<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (robertogreco)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from robertogreco</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/grievance-poisoning-in-the-first"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-army-of-altruists"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jul/16/miguel-escotet-on-university-leadership"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronocentrism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1858/04/the-autocrat-of-the-breakfast-table/4375/"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/grievance-poisoning-in-the-first">
    <title>Grievance Poisoning in the First Degree - by Hamilton Nolan</title>
    <dc:date>2026-04-19T21:05:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/grievance-poisoning-in-the-first</link>
    <dc:creator>robertogreco</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["As an undergrad, I spent a couple of years as a philosophy major, before dropping out. Therefore I never quite reached the level of solving the mystery of consciousness, or understanding what the fuck Wittgenstein was talking about. The main thing that I took from my small philosophy education was much more practical: the ability to tell when someone is just talking out of their ass.

Encountering the writing of genuine philosophers at the age of 18 makes you feel, intellectually, like a slow mouse being toyed with by a cat. That’s because, like most 18-year-olds—and, if we’re being honest, most humans—I was used to developing whatever philosophical or ethical or political positions I held via the time-honored process of “thinking about how I feel in my gut for two seconds and then conjuring up justifications to support that feeling.” This is how most people decide their positions on most issues! Socrates figured out how to prove this long ago, in such an embarrassing fashion that they made him drink poison. The microscopic depth of our reasoning on most things can be seen in any Youtube video of a snide comedian making normal people look like idiots by asking a few factually informed questions. 

Philosophy offered my first exposure to genuine systematic thinking. These people didn’t just decide what was right and wrong based on their emotions; they thought about the metaphysics and then the, you know, phenomenology(?), and then the various other levels of philosophy, and then, finally, upon that tower of inarguable logic, placed the scales of morality. Some philosophers are wrong and some are crazy and some are impenetrable and I would certainly never recommend that you try to follow all of them at once, but I am grateful to them for teaching me the basic lesson that your beliefs should be based on principles. Your values should be in line with your principles. There should be underlying reasons for your conclusions. These principles and values and reasons and conclusions should all fit together in a reasonably coherent way. This lesson alone was well worth those years of half-assed attendance by me.

You may not agree with someone’s principles and conclusions, but the fact that they have some set of coherent principles means that they are, at least, trying to reason things out on an honest basis. This sort of argument is, it goes without saying, the minority of what people experience in the real world. The most common reference point most Americans have for this might be the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, which we are all forced to ponder in public school. Say what you will about these documents, but they contained arguments with foundations. All men are created equal, and therefore, X. Despite their hypocrisies and inconsistencies, the founding fathers did at least offer centuries of Americans at least one single example of an attempt to lay out political principles coherently.

The opposite of this—people making political arguments based on pure emotional backfilling—is so common that it is usually not worth remarking on. I want to make an exception, though, for the particular category of “Dumbass emotional arguments masquerading as genuine philosophy.” We can’t make fun of every public pseudo-intellectual or politician who hastily scrounges up laughable justifications for their positions. (We may commit that sin ourselves sometimes.) But we can and should make fun of public figures who do this while also posing as some sort of modern age philosopher kings.

Give me a break, buddy!

Which brings me to Palantir. Evil surveillance company from hell. You all know it. Alex Karp, the lapsed academic who became Palantir’s loudmouth CEO/ Satan, published a book last year called The Technological Republic. The book is not just an attempt to situate Palantir as the solution to The West’s various social crises; it is also a self-conscious effort to position Alex Karp as a public intellectual of the first order, a man who is both thinker and doer, who has systematically diagnosed the ills of our economy and culture and built the terrifying, capitalist totalitarian private market solution for them.

The book’s website prominently features this quote from a George Will review: “Not since Allan Bloom’s astonishingly successful 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind—more than one million copies sold—has there been a cultural critique as sweeping as Karp’s.” Now you know a guy is thirsty for intellectual respect if he’s waving around that quote.

Anyhow, today, Palantir has gone mildly viral by posting on Twitter, “Because we get asked a lot. The Technological Republic, in brief.” Followed by 22 bullet points that sum up the book’s arguments. At last, a version of the book that tech people can read! The instant reaction to this bullet point list among non-tech people was “Wow, this is some fascist shit.” Which is true. But I want to make an even more rudimentary point that is, I think, a very important piece of context: This is not a coherent set of arguments at all. It is not a philosophy. It is not a set of intelligible ethics. Rather, it is a list of angry reactions to being yelled at—given a somber voice and dressed up as some sort of wondrous work of intellect.

To illustrate this, let me re-order some of the key points on this list into more honest groupings.

I WANT TO BE FAMOUS AND POWERFUL BUT ALSO I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP SAYING MEAN THINGS ABOUT ME

    9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.

    11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice.

TECH PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE COOL. HEROIC, EVEN

    16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk’s interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn.

I WANT TO BE AN EXTREMELY INFLUENTIAL POLITICAL FIGURE WITHOUT PEOPLE MAKING FUN OF THE CRAZY SHIT I DO OR HAVE DONE

    18. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within.

    19. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all.

THE SPECIFIC WAYS THAT PALANTIR MAKES MONEY ARE ACTUALLY NOBLE ACTS OF PATRIOTISM

    4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software.

    5. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.

    7. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm’s way.

    12. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.

    17. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives.

DECADES OF BEING INSULATED FROM NORMAL LIFE BY GREAT WEALTH AND INTERNET ADDICTION HAVE CAUSED ME TO EMBRACE A GRAB BAG OF NEO-FASCIST IDEAS THAT ARE COINCIDENTALLY FLATTERING TO PEOPLE LIKE ME

    20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite’s intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim.

    21. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.

    22. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?

Seen like this, Alex Karp’s self-serious techno-fascist listicle becomes more preposterous than scary. Is this really a bold and sweeping “cultural critique” deserving of great public respect? Or might it more accurately be described as “Alex Karp putting his own insecurities, craving for approval, and lust for money into bullet point format?”

It’s a list a child would make! “MY PHILOSOPHY: 1. You must be NICE to me. 2. My hunger for candy shows that I am SMART.” It’s embarrassing! Have some self respect, dude. You are a right wing billionaire weapons merchant. You are the human face of technological totalitarianism. You are the embodiment of just how close America is to a horrifying public-private partnership of fascism. You are the closest thing that we have to Dr. Evil. Stop acting so thirsty. It’s unbecoming. Your job is not to grovel for praise from Silicon Valley people who have not finished a book in the past 14 years. Your job is to keep doing cartoonishly evil shit until a hero finally vanquishes you. We all know you’re awful. Don’t work so hard to be awful in new and more tedious ways. "]]></description>
<dc:subject>alexkarp palantir hamiltonnolan bigtech billionaires egotism 2026 georgewill allanbloom evil sociopaths socippathy fascism neofascism pluralism us inclusivity inclusion religion wealth inequality power siliconvalley israel palestine weapons genocide ethniccleansing money patriotism victimhood philosophy wittegenstein consciousness fame criticsm californianideology supremacy society</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/b:b5606237dd74/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:alexkarp"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:palantir"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:hamiltonnolan"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:bigtech"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:billionaires"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:egotism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:2026"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:georgewill"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:allanbloom"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:evil"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:sociopaths"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:socippathy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:fascism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:neofascism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:pluralism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:us"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:inclusivity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:inclusion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:religion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:wealth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:inequality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:power"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:siliconvalley"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:israel"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:palestine"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:weapons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:genocide"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:ethniccleansing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:money"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:patriotism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:victimhood"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:wittegenstein"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:consciousness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:fame"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:criticsm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:californianideology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:supremacy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:society"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-army-of-altruists">
    <title>Army of Altruists | The Anarchist Library</title>
    <dc:date>2020-09-06T04:24:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-army-of-altruists</link>
    <dc:creator>robertogreco</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["What all this suggests to me is that American society might well work completely differently than we tend to assume. Imagine, for a moment, that the United States as it exists today were the creation of some ingenious social engineer. What assumptions about human nature could we say this engineer must have been working with? Certainly nothing like rational choice theory. For clearly our social engineer understands that the only way to convince human beings to enter into the world of work and the marketplace (that is: of mind-numbing labor and cut-throat competition) is to dangle the prospect of thereby being able to lavish money on one’s children, buy drinks for one’s friends, and, if one hits the jackpot, to be able to spend the rest of one’s life endowing museums and providing AIDS medications to impoverished countries in Africa. Where our theorists are constantly trying to strip away the veil of appearances and show how all such apparently selfless gesture really mask some kind of self-interested strategy, in reality, American society is better conceived as a battle over access to the right to behave altruistically. Selflessness – or at least, the right to engage in high-minded activity – is not the strategy. It is the prize. If nothing else, I think this helps us understand why the Right has been so much better, in recent years, at playing to populist sentiments than the Left. Essentially, they do it by accusing liberals of cutting ordinary Americans off from the right to do good in the world. Let me explain what I mean here by throwing out a series of propositions.


PROPOSITION I: Neither egoism nor altruism are natural urges; they are in fact arise in relation to one another and neither would be conceivable without the market.

FIRST OF ALL, I should make clear that I do not believe that either egoism or altruism are somehow inherent to human nature. Human motives are rarely that simple. Rather egoism or altruism are ideas we have about human nature. Historically, one tends to arise in response to the other. In the ancient world, for example, it is precisely in the times and places as one sees the emergence of money and markets that one also sees the rise of world religions – Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. If one sets aside a space and says, “Here you shall think only about acquiring material things for yourself,” then it is hardly surprising that before long someone else will set aside a countervailing space, declaring, in effect: “Yes, but here, we must contemplate the fact that the self, and material things, are ultimately unimportant.” It was these latter institutions, of course, that first developed our modern notions of charity.

Even today, when we operate outside the domain of the market or of religion, very few of our actions could be said to be motivated by anything so simple as untrammeled greed or utterly selfless generosity. When we are dealing not with strangers but with friends, relatives, or enemies, a much more complicated set of motivations will generally come into play: envy, solidarity, pride, self-destructive grief, loyalty, romantic obsession, resentment, spite, shame, conviviality, the anticipation of shared enjoyment, the desire to show up a rival, and so on. These are the motivations that impel the major dramas of our lives, that great novelists like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky immortalize, but that social theorists, for some reason, tend to ignore. If one travels to parts of the world where money and markets do not exist – say, to certain parts of New Guinea or Amazonia – such complicated webs of motivation are precisely what one still finds. In societies where most people live in small communities, where almost everyone they know is either a friend, a relative or an enemy, the languages spoken tend even to lack words that correspond to “self-interest” or “altruism,” while including very subtle vocabularies for describing envy, solidarity, pride and the like. Their economic dealings with one another likewise tend to be based on much more subtle principles. Anthropologists have created a vast literature to try to fathom the dynamics of these apparently exotic “gift economies,” but if it seems odd to us to see, say, important men conniving with their cousins to finagle vast wealth, which they then present as gifts to bitter enemies in order to publicly humiliate them, it is because we are so used to operating inside impersonal markets that it never occurs to us to think how we would act if we had an economic system where we treated people based on how we actually felt about them.

Nowadays, the work of destroying such ways of life is largely left to missionaries – representatives of those very world religions that originally sprung up in reaction to the market long ago. Missionaries, of course, are out to save souls; but this rarely interpret this to mean their role is simply to teach people to accept God and be more altruistic. Almost invariably, they end up trying to convince people to be more selfish, and more altruistic, at the same time. On the one hand, they set out to teach the “natives” proper work discipline, and try to get them involved with buying and selling products on the market, so as to better their material lot. At the same time, they explain to them that ultimately, material things are unimportant, and lecture on the value of the higher things, such as selfless devotion to others.

PROPOSITION II: The political right has always tried to enhance this division, and thus claim to be champions of egoism and altruism simultaneously. The left has tried to efface it.

MIGHT THIS NOT help to explain why the United States, the most market-driven industrialized society on earth, is also the most religious? Or, even more strikingly, why the country that produced Tolstoy and Dostoevsky spent much of the twentieth century trying to eradicate both the market and religion entirely?

Where the political left has always tried to efface this distinction – whether by trying to create economic systems that are not driven by the profit motive, or by replacing private charity with one or another form community support – the political right has always thrived on it. In the United States, for example, the Republican party is dominated by two ideological wings: the libertarians, and the “Christian right.” At one extreme, Republicans are free-market fundamentalists and advocates of individual liberties (even if they see those liberties largely as a matter of consumer choice); on the other, they are fundamentalists of a more literal variety, suspicious of most individual liberties but enthusiastic about biblical injunctions, “family values,” and charitable good works. At first glance it might seem remarkable such an alliance manages to hold together at all (and certainly they have ongoing tensions, most famously over abortion). But in fact right-wing coalitions almost always take some variation of this form. One might say that the conservative approach always has been to release the dogs of the market, throwing all traditional verities into disarray; and then, in this tumult of insecurity, offering themselves up as the last bastion of order and hierarchy, the stalwart defenders of the authority of churches and fathers against the barbarians they have themselves unleashed. A scam it may be, but a remarkably effective one; and one effect is that the right ends up seeming to have a monopoly on value. They manage, we might say, to occupy both positions, on either side of the divide: extreme egoism and extreme altruism.

Consider, for a moment, the word “value.” When economists talk about value they are really talking about money – or more precisely, about whatever it is that money is measuring; also, whatever it is that economic actors are assumed to be pursuing. When we are working for a living, or buying and selling things, we are rewarded with money. But whenever we are not working or buying or selling, when we are motivated by pretty much anything other the desire to get money, we suddenly find ourselves in the domain of “values.” The most commonly invoked of these are of course “family values” (which is unsurprising, since by far the most common form of unpaid labor in most industrial societies is child-rearing and housework), but we also talk about religious values, political values, the values that attach themselves to art or patriotism – one could even, perhaps, count loyalty to one’s favorite basketball team. All are seen as commitments that are, or ought to be, uncorrupted by the market. At the same time, they are also seen as utterly unique; where money makes all things comparable, “values” such as beauty, devotion, or integrity cannot, by definition, be compared. There is no mathematic formula that could possibly allow one to calculate just how much personal integrity it is right to sacrifice in the pursuit of art, or how to balance responsibilities to your family with responsibilities to your God. (Obviously, people do make these kind of compromises all the time. But they cannot be calculated). One might put it this way: if value is simply what one considers important, then money allows importance take a liquid form, enables us to compare precise quantities of importance and trade one off for the other. After all, if someone does accumulate a very large amount of money, the first thing they are likely to do is to try to convert it into something unique, whether this be Monet’s water lilies, a prize-winning racehorse, or an endowed chair at a university.

What is really at stake here in any market economy is precisely the ability to make these trades, to convert “value” into “values.” We all are striving to put ourselves in a position where we can dedicate ourselves to something larger than ourselves. When liberals do well in America, it’s because they can embody that possibility: the Kennedys, for example, are the ultimate Democratic icons not just because they started as poor Irish immigrants who made enormous amounts of money, but because they are seen as having managed, ultimately, to turn all that money into nobility.

PROPOSITION III: The real problem of the American left is that while it does try in certain ways to efface the division between egoism and altruism, value and values, it largely does so for its own children. This has allowed the right to paradoxically represent itself as the champions of the working class.

ALL THIS MIGHT help explain why the Left in America is in such a mess. Far from promoting new visions of effacing the difference between egoism and altruism, value and values, or providing a model for passing from one to the other, progressives cannot even seem to think their way past it. After the last presidential election, the big debate in progressive circles was the relative importance of economic issues versus what was called “the culture wars.” Did the Democrats lose because they were not able to spell out any plausible economic alternatives, or did the Republicans win because they successfully mobilized conservative Christians around the issue of gay marriage? As I say, the very fact that progressives frame the question this way not only shows they are trapped in the right’s terms of analysis. It demonstrates they do not understand how America really works.

Let me illustrate what I mean by considering the strange popular appeal, at least until recently, of George W. Bush. In 2004, most of the American liberal intelligentsia did not seem to be able to get their heads around it. After the election, what left so many of them reeling was their suspicion that the things they most hated about Bush were exactly what so many Bush voters liked about him. Consider the debates, for example. If statistics are to be believed, millions of Americans who watched George Bush and John Kerry lock horns, concluded that Kerry won, and then went off and voted for Bush anyway. It was hard to escape the suspicion that in the end, Kerry’s articulate presentation, his skill with words and arguments, had actually counted against him.

This sends liberals into spirals of despair. They cannot understand why decisive leadership is equated with acting like an idiot. Neither can they understand how a man who comes from one of the most elite families in the country, who attended Andover, Yale, and Harvard, and whose signature facial expression is a selfsatisfied smirk, could ever convince anyone he was a “man of the people.” I must admit I have struggled with this as well. As a child of working class parents who won a scholarship to Andover in the 1970s and eventually, a job at Yale, I have spent much of my life in the presence of men like Bush., everything about them oozing self-satisfied privilege. But in fact, stories like mine – stories of dramatic class mobility through academic accomplishment – are increasingly unusual in America.

America of course continues to see itself as a land of opportunity, and certainly from the perspective of an immigrant from Haiti or Bangladesh, it is. No doubt in terms of overall social mobility, we still compare favorably to countries like Bolivia or France. But America has always been a country built on the promise of unlimited upward mobility. The working-class condition has been traditionally seen as a way station, as something one’s family passes through on the road to something better. Lincoln used to stress that what made American democracy possible was the absence of a class of permanent wage laborers. In Lincoln’s day, the ideal was that it was mainly immigrants who worked as wage laborers, and that they did so in order to save up enough money to do something else: if nothing else, to buy some land and become a homesteader on the frontier.

The point is not how accurate this ideal was; the point was most Americans have found the image plausible. Every time the road is perceived to be clogged, profound unrest ensues. The closing of the frontier led to bitter labor struggles, and over the course of the twentieth century, the steady and rapid expansion of the American university system could be seen as a kind of substitute. Particularly after World War II, huge resources were poured into expanding the higher education system, which grew extremely rapidly, and all this was promoted quite explicitly as a means of social mobility. This served during the Cold War as almost an implied social contract, not just offering a comfortable life to the working classes but holding out the chance that their children would not be working-class themselves.

The problem, of course, is that a higher education system cannot be expanded forever. At a certain point one ends up with a significant portion of the population unable to find work even remotely in line with their qualifications, who have every reason to be angry about their situation, and who also have access to the entire history of radical thought. During the twentieth century, this was precisely the situation most likely to spark revolts and insurrections – revolutionary heroes from Chairman Mao to Fidel Castro almost invariably turn out to be children of poor parents who scrimped to give their children a bourgeois education, only to discover that a bourgeois education does not, in itself, guarantee entry into the bourgeoisie. By the late sixties and early seventies, the very point where the expansion of the university system hit a dead end, campuses were, predictably, exploding.

What followed could be seen as a kind of settlement. Campus radicals were reabsorbed into the university, but set to work largely at training children of the elite. As the cost of education has skyrocketed, financial aid has been cut back, and the government has begun aggressively pursuing student loan debts that once existed largely on paper, the prospect of social mobility through education – above all liberal arts education – has been rapidly diminished. The number of working-class students in major universities, which steadily grew until at least the late sixties, has now been declining for decades. If working-class Bush voters tend to resent intellectuals more than they do the rich, then, the most likely reason is because they can imagine scenarios in which they might become rich, but cannot imagine one in which they, or any of their children, could ever become members of the intelligentsia? If you think about it, this is not an unreasonable assessment. A mechanic from Nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an Enron executive. But it is possible. There is virtually no chance on the other hand that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer, or a drama critic for the New York Times. Here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education, but also the role that unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships. It has become a fact of life in the United States that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the money, for the first year or two one will not be paid. This is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or NGOs, or to become a political activist. But it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like Beauty or Truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter. The custom effectively seals off any such career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education. Such structures of exclusion had always existed of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.

If that mechanic’s son – or daughter – wishes to pursue something higher, more noble, for a career, what options does she really have? Likely just two. She can seek employment with her local church, which is hard to get. Or she can join the Army.

This is, of course, the secret of nobility. To be noble is to be generous, high-minded, altruistic, to pursue higher forms of value. But it is also to be able to do so because one does not really have to think too much about money. This is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid (modestly, but adequately) to do good in the world. Seen in this light, it is also easier to see what really happened at universities in the wake of the 1960s – the “settlement” I mentioned above. Campus radicals set out to create a new society that destroyed the distinction between egoism and altruism, value and values. It did not work out, but they were, effectively, offered a kind of compensation: the privilege to use the university system to create lives that did so, in their own little way, to be supported in one’s material needs while pursuing virtue, truth, and beauty, and above all, to pass that privilege on to their own children. One cannot blame them for accepting the offer. But neither can one blame the rest of the country for resenting the hell out of them. Not because they reject the project: as I say, this is what America is all about.

As I always tell activists engaged in the peace movement and counter-recruitment campaigns: why do working class kids join the Army anyway? Because like any teenager, they want to escape the world of tedious work and meaningless consumerism, to live a life of adventure and camaraderie in which they believe they are doing something genuinely noble. They join the Army because they want to be like you."]]></description>
<dc:subject>davidgraeber altruism 2007 us elections egotism charity charities philanthropicindustrialcomplex generosity government politics elitism johnkerry democrats republicans nobility military service resentment truth beauty aesthetics purpose highered highereducation values ngos radicalism inequality wealth poverty economics policy opportunity socialmobility georgewbush 2004 liberalism progressives progressive progressivism egoism kennedys patriotism dostoevsky charitableindustrialcomplex philanthropy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/b:2baff2ca12aa/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:davidgraeber"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:altruism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:2007"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:us"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:elections"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:egotism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:charity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:charities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:philanthropicindustrialcomplex"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:generosity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:government"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:elitism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:johnkerry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:democrats"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:republicans"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:nobility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:military"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:service"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:resentment"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:truth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:beauty"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:aesthetics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:purpose"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:highered"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:highereducation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:values"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:ngos"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:radicalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:inequality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:wealth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:poverty"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:opportunity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:socialmobility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:georgewbush"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:2004"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:liberalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:progressives"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:progressive"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:progressivism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:egoism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:kennedys"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:patriotism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:dostoevsky"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:charitableindustrialcomplex"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:philanthropy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/">
    <title>The Equality Trust | Working to improve the quality of life in the UK by reducing economic inequality</title>
    <dc:date>2018-08-20T04:51:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/</link>
    <dc:creator>robertogreco</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[[See also: 
(book) "The Spirit Level"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(book)

<blockquote>The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better[1] is a book by Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett,[2] published in 2009 by Allen Lane. The book is published in the US by Bloomsbury Press (December, 2009) with the new sub-title: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger.[3] It was then published in a paperback second edition (United Kingdom) in November 2010 by Penguin Books with the subtitle, Why Equality is Better for Everyone.[4]

The book argues that there are "pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, (and) encouraging excessive consumption".[5] It claims that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal countries, whether rich or poor.[1] The book contains graphs that are available online.[6]

In 2010, the authors published responses to questions about their analysis on the Equality Trust website.[7] As of September 2012, the book had sold more than 150,000 copies in English.[8] It is available in 23 foreign editions.</blockquote>

"The Spirit Level authors: why society is more unequal than ever"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/09/society-unequal-the-spirit-level

[follow-up book] "The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Wellbeing"
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/188607/the-inner-level/

<blockquote>Why is the incidence of mental illness in the UK twice that in Germany? Why are Americans three times more likely than the Dutch to develop gambling problems? Why is child well-being so much worse in New Zealand than Japan? As this groundbreaking study demonstrates, the answer to all these hinges on inequality.

In The Spirit Level Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett put inequality at the centre of public debate by showing conclusively that less-equal societies fare worse than more equal ones across everything from education to life expectancy. The Inner Level now explains how inequality affects us individually, how it alters how we think, feel and behave. It sets out the overwhelming evidence that material inequalities have powerful psychological effects: when the gap between rich and poor increases, so does the tendency to define and value ourselves and others in terms of superiority and inferiority. A deep well of data and analysis is drawn upon to empirically show, for example, that low social status is associated with elevated levels of stress, and how rates of anxiety and depression are intimately related to the inequality which makes that status paramount.

Wilkinson and Pickett describe how these responses to hierarchies evolved, and why the impacts of inequality on us are so severe. In doing so, they challenge the conception that humans are innately competitive and self-interested. They undermine, too, the idea that inequality is the product of 'natural' differences in individual ability. This book sheds new light on many of the most urgent problems facing societies today, but it is not just an index of our ills. It demonstrates that societies based on fundamental equalities, sharing and reciprocity generate much higher levels of well-being, and lays out the path towards them.</blockquote>

"Does inequality cause suicide, drug abuse and mental illness?"
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/06/14/does-inequality-cause-suicide-drug-abuse-and-mental-illness

"“The Inner Level” seeks to push that debate forward, by linking inequality to a crisis of mental health. This time the authors’ argument focuses on status anxiety: stress related to fears about individuals’ places in social hierarchies. Anxiety declines as incomes rise, they show, but is higher at all levels in more unequal countries—to the extent that the richest 10% of people in high-inequality countries are more socially anxious than all but the bottom 10% in low-inequality countries. Anxiety contributes to a variety of mental-health problems, including depression, narcissism and schizophrenia—rates of which are alarming in the West, the authors say, and rise with inequality.

Manifestations of mental illness, such as self-harm, drug and alcohol abuse and problem gambling, all seem to get worse with income dispersion, too. Such relationships seem to apply within countries as well as between them. Damaging drug use is higher in more unequal neighbourhoods of New York City, in more unequal American states and in more unequal countries. The authors emphasise that it is a person’s relative position rather than absolute income that matters most. A study of 30,000 Britons found that an individual’s place in the income hierarchy predicted the incidence of mental stress more accurately than absolute income did. And in America, relative income is more closely linked to depression than absolute income. It is not enough to lift all boats, their work suggests, if the poshest vessels are always buoyed up more than the humblest.

The fact that relative status matters so much is a result of human beings’ intrinsically social nature, Ms Pickett and Mr Wilkinson argue. Group interaction and co-operation have been an essential component of humanity’s evolutionary success; indeed, the authors say, its social nature helped drive the growth of human brains. Across primates, they write, the size of the neocortex—a part of the brain responsible for higher-level cognitive functions—varies with the typical group size of a species. Living in complex social groups is hard cognitive work. Survival requires an understanding of roles within the social hierarchy, and intuition of what others are thinking. Thus people are necessarily sensitive to their status within groups, and to social developments that threaten it.

Such hierarchies are found in all human societies. But as inequality rises, differences in status become harder to ignore. There is more to be gained or lost by moving from one rung on the ladder to another. And however much some maintain that disparities in pay-cheques do not correspond to differences in human worth, such well-meaning pieties feel hollow when high-rollers earn hundreds or thousands of times what ordinary folk take home. Money cannot buy everything, but it can buy most things. The steeper the income gradient, the less secure everyone becomes, in both their self-respect and their sense of the community’s esteem.

And so people compensate. They take pills, to steel their nerves or dull the pain. Some cut themselves. Some adopt a more submissive posture, avoiding contact with others. Yet such withdrawal can feed on itself, depriving recluses of the social interaction that is important to mental health, undermining relationships and careers and contributing to economic hardship.

Others respond in the opposite way, by behaving more aggressively and egotistically. Studies of narcissistic tendencies showed a steep increase between 1982 and 2006, the authors report; 30% more Americans displayed narcissistic characteristics at the end of the period than at the beginning. Scrutiny of successive American cohorts found a progressive rise in those listing wealth and fame as important goals (above fulfilment and community). Over time, more people cited money as the main motivation for attending college (rather than intellectual enrichment).

Domineering responses to anxiety are associated with loss of empathy and delusions of grandeur. Thus highly successful people often display narcissistic or even psychopathic behaviour. In surveys, the rich are generally less empathetic and more likely to think they deserve special treatment than others. Modern capitalism, the authors suggest, selects for assertiveness, for a lack of sentimentality in business and comfort in sacking underlings, and for showy displays of economic strength. From the top to the bottom of the income spectrum, people use conspicuous consumption and other means of enhancing their image to project status.

The least secure are often the most likely to exaggerate their qualities. For example, countries with lower average life-expectancy tend to do better on measures of self-reported health; 54% of Japanese say they are in good health compared with 80% of Americans, though the Japanese live five years longer on average. Whereas 70% of Swedes consider themselves to be above-average drivers, 90% of Americans do. Such figures cast declamations of America’s greatness, and the politicians who make them, in a new light."

"The Inner Level review – how more equal societies reduce stress and improve wellbeing"
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/20/the-inner-level-review ]

[via: https://www.instagram.com/p/BmquJ7Ngvme/ ]]]></description>
<dc:subject>equality inequality society trust anxiety well-being stress mentalhealth uk economics community socialmobility class education drugs drugabuse health violence illness consumption hierarchy horizontality mentalillness status self-harm gambling depression narcissism schizophrenia relativity excess cooperation egotism selfishness empathy dunning–krugereffect greatness politics lifeexpectancy japan sweden us driving capitalism latecapitalism fame fulfillment money motivation colleges universities exceptionalism assertiveness aggressiveness richardwilkinson katepickett growth erichfromm wellbeing latestagecapitalism</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/b:83c2ba12cb5a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:equality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:inequality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:society"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:trust"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:anxiety"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:well-being"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:stress"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:mentalhealth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:uk"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:community"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:socialmobility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:class"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:education"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:drugs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:drugabuse"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:health"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:violence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:illness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:consumption"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:hierarchy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:horizontality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:mentalillness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:status"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:self-harm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:gambling"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:depression"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:narcissism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:schizophrenia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:relativity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:excess"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:cooperation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:egotism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:selfishness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:empathy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:dunning–krugereffect"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:greatness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:lifeexpectancy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:japan"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:sweden"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:us"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:driving"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:capitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:latecapitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:fame"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:fulfillment"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:money"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:motivation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:colleges"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:universities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:exceptionalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:assertiveness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:aggressiveness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:richardwilkinson"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:katepickett"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:growth"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:erichfromm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:wellbeing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:latestagecapitalism"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jul/16/miguel-escotet-on-university-leadership">
    <title>On leadership and innovation: 'dogma has no place in university culture' | Higher Education Network | Guardian Professional</title>
    <dc:date>2012-07-17T02:02:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jul/16/miguel-escotet-on-university-leadership</link>
    <dc:creator>robertogreco</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The expansion of knowledge and the degree of certainty are inversely proportional. In the measure in which one is educated, the more one knows and discovers, the more one becomes certain of one's lack of knowledge of the universe, which drives one to keep learning. For this reason, intellectual vanity is not an attribute of those who know their limits, but rather of those who pretend to know what they do not know.

Knowledge does not admit vanity or egotism. Participation is the opposite of authoritarianism and to know in order to share and to give honours humankind. Governing universities in the absence of the full participation of the university community and society will inevitably push them towards forms of authoritarianism that are contrary to their spirit and their ethical practice."]]></description>
<dc:subject>management administration policy politics tcsnmy edreform authoritarianism participation hierarchy control power egotism flexibility ignorance intellectualvanity innovation leadership certainty uncertainty knowledge ethics highereducation highered 2012 miguelangelescotet</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/b:eea3c68269be/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:management"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:administration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:tcsnmy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:edreform"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:authoritarianism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:participation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:hierarchy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:control"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:power"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:egotism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:flexibility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:ignorance"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:intellectualvanity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:leadership"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:certainty"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:uncertainty"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:knowledge"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:ethics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:highereducation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:highered"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:2012"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:miguelangelescotet"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronocentrism">
    <title>Chronocentrism - Wikipedia</title>
    <dc:date>2012-02-15T03:36:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronocentrism</link>
    <dc:creator>robertogreco</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Chronocentrism or Chronocentricity (from the Greek chrono- meaning "time") has been defined as "the egotism that one's own generation is poised on the very cusp of history.""]]></description>
<dc:subject>chronocentricity egotism perspective chronocentrism classideas history</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/b:307aec31cc7c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:chronocentricity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:egotism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:perspective"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:chronocentrism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:classideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:history"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1858/04/the-autocrat-of-the-breakfast-table/4375/">
    <title>The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table - Magazine - The Atlantic</title>
    <dc:date>2010-12-20T05:15:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1858/04/the-autocrat-of-the-breakfast-table/4375/</link>
    <dc:creator>robertogreco</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["A very simple intellectual mechanism answers the necessities of friendship, and even of the most intimate relations of life… The movements of exaltation which belong to genius are egotistic by their very nature. A calm, clear mind, not subject to the spasms and crises that are so often met with in creative or intensely perceptive natures, is the best basis for love or friendship—Observe, I am talking about minds. I won’t say, the more intellect, the less capacity for loving; for that would do wrong to the understanding and reason ; — but, on the other hand, that the brain often runs away with the heart’s best blood, which gives the world a few pages of wisdom or sentiment or poetry, instead of making one other heart happy, I have no question."]]></description>
<dc:subject>oliverwendellholmes creativity genius friendship intellect intelligence love relationships egotism attention understanding empathy 1858</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/b:a89a556a7bc6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:oliverwendellholmes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:creativity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:genius"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:friendship"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:intellect"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:intelligence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:love"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:relationships"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:egotism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:attention"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:understanding"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:empathy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:robertogreco/t:1858"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>