Since last time…

I’ve been through two books (and thrown away a few others… why did I only bring two books to Vietnam?).

The first is the Cathedral of the Sea by Ildefonso Falcones, set in 14th century Catalonia and Barcelona. It follows the (fictional) life of Arnau, whose destiny commanded by the historical (facts) of the time is more or less out of his hand. The book is amazingly written, and shows how people’s lives can be turned upside down by unintended consequences or just unexpected events. I also imagine that it captures the mood of those years’ Barcelona quite well.

Not as readable as The Shadow of the Wind, but I wouldn’t have any problems recommending it.

The second is The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society by Mary Ann Schaffer and Annie Barrows. Set in post II-war Guernsey, the book through (fictional) letters tells the story of an author who gets in touch with the locals at the Channel Island. She is so amazed by their stories, joys and griefs that she in the end decides to stay there – the stories are all contained in the book through the letters. It’s throughly a feel good book, the kind I usually avoid. But the way the story is told makes it an interesting read.

Things I’ll miss about Japan #5

The variety of tofu available from everywhere… Healthy food for a side-dish or as a light lunch.

The Shadow of the Wind

I’ve read few novels so elegant as Carlos Ruiz Zafón’s The Shadow of the Wind. Situated in Civil War Barcelona, it follows young Daniel’s inquiries into the turbulent background of Julian Carax, an author who tries to delete every trace of himself. Taking us through many subplots, Daniel’s and Carax’s lives are waved into each other, but can Daniel escape Carax’s destiny?

A great mix of mystery and history with a dash of philosophy that avoids the common cliches.

The Trial

I could probably appreciate Franz Kafka’s The Trial if I close my eyes, pretending being back in 1925. The lack of civil rights and legal protection at the time probably was in need of a fictional, surreal account of what it means when the defendant cannot take part in legal proceedings.

Today, such a book is to me just boring, especially since it’s not even drawing up a portrait of the political environment of the past. I need a long break from the classics.

PS: I know that Kafka never intended the book to be published – I doubt its essence would change much even if he had finished all the chapters though.

Things I’ll miss about Japan #4

I won’t miss the hords of people during a summer sale… But I will miss amazon.co.jp, and the package delivery system. Online shopping and free delivery whenever one wants. That’s infrastructure built around the need of the people.

Things I’ll miss about Japan #3

Catching a glance of the fully stuffed trains while I’m going to the uni. by bicycle. That’s everyday life’s freedom.

Sovereignty and the UFO

I haven’t read a single piece by Alexander Wendt that was boring or not original… and he has done it again. In a 2008 paper (how could I miss it until now?) Wendt and Duvall show how sovereignty is the reason why authorities are not funding UFO research. Quickly summarised, the argument goes:

• There is both physical (video, radar etc) and testimonial evidence (eyewitnesses) that UFOs exists. More than 20% of the physical evidence remains unexplained by natural phenomena, and testimonial evidence is important in courts (why should it not make the existence of UFOs plausible?). While this does not prove that UFOs or ET life exists, under normal scientific criteria this would warrant more investigation. Given that discovering ET life would probably be the most important event in human history, it makes even less sense from a scientific perspective to ignore this evidence.
• Persons are labelled as insane and not trustworthy when claiming they have seen a UFO. But people believing in God are well respected. Even so, from a scientific perspective, at least the UFO leaves traces. God does not.
• Then, why would we not pour resources into investigating if ET life is in proximity to Earth, instead of only keeping the possibility open that there is life at far-away stars?

The answer, Wendt and Duvall argue, is that states are concerned about their sovereignty. And sovereignty is anthropocentric – that is, based on the premise that humans are the masters and rulers of the world. Anything beyond humans that may potentially rule us would be a threat to the state and its right to rule (sovereignty). The existence of UFOs would mean that:

• Natural science, developed by humans in the name of us being superior, would be brought into question. Other species would be more advanced than us. Since the state system is built on anthropocentrism (humans, not rocks or animals built the state system), the justification for the state system would fall apart. States’ right to rule would be jeopardised.
• If UFOs are found to constitute a threat, the world would most probably be united across borders (a world state??). Sovereignty would be undermined.

In short, it is in the interest of states to ignore UFOs – exactly what they are doing by not even launching serious research programs. As Wendt and Duvall conclude, this is paradoxal, since:

taking UFOs seriously would certainly embody the spirit of self-criticism that infuses liberal governmentality and academia in particular, and it would, thereby, foster critical theory. And indeed, if academics’ first responsibility is to tell the truth, then the truth is that after sixty years of modern UFOs, human beings still have no idea what they are, and are not even trying to find out. That should surprise and disturb us all, and cast doubt on the structure of rule that requires and sustains it.

Wendt and Duvall, as social constructivists, have an agenda of course. Demonstrating that human superiority is essential to the existence of the modern state system means that humans – the social world – is ontologically more important for the analysis of IR than guns and rocks. Whether UFOs exist (and will change the state system) or not is thus besides the point. The scientific ignorance proves the point.