Professor of E1

Perhaps the allure of London, E1 is that there can be no end to our fascination with it. This explains why I can never stop reading about it, be it in the form of Sebald's Austerlitz, Litvinoff's Journey Through a Small Planet, Rachel Lichtenstein's Rodinsky's Room and Brick Lane, or anything written by Iain Sinclair, the unofficial professor of E1. The magnum opus (which I have yet to read) in this respect appears to be Sinclair's Hackney: That Rose-Red Empire, recently released to warm reviews.

Sinclair writes in today's Guardian about the cinematic version of the East End. There's an Iain Sinclair Weekend during the East End Film Festival, which takes place at Dalston's Rio Cinema.

Marxism 2009

Earlier today I picked up a leaflet for this year's Marxism festival in London. The list of speakers and courses is impressive: David Harvey, Terry Eagleton, Tariq Ali, and, amongst many, many other socialist illuminati, the irrepressible Slavoj Žižek. I'm not familiar with David Harvey's work, though I have heard of him. Acquainting myself with his work is made easy by the video lectures here, in which he performs close readings of the first volume of Capital. Nor am I familiar with the format of these Marxism festivals, organised by the Socialist Workers' Party: there's no indication when individual talks are, or whether it's possible to attend a few in a casual way or whether the festival demands (encourages, rather) full-on commitment. That said, the entire week is made accessible to all by a reasonable price scale and assistance with transport and food on a nationwide basis. There's even a creche for committed Marxist families! (Doesn't Marx critique the family unit somewhere? I wonder how such groups relate to the great man's work..)

The reactions of the rich to Darling's proposed 50% income tax rate for those earning £150,000 or over will undoubtedly whip up high levels of indignant rage at Marxism 2009. Unsurprisingly, the rich are themselves indignant at being penalised for working hard in life, something which they view is ample justification for their more than ample remuneration. Some time before today's budget - in the preparations for the policies announced today, presumably in last November's pre-budget report - suspicions were raised at the extent of this penalty on the wages of the rich, the main response to the idea being that high taxation de-incentivises hard work, making people less likely to seek enterprise through unremitting graft.

But unremitting graft is not exclusive to the rich. Most people in British society waste many years of their lives doing hard work in unforgiving jobs that pay very little and offer even less protection in retirement. Besides this necessary, though lamentable, strata of the British workforce, there are those who train hard through higher education leading to careers that offer satisfaction and quality of life, though not in the wage packet. I'm talking here about teachers, nurses, youth workers, social workers, arts workers, all of whom contribute to society in many diverse ways and see this as an incentive to work hard in life. So the rebuttal of the rich to high taxation is therefore hardly reasonable. Might it be that one of the driving forces behind the current crisis has been an entire raft of professions motivated precisely by the wrong incentive? And perhaps the current crisis demands that we examine what contributes to society at the same as offering quality of life, something to which all people, rich and poor, are rightly entitled.

Off pitch

Philip Hensher is surely wrong in his assessment here of Venezuela's El Sistema. His doubt over its real, far-reaching results, clouded as it is by invoking Venezuela's murder rate, is wide of the mark and unfair. It shows some level of naivety: does he not think that in the minds of the individuals involved, El Sistema has reduced the likelihood of their living a life of crime or indeed being its victim? And this being the case for a very large number of people, more than enough evidence is provided of El Sistema's social and cultural success.

Perhaps Hensher was lucky enough to have had the kind of upbringing that economically and socially (in purely British class terms, that is) ensured an entire range of opportunities. This might account for his (luxurious) ability to shrug off El Sistema's undoubted achievements. ('Achievements' seems an understatement in the case under question. Those involved might argue more on the side of 'miracles', in terms of the programme having held out a hand at just the right time.) If Hensher is able to question El Sistema, then criticism, previous as it might seem, is truly forthcoming for the British manifestations of Venezuela's revolutions in music. Pioneered first in Scotland, and now slowly extending to Liverpool, Lambeth, and Norwich, 'In Harmony' (the name for the English version) aims to open up disadvantaged young people to new cultural and educational experiences. Venezuela is markedly different to Britain in terms of its crime rate. It seems logical to question, as Hensher does, the potential effects of the Venezuelan programme as it confronts another culture. But I happen to think Hensher is also unfair in the case of Big Noise and In Harmony, since he doesn't give the people organising the programme enough credit for their ability to line up cultural differences with methodological approaches.

My entire point in writing this post is to suggest that Hensher should lay off educational policy and concentrate on the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra's persistent struggles with issues of rubato and softness in their playing.

J.G. Ballard (1930-2009)

We've lost another visionary. Ballard kept us on our toes for a very, very long time, and through his writings served humanity a great deal of what it would prefer to turn its back on.

Who takes the place of such a totemic figure in world literature?

Not quite on the ball

Having read a number of highly eloquent articles and reports surrounding the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough Disaster, and having also watched Jimmy McGovern's Hillsborough on Wednesday (the day of the memorial service at Anfield), I agree with the Liverpool Football Club's swift and unwavering decision to let Charles Itandje go after he laughed during the memorial service. It was highly unacceptable; his position is untenable. The same fans for whom he would play should he be kept on are the same people who have directly experienced loss because of the Disaster or know someone who has.

The Guardian's report is certain he will not play for the team again. But what I thought was this: is it not a shame that racist and homophobic behaviour is not similarly condemned and dealt with? This would be for the players as much as it would be for the fans, of course, since prejudice emanates from the spectators (though apparently homophobia does the rounds between the players as well). That said, who can doubt the wit of fans who wave a banner that reads: 'Torres: Turning Kopites gay since 2007'.

Apichatpong Weerasethakul

From the director of films whose credits begin in the very middle of the film, this book, from the Austrian Film Museum. Bewildering, beguiling, mesmerising, political in subtly metaphorical but above all powerfully visual terms, Apichatpong Weerasethakul's work grows ever more canonical as each new film is released.

Lost in translation?

Below you will find a beautifully apt, if unwitting, English translation from a caption to the photograph here from Der Spiegel's website.

The West continues to be worried that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly designed the accusation, most recently in his interview with SPIEGEL. "We have no interest in building a nuclear weapon," he said.

Surely they meant 'denied'?

Walls have ears

State regulation of the talking cure is straight out of a dystopian novel. Except it isn't: to protect the public, the British government is proposing to regulate psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, which the Coalition Against Over-Regulation of Psychotherapy thinks is against both medical ethics and freedom of speech.

A letter with some very distinguished signatories indeed was published in today's Guardian. The full text is also on the Coalition's homepage, from which you can link to the petition itself.

Libraries: goodbye to all that?

Robert Sarjant, Head of programmes and operations for Book Aid International, writes in today's Guardian about library provision in the developing world. He cites the sobering fact that in Kenya, there are only 48 libraries for a population of more than 30 million. Whilst this places Britain's library crisis into perspective, we shouldn't allow such facts about the developing world blind us to the gradual erosion of the public services for which we pay and to which we have a right. If anything, Sarjant's letter exposes British complacency about its right to free services, in that once such things as libraries and community centres are taken away from us, we suddenly use them much more than before. Librarians have said as much when they comment on the noticeable surge in library users once the threat of library closures is mooted and then put in place.

Which brings us to the question of libraries as buildings, as monuments to reading, as opposed to the library functioning merely as the space in which a universe of books and other resources are contained. Newcastle Central Library and the proposed new building for Birmingham Central Library are impressive monuments to reading in that they certainly look the twenty-first century part; bright, airy, transparent shells existing to maximise the potential for the inner lives of the proletariat, if you like. I love high-end public architecture and celebrate the erection of impressive and artful structures dedicated to learning, enlightenment and pleasure, but does it mean we are exposed to more books? Do such buildings result in greater centralisation at the expense of the archipelago of smaller library branches, to which all councils should be dedicated to maintaining? I've no idea whether these questions are relevant to Birmingham and Newcastle, but if you consider the closure of the historically famous Whitechapel Library, and its subsequent resurrection as a high-end designed 'Ideas Store', then you have reason to question what sacrifices are made when councils take the decision to centre on building design rather than the increase in actual stocks. By saying all this I refer to the criticism of Whitechapel's Ideas Store in view of its receding book stock, not to mention its detrimental transformation from a cosy, well-worn institution famous for its stock of Yiddish literature and eminent Jewish intellectuals, to an any-old-building to which people go for any-old-thing. In other words, Ideas Stores and the like appear to have failed in promoting reading and book culture. Perhaps staff members and users of Whitechapel's otherwise beautiful Ideas Store can put me right. I hope they can. What I say does not reflect on library staff; it is directed at the thinking behind buildings.

I am probably going to contradict myself now by saying that, contrary to Wallasey MP Angela Eagle's assertion that library users should not be so concerned about buildings, libraries are multi-functional spaces that the public - sometimes desperately - needs to study, enhance their lives through relaxed reading, come together in diverse social formations in order to share ideas, skills, experience, and above all support each other emotionally. For this social glue to occur, buildings are required. So Wirral's taxpayers have every right to be concerned about their libraries as buildings as much as they are for their future inability to access a free copy of the latest Alan Bennett or Jamie Oliver.

Driven by the adverts

Saturday, 4th April, 2009: the day the print edition of the Guardian was taken over by a Honda advert.

A pinch of satire?

The VIP launch of the Manhattan Topshop gets photographic priority on the Guardian's homepage. Beside it is the menu for the items relating to the G20 summit. This juxtaposition and priority (assuming that a photograph and a drop-down headline signal this) would either make the blood boil or the spirit laugh, depending on how switched on the reader's irony radar is. This layout is asking us to consider the wild diversity of international events at any given time, and how their simultaneity exposes one or the other in terms of real significance. It's not that the Guardian is arguing for their significance; it's that their mode of representation is asking us to consider it instead. Being a responsible and sharp reader means your blood doesn't have to boil.

However, you can't be blamed for feeling irritated by the free advert for Topshop, being a private business and for an event it is holding a long way away from the majority of the newspaper's readership. As if any of us could buy much these days anyway, let alone make it over the pond to do so there.

The need to split hairs

Howard Jacobson has been writing lately of the distinctions to be made between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, a crucial issue for what he views in this New Republic article as a 'Pox Britannia', an infection, or in other words the anti-Semitism stealthily making its way through English society in general and the liberal intelligentsia in particular.

It is difficult to think clearly about the question of Israel/Palestine; even more difficult to know what to think of what has now come to be known as 'Gaza', the shorthand expression for Israel's recent offensive. But take the kind of brilliant analysis, demonstrated here by Jacobson, and the point of knowing how to differentiate between being properly analytical and naively emotive, is made ultimately clear:

The premise of Seven Jewish Children is a fine piece of fashionable psychobabble that understands Zionism as the collective nervous breakdown of the Jewish people; instead of learning the humanizing lesson of the Holocaust--whatever that might be, and whatever the even greater obligation on non-Jews to learn it too--Jews vent their instability on the Palestinians in imitation of what the Nazis vented on them. This is a theory that assumes what it offers to prove, namely how like Nazis Israelis have become. Furthermore, it dispossesses Jews of their own history, turning the Holocaust into a sort of retrospective retribution, Jews being made to pay the price then for what Israelis are doing now. Clearly, this exists at a more extreme end of the continuum of willed forgetting than Holocaust denial itself, its ultimate object being to break the Jew-Holocaust nexus altogether. Let us no longer deny the Holocaust, let us rather redistribute the pity. If there is a victim of the Holocaust today, it is the people of Gaza.

Given how hard it is to distinguish Jew from Israeli in all this, the mantra "It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel" looks increasingly disingenuous. But there is no challenging it, not even with such eminently reasonable responses as, "That surely depends on the criticism," or "Calling into question an entire nation's right to exist is not exactly 'criticism.'" Nor is the distinction between Israeli and Jew much respected where the graffitists and the baby bullies of the schoolyard do their work. But, in the end, it is frankly immaterial how much of this is Jewhating or not. The inordinacy of English Israel-loathing--ascribing to a country the same disproportionate responsibility for the world's ills that was once ascribed to a people--is toxic enough in itself. The language of extremism has a malarious dynamic of its own, passing effortlessly from the mischievous to the unwary, and from there into the bloodstream of society. And that's what one can smell here. Infection.

This concludes his article. It's helpful to quote it before reminding ourselves of the frankly shocking comments that are being made these days in certain corners of English liberal intelligentsia, Ken Loach apparently the model in this respect:

The distinguished British film director Ken Loach dismissed a report on the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe as designed merely to "distract attention" from Israel's military crimes. An increase in anti-Semitism is "perfectly understandable," Loach said, "because Israel feeds feelings of anti-Semitism."

Locating the source text in which these statements were made would assist in working out how such a distinguished individual can allow the phrase 'perfectly understandable' to elide the core point of how increasing anti-Semitism is always already indefensible.

Nice juxtaposition

..here.