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.
- Call to arms for shaking up social sciences relies on false premise that science alone can solve all social problems. blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocial… 7 hours ago
- Cities: where ‘form’ meets transformations | Development Progress | Amina Khan developmentprogress.org/blog/2014/10/3… 8 hours ago
- Getting old wp.me/p11K9d-1aJ 10 hours ago
- World Cities Day! unhabitat.org/wcd/ 18 hours ago
- Anti-Politics wp.me/p11K9d-1aF 1 day ago
- Growing Old
- Are there 15 ways to be unhappy? Surfing Bruno Latour’s 'An Inquiry into Modes of Existence'
- Is governmentality a dirty word?
- Workshop on the Politics of Participation
- YouTube Geography
- Whatever happened to postcolonial theory?
- On the underdetermination of 'neoliberalism' by evidence
- More on the critique of affect theory
- Local Politics I: Take This Town