It all feels so simple yet the forces that draw women and men together have been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis. Cathy Holding explores the rules of attraction
Friday, 12 September 2008
We all think we know instinctively what we find attractive in other people. Off the top of our heads, we will probably mention attributes such as facial appearance, physical build, mannerisms and behaviours. But how do we define physical appeal and attraction? What, precisely, makes an attractive woman or man?
The idea of applying scientific analytical methods to such questions may seem about as appropriate as analysing Shakespeare's love sonnets through the mathematics of rhythm and the structure of language and vocabulary to better understand their seductive effects. Nevertheless, breaking down the aspects of attractiveness into their component parts and then subjecting them to rigorous scientific testing has provided answers to many of the basic questions about the judgements we make in the first few moments of meeting a potential partner.
The psychological mechanisms underlying these judgements of attractiveness in humans have evolved with the primary purpose of finding a high quality mate. Animals display traits and receive multiple signals related to some basic physical quality or attribute and science shows we are not very far removed from animals in these respects. It might be interesting to take a moment and consider the things you would look for if you were, for example, about to embark on a speed dating mission to find the partner of your dreams. In a BBC internet survey of the top three most desirable traits in a potential partner, after breaking down the results according to gender, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness higher than women, while women preferred honesty, humour, kindness and dependability in their men. However, the latest research suggests men and women are completely unaware at a conscious level of what truly attracts them to another person. When a group of young people were asked about their preferences before a speed dating session, the usual gender difference was found, in that men said they would prefer good looking women while women would seek men with good earning potential and nurturing capabilities. However, as these people made their choices during the speed dating session, it became apparent that the gender divide had disappeared, and there was no difference in the number of men and women who were attracted to a partner through looks. Women were also much more choosey about the type of man they were attracted to, while men were far less discriminating. This is in line with the Darwinian theory of mate selection, with choosey females and competitive males. It seems that people are closer to animals than they might care to admit, and they are also intrinsically unaware of what they actually find attractive in a partner.
WHAT MEN FIND ATTRACTIVE ABOUT WOMEN
A pretty face
What makes a pretty face? Studies have found that average, symmetrical faces are attractive and it is thought they honestly signal good traits such as healthiness, including how well a person has adapted to the stresses of genetic and environmental development. Hence facial symmetry suggests "good genes". In a recent survey, women with symmetrical faces were considered to have more feminine facial proportions and such feminine features are considered to be more attractive.
This attractiveness is not just about looks though, because a study has found that feminine features are empirically linked to higher levels of oestrogen in women.
However, familiar or typical faces are also viewed as more attractive, while more unusual and distinctive faces are rated less attractive. Furthermore, seeing faces more often increases their attractiveness rating. Hence facial appearance is a cue to hormone levels in women but presumably only at the first meeting and providing the woman is not too distant, ethnically or genetically.
While facial symmetry is regarded as an attractive quality, most people don't actually realise they are looking for symmetry. Once again, unconscious mechanisms come into play in determining face preferences. This may help explain why the reasons behind attraction are often so difficult to describe.
The question of make-up
The link between attractiveness and hormone levels is lost when women wear make-up. However, both men and women judge full facial make-up to be more attractive than wearing no facial makeup. Men prefer women with full eye make-up and foundation, but lipstick is not necessarily considered an enhancement to beauty. Men find a greater contrast between the darkness of the eyes and lips and the lightness of the surrounding skin to be most beautiful.
Voice pitch
Men prefer women with higher pitched voices, even when artificially manipulated. A more recent report, however, indicates that men perceive raised pitch more attractive only if the women are demonstrating an interest in them. Breathiness when speaking is also considered to be a feminine characteristic women might therefore wish to consider cultivating a "Nicole Kidman" approach to speech.
Body shape
The question of body shape is a contentious issue. Studies have broken down the analysis of what makes a perfectly shaped body into body mass index (BMI), waist:hip ratio (WHR) (the circumference of the waist compared to the circumference of the hip), waist:bust ratio (WBR) and body weight. Curvaceousness, the hourglass shape, has also been found to be a factor.
There are many aspects involved in the perception and judgement of body shape that clearly cannot be measured in isolation. Motion and three-dimensional presentation affect the attractiveness of shape and weight, and provoke basic social perceptions of biological gender and health, and of fitness for particular environments. Hence measures of a woman's attractiveness vary depending on whether the she is in motion or is posing. Using the frequencies with which female celebrities star in film or in magazines as a measure for attractiveness, women with low BMI are more likely to be seen in film (and, therefore, in motion) but women with low WHR or WBR are more likely to be seen posing in magazines. A study examined the changes in idealised female body images in the media (such as Playboy magazine Playmates of the Year, Miss America Pageant winners, and fashion models) and young women in general over a period of eight decades. In the early and latter parts of the 20th century the ideal was for less curvaceous women, while during the middle decades the ideal was for very curvaceous women. Over the period studied, models tended to have smaller bosoms and hips, but Playmates had larger bosoms and smaller waists, indicating a difference between the media's ideal woman and that of men in the real world.
Bosom
Bigger bosoms are more attractive to men. We are probably all aware of that, but just to prove it, in one study a female member of a research team, wearing a bra that permitted her to vary her bust size, sat in a nightclub and on the pavement area of a bar for an hour at each location. She was approached by men more often while exhibiting the bigger bust. A similarly equipped female researcher was offered more hitch-hiking lifts from thumbing when she had a larger bosom, which may reinforce the idea that men do not offer lifts just to be kind and sociable.
WHAT WOMEN FIND ATTRACTIVE ABOUT MEN
As most men would agree, and most women would deny, hormones play a major role in female attraction to males. However, the degree to which hormones (and pheromones) play a role in attraction is much greater than women would perhaps care to discover.
Nesting instincts and hormones
Facial attractiveness in men signals better genetic stock, greater genetic variability and higher testosterone levels. However, men who are genetically good stock make poorer partners and parents than men of genetically lower quality. Very masculine facial characteristics larger jawbones and more prominent cheekbones suggest to women negative attributes relevant to relationships and paternal investment. The more masculine a face, the more the perceived dominance and negative behaviour aspects (such as coldness or dishonesty). Therefore women often prefer men with slightly more feminine faces. Men who possess the childlike features of large eyes, the mature features of prominent cheekbones and a large chin, the expressive feature of a big smile, and high-status clothing are seen as the most highly attractive.
So women in stable relationships are therefore with men of poorer genetic stock. Hence a woman might theoretically invest in a stable relationship but obtain high quality genetic stock by straying outside the partnership, most logically at her most fertile period. Most women (and men) would be shocked at such an inference, but the science points in that direction. In a study of partnered women, most found single men were most attractive only when they were briefly in their fertile phase; otherwise they were not attracted to them.
Women's preference for men who display more masculine traits varies with the menstrual cycle. Women prefer the odour of dominant men, and prefer men who act in a dominant fashion and who have more masculine faces, at the peak fertility time of their menstrual cycle, particularly at the follicular phase. It may be shocking, but women fancy men with the most masculine traits when they are most likely to conceive. One study found that this is linked to oestradiol levels, which track with a woman's preference for testosterone levels in men over the menstrual cycle. A group of genes called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) influence individual odours in men. If women prefer the odour of MHC-dissimilar males it is perhaps to increase genetic diversity in their offspring or to reduce inbreeding. Women prefer the odour of men who are more dissimilar in MHC when they are approaching the most fertile part of their menstrual cycle. Women on the pill, however, do not demonstrate this preference, suggesting that the contraceptive pill might affect the choices made by women and hence fertility of the human species as a whole except of course that women come off the pill in order to conceive.
All this suggests that women may be driven to seek less attractive partners in order to provide a stable and nurturing environment for their children, but may secretly improve the genetic quality of their offspring through extra-pair matings with the most masculine and attractive men while at their most fertile. Either way, as with partner selection, and with how we define facial beauty, it appears that powerful forces are at work behind the scenes in our reproductive strategies, of which we are oblivious.
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE
So what can we do to make ourselves more attractive to the opposite sex? The simplest answer for women is to reinforce the gender difference. Everything men are attracted to in women points towards an emphasis on femininity. Therefore a woman should dress herself as femininely as possible, emphasise her feminine features and wear make up. In this day and age, that sounds almost sexist! Does it just come down to clothes? Science also tells us that smiling and eye contact make people significantly more attractive, to both sexes. As for men, if looking for a stable relationship, the opposite advice applies: reduce the gender difference both in looks and behaviour, and emphasise the loving and caring partner aspects. Both sexes should try to remember, though: it's the men who compete and the women who choose. If it's something else, you're doing it wrong.
Saturday, 13 September 2008
Thursday, 11 September 2008
If 12 ordinary citizens were not convinced of an airline bomb plot.....
Terrorists win if we lose faith in trial by jury
If 12 ordinary citizens were not convinced of an airline bomb plot, police and politicians have no right to contradict them
Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone Try it Now
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
Pakistan's Westward Drift
By Pervez Hoodbhoy
08 September 2008
Himal South Asian
‘Alif’ is for Allah
‘Bay’ is for bundooq (gun)
‘Hay’ is for hijab
‘Jeem’ is for jihad
‘Tay’ is for takrao (collision)
‘Zal’ is for zunoob (sin)
For three decades, deep tectonic forces have been silently tearing Pakistan away from the Subcontinent and driving it towards the Arabian Peninsula. This continental drift is not geophysical but cultural, driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its Southasian identity for an Arab-Muslim one. Grain by grain, the desert sands of Saudi Arabia are replacing the alluvium that had nurtured Muslim culture in the Indian Subcontinent for over a thousand years. A stern, unyielding version of Islam – Wahhabism – is replacing the kinder, gentler Islam of the Sufis and saints.
This drift is by design. Twenty-five years ago, the Pakistani state pushed Islam onto its people. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory; floggings were carried out publicly; punishments were meted out to those who did not fast during Ramadan; selection for academic posts required that the candidates demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and the jihad was emphasised as essential for every Muslim. Today, such government intervention is no longer needed due to the spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. The notion of an Islamic state – as yet in some amorphous and diffused form – is more popular than ever before, as people look desperately for miracles to rescue a failing state. Across the country, there has been a spectacular increase in the power and prestige of the clerics, attendance in mosques, home prayer meetings (dars and zikr), observance of special religious festivals, and fasting during Ramadan.
Villages have changed drastically, driven in part by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other Muslims who they do not consider to be Muslims. Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than were the Pashtuns, are now beginning to embrace the line of thought resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law (from one of the four schools of thought or jurisprudence within Sunni Islam) has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law.
Among the Pakistani lower-middle and middle classes lurks a grim and humourless Saudi-inspired revivalist movement (which can be called ‘Saudi-isation’) that frowns upon every form of joyous expression. Lacking any positive connection to culture and knowledge, it seeks to eliminate ‘corruption’ by strictly regulating cultural life and seizing absolute control of the education system. “Classical music is on its last legs in Pakistan; the sarangi and vichtarveena are completely dead,” laments Mohammad Shehzad, a student of music. Indeed, teaching music in public universities is vehemently opposed by students of the Islami Jamaat-e-Talaba, religious fundamentalists who consider music haram. Kathak dancing, once popular among the Muslim elite of India, has no teachers left in Pakistan, and the feature films produced in the country are of next to no consequence. Meanwhile the Pakistani elites, disconnected from the rest of the
population, comfortably live their lives through their vicarious proximity to the West.
School militarism
More than a quarter-century after the state-sponsored Islamisation of the country, the state in Pakistan is itself under attack from religious militants, and rival Islamic groups battle each other with heavy weapons. Ironically, the same army – whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad, and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam – today stands accused of betrayal, and is targeted by Islamist suicide bombers on an almost daily basis. The militancy that bedevils Pakistan is by no means confined to the tribal areas; it breeds feverishly in the cities as well. Pakistan’s self-inflicted suffering comes from an education system that propagates the jihad culture, which ceaselessly demands that Islam be understood as a complete code of life, designed to create in the minds of the school child a sense of siege and embattlement.
The process begins early. For example, the government-approved curriculum of a Class V Social Studies textbook prescribes that the child should be able to “Make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat”, and “Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan.” The material placed before the Pakistani schoolchild has remained largely unchanged even after the attacks of 11 September 2001, which led to Pakistan’s abrupt desertion of the Taliban and the slackening of the Kashmir jihad. Indeed, for all the talk of ‘enlightened moderation’, then-General Pervez Musharraf’s educational curriculum, passed down with some dilution from the time of Zia ul- Haq, was far from enlightening. Fearful of taking on powerful religious forces, every incumbent government has refused to take a position on the curriculum. Thus, successive administrations have quietly allowed the young minds to be moulded by fanatics.
As such, the promotion of militarism in Pakistan’s schools, colleges and universities has had a profound effect on young people. Militant jihad has become a part of the culture in college and university campuses, with armed groups inviting students for jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The primary vehicle for ‘Saudi-ising’ Pakistan’s education has been the madrassa. During the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, madrassas provided the US-Saudi-Pakistan alliance that recruits needed for fighting a ‘holy’ war. Earlier on, this role had been limited to turning out the occasional Islamic scholar, using a curriculum dating back to the 11th century with minor subsequent revisions. The principal function of the madrassas had been to produce imams and muezzins for mosques.
The Afghan jihad changed everything. Under Zia, with active assistance from Saudi Arabia, madrassas sprang up across the length and breadth of Pakistan, and now number about 22,000. The free room, board and supplies provided to students has always constituted a key part of the appeal to join these madrassas. But the desire of parents across the country for their children to be ‘disciplined’, and to be given a thorough ‘Islamic’ education, is also a major contributing factor.
One of the chief goals of the Islamists is to bring about a complete separation of the sexes, the consequences of which have been catastrophic. Take the tragic example of the stampede in a madrassa in Karachi in April 2006, in which 21 women and eight children were crushed to death, and scores more injured; all the while, male rescuers were prevented from assisting. Likewise, after the October 2005 earthquake, as this writer walked through the destroyed city of Balakot, a student of the Frontier Medical College described how he and his male colleagues were stopped by religious elders from digging out injured girls from under the rubble of their school building.
The drive to segregate the sexes is now also influencing educated women. Vigorous proselytisers of this message, such as Farhat Hashmi – one of the most influential contemporary Muslim scholars, or ulema, particularly in Pakistan, the UK and the US – have become massively successful, and have been catapulted to heights of fame and fortune. Two decades ago, the fully veiled student was a rarity on any university or college campus in Pakistan. Abaya was once an unknown word in Urdu, but today many shops in Islamabad specialise in these dreary robes, which cover the entire body except the face, feet and hands. At colleges and universities across Pakistan, female students are today seeking the anonymity of the burqa, outnumbering their sisters who still dare to show their faces.
The immediate future of Pakistan looks grim, as increasing numbers of mullahs are creating cults around themselves and seizing control over the minds of their worshippers. In the tribal areas, a string of new Islamist leaders have suddenly emerged – Baituallah Mehsud, Fazlullah, Mangal Bagh and Haji Namdar among others – feeding on the environment of poverty, deprivation, lack of justice, and extreme
disparities in wealth.
In the long term, Pakistan’s future will be determined by the ideological and political battle between citizens who want an Islamist theocratic state, and citizens who want a modern Islamic republic. It may yet be possible to roll back the Islamist laws and institutions that have corroded Pakistani society for over 30 years, and defeat the ‘holy’ warriors. However, this can only happen if Pakistan’s elected leaders acquire the trust of the citizens. To do this, political parties, government officials and, yes, even generals will have to embrace democracy, in both word and deed.
Pervez Hoodbhoy is a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad.
08 September 2008
Himal South Asian
‘Alif’ is for Allah
‘Bay’ is for bundooq (gun)
‘Hay’ is for hijab
‘Jeem’ is for jihad
‘Tay’ is for takrao (collision)
‘Zal’ is for zunoob (sin)
For three decades, deep tectonic forces have been silently tearing Pakistan away from the Subcontinent and driving it towards the Arabian Peninsula. This continental drift is not geophysical but cultural, driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its Southasian identity for an Arab-Muslim one. Grain by grain, the desert sands of Saudi Arabia are replacing the alluvium that had nurtured Muslim culture in the Indian Subcontinent for over a thousand years. A stern, unyielding version of Islam – Wahhabism – is replacing the kinder, gentler Islam of the Sufis and saints.
This drift is by design. Twenty-five years ago, the Pakistani state pushed Islam onto its people. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory; floggings were carried out publicly; punishments were meted out to those who did not fast during Ramadan; selection for academic posts required that the candidates demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and the jihad was emphasised as essential for every Muslim. Today, such government intervention is no longer needed due to the spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. The notion of an Islamic state – as yet in some amorphous and diffused form – is more popular than ever before, as people look desperately for miracles to rescue a failing state. Across the country, there has been a spectacular increase in the power and prestige of the clerics, attendance in mosques, home prayer meetings (dars and zikr), observance of special religious festivals, and fasting during Ramadan.
Villages have changed drastically, driven in part by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other Muslims who they do not consider to be Muslims. Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than were the Pashtuns, are now beginning to embrace the line of thought resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law (from one of the four schools of thought or jurisprudence within Sunni Islam) has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law.
Among the Pakistani lower-middle and middle classes lurks a grim and humourless Saudi-inspired revivalist movement (which can be called ‘Saudi-isation’) that frowns upon every form of joyous expression. Lacking any positive connection to culture and knowledge, it seeks to eliminate ‘corruption’ by strictly regulating cultural life and seizing absolute control of the education system. “Classical music is on its last legs in Pakistan; the sarangi and vichtarveena are completely dead,” laments Mohammad Shehzad, a student of music. Indeed, teaching music in public universities is vehemently opposed by students of the Islami Jamaat-e-Talaba, religious fundamentalists who consider music haram. Kathak dancing, once popular among the Muslim elite of India, has no teachers left in Pakistan, and the feature films produced in the country are of next to no consequence. Meanwhile the Pakistani elites, disconnected from the rest of the
population, comfortably live their lives through their vicarious proximity to the West.
School militarism
More than a quarter-century after the state-sponsored Islamisation of the country, the state in Pakistan is itself under attack from religious militants, and rival Islamic groups battle each other with heavy weapons. Ironically, the same army – whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad, and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam – today stands accused of betrayal, and is targeted by Islamist suicide bombers on an almost daily basis. The militancy that bedevils Pakistan is by no means confined to the tribal areas; it breeds feverishly in the cities as well. Pakistan’s self-inflicted suffering comes from an education system that propagates the jihad culture, which ceaselessly demands that Islam be understood as a complete code of life, designed to create in the minds of the school child a sense of siege and embattlement.
The process begins early. For example, the government-approved curriculum of a Class V Social Studies textbook prescribes that the child should be able to “Make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat”, and “Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan.” The material placed before the Pakistani schoolchild has remained largely unchanged even after the attacks of 11 September 2001, which led to Pakistan’s abrupt desertion of the Taliban and the slackening of the Kashmir jihad. Indeed, for all the talk of ‘enlightened moderation’, then-General Pervez Musharraf’s educational curriculum, passed down with some dilution from the time of Zia ul- Haq, was far from enlightening. Fearful of taking on powerful religious forces, every incumbent government has refused to take a position on the curriculum. Thus, successive administrations have quietly allowed the young minds to be moulded by fanatics.
As such, the promotion of militarism in Pakistan’s schools, colleges and universities has had a profound effect on young people. Militant jihad has become a part of the culture in college and university campuses, with armed groups inviting students for jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The primary vehicle for ‘Saudi-ising’ Pakistan’s education has been the madrassa. During the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, madrassas provided the US-Saudi-Pakistan alliance that recruits needed for fighting a ‘holy’ war. Earlier on, this role had been limited to turning out the occasional Islamic scholar, using a curriculum dating back to the 11th century with minor subsequent revisions. The principal function of the madrassas had been to produce imams and muezzins for mosques.
The Afghan jihad changed everything. Under Zia, with active assistance from Saudi Arabia, madrassas sprang up across the length and breadth of Pakistan, and now number about 22,000. The free room, board and supplies provided to students has always constituted a key part of the appeal to join these madrassas. But the desire of parents across the country for their children to be ‘disciplined’, and to be given a thorough ‘Islamic’ education, is also a major contributing factor.
One of the chief goals of the Islamists is to bring about a complete separation of the sexes, the consequences of which have been catastrophic. Take the tragic example of the stampede in a madrassa in Karachi in April 2006, in which 21 women and eight children were crushed to death, and scores more injured; all the while, male rescuers were prevented from assisting. Likewise, after the October 2005 earthquake, as this writer walked through the destroyed city of Balakot, a student of the Frontier Medical College described how he and his male colleagues were stopped by religious elders from digging out injured girls from under the rubble of their school building.
The drive to segregate the sexes is now also influencing educated women. Vigorous proselytisers of this message, such as Farhat Hashmi – one of the most influential contemporary Muslim scholars, or ulema, particularly in Pakistan, the UK and the US – have become massively successful, and have been catapulted to heights of fame and fortune. Two decades ago, the fully veiled student was a rarity on any university or college campus in Pakistan. Abaya was once an unknown word in Urdu, but today many shops in Islamabad specialise in these dreary robes, which cover the entire body except the face, feet and hands. At colleges and universities across Pakistan, female students are today seeking the anonymity of the burqa, outnumbering their sisters who still dare to show their faces.
The immediate future of Pakistan looks grim, as increasing numbers of mullahs are creating cults around themselves and seizing control over the minds of their worshippers. In the tribal areas, a string of new Islamist leaders have suddenly emerged – Baituallah Mehsud, Fazlullah, Mangal Bagh and Haji Namdar among others – feeding on the environment of poverty, deprivation, lack of justice, and extreme
disparities in wealth.
In the long term, Pakistan’s future will be determined by the ideological and political battle between citizens who want an Islamist theocratic state, and citizens who want a modern Islamic republic. It may yet be possible to roll back the Islamist laws and institutions that have corroded Pakistani society for over 30 years, and defeat the ‘holy’ warriors. However, this can only happen if Pakistan’s elected leaders acquire the trust of the citizens. To do this, political parties, government officials and, yes, even generals will have to embrace democracy, in both word and deed.
Pervez Hoodbhoy is a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad.
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
One thing is clear from the history of trade: protectionism makes you rich
However much Peter Mandelson bullies them, poor countries know his equation of fair trade and free trade is nonsense
-
- The Guardian,
- Tuesday September 9 2008
- Article history
It is not often that a bureaucrat makes a major scientific discovery. So hats off to Peter Power. The European commission's spokesperson for trade, writing to the Guardian last week, has invented a new ecological concept: excess fish. Seeking to justify policies that would ensure that European trawlers are allowed to keep fishing in west African waters, Mr Power claims that they will be removing only the region's "excess stocks". Well, someone has to do it. Were it not for our brave trawlermen battling nature's delinquent productivity, the seas would become choked with these disgusting scaly creatures.
Power was responding to the column I wrote a fortnight ago, which showed how fish stocks have collapsed and the people of Senegal have gone hungry as a result of plunder by other nations. The economic partnership agreement the commission wants Senegal to sign would make it much harder for that country to keep our boats out of its waters. Power maintains that "the question of access to Senegalese waters by EU fleets ... is not part of these trade negotiations".
This is a splendid example of strategic stupidity. No one is claiming that there is a specific fish agreement for Senegal. But the commission's demand that European companies have the right to establish themselves freely on African soil and to receive "national treatment" would ensure that Senegal is not allowed to discriminate between its own businesses and foreign firms. It would then be unable to exclude European boats. Is this really too much for a well-paid bureaucrat to grasp?
After that column was published, several people wrote to suggest that the problem is worse than I thought. Senegal's fish crisis is part of a bitterly ironic story. As Felicity Lawrence shows in her book Eat Your Heart Out, the people of Senegal have become dependent on fishing partly because of the collapse of farming. In 1994, Senegal was forced to remove its trade taxes. This allowed the EU to dump subsidised tomatoes and chicken on its markets, putting its farmers out of business. They moved into fishing at about the same time as the European super-trawlers arrived, and were wiped out again. So fishing boats were instead deployed to carry economic migrants out of Senegal. Lawrence discovered that those who survive the voyage to Europe are being employed in near-slavery by ... the subsidised tomato industry.
But this is just one aspect of a scandal that has been missed by almost every journalist in the UK. While we have been fretting about house prices and the Big Brother final, the European trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, has been seeking to impose new trade agreements on 76 of the world's poorest countries: the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) nations. Posing as "instruments for development", the economic partnership agreements threaten to beggar them.
The people of these countries know that trade is essential to pull them out of poverty. But they also see that unless it is conducted fairly, it impoverishes them more. Many are aware that the European equation of fair trade with free trade is nonsense.
Neoliberal economists claim rich countries got that way by removing their barriers to trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Ha-Joon Chang shows in his book Kicking Away the Ladder, Britain discovered its enthusiasm for free trade only after it had achieved economic dominance. The industrial revolution was built on protectionism: in 1699, for example, we banned the import of Irish woollens; in 1700 we banned cotton cloth from India. To protect our infant industries, we imposed ferocious tariffs (trade taxes) on almost all manufactured goods.
By 1816 the US had imposed a 35% tax on most imported manufactures, which rose to 50% in 1832. Between 1864 and 1913 it was the most heavily protected nation on earth, and the fastest-growing. It wasn't until after the second world war, when it had already become top dog, that it dropped most of its tariffs. The same strategy was followed by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and almost every other country that is rich today. Within the ACP nations, the great success story of the past 30 years is the country whose protectionism has been fiercest: during the 1980s and 1990s, Mauritius imposed import tariffs of up to 80%. Protectionism, which can be easily exploited by corrupt elites, does not always deliver wealth; but development is much harder without it.
Mandelson's attempt to deprive the poor nations of these strategies is just one of the injustices he is trying to impose. While he wants the ACP countries to eliminate tariffs on the import of almost all goods, Europe will sustain its farm subsidies. In combination, these policies could put millions out of work.
As Oxfam shows, he's also negotiating to let European corporations muscle out local firms and make privatisation legally irreversible, threatening people's access to health, education, water and banking. The ACP countries would be forbidden to impose tough capital controls in a financial crisis: the need for European companies to get their money out takes precedence over the economic survival of the poor. He wants them to adopt a plant-breeding treaty that bans farmers from saving their own seeds.
Mandelson tried to force all this through by last December, warning the ACP countries that if they didn't sign up by then, world trade rules would ensure that they lost their preferential trading status with Europe. The UN trade adviser Dr Dan Gay tells me that people in the talks between the European commission, Fiji and Papua New Guinea claim that "Mandelson shouted 'neocolonial style' at ministers, suggesting that they were so incompetent that they had to rely on foreign advisers". Mandelson's office says he "did express the wish to negotiate with ministers present, rather than their advisers. However, he did not shout 'neocolonial style' at anyone."
Either way, there is no question that the ACP countries have been bullied. In December their trade ministers published a joint statement deploring "the enormous pressure that has been brought to bear on the ACP states by the European commission". Over half of them refused to sign anything; the rest initialled draft agreements. Mandelson is still twisting arms, trying to force the treaties through as quickly as possible. Last week the Caribbean heads of state were due to commit themselves, but pulled back at the last minute; they hold a meeting tomorrow to decide what to do next. I hope they have the balls to tear the whole thing up and start again.
If the aim of these negotiations had been to enrich European companies at the expense of the poor, Peter Mandelson has done well. If, as the commission claims, the partnership agreements are "primarily conceived as an instrument for development", his interventions have been disastrous. He appears to have pursued these talks in the style of a 21st-century viceroy: no humanitarian concern is allowed to obstruct commercial interests.
In the short term, and within a limited frame of reference, the commission's tactics might enhance our self-interest. But we are better than this. If the people of Europe knew what was being done in their name, I doubt that one in 10 would support it.
Power was responding to the column I wrote a fortnight ago, which showed how fish stocks have collapsed and the people of Senegal have gone hungry as a result of plunder by other nations. The economic partnership agreement the commission wants Senegal to sign would make it much harder for that country to keep our boats out of its waters. Power maintains that "the question of access to Senegalese waters by EU fleets ... is not part of these trade negotiations".
This is a splendid example of strategic stupidity. No one is claiming that there is a specific fish agreement for Senegal. But the commission's demand that European companies have the right to establish themselves freely on African soil and to receive "national treatment" would ensure that Senegal is not allowed to discriminate between its own businesses and foreign firms. It would then be unable to exclude European boats. Is this really too much for a well-paid bureaucrat to grasp?
After that column was published, several people wrote to suggest that the problem is worse than I thought. Senegal's fish crisis is part of a bitterly ironic story. As Felicity Lawrence shows in her book Eat Your Heart Out, the people of Senegal have become dependent on fishing partly because of the collapse of farming. In 1994, Senegal was forced to remove its trade taxes. This allowed the EU to dump subsidised tomatoes and chicken on its markets, putting its farmers out of business. They moved into fishing at about the same time as the European super-trawlers arrived, and were wiped out again. So fishing boats were instead deployed to carry economic migrants out of Senegal. Lawrence discovered that those who survive the voyage to Europe are being employed in near-slavery by ... the subsidised tomato industry.
But this is just one aspect of a scandal that has been missed by almost every journalist in the UK. While we have been fretting about house prices and the Big Brother final, the European trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, has been seeking to impose new trade agreements on 76 of the world's poorest countries: the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) nations. Posing as "instruments for development", the economic partnership agreements threaten to beggar them.
The people of these countries know that trade is essential to pull them out of poverty. But they also see that unless it is conducted fairly, it impoverishes them more. Many are aware that the European equation of fair trade with free trade is nonsense.
Neoliberal economists claim rich countries got that way by removing their barriers to trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Ha-Joon Chang shows in his book Kicking Away the Ladder, Britain discovered its enthusiasm for free trade only after it had achieved economic dominance. The industrial revolution was built on protectionism: in 1699, for example, we banned the import of Irish woollens; in 1700 we banned cotton cloth from India. To protect our infant industries, we imposed ferocious tariffs (trade taxes) on almost all manufactured goods.
By 1816 the US had imposed a 35% tax on most imported manufactures, which rose to 50% in 1832. Between 1864 and 1913 it was the most heavily protected nation on earth, and the fastest-growing. It wasn't until after the second world war, when it had already become top dog, that it dropped most of its tariffs. The same strategy was followed by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and almost every other country that is rich today. Within the ACP nations, the great success story of the past 30 years is the country whose protectionism has been fiercest: during the 1980s and 1990s, Mauritius imposed import tariffs of up to 80%. Protectionism, which can be easily exploited by corrupt elites, does not always deliver wealth; but development is much harder without it.
Mandelson's attempt to deprive the poor nations of these strategies is just one of the injustices he is trying to impose. While he wants the ACP countries to eliminate tariffs on the import of almost all goods, Europe will sustain its farm subsidies. In combination, these policies could put millions out of work.
As Oxfam shows, he's also negotiating to let European corporations muscle out local firms and make privatisation legally irreversible, threatening people's access to health, education, water and banking. The ACP countries would be forbidden to impose tough capital controls in a financial crisis: the need for European companies to get their money out takes precedence over the economic survival of the poor. He wants them to adopt a plant-breeding treaty that bans farmers from saving their own seeds.
Mandelson tried to force all this through by last December, warning the ACP countries that if they didn't sign up by then, world trade rules would ensure that they lost their preferential trading status with Europe. The UN trade adviser Dr Dan Gay tells me that people in the talks between the European commission, Fiji and Papua New Guinea claim that "Mandelson shouted 'neocolonial style' at ministers, suggesting that they were so incompetent that they had to rely on foreign advisers". Mandelson's office says he "did express the wish to negotiate with ministers present, rather than their advisers. However, he did not shout 'neocolonial style' at anyone."
Either way, there is no question that the ACP countries have been bullied. In December their trade ministers published a joint statement deploring "the enormous pressure that has been brought to bear on the ACP states by the European commission". Over half of them refused to sign anything; the rest initialled draft agreements. Mandelson is still twisting arms, trying to force the treaties through as quickly as possible. Last week the Caribbean heads of state were due to commit themselves, but pulled back at the last minute; they hold a meeting tomorrow to decide what to do next. I hope they have the balls to tear the whole thing up and start again.
If the aim of these negotiations had been to enrich European companies at the expense of the poor, Peter Mandelson has done well. If, as the commission claims, the partnership agreements are "primarily conceived as an instrument for development", his interventions have been disastrous. He appears to have pursued these talks in the style of a 21st-century viceroy: no humanitarian concern is allowed to obstruct commercial interests.
In the short term, and within a limited frame of reference, the commission's tactics might enhance our self-interest. But we are better than this. If the people of Europe knew what was being done in their name, I doubt that one in 10 would support it.
Try Facebook in Windows Live Messenger! Try it Now!
Saturday, 6 September 2008
The Lost Chapter
No funds, says Centre. The Right to Education Bill goes cold.
ANURADHA RAMAN
One would have thought there would be no opposition to a Bill which will operationalise the fundamental right of a child to education. Far from it, the Right to Education (RTE) Bill has been getting tossed around for the last three years. Last fortnight, the Union cabinet met in the absence of an ailing human resources development minister, Arjun Singh, and referred it once again to a Group of Ministers (GoM) which will once again go through the bill with a fine-tooth comb. This exercise essentially means another delay.
Very clearly, the Manmohan Singh government, so focused on the N-deal and caught up with domestic concerns like the Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio, is showing no urgency vis-a-vis the RTE bill. As one minister who attended last fortnight's cabinet meeting put it, "We were very busy with the J&K situation and so we just didn't get the time to discuss the education bill." It's certainly not a priority with this government.
Further, Outlook has learnt from sources that the prime minister has his reservations about the bill. A group of educationists who met Manmohan Singh last year were told that funding the RTE would be a huge problem. One of them told Outlook that "the PM clearly pointed out the inability of the Centre to fund the RTE and (said) that some of the states were rich enough to implement it".
Inked out: HRD minister Arjun Singh
This is a view echoed by Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia too (see interview). This, despite the commission approving the bill last year. (It is learnt the majority view—in support of the bill—had prevailed then despite Montek's objections.) But his latest objection is that the bill's prime mover, the Union HRD ministry, has not weighed the financial implications of the state guaranteeing education to children in the age group 6-14.
Of course, there are financial costs involved. Estimates drawn up by the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) has it that an additional Rs 77,223 crore will be required in the 12th plan for the RTE to take off (about Rs 7,000 crore per annum or 0.15 percent of the GDP). Already, the 11th Plan allocation for the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is projected at Rs 70,000-80,000 crore. The RTE is targeted at the 20 crore kids in the 6-14 age group.
But looking beyond all this are a group of concerned academics and lawyers who say precious time is being wasted debating the financial implications. Says educationist Anita Rampal: "A central legislation is essential to lay down uniform norms for quality and standards of elementary education. This should be irrespective of a state's economic capacity and also to ensure conformity with constitutional values."
Noted educationist Anil Sadgopal says systematic attempts have been made to dilute the provisions of the bill ever since it was put to debate. He goes so far as to suggest that the bill is reflective of the neo-liberal policies of the state, as evident in the committee set up under Kapil Sibal when the minister requested that private schools be kept out of the bill's ambit. "What is the meaning of equitable education then?" asks Sadgopal.
According to him, the high-level group constituted by the PM concluded at its meeting that the Centre lacked funds and that the RTE should primarily be a state responsibility. Says Sadgopal: "It's not lack of resources but a government framework leaning towards neo-liberal policies like private-public partnership in model schools, stratifying the education system which keeps large chunks of children out etc that is responsible for the mess our education system is in."
It was in 1993 that the SC gave the historic Unnikrishnan judgement which gave all children up to 14 years the fundamental right to education.The court said the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution should be read along with the directive in Article 45 to provide free and compulsory education to children of 0-14 years.
Successive governments tried their best to obfuscate issues till the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act in 2002. This limited the state's responsibility to looking after children in the 6-14 age group. While the bill piloted by the nda government had glaring loopholes, it was assumed that when the upa took charge, education would be given its due. This would have meant every child below 14 was assured education in state-run schools. Not just that, private schools would ensure that 25 per cent of the seats were reserved for children from the weaker sections.
But not much has been done. While several private schools are not for reservation at all, even government schools are guilty. Delhi-based advocate and social activist Ashok Aggarwal gets at least half a dozen cases a day from children denied admission to government schools. He is hopeful the RTE will empower parents to fight the legal battles.
So what now? Science and technology minister Kapil Sibal, who presided over the previous GoM, will be taking another "hard look" at the bill. According to him, "We have to see what are the parameters that will be looked into by the courts, if it is challenged in the future." But isn't that exactly what the first GoM had deliberated upon?
ANURADHA RAMAN
One would have thought there would be no opposition to a Bill which will operationalise the fundamental right of a child to education. Far from it, the Right to Education (RTE) Bill has been getting tossed around for the last three years. Last fortnight, the Union cabinet met in the absence of an ailing human resources development minister, Arjun Singh, and referred it once again to a Group of Ministers (GoM) which will once again go through the bill with a fine-tooth comb. This exercise essentially means another delay.
Very clearly, the Manmohan Singh government, so focused on the N-deal and caught up with domestic concerns like the Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio, is showing no urgency vis-a-vis the RTE bill. As one minister who attended last fortnight's cabinet meeting put it, "We were very busy with the J&K situation and so we just didn't get the time to discuss the education bill." It's certainly not a priority with this government.
Further, Outlook has learnt from sources that the prime minister has his reservations about the bill. A group of educationists who met Manmohan Singh last year were told that funding the RTE would be a huge problem. One of them told Outlook that "the PM clearly pointed out the inability of the Centre to fund the RTE and (said) that some of the states were rich enough to implement it".
Inked out: HRD minister Arjun Singh
This is a view echoed by Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia too (see interview). This, despite the commission approving the bill last year. (It is learnt the majority view—in support of the bill—had prevailed then despite Montek's objections.) But his latest objection is that the bill's prime mover, the Union HRD ministry, has not weighed the financial implications of the state guaranteeing education to children in the age group 6-14.
Of course, there are financial costs involved. Estimates drawn up by the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) has it that an additional Rs 77,223 crore will be required in the 12th plan for the RTE to take off (about Rs 7,000 crore per annum or 0.15 percent of the GDP). Already, the 11th Plan allocation for the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is projected at Rs 70,000-80,000 crore. The RTE is targeted at the 20 crore kids in the 6-14 age group.
But looking beyond all this are a group of concerned academics and lawyers who say precious time is being wasted debating the financial implications. Says educationist Anita Rampal: "A central legislation is essential to lay down uniform norms for quality and standards of elementary education. This should be irrespective of a state's economic capacity and also to ensure conformity with constitutional values."
Noted educationist Anil Sadgopal says systematic attempts have been made to dilute the provisions of the bill ever since it was put to debate. He goes so far as to suggest that the bill is reflective of the neo-liberal policies of the state, as evident in the committee set up under Kapil Sibal when the minister requested that private schools be kept out of the bill's ambit. "What is the meaning of equitable education then?" asks Sadgopal.
According to him, the high-level group constituted by the PM concluded at its meeting that the Centre lacked funds and that the RTE should primarily be a state responsibility. Says Sadgopal: "It's not lack of resources but a government framework leaning towards neo-liberal policies like private-public partnership in model schools, stratifying the education system which keeps large chunks of children out etc that is responsible for the mess our education system is in."
It was in 1993 that the SC gave the historic Unnikrishnan judgement which gave all children up to 14 years the fundamental right to education.The court said the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution should be read along with the directive in Article 45 to provide free and compulsory education to children of 0-14 years.
Successive governments tried their best to obfuscate issues till the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act in 2002. This limited the state's responsibility to looking after children in the 6-14 age group. While the bill piloted by the nda government had glaring loopholes, it was assumed that when the upa took charge, education would be given its due. This would have meant every child below 14 was assured education in state-run schools. Not just that, private schools would ensure that 25 per cent of the seats were reserved for children from the weaker sections.
But not much has been done. While several private schools are not for reservation at all, even government schools are guilty. Delhi-based advocate and social activist Ashok Aggarwal gets at least half a dozen cases a day from children denied admission to government schools. He is hopeful the RTE will empower parents to fight the legal battles.
So what now? Science and technology minister Kapil Sibal, who presided over the previous GoM, will be taking another "hard look" at the bill. According to him, "We have to see what are the parameters that will be looked into by the courts, if it is challenged in the future." But isn't that exactly what the first GoM had deliberated upon?
Once you reach a certain age, Confucius makes perfect sense
Howard Jacobson
Among this philosophy's attractive elements is its insistence that respect be shown to elderly men
Saturday, 6 September 2008
Here's an exciting thing – I've discovered Confucius. A bit late in the day, given that he is of the sixth century BC, but what's two and a half thousand years in the history of wisdom? I'm a confirmed Confucian now, anyway, though I can claim only second-hand knowledge of him, courtesy of Daniel Bell, a Canadian sociologist teaching in Beijing. And my knowledge of Daniel Bell is a bit circumscribed too, having only spoken to him down the line in a recording studio while making a programme for the World Service. I was there, since you ask, publicising my new novel, of which you can expect to hear more in future columns. But it is not set in China, that much I can tell you.
Monica Gray, a professor of planetary and space sciences, was also in attendance, carrying around with her a small particle of rock, very much like the grit I wake up with in my eye after a heavy night's drinking, the difference being that her rock was from somewhere in outer space while the mote in my eye is crystallised shiraz. I found myself envying Monica because she has an asteroid named after her. "Monicagrady", it is somewhat prosaically called. "Monicagradyprofessorofplanetaryandspacesciences" would have been more respectful but the asteroid might not be big enough to bear so many characters. Either way, I wouldn't mind having one named after me and my novel. "Howardjacobsontheactoflove". Or, more simply, if it won't take advertising, "Howardjacobsonconfucian".
Among the elements of Confucianism that attracted me in Daniel Bell's account were a) its Conservatism: a world-view which irons out the flaws of Liberal Democracy, that's to say its Liberal Democracy, but is not to be confused with Cameronism, a world-view that irons out world-views; b) its insistence that respect be shown to elderly men; and c) its reservations in the matter of educating the young to exercise critical judgement before they have the requisite knowledge and sagacity to exercise critical judgement with.
This latter goes against the grain with most Western educators for whom the exercise of the critical faculties is the very essence of a liberal education. Question everything before you know anything, we believe in the West. Knowledge exists only in your responses to it, therefore nothing "is"until your opinion grudges it into being. I held to this pedagogical principle myself once upon a time. "I have no interest in your regurgitating what you have gleaned from authoritative sources," I would tell a student, holding up his essay as though his dog had not only brought it in but written it. "I want you to demonstrate your capacity for critical thought. I know what others think. Only you can tell me what you think." And then when he told me what he thought, I wished he hadn't, so ill-informed, belligerent, and inconsequential was it.
I never solved the problem of inviting critical judgement from students whose critical judgements weren't worth inviting. I thought I was just unlucky in the students it fell to me to teach. But Confucius's point is that no one under 40 is ready to deliver what I asked for. And since I was under 40 at the time myself it is no doubt Confucianly true that I was not ready to ask for it.
Even outside the academy people ill-equipped to pass judgement on any matter whatsoever are empowered by our liberal democracy to believe their views have value. Only look at what passes for conversation on that cesspit of ignorance and vituperation we call the blogosphere. Confucius he say, "Get a life before you get an opinion." To which, were he to post it on the internet, he could expect responses raging from "You're a disgrace to Shandong Province", to the more considered "Up yours, you slant-eyed fuckwit".
But then, to return to the academy, how do you distinguish intellectual possession requisite to the slow formation of critical judgement from plagiarism? And is it quite the case, anyway, that you can possess knowledge, of a poem or the work of a philosopher, say, that does not entail evaluation of some sort? How Confucianism sorts these thorny issues out I will report when my studies are further advanced.
Confucius he also say, in the meantime, "I have yet to meet anybody who is fonder of virtue than of sex." This makes it a trifle tricky for him to proceed with his other proposition that the over-40s are likely to make sounder moral judgements because they are less enslaved to sexual desire. But perhaps he means that while everybody remains fonder of sex than they do of virtue, the fondness of the over-40s is tempered by repetition and fatigue. Though not, apparently, if you are David Duchovny who has just put himself into rehab for sex addiction.
Help me here, Confucius. What's sex addiction? The question is not designed to solicit salacious detail, I simply wonder how you can tell sex addiction apart from living, of which a sizeable component is today, as it must have been in sixth century China, sex. Questioned by The Washington Post, an organisation called the Mayo Clinic – which sounds more like a place for treating addiction to Prêt à Manger sandwiches – cites rampant promiscuity, an over-interest in pornography, the use of sex to escape stress or depression, and difficulty with emotional intimacy. You see my problem. Who ever didn't use sex to escape stress or depression? And since sex can often leave you even more stressed and depressed than it finds you, who was ever free of the cycle which the Mayo Clinic calls addiction?
And who, come to that, finds emotional intimacy easy? Isn't it meant to be difficult? Isn't that what adds value to it? And don't we call those who can't stop drifting into emotional intimacy promiscuous, which sets up a nice little circle of sex addiction, from which none of us – neither the imperturbable nor the vexed – can ever claim to be free. It's life. But then no doubt there are clinics out there which treat addiction to that.
My new novel, as it happens, is about addiction. Sex addiction, life addiction, wife addiction. I suspect it would not have been to Confucius's taste. He argued in favour of polygamy and a polygamist can't really be a wife addict in the sense of being addicted to just one. So it could be there are advantages to living in a Western liberal democracy after all. Or it might simply be that we are all more comfortable with the socio-sexual derangements we know.
Try Facebook in Windows Live Messenger! Try it Now!
Friday, 5 September 2008
Down with school: children are best educated at home!
This week need not be back-to-school week. Parents as well as their kids can benefit from home education
Try Facebook in Windows Live Messenger! Try it Now!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)