Sunday 4 May 2008

The Middle East and British Work Culture

A rather odd concoction to say the least, but bear with me...

In July 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed us, in the thick of another round of Israel vs Lebanon, we were witnessing the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." Au contraire Madam Secretary. A rather sadistic description of the death and destruction that was wreaked over Southern Lebanon as well as the death of over a hundred Israeli soldiers one may retort. Quite how the miracle of life has become synonymous with war crimes is beyond any intellectual or reasonable explanation.

It was Franz Fanon who articulated the 'culture of violence' thesis, which has effectively portrayed the developments of post-apartheid South Africa and many other nations, which also seems to have found currency within mainstream political discourse. Recently, an Iraqi lost her parents, her two brothers along with their pregnant wives and four nephews and nieces. Another lost her husband and three children aged six, four and two. A twenty four year old mother watched her 18 month toddler killed by a rocket. Whoever pulled the trigger, it seems the cement between Iraqis and violence has set (see here).

How are such tragedies treated by politicians? "Unfortunate," "unintentional," and most prolifically, "unavoidable." If these events are continually marginalised, outrightly dismissed and even contested in the public arena, is there any wonder that those on the ground behave as equally dismissively, immune to the repercussions (psychological and others) of their actions? More pertinently, are they then justifiable if they see no moral deficit in such actions? (Applying equally to nation states too.. Abu Ghraib, Srebrenica, Qanaa - let us not have amnesia, intentional or otherwise)

Secretary Rice believes it is "an achievable goal to have an agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis by the end of the year." Effective political discourse requires a cohesion of sorts between rhetoric and action, which also serves to espouse intentions. Hence, whilst settlements continue to expand, the wall continues to grow and rights are not fulfilled one is entitled to question this. Apologies Madam Secretary, but US actions are not matching your rhetoric, whose being disingenuous I hear you whisper?

In the local news one comes across a rather interesting assessment of the new British work culture that is gripping us. Apparently we work so hard, we forget to take care of our children prompting schools to remain open office hours, 8am to 6pm. Children receive their breakfast, lunch and probably dinner at the hands of the state. Is this simply work culture? Or is it economic survival? Materialism, consumerism and self-indulgence one may also suggest. Many parents work hard to give their children a more pleasurable life, no doubt, but with the recent spate of child killings (Rhys Jones etc.) one wonders whether we prefer for our children a material life or alternatively, no life at all!

So how does the latter relate to the former, or is this all hopscotch? Family life underpins society, and in both the above cases whilst a strong, morally upright and ethical framework does not exist amongst family relations, one can not expect social cohesion and social rectification to ward off bombs, knives, ASBOs or teenage killings.

"Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anybody to this country and to mankind is to bring up a family" : George Bernard Shaw

No comments: