#AI and Warfare – Oxford Panel Discussion

A conversation with Professor Stephen Rosen and Professor Shivaji Sondhi on artificial intelligence in warfare. The talk stays on the surface, not offering deep insights, but it does stimulate thinking, which is maybe its purpose. We are already well down this path.

Some of my takeaways: #AI in war functions as a force multiplier, but the key question is how nations deploy it. Ukraine shows that both sides use similar technology. A major limitation of current AI use is that it is too expensive to be integrated into cheap drones and autonomous weapons. To bypass communication jamming, control is shifting to space, which then requires AI to operate in space as well.

A stopgap is drone relays flying at high altitudes, but these become targets themselves. Simple autonomy (using basic image recognition) is being developed to maintain functionality when communications are jammed, for both targeting and navigation. With this we highlight the issue of autonomy and decision-making, if AI is to be increasingly used to managing battles, then the advantage will go to those who trust it most. Authoritarian states embrace AI more readily, as they do not trust their own people. This “first strike advantage” AI brings increases instability in conflicts.

This rises, the issue of why the U.S. Fails in War. The answer might be simple, the U.S. often struggles in warfare due to a lack of understanding of other cultures, leading to psychological biases in strategy. AI might help identify these blind spots by analysing what people actually fear. However, there’s scepticism, will AI truly improve decision-making, or will it reinforce existing biases?

Vulnerabilities and decision-making, it is already used in autonomous machine decision-making for missile defence, where human response times are too slow. People are more ready to accept AI in a defensive role because it does not involve direct human casualties, but history shows that similar systems have been used offensively, sometimes dangerously. The Soviet Union’s use of automated nuclear systems for attack nearly led to disaster. The increasing reliance on AI in space-based “defence” systems raises concerns about whether similar failures could occur today.

Let’s step back from that brink, to look at the future of AI in war in wider senses. In the near future, the battlefield is moving to space, where communication for AI-controlled drones and communications is increasingly shifting. Ukraine’s use of Starlink: SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network has been crucial for Ukraine, allowing drones and soldiers to maintain communication even under heavy Russian jamming.

A scary likely future scenario is AI-controlled satellites managing drone vs. drone warfare, where AI systems fight each other in a logistics and targeting battle, without direct human involvement. This creates new arms control challenges, how do you regulate AI-driven weapons? How do you verify compliance when AI systems operate in secret?

AI and economic warfare: #Capitalism vs. #Socialism, AI is also shifting the balance of power between capitalist and socialist economies. For example: China’s “social credit system”: AI-driven surveillance and data collection allow China to exert social planing while improving resource allocation. Silicon Valley’s AI in finance: AI algorithms in the U.S. optimize high-frequency trading, automating stock market decisions and reinforcing economic inequalities.

Could AI reshape military-industrial production? AI could redefine supply chains, making economies less dependent on foreign production. AI-powered cyber warfare could cripple rival economies without direct military engagement. This raises a final question, will AI-driven economies favour authoritarian or democratic paths?

Conclusion, the future of AI in war, the panel discussion raises far more questions than answers. Will AI create more stable deterrence, or increase instability by enabling preemptive strikes? Will “democracies” fall behind authoritarian regimes in AI warfare due to ethical constraints? How will AI shape the future of economic and military power?

The only certainty #AI is already changing the nature of warfare, and we are not in any way prepared for this.

#Oxford

The Said Business School is a temple of the #deathcult

One thing to keep in mind is that these people largely think they are good people, doing the best they can in the world as it is. And will become upset and very #spiky defensive when pointing at them on their knees prostrate worshipping. Like they said in the seminar, “I don’t know what to do about this”. I don’t think most of us do.

The Clarendon Lectures 2025 – Designing the Future: Multidisciplinary perspectives on designing better futures

Systems thinking challenges traditional approaches to management research and practice. In this second Clarendon event, Tima Bansal engages in conversation with academics in #Oxford who are integrating research and practice with the ambition to co-create futures rather than simply analysing solutions.

An outsider, polemical look at this event: Most university panels have a #NGO-thinking academic for process box-ticking. This is the representation of the fluffy side of #mainstreaming social change. This lettuce person is at best a #fluffy careerist and at worst a #NGO parasite. If there is any content at all, it’s box-ticking to create the illusion of consent and goodwill.

Then the meat of the business school is the worship of the #deathcult — people climbing the gravestones of hierarchy in the shiny, crumbling mausoleums. Even then, it’s mostly careerist. This one is talking about embedding in more fluffy NGO groups to build their story. It’s all about community and relationships. She lets go of the ego she pushed first, to step back to embed. No idea what the outcome of her work is — it’s all process. She ends with a call for nature and holism, the world her work destroys.

The currency is theory; on this, the business school is completely bankrupt from an academic point of view — not to get into the subject of morals, let alone basic human survival. She says they push their content out into science journalism, as these people are not able to judge the value of abstract academic work.

The next is an accounting bureaucrat, who does mention the green limits. He touches on the real and talks about the language in documents of bureaucratic regulation. He says it’s a mess and doesn’t know what to do. Trusting what companies say is not going to be enough. You need to change the economic relationships, and changing this is very difficult — and it’s currently simply not working.

The summing-up person is excited with an issue? Not sure what — no idea what she is actually saying. She is back to not talking about anything. She touches on statues and embarrassment. Finally, she asks an interesting question: who is the ordinance, us or somebody else? We have no idea who?

She says we need strong institutions, as individual companies are not going to do it — they capture the levers of power and pull them to keep the mess, and money, flowing. She has no answer to this. She does mention moving past “markets” in passing for a moment.

Boundaries come up — the answer is fluff, then more substance, accounting has hard boundaries, but useful change comes from stepping outside this. Systems thinking — no answer.

These people are lost and are training up the next lost generation. It’s interesting to see that they have some understanding of this, but it’s looking like they will do nothing to change it.

Wine and nibbles were OK.

Talked to many of them after the event. A few said they were undercover academic “radicals” infiltrating the business colleges — which was maybe a tiny bit true, or not. The students I talked to were blank and staying in academia.

The “consultants” were interested and animated; they found it a little shockingly invigorating to have a counter-culture conversation.

To sum up, mostly hopeless. I am always surprised the place doesn’t stink of rotting zombies, a metaphor, maybe? They need some real content… they really need some real content, but you get the strong feeling that they are not even going to change until the Thames is flowing up under the nearby railway bridge. Even then, there will be calls for more sandbags while talking more about careers — all they know — but underneath this, they have the fear that these careers will likely not exist.

This is it. What to do?

It’s a bleak cycle: academics pump out theory to feed the chatting classes, who in turn guide the #fashernista, spinning ever more refined justifications for the status quo. The echo chamber reverberates with hollow soundbites while the world burns. What we end up with is a layer of intellectual manure, with no one doing the work to turn it into compost.

With projects like the #OMN social tech could be the spade that digs through this mess, breaking down the dead ideas and aerating the soil for something new to grow. But instead, we use #dotcons tech to pile up more waste. Every app, platform, and algorithm is designed to reinforce the system, not break it. The closed loops of influence, profit, and prestige just churn on.

If we want to prod this beast, one way I am working on is to embrace the disruptive potential of the #openweb. What if we built platforms that exposed the rot? Imagine public academic review systems where research couldn’t hide behind paywalls, or tools that tracked the influence of corporate funding on “objective” scholarship. There are some seeds for this, what if we grow them #4opens

Or more direct action, maybe we just crash the garden party. What if we hijacked their panels, flooded their Q&As with real questions, or set up rogue alt-conferences right outside their events? The goal isn’t destruction for destruction’s sake — it’s breaking the illusion of inevitability.

What do you think? How do we spark that shift in behaviour, that even they, softly, say we need to do.

#Oxford

UPDATE: If this #fluffy path is #blocked then people will turn #spiky as we are already seeing happening https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24973861.oxford-university-palestine-action-group-admits-vandalising-building/ and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/08/a-new-phase-why-climate-activists-are-turning-to-sabotage-instead-of-protest we need a real debate in the university about how change comes about #KISS

The Age of Global Militarism: How Veneration of the Military Spread—and Why it Matters

Militarism is on the rise globally. Arms sales are at all-time highs, and public confidence in the military has surged. Rather than waning in the post-Cold War era, military glorification has intensified, with political and cultural leaders idealizing soldiers, not for their professionalism, but for their heroism and sacrifice.

At a recent event hosted by the #Oxford University International Relations Society, Professor Ron Krebs explored the proliferation of militarism, its cultural underpinnings, and its consequences for democracy, security, and governance. He painted a picture of a world where the military is increasingly romanticized, and political leaders use this veneration to their advantage.

Militarism is a cultural force, where militarism is often framed as a policy issue, whether states use excessive force or employ the military as a tool of national strategy. However, Krebs argues that militarism is, at its core, a set of cultural practices. It is driven by a deep-seated romanticism about the military, which manifests in three ways:

Pacifist Militarism – Even among the left, there is a tendency to view the military as a necessary tool of national policy, even in peacetime.
Excessive Force – The normalization of military interventions, where using force is seen as a default option rather than a last resort.
Idealization of Soldiers – The emphasis on heroism and sacrifice overshadows discussions of military professionalism, effectiveness, or accountability.

This cultural shift is seen in the growing presence of the military in national celebrations, such as Independence Days. Military parades and displays have increased, yet there is little focus on mourning fallen soldiers. Instead, these events serve to reinforce the image of military power and national strength.

Why militarism has grown since the 1980, the decline of trust in government institutions, driven in part by #neoliberalism (the #deathcult), has paradoxically fuelled greater trust in the military. As faith in political leadership eroded, the military, seen as an aspirational and apolitical institution, became a pillar of stability.

This shift has created a dangerous dynamic:

Populists thrive on military imagery. They love dressing up in military uniforms, invoking military rhetoric, and surrounding themselves with soldiers.
Dead soldiers are useful political tools. They cannot challenge political narratives, making them perfect symbols for populist movements.
Public perception of military support influences policy. When the public believes the military supports a political leader, they are more likely to support military action. This feedback loop drives increased militarization across the political spectrum.

The populist-military conflict, despite their public admiration for the military, many populist leaders privately clash with military institutions. Donald Trump, for instance, has reportedly expressed disdain for military leadership behind closed doors. His approach follows a broader pattern. Populists support enlisted soldiers while attacking military officers, particularly those from elite institutions like West Point. This allows them to position themselves as allies of “the people” while undermining traditional hierarchies.

In countries like Poland, Hungary, and India, populist leaders have avoided direct military confrontations, allowing dissenting officers to step aside quietly. In the United States, however, tensions are escalating. If military leaders resist political co-option, they will likely face aggressive purges and public attacks. Brazil under Bolsonaro offers a clear example. Although he had military ties, his alliances were fragile. When officers opposed his leadership, especially during the COVID-19 crisis, he swiftly removed them.

The long-term consequences, militarism is a raw deal. While it leads to increased military engagement, it does not necessarily bring greater benefits for soldiers. Instead, it results in, the erosion of democratic institutions. As militarism rises, civilian governance weakens, and leaders increasingly rely on military authority to consolidate power. Diminished military effectiveness. When the military becomes a political tool, its strategic competence declines.

Personal loyalty to leaders replaces merit, weakening the institution from within. A dangerous feedback loop. If unchecked, militarism becomes self-perpetuating, reinforced by political narratives, public perceptions, and the military’s own internal culture. The military, when it “drinks the Kool-Aid” of its own infallibility, loses its ability to self-correct. The blurring of lines between civilian leadership and military authority erodes trust, making governance more unstable and unpredictable.

Conclusion, we are living in an age of global militarism. The question is not whether it will wane on its own, it shows no signs of doing so. Instead, the challenge is how societies will respond to its continued rise. Will democratic institutions push back, ensuring that the military remains professional and accountable? Or will the glorification of soldiers, the erosion of civilian oversight, and the manipulation of military loyalty accelerate the militarization of politics? As Professor Krebs warns, the veneration of the military is not only about national security, it is about the future of democracy itself.

Ransom War: The Rising Threat of Cybercrime and National Security

Professor Ciaran Martin and Dr Max Smeets talk about his new book, Ransom War: How Cyber Crime Became a Threat to National Security.

What did I get from this event: Cybercrime is no longer only about stolen credit cards and leaked emails, it has become a battleground for national security. This was the focus of the conversation between Professor Ciaran Martin and Dr Max Smeets, a new kind of war, ransomware has evolved from crude digital extortion into a highly sophisticated business model. It’s no longer just about money, it disrupts critical infrastructure, healthcare, and entire governments. The NHS cyberattack in London and the Costa Rican national emergency in 2022 illustrate its devastating impact.

Smeets explains how ransomware groups now operate like legitimate businesses, complete with branding, customer service, and even guarantees. If they fail to decrypt your files after payment, their reputation suffers. Many provide a free decryption demo to prove their credibility—demonstrating the paradox of trust within crime.

The geopolitics of cybercrime often overlaps with national interests. Many ransomware groups originate from Russia, where they operate with implicit state tolerance, as long as they avoid targeting Russian businesses. Russian secret services sometimes leverage these groups for political ends, though the connections remain murky.

Other states are now stepping into the ransomware scene, Ukraine – Once a hub for cybercrime, now co-opting hackers into its war effort, with groups like MB65 supposedly working in support of the state. North Korea & Israel – Expanding their ransomware operations, possibly for both financial and intelligence purposes. China – Running state-controlled ransomware campaigns, but is the goal money or data?

Smeets argues that Western states do not operate ransomware groups, at least not openly. But if cybercrime is now a tool of state power, will governments start adopting more aggressive tactics? We are already seeing discussions about hacking back, sanctions, and even assassinations and drone strikes against cybercriminals.

The Evolution of ransomware has moved beyond lone hackers and small groups. It has professionalised, with specialised teams handling different tasks: Some focus on technical exploits. Others on negotiation and victim management. Others still on money laundering. English-speaking countries are prime targets, as criminals can easily understand and monetise stolen data.

Originally, ransomware groups operated hierarchically, relying on top-down trust structures. Now, they are shifting to decentralised and federated models, outsourcing different parts of the process to specialist teams. This makes them more resilient and harder to disrupt.

How can this be mediated? Smeets offers several strategies to undermine ransomware networks:

Disrupt trust – Leak internal communications and sow distrust within groups.
Expose operational methods – Make it harder for them to operate in the shadows.
Target infrastructure – Dismantle command-and-control systems.
Sanction financial networks – Make it harder to launder ransom payments.

A ban on ransom payments won’t end ransomware, but it might shift attackers toward easier targets. The core question remains: Is ransomware just about money, or is it a new tool for states to exert power in the digital age?

My view is an alternative path, might social and economic change, the #4opens and redundant data flows work. In a world where cybercrime thrives on secrecy and centralised control, could radical transparency be part of the solution? The #4opens philosophy suggests an alternative: highly redundant, open-data systems that resist extortion because no single entity holds all the power. If data is widely distributed and accessible, ransomware loses much of its leverage. This is a shift from reactive defence to proactive resilience, a challenge to both cybercriminals and #mainstreaming vertical state actors and culture. This is already a core idea behind both the#OMN and #Fediverse networks, but yes we are talking about both economic and social models and paths shifting fundamentally, it’s a project.

#Oxford

Songs of Resistance

A day’s exploration event to explore the art of resistance — both a honed craft and a creative output.
This event is made up of two parts.
We will begin with an afternoon panel discussion (noon–1 pm) exploring the history and enduring relevance of ‘protest songs.’
In the evening (4–5 pm), we will be treated to an excerpt of an award-winning performance centering on the work and legacy of Nina Simone.
While we encourage you to attend both the panel discussion and the performance, you are welcome to join either part individually.
Find out more at www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/discover/events/songs-of-resistance-panel-discussion-and-performance

As normal in #Oxford, this is a VERY #mainstreaming path to talk about protest music and songs. Kinda interesting, but completely missing the grassroots and the creative mess that comes with “native” paths of protest music and songs.

They don’t talk about the grassroots: Greenham, “you can’t kill the spirit”, would hold the police at bay as long as the women would sing. At rainbows gathering, word of mouth intentional gatherings that have been happening in hundreds of countries for the last 50 years. When the police arrive to evict the thousands of hippies squatting on the land they surround them to hold hands and singing at them, this is often affective at confusing, stopping and mediating the police violence.

The tactical and the strategic, they only talk about the strategic.

They do talk about the shaping of funding of art and how it is a force for #blocking

Blavatnik Book Talks: The Forever Crisis

This is my reaction from the talk, have not read the book.

In The Forever Crisis, the author presents complex systems thinking as a framework for addressing the world’s intractable challenges, particularly at the level of global governance. The book critiques the traditional top-down approaches that are pushed by powerful institutions like the #UN, highlighting how these solutions are a mismatched for complex, interwoven issues like #climatechange, security, finance, and digital governance.

One of the core issues raised is that global governance structures are failing to keep pace with the crises they are supposed to address. Traditional approaches “silo” issues, handling them in isolation, which makes it hard for messy interconnected challenges to be addressed in a holistic way. For example, while climate change is universally recognized as a priority, the complex “network of governance” is fragmented, leaving institutions like the UN and #IPCC struggling to effectively drive change. These traditional, siloed paths reflect a short-term vision, prioritizing superficial “silver bullet” solutions over systemic, transformative approaches.

A complex systems approach, likening effective governance to networks such as the “mushrooms under the forest floor”—resilient, interconnected, and adaptable. Rather than rigid, top-down mandates, this metaphor supports creating flexible, networked governance structures that can adapt to shifting crises. The notion of cascading solutions is key here: solutions should ripple across systems in a way that amplifies positive outcomes, rather than relying solely on isolated, large-scale interventions.

The talk highlights how unready we are for institutional preparedness and adaptive governance, with the importance of adaptability in governance, particularly in preparing for shocks, both anticipated and unanticipated. Using COVID-19 as an example, he critiques the over-reliance on “luck” rather than robust structures, suggesting that governance systems must be nimble and interconnected enough to absorb shocks without collapsing. Currently, we have a fasard, the UN and other agencies are trying to act as “confidence boosters,” convincing themselves of their own effectiveness.

Challenges to implementing complexity in governance, despite the potential of complexity theory, the talk raises significant questions about implementation. Power structures are deeply entrenched in traditional governance systems, making it difficult to shift away from rigid, reactive models. Further, financial systems tend to funnel resources into quick-fix solutions rather than funding long-term, adaptive responses.

My though, about the talk on mainstream solutions, touches on an essential question: can the existing structures within the “#deathcult” of neoliberalism actually provide the transformation we need? This perspective aligns with the book’s critique, questioning whether today’s dominant structures can truly embrace a complexity-oriented approach to governance. To solve this I focus on #Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB as grassroots projects which underlines an alternative that prioritizes local, networked, and community-driven solutions—a departure from the centralized and out-of-touch responses typical of global governance.

The book’s focus on complexity theory as a tool to facilitate self-organizing, resilient systems could be a powerful argument for the decentralized path I advocate. This framework validates the idea that change might be more effectively driven from the grassroots, where diverse actors work in networked patterns that reflect the natural resilience seen in ecosystems.

The talk:

Join Thomas Hale, Professor in Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, and Adam Day, Head of UN University Centre for Policy Research in Geneva, as they discuss Day’s newest book The Forever Crisis.

The Forever Crisis is an introduction to complex systems thinking at the global governance level. It offers concepts, tools, and ways of thinking about how systems change that can be applied to the most wicked problems facing the world today. More than an abstract argument for complexity theory, the book offers a targeted critique of today’s highest-profile proposals for improving the governance of our environment, security, finance, health, and digital space. It suggests that we should spend less effort and resources on upgrading existing institutions, and more on understanding how they (and we) relate to each other.

My thinking and notes.

Its the #NGO crew talking about my subject, this is a professor and the #UN secretary generals adviser. Start with basic complexity, telling a normal story.

Globalisation drives complexity, the nudge theory, the network of governance which we have to manage. Use the IPCC as a tool, but this is a mess. The argument for big solutions, top down is a bad fit for complexity thinking. The solution is tendicalse? Or the mushrooms under the forest floor, network metaphor.

Shifting tipping point, to shift change

Long problems demand complexity, current risk is undervalued

Transformative global governance, or our current global governance could go extinct.

We have a anufe data, for AI to be used as early warning “advising” governance.

So this is main-streaming looking at change and mediating the challenge. Whether it works at all is an open question, looking unlikely looking around the room.

He says we can’t co-operate, and in his terms this is correct. The solution is to try and “trick” the current systems to work together, don’t think he gets beyond this.

UN women calls the current path a failer, and that this is ongoing, but MUCH more urgent now.

In the report, the silos were knitted together, but nobody understood this, so then it was unpacked into sloes so that people could accept it.

The conference that did this report, was in a large part a confidence booster that the current systems could actually work. This is a very small step. No war was won.

The is a consensus that the current process is failing, and needs to change to challenge the current structures. The problem of re-siloing, the crumbling of bridges as they are being built, the outcome the establishment is still blocking the needed bridging.

For him, the ideas don’t create transformation. They spent a year going over old agreements, the new issues were not focused on. This was a problem of trust and transparency. So the whole process was knocked back a year.

Is this change easer or harder during crises? We tend to think that crises creates flexibility, but he argues they hold together stronger when change might be happening? She points to the defence crotch, that change is being blocked by the crises, it’s complex.

Are any of the current institutions fit to governing #AI

Finance funds silver bulite solutions rather than long term solutions. Quick fix, fixes nothing, its funding pored down the drain. His solution is a real cost on carbon if we can get the spyware command and control right to make this work.

On chip verification, hardcoded spy and control in our chips… now this is a very #geekproblem idea.

Can the states raise to work, she says we hope so 🙂 as the is no alternative 🙁 we won’t states to work, in partnership with the private secturer… we need the UN to preform its function, that partners with other actors, private structure, civil society etc.

Capacity building is 10% of the climate budget, this is about writing PDF’s, the people doing the change are simply not there.

Q. on the time to act, with the example of Gorbertrov and the claps of the Soviet Union.

Resilience is not a good thing, if the thing that is resilients are paths are not working.

Can we bake in a long term path into current decisions?

How can we change the existing system so that it balances?

The word leadership, that individuals playing a role, to be the change, is a subject that excites them.

My question would have been, the #deathcult – is the any actors or forces outside this cult – that you see could be the change we need?

He, Cascading solutions across the system fast enough to be the change we need?

She, better preparedness for the shocks, so we can pull together. To deal with issues we have not anticipated. We are not there yet.

COVID was an example of luck not structures.

#oxford

The Present and Future of US Politics: Foreign Policy

Speaker: Peter Feaver (Duke University)
As the United States heads into a high-stakes presidential election, this seminar series explores the structural problems and political challenges behind the headlines. We examine why American politics is so polarised and ask: what is at stake in the 2024 elections?

The seminars will open with a short presentation by an expert, followed by questions and discussion. Everyone with an interest in US politics is welcome. Lunch will be available

Week 1 Foreign Policy, with Peter Feaver (Duke University). How has foreign policy shaped this election, and how will the outcome affect America’s role in the world?

My thoughts:

Food is good, naked concrete building. The people are young with a smattering of middle-aged and less than a handful of old.

The provocations are mainstream threads. Totally conservative liberal balance, nothing outside this, its a insider career building seminar.

I did not intervene, as I don’t see the kindling as dry enough to start a warming fire. To nurture our souls and spark our minds into any action., maybe next time.

#oxford

Location and Rebellion: Rethinking the Relationship between Revolution and State Capacity

Speaker: Mark Beissinger (Princeton)

DRAFT

First impression is that everyone is very shiny and affluent, young academics and future bureaucrats.

Looking at how location affects revolution challenge and state repression.

Safe but infective in rural areas, close to power in urban areas revaluations have more impact but are much more dangerous for the revolutionaries.

State capacity is a key.

It’s very academic about classification, and adding numbers and maths to this. Interesting but like most Oxford events there is little connection to the subject talked about.

There is value here but l am struggling to find it.

I ask about Putin Russia and the possibility that he feels the will be a weakening of the state when Putin dies, but feels it will be an elite fight, which might open a space for external forces.

I would look at it as the suckups and the grassroots rather than urban and rural? But this would not be academic based on data’ish

#Oxford

The problem with academic “thinking” in activism

I moved my boat to Oxford a year ago, it’s an interesting city with strong academic roots, I have taken part in a few hundred university seminars since arriving. This is a few notes from an activist prospective on the university path. The common issue with these Oxford seminars, is outlined in my notes, this is the disconnect between academic discourse and the real-world challenges faced by activists and movements. A few of the key problems I have highlighted over this time:

Co-optation of activism: Both right-wing groups and NGOs have co-opted the concept of activism without understanding or utilizing its purpose and path. This leads to a distortion of its original intent.
Assumption of liberal path continuation: Much academic work assumes that the liberal trajectory will persist, despite mounting evidence from climate science indicating otherwise. There’s a failure to acknowledge the urgent need for alternative paths in the face of #climatechaos and its social and economic ramifications.
Lack of focus on future paths: We need studies examining potential future trajectories led by both the hard right-wing and progressive left. This is particularly relevant given the likelihood of a post-apocalyptic scenario for many equatorial countries due to #climatechaos.
Disconnect from real-world activism: The events are, too, often status games rather than meaningful discussions about addressing the pressing issues. There’s a failure to engage with the messy realities faced by activists and movements on the ground.
Academic feedback loop: The feedback loop between academics and activists is flawed, with academics relying on poor sources and engaging with #fashionistas rather than those actively “working” in grassroots activism. This results in a caricatured understanding of activism and its challenges.
Irrelevance of academic thinking: Academic thinking needs to be criticized for being detached from the practical realities faced by activists. That it’s focused on building consensus and engaging in definition games rather than addressing the substantive issues.

In summary, the common issue is the disconnect between academic discourse and the lived experiences of activists and movements, leading to a lack of relevant insights and solutions to pressing real-world challenges.

More Oxford seminars and workshops

#Oxford

Bridget Kendall in conversation

Join Worcester College Provost, David Isaac CBE, as he interviews leading role models about their lives and careers.

Bridget Kendall MBE has spent over 40 years as a BBC journalist, joining as a graduate trainee in 1983. She was BBC Moscow correspondent from 1989 to 1994, covering the final years of the Soviet Union and the first years of post-Soviet Russia. She was BBC Washington correspondent from 1994 to 1998 during the Clinton Presidency. From 1998 to 2016 she held the senior role of BBC Diplomatic correspondent, reporting on major global trends and crises, and analysing their impact on Britain and the world.

Kendall was the first woman elected Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge in 2016. She was appointed a Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge in 2020, the same year in which she was made an Honorary Fellow of the British Academy. She is also an Honorary Fellow of St Antony’s College, Oxford and Lady Margaret Hall. Her awards include the James Cameron Award for distinguished journalism, a Bronze Sony Reporter of the Year award, a special award for International Reporting from the Political Studies Association and an MBE in the 1994 New Year’s Honours list.

A Cambridge child studies #Oxford to study Russian, she goes onto the BBC

This is the #mainstreaming view of history. How much should we move away from the current mess? What other history’s can we tell, what is a useful and safeish path next, as this current path is ending.

How would you change if the message from the top changes.

Speaking a foreign language bracks down barriers

The Meyerstein Lecture in Archaeology 2024: The social worlds of Bronze Age animals

Although cattle and sheep were central to the everyday lives and wellbeing of Bronze Age communities in northwest Europe, they are strangely lacking from our narratives of the period. After the Neolithic, it seems, archaeologists rarely consider domestic animals to be interesting. However, Bronze Age people clearly thought otherwise, as the careful deposition of complete and partial animal bodies in graves, pits and ditches suggests. The traces of cattle and sheep are present in other ways too, in hoofprints around waterholes and in landscape features like droveways that appear at this time, but we too rarely consider what such evidence can tell us beyond the economic significance of animals and their products. Integrating multispecies and posthumanist perspectives that highlight how living with animals involves intimate interaction and interdependency, we ask how it might be possible to explore the role of cattle and sheep as active participants in Bronze Age social worlds. By reconstructing the intertwining of people and animals in life and death, we can consider how together they generated Bronze Age worlds of work, sociality and meaning.

The impact of #colonialism, this narrative, has shaped our history. We need to decolonise this excerpted story.

#Animals as economic and status significance, rather than looking at animals in their own sense. Living with connection to them, Proximity to Humans, animals sharing houses.

Science and isotopes

Wild animals. In twining human and animals lives in the Bronze Age.

Arcology of ideology, shifting our view away from the current mess. Searching for care and community in human history, agenst the modernist view of individualism and hierarchy. Can bone, stone and layers of soil tell this story.

Can we learn about human relations from animal study’s.

#Oxford

Contrasting Balkan utopias: Navigating migration and futurity in the physical remnants of Yugoslavia

“Irregular” #migrants moving along the Western #Balkan Migration Route aspire to competing visions of Europe, and Europeanness, and along their journeys they encounter multiple competing, overlapping, or intersecting political projects. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in #Slovenia since 2021, this presentation will explore how various imaginaries of Europe are instantiated in the wake of Yugoslav socialism, EU integration, and an ongoing “migration crisis.”

Fun workshop on the European activist times, interesting, but not sure if much use on the subject of immigration.

#Academics, playing the determination game, is long and dull and more about statues games. As with most of these events the subject is scanned over and all the knowledge is in these statues, definition games rather than the subject itself, it’s a meta conversation.

Friendly parasite’s, sometimes it’s useful for activism to have same #mainstreaming to point at when talking to authorities. But the issue is the normal, academics talk to #fashionistas not the people who get stuff done, so it’s a caricature you end up pointing to, but one the “authorities” can relate to, a useful mess. That becomes a real problem when this becomes the history of the movement. A bad feedback loop that we keep repeating, and we are in now

#Oxford