Absent an international approach in reforming governance, transition to a just and sustainable world remains unattainable

Locally-based economic alternatives won’t deliver the changes we desperately need

No 1260 Posted by fw, February 15, 2015

Rajesh Makwana

Rajesh Makwana

“At a time when governments are failing abysmally to mitigate climate change, reduce inequality or end poverty, the key to creating a more equal and sustainable world is establishing participative forms of political engagement at all levels of society – from the local to the global. In an era of politics characterized by unconstrained corporate lobbying, a well-oiled ‘revolving door’ between industry and government, and an endless stream of campaign contributions from dirty oil and other lucrative industries, is the long-championed ideal of a truly democratic state now a lost cause? Should concerned citizens and activists turn their attention instead to establishing sustainable economic alternatives within their towns and communities? Or should we all be doing much more to ensure that ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth’”? —Rajesh Makwana, Director, Share the World’s Resources 

In a lengthy article, Rajesh Makwana, surveys the formidable barriers progressives face in establishing social, economic, political and environmental systems that are structurally just and truly sustainable. He finds alternative initiatives, such as Transition Towns, commons movements, sharing economies, worker co-ops, and more, fall short of the mark. And he explains why. Rajesh holds out high hopes for ‘sharing societies’, acknowledging, however, that his conceptual vision remains “virtually unattainable in the current political climate.” Nevertheless, Rajesh’s analysis goes well beyond what most articles of its kind offer, and is well worth a look.

To read the original article, click on the following linked title. Alternatively, below is a cross-posting featuring added subheadings in bold italics, inserted as hanging indents, and added text highlighting.

**********

Beyond the market-state: decentralising power in a sharing society by Rajesh Makwana, www.sharing.org, February 11, 2015

What now should progressives do in an age of low trust and support for political elites? Turn to localism? Or renew our efforts to create participative democracies at all levels?

At a time when governments are failing abysmally to mitigate climate change, reduce inequality or end poverty, the key to creating a more equal and sustainable world is establishing participative forms of political engagement at all levels of society – from the local to the global.

In an era of politics characterized by unconstrained corporate lobbying, a well-oiled ‘revolving door’ between industry and government, and an endless stream of campaign contributions from dirty oil and other lucrative industries, is the long-championed ideal of a truly democratic state now a lost cause? Should concerned citizens and activists turn their attention instead to establishing sustainable economic alternatives within their towns and communities? Or should we all be doing much more to ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”, as Abraham Lincoln once avowed? 

The wreckage of global market-driven ideology is visible everywhere

Few questions are more pertinent at a time when levels of trust and support for the political elite have reached an all-time low across the globe. This is not surprising given the extent to which policies that uphold the common good have been steadily marginalized over the past three decades in favour of those that promote a predominantly neoliberal agenda. As Oxfam’s head of global policy and campaigns recently mentioned, “policies such as public provision of services, public ownership and subsidy of industry, progressive taxation of rich individuals and corporations, strong trade unions and labour rights, full employment, universal welfare states, strong limits to intellectual property – are still pretty much frozen out of current debates.” The consequences of what has become an almost global adherence to a market-driven ideology is plain to see: a failure of governments to stem the growth in inequality or significantly reduce global poverty, and an inability to agree upon the basic measures needed to curb global carbon emissions and mitigate climate change.

The root cause of systemic failure is “the illegitimate power of multinational corporations”

For the most part, campaigners and progressive organisations recognize that our governments seem incapable of addressing these and many other interconnected crises. Most are also united in acknowledging the root cause of this failure: the illegitimate power of multinational corporations. It is widely recognized that the greatest influence over public policy in today’s globalised world is not wielded by the electorate, but rests with a powerful elite of wealthy individuals and transnational businesses that have unwarranted access to the corridors of power. As this year’s State of Power report by the Transnational Institute sums up, “corporations have succeeded in replacing rule of law with Global Corporate law, using a multitude of norms, treaties and agreements – most recently the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership [TTIP] – to secure their rights to profit above human rights.” In short, we are witnessing a crisis of governance and democracy at all levels of society – from local municipalities and national government, all the way up to the United Nations.

Attribute the crisis to the “market-state”, which reflects the power gap between private and public sectors

This reality is neatly encapsulated in the concept of the ‘market-state’, which illustrates the imbalance of power between the private sector and citizens, and the impact this has over the formulation of public policy. The phrase [market-state] was first coined by the law scholar and national security expert Philip Bobbitt in 2002, to reflect the evolution of a new globalized constitutional order in which governments work towards maximizing economic opportunity rather than safeguarding the welfare of individuals.

Private sector corporations and banks are “rapidly swallowing up governments”

Nowadays, however, it is used more generally to describe the fused relationship between governments and big business and the impact this has on society, and is often used as a point of reference by proponents of the commons. As commons theorist James Quilligan explains, “the private sector and banks are rapidly swallowing up governments and bending national constitutions to their favor, decreasing the role of government and limiting our political rights as citizens. Voting and popular representation are becoming less meaningful because governments are pledged to support the interests of large corporations, not the people’s interests.”

In response, engaged citizens are seeking self-empowerment in new forms of social and economic organization

In light of this democratic deficit and the political disenfranchisement that inevitably follows, engaged citizens are increasingly turning to unconventional forms of social and economic organisation that are inherently more egalitarian and provide stakeholders with greater empowerment and more influence over the decisions that affect them. A whole swathe of ‘new economy’ initiatives have recently emerged to foster community participation and increase access to goods and services in an ecologically conscious way, while broadly aligning to the increasingly popular concept of ‘de-growth’.

Examples of new initiatives include Transition Towns, commons movements, sharing economies, co-ops, and much more

Examples of this assorted grouping of social, environmental and entrepreneurial activities include the Transition Towns and commons movements, the numerous sharing economy and peer-to-peer networks and platforms, cooperatives and community supported agriculture, open source software, co-housing initiatives, and much more besides. Implicit in the pursuit of these predominantly locally-rooted alternatives is the growing awareness that we urgently need a radical transformation in the way we organize society, particularly in relation to how we share the planet’s finite resources. As Gar Alperovitz (a prominent exponent of co-operative enterprise) argues, the goal of these diverse new economy initiatives is “democratized ownership of the economy for the 99 percent”.

From local alternatives to global reforms

New initiatives manifest “strong ethical principles”, core values, participative decision-making, carbon-free energy, and more

The manifold benefits of new economy initiatives should not be underestimated, especially as they go beyond financial measures of economic prosperity to include personal wellbeing, social cohesion and environmental protection. For example, the burgeoning co-operative movement boasts over a billion members globally and is characterized by strong ethical principles that go far beyond hackneyed notions of corporate social responsibility, while often encouraging the participation of both employees and consumers in decision-making processes. Transition Towns and other resilience initiatives are also gaining in popularity, with their core emphasis on regenerating communities and local economies, providing social support networks, and reducing dependence on fossil fuels and carbon intensive processes. At the same time, tech-based forms of collaborative consumption are making headlines for ‘disrupting’ existing economic models and instituting new ways of accessing goods and services. Research by peer-to-peer theorists such as Michel Bauwens and Jeremy Rifkin suggest that the digital sharing of information and knowledge has the potential to revolutionize the way we produce, distribute and consume everyday goods and services as well as renewable energy.

Skeptics worry that the aggregate impact of local solutions aren’t addressing advocacy need for structural reform

However, there are good reasons to be skeptical about the aggregate impact of individual or community actions in relation to the scale of change that is needed, unless they are part of a broader program of advocacy for structural reform. For example, there is currently a great deal of interest in alternative methods of food production, especially in the city centres of industrialized countries.

For example, local food production fails to address need to reform international policies embedded, for example, in free trade agreements

But the localization of food production is widely regarded by farmers’ movements across the world as only one part of the solution to the complex problems associated with today’s unsustainable global food system. As La Via Campesina highlight in their advocacy work, establishing just models of food production means adhering to the principle of ‘food sovereignty’ and reforming a host of international policies that include the intellectual property rights framework and free trade agreements.

Local energy solutions could be counterproductive to achieving solutions for society as a whole

There are similar issues around individual efforts to reduce energy consumption while governments fail to invest in a global green new deal and fossil fuel companies continue to exploit reserves at a rate that is incommensurate with agreed emissions targets. In some cases, popular local alternatives could even be counterproductive to achieving the most sustainable and equitable outcomes for society as a whole. For example, proponents of the sharing economy widely support forms of car sharing, whose benefits are indisputable when compared to individual ownership. But the benefits of car sharing dwindle significantly when compared to the massive reductions in carbon emissions that can be achieved if more effective public transport systems are built and used by citizens, which requires policy-level change on a scale that is not actively supported by sharing economy advocates.

Clearly, both local alternatives and systemic reforms to policies and institutions are required to challenge practices and policies that drive climate change

Of course, the above examples (and the many others that could be listed) do not present mutually exclusive choices – both local alternatives and more transformative reforms to policies and institutions must ultimately be part of any great transition. However, the danger is that if we fail to make systemic reforms at the policy level then new economy initiatives such as car sharing or urban gardening, forms of commoning and peer-to-peer production, or even Transition Towns could conceivably continue to function (and even grow in popularity) without posing any real challenge to the carbon intensive, consumption-driven economic policies that result in global warming or perpetuate inequality. It is also possible for community-driven initiatives to be co-opted by governments that support localization while also advancing neoliberal policies, such as when the UK’s Conservative Party introduced the Big Society project alongside debilitating austerity measures.

Locally-based economic alternatives alone will not deliver the radical changes we desperately need

If we are serious about addressing the root cause of the environmental crisis, preventing extreme poverty or reclaiming our democratic systems, we must acknowledge that locally-based economic alternatives will not deliver the dramatic changes in society (and across the world as a whole) that are now so desperately needed – at least not on their own. This is especially the case given the scale of the structural reforms needed to reverse ongoing crises like climate change, which poses a tremendous challenge at a time when politicians are failing to reach even the most fundamental agreements needed to limit global carbon emissions.

Absent an international approach in reforming governance, a radical transition to a just and sustainable world is impossible

In order to have any lasting impact on climate change or implement a just and sustainable model of economic development, it is also essential that this reconfiguration of institutions and policies takes place at the global level. Without an international approach to reforming governance, the structural realities of a globalized economy are likely to render much of what can be achieved through localization initiatives largely ineffectual. Many analysts who take an internationalist perspective also argue that in an interdependent world, individual governments would avoid taking unilateral action on global issues in order to prevent political isolation, capital flight or other financial penalties. It is also feasible that a planned contraction in resource consumption by one country would be offset by increases elsewhere, which would nullify the benefits of such an approach. Any significant transition away from the status quo is therefore a collective action problem that can only be resolved through international cooperation and the formation of global strategies and binding agreements.   

Clearly, without a significant change in our current political and economic paradigm, it will remain impossible to address these challenges. As the Trapese [Popular Education] Collective outline in their constructive critique of the Transition Towns movement, “the analysis of how we got into this mess, and the best way to move on, does bring us back to politics. It involves taking on power and those who hold wealth and influence.” In other words, it will remain impossible to work towards any comprehensive vision of structural reform unless we recognise the historical and political causes of environmental and social crises, challenge entrenched vested interests, and join the global struggle to put an end to the absurd concentration of wealth and economic power that currently rests with the richest 1% of the world’s population.

A new society based on sharing and redistribution

The promise of a sharing and redistribution society

In many ways, the principle of sharing is likely to be pivotal to the transition away from the market-state as it underpins any process of decentralizing and devolving political and economic power to the lowest level of decision making, in accordance with the concept of subsidiarity. Only in more equal and participative ‘sharing societies’ will citizens be able to play an active role in democratizing governance institutions and shaping the direction of political life.

In a sharing society, localized economies will go hand-in-hand with inclusive forms of political engagement

In stark contrast to the market-state, a sharing society in any true sense will need to localize economic activity wherever possible and establish any number of more inclusive and effective forms of political engagement, such as online ‘direct democracy’ platforms, people’s assembliesparticipatory budgeting initiatives, and even communal councils.

In a sharing society, robust social protection systems will be established worldwide as a matter of principle

From any rational perspective, the overarching goal of social and economic policy in the period ahead must decidedly shift towards securing basic human needs for all without transgressing environmental limits. Another major challenge in building fairer societies based on the principle of sharing is therefore the creation (and safeguarding) of robust social protection systems in countries across the world. Such systems are important examples of solidarity that enable citizens to collectively pool a nation’s financial resources so that they can be redistributed for the benefit of all. Even though the aging welfare state model is in need of reform and renewal, nationwide mechanisms of mutual provisioning remain the most effective way of meeting longstanding human rights obligations across entire countries.

As the scholar and activist Francine Mestrum argues, universal systems of social protection enable people to take responsibility for those they do not know by ensuring that everyone’s basics rights are secured – a process that strengthens our ‘collective solidarity’ and embodies a profound awareness of our common humanity. Nonetheless, social protections are continually being undermined by the harsh austerity measures that have been implemented in numerous countries since the 2008 financial crisis, and their proper functioning is unlikely to be restored without increasing public outcry and a substantive reorientation of government policies. Moreover, 4 out of 5 people in developing countries are still denied the social protection guarantees that citizens take for granted in rich countries, which is why it is essential that these sophisticated systems of sharing are also dramatically scaled up and strengthened at the global level.

In a sharing society, private businesses would need to ensure participative decision-making and fair distribution of income

Yet the notion of a sharing society embodies far more than participatory democracy and the provision of universal social protection and essential public services. In accordance with the principle of sharing, private businesses would also need to substantially change the way they operate by at least ensuring that decision-making power and income is fairly distributed among employees. The current trend towards peer-to-peer modes of distributed manufacturing as well as cooperative, not-for-profit and socially-oriented business models are important steps in this direction. Additionally, corporations would need to go far beyond ‘greenwashing’ their activities and adopt genuinely ecological practices that can facilitate the transition to sustainable production and consumption patterns, and thereby help bring humanity closer to achieving the goal of ‘one planet living’.

A sharing society would include a commons sector to ensure fair and equitable distribution of planetary resources

A sharing society would also include a vibrant commons sector that could function independently of markets or direct government involvement. This is broadly in line with what P2P theorist Michel Bauwens refers to as the partner state – a reformed governmental apparatus that builds on the welfare state model and actively supports the development of the commons. Democratic and accountable state systems are also a prerequisite to managing the global commons which, in the first instance, will require representative governments to negotiate new commons-based legal frameworks to ensure that planetary resources are managed in the interests of current and future generations. Of course, entirely new structures of accountability are urgently needed if governments are to reflect the needs of their citizens in international negotiations, or if they are ever to agree a workable global agenda for safeguarding the Earth’s biosphere.

Sadly, a sharing society remains “virtually unattainable in the current political climate”

There can be little doubt that reforming governance at all levels of societal organisation is the key to establishing effective sharing societies. However, even though many of the governance reforms highlighted above are recognized as essential and unavoidable by a growing number of environmentalists and social activists, they remain virtually unattainable in the current political climate. As long as entrenched vested interests maintain their stranglehold over democratic processes, ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ will present an unprecedented challenge to engaged citizens in all countries.

Meanwhile, those working towards local alternatives to global economic globalization have a central role to play in democratizing our governance systems

Resilient and socially inclusive communities can clearly play an immediate role in the great transition that still lies ahead, but it will remain impossible to establish economic systems that are structurally just and truly sustainable until political power is radically decentralized – especially at the national and global level – and wealth is distributed more equally throughout society. By recognizing the global roots of our local struggles, those working towards local alternatives to economic globalization therefore have a central role to play in democratizing our governance systems from the top down as well as the bottom up.

FAIR USE NOTICE – Click on above tab for details

Watch Big Oil’s propaganda video to deflect attention from dire climate impacts of burning fossil fuels

And don’t miss the clever parody, voiceover version, which Big Oil demanded YouTube remove

No 1259 Posted by fw, February 14, 2015

“This is what the fossil fuel industry is saying about you: that you’re a bunch of big, bad, radicals who want everyone to go hungry in the dark. But we know that’s ridiculous. We know that this movement is pushing for a just, sustainable future for all of us — one where energy is something that helps communities instead of hurting them, and where you don’t need to spend a lot of money to have a voice.”X Fossil Free

Some minor editing changes have been made to the repost below. To access the original version, which includes details about this weekend’s divestment activities, click on the following linked title.

**********

This is what the fossil fuel industry thinks about you by Allyse Heartwell, X Fossil Free, February 12, 2015

A fossil fuel industry PR group just released this cartoon video as an attack on Global Divestment Day

 

[Watch the parody version with audio overlay at the bottom of this post]

[The above propaganda version] was put out by the Environmental Policy Alliance, a front group for Big Oil that pushes out specious and inaccurate opposition research on individuals and organizations who fight climate change. The group is led by Rick Berman, who was taped by the New York Times as saying in a talk to oil executives that “you have to play dirty to win”.

This is what the fossil fuel industry is saying about you: that you’re a bunch of big, bad, radicals who want everyone to go hungry in the dark. But we know that’s ridiculous. We know that this movement is pushing for a just, sustainable future for all of us — one where energy is something that helps communities instead of hurting them, and where you don’t need to spend a lot of money to have a voice.

The industry’s hired guns are trying to take over the #divest hashtag ahead of the big day. Will you help make sure #divest stays a tool that we can connect and celebrate with? Social media can be a simple numbers game, and you can help us beat back these PR flacks:

This video is pretty low… but it’s also pretty laughable. In fact, that’s just what we did when we stumbled across it yesterday.

Aaron Packard, our Oceania Region Coordinator, used his own narration skills to do a remix of the video. And THEN the “Environmental Policy Alliance” made YouTube take down our parody version of the video — but you can still listen to Aaron’s fake “oil baron” narration below.  If the fossil fuel industry was being honest, this is what they’d actually say:

 

FAIR USE NOTICE – Click on above tab for details

Success of student fossil fuel divestment campaigns best measured by impact they have on students themselves

Paradoxically, campaign failure is a powerful teacher of how the real world works

No 1258 Posted by fw, February 13, 2015

“Yet as student groups across Canada call on their own schools to divest from fossil fuels, universities have equivocated, emphasizing the sustainability of their campuses and bemoaning financial difficulties…. As of 2015, no Canadian university has fully divested.” —rabble.ca

To read the original article, click on the following linked title. Alternatively, below is a cross-posting featuring added subheadings in bold italics, inserted as hanging indents, and added text highlighting.

**********

Campus divestment campaigns an investment in young activists by Moira Donovan, rabble.ca, February 13, 2015

Canadian universities bemoan financial difficulties as excuse for retaining investments with extractive industries

When Sarah Mitchell arrived at McGill in the fall of 2014, she was surprised to see Shell’s logo emblazoned on the second page of her student agenda. As a student at McGill’s faculty of sustainable engineering, she had assumed that her department had limited ties with extractive industries. She was surprised again when she later realized that McGill was still tied to fossil fuels through its investments. The campaign for divestment from fossil fuels at McGill had started in 2012, when Sarah was still in high school. By the time she arrived on campus, she assumed McGill had divested long before.

Yet even as universities across Canada adopt an aesthetic [appreciation] of sustainability, divestment activists suggest that by eschewing [refraining] divestment thus far, they’ve opted out of substantive action on climate change.

Organized worldwide through 350.org, fossil fuel divestment campaigns take different forms, but generally aim to divert the investments institutions have in the top 200 carbon-emitting companies, including BP and ExxonMobil. In the U.K., both the University of Glasgow and the University of Bedfordshire have committed to divestment. Success has not been confined to the U.K.; in 2014, Stanford divested from coal mining companies, and six other colleges — though none with endowments larger than $1 billion USD have committed to divestment.

Yet as student groups across Canada call on their own schools to divest from fossil fuels, universities have equivocated [waffled], emphasizing the sustainability of their campuses and bemoaning financial difficulties.

Late last year, Concordia University claimed to partially divest from fossil fuels by establishing a $5-million fund in support of renewable energies. The university’s separate $95-million endowment continues to hold stocks in coal, oil and gas.

As of 2015, no Canadian university has fully divested.

Fossil fuel industry disses student-led divestment campaigns as “naïve idealism”

As with many student-led movements, divestment campaigns have been dismissed by critics in the fossil fuel industry as nothing more than naïve idealism. Some researchers have also suggested that divestment campaigns, focused as they are on investments that directly relate to fossil fuels, would have limited economic impact. The economic tethers of fossil fuels, they say, stretch throughout the economy, including to the sites of investment that some divestment movements have suggested as alternatives.

The current student movement seeks to strip fossil fuels of their social acceptability

Yet for the students involved, understanding divestment as a strictly economic tool misses the point.

Compared to private companies or governments, says Malkolm Boothroyd of Divest UVic, universities are a realistic starting point for divestment.  Just as importantly, he adds, “Universities are well respected. When a university comes out and says it is not moral to invest in fossil fuels, that creates momentum.”  Like the campaign for divestment from South Africa in the 1980s or tobacco in the 1990s, the current movement seeks to strip fossil fuels of their social license. For James Hutt of Divest Dal, the purpose of divestment is not just to economically undermine fossil fuels, but to promote the idea that that they’re socially unacceptable. “It’s morally wrong to benefit from the destruction of the planet,” he says. “That’s something that very few people can argue with.”

Campaign failures force students to come to grips with “how the world really works”

Yet universities have argued it, and in this, paradoxically, lies the strength of the movement. After a long campaign, Dalhousie University’s board of governors voted not to divest in the fall of 2014. For James Hutt, the negative verdict had an unexpected upside.  “It really is a great and beautiful moment for activists, because if [Dalhousie] had voted yes in November that’d be amazing, but it would give a skewed view of how the world really works.” Exposing students to the dynamics that govern their institutions, he says, has benefits that go beyond divestment. In this way and others, Hutt says, divestment campaigns are helping students fill in the gaps left by their formal education.

The success of divestment campaigns are perhaps best measured by the impact they have on the student activists

For a movement ostensibly directed at addressing a challenge that goes beyond any one individual or institution, the success of divestment campaigns are perhaps best measured by the impact they have on the students who take part in them.

For Ella Belfer, being a part of divest McGill has given context to her degree in environment and economics. “Being involved in the divestment movements has given me a much broader sense of what’s going on,” she says, adding that while her classes teach about how climate change is happening, it has been her involvement with Divest McGill that has encouraged her to think critically about why.

In a similar way, Malkolm Boothroyd notes that involvement in divestment has been in many ways the defining feature of his university experience “When I’m looking back at these years what I will cherish strongest of all is the divestment activism that I’ve been part of,” he says. “It’s the part about being at school that is the most empowering.”

At many Canadian universities, divestment campaigns are among the largest movements on campus, bringing together a diverse swath of students, including those who wouldn’t typically be drawn by activism. By directing students at an issue where they can potentially have an impact, say members of Divest UVic, divestment campaigns have tapped into a deep well of energy.  “Just because [those students] are not activists on a day-to-day basis doesn’t mean that they don’t care and doesn’t mean that they’re not hungry for an opportunity to express their will in a way that could be constructive,” notes Boothroyd.

Just as importantly, the varied profile of divestment campaigns translates into the sharing of diverse skills ranging from media training to report writing.

“We’re just as much focused on getting a community to support politicized activists to grow our knowledge and skills,” says James Hutt, adding that this knowledge doesn’t just mean practical skills.  It’s also about showing young activists that “power concedes nothing without a demand,” he says, even at the institutions that are nominally representative of them. With this awareness, students are better equipped to influence the debate both at their universities and beyond them. “It’s really been kind of amazing to see our power to shape the conversation,” says Ella Belfer.

Students leading the way in call for divestment, forcing universities to take significant action

At those universities where faculty have joined students in calling for divestment — such as UBC, where the Faculty Association voted 62 per cent in favor of fossil fuel divestment on February 10 — it’s the students who continue to take the lead. While the support and expertise of faculty is important, says Alexander Hemingway of Divest UBC, “[students] did a lot of work to educate ourselves on all the ins and outs of this issue to begin with…it’s been a student-led movement and the faculty leaders on this have been vocal about that too.” With faculty and students showing strong support for the campaign in referendums, Hemingway adds, “UBC really has an obligation now to take significant action on divestment.”

Students demanding a voice as “equally essential participants in the debate over the values that govern society”

Ultimately, universities are meant to be governed collaboratively; in an ideal scenario, students and faculty along with administrators are involved in making decisions. Yet in an era over ever-increasing austerity, administrators have dominated the debate, using their mandate of fiduciary duty — construed in its narrowest sense as the obligation to make the highest possible return on investments — to drown out other voices. For university students denied their seat at the table, divestment is in large part a radical re-imagining of their role, as well as that of the university: no longer just service users, and no longer as degree-granting institutions, but as equally essential participants in the debate over the values that govern society.

Divestment campaigners know that there are challenges before them, ranging from the complex — like the power structure of universities — to the quotidian [commonplace], such as the need to maintain a stable base from an ever-changing student body. Yet the fact that there’s a challenge at all, they argue, is symptomatic of the fact that they’re doing something right.

“There’s that old line about ‘first they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win,'” says James Hutt. “And now we’re at the point of fighting.”

Moira Donovan is the rabble.ca podcast network intern. She grew up in and attended university in Halifax, where she earned a BA in philosophy from the University of King’s College. Post-graduation she moved across the Atlantic, living in France before completing her MSc in philosophy in London in 2014. She currently lives in Halifax.

FAIR USE NOTICE – Click on above tab for details