In this episode I interview Dominic Sandbrook on the first of his series on modern British history: Never Had It So Good. We take a deep-dive into British culture, society, politics, and international relations between the period of 1956-1963. We discuss across topics such as the Suez Crisis; Britain's imperial decline and it's new sense of identity within a new international framework; we analyse the complex relationship between the decline of empire and the influx of immigration into the UK; and we spend some time unpacking the nuances of late fifties, early sixties, Conservative economic policy.
In this episode one of my past co-hosts Giulia Luvisotto takes the lead and discusses the book Money: The Currency of Politics with its author Stefan Eich, Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University. Eich draws attention on what he takes to be an important yet unduly neglected truth: far from being a neutral means of exchange, money is intrinsically political. To make his case, Eich retraces the genealogy of this thesis (and of its neglect) by looking at the authors that play a key role in it: Aristotle, Locke, Fichte, Marx and Keynes and tells a gripping story of how our conception of money changed because of contextual historical factors. Giulia and Stefan discuss these thinkers in sequence to bring forth how each contributes to the neglect of the political status of money, trying to highlight their peculiarities and clarify their ambiguities. But ultimately the goal is to get to the core of the matter: in what sense is money itself political? Why has this truth been concealed? What sort of politics do we want to strive for? Are there viable alternatives to the status quo? If successful, this episode would not leave you with a number of learnt lessons but with a heightened sense that more attention on money is needed and a thirst for further reflection on the matter.
In this episode we discuss the origins of the New Deal with Ira Katznelson. I am joined by Simon Gansinger, philosopher and law-enthusiast, to delve into the murky past of the New Deal and to examine how it became one of the most defining moments of US history and why it continues to deserve our attention. We begin by looking at the uneasy alliance between F.D. Roosevelt and the Southern Democrats. Roosevelt required their political support in Congress in order to pass the New Deal, but that came at a price: to keep the subject of race off of the political agenda. Katznelson's book focuses on this uneasy alliance and raises important questions about the success of the New Deal and how it should be understood. We then look at how the New Deal fundamentally altered the relationship between the US state and the economy. Much of what is considered nowadays to be the role of the US state is due to the New Deal. This, too, could not have succeeded without the support of the Southern Democrats, who were curiously pro-labour. We investigate this development in the US state and interrogate the tension at heart between a white supremacist South and a progressive South, when it came to labour. Finally, we consider the difficult relationship that the New Deal has with non-democratic forms of government. A central theme of Katznelson's book is that the, paradoxically, whilst the New Deal is a response by the US to defend itself against the rise of non-democratic forms of government, it borrows much from these non-democratic forms of government. Katznelson's book, then, fundamentally demands that we re-think the opposition between democracy and non-democracy, and shows us how, in times of crisis, they are unnervingly similar.
In this episode we look at Robin Dunbar's particular thesis that religion is not just an unexpected outcome of evolution but is, in fact, a mode of engaging with the world that confers substantial benefits on its adherents. We look at the importance of group bonding and the important role that religion plays in this. We talk about why religion is the most effective mode of bonding people in large groups, paying special attention to the role that endorphin release plays in this. Indeed, the emotional background to religion raises interesting questions about the futility of arguing about religious beliefs or trying to reason against religious belief. A big consequence of Dunbar's reading is that one is religious, not for reasons, but because of the emotional pull that religion has over people. Finally, we discuss the role of religion in our increasingly secular societies. If religion is as important to group bonding as Dunbar would argue, then what does this mean for the decline of religion that we are witnessing across the Western world? We discuss all this, and more, in our thought-provoking interview with Robin Dunbar.
I talk with Michael Strevens about the scientific enterprise. Does science get at objective truth or is it limited by subjective world-views? We begin by discussing the roles of Kuhn and Popper in the "Great Method Debate", before going on to discuss developments in the sociology of science, by figures such as Bruno Latour, who showed that there is actually quite a bit of subjectivity in everyday scientific activities. We then go on to discuss Michael's contribution to this debate and we examine the "Iron Rule of Explanation". We look at the constellation of ideas that buttress the Iron Rule of Explanation and examine their suitability to the scientific enterprise. Finally, we consider the role that beauty can play in science.