Is the more or less grudging involvement of social theorists with the Libyan regime in the 2000s now shown to be an index of naivety, or stupidity, or venality? The involvement of David Held and the LSE has been much discussed this week, via Saif Gaddafi’s PhD, and an optimistic commentary by Anthony Giddens in 2007 unearthed. Rather more interesting perhaps is the democratic theorist Benjamin Barber, whose involvement with the Qadaffi Foundation is long-standing. Here is a comment by Barber in 2007 on the ‘normalisation’ of relations with Libya, around nuclear weapons and the ‘war on terror’ in particular. Barber has now resigned from this organisation, and this involvement is the basis of his rather sobering analysis of the prospects for democratization in Libya whatever the outcome of current events.
- ESRC Urban Transformations Pre-Call esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-gu… 1 day ago
- Why do academics blog? It's not for public outreach, research shows gu.com/p/3kp9z/stw 2 days ago
- Bite Size Theory: The Sources of Social Power (Volume 4) wp.me/p11K9d-1af 2 days ago
- Bite Size Theory: Turning Operations wp.me/p11K9d-1ad 4 days ago
- RT @PJDunleavy: Ron Johnston on remembering urbanist Professor Sir Peter Hall blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofboo… 1 week ago
- Is governmentality a dirty word?
- Are there 15 ways to be unhappy? Surfing Bruno Latour’s 'An Inquiry into Modes of Existence'
- Affect theory: Ruth Leys critique in Critical Inquiry
- Bite Size Theory: Religion and Rationality
- Bite Size Theory: How to be Gay
- Libertarian paternalism: where's the harm?
- Making Human Geography: New book by Kevin Cox
- Rancière at criticism
- Things to Read