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.
- RT @D_Blanchflower: The IFS has debunked David Cameron's claim that Labour would raise taxes by £3,000 ind.pn/1HX6XJJ 1 day ago
- What are the humanities good for? wp.me/p11K9d-1dK 1 day ago
- @jamesrryan Or patience… 2 days ago
- Lords accuse Tories of ‘burying’ review that cleared EU of interference | World news | The Guardian theguardian.com/world/2015/mar… 3 days ago
- Geopolitics of Translation - Books & ideas booksandideas.net/Geopolitics-of… 3 days ago
- What are the humanities good for?
- Things to Read
- Place, Space and Politics: New Book Series from Routledge
- Review of Blue Jeans: the art of the ordinary
- Affect theory: Ruth Leys critique in Critical Inquiry
- AHRC and 'Big Society': What's the story?
- What do cities have to do with democracy?