Lord Anthony Giddens | Homeless Billionaire | Oxford Union
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 01. 2013
- Lord Anthony Giddens gives his address to the Oxford Union Society.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
Lord Anthony Giddens says that our world is spinning out of control due to globalisation. Globalisation is the dominant feature of our age and he explains this in some detail throught his address.
Filmed on Monday 5th November 2012
ABOUT LORD ANTHONY GIDDENS:
Anthony Giddens, Baron Giddens is a British sociologist who is known for his theory of structuration and his holistic view of modern societies. He is considered to be one of the most prominent modern sociologists, the author of at least 34 books, published in at least 29 languages, issuing on average more than one book every year. In 2007, Giddens was listed as the fifth most-referenced author of books in the humanities.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Great authentic speech. Thank you for sharing.
Good talk, thank you! He touched on one important matter. He noticed that Democracy is not specifically Western product, but it was recognized by Western people as a product of Western civilization. I find it important to notice that the same attitude Western people have to all the important inventions. West is blind to any inventions until they become "invented" by the West itself, and then it suddenly claims it Western idea and starts promoting it as something Western and what is best for the West. It applies to pretty much any invention known at the West.
He did mention that democracy is not specifically a Western product, that it is seen historically and internationally in many instances. But, the issue is not the "invention" of democracy. Surely, democrary is seen very early in Athens and Rome whereas it is not seen in the early empires of Asia: China was always a monarchy that enslaved its people as did Egypt. Anyway, the issue today is the interrelationships between democracies in the name of Democracy.
The last 5 major wars involving the US: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan/Iraq could be represented by the Nixon Doctrine. This bears examining because all of the issues we face today, and faced throughout the 20th, were presented by Nixon's Doctrine. Nixon stated in 1969 that how the war would end in S. Vietnam would have a great impact. If the US were described as losing the war, then isolationism would increase in the US with possible disastrous outcomes for many other nations. This might be a reference to the widely discredited Domino Theory which might be said to have recalled the memory of Hitler's campaign or Stalin's subsequent initiatives. Nixon pointed out that if the US withdrew and became isolationist, no other nation would be under the illusion that the US would step-in, perhaps not even in the case of a large-scale attack. He said, "If a country can't handle its internal security, it is scarcely capable of being saved."
Nixon addressed the media by presenting the Vietnamization program: the withdrawal of troops coincident with the turning over of the war to the South Vietnamese. This involved drastic steps of putting the US in a state of emergency (think Schmidt and Agamben) and massive bombing. It should be no surprise that military policy directives at one level get reflected at other levels. Large scale bombing of North Vietnam, South Vietnam and Cambodia was followed by frequent instances of mass murder on the ground in the attempt to identify infiltrators. The Nixon doctrine consisted of these contradictions during the paradoxical 'fighting with the intention of pulling out.' We see this today in Afghanistan/Iraq (the 2007 and 2010 surges represent temporary stays, and in the Korean stalemate). The Nixon doctrine promised t keep costs within limits and to alleviate concerns about an 'unending war' or 'forever war.' Aside form the significant problem of a permanent war footing, We should recognize that the US WWI intervention was because the war had gone on too long, the Vietnam intervention was initially to assist our ally, France, as was the Korean intervention. WWII and Afghanistan/Iraq could be said to be international responses to attacks against the US on US soil, but with the additional emphasis on rebuilding both the government and the infrastructures (by infrastructure I refer to things like buildings, plumbing and roads). This emphasis on regime change (Treat of Versailles, post-WWII economic policies, is reflected in the Nixon Doctrine.
Developing the South Vietnamese' or Afghan or Iraqi capability to establish their own security was understood by Nixon to increase those nation's self-esteem, to deflate the antiwar protests in the US, and to bring the belligerent forces to the table. One important premise was that the US would continue to support S. Vietnam even after having withdrawn all forces. but, this plan was defeated by the subsequent budget cuts to ordnance in support of South Vietnam. After the demise of South Vietnam, is it any wonder why the US continues to support Afghanistan/Iraq although the blunder of withdrawing in toto from Iraq and then having to re-enter without a skeleton force in place might be seen as a repetition of the Vietnamese quagmire - having left can we return? Nixon wanted to reduce antiwar pressures at home, decrease the corruption of the South Vietnamese government/military, and present to the enemy determined resolve to fight as long as necessary.
The key issue that the Nixon Doctrine turned on was control of appearances through the media. Nixon walked the tightrope of careful statements to the press about withdrawal and about staying the course. The 'credibility gap' that emerged was about the contradictory statements to the press and in private reassurances between leaders. Nixon said, "We must trust each other." This same problem was reflected in the strong effort by the South Vietnamese and MACV to control journalist perceptions and communications. Isn't it obvious that the same dilemma is occurring during many conflicts today and around the Afghanistan/Iraq wars. For example, who understood any press reports or media explanations of the 2 Bosnian Wars, of the South Sudan crises, of the Iraqi tribal arrangements or religious problems in forming a stable government, of international drug cartels, or the unrest and instability across the Magreb and Levant. Does the media present any explanations of the large scale migrations and refugee problem internationally? To what extent is the media unable or prevented from open discussion, and what effect does this have on violent conflicts?
Yes. Those are a consequences of a Roman culture :)
Well well well...the current world I'm living in TODAY is definitely not the life I'd dreamed of as a child. I hate my life and for the most part I hate this world. Thankfully I've seen that there are some nice people like myself which gives me hope.
well, I am glad that he sacrifises his health for what may be a potential good for the rest of us
What happened to him?
In Denmark this guy is a god when it comes to high school sociologi
DANSK JÄVEL
I like the word globalisation. I kind of have to because it comes up in my clueless studies so much.
Big thanks for inseminating this rarest video from my spiritual Guru so that even I was not there, I would feel that it was near to my learning bed also. Thank you Oxford
thanks for helping me pass my IPE exam ;)
고맙습니다
“Globalization is a western plot”, Giddens then turns around and looks at the Asian looking man behind him 😂
A very clever man.
Lord G!!
آنتونی گیدنز از بزرگان جامعه شناسی، در ایران و افغانستان نظریاتش را از اساتید فراگرفتم و تدریس کردم. درود بر این مرد بزرگ
He does not tell us if he is one member of the House of Lords who can operate an iPhone.
Fundamental.
@6:40 - a feeble presupposition that ‘elders won’t be able to dole out wisdom in isolation anymore’ - have that ever been the case? - ‘novelty as prerequisite for paradigm shift’ is a convenient lie we tell ourselves in search of veiled profundity
What is the title of the book they are talking about?
Runaway World , i believe...
The Life and Death of Democracy, also Global Civil Society, also Democracy and Civil Society
@@fredwelf8650 can I get pdf .... please
John Keane
:45
Always bad ties.
Oxford university watch her fox burst unit urgency. You claim anthony reyes isn't poet shakesphere. My hand waves here. Love will faith mirror. I hope you have no terror. Thier is no room for error. I am forevermore. The corpse slender force. The blood gore dessert torch. The celsius. I tell thee us. The valley dust. I clear these filters. My silver chain. I am iller face. I built her name. Men perservere womans rights we here her first clear. She is amorous. He is her glamerhim. We ride together kings and queens. No matter our difference. Woman are luminous. The cuteness kiss. We hold hands woman grip. Thank you females? We we appreciate you email. Our emotions deep sail.
09:30 deep state conspiracy theory ... Lord Giddens, I expected better