Producing readings : freedom versus normativity?

The subject known as English has been framed in terms of a number of models which can be broadly defined through the literature as cultural heritage (associated with Matthew Arnold and F.R. Leavis), personal growth (associated with John Dixon and James Britton) and cultural studies (associated with Raymond Williams and Roland Barthes). Traditionally these models have been assumed to reflect different theories of English, each one being hailed as a radical break with the previous model. Taking the reading lesson as an example, the paper attempts to trouble the idea that the models of English are radically different, first by identifying an unhelpful dialectic that historically informs discussions of literature teaching and English and second, by exploring a circularity that characterises arguments used to justify the radical nature of cultural studies English.

The new normativity : the innovation imperative

At a quite fundamental level, the very way in which Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) may envisage its future usually captured in the semantic shift from PSB to Public Service Media (PSM) is at stake when considering the recent history of public value discourse and the public value test. The core Reithian PSB idea assumed that public value would be created through the application of core principles of universality of availability and appeal, provision for minorities, education of the public, distance from vested interests, quality programming standards, program maker independence, and fostering of national culture and the public sphere. On the other hand, the philosophical import of the public value test is that potentially any excursion into the provision of new media services needs to be justified ex ante. In this era of New Public Management, greater transparency and accountability, and the proposition that resources for public value deliverables be contestable and not sequestered in public sector institutions, what might be the new Archimedean point around which a contemporised normativity for PSM be built? This paper will argue for the innovation imperative as an organising principle for contemporary PSM. This may appear counterintuitive, as it is precisely PSB’s predilection for innovating in new media services (in online, mobile, and social media) that has produced the constraining apparatus of the ex ante/public value/Drei-Stufen-Test in Europe, based on principles of competitive neutrality and transparency in the application of public funds for defined and limited public benefit. However, I argue that a commitment to innovation can define as complementary to, rather than as competitive ‘crowding out’, the new products and services that PSM can, and should, be delivering into a post-scarcity, superabundant all-media marketplace. The evidence presented in this paper for this argument is derived mostly from analysis of PSM in the Australian media ecology. While no PSB outside Europe is subject to a formal public value test, the crowding out arguments are certainly run in Australia, particularly by powerful commercial interests for whom free news is a threat to monetising quality news journalism. Take right wing opinion leader, herself a former ABC Board member, Judith Sloan: ‘… the recent expansive nature of the ABC – all those television stations, radio stations and online offerings – is actually squeezing activity that would otherwise be undertaken by the private sector. From partly correcting market failure, the ABC is now causing it. We are now dealing with a case of unfair competition and wasted taxpayer funds’ (The Drum, 1 August http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2818220.html). But I argue that the crowding out argument is difficult to sustain in Australia because of the PSB’s non-dominant position and the fact that much of innovation generated by the two PSBs, the ABC and the SBS, has not been imitated by or competed for by the commercials. The paper will bring cases forward, such as SBS’ Go Back to Where you Came From (2011) as an example of product innovation, and a case study of process and organisational innovation which also has resulted in specific product and service innovation – the ABC’s Innovation Unit. In summary, at least some of the old Reithian dicta, along with spectrum scarcity and market failure arguments, have faded or are fading. Contemporary PSM need to justify their role in the system, and to society, in terms of innovation.

An Analysis of Soft Law Applicable to Humanitarian Assistance: Relative Normativity in Action?

There is limited binding international law specifically covering the provision of humanitarian assistance in response to natural and human-made disasters. Yet a variety of authoritative soft law texts have been developed in the past 20 years, including the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the Red Cross Red Crescent Code of Conduct and the Sphere Project’s Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. While such ‘non-binding normative standards’ do not carry the weight of international law, they play an essential role in the provision of humanitarian assistance albeit subject to their limited enforceability vis-à-vis intended beneficiaries and to their voluntary application by humanitarian actors. Notwithstanding a lack of legal compulsion, certain non-binding normative standards may directly influence the actions of States and non-State actors, and so obtain a strongly persuasive character. Analysis of texts that influence the practice of humanitarian assistance advances our understanding of humanitarian principles and performance standards for disaster response. As the International Law Commission debates draft articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, such non-binding normative standards are crucial to the development of an internationally accepted legal framework to protect victims of disasters.

The Disorganized Family: Institutions, Practices and Normativity

This paper considers the value of a normative account of the relationship between agents and institutions for contemporary efforts to explain ever more complex and disorganized forms of social life. The character of social institutions, as they relate to practices, agents and norms, is explored through an engagement with the common claim that family life has been deinstitutionalized. The paper argues that a normative rather than empirical definition of institutions avoids a false distinction between institutions and practices. Drawing on ideas of social freedom and creative action from critical theory, the changes in family life are explained not as an effect of deinstitutionalization, but as a shift from an organized to a disorganized institutional type. This is understood as a response to changes in the wider normative structure, as a norm of individual freedom has undermined the legitimacy of the organized patriarchal nuclear family, with gender ascribed roles and associated duties. Contemporary motherhood is drawn on to illustrate the value of analysing the dynamic interactions between institutions, roles and practices for capturing both the complexity and the patterned quality of social experience.

The arbitrariness and normativity of social conventions

This paper investigates a puzzling feature of social conventions: the fact that they are both arbitrary and normative. We examine how this tension is addressed in sociological accounts of conventional phenomena. Traditional approaches tend to generate either synchronic accounts that fail to consider the arbitrariness of conventions, or diachronic accounts that miss central aspects of their normativity. As a remedy, we propose a processual conception that considers conventions as both the outcome and material cause of much human activity. This conceptualization, which borrows from the économie des conventions as well as critical realism, provides a novel perspective on how conventions are nested and defined, and on how they are established, maintained and challenged.