(by Agustin Antunez Corrales & ISMA: "Iniciativas de Sostenibilidad Medioambiente y Autogestion")
viernes, 16 de marzo de 2012
1 tablet x 8 $?: Optimismo: Optimizando tu propia Biología
(by Agustin Antunez Corrales & ISMA: "Iniciativas de Sostenibilidad Medioambiente y Autogestion")
jueves, 15 de marzo de 2012
# 29m: De la huelga general a la huelga del cualquiera. Testeando nuevas formas de conflicto hacia el # 15M12
https://n-1.cc/pg/blog/read/1228186/-29m-de-la-huelga-general-en-la-huelga-del-cualquiera-testeando-nuevas-formas-de-conflicto-hacia-el-15m12
March 15, 2012 por QuoDLiBeTaT
Antes de poder posicionarnos respecto a la convocatoria de huelga general para el # 29m, debemos tener en cuenta dos aspectos fundamentales:
1. La genealogía de la convocatoria. El pasado 17 de febrero los sindicatos de Euskal Herria ELA, LAB, ESK, STEE-EILAS, EHNE y HIRU registraron la convocatoria de huelga general para el # 29m ante las autoridades laborales vascas y navarras contra la reforma laboral y la negociación colectiva y por los derechos sociales y laborales.
Por aquella fecha, la Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG) de momento sólo lo había anunciado, pero posteriormente también registrarla sumándose así a la convocatoria hecha desde Euskal Herria.
No será hasta el viernes 9 de marzo que CCOO y UGT, que hasta entonces habían tenido una estrategia independiente al resto de sindicatos llevando otra agenda y marcando el ritmo de negociaciones con el gobierno del estado español, que deciden sumarse a la convocatoria expandiendo a nivel estatal.
2. Los objetivos de la convocatoria. Mientras q los objetivos de la convocatoria promovida por los sindicatos de Euskal Herria y Galicia persiguen la derogación de la reforma laboral y la negociación colectiva y los derechos sociales y laborales; CCOO y UGT lo que persiguen es la renegociación de la reforma, de manera tal que mantengan sus privilegios en la negociación y relaciones de poder y clientarisme respecto al gobierno central.
Es decir, que la convocatoria de CCOO y UGT responde más a objetivos internos que a los propios de un dispositivo antagonista de lucha en tanto son un componente más de la forma-estado.
A partir de estos dos aspectos es como debemos pensar nuestra forma de participación, tanto desde el punto de vista de los contenidos / demandas / comunicación como de las formas de acción.
En este sentido, si partimos de la concepción de huelga como derecho revolucionario de expresión del conflicto e instrumento de lucha, creo que todas compartimos la necesidad de ejercer este derecho, que por otra parte está en peligro tras los sucesivos ataques de la CEOE y del propio PP, sin que se prefigure como un monopolio de CCOO y UGT, los mismos q nos vendieron en reformas laborales y pensiones con el anterior gobierno.
Sin embargo, este derecho no es exclusivo de los trabajadores asalariados, sino de toda la sociedad: los precarios, los migrantes, de becarios, parados y desempleados, ... colectivos que son precisamente aquellos más afectados por las condiciones materiales de existencia, los que no pueden participar en huelgas al uso. ¿Cómo estos sectores pueden hacer huelga? ¿Cuál es tu huelga?
Esta pregunta hace referencia a un problema o limitación que encontramos: el concepto de huelga nos remite a un imaginario de movilización el que ya no se corresponde con el paradigma socio-económico actual. Debemos ser capaces de pensar formas inclusivas, abiertas y distribuidas de movilización y acción que potencien el agenciamiento y la participación en ellas por toda la sociedad, el 99%, del cualquiera
Es por ello q debemos ser capaces de crear un nuevo repertorio de formas de movilización y acción de acuerdo a nuestro propio imaginario en un claro ejercicio de autonomía. Los motivos de esta necesidad podrían resumir en los siguientes aspectos:
1. Las huelgas generales pertenecen al repertorio de acción del paradigma fordista, cuando los centros de trabajo de las grandes industrias eran el centro de valorización económica y su motor de desarrollo del capitalismo industrial. Al mismo tiempo, los sindicatos aún funcionaban como dispositivos antagonistas en defensa de una subjetividad proletaria de una clase social relativamente homogénea. Subjetividad que ahora se ha difundido y que no tiene la fuerza, organización y articulación q tenía en décadas pasadas.
2. El nuevo paradigma de expropiación de los bienes y riquezas comunes, basado en el proceso de financiarización de la economía y los cercamientos al conocimiento / información, requiere nuevas formas y acciones disruptivas. Cuando la valorización del trabajo es externa a los centros de producción material (la economía real), la acción tiene que afectar a los procesos de valorización y flujos de movilidad.
3. Que los grandes sindicatos sean parte compositiva de la forma-estado muestra su inoperancia como dispositivo antagonista en el actual paradigma. Esto no contraviene a que sea del todo necesario pensar nuevas formas de sindicalismo (directo, 2.0, ...) que se adecuen al nuevo paradigma y permitan articular una nueva dialéctica entre las relaciones entre actividad productiva / réditos y mando capitalista / gobernanza .
4. Pero cuando el principal arma de los sindicatos se banaliza como lo ha hecho Rajoy, hablando de huelga general entre sonrisas en la Comisión Europea, se demuestra la incapacidad de éstos en la negociación política así como se evidencia nuevamente la necesidad de nuevas formas de acción y afectación.
5. Comparativamente, la experiencia griega nos muestra la relativa ineficacia y obsolescencia de las (23) huelgas generales, por muy salvajes que haya podido ser alguna de ellas. La cuestión es el qué, cómo y por qué de la acción. Sin una mínima reflexión estratégica, tan sólo nos estaremos desgastando a nosotras mismas, tanto en la singularidad como al movimiento.
Es por estos motivos que debemos ser capaces de rekombinar diferentes modalidades de movilización y acción. Y para ello no basta con adjetivar el concepto de huelga (precaria, migrante, metropolitana, social, de consumo, virtuales ...).
A menudo nos referimos al 15M como una nueva forma de pensar y hacer política, pues bien, esto implica nuevos imaginarios y reportoris de acción, de tensión, ... ya sea territorial, sectorial o virtual, que permitan una afectación efectiva en las relaciones de fuerza entre gobierno, mando capitalista, y sociedades.
Debemos perseguir coordinar y cohesionar luchas y promover la huelga del cualquiera, desbordando así la huelga general llevando a cabo acciones abiertas, inclusivas, descentralizadas, distribuidas, móviles, con objetivos estratégicos. De esta manera produciremos el colapso metropolitano y la afectación de las relaciones de fuerzas que nos dominan y someten a la precariedad material y existencial que compartimos por la imposición de las políticas de austeridad de la gobernanza deudocrática.
En este sentido, tanto desde el punto de vista de este nuevo repertorio como por los propios objetivos, el # 29m debemos posicionarnos abiertamente en contra de los contenidos y formas propuestas por los sindicatos mayoritarios: si ejercemos nuestro derecho y deber a la huelga no es sólo por la reforma laboral, o mejor dicho reforma "empresarial", sino contra el actual contexto de recortes y negación efectiva de los derechos conseguidos tras muchos años de lucha, contra el expolio de los bienes y riquezas comunes a través de las políticas de austeridad y privatizaciones, y en definitiva contra la acción del estado y el mando capitalista.
Pero como bien sabemos la lucha por estos objetivos no se gana en una solo día de movilización, sino que la tensión debe ser sostenida, por lo que debemos mirar más allá del # 29m y empezar a pensar en cómo llegamos y preparamos la semana de lucha del 12 al 19 de mayo.
Es por ello que la jornada de movilización transnacional del # 12M12 nos debe servir para llevar a cabo diferentes acciones durante y después la propia manifestación convocando a esta semana de movilizaciones y acciones.
Así, el # 12M12 recuperaremos el espíritu de las acampadas, ya sea volviendo a las plazas o liberando cualquier otro espacio, y empezaremos a preparar la jornada del # 15M12: día a partir del cual pondremos en práctica este nuevo repertorio rekombinado de acciones e intervenciones abiertas, inclusivas, descentralizadas, distribuidas que testearemos el # 29m.
Debemos ser capaces de aprovechar la apertura y catalización del momento abierto por los sindicatos con su convocatoria de huelga del # 29m para desbordarla, para utilizar su fuerza en su contra y mostrar nuestra potencia desde la autonomía del movimiento, del qualquiera. Potencia liberada que debemos proyectarla hacia las movilizaciones que se iniciarán el # 12M12, y que el # 15M12 se efectuará en un momento de conflicto y tensión real que genere la ingobernabilidad de la ciudad frente nuestra precariedad derivada de la negación efectiva de nuestros derechos y el expolio de los bienes y riquezas comunes.
Nature is Over
So reads THIS article in the Times from earlier this week. Unfortunately you need a subscription to read the whole article. Thankfully, THIS helpful blogger has reposted large sections from the original piece. Here are two notable excerpts:
For a species that has been around for less than 1% of 1% of the earth’s 4.5 billion-year history, Homo sapiens has certainly put its stamp on the place. Humans have had a direct impact on more than three-quarters of the ice-free land on earth. Almost 90% of the world’s plant activity now takes place in ecosystems where people play a significant role. We’ve stripped the original forests from much of North America and Europe and helped push tens of thousands of species into extinction. Even in the vast oceans, among the few areas of the planet uninhabited by humans, our presence has been felt thanks to overfishing and marine pollution. Through artificial fertilizers–which have dramatically increased food production and, with it, human population–we’ve transformed huge amounts of nitrogen from an inert gas in our atmosphere into an active ingredient in our soil, the runoff from which has created massive aquatic dead zones in coastal areas. And all the CO2 that the 7 billion-plus humans on earth emit is rapidly changing the climate–and altering the very nature of the planet.
Human activity now shapes the earth more than any other independent geologic or climatic factor. Our impact on the planet’s surface and atmosphere has become so powerful that scientists are considering changing the way we measure geologic time. Right now we’re officially living in the Holocene epoch, a particularly pleasant period that started when the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago. But some scientists argue that we’ve broken into a new epoch that they call the Anthropocene: the age of man. “Human dominance of biological, chemical and geological processes on Earth is already an undeniable reality,” writes Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize–winning atmospheric chemist who first popularized the term Anthropocene. “It’s no longer us against ‘Nature.’ Instead, it’s we who decide what nature is and what it will be.”
I don’t see how anyone can really disagree with these statements. The emergence of humanity as a geological force on Earth can hardly be doubted, and the evolutionary trajectory of life on Earth will be forever changed because of our actions. What I am less convinced of are some of the conclusions the article begins to draw:
But managing the Anthropocene will necessitate more than simply banning certain pollutants or activities. It will also mean promoting the sort of technology that environmentalists have often opposed, from nuclear power–still the biggest carbon-free utility-scale energy source, despite the risk of accidents and the problem of radioactive-waste disposal–to genetically modified crops that could allow us to grow more food on less land, saving precious space for wildlife. It will mean privileging cities, because dense urban developments turn out to be the most sustainable and efficient settlements on the planet. And if we prove unable to quickly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, we may be required to consciously fiddle with the climate through geoengineering, using artificial clouds or other planetary-scale technology to reduce the earth’s temperature directly.
Of course, humans have been effectively geoengineering the planet for centuries. We were just doing it unconsciously, as a by-product of our relentless expansion. Humans aren’t even the first species to create change on a planetary scale. The earth’s atmosphere is oxygenated because cyanobacteria helped produce that gas more than 2 billion years ago. But even though cyanobacteria weren’t conscious of what they were doing, we are, or at least we should be. Our ability to comprehend the full extent of the human impact on earth puts us in a unique position as planetary gardeners, a responsibility we have no choice but to take on. We have been lucky for much of our species’ existence, blessed by the comfortably warm climate of the Holocene, able to spread our growing numbers across a seemingly limitless planet.
While I tend to agree that the fundamental engineering and design problem of the next century centers on how to make urban living significantly less destructive, I have three main issues with the rest of the writers suggestions:
- I am unconvinced that genetically modified foods will play a substantial role in “managing the anthropocene.” The so-called green revolution that emerged roughly between the 1940s-70s is often credited for radically boosting agricultural production through a combination of industrial technology, chemical additives, and, later, GMOs. From the perspective of a certain capitalist calculus, an industrial boom did indeed occur. But whether or not the green revolution necessarily represented an overall increase in agricultural efficiency (when measured in terms of calories required to produce food vs. calories obtained from food) is debatable. Somehow, agriculture will have to be done within cities themselves (e.g., through “skyfarming“) to reduce the pollution associated with the transportation of foods over large distances. However, its unclear whether this approach necessitates GMO foods (clearly it will require quite a bit of technologically driven hydroponic farming).
- I am unconvinced that nuclear power will be the power of the future. Here I have to hope that (a) we will find a way to design and connect urban centers in a much more efficient way; (b) agribusiness will shift away from producing meats from large animals (principally cows); (c) that miniaturization and virtualization will take the place of shipping large goods and people around the world; and (d) that militarization is greatly de-escalated. Buildings, cows, transportation, and war represent the four largest polluters in the world. [By contrast, individuals consuming goods and services (in the US anyway) produce something like 1.2% (I can't remember the exact figure, but it is ridiculously low) of US pollution.] When you look at the numbers on things like solar, wind, and biofuels the viability of using these fuels as replacements for the carbon economy looks horribly bleak; unless some drastic changes are made. We need to address the fact that, in most discussions such as these, “the American way of life is not negotiable,” when in fact it is the American way of life that needs to change, and not something we should try to perpetuate by appealing to nuclear energy. Here our goals should be understanding (a) why the drive to centralized forms of power (e.g., coal, oil, and nuclear) always take precedence over decentralized forms of power (e.g., turning all buildings, roads, and infrastructure into energy-generating units linked through smart grids); and (b) what psychological mechanisms are in play that prevent people from changing destructive habits even in the face of overwhelming evidence that a shift needs to occur. Neither are technical problems. Both are extraordinarily complicated and under-researched.
- The article suggests that geoengineering might a offer way out. Of course, as the article points out, all organisms are always-already geoengineers to some extent, but I reckon that geoclimate systems don’t work like simple input-output devices that we can tinker with through technological means. But this is an empirical question that we have neither data nor capacity to verify (I’m not even sure what verification would mean in the context of geoengineering given the enormous time-scales that would come into play). As readers of this blog well know, I’m a supporter of big-thinking, speculative projects, I’m just not really sold on this one. I’m also not excited about the way the writer chose to naturalize the move into the anthropocene by invoking old chestnuts like ‘well, cyanobacteria had a huge impact, and so are we, it’s just a natural process.’ Yes, from a certain perspective humans are different in degree and not in kind from other Earth-shaping organisms, but the fact is we can choose whether or not we want to continue perpetuating another mass extinction event. Lets not naturalize our behavior so quickly.
A final question we should be asking ourselves here (and it underlies each of the points I have articulated above) is: where the hell is the political dimension to this whole article? We cannot behave as though managing the anthropocene is simply an engineering problem when so many of the issues raised above have to do precisely with global political economies, terms of trade, and modes of exploitation that are not just ecological, but social as well.
miércoles, 14 de marzo de 2012
Statement of Teaching Philosophy
by Kerim on March 13th, 2012
I recently applied for “academic promotion” from Assistant to Associate Professor. I’m still awaiting the results, but I wanted to share part of that process with you: the ubiquitous “statement of teaching philosophy.” As this is something many people also struggle with in job applications, I thought I’d talk a little about the genre and share my own statement in full. Sharing my statement takes a little guts, as I really struggled to write an honest statement as opposed to the kind of jargon and cliché ridden statements I’ve seen when sitting on the other side of a job search committee, or when looking for sample documents on the web. (Rex sent me this page on writing such documents and the “Rubric for Statements of Teaching Philosophy” included there is one of the few genuinely helpful documents I found.)
Why is this statement so hard to write? Well, for one thing, I think it makes us painfully aware of the gap between our teaching ideals and our actual classroom practices. We can talk all we want about various teaching philosophies, but much of what most teachers do in the classroom is essentially the same. Even Mike Wesch, who wrote here about his theory of anti-teaching, has more recently written about “why good classes fail“:
In fact, the few truly fantastic classes I have stumbled into were just as likely to be “sage on the stage” lectures as they were to be based on more participatory methods. And the disheartening reality has been that a really bad lecture doesn’t fail as badly as a really poorly executed participatory class. Many of these professors seem to do everything “right.” They ask their students questions, pause and let them discuss with their neighbors, show YouTube videos that relate to their own experience, and invite discussion. But disinterest and disengagement still reign. Why?
I appreciate Wesch’s thoughts on this, and I strongly recommend reading the whole piece. (And look forward to his forthcoming book on teaching.) There is also an article about his re-think in the Chronicle. I mention it because it gives me comfort in the more modest approach I’ve taken in my own statement of teaching philosophy. I talk, for instance, about making my goals explicit. This may not seem like much, but in practice I’ve found that it is very difficult to do well and also very helpful to students when done properly. It isn’t the kind of thing that gets one written up in the Chronicle, but it is something I’ve thought long and hard about. It isn’t just about writing a good syllabus, but about spending time in class teaching one’s expectations and the reasons behind them. (In my case we actually created a whole new course to accomplish this goal.)
I hope my document is useful for others working on articulating their own teaching philosophy. I also think it highlights some of the unique challenges I face teaching here in Taiwan and might be interesting even for those not planning on writing such a statement anytime soon.
Statement of Teaching Philosophy
Throughout my teaching career, whether as an adjunct professor at Temple University, a visiting professor at Haverford College, or as an assistant professor at Dong Hwa University’s College of Indigenous Studies, I have sought to develop my teaching skills in such a way so as to keep students with divergent backgrounds and skill levels engaged and challenged by the same class. One way I’ve found to do that is to articulate a range of goals I wish students to acquire, and to articulate those goals clearly to students. Not only does this give the less well trained students something to work towards, but because goals are not necessarily acquired sequentially, even the more advanced students are able to discover gaps in their training which they should focus upon. This approach has two advantages. First of all, being explicit about one’s goals helps compensate for the way educational institutions tend to unfairly advantage students from privileged backgrounds. As Bourdieu and Passeron famously noted, educational institutions often indirectly reward practices which the privileged members of society have already inculcated in the home: language, self-presentation, literacy practices, etc. By clearly defining expectations, and by breaking these skills down into their component parts, I believe I am able to create a more equitable classroom environment. Because a single class is insufficient to compensate for the marked differences , I also worked with my colleagues at Dong Hwa to develop a class in “Basic Study Skills” which is now required for all first year students in my department.
The second advantage to defining a broad range of goals for student performance is that it allows for students to engage with the material in different ways. While I strongly believe in the central importance of reading and writing in developing critical thinking, I have found that many students who have difficulty engaging with the written word can perform very well in other kinds of exercises: oral presentations, oral exams, group discussions, and even producing short plays or films for class. Inspired by Howard Gardner’s theory of “multiple intelligences,” I try to ensure that students who might otherwise feel shut-out have a chance to engage with the class material in ways best suited to their own style of learning. Many of our students at the College of Indigenous Studies come from rural areas where they lacked access to the cram schools so common in Taiwanese urban environments. Many have spent a lot of time engaged in church activities, where there is often a more performative approach to learning. By valuing orality and performativity within the classroom , these students are at less of a disadvantage. Having a wide-range of goals can be just as important for Ph.D. students as it is for undergrads, albeit for different reasons. Graduate students tend to have strong reading and writing skills, but can often lack the performative skills which make for an effective teacher or communicator. Working on these skills is an essential part of their professional training.
As a foreigner in Taiwan, I’ve faced some unique challenges. The poor English ability of many of our students has meant that I’ve had to become an effective lecturer in Chinese. I’ve long prided myself on my ability to explain complex concept in simple, direct, language, but I’ve had to complement that by working hard at creating visual presentations which help illustrate my ideas so as to avoid any chance of confusion. I’ve also had to become a keen student of popular culture so as to find examples students can relate to. But lecturing has been only part of the challenge. Classroom practices which had been effective in American classrooms did not work as expected with Taiwanese students. Students here are often far more reluctant to express strong views or ask questions in class. I’ve dealt with this in several ways: I assign groups to come up with questions collectively, so no one student is put on the spot, I ask students to talk about the topic in terms of their own experience, so that they don’t feel there is a chance that they will make a mistake in public, and I’ve created online discussion groups for all my classes so that students can say things in writing that they might not feel comfortable saying in the classroom.
Social science requires learning how to see one’s own society as an outsider might see it, and to attempt to think about other societies as a local might think about them. For students who have little experience traveling outside their own country this can be a difficult challenge, but the best ethnographies and documentary films are designed to accomplish just such a task. Unfortunately, much of this work is produced with an American or European audience in mind. I have worked hard over the past five years, constantly revising my syllabi so as to select the materials which accomplish this goal while remaining accessible to my students. I’ve discovered that a well written English text can sometimes be more useful than a poor Chinese translation. And I’ve learned where students need some historical or ethnographic context in order to be able to meaningful engage with the material. Following my emphasis on clearly articulated goals, I also work hard to break down the process of reading an academic text into a series of smaller steps by asking students to identify the main themes of a text, the nature of the data and the methodology used. At the same time, especially when using English texts, I try to move students away from doing word-by-word translations by teaching them how to approach the text as an organic whole. I firmly believe that there is a direct correlation between the skills developed by doing close critical readings of texts, and the ability to think critically about society.