Many thanks to Hannah for her beautiful post on George Eliot’s Silas Marner and the evacuation of moral purpose from the Protestant work ethic. That resonates with Hijacked, my latest book, which traces the history of the work ethic from 17th century Puritan theologians, through the economic theory and policy debates of the 18th and 19th centuries, to today. I argue that the work ethic split into two versions during the Industrial Revolution. One–the version Max Weber analyzed–expressed the ideological perspective and interests of capitalists, and ultimately led to what we call neoliberalism–or, in a less institutionally articulated form, a version of libertarianism. The other mostly forgotten version expressed the perspective and interests of workers, and ultimately led to social democracy.

Americans inherited the UK’s capitalist work ethic in colonial times, and (not for the first time) put it on steroids from the mid-1970s to today. Scratch an American libertarian, and most likely you’ll find a believer in the capitalist work ethic underneath. However much libertarians talk about universal freedom, at heart they are advancing a deeply authoritarian doctrine tied to capitalist rule. To see this, it’s helpful to relate current policy proposals to 19th century ones, when capitalist proponents of the work ethic were more open about their aims.

[click to continue…]

The UK government has signalled its intention to “proscribe” the protest group Palestine Action under anti-terrorism legislation. This will place it in the same legal category as Al Qaeda and Islamic State: it will be illegal to belong to the group, to show public support for it, to arrange a meeting in support for it, and so on. The difference between Palestine Action and Al Qaeda et al, as many commentators have pointed out, is that it has never committed violence against individuals or, as far as we can tell, does it have any plans to do so. It is a protest group which seems to adopt fairly typical strategies of civil disobedience. It seems to have attracted the ire of the government, though, by breaking into a military base and spraying red paint on aircraft (as a protest over the government’s support for Israel).

I am not the first to say this, but: if this is terrorism, then so too was the Greenham Common Peace movement. The women of Greenham Common also (regularly) broke into a military compound and committed criminal damage there. Their stated aim was to force the government to stop storing cruise missiles on the site. But the women of Greenham Common are not usually considered terrorists: in fact, visit the scene now and you will see a public monument to their efforts.

So, can any sense be made of the apparent claim that – quite aside from any purported threat to kill or harm or cause mass panic among civilians, none of which appear to be at stake here – mild damage to physical assets should count as terrorism, in cases where those assets are military in nature? Or is this an instance of absurd legal over-reach, intended to produce a chilling effect on anti-war protestors?

NB: Let’s keep any discussion focused on the nature of terrorism and the question of whether this is a good use of legislation please – there are plenty of opportunities to discuss the conflict(s) in the Middle East elsewhere.

Thursday afternoon I belatedly fulfilled a promise to post a book to Wilcannia. The school day was just finishing and as I left the Post Office I overheard a child around eight years old:

Dad, I was so good today I got FIVE stickers.

Dad was a little distracted, navigating cars and pavements and no doubt the shopping list for tonight’s dinner.

Dad, I was so good at music today I got FIVE STICKERS!

I noticed Dad respond, but I did not hear how. For my part, I wondered what exactly one must do in music to earn FIVE stickers. Were there five different songs? Five instruments? Or was her performance five times the expected quality of a young woman attending Primary School? What unit of account does one sticker represent, that FIVE of them is such a windfall?

Regardless, five stickers was clearly a treasure indeed. A hoardable treasure, surely, for to my knowledge stickers can be traded for neither goods nor services. A store of some sort of value, perhaps, but not one ultimately realised by interest or made liquid via sale of accrued assets. Sure, Tom Sawyer likely would have traded stickers for an old doorknob, a dead rat and a used band-aid (and then for the tokens that in due course would make him CEO of Westpac) but this is 2025.

Even so, it reminded me of Silas Marner, hoarding gold under a brick in the floor of his cottage as a manifestation of the Protestant Ethic:

Spoiler alert – Silas Marner. TBF the book is 164 years old, not just out in cinemas.

George Eliot’s Silas Marner: The Weaver of Raveloe was published in 1861 – six years before Marx’s Das Kapital, which includes a study of money that has some striking parallels to Eliot’s. Obv I’m not accusing anyone of 150+ yo plagiarism. Ideas about money were in the air, which were central to the politics then emerging.

Silas Marner was a weaver. He had a loom, on which he wove cloth. By hand. This was close work that he did for very long hours, so his eyes were not great. By the time Eliot’s story really begins, Silas is a master weaver, known in his small town of Raveloe as Master Marner.

[click to continue…]

Please consider donating to this fundraising effort (here) to support Helen de Cruz’s family.

There is no greater joy for a teacher than to see a student develop and grow; and no more satisfaction to a mentor than to be overshadowed professionally by one’s mentee. I have followed Helen’s intellectual development and blossoming professional career with curiosity, pride, admiration, and (of course) wonder. It’s a cruel, unnatural fate to have to write about Helen in the past tense.

My heart goes out to Johan and their kids, Aliénor and Gabriel. Helen was the main breadwinner in the family. And before they were admitted to hospice, Helen asked me to help signal-boost the fund-raising to support them organized by Marcus Arvan. [Please donate here.]

Back in 2010, I started corresponding with Helen de Cruz because they posted a question about the relationship between the PSR and causation on a listserv. I had just moved to my position in Ghent, and I mistakenly thought Helen was a Leibniz scholar at Leuven. I was hoping we could team up to strengthen early modern philosophy in the Low Countries.

A few weeks later, at a philosophy of science conference, I saw Helen give a brilliant, somewhat unusual paper in which they combined Bayesianism with philosophy of archeology. (This was part of a project organized by Igor Douven.) In between Helen received a postdoc from, I think, the Flemish research council. At the conference, we talked, and I got my first glimpse of one the rawest and purest philosophical talents I have ever encountered. Helen was ambitious with a big, magnanimous and musical heart.

After the workshop we met at, Helen and I teamed up to organize a workshop on ‘empirically informed philosophy of social science.’ And thus started a nearly constant fifteen-year conversation mostly mediated by social media, while they was raising a family, dealing with sexism in the academy (looking especially at you Leuven; here’s how they put it once, “They were not a woman-friendly department”), moving jobs to Amsterdam (where we saw each other most frequently in person), the Oxford Brookes University in Oxford (where they hosted me for a talk at Blackwells), and, eventually, as Danforth Chair in St. Louis. In between there were happy stints at Oxford University thanks to postdoctoral fellowships of the British Academy and Templeton residential fellowships. Helen’s website also mentions a FWO postdoctoral fellow at the University of Leeds.

In these English years, they bonded with my wife over their joint anti-Brexit activism. In particular, Helen was a key member of the team that helped create a collection, In Limbo – Our Brexit Testimonies edited by Elena Remigi.

[click to continue…]

Hi CT readers, I’m publishing this open letter here so there’s a public record of the letter I’ve co-written and signed about what looks, walks and talks like a good old-fashioned Brussels stitch-up aimed at weakening the EU organisation that oversees data protection in EU institutions. Thank you, Maria (Comments welcome, as with any other post.)

19 June 2025, by e-mail
 
From: Dr. Maria Farrell, Prof. Douwe Korff and Prof. Ian Brown.
To: President Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission.
cc: Commissioner Michael McGrath, European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection;
Ms. Sirpa Rautio, Director, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights;
Don Javier Zarzalejos, Chair, LIBE committee, European Parliament.
 
Dear President von der Leyen and esteemed colleagues:

We are writing to inform you of procedural irregularities and what appears to be a strongly biased and motivated selection process regarding the appointment of the next European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), a key institution protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens.

The EDPS plays a crucial role in ensuring people’s fundamental rights and freedoms, and in particular their right to data protection, are respected by European Union institutions and bodies.[1] However, the manner and potential outcome of the current selection process for the role of the next head of the EDPS appears to be a clear case of maladminstration and political cronyism.

We raise these issues as EU citizens (MF, DK) and resident (IB) with long-standing interests and backgrounds in privacy and technology policy.

The selection process for the next EDPS has been procedurally aberrant, untransparent, and  appears biased and motivated in its selection methods. It is extremely concerning there have been multiple allegations that an element of gender discrimination has swayed the process. It is equally concerning that we have heard repeated allegations that an element of disability discrimination is involved. [click to continue…]

Pro-natalism (the idea that people, or rather, women, should have more babies than they choose to do at present) has become an established orthodoxy,[1]. The central claim is that, unless something changes soon, human populations both global and national, are going to decline rapidly, with a lot of negative consequences. This is simply not true, on any plausible assumptions about fertility[2]

There’s no need for me to do any calculations here. For many decades he Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs has been producing population projections for the world, and individual countries, under a variety of scenarios. One finding is unambiguous. Short of a drastic decline in fertility, far beyond what we are now seeing there will be more people on Earth at the end of this century than there were at the beginning

[click to continue…]

“When diversity, equity and inclusion become ‘threats’ to the order of society,” Judith Butler wrote recently, “progressive politics in general is held responsible for every social ill.” Authoritarians are empowered to oppress vulnerable people in the name of “the nation, the natural order, the family, society or civilization itself”.

The links between sacrificing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and upholding patriarchal white supremacy are clear. This has prompted many to fight harder to preserve DEI.

If only existing DEI wasn’t so crap.

[click to continue…]

You may have viewed Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) offering a mock apology for dismissing a constituent’s complaint that the Medicaid cuts she endorses will cause people to die with the flippant remark, “We are all going to die.” She tied her defense of her callousness to Christianity, inviting all who worried about death to convert so they could enjoy eternal life after death. J.D. Vance, too, has defended sharply limited empathy in Christian terms–a theological view for which Pope Francis admonished him. Part of this attack on empathy stems from the resentment of populist voters who feel that empathy is being extended to the wrong people, that they are the ones who deserve empathy, as opposed to various others they despise–immigrants, foreigners, Muslims, blacks, feminists, LGBT people, poor people, etc. Arlie Hochschild, Katherine Cramer, and Justin Gest [link corrected] have written compelling accounts of this. But what does this have to do with Christianity? What happened to “Jesus is love”? 

[click to continue…]

A few days ago, I experienced a strange auditive mix-up. My favorite German radio program, Deutschlandfunk, sent a documentary about “platform workers”. Uber, Deliveroo, etc., you might think, but no. This was about workers on oil platforms in Norway: about the oil boom in the North Sea, about the hard work on the oil rigs and as diver, about the many long-term health issues that arouse, and about the long battle for recognition and compensation. The Norwegian parliament has recently set up a compensation scheme for the families of the victims of a particularly egregious neglect of safety standards, which led to the capsizing of a whole platform in 1980, with 123 deaths.

Today, we think of “platform workers” as individuals contracting with online platforms for executing online or offline services, often at lousy pay.

[click to continue…]

A generation ago, General Electric’s CEO, Jack Welch (1935 – 2020) was the most admired business manager in the world. And General Electric purportedly the most admired corporation. Among his well-known attributes, Welch “would fire the bottom 10% of his managers, regardless of absolute performance.” And this, alongside his more general fondness for downsizing, was one of the reasons why Welch was known as ‘Neutron Jack.’ (The buildings would remain standing, but empty of workers.)

I had to think of that while reading Vivek Chibber’s (2022) Confronting Capitalism: How the World Works and How to Change it (Verso). I am not the implied audience for it. The book intends to “contribute to the development of the incipient Left.” (p. 2) It understands itself as advancing a “project of renewal” for the “Socialist Left.” (p.4) It does so by using fairly simple language, by being admirably free from jargon, and by keeping scholarly trappings to the bare minimum. There are airport bestsellers aiming to improve leadership that have more endnotes. Chibber is a professor of sociology at NYU, but I bet that the vocabulary of Confronting Capitalism is pitched at high school level. (I mean that as a compliment.)

[click to continue…]

Except it’s not happy, of course. The ocean’s ecosystems are going to hell in a hand-cart, while our politicians congratulate themselves for signing up to pledges (like protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030) that they have no realistic plan for achieving. The conclusion that they are simply kicking the can down the road, while basking in a bit of short-term glory, is hard to shake. Meanwhile Trump is trying to jump-start deep sea mining, an industry which companies like BMW and Google have already repudiated, which is wholly unnecessary, and is likely to be immensely destructive to the climate and to marine biodiversity. Meanwhile, in spite of the glaring video evidence provided by Attenborough’s film Ocean, the trawling lobby is still claiming that its activities are not environmentally destructive. So, what should we expect from the UN Ocean conference in Nice this coming week? Anything much, or more hot air?