Political tendencies

Over the last few weeks I’ve been trying to keep up with the party conferences. I’m not a member of any political party although have been a member of the Liberal Democrats in the past. To be honest, I left after Nick Clegg became leader. I have met Nick in person and he seemed like a genuinely good guy. But he certainly hasn’t convinced me on the national stage. He seems slightly too egotistical and there is far too much rhetoric coming out of his mouth. In contrast, Vince Cable appears knowledgable, eloquent, honest and has a genuine desire to provide solutions rather than simply scoring political points.

I feel sorry for the Labour party as they seem to be fighting an inevitable battle against historical precedent. Britain seems to get fed up with Governments relatively quickly and despite the Conservatives eighteen years in power in the 80s and 90s, they were certainly going to be ousted sooner or later by a disillusioned electorate. It goes without saying that Governments of whatever colour are never going to solve all the problems they are faced with so their reign will always come to an end. I don’t dislike Gordon Brown. Again, I think he’s in politics for the right reasons and I find his seeming discomfort in the media spotlight quite an endearing quality. Although I’ve never voted Labour, I thought about all the good changes that have happened since they came to office (minimum wage, civil partnerships, investment in schools and hospitals) and I believe they genuinely want to create a more equal and fair society (okay, so in some respects they’ve failed miserably but I think this is more to do with the financial clout of big businesses and their lobbyists). I remember what life was like under eighteen years of Conservative government and I feel sick at the thought of returning to it.

Which brings me on to the Conservative party conference. There are characters in the Conservative party that I really like; David Davis and Ken Clarke for instance. But David Cameron really worries me. I’m currently writing a book on critical thinking and yesterday was writing a section on assessing the credibility of a source. One of the criteria was background experience and knowledge. I’m thinking in relation to Cameron’s experience and knowledge of what it is like to be the average citizen of this country, to have had to take out student loans, work for a low wage, and provide for a family on it. When his world view is so fundamentally different to that of the ‘average’ person, how can he possibly make decisions that will benefit them rather than big businesses and their rich directors. What really incensed me this week was that the Conservatives are aiming to cut the wages of public sector workers in response to the immense damage caused by the greed of investment bankers which was bailed out by the taxpayer and these public sector workers. This, more than anything else, seems totally unfair and unjustifiable. It might be possible to argue that  Governments only really have control over their own employees, but for the Conservatives to capitulate to multi-national corporations and banks and punish the public sector instead is very troubling indeed.

There’s part of me that thinks no-one could possibly vote for the Conservatives next year and I wonder who is making up all these polls saying they’ve got a double points lead. But then I remember that at least two of my housemates say they’d vote Conservative and a good friend of mine has recently joined the Party so perhaps it’s me that’s out of sync with the general mood.

IAAF insensitivity over Semenya statement

Hours prior to the women’s 800 meter final, the IAAF released a statement asking South Africa to determine the gender of their athlete, Caster Semenya. Semenya had already breezed through the semi-finals and was expecting a podium position in the final, but the timing of the IAAF statement was heavily criticised as wholly insensitive and unnecessary. The IAAF conceded that questioning the sex of an athlete is a very difficult issue but they appeared to demonstrate further insensitivity to Semenya by suggesting that she hasn’t been accused of cheating as she may be unaware that she is not female.

Whether Semenya was aware of the media furore that was being created over the IAAF statement is not known, and fortunately it didn’t appear to have a detrimental effect on her result in the final as she finished first, a full two seconds ahead of her nearest rival. But the effect that the statement and interest subsequently generated from it is sure to cause concern, not least to Semenya herself. Since sex and gender, in our society, is one of the most fixed categories since birth and one of the fundamental tenets of our identity (nearly everything we do is labelled by our gender) to cast aspersions on it is to challenge the very core of who we are. This whole case, unfortunately, highlights the problem with maintaining the binary categories of male and female; categories challenged recently by Gerald Callahan in ‘Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the myth of two sexes‘. Callahan provides solid evidence that sex is a spectrum not a binary (or tri, if you want to include hermaphrodites) category. Taking Callahan’s argument seriously would cause serious problems for international sport which relies heavily upon the premise that only two sexes exist. This accounts for the IAAFs awkward and clumsy defence of their statement when faced with what they view as a someone who doesn’t fit the ’standard’ mould.

This case highlights two issues; first, the problems that occur when we divide the world into fixed categories leaving no space for grey areas in between, and second, and more importantly, the insensitivity that is created when a real, feeling, human being is questioned over a core part of their identity based on such interminable categories. The IAAF needs to realise that whatever their rules and world view, athletes should still be treated with the respect and dignity that all sentient beings deserve.

BBC Reith Lecture on Genetic Technology

I was interested to listen to Professor Michael Sandel’s perspective on the ethics of genetic technology in sport in this year’s series of Reith Lectures. Having spent three years writing my PhD thesis on the subject, for it to be brought to the forefront of public attention is welcomed. This is especially so when little real philosophical consideration is actually given to these types of issues and too much policy is dictated by an emotional gut reaction. Programmes like this highlight how philosophy is of real value in our daily lives.

And if you’re interested in hearing my views on the subject, then either visit my website and read some of my papers, or get in contact with me directly.

Why I love Transworld Sport

I’ve just uploaded a post to the Philosophy of Sport blog that I contribute to where I exhort the merits of the wonderful programme of Transworld Sport. Since I don’t want to repeat myself here, I’ll just include a link…

Tragedy in coaching dangerous sport

I’ve just finished reading (and crying through) Ferreras’s ‘The Dive: A story of love and obsession‘ which is based on his own tragic experience of losing his wife and free diving protege in the process of breaking the free diving record, October 2002.

The book was recommeded to me by my PhD student Carl Thomen because as I mentioned in a previous post, I’m currently writing a book chapter on ethical issues in coaching dangerous sports. This real life case exemplifies many important questions regarding the responsibility of those coaching (and implicitly encouraging) other’s participation in something that has a high degree of risk attached.

Pipin Ferreras is a world champion free diver who taught his wife, Audrey Mestre, to sink to unimaginable depths on a single breath of air. Though Audrey found a desire and euphoria in the sport of free diving, it was arguably Ferreras’s competitive spirit which pushed her into making the fatal attempt of diving to 170 meters. Ferreras’s unrelenting drive shows up time and time again;

“So why not break my record?” I suggested. “Why not go for one sixty-three? If you do that now, you won’t have any trouble at all on October twelfth, when we do it for the books.”
“Gee, I don’t know,” she said, nibbling at her nails. “I don’t know if I’m ready.”

Later, Ferreras thought that she should try for even deeper:

I began to think that we were selling ourselves short. I didn’t understand why Audrey couldn’t shoot for 170 meters.

And after a successful 170 dive, he pushed for more:

I’d been obsessed with [diving] all my life, and I was suddenly more obsessed than ever.
“Audrey,” I said. “Why not go for one eighty-two? Six hundred feet even.” 

In reading the book it is obvious that Pipin adored Audrey, and it is also clear that Audrey loved the sport itself and consented to the dives she made. However, there is also a sense that Pipin’s bravado and competitiveness was the ultimate force that led to Audrey’s death. It is telling that whilst she says several times that she is not interested in competition or breaking records, Pipin on the other hand, can’t stand the thought of others being better than him. And it is after he suffers from one diving accident too many which puts his diving on hold, that his focus on records becomes more dependent on Audrey. This is illustrated when he says to Audrey, “If you make it, I make it. You’d be doing it for both of us.”

Pipin Ferreras was twelve years older than Audrey and they met when she was 21. He was already an internationally renouned sportsman with high profile sponsorship and media coverage. She was finishing her degree in Marine Biology. One might say that Audrey was awed by Ferreras’s achievements and dominant personality. Ferreras himself concedes that perhaps her belief in her diving ability was solely founded in his own boundless confidence in her.

Nevertheless, despite all these reservations that one might have as to Ferreras’s role and responsibility in her death, it should not be forgotten that ultimately it was Ferreras himself that lost out. Audrey was as competetent as any adult could be in making decisions about her own life, and she was the one who freely consented to travelling down that 170 meter line. Whilst Audrey is no longer able to introspect on what-if, Ferreras will be reliving the event for the rest of his life. Yes, one might argue that Ferreras coerced an impressional young woman into attempting a deadly activity that he himself wouldn’t risk, but this to me seems to neglect the most important facts. We are all impressionable to some degree, we all have an achillies that if pressed in the right way by the right people, might make us do things we wouldn’t at another time. But then without this we wouldn’t be human and we wouldn’t be the person we are. And the picture that we get of Pipin and Audrey from Ferreras’s book shows human personalities in their most radiant of colour.

Why does Tesco have a separate ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ toys section?

This is a question that has been frustrating me for many years. Iit was several years ago that I first noticed that Tescos had separate aisles for girls toys and boys toys. It annoyed me so much that I actually bothered to find a member of staff to complain (much to the embarrassment of a friend I was shopping with at the time). Needless to say that the member of staff just looked at me with a baffled bemusement.

Several years later Tescos still displays the archaic belief that toys can be separated according to gender. Even now, every time I walk into the store and notice the differently labelled aisles my blood rises and I force myself to resist the temptation to question the store manager. (I resist because I am sure they won’t be able to provide a good answer)

I can think of no good reason whatsoever why a distinction between toys needs to be made. If a boy is attracted to a hair design set, or if a girl wants to play with some action figures, then on what grounds ought they be told that this preference isn’t appropriate for their sex? Preferences are exactly that: personal, subjective and axiomatic. I prefer cheese to chocolate, swede to sprouts, rugby to rounders, and skateboarding to sewing. If someone was to tell me that only boys eat cheese then I’d think they were a lunatic.

But there is also a serious side to this point. Undoubtedly it will affect the self-esteem and identity of those children (and perhaps their parents also) who are told that they are wrong in choosing particular types of toys. I was fortunate in having parents that were liberal minded enough to allow me to dress up in a cowboy’s uniform and run around with a cap gun, whilst my best friend, Ben, was quite happy pushing his pram full of soft toys. Ben, at least, is now a fully rounded and self-secured person. If Ben’s and my parents were liberal minded enough to avoid sex stereotypes over thirty years ago, surely it’s a tragedy that it hasn’t been fully embedded into ‘mainstream’ society today.

If anyone can think of a good reason why Tescos does this, then would they please leave a comment on this blog. Even better, if the directors or store designers of Tescos know why they do this, then please let me know. And if they can’t supply a good reason then please change your stores accordingly.

Coaching Violent and Dangerous Sports

I’m in the process of writing a book chapter on an edited work about ethical issues in sports coaching with Professor Stephen Olivier.

(I just gave an overview on wordpress and when I saved it, it disappeared apart from the first line above…. absolutely gutted!!)

(So, second time lucky… hopefully a shorter version.)

What we originally intended to do was to take a liberatarian position on coaching violent, dangerous and risky sports: essentially that if a person wants to put themselves at risk and in danger of serious or even fatal injury, then there is no obligation for a coach to intervene or prevent them from doing so.

However, after having thought about it for a while, I am now thinking that we may have to take a soft paternalist stance as it may be that the definition of a coach / instructor entails a certain degree of responsiblity towards those coached, even if just to make their athletes aware of the risks and the coach’s judgment of the athlete’s skill level and capacity to accurately assess their own ability and risk.

There are lots of questions all tangled up in this issue (which I wrote down earlier but I’m not going to do so again) so it may be that it becomes too much to deal with in a single book chapter.

Anyway, the reason for this blogpost is to ask if anyone had any thoughts, comments or suggested readings on this.

Why gym memberships are often unused

[This post first appeared on my myspace blog (now obsolete) in August 2006, but I thought it worthwhile keeping it and dumping it here]

After a summer of trying NOT to go to the gym, I finally succumbed and went to my local home town sweat bucket. It is a former Methodist Chapel and by my view, is worth a lot of more as a gym than it ever would as a church. But, hey that’s my atheistic sarcasm coming through. The reason I mention it is that it is the best gym that I’ve ever been to, and I’ve probably been to about 20 or so over the last 15 years. Take this morning for example: I only go when I’m down visiting my parents and I haven’t been there since Christmas, and yet nearly everyone in there remembered me and bothered to talk to me. Needless to say that an hour’s session took near-on twice as long. The thing I really like about this gym is that it has a real mix of people there from the 65 year old lady who tells everyone how she went into her bank’s local branch the other day to find that they no longer had any customer service representatives and she would have to travel an extra 5 miles to the nearest industrial estate, to the serious power lifter who is training for a national competition. This morning for instance, there was middle-aged (and overweight) woman who spent most of her time burning off calories on the rowing machine, a slim-built man in his 50s who remembered he lives in the next village to me and talked to me about how my village has a far better bus service than his, two skinny teenage brothers who were lifting lighter weights than me in an attempt to have the physique that would impress the girls, a national junior power lifting champion who told me that his band had been asked to supply one of the tracks for a video of the recent national surf championships, and a selection of other men in their 20s to 40s who helped me move my weights around and talked to me about my rugby playing days. As I said, I haven’t even set foot in this place for eight months and probably only go a few times a year. This, to me, is what a gym should really be about. There’s no flash machinery (one each of the cardio machines which are aging rapidly), no 6 screen television set-up (there is an old terristrial tv but it hasn’t been used for years), just a small environment with lots of free-weights and a few old machine weights, and a lot of very pleasant people that are always willing to chat. No wonder there are millions of people out there with little used memberships of the big impersonal clubs and fitness centres, when everyone is cocooned in their own mp3′d world and feeling like a hamster on a wheel, or worse still, a pre-programmed robot. Humans are social creatures, they need genuine social interaction to keep them motivated. Ultimately, if there were more gyms like the one that I went to this morning, the fitness of the nation would be a lot better for it.

Philosophy & Traffic Calming

This was first published a few years ago in my village paper following lots of controvery over the plans to build a traffic calming scheme. I thought I’d republish it here as it’s a perenial issue that rural villages have to deal with. It arose from a frustration that the County Council, in an attempt to solve the problem, decided to install an ‘urban’ solution in our village involving concrete kerbs and lots of steel signs – something that is antithetical to the value of living in a rural environment which allows an escape from this type of constructed space. The piece was also an attempt to spread my love of philosophy to my neighbours. Whether they appreciate it, I haven’t yet discovered.

Philosophy & Traffic Calming

For some time now, there has been controversy and dispute over the installation of traffic calming on School Hill: with some calling for more measures on other roads in the village (i.e. Greenwith Road) and others lamenting the ‘urbanisation’ of our rural highways.

So what can Philosophy offer to this debate? At the very least, although it may not provide a ’solution’ to the problem – for the whole disagreement revolves around differences of value – it may (as the Cambridge Philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, suggested) help us arrange what we already know.

The best place to start is by setting out the problem. This appears to contain several factors:
–> The quantity of traffic: too much traffic is passing through the village.
–> The speed of traffic: drivers are not complying with the statutory speed limits.
–> The noise of traffic: associated with the speed and quantity of traffic.
–> Motorised traffic and pedestrians utilising the same space: the vulnerability of pedestrians.
–> Stationary traffic: parked vehicles reducing the space and visibility of other road users.

The solution to the first two of these problems (which were viewed as the major issues) on School Hill, was provided by the County Highways Agency who installed road humps and a chicane system at the top and bottom of the hill. This however, caused considerable dissatisfaction and objections on the following grounds:

–> Safety: as there was no separate pedestrian pathway at the top chicane, pedestrians found themselves in increasing danger from traffic manoeuvring (often with disregard to the presence of pedestrians) through the chicane.

–> Damage: at both chicanes, large vehicles were damaging the verges and hedges in order to manoeuvre through.

–> Aesthetics: the use of concrete and steel structures is inappropriate in rural roads.

However, it is only the first two of these that is of concern to the Highways Agency even though the objection on aesthetic grounds may be of equal merit. To this, the Highways Agency has now responded by improving the safety of pedestrians at the top chicane with the placement of a new concrete path. This has also reduced the damage to the verges.

This issue is of philosophical interest because it is concerned with value. A problem of safety, specifically to children attending the primary school, was deemed serious enough to warrant the cost of installing traffic calming measures along this road. The value of human life, it is argued, is of paramount importance above aesthetic concerns or damage to (local) environment. However, human safety is not the only concern; otherwise the whole area would have been pedestrianed off. Human safety must be balanced against other values; i.e. providing access, allowing people to travel to work, and the economic and financial costs of changes to infrastructure.

For the residents of the area, the aesthetic issues also seem to merit importance, particularly the argument that installing concrete kerbs, paths, and humps as well as the steel signage that goes with it, detracts from the quality of living in a rural environment (which is arguably to ‘get away’ from the highly constructed space in urban areas) and is therefore unacceptable. However, the issue of aesthetics is of no concern to the highway engineer who is simply following Government protocols regarding the reduction of traffic speed, particularly in areas with vulnerable populations, e.g. school children, in residential areas.

Perhaps the question then is; should the Highways Agency (and implicitly the Government) be interested in preserving the aesthetic quality of rural roads in addition to maintaining the safety of road users? If the answer is yes, then a practical approach needs to be considered that will balance both of these needs.

In order to answer this, let us consider the utopian scenario of life on School Hill. It may be one where there is minimal traffic, which abides by the speed limit, does not intimidate or put pedestrians at risk, on a road which is devoid of concrete infrastructure, markings or steel signage. In other words, it seems to be a picture of ‘yesteryear’ that is (perhaps unfortunately) not conducive with the world we now inhabit. However, such an approach has been taken in parts of Holland and France whereby small conurbations have been stripped of all road markings, pavements and the roads have been (re)constructed from stone. This has the effect of defamiliarising the motorist who becomes hesitant with the lack of right of way at junctions and unsure whether they are in a pedestrian area and has the effect that they slow down considerably or avoid the area altogether (Arguably this has occurred to a lesser extent in Falmouth Town Centre). Nevertheless, this is a high risk and high cost strategy. It may be that once motorists become more accustomed to the layout of this environment they become complacent and compromise the safety of other road users to a greater extent than before. Such a solution would require a radical change of approach if it were implemented over here. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that motorists consider their effect on the quality of life of their (metaphorical) neighbours and reduce their journeys, reduce their speed, and be considerate to pedestrians and other roads users. This would be one way of preserving that which we value: our safety and our environment.

As stated at the outset, the purpose of this piece was simply to try to arrange what we already know in order to be clearer as to where the discontent and dissatisfaction lies. This is all that the philosopher can feasibly do. It is up to those with the power and authority to weigh up the differing values and provide a justification for the decisions that they make. Furthermore, it is up to those that grant the power and authority (the electorate and citizens) to hold the decision makers to account on the basis of these justifications. This means thinking logically and precisely about exactly what it is that is valuable and worth preserving. This is where philosophy is of use to the ‘common’ man.

The responsibility of second home owners

I was disappointed to hear on the news today that there have been two hundred objections to the building of a jetty on the Helford that would enable local fishermen to conduct their business in an easier and more efficient way.
It appears that the vast majority of objections come from the owners of second homes in the area (which make up a massive 75% of the local housing stock) on the grounds that a jetty and the subsequent road to the jetty will reduce the aesthetic beauty of the area.
Now, I certainly don’t have an issue with the actual objection (for aesthetic quality of environment is related to the issue of well-being) but rather with those that are making the objection, i.e. those that are not trying to make a (small) living in that very area. By fortune or merit, those second home owners have (by definition) a substantial financial income or asset, and they are showing little respect or empathy with the local population. In a county that receives objective one funding from Europe for its relative deprivation, where wages are among the lowest in the country and the local population struggle to become home owners, the insensitivity shown by these second home owners is gut-wrenching.
Cornwall should not be seen as a playground for the rich to come down and enjoy the beauty it offers but rather a place where real people live trying to make their livelihood. And that is something I urge those objectors to remember.