President Trump: Anthropocentric and Post-Modern

Many people muse about President Trump and often have difficulty in making sense of the man. He appears to be someone of contradiction in that he is both anthropocentric and post-modern in his thinking. For example, under modernity the dominant ideas were anthropocentric ones in that economic growth, rising living standards and the exploitation of the environment and other living things were legitimate in all circumstances. Biocentric equality and the belief that we are dependent on the environment had not yet come to be accepted. Today, many of us believe that to champion the interests of Mr Trumps donors in the polluting fossil fuel industry is something reactionary and against the interests of future generations. The President appears unconcerned with the long term future and only seems interested in the here and now. As a populist, with a working class constituency to please he also seems uninterested in the effects of green house gases or the opportunities in renewable sources of energy and the great technological opportunities and challenges ahead. Mr Trump also seems post-modern in his approach to language and evidentiary too. When the low numbers of attendees at his inauguration were noted he simply said this was media lies. For the post-modernist, language is not something which necessarily needs to be predicated upon truth but upon usefulness and plausibility. Such thinking was offered by the White House today when they employed the term 'alternative facts.' Someone rightly noted that alternatives to facts are fiction. Former President Obama noted Trumps lack of intellectual curiosity but if self promotion is the only real objective then facts actually become unimportant. One simply deals with inconvenient fact or criticism through the use of denial or personal attack via social media. The reality of individual achievement, scientific or social standing become irrelevant if the message or facts do not happen to support Mr Trump's views. Bankers who pondered what action to take with regard to Mr Trump's plurality of huge business disasters decided he was a great promoter of his own brand and little else. In terms of the future, we are likely to see a Presidency which will be ego centric and divisive and one which will be unconcerned about fact, truth or the rationalism that accompanied the modernist anthropocentric age. Emotive language rather than evidence will be the key tool of rebuttal and the strategy of argumentum ad hominem.   

Visit doctorthesis.co.uk

University Rankings

I sometimes wonder what the league tables or rankings for Universities really mean. I don’t mean that I am confused as notions like student satisfaction or research output are all pretty clear. What I am getting at is that giving a University 99th place like the University of Central Lancashire or 46th place for Keele University really doesn’t mean that much in my experience. As a qualitative researcher perhaps I am biased against such quantitative benchmarks. I didn’t choose these two examples at random although I have attended many Universities over the last 20 years. My point is that having attended UCLAN back in 1992-1995 I found the Government programme to be second to none. Studying politics, international relations and public administration prepared me to compete successfully against others far more privileged in their academic pedigree when it came to post-graduate study. Conversely, although Keele University at position 46 would suggest a far better experience this was not the case. Although I completed a very successful Ph.D which attracted international media coverage and has been widely cited in academic journals, what you get out of a University course is really dependent on what you put into it. Often academics have very little time for you or if you are a post-graduate they might not be an authority on your specific research area. This was not to say I had a poor experience at Keele but to say that the institution itself was marginal in terms of determining success or failure. At D.Phil you really are pretty much alone and that’s the way it should be. So basic things like getting the reading done, putting effort into seminar papers, attending lectures and doing the ‘donkey-work’ where getting hold of the right journal articles is concerned makes all the difference. My central argument here is that once you are accepted onto a University course the ‘quality’ benchmarks mean little but self-discipline, determination, thirst for knowledge and keenness where attention to detail is concerned makes the world of difference. So what’s my advice? Go somewhere which enriches your social and academic life and that broadens your horizons. Leave rankings and league tables to football clubs!

For more information contact Julian here

University Assessments: Policy Memo

Students often find writing policy memo’s difficult or at least something unfamiliar. One of the main priorities should be to think about the style of writing and the needs of the audience. The style needs to show technical competence and precision where the identification and application of concepts are concerned. You are unlikely to be asked to write for a generalist audience so theoretical and conceptual competence is important. Avoid emotive language such as massacre or brutality and select terms like direct violence or disproportionate use of force. Try to avoid bias in the writing because this will only offer a one sided account which seldom helps in the drafting of a rigorous policy memo. Never lose sight of the key instructions of the remit and when you write about background or historical context try to take any opportunities to link your prose back to the needs of the assessment. If your document is quite lengthy, ensure your executive summary reflects this and is not something of a token affair. Show evidence of serious background reading and do not merely rely on media reports in the formation of your ideas and understanding. Finally, ensure that you are up to date with the situation on the ground or in the theatre of conflict. Offering recommendations for action based on a military situation which no longer exists will not come across well.

See link