Birmingham Salon

Aspects of the Omnicrisis

Mon, Jan 2 2023 01:19 | Permalink

 Saturday 28th January, 1.00 pm - 5.00 pm

The Arthur Sullivan Room, Birmingham Midland Institute, 9 Margaret Street, Birmingham B3 3BU

Tickets £15 available at the event (cash only) or via EventBrite


National interest and global order - which comes first?

1.15 pm - 2.45 pm


The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a shock to the system of international relations. There was surprise that Russia believes its action serves its national interest and that we are seeing Europe once again threatened with war. The decades-long attempt to manage conflict and operate a rules-based order through supranational organisations like the UN, NATO and the EU was supposed prevent another world war. 

The supranational system and its ideals is also a way for the United States to pursue its own national interests. It does this despite its relative economic decline, by political and military means in the guise of freedom and human rights promoting respectability. This year it has also been pushing these interests more openly, from imposing sanctions on Chinese technology companies and capitalising on the energy crisis in Europe to taking advantage of the strength of the dollar in international trade.  

The war in Ukraine has not undermined supranational institutions which still have the support of the most powerful world leaders. Going it alone doesn’t look like an attractive option. NATO seems to be stronger than ever in most of Europe where many feel threatened by Russia. When British Prime Minister Truss tried to follow a new economic policy, she was soon forced to resign after the IMF commented negatively. When her successor Sunak suggested that he had better things to do than attend the COP27 climate conference such was the criticism, he quickly changed his mind. 

What is the significance of recent events in the tug of war between supranational institutions and nation states? What ideas might guide international relations in the future? As the war drags on in Ukraine, impacts Europe and conflicts break out in other countries bordering Russia, is it possible to agree a system that will operate to prevent future conflicts. Or would this inevitably be a cover for the most powerful nations to impose their will on others? As politicians and policy continue to be influenced by supranational organisations, is national sovereignty an illusion or more important than ever?


Speakers:

Dr Philip Cunliffe, Associate Professor in International Relations, University College London; author, The New Twenty Years’ Crisis 1999-2019: A critique of international relations; co-host, @Bungacast podcast


Dr Jake Scott, political theorist specialising in theories of peoplehood and populism. Jake has appeared on France24, GB News, and is a regular on TalkTV; www.jakescott.uk

Chair: 

Dave Aveston


Reading:
How to prevent World War III, Philip Cunliffe, UnHerd
Whatever happened to the national interest, Pete Ramsay & Philip Cunliffe, The Northern Star

Break: tea/coffee (included in ticket price) 2.45 - 3.15 pm


Reparations, industrial revolution: how should poor nations develop in the 21st century?

3.15 pm - 4.45 pm


During the Enlightenment period of the 18th century, the emerging system of industrial capitalism was largely greeted with enthusiasm.  It was thought that, over time, industry would bring wealth to all and that the gap between rich and poor nations would gradually decline.  

Clearly this dream has not been realised; if anything the trend has been in the opposite direction.  The Covid pandemic and responses to it is part of the reason for this. Previous explanations for uneven development have ranged from crudely racist ones, cultural and geographical factors, naked exploitation and the exigencies of cold war politics.  Behind even the most despicable of these explanations, however, there always lay an understanding that, at least in principle, the poor world ought to be allowed to catch up and that worldwide industrial development of the kind seen in the West would be in the interests of humanity as a whole. But this thinking has changed. At COP27 it was clear that the industrial revolution is now viewed as the first step on the path to the climate emergency. 

Do climate change and other environmental impacts of industrial development mean we have come up against a natural barrier beyond which it is no longer possible to go?  Is it now necessary to restrain growth in order to avoid destroying the planet, and what will that mean for billions of people in conditions of extreme poverty? Should they not enjoy the high standards of living modern society has shown are possible? Are Western environmentalist ideals just another form of colonialism or do they offer a different pathway, learning from previous mistakes and sparing people from catastrophe? Could loss and damage payments from the rich countries be part of a better route to development or are they tokenistic in the bigger scheme of changes that poor countries need?

Speakers:

Austin Williams, Senior Lecturer in Architecture, Kingston School of Art; author China's Urban Revolution:Understanding Chinese Eco-cities


John Vogler, Professorial Research Fellow in International Relations, University of Keele; author Climate Change in World Politics


Chair: 

Chrissie Daz  


Reading:

The global south has the power to force radical climate action, Jason Hickel, Al Jazeera

BirminghamSalon
Comments

Coming up in 2023

Sun, Dec 4 2022 10:50 | Permalink

Coming up in 2023...

Aspects of the Omnicrisis
Saturday 28th January, Birmingham & Midland Institute

This is our event rescheduled from October 2022 looking at changes to the international order, supranational institutions and globalism, and how poorer countries should develop in the 21st century.

Speakers include Philip Cunliffe, Associate Professor in International Relations, University College London, Austin Williams, Senior Lecturer in Architecture, Kingston School of Art and John Vogler, Professorial Research Fellow in International Relations, University of Keele.


Talking liberty - In defence of teaching history
Saturday 25th February, Map Room at Cherry Reds

Talking liberty - The seductive power of literature
Saturday 25th March, Map Room at Cherry Reds

The Talking Liberty events will consider the arguments put forward in the Academy of Ideas Letters on Liberty on these subjects.

United? Kingdom?
Saturday 22nd April, Birmingham & Midland Institute

With the coronation of King Charles III approaching, we will discuss the institution of the British monarchy and also consider the future of Ireland.

Speakers include Don Milligan, author The Embrace of Capital 
BirminghamSalon
Comments

Talking Liberty - The Future of Free Speech

Mon, Oct 24 2022 11:44 | Permalink

Talking Liberty - the future of free speech

Saturday 12th November
1.00 pm - 3.30 pm
Map Room, Cherry Reds, 88-92 John Bright Street, B1 1BN

Free entry but donations welcome

Please book via EventBrite

This is the first in an occasional series of discussions based on the Letters on Liberty essays published by the Academy of Ideas.

Please join us from 1.00 pm for social time and informal discussion. From 1.45 pm we will introduce and discuss the essay The Future of Free Speech by Jacob Mchangama. You can purchase the essay in booklet format or download a PDF version. You are strongly encouraged to read it to contribute more fully to the discussion, but if you don't we will give a short summary to introduce the key arguments.

Mchangama is the author of Free Speech:a history from Socrates to Social Media, and he argues in this essay that we are in a free speech recession. 

"Free speech is one of the most powerful and transformative ideas ever conceived. It is held as the 'first freedom, the bedrock of democracy, the enemy of tyranny, the midwife of enlightenment and the source of truth...But free speech is far from assured; it has not been the default position in the long arc of history. Thus, after decades of global gains, it has now suffered more than a decade of setbacks."

How far do you agree with these assertions? Does Mchangama set out a convincing case for the importance of free speech? Is it helpful to those who want to defend free speech, or are there significant omissions? 

Following our discussion, we will agree which of the Letters on Liberty to discuss in 2023.

Free speech in the news:

National Secular Society defends free speech at 'Stand with Salman' event

Arrest of protestors prompts free speech concerns

Joanne Harris faces member vote on Society of Authors role amid call for free speech review

John Cleese set to join GB News in a push for 'free speech'

Most students think UK universities protect free speech, survey finds

BirminghamSalon
Comments

Aspects of the "omnicrisis"

Wed, Sep 7 2022 02:06 | Permalink

Aspects of the omnicrisis

Saturday 8th October

This event has been cancelled due to the impact of the planned rail strike on 8th October. It will be rescheduled.
BirminghamSalon
Comments

Sun, Apr 3 2022 11:15 | Permalink

 

Law and Justice

Saturday 7th May, 1.00 pm - 5.00 pm
The Arthur Sullivan Room, Birmingham Midland Institute, 9 Margaret Street, Birmingham B3 3BU


Tickets £15 (includes tea/coffee) from EventBrite

Law-making and Freedom with Claire Fox (Baroness Fox of Buckley)
1.15 pm - 2.45 pm


Longstanding campaigner for freedom of speech, Claire Fox sits as a non-affiliated peer in the House of Lords, an institution she believes should be abolished as it constrains British democracy. Her short weekly YouTube videos, Inside the Lords, give her insights into the process of legislating as it takes place between the House of Commons and House of Lords, why certain pieces of legislation promised in a manifesto may not materialise at all and why others appear and disappear. 


Key recent pieces of legislation such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Online Safety Bill present a major increase in restrictions on our freedom. What hope should we have, if any, of something less draconian emerging from the legislative process and what are the implications of this legislation for the wider justice system? To what degree are such laws related to what the majority of the electorate want and where should the work of law making take place?

Speaker:
Claire Fox is a writer, broadcaster and director of the Academy of Ideas. She was Brexit Party MEP for the North-West of England until the UK left the EU in January 2020. Claire was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2020.


Chair: 
Rosie Cuckston, Birmingham Salon organiser

Suggested reading for this discussion:

The House of Lords defending democracy - oh please, Fraser Myers, Spiked Online, March 2022
Is Nadine Dorries a free speech champion or censorship fanatic? Freddie Hayward, New Statesman, February 2022
From lockdown to net zero accountability is dead in British politics, Steve Baker MP, The Telegraph, January 2022 

Refreshment break: 2.45 pm - 3.15 pm

What Are Prisons For?
3.15 pm - 4.45 pm


Prisoners are denied many of the normal rights of citizenship, such as being able to vote. But what are prisons for? And do prisons work? Denying liberty serves an important function in punishing those who have broken the law. But is it not also humane to give prisoners the chance to turn their lives around? 

In addition to the usual restrictions, the pandemic meant that visits from family and friends was stopped as were educational and rehabilitation courses and opportunities to work.  What impact has this had?Does the current prison system downplay people’s inherent capacity for change? Should there be more emphasis on people having the power to redeem themselves? If so, what changes need to be made to the UK prison system? 

Speakers:

Dr Anna Kotova, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Birmingham. Anna holds a PhD in Criminology from the University of Oxford and her teaching and research interests are in prison sociology and the impact of imprisonment on prisoners' families. Anna is also a member of Academic Advisory Group for West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner.

Dr Jonathan Hurlow, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist. Jo is Chair of the Psychiatry Division of the Birmingham Medical Institute and vice president of the Birmingham Medicolegal Society. He sits on the Committee for Professional Practice and Ethics at the Royal College of Psychiatry.

Michael Campbell, De Profundis Ltd, expert advisor to prisons. Michael supports governors, officers and prisoners to implement change that strengthens safety for everyone in prison. Michael served 3½ years in prisons across the country and develops practical solutions grounded in his experience to tackle prisoners’ anxiety, stress and frustration.

Chair: 
Ruth Mieschbuehler, Senior Lecturer in Education 
Studies, University of Derby. Organiser, East Midlands Salon.

Suggested reading for this discussion:

Locked up under lockdown: the plight of prisoners, Michael Campbell, People's Lockdown Enquiry
March 2022
The Rise of the Woke Prison, Joanna Williams, Spiked Online, June 2021
Our Prisons Are a National Disgrace, Ian Birrell, Unherd, December 2019

BirminghamSalon
Comments

Unbearable Lightness of Citizenship

Mon, Feb 14 2022 01:23 | Permalink

Return of Birmingham Salon Saturdays

We are very pleased to return to our in-person Saturday discussions. To relaunch these events, we will run the one which was cancelled in March 2020 as the pandemic restrictions started. 

Birmingham Salon has changed venue to The Arthur Sullivan Room at Birmingham Midland Institute on Margaret Street. It's a convenient central Birmingham venue only a few minutes walk from our previous home at The Old Joint Stock pub. And of course, the BMI has a long and impressive history. It was founded in 1854 by an Act of Parliament for the "diffusion and advancement of Science, Literature, and Art among all Classes of Persons resident in Birmingham and the Midland counties."

The Unbearable Lightness of Citizenship

Saturday 2nd April, 1.00 pm - 5.00 pm
Birmingham Midland Institute, 9 Margaret Street, Birmingham B3 3BU

Tickets £15 (includes tea/coffee) from EventBrite

Citizenship, identity, and belonging

1.15 pm - 2.45 pm

In Ancient Athens and Rome, citizenship developed as a bond between an individual and the city-state. Since the American and French Revolutions, the idea of increasing numbers of people being citizens went in tandem with the development of nation states, and a reciprocal relation of state protection of individual rights for allegiance to the nation. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the nation state became linked to imperialism, nationalism and tyranny even as masses of citizens got the right to vote and got rid of colonial rulers. 
 
This discussion will look at the idea of citizenship in the 21st century and whether citizenship been replaced by individuated, consumerist and cultural identities. Are we too divided by identities of race, gender and political affiliations to identify as citizens of a nation? What is the relationship between citizenship and language, culture, place and participation in common goals and ideals? If citizenship is more than visas, passports, pledges of allegiance, and other trappings of state organised process, what is it? 

Speakers
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, Head of Education and Co-ordinator, Don't Divide Us. Author What Should Schools Teach?Disciplines, Subjects and the Pursuit of Truth.

Mladen Pupavac, co-author Changing European Visions of Disaster and Development. Mladen has taught International Relations at Harlaxton College, University of Derby, and University of Leicester. He previously worked as a translator for the UN International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Chair
Chrissie Daz

Reading for this session

In defence of immigrants, a reply to Lionel Shriver, Alka Seghal Cuthbert, Areo Magazine
How identity stole the debate, Olivier Roy, Green European Journal

tea and coffee break - 2.45 - 3.15 pm

The emergency state citizen 

3.15 pm - 4.45 pm

Our second discussion will review the situation of citizens following the last two years of pandemic measures both in relation to government and to each other.  

Since March 2020, large numbers of people, under quite extreme conditions, conformed with requirements: millions of us following restrictions that were often bizarre and led in some cases to immense personal distress. On the other hand, a significant number have rejected vaccination which has led for some to a major impingement on their participation in society, job loss or loss of sick pay, scapegoating for the problems of others, and to cases of severe ill health or death which could possibly have been avoided.

Whether it's the behaviourists of SAGE, governments using nudge theory, the fact checking and censorship carried out by big tech and social media companies, or the popularisation of the concept of mass formation psychosis, the view that people are easily manipulated and misled appears predominant across the political spectrum.

The political ideal of citizenship in a democracy requires us to be free, morally autonomous beings using reason and judgment, who can take an active part in the direction and running of the nation. How far are we from this ideal, and what do we need to realise it?

Speakers
Dr Ayoub Bouguettaya, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham.  His current research interests include Covid 19 and messaging norms, behavioural economics from a social identity perspective (nudges), and conspiracy theories and social identity.

Dr Greg Scorzo, PhD in Meta-Ethics, author Love Before Covid, host Art of Thinking Podcast and editor of Culture on the Offsenive magazine.

Vanessa Pupavac, senior lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham. Co-author Changing European Visions of Disaster and Development (2020). Vanessa has recently published a pamphlet, "Translation as Liberation" with the Letters on Liberty series.

Chair
Rosie Cuckston

Reading for this session
How the psychology of blame can explain Covid 19 responses, Ayoub Bouguettaya & Victoria Team, The Conversation
The Virus, Lockdown and the Right, Niall McCrae & M.L.R. Smith, Areo Magazine
The Failure to Think, Bafflement Essay 3, Alex Klaushofer, Ways of Seeing Substack

Our next event will be on Saturday 7th May on the theme of law and justice.


BirminghamSalon
Comments

Inside the ‘’incelosphere’’

Thu, Sep 23 2021 03:33 | Permalink

THURSDAY 7TH OCTOBER 

7.00 PM - 9.00 PM
UPSTAIRS AT THE WOODMAN, NEW CANAL STREET, BIRMINGHAM. B5 5LG

Welcome back!

This is a free event for Birmingham Salon regulars to catch up after the pandemic paused our live debates, and for anyone new to Birmingham Salon to come and experience and contribute to a Salon discussion. 

Inside the incelosphere

Incels, or involuntary celibates, are an online subculture community of mostly men, who forge their sense of identity around a perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships. The incel community operates almost exclusively online, providing an outlet for a significant minority of incels to express misogynistic-hostility, frustration and blame toward society for a perceived failure to include them.

The “incelosphere” can be characterised as a fatalistic, misogynistic echo-chamber in which misery and failure are celebrated, emblematic of all dimensions of the victimhood-mindset. Incels take an ‘’external locus of control’’ to the extreme in perceptions of themselves and inter-sex relations. Many subscribe to what is known as the “black-pill,” a derivative of the concept of the “red-pill” from the movie The Matrix, denoting a willingness to see the world as it really is as opposed to the blissful ignorance of the “blue-pill”. The “black-pill” describes a particularly bleak “truth” to swallow; in this case, the belief that sexual-attraction is mostly fixed and that there is nothing that incels can do to improve their romantic-prospects. 

Rare individual cases have seen incels lash out in violent murderous rage. Most notable is the notorious case of Elliot Rodger, who in 2014 killed six people and injured 14 others before killing himself, referring in his manifesto to a “day of retribution” when he would kill those he was envious of – Chads (men who sleep with lots of women) and Stacey’s (the attractive women who reject him). 

In August 2021, Plymouth, United Kingdom, 22-year-old Jake Davison used a pump-action-shotgun to kill five people, including his mother and a three-year-old girl, and injure two others before killing himself. Davison’s digital-footprint revealed YouTube videos where he used incel-terminology, taking concepts from evolutionary psychology to justify his thinking without really understanding them. This case is the first alleged incel attack in the UK, and the worst instance of gun-violence in over a decade, causing the UK government to consider following Canada in designating incels as a terrorist-group. However, a comprehensive literature review found that while mental-health issues such as suicidality are prominent points of discussion on incel-forums, they have not received the same attention as themes of misogyny. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that incels as a group represent more of a danger to themselves than others.

Is the incelosphere a phenomena triggered by or reflecting other trends in society? Recent reports suggest that in the US, the number of men going to universities is falling significantly.  Morgan Stanley forecast that 45 percent of working women between the ages of 25 and 44 will be single and childless by 2030 in what they call the rise of the SHEconomy. The rise of identity politics has encouraged a pattern of group formation around grievance and oppression. Is this at all justified in the case of the incel?


Speaker: William Costello

William is a Birmingham Salon regular with an MSc in Psychology: Evolution & Culture from Brunel University London. His Masters dissertation is on the psychology of incels. William also writes about cultural issues such as polyamory, sexual violence, identity politics, Birthstrike and racism through an evolutionary psychology lens and has contributed opinion pieces to outlets such as Quillette and Areo.

Twitter: @WilliamCostello

Chair: Rosie Cuckston

Recommended reading

Step your dick up - why incels deserve better advice  William Costello, Medium, 2020

What the media gets wrong about incels Naama Kates, Unherd 2021

Why incels are the losers in the age of Tinder James Bloodworth, Unherd 2020



BirminghamSalon
Comments

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF CITIZENSHIP

Mon, Jan 20 2020 01:03 | Permalink

PLEASE NOTE THIS EVENT HAS BEEN CANCELLED. WE AIM TO RESCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER 2020. EVENTBRITE TICKETS ORDERED CAN BE REFUNDED OR CAN BE USED FOR OUR NEXT SALON.


Saturday 28 March 2020, 11.00am to 5.00pm
Upstairs, Old Joint Stock, 4 Temple Row West, Birmingham B2 5NY

Tickets £10 available in advance via Eventbrite
Join us for a day of debate and reflection on what it means to be a citizen. Should only citizens be able to vote? And if so, at what age? Should anyone, such as prisoners, be excluded from voting? And, how should society treat those who have broken the law and failed in their duties as citizens? What are prisons for – punishment or rehabilitation, or both?
What does it mean to be a citizen?
11.15am-12.45pm
Modern thinking has situated citizenship within the borders of nation states. But as nation states retreat from their responsibilities to run national economies and provide for citizens’ welfare, are the ‘citizens of somewhere’ losing out to more flexible notions of global citizenship?

With the weakening of national solidarities, is citizenship being replaced by individuated, consumerist and cultural identities? Or does it continue to be built through political solidarities and struggle? What is the relationship between citizenship and language, culture, place and participation in common goals and ideals? If citizenship is more than visas, passports, pledges of allegiance, and other trappings of state organised process, what is it? 
Speakers 
Claire Fox, Director, Academy of Ideas and author, 'I still find that offensive'

Mladen Pupavac, associate researcher, Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice, University of Nottingham. Co-author of the forthcoming book Changing European Visions of Disaster and Development.

Christine Huebner, researcher of citizenship, Research Fellow of the Citizenship, Democracy and Transformation Research Group, Nottingham Trent University. Christine's research focuses on changing conceptions of citizenship.
Rosie Cuckston, organiser of the Birmingham Salon 
The session will be chaired by Helene Guldberg, Associate Lecturer, Open University
Recommended reading
Global citizens vs the people, Jim Butcher, spiked, 7th December 2016
The nation state goes virtual: why citizenship need no longer be determined by geography, Tom Symons, New Statesman, 1st February 2018 
When can governments revoke citizenship? The Economist, 8th March 2019
The complex world of the global citizen, Irene Skovgaard-Smith, BBC, 10th November 2017
The session is produced by Helene Guldberg

12.45pm-1.30pm Lunch
There is no lunch provided, but there's an abundant choice nearby.

Who should be able to vote?
1.30pm-2.45pm
Being able to vote in general elections is essential to democratic life. The term democracy comes from the ancient Greek term demos (people), and means that ‘the people’ rule, in distinction to monarchies, where one person ruled, or oligarchy, where a small group ruled. But who are ‘the people’? Who should have a vote?

The electoral franchise has, in different ways, become increasingly contentious in recent years. Some argue, for example, that the voting age should be lowered to allow more progressive youthful voices to decide the future. There have been denunciations of ‘low-information’ voters, who are allegedly manipulated by lies and algorithms. Should the franchise be extended to 16-year olds? And what about EU citizens and prisoners?
Speakers
Greg Scorzo, philosopher, public intellectual, publisher and editor of Culture on the Offensive (COTO)

Fraser Myers, staff writer for spiked and producer of the spiked podcast
The session will be chaired by Lizzie Soden, creative director at Culture on the Offensive (COTO), freelance arts project manager, writer and digital artist/filmmaker.
Recommended reading
Labour members back proposal to give all UK residents voting rights, Frances Perraudin, The Guardian, 25th Sep 2019 
Votes for 16-year-olds should be based on wider evidence, not just a need for participation, Andrew Mycock and Jonathan Tonge, The Conversation, 2nd February, 2018
Votes for 16-year-olds is a completely undemocratic idea, Brendan O’Neill, spiked, 28th October 2019
Prisoners' voting rights: developments since May 2015, House of Commons Briefing Paper, September 30, 2019
The session is produced by Helene Guldberg

What are prisons for?
3.00pm-4.30pm

Prisoners are denied many of the rights of citizenship, including being able to vote. But what are prisons for? And do prisons work? Denying their liberty serves an important function in punishing those who have broken the law. But is it not also humane to give prisoners the chance to turn their lives around?

Does the current prison system downplay people’s inherent capacity for change? Should there be more emphasis on people having the power to redeem themselves? If so, what changes need to be made to the UK prison system?
Speakers
Luke Gittos, solicitor practising criminal law, legal editor of spiked.
Jo Hurlow, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust. 
Dr Anna Kotova, Prison researcher, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Birmingham. 
The session will be chaired by Pauline Hadaway, co-founder of The Liverpool Salon and has worked in the arts and education since 1990

Recommended reading
‘Whole life’ orders are not the answer, Luke Gittos, spiked, 22nd November 2019

What are prisons for? Answering that is the starting point for reform, Kathryn Snow and Lynn Gillam, The Conversation, 14 June, 2015

We know that prison doesn’t work. So what are the alternatives? Jarryd Bartle, The Guardian, 16th August, 2019

This session is produced by Helene Guldberg

BirminghamSalon
Comments (1)

Home: Migration, Rootedness, Privacy

Sat, Jul 13 2019 09:52 | Permalink

Takes place on Saturday 12th October 2019.
11.00 am - 5.00 pm
Upstairs, Old Joint Stock, 4 Temple Row West, Birmingham B2 5NY


Please join us for a day of debate and reflection looking at the effects of migration within Europe, what rootedness and belonging look and feel like, and on how we understand the boundary between private and public life. This Salon is a satellite event of the Battle of Ideas 2019.

Migration and depopulation in 21st century Europe
11.15 am - 12.45 pm

Speakers:
Dr Vanessa Pupavac, lecturer in International Relations - University of Nottingham
Dr Ceren Ozgen, Dept of Economics Marie-Sklodowska Curie Fellow - University of Birmingham

Chair: Dr Helene Guldberg

Since Poland joined the EU, around 3.5 million Polish people have migrated to other EU countries. In Romania, as much as 20 per cent of its working age population now lives abroad. Around a million Bulgarians work elsewhere in the EU – out of a population of seven million. These huge migration flows are usually discussed in terms of their impact on richer EU countries like Britain or Germany, but today there is a growing discussion about its impact on the country of origin as well.

On the one hand, this immigration has kept down unemployment and provided an important source of income for relatives through remittances. But on the other hand, commentators increasingly speak of ‘ghost towns’, ageing populations, and brain-drain. With dwindling working-age populations, one often overlooked feature has been the need for greater immigration into countries like Poland. For example, over two million Ukrainians have migrated since Poland joined the EU.

Another factor is that internal migration coincides with the ‘Fortress Europe’ approach to migration from outside the EU. Countries like Croatia, that are in the EU but not in the Schengen free movement area, are tasked with keeping out non-EU migrants, while at the same time losing hundreds of thousands of its citizens who’ve emigrated to other countries. Likewise, in Italy it is now illegal to rescue migrants attempting to enter the country via the Mediterranean. But this attitude exists alongside appeals from villages with tiny populations for people to come and live there.

Some expect these migration flows to stabilise or even reverse because migrants will return to their home countries once they have made a good living abroad. Others suggest that European economies will continue to demand large immigration to balance low birth rates and meet the demand for low-skilled jobs.

How does free movement within the EU affect attitudes to migration and citizenship? Should countries actively seek to reduce migration or should they accept it as a fact of the modern, globalised world? If they accept it, should they encourage immigration from elsewhere, and how? If they don’t accept it, what is needed to hold on to those attracted by opportunities abroad? And who should have the final say over this, when migration is an issue connecting so many countries and populations?

Reading material


Eastern Europe’s Emigration Crisis, Josh Adams, Quillette, 29 June 2019
The crime of aiding the wrong kind of human, Kenan Malik, Pandaemonium,16 June 2019
Migration can support economic development if we let it. Here's how, Mahmoud Mohieldin & Dilip Ratha, World Economic Forum,1 Mar 2019
EU migration policy, European Council, 7 March 2019
Central Europe: running out of steam, James Shotter, Financial Times, 27 August 2018

Produced by Rosie Cuckston

Lunch 12.45 - 1.30

Rootedness - more than belonging?
1.30 pm - 3.00 pm

Speakers:
Tereza Buskova - UK based Czech artist 
Niall Crowley - writer
Dr Greg Scorzo - philosopher, public intellectual, publisher and editor of Culture on the Offensive

Chair: Rosie Cuckston

‘It isn’t where you’re from, it’s where you’re going that counts.’
Attributed to Ella Fitzgerald

In the latter part of the twentieth century, the idea of rootedness came to be viewed as old-fashioned, undynamic and restrictive. ‘A community is something you grow up in and then get the hell out of’, said Jerry Garcia of The Grateful Dead. For many people, the time had come to throw off restrictions, whether of race, class, or religion, to which rootedness seemed inexorably linked. More recently the critic, writer, and TV presenter Jonathan Meades asserted that ‘roots are for vegetables’.

But one explanation advanced for the result of the 2016 EU referendum is that the embrace of liberal cosmopolitanism values has resulted in a backlash. For some critics, the importance of beloning and rootedness to people’s lives and to human flourishing has been underestimated. In David Goodhart’s The Road to Somewhere, ‘anywhere’ cosmopolitans are contrasted to ‘somewheres’ with a strong attachment to place. In the eyes of some, cosmopolitanism is superficial and an indulgence of the flighty well-off, although that might appear a troubling and excluding explanation to those newly arrived in the UK from other countries, hoping to establish a life for themselves and their families.

Giles Fraser, an Anglican priest and UnHerd columnist, founded and briefly ran a party called Home, focused not only on a pro-Brexit policy of taking back control nationally, but also linked to the housing crisis and people being literally unable to afford a home. There is also renewed interest in the philosopher and writer Simone Weil, who believed that a sense of rootedness was of huge importance in facing up to the human condition.

Who are the rootless anywheres? Are there still places where communities of the truly rooted can be found? This discussion will look what we mean when we talk about rootedness, and at its social, psychological, cultural and political aspects. 

Reading material

Why I left my liberal London tribe, David Goodhart, Financial Times, 17 March 2017
Clinging to our roots, Christy Wampole, New York Times, 30 May 30 2016
I Watched the Neighbourhood I Grew Up in Get Gentrified, Malakai Sargeant, Vice, 12 July 2019
In defence of gentrification, Niall Crowley, Spiked, 16 March 2016
If You Believe You are a Citizen of the World, You are a Citizen of Nowhere, Intelligence Squared, (recording of panel discussion)

Produced by Rosie Cuckston

Whose home is it anyway?
3.15 pm - 4.45 pm

Speakers:
David Vincent, Emeritus Professor of History - The Open University, and author of Privacy: A Short History (Polity Press, 2016)
Dr James Panton, Associate Professor of Philosophy - The Open University, and co-editor of From Self to Selfie: a critique of contemporary forms of alienation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019)
Chair: Chrissie Daz

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it. The rain may enter. The storms may enter. But the king of England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." – Pitt the Elder

The foundational principle of liberal democracies, that a strict line be maintained between the private and the public, largely revolves around the sanctity of the home. But is it that straight forward?  John Locke applied the principle of domestic privacy as a defence of private property in general, even when such property is more social than personal in character.  And in the nineteenth century it was argued that only householders could be trusted with the vote.

Feminists have argued that the sacred character of a man’s home causes women’s oppression. But the translation of domestic violence as an issue into the mantra that the ‘personal is political’ has been used to attack privacy in many ways.  The Labour Government’s ‘Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act’ of 2004, for instance, gave to the authorities the power to enter your home in connection with unpaid fines.

From the right to smoke in prison cells and psychiatric wards to the erosion of tenant’s rights, the autonomy of the home has been eroding for some time. But when cohabiting adults and children are involved, how should we decide how much state interference is acceptable? How free should we be to interfere in the private affairs of our neighbours? And what are the implications when it is not our neighbours or the authorities but we ourselves who freely expose our domestic shenanigans to the likes of Facebook, YouTube and Alexa?

Reading material

Glass Houses: How much privacy can city-dwellers expect, Leo Benedictus, The Guardian, February 2019
We must barricade our homes against the state, Josie Appleton, Notes on Freedom blog, September 2017
Apple sends home workers who listened to intimate Siri recordings and apologises for privacy breach, Anthony Cuthbertson, The Independent, August 2019

Produced by Chrissie Daz

This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

BirminghamSalon
Comments

.What Does It Mean to Be Human in the 21st Century? A day of debate

Sat, Jan 19 2019 04:49 | Permalink


Takes place on Saturday 30th March 2019.
10.15am - 4.30pm
Old Joint Stock, 4 Temple Row West, Birmingham B2 5NY

Admission fee is £10. Buy your ticket on Eventbrite or pay on the door.
10.30am - 12.00pm: Can we be spiritual without religion?
Is a materialist life enough? Past generations looked to religion for a shared faith and outlook, helping us live a good life as part of a much greater whole, negotiating the complexities of human life and the prospect of our own death. Have we travelled so far from religion, are we so estranged from spirituality, that we lack even a basic lexicon for grasping and articulating what it gave previous generations?
Today, spirituality might be redefined as a yoga retreat - but does its fleeting sense of relaxation compare with the shared rapture and enlightenment of religious faith and ritual? It’s hard to know whether people are satisfied with the spiritual dimension, or lack of it, of 21st century life. After all, most people are decent - they know the difference between right and wrong, and have meaningful relationships around them. We have not retreated to the dog-eat-dog existence of the animal kingdom.

But is the weakening of organised religion an opportunity to build a more progressive model of spiritual life, one that is both rational and fulfilling? Maybe faith was a dogma that only blinded us from the deeper dimensions of life, after all. Now we are more freed up from its monopolistic power over spirituality, we can maybe plumb the depths of human existence in new and genuinely fulfilling ways.
Speakers
Piers Benn, an Adjunct Professor at Fordham University London Centre whose academic research includes Philosophy of Religion.
Adrian Bailey, Birmingham Humanists
Rania Hafez, Director of the professional network Muslim Women in Education. Rania is a researcher, commentator and consultant on teacher education and the Islamic philosophy of Education.
Readings
Can you be spiritual and not religious?
‘I’m spiritual but not religious’ is a cop-out
Doing good is not the preserve of the religious
Spirituality and humanism
12.00pm - 1.00pm: Lunch
There is no lunch provided but there’s an abundant choice nearby.
1.00pm - 2.30pm: Self-sacrifice R.I.P.?
In the wake of the centenary commemorations of the end of World War One, now is a good a time to reflect on self-sacrifice as the guiding principle of western ethics.
In previous times, wars were powered by the voluntarism of ordinary men, who signed up in their millions to risk their lives for a greater cause. Christianity was founded on the very notion of self-sacrifice. People would devote their lives to the building of a cathedral, with no expectation that they would live to see its completion.
How has the idea of self-sacrifice been used and abused, and what is its legacy in today's secular world? From the London Bridge attacks to the sacrifice of Arnaud Beltrame, we are seeing examples of modern-day heroism, but how do we understand them?
We all witnessed firefighters risking their lives to save the residents of Grenfell Tower, putting themselves through harrowing experiences. Were they only doing what we would all do in the circumstances, or are such people now few and far between?
Does the idea of sacrifice need to be renewed? Is it fit for purpose in the 21st century?
Speakers
Vincent Gould, writer, artist, actor and satirist.
Matt Lamb, Executive council member, Fire Brigades Union (FBU)
Kevin Rooney, teacher and co-author of Who's afraid of the Easter Rising 1916-2016 and The blood-stained Poppy: A critique of the politics of commemoration.
Chair
Rosie Cuckston
Readings
Are you self-sacrificing?
Self-Sacrifice: The Most Powerful Idea in Our Culture
Grenfell fireman defends rescuers against criticism saying they 'risked their lives to save others'
2.45pm - 4.15pm: Transhumanism and the past, present and future of humanity
What makes the human animal different from other primates? It is our ability to transcend our nature using evolved features such as theory of mind, language, abstract reasoning, delayed gratification and an ability to cooperate en masse around norms that can be perpetuated- forward through generations.
Transhumanism is the belief in and aspiration to transcend certain limiting elements of our biology and nature. Recent scientific advancements suggest we have more control over our biology than ever imagined, with CRISPR genome editing enabling us to make precise alterations to our DNA.
Which parts of our human nature are worth transcending? What implications do transhumanism and gene editing have for inequality?
We will look to go on a journey through our own evolutionary story, exploring the essence of what makes us distinctly human, and considering the point at which we may no longer considered to be human.
Does transhumanism represent a confident belief in and promotion of human potential, or does it underestimate the extent to which humanity has always transcended natural limitations?
Speakers
Sandy Starr, Communications Manager at the Progress Educational Trust (PET), a charity which improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

Steve Fuller, August Comte chair in social epistemology at the University of Warwick. Between 2011 and 2014 he produced a trilogy relating to a transhuman future published with Palgrave Macmillan under the rubric of Humanity 2.0.
Chair
William Costello
Readings
The Darwin Day Lecture 2018: The evolution of human morality
Diana Fleischman on ‘being a transhumanist evolutionary psychologist’
Posthuman: An introduction to transhumanism
Everything you ever wanted to know about transhumanism and singularity but were afraid to ask
Transhumanism freed from the fantasies
Genome editing: an expression of our humanity


This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.


BirminghamSalon
Comments