Pautas de evaluación

Estimados alumnos,

En primer lugar mi deseo de que vosotros, vuestro familiares y amigos os encontréis con buena salud y deseosos de comeros el mundo tan pronto como acabe el confinamiento. Aunque me temo que recuperar la normalidad va para largo. Pero mucho ánimo

Me acaban de confirmar que no habrá ninguna actividad presencial para acabar este curso 2019-2020. Por lo tanto vamos a acabar el curso "virtualmente". Lo que más me gusta de mi trabajo universitario es poder intercambiar presencialmente ideas, preguntas y respuestas con vosotras/os y desde luego por la vía "on line" esta tarea tan enriquecedora para todos queda descartada por el momento. Lo que me apena. Pero es lo que hay.

En relación con la evaluación final de la asignatura: 

Va a haber examen virtual. He reservado un aula para el 21 de mayo de 16 a 18 horas. No sé cómo va a ser el examen porque tengo que estudiarme el tutorial. Pero procuraré que sea sencillo aunque, por consejo de los técnicos, adoptaré las medidas que me permite la plataforma para evitar que durante el examen algunos monten un foro por wasap u otro medio y se pasen las respuestas. Aparentemente la solución es poner muchas preguntas y que la mayoría de los exámenes sean distintos. Aparte de poner un tiempo tasado por pregunta. 

Habrá examen de recuperación en junio. Pero aún el sistema no permite reservar aula. Así que no os puedo decir la fecha. 

A mi me parece bien que los que han hecho el Moot test y lo han aprobado liberen los 8 primeros temas. Incluidas las personas que lo entregaron tarde, pero en el mismo día. La persona que lo entregó días después tendrá que ir con el temario entero. Pero para que aplique esta solución necesito que sea aceptada por el 100% de la clase. De no ser así todos iríais con los 12 temas. 

En cuanto a la nota final contará el examen final y los Book Reports. Cómo hicisteis el Moot test, los que lo hicisteis, me servirá también de orientación, pero solo para subir la nota. En ningún caso para bajarla. 

Una última cosa. Os pediría a los delegados que gestionaseis con Decanato o con la autoridad académica competente la posibilidad de que una vez hecho el examen podáis depositar físicamente en la Facultad, en Vicálvaro los cuadernos de clase. Eso me permitiría revisarlos y valorarlos para la nota final. No sé si es posible, pero sería deseable.

Finalmente, como sabéis uno de los rasgos de mi método docente es incitaros a que hagáis buenas lecturas, porque entiendo que para un universitario es la mejor manera de contrarrestar el tropel de informaciones audiovisuales que recibís diariamente, muchas de ella sin contrastar, cuando no directamente "fake", es leer buenos textos, claros y formativos. De ahí que os impusiera la lectura de los tres libros que os puse desde principio de curso. 

Hoy me permito transcribiros un texto medieval (eso sí con el castellano modernizado) que creo viene a cuento en tiempos de nerviosismo y excepción. Un texto que fomenta que cada persona se forme su propia opinión de las cosas y actúe de acuerdo con sus convicciones. Está tomado de El Conde Lucanor.

 El conde Lucanor” es una obra narrativa de la literatura castellana medieval escrita entre 1331 y 1335 por Don Juan Manuel, Príncipe de Villena, un nieto de Fernando III de Castilla (1217-1252), conquistador de Córdoba y Sevilla y padre de Alfonso X el sabio. Su título completo y original en castellano medieval es “Libro de los enxiemplos del Conde Lucanor et de Patronio”. Está integrado por cinco partes de las cuales la más conocida son las 51 historia moralizantes (Exempla) inspiradas en obras clásicas como las Fábulas de Esopo o cuentos tradicionales árabes.

 La España medieval gracias a ser la España de las tres culturas: cristiana, musulmana y judía era el lugar más culto de Europa. Pensad en la interesantísima figura de Alfonso X el Sabio (1252-1284), un rey cultísimo, autor de diversos libros y fundador de la escuela de traductores de Toledo gracias a la cual se tradujeron y distribuyeron por toda Europa las obras capitales de la Antigüedad greco-latina. Sin la España medieval Europa habría tardado mucho más en salir del oscurantismo de la Alta Edad Media. 

El texto es el cuento segundo del Conde Lucanor. Un noble que tiene como consejero al sabio Patronio. La obra es muy muy entretenida a pesar de tener casi 800 años.  Desde luego es un libro canónico que debería estar en cualquier biblioteca. 

Os lo transcribo a continuación : 

Cuento II

Lo que sucedió a un hombre bueno con su hijo

Otra vez, hablando el Conde Lucanor con Patronio, su consejero, le dijo que estaba muy preocupado por algo que quería hacer, pues, si acaso lo hiciera, muchas personas encontrarían motivo para criticárselo; pero, si dejara de hacerlo, creía él mismo que también se lo podrían censurar con razón. Contó a Patronio de qué se trataba y le rogó que le aconsejase en este asunto.

-Señor Conde Lucanor -dijo Patronio-, ciertamente sé que encontraréis a muchos que podrían aconsejaros mejor que yo y, como Dios os hizo de buen entendimiento, mi consejo no os hará mucha falta; pero, como me lo habéis pedido, os diré lo que pienso de este asunto. Señor Conde Lucanor -continuó Patronio-, me gustaría mucho que pensarais en la historia de lo que ocurrió a un hombre bueno con su hijo.

El conde le pidió que le contase lo que les había pasado, y así dijo Patronio:

-Señor, sucedió que un buen hombre tenía un hijo que, aunque de pocos años, era de muy fino entendimiento. Cada vez que el padre quería hacer alguna cosa, el hijo le señalaba todos sus inconvenientes y, como hay pocas cosas que no los tengan, de esta manera le impedía llevar acabo algunos proyectos que eran buenos para su hacienda. Vos, señor conde, habéis de saber que, cuanto más agudo entendimiento tienen los jóvenes, más inclinados están a confundirse en sus negocios, pues saben cómo comenzarlos, pero no saben cómo los han de terminar, y así se equivocan con gran daño para ellos, si no hay quien los guíe. Pues bien, aquel mozo, por la sutileza de entendimiento y, al mismo tiempo, por su poca experiencia, abrumaba a su padre en muchas cosas de las que hacía. Y cuando el padre hubo soportado largo tiempo este género de vida con su hijo, que le molestaba constantemente con sus observaciones, acordó actuar como os contaré para evitar más perjuicios a su hacienda, por las cosas que no podía hacer y, sobre todo, para aconsejar y mostrar a su hijo cómo debía obrar en futuras empresas.

»Este buen hombre y su hijo eran labradores y vivían cerca de una villa.   -38-   Un día de mercado dijo el padre que irían los dos allí para comprar algunas cosas que necesitaban, y acordaron llevar una bestia para traer la carga. Y camino del mercado, yendo los dos a pie y la bestia sin carga alguna, se encontraron con unos hombres que ya volvían. Cuando, después de los saludos habituales, se separaron unos de otros, los que volvían empezaron a decir entre ellos que no les parecían muy juiciosos ni el padre ni el hijo, pues los dos caminaban a pie mientras la bestia iba sin peso alguno. El buen hombre, al oírlo, preguntó a su hijo qué le parecía lo que habían dicho aquellos hombres, contestándole el hijo que era verdad, porque, al ir el animal sin carga, no era muy sensato que ellos dos fueran a pie. Entonces el padre mandó a su hijo que subiese en la cabalgadura.

»Así continuaron su camino hasta que se encontraron con otros hombres, los cuales, cuando se hubieron alejado un poco, empezaron a comentar la equivocación del padre, que, siendo anciano y viejo, iba a pie, mientras el mozo, que podría caminar sin fatigarse, iba a lomos del animal. De nuevo preguntó el buen hombre a su hijo qué pensaba sobre lo que habían dicho, y este le contestó que parecían tener razón. Entonces el padre mandó a su hijo bajar de la bestia y se acomodó él sobre el animal.

»Al poco rato se encontraron con otros que criticaron la dureza del padre, pues él, que estaba acostumbrado a los más duros trabajos, iba cabalgando, mientras que el joven, que aún no estaba acostumbrado a las fatigas, iba a pie. Entonces preguntó aquel buen hombre a su hijo qué le parecía lo que decían estos otros, replicándole el hijo que, en su opinión, decían la verdad. Inmediatamente el padre mandó a su hijo subir con él en la cabalgadura para que ninguno caminase a pie.

»Y yendo así los dos, se encontraron con otros hombres, que comenzaron a decir que la bestia que montaban era tan flaca y tan débil que apenas podía soportar su peso, y que estaba muy mal que los dos fueran montados en ella. El buen hombre preguntó otra vez a su hijo qué le parecía lo que habían dicho aquellos, contestándole el joven que, a su juicio, decían la verdad. Entonces el padre se dirigió al hijo con estas palabras:

»-Hijo mío, como recordarás, cuando salimos de nuestra casa, íbamos los dos a pie y la bestia sin carga, y tú decías que te parecía bien hacer así el camino. Pero después nos encontramos con unos hombres que nos dijeron que aquello no tenía sentido, y te mandé subir al animal, mientras que yo iba a pie. Y tú dijiste que eso sí estaba bien. Después encontramos otro grupo de personas, que dijeron que esto último no estaba bien, y por ello   -39-   te mandé bajar y yo subí, y tú también pensaste que esto era lo mejor. Como nos encontramos con otros que dijeron que aquello estaba mal, yo te mandé subir conmigo en la bestia, y a ti te pareció que era mejor ir los dos montados. Pero ahora estos últimos dicen que no está bien que los dos vayamos montados en esta única bestia, y a ti también te parece verdad lo que dicen. Y como todo ha sucedido así, quiero que me digas cómo podemos hacerlo para no ser criticados de las gentes: pues íbamos los dos a pie, y nos criticaron; luego también nos criticaron, cuando tú ibas a caballo y yo a pie; volvieron a censurarnos por ir yo a caballo y tú a pie, y ahora que vamos los dos montados también nos lo critican. He hecho todo esto para enseñarte cómo llevar en adelante tus asuntos, pues alguna de aquellas monturas teníamos que hacer y, habiendo hecho todas, siempre nos han criticado. Por eso debes estar seguro de que nunca harás algo que todos aprueben, pues si haces alguna cosa buena, los malos y quienes no saquen provecho de ella te criticarán; por el contrario, si es mala, los buenos, que aman el bien, no podrán aprobar ni dar por buena esa mala acción. Por eso, si quieres hacer lo mejor y más conveniente, haz lo que creas que más te beneficia y no dejes de hacerlo por temor al qué dirán, a menos que sea algo malo, pues es cierto que la mayoría de las veces la gente habla de las cosas a su antojo, sin pararse a pensar en lo más conveniente.

»Y a vos, Conde Lucanor, pues me pedís consejo para eso que deseáis hacer, temiendo que os critiquen por ello y que igualmente os critiquen si no lo hacéis, yo os recomiendo que, antes de comenzarlo, miréis el daño o provecho que os puede causar, que no os confiéis sólo a vuestro juicio y que no os dejéis engañar por la fuerza de vuestro deseo, sino que os dejéis aconsejar por quienes sean inteligentes, leales y capaces de guardar un secreto. Pero, si no encontráis tal consejero, no debéis precipitaros nunca en lo que hayáis de hacer y dejad que pasen al menos un día y una noche, si son cosas que pueden posponerse. Si seguís estas recomendaciones en todos vuestros asuntos y después los encontráis útiles y provechosos para vos, os aconsejo que nunca dejéis de hacerlos por miedo a las críticas de la gente.

El consejo de Patronio le pareció bueno al conde, que obró según él y le fue muy provechoso.

Y, cuando don Juan escuchó esta historia, la mandó poner en este libro e hizo estos versos que dicen así y que encierran toda la moraleja:

Por críticas de gentes, mientras que no hagáis mal,

buscad vuestro provecho y no os dejéis llevar.

FUENTE: http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/el-conde-lucanor--0/html/00052e2a-82b2-11df-acc7-002185ce6064_1.html#I_5_ [Última consulta abril de 2020]

                                          El Infante Don Juan Manuel (1282-1348)

GUIDELINES ON "SUBMISSION" Michel Houellebeq (2015).

1. Introduction: Is the EU a failure? The pessimistic approach of Jonathan Coe and Robert Menasse

After the first two compulsory readings, Middle England of Jonathan Coe (2018) and The Capital of Robert Menasse (2019) you might be convinced that either the EU is vowed to disappear or it is absolutely useless. A feeling that I am sure has been reaffirmed after the reaction of Communitarian Europe to the Covid19 Crisis. Every Nation-State care for itself and do not give a damn about how the others may get through this catastrophe. Northern Europe despise Southern Europeans that they consider disorganized, lazy, and professional cheaters on their taxes. This is why Mark Rutte the Netherlands Prime Minister is not willing to help anyone but its own Nation-state. And so think Austria, Germany and the Nordic countries. And if this is so: What is the Use of Europe?

They do not remember anymore than the Greek Crisis in 2007-2008 was a critical moment but thanks to the fact that the Populist Left Government of Tsipras accepted the constraints of the EU in exchange of receiving financial aid it worked, and Greece is back in business. Thanks also to the fact that the German Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe declared that it was constitutional to use the money of German tax payers to help the Greeks in the need. EU solidarity prevented the Bankruptcy of Greece and preserved European Integration. But with the Covid19 Crisis as it is more wide and general it might not work. And if this is the case : what is the sense of the constraints the EU impose on Member States, especially in those countries that have the euro?

However there is hope, the President of the German Republic Frank-Walter Stenmeier has strongly advocated that Germany should help Southern Europe in times of distress because if Spain or Italy are not fully recovered from Coronavirus, Germany will not be either. This has been said in his public speech to the nation on Saturday, 11th April.

 In Middle England Coe deals with the risk of explosion of the EU after Brexit. Especially if the UK does much better out of Communitarian Europe than inside. Something that is hazardous and unclear. What is disturbing is that Coe explains how manipulation of the British Public Opinion through the Media led to the vote in favour of the Brexit in 2016 by quite a narrow margin and currently the UK and the EU are going through a lot of trouble., Just because as Coe shows short term political and economic interests of the wealthy British ruling class (to whom David Cameron and Boris Johnson belong) prevailed over midterm, long-term considerations, through misinformation and manipulation due in a large measure to Fake news. This is how Populists especially extreme-right convinced a majority of Brits that they will be better off on their own, isolated. 

Are Brexiters right? Will the UK do better outside the EU? When you read Robert Menasse's book The Capital about what is going on in Brussels you are tempted to think that yes, because nationalistic narrative is far more efficient to convince people to fight for their country than for a EU that is nothing else that a huge Market which is a very poor narrative, with no charisma at all. The Member States Governments look only at their interest in this mean Cattle Market. Neither the Eurocrats believe in the European idea, as they only care about their promotion. Europe is about Pigs and not about preventing that the horror of Auschwitz could happen again. They just do not care. Culture is despised as the Commission allows a very low budget for everything who is not directly related to the Common Market. And an Europe of Merchants is a car with a big engine but no steering wheel. A situation that might led us to a frontal collision with the Wall of the Covid19 Crisis. 

QUESTION: 

Are the Brexiters right? Is it the EU an expensive and useless economic structure with neither a Spirit or a Soul? Because so far it is obvious that there is no a common European narrative that will push us to defend European integration beyond shabby material negotiations in the market dynamics. No business, no Europe. The paradox is that this is not exclusively a Liberal Capitalistic idea.  The approach consisting in the fact that only economy matters started with Marxism, as its followers consider that everything is related and seen through the economic prism. The problem was that countries that followed the orthodox Marxist economic approach are much poorer than the ones that dealt with the Market approach. Even Communist China has become the leader of Market Economy. In the matter of economy Liberalism has absolutely defeated Marxism. And the decay of Marxism has provoked a situation in which economic and social differences are much wider today than in 1950 when the European Integration movement began.  And it is terrifying to imagine what could happen with the huge Economic crisis provoked by the Covid19 Pandemia? Would it be the end of the EU? And of the Western World?

2. Here comes Houellebeq’s “Submission”

a) Economy might not be the answer

But what if Economy is not the answer? A question that Michel Houellebeq rises in his book Submission. I don't know if you have read others novels of this "enfant terrible" of the litterary world. Like The Elementary Particles (1998), Platform (2001), The map and the Territory  that received the Goncourt price in 2010. But if you have not, something I strongly recommend, you will have missed that Houellebeq is one of the literary authors that best describes the Western decadence through an extremely intelligent and realistic nihilist approach. The West has lost its soul, and life for westerners has no existential purpose, besides keeping up to maintain our material standard of living, something that is more and more difficult. Even Sex, a reality that is extremely important in all Houellebeq's novels, as you have realized in Submission, is sad, gloomy and mechanic, as there is no love involved ever. It is just functional to ease a body need, but there is no joy in it, pure masturbation. Houellebeq's individuals are alone in a World that does not make sense any more. Western civilization is over and we can only assist to its agony. 

And then here comes Submission which tell us a story in which a moderate Muslim leader, Mohammed Ben Abbes becomes the President of France. An Utopia or a Distopia? Is this a good thing or it is a disaster? As westerners used to Human Rights and Constitutions the idea seems initially frightening. And in the first part of the book you see how effectively France gets to a lot of trouble due to the political situation with a rising extreme right National Front, with its "identitarian" ideology, very close to the one of Brexiters. A situation you see through the protagonist François a University Professor of Literature in La Sorbonne, the top French University in Humanities. He is a good intellectual, that has dedicated most of its life to study the works of XIXth century French Author Joris-Karl Huysmans. The problem is that nobody cares about culture in France anymore. And the only students that follow François lectures are Chinese or Muslims. Westerners only care about economics. 

After the Muslim takeover of the French Government, Public universities become confessional and atheists, catholics, protestants or agnostics are expelled, with a very generous pension. Money is not the problem when the main issue is to convert the country to Islamic faith. The problem is that only bad professors remain, because they are the only ones that accept fully to be "submitted" to the new regime. The world "Muslim" means "submitted" to Alah. They do not care because they are mediocre professionals. François is a good one and this is why he retires and try to renew with its spiritual origins visiting the Abbey in the Spiritual Town Rocamadour where Huysmans retired, a place where he had stayed when he was writing his 7 year long PHD thesis. But getting back to French Catholicism makes no sense to him anymore. And then is when the President of the Sorbonne Robert Rediger a sly intellectual and an able politician try to convince François to come back to teach. Economical conditions are great but there is a problem. He would only be accepted on the condition that he should convert to Islam.

One would imagine that the nihilist François will say no way. That if Huysman's Catholicism does not make sense anymore, it would be completely useless to get François to become a Muslim.   But here is where Houellebeq's book is deeply disturbing. In a very intelligent approach that he conducts to the bright Rediger he manages to convince intellectually François that embracing Islam makes totally sense. Of course the abundant money coming from Petromonarchies make life for converted muslims of high professional level as Rediger or François much easier. But the appeal of becoming "submited" to the islamic faith is not only due to material benefits. And here is where the book of Houellebq is absolutely brilliant. As he describes an Islamic universe that makes sense, compared to the empty, dry and nihilist Western civilization that is dying. 

 What this has to do with the EU? A lot. As one of the aims of the Muslim French President Mohamed Ben Abbes, an extremely brilliant and charismatic politician is build a Dar al Islam as the new Roman Empire. Pushing the EU to integrate Muslim countries as Turkey, Egypt and some Petromonarchies to create a World power that could face China or the US. Not only because of economic reasons, but because the Islamic EU would have a soul and a powerful narrative that will bring all its inhabitants together believing in something strong and motivating.

QUESTION:

 Do you agree with the statement that our western civilization is dying from nihilism? That materialism is killing our way of life? Do you think that regaining the spiritual path of us might save us? Do you think that believing in something gives sense to our existence? Do you think yourself capable of becoming spiritual, or a believer?

b) A new conception of marriage

Of course this powerful narrative has a strong price to be paid. First of all, women. They are deprived of their jobs and more or less sent home to put in place a strong patriarchal system based on traditional family values. In this sense, the favoured economic system will be the one focused on family companies and manual activities far from the abstract economy models based on fake money and fake economy that have led the world to the terrible 2008 crisis. Houellebecq hates this kind of economy, based on computer mathematic models, he often praises in his articles and interviews George Orwell’s concept of “common decency” equivalent to people living decently of their own work.

 Houellebecq strongly believes that market economy has won the bodies and that relationships are totally ruled by interest- That is why love does not exist anymore. In that sense Ben Abbes advocates for “marriages of reason” that is man and woman do not have to be in love, marriage turns out to be a contract on which depends society’s well-being. The aim is to have children and to strengthen society ties. This is the successful marriage, one that does not fulfill individual aspirations but social benefit. This is sustained in Submission by a sociologist, a certain DaSilva, who also considers that marriage of reason will transmit through families the heritage of the know-how in a still and for ever unchanged society. 

Eva Illouz, an israelian sociologist has also studied the impact of liberal economy in western societies and has led to more or less the same conclusions as Michel Houellebecq. This is very significant since they do not belong to the same circles.

As you can easily see, in the era of #Metoo that seems totally unacceptable but you have to remember that this concept of marriage has prevailed until practically the XXth century.

Houellebecq is very perceptive, he shows how this mentality could lead for instance to forced marriages with minors to assure lots of children. This is a forbidden practice by the OUN but largely performed in strict Muslim countries. For example, Rediger’s second wife, barely a teenager, wearing a Hello Kitty shirt and her belly expoded. Of course only at home and for Rediger’s eyes. When seen by François, she immediately tries to hide.

QUESTION: 

You should bear in mind that love marriage has been a recent issue brought by Romanticism in the 19th century. In most of Western history marriage was something negotitated by the families to strenghthen their position in society. I know it sounds shocking, but try, after reading Submission, to put yourself on the other side. I don’t mean you to defend marriage by reason, but to understand its possible advantages. Think specially that actually 2 on 3 love marriages end in divorce in the wealthy West and all the disruptions it causes. The exercise is: explain why Houellebeq’s novel on this point could be convincing.

c) And women in all this?

However, not everything is husband, children, cooking and praying in a contemporary version of Hitler’s KKK (Kinder, Küche, Kirchen) for women in Ben Abbes’ era. They can  access to another job: matchmakers. This job has done marvels for Prof. Loiseleur, an old professor, scholar on Leconte de Lisle who, in order to work at the Muslim Sorbonne had to convert to Islam. Always untidy, when François meets him he looks different, matchmakers have found him a wife that has turned him upside down and with a more acceptable look. It is very likely this is going to happen to François, probably one of the reasons why he accepts the job at Sorbonne plus the considerable economic benefits.

In Margaret Atwood’s recent book The testaments, sequel to the dystopia The Handmaid’s Tale we can read about matchmakers, essential to society’s stability. Houellebecq and Atwood together!!!! That is certainly one of Houellebecq’s outstanding achievements and a proof of his insight.

Woman’s work is described as a very negative fact for a successful family life. That is done through the characters of Bruno and Annelise. Bruno is a tax inspector and Annelise works as a marketing manager for a phone company. Houellebecq shows a woman totally stressed, starting her day at 8 a.m. when leaving children at kindergarten and arriving at home at 9 p.m., completely worn out only capable of sitting and watching tv, no time available to pay any attention to her husband. A working woman that dresses sexy for the work but wears at home a hideous tracksuit forgetting to be sexy for him until they are too old for sex if they don’t divorce. Houellebecq states it is the opposite with Muslim women, dressed with their strict burkas during the day, but becoming “Paradise birds” at night wearing very sexy underwear.

As far as women are concerned, Houellebeq is absolutely polemic. Some Freudian psychiatrists would say that the core of the problem is his very complicated relationship with his mother, an awful lady that did not hesitate to appear in the media despising his own son calling him a fascist, a term very often applied to Houellebecq. In Submission for instance, François’ mother dies but he does not give any sign so she is buried in a common grave. 

The truth is women are not very nicely portrayed in Houellebecq’s work and we could say that he is a deep mysoginist. 

Myriam, the Jewish student is possibly better presented in the book. Forced to emigrate to Israel, exactly as the Nazis asked the Jews at the beginning of Hitler’s government, she will finally behave as François has expected, leaving him and not remaining faithful to their love. The other sympathetic character is Marie-Françoise Tanneur, a Literature professor, Balzac’s scholar, put to retirement by Ben Abbes’ policy and married to a sort of secret service agent also retired. But Marie-Françoise is elderly and does not represent any threat to men’s sexuality. She is a good cook which seems another of the duties and qualities attributed to women. Following Huysman’s work when sexuality is impossible in a couple out of lack of desire and body’s decadence, cooking becomes the new interest that reinforces old bonds.

Prostitution is also a way for men to have contact with women but naturally love or affection is not at stake, it is just an economic exchange. Submission has a description of François with two prostitutes, Nadia “la beurette” a despising adjective to define a person of Arabic origin and Babette “la salope”, Babette “the bitch” specialized in orgies. These two experiences are everything but satisfactory.

Another female character that can be found in the academic sphere is Chantal Delouze, Sorbonne’s rector. According to François, she is a lesbian with an aggressive look and is Steve’s lover, the mediocre professor that has seen his career climbing by being supposedly Delouze’s sexual toy. She is specialized in gender studies which are fiercely despised by the enemies of the politically correct. Houellebecq is certainly among them. But Delouze will be replaced by Rediger, a notorious pro-Palestinian and responsible for the boycott of Israeli Universities in France.

QUESTION:

 I want you to think in what measure this vision of men and women relationships are totally opposite of the politically correct actual approach to sex, love, gender identity. What part of this has pushed Western civilization to the present nihilism? Please do not give your personal opinions, do not get involved tray just to analyze coldly the two approaches. This is what is really enrichin about Houellebeq’s books, it stricke us because he says the opposite to the common politically correct approach. Even if you dislike him  this is a great exercise of free thinking. 

d) Religion in the 21st century

Today it is fashionable to be atheist or at least agnostic, word that means that you do not give a damn about religion. But this does not change the fact that religion has been so far the most powerful narrative in Human history. I give to religion a very large sense, the one you will find in Harari’s books, which includes socialism and neoliberalism. Because they defend “dogmas” that you should believe firmly. Houellebeq writes about what it used to be call religion, the narrative that gives you the idea that God has created the world and that obeying to his commandments you will be happy in this world and after life. 

Submission is built around the idea of a religious president who turns his religion, Islam and its legal principles, the sharia, into the official law. That is a very gripping idea since France is a country where laicism is a very strong pillar that vertebrates society. France has forbidden any religious sign in public places,  for instance. But Houellebecq shows a country where a practicing muslim candidate has been elected. What is also very surprising is that he has been so by the Left to counteract Lepen’s party. As Tanneur says: “Perhaps it is time to make an alliance with Islam”. Houellebecq shows in Submission the deep contradictions in French left parties that have led to the implosion of Socialist party resulting in the victory of Emmanuel Macron in 2017. 

Another fact also contributed to the polemic and the big success of Submission. On the 7th January 2015 the terrorist attack against the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo took place, exactly the same day of Submission’s publication in France. Some journalist and literary critics defined the book as prophetic but many as outrageous too.

Houellebecq has always been confronted with controversy, it is part of his success and he admits it willingly. He has participated in a movie called “L’enlèvement de Michel Houellebecq” (The Michel Houellebecq’s kidnapping) where acting as himself he was involved in his kidnapping for non specified reasons but it was an opportunity to talk about his work from the point of view of a non specialist reader plus having intercourse with a very young prostitute. The result was amazing and hilarious too. We hardly imagine any Spanish writer accepting to perform in a movie where his or her work would be put into question. Houellebecq has a strong sense of humour and the ability of self-derision which is a very nihilist characteristic. 

QUESTION: 

Ben Abbes in his election programs advocates for a compulsory religious tuition in order to achieve a spiritual dimension of French citizens. Do you agree with that? Please, again, try not to get personally involved. Give objective arguments for and against.

e) Fiction or reality?

One of the features that makes this frightening book plausible is that Houellebecq mixes with an extraordinary talent imaginary and real characters. We can find Manuel Valls, François Hollande, François Bayrou and of course Marine Lepen on the political side and David Pujadas on the media specter. We can also find references to current TV programmes. French readers were appalled because of it.

QUESTION: 

 Imagine if Pablo Iglesias, Pablo Casado, Santiago Abascal, Pedro Sánchez, Iñaki Gabilondo or Jordi Evole were characters of a book. Would it be more appealing to you. Explain why. 

f) The character and the program of Mohammed Ben Abbes

Mohammed Ben Abbes is a very ambiguous character and Houellebecq portrays him very accurately. Ben Abbes openly states his options since his party is named “Muslim Fraternity”. 

Who is Ben Abbes?: of modest origins, his father was a shopkeeper, Ben Abbes took advantage of the democratic meritocratic system to study Polytechnique and afterwards joined the ENA (Ecole Nationale d’Administration), almost compulsory to become President of France with the sole exception of Nicolas Sarkozy. So, in spite of using the opportunities brought about by public French education system, Ben Abbes has in its plans to privatize Education that will be funded by petromonarchies to use this money to make women stay at home in his own words: “to give its place and its value to the family, our society’s basic cell”. 

He certainly does not want a cultured society, academic upgrade are strictly reserved and a religious upbringing avoiding any kind of opposition. 

On the economic he is distributive, that is a separation between capital and work, totally opposite to liberal economy which strongly relates both. Houellebecq is very interested in economic processes and in every of his works we can find numerous references to economy. In this book, following Chesterton and Belloch’s ideas, he would finance family companies, little producers and handcraft. No help to the big industrial emporiums. That is as the book says, widely welcome by the EU which is in a fight against big corporations like Google because of the taxes.

On the personal side Ben Abbes sees himself as the contemporary embodiment of the Emperor Augustus, one of the most outstanding Emperors in Roman Empire. This is a blink on the part of Houellebecq to Napoleon, the embodiment of Revolution ideas. 

Enlightenment is very faw away from Ben Abbes’ ideology. The slow growing apart in French society of Enlightenment has been a source of worries for many French intellectuals like Tzvetan Todorov in his book L’esprit des Lumières who claim that losing the Enlightenment values are a danger for democracy.

Ben Abbes’ idea of a European Union gives the prevalence to an alliance in Southern Europe favouring union with Maghreb countries and Turkey, this latter a “bête noire” for current UE.

QUESTION: 

 Is the program of Ben Abbes appealing to you? Make a list of points you agree with and of aspects you disagree. Give objective reasons. 

g) Other characters

Rediger is an exquisite intellectual, who has surpassed “the clash of civilizations” to give place to only Islam. Rediger is the person in charge of reforming Education. Rediger a former traditionalist, has evolved especially in his religious vision, leaving aside Christianism, a milder form of religion, too adaptative and permissive to embrace Islam, much more attached to principles and rules and above all much more focused on everyday life. Fierce anti-semite, Houellebecq very cleverly relates Islamic hardening to the turmoil of Israeli politics towards Palestinian. 

Traditionalists are portrayed by Lempereur, another Literature professor scholar on Léon Bloy, a Catholic fundamentalist. He sympathizes with a group called “Les indigènes de la République” (The Republic Indigenous) which advocates for Civil War. His long-term plan is to come back to extremely traditional values. They consider atheism as responsible for extreme individualism and great tolerance. In order to expel Muslims from Europe it is necessary to have an army educated in Christian values ready to fight. Multiculturalism is the enemy and this war could start in countries where tolerance is very strong like Scandinavia. It is very significant since Norway had a horrible terrorist attack at Utoya Island perpetrated by Anders Breivink, a Christian fundamentalist. 

We can only admire Houellebecq’s discernment. It looks as if for some people in Europe we are living in a Crusade era, like in the Middle Ages. 

As a matter of fact, some French intellectuals assert that we are living in new Middle Ages, from the strong revival of local nationalisms to the isolation of individuals including the contemporary plague, Covid-19. In “Libération”, a left-sided newspaper, there is a blog where medieval historians establish parallels between our times and Middle Age ones.

Why submission?: according to Redinger, this is the aim of every human being, to be submitted. Houellebecq may not have attended University but he is a very well-read writer and he surely has read Erich Fromm, the German psychologist who studied very closely the relationship between totalitarianism and monotheist religions. Men would submit very easily because freedom needs creativity and so represents an extra work. It is easier to be told what to do than deciding by oneself what has to be done. Men are prone to leave aside freedom in exchange of security. Religions give a perfect narrative on world, with very definite categories: good and evil, right and wrong, righteous and sinner. These are categories easily understood, no nuances, no deep analysis is needed and thus are more easily admitted. 

François, the main character of the book is totally uninteresting and although capable of reflection, he is incapable of action and thus Ben Abbes’ regime is perfect for him since his sexual and domestic needs will be taken care of and his academic career which has zero interest for him will be boosted with a minimum effort. And what is more François will never regret his decision because great feelings and emotions are totally out of his range.

FINAL QUESTIONS:

1. I will ask you after reading Submission : Does Rediger and Ben Abbes seem convincing? Do you think François conversion and submission is plausible?  I would like you to explain clearly why or why not. 

2.  Do you think the EU could survive getting back to a religious and spiritual narrative that could give existential sense to the life of Europeans? 

3. Do you consider a party including the word “Muslim” could have any chance in today’s Europe bearing in mind the name given to the pig in Menasse’s The Capital?

4. Houellebecq considers that intellectuals have failed in their mission because they were irresponsible, it was not in their nature. It is also a very direct criticism to education, if University is filled with Steve and academics do not feel the vocation to teach, how can young generations be critic? How can they get the ability to think by themselves? Do you agree with that?

5. Do you think it is credible that a Westerner might be tempted by converting to Islam? Think of all young westerners that have even been enroled by ISIS. Please stress the arguments that in the book makes it convincing for a great intellectual as Rediger. 

FINAL ADVISE: 

Attending to the present circumstances of confinement I cannot tell you how important is that you take the Book Reports very seriously. Please read well, think about your readings according to our comments and do an intelligent, personal, well structured and well written Report. It will be an important part of your final mark.

Take advantage of the fact that confinement gives you a lot of time to devote to intellectual work.  Make a virtue of necessity!

All Book reports should be sent by May 16th. We will not consider the ones sent after that. 

Come on! Cheer up and go for it!

Respuesta a la queja de vuestro delegado

Esta mañana he recibido la queja formulada por vuestro delegado Alejandro Morán Rodriguez no a mi personalmente sino a la Autoridad académica. Me permito transcribirla literalmente en este blog, junto a mi contestación. 

 Las palabras de Alejandro están en azul y mi contestación en rojo. 

Un saludo cordial

Buenos tardes:

En primer lugar, espero que se encuentren bien en estos momentos. Me llamo Alejandro Morán, y soy el delegado de 2º de Relaciones Internacionales (inglés) en Vicálvaro, y quería transmitirte en nombre de mis compañeros/as una serie de incidentes que hemos tenido con un profesor, Bruno Aguilera, de la asignatura European Union Political History:

Para empezar, este profesor no responde a los mails de varios de compañeros acerca de dudas sobre los contenidos de la asignatura. 

He contestado prácticamente a todos los correos que me habéis enviado, salvo los de los últimos días ya que he estado corrigiendo el examen lo que me ha llevado muchas horas. Una vez corregido terminaré de contestar a todos los correos. 

Y esto entorpece que realicemos  nuestro trabajo porque su metodología nos resulta bastante inusual: el primer día, nos ofreció un libro de texto en la que se encuentran una serie de preguntas, que son las que aparecerán en el examen, y durante las clases solíamos preguntarle dudas sobre esos ejercicios.

Me pregunto si es “inusual” que desde el primer día tengáis todos los materiales, incluyendo las lecturas y los ejercicios que debéis hacer semanalmente para preparar la asignatura. Así como que cada semana os haya subido las instrucciones para preparar la Teaching guide que tocaba. Si es “inusual” me congratulo de que mi docencia lo sea. 

Por cierto  los "materiales" que os entregué no son un "Libro de texto" sino una recopilación de textos que he reunido pacientemente y con mucho esfuerzo para ayudaros a aprender la asignatura. Es una práctica habitual en las grandes universidades y es una manera muy eficaz y muy laboriosa de ejercer la docencia. 

 Ahora, su forma de “dar las clases” es simplemente subir una especie de resumen por tema, y sr niega a responder a nuestras dudas, y a nuestro juicio, no tiene mucha lógica estudiar algo que no sabemos si está correcto o no, aparte de que no solo nos parece una falta de respeto, sino también un incumplimiento de funciones como docente.

Me parece excesiva, cuando no totalmente falta a la verdad, la afirmación de que me niego a contestar a vuestras dudas. Lo he venido haciendo y lo seguiré haciendo ahora que he terminado de corregir el Moot Test. 

En segundo lugar, hace unas semanas tuvimos un examen con él y surgió una gran controversia. El Sr, Aguilera decidió que el examen no se realizaría de forma online, como ampliamente recomiendan la Universidad y las Autoridades, sino de forma escrita para después escanear las respuestas. Sin embargo, como es obvio, no todos tenemos esos recursos y podemos tener problemas con la cobertura para escanear y enviar, lo que pone de manifiesto la falta de flexibilidad por parte del profesor ya que de esta forma no se garantiza la igualdad de oportunidades. 

Me permito puntualizar que el Moot test no es un examen. Es una forma de ayudaros a preparar el examen. Es algo a lo que no estaba obligado y lo he hecho, con un considerable esfuerzo por mi parte, atendiendo a las excepcionales circunstancias que vivimos todos. La nota es indicativa y solo se dirige a que podáis saber cómo han hecho el ejercicio los 54 alumnos que han participado en él voluntariamente. Por eso he publicado el examen corregido, para que quienes lo hayan hecho puedan comparar mis respuestas con las que ellos dieron en su momento. Soy consciente de que no todos tenéis los recursos para hacer el Moot test, y por eso no era obligatorio sino voluntario. Sin embargo la mayoría de los estudiantes lo han hecho, cosa que les he agradecido profunda y reiteradamente. Creo que hacer esta prueba en condiciones tan difíciles no es precisamente una muestra de falta de flexibilidad. Ni por vuestra parte ni por la mía. 

Tras corregirlos (aunque aún hoy día no tenemos ni las notas ni las correcciones), nos ha manifestado que los estudiantes que enviasen el examen tras las 2.30h estipuladas para ello (te puedes hacer idea de su extensión) van a recibir una calificación menor, lo que no nos parece justo para aquéllos que hayamos tenido algún problema debido a la inestable tecnología. 

Una vez que he publicado el examen “corregido” y tras dar un par de días de margen para que los alumnos que lo hicieron puedan comparar su examen con el corregido, voy a mandarles individualmente al correo electrónico de la universidad los resultados, especificando pormenorizadamente cómo lo han hecho en cada una de las partes del examen. Este examen se puede hacer en 90 minutos y dí una hora más. Por otra parte he admitido todos los exámenes que me llegaron fuera de plazo: 14 de 54. La mayor parte de los que participaron lo hicieron dentro del tiempo.  Pero también he corregido los que lo entregaron fuera de plazo. Es una prueba manifiesta de mi “falta de flexibilidad”

Para añadir, el profesor cambió los contenidos los del examen en el último momento, añadiendo más cosas de las que estipuladas, lo cual aparte de ser injusto, obviamente también influye en que no supiésemos gestionar el tiempo adecuadamente.

Esta afirmación es directamente “FALSA”. Todo lo incluido en el examen son preguntas que obraban en los materiales y solo he puesto las fechas que especifiqué como importantes en las sucesivas entradas que he subido semanalmente al blog. 

En tercer lugar, el profesor Aguilera no utiliza en absoluto el Aula Virtual, y sube todos sus contenidos a un blog. 

La asignatura en enero de 2020 era “presencial” y no “on line”. No era pues procedente usar el aula virtual. Si las circunstancias sobrevenidas a partir del 14 de marzo de 2020 han modificado radicalmente las circunstancias, a día de hoy no se nos ha obligado desde el Rectorado a usar el Aula virtual. Si la pandemia del Covid19 impone una enseñanza “on line” no dudéis que me adaptaré a lo que decida la universidad. Hoy por hoy sin embargo aún no es el caso. 

No he usado el Aula virtual pero si un blog que me ha permitido semanalmente haceros indicaciones sobre cómo usar los materiales que teníais “completos” desde el primer día de clase. Creo que el blog es una ayuda considerable para seguir la asignatura. Especialmente ahora en las circunstancias que impone este confinamiento. Desde el primer momento habéis sabido a qué ateneros.

Esto nos parece un sinsentido y un obstáculo principalmente para mí como delegado ya que los y las estudiantes de Erasmus andan completamente perdidos en esta asignatura.

El caso de los estudiantes Erasmus es especial. No obstante estoy en contacto con ellos y por supuesto tendré en cuenta sus circunstancias, como siempre he hecho, por otra parte. 

En cuarto lugar, el profesor Aguilera insiste en que va a realizar su examen final de forma presencial, lo que contradice las directivas de la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos o del Ministerio de Universidades. Los alumnos nos negamos rotundamente a realizar cualquier examen en tales circunstancias debido a la pandemia que estamos sufriendo y no queremos poner en juego nuestra vida. Creo que no es necesario añadir más acerca de esta cuestión. 

Por ahora el examen virtual está recomendado pero no es obligatorio. Ni que decir tiene que si se impone actuaré en consecuencia. No sabemos lo que va a durar el confinamiento, ni si será posible hacer el examen presencial. Mi postura es que si es posible, prefiero el examen presencial, porque es muy difícil valorar las condiciones objetivas en que se va a realizar esta prueba virtual, que se está montando apresuradamente.

En ningún caso voy a poner en peligro la vida de nadie como podéis comprender. Simplemente quiero poder calificaros de la manera más objetiva posible, garantizando la igualdad de oportunidades con arreglo al principio de mérito y capacidad. Los alumnos que hayan trabajado mejor deben ser justamente compensados por ello de forma objetiva. Por eso en ningún caso voy a dar un “aprobado general”, una solución que me parece injusta y denigrante. Igualdad de oportunidades por supuesto, pero valorando el esfuerzo personal, el interés por aprender y la integridad individual. 

En quinto lugar, anoche el profesor Aguilera publicó un post en su blog acerca del examen que realizamos. En éste, el profesor se queja de nosotros, acusándonos de haber plagiado el examen y de que eso se tomará en consideración a la hora de la nota final. Incluso añade, que si somos capaces de recordar fechas (lo cual era necesario estudiarse para el examen) eso nos convierte en copiadores. Este tipo de acusaciones no so oportunas debido a la falta de pruebas, aparte de que obviamente, todos estudiamos las mismas palabras del mismo libro. 

Sobre este punto la prueba más evidente es que los alumnos que entregaron mucho más tarde el examen, algunos varios días después, casualmente tenían prácticamente todas las fechas “perfectas”, con día, mes y año. En cambio los que lo entregaron en el plazo de 2 horas y media tenían mucha menos precisión y algunos fallos. Es lo que se denomina en derecho una “presunción iuris tantum”, es decir que admite prueba en contrario. 

 Por otra parte creo oportuno insistir en que el Moot Test es un ejercicio para ayudaros a preparar el examen final y que la nota es solo indicativa. Por eso insistí reiteradamente que no me correspondía ejercer de “policía” sino que he apelado a vuestra honestidad personal, con el único propósito de que este ejercicio os resultase provechoso, cosa que no lo es si se consultan los materiales o se entra en internet mientras se realiza el ejercicio. Cada uno es responsable de sus actos y mis afirmaciones no pretendían herir a nadie sino apelar a la conveniencia de sacar el máximo provecho de un ejercicio que me ha llevado muchísimo tiempo poner y corregir.  

Si alguien se ha sentido herido por mis afirmaciones, le ofrezco desde aquí mis más respetuosas disculpas. 

En este post, también se incluyen comentarios como que él “detesta la enseñanza online”, los cuales son totalmente prescindibles. No se trata de una cuestión de gustos o no, sino de responsabilidad, ya que es el único recurso del disponemos.

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo en que cuando no hay más remedio hay que recurrir a la enseñanza a distancia. Sin embargo ello no me impide afirmar que se trata de un instrumento docente mucho menos eficaz que la enseñanza “presencial”. Os pondré un ejemplo. En la Harvard Law School, hace unos años, pusieron en marcha un doble itinerario : unos grupos eran presenciales y otros “on line”. Cuando llegó la hora de la valoración objetiva con los exámenes correspondientes, por supuesto PRESENCIALES, los alumnos presenciales obtuvieron unos resultados excelentes mientras que en los grupos “on line hubo una debacle”. El experimento no se repitió y desde entonces toda la enseñanza es presencial. Creo que en las semanas presenciales que hemos compartido, aquellos de vosotros que habéis venido a clase os habréis percatado que el intercambio  que manteníamos en clase era extraordinariamente enriquecedor para vosotros y para mi, que aprendí mucho de vuestras observaciones y de vuestras preguntas, casi siempre muy pertinentes. 

Lamento todas estas circunstancias provocadas por esta pandemia que nos ha cogido a todos con el paso cambiado. Es probable que el mundo no vuelva a ser el mismo después del Covid 19, aunque me pregunto si eso quizás pueda resultar una gran oportunidad para enfocar la vida de otra manera. Porque gracias a ello nuestra escala de valores está cambiando y nos estamos dando cuenta de lo que es realmente importante y lo que no lo es. 

En definitiva, nos encontramos muy insatisfechos ante la evasión de responsabilidades y la falta de flexibilidad de este profesor, y nos gustaría que se pudiera elevar esta queja para que el profesor rectifique y garantice un seguimiento correcto de los alumnos, ya que ha generado bastante controversia entre nosotros.

Muchas gracias de antemano y un saludo,

Alejandro Morán Rodríguez 

Estimado Alejandro, concluyo esta contestación a tu queja colectiva agradeciéndote que me hayas hecho partícipe de ellas aunque lamento que sea de forma indirecta, en vez de planteármela primero abiertamente. Porque no dudes que te habría contestado como lo estoy haciendo ahora. Estoy plenamente abierto a atender las peticiones y sugerencias que me parezcan justas y razonables. 

No tengáis la menor duda de que haré todo lo que esté en mi mano para que podáis acabar el curso de la forma más provechosa para vosotros, atendidas estas extraordinarias circunstancias. Eso sí no va a haber “aprobado general” y haré todo lo que sea posible para calificaros de forma objetiva en función de vuestro esfuerzo y dedicación. 

Aprovecho para agradecer una vez más a todos los que estáis trabajando fenomenal desde vuestras casas en medio de este marasmo. Ese es el verdadero heroísmo, individual, callado y sin aspavientos, alejado de cualquier manifestación oportunista y populista. Recordad que Saint Éxupéry decía que el ser humano se descubre cuando se mide con el obstáculo. Y desde luego que vosotros estáis dando la talla. 

Un saludo muy cordial a todos 

Bruno Aguilera-Barchet

A hesitating start: Communitarian Europe in the Era of the Cold War

Signing the Treaty of Paris (ECSC)

 On the basis of the Schuman Declaration was created the first of the European Communities: the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It was a very modest Community with fairly limited goals. The 6 member states: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg gave up their sovereignty on a specific point: the extraction of coal and iron and the production of steel. That was it. You might say: no big deal. And you are right. What you overlook is that the really important point was not the objective but the “form” of this first European Community. 

                                                             The ECSC Europe (1951)

 This first European Community was essential because it heralded the three basic institutions of the European integration process: an executive power, the High Authority - today the Commission – with sovereign powers which was responsible to an assembly (the current European Parliament) and whose decisions were monitored a posteriori by a European Court of Justice (today the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg). 

The ECSC was created for a period of 50 years, and this why it was dissolved on 23 July 2002, but not before playing an essential and historic role by paving the way for the European communities which succeeded it. For the first time the ECSC implemented the “Community Method,” aimed at supranationality by assigning the High Authority power that superseded that of the member states. This is why the constitution of the ECSC was a great blow to the statist camp, in particular the British, as the United Kingdom was excluded from the process.

 The integrationist camp was exultant and they decided to move forward. As the World since 1948 was going through the Cold War, the “communitarians” decided that the next European community should be about Defense. Even if NATO had been created in 1949, they considered as a high priority that Communitarian Europe created a common army to face the risk of invasion by Stalin’s Army. This is the origin of the European Defense Community (EDC) based on the Pleven’s Plan, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. But defense was very much related to national sovereignty, something that the production of Steel was not. And as it happened with the League of Nations, proposed by the US and rejected by the US, the CED created on the initiative of France, was finally nor ratified by the French National Assembly in August 1954 (see page 273 of your materials). Communitarian Europe would not talk about creating a European army again until the Amsterdam Treaty (1999) 45 years later. 

Rene Pleven, the architect of EDC

Was the failure of the CED the end of the Communitarian Europe? It was not thanks again to the energy of Jean Monnet, and the efforts of the leaders of the Benelux Countries that pressure Germans, French and Italians to join at the Messina Conference on June 1955  (pages 273-274). The 6 members of the ECSC decided that integration should get back to a less political issue. Two areas were retained. First the production of Atomic energy, that was considered the energy of the future and accordingly justified the creation of an European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC). And second the creation of a Customs union in the line of the Prussian Zollverein, that you already know. This was the origin of idea of creating a Common market in a European Economic Community (EEC). The Messina Conference led directly to the signing of the Treaties of Rome on the 25 of March 1957 (page 274).

                                                   The 6 Foreign Affairs Ministers in Messina (1955)

 This was the decisive start of Communitarian integration if you consider that the actual Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), consolidated in 2016, is still essentially the Treaty of Rome creating the EEC, the most important treaty of integrated Europe (pages 277-278).  A basic step for having France involved was the adoption of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) an extremely controversial issue as you can see on pages 279-281 of your materials. 

                                                               The signing of the Treaties of Rome (1957)

Signing the treaties was one thing, and another one to implement them (pages 278-279). The problem was that one of the two pillars of integrated Europe had a major political turmoil in 1958, when General Charles De Gaulle took power and founded the 5th Republic in October 1958. And though he was not entirely against the idea of European Integration he was more in favour of preserving French sovereignty. He will remain in power for more than 10 years and this period would clearly slow down the Integration process. 

The problem was the rejection by the French government of the qualified majority voting principle, and the return to the unanimity voting. Something that was accepted at the Luxembourg Compromise (30 January 1966) after a period of “Empty chair” policy in which France did not attend European meetings (page 276 and 283). This would not prevent the Communitarian Europe to move forward in some aspects as the Creation of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg (7 October 1958), the transformation of the European Parliamentary Assembly in the actual European Parliament (30 March 1962) (page 275) and the pivotal Executive Merger Treaty (1 July 1967) that enabled to fuse the three executives of the three existing European Communities in one: the actual Commission (page 274). 

 Despite this hesitating path the European integration did work, especially concerning the EEC Common Market. And this success made the British jealous and pushed them to create the “European Free Trade Association” (EFTA) through the Stockholm Treaty of 4 January 1960. But I was a total failure and the British Government decided to ask Brussels to join Communitarian Europe (page 275), but with little success because De Gaulle was fiercely opposed to accept the British in integrated Europe. British proposal will only move forward after De Gaulle’s death (9 of November 1970)n (pages 282-283). And looking at the Brexit mess we know now that he was absolutely right as the Brits have never been fair play in the integration during the 47 years they have been in Communitarian Europe. 

                                                             Países miembros de la EFTA

 After De Gaulle left politics the European Integration process moved forward with the first enlargements that brought the European Communities from 6 to 12, with the integration of the UK, Ireland and Denmark (1973), Greece (1981) and Spain and Portugal (1986). (page 276) and a very important move: the direct election of the MEP since 1979, the first step towards the democratization of the Communitarian Europe. Since then every 5 years elections to the European Parliament have been held in 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2019. (Page 276) 

                                          The European Parliamen, the largest Democratic parliament in the World

 On the whole this period that deals with European integration during the Cold War has some achievements and some mistakes (pages 283-284). But on the whole the main goal of getting an effective Common market was put back into the table with the signing of the Single European Act. Entering into force on the 1st of July of 1987. This was going to be the situation of Communitarian Europe on the 9 of November of 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell. The Cold war was over by December of 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR. And the European Integration process needed to adapt to the brand new situation created by the end of the Iron curtain. This is what we are going to deal with in Teaching Guide number 12, that will bring us to the present situation of the EU. 

                                                               Communitarian Europe in 1986

Exercising:  After understanding the concepts and answering the questions you will have to get acquainted with the following dates of pages 285-287: 

- Treaty of Paris (ECSC)

- Rejection of the EDC

- Messina Conference

-  Signature of the Treaties of Rome: EEC and EAEC.

- Creation of EFTA

- Executive Merger Treaty

- Luxembourg Compromise

- First Enlargement of Communitarian Europe : UK, Ireland, Danemark. 

- Creation of the European Regional development Fund (ERDF)

- First direct Election to the European Parliament

- Greece joins Communitarian Europe

- Schengen Agreement

- Spain and Portugal join Communitarian Europe

- Single European Act

                                       Spain and Portugal sign the European Treaties (June 12, 1985)

ANSWERS TO THE : MOOT TEST OF EUROPEAN UNION POLITICAL HISTORY (March 26, 2020)

Hi to all,

today I send the answers to the Moot test. The idea is that you check it with what you did and try to realize what you did well, and what you did less well. Bear in mind that this moot test is and exercise to prepare you for the final exam, that hopefully would be presential. 

 You will be receiving in the next days an individual email to your URJC account with a resume of how you did and what is your mark. Remember: It is only a reference in order to help you to consider what you did right and what wrong. 

This Test has helped me to know a little more of each one you who have participated and  will help me to give you the fairest grade I can by the end of the course. Remember that the final mark will take into consideration how much you have been involved in class. Making the Moot Test, presenting great personalyzed Book Reports and intervening in class durign the time that was possible. And then... the mark you will have in the final exam, that will correspond to the same structure of the Moot Test.

Here you go: 

A. CHRONOLOGY:

a) What happened in?

1. 590-604 (Italy): Pontificate of Gregory 1st
2. 1661 (France): Beginning of personal Reign of Louis XIV. End of Regency.
3. 962-1806 (Germany): Holy Roman Empire: First Reich.
4. 1648 (Germany): Treaty of Westphalia. End of the Thirty Year War.
5. 1787 (North America): Approval by the Philadelphia Continental Congress of Federal US Constitution.
5. July 14, 1790 (France): Fête de la Fédération. National Brotherhood Celebration.
6. June 18, 1815 (Belgium): Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon’s last defeat.
7. March 14, 1861 (Italy): Creation of the Kingdom of Italy
8. 1861-1890 (Germany): Bismarck governs Prussia.
9. 1871 (France): Paris Commune and creation of Second Reich (Versailles)
10. 1916 (France): Verdun’s Battle (21 February to 18th Deecember)
11. 1919 (Russia):  Creation of the Kommintern by Lenin to expand Communist revolution to the World.
12. August 1942-February 1943 (Russia): Battle of Stalingrad. Beginning of Hitler’s defeat.
13. 1949 (China): October: Mao defeats Chiang Kai Sheck and creates People’s Republic of China.
14. 1953 (Russia): Death of Stalin (5 March)
15. April 26, 1986 (Russia): Chernobyl Nuclear explosion
16. August-September 1990 (Germany): Unification Treaty of DDR and BRD.
17. 1979-1990 (UK): Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister
18. 2010-2012 (Middle East): Arab Spring Movement
19.  1479 (Spain): Union of Castile and Aragon under the Catholic Kings. Ferdinand inherits the Crown of Aragon’s Throne.
20. 1818-1834 (Germany): Zollverein. Customs Union headed by Prussia.

b) In Which date happened:

1. The Fall of the Western Roman Empire: 476
2. First Edition of Machiavelli’s “The Prince”: 1513
3. Foundation of Papal States: 754
4: Napoleonic “Empire”:  1804-1814(1815) 1852-1870 is can be complementary but not the only answer.
5. Hitler’s Third Reich (From beginning to end): 1933-1945
6. American Declaration of Independence: 4 July 1776 (Day and month essential)
7. Federation’s Celebration in Paris: 14 July 1790 (Day and month essential)
8. Lord Grey’s Electoral Reform: 1832
9. First Russian Revolution: 1905
10. Wall Street Crisis: 1929 (You can add October if you want)
11. Night of the Long Knives: 1934 (You can add June-July if you want)
12. Launching of Marshall Plan: 1947
13. Creation of NATO:  1949
14. Triumph of Cuban Revolution: 1959
15. Military Coup against Allende: 1973 (You can add September if you want)
16: Jomeiny’s Islamic Revolution in Iran: 1979
17. The Fall of the Berlin Wall: 9 November 1989 (Day and month essential)
18: Beginning of Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela: 1999
19. The Rutli Oath: 1st August 1291 (Day and month essential)
20: Creation of the United Kingdom (Acts of Union): 1707


B. CONCEPTS:


1. Personal law v. Territorial Law

 When the Germans invade the territory of the West Roman Empire they create new kingdoms, but most of their population are Romans and they respect their “personal” law. Every  “nation” (Romans, Visigoths, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Burgundians, etc) have their own law. In some kingdoms the Roman and the Germans will merge. It is the case of the Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo since the Middle of the 7th century. They have the same law for all of them. Law has become “territorial”.

2. Assemblies of Estates

 Feudalism brings a new conception of Authority in European constitutional history. It is not based as in the Roman Empire in a conception of a superior Public Power (Imperium) but in a “contract”: the feudal pact.  The king rule with the agreement of the Feudal lords (nobility), because they are part of a “pact”. As time went by the King consulted also the Church authorities (the Bishops) because of the divine conception of royalty, as they were anointed in their Crowning ceremony. Finally, to get rid of the power and influence of the nobility and the clergy, the kings bring into the Assembly meetings the bourgeoisie from the cities. These are the three “Estates” that are convened by the king in an “Assembly of Estates.” Almost all European kingdoms in the Middle Ages have one, but they are called fifferently. In the Iberian Peninsula they are called “cortes” (plural of “court”, referring to the people that assessed the kings through the “curia regia”). In England they are called the Parliament (because their members “speak” (parler ) in French, with the king). In France they are called The General Estates (États Généraux). The original function of these Assemblies of Estates is to agree on the money the realm is going to give to the king. The principle of “no taxation without representation” comes from this. Later these State Assemblies will discuss the legislation (“Statutes”) with the kings. In June 1789 the General French Estates are transformed in “National Assembly”.

3. Roman Universalism

 With the foundations of the Germanic Kingdoms in the 5th century the unity of the West Roman Empire disappears.  Every kingdom has its own sovereign and its own laws. Nevertheless the Church has inherited the idea that all catholics (since 380) are submitted to the same religious authority. The Pope becomes the top ecclesiastical authority since Gregory I (590-604). As he lives in Rome his idea of an only Christian community is called “Roman Universalism”, insisting on the continuity of the principle of one ruler for all. Things become a little more complicated on December 24 800 when the pope Leon III crowns Charlemagne as emperor. The European empire is born but it is still the same idea of referring to the mythical Roman Universal Empire. 

4. Dictatus papae

Document issued in 1075 by the Pope Gregory VII to assess the superiority and independence of the Papacy over the Feudal kings and lords. It is a sort of “Constitution” that justifies the supreme power of the popes (Papal Theocracy) that they exert through the “excommunication” or the banning from the Church. A sanction that transform a king or an emperor  in an “illegitimate” sovereign. This is why popes are politically so powerful. 

5. Mayflower Compact

When the Puritan Pilgrims missed, because they had a lousy pilot, the coast of Virginia, as they realized they were in a new land they decided to create a new political community under the guidance of God. This is why, before leaving the Mayflower ship, on November 11, 1620, all members of the expedition signed this “Pact” or Compact, meaning that the authority of the new community was given by all of its members. This is why it is considered the first “constitutional” document in US history. 

6. Fête de la Fédération

The French celebrate as their national Hollyday July 14th. But not of 1789 but of one year later 1790. They do not commemorate the bloody event of the Bastille’s Storming, but the meeting of delegations coming from all parts of France to celebrate the fact they belonged to the same “nation”, and that they all together held the “National Sovereignty”.

7. Zollverein

The unification of German kingdoms and states is a very long process that started by initiative of Napoleon and did not end until the foundation of the Weimar Republic in 1919. One of the first steps towards German integration is of an economic nature: the abolition of the customs tariffs for importing and exporting goods. On the initiative of the Kingdom of Prussia was created –officially in 1834- a Customs Union (Zollverein), that is a territory were commercial and economic exchanges were easy and costless. It is a precedent for the European integration process that starts in 1950.

8. Bolshevik

Marxism was an effective doctrine for fighting the Human exploitation of workers because of its “Internationalism”. The Communist Manifesto of 1848 ended with an invitation to the workers of all nations-sates to fight together. Since the Socialists internationals were created –the First London in 1864 and the Second in Paris 1889- the strategy for fighting capitalism were decided in Congresses. After the Failure of the Paris Commune in 1871 Marx accepted the principle of “Social democracy” meaning that social equality would be achieved conquering power though democratic elections and not through violence. This is why the anarchist Bakunin was expelled in 1872 from the Socialist International. The first Mass Parties and Trade Unions were created in Germany. The Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland was created from 1863 to 1890. The same type of mass parties were created everywhere, deciding their political strategies in Congresses. In Russia was created the Russian Social Democratic Party. In its Second Congress, celebrated in 1903, the Radicals guided by Lenin rejected the Social democratic way and opted for the revolutionary. As they were the majority in the Congress they were called “Bolsheviks” to differentiate them from the minority: the  Mensheviks of Martov. 

9. TINA v. TATA

When the Berlin wall collapsed in November 9, 1989 and the Soviet Union disappeared in December 25, 1991 some thinkers believed that Humanity had reached the End of history, as the only system left was American Capitalism and the Neoliberal Way represented by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the American President Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s. Both defended “deregulation” and the retreat of the State and Public powers from intervening in the economy, against what FDR had done with the New Deal in the 1930’s to fight the 1929 Crisis. Against neoliberals some anti-system movements want to reinstitute the principle of Public intervention in the economy to fight social inequalities. Two ways of understanding economy, politics and society are confronted here. The two “Acrostics” TINA (“There is no Alternative” and TATA (“There are thousands of alternatives”) coined respectively by Mrs Thatcher and the activist Susan George resume the confrontation between those who think that there is no alternative to an ever-growing economy and the ones that believe in other options “more human” for avoiding social inequalities.

10. Composite Monarchy

 The medieval kings tried to consolidate their power adding more lands to their realms. Either by conquest, either by getting married to the heirs of kingdoms. The result could be a totally unified realm, as was the case  of Castile, or it could be a reunion of kingdoms under the same sovereign. like happened with the Crown of Aragon, the Spanish Catholic Monarchy or the United Kingdom. The principle was that despite these kingdoms had the same sovereign, every kingdom had its own public institutions and its own laws.It was not a unified monarchy but a “Composite” one.

C. CONCRETE QUESTIONS:


1. Why European Medieval Kings consolidate their power initially through the expansion of their royal jurisdiction instead of directly using legislation?

 Because in the Middle Ages people believed that Law was part of the Creation of the World by God. Since the beginning of time. This is why old tradition and uses (customs) were the only legitimate “Law”. The kings could not create Law, because they were not God. Only their representative on Earth. And their obligation was to respect and make respect the Divine order. So they could not give rules (legislation) but they could act as judges to restore the traditional divine order. This is why they tried to expand their power extending their jurisdiction to cases that traditionally were judged by Feudal or Local courts.

2. How did Hobbes justified Absolutism?

Hobbes witnessed the terrible, long and cruel English Civil War, between Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. The first defending Absolute Monarchy and the Second a Parliamentary Monarchy. Hobbes was specially horrified when the King was beheaded, as he saw this act as a violent rupture of the established order, and in his opinion this led to chaos and anarchy. This is why in his Book Leviathan he wrote that all British subjects (The Commonwealth) should get together and resign their liberty in favour of one legal person the Leviathan that will only have the Power, and will impose order and Law. The Leviathan was to have absolute power because "man was a wolf to man" (Homo homini lupus) and only an Absolute power could restore peace and order. 

3. Why according to the British colonist the British Crown could not legally levy taxes upon them?

Because of the principle of old medieval Assemblies of State, that taxes should be accepted by the subjects. “No taxation without representation”. The British subjects that lived in Great Britain they were presented in Parliament. But the “colonists” did not. So when George III decided he wanted back all the money he had spend sending troops for defending British colons from French Colons in the Indian Wars (1756-1763), the English colons rebelled against his taxes, as they defended they had not been consulted.

4. Explain what  was the “Roman Question” in the Italian unification process

Since 754 the Popes were not only the heads of the Catholic Roman Church, but sovereigns of a territorial kingdom The Papal States. When the “Risorgimento” movement started by mid  19th Century Italy the “patriots” wanted t all territories included in the Italian Peninsula integrated in the same State. The Kingdom of Italy was created in March 17, 1861, but if it had not been a problem chasing the Austrians or the Absolute rulers (as the Kings of Sicily and Naples), with tha Papal states it was another story, as the Pope was still the head of the Church. Rome was protected by the French troupes of Napoleon III married to a Spanish fervent Catholic, Eugenia de Montijo. After the Sedan defeat in 1870 against the Prussians the French soldiers left Rome and the Italian troops occupied the Eternal city that became the Capital of the Kingdom of Italy. The popes did not accept this situation until Mussolini in 1929 signed the Lateran Accords recognizing the independence of the Vatican State.

5.  What was the essential principle of F.D. Roosevel New Deal? Why was it somehow “revolutionary” in the US Constitutional tradition?

The US was the paradigmatic example of a Liberal State where the Government could not intervene in economic matters. Only private interests should deal with economy. This was the rule until the Great Depression occurred in October 1929. The Democrat President F. D. R Roosevelt tried to impose the New Deal, meaning that the State should intervene to help people getting out from poverty and to invest in Public works to reboost the economy. This was considered an heresy by businessmen and the members of the right wing Republican Party  that tried to fight the Administrative State in Congress and in the Supreme Court, with the argument that State intervention in the economy was unconstitutional. The long mandate of FDR (1933-1945) consolidated the principle of New Deal.

D. GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. What are the main political periods of the French Revolution as far as Monarchy and Republic is concerned and also in terms of “constituent” and legislative assemblies? Remembering the three Revolutionary constitutions will help you considerably.

 There are two main periods: the Constitutional Monarchy (June 1789 to September 1792) and the First Republic (September 1792 to November 1799). The first period can be divided in the Constituent Assembly and the Legislative assembly, that starts after the approval of the 1791 Constitution. France have a king during this period but his powers are limited by the Assembly and the Constitution.  With the Storming of  the Royal Palace, of the Tuileries, in Paris, on August 10, 1792 the monarchical period of the Revolution is over. The War and the Elections to the second constituent assembly, the Convention, bring a new regime : The Republic, with two constitutions (1793 and 1795). The Second one corresponding to the Directory. The period ends with the Napoleon’s coup of November 1799. The Republic would last until December 1804, when Napoleon proclaims himself “Emperor of the French”.

2. What was the Metternich System? How did it start, what was its purpose, how did it work, when and why did it collapse?

 After the Waterloo Defeat  (June 18, 1815) the Post-Napoleonic Era is a fact. The Sovereigns get together in the Vienna Congress and establish, on the initiative of the Tsar Alexander I, a Holy Alliance to re-establish the divine order and the Absolute Monarchy. This is a great pretext for the Austrian Chancellor Metternich to impose a system of Congresses (of Sovereigns, not of people) and military interventions every time a Liberal revolution starts. In Spain, Russia, Italy or wherever. All European States directed by their sovereigns are commited to maintain their union and avoid a new "revolution" in the French style with its Napoleonic corollary. The System works reasonably well until the American Spanish colonies rebel against Fernando VII, because the British think they will be better off with independent colons in terms of making business. Then the Greek liberation war brought an end to the system. Metternich had to flee in 1848 with the Liberal Revolutionary Wave and this bringgs to and end the era of Absolute European monarchies, with the exception of Tsarist Russia, that will not become a Constitutional regime until the Russian revolution of 1905.

3.   How did Austrian Jurist Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) defended the Rule of Law through his Pure Law’s Theory? Consider the two periods of its Legal Thinking: before and after the Third Reich.

 Kelsen was Austrian and was born during the Empire of Franz Joseph and Sissy. In this time the priority for German Jurists (Austrian, Prussian, Bavarian and so on) was to consolidate a strong state. This is what is known as the German Unification process. That started in 1818 with the project of the Zollverein and was consolidated by Bismarck when he became the head of the Prussian Government. After defeating Austria in 1866 and France in 1870, he created the Second Reich in 1871. Prussia was the soul of German Unification through the Northern German Confederation. Unification was consolidated after the defeat in World War I with the Republic of Weimar (1919-1833). In all this period the priority for German Jurists was to consolidate a strong state. This is why Kelsen as everyone else thought that Law should be entirely in control of the state.  Statutes and legislation became law because the state government decided so. There was no division between politics and law. As the second was entirely subject to the first.  Then Hitler came to power in 1933, and legally he established a Dictatorship. Law was the will of the “guide” (Führer) and that was it.

Of course the horrors of Nazism forced Hans Kelsen to flee Europe and take refuge finally in the United States. The consequence was that his vision of the relationship between Law and Politics changed radically. He now understood that the priority was to affirm the “Rule of Law”, that is the submission of the power of the state to the legal rules. He conceived the “Pure Theory of Law”. Law was pure because was not contaminated by politics. People agreed on a Constitutional pact and the created a basic norm (Grundnorm) and the whole legal system derived from the constitution that was the apex of normative Pyramid. The State should respect the hierarchy of the Legal Pyramid. Power was subject to the Law.

E. MIDDLE ENGLAND QUESTION:


What part have the media played in Brexit Success? Explain using characters from the book.

Media are manipulated by the Lobbys in favour of Brexit using populists topics that worry a great part of British population. Lets see some examples. This is just a draft. A brainstorming of ideas. Everyone of you can treat the subject in a different way. here you go with some scaterred ideas you can use....

- Strong nationalism.

Olympic Games. Every character in the book is watching  them. Olympic Games mean something different for every character. Intellectual side for Sophie Trotter and Sohan, music for Philip Chase, Union Jack for Ian Coleman. Doug Anderton admits he is proud to be British.

- Social discontent due to growing inequalities

London and Birmingham riots.  Coriander Anderton participates in London's riots although only as audience but we can see racism and inequalities at the very root. Ian Coleman is badly hurt during Birmingham's riots when he tries to prevent rioters to vandalize a shop. Charlie Chappell who has followed State education puts in evidence that students from private schools have an easier access to University.

- Resentment towards inmigrants.

Naheed promoted in detriment of Ian Coleman. Grete who works as maid in Helena Coleman's house is Lithuanian. She is the victim of a terrible racist agression, Helena refuses to testify in her favour. Helena urges Grete to leave UK.

Passengers in the cruise, especially Mr. Wilcox, consider that BBC has lost his Britishness, it does not gather people around television as it used to. It is defined as elitist, arrogant, metropolitan and far from British real life.

 Benjamin Potter is of the same opinion but not for the same reasons. He senses BBC is not one of British symbols any more because times have changed.

- Nostalgia for the  past (especially colonial).

Helena Coleman at the golf restaurant. The picture on the wall portrays a fox hunt, now forbidden.

Philip Chase owns a little publishing house where all the books published are about England in the past.

Garden centre Woodlands. The garden as a strong English feature i.e. English Gardens.

- Manipulation of the population by the media.

Benjamin Potter's interview where all his words are twisted for a sensationalist purpose.

Gails Ransom appears with her picture on a newspaper front page qualified as a traitor to "the will of the people" for being Bremain.

- Country managed by an irresponsible political and financial elite.

Dialogues between Nigel Ives and Doug Alderton. Members of the Government belong to upper class and have convinced population they are the only ones ready to rule the country. When asked about the riots and the social breach, Nigel's answer is that there is no that breach and solution is having more policemen.

Nigel does not know the word is "Brexit". He thinks is "Brixit", showing total disconnection with British reality.

English fascination for upper class. Doug Anderton has had this fascination, he married a super rich heiress and lives in the best area of London.

Foundation Imperium who is behind Brexit, funded by Ronald Culpepper, a successful businessman only interested in Asian and United States market. He is a strong influence in the Conservative Party. Roland Culpepper owns or have contacts in the newspapers that allow him to spread his ideas and especially his EU hatred and contempt.

- EU perceived as a coercitive organization going against Bristish interests.

Mr. Bishop, father of Ian's best friend considers the EU bureaucracy as a real nightmare.

Political correctness also associated with the EU.

Gail Ransom, conservative member of parliament but very Bremain, visits her chairman, Dennis who considers EU regulations for pigs feeding as utterly wrong.