Author: heje202

Prof. Neville Morley (Classics and Ancient History), Dr Kate Hext (English) & Dr Joseph Sweetman (Psychology)

Read below to find out about this Development Fund project, led by prof. Neville Morley.

‘Decadence’ – labelling a kind of behaviour or even an entire culture as decaying and corrupt, a sign of imminent collapse – is rarely taken seriously as a way of thinking about politics. The term is too obviously polemical and rhetorical, associated with rabble-rousing and invective – where it is not simply limited to aesthetic movements of the late nineteenth century or to advertisements for ice cream and chocolate cake. However, the fact that idea is rhetorical does not mean it is therefore irrelevant; clearly it has power to arouse emotions or shape people’s understanding, as seen in the denunciations of ‘Western decadence’ offered recently by both Vladimir Putin and right-wing commentators on the themes of ‘wokeism’, gender identity and ‘Great Replacement Theory’. The claim that the state, society, nation or civilization is in a state of decay has represented both a source of anxiety and an approach to analysis of the present since classical antiquity, and continues to appeal to at least some audiences.

This project brought together researchers from a range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences – political theory, the history of ideas, literary studies, the analysis of contemporary right-wing movements and online communication, and classical reception – to explore ‘decadence’ seriously as a political and cultural theory. Each workshop involved prepared contributions from experts in different fields, exploring how their areas of study might contribute to the examination of the overall tradition of understanding society in such terms, in different periods and contexts. The first workshop considered ‘classical’ decadence; not just the familiar tropes of the ‘Decline and Fall’ of the Roman Republic and Empire, which have long served as a model for ideas of the symptoms and effects of decadence, but the earlier ideas of Greek political thinkers about the life-cycle of political regimes and the forces that lead to crisis and decay in the polity. The second workshop then examined the ways that such ideas were taken up and developed in post-Renaissance Europe, with the first explicit theories of ‘decadence’ in French authors like Montesquieu and Rousseau and the deployment of Roman history (especially the rise of Caesar and the invasion of barbarian hordes) in commentary on contemporary events.

The third workshop brought the discussion up to date through different perspectives on 20^th-century and contemporary right-wing movements, comparing the rhetoric of decadence – and the implied need for revolutionary violence in order to restore the ‘natural’ order and health of the nation – from Nazism and Italian fascism via the French ‘New Right’ of the 1970s to present-day political campaigns and online chatrooms. This included discussion of the nature of the appeal of such ideas, and the question of how far understanding their intellectual roots could help combat them. The final workshop, devoted solely to discussion, returned to these themes, with the sense that ‘decadence’ offered one response to the crises of liberal democracy and capitalism – mostly, but not exclusively, a right-wing response – that framed the problem in a particular manner in order to aggregate different fears and grievances into a single movement and exhort it to action against a society perceived to have been captured and betrayed by different enemies.

The workshops were held online, allowing the participation of researchers from the USA and continental Europe as well as different parts of the UK. We agreed that there clearly is a significant topic here that requires further research, and identified a range of key themes, issues and problems to be addressed; key participants are now working together, under the leadership of Prof Morley, to develop funding proposals for further networking events and research activity, which will cover not just the history of the concept and its theoretical parameters but also empirical research into the nature of its appeal and concerted efforts to ensure its impact on current responses to societal threats.

Blog by prof. Neville Morley.

On 23^rd May over 60 people joined an online seminar co-organised by Routes and International Institute for Cultural Enquiry (IICE) to hear an outstanding panel of legal practitioners and academics to discuss the UK government’s response to the Ukraine refugee crisis in the wider context of its refugee policy.

The seminar opened with John Vassiliou, solicitor and founder member of the Ukraine Advice Network, explaining the two schemes that apply specifically to Ukrainian nationals – the Homes for Ukraine Scheme and the Ukrainian family scheme – and the practical problems of implementation, particularly the continuing need for a visa to enter the UK.  Miranda Butler, barrister and another founder member of the Ukraine Advice Network, put these into the context of the government’s wider policy agenda, including under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, of making asylum claims much more difficult for those who arrive in the UK from other countries.

Alison Harvey, barrister and a former legal officer of Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, widened the discussion by drawing on her many years’ experience of working with parliamentarians to explain how, since 1993, governments have progressively eroded the support and services offered to refugees seeking asylum in the UK. Colin Yeo, barrister and founder and editor of the Free Movement website, managed to provide within one short presentation a comprehensive historical view of the selective welcome given to groups seeking refuge over the past centuries. Finally, Professor Audrey Macklin from the University of Toronto compared the approach taken in Canada towards Afghan and Ukrainian refugees, observing that the apparently less protective scheme for Ukrainian refugees is, in practice, more effective.

These powerful presentations ended with a discussion. If there is a single message to take from the seminar, it is that the universal right to seek asylum, while well represented in international law, has been given effect only partially and selectively.

 

About the panel:

Chair: Helena Wray – UoE Routes: Migration, Mobility and Displacement Network

Speakers:

John Vassiliou – Shepherd and Wedderburn

Miranda Butler – Landmark Chambers

Alison Harvey – No5 Barristers Chambers

Colin Yeo – Garden Court Chambers

Professor Audrey Macklin – University of Toronto

Ashish Ghadiali is a writer, film maker, activist; he is co-chair of the Black Atlantic Innovation Network and visiting fellow of the Global Systems Institute (GSI).

On Thursday April 7th 2022, Ashish kindly offered up two hours of his time to present on The Climate Justice Paradigm, an eye-opening seminar on the failings of the existing dominant climate justice paradigm and the need (now more than ever) for a newly emerging paradigm. The seminar was chaired by Katie Natanel from the Exeter Decolonising Network (EDN), who introduced Ashish with a great amount of praise.

Ashish simultaneously takes us on a global and philosophical journey which challenges pre-conceived notions of the climate crisis and argues for a different perspective that truly puts climate first and everything else second. As he explains in a final point, if we don’t tackle the issues of climate change now, we will watch all other systems break down because they are so interconnected.

A paradigm shift, says Ashish, began in 2019 with the sudden rise in young activists becoming involved in climate justice protests and strikes. Young people brought a new voice and a fresh perspective onto the scene, one that popularises James Lovelock’s idea of thinking of the earth as a unique ecosystem – a moving, living, whole organism. Ashish’s first bout of optimism comes here, as he explains how we are in an exciting (not a despairing) moment in time where humans are becoming conscious of the earth in this way, which allows us to now work towards finding solutions.

Focus then moves to climate justice; to the social and cultural inequalities/conflicts that are inextricably linked to climate issues. Ashish shows us two maps of the world, one of social conflict, the other of climate vulnerability – they are almost identical. The new climate justice paradigm Ashish advocates shows us that where we see climate change, we see the ongoing impacts of colonial empires. Carbon, for example, has its own history; economic infrastructures have been created from its emissions and those who benefitted the most (e.g. British and European empires) were least affected by its impacts, while those who benefitted the least were the most affected. This trend is equally transparent today as Ashish relates that when wealthier countries negotiated the carbon emissions target in Copenhagen in 2009, the lives and deaths of millions of island residents were in their hands. Ashish posits that we may be heading towards even greater inequalities as climate inaction – what some are calling “delayism” – continues. Even though the immense damage caused by fossil fuel mining may now be waning, the exploitation of environments in search for minerals for renewable energy sources, and the impacts on local populations, is only just beginning.

Ashish inevitably speaks of the failings of the 2015 Paris Agreement and reiterates the point made by innumerable scientists, environmentalists, climate activists etc. that we are in a “now or never” moment. This, he argues, is our last chance to lower global warming levels to 1.5c (currently we are on track to hit 2.7c), or there will be a climate catastrophe whereby vast swathes of the world will be uninhabitable. Here Ashish seems to be at risk of sounding like a broken record, however, he manages to maintain an ultimately positive outlook, as he relates to us that more and more, the question being asked is whether a language of optimism (as opposed to catastrophe) ought to be implemented when approaching climate issues and climate justice.

This optimism feeds into the new climate justice paradigm, which Ashish tells us starts with thinking differently about the question of vulnerability. Currently, it’s typical of both individuals and collectives to see vulnerability solely as a security risk, though this puts us on a footing where inequalities are only exacerbated. Climate justice has emerged as a paradigm to challenge and oppose this dominant framework within which we operate. The example Ashish uses to demonstrate a different perspective on vulnerability is the recent “vaccine apartheid” seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereby more vulnerable countries (e.g. Cuba, Senegal, Vietnam) actually found themselves in a stronger position than wealthier countries (e.g. US, UK). The new climate justice paradigm seeks to address vulnerability both in wealthier and poorer countries and understand what it means to do this.

Ashish hopes that the research that is coming out of this paradigm shift will lead to conversations around understanding the cost-benefit of massive early climate investments, which will help to establish a common-sense basis for such investment. Interestingly, when posed the question of (greatly paraphrased) ‘Is capitalism the problem?’, Ashish’s answer was neither yes nor no – instead, he advocated a strategy of cooperation and collaboration. His response is emblematic of the climate justice paradigm, as well as of himself.

There will be several more opportunities to catch Ashish Ghadiali this year, including three upcoming webinars as part of the GSI’s Equilibrium series (see here). You can also follow him on Twitter @ashishghadiali, where he regularly posts.