Skip to content

The Canadian Collective Unconscious and the London Riots

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

I took an ill-advised journey into the depths of the Canadian collective unconscious this afternoon by reading comments to articles on the London riots. As befits the nature of newspaper comment sections, there weren’t any particularly astute or intelligent comments, be they ostensibly “liberal” or “conservative” or whatever. (I hesitate to point out the irony that a bunch of functional illiterates are criticizing the rioters for refusing to become educated when England offers a “free” education to all–I suppose they missed the education protests a few months ago.) But then, we are dealing with the most reactionary elements of the collective unconscious and, as such, we shouldn’t expect anything particularly well-conceived. Many of the comments sound like they could have come out of the mouth of my next door neighbour, my MPP, or my MP. My point being that this sort of hatred is fairly disperse in Canadian society. Coincidentally, my MP sent me a flyer today announcing the government’s plan to automatically detain any “designated” migrant for up to 12 months in an attempt to make sure that people don’t exploit our Canadian generosity–that generosity of spirit which is in ample display below.

I’m not sure what “likes” means, but I included the number of “likes” each comment received. I assume it means that a certain number of people mutely assented with what had been said. With the “Score” provided by The Globe & Mail, I take that to mean something like “likes minus dislikes” to provide an aggregate score. Although The Globe & Mail moderates its comments–something many of the participants complains about–it would seem that there is a great deal of bigotry that is permissible at their website. The Star is even stronger in its moderation, which weeded out most of the really horrendous comments. As a result, I didn’t bother to include anything from that site. I didn’t have the heart to go to the Toronto Sun site.

None of the comments below are edited–by me, at least.

From the National Post. Headline: “Man shot during London riots dies,” but check out the URL: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/09/this-is-criminality-pure-and-simple/

passerby69 — 21 “likes”

I think that 26 year-old shot and killed for looting and criminal behaviour should not have been the only one. I think the PM is not doing much by simply describing the behaviour instead of advocating for marshall law and a shoot to kill policy.

Proud Surrey Man — 9 “likes”

Not only would I advocate the same for Canada, Brian, I’d cheerfully shoot all the looters the government would let me, then spike their heads on Lions Gate Bridge. These people are worthless, unemployable dead-enders who have demonstrated a willingness to prey on their fellow man. There really is no reason for letting them live.

watchdoghugh — 33 likes

A failed immigration system that has believed in multi-culturalism has led to a general failure in social bonds and shared values. The result is what you see here and in many places across Europe where liberalism has failed to appreciate the problems that overly quick, large scale immigration from outside existing communities brings.  England has become a such a disaster after allowing a rush of immigrants from third world and developing countries with looks, beliefs/ values and behaviours causes friction.

Claude-vi — 25 “likes”

Third world people create third world problems.

The anti-white policy of filling every white country and only white countries with millions of racial aliens and trying to blend my race out of existence with them, is genocide. It also creates situation just like this one, if you think this is bad just wait a couple decades for when the next generation of whites are in an even more vulnerable position.

What a horrible future we are creating for our children. I don’t know why we let the anti-white establishment get away with it but we must make it clear to the government that we have a right to our own countries and communities and should not be forced to live with non-whites, our children will thank us,

Willy18 — 22 “likes”

We allow these terrorists to attack the police with all

kinds of weapons such as chemical bombs spears and other such items and destroy

the cities just as they did in Toronto.

The police or army that was needed should go in and be prepared to shoot

to kill.  The only way to get the trash

of the streets.  The remainder can be

rounded up and loaded into some kind of floating devise and sent out to sea.

Replying to Willy18: alphamel1 — 14 “likes”

Float them at sea? Hope not. They’d head for Canada, claim refugee status, get accepted under our Charter, receive immediate aid, released into society at large

Replying to alphamel1: toomanyhobbies — 6 “likes”

I think Willy actually meant something that would sink about 100 miles out.

Nestor James — 8 “likes”

And now that your cities are in flames, and your people are divided and fighting among each other and your bright future is all blackness: the time has come to admit that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Messenger. The Imams of Cairo must be falling off their prayer cushions with laughter right about now as world events unfold in their favor. Our governments are mysteriously paralyzed and seem unable to deal with events; how many people will be eager for a change, no matter what that brings? Fascism anyone? I’ve never seen the News look so bad as long as I have lived.

anon259132556 — 10 “likes”

After actually reading the article it ‘s obvious and disheartening what the causes of all this are. ”Well we heard other folks were getting free stuff and thought well why not us”  does not speak of systemic racism, failed multiculturalism or any policy good or bad, it’s pure lack of respect for anything and greed.  An unemployed person with a sense of entitlement and no education has no one to blame but himself and possibly his parents. Don’t soul search too hard greater Britain this is not your fault at all.

One could probably end the riots by handing out free ipods and flat screen TV’s…

Replying to anon259132556: Socialism Kills — no “likes”

Wrong.

The rioters are almost exclusively non-white.   Further, even if they were only half non-white, the truth remains that rampant immigration has flooded the UK with people it simply does not need and is rapidly discovering that it cannot support.   With more people than jobs, there are going to be large numbers of unemployed.  So, why let foreigners in when you have ghettoes full of born-in-the-UK unemployed?

Immigration from third world countries MUST end, otherwise the west is doomed.

crocodile dundee — 15 “likes”

Not hard to figure out, is it. The Labour gov’t from 1997 to 2010 allowed massive immigration from third world countries in order to destroy British culture because of some white guilt, imperialist guilt complex. There weren’t enough jobs for these people, they weren’t skilled and the native British didn’t want them. So the problem was created by the dopey lefties with their totally failed multiculti policies. Immigration should be stopped immediately! But hey, just look at the ‘cultural richness’ they bring!!

Replying to crocodile dundee: Royal Canadian Navy…..Retire — 8 “likes”

You’re absolutely right dundee, time for the immigration dept to “grow a set” and stop the retards from illegally entering the country!

Replying to Royal Canadian Navy…..Retire: alphamel1 — 1 “like”

Guess who man our immigration dept. – immigrants.

Proud Surrey Man — 8 “likes”

Get out the machine guns.

Sassylassie — 1 “like”

Nothing to lose, yea that’s right an entire generation raised on entitlements they sleep all day and gang bang all night then whine they can’t find a job. Hello ever tried working from a bed, well excluding hoes of course.

From The Globe & Mail. “‘Everyone’s on edge:’ a Canadian in London describes the riots.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/everyones-on-edge-a-canadian-in-london-describes-the-riots/article2123995/ 

Sh5 — Score: 10

The problem starts with young women who decide to ‘have babies’ (breed) at the age of 16. They have multiple births from different unemployed males who are both unwilling and/or unable to stay in the relationship. The problem then escalates with underfunded and low grade public schools and hospitals. U.K. doctors, teachers, nurses and police officers – social services sector are poorly paid and in what is considered to be, low status annoying occupations. This state of affairs exists because resources, status and wealth are for the transaction class only and those who serve them – in short, the City of London as opposed to London mainstream. Continental Europe is better. There is less social and wealth stratification and more mobility between classes. Also, more respect for non-transaction occupations. Trust me, the U.S. will be next and it will far, far worse than anything seen in the U.K. The core problem can be summed up in one phrase – the State has been weak – too weak to cope.

passerby — Score: 6

The Reasons Behind this Riot: Western democracies are too hand tied with multiculturalism and anti-racist drivel for them to be effective enforcers of the law. Young hooligans know this as they chastise the police.

It happens in schools too. Kids know they won’t be punished.

People are being told to strip naked by thugs as their clothes are stolen off their backs. Don’t trust main stream media to tell you the whole story. Google London – riot – strip – naked or see some of the video for yourself. You’ll see who is really committing these crimes.

The police should shoot to kill. This is terrorism. And the police should respond appropriately. I support them. Do you?

Jan Burton — Score: 26

Young women having babies from multiple partners…the men taking off….no cultural regard for education or hard work….a state that pays them to do nothing….a sense of entitlement and victimhood.

It’s the same toxic mix we find at Jane-Finch in Toronto.

mbryant — Score: -2

Bring out the army (not the police) with loaded rifles and fixed bayonets to handles these rioters and looters. Should have used the military in Vancouver last June also. How far would I go ? Well, just watch me (Trudeau)

What’s in a name — Score: 8

Just like burqas, hoodies should be banned as well, they are disguises and anti-social.

johnnyleroux — Score: 2

It’s quite obvious from viewing the videos on youtube that the London police have had extensive training from our own OPP & RCMP. They simply sat back and watched the show knowing that public support for ‘needing’ them will be at an all time high once this nonsense settles down. There’ll be overtime galore for everyone that wants it. Taxes will go up to pay for the every increasing police presence and life is once again good for the deadbeat-cops. When, as a society are we going to give the police authority to take these mutts down and take em’ down hard. Guaranfuckintee you that if the London police killed a few hundred protestors, this would all be over – permanently with no chance of rioting in the future. The police and the government are bigger losers than the protestors for showing no ‘balls’ through this exercise.

Jan Burton — Score: 6

What gives you the idea that these 2Pac wannabes actually want to work?

Indeed they are lacking in education. And whose fault is that? Mine? Yours?

SassieLassie — Score: 2

Oh spare me your socialist’s propaganda, England has bankrupted herself providing cradle to grave welfare to healthy people, education is free but those yobs have no intention of getting educated or employed why should they Nanny gives them everything for nothing that’s why they riot.

nononsense — Score: 1

Burnabite You must be dreaming, IT IS about sneakers, gold chains and seeing how many dumb girls you can get pregnant. , Thats the total extent of the ambition and mindset. Go to trinidad, jamaica and parts of toronto. Same thing. throw in white british toughs and welfare addicts and look what you get.

SassieLassie — Score: 2

Gang bangers and welfare hoes rioting and looting for fun, greedy scum who want for nothing. And yes gang bangers riot for sport it’s not like they’ll ever work for a living.

The Shocking Truth — Score: 13

Enoch Powell was right. ENOCH POWELL WAS RIGHT.

Replying to The Shocking True: Jack O’Douley — Score: 9

Yes, he was wasn’t he? I remember as a student in London thinking how dreadful it was what he said. I’ve reread it now. It is an erudite description of what lay in our future because of our stupidity.

mattp2182 — Score: 14

Social engineering run amok. This is Canada’s future, citizens completely neutered of any right to defend themselves. Criminals running around freely because the law has handcuffed those who live within its bounds.

Common Sense has been turned on its head and the politically correct B.S has to go. Citizens should not have to suffer because someone, somewhere thinks thugs and lowlifes deserve to be given more rights then the hard working people who make countries great.

walkerny — Score: 9

This is a perfect demonstration of why all Western countries should immediately restrict new immigration, deport the criminal, the welfare dependent, and the dangerous immigrants (radical Imams for a start).

nononsense — Score: 13

This is no surprise, If you have hundreds of thousands of young people, whose only idea of making it in life is wearing certain sneaker brands, gold chains and getting as many dumb girls pregnant. Same mentality here in certain parts of Toronto. Rife in the carribean i.e. Trinidad, jamaica. In the uk add into the mix a million or so virtually illiterate whites who leave school at the earliest and live off the state. The females get pregnant as soon as possible as the state guarantees ythem an apartment and welfare allowances. Uk turning into a sinkhole. I hope we are finally in Canada monitoring who gets into canada much more closely than in the past or we will have just as big a problem.

Seedy How — Score: -1

Mass immigration is pushing aside any chance white youth have of upward mobility.

1941 Senior — Score: 11

This is becoming a trend in our Western Countries perpetrated by ‘mostly’ immigrant societies and/or lower status societies struggling under duress!

Our Countries’ laws should be amended to counteract this type of domestic terrorism! If they are born in our countries, punish & jail them appropriately. If they are not yet citizens, deport them to where ever they came from. New Citizenship should be only bestowed on those who live a lawful life in our countries……otherwise, rescind their Citizenship and deport them.

In this situation…..screw human rights! I’m a senior Citizen who can NOT afford higher taxes to compensate the millions of dollars for this type of destruction…….and, in the end, it will be you & me who has to pay for it……..SHAME ON VANCOUVER, SHAME ON LONDON & anywhere else which allows this terrorism.

beaches — Score: 14

I am a Canadian in London and really don’t see any social agenda at play here. This is not Mississippi Burning and there is no well thought out grievance being disputed here. Millions and millions of pounds have been squandered on social programmes in this country to no avail. The majority of these thugs are simply 17-18 year old hoodlums who have nothing to lose. These people are the products of single parent families where the father is either in jail (where he typically belongs) or has buggered off because he has no sense of responsibility. The multicult social enginineering project is a failure and we are now seeing the proginy of this experiment run feral in the streets.

Albertalad — Score: 9

This is a group of thugs and criminals nothing more fully intent on stealing, looting and even stripping citizen naked on the streets looking for valuables. They even use Facebook and Twitter to coordinate their actions. None are looting and burning for a job or even a way up – none are even targeting any government buildings or anything of the sort. These are deadbeat, school drop out, and welfare bums intent on stealing their way through life. Society gave them the chance to get an education and they blew it themselves. Society even helped support them through welfare – how does burning down other people’s homes, businesses in your own neighborhoods help any one of those idiots? They merely deprived countless of working people for making a living.

Its time for the UK to take back the streets by what means necessary. The time for being nice is OVER!

urban ranger — Score: 2

I saw a Londoner on BBC News describing the rioters as “feral rats”. Found myself nodding my head. It’s way past time to use some real force with these people.

Filed in State, Sovereignty & Violence | | Comments (3)

I’m Speechless!

Sunday, July 31, 2011

While looking at a horrible story on a poor dog stuffed in a bag and tossed into the Ottawa River only to drown because, apparently, the Ottawa Humane Society only has one OSPCA agent on duty on weekends, Blythe came across an article announcing the new CEO of the Toronto Humane Society. It seems that they have decided upon Dr. Jacques Messier, DVM, MBA to lead the organization. I will quote from his official bio because no one would believe me if I didn’t:

Jacques brings to the table years of senior management and executive experience in the animal health industry having served as the Director of meat hygiene for the Canadian Government, the Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, CEO and President of Novopharm, COO of KV Pharmaceutical (St. Louis), President of the National Income Protection Plan, and CEO of Semex Alliance in Guelph Ontario.

Yes, that’s right: the new CEO of the Toronto Humane Society is an industry shill having been in charge of making sure that meat is safe for humane consumption (“Director of Meat Hygiene“) and for ensuring that veterinary drugs administered during meat production don’t cause adverse effects when consumed by humans (“Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs“), the CEO and President of Novopharm (now called Teva Canada), COO of KV Pharmaceutical (manufacturer, primarily of estrogen based fertility drugs), President of the National Income Protection Program (owned by Oncidium Health Group, whose primary line of business is in keeping employees from making insurance claims), and CEO of the Semex Alliance, an especially horrifying organization which, in its own words, “distributes cattle genetics products, embryos and live cattle to dairy and beef industries.” How is anyone expected to have any confidence in the organization when its CEO has been personally involved in vivisection, genetic engineering, and supplying the beef and dairy industries with semen, embryos, and calves? I guess we can only be happy that he hasn’t personally been involved in pork or poultry production.

He remains (it would appear) a member of the Board of Directors of Nuvo Research. His bio for which brags “Most recently Dr. Messier was the Chief Executive Officer, The Semex Alliance, a partnership specializing in the development and marketing of high quality genetic technologies, products and services to benefit livestock producers around the world.” Nuvo Research, for what it is worth, “is dedicated to becoming a leader in the research and development of topically applied drugs that are delivered into and through the skin - initially focused on pain.” We all know what that means.

Presumably, what this all means is that Messier will be able to provide connections to giant corporations with deep pockets–something that the THS needs right now. In exchange for this money, the THS will give these vivisectionists and animal abusers a gloss of establishment respectability. Could you imagine a company donating money to the THS being investigated for animal cruelty? I can’t either.

Animal rights activists often complain that animal welfare organizations are in bed with exploiting industries, but it isn’t usually so blatantly obvious. But then, animal welfare in Canada has long-since lost its connection to the protection of working animals upon which it was founded in the nineteenth century, including the Toronto Humane Society, which has its origins in an effort to protect a working donkey. This is absolutely shameful.

Filed in Animals | | Comments (2)

Against Incrementalism

Saturday, July 23, 2011

The other day, Timothy Morton had a post arguing in favour of incrementalism as a solution to environmental problems. Levi Bryant then chimed in arguing, more or less, the opposite position. (I won’t discuss Levi’s post because that leads to a whole new set of arguments–I’ll note, however, that Levi’s political theory has become far more nuanced since I last criticized him.) Tim glosses the argument against incrementalism as follows: “Since no one person’s action will solve global warming, better to do nothing, or at most await the revolution to come.” This gloss seems perverse and with no relation to any actual argument against incrementalism. I won’t speak to arguments internal to environmental debates (that is, I assume, as solutions to global warming) because I am mostly ignorant of them. I will, however, speak to arguments internal to animal protection.

Often, debates internal to animal protection are parsed in terms of animal welfare versus animal rights and, internal to animal rights, in terms of regulation versus abolition. Gary Francione has coined the term “new welfarism” to describe those who maintain that the best means of securing meaningful animal rights legislation is through a gradual (that is, incremental) movement towards abolition; that is, the best way to secure the goals of animal rights is through the methods of animal welfare. The opposite position of this is straight-up abolitionism, which maintains that any legislative change that does not move directly towards securing animal rights is self-defeating. For my part, I buy the abolitionist argument, although I have qualms with both the words “animal” and “rights.”

The gist of the argument against new welfarism is (1) incremental measures do not lead to any noticeable reduction in the consumption of animals and animal products; (2) incremental measures do not lead to any recognition of the rights of non-humans; and (3) incrementalism has the perverse consequence of further legitimating the exploitation of animals because it sends messages to consumers that “Before now, animals lived in horrible conditions; but, don’t worry, they live in really, really great conditions now.” Significantly, the major proponents of new welfarism are the major so-called “animal rights” organizations: Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) along with prominent ethicists, such as Peter Singer. (Strangely, the lawyers seem to be the most radical of the three groups–but that isn’t saying much–despite the myth that Singer likes to cultivate about himself.) What we end up with is PETA defending “controlled atmosphere killing” of broilers, HSUS defending “enhanced cages” for layers, and Singer saying that is a greater harm to refuse to eat a vegetable sandwich with cheese than it is to eat the sandwich the cheese in it. (He makes this argument in full knowledge that dairy cows suffer far more in their lifetimes than beef cows.)

The latter is an especially revealing example. The new welfarist blog-o-sphere and twitter-o-sphere was recently agog with excitement about a joint announcement by the HSUS and United Egg Producers: together they would lobby for legislation requiring “enhanced cages” (that is, roughly 1.5 times more space per hen complete with a perch) to come into effect by 2029. This, apparently, is a great victory–if not the greatest victory for animals of all time. (You see, the standard is exceptionally low.) In the meantime, hundreds of billions of chickens will continue to suffer in the standard battery cage and consumers can feel good about it–and, apparently, so too can Wayne Pacelle.

This is incrementalism. An insignificant “change” that will not improve the life of a single hen and, insofar as it does, won’t happen for two decades and one which will not lead to any reduction at all in the exploitation or consumption of animals and animal products. This is why incrementalism is the most cynical, vulgar, form of politics and one which should be absolutely rejected.

Filed in Animals | | Comments (1)

My New Office!

Thursday, July 21, 2011

The offices in the Department of Law at Carleton University have been under construction all summer long. Work has ranged from removing asbestos to replacing sturdy cinder block walls with floor-to-ceiling glass walls. I was fortunate enough to get a sneak peak of the newly renovated contract instructors office. Let me tell you, it has been worth the wait and inconvenience!

My new desk! Note the sleek, modern, ergonomic design! And it has drawers for all my stuff!

A high-tech, straight out of the future computer that I can use to reply to student emails, write my lectures, and read Twitter! And it comes with a carrying case so I won’t break it when I present my latest findings at conferences!

In addition to communicating with students via email, I also have the latest voice-over-IP phone, so I can can actually talk to my students when they aren’t even in the room!

They thought of everything! Here is my iPod dock, so I can quietly listen to music at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven!

The office is furnished in the latest “retro” look: mid-century institutional design! It’s like they took that chair straight out of 1973, but it is actually from Modern Business Interiors, Ltd.!

To complement the modern furniture, the interior designers included some delightful art, such as this abstract wood-and-nail installation!

There is also some more ironic, industrial art! I don’t get it! Do I have to fill up my office with diesel to make the equipment run, or is this some kind of joke?! And the art is accessible!

If the interior wasn’t great enough (and it is!), I’ve also been provided with scenic views, such as this one of a blue box depot!

And another view, this time of some secret room–that’s where the magic happens!

I have a number of great colleagues in the Department. This is Professor Ground! (She’s looking dour because two out of three referees on her most recent submission to Studies in Political Economy recommended “revise and resubmit”!)

And this is another colleague from the Department: Professor Hog! (I bet he’s on his way to the library!)

I can’t wait to be officially set up in my new office!

Filed in Teaching | | Comments (1)

A Serious Question

Friday, July 15, 2011

Why do critical realists insist on asserting a dogmatic humanism? Consider Margaret Archer in her “Preface” to Pierpaolo Donati’s Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences:

“First and last, relational sociologists and critical realists care deeply about the human capacity for fulfillment and the human liability to multifarious forms of suffering. As it becomes increasingly popular to blur the human/non-human distinction in social theory, nothing could be more welcome than to find that in relational sociology we encounter not just an abstract theoretical convergence but a shared commitment to the promotion of human thriving.”

It’s stunning, really. Admittedly, I haven’t read the fuller treatment of this issue in her Being Human, but the title alone suggests we might only find a more elaborated version of the above.

Filed in Dissertation, Sociology | | Comments (0)

Remembering Minnie (July 5, 2007)

Tuesday, July 5, 2011



2010, 2009, 2008, 2007

Filed in Pets | | Comments (1)

The Politics of “True Blood” (Again)

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

From the recap for the second episode of season 4, titled “You Smell Like Dinner” (take note!) at tor.com.

But, you know, while True Blood’s making this great metaphor of vampires as social outsiders, really comparing their fight to that of today’s gay rights activists, it sure does make me scratch my head that Lafayette and Jesus get to share one little chaste kiss while Bill’s sexing up his coven spy and Sam’s putting the moves on his “anger management” buddy. This is a show by Alan Ball, the man who gave us David Fisher and Keith Charles, one of TV’s best couples of any sexual orientation. This seems to happen to gay characters on TV a lot. But it’s kind of crappy that Ball can go there with his metaphors on the one hand while adding to the lack of equal representation with the other. I just wouldn’t expect that from him. And I’m a bit disappointed.

The simple answer–which the internet continually ignores me on–is that “True Blood” is not in any way at all about gay rights. Pay attention to the name of the show: True Blood! What does this tell you? The show is about food and its relation to legal representation. Did you miss the scene–all you comment on is Nan Flanagan’s earrings and Bill’s accent–where Bill is approached by Nan to infiltrate the monarchies in order to push a mainstreaming agenda? What does mainstreaming mean: that you don’t eat human blood! What do you eat? True Blood! What do they believe is the condition for acceptance? Being the vampire equivalent of a vegan!

The point the author of the recap misses–in addition to what “True Blood” is actually about–is an interesting one: why are adults in a more or less committed relationship prevented from having sexual relations on HBO shows? Recall, if you will, the scene with Ned and Catelyn in “Game of Thrones.” The source material clearly has the two of them having marital relations. But, I guess, what sort of HBO viewer wants to watch two middle aged nobles going at it when they watch Jaime Lannister giving it to his twin sister from behind? Juxtapose, if you will, with “True Blood” where Bill and Sookie are required to have sex every episode about two scenes after they break up for the last time.

Filed in Animals | | Comments (0)

Draft Course Outlines (Fall 2011)

Friday, July 1, 2011

Should anyone be interested, I’ve posted my draft course outlines for Fall 2011.

  • FYSM 1506R Topics in the Study of Societies: “Power & Violence” This seminar explores the relation between power and violence in modern and non-modern societies from a sociological perspective. The first semester is oriented towards developing theoretical and conceptual tools useful in the analysis of power and violence while the second semester turns to more substantive topics drawing upon movies, television and novels. This course is not about, strictly speaking, crime, but about how power and violence manifest themselves in society, are controlled and used in society, and what our imaginary reflections on power and violence say about our own society. Accordingly, the first semester will look at differences between modern and non-modern societies in how they organize violence. The emphasis here will be on increasing control over the individual body through the processes of modernization and civilization This entails spending a lot of time talking about barbarians, knights, and prisoners. The second semester turns to contemporary anxieties surrounding violence, especially as they are represented in culture. As a result, we will take up torture, murder, war, and zombies—basically everything entailed by the idea of the apocalyptic. The course culminates in a final project where students will be asked to apply theoretical concepts in an analysis of a popular culture artefact (e.g., movie, television show, comic book, novel, etc). This course is both reading and writing intensive. Students are advised to keep this in mind when registering. [PDF]
  • LAWS 3005A Law and Regulation This course is concerned with the relation between law and regulation, broadly construed. More specifically, we will examine the role that power and violence plays in constructing a social, legal and political order. As a result, we will study general strategies for structuring legal and political power in relation to and by the modern state. The course begins with an overview of the historical sociology of the state and some theoretical reflections on the general relation between state power and violence. The remainder of the courses studies how violence, power and the law are used to organize and structure societies, by both the state and organizations beyond the state. We will discuss concepts such as sovereignty, government, biopolitics, and the state of exception. The course is both reading and writing intensive and the material is intentionally difficult: students should keep this in mind when enrolling in the course. [PDF]

I’ll be teaching LAWS 3908B Approaches in Legal Studies II in the Winter 2012 semester. The topic for the course will be “Animals, Law and Society.” That outline isn’t finished yet.

Filed in Teaching | | Comments (1)

Teaching Evaluations (Fall 2010/Winter 2011)

Thursday, June 30, 2011

I received the written comments submitted by my students in FYSM 1506 Topics in the Study of Societies–”Power and Violence,” which is a two-semester long seminar for first year students. Carleton University uses what is perhaps the crudest of all forms of teaching evaluations: students are asked to answer thirteen questions on a scale of one to five, or they can answer “Not Applicable.” The thirteen questions are not especially helpful; for instance, “How do you assess your instructor’s performance in speaking audibly and clearly?” and “How do you assess your instructor’s performance in beginning and ending classes promptly?” Considering that I am a sessional lecturer–and all that implies–my evaluations tend to be surprisingly good: my numbers usually put me in the ranks of the highest evaluated instructors in the department and the faculty. In addition to answering the questions, students are also invited to submit free-form written comments on the back of the evaluations. The written comments are not looked at by anyone other than the instructor: that is, even if all the students write something like “Give this sessional a tenure-track position because they are, by far, the best professor we’ve ever had” (never happened to me, of course!), no one will actually see it. Chairs don’t read them, Deans don’t read them, and Vice-Presidents don’t read them.

My average score for questions 1-12 (the “how do you assess…?” questions) was 4.75. In comparison, the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences average was 4.50; the sociology faculty in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology average was 4.43; and the average for instructors teaching first year seminars (such as myself) was 4.53. My score for question 13 (“How do you evaluate the instructor?”) was 4.80. The Faculty score was 4.47; the departmental score was 4.38 and the first year seminar score was 4.57. In all cases, I was rated significantly higher than average.

Because it was a small class (ostensibly a seminar, although I did most of the talking) and because it was a full-year course, the written comments are bit more friendly than the norm.

Awesome course with a great final assignment. Could use more videos and more legible handwriting but these things happen.

Hi CRAIG :)

Thank you Craig for the best FYSM class that I could have hoped to imagine! All the other students in our classes bitch + complain about how much they hate their FYSMs. Sucks to be them! I thought this would be boring + dragged out but your [sic] made this class awesome, especially the vampire/zombie readings. I suggest more of those for your future classes because everyone would actually read them! All the readings had something interesting in their own way except a few of them were too long so its no wonder some people lost interest. On the whole thanks so much! :) I hope that I can find another class with you as the instructor in the future!!! Dave

Dear Mr. MacFarlane [sic], Great course! You have some awesome antics! I will be looking for your classes in the future so I can harass you all semester once again. Thanks!

Craig was very good teacher. He was very knowledgable and good at making sometimes tedious material interesting.

Great work. Your snide sense of humour made my thursdays. [I don't think "snide" means what the student thinks it means.]

Good course if you enjoy abstract sociological writings from dead guys. Course was pretty easy though, also Craig is hilariously cynical and this lightens up an otherwise somewhat monstrous class. Laptop ban sucked, don’t do that again. Second semester better than first. [I don't think "cynical" means what the student thinks it means.]

 

Filed in Teaching | | Comments (0)

In Defense of Flogging

Monday, June 27, 2011

Peter Moskos’s In Defense of Flogging presents a simple and radical argument: the penitentiary system, especially in the United States, is more or less a crime against humanity: not only does it fail to meet its stated objectives, but it is also exceptionally cruel forcing inmates to be subjected to beatings, rapes, overcrowding, no health care, and the like. This leaves us with few options. We can either ignore the problem, attempt to reform the system, abolish the system entirely (but leave open the issue of punishment), or introduce a new punishment into the administration of justice.

The proposed solution to the prison is probably one which no right-thinking person could agree with: flogging. Strangely, Moskos views this as the only humane solution: at least so long as corporal punishment is a free choice on the part of the criminal between flogging and incarceration. One might, of course, quibble as to whether it is a “free” choice when you are given the option of five to ten years in prison versus five to ten lashes. This is a point that Moskos does address directly–indeed, at the level of argumentation and evidence, the book is somewhat of a disappointment. (There is a bizarre footnote on Foucault’s Discipline and Punish [157-8] and an equally bizarre “reading” of Marx as being objectively in favour of prisons [102-3].) It is also disappointing–albeit not surprising that a former patrolman in Baltimore’s Eastern District (recall Herc, Carver et al in the Eastern Western)–would endorse dark alley beatings as a key component of justice. (You see, policemen are highly trained professionals who are, at the core, good people and they need a wide range of discretion to deal with wife-beaters, bullies, and dealers selling drugs around children–it’s all part of the game, as Omar Little might point out.)

Moskos’s view–and one that I agree with–is that the prison cannot be reformed. Reform and regulation, as animal advocates know, has the unfortunate consequence of legitimating a bad institution by making concerned people feel alright about their guilt. And, worse, reform and regulation leads to limited–at best–improvements in the quality of life of those trapped in the institution. Reform, in effect, is having your cake and eating it, too: it misses the point and, over time, leads to something far more monstrous than what you began with. Clearly, this should be unacceptable to any right thinking person. There are some good reasons to keep the prison in a minimal capacity, such as to prevent truly incorrigible people who have committed horrible crimes from ever hurting people again. He has in mind here repeat, violent sex offenders, serial killers, and the like: the sort of criminal that we routinely see on television, but rarely ever encounter in our lives. This seems agreeable and correct to me. I don’t see any good reason why Paul Bernado or Russell Williams should ever be allowed out of prison. The question remains, however, regarding what to do with the remaining 99.9% of prisoners.

The effectiveness of American prisons is confounded by the so-called War on Drugs; that is, while it is the case prisons don’t work anywhere, they are especially dysfunctional in the United States such that a strong case could be made that the penitentiary system is akin to the Gulag or Apartheid given that prisoners are overwhelmingly black, their rights and interests are significantly violated (many cannot vote while incarcerated and many are permanently disenfranchised after “doing their time”) and blacks are significantly more likely to be incarcerated for a crime that a white will not be incarcerated for (let alone prosecuted for). Much of Moskos’s argument comes down to efficiency: not only do prisons fail to meet their stated goals (a failure on any terms), their cost doesn’t justify that failure. Indeed, “the cynical among us might even say we’re spending billions of dollars to pay poor rural unemployed whites to guard poor urban unemployed blacks” [77]. Surely there are better means to address the socio-economic needs of the permanently poor than incarcerating the ones with dark skin and employing the ones with light skin to make sure the dark skinned ones don’t try to escape. Further, it must surely be the case that even the most generous social welfare system–complete with full medical!–would cost less than what the penitentiary system presently costs.

Predictably, given the above, the defence of flogging is primarily on economic grounds: lashing costs significantly less than incarceration, even when antibiotics are figured into the cost of lashing in the rare case of infection. Moskos is even willing to go so far as allow lashings to replace the criminal record: after all, if you’ve got giant scars on your ass, it’s pretty clear that they were inflicted by the judicial system. Moskos’s proposed system would allow for summary judgment: arrested, charged, guilty plea, lashing all in one night and, a month later, the criminal’s wounds are healed and he is able to return to work. While liberal human rights regimes defend the body’s integrity as sacred, it is kind of hard to argue with this logic: on the one hand, the criminal can freely submit to a lashing and get on with his life and, on the other hand, it’s not like bodily integrity is protected in any meaningful way in prison–indeed, the long-term physical, mental, social, and economic consequences of incarceration likely far outweigh the consequences of a half-hour of excruciating pain.

Despite the detour into back alley justice meted out by well-meaning, professional, and basically good cops in the second half of the book, there was one passage that was particularly interesting. Moskos notes the similarity between the factory farm/slaughterhouse and the prison [136-9]: both are excessively violent and are almost entirely closed to outsiders. This connection is often missed in discussions of animal rights and it is one that should be taken up more vigorously. There is no good reason to make the comparison between the animal abolitionism and slavery abolitionism but not also prison abolitionism. Sadly, Moskos’s solution to the slaughterhouse is to kill your own meat because it is the least that a meat eater can do–anything else is disrespectful, or some-such. It is a palpably silly argument, but at least Moskos’s thought is taking him, more or less, in the right direction.

Filed in Animals, Sociology, State, Sovereignty & Violence | | Comments (4)