Ivo Mosley (Exeter, imprint academic at the Political Studies Association Conference): So, what other important issues can I get to the bottom of? A multicultural debate with Tariq Modood - sounds good, so along I go. There is a conflict, we are told, between the ideal of multiculturalism and the need for national identity - or 'community cohesion' as it's referred to by those to whom ‘nation' is a dirty word. Various citizen tests are examined, most of which would exclude most of us born in Britain.
The one incontrovertible fact is that Britain has changed in ethnic and cultural makeup, even more from the victory of the middle class over all other classes than from immigration. To fight this reality is futile. Where do we go from here? Can we build on British traditions of freedom and impartial law to develop a new model of society; inclusive and tolerant? The worry seems to be that having dumped our own (essentially Christian) culture, we are liable to takeover from more energetic systems of belief, particularly Islam. Well, what do you expect when you dump culture? Where did the idea that we don't need culture come from? I suppose from the various totalitarianisms of the twentieth century - fascism, Marxism and now neo-liberalism. Fascism turned culture into an exclusive and aggressive national myth; Marxism re-invented it as a series of cutesy folk enjoyments; in reality, it is a commanding and profoundly moral way of life.
Meanwhile, liberal totalitarianism was being praised in another talk attended by my boss, Keith Sutherland. Henrik Bang was telling him of a wonderful transformation: from "Democracy to Good Governance." Good governance, apparently, is government getting on with the business of doing what is good for us without any complications of political disagreement. This, of course, is a reproduction of the situation developed in the great totalitarianisms of European monarchy, and is precisely what democracy grew to challenge. Louis XIV and Frederick the Great devolving their absolute power to 'enlightened' individuals who managed their peasants as they managed their livestock. Well thanks, Henrik, I'll call you when I buy a flock of sheep.
Next off to what I hoped might be light relief - the weaponisation of space. It turns out to be not funny at all. Europe is putting weapons up in space without any public discussion; the U.S. is so dependent on its space weaponry for self-protection that China and Russia are populating space also with missiles. Apparently the 'inevitabilitiy thesis' has won - it's going to happen anyway, so let's get stuck in. My only way to protest as a citizen is to lodge an objection with planning - all this activity spoils my view of the moon. Perhaps nothing so much as this exposes the loss of opportunity, while the US had military hegemony, to negotiate some body of international law enforcement that would stop the endless proliferation of military spending. Mind you, certain of the big corporations are making big money as usual... and the Americans have been warned they could experience a 'Pearl Harbour from outer space' if they don't cough up.
Last talk of the day, a panel on Iraq. To finish on an optimistic note, Professor Eric Davis forcefully put across the idea that a Marshall Plan for Iraq, implemented much as in Germany and Japan after WWII, would have every chance of working. The seemingly endless criminal violence is more a result of massive youth unemployment than sectarian passion. He was very convincing and I applaud him. Let's hope he has the ear of Mr Obama; and that Obama wins the American presidential election. We are a world badly in need of hope.
Ivo Mosley has been blogging the Political Studies Association's Swansea conference: Democracy, Governance and Conflict: Dilemmas of Theory and Practice. You can read his series in full here.
