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.
- Bite Size Theory:@Behemoth wp.me/p11K9d-18V 1 day ago
- Bite Size Theory: Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future wp.me/p11K9d-18T 3 days ago
- Bite Size Theory: Define and Rule wp.me/p11K9d-18R 1 week ago
- Bite Size Theory: The Democracy Project wp.me/p11K9d-18O 1 week ago
- Bite Size Theory: Goldilocks’ Dilemma wp.me/p11K9d-18K 2 weeks ago
- Bite Size Theory: Behemoth
- Place, Space and Politics: New Book Series from Routledge
- Whatever happened to postcolonial theory?
- Favourite Thinkers VI: Michael Chabon
- Theorising emergent public spheres
- Is governmentality a dirty word?
- Lunch with Harold Wilson
- Affect theory: Ruth Leys critique in Critical Inquiry
- Marshall Berman RIP
- Arts of the Political by Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift: Review