Liverpool 4-1 Arsenal

Thankfully I persuaded my dad to postpone collecting me until 3pm rather than midday, and it was well worth it as Rob and I were able to watch this performance (after a brief mix up about pubs).

After taking an early lead - thanks to some beautiful interplay between Pennant and Arbeloa, then Crouch's telescopic leg stretching in front of Toure - we never looked too troubled. Other than Adebayor (who did hit the post, and force Reina to tip another shot onto the woodwork) Arsenal never offered much attacking-wise, while at the back they were shambolic. The second came from a free-kick where Crouch finally won a decent header (if only he could use his height advantage more often) and then Agger was allowed a free run and header from a corner to make it 3-0.

After a brief period of somewhat sloppy play from us, I was a bit worried that Gallas' goal could prove to be more than mere consolation but start a comeback. Thankfully Crouch completed a classic hat-trick (right, head, left) to make sure of the points. We may be only two ahead of Arsenal, who have a game in hand, but our goal difference is now superior. The only blow was a possible injury risk to Gerrard - substituted quite early. Hopefully he'll be fit for Tuesday, but at least we were able to rest the likes of Riise, Finnan, Kuyt and Bellamy (though with Crouch in this form, I'd give him another chance up front)

Homeward Bound

Right, I'll be off to the pub to watch Liverpool v Arsenal, and then I'll be heading home for a week or so. Depending on how bored I am at home and the reliability of our computer (which I've been warned keeps crashing) I'll probably be online either a lot or not much at all...

Celebrity Lookalikes

Word Cloud

Since this blog's been quite active lately, I thought I'd update my word cloud (last one here) to keep track of content.

Ok, I'm supposed to be packing but procrastinating...

Again, provided by SnapShirts.

Justice etc

So, we're soon to have a Ministry of Justice. I'm trying to decide whether I'd be happier if it was a Ministry for Justice. Anyway, coming soon Minipax, Minitrue, Miniluv, and Miniplenty...

Mill Reading

My enthusiasm and productivity on the writing front seems to have run a bit low of late, but I've now finished preparing my Mill reading list for next term. Those with access to Weblearn can see it here.

Further Follow Up

Further now to my original follow up post:

Nick was kind enough to lend me Tom Holland's Persian Fire. It had quite an interesting account of the origin of Athenian democracy (pp.128-41). I still haven't got a clear overall timeline of the period, but it seems democracy evolved before Athen's naval power - which was engineered by Themistocles. Nonetheless, this doesn't invalidate my conjecture. The people were capable to standing up for themselves, and did so to secure the freedoms promised by Cleisthenes. Further, it is clear that aristocrats weren't too keen on naval developments, which seemed to threaten to maintain and even extend the importance of the demos.

I also got hold of Linda Colley's Britons. The reference to Bamford is on p.318, and her reference leads me to Life of a Radical page 19. Again, slightly unfortunately, there's little if any sign of the justification I want - it seems militia lists are justified as a practical record. However, there's no objection that, for example, they don't include women - it seems implicit that men who fight are the relevant voters. Further Colley goes on to cite William Cobbett, who does argue that the labourers of Britain are both responsible for its wealth and defence. It's not clear from what she quotes, but she writes (still p.318) "if all adult men were worthy to fight for Great Britain, then surely they had the right to take part in its politics as well? Cobbett certainly thought so".

Andorra 0-3 England

Not exactly convincing. Why isn't Gerrard captain? Despite scoring two and making the third for Defoe (who I guess counts as the final assist, after Nugent's tap in), I bet he'll be stuck outside again when Fat Lamps is back...

Oxford College Choice

A friend just asked me for advice for a friend of his on picking Oxford colleges. I thought I'd post my reply (slightly modified) here, since a) it may bring me traffic via Google searches and b) may then help someone (see, Adam Smith may have been right about the benefits of self-interest):

College choice is a tough one. It certainly *does* matter, they're not just halls of residence.

In terms of the Norrington table, the fact that some colleges do consistently well is probably due in part to having good applicants to choose from and in part to better facilities. At the poorer colleges, you may find you get more teaching from graduate students, or even fewer tutorials - not to mention the college library probably won't be as well-stocked and you're unlikely to be able to get as much money off the college.

It's worth considering things like not only the college's overall place but their reputation in the specific subject - e.g. Jesus (my college) seems to have been consistently good at chemistry in the time I've been here - and who the tutors are/what their interests are (though perhaps consider that a top professor won't necessarily spend his/her time teaching the undergrads even in their own college). Since teaching and admissions are mostly college-based, the tutors and their interests can be very important.

And also, don't just think academically. Think about the general atmosphere of the college - Do you want to be surrounded by public school boys? Rowers? Union hacks? (Or are you one of these people?) Would you prefer a larger college or a smaller one (which can be a friendly family or claustrophobic, depending on your attitude)?

In my case, the fact I looked at Jesus first was totally random really. It looked ok though, and crucially offered three years of accommodation. I did compare it to some others - some of which also offered accommodation - but none seemed clearly better, so here I am.

Finance-wise, it's good to consider not only availability of accommodation, but price, recent rent increases, amount of scholarships, any grants (even undergrads in Jesus can get money for books, travel and sport - don't know how it compares to elsewhere), food, etc.

I hope that's some help. At the end of the day though, while it certainly matters (makes a difference), almost everyone ends up happy wherever they end up (even 2nd choice colleges), so if you're unsure it probably isn't worth agonizing over - these are just things to take into account.

(Related link: my advice for getting into Oxbridge, admissions and interviews here)

McCain has his Chips

'Net head Mike D. plays a prank on naughty politican John McCain (via CT).

One Vote Per Issue (Bleg)

I'm trying to describe a possible voting system that gives people one vote per issue, but lets them divide those votes as they wish over a number of different issues. E.g., if we face votes on policies A, B, C, D and E then I get five votes – so if I care very strongly about D, marginally about B and not much about the other three, then I may cast four of my votes for D, one against B and effectively have no vote on A, C or E. This gives some crude measure of intensity – my strength of feeling for D is shown by the fact I am willing to give up my vote on A to have more influence on D.

I've heard people suggest such before, but I'm stuck for a name to call it. Firstly, if anyone reading happens to know of any reference that discusses such, I'd be very grateful - but, more modestly, if anyone already knows this by a certain name, or can suggest a snappy and appropriate one, I'd love to hear from you...

Force of the Majority

Following my earlier post, Robert Poole was kind enough to send me the following reply:

The episode you mention was Samuel Bamford at the Crown & Anchor meeting of 22 Jan 1817. Linda Colley mentions it in Britons, using Bamford's Passages in the Life of a Radical [links]. Cobbett's account is in Cobbett's Weekly Political Pamphlet, 22 Feb. 1817, although looking back at the Register he seems to have been persuaded of the case in general in November 1816.

Time to head to the archives I guess... (His article in Past and Present 192 may also be worth me looking at, if I get time)

Nick was also kind enough to comment, suggesting I could even end up citing Foucault in my thesis!

England Inquest

I didn't watch today's dire 0-0 draw with Israel, but nonetheless want to add an uninformed opinion...

I thought it was well known that Phil Neville should never play for England again. I'd have played Carra on the right - where he could have offered a bit more going forward - and Barry at left-back. (Or I'd consider calling up Steven Warnock, if we're so short on the left - but some will say that's just Liverpool bias talking).

Obviously the full-backs we had were never going to give us great width going forward, but we should have been able to produce more with the players we did have. I think we're missing Joe Cole or even Scholes for that creativity. While Gerrard and even Lampard are good 'attacking' midfielders, they're goal-scorers not creative.

I'd hope to see Gerrard and Lampard in the middle - probably with Lennon and Downing - against Andorra. We shouldn't need a holding midfielder there.

Sports Day

Today, after the conclusion of the rights conference, I went to meet up with John William and some of his friends for what was billed as a department social - in fact, at least one of the other four wasn't in politics, and the other three were non-theorists I didn't know either.

We played tennis (badly), then touch rugby (also badly - though I did score one try). I know I'll be stiff now...

Claims of Rights

Today I attended a conference-type gathering at the Maison Francaise as part of an inter-disciplinary workshop on re-thinking democracy 1750-1850. It was a rather exploratory look at the way rights language was used - pro- and anti-democracy - in Britain and France during these periods.

Not being a historian, I found some of it not particularly interesting - partly no doubt because the significance of minor details about a period where you don't know the context can easily be missed. Also a few French delegates spoke mainly in French - I was surprised I could still follow the gist of some of it, but in the end decided it wasn't worth the effort of trying to follow.

There were several comments that did interest me though, and it was somewhat frustrating that with people only giving 10 minute talks - often about what they hoped to look at rather than had found - there wasn't always opportunity to follow this up. The most immediately relevant for me, however, was Robert Poole, who was talking about calls for reform in northern England 1816-7. He said some had called for universal manhood suffrage, based on militia lists, rather than restricting the vote to tax-payers.

Just last week, I made the following conjecture in my thesis:

Perhaps one reason for thinking it ‘natural’, or even ‘necessary’, that the majority get their way is to move from the physical force of greater numbers to their moral force. Of course, it is often said to be illegitimate to move simply from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’[1]; however it is plausible to think that majority rule might have arisen out of peaceful conflict resolution. While Clausewitz famously said “war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse”[2], the more likely truth is that politics (in the form of civilised debate and voting) is a continuation of war, by other means. Disagreements were resolved by physical conflict long before they were resolved by what we would regard as civilised politics and, although it is somewhat fanciful, it is all too easy to imagine generals of opposing sides were often able to realize who was better placed to win the battle, and where the outcome was predictable in advance it would make sense for the one on the likely losing side to defer without battle – to surrender without bloodshed, rather than fight to defeat or death.

This interpretation was certainly endorsed by Henry Thoreau, who claimed “the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest”[3]. It also explains why the extent of the franchise was often somehow related to military service. This would be why the vote as restricted to men (rather than women), and even sometimes the rich – who could afford their own armour, and hence made better soldiers[4]. The vote was granted, at first, only to those who could contribute to military victory. Even in the modern world, the role of women in aiding the war effort – albeit in the factories, rather than the frontline – was, I think, significant in winning female suffrage. Of course, the relationship would only be contingent – majorities do not always win battles, especially if their opponents are better trained or equipped. More significantly, if majority rule originated on the battlefield – with ‘who has the larger army’ a proxy for ‘who is more likely to win anyway, if it comes to fighting’ – then its normative status is less clear. We do not normally suppose ‘might makes right’, or that the strong should get their way simply because they are stronger, so why should we accept majorities simply for this reason?[5]

The footnotes aren't finished, but I have some cases cited by Aristotle for number four - where those who fought for Athens were granted citizenship, not to mention the widely-held view that democracy owed its development to the need for manpower in the navy compared to states like Sparta that relied on few well-trained and equipped troops (e.g. 300). If I can find references for these demands, then I think that will help back up my case significantly.

[1] Hume
[2] C. von Clausewitz On War VIII vi. Wordworth Classics edition (trans J. J. Graham, revised F. N. Maude) p.357. C.f. I i 24, 26 (Wordsworth pp.22-3)
[3] H. D. Thoreau (1993 [1849]) ‘Civil Disobedience’ in P. Smith (ed.) Civil Disobedience and Other Essays (Dover) p.2.
[4] I have some Greek examples mentioned in Aristotle.
[5] Rawls (1999 [1971]) p.116 “it is to avoid the appeal to force and cunning that the principles of right and justice are accepted. Thus I assume that to each according to his threat advantage is not a conception of justice”. [See Rob's sub-heading]

UPDATE: Follow up to this here.

Lecture Lists

(Saddo alert) Trinity term lecture lists are available here. (Politics, philosophy)

I already knew the Pol Theory Grad Workshop would be Th. at 5 and the visiting speaker Research Seminar W. at 5. Other highlights include the continuation of G. A. Cohen's 'Aspects of Justice Lectures' (same time and place - T. at 11) and Parfit's 'Climbing the Mountain' seminars (W. 2:15-4, from week 2).

Follow Up: Lunch in Mansfield and Contemporary Egalitarianism

Further to two earlier posts...

Today I had lunch in Mansfield SCR with Joel. It was very impressive - although I always feel slightly awkward eating in such circumstances (I refused after lunch cheese and crackers because it meant reaching across someone and wine too). We didn't really discuss next term's teaching plans, but we did mostly talk about Oxford, academia, teaching and so on more generally, so it was useful in that respect.

While I was in town, I went to the SSL and had a look at the book I'd recently ordered from the stack. The Christiano paper is indeed (a descendant of) the one I've read - I recall the section on Nozick (which is pp.64-70) being quite useful. I only read the introduction, which wasn't quite what I was expecting. I thought it would describe the real cutting edge of a debate I'm a bit behind on. Instead it largely summarized events since 1971 - equality of what, levelling down, etc - but it was a good overview of such. It didn't really summarize the papers in the volume, but it did at least highlight where they enter the debates. Also being in the department allowed me to see Alia, Rob, John William and - entering as I was leaving (7pm) - Kieran, so at least it was a bit more sociable than many days recently.

Post-Doc Opportunities

As I said, I'm aiming to have a reasonably presentable draft of about half my thesis done by the start of next term. The other half should be written over the summer, with Michaelmas devoted to tidying things up and applying for jobs and such, the aim being to submit by around Christmas. Obviously this is all a bit tentative at this stage, and things may change, but while I'm feeling in a 'writing up' mood I've already started giving some thought to what comes next. (Obviously attempting to get a publication or two would help my options, but time is tight).

Current details are for 2007, where the deadlines are now passed, but this is a reminder for next year - when hopefully I'll finish just ahead of these deadlines:

The Leverhume Trust say "[a]pproximately 50 [Early Career] Fellowships to be offered in 2007. Application materials will be available from 2 January 2007"

The British Academy expect "that up to 37 Postdoctoral Fellowships in the humanities and social sciences will be available in this year’s competition. In recent years the strength of competition for the available awards has been intense. The success rate last year was 5.4%, when 593 applications were received and only 32 awards could be made. There is every reason to expect the strength of competition to be as fierce in 2007 as in other recent years." Their application deadline was 28th February. Notes here.

Of course, even if I do finish on time, unless I have more success finding a temporary job for next year I'll probably be sat around unemployed between submission and the following September...

Productive Day

Well, maybe today wasn't actually all that productive, but the key was that I finished several on-going projects, which made me feel a lot better about myself.

First, and probably most important, was a complete re-writing of chapter one of my thesis (8,229 words), which I emailed to my supervisor.

Secondly, I emailed a book note to Political Studies Review, on this. Those with full text access can monitor here, though it probably won't be in print until September (though I should, hopefully, have two in that issue).

Lastly, it was the fourth and final session of the Learning Institute class teaching seminars today. This was really a chance for people to raise questions/issues, and as I was one of only two who'd done so we got to spend a fair amount of time talking around the revision classes I'm giving next term. I don't think it's radically changed my ideas - I'll be basing the class around student essay plans - but it was helpful to bounce ideas around. Also at the end of the class I got talking to Joel - Theology Fellow at Mansfield - who also has to give revision classes next term. We agreed to have lunch on Thursday to exchange ideas.

Egalitarianism

I volunteered to teach a visiting American undergraduate a course on political theory with special focus on egalitarianism next term. Though it's not my thesis area (which would be ideal, but unlikely) I figure it's something I already know plenty about, having sat through Jerry Cohen's Contemporary Political Philosophy graduate class three times in all now, and so being regularly exposed to Rawls, Dworkin, luck egalitarianism, etc.

I noitce a new collection of essays edited by Nils Holtug and Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen has recently come out - details, including contents, from Amazon or OUP. It looks like I may have to take a look to make sure I'm up-to-date. Hopefully this is the paper Tom Christiano sent me a draft of some time ago finally in print - it's about time, because I've already seen one fellow student give a presentation on it!

UPDATE: What I think (of the introduction) here.