal or political organization. The cultivation of this perspective is important and may be deeply culturally embedded, especially within our intellectual classes. But it does serve to provide a necessary orientation when Americans engage in the project of comparison, generally, but especially of assessment, of systems that are quite formally distinct. To consider an ideology--say Chinese ideology--is to consider the instrumental political platforms of factions playing out against a broader, and implicitly more legitimate, normative system which is either ignored, resisted or masked by the ideological games of elites, whose legitimacy is weakened thereby. 

It is with this in mind that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, and I thought it would be useful to consider these issues through the lens of a recently published essay that nicely raises some of these themes. Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars: In the reform era, economic growth reigned supreme. But now, a revival of competing beliefs has polarized Chinese society," Foreign Policy March 1, 2016.

Our thoughts may be accessed here:

Part I: Flora Sapio
Part II: Jean Christopher Mittelstaedt
Part III: Larry Catá Backer
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou

This post includes Flora Sapio's thoughts, which follow.

Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, and Larry Catá Backer on Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars: In the reform era, economic growth reigned supreme; But now, a revival of competing beliefs has polarized Chinese society"

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Americans (and I use the term quite broadly) have cultivated a somewhat sophisticated love-hate relationship with ideology. Americans tend to use it as a pejorative, as a system of thinking about things that may be artificial, or better put, brittle. It is rarely a match for the more profound normative systems offered by natural law, or religion, or those ancient systems of ethics and morals that produce our laws, norms, social and economic structures. These are natural--in their the scientific or religious sense--and thus more robust than "mere" ideology, now understood as a self conscious construct. They are not constructs of the devious mind seeking to build systems the way Dr. Frankenstein built his monster.  In a sense, there is an undercurrent in thinking about ideology that would see in it an exercise in an inversion of failure--ideology produces facts from truth.

There is a little of that in much American engagement with (mere) ideology. And that ideological substructure (if I am permitted a little word play here) is all too apparent when Americans tend to view the normative structures of Chinese societal or political organization. The cultivation of this perspective is important and may be deeply culturally embedded, especially within our intellectual classes. But it does serve to provide a necessary orientation when Americans engage in the project of comparison, generally, but especially of assessment, of systems that are quite formally distinct. To consider an ideology--say Chinese ideology--is to consider the instrumental political platforms of factions playing out against a broader, and implicitly more legitimate, normative system which is either ignored, resisted or masked by the ideological games of elites, whose legitimacy is weakened thereby. 

It is with this in mind that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, and I thought it would be useful to consider these issues through the lens of a recently published essay that nicely raises some of these themes. Taisu Zhang, "China’s Coming Ideological Wars: In the reform era, economic growth reigned supreme. But now, a revival of competing beliefs has polarized Chinese society," Foreign Policy March 1, 2016.

Our thoughts may be accessed here:

Part I: Flora Sapio
Part II: Jean Christopher Mittelstaedt
Part III: Larry Catá Backer
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou

Norway Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund Global Recommends exclusion of San Leon Energy Plc for contribution to serious violations of fundamental ethical norms

The Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund Global (Etikkrådet for Statens pensjonsfond utland) recommends the exclusion of San Leon Energy Plc (SLE; SLGYY) from the Government Pension Fund Global because the company contributes to serious violations of fundamental ethical norms through its onshore hydrocarbon exploration in Western Sahara on behalf of Moroccan authorities.

San Leon Energy San Leon Energy plc is an oil and gas exploration company with headquarters in Ireland. It is said to be Europe's leading shale gas company by acreage and claims that it "already manages substantial oil and gas projects in Poland, Albania, Morocco, Spain, Ireland, France and Romania. Our main focus is currently on Polish conventional and unconventional oil and gas reserves, Albania and Morocco." (here).

Please find the Council's recommendation here.  My brief comments and a portion of the decision follow below. I suggest that observation rather than exclusion might have been considered, and that the Ethics Council ought to have applied the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights in its examination.

Venkatesh Nayak on Big Data, Biometrics Identity and Citizenship in India--The Emerging Structures of "Aadhaar" in India

https://eaadhaar.uidai.gov.in/

Venkatesh Nayak, Programme Coordinator, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in New Delhi, has written a report on the action of the Lok Sabha (Upper House of Parliament) (03 March, 2016) proposing legislation that would give a legal basis for issuing Aadhaar = Unique Identity Number for every person residing in India.  Unconstrained by principle, the program aims to collect biometric and other data on residents and to seamlessly track banking, mobile phone connections and other state and non-state based services that are accessed through Aadharr.

This post includes Mr. Nayak's critical review of the bill as well as of the concept of Aadhaar and its flaws.  

Democracy Part 34: Experimental Regulatory Governance and the Nature of Representation in democratic Societies

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

The mania for governance, and especially for regulatory governance, a mania that one might think has begun to consume those with influence or authority to make their ideas reality, has begun to assume the willful instrumentalism of a science--the science of animal husbandry applied to mass society. (E.g., Jonathan Zeitlin, ed., Extending Experimentalist Governance?: The European Union and Transnational Regulation (Oxford University Press, 2015). That science is marked by three distinct characteristics that  may be problematic for societies grounded in the ideology of Western representative democracies.  The first is the premise that there are objective that fulfill the objectives of governance that are autonomous of the specific desires of the governed; that is, that the ideal of social or political organization is autonomous of the popular knowledge or desire.   The second is the premise that these ideals may be best discerned and imposed, for the good of the people, through the development of regulatory measures meant to manage the targeted population in the behaviors or values that approach this ideal.  The third is that the ideal approach to the attainment of the ideal is through the assertion of public authority, either through representative or administrative organs, in place of decision making by individuals.   

This post considers the consequences of experimental regulatory governance on representation in democratic states, that is on the relationship between popular will, the ideal and the fidelity of governmental organs to one or the other.