Pierre-Joseph Proudhon famously asserted that property is theft.
Yes, well: theft is theft, too.
By any rational moral standard, it's just impossible to qualify the act of stealing; it's always the same offence, regardless of who does it to whom, or for what reason. In that respect at least, the law is (mostly) consistent with common sense.¹
However, it's certainly possible to make that case that some forms of theft are more morally justifiable than others. Shoplifting, for example, is often seen (or at least rationalised) as the action of an individual against a faceless, bastard-capitalist edifice² which is only going to rip off its consumer-victims in any case...
... and this is no doubt true enough in some cases. But it's still stealing, no matter how economically principled those cases might be; and in a society in which the primacy of wealth and possessions is enshrined in law, there's no use in pretending that it's possible to make a moral exception for shoplifters.
I'll admit that I'm far from squeaky-clean in this regard. When I lived in New York, between jobs, there was more than one occasion when I literally could not afford enough to eat (and as a, shall I say, less-than-fully-documented resident, there weren't many options for me in terms of social security, either). I can recall at least three occasions on which I pilfered basic food essentials from supermarkets-- but only what I absolutely needed, and never when I could afford to buy it, no matter how much I'd have liked to save the money. And it's definitely never occurred to me that I might want to steal something just because I know, from those experiences, that I can quite easily get away with it; I might have accepted the necessity of shoplifting at the time, but I can't pretend that I ever felt particularly good about it afterwards. I guess I just don't possess the sense of monstrous self-entitlement that seems to be the main prerequisite for forming a recreational shoplifting habit.
¹ Incidentally, this article makes the claim that in other European countries, shoplifting is generally treated as a technical offence rather than a serious crime. I haven't been able to find any concrete legal evidence for that comparison, however, so it may well be more of a rhetorical flourish. The article is highly entertaining on any number of levels, though, so you should read it anyway.
² Yes: the Yomango website is in Spanish; this is why y'all should've done a language module last semester. Yomango is a kind of subcultural clique/movement whose members specifically promote shoplifting as a means of subverting and/or recovering from consumer culture. As yet, its public presence doesn't seem to have diffused from southern Spain.
Friday, 12 February 2010
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Two responses...
... with which I cheat by putting them both in the same post:
[in response to Graham Quirk's "Anyone got a light?"]:
The way I see it, since we've all gotta die anyways, we may as well die from something we've enjoyed in the meantime.
How many people make themselves unnecessarily miserable with neurotic avoidance habits only to die of something equally gruesome anyways?
Let's face it: there are very few pleasant ways to die (and those few require a lot of planning and investment...). What's more, we are all pretty much guaranteed some kind of cancer if we hang around long enough. That's just how we roll in the West nowadays, with our grotesquely prolonged lifespans and the inevitable decrepitudes that accompany them... but that's a whole other issue.
The point is, the prospect of lung cancer doesn't bother me nearly as much as those of, say, Alzheimer's, or progressive arthritis, or a hundred other hideous degenerative problems that old people are expected to suck up as part of the 'benefits' of Older Age.
Also, just to nitpick: a list of famous people who smoked prior to the early 70s is, like... EVERYBODY, man. But then, that may just serve to reinforce your point...
[and in response to Sam Cattell's "Hi, my name's Sam and I'm a smoker"]:
Good point, which also applies to life in general: it's FULL of offensive shit, and most of us manage to just deal with it without publicly twisting our knickers into knots. I'm profoundly offended by stupid people, for example; if I let that get to me, I'd have an embolism every time I leave the house.
I think that in order to live here on Earth with other human beings, you kinda need to accept early on that nobody has some kind of nonsensical Right Not To Be Offended, or else life will be very unkind.
[in response to Graham Quirk's "Anyone got a light?"]:
The way I see it, since we've all gotta die anyways, we may as well die from something we've enjoyed in the meantime.
How many people make themselves unnecessarily miserable with neurotic avoidance habits only to die of something equally gruesome anyways?
Let's face it: there are very few pleasant ways to die (and those few require a lot of planning and investment...). What's more, we are all pretty much guaranteed some kind of cancer if we hang around long enough. That's just how we roll in the West nowadays, with our grotesquely prolonged lifespans and the inevitable decrepitudes that accompany them... but that's a whole other issue.
The point is, the prospect of lung cancer doesn't bother me nearly as much as those of, say, Alzheimer's, or progressive arthritis, or a hundred other hideous degenerative problems that old people are expected to suck up as part of the 'benefits' of Older Age.
Also, just to nitpick: a list of famous people who smoked prior to the early 70s is, like... EVERYBODY, man. But then, that may just serve to reinforce your point...
[and in response to Sam Cattell's "Hi, my name's Sam and I'm a smoker"]:
Good point, which also applies to life in general: it's FULL of offensive shit, and most of us manage to just deal with it without publicly twisting our knickers into knots. I'm profoundly offended by stupid people, for example; if I let that get to me, I'd have an embolism every time I leave the house.
I think that in order to live here on Earth with other human beings, you kinda need to accept early on that nobody has some kind of nonsensical Right Not To Be Offended, or else life will be very unkind.
Just on the subject of offence...
... (briefly): I honestly never expected to be genuinely offended by anyone else's transgressions in this module. I mean, I'm a big boy now; I've lived on 3 continents (and an island), spent plenty of time with some quite exceptionally weird people (not least myself), and my own record is far from pristine in most regards. However, one of you has managed it already (vis-à-vis the confessions summary on WOLF):
I find it hard to imagine what kind of scumbag would run over someone's pet with their car and then drive away. I seriously just don't get how you'd live with yourself afterwards. If anyone ever did that to one of my dogs, I certainly wouldn't rest until I'd hunted them down and exterminated them like the vermin they were. As far as I'm concerned, that goes way beyond "being bad," and well into the territory of sociopathy. Just sayin'.
I find it hard to imagine what kind of scumbag would run over someone's pet with their car and then drive away. I seriously just don't get how you'd live with yourself afterwards. If anyone ever did that to one of my dogs, I certainly wouldn't rest until I'd hunted them down and exterminated them like the vermin they were. As far as I'm concerned, that goes way beyond "being bad," and well into the territory of sociopathy. Just sayin'.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Aaand... Week 2 (Smoking)
So what I find particularly intriguing is the apparent rebellion/conformity paradox associated with why so many of us start smoking as kids or adolescents. This was raised by another student during the lecture, and probably applies as readily to any other collective "bad" behaviour as to smoking: the fact that, in 'rebelling' as kids, we tend to conform to particular forms of nonconformity. Usually, of course, because our friends are all doing it (whatever it is), and most of us still feel the need to socially identify with something-- just as long as it's not the identity our parents, teachers etc. are trying to impress upon us.
Now if this ad had still been running in 1987, I probably would've thought twice about taking up smoking
I don't want to ramble on in abstract terms (yet) regarding the ultimately relative nature of social trangression in general, but smoking is obviously a good example. When I was a kid, there were plenty of other little sub-cliques who forswore cigarettes and weed for whatever reason, yet nevertheless considered themselves just as hardcore as the rest of us in their own particular brand (and feel free to invest that term with its full array of ironic connotations, here) of 'rebellion.' I'll be honest: I started smoking simply because it was what we all did at boarding school. It was one of the most heinous Breakings of Rules imaginable... and therefore we lit up, in groups, when- and wherever we could realistically get away with it. Definitely, from my perspective at least, more an issue of conformity with peers than an individual choice to rebel against authority. I don't think anyone ever went off for a fag on their own.
... yes, okay, I admit it: I made this one myself
That said, what kept me smoking for the next 18 years (and what got me up to the 40 or 50-a-day mark by the time I first, um, 'quit') was definitely the sheer weight and ferocity of anti-smoking propaganda with which I was bombarded as an adolescent. Smoking was one of the few things that every Authority Figure agreed I must never, ever do-- and therefore clearly something that was worth persevering with at all costs.
And folks: enter smoking is cool and you know it into Google, and you get approximately 23,900,000 results. Entering smoking is NOT cool, on the other hand, yields only a paltry 14,000,000. The numbers, I think, speak for themselves.
I don't want to ramble on in abstract terms (yet) regarding the ultimately relative nature of social trangression in general, but smoking is obviously a good example. When I was a kid, there were plenty of other little sub-cliques who forswore cigarettes and weed for whatever reason, yet nevertheless considered themselves just as hardcore as the rest of us in their own particular brand (and feel free to invest that term with its full array of ironic connotations, here) of 'rebellion.' I'll be honest: I started smoking simply because it was what we all did at boarding school. It was one of the most heinous Breakings of Rules imaginable... and therefore we lit up, in groups, when- and wherever we could realistically get away with it. Definitely, from my perspective at least, more an issue of conformity with peers than an individual choice to rebel against authority. I don't think anyone ever went off for a fag on their own.
That said, what kept me smoking for the next 18 years (and what got me up to the 40 or 50-a-day mark by the time I first, um, 'quit') was definitely the sheer weight and ferocity of anti-smoking propaganda with which I was bombarded as an adolescent. Smoking was one of the few things that every Authority Figure agreed I must never, ever do-- and therefore clearly something that was worth persevering with at all costs.
And folks: enter smoking is cool and you know it into Google, and you get approximately 23,900,000 results. Entering smoking is NOT cool, on the other hand, yields only a paltry 14,000,000. The numbers, I think, speak for themselves.
Friday, 5 February 2010
British Government Unveils Shatterproof Illusions
Before I get on to smoking proper (so to speak), I offer this bloody little gobbet of news, apparently aimed at soothing our social dyspepsia. This may as first glance seem an issue that crosses the line between "being bad" and just "being an antisocial asshole", but bear with me.
"New non-shatter pint glass introduced to prevent pub attacks", according to the Mirror; or, if you prefer news for adults, "British Toast New Shatterproof Pint Glass" via the AP.
The issue here is, ostensibly, that of "glassing"-- i.e. smashing (or slashing) one's broken beer bottle or lager glass across a fellow pub-patron's facial region. I'm not going to argue that this, specifically, constitutes a no-no by pretty much any rational moral standard. I would enquire as to how much public money has been expended on this project; as opposed to, say, trying to figure out why such an evidently substantial section of the national population is so consistently bored, pissed off and frustrated that they feel the need to regularly set out with the specific aim of getting shitfaced and breaking heads in the first place. But I digress (again).
Not quite sure what message this particular ad is really intended to convey; I'm getting "This guy got glassed! What a chump!"
My real point-- and this kinda ties back to what I mentioned at the beginning of my last post-- is that a significant element of the British "binge-drinking culture" (as it's soundbitten nowadays; and it's nothing new, whatever David Cameron might try to tell you) is the cultural association of this macho, bad-boy stereotype with the act of getting pissed (and, yes, getting into fights as a consequence) purely for the sake of it. I can't speak for any of the younger folks, but for my generation, one's first glassing (received and/or administered) was practically a rite of passage in itself for young males, and seldom resulted in any permanent disfiguring injuries (and as far as I know, in terms of brawling etiquette, smashing a bottle over someone's head is still considered a less extreme response than using a chair, for example). But it's the fact that this pattern of social behaviour is regarded as, if not exactly desirable, then at least inevitable by such a large proportion of the population that I find interesting... especially compared with the trend in public attitudes towards smoking, for example.
"New non-shatter pint glass introduced to prevent pub attacks", according to the Mirror; or, if you prefer news for adults, "British Toast New Shatterproof Pint Glass" via the AP.
The issue here is, ostensibly, that of "glassing"-- i.e. smashing (or slashing) one's broken beer bottle or lager glass across a fellow pub-patron's facial region. I'm not going to argue that this, specifically, constitutes a no-no by pretty much any rational moral standard. I would enquire as to how much public money has been expended on this project; as opposed to, say, trying to figure out why such an evidently substantial section of the national population is so consistently bored, pissed off and frustrated that they feel the need to regularly set out with the specific aim of getting shitfaced and breaking heads in the first place. But I digress (again).
My real point-- and this kinda ties back to what I mentioned at the beginning of my last post-- is that a significant element of the British "binge-drinking culture" (as it's soundbitten nowadays; and it's nothing new, whatever David Cameron might try to tell you) is the cultural association of this macho, bad-boy stereotype with the act of getting pissed (and, yes, getting into fights as a consequence) purely for the sake of it. I can't speak for any of the younger folks, but for my generation, one's first glassing (received and/or administered) was practically a rite of passage in itself for young males, and seldom resulted in any permanent disfiguring injuries (and as far as I know, in terms of brawling etiquette, smashing a bottle over someone's head is still considered a less extreme response than using a chair, for example). But it's the fact that this pattern of social behaviour is regarded as, if not exactly desirable, then at least inevitable by such a large proportion of the population that I find interesting... especially compared with the trend in public attitudes towards smoking, for example.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Premature Smoking Post
No, I'm not quite that senile yet; I know the lecture isn't until Thursday (and just as an aside: it's interesting that we get a lecture on smoking, yet none that I can see specifically about, say, endemic social alcohol abuse or its manifestations...)
One thing I have noticed is that smokers are definitely the last minority whom it is politically acceptable to oppress. Begone, thou wretches, from all Public Places; and wander the frigid, carcinogenic wilderness in shame... I'm personally a confirmed ex-ex-smoker (took me over four years to finally kick that pesky zero-a-day habit), so I can kind of grasp both (often equally neurotic) sides of the debate... but I think it's long since passed the level of relative social stigma and become a serious civil rights issue-- and one which is almost never taken seriously as such.
I hope to have more to say (and in more detail) about that later in the week, though.
One thing I have noticed is that smokers are definitely the last minority whom it is politically acceptable to oppress. Begone, thou wretches, from all Public Places; and wander the frigid, carcinogenic wilderness in shame... I'm personally a confirmed ex-ex-smoker (took me over four years to finally kick that pesky zero-a-day habit), so I can kind of grasp both (often equally neurotic) sides of the debate... but I think it's long since passed the level of relative social stigma and become a serious civil rights issue-- and one which is almost never taken seriously as such.
I hope to have more to say (and in more detail) about that later in the week, though.
Inaugural Bloggery
Hi. My name is Al, and I am a creepy old man.
Seriously, though: after looking around the classroom on Thursday, I can't escape the unwelcome suspicion that I'm by far the oldest student in the class. According to the law of averages, I should therefore have already outdone most of y'all in terms of socially transgressive behaviour. If so, I'll try not to play that advantage too heavily...
A blog is an unusual kind of assignment, but a strangely apposite one nevertheless. I mean, the word blog is phonetically filthy enough in itself-- the first time I encountered it, I honestly initially assumed it the term to be slang for some new and no doubt appalling variety of public-toilet rendezvous-- but moreover, keeping a coherent journal over any length is something at which, historically, I have indeed been thoroughly and consistently bad.
Regarding last week's lecture, and specifically the 'dirty deeds' exercise, though: I'll admit to being somewhat shocked, although maybe not in the way that I've noticed other blog authors have been. Several people have already commented on the ew-value of the records read out in class, and sure, they were pretty dire... but what really struck me was the banality (especially by comparison) of the notes my own little circle received. Either we were just unlucky and got lame fiction from people who were taking the piss, or else some of you have led quite distressingly sheltered lives. "Stolen Jaffa Cakes from Tesco?" Really? That's one of the most ill-regarded things you've ever done?? HARD. CORE.
Seriously, though: after looking around the classroom on Thursday, I can't escape the unwelcome suspicion that I'm by far the oldest student in the class. According to the law of averages, I should therefore have already outdone most of y'all in terms of socially transgressive behaviour. If so, I'll try not to play that advantage too heavily...
A blog is an unusual kind of assignment, but a strangely apposite one nevertheless. I mean, the word blog is phonetically filthy enough in itself-- the first time I encountered it, I honestly initially assumed it the term to be slang for some new and no doubt appalling variety of public-toilet rendezvous-- but moreover, keeping a coherent journal over any length is something at which, historically, I have indeed been thoroughly and consistently bad.
Regarding last week's lecture, and specifically the 'dirty deeds' exercise, though: I'll admit to being somewhat shocked, although maybe not in the way that I've noticed other blog authors have been. Several people have already commented on the ew-value of the records read out in class, and sure, they were pretty dire... but what really struck me was the banality (especially by comparison) of the notes my own little circle received. Either we were just unlucky and got lame fiction from people who were taking the piss, or else some of you have led quite distressingly sheltered lives. "Stolen Jaffa Cakes from Tesco?" Really? That's one of the most ill-regarded things you've ever done?? HARD. CORE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
