Showing posts with label London School of Economics (LSE). Show all posts
Showing posts with label London School of Economics (LSE). Show all posts

Wednesday, 23 September 2020

David Graeber (1961-2020): ethnographer, anthropologist and the study of everyday life

David Graeber (February 12, 1961 – September 2, 2020
David Graeber, anthropologist and anarchist author of bestselling books on bureaucracy and economics including Bullshit Jobs: A Theory and Debt: The First 5,000 Years, has died aged 59.
On Thursday Graeber’s wife, the artist and writer Nika Dubrovsky, announced on Twitter that Graeber had died in hospital in Venice the previous day. The cause of death is not yet known.
Renowned for his biting and incisive writing about bureaucracy, politics and capitalism, Graeber was a leading figure in the Occupy Wall Street movement and professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics (LSE) at the time of his death. His final book, The Dawn of Everything: a New History of Humanity, written with David Wengrow, will be published in autumn 2021.
THE GUARDIAN
Sian Cain
Thu 3 Sep 2020 16.18 BST
****************************
AS an ethnomethodologist I immediately recognise the anthropological approach of David Graeber. For example in an essay he asks:
'If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?'
IN the 1990s, members of our Ethnography group John Lee and a colleague at Manchester University did some research work on queuing in France and found that although people didn't queue in a line at metro stations in Paris etc. there was none the less a pattern with rules that could be applied without any formal enforcement. I notice that in Spain that people didn't form lines at stalls in the market place but when approaching a stall simply asked the question 'Quien es el ultimo?'. Once that was known it was not necessary to stand in a rigid line and one could freely chat and wait one's turn.*
In the UK there are regional differences and Northerners will, I think, notice a difference between people using the Underground in London and between folk waiting for the No.11 bus in say Chelsea. The Underground will seem a rougher experience for the first time user I think.
The Spanish experience will also vary according to where you are and what context: villages and small shops have slightly different customs. In Morocco, I noticed that people sleep in the bus stations over night before catching an early morning bus. Tickets were often not on sale in advance of the bus ariving because touts would buy them up and offer them for resale at a premium. And when the bus arrived at Rabat bus station a wrestling match would break out as to who could get to the front. When this happen once to me and I was forced to wait flexing my muscles I ostentatiously took off my jacket and handed it to my wife; whereupon an observant man selling the tickets quickly arranged that we got a seat on the next bus.
TIM HARFORD the 'Undercover Economist on the FT' has examined the problem of queuing thus:
Mathematicians reckon the odds are against you. If you choose a queue at random, there will be a line on either side of you, and thus a two-thirds chance that one will be faster.
Economists take a more sophisticated view. David Friedman, for instance, argues that the relevant discipline is financial market theory. Choosing the right queue is like picking the right portfolio of shares: if it were obvious which shares were good value, they wouldn’t be good value any more. If it were obvious which queue would be quickest, everyone would join it. Naive attempts to “beat the market” will fail.
Then there is “efficient market” theory – you can’t out-perform a random choice of shares because public information is immediately incorporated into share prices. In truth, most markets are not efficient and thus it is possible for an informed decision-maker to beat them. Even if supermarket queues were efficient, no queue would be a superior bet, because expert supermarket customers would quickly join any queue that was likely to be quicker.
More likely, queues are not efficient because few have much to gain from becoming expert queuers. Some have other considerations, such as minimising the distance walked, while others shop rarely, so the calculations are more trouble than they are worth.
And unlike the stock market, which a financial wizard can make more efficient by outweighing the foolish decisions of small traders, in the supermarket a single expert queuer has a limited effect on the distribution of queuing times.
I can advise you to steer clear of elderly ladies with vouchers, but more advice would be self-defeating. Too many of your rivals would read it.
First published at ft.com.
Many on the left, including some anarchists, would regard this focus on queuing as trivial. Yet the queue is central to most people's lives. In some cases in some countries it has led to riots.
Yet, Davd Graeber, the anarchist, has written: 'The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.'
* How NOT to Queue in Spain
If there was one thing that would set aside a Brit from say a Spaniard more than anything else it would probably be their attitude to queuing.
Whether a Brit examining the etiquette of queuing in Spain, or - worse still - a Brit berating a foreigner´s lack of understanding of queuing etiquette in the UK one thing is clear : Queuing etiquette is - or lack of it - is quite possibly the one thing that will drive a mild mannered granny into in a raving psychotic.
I was having a conversation on this subject with my intercambio language exchange partner the other day : What exactly is the etiquette with regards to queuing in Spain, and ditto with the UK ?
Juanjo explained to me that there wasn´t any etiquette when it came to queuing in general in Spain. In smaller Towns and Villages it may be considered polite to let the elder generation go first in certain circumstance, however, in shops it was usual practice to simply ask "¿ Quien es la Ultima ?" - which means " Who is last one [in the queue]? ".
It seem that this is time honoured tradition that has served generations of Spaniards perfectly well for generations, ensuring that the last person to enter a shop knows who the customer to be served in front of them is. That way everybody knows there place and is free to wander off or chat with friends etc...
The system only becomes problematic when in wanders clueless Guiri and either jumps his place, or fails to inform the person entering the shop behind him, where his place in the queuing system is.
As far as said Guiri is concerned, the fact that there is not a linear column of people stretching neatly away from the counter, means that there is in fact no queue.
And because said Guiri is both unaware of the existence of the etiquette he alone is responsible for the total collapse of law and order in the local Panaderia, and quite often leaves the shop frustrated at the "bunfight" that he has just caused (see what I did ? that Grammar school education wasn´t for nothing ...) and convinced that the very concept of queuing in Spain does not exist.
Juanjo conceded that as far as getting served in a bar, restaurant or market stall was concerned then queuing, as us Brits would know it, didn´t exist, and he just laughed when I asked about the etiquette of queuing for public transport.
(Have you ever wondered why you never see bus loads of Spaniards at Alton Towers ?)
On the subject of Public transport, Juanjo told me he was almost lynched once whilst on a business trip to the UK when he saw his bus approaching whilst walking with colleagues towards the Bus stop. Worried that the Bus wasn´t going to hang about longer than was necessary to let the passengers get off he sprinted down the pavement and leapt onto the Bus - seemingly ignoring the column of passengers waiting in the rain. His British colleagues did the decent thing and let him do so, casually joining the end of the queue, and letting each of the passengers shoot him their best icy glare in turn whilst waiting their turn in the queue.
I explained that I wouldn´t have been at all surprised to hear that there would have been queues of British women waiting quietly in a queue to take their place for a lifeboat on the deck of the Titanic.
Even when waiting in the Casualty department of A&E you still see some people at the triage station smiling sheepishly as the duty nurse decides that the 9" nail that they have embedded through their eyeball warrants them jumping further along the queue than the guy who just stubbed his toe.
It´s a disease we Brits are born with and will more than likely never be cured.
***************************

Friday, 12 August 2016

The Irish Times on Trot Claim!


by Les May
IN an article I wrote on 20 July I drew attention to a report by the Media and Communications Department at London School of Economics and Political Science with the title 'Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the Mainstream Press: From Watchdog to Attackdog'.  The study analysed articles in eight national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, and included both right and left wing press. It found three areas where Corbyn has not been treated fairly; through lack of voice or misrepresentation;,through scorn, ridicule and personal attacks, and through association.
Tom Watson's claim that tens of thousands of new members are being manipulated by Trotskyists to turn the party into 'a vehicle for revolutionary socialism' seems to me not far from fantasy as Britain's two Trotskyist parties can muster only about 4,000 members between them. But it will no doubt be taken seriously in some sections of the English press.

A long article in Thursday's Irish Times by its London Editor, Denis Staunton, headed 'Trotsky claims reveal deep schism in Labour Party' provides an international perspective on this.  Some of his comments are worth repeating in full.

'MPs and much of the media are bewildered by Corbyn's enduring appeal among the membership and his ability to inspire so many to become active in politics for the first time.   His success owes much to his apparent authenticity, a refreshing change of style from the professional political class which has dominated both main parties for a generation.

'But Corbyn's support is also an expression of the membership's determination to be heard by a parliamentary party it sees – sometimes unjustly – as out of touch.  The fact that Smith is running on a platform which is ideologically almost identical to Corbyn's only serves to reinforce the impression among many party members that the MPs challenge to the leader was also a move against the membership.

'Watson's patronising suggestion that young members are the unwitting puppets of conniving old Trots reflects a broader attitude among Labour MPs which views the massive influx into the party as a threat rather than an opportunity.  If they wish to regain control of their party, MPs will have to win the argument among the membership.  To do that, they must first decide on the argument they want to make.'

Watson's claims seem to me singularly unhelpful.  Far from bridging the gap between Corbyn's supporters and the Parliamentary Labour Party they serve only to widen it as, even though he may wish to deny it, they are little more than a calculated insult to those who are inclined to vote for Corbyn.
http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/jeremy-corbyn-misrepresentaion-in-media.html

Wednesday, 20 July 2016

Jeremy Corbyn: Misrepresentaion in the Media?

by Les May
A STUDY by the Media and Communications Department at London School of Economics and Political Science analyses articles about Jeremy Corbyn that were published in eight national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, and included both right and left wing press. It found three areas where Corbyn has not been treated fairly:
through lack of voice or misrepresentation
through scorn, ridicule and personal attacks
through association
You can get the general drift of the findings from the title of the report detailing the study, 'Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the Mainstream Press: From Watchdog to Attackdog'
An anti-Corbyn bias is not something peculiar to papers like the Sun, Express or Mail. The so called 'quality' papers share the same approach.
The most insidious aspect of the treatment of Corbyn has been the fact that the media just do not report what he does say on important matters. This was especially apparent in the way that when Corbyn addressed packed meetings in the Referendum campaign they were not reported.  
Denying Corbyn a voice is even worse than misrepresenting what he says. Simply misrepresenting him at least allows people the opportunity to 'filter out' the most obvious bias. http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/15/new-evidence-revealed-media-bias-corbyn/
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

EU Immigration has no negative impact on British wages, Jobs or Public Services, says LSE report!

A report, by the London School of Economics, has dispelled a number 
of ‘myths’ or misconceptions about the impact of immigration on the 
UK. 

It has been published as part of a series of research publications 
to be released between now and the EU referendum on 23 June. Key 
findings have included that wage variations for British workers have 
little correlation to immigration rates and are instead primarily 
linked to overriding economic factors such as the global economic 
crisis.  

The report’s authors also state that rather than being a 
burden on resources, immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in 
public services and play a vital role in reducing the budget deficit.
Report author Jonathan Wadsworth said: 

“The bottom line, which may surprise many people, is that EU immigration has not harmed the pay, jobs or public services enjoyed by Britons. EU immigrants pay more in 
taxes than they use in public services and therefore they help to 
reduce the budget deficit. So, far from being a necessary evil that we pay to get access to the 
greater trade and foreign investment generated by the EU single 
market, immigration is at worse neutral and at best, another economic 
benefit.”

Read more: Siobhan Fenton, Independent, http://tinyurl.com/h2fzlwq