Karen Armstrong - SOF and TED

Years and years ago, I bought Karen Armstrong's A History of God; it was the early 90's and she had begun to make a name for herself. This book, as I recall, is still about the historical roots of the monotheistic religions and their construction. Armstrong analyzed the theology as it were. By now she has developed to something more: a criticism and a proposed alternative.

This was the subject of her talk at TED and this also brought her to Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett. What I find attractive that in all instances, Armstrong lumps the three monotheistic religions together and given the chance, chips in some Buddhism as well. Her quest is not for theological doctrines, her quest, if I have to put it in my own words, is what religions have to offer to people. In the end she emphasizes, again in my words, the existential importance of faith, the experience, the effect on emotions and conduct. For her, religion must and can improve the quality of life and in this respect they do not differ and in this respect, those three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have so much in common, they nearly speak the same language.

In the interview with Tippett, she related her own spiritual path, from being a drop-out nun, to a secular theologian, a TV maker and eventually the writer and thinker she is today. This personal journey involves her own struggle with Catholic roots. This is tangible when she speaks of Paul, calling him Saint Paul. This may detach the non-catholic listener, but it is worthwhile to tag along. (audio, transcript, uncut audio)

One of the most important aspects of the religions and one that has gone lost in recent time, as she sees it, is compassion. This is also the subject of her presentation at TED.



More Speaking of Faith:
Wangari Maathai
Faith based diplomacy
Rachel Naomi Remen, (highly recommended)
Rumi,
New Evangelicals,
V. V. Raman.

More TED:
Ben Dunlap. (highly recommended)

Environmental history

For some time now, I have been following the podcast Exploring Environmental History. In the past days there was yet another installment, about the Flanders Moss, a marsh land (peat bog) in Scotland. I had a bit of a hard time, following the speaker, John Harrison, for he has an accent in his English too unfamiliar to me, but that is just my problem. So go ahead and listen.

I'd like to take this review to raise another point. To ask what is Environmental History altogether. Somehow this is not so easy to pin point and in spite of the expert podcasts, this definition still hasn't made it, even intuitively, to my mind. The best I can say, is the history of how man has dealt with his environment through the ages.

Recently, I discovered a lecture series in Berkeley: ESPM 160AC American Environmental and Cultural History. The starting lectures attempt at addressing this issue. There are numerous examples given. They differ and therefore supplement those of the Exploring Environmental History podcast. But there is also some tentative definition coming up and this is a tad different to what I thought before. Environmental history is taking a specific environment, complete with its inhabitants and their culture as this is part of it, and considers the history of that environment. Like the history of the Flanders Moss. (Incidentally, as far as I could find out, this has nothing to do with the north of Belgium...)

More Environmental History podcast on this blog:
Climate Change in recent history,
Urban Air Pollution,
Apartheid and Environmental History,
Environmental History and South Africa,
Environmental History.

The denials of yesterday

UChannel podcast had yet again a lecture about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The speaker was Sylvain Cypel, the editor-in-chief of Le Monde and writer of the 2006 book Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse. Cypel tries to show how this conflict is governed in the minds of the parties involved.

In his version, the parties live in denial. They have not yet understood and accepted the facts in which they live and this governs their perception of the conflict and attitude in the conflict. The Israelis, as Cypel sees it, live in denial regarding to their force. They are not aware of their power and relative security. They have a reflex to reach to the use of force as a means in foreign policy. They cannot accept a position other than of dominance. They keep denying that does not work and they are not so weak that they need it. Hence they fail to engage in peace policy with a refrain of force and a basis of parity.

The Palestinians, alternately, deny they need to build society. The deny their leaders have failed to do so thus far. Even if they voted Hamas as a protest against Fatah, they still do not actively seek to build society. Hence they cannot have a state and cannot become a full partner in a peace process. The outlook is very grave.

I find this view akin to what is expressed by the title (and contents) of Benny Morris's book Righteous Victims, where the bottom-line is that both side cherish their victimhood and use this to justify their policies. All of these analysis (plural) have in common that they stress how the conflict is governed by perceptions. How different narratives are fed to serve the cause. As James Sheehan days it in the podcast History of the International System, the atrocities committed in the conflict only serve to reinforce the narratives.

The only grain of hope Cypel offers is that where there is denial, there is always also some suppressed knowledge this IS denial, that facts are actually other than widely assumed. And when this is called upon, the public is relatively easily capable of making the switch. This allowed for talks with Arafat in 1993, when before, until then, the standing portrayal of Arafat for the Israelis was that of the new Hitler. But when the Oslo accords began, the public was capable of accepting that Arafat was not really a new Hitler.

More UChannel:
Nuts and bolts of empire,
Islam meets Europe,
The rise and demise of Palestine,
Alan Johnston,
Nuclear Terrorism.

Drugged history

Dan Carlin released another issue of Hardcore History. Before he gets to the subject (History under the influence) he reveals his intent to release more shows and identifies the current show as a 'blitz' show. This terminology seems to indicate a shorter and more swiftly produced show. However, it really seems like a regular show to me. In any case, even if it is a bit shorter, the show is by no means too short and it has all the qualities Dan Carlin normally brings to his history show: great narration, provoking thoughts and an engaged speaker.

So, where did our history receive a turn as a result of substance abuse? Dan Carlin mentions quite a few. From World War II he reveals the abuse of a several of the main players. Churchill and Stalin were heavy drinkers. Goering was hooked on morphine and Hitler was on speed. There are a couple of concrete examples where this may have had an effect. From antiquity, Alexander is put forth as the raging alcoholic. Another example is a specific event with Napoleon. Waterloo was a close call, where he could have won also. He had had stomach trouble and taken opium. Witnesses report he was sluggish and absent-minded on the day of the battle.

By the end of the show Carlin asks his listeners whether they can come up with more examples. My thoughts went to the 'jenevercrisis'. In 1960, the Dutch cabinet fell after one of the parties resigned. This has been ascribed to the heavy drinking that had gone on before the government went in session. Recent studies claim that it has probably not been jenever (Dutch gin), but more likely sherry or white wine, but by all accounts, plenty had been consumed and right after that, the politicians went in session and blew up the coalition.

More Dan Carlin's Hardcore History:
Apaches,
Assyrians,
Nazis,
Depression,
Succession in Macedon
and:
Dan Carlin praises Anne is a Man!

New Europe, Old Europe

In History 5, The Making of Modern Europe, 1453 to the Present, (feed), Professor Anderson proposes a somewhat different emphasis within 19th century imperialism. Not the greedy, megalomaniac, warlike, if adventurous land grab, but a whole other kind of expansion made the heavy point of this era. Europe's population grew much, much faster in the nineteenth century than that of the rest of the world. A large portion of the population decided to emigrate to the colonies. And here they didn't go for the land grab, but to make a life and consequently, they mostly moved into the open spaces and into the areas with a climate like Europe's. There they built a new Europe and this Europe lasted much longer than the colonies. North America, the south of South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand - they are still with us today and their populations are largely descending from Europe.

In Africa there were also open spaces, but this was just the scene of the more known version of imperialism. Actually, there is a very interesting explanation why the entry of Europeans into Africa happened so late. The continent is so near, but it was 'white man's grave'; disease. What did the native Americans in, was the protection of the native Africans. Non-Africans were not fit to deal with the microbes of the continent. What opened Africa up was the discovery of quinine. First in South-America, where it nearly extinguished its source, the cinchona tree and then, brought into culture, among others by the Dutch on Java, where the quality was best and the Dutch acquired a (near) monopoly on the quinine medicine, adding to their imperial wealth. (Lecture Europeans All Around: Globalization and Imperialism in the 19th Century; audio, video)

Imperialism back home in the old continent, in the mean time developed two power blocks; Germany and Austria-Hungary on the one hand and France, Russia and Britain on the other. While this operated as the 'concert of Europe' it could maintain stability. It survived a series of Balkan Wars, but eventually the conflicts spilled over and the powers marched to war - the Great War. Anderson meticulously explains this build up and I find it one of the very best narratives I know of the prewar period. (Lecture Shooting an Elephant: Why Europe Went to War in 1914; audio, video)

More History 5:
Women and Freud,
Romanticism and Bismarck,
Capitalism and Socialism,
Enlightenment and French Revolution,
Absolutism and Science.

Psychoanalysis - Shrink Rap radio review

My old favorite podcast, to which I am no longer able to keep the pace is Shrink Rap Radio. The psychology interview and talk show is cranking out issues at least once a week and maintains a remarkable high quality standard. Host David van Nuys is not only a good psychologist both scientific and in practice, but also a very professional podcaster with a great radio voice.

The 144th issue of Shrink Rap Radio tackles to good old, ancient ground of psychology, psychoanalysis. (Funny that my previous post should have been about a history podcast featuring Freud) Dr. Dave's guest is Fern W. Cohen a psychoanalyst who wrote the book From Both Sides of the Couch ... Reflections of a Psychoanalyst, Daughter, Tennis Player and Other Selves. Both in the book and in the interview she explains the development of psychoanalysis by Freud's followers into a direction which gives more and more attention to early child development and the relationship with the parent. She divulges her own relationship with her father, her admiration, her attempts of getting close to him and in a way to imitate him.

This is where psychoanalysis can help and Cohen makes a strong plea for serious in-depth analysis; the kind that has fallen out of fashion completely: three to five sessions a week for years on end. Dr. Dave mentions this has become nearly impossible unless you are very rich and willing to pay, for insurance is vying for the short term solutions. Cohen acknowledges, that the short term solutions can get people back on track, but claims that it takes much more intensive treatment to deepen the process and will do more than just get the patient back on track. She sort of paints a picture of people in need of a transformation, a growth, rather than a couple of skills to keep their neuroses in check and maintain a civil life.

The thought stuck with me, that although it seems plausible, more need to be done for people in need of mental support, than just to get them back into daily routine. The root of the problem should be treated. However, is that possible? Or in other words: will a shower of attention to the problem, help solve the problem? In any way, both a very personal and a very thought provoking podcast.

NB: This podcast has a transcript available (pdf).

Previous reviews of Shrink Rap Radio:
Conscious Living,
The Happiness Hypothesis,
Sign language for babies,
Doll Work and what with the brain,
Confronting Death (and more).